Legume Research-An International Journal

The efficacy of weed management practices with crop geometries on growth, yield and economic viability of clusterbean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L). Taub.] varieties

DOI: 10.18805/LR-4027    | Article Id: LR-4027 | Page : 654-660
Citation :- The efficacy of weed management practices with crop geometries on growth, yield and economic viability of clusterbean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L). Taub.] varieties.Legume Research-An International Journal.2019.(42):654-660
Sourav Gupta, Mukesh Gupta, S.S. Tomar, G.S. Rawat, Jyotimala Sahu and Neelendra Singh Verma souravgupta654@gmail.com
Address : Bhagwant Rao Mandaloi, College of Agriculture, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Khandwa– 450 001, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Submitted Date : 11-04-2018
Accepted Date : 21-07-2018
First Online:

Abstract

The field experiment carried out during kharif seasons of 2015 and 2016 at Research Farm, College of Agriculture, RVSKVV, Gwalior; Madhya Pradesh indicated that HG 2-20 (V2) was significantly superior under weed control efficiency, crop growth and yield attributes, seed yield and economics over HG 563 (V1). 30 cm x 10 cm (S1) crop geometry observed significantly effective over 45 cm x 6.5 cm (S2). Weed free situation (W5) was significantly superior in similar parameters; while lower values were observed under weedy plot (W6). Among herbicidal treatments; Imazethapyr 35% WG + Imazamox 35% WG (Pre-mix) @ 40 g a.i./ha (W4) followed by Imazethapyr 10% EC @ 75 g a.i./ha (W3) were achieved statistically at par and significantly effective results over rest of the treatments. In case of interaction; the significantly superior values were registered under interaction of HG 2-20 (V2) with 30 cm x 10 cm (S1) to weed free situation (W5) over rest of the interactions. Among interaction of herbicidal treatments with varieties and crop geometries; Imazethapyr 35% WG + Imazamox 35% WG (Pre-mix) @ 40 g a.i./ha (W4) combined with HG 2-20 (V2) and 30 cm x 10 cm (S1) earned significantly effective over other interactions. 

Keywords

Clusterbean Crop geometry Economics Growth and Yield attributes Weed control efficiency Weed management practices

References

  1. Akhtar, Lal Hussain, Bukhari, Shahjhan, Salah-ud-Din, Sultan and Rashid Minhas, (2012). Response of new guar strains to various row spacing. Pak. J. Agri. Sci.; 49(4): 469-71.
  2. Alford, C.M., Stephen, D.M. and Jack, T.C. (2004). Using row spacing to increase crop competition with weeds. 4th International Crop Sci. Cong., Brisbane, Australia.
  3. Bhadoria, R.B.S., Jain, P.C. and Tomar, S.S. (2000). Crop-weed competition in clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) under rainfed condition. Indian Journal of Agronomy; 45(4): 737-39.
  4. Bristow, K.L. (1988). The role of mulch and its architecture in modifying soil temperature. Aust. J. Soil. Res.; 26: 269-280.
  5. Chauhan, Bhagirath S. and Opena, Jhoana L. (2014). Effect of plant spacing on growth and grain yield of soybean. American Journal of Plant Sciences; 4: 2011-14.
  6. Devi, K. Nandini, Singh, Kh. Lenin, Mangang, CNJS Arangba, Singh, N. Brajendra, Athokpam, (2016). Effect of weed control practices on weed dynamics, yield and economics of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Legume Research; 39(6): 995-98.
  7. Esmaeilzadeh, S. and Aminpanah, H. (2015). Effects of planting date and spatial arrangement on common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) yield under weed-free and weedy conditions. Planta Daninha; 33(3): 425-32.
  8. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1983). Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research. An International rice research Institute book, a. Wiley-inter Science, John Wiley and Sons Inc. New york, United States of America.
  9. Jitender, Pahuja, S.K., Verma, Naresh and Bhusal, Nabin (2014). Genetic variability and heritability for seed yield and water use efficiency related characters in clusterbean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L). Taub.]. Forage Res.; 39(4): 170-174.
  10. Kataria, Komal, Singh, S.P. and Kathuria, Komal (2016). Studies on effect of integrated weed management practices on nutrient uptake in greengram [Vigna radiata (L). Wilczek]. International Journal of Farm Sciences; 6(1): 33-6.
  11. Kebede, Mengesha, Sharma, J.J., Tana, Tamado and Nigatu, Lisanework (2015). Effect of plant spacing and weeding frequency on weed infestation, yield components, and yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Eastern Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences; 9(1): 1-14.
  12. Kumar, P., Yadav, V.K., Yadav, A., Saini, L.K., Yadav, J.S. and Kumar, Ramesh (2012). Performance of clusterbean cultivars under different resource conservation techniques. Environment and Ecology; 30(3A): 734-38.
  13. Pandya, N., Chouhan, G.S., and Nepalia, V. (2005). Influence of integrated weed management on yield and economic viability of soybean (Glycine max) varieties grown at different crop geometries. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences; 75(8): 510-12.
  14. Prahlad, Jakhar, Yadav, S.S. and Choudhary, Rakesh (2013). Response of weed management practices on the growth and yield of urdbean (Vigna mungo L. Hepper). Haryana Journal of Agronomy; 29(1&2): 97-100. 
  15. Pulok, Md. Ashraful Islam, Mazed, H.E.M. Khairul, Chowdhury, Md. Shah Newaz, Afsana, Nigar and Maih, Imtiaz (2015). Field performance of mungbean (Vigna radiata) as influence by row spacing and number of weeding. International Journal of Research & Review; 2(4): 117-23.
  16. Punia, S.S., Singh, Samunder and Yadav, Dharambir (2011). Bio-efficacy of imazethapyr and chlorimuron-ethyl in clusterbean and their residual effect on succeeding crops. Indian Journal of Weed Science; 43(1&2): 48-53.
  17. Rao, Satyanarayan and Veeranna, V.S. (2001). Response of greengram to row spacing and weed management practices. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences; 14(3): 777-78. 
  18. Rasul, F., Cheema, M.A., Sattar, A., Saleem, M.F. and Wahid, M.A. (2012). Evaluating the performance of three mungbean varieties grown under varying inter-row spacing. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences; 22(4): 1030-35.
  19. Rawat, G.S., Rawat, Upama and Rajput, R.L. (2016). Effect of promising varieties of clusterbean on yield atteributes, yield and economics in northern Madhaya Pradesh. Bhartiya Krishi Anushandhan Patrika; 31(2): 118-20.
  20. Rawat, Upama, Rajput, R.L. and Rawat, G.S. (2013). Effect of varieties and nutrient management on yield attributes and yield of clusterbean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub]. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika; 28(2): 78-81.
  21. Saxena, Anurag, Singh, Y.V., and Singh, Raj (2004). Crop-weed competition in clusterbean in arid region. Journal of Arid Legumes; 1(1): 41-3.
  22. Sharma, Priyanka (2014). Assessment of suitable post-emergence herbicides for clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L. Taub). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, RVSKVV, College of Agriculture, Gwalior (M.P.); 88 pp.
  23. Sharma, Satyakumari, Rawat, G.S., Sharma, R. and Mathukia, R.K. (2014). Effect of fertility levels and row spacing on growth and yield of some promising genotypes of clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba). Agric. Sci. Digest.; 34(4): 316-18.
  24. Singh, S.P., Yadav, R.S. and Sharma, Vikas (2016). Weed control in clusterbean through post-emergence herbicides. Indian Journal of Weed Science; 48(2): 202–205.
  25. Yadav, S.L., Kaushik, M.K. and Mundra, S.L. (2011). Effect of weed control practices on weed dry weight, nutrient uptake and yield of clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L. Taub.) under rainfed condition. Indian Journal of Weed Science; 43(1&2): 81-4.
  26. Yadav, S.L., Kaushik, M.K. and Mundra, S.L. (2011). Effect of weed control practices on weed dry weight, nutrient uptake and yield of clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L. Taub.) under rainfed condition. Indian Journal of Weed Science; 43(1&2): 81-4.
  27. Yaduraju, N.T. (2006). Herbicide resistant crops in weed management. In: The Extended Summaries, Golden Jubilee National Symposium on Conservation Agriculture and Environment. October, 26-28, Banaras Hindu University, Banaras, p: 297-98.
  28. Zimdahl, R.L. (1980). Weed-crop competition– a review. International Plant Protection Centre, Corvallis, OR, USA. 

Global Footprints