Basavaraj Kumbar

K S Somashekar

M Y Ullash

T V Ramachandra Prasad

V Madhukumar

Veeresh Hatti

CiteSeerX

N
Save Nature to Survive
9(3): 1135-1137, 2014
www.thebioscan.in
1135
EVALUATION OF DOSES OF NEW HERBICIDE FLUAZIFOP-P-BUTYL
13.4 EC FOR GRASSY WEEDS MANAGEMENT IN IRRIGATED
GROUNDNUT
BASAVARAJ KUMBAR*, T. V. RAMACHANDRA PRASAD, K. S. SOMASHEKAR, VEERESH HATTI, M. Y. ULLASH,
AND V. MADHUKUMAR
Department of Agronomy, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru - 560 065
e-mail: Basavaraj4100@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Groundnut is an important oilseed cum leguminous crop in
India, but its yield is unpredictable (Bhan and Sing 1993) and
it has indeterminate growth habit, hence growth and
development of reproductive and vegetative organs overlap,
this causes low fruiting efficiency due to inter-organ competition
for photo-assimilates and other metabolites(Pushp Sharma
AND Virender Sardana, 2012) along with this weed
competition for growth factors drastically reduces the yield of
groundnut. One of the major factors responsible for low
productivity of groundnut is the improper management of
weeds. Groundnut is grown extensively during Kharif season
under rainfed condition, where it encounters severe weed
infestation especially in the early stages. Weeds–the essential
component of agro-ecosystems, interfere with crops and lead
to enormous crop losses (). The critical period of weed
competition is found to be the first four to eight weeks after
sowing (Subbaiah et al., 1997 and Jat et al., 2011). Groundnut
crop is highly susceptible to weed infestation particularly
grasses because of its slow growth in the initial stages up to 40
days (Senthil Kumar 2004), short plant height and
underground pod bearing habit. Uncontrolled weed growth
reduce groundnut yield to the tune of 76% (Gnanamurthy
and Balasubramaniyan, 1998). In agriculture, labour
component is becoming scarce, not available at time and
prohibitive cost. Chemical control of weeds forms an excellent
alternative to manual weeding. However, pre-emergence
application of herbicide may allow the emergence of weeds
especially grasses after 25-30 days (Jat et al., 2011). At present,
many farmers demand post-emergence herbicides for
managing weeds, after seeing their menace and other methods
could not limit the weeds’ growth. Hence, the present study
was, initiated during Kharif 2011 at Hebbal, Bangalore to
evaluate the performance of graminicides in relation to pre-
emergent Herbicides.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A field study was conducted during Kharif 2011, on red sandy
loam soil of Hebbal, Bengaluru coming under Eastern Dry
Zone of University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru. The
soil type was sandy loam with pH of 6.60, average fertility
status of 0.65% OC, available N of 228.0 kg/ha, available
P
2
O
5
 of 24.3 kg/ha and K
2
O of 170.0 kg/ha. The experiment
was laid out with eight treatments replicated four times in a
randomized block design. The weed management practices
evaluated were fluazifop-p-butyl 13.4 EC 100 to 167 g ai/ha,
imazethapyr 10 SL 100 g ai/ha, quizalofop-p-ethyl 5 EC at 50
g ai/ha (all applied at 20 DAS), pendimethalin 750 g ai/ha (3
DAS), hand weeding (20 and 35 DAS) and unweeded control.
The groundnut cv. TMV-2 was sown at a spacing of 30 cm X
ABSTRACT
An experiment was conducted to study the effect of new graminicides fluazifop-p-butyl 13.4 EC and quizalofop-
p-butyl on growth and yield of groundnut in relation to unsprayed control, hand weeding, pendimethalin and
imazethapyr. The new graminicides fluazifop-p-butyl at 134 g, 167 g ai/ha and quizalofop-p-butyl 50 g ai/ha (at
20 DAS) lowered the density and growth of grasses (6.3, 4.3 and 6.0 number/m2) considerably as compared to
other treatments. All herbicide treatments recorded the significantly higher nutrient uptake in groundnut as
compared to unweeded control whereas, unweeded control lowered the nutrient uptake of groundnut by 44%
as compared to hand weeding. The total dry matter production per plant found highest in the treatments
Fluazifop-p-butyl 167 g ai/ha (23.5 g) and imazethapyr 100 g ai/ha @ 20 DAS (22.8 g) as compared to other
treatments.Fluazifop-p-butyl 134 and 167 g ai/ha gave pod yield (1681 and 1542 kg/ha) similar to that of hand
weeding (1655 kg/ha) and was on par with imazethapyr 100 g ai/ha @ 20 DAS (1577 kg/ha), pendimethalin 750
g ai/ha @ 3 DAS (1528 kg/ha) and quizalofop-p-ethyl 50 g ai/ha (1485 kg/ha). Unweeded control lowered the pod
yield by 56% (720 kg/ha) as compared to hand weeding. The net return and B: C ratio were higher in fluazifop-
p-butyl 167 g ai/ha (Rs. 37,350 and Rs. 1.25) than hand weeding (Rs. 33,010 and Rs. 0.99). for management of
weeds in groundnut, the new post-emergence herbicides namely fluazifop-p-butyl 13.4 EC at 134 g ai/ha,
quizalofop-p-ethyl 5 EC at 50 g ai/ha (both graminicide at 20 DAS for control of grasses) and imazethapyr 10 SL
at 100 g ai/ha (20 DAS, for broad spectrum weed control) appeared good from the point of yield and economics.
KEYWORDS
Weed management
Fluazifop-p-butyl
Nutrient uptake
Yield and economics
Received on :
03.03.2014
Accepted on :
26.07.2014
*Corresponding
author
1136
BASAVARAJ KUMBAR et al.,
15 cm on 31st of July. Pendimethalin was applied three days
after sowing, where as fluazifop-p-butyl, imazethapyr and
quizalofop-p-ethyl were applied 20 DAS. Pre-emergent
herbicides was sprayed on three days after sowing using a
spray volume of 750 litre/ha, while post-emergent herbicides
were sprayed on 20 DAS coinciding with 2 to 3 leaf stage of
grasses using a spray volume of 500 lit/ha.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Grassy weed flora, growth and Nutrient uptake
Major grassy weed flora observed in the experimental plots
were Echinochloa colona, Digitaria marginata, Eleusine indica,
Dactyloctenium aegyptium and Cynodon dactylon.
Application of fluazifop-p-butyl at 100 g to 167 g ai/ha @ 20
DAS lowered the grassy weeds’ density from 40 DAS till harvest
and compared similarly to quizalofop-p-ethyl 50 g ai/ha and
post-emergence imazethapyr 100 g ai/ha @ 20 DAS. All these
herbicides compared similar to pre-emergence herbicide,
pendimethalin 750 g ai/ha from the initial stage as also reported
by Dubey et al. (1988), Vinthicks et al. (1990) and Maurya et
al. (1990). Use of fluazifop-p-butyl at 167 g ai/ha @ 20 DAS
lowered the density and dry weight of grassy weeds (Table 2)
throughout crop growth stages indicating its selective
effectiveness on the grasses especially Digitaria marginata,
Dactyloctenium aegyptium, Cynodon dactylon and Eleusine
indica. The effectiveness of fluazifop-p-butyl at 134 to 167 g
ai/ha @ 20 DAS was relatively better in lowering the density of
C. dactylon and D. marginata during initial stage up to 55
DAS as compared to quizalofop-p-ethyl 50 g ai/ha @ 20 DAS.
However, both graminicides behaved similarly in managing
grassy weeds subsequently. Similar results were also reported
by Kavani et al. (1986), Girichar and Boswell (1989), Shishodia
et al. (1988), Jayaram (2001) and Jat et al. (2011).
Total nutrient uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
was significantly higher (1.6 to 1.8 times higher) in hand
weeding as compared to unweeded control, but it was on par
with fluazifop-p-butyl at 167 g ai/ha, fluazifop-p-butyl at 134
to 167 g ai/ha and imazethapyr 100 g ai/ha . The higher nutrient
uptake by crop in these treatments was due to lower weed
population and dry weight which helped the crop to grow
luxuriantly in weed free environment and absorb more
nutrients from the soil. The results of this study are confirmed
by the earlier studies of Jat et al. (2011) in groundnut. The
significantly higher nutrient uptake by weeds was noticed in
unweeded control (N, P
2
O
5
, K
2
O) due to more weeds’ density
and dry weight (Table 2). Similarly, increase in nutrient uptake
by weeds due to increase in weed population was also reported
by Murthy et al. (1992) and Nimje (1992) in groundnut,
confirming the present study.
Yield and Economics
Use of fluazifop-p-butyl 134 to 167 g ai/ha @ 20 DAS gave
pod yield (1542 to 1681 kg/ha) similar to that of hand weeding
(1655 kg/ha), and was on par with imazethapyr 100 g ai/ha @
20 DAS (1577 kg/ha), pendimethalin 750 g ai/ha @ 3 DAS
(1528 kg/ha) and quizalofop-p-ethyl 50 g ai/ha @ 20 DAS
(1485 kg/ha). All growth components leaf area index, total dry
matter/plant and yield components number of pods/plant were
higher in herbicides treatments due to lowered weeds’ density T
a
b
le
 1
: 
In
fl
u
e
n
c
e
 o
f 
w
e
e
d
 m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t 
p
ra
c
ti
c
e
s 
o
n
 G
ra
ss
y
 w
e
e
d
s’
 d
e
n
si
ty
 (
N
o
. 
/m
2
),
 d
ry
 w
e
ig
h
t 
(g
/m
2
) 
a
n
d
 Y
ie
ld
 o
f 
g
ro
u
n
d
n
u
t
W
e
e
d
 m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t 
p
ra
c
ti
c
e
s,
 g
 a
i/
h
a
G
ra
ss
y
 w
e
e
d
 d
e
n
si
ty
 (
N
o
/m
2
)
G
ra
ss
y
 w
e
e
d
 d
ry
 w
e
ig
h
t 
(N
o
/m
2
)
P
o
d
 y
ie
ld
L
A
I
F
il
le
d
 p
o
d
s/
T
o
ta
l 
d
ry
 w
e
ig
h
t 
/
(k
g
/h
a
)
p
la
n
t
p
la
n
t 
(g
)A
t 
h
a
rv
e
st
2
2
 D
A
S
7
5
 D
A
S
2
2
 D
A
S
7
5
 D
A
S
T
1
: 
F
lu
a
z
if
o
p
-p
-b
u
ty
l 
1
3
.4
 E
C
 a
t 
1
0
0
 g
-2
0
 D
A
S
 1
.4
1
 
(2
8
.0
)#
1
.1
4
 (
1
2
.0
)#
1
.4
0
 (
2
3
.3
)#
0
.8
3
 (
4
.9
)#
1
2
7
3
2
.4
5
2
0
.8
1
8
.0
T
2
 :
 F
lu
a
z
if
o
p
-p
-b
u
ty
l 
1
3
.4
 E
C
 a
t 
1
3
4
 g
 -
2
0
 D
A
S
 1
.4
0
 (
3
0
.7
)
0
.9
2
 (
6
.3
)
1
.4
4
 (
2
5
.9
)
0
.5
4
 (
1
.4
)
1
5
4
2
2
.9
0
2
3
.5
2
1
.0
T
3
: 
F
lu
a
z
if
o
p
-p
-b
u
ty
l 
1
3
.4
 E
C
 a
t 
1
6
7
 g
 -
2
0
 D
A
S
 1
.5
7
 (
3
7
.3
)
0
.7
9
 (
4
.3
)
1
.5
2
 (
3
1
.8
)
0
.5
0
 (
1
.2
)
1
6
8
1
3
.1
6
2
5
.0
2
3
.5
T
4
 :
 I
m
a
z
e
th
a
p
y
r 
1
0
 S
L
 a
t 
1
0
0
 g
 -
2
0
 D
A
S
 1
.8
6
 (
7
2
.0
)
1
.0
5
 (
9
.3
)
1
.6
5
 (
4
3
.9
)
0
.7
4
 (
3
.7
)
1
5
7
7
2
.9
7
2
3
.7
2
2
.8
T
5
 :
 P
e
n
d
im
e
th
a
li
n
 3
0
 E
C
 a
t 
7
5
0
 g
 -
3
 D
A
S
 1
.0
9
 (
1
1
.7
)
1
.1
5
 (
1
2
.3
)
0
.7
7
 (
3
.9
)
0
.8
2
 (
4
.7
)
1
5
2
8
2
.0
7
2
1
.9
2
0
.9
T
6
 :
 Q
u
iz
a
lo
fo
p
-p
-e
th
y
l 
5
 E
C
 a
t 
5
0
 g
 -
2
0
 D
A
S
 1
.3
2
 (
2
7
.3
)
0
.8
9
 (
6
.0
)
1
.3
8
 (
2
2
.5
)
0
.8
7
 (
5
.5
)
1
4
8
5
2
.8
7
2
1
.0
1
9
.9
T
7
 :
 H
a
n
d
 w
e
e
d
in
g
 (
2
0
 a
n
d
 3
5
 D
A
S
)
 0
.8
4
 (
5
.3
)
0
.8
2
 (
4
.7
)
0
.6
0
 (
2
.1
)
0
.5
7
 (
1
.7
)
1
6
5
5
3
.3
1
2
7
.3
2
3
.2
T
 8
: 
U
n
w
e
e
d
e
d
 c
o
n
tr
o
l
 1
.7
0
 (
4
8
.7
)
1
.5
5
 (
3
4
.0
)
1
.5
9
 (
3
8
.2
)
1
.7
4
 (
5
3
.7
)
7
2
0
2
.0
1
1
0
.1
1
2
.9
S
E
m
 ±
0
.1
1
0
.0
5
0
.0
6
0
.0
4
1
0
6
.9
4
0
.2
3
1
.6
3
.5
C
D
 a
t 
5
 %
0
.3
2
0
.1
4
0
.1
9
0
.1
2
3
2
4
.4
0
.6
9
4
.9
1
.1
#
 - 
D
at
a 
w
it
h
in
 p
ar
en
th
es
es
 a
re
 o
ri
gi
n
al
 v
al
u
es
; d
at
a 
an
al
yz
ed
 u
si
n
g 
lo
g(
x+
2
) t
ra
n
sf
o
rm
at
io
n
 , 
N
A
- N
o
t a
n
al
ys
ed
, D
A
S 
-  
D
ay
s 
af
te
r 
so
w
in
g
1137
EVALUATION OF DOSES OF NEW HERBICIDE
Table 2: Nutrient uptake by plants and weeds and economics as influenced by weed management practices
Weed management practices, g ai/ha Uptake by groundnut crop Uptake by weeds (kg/ha) Net return B:C ratio
(kg/ha) (Rs/ha)
N P
2
O
5
K
2
O N P
2
O
5
K
2
O
T1: Fluazifop-p-butyl 13.4 EC at 100 g -20 DAS 72.4 11.3 30.9 16.4 6.2 16.4 22,030 0.76
T2
 
: Fluazifop-p-butyl 13.4 EC at 134 g -20 DAS 78.0 13.9 33.2 14.1 5.8 14.1 32,290 1.10
T3: Fluazifop-p-butyl 13.4 EC at 167 g -20 DAS 79.8 14.7 35.1 13.5 4.6 13.9 37,350 1.25
T4
 
: Imazethapyr 10 SL at 100 g -20 DAS 78.9 14.1 35.2 13.0 4.4 13.5 33,465 1.13
T5
 
: Pendimethalin 30 EC at 750 g -3 DAS 77.5 13.4 32.9 15.1 5.7 14.6 32,605 1.14
T6 : Quizalofop-p-ethyl 5 EC at 50 g -20 DAS 75.1 12.1 31.5 15.6 6.1 15.8 29,544 0.99
T7
 
: Hand weeding (20 and 35 DAS) 80.7 15.1 35.8 10.6 2.7 10.9 33,010 0.99
T
 
8: Unweeded control 43.2 8.4 20.3 28.5 10.1 28.6 1,660 0.06
SEm ± 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.8 NA NA
CD at 5 % 3.5 1.2 2.7 2.4 1.6 2.3
and dry weight. Unchecked weed growth lowered the leaf
area/plant which consequently lowered dry matter production/
plant, number of filled pods/plant, pod yield/plant (Table 1)
thus weed competition lowered seed yield by 56% as
compared to hand weeding due to reduced plant growth and
yield components, lowered nutrient uptake by the crop, as
also revealed by Chandolia et al. (2010) and Jayaram Reddy
(1995).
The net return and B: C ratio were higher in fluazifop-p-butyl
167 g ai/ha- 20 DAS (Rs. 37,350/ha and Rs. 1.25/rupee
investment) than hand weeding (Rs. 33,010/ha and Rs. 0.99/
rupee investment) (Table  2). This clearly suggested that use of
herbicides with good weed control will be cheaper as
compared to manual weeding, which is expensive as also
reported by Anon. (2011) in groundnut.
REFERENCES
Anonymous 2011. Annual Report, AICRP on Weed Control, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Bangalore. pp. 161-162.
Bhan, V. M. and Singh, V. P. 1993.  Integrated weed management-an
approach. Proc. Int. Symp. Indian Soc. Weed Sci., Hissar, Nov. 18-
20, 1: 289-297.
Chandolia, P. C., Dadheech, R. C., Solanki, N. S. and Mundra, L. S.
2010. Weed management in groundnut under varying crop geometry.
Indian J. Weed Sci. 42(3 & 4): 235-237.
Dubey, M. P., Tiwari, J. P. and Thrived, K. K. 1988. Hand weed
control in soybean. Pesticides. 22: 21-25.
Gnanamurthy, P. and Balasubamaniyan, P. 1998. Weed management
practices and their influence on weed growth and yield of groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea). Indian J. Agron. 43: 122-125.
Girichar, W. J. and Bosewell, T. E. 1989. Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon) control with post-emergent herbicides.
Jat, R. S., Meena, H. N., Singh, A.L., Jaya, N. S. and Misra, J. B. 2011.
Weed management in groundnut in India-a review. Agric. Reviews.
32(3): 155-171.
Jayaram, K. A. 2001. Functional growth model in relation to weed
management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis.
Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore. p.123.
Jayarama Reddy 1995. Integrated weed management using herbicides
and cultural practices under two plant densities. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis,
Agronomy Dept., Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, p. 174.
Kavani, H. D., Malavi, D. D., Raghavani, B. R., Patel, J. C. and
Bibhas, R. 1986. Integration of fluazifop with cultural practices into
the weed management of groundnut. Indian J. Weed Sci. 17(1): 39-
42.
Maurya, B. M., Gogulwar, N. M. and Tiwari, J. P. 1990. Herbicidal
weed control efficiency and nutrient removel by weeds in soybean.
Indian J. Weed Sci. 23(3&4): 51-56.
Murthy, B. G., Agasimani, C. A. and Babalad, H. B., 1992. Studies
on weed management in bunch groundnut. J. Oilseed Res. 9(2): 322-
325.
Nimje, P. M. 1992. Effect of weed control and nitrogen on weed
growth and yield of groundnut. Indian J. Agron. 37(3): 484-488.
Pushp Sharma and Virender Sardana 2012. Effect of growth regulating
substances on the chlorophyll, nitrate reductase, leghaemoglobin
content and yield in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), The bioscan,
7(1): 13-17, 2012.
Shishodia, S. K. Singh, J. N. and Govingra, S. 1988. Weed control
efficacy of femesafen and fluazifop-p-butyl in soybean. Indian J. Weed
Sci. 20(4): 79-80.
Subbaiah, H., Nanjappa, H. V. and Ramachandrappa, B. K. 1997.
Critical stages of crop weed competition under sole and inter cropping
systems in groundnut. Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 31: 219-119.
Vaid. S., Daizy, R., Batish Singh, H. P. and Kohli, R. K., 2010.
Phytotoxic effect of eugenol towards two weedy species. The Bioscan.
5(3): 339-341. 2010.
Vinthicks, T., Wchtje, G. R. and Wilcut, J. M. 1990. Weed control
in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L) with pyridate. Weed Technol. 4: 493-
496.
1138


EVALUATION OF DOSES OF NEW HERBICIDE FLUAZIFOP-P-BUTYL 13.4 EC FOR GRASSY WEEDS MANAGEMENT IN IRRIGATED GROUNDNUT

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=F726DB44F19FB98BAA7B189E6B0AA5DC?doi=10.1.1.1054.4913&rep=rep1&type=pdf

EVALUATION OF DOSES OF NEW HERBICIDE FLUAZIFOP-P-BUTYL 13.4 EC FOR GRASSY WEEDS MANAGEMENT IN IRRIGATED GROUNDNUT

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX