Loading...

WEED DYNAMICS AS INFLUENCED BY SOIL SOLARIZATION - A REVIEW

Article Id: ARCC4232 | Page : 295 - 300
Citation :- WEED DYNAMICS AS INFLUENCED BY SOIL SOLARIZATION - A REVIEW.Agricultural Reviews.2005.(26):295 - 300
R.H. Patel, Jagruti Shroff, Soumyadeep Dutta and T.G. Meisheri
Address : Department of Agronomy, Anand Agricultural University, SA College of Agriculture, Anand - 388 110, India

Abstract

Soil solarization is a novel technique of controlling soil-borne pests including weeds. It involves covering the wet soil with a thin transparent polyethylene sheet during the summer months. The process would raise the surface soil temperature by 8 to 12°C as compared to non-solarized soils. Transparent polyethylene found highly effective for heating the soil than black polyethylene. Thinner (19 to 25 μm) transparent polyethylene sheets are more effective for solar heating than thicker (50–100 μm) one. A duration of 4 to 6 weeks is sufficient to give satisfactory control of most of weeds. Many annuals, some perennials and parasitic weeds are highly sensitive to solar heating of the soil. However, weeds such as Cyperos rotundus (tubers), Melilotus spp. (hard seed coat) and Cynodon dactylon (rhizomes) are not controlled easily by solarization. Solarization, thus proved to be not pnly as an efficient method of weed control but was also safe to the crop as well as invariably it produced healthy and vigorous seedlings and eventually resulted higher yield in all crops as compared non solarized plots even treated with herbicides. Application of solarization technique in general and its scope in India is reviewed here.

References

  1. Angadi, 5.5. et al. (1992). Karnataka J. Agnc. Sci., 5: 262-264.
  2. Arora, O.K. and Pandey, AK (1989). J. Phytopathol., 124: 13-22.
  3. Basavaraju, HK and Nanjappa, H.V. (1999). Indian J. Weed Sci., 31: 183-186.
  4. Biradar,l.B. eta!. (1997). Int. Agron. NewsI., 17: 63.
  5. Chandra kumar, 5.5. et aJ. (2002). Indian J. Weed Scl., 34: 231-235.
  6. Chauhan, Y5. etal. (1988). Res. Bull. No. 1,ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh.
  7. Chittapur, B.M. and Hosmani, M.M. (2000). Proc.lnt. Conf. on Managing Nat. Resources, 1121-1123.
  8. Egley, G.H. (1983). Weed Scl., 31: 404-409.
  9. Emani, E. (1991). M. Sc. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Oharwad, India.
  10. Habeburrahman; p.v. and Hosmani, M.M. (1996). Indian J. Agron., 41: 54-57.
  11. Horowitz, M. eta!. (1983). WeedScl., 31: 170-179.
  12. Kalan, J. (1980). Plant Disease, 64: 450-454.
  13. Kalan, JA et aJ. (1976). Phytopatho/., 66: 683-688.
  14. Kumar, B. et al. (1993). Weed Res., 33: 423-429.
  15. Lodha, 5. and Solanki, K.R. (1992). Indian J. Agnc. Sci., 62: 838-843.
  16. Mahrer, H. et al. (1984). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 48: 362-367.
  17. Mahrer, Y (1979). J. Appl. Meteorol. 18: 1263-1267.
  18. Methi, 5. 5. (1993). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Oharwad, India.
  19. Mudalagiriyappa, Nanjappa, H.V. and Ramachandrappa, BK (1999). Indian J. Weed Sci., 31: 35-37.
  20. Nimje, P.M. and Agrawal, V. (2002). Indian J. Weed Sci., 34: 324-326.
  21. 300 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS
  22. Patel, AG. and Mehta, H.M. (1989). Indian J. Agron., 34: 151-153.
  23. Rubin, B. and Benjamin, A. (1987). Weed Sci., 32: 138-142.
  24. Singh, v.P. et a/. (2000). Proc. Int. Conl. on Managing Nat. Resources, 1457-1459.
  25. Singh, V.P. et aI. (2003). Indian J. Weed Sci., 35: 221-324.
  26. Smith, E.M. (1964). Proc. National Agrlc. Plastic Conl., 5: 90-92.
  27. Standifer, L.C. et a/. (1984). Weed Sci., 32: 569-573.
  28. Stapleton, J.J. and Devay, J.E. (1984). Phytopath., 73: 1429-1436.
  29. Stapleton, J.J. and Devay, J.E. (1986). Crop Prot., 5: 190-198.
  30. Yaduraju, N.T. (1993). Proc. Int. Symp.lndian Soc. Weed Sci., 1: 343-349.
  31. Yaduraju, N.T. and Ahuja, K.N. (1990). Indian J. Agron., 35: 440-442.
  32. Yaduraju, N.T. and.Ahuja, K.N. (1993). Indian J. Agron., 38: 280-284.

Global Footprints