Effect of different Weed Management practices on growth and yield

of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
AGRICULTURE
(Agronomy)

By

RISHIKESH

(2234MAG22PG007)

Department of Agronomy
Faculty of Agriculture
RAM KRISHNA DHARMARTH FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY
BHOPAL (M.P.)
2024
Dedicated to
My

Father for his dreams ,

,hopes and endless

Prayers and

My respected Guide

Rishikesh ….
 CERTIFICATE– I

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effect of different Weed Management
practices on growth and yield of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) " submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in
Agronomyof the Ram Krishna Dharmarth Foundation University Bhopal is a record of
the bonafide research work carried out by Mr. Rishikesh , ID No.2234MAG22PG007
under my guidance and supervision.

No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma or has
been published. All the assistance and help received during the course of the
investigation has been acknowledged by the scholar.

Place: Bhopal

Date:

……………
(Dr. Suchi Gangwar)
(Major advisor)

MEMBER OF THE STUDENT’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Member (Mr. Peeyush Srivastava ) ………………………………

Member (Mr. Prashant Kourav) ………………………………
Member (Mr. Ajay Shrivastava) ………………………………
 CERTIFICATE– II

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effect of different Weed

Management practices on growth and yield of Potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) " submitted by Mr. Rishikesh, ID No. 2234MAG22PG007
to the Ram Krishna Dharmarth Foundation University Bhopal in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Agriculture (Agronomy) has been accepted after evaluation by the
External Examiner and approved by the Student’s Advisory Committee
after an oral examination on the same.

Place:Bhopal

Date:

…………………
(Dr.Suchi Gangwar)
(Major advisor)

MEMBER OF THE STUDENT’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Member (Mr. Peeyush Shrivastava ) ………………………………

Member (Mr. Prashant Kourav) ………………………………
Member (Mr. Ajay Shrivastava) ………………………………

Head of the Department ………………………………

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and outcome of this research project required a lot of guidance and
assistance from any people and I am extremely fortunate to have this all along the completion
of my research work. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and assistance and I
would not forget to thank them.

At this inexplicable moment, words are not in lexicon to express my emotion and
expression of gratitude, but with full honor and ecstasy of delight, I express my heartfelt thanks
to my Major Guide Dr. Suchi Gangwar, Head Of Department (Agronomy.), Faculty of
Agriculture, RKDF, University, Bhopal,M.P.

I feel extremely blessed and fortunate to have him as my guide. I hereby take this golden
opportunity to express my gratitude, indebtedness and sincere regards to him for his valuable
and inspiring guidance, critical suggestions and his support and encouragement throughout
the course of my study. I am also thankful to him for providing me with all the necessary
requirements needed in my research study. I would remain indebted forever.

I am very grateful to my Minor Guide Mr. Peeyush Shrivastav, Assistant Professor,

Faculty Of Agriculture, RKDF, University, Bhopal, M.P, Mr. Prashant Kourav, Assistant
Professor, FacultyOf Agriculture, RKDF, University, Bhopal, M.P., for his co-operation in all
respects throughout the study and to my committee member Mr. Ajay Shrivastav, Assistant
Professor, Faculty Of Agriculture ,RKDF, University, Bhopal, M.P who always keep positive
attitude and rendered help without fail all the time during my research work.

I extend my sincere thanks to Prof. V.K. Agrawal, Vice Chancellor, RKDF University,
Bhopal,Dr. B.N. Singh, DGM, RKDF University, Bhopal, Dr. N. K. Lariya, Registrar, RKDF
University, Bhopal, Dr. Sunil Patil, Examination Controller, RKDF University, Bhopal.

My thanks are due to the entire staff members and students, friends of my Department
for their help and encouragement throughout the course of the study.

My vocabulary fails to get words to express deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness
to, my Father Mr. Vinod Baitha, My mother Sunita Devi, My brother Mr. Manish kumar
Twinkle and for their everlasting love, constant encouragement, prayer support and sacrifice,
without which this dream could not have become reality..

Finally, yet importantly, I would like to express my gratitude to the God

Place: Bhopal

Date:…../…../…… ( Rishikesh )
 LIST OF CONTENTS

S.N. Topics Page No.

I Introduction 01-02

II Review of Literature 03-12

III Materials and Methods 13-24

IV Results 25-39

V Discussion 40-43

VI Summary 44-46

VII Bibliography 47-51

VIII Vita 52
TABLE TITLE PAGE
NO. NO.
3.1 Experimental site 13
3.2 Climate and weather condition 13
3.3 Soil 15
3.4 Cropping history of the experimental field 16
3.5 Experiment material 16
3.5.1 Experimental details 17
3.5.2 Treatment details 17
3.6 Culture operations 17
3.7 Details of input and opetations 18
3.7.1 Crop establishment and management 18
3.7.2 Application of Fertilizer 18
3.7.3 Sprouting 19

3.7.4 Planting 19
3.7.5 Gap filling 19
3.7.6 Haulm cutting and tuber digging 19
3.7.7 Grading 20
3.8 Weed management 20
3.9 Irrigation management 20

3.10 Biometric observation 20

3.10.1 Plant height 21
3.10.2 No of branch per plant 21
3.10.3 Dry weight of plant 21
3.10.4 Chlorophyll content (%) 21
3.11 Yield attributing characters 21

3.11.1 No of tuber per plant 22

3.11.2 Tuber length 22
3.11.3 Tuber Weight (g)/Plant 22
3.11.4 Diameter of Potato (mm) 22
3.11.5 Tuber yield (q/ha) 22
3.12 Economic Analysis 22
3.13 Labour requirements 23
3.13.1 Statical Analysis 24
4 Growth Parameters 25
4.1.1 Plant height 25
4.1.2 No of stem / plant of potato 28

4.1.3 Dry weight of plant (g) at 60 DAS and chlorophyll 29

Content (%) of potato influenced by under different
Treatments
4.1.4 No of tuber per plant 31
4.1.5 Effect of different weed control measures on Number 33
Of tubers (grade wise on the basis of weight and size)
at harvest
4.1.6 Yield influenced by under different treatments 35
4.1.7 Economic influenced by under different treatment 37
5.1 Growth and yield parameters 40
5.1.1 Plant height (cm) 40
5.1.2 No of stem /plant of potato 40
5.1.3 Chlorophyll content (%) and Dry weight of plant 41

5.1.4 No of tuber per plant 41

5.1.5 Effect of different weed control measure on Number 41
Of tubers (grade wise on the basis of weight and size
) at harvest
5.1.6 Tuber Yield (t/ha) 42
5.1.7 Stover yield (t/ha) 42
5.1.8 Harvest Index ( % ) 42

5.2 Economic analysis 42

5.2.1 Cost of cultivation ( Rs/ha) 42
5.2.2 Gross Monitory Returns (Rs/ha) 43
5.2.3 Net Monitory Return (Rs/ha) 43
5.2.4 B:C Ratio 43
6 Summary and Conclusion 44-46
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
NO. NO.
3.1 Monthly metrological data during experiment 13
3.3 Physico-chemical and biological properties of the 15
Experimental soil
3.4 Cropping history of the experimental field 16
3.5.1 Experimental details 17
3.5.2 Treatment details 17
3.6 Cultural operations 17
3.7.2 Application of fertilizers 18
3.13 Statical Analysis 24
4.1.1 Effect of plant height (cm)under different treatments 26
4.1.2 Effect of number of stem per plant influenced by 26-27
different treatment
4.1.3 Effect of different on chlorophyll content (%)and Dry 29-30
Weight of plant (g) at 60 DAS
4.1.4 Effect of different on number of tuber per plant 31-33
4.1.5 Effect of different weed control measures on number 34-35
Of tubers (grade wise on the basis of weight and size
at harvest
4.1.6 Tuber yield (t/ha) , Stove yield (t/ha) and harvest 36-37
index(%)
4.1.7 Economic influenced by under different treatments 38
PLATE TITLE PAGE
NO. NO.

3.1.1 LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENT I

3.1.2 GROWTH PARAMETERS II
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

Abbreviations Meaning

% Per cent
& And
/ Per
@ At the rate
√x + 0.5 Square root
0C Degree Celsius
0E Degree East
0N Degree North
a .i. Active ingredient
ACCase Acetyl-CoA carboxylase
b Regression
B: C Benefit cost ratio
BSS Bright Sun Shine
C.D. Critical difference
C.V. Coefficient of variance
CFU Colony Forming Unit
cm Centimeter
cv. Cultivar
d.f. Degree of freedom
DOA Directorate of Agriculture
DOAC Directorate of Agriculture and Cooperation
dS Deci Symonds
E.C. Electrical conductivity and Emulsifiable
Concentration
et al. et alia or co-worker
etc. et catera or so on
Evapo. Evaporation
fig. Figure
g Gram
ha. Hectare
HI Harvest Index
Hr Hour
K Potassium
K2O Potassium oxide
kg Kilogram
kmph Kilometer per hour
l Litre
m Meter
Max. Maximum
mg Milligram
Min. Minimum
mPa Mega Pascal
N Nitrogen
No. Number
NS Non significant
pH Potential of hydrogen ion
POE Post-emergence
q Quintal
r Correlation coefficient
R.H. Relative humidity
R2 Coefficient of determination
RBD Randomized block design
Rs. Rupees
S.Em. Standard error of mean
Std. Week Standard Week
t Tonne
T Treatment
viz. Videlicet or namely
 Chapter-01

Introduction
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is one of the most important vegetable cum food
crops of the world. It belongs to family Solanaceae and genus Solanum, and
native of the Andean plateau of South America. It has the capacity to produce
more energy and protein per unit area per unit time. Potato protein is superior
to that of cereals and rich in essential amino acid lysine and vitamin C. Hence, potato
is one of the richest sources of calories needed to maintain day to day output of human
energy.

Potato is cultivated in 2.13 m ha-1in India, with a production of 43.7 mt and

productivity of 20.5 MT ha-1 (Anon., 2016). Punjab is one of the largest potato
producing states in India. In fact, potato cultivation occupies nearly 50 per cent of the
total area of vegetable crops in Punjab. Potato is a short duration crop; therefore, it fits
in well for rotation with cereals, vegetables, pulses, or oilseed crops. At present,
potato is grown in about 15 countries of the world on a wide range of soils and agro
climatic conditions (Khuranka and Naik, 2003).

There are several constraints in potato production, of which weeds often pose a
serious problem. Potato though possesses robust growing and quick spreading habit;
it is a very poor competitor with weeds because of its extremely slow growth
in the initial emergence phase. Weeds not only compete with crop plants for
nutrients, soil moisture, space and sunlight but also serve as an alternative host
for several insect pest and diseases. The yield reduction due to weeds in potato
is estimated to be as high as 10 to 80 per cent (Lal and Gupta, 1984). So,
control of weeds in the initial stages appears imperative as it plays an important
role in maximizing the tuber production. Hand weeding and hoeing are common
practices followed in India. However, timely weed control may not be possible
manually due to non-availability of labours and high rate of wages during peak
period of farm operations. Hence, chemical weed control appears to hold a
great promise in dealing with effective, timely and economic weed suppression.

Presence of weeds throughout the growing period of the crop caused 62 per
cent reduction in tuber yield. However, the weeds prevalent in and around the

1
crop hamper potato cultivation thereby resulting in substantial reduction in yield (Singh
et al., 1984). Manual weeding is quite effective but costly, tedious, time consuming
and also causes root injury (Khurana et al. 1993).

Cultural weed control methods focus on management of the weeds within the crop
rotation, preventing the entry of new weeds into a field and employing crop
management decisions which may increase the competitive ability of the crop
with weeds.

Mechanical weed control is an effective tool for controlling annual weeds. If

proper care is not taken, tillage can have a negative effect on the efficiency
of harvesting operations, yield and quality. Earthing up is the only post planting
tillage operation necessary in the production of potatoes. The main objective of
earthing up is to provide sufficient soil for tuber set and development. A proper earthing
up will also prevents greening, minimize infection with late blight, minimize frost
damage and facilitate harvest (Singh et al., 1984).

Use of suitable herbicides alone or in combination with manual or mechanical weeding

for weed control reduce the cost towards weed control by 75-85 per cent
compared to manual weeding (Gopi nath and Mina, 2009).

Objectives.
1. To study the effect of different treatments on plant growth

2. Effect of different treatment on yield parameters

3. Assessment of Economics.

2
 Chapter-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Effect of weed management on growth of Potato

Graf and Ogg (1976) showed that, the higher plant dry weight was

observed in potato by application of metribuzin at 0.14 kg ha -1 (81 %) followed by

application of metribuzin at 0.28, 0.56 and 1.12 kg ha -1 was 55, 54 and 31 per cent,

respectively.

Chitsaz and Nelson (1983) showed that, higher tuber yield in potato

was recorded in application of EPTC as pre plant incorporation at 3.9 kg ha -1 as pre

plant incorporated (27.4 t ha-1) followed by application of Trifluralin as pre-

emergent application at 1.1 kg ha-1 (26.8 t ha-1) followed by application of EPTC

as pre-emergent application at 3.9 kg ha-1 as pre emergence incorporated (25.6

t ha-1) followed by cultivation alone (24.2 t ha-1).

Masiuna (1989) showed that, the higher plant height in tomato was

recorded in hand weeded condition (35cm) followed by application of fomesafen

at 0.28, acifluorfen at 0.56, acifluorfen at 0.28 and oxyfluorfen at 0.28 kg ha -1 was 33,

32, 31 and 30 cm, respectively.

John et al. (1996) showed that, higher plant height in potato was

recorded in untreated control plot (44 cm) as compared to the application of

metribuzin + rimsulfuron at 280 + 35 g ha-1 as pre-emergent (40 cm) followed

by application of metribuzin alone at 280 g ha-1 as pre-emergent (39 cm).

3
 Abdullahi et al. (2000) showed that, application of haloxyfop 0.16 kg ha -1

as a post emergent resulted in higher plant height (123.3 cm) and head diameter (11.7

cm) was achieved in sunflower.

Sitangshu and Majumdar (2013) reported that, among the different

herbicides the higher plant height (249 cm) in jute was achieved in application of

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl @ 0.075 kg ha-1 as post emergent at 21 DAP closely followed by

Quizalofop-p-ethyl @ 0.075 kg ha-1 as post emergent at 21 DAP (244 cm) as

compared to the un weeded check (199 cm).

2.2 Effect of different weed management practices on weed flora of Potato

Chitsaz and Nelson (1983) reported that, the higher per cent of green

foxtail weed population were observed in cultivation alone (14.5 no.m2) followed

by application of EPTC as pre-emergent application at 3.9 kg ha-1 as pre

emergence incorporated (12 no.m2) followed by application of Trifluralin as pre-

emergent application at 1.1 kg ha-1 (10 no.m2) followed by application of EPTC

pre plant incorporation at 3.9 kg ha-1 as pre plant incorporated (2.8 no. m2).

Nedunzhiyan(1996) field studies conducted at Bhubaneswar, Orissa,

India, and revealed that, sweet potato was found to be associated with 22 weed

species consisting mostly of Celosia argentea, Digitaria sanguinalis, Cleome viscosa

and Cyperus rotundus. Weeds were supported by acidic laterite soils which are

poor in organic matter, nitrogen and potassium.

Manorama et al.(2010) showed that, Coronopus didymus and

Polygonum nepalense were the two major weeds of potato crop in Nilgiris hills

and weed management strategy for these weeds has been suggested.

4
 Biswajit et al.(2012) showed that, the predominant weed flora in the

experimental field of potato was Cyperus rotundas, Chenopodium album, Anagallis

arvensis and Fumaria purviflora.

2.3 Effect of different weed management practices on nutrient uptake of Potato

Yield losses in potato occur in several ways, of which competition

between potato plants and weeds for nutrients is the major contributing factor.

Tripathi et al.(1988) quantified that, the nutrient losses caused by weeds

in potato which was 40.3 and 7.6 N and P2O5 kg ha-1, respectively. Further reasoned

out that, increased removal of nitrogen and phosphorus by weeds in un weeded

plots resulted in drastic reduction in potato yield owing to increased crop weed

competition and consequently poor availability of nutrients to the potato crop.

Hussein (2002) observed that, the reduction in marketable onion

bulb yield was by 63.3 per cent. The interaction of weeds with onion plants

until maturity resulted in the removal of N, P 2O5 and K2O at 36.86, 9.59 and

57.0 kg ha-1, respectively.

Biswajit et al.(2012) revealed that, the maximum N, P2O5 and K2O uptake

by potato (91.03, 31.54 and 132.45 kg ha-1, respectively) and the minimum uptake of

N, P2O5 and K2O by weeds (19.43, 10.44 and 91.33 kg ha-1, respectively) emerged in

the potato field were recorded under the treatment T3 (hand weeding at 20 DAP

along with mulching) which was closely followed by the treatment T9 (Pendimethalin

@ 1 kg a.i. ha-1 along with mulching).

Sitangshu and Majumdar (2013) reported that, lowest removal of N, P 2O5

and K2O by weeds in jute (10.75, 2.75 and 23.43 kg ha -1, respectively) by

application of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl @ 0.075 kg ha-1 as post emergent at 21 DAP

found on par with application of Quizalofop ethyl @ 0.075 kg ha -1as post

5
emergent at 21 DAP (10.90, 3.12 and 25.63 kg ha -1, respectively) as compared to

the un weeded check (16.56, 3.67 and 33.88 kg ha-1, respectively).

2.4 Weed control through hand weeding

Sahota (1986) studied that, hand weeding and earthing up gave

slightly lesser yield in potato than metribuzin at 1.5 kg ha-1 however, these were

statistically controlled either by hand weeding or earthing up or by herbicide

application.

Tripathi et al. (1988) reported that, one hand weeding followed by earthing

up in potato provided weed control only for a shorter period due to the

emergence of weeds at the subsequent stages. Nandekar et al., (1990) study

conducted indicated that, one hand weeding + one earthing up recorded the higher

tuber yield in potato of 261 q ha-1 followed by fluchloralin at 0.9 kg a.i. ha-1as pre

planting.

Jaiswal and Grewal (1991) reported that, one hand weeding + one earthing

up at 30 DAP could not provide desired degree of weed control in potato. Kamal

singh (1992) reported that, herbicidal treatments were statistically at par with

normal practice (one hand weeding + one earthing up) which gave the higher

tuber yield in potato of 54 per cent than un weeded check.

Jaiswal (1992) reported that, one hand weeding + one earthing up at par

weed dry weight with pendimethalin at 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 and significantly lower

yield in potato compared to metribuzin at 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1.

Jaiswal and Lal (1993) reported that, conventional method of one

hand weeding + one earthing up produced lower yield in potato 32 q ha -1 when

compared to metribuzin. Suryanarayana reddy (1993) reported that, hand weeding

twice at 20 and 30 DAP + earthing up at 35 DAP recorded significantly lower

6
weed population and weed dry weight than un weeded control and earthing up alone

in potato.

2.5 Chemical method of weed control

Channappagoudar et al. (2007) reported that, pre-emergence application

of metribuzin @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 resulted in on par tuber yield with weed free check

in potato.

Tomar et al.(2008) reported that, the yield of potato tuber was recorded

higher (202.5 q ha-1) under prometryne at 1.0 kg ha-1 treatment. Pendimethalin at 1.0

kg ha-1 (181.0 q ha-1), metribuzin at 0.5 kg ha-1 (179.1 q ha-1) and two hand weeding

(152.5 q ha-1) were next in order. The lowest tuber yield (90.19 q ha-1) was obtained

in un weeded control.

Yadav et al.(2015) revealed that, the maximum potato tuber yield (28.2 t ha -
1) were recorded in the weed free check followed by application of metribuzin

@ 1 kg a.i. ha-1 (26.9 t ha-1). However, the net returns (Rs.1,81,000ha-1) and B:C

ratio (2.05) were significantly higher with the application of metribuzin @ 1 kg a.i. ha -
1.

Among the various herbicides evaluated at patna, paraquat proved

to be the best for satisfactory weed control in potato and recorded higher tuber yield

in potato over other herbicides tried (Akhade et al.1975). Bhan and Tripathi (1981)

reported that, application paraquat @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 as early pre emergence in

potato plants recorded effective weed control.

Hooda (1987) obtained highest weed control efficiency and tuber

yield with application of paraquat @ 2.0 kg ha-1. Thakral et al. (1988) indicated that,

7
application of paraquat @ 0.5 kg ha -1 recorded highest weed control efficiency

and tuber yield (250.6 q ha-1) which was on par with metribuzin @ 1.0 kg ha-1.

Tiwari et al. (1988) indicated that, application of paraquat @ 0.5 kg

ha-1 recorded highest weed control efficiency (89 %) and tuber yield (250.6 q ha -1)

which was on par with metribuzin @ 1.0 kg ha -1. Lal (1990) reported that,

application paraquat @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 reduced the weed population and weed dry

weight thus increased the tuber yield (216 q ha-1).

Yumnam et al. (2009) found that, hand weeding 40 days after

transplanting along with application of Quizalfop-p-ethyl 5% EC at 2.5ml l-1 of

water at 20 DAT significantly reduced weed density (25.5 nom2) and dry weight

(55.3 g) of weeds in potato.

Stoyanova (2010) reported that, Quizalofop-p-ethyl showed excellent

herbicidal efficiency against the annual grass weeds (100 %) and broad leaved weeds

(93 %) in potato.

Sitangshu and Majumdar (2013) reported that, post emergence

application of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (T8) or quizalofop-p-ethyl (T9) controlled 61.2

and 57.9 per cent of grasses, respectively as compared to un weeded control in jute.

Patel (2014) reported that, among the herbicidal application the

highest weed control efficiency (WCE) at 25 DAS was 81 per cent in potato was by

Imazethapyr at 75 g ha-1fbintercultivation at 30 DAS which was closely followed by 65

per cent were controlled by Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha-1 as post emergent

application fb intercultivation at 30 DAS and the lowest weed control efficiency

(WCE) of 58 per cent by application of Pendimethalin 500 g ha-1 as pre-emergent fb

intercultivation + hand weeding at 30 DAP.

8
Effect of weed on yield parameters

Dua (2000) stated that all weed control methods recorded significantly higher

tuber yield over weedy check. Paraquat,alachlor and manual weeding + earthing

up treatments gave 61.3, 47.3 and 36.2%, respectively, higher yield over weedy check.

Mukhopadhyay et al.(2002)revealed that the weed control treatments found

significantly better than weedy check in increasing the tuber yield of potato.

The mean of two years data indicated that the tuber yield losses accounted to

39.0% in weedy check. Integration of hand weeding with earthing up recorded the

maximum tuber yield in both the years 1999-00 and 2000-01 (27.57 and 26.46 t/ha).

Among the weed control methods, hand weeding is conjunction with earthing up

treatment accrued the maximum weed control efficiency (79.3 and 65.8%)

followed by hand weeding twice (65.3 and 60%) and herbicidal treatments during the

respective years.

Nandekar(2005) suggested that the weedy condition resulted in 46% reduction

in the tuber yield. Unwedded control treatment recorded lowest tuber yield (121.9

q/ha). The weed free plot recorded significantly higher tuber yield (227.1 q/ha) over

chemical treatments. The hand weeding + earthing up at 30 days recorded 203.4q/ha

yield, 67% more than unweeded control. The hand weeding + earthing up at 30 DAP

was found effective where labourers are easily available.

Channappagoudar et al.(2007a) reported that the potato yield was significantly

higher in weed free check (201.3 q /ha) followed by metribuzin application @

0.75 kg a.i. /ha resulted in on par tuber yield with weed free check (190.2

q/ha). Among herbicides studied pre emergence application of metribuzin @ 0.75-

1.0 kg a.i./ha recorded lowest weed dry matter (9.09-14.08 g/m2).

9
Ciuberkis et al. (2007) suggested that the weed competition was most detrimental

to potato tuber yield in the periods from planting until 25days after flowering, or

for the entire growing season. Potato tuber yield decreased by 8.1, 8.4, and 6.4%,

respectively, during these competition intervals compared to the weed-free treatment.

The results indicated that the critical weed-free period, when weed competition was

detrimental to yield, started from planting until 25d after flowering if regular inter row

cultivation was applied.

Singh et al.(2007)found that the all weed control treatments significantly improved

total tuber yield as well as total number of tubers per unit area as compared to weedy

check. Linuron 1.0 kg/ha recorded maximum number of tubers per unit area and it was

closely followed by metribuzin 0.5 kg/ha. Maximum tuber yield was recorded in

linuron 1.0 kg/ha, which was followed by metribuzin 0.5 kg/ha.

Arora et al.(2009) reported that prometryne followed by pendimethalin (181.0 q/ha)

and metribuzin (179.1 q/ha) being statistically at par recorded significantly higher

yield of potato tubers. Significantly lowest tuber yield was obtained with weedy

check which was 55.5, 50.2, 49.7 and 40.9 per cent lower as compared to

prometryne, pendimethalin, metribuzin and two hand weedings, respectively.

Gitsopoulos et al. (2014) reported that the marketable tuber yield generally improved

with application of mixtures when compared with metribuzin or pendimethalin

applied alone.

Karimmojeni et al.(2014) investigation revealed that the total dry biomass and total

number of weeds increased as the duration of weed infestation increased. The

beginning of the critical period for weed control was 19 days after potato emergence

in both the years. The end of the critical period for weed control in 2011 was 22 days

10
after potato emergence, whereas in 2010 the beginning and end of the critical period

for weed control occurred simultaneously. Tuber yields of potato were reduced by

prolonged delay in weed removal in both the years. This study recommends that

weeds must be controlled during the first 3 weeks of the crop's growing season. Such

an approach would keep yield loss levels below 5%.

Yadav et al.(2015) conducted a field experiment during two consecutive summer

season of 2011 and 2012 at Central Potato Research Station, Shillong to

evaluate comparative efficacy of chemical and non-chemical methods of

weed management in rainfed potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivation at

Meghalaya. The mean data of two years revealed that the maximum potato tuber yield

(28.2 tonnes/ha) were recorded in the weed free followed by application of metribuzin

@ 1 kg a.i. / ha. Maximum reduction in crop yield due to presence of weed by 34.4%

and 37.2% during first year and second year, respectively was found under weedy

check plot followed by farmers' practices compared to weed free treatment. However,

the net return and B:C ratio were significantly higher with the application of metribuzin

@ 1 kg a.i. /ha.

2.6 Effect of different weed management practices on Economics

Tiwari and Singh(1993) reported that, application of isoproturon @ 0.75

kg ha-1 as pre emergence in potato recorded highest net returns (₹. 3406 ha -1) which

were closely followed by pendimethalin @ 0.7 kg ha -1 as pre emergence (₹.

2479 ha-1). Kamal singh and Lal (1994) reported that, application of metribuzin @

0.7 kg ha-1recorded highest B:C ratio (28.4), followed by fluchloralin @ 0.9 kg

ha-1(22.8) in potato.

Sharma et al. (2004) revealed that, the highest net income in potato (₹.

62,920 ha-1) was obtained in atrazine 1.25 kg ha-1 followed by isoproturon at 1.50 kg

11
ha-1 (₹. 62,865 ha-1) and metolachlor at 1.5 kg ha-1 (₹. 62,790 ha-1) treated plots,

but the net returns per rupee invested remained the same (₹. 2.54) in atrazine at 1.25

kg ha-1 and isoproturon at 1.5 kg ha-1 treated plots which was closely followed by

metolachlor at 1.5 kg ha-1, isoproturon at 1.25 kg ha-1, atrazine 1.0 kg ha-1 and alachlor

at 1.5 kg ha-1.

Sarkar (2006) reported that, post emergence application of

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl @ 75 g a.i. ha-1 or Quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g a.i. ha -1 at 21

days after sowing in jute (when the grass weeds are at four leaf stage)

effectively controlled the grass weeds giving higher fibre yield and net returns

per rupee invested (2.0 and 1.87, respectively).

Channappagoudar et al. (2007) that, pre-emergent application of

Pendimethalin at 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 supplemented with one hand weeding in potato gave

highest net returns of ₹. 51, 296 ha-1 with maximum B:C ratio of 8.77.

12
 CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present investigation entitled “Effect of different Weed Management

practices on growth and yield of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)”Was conducted

during Rabi season of 2023-2024. Techniques and materials used for study are briefly

described here as under.

3.1 Experimental site

Bhopal is situated in the central part of Madhya Pradesh state, and is just north of the

upper limit of the Vindhya mountain ranges. Geographically Bhopal situated at 23.10°

N latitude and 77 20° E longitude with an altitude of 500 m above the mean sea level.

Climate of this region is typically humid sub-tropical region characterized by fairly cool

and dry winter, hot and dry summer and warm and humid monsoon.

3.2 Climate and weather condition

The monsoon starts in late in June and ends in late September. Summer season

commences in the second fortnight of March and ends in the middle of June. The

winter peaks in January when temperatures may drop close to freezing on some

nights. April and May are the hottest months of summer. Total decennial annual rainfall

of this area is 1145 nm (average of Last 10years). December and January are the

coldest months of winter. Summer season commences in the second fortnight of

February and ends in the middle of June.

13
 The meteorological data (Table 1) indicated that the mean monthly maximum

temperature ranged from 23.7-43.20C and minimum temperature varied from 5.0-

21.40C during year. During 2023-24, the maximum temperature was higher than the

mean of 30 years by 1.9 and 3.00C in the month of December, February but lower by

1.60C in the month of January. The minimum temperature during 2023-24 was lower

in the month of December, January and February by 3.9, 1.7 and 2.2 0C, respectively.

Rains amounting to 49.4mm were received in the month of January and February

during 2023-24.

Table 1: Meteorological data during (2023-24)

Temperature (0 C) Relative humidity (%)

Rainfall (mm) Rainy days
Months Max. Min. Morn. Even.

2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24

Oct. 34.2 12.6 88.5 47.7 14.2 3

Nov. 30.8 11.8 86.0 28.9 0.0 0

Dec 27.8 6.3 88.4 30.2 0.0 0

Jan 23.2 5.3 91.9 50.7 21.8 4

Feb 29.5 9.0 87.8 38.5 6.6 2

14
 100
90
80
70
60
50 Oct.
40 Nov.
30
Dec
20
10 Jan
0 Feb
2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24
Max. Min. Morn. Even.
Temperature (0 C) Relative humidity (%) Rainfall Rainy days
(mm)

3.3 Soil

In order to find out mechanical composition and fertility status of the soil of

experimental site, samples were collected randomly from 0-30 cm soil layer just before

laying out the experiment. A composite soil sample was prepared and analysed

separately for different physico-chemical characteristics of the soil.

Table 2: Physico-chemical and biological properties of the experimental soil

Particulars Value Interpretation Method of analysis

A. Mechanical composition

1. Sand (%) 49.27 Sandy clay loam

International pipette
2. Silt (%) 24.22
method (Piper, 1950)
3. Clay (%) 26.23

B. Chemical composition

1. Organic carbon (%) 0.68 Low Walkely and Black rapid

titration method (Black,
1965)

15
 2. Available nitrogen (kg/ha) 265 Medium Alkaline permanganate
method (Subbiah and
Asija, 1956)

3. Available phosphorus (kg/ha) 7.99 Low Olsen’s method (Olsen et

al., 1954)

4. Available potassium (kg/ha) 295 Medium Flame photometer

method (Chapman and
Pratt, 1961)

5. Soil pH (1:2.5 suspension) 7.5 Neutral Glass electrodes pH

meter (Piper, 1967)

6. Electrical conductivity (ds/m2) 0.32 Normal Solubridge method

(Black, 1986)

3.4 Cropping history of the experimental field

The cropping sequence followed during preceding years on the experimental field is
given in the table 3

Years Kharif season Rabi season

2020-21 Maize Wheat

2021-22 Soybean Wheat

2022-23 Maize Mustard

2023-24 Maize Potato

16
3.5 Experimental material

3.5.1 Experimental details: The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block
Design with three replications. The details of the treatments were as under:

Location: RKDF University, Bhopal (M.P.)

Table:4 Experimental details

Design : RBD
No. of replication : 03
Crop : Potato
Variety : Kufri Badhsha
No. of treatment : 08
No. of Replication : 03
Total No. of Plots : 24
Gross plot size 2.80 m x 3.0 m

Net Plot size : 2.50 m x 2.70 m

Distance between plots : 50 cm
Distance between replications : 1m

3.5.2 Treatment details

Sr.No. Treatments
T1 Weedy Check
T2 Hand Weeding at 30DAS
T3 Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS
T4 Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE
T5 Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-emergence)
T6 Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE
T7 Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE
T8 Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE

17
3.6 Cultural operations

The schedule of the various cultural operation carried out during the course of
investigation are given in table

Table-5: Schedule of cultural operations

S Operations Date of Operation
No.
1. Field operation 24/10/2023
2. Layout 26/10/2023
3. Application of farmyard manure and poultry manure 26/10/2023
4. Fertilizer application and sowing 28/10/2023
5. First irrigation 30/10/2023
6. Gap Filling 20/11/2023
7. First weeding 26/11/2023
8. Earthing up 26/11/2023
9. Second irrigation 28/11/2023
10. Nitrogen application by broadcasting methods 05/12/2023
11. Third irrigation 15/12/2023
12. Second Weeding 22/12/2023
13. Earthing up 22/12/2023
14. Fourth irrigation 27/12/2023
15. Fifth irrigation 12/01/2024
16. Harvesting 02/02/2024

3.7 Details of input and operation

3.7.1 Crop establishment and management
The experimental field was prepared to a fine tilth by one deep ploughing followed by
two cross disc harrowing and one cultivator. The field was well pulverized with the help
of disc harrow and it was leveled with the help of “Pata‟ (Planker). The layout of
experimental plot was done as per specification mentioned in layout plan with the help
of measuring tap, rope, bamboo pegs and manual labour. Field was divided into 30
plots having irrigation channels and path.

18
3.7.2 Application of fertilizer
(i) NPK application: As per the treatments, nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium were applied through urea, single super phosphate and murate
of potash, respectively in the experiment. The recommended dose of NPK
was 180 : 60 : 60 kg ha-1. Half dose of nitrogen and full doses of phosphorus
and potassium were applied as basal dressing through urea, single supper
phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. The remaining half dose of
nitrogen was applied as top dressing at first earthing up.
(ii) FYM: As per the treatment FYM was applied @15 t ha-1 and spread
uniformly in the beds. For the bed size of 3.9m 2 × 3.7m2, its quantity was
calculated and applied after laying out the field before the planting of vines.
(iii) Vermicompost: The vermicompost was applied @ 5 t ha-1 as per treatments
and spread uniformly in the beds of 3.9m 2 × 3.7m2, its quantity was also
calculated and applied before planting of tubers but after laying out the field.

Nutrients FYM Vermicompost

Nitrogen 0.45 % 1.42 %
Phosphorus 0.25 % 0.88 %
Potassium 0.50% 1.30 %

3.7.3 Sprouting (Chitting)

Seed potato tubers were taken out from cold storage and kept in the potato shed for
15 days before planting to accelerate the sprouting. Thick curtains were fixed to each
and every window to avoid the direct entry of sunlight and maintain proper aeration.
Sprouting occurred after 7 days.

3.7.4 Planting
Seeds were planted @ 30 quintal /ha by manually with a uniform distance of 30 cm
between rows and 30cm distance between plant to plant..

19
3.7.5 Gap filling
To replace the unsuccess or dead tubers, gap filling was done in early period, to
maintain the plant population.

3.7.6 Haulm cutting and tuber digging

Haulm cutting of potato crop was done at 90 DAS and tuber digging was done after
10 days after haulm cutting by using spade, manually. Border row‟s plant was
harvested first and then tubers from net plot were dug. While digging, care was taken
for digging injury to tubers.

3.7.7 Grading
After harvesting the potato tubers were graded into three groups on the basis of tuber
weight and number viz.> 25 g, 50-75 g, and <75 g and weighed separately to record
yield.
3.8 Weed management

1. Species wise weed population at 30, 60 DAP and harvest

The counting of weeds was done randomly by quadrate of one square meter from
each plot. Three quadrates were thrown in each plot and then an average was worked
out. The first observation was recorded at 30 DAS and later on studies pertaining to
this character were maintained at 30, 60 DAS and harvest stage. These data were
subjected to statistical analysis.

2. Dry matter of broad and narrow leaf weeds at 30, 60 DAP and harvest

The broad and narrow leaf weeds of 1 m2 area from each plot were taken separately.
These were kept for 24 hours in oven at 600C for drying after sundry. Later on, the dry
matter recorded treatment wise.

3. Dry matter of total weeds at 30, 60 DAP and harvest

The weeds of 1 m2 area from each plot were taken. These were kept for 24 hours in
oven at 600C for drying after sundry. Later on, the dry matter was recorded treatment
wise.

20
3.9 Irrigation management

The first irrigation was given immediately after planting to ensure proper
establishment of sprout. Subsequent irrigation was given at about 15 -20 days interval
up to maturity by furrow method as when required to potato.

3.10 Biometric observations

3.10.1 Plant height (cm)

The height of the main stem from the ground level to the apical bud (leaf apex) was
measured with the meter scale at 30, 60 ,90 and harvesting stage.

3.10.2 Number of branch per plant

The numbers of primary branches per plant of the each tagged plant in all the
treatments were counted at 30 and 60 days after planting.

3.10.3 Dry weight of plant (g)

The dry weight of the plant was measured after dehydrating the plants first by sun
drying and then oven drying and then obtaining the weight through electronic weighing
balance.

3.10.4 Chlorophyll content (%)

The chlorophyll content of potato leaves at 40 days after planting was estimated
through the method advocated by Arnon (1949). The leaf sample of 100 mg was
ground in 10 ml of 80 per cent acetone, centrifuged for 10 minutes at 2000 rpm and
made final volume to 10 ml. The resultant absorbance of clear supernatant was
measured by spectronic 20 at 652 nm and presented in terms of mg/g fresh weight of
leaves.
A (652) X 29 X Total volume (ml)
Total chlorophyll (mg/g) = ------------------------------------------------
α X 1000 X Weight of sample (g)
Where,

21
A= Absorbance specific wave lengths
α is the path length = 1 cm

3.11 Yield attributing characters

3.11.1 Number of tuber per plant
The numbers of tuber per plant in all the treatments were counted at harvesting stage.

3.11.2 Tuber Length (cm)

The length of tubers was measured by scale and average was calculated.

3.11.3 Tuber weight (g)/Plant

. Weight of tubers was taken from the tagged plants after removing of soil from the tubers
and average weight of tuber plant-1 was calculated.

3.11.4 Diameter of Potato (mm)

The diameter of tubers was measured with the help of venire callipers.

3.11.5 Tuber yield (q/ha)

The tuber yield ha-1 in quintals was calculated on the basis of the total tuber yield per
plot.

3.12 Economic Analysis

The economics of the treatment is the most important consideration for making any
recommendation to the farmers for its wide adoption. For calculating economics, the
average treatment yield along with prevailing market rates of the produce and cost of
inputs were used B:C ratio was computed by dividing gross return with cost of
cultivation for each treatment. The details of economics for each treatment are given
in appendices at the end.

22
1. Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)

For different treatments total cost was calculated on the basis of prevailing market
rates of organic manure, field preparation, planting of tubers, labour charges, cultural
and intercultural operations etc.

2. Gross returns (Rs/ha)

For different treatments gross returns were calculated on the basis of prevailing market
rate of produce.

3. Net Returns (Rs/ha)

It was calculated treatment wise. The cost of cultivation per hectare was subtracted
from the gross income for computing net returns of each treatment.

Net return (Rs. /ha) = Gross return (Rs./ha) - Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha)

4. Benefit: Cost Ratio (B:C ratio)

It was calculated treatment wise. The gross income per hectare of each treatment was
divided by the cost of cultivation of respective treatments.

Benefit Cost Ratio = Gross return / Cost of cultivation

5. Harvest index (%)

The harvest index (HI) was calculated by using following formula.

HI (%) = tuber yield/Biological yield (t/ha) X 100

6. Weed control efficiency (%)

Weed control efficiency (%) was computed based on the following formula:

(𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡 − 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡)
𝑊. 𝐶. 𝐸 = × 100
(𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡)

7. Weed index (%)

It refers to the ratio of the percent reduction in the potato yield under a particular
treatment due to the presence of weeds as compared to the potato yield determined

23
in weed free plot (hand weeding plot. Weed index (%) was calculated using the
following formula:

(𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡 − 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡)

𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥(𝑊. 𝐼) = × 100
(𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑡)

3.13 Labour requirement

Requirement of labour for each hand weeding in one hectare area was calculated on
the basis of time taken (in minutes) to remove weed from crop plant, herbicides
application in treatment plot of 1.0 m2.

3.13 Statistical Analysis

All data related to crop as well as weeds collected were statistically analyzed by
using the analysis of variance technique (Fisher. and Yates 1938). Data computed
was subjected to Fisher‟s analysis of variance for judging the effect of various
treatments. The skeleton analysis of variance is presented in the table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Skeleton of ANOVA for the design of the experiment

S.No. Source of D.F. SS MSS FCal FTab

Variation
1. Replication 2
2. Treatment 9
3. Errors 18
Total 29

The „F‟test was applied for judging the significance of various treatment effects.
Comparison of mean corresponding to different significant effect was made by using
critical difference at 5% level of significance.

𝑆. 𝐸(𝑚)±= √Ve/r
C.D=S.E(m)±√2𝑥"t" value at 5% level

Where,
Ve = Error M.S.

24
r = Replications

Results are summarized in table and suitable graphical representations of the data
have also been made at appropriate places.

25
 Chapter-04

RESULT

The results of field experiment entitled “Effect of different Weed Management

practices on growth and yield of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)"The data
pertaining to effect of different treatments on crop were statistically analyzed and after
evaluating them for the test of significance, only significant effects are described at
length and have been presented in this chapter with the help of suitable tables and
graphs. The results related to growth, yield analysis are presented under following
heads:

4.0 Growth Parameters

4.1.1 Plant height (cm):

The highest plant height (cm) were recorded in treatment T7 (30.00 cm) followed by

T8 (29.23 cm) followed by T4 (29.17 cm). There is no difference between T1 and T2.

The plant height at 60 DAS Treatment T7 (53.33 cm) recorded highest plant height

followed by T8 (52.67 cm) followed by T4 (52.13 cm) .The lowest plant height

recorded in T1 (50.00 cm).Plant height at harvest stage also same as 30DAS and 60

DAS. There is no significant difference between T1 and T2.

26
 Table1: Effect of plant height (cm) under different treatments

Treatments Plant height (cm)

At 30 DAS At 60 At harvest
DAS stage
T1 - Weedy Check 26.33 50.00 49.67
T2 - Hand Weeding at 30DAS 26.67 50.67 50.50

T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS 27.67 51.00 50.67

T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE 29.17 52.13 52.00

T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-emergence) 28.33 51.67 51.33

T6 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE 29.00 52.00 51.67

T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 30.00 53.33 53.17

195 g/ha-1 as PE
T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + 29.23 52.67 52.50
Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE
SEM± 4.56 2.30 2.05
CD at (5%) NS 6.90 6.10

60
50
40
30
20 Plant height (cm) At 30
DAS
10
Plant height (cm) At 60
0
DAS
Plant height (cm) At
harvest stage

Fig.-Effect of plant height (cm) under different treatments

27
4.1.2 No of stem /plant of potato
The data pertaining to number of stem per plant at 30 and at harvest under

different treatments presented in Table 4.2. Application of Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE

+ Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7) resulted in significantly maximum number of stem

(5.00 and 6.83) followed by Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as

PE (4.53 and 5.67). The lowest number of branches per plant recorded in Control

plot (2.40 and 3.17). Treatments T3 and T5 are statistically at par with each others.

Table4.2: Effect of number of stem per plant influenced by different treatments

Treatments No of stem per plant

At 30 DAS At harvest

stage

T1 - Weedy Check 2.40 3.17

T2 - Hand Weeding at 30DAS 3.10 3.67

T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS 3.60 4.33

T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE 4.27 5.33

T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-emergence) 3.73 4.40

T6 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE 4.37 4.87

T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 5.00 6.83

195 g/ha-1 as PE
T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + 4.53 5.67
Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE
SEM± 5.29 1.06

CD at (5%) NS 3.22

28
 8
7
6
5
4
3
2 No of stem per plant At
1 30 DAS
0
No of stem per plant At
harvest stage

Fig.-Effect of number of stem per plant influenced by different treatments

4.1.3 Dry Weight of plant (g) at 60 DAS and chlorophyll content (%) of potato
influenced by under different treatments

Dry weight of Plant (g)

A critical examination of the data presented in table 3 indicated that all the

measures adopted in potato produced significantly higher plant dry weight in

treatment T7 (45.25g) followed by T8 (43.10g) followed by T4 (42.15g). Treatments

T2 and T5 statistically at par with each other. The lowest plant dry weights were

recorded in T1 (37.15g).

Chlorophyll content (%)

A perusal of data (Table 3) and pertinent analysis of variance

reveals that chlorophyll content recorded at 60 DAS significantly differ under the

influence of different treatments. The highest chlorophyll content were recorded in T7

(59.45 %) followed by T8 (54.36%) followed by T4 (54.00%). The lowest chlorophyll

content was recorded in T1 (49.58%). Treatments T3 and T5 statistically at par with

each other’s.

29
Table 3: Effect of different treatments on Chlorophyll content (%) and Dry weight of
plant (g) at 60 DAS

Treatments Chlorophyll Dry weight of

content (%) at plant (g)

60 DAS at 60 DAS

T1 - Weedy Check 49.58 37.15

T2 - Hand Weeding at 30DAS 50.36 39.85

T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS 52.14 40.00

T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE 54.00 42.15

T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-emergence) 52.47 40.32

T6 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE 53.56 41.23

T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + 59.45 45.25

Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE

T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + 54.36 43.10

Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE

SEM± 2.56 1.12

CD at (5%) 7.65 3.30

30
 70
60
50
40
30
20
Chlorophyll content (%) at
10 60 DAS
0
Dry weight of plant (g) at
60 DAS

Fig.-Effect of different treatments on Chlorophyll content (%) and Dry weight of

plant (g) at 60 DAS

4.1.4 Number of tuber per plant

The data pertaining of number of tuber per plant at 60 and at harvest stage influenced

by under different treatments presented in Table 4. Application of Clodinafop 60g ha-

1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7) resulted in significantly maximum number

of tuber (18.33 and 19.00) followed by Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop

60g ha-1 as PE (17.80 and 18.17) followed by Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE (T4)

(17.00 and 18.00). The lowest no of tuber per plant was recorded in Weedy Check

(T1) (15.00 and 15.67). Treatments T3, T5 and T6 at par with each others.

31
 Table 4: Effect of different treatments on number of tuber per plant

Treatments Number of tuber per plant

At 60 DAS At harvest

stage

T1 - Weedy Check 15.00 15.67

T2 - Hand Weeding at 30DAS 15.67 16.00

T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS 16.20 16.67

T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE 17.00 18.00

T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-emergence) 16.33 17.33

T6 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE 16.67 17.67

T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 18.33 19.00

195 g/ha-1 as PE

T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + 17.80 18.17

Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE

SEM± 4.80 4.89

CD at (5%) 14.28 14.54

32
 20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4 Number of tuber per
2 plant At 60 DAS
0
Number of tuber per
plant At harvest stage

Fig.-Effect of different treatments on number of tuber per plant

4.1.5 Effect of different weed control measures on Number of tubers (grade

wise on the basis of weight and size) at harvest

The maximum no of tubers grade wise ((<25, 50-75, >75 gm) were recorded in

treatment Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7) (363.67,

280.00 and 67.00gm) followed by Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g

ha-1 as PE (336.67, 262.97 and 66.20gm) followed by Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as

PE (308.33, 259.03, 64.17 gm).The lowest no of tubers grade wise (<25, 50-75, >75

gm) was recorded in Weedy Check (222.67,235.00 and 53.00 gm).There is no

significant difference between T2 and T3.

33
Table-Effect of different weed control measures on Number of tubers (grade
wise on the basis of weight and size) at harvest

Treatments Number of tubers (grade wise on

the basis of weight and size) at

harvest

< 25 (gm) 50-75(gm) >75 (gm)

T1 - Weedy Check 222.67 235.00 53.00

T2 - Hand Weeding at 30DAS 223.00 239.00 53.33

T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS 233.30 241.57 56.67

T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE 308.33 259.03 64.17

T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-emergence) 265.00 250.33 60.67

T6 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE 296.67 252.50 61.67

T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + 363.67 280.00 67.00

Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE

T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + 336.67 262.97 66.20

Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE

SEM± 3.10 13.48 3.10

CD at (5%) 9.10 41.40 9.20

34
 400
350
300 Number of tubers (grade
250 wise on the basis of
200 weight and size) at
150 harvest < 25 (gm)
100
Number of tubers (grade
50
wise on the basis of
0
weight and size) at
harvest 50-75(gm)
Number of tubers (grade
wise on the basis of
weight and size) at
harvest >75 (gm)

Fig.-Effect of different weed control measures on Number of tubers (grade wise

on the basis of weight and size) at harvest

4.1.6 Yield influenced by under different treatments

Tuber Yield (t/ha)

A critical examination of the data presented in table 6 indicated that all the

measures adopted in potato produced significantly higher yield in treatment T7 -

Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (23.33 t/ha) followed by T8 -

Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE (22.83 t/ha) followed by T4

- Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE (22.57 t/ha). Treatments T5 and T6 at par with each

other. The lowest yield were recorded in T1 (20.00t/ha).

35
Stover yield (t/ha)

The data pertaining to stover yield (t/ha) as influenced by different levels

of application of weedicides are given in Table 6. Application of T7 - Clodinafop 60g

ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (10.97 t/ha) recorded highest straw yield

followed by T8 (10.47 t/ha) followed by T4 (10.33 t/ha). Treatments T2 and T3 at

par with each other. The lowest stover yield was recorded in T1 (7.63t/ha).

Harvest Index (%)

The data pertaining to harvest index (%) as influenced by different levels

of application of weedicides are given in Table 4.6. Treatment T1 (72.39%) recorded

highest harvest index followed by T2 (71.28%). Treatments T3,T4,T5,T6,T7 and T8 at

par with each other’s.

Table 6.-Tuber yield (t/ha), Stover yield (t/ha) and harvest index (%).

Treatments Tuber Stover Harvest

yield yield (t/ha) Index (%)
(t/ha)
T1 - Weedy Check 14.00 7.63 72.39
T2 - Hand Weeding at 30DAS 17.67 8.33 71.28
T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS 19.00 8.63 70.87
T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE 22.57 10.33 68.60
T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-
22.10 9.00 71.06
emergence)
T6 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE 22.30 9.83 69.40
T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE +
23.33 10.97 68.02
Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE
T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE +
22.83 10.47 68.56
Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE
SEM± 2.31 1.32 4.22

36
 CD at (5%) 6.90 3.90 12.50

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Tuber yield (t/ha)
10
0 Stover yield (t/ha)
Harvest Index (%)

Fig.- 6.-Tuber yield (t/ha), Stover yield (t/ha) and harvest index (%).

4.1.7 Economics influenced by under different treatments

Economical parameters

Cost of Cultivation

Economics of the treatments are presented in Table 7. It was recorded that the
maximum cost of cultivation (44100 Rs/ha) was recorded under treatment T7
(Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE + P followed by T8 -
Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE (43900Rs/ha).

Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha)

37
Maximum Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha) were recorded in T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1
as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (11,5165 Rs/ha) followed by T8 - Pendimethalin
350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE (11,0415 Rs/ha) and minimum GMR
was recorded in Control plot (70000 Rs/ha).

Net Monitory Return (Rs/ha)

Maximum Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha) were recorded in T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1
as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (71065 Rs/ha) followed by T5 - Metribuzin (0.4
kg/ha Pre-emergence) (69750 Rs/ha) and minimum NMR was recorded in Control plot
(37,550 Rs/ha).

B:C Ratio

Maximum B:C ratio were recorded in T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS (2.81)
followed by T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre-emergence) (2.73) and minimum NMR was
recorded in Control plot (2.15).

38
 Table: 7 Economics influenced by under different treatments

Treatments Cost of Gross Net B:C ratio

Cultivation Monitory Monitory
(Rs/ha) Return Return
(Rs/ha) (Rs/ha)
T1 - Weedy Check 32450 70000 37550 2.15
T2 - Hand Weeding at 30DAS 33300 85335 52035 2.56
T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS 33800 95000 61200 2.81
T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE 41600 11,0285 68685 2.65
T5 - Metribuzin (0.4 kg/ha Pre- 40300 11,0050 2.73
69750
emergence)
T6 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE 42100 11,0150 68050 2.61
T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + 44100 11,5165 2.61
71065
Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE
T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + 43900 11,0415 2.51
66515
Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE

39
 Chapter-05

Discussion

In the course of presenting the results of the experiment entitled “Effect of different

Weed Management practices on growth and yield of Potato (Solanum

tuberosum L.)," significant variations in criteria used for treatments evaluation were

observed. The variations which were significant while those assuming uniform trends

have been discussed in this chapter to establish cause and effect relationship along

with the existing evidences and literature.

5.1 Growth and yield parameters

5.1.1 Plant height (cm)

The highest plant height (cm) were recorded in treatment T7 (30.00 cm) followed by

T8 (29.23 cm) followed by T4 (29.17 cm). The plant height at 60 DAS Treatment T7

(53.33 cm) recorded highest plant height followed by T8 (52.67 cm) followed by T4

(52.13 cm) .The lowest plant height recorded in T1 (50.00 cm). There is no significant

difference between T1 and T2.

5.1.2 No of stem /plant of potato

Application of Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7) resulted

in significantly maximum number of stem (5.00 and 6.83) followed by Pendimethalin

350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE (4.53 and 5.67). The lowest number

of branches per plant recorded in Control plot (2.40 and 3.17).

40
5.1.3 Chlorophyll content (%) and Dry weight of Plant (g)

The highest chlorophyll content were recorded in T7 (59.45 %) followed by T8

(54.36%) followed by T4 (54.00%). The lowest chlorophyll content was recorded in T1

(49.58%). Treatments T3 and T5 statistically at par with each other’s.

The measures adopted in potato produced significantly higher plant dry weight in

treatment T7 (45.25g) followed by T8 (43.10g) followed by T4 (42.15g). Treatments

T2 and T5 statistically at par with each other. The lowest plant dry weights were

recorded in T1 (37.15g).

5.1.4 Number of tuber per plant

Application of Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7) resulted

in significantly maximum number of tuber (18.33 and 19.00) followed by Pendimethalin

350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE (17.80 and 18.17) followed by

Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE (T4) (17.00 and 18.00). The lowest no of tuber per

plant was recorded in Weedy Check (T1) (15.00 and 15.67).

5.1.5 Effect of different weed control measures on Number of tubers (grade wise

on the basis of weight and size) at harvest

The maximum no of tubers grade wise ((<25, 50-75, >75 gm) were recorded in

treatment Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7) (363.67,

280.00 and 67.00gm). The lowest no of tubers grade wise (<25, 50-75, >75 gm) was

recorded in Weedy Check (222.67,235.00 and 53.00 gm).

41
5.1.6 Tuber Yield (t/ha)

The higher yield in treatment T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as

PE (23.33 t/ha) followed by T8 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as

PE (22.83 t/ha) followed by T4 - Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE (22.57 t/ha). The lowest

yield were recorded in T1 (20.00t/ha).

5.1.7 Stover yield (t/ha)

Application of T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (10.97 t/ha)

recorded highest straw yield followed by T8 (10.47 t/ha) followed by T4 (10.33 t/ha).

The lowest stover yield was recorded in T1 (7.63t/ha).

5.1.8 Harvest Index (%)

Treatment T1 (72.39%) recorded highest harvest index followed by T2 (71.28%).

Treatments T3,T4,T5,T6,T7 and T8 at par with each other’s.

5.2 Economic analysis:

5.2.1 Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha)

The maximum cost of cultivation (44100 Rs/ha) was recorded under treatment T7

(Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE + P followed by T8 -

Pendimethalin 350g ha-1 as PE + Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE (43900Rs/ha).

42
5.2.2 Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha)

Maximum Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha) were recorded in T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1

as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (11,5165 Rs/ha). The minimum GMR was

recorded in Control plot (70000 Rs/ha).

5.2.3 Net Monitory Return (Rs/ha)

Maximum Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha) were recorded in T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1
as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (71065 Rs/ha). The minimum NMR was recorded
in Control plot (37,550 Rs/ha).

5.2.4 B:C Ratio

Maximum B:C ratio were recorded in T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60 DAS (2.81).

The minimum NMR was recorded in Control plot (2.15).

43
 Chpater-VI

SUMMAY AND COUNCLUSION

A field experiment entitled “Effect of different Weed Management

practices on growth and yield of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)," was conducted

at RKDF University Bhopal, to find out the different weed management practices and

to study its impact on growth and yield of Potato.

The salient features of the results are summarized in this chapter.

• The highest plant height (cm) were recorded in treatment T7 (30.00 cm)

followed by T8 (29.23 cm) followed by T4 (29.17 cm).

• The plant height at 60 DAS Treatment T7 (53.33 cm) recorded highest plant

height.

• The lowest plant height recorded in T1 (50.00 cm).

• Application of Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7)

resulted in significantly maximum number of stem (5.00 and 6.83).

• The lowest number of branches per plant recorded in Control plot (2.40 and

3.17).

• The higher plant dry weight in treatment T7 (45.25g).

• The lowest plant dry weights were recorded in T1 (37.15g).

• The highest chlorophyll content were recorded in T7 (59.45 %) followed by T8

(54.36%) followed by T4 (54.00%).

• The lowest chlorophyll content was recorded in T1 (49.58%).

• Application of Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7)

resulted in significantly maximum number of tuber (18.33 and 19.00).

44
• The lowest no of tuber per plant was recorded in Weedy Check (T1) (15.00 and

15.67).

• The maximum no of tubers grade wise ((<25, 50-75, >75 gm) were recorded

in treatment Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (T7)

(363.67, 280.00 and 67.00gm).

• The lowest no of tubers grade wise (<25, 50-75, >75 gm) was recorded in

Weedy Check (222.67,235.00 and 53.00 gm).

• The higher yield in treatment T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-

1 as PE (23.33 t/ha).

• The lowest yield were recorded in T1 (20.00t/ha).

• Application of T7 - Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (10.97

t/ha) recorded highest straw yield.

• The lowest stover yield was recorded in T1 (7.63t/ha).

• The Treatment T1 (72.39%) recorded highest harvest index.

• The maximum cost of cultivation (44100 Rs/ha) was recorded under treatment

T7.

• The Maximum Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha) were recorded in T7 - Clodinafop

60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (11,5165 Rs/ha).

• The Maximum Gross Monitory Return (Rs/ha) were recorded in T7 - Clodinafop

60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE (71065 Rs/ha).

• The Maximum B:C ratio were recorded in T3 - Hand Weeding at 30 DAS 60

DAS (2.81).

45
CONCLUSION

Based on one year experimentation, it may be concluded that application of T7 -

Clodinafop 60g ha-1 as PE + Metribuzin 195 g/ha-1 as PE was found the most

effective treatment with regard of grain yield (q/ha), net returns (Rs/ha) and B:C ratio.

However, these results are only indicative and require further

experimentation for confirmation before making final recommendation

to the farmers.

46
 Chapter-07

Bibliography

Abdullahi, a. E., modisa, o., molosiwa, o. And mosarwe, l., 2000, Cynodon

dactylon control in sunflower (Helianthus annuus)with post emergence

graminicides in a semi-arid environment. Crop Protection., 20: 411-414.

Akhade, m. N., singh, b. N., bhattacharjee, a. K., kori, s. And awasthi, r. P., 1975,

Direct and residual effect of herbicides in crop rotation. Annual Scientific Report,

CPRI, Shimla, 62-65.

Anonymous(2016) Government of India. Agricultural situation in India

http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/ publications 2016.html.

Biswajit, p., sruti k., koushik, b. And rupayan, d., 2012, An integration of

weed management practices in potato under new alluvial soil. The J. Plant

Protection Sci., 4(2): 32-36.

Bhan, v. M. And tripathi, s. S., 1981, Effect of different herbicides on the control

of weeds and yield of potato. Indian J. weed Sci., 13: 142-145.

Channappagoudar, b. B., biradar, n. R., bharmagoudar, t. D. And koti, r. V.,

2007, Crop weed competition and chemical control of weeds in potato. Karnataka

J. Agri. Sci., 20(4): 715-718.

Chitsaz, M., & Nelson, D. C. (1983). Comparison of various weed control programs for

potatoes. American Potato Journal, 60, 271-280.

Graf, G. T., & Ogg, A. G. (1976). Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin.

Weed Science, 24(1), 137-139.

Gopinath, K. A. And Mina, B. L.(2009) Use of herbicides in integrated weed

management in field crops of Uttarakhand hills. Ind. Far., 59: 14-17.

Hooda, r. S., 1987, Studies on chemical control of weeds in potato. Indian J.

Agron., 32: 111-112.

Hussein, h. F., 2002, Estimation of critical period of crop weed competition and

nutrient removal by weeds in onion. Egyptian J. Agron., 24: 43-62.

Jaiswal, v. P., 1992, Crop weed competition in potato corp. Indian Potato Assoc., 18

(3-4): 131.

Jaiswal, v. P. And grewal, j. S., 1991, The efficiency of promising herbicides in

controlling weed flora in potato under north western plains. J. Indian potato Assoc., 18

(3-4): 147-150.

Jaiswal, v. P. And lal, s. S., 1993, Effect of herbicides on weeds and tuber

yield of potato. Proc. Int. symp. Indian Soc. Weed sci., Hissar, 3: 18-20.

John, a. A., henry, p. W. And thomas, e. H., 1996, Weed management programs

in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron. Weed Tech., 10: 354-358.

Khuranaka, S. M. And Naik, P(2003) The potato: An over view, production and

utilization in sub tropics, pp: 1-14.

Khurana, S. C., Thakral, K. K. And Bhatia, K. K.(1993) Effect of pendimethalin

and isoproturon on weeds and tuber yield of potato. Indian Potato Assoc.20: 255-

257.
Lal, S.S. And Gupta, A.(1984) Efficacy of different herbicides for controlling weeds

in potato. Abstracts of Paper of Annual Conference of Indian Soc. Weed Sci., BHV,

Varanasi. pp.36.

Manorama, k. A. Balasubramanian. And ravichandran, g., 2010, Weed flora of potato

(Solanum tuberosum) and their management in the nilgiris. Indian J. Weed Sci.,

42 (2): 63-66.

Masiunas, J. B. (1989). Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) tolerance to diphenyl ether

herbicides applied postemergence. Weed Technology, 3(4), 602-607.

NEDUNZHIYAN, M., 1996, Ecological studies on weed flora associated with sweet

potato. Orissa J.Hort., 24(2): 69-73.

PATEL, B. D., 2014, All India co-ordinated research programme on weed control in

certain crops of intensive irrigated area of Gujarat. AICRP on Weed Sci. pp: 22-

35.

SAHOTA, T. S.,1986, Cultural vs chemical control of weeds in potato at shilling. J.

Indian Potato Assoc., 13(3&4): 87-88.

SARKAR, S., 2006, Weed management in jute (Corchoru olitorius L.) by post

emergence herbicides. J.Tropical Agric. 44(1-2): 71-73.

SHARMA, J.J., SHARMA, G.D. AND SONIA, S., 2004, Weed management in

potato thunder dry temperate agro- ecosystem (HP). Potato J., 31(2): 55-58.
SITANGSHU, S. AND MAJUMDAR, B., 2013, Herbicidal effect on weed growth,

crop yield and soil microbes in olitorius jute (Corchorus olitorius L). J. Tropical.

Agric., 51(1-2): 23-29.

Singh, B. N.(1984) Efficacy of herbicides for weed control and nitrogen fertilization in

potato. Indian J. Weed. Sci., 16(1): 29-35.

Singh, G.,Bhan,V. M.,Tripathi, S. S. And Singh, D.(1984) Comparative efficacy of

herbicides in potato. Indian J. Weed. Sci., 16: 1-5.

STOYANOVA, S. P., 2010, Application of modern herbicides for weed control

in spring rape (Brassica napus). Banat's J. Biotech., 1(2): 9-12.

THAKRAL, K. K., PANDITA, M. L., KHURANA, S. C. AND KALLOO, G., 1988, Efficacy

of cultural and chemical weed control methods in potato, J. Indian Potato

Assoc.,15(3&4): 148-152.

TIWARI, A. N., RATHI, K. S., SINGH, R. A., PANDAY, P. S. AND SINGH, S. K., 1988,

Studies on weed control in potato. Indian J. Agron., 33(2): 121-124.

TIWARI, A. N. AND SINGH, R.D., 1993, Weed management in potato intercropped

with wheat. Indian J. Agron., 33(2): 626-627.

TRIPATHI, B., SINGH, C. M. AND KAPUR, B. L., 1988, Studies on the

comparative efficacy of herbicides in potato under midhill conditions. Indian J.

Weed Sci., 20(4): 16-20.

TOMAR, S.S., RAJPUT, R.L. AND KUSHWAHA, H.S., 2008, Effect of weed

management practices in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Indian J. Weed Sci., 40(4):

187-190.
YADAV, S. K., LAL, S. S., SRIVASTAVA, A. K., BAG, T. K. AND SINGH, B. P., 2015,

Efficacy of chemical and non-chemical methods of weed management in rainfed

potato (Solanum tuberosum). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 85(3): 382-386.

YUMNAM, A., MANDAL, A.R., THAPA, U.,MAITY, T.K. AND BHATTACHARYA,

S.P., 2009, Studies on weed management in onion (Allium cepa L.). J. Crop &

Weed, 5(1): 325-326.

 VITAE

Name of student = Rishikesh

Identification number. = 2234MAG22PG007

Name of college. = RKDF University Bhopal

Date of birth. = 01 / 08 / 2001

Residential address = Vill +Post – Daudchhapra PS – Minapur

Dis – Muzaffarpur State – Bihar - 842004

Contact number = 9525641977

E Mail ID. = [email protected]

Academic qualification: -

Name of
school Qualification Year. % \CGPA
clg /
University

Kid z public 10th 2016 9.8

school

Vanijya Inter 12th 2018 63

college

R.K.D.F B.sc Agriculture. 2022 7.56

University

R.K.D.F M.sc Agriculture 2024 8

University