Agricultural Reviews

  • Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma

  • Print ISSN 0253-1496

  • Online ISSN 0976-0741

  • NAAS Rating 4.84

Frequency :
Quarterly (March, June, September & December)
Indexing Services :
AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Reviews, volume 28 issue 4 (december 2007) : 283-288

CROP WEED INTERACTIONS UNDER ENVIRONMENT STRESS A- REVIEW

S. Rajkumaraq
1Water Management Research Centre, Belavatagi 582 208- India.

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Rajkumaraq S. (2024). CROP WEED INTERACTIONS UNDER ENVIRONMENT STRESS A- REVIEW. Agricultural Reviews. 28(4): 283-288. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Crops and weeds compete with each other for the resources like water, light, nutrients etc. Due to human interventions climate is changing with increase in CO2, ozone concentration and temperature variation. Physiological basis for variation in the competing ability of crops and weeds is their C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathways. Increase in CO2 alone favors C3 crops and weeds, but any simultaneous increase in temperature will benefit C4 crops and weeds. Tropospheric ozone also reduces crop yield and some weeds like purple nutsedge are less sensitive to ozone. Efficient cultivars and herbicides are necessary to control weeds under changing environments.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Alberto,M.PA. et.al.,(1996). Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 23:795-802
    2. Ampong, N.K. et.al.(1992). Weed Res., 32: 465-472.
    3. Daniel, J.A. et.al.(2001). www.parc.ca/pdf/research_publications/renamed/PARC-40.pdf
    4. Eaton, B.J. et.al.(1976). Weed Sci., 24: 224-228.
    5. Fischer, A.J. et.al.(2000). Agron. J., 92: 173-181.
    6. Flint, E.P. and Patterson, D.T. (1983), Weed Sci., 31: 193-199.
    7. Flint, E.P., et.al.(1983). Weed Sci., 31: 892-898.
    8. Grantz, D.A. and Shrestha, A. (2005). California Agric., April – June , 137-143.
    9. O’Donnel,C.L. and Adkins,S.W.(2001). Weed Sci., 49: 694-702
    10. Patterson, D.T. (1995). Weed Sci., 43: 483-490.
    11. Patterson, D.T. (1995b). Weed Sci., 43: 685-701.
    12. Patterson, D.T. (2000). Weed Physiol. (Duke, S.O. ed) CRC, Press, pp, 102-124.
    13. Patterson, D.T. et.al.(1984). Weed Sci,. 32: 101-105.
    14. Patterson, D.T. et.al.(1999).Climatic Change , 43: 711-727.
    15. Shrestha, A. and Grantz, D.A.(2005). Crop Sci., 45: 1587-1595.
    16. Stuart, B.L. et.al.(1984). Weed Sci., 32: 126-132.
    17. Tremmel, D.C. and Patterson, D.T. (1993). Canadian J. Plant Sci., 73: 1249-1260.
    18. Tremmel, D.C. and Patterson, D.T.(1994).Canadian J. Plant Sci., 74: 43-50.
    19. Uprety, D.C. et.al.(2004). In : Plant Breeding Mendelian to Molecular Approaches (Jain. H.K and Kharkwal, M.C ed,) 749-758.
    20. Weise, A.F. and Vandiver, C.W. (1970).Weed Sci., 18: 518-519.
    21. Ziska, L.H. (2000). Global Change Bio., 6: 899-905.
    22. Ziska, L.H. (2001).Weed Sci., 49: 622-627.
    23. Ziska, L.H. ( 2003). Weed Sci., 51: 914-918.
    24. Ziska, L.H. et.al.(1999).Weed Sci., 47: 608-615.
    25. Ziska, L.H.A and Bunce, J.A. (2000).Aust. J.Plant Physiol., 27: 979-984
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)