Research article · 2024 · Full text
International Journal of Research in AgronomyEvaluation of non-chemical weed control methods in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Volume 7(3) · Pages 231–234 · DOI: 10.33545/2618060x.2024.v7.i3d.425 ↗
Research areasWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Abstract
Author-writtenA field experiment was conducted to evaluate the non-chemical weed control methods in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Field experiment was designed in randomized block design with three replications. The observations were recorded count and dry matter accumulation of grassy weeds and broad leaf weeds in wheat, weed control efficiency, weed index and grain yield of wheat. Highest weed control efficiency was recorded in weed free (100%), stale seedbed technique and wheat straw mulch (76.23%) and stale seedbed technique and two hoeings (77.73%) and two hand hoeing (74.50%). Weed index recorded in weedy check (54.27%) and weed free (0%). Lowest narrow and broad leaf weed dry matter was recorded in weed free. Maximum grain yield was recorded under weed free (47.9 q ha-1) which remain at par with stale seedbed technique and straw mulching (46.8 q ha-1), stale seedbed technique and two hoeings (47.2 q ha--1), and two hand hoeing (46.5 q ha-1).
Summary
Source-checkedPlain-language reading of the full paper, prepared with AI and checked against the text. Each point links to the authors' own words.
Why it matters
- Weed management is critical for wheat cultivation because weeds can significantly reduce both the quality and the total output of the crop. View evidence ↗
- There is a growing interest in non-chemical weed control methods due to increasing concerns regarding the impact of chemical herbicides on human health and the environment. View evidence ↗
The question
- The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various non-chemical weed control methods in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). View evidence ↗
What they did
- The researchers used a randomized block design with three replications for the field experiment. View evidence ↗
- The study measured the count and dry matter accumulation of broad leaf and grassy weeds, as well as the weed index, weed control efficiency, and final grain yield of the wheat. View evidence ↗
What they found
- The highest weed control efficiency was achieved in the weed-free treatment (100%), followed by stale seedbed technique with two hoeings (77.73%), stale seedbed technique with wheat straw mulch (76.23%), and two hand hoeings (74.50%). View evidence ↗
- The weed index was highest in the weedy check at 54.27% and lowest in the weed-free treatment at 0%. View evidence ↗
- The maximum grain yield was 47.9 q ha-1 in the weed-free treatment, which was statistically comparable to yields from stale seedbed technique with two hoeings (47.2 q ha-1), stale seedbed technique with straw mulching (46.8 q ha-1), and two hand hoeings (46.5 q ha-1). View evidence ↗
- Across all growth stages, the weedy check treatment consistently had the highest count of weeds. View evidence ↗
- The dry weight of broad leaf weeds was highest in the weedy check treatment at every measurement interval (30, 60, 90 days after sowing, and at harvest). View evidence ↗
What it means
- The authors concluded that stale seedbed technique with two hoeings, stale seedbed technique with straw mulching, and hand hoeings are effective non-chemical methods that produce yields comparable to a weed-free plot. View evidence ↗
- Live mulching with coriander was found to provide the maximum net return and a significantly higher grain yield than the control plot. View evidence ↗
Visual summary
2 visualsIllustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.
Weed control efficiency (%): Weedy check vs Weed free vs Stale seedbed technique... vs Stale seedbed technique... vs Two hand hoeing
Replotted from Table 3 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.
View source evidence ↗
Weed index (%): Weedy check vs Weed free
Replotted from Table 3 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.
View source evidence ↗Figures & tables
From the original paper
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3Introduction
Since weeds can drastically lower crop output and quality, weed management is an essential part of growing wheat. Weeds are nasty and get in the way of human activities. Yield losses mainly dependent on weed species. Maximum yield loss in wheat caused by Phalaris minor (Hadayat et al. 2024) [4] . The potential of wheat to adapt to changing environmental conditions and the use of efficient agronomic techniques are essential for its development. Non-chemical weed management methods are becoming more popular as worries about the effects of chemical herbicides on the environment and human health grow. Crop rotation, intercropping, and tillage techniques are examples of cultural activities that can reduce the growth of weeds by changing the competitive landscape (Verma et al. 2021) [10] . Herbicide-free targeted weed management is possible with mechanical techniques like manual weeding, hoeing, and mechanical cultivating. Furthermore, the use of biological control techniques such as allelopathy, microbiological agents, and bioherbicides has encouraging promise for the sustainable management of weeds. The combination of several non-chemical methods adapted to particular agroecological circumstances can improve weed control effectiveness while reducing negative environmental effects. Comprehending the interplay and balance between various weed control approaches is essential in creating integrated weed management programmes that support long-term wheat production.
Materials and Methods
The field experiment was conducted at Student's Research Farm, Khalsa College, Amritsar (latitude 31.63 degree N and longitude 74.87 degree E, at an average elevation of 229 meters above the mean sea level) during rabi season 2019-20, on sandy loam soil, low in organic carbon (0.48) and available nitrogen (N 179 kg ha -1 ), available phosphorus (P 24 kg ha -1 ) was medium and potassium (K 360 kg ha -1 ) very high. The values of pH (8.4) and electrical conductivity (0.21 EC dS m -1 ) were within the normal range. There were ten treatments of weed control (Weedy check, Weed free, Furrow Irrigated Raised Beds System, Live mulching of Coriander (12.5 Kg ha -1 ), Eucalyptus leaves mulching (6.0 t ha -1 ), Stale seedbed technique, Stale seedbed technique and wheat straw mulching (4.0 t ha -1 ), Stale seedbed technique and two hoeings (wheel hand hoe), Hand hoeings, System of wheat intensification were laid out in randomized block design, replicated thrice. Square root transformation (√x+0.5) was used in weed data. Original data presented in the parenthesis.
Weed control efficiency
Weed control efficiency
WCE = X 100
Where, WCE: Weed control efficiency; DMC: Dry matter of weeds from controlled (no weed control); DMT: Dry matter of weeds from treated plots. It was calculated by using formula given by Kondap and Upadhayay (1985) [5] .
Weed index (percent) WI = X 100 (Where, WI: Weed index; YWF: Yield from weed free plot; YPT: Yield from particular treatment. It was calculated by using the formula given by Gill and Kumar (1969) [3] .
Harvest index (percent)
Harvest index was defined by Donald (1962) [2] as the ratio between weight of grains and the weight of total dry matter.
Harvest index (percent) = x 100 In treatment live mulching of coriander also acted as an intercrop and economically beneficial. It provided cover to the weeds and suppressed their growth and allowed the crop to grow and furnish well. Treatment eucalyptus leaves mulching also provided allelopathic effect to the weeds. Weed free treatment was very effective throughout the crop period which suppressed weed growth and helped to attain the maximum height, more leaf area index, higher effective tillers count, more dry matter accumulation and maximum yield. These results were also quoted by Amare et al. (2014) [1] which concluded that less weed-crop competition for light, nutrients, space and moisture in hoeing treatment produced higher yield and effective weed control than weedy check treatment.
Results and Discussion
Results and Discussion
The data embodied in Table 1 revealed that population of broad leaf weeds differed significantly at 30, 60, 90, and at harvest stage. Broad leaf weeds decreased with the increase in duration of wheat crop and being minimum at the harvest. At 30 days after sowing, weed count was highest in weedy check treatment and where hoeing, hand weeding, stale bed technique, mulching, and other weed control treatment applied received lower weed count. At 60, 90, and 120 days after sowing treatment weed free with exclusive weed removal attained significantly low broad leaf weeds than weedy check, furrow irrigated raised beds, live mulching of coriander, eucalyptus leaves mulching, stale seedbed technique and system of wheat intensification. The furrow irrigated raised beds suppressed the growth of broad leaves by limiting the soil moisture. In live mulching of coriander increased the productivity and profitability and reduced the crop-weed competition by reducing space and other available resources (Tripathi et al. 2017) [8] . Stale bed technique was successful weed management practice where herbicides became resistant to weed species (Senthilkumar et al. 2019) [6] . 2 showed that throughout the crop period, grassy weeds dry matter accumulation was higher under weedy check and the lowest under weed free. Treatments weed free, stale seedbed technique and two hoeings, stale seedbed technique and straw mulching and two hand hoeings were very effective in weed management. The maximum dry matter accumulation of grassy weeds was recorded at harvest. The dry matter accumulation of grassy weeds was recorded under all the treatments significantly lower than weedy check (58.47 q ha -1 ). Treatment furrow irrigated raised beds and system of wheat intensification as well as live mulching of coriander and stale seedbed technique were nonsignificant to each other. Treatment eucalyptus leaves mulching also control the weeds but did not yield any remarkable effect on the grain yield. Senthilkumar et al. (2019) [6] reported that stale seedbed technique was an effective approach to control weeds.
| Treatment | Grassy weeds count (no. m-2) | — | — | — | Broad leaf weeds count (no. m-2) | — | — | — |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 DAS | 60 DAS | 90 DAS | At harvest | 30 DAS | 60 DAS | 90 DAS | At Harvest | |
| Weedy check | 15.0 (224.1) | 18.99 (360.06) | 17.02 (289.1) | 13.87 (191.5) | 9.24 (84.6) | 9.62 (91.71) | 9.07 (81.55) | 8.69 (74.6) |
| Weed free | 1(0) | 1(0) | 1(0) | 1(0) | 1(0) | 1(0) | 1(0) | 1(0) |
| Furrow irrigated raised beds (FIRBs) | 8.35 (69.1) | 8.88 (78.2) | 8.60 (73.4) | 8.23 (67.1) | 4.61 (20.43) | 4.92 (23.65) | 4.58 (20.71) | 4.33 (17.85) |
| Live mulching of coriander | 9.76 (94.5) | 10.10 (101.23) | 9.82 (95.73) | 9.37 (87.17) | 5.57 (30.2) | 6.26 (38.60) | 6.11 (36.65) | 5.83 (33.1) |
| Eucalyptus leaves mulching | 10.72 (114.3) | 11.62 (134.2) | 11.31 (127.23) | 10.56 (110.8) | 6.33 (39.26) | 6.99 (48.18) | 6.91 (47.15) | 6.68 (43.81) |
| Stale seedbed technique | 9.48 (89.2) | 10.04 (100.1) | 9.65 (92.3) | 9.22 (84.2) | 5.49 (29.25) | 5.93 (34.53) | 5.91 (34.2) | 5.75 (32.21) |
| Stale seedbed technique and wheat straw mulching | 6.62 (43.2) | 7.36 (53.4) | 7.11 (50.1) | 6.86 (46.5) | 3.79 (13.55) | 4.24 (17.47) | 4.19 (16.7) | 3.19 (9.57) |
| Stale seedbed technique and two hoeings (wheel hand hoe) | 6.41 (40.5) | 7.30 (52.6) | 6.99 (48.2) | 6.69 (44.1) | 3.67 (12.65) | 4.23 (17.1) | 3.95 (15.05) | 3.10 (8.9) |
| Two hand hoeing | 6.93 (47.4) | 7.47 (55.2) | 7.35 (53.5) | 6.99 (48.3) | 3.87 (14.25) | 4.43 (19.1) | 4.22 (17.3) | 3.34 (10.6) |
| System of wheat intensification (SWI) | 8.49 (71.3) | 9.01 (80.5) | 8.65 (74.1) | 8.38 (69.6) | 4.75 (21.8) | 5.06 (25.37) | 4.81 (22.65) | 4.46 (19.05) |
| CD (0.05) | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.40 | 0.76 | 0.57 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.84 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
Dry matter accumulation of weeds indicates the magnitude of crop-weed competition and reflects the comparative efficacy of different weed control treatments. Dry matter accumulation by broad leaf weeds increased progressively with the advancement of crop age. The data in the Table 2 showed that the maximum dry matter was recorded at harvest. The weeds dry weight at all stages of observation were significantly influenced by various weed control measures. At 30, 60, 90 days after sowing and at harvest, dry weight was highest in weedy check treatment than other treatments. Treatments weed free throughout the crop period received lowest weed count due to three weedings at different stages of the crop and complete eradication of weeds.
| Treatment | Grassy weeds dry matter accumulation (g m-2) | — | — | — | Broad leaf weeds dry matter accumulation (g m-2) | — | — | — |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 DAS | 60 DAS | 90 DAS | At harvest | 30 DAS | 60 DAS | 90 DAS | At Harvest | |
| Weedy check | 6.29 (38.5) | 11.11 (122.4) | 16.94 (286.0) | 24.20 (584.7) | 8.06 (64.0) | 11.09 (122.0) | 13.60 (184.0) | 16.82 (282.0) |
| Weed free | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) |
| Furrow irrigated raised beds (FIRBs) | 3.58 (11.8) | 5.67 (31.0) | 27.62 (762.0) | 15.49 (239.0) | 4.12 (16.0) | 6.93 (47.0) | 9.27 (85.0) | 10.82 (116.0) |
| Live mulching of coriander | 4.47 (19.0) | 7.36 (53.1) | 10.58 (111.0) | 18.89 (356.0) | 5.66 (31.0) | 8.90 (78.0) | 10.95 (119.0) | 13.27 (175.0) |
| Eucalyptus leaves mulching | 5.50 (29.4) | 8.66 (74.0) | 12.58 (157.2) | 20.90 (436.0) | 6.56 (42.0) | 9.95 (98.0) | 12.25 (149.0) | 14.99 (224.0) |
| Stale seedbed technique | 4.39 (18.3) | 7.33 (52.7) | 10.22 (103.5) | 17.83 (317.0) | 5.39 (28.0) | 8.60 (73.0) | 10.72 (114.0) | 12.99 (168.0) |
| Stale seedbed technique and wheat straw mulching | 2.57 (5.6) | 3.99 (14.2) | 7.38 (53.4) | 11.62 (134.0) | 2.82 (7.0) | 5.48 (29.0) | 7.14 (50) | 8.54 (72.0) |
| Stale seedbed technique and two hoeings (wheel hand hoe) | 2.49 (5.2) | 3.75 (13.1) | 7.30 (52.3) | 11.35 (128.0) | 2.45 (5.0) | 4.67 (20.8) | 6.48 (41.0) | 8.12 (65.0) |
| Two hand hoeing | 2.62 (5.9) | 3.94 (14.5) | 7.40 (53.8) | 11.74 (137.0) | 2.99 (8.0) | 5.74 (32.0) | 8 (63.0) | 9.22 (84.0) |
| System of wheat intensification (SWI) | 3.62 (12.1) | 5.69 (31.3) | 8.90 (78.3) | 15.72 (246.0) | 4.47 (19.0) | 7.28 (52.0) | 9.49 (89.0) | 11.18 (124.0) |
| CD (0.05) | 0.24 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.12 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
In furrow irrigated raised beds the weed count was also low due to adequate soil moisture. Treatments live mulching of coriander and eucalyptus leaves mulching were non-significant to each other. In stale bed technique was very effective in controlling weeds. Treatments stale bed technique and straw mulching provided smothering effect to the weeds throughout the crop growth period. In stale seedbed technique and two hoeings with wheel hand hoe before and after first irrigation very effective in weed control. Treatment two hand hoeings application of weeding at 4 and 6 weeks after sowing effect the weeds population. Treatment system of wheat intensification with spacing (15 cm) reduced the dry matter accumulation of weeds and done interculture for controlling weeds. These results were in close agreements with the findings of Amare et al. (2014) [1] .
Weed control efficiency (percent)
The data in the Table 3 presented the highest weed control efficiency under treatment weed free, stale seedbed technique and straw mulching, stale seedbed technique and two howings, and two hand hoeings followed by furrow irrigated raised beds, system of wheat intensification, stale seedbed technique, live mulching of coriander, and eucalyptus leaves mulching. The highest weed control efficiency (100 percent) recorded under weed free treatment with hoeing. Tyagi et al. (2015) [9] also concluded the same results of higher weed control efficiency higher under weed free treatment.
| Treatment | Weed control efficiency (%) | Weed index (%) | Grain yield (q ha-1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weedy check | 0 | 54.27 | 21.9 |
| Weed free | 100 | 0 | 47.9 |
| Furrow irrigated raised beds (FIRBs) | 59.04 | 15.44 | 40.5 |
| Live mulching of coriander | 39.42 | 29.23 | 33.9 |
| Eucalyptus leaves mulching | 23.84 | 41.96 | 27.8 |
| Stale seedbed technique | 44.04 | 28.79 | 34.1 |
| Stale seedbed technique and wheat straw mulching | 76.23 | 2.29 | 46.8 |
| Stale seedbed technique and two hoeings (wheel hand hoe) | 77.73 | 1.46 | 47.2 |
| Two hand hoeing | 74.50 | 2.92 | 46.5 |
| System of wheat intensification (SWI) | 57.30 | 16.48 | 40.0 |
| CD | 5.34 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
Weed index (percent)
The data in the [7] reported that highest weed index recorded in weedy check and lowest among hand weeding.
Conclusion
From the experiment, it was concluded that the treatment 'stale bed technique, pre-germinated seeds and two hoeings (T8)', 'stale bed technique, pre-germinated seed with straw mulching (T7)' and 'hand hoeings (T9)' due to effective weed control produced higher yield as produced by 'weed free plot (T2)'. Furrow irrigated raised beds (T3) and system of wheat intensification (T10) were medium in weed control and they produced significant higher grain yield than other treatments but were inferior to the T2, T7, T8 and T9. Quality parameters did not significantly differed. Live mulching with coriander (T4) produced maximum net return and significantly high wheat grain yield than control plot. Weed control efficiency of the weed free treatment was 100 percent but the weedy check has 0 percent weed control efficiency due to unrestricted weed growth. Highest yield losses received under weedy check due to higher weed index (54.27) followed by T5, T4, T6, T10, T3, T9, T7, T8 and T2.
References
9 in the original paper- Amare T, Sharma JJ, Zewdie K. Effect of weed control methods on weeds and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield. World journal of agricultural research. 2014;2(3):124-8.
- Donald CM. In search of yield. Journal of the Austalian Institute of Agricultural Sciences. 1962;28:171-178.
- Gill GS, Vijaya Kumar K. Weed Index-A new method of reporting weed control trials. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 1969;14:96-98.
- Hadayat A, Zahir ZA, Cai P, Gao CH. Integrated application of synthetic community reduces consumption of herbicide in field Phalaris minor control. Soil Ecology Letters. 2024;6(2):230207.
- Senthilkumar D, Murali AP, Chinnusamy C, Bharathi C, Yalabela L. Stale seed bed techniques as successful weed management practice. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2015;SP2:120-123.
- Singh MK, Singh S, Prasad SK. Weed suppression and crop yield in wheat after mustard seed meal aqueous extract application with reduced rate of isoproturon. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 2021;6:100235.
- Tripathi SC, Chander S, Meena RP. FIRB intercropping of vegetables and seed spices with wheat for higher productivity and profitibilty of small and marginal farmers. Journal of Wheat Research. 2017;9(2):128-131.
- Tyagi S, Nanher AH, Singh RS. Effect of weed control treatments on wheat crop and associated weeds. Trends in Biosciences. 2015;8(2):421-428.
- Verma SK, Bhatnagar GS, Shukla AK, Singh RK, Meena RK. Integrated weed management in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): A review. Current research in agriculture and farming. 2021;2(2):1-4.
Cited by 1
From OpenAlex, OpenCitations and reference lists read by Scinovex
- Response of wheat to non-chemical weed control approaches
Sharandeep Kaur, Gurbax Singh Chhina · International Journal of Research in Agronomy · 2025
The present study was conducted during rabi season of 2019-20 and investigated the response of wheat to non-chemical weed control approaches. Also, it estimated the correlation between growth and yield attributes of wheat and weed dry matter. A randomized block design with three replications was used and included seven treatments of weed control: weedy check, weed-free, Furrow Irrigated Raised Beds System (FIRBs) (67.5 cm), eucalyptus leaves mulching (6.0 t ha-1), stale seedbed technique, stale seedbed technique followed by rice straw mulching (4.0 t ha-1) and stale seedbed technique followed