Crop Establishment Methods and Weed Management Practices Affect Grain Yield and Weed Dynamics in Temperate Rice
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Description
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Crop Management Practices
2.4. Biometric Observations
2.5. Weed Measurements
2.6. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Weed Flora, Weed Density, and Weed Drymatter
3.2. Weed Control Efficiency, Weed Persistence Index, and Weed Index
3.3. Yield Attributes
3.4. Grain and Straw Yield
3.5. Relationship of Grain Yield with Weed Density and Weed Dry Matter
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (accessed on 26 December 2019).
- Kumar, V.; Ladha, J.K. Direct seeded rice: Recent development & future research needs. Adv. Agron. 2011, 111, 297–413. [Google Scholar]
- Chakraborty, D.; Ladha, J.K.; Rana, D.S.; Jat, M.L.; Gathala, M.K.; Yadav, S.; Rao, A.N.; Ramesha, M.S.; Raman, A. A globalanalysis of alternative tillage and crop establishment practices for economically and environmentally efficient rice production. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chauhan, B.S.; Johnson, D.E. Row spacing and weed control timingaffect yield of aerobic rice. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 121, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, B.; Opeña, J. Effect of tillage systems and herbicides on weed emergence, weed growth, and grain yield in dry-seeded rice systems. Field Crop. Res. 2012, 137, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gharde, Y.; Singh, P.; Dubey, R.; Gupta, P. Assessment of yield and economic losses in agriculture due to weeds in India. Crop. Prot. 2018, 107, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Li, X.; Wang, X.; Xiong, D.; Wang, F. Comparing the Grain Yields of Direct-Seeded and Transplanted Rice: A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy 2019, 9, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, H.; Hussain, S.; Zheng, M.; Peng, S.; Huang, J.; Cui, K.; Nie, L. Dry direct-seeded rice as an alternative to transplanted-flooded rice in Central China. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 35, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, C.; Jiang, H.; Ren, C.; Yin, Y.; Li, Y. Studies on key techniques of sowing rice directly on dry land for high yield and high efficiency. J. Jilin Agr. Sci. 2007, 32, 9–11. [Google Scholar]
- Tao, Y.; Chen, Q.; Peng, S.; Wang, W.; Nie, L. Lower global warming potential and higher yield of wet direct-seeded rice in Central China. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shekhawat, K.; Rathore, S.S.; Chauhan, B.S. Weed Management in Dry Direct-Seeded Rice: A Review on Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Rice Production. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, A.; Sofi, N.R.; Shikari, A.B.; Jehangir, I.A.; Teeli, N.A.; Kumar, R.M.; Mohidin, F.A.; Bhat, M.A.; Nazir, A.B. A Manual on Weed Identification and Management in Temperate Rice, Directorate, of Research; SKUAST-Kashmir: Srinagar, India, 2021; pp. 1–82. [Google Scholar]
- Khaliq, A.; Matloob, A.; Ahmad, N.; Rasul, F.; Awan, I.U. Post emergence chemical weed control in direct seeded fine rice. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2012, 22, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar]
- Chauhan, B.S.; Ahmed, S.; Awan, T.H. Performance of sequential herbicides in dry-seeded rice in the Philippines. Crop. Prot. 2015, 74, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, B.; Awan, T.H.; Abugho, S.B.; Evengelista, G.; Yadav, S. Effect of crop establishment methods and weed control treatments on weed management, and rice yield. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 172, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timsina, J.; Haque, A.; Chauhan, B.S.; Johnson, D.E. Impact of tillage and rice establishment methods on rice and weed growth in the rice-maize-mungbean rotation in northern Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 28th International Rice Research Conference, Hanoi, Vietnam, 8–12 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Jabran, K.; Ehsanullah; Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Babar, M.; Doğan, M.N.; Lee, D.-J. Application of bispyribac-sodium provides effective weed control in direct-planted rice on a sandy loam soil. Weed Biol. Manag. 2012, 12, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, B.S.; Johnson, D.E. The Role of Seed Ecology in Improving Weed Management Strategies in the Tropics. Adv. Agron. 2010, 105, 221–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, B. Weed Ecology and Weed Management Strategies for Dry-Seeded Rice in Asia. Weed Technol. 2012, 26, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramanyam, D.; Raghava, R.C.; Srinivasulu. Effect of puddling, water and weed management practices on weed dynamics and yield of transplanted rice (Oryza sativa L.). Indian J. Weed Sci. 2006, 38, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
- Ehsanullah, A.; Jabran, N.K.; Habib, T. Comparison of different planting methods for optimization of plant population of fine rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Punjab (Pakistan). Pak. J. Agri. Sci. 2007, 44, 597–599. [Google Scholar]
- Ichikawa, M. Swamp rice cultivation in an Iban village of Sarawak: Planting methods as an adaptation strategy. Southeast Asian Stud. 2000, 38, 74–94. [Google Scholar]
- Saranraj, T.; Devasenapathy, P.; Lokanadhan, S. Penoxsulam influence on weed control and rice yield and its residual effect on microorganisms and succeeding greengram. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2018, 50, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, S.; Kaur, R.; Das, T. Weed management in dry direct-seeded rice: Assessing the impacts on weeds and crop. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2020, 52, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munda, S.; Saha, S.; Adak, T.; Jambhulkar, N. Weed management in aerobic rice: Role of establishment methods and herbicides. Exp. Agric. 2017, 55, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahajan, G.; Chauhan, B.S. Performance of penoxsulam for weed control in transplanted rice. Pest Technol. 2008, 2, 114–116. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, R.; Singh, S.P.; Singh, V.P.; Sirazuddin; Verma, H.; Shukla, D.K. Weed control in dry seeded rice with penoxsulam. Int. J. Basic Appl. Agr. Res. 2016, 14, 379–382. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, B.C.; Hill, J.E.; Roberts, S.R. Plant Population Effects on Growth and Yield in Water-Seeded Rice. Agron. J. 1991, 83, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martini, L.F.D.; Burgos, N.R.; Noldin, J.A.; de Avila, L.A.; A Salas, R. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of bispyribac-sodium on rice seedlings under cold stress. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 71, 1021–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, B.; Johnson, D.E. Growth Response of Direct-Seeded Rice to Oxadiazon and Bispyribac-Sodium in Aerobic and Saturated Soils. Weed Sci. 2011, 59, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juraimi, A.S.; Najib, M.Y.M.; Begum, M.; Anuar, A.R.; Azmi, M.; Putech, A. Critical period of weed competition in direct seeded rice under saturated and flooded conditions. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2009, 32, 305–316. [Google Scholar]
- Mondal, D.; Ghosh, A.; Sen, S.; Roy, D.; Bera, S.; Ghosh, R.; Bandopadhyay, P. Effect of herbicides and their combinations on weeds and productivity of direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Indian J. Agron. 2019, 64, 464–470. [Google Scholar]
- Ganai, M.A.; Hussain, A.; Bhat, M.A. Bio-efficacy of different herbicides in direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) under temperate Kashmir valley conditions. Indian J. Agron. 2014, 59, 86–90. [Google Scholar]
- Mahajan, G.; Ramesha, M.S.; Chauhan, B.S. Response of Rice Genotypes to Weed Competition in Dry Direct-Seeded Rice in India. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Weed Management Practices | Establishment Methods | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weed Density m−2 | ||||||||
30 DAS/DAT | 60 DAS/DAT | |||||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 11.09 (127.0) * | 7.42 (56.7) | 5.05 (28.2) | 7.86 | 11.25 (136.0) | 7.50 (73.5) | 6.98 (55.2) | 8.58 |
PE | 4.50 (19.75) | 2.91 (8.5) | 2.73 (11.1) | 3.38 | 8.68 (89.9) | 5.37 (28.8) | 3.30 (11.0) | 5.78 |
BS | 7.19 (52.8) | 4.74 (22.1) | 5.64 (31.6) | 5.86 | 7.84 (77.2) | 8.86 (94.7) | 6.95 (52.0) | 7.88 |
WF | 0.71 (0.0) | 0.71 (0.0) | 0.71 (0.0) | 0.71 | 0.71 (0.0) | 0.71 (0.0) | 0.71 (0.0) | 0.71 |
WC | 20.73 (432.2) | 11.77 (140.8) | 10.25 (105.8) | 14.25 | 29.85 (900.0) | 13.72 (195.5) | 11.04 (123.9) | 18.20 |
Mean | 9.52 | 5.51 | 4.88 | 11.66 | 7.23 | 5.80 | ||
CD (p ≤ 0.05) | EM:0.32 | WM:0.41 | EM × WM:0.71 | EM: 0.56 | WM:0.72 | EM × WM:1.24 | ||
Weed Dry Matter(g m−2) | ||||||||
30 DAS/DAT | 60 DAS/DAT | |||||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 5.94 (36.48) | 2.85 (10.57) | 2.41 (8.41) | 3.73 | 4.37 (20.13) | 3.40 (12.81) | 2.90 (9.27) | 3.56 |
PE | 3.04 (10.75) | 2.20 (4.55) | 1.78 (3.30) | 2.34 | 2.91 (10.33) | 2.10 (4.65) | 2.52 (6.85) | 2.51 |
BS | 3.41 (13.72) | 2.93 (9.32) | 2.68 (8.20) | 3.01 | 3.53 (14.28) | 3.90 (16.46) | 3.92 (20.18) | 3.78 |
WF | 0.71 (0.00) | 0.71 (0.00) | 0.71 (0.00) | 0.71 | 0.71 (0.00) | 0.71 (0.00) | 0.71 (0.00) | 0.71 |
WC | 11.77 (138.14) | 8.72 (75.95) | 7.40 (54.90) | 8.69 | 8.58 (73.44) | 6.60 (43.17) | 5.89 (34.45) | 7.02 |
Mean | 4.61 | 3.48 | 3.00 | 4.02 | 3.34 | 3.19 | ||
C.D (p ≤ 0.05) | EM: 0.53 | WM:0.68 | EM ×WM:1.19 | EM: 0.60 | WM:0.77 | EM × WM:NS |
Weed Management Practices | Establishment Methods | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weed Control Efficiency (WCE) | ||||||||
30DAS/DAT | 60 DAS/DAT | |||||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 65.19 | 86.09 | 84.68 | 78.65 | 72.59 | 70.32 | 73.10 | 72.00 |
PE | 89.74 | 94.01 | 93.99 | 92.58 | 85.93 | 89.24 | 80.13 | 85.10 |
BS | 86.91 | 87.73 | 85.06 | 86.57 | 80.56 | 61.87 | 41.43 | 61.29 |
WF | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
WC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Mean | 85.46 | 91.96 | 90.93 | 84.77 | 80.36 | 73.67 | ||
Weed Persistence Index (WPI) | ||||||||
30DAS/DAT | 60 DAS/DAT | |||||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 1.18 | 0.35 | 0.58 | 0.70 | 1.81 | 0.79 | 0.60 | 1.07 |
PE | 0.71 | 0.99 | 0.57 | 0.76 | 1.41 | 0.73 | 2.24 | 1.46 |
BS | 1.07 | 0.78 | 0.50 | 0.79 | 2.27 | 0.79 | 1.39 | 1.48 |
WF | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
WC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Mean | 0.99 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 1.83 | 0.77 | 1.41 |
Weed Management Practices | Establishment Methods | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Weed Index (WI) | ||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 19.81 | 15.58 | 3.65 | 13.02 |
PE | 4.92 | 2.48 | 1.39 | 2.93 |
BS | 7.51 | 18.89 | 4.32 | 10.24 |
WF | - | - | - | - |
WC | 55.46 | 26.27 | 26.16 | 35.97 |
Mean | 21.93 | 15.81 | 8.88 |
Weed Management Practices | Establishment Methods | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Productive Tillersm−2 | 1000 Grain Weight (g) | |||||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 199 | 280 | 295 | 258 | 26.96 | 28.03 | 27.88 | 27.62 |
PE | 262 | 342 | 315 | 306 | 26.38 | 31.78 | 29.165 | 29.11 |
BS | 229 | 272 | 294 | 265 | 28.63 | 26.86 | 27.83 | 27.77 |
WF | 302 | 355 | 274 | 310 | 27.26 | 28.55 | 29.25 | 28.35 |
WC | 159 | 201 | 256 | 206 | 31.03 | 28.93 | 29.21 | 29.72 |
Mean | 230 | 290 | 287 | 28.05 | 28.83 | 28.667 | ||
EM:30.94 | WM:26.09 | EM × WM:NS | EM:0.44 | WM:1.12 | EM × WM:1.94 | |||
Panicle Length (cm) | Grainspanicle−1 | |||||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 22 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 97 | 119 | 127 | 114 |
PE | 24 | 26 | 26 | 25 | 119 | 148 | 130 | 132 |
BS | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 114 | 115 | 115 | 114 |
WF | 24 | 26 | 26 | 25 | 118 | 150 | 132 | 133 |
WC | 22 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 94 | 103 | 105 | 100 |
Mean | 23 | 24 | 24 | 108 | 127 | 121 | ||
EM:0.98 | WM:1.15 | EM × WM:NS | EM:4.63 | WM:17.18 | EM × WM:NS |
Weed Management Practices | Establishment Methods | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grain Yield (t·ha−1) | Straw Yield (t·ha−1) | |||||||
DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | DDSR | WS | CT | Mean | |
PP | 5.87 | 7.12 | 7.26 | 6.75 | 10.16 | 11.00 | 9.72 | 10.29 |
PE | 6.97 | 8.26 | 7.43 | 7.55 | 10.65 | 11.42 | 10.98 | 11.01 |
BS | 6.77 | 6.87 | 7.21 | 6.95 | 10.37 | 10.74 | 9.33 | 10.15 |
WF | 7.32 | 8.48 | 7.53 | 7.78 | 12.46 | 11.59 | 11.21 | 11.75 |
WC | 3.26 | 6.25 | 5.26 | 4.92 | 8.06 | 10.06 | 8.05 | 8.72 |
Mean | 6.04 | 7.39 | 6.94 | 10.34 | 10.96 | 9.86 | ||
EM:0.65 | WM:0.55 | EM × WM:0.95 | EM:0.78 | WM:0.89 | EM × WM:1.62 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jehangir, I.A.; Hussain, A.; Sofi, N.R.; Wani, S.H.; Ali, O.M.; Abdel Latef, A.A.H.; Raja, W.; Bhat, M.A. Crop Establishment Methods and Weed Management Practices Affect Grain Yield and Weed Dynamics in Temperate Rice. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2137. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112137
Jehangir IA, Hussain A, Sofi NR, Wani SH, Ali OM, Abdel Latef AAH, Raja W, Bhat MA. Crop Establishment Methods and Weed Management Practices Affect Grain Yield and Weed Dynamics in Temperate Rice. Agronomy. 2021; 11(11):2137. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112137
Chicago/Turabian StyleJehangir, Intikhab Aalum, Ashaq Hussain, Najeeb. R. Sofi, Shabir. H. Wani, Omar M. Ali, Arafat Abdel Hamed Abdel Latef, Waseem Raja, and M. Anwar Bhat. 2021. "Crop Establishment Methods and Weed Management Practices Affect Grain Yield and Weed Dynamics in Temperate Rice" Agronomy 11, no. 11: 2137. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112137