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

Review Article

Ecology and Management of Sedges in Direct-seeded Rice: A Review

M. Ameena1,*, Arindam Deb1, Fathima Umkhulzum1, M.S.R. Kalyani1, V.S. Sethulakshmi1, K. Sreelakshmi1, B. Renjan1, Shifina Shanavas1
1Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram-695 522, Kerala, India.

ABSTRACT

Sedges, resilient weeds from the Cyperaceae family, pose a significant threat to direct-seeded rice cultivation due to their perennial nature and robust propagules, which endure harsh conditions. Their emergence, growth and seed production during fallow periods contribute significantly to seed banks, making their management challenging compared to other weed types. Water levels in paddy fields dictate weed composition, favouring sedges and grasses under saturated conditions but shifting to grass weeds during cropping seasons, influenced by factors like soil conditions and rainfall. Managing sedges requires a multifaceted approach due to their perennial hydrophilic and pro-alkaline nature with extensive propagules. Sedges possessing strong root system with morphological similarities necessitate continuous weed control throughout the cropping season during the critical period ranging from 15 to 60 days after sowing for wet and dry direct-seeded rice. Effective weed management practices proved crucial for minimizing yield losses caused by infestation of Cyperus difformis, Fimbristylis miliacea and Schoenoplectus juncoides by many researchers. Various methods, including cultural practices like stale seedbeds, physical methods like summer tillage, biological approaches such as integrating poultry and chemical interventions like herbicide application, are utilized for sedge management in rice fields. Higher efficacy of ethoxysulfuron for management of majority of sedge weeds in rice has been reported by many workers. However, relying on a single strategy is insufficient to keep sedge populations below the threshold, necessitating a comprehensive and adaptable approach to weed control in rice cultivation.

INTRODUCTION

Rice, the staple food grain of the world population has an important role in mitigating poverty and malnutrition. A staple crop abundant in carbohydrates, rice serves as a vital source of sustenance for nearly 70% of the world population, addressing hunger needs. Beyond its dietary and nutritional benefits, its ability to flourish in various ecosystems and adaptability to different farming practices makes it a compelling option for agricultural producers.
       
Crop productivity primarily depends on the method of cultivation adopted. A cost effective and alternative method having less requirement of labour is direct seeding of rice (DSR). In all these systems of direct seeding, weeds are the major biotic constraints. Weed problems can occur more in dry seeded rice than in wet seeded rice as pregerminated seeds are sown in wet seeded rice. Mostly, grasses can be seen in dry seeded rice (Moody et al., 1996). Shifts in weed flora is considered as one of the challenges in wet seeded rice (Kumar et al., 2023).
 
Sedge weeds in rice
 
Weeds display dynamic spatial differences both within and between fields, as well as temporal changes throughout and between seasons (Ameena et al., 2024). Weed composition is determined by the season, soil fertility status, fertilizer application rates, water management, herbicides used and the weed management practice adopted. About 51.5% of grasses, 30% of sedges and 17.5% broad leaf weeds are reported as weed flora in wet-seeded rice (Ravisankar et al., 2008). Rajkhowa et al., (2006) reported that continuous use of grass killers in rice fields, had changed the weed flora from annual grasses to perennial sedges and broad leaf weeds.  Among the weed flora, sedges, belonging to the Cyperaceae family, present a significant risk to rice cultivation due to their perennial nature and the presence of persistent propagules, enabling them to survive adverse weather conditions (Satapathy et al., 2017). The ability of C. rotundus to endure different stresses stems from its robust underground tuber system, wherein each tuber generates numerous active buds, leading to continued growth alongside its allelopathic influence (Ameena et al., 2015).
       
Sedges are considered the ‘worst weeds’ in rice because of their extremely hydrophilic nature and alkaline tolerance (Kumar et al., 2008). Important cyperaceous weeds in terms of their adverse effect include C. esculentus L., C. difformis L., C. iria L. and the Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) ranking 16th, 32nd, 33rd and 40th among the world’s worst weeds, respectively (Bryson and Carter, 2008). The propagation of Schoenoplectus juncoides through seeds, vegetative buds and rhizomes has been reported in wet seeded paddy fields in Thiruvananthapuram by Umkhulzum et al., (2019).
       
Sedges are hard and have the potential of vegetative propagation rather than seed propagation which helps in increasing their growth throughout the cropping season. During the entire period of rice, Schoenoplectus juncoides, Fimbristylis miliacea, Cyperus flavidus and Cyperus difformis were reported as extremely competitive among the sedges (Mukherjee et al., 2008). Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria, Schoenoplectus juncoides and Fimbristylis miliacea were the four sedges reported among the twelve most difficult-to-control weeds in the rice fields of Asia by IRRI (2017).
       
Deivasigamani et al., (2016) observed the predominance of sedges belonging to Scirpus sp. and Cyperus sp. in the direct seeded lowlands of Tamil Nadu. The lowland paddy fields of Iran had been infested by the sedges belonging to Scirpus sp. viz. Scirpus juncoides, Scirpus maritimus and Scirpus mucronatus (Aminapanah et al., 2015). Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria, Cyperus compressus and Fimbristylis miliacea were found in all the growth stages of semi dry seeded rice (Arya and Ameena, 2016a).
       
Umkhulzum et al., (2018) observed that the growth of Schoenoplectus juncoides which was unnoticed in wet seeded paddy caused a reduction of 81% in net income, in comparison with the most economical weed management practice. Kumar et al., (2018) observed serious infestation with the sedges Cyperus esculentus, Fimbristylis dentatum, Cyperus rotundus and Cyperus difformis in dry-seeded, wet-seeded and drum seeded rice. Based on the summed dominance ratios obtained, Juraimi et al., (2009) inferred the dominance of sedges (6-27%) over grasses (8-12%) and broad leaf weeds (2-6%) during the off season and shift to grass weeds in the cropping season.
 
Ecology of sedges
 
The water level in the paddy fields has a decisive influence on the weed flora that invades the crop. Tanaka et al., (1976) observed luxurious growth of grasses and sedges in saturated fields which constituted 90% of the total dry weight of weeds. Bhagat et al., (1999) listed Cyperus iria, Fimbristylis miliacea and Cyperus digitatus among the six most important weeds under saturated conditions.  Sekhar et al., (2020a) reported the dominance of Cyperus iria, Cyperus difformis and Fimbristylis miliacea in the double cropped wetlands of IFSRS, Karamana in Thiruvananthapuram district.
       
The undisturbed soil in the lowlands during fallow period promoted the emergence, growth, flowering and seed setting of sedges adding considerably to the seed banks posing greater difficulties during cropping period. Further, untimely rainfall in the beginning of cropping season favours the germination of the weed seed bank. Gogoi et al., (1996) observed lower rates of seed germination and emergence of sedge seeds with the application of mulch in rice fields due to reduced light and oxygen supply in DSR grown in heavy rainfall regions of Eastern India. Bhatt et al., (2009) reported the amphibious nature of Schoenoplectus juncoides due to its ability to grow luxuriantly both in uplands and lowlands.  Ameena et al., (2013) demonstrated the highest percentages of regrowth and viability of C. rotundus in the weedy check plots which indicated that the newly formed tubers of purple nutsedge readily sprouted, displaying no seasonal dormancy.
       
Wieclaw et al., (2022) reported that soil conditions affect the morphology of Carex buekii especially potassium, which is the only soil parameter indicated as a factor affecting intra-specific variability. The analysis showed that a lower amount of potassium in the soil gave smaller Carex buekii than having higher potassium content. Chauhan and Johnson (2009) observed that compared to Cyperus iria and Fimbristylis miliacea, Cyperus difformis germination was more affected by increased salt and water stress. The triggering of germination, emergence and growth of Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria and Fimbristylis miliacea by light, warm temperatures and shallow seed burial depth in the lowland paddy fields was observed by Chauhan and Johnson (2009). Singh et al., (2016) reported that when undecomposed farmyard manure is used in poorly managed fields, Cyperus rotundus tend to poses great threat to rice. Umkhulzum et al., (2019) reported abundant growth of Schoenoplectus juncoides in the water channels, lowlands and field bunds, as an annual and as a perennial in undisturbed fields. A distinctive trait observed in rock bulrush (Schoenoplectus juncoides) was the lodging of culms with mature spikes on to rice plants and shading them completely which began on the 36th day and persisted until the 42nd day, with an average lodging time of 40 days. The variations in light intensity reaching the crop canopy can influence the external physiological characteristics (Pooja et al., 2021).
 
Critical period of rice- sedge weed competition
 
In direct seeded system of rice, crops and weeds co-emerge and compete for the limited growth resources such as nutrients, water, space and solar radiation. However, strong fibrous root system of sedges and similarity in morphology makes its effective management in DSR difficult. The year-round presence of sedges raises the importance of maintaining the rice fields weed free during the entire cropping season unlike transplanting. A weed free period upto 29 to 32 DAS for wet seeded and 4 to 83 DAS for dry seeded rice should be maintained for good yield (Johnson et al., 2004). Begum et al., (2008) demonstrated that by adopting weed management practices from 14 to 28 DAS in broadcasted rice, the effective reduction of yield loss caused by Fimbristylis miliacea infestation has been achieved.
       
DSR faces severe crop weed competition than transplanted rice. According to Arunbabu and Jena (2018), critical period of crop weed competition ranges from 15 to 60 DAS for wet and dry DSR, 30 DAS for upland DSR and zero to 90 DAS for rainfed DSR. Alternate events of wetting and drying reduced the growth of weeds and reduced the competitive advantage of weeds. Rathika et al., (2020) identified crop-weed competition during the initial stages as a major factor for the reduction in the outcome from the crop. 
 
Yield losses in dsr due to sedges
 
Along with grasses and broad leaf weeds, sedges result in significant yield losses in direct seeded rice. The duration of crop-weed interference decides the severity of yield loss in DSR (Azmi et al., 2007). Uncontrolled weed growth in dry and wet direct seeded rice reduced grain yield by 96% and 61% respectively (Maity and Mukerjee, 2008). Grass weeds dominated the irrigated paddy fields, whereas in rainfed system, sedges offered the strongest competition (Johnson, 1996). Begum (2006) reported Fimbristylis miliacea as a serious threat in DSR due its ability to reduce yield upto 42%. Singh (2008) identified the potential of Cyperus rotundus to be the major weed in paddy fields without regular flooding from the trials conducted at Pantnagar. Crop-weed competition when extended throughout the crop season resulted in a decline of upto 80% in yield (Sunil et al., 2010).
       
In India, yield loss of 17 to 98% has been reported in DSR as against 12 to 69% loss in transplanted system (Singh et al., 2011) as the cumulative effect of growth attributing characters is reflected in the final yield (Pooja et al., 2023). Garg et al., (2019) observed dense growth of Cyperus difformis over the young direct seeded rice seedlings causing a grain yield loss ranging from 12 to 50%. Schoenoplectus juncoides was reported to be a recent threat in rice fields of Kerala causing grain yield reduction of wet seeded rice by 52.2%, if left uncontrolled (Umkhulzum and Ameena, 2019). Alternatively, besides causing damage, tiger nuts could potentially serve as a global food source (Barrett, 2023).
 
Methods of managing sedges in DSR
 
Direct seeded rice faces tough competition from its weed counterpart from its emergence onwards. Compared to the different methods in practice, the use of herbicides is cost-effective and efficient in managing the weed problem. But, continuous use of the herbicides against a particular group of weed results in weed flora shift and development of resistance among weeds. Hence, integration of different methods of weed management based on climate, soil and weed flora is necessary for maintaining weeds below the economic threshold level. Shekhawat et al., (2020) stated that as seed rate is higher in DSR, any contamination could increase the weed seed bank. Removing weed plants before they flower has been found to be effective in reducing the addition of seeds to the weed seed bank.
 
Cultural methods
 
Nagargade et al., (2018) stated the importance of cultural approaches based on integrated weed management and weed biology for management of sedge weeds. Sedges can be controlled by adopting cultural practices like summer tillage, crop rotation, intercropping, higher seed rate and allelopathic varieties. One of the cultural management practices which could be adopted before the sowing of the crop to reduce the weed seed bank in the field is the stale seedbed technique (SSB). SSB is a cultural method of weed management wherein land preparation is carried out without subsequent sowing of paddy seeds which triggers the emergence of weed seeds in the soil, killed by flooding or by using herbicides.  SSB has been proved particularly good for the sedges like Cyperus iria, Cyperus difformis and Fimbristylis miliacea due to shorter seed dormancy and failure to emerge from soil depth more than 1 cm (Chauhan and Johnson, 2010). Ameena (1999) reported that combination of glyphosate at 1.5 kg ha-1 with 2,4-D sodium salt at 0.25 kg ha-1 applied at 6 to 8 leaf stage was effective in controlling nutsedge with no regrowth observed upto 6 weeks after spraying. Managing C. rotundus through cultural or mechanical methods presented difficulties because of the tuber viability and their capacity for repeated sprouting as observed by Ameena et al., (2014). Kalyani et al., (2024a) reported that the tuber viability of C. rotundus was significantly impacted by land preparation methods, with SSB combined with glyphosate at 1.5 kg ha-1 or SSB with halosulfuron methyl at 75 g ha-¹ applied at the 2 to 4 leaf stage of nutsedge recorded significantly lower tuber viability of 13.33 and 6.67 % respectively.
       
Kim et al., (2001) suggested the use of rice bran against Scirpus juncoides and Cyperus serotirus in lowlands with shallow submergence. Recycled paper mulch recorded higher weed control efficiency (50%) against S. juncoides in the rice field (Lee et al., 2005). Kandasamy and Chinnusamy (2005) observed the potential of drum seeding in suppressing sedge weeds in wet-seeded rice in Tamil Nadu. Submergence of field at early crop growth stages, especially within 4 to 6 weeks after sowing (WAS) was effective in managing sedges below the economic threshold limits (NPPC, 2017). Continuous flooding of rice fields to a depth of 2-4cm reduced the emergence and subsequent growth of Cyperus iria and Fimbristylis miliacea (Sethulakshmi et al., 2024).
 
Physical or mechanical methods
 
Hand weeding is the traditional and most promising weed management practice especially in India (Yaduraju et al., 2015). However, availability of timely labour decides the success of this method for controlling weeds. Yaduraju and Mishra (2008) observed that while manual weeding is highly efficient it can lead to the escape of sedge weeds due to their morphological resemblance, causing a subsequent threat to the crop because of their perennial nature. Mohan et al., (2005) found manual weeding to be effective in managing Cyperus iria, Cyperus rotundus and Fimbristylis miliacea. On the contrary, Devi and Singh (2018) reported that manual and mechanical methods were found to be ineffective against sedges and broad-leaf weeds in DSR.
 
Biological methods
 
Integration of poultry in the system inhibited the germination and growth of sedges in rice fields due to the addition of its highly acidic droppings (Kathiresan and Bhowmik, 2006). Kathiresan et al., (2001) recommended the use of azolla at the rate of 1 t ha-1 to lessen the germination and emergence of sedge seeds which could be due to decreased light reception through the thick vegetative mat formed by the biofertilizer. Inhibition of Scirpus juncoides have been observed in rice, dual cultured with Azolla pinnata in the lowlands of Japan (Biswas et al., 2005). Chung et al., (2006) suggested momilactone, the allelochemical secreted by rice as an effective natural control against S. juncoides with 90% inhibition when applied at the rate of 4000 g ha-1. Low dry weight (1.20 g) and higher inhibition (84.47%) of S. juncoides was observed when mustard crop residue was applied at the rate of 2 t ha-1 (Hossain et al., 2017). Bactra verutana, known as the javelin moth from the Tortricidae family, was introduced to control Cyperus rotundus L. However, it has been found to be ineffective in achieving the purpose (Efil et al., 2012).
 
Chemical methods
 
The most favoured method of weed control in direct seeded rice is the use of herbicides, which is widely adopted by farmers because its application is easy, quick, give visible results, saves time and less laborious in nature as compared to manual weeding.  However, climatic factors like rainfall, humidity, temperature, time of day and wind speed influence foliar applications by impacting the permeability of plant tissues (Pooja and Ameena, 2021). Glyphosate, alone or combined with 2,4-D, has shown promise in controlling the growth of C. rotundus possibly due to its rapid translocation to the tubers (Ameena and George, 2004). Though effective, repeated application of herbicides have proven inefficient for managing globally noxious weed species such as Cyperus sp., Scirpus sp. and Fimbristylis sp (Kraehmar et al., 2016). Perennial sedge weeds, with their extensive underground growth and C4 pathways, are likely to pose a greater threat in a changing climate, as herbicides cannot effectively control them (Umkulzhum et al., 2024).
       
Ethoxysulfuron (30 g ha-1) applied 10 days after transplanting (DAT) provided better control of Schoenoplectus supinus, Cyperus difformis and Cyperus iria (Reddy et al., 2000). New-generation herbicides showed improved weed control efficiency, reduced weed dry matter and yield, with minimal or no phytotoxicity symptoms on current and subsequent crops (Kalyani et al., 2024b). High herbicide efficacy at small rates of application was observed by Son and Rutto (2002) in controlling grasses, broad leaf weeds and sedges. The efficiency of ethoxysulfuron against the sedges belonging to Scirpus sp. has been proved by Sondhia and Dixit (2012). Ali et al., (2018) reported ethoxysulfuron as an effective sulfonyl urea herbicide against Scirpus maritimus, Cyperus rotundus, Cyperus difformis and Fimbristylis dichotoma. Ethoxysulfuron applied at 15 g ha-1 at 15 DAS followed by hand weeding at 35-40 DAS was found to be an effective strategy for the management of Schoenoplectus juncoides (Roxb.) Palla in wet seeded rice by Umkhulzum et al., (2018).
 
Penoxsulam at 25 g ha-1 gave satisfactory control of broad leaf weeds and sedges compared to butachlor and pretilachlor (Nath and Pandey, 2013). Arya and Ameena (2016 b) reported that whether applied before or after plant emergence, herbicides lingered in the active surface soil, leading to fluctuations in soil enzyme activities over varying days of post-treatment in semidry rice. Reddy and Ameena (2021a) found that at 45 and 60 DAS, the combined post-emergent herbicide penoxsulam + cyhalofopbutyl demonstrated significantly greater efficacy with lower dry weights of grasses, sedges and broadleaf weeds in wet seeded rice.
       
Chauhan and Yadav (2013), observed that combining two or more herbicides could significantly reduce weed growth in DSR. When compared to grasses, post-emergence spraying with metsulfuron methyl (10%) + chlorimuron ethyl (10%) provided better control of broad leaf weeds and sedges (Saha and Rao, 2009). When applied at 4 g a ha-1 at 15 to 25 DAS, metsulfuron methyl + chlorimuron ethyl, the ALS inhibitor, was very successful in controlling broad leaf weeds and sedges (Kumar and Ladha, 2011). Carfentrazone-ethyl, an aryl triazolinone herbicide applied as post-emergence in rice was found effective against sedges and broad leaf weeds (Singh, 2012). In wet seeded rice, bensulfuron-methyl + pretilachlor exhibited higher weed control efficiency upto 30 DAS and was comparable to pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, with respect to control of grasses, sedges and broad leaf weeds (Reddy and Ameena, 2021b).
 
Integrated weed management
 
Single method of controlling weeds can lead to weed shift, herbicide resistance, or increase in weed seed bank. Sedges, grasses and broad leaf weeds can be effectively controlled by judiciously combining two or more approaches. Shekawat et al., (2020) observed that adoption of integrated weed management strategy could decrease the reliance on herbicides in DSR systems, with a greater emphasis on preventive and cultural methods.
       
Peerzada et al., (2017) reported the integration of herbicides and summer tillage in fallows as effective method for destroying the rhizomes and tubers of Cyperus rotundus in rice fields. Reduced tuber viability (20-23.3%) and regeneration (6-8 sprouts per m2) were documented by adopting a stale seedbed along with pre-plant application, followed by directed post-emergence application of glyphosate for the management of C. rotundus (Ameena et al., 2006). Effective and economic management of Schoenoplectus juncoides was achieved by spraying ethoxysulfuron at the rate of 15 g ha-1 at 15 DAS followed by hand weeding at 40 DAS (Umkhulzum et al., 2019). Good weed suppression in direct seeded rice can be achieved by using stale seedbed technique, clean cultivation with balanced fertilizer applications, appropriate weed management and hand weeding in conjunction with herbicides. Sekhar et al., (2020b) reported that the combination of stale seedbed followed by the application of glyphosate plus oxyfluorfen followed by cyhalofopbutyl plus carfentrazone ethyl proved effective in suppressing the germination and establishment of C. iria and M. vaginalis during the early stages of the crop in wet seeded rice.

CONCLUSION

Direct seeding of rice has become increasingly popular among farmers due to its numerous benefits such as water and labour savings compared to puddled transplanted rice. However, the management of weeds, particularly sedges, poses a significant challenge in DSR. Sedges tend to dominate fields more than grasses and broadleaf weeds due to their ecological characteristics, leading to substantial yield losses in DSR. Various techniques for sedge management exist, including preventive, cultural, physical or mechanical, biological and chemical methods. Among these, chemical methods involving herbicides are preferred due to their speed and efficiency. To achieve effective sedge management in DSR, it is vital to prioritize preventive strategies based on seed ecology to check the build-up of the soil seedbank. This involves integration of stale seed bed technique with clean cultivation, balanced fertilizer application and judicious herbicides use.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I declare that the authors do not have competing interests.

REFERENCES


  1. Ali, N., Durrani, S., Abbas, M., Ullah, I., Ishfaq, M., Akbar, N., Rehman, A. and Waheed, A. (2018). Different approaches in direct seeded rice system to avert weed infestation: Review. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. 9(6): 1538.

  2. Ameena, M. (1999).  Investigations on allelopathic influence and control of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.). M.Sc. (Ag.) thesis, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, p.165.

  3.  Ameena, M. and George, S. (2004). Control of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) using glyphosate and 2,4-D sodium salt. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 42(1-2): 49-51.

  4. Ameena, M., Deb, A., Sethulakshmi, V.S., Sekhar, L., Susha, V.S., Kalyani, M.S.R. and Umkhulzum, F. (2024). Weed ecology: Insights for successful management strategies: A Review. Agricultural Reviews. doi: 10.18805/ag. R-2661.

  5. Ameena, M., Geethakumari, V.L. and George, S. (2006). Integrated Management of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) in okra. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 38(1-2): 81-85.

  6. Ameena, M., Geethakumari, V.L. and George, S. (2013). Control of purple nutsedge through integrated management.  Indian Journal of Weed Science. 45(1): 51-54.

  7. Ameena, M., Geethakumari, V.L. and George, S. (2014). Allelopathic influence of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) root exudates on germination and growth of important field crops. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 10(1): 186-189.

  8. Ameena. M., Geethakumari, V.L. and George, S. (2015). Allelopathic effects of root exudates of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) on growth of field crops. Journal of Crop and Weed. 11: 142-145.

  9. Aminpanah, H. (2015). Effects of spatial pattern and cultivar on weed control and grain yield in rice at reduced rates of herbicide. Bioscience Journal. 31(2): 460-469.

  10. Arunbabu, T. and Jena, S.N. (2018). Weeds and progressive weed management techniques in rice (Oryza sativa. L.): A review. Bulletin of Environment Pharmacology and Life Sciences. 7(2):108-117. 

  11. Arya, S.R. and Ameena, M. (2016a). Efficacy of new generation herbicides for weed management in dry direct seeded system of rice. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 54(1): 55-59.

  12. Arya, S.R. and Ameena, M. (2016b). Herbicides effect on soil enzyme dynamics in direct-seeded rice. Indian Journal of Weeds Science. 48(3): 316-318.

  13. Azmi, M., Shukor, J.A. and Najib, M.M. (2007). Critical period for weedy rice control in direct-seeded rice. Journal of Tropical Agriculture and Food Science. 35(2): 333-339.

  14. Barrett, R.L. (2023). Sedges on the edge: New agronomic and research opportunities. Plant and Soil. 495 :1-6.

  15. Begum, M. (2006). Biology and management of Fimbristylis miliacea L. Ph.D. Dissertation, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.

  16. Begum, M., Juraimi, A.S., Rajan, A., Syed Omar, S.R. and Azmi, M. (2008). Critical period competition between Fimbristylis miliacea L. Vahl and rice (MR 220). Plant Protection Quarterly. 23(4): 153-157.

  17. Bhagat, R.M., Bhuiyan, S.I., Moody, K. and Estorninos, L. E. (1999). Effect of water, tillage and herbicide on ecology of weed communities in intensive wet-seeded rice system. Crop Protection. 18(5): 293-303.

  18. Bhatt, M.D., Tewarl, A. and Singh, S.P. (2009). Floristic composition of weeds in paddy fields in Mahendranagar, Nepal. Ecoprint: An International Journal of Ecology. 16: 15-19.

  19. Biswas, M., Parveen, S., Shimozawa, H. and Nakagoshi, N. (2005). Effects of Azolla species on weed emergence in a rice paddy ecosystem. Weed Biology and Management. 5(4): 176-183.

  20. Bryson, C.T .and Carter, R. (2008). The Significance of Cyperaceae as Weeds. Sedges: Uses, Diversity and Systematics of the Cyperaceae. pp 15-101.

  21. Chauhan, B.S. and Johnson, D.E. (2010). The role of seed ecology in improving weed management strategies in the tropics. Advances in Agronomy. 105: 221-262.

  22. Chauhan, B.S. and  Johnson, D.E. (2009). Ecological studies on Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria and Fimbristylis miliacea: Three troublesome annual sedge weeds of rice. Annals of Applied Biology. 155(1): 103-112.

  23. Chauhan, B.S. and Yadav, A. (2013). Weed management approaches for dry seeded rice in India-A review. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 45(1): 1-6.

  24. Chung, I.M., Kim, J.T. and Kim, S.H. (2006). Evaluation of allelopathic potential and quantification of momilactone A, B from rice hull extracts and assessment of inhibitory bioactivity on paddy field weeds. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 54(7): 2527-2536.

  25. Deivasigamani, S. (2016). Study of bio-efficacy and phytotoxicity of new generation herbicides on triafamone and ethoxysulfuron in direct seeded rice (Oryza sativa). IRA- International Journal of Applied Sciences. 3(2): 106-112.

  26. Devi, B.R. and Singh, Y. (2018). Influence of nitrogen and weed management practices on growth ad yield of direct seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 7(1): 2566-2574.

  27. Efil, F., Efil, L., Atay, E., Uremiº, I. (2012). The determination of infestation of Bactra veritana (Zeller, 1847) (Lep.; Tortricidae) on Cyperus rotundus L. in Adana and Osmaniye Proviences. The Black Sea Journal of Sciences. 2(7): 39-46.

  28. Garg, V., Tiwari, N. and Rajwade, O.P. (2019). Growth and yield losses of direct seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.) as affected by major dominant weeds in Chhattisgarh plains: A review paper. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 7(6): 876-882.

  29. Gogoi, A.K. (1996). Integrated Weed Management of Rice in High Rainfall Region of India: Status and Prospects. In: Brown H., Cussans, G.W., Devine, M.D., Duke, S.O., Quintanilla C.F., Helwag, A., Labrada, R.E., Landes,M., Kudsk,P. and Streibig, J.C. (EDS). Proceedings of 2nd International Weed Control Congress, June 25-28,1996, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat.pp.715-719.

  30. Hossain, M.N., Uddin, M.R., Salam, M.A., Sarker, U.K., Ferdousi, S. and Uddin, M.J. (2017). Allelopathic potential of mustard crop residues on weed management and performance of transplant Aman rice. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University. 15(2): 133-139.

  31. IRRI [International Rice Research Institute] (2017). Schoenoplectus juncoides [online]. Available: http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/training/fact-seets/item/schoenoplectusjuncoides-[10 November 2017].

  32. Johnson, D.E. (1996). Weed management in small holder paddy production in the tropics [on line]. Available: http://ipm.world.umn.edu/chapters/johnson.htm. [10 January 2018].

  33. Johnson, D.E., Wopereis. C.S., Mbodj, D., Diallo, S., Powers, S. and Haefele, S.M. (2004). Timing of weed management and yield losses due to weeds in irrigated rice in the Sahel. Field Crops Research. 85(1): 31-42. 

  34. Juraimi, A., Mohamad., Begum, M., Anuar, A. and Azmy, M. (2009). Critical period of weed competition in direct seeded rice under saturated and flooded conditions. Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science. 32(2): 305-316.

  35. Kalyani, M.S.R., Ameena, M., Pillai, S.P., Raj, S.K. (2024a). Standardization of land preparation method to exhaust tuber reserve and regeneration of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus (L.). Indian Journal of Ecology. 51(3): 559-563.

  36. Kalyani, M.S.R., Ameena, M., Srinivas, Y., Shanavas, S., Susha, V.S. and Sethulakshmi, V.S. (2024b). Bio-efficacy of new herbicide molecules for weed management in grain legumes. Journal of Advances in Biology and Biotechnology. 27(1): 191-204. https://doi.org/10.9734/jabb/2024/v27i1691.

  37. Kandasamy, O.S. and Chinnusamy. (2005). Integration of seeding methods and weed control practices in drum seeded rice. In: Extended Summaries of National Biennial Conference of Indian Society of Weed Science, 6-9 April, 2005, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab.pp.10-11.

  38. Kathiresan, R.M. and Bhowmik, P.C. (2006). Sedge control in rice in India. In: Management of Sedge weeds in Rice. 23-34.

  39. Kathiresan, R.M., Ramah, K. and Sivakumar, C. (2001). Integration of azolla, fish and herbicide for rice weed management. In: Proceedings of BCPC Conference Weeds, November 12-15, 2001, Annamalai University, Annmalainagar. pp.625-631.

  40. Kim, J.G., Lee, S.B., Lee, K.B., Lee, D.B. and Kim, J.D. (2001). Effect of applied amount and time of rice bran on the rice growth condition. Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture. 20(1): 15-19.

  41. Kraehmer, H., Jabran, K., Mennan, H. and Chauhan, B.S. (2016). Global distribution of rice weeds-A review. Crop Protection. 80: 73-86.

  42. Kumar, S., Angiras, N.N., Rana, S.S. and Sharma, N. (2008). Efficacy of new herbicides to manage weeds in transplanted rice. Himachal Journal of Agricultural Research. 34(1): 18-21.

  43. Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Kumar, A., Singh, A.K., Gopal, T. and Kumar, D. (2018). Effect of establishment methods and weed management practices on economics of direct seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 7(4): 1473-1480.

  44. Kumar, V. and Ladha, J.K. (2011). Direct Seeding of Rice: Recent developments and future research needs. Advances in Agronomy. 111:297-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387689-8.00001-1.

  45. Kumar, V., Mahajan, G., Sheng, Q. and Chauhan, B.S. (2023). Weed management in wet direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.): Issues and opportunities. Advances in Agronomy. 179: 91-133

  46. Lee, I.Y., Ji, S.H., Jung, K.I., Park, N.I., Kwon, O.S. and Park, J. E. (2005). Effect of recycled paper mulching on weeding efficacy and rice growth in the transplanted rice field. Korean Journal of Weed Science. 25(2): 98-102.

  47. Maity, S.K .and Mukerjee, P.K. (2008). Integrated weed management in dry seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 53(2): 116-120.

  48. Mohan, K.S., Muniyappa, T.V. and Shivakumar, H.R. (2005). Effect of Pre-emergence Herbicides on Growth and Yield of Direct Seeded Puddle Rice (Oryza sativa L.). In: Extended Summaries of National Biennial Conference of Indian Society of Weed Science. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab.pp. 28-29.

  49. Moody, K. (1996). Weed Community Dynamics in Rice Fields. In:  Herbicides in Asian Rice: Transitions in Weed Management, [Naylor, R. (eds)], Palo Alto California: Institute for International Studies, Stanford University and Manila (Philippines): International  Rice Research Institute. pp.27-36.

  50. Mukherjee, P.K., Sarkar, A. and Maity, S.K. (2008). Critical period of crop-weed competition in transplanted and wet seeded kharif rice (Oryza sativa L.) under Terai conditions. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 40(3-4): 147-152.

  51. Nagargade, M., Singh, M.K. and Tyagi, V. (2018). Ecologically sustainable integrated weed management in dry and irrigated direct-seeded rice. Advances in Plants and Agriculture Research. 8(4): 319-331.

  52. Nath, C.P. and Pandey, P.C. (2013). Evaluation of herbicides on grain yield and nutrient uptake in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Bioinfolet- A Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences. 10(1b): 282-287.

  53. NPPC [National Plant Protection Centre] (2017). Scirpus juncoides- Cyperaceae [on line]. Available:http://www.nppc.gov.bt/ wp-content/uploads/2016/07/8.-Scirpus-juncoides.pdf.  [10 November 2017].

  54. Peerzada, A.M. (2017). Biology, agricultural impact and management of [Cyperus rotundus L.]: The world’s most tenacious weed. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 39(12): 270.

  55. Pooja, A.P. and Ameena, M. (2021). Nutrient and PGR based foliar feeding for yield maximization in pulses: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 42(1): 32-41. doi: 10.18805/ag.R 2056. 

  56. Pooja, A.P., Ameena, M. and Arunjith, P. (2023). Physiological response of blackgram varieties to foliar nutrition and growth regulators under partial shade in coconut orchard in Kerala. Agricultural Science Digest. doi: 10.18805/ag.D- 5807.

  57. Pooja, A.P., Ameena, M., Joseph, J. and Arunjith, P. (2021). Identification of low light tolerant blackgram varieties with respect to morpho-physiology and yield. Legume Research. 46(6): 671-6778. doi: 10.18805/LR-4683.  

  58. Rajkhowa, D.J., Borah, N., Barua, I.C. and Deka, N.C. (2006). Effect of pyrazosulfuron ethyl on weeds and productivity of transplanted rice during rainy season. Indian Journal of Weed Science 38 (1 and 2): 25-28.

  59. Rathika, S., Ramesh, S.T. and Shanmugapriya, P. (2020). Weed management in direct seeded rice: A review. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 8(4): 925-933. 

  60. Ravisankar, N., Chandrasekaran, B., Raja, R., Din, M. and Chaudhuri, S.G. (2008). Influence of integrated weed management practices on productivity and profitability of wet seeded rice. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 53(1): 57-61.

  61. Reddy, C.N., Reddy, N.P. and Davy, M.P. (2000). Evaluation of fenoxyprop-p-ethyl and ethoxysulfuron in transplanted rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 32(1-2): 105-107.

  62. Reddy, M.S., S.K. and Ameena, M. (2021a). Influence of weed management practices on weed flora, crop yield and nutrient uptake in direct seeded rainfed lowland rice. Journal of Crop and Weed. 17(2): 01-08.

  63. Reddy, M.S., S.K. and Ameena, M. (2021b). Efficacy of pre-and post-emergence ready-mix herbicides in rainfed lowland wet-seeded rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 53(1): 88-91.

  64. Saha, S. and Rao, K.S. (2009). Efficacy of sulfonylurea herbicides for broad-spectrum weed control in wet direct sown summer rice. Oryza-An International Journal on Rice. 46(2): 116-119.

  65. Satapathy, B.S., Duary, B., Saha. S., Pun, K.B. and Singh, T. (2017). Effect of weed management practices on yield and yield attributes of wet direct seeded rice under lowland ecosystem of Assam. Oryza-An International Journal of Rice. 54(1): 29-36.

  66. Sekhar, L., Ameena, M. and Jose, N. (2020a). Herbicides and herbicide combinations for management of Leptochloa chinensis in wet-seeded rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 52(3): 211-216.

  67. Sekhar, L., Ameena, M. and Jose, N. (2020b). Herbicide combinations for enhancing the weed control efficiency in wet direct- seeded rice. Journal of Crop and Weed. 16(3): 221-227.

  68. Sethulakshmi, V.S., Ameena, M., Deb, A., Jose, N., Umkhulzum, F.S., Renjan, B., Shilpa, S. and Shanavas, S. (2024). Germination ecology and ecology-based management of Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) in lowland rice: A review. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 14(7): 577-89. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i74295.

  69. Shekhawat, K., Rathore, S.S. and Chauhan, B.S. (2020). Weed management in dry direct-seeded rice: A review on challenges and opportunities for sustainable rice production. Agronomy. 10(9): 1-19. 

  70. Singh, A. (2012). Studies on the efficiency of carfentrazone ethyl in direct seeded rice. M.Sc. (Ag.) thesis, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

  71. Singh, G. (2008). Integrated Weed Management in Direct-seeded Rice. In: Direct Seeding of Rice and Weed Management in the Irrigated Rice-Wheat Cropping System of the Indo- Gangetic Plains. [Singh, Y., Singh, V.P., Chauhan, B., Orr, A., Mortimer, A.M., Johnson, D.E. and Hardy, B. (eds)], International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines and Directorate of Experiment Station, G.B.P.U.A.T.,  Pantnagar, India. pp.161-175.

  72. Singh, V.P., Singh, S.P., Dhyani, V.C., Banga, A., Kumar, A., Satyawali, K. and Bisht, N. (2016). Weed management in direct- seeded rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 48(3): 233-246.

  73. Singh, Y., Singh, V.P., Singh, G., Yadav, D.S., Sinha, R.K.P., Johnson, D.E. and Mortimer, A. M. (2011). The implications of land preparation, crop establishment method and weed management on rice yield variation in the rice-wheat system in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Field Crops Research.121(1): 64-74.

  74. Son, C.Y. and Rutto, K.L. (2002). Are herbicides essential for paddy control in East Asia? Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 5(12): 1352-1362.

  75. Sondhia, S. and Dixit, A. (2012). Bioefficacy and persistence of ethoxysulfuron in rice. Oryza-An International Journal on Rice. 49(3): 178-182.

  76. Sunil, C.M., Shekara, B.G., Kalyanmurthy, K.N. and Shankaralingapa, B.C. (2010). Growth and yield of aerobic rice as influenced by integrated weed management practices. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 42(3-4): 180-183.

  77. Tanaka, I. (1976). Climatic influence on photosynthesis and respiration of rice plants. Climate and Rice. pp 223-247.

  78. Umkhulzum, F. and Ameena, M. (2019). Integrated management of rock bulrush (Schoenoplectus juncoides) in wet seeded rice. Journal of Crop and Weed. 15(3): 139-144.

  79. Umkhulzum, F.S., Ameena, M. and Pillai, S.P. (2018) Comparative efficacy of herbicides against rock bulrush Schoenoplectus juncoides (Roxb.) Palla in wet-seeded rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 50(4): 395-398.

  80. Umkhulzum, F.S., Ameena, M. and Pillai, S.P. (2019). Biology of rock bulrush (Schoenoplectus juncoides) in the wet land rice fields of south Kerala. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 57(2): 167-171.

  81. Umkulzhum, F., Ameena, M., Susha, V.S., Renjan, B., Sreelekshmi, K., Sethulekshmi, V.S. and Shanavas, S. (2024). Weeds and their response to changing climate: A review. International Journal of Environment and climate change. 14(4): 768-779. doi: 10.9734/IJECC/2024/v14i44157.

  82. Wiecław, H., Bosiacka, B., Hrivnák, R., Dajdok, Z., Mesterházy, A. and Koopman, J. (2022). Morphological variability of Carex buekii (Cyperaceae) as a function of soil conditions: A case study of the Central European populations. Scientific Reports. 12(1): 11761.

  83. Yaduraju, N.T. and Mishra, J. S. (2008). Sedges in rice culture and their management. In: Singh Y, Singh, V.P., Chauhan, B., Orr, A., Mortimer, A.M., Johnson, D.E. and Hardy, B. (eds), Direct Seeding of Rice and Weed Management in the Irrigated Rice-Wheat Cropping System of the Indo- Gangetic Plains. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines. pp.191-203.

  84. Yaduraju, N.T., Sharma, A.R. and Rao, A.N. (2015). Weeds in Indian agriculture: Problems and prospects to become self- sufficient. Indian Farming. 65(07): 2-6.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)