Economic analysis of different weed management practices in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
Abstract
Present study was “Economic Analysis of different weed management practices in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)’’ Experiment was conducted IGKV-Raipur during 2023-24 and 2024-25 that application of Effective management involves integrating manual weeding with pre-emergence and post-emergence, The highest seed yield was recorded under the hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS treatment ((T12), yielding 1,830.67 kg ha-1, 1,864.00 kg ha-1, and 1,847.33 kg ha-1 during 2023-24, 2024-25, and in the mean data, respectively. This performance was statistically at par with the sequential application of Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Topramezone (PoE) ((T8), which recorded a mean seed yield of 1,765.00 kg ha-1. Among the purely chemical treatments, (T8) proved to be the most effective, followed closely by Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Quizalofop-p-ethyl (PoE) ((T9) and Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Propaquizafop (PoE) (T7) Conversely, the lowest seed yield was recorded in the weedy check (T13), with a mean yield of only 987.25 kg ha-1. Estimate cost of cultivation was recorded maximum in treatment T12-hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (Rs. 34654, 35727 and 35190 ha-1) followed by T9- oxyfluorfen150 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl 100 g ha-1 (PoE) (Rs. 31267, 32340 and 31803 ha-1). Gross return was considerably affected because of various weed management practices. Treatment T12- hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS had maximum gross return (Rs. 100222, 103926 and 102074 ha-1) followed by T8- oxyfluorfen150 g ha-1 (PE) fb topramezone 20.6 g ha-1 (PoE), (Rs. 96645, 98531 and 97588 ha-1). Net return had comparable differences among various weed management practices. The highest net return was recorded under treatment T8- oxyfluorfen 150 g ha-1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha-1 (PoE), (Rs. 66778, 68532 and 67655 ha-1) followed by T12- hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (Rs. 65568, 67591 and 66580 ha-1), T9- oxyfluorfen150 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha-1 (PoE), (Rs. 62382, 66040 and 64211 ha-1). The maximum benefit cost ratio was noticed under treatment T8- oxyfluorfen 150 g ha-1 (PE) fb topramezone 20.6 g ha-1 (PoE), (3.24,3.18 and 3.21) followed by T6-metribuzin 350 g ha-1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha-1 (PoE), (3.12, 3.08 and 3.10) However, minimum Cost of cultivation, gross return, net returns and benefit: cost ratio was obtained under Treatment T13- weedy check.
Full Text
Tables and figures are in the full-text PDF.
Introduction
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) also known as Chana, is an important pulse crop in India. It is a high-protein food that can be eaten as a seed or ground into flour. It is an extremely nutritious legume that comes in third place behind dry beans and peas in terms of importance. Desi and kabuli chana are two varieties of chana that are grown all over the world. The desi type accounts for 80% of global chana output, while the kabuli type accounts for the remaining 20%. India is the world's largest producer of chana, accounting for roughly 70% of global production (FAOSTAT-2022 [4] . Desi chana is primarily grown in India and consists of brown split peas that are small in size and have a thick seed coat, while kabuli (dixit et al. & Singh, (2010) [2] . which allows weed infestation. Weed management is crucial because the crop competes poorly for resources, particularly in the initial 30-60 days. Effective management involves integrating manual weeding with pre-emergence (metribuzin 350 g ha -1 , oxyfluorfen 250 g ha -1 and topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (1000 g ha -1 (Kaur at al.,2020) and post emergence herbicides (propaquizzfop 100 g ha -1 ), quizalofop-pethyl100 g ha -1 ) to control weeds.
Methodology Economics
Economics of treatments has been worked out in terms of net income (Rs. ha -1 ) under various treatments based on prevailing market rates of herbicides, fertilizers, wages of labour and market price of produce.
Cost of cultivation of each treatment was calculated considering the prevailing charges of agricultural operations and market price of inputs involved.
Gross return (Rs. ha -1 ) Gross return was obtained by converting the harvest into monetary terms at the prevailing market rate during the course of studies for each and every treatment. Gross return (Rs. ha -1 ) = (Seed yield x price) + (Stover yield x price)
Net return (Rs. ha -1 ) Net returns were obtained by deducting cost of cultivation from gross return. Net return (Rs. ha -1 ) = Gross return (Rs. ha -1 ) -Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha -1 )
Benefit: cost ratio
The benefit: cost ratio of each treatment was calculated by dividing gross returns by cost of cultivation of respective treatments. Benefit: cost ratio = Gross return (Rs. ha -1 )/ Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha -1 )
Statistical analysis
The data found on several parameters of chickpea were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. The original data on weed density and weeds dry matter production were transformed in √x + 0.5 before the analysis. The original values are given in parenthesis. The influence of treatment was tested with 'F' test, wherever 'F' test shown their significance, the levels of treatment were compared by critical difference at 5% level of probability. The skeleton of analysis of variance and formula used for several valuations are given below (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) [5] .
Results and Discussion
Seed Yield
The weed management practices significantly influenced the seed yield of the crop during both years (2023-24 and 2024-25) and in the pooled data analysis. The highest seed yield was recorded under the hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS treatment ((T 12 ), yielding 1,830.67 ha -1 , 1,864.00 kg ha -1 , and 1,847.33 ha -1 during 2023-24, 2024-25, and in the mean data, respectively. This performance was statistically at par with the sequential application of Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Topramezone (PoE) ((T 8 ), which recorded a mean seed yield of 1,765.00 ha -1 . Among the purely chemical treatments, (T 8 ) proved to be the most effective, followed closely by Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Quizalofop-p-ethyl (PoE) ((T 9 ) and Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Propaquizafop (PoE) (T 7 ) Conversely, the lowest seed yield was recorded in the weedy check (T 13 ), with a mean yield of only 987.25 kg ha -1 . Unchecked weed growth led to a severe reduction in seed yield-approximately 46.5% lower than the hand weeding treatment-due to intense crop-weed competition for moisture, space, nutrients, and sunlight. The notable yield increase in treatments like (T 12 ) and (T 8 ) can be attributed to the minimized weed density and dry weight during critical crop growth stages. Pre-emergence application knocked down early flushes of weeds, while the sequential post-emergence application or hand weeding eliminated later narrow and broadleaved escapes. This weed-free environment allowed the crop to optimize its vegetative growth and transfer photosynthesates effectively into reproductive organs, bolstering final seed yield.
Stover Yield
Stover yield followed a nearly identical trend to seed yield across both experimental years. The maximum mean stover yield was harvested from the hand weeding twice treatment (T 12 ) at 2,540.87 kg ha -1 , which remained statistically at par with Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Topramezone (PoE) (T 8 ) at 2,499.00 kg ha - 1 . All herbicide integration treatments, including sequential chemical applications (T 5 ) to (T 9 ) and pre-emergence applications backed by hand hoeing (T 10 ) and (T 11 ), recorded significantly higher stover yields compared to sole pre-emergence or postemergence treatments (T 1 ) to (T 4 ). The lowest stover yield was observed under the weedy check (T 13 ) at 1,850.67 ha -1 . The enhanced stover yield in effective weed management treatments highlights the importance of keeping the crop weedfree during early vegetative stages. Reduced weed competition facilitated better root development, higher nutrient uptake, and improved leaf area index, culminating in superior dry matter accumulation and plant biomass (stover).
The physiological efficiency of the crop, reflected by the harvest index (HI), was significantly altered by the various weed control strategies. The highest mean harvest index was noted in the treatment featuring Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Propaquizafop (PoE) (T 7 ) at 42.06%, which was at par with hand weeding twice (T 12 ) at 42.11%, Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Quizalofop-p-ethyl (PoE) (T 9 ) at 41.93%, and Oxyfluorefen (PE) fb Topramezone (PoE) (T 8 ) at 41.41%. Most herbicide treatments successfully maintained a harvest index hovering between 40% and 42%. In sharp contrast, the weedy check (T 13 ) recorded the lowest mean harvest index of 34.76%. This drop indicates that weeds not only restricted overall crop biomass but specifically impaired the crop's source-to-sink partition efficiency. The high critical weed pressure forced the crop to struggle for basic resources, severely limiting grain filling and reducing the ratio of seed weight to total biological yield. Stover yield ha -1 Harvest index (%)
Economics
The data regarding economics i.e., cost of cultivation, gross return, net returns and B:C ratio of chickpea as influenced by different weed management practices were worked out and have been presented in Table1.
The cost of cultivation was recorded maximum in treatment T 12hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (Rs. 34654, 35727 and 35190 ha -1 ) followed by T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha -1 (PoE) (Rs. 31267,32340 and 31803 ha -1 ), T 11 -oxyfluorfen 250 g ha -1 (PE) fb 1 hand hoeing at 25 DAS (Rs.31253, 32326 and 31789 ha -1 ) T 7 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 31243, 32316 and 31779 ha -1 ), T 10 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE) fb 1 hand hoeing at 25 DAS (Rs.30564,31637 and 31100 ha -1 ), T 5 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 30554,31627 and 31090 ha - 1 ), T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1
(PoE), (Rs. 29867,30940 and 30403 ha -1 ), T 3 -topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs.29102, 30175 and 29638 ha -1 ), T 4 -propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 27726, 28799 and 28262 ha -1 ), T 2oxyfluorfen 250 g ha -1 (PE), (Rs.27015, 28088 and 27551 ha -1 ), T 6 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE), (Rs.26326, 27399 and 26862 ha - 1 ) and lowest cost of cultivation was recorded under treatment T 13weedy check (Rs. 24874, 25947 and 25410 ha -1 ) during 2023-24, 2024-25 and on mean basis, respectively.
Discussion on economics
In present study, maximum gross return was obtained with treatment T 12 -hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS, while regarding net return and B: C ratio, T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE) and T 6 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE) was proved to be best, where as the minimum were recorded with T 13 -weedy check. The higher gross return under hand weeding twice was because of higher seed and stover yield. The higher gross return, net return and B: C ratio under above herbicidal treatments was due to the fact that higher seed and stover yields associated with lower cost of cultivation. Al though higher cost of herbicides increased the cost of cultivation, if a herbicide found appropriate and effective for control of weeds, then increased yield due to less crop-weed competition meet the gap caused by costly herbicides. Similar results were obtained by Dewangan et al. (2016) [1] who reported that economics in terms of net return was recorded highest under oxyfluorfen+ metribuzinat 125 + 350 g ha -1 as PE, followed by hand weeding twice at 25and 45 DAS and metribuzinat 250 g ha - 1 as PE. The highest benefit: cost ratio (2.05) recorded under the treatment of oxyfluorfen + metribuzin at 125 + 350 g ha -1 as PE, followed by metribuzin at 250 g ha -1 as PE and hand weeding twice at 25 and 45 DAS, respectively. However, minimum gross return, net returns and benefit: cost ratio was obtained under control plot. According to Pedde et al. (2013) [7] , PoE application of oxyfluorfen 200 g + quizalofop-ethyl60 g ha -1 at 35 DAS gave negative returns because of high cost of cultivation. These above results are in the conform with the work of Meena et al. (2011) [6] , Ratnam et al. (2011) [8] and Dubey et al. (2018) [3] .
Gross return was considerably affected because of various weed management practices. Treatment T 12 -hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS had maximum gross return (Rs. 100222, 103926 and 102074 ha -1 ) followed by T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE) (Rs. 96645, 98531 and 97588 ha - 1 ), T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha - 1 (PoE) (Rs. 93649, 98380 and 96015 ha -1 ), T 7 -oxyfluorfen150 gha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE) (Rs. 92864, 98272 and 95568 ha -1 ) during 2023-24, 2024-25 and on mean basis, respectively. When compared among herbicides, highest gross return was recorded under T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE) followed by T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha -1 (PoE) T 7 -oxyfluorfen150 gha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE) during both the years and on mean basis. The lowest gross return was obtained under treatment T 13 -weedy check (Rs. 53265, 56835 and 55050 ha -1 ) during both the years and on mean basis, respectively (Fig. 2). Net return (Rs.ha -1 ) Net return had comparable differences among various weed management practices. The highest net return was recorded under treatment T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 66778, 68532 and 67655 ha -1 ) followed by T 12hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (Rs. 65568, 67591 and 66580 ha -1 ), T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 62382, 66040 and 64211 ha -1 ), T 7 -oxyfluorfen150 gha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 61621,65956 and 63788 ha -1 ) and T 6 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 61871,62732 and 62302 ha -1 ) where as weedy check was found inferior regarding net return (Rs.28391, 30888 and 29640 ha -1 ) during 2023-24, 2024-25 and on mean basis, respectively (Fig. 3). Benefit: cost ratio It is obvious from data that Benefit: cost ratio had substantial variations due to different treatments. The maximum benefit cost ratio was noticed under treatment T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE), (3.24,3.18 and 3.21) followed by T 6 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1
(PoE), (3.12, 3.08 and 3.10), T 1 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE), (3.13, 3.06 and 3.10), T 2 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) (3.08,3.01and 3.04) and T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (3.00, 3.04 and2.84) and the lowest B:C ratio was found under treatment T 13 -weedy check (2.15, 2.21 and 2.18) during 2023-24,2024-25 and on mean basis, respectively (Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Treatment T 12 -hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS had maximum gross return (Rs. 100222, 103926 and 102074 ha -1 ) followed by T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE) and T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha -1 (PoE) and T 7 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb Propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE) during 2023-24, 2024-25 and on mean basis, respectively. When compared among herbicides, highest gross return was recorded under T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha - 1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE) followed by T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha -1 (PoE) during both the years and on mean basis. Highest net return was recorded under treatment T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 66778, 68532 and 67655 ha -1 ) followed by T 9 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb quizalofop-p-ethyl100 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 62382, 66040 and 64211 ha -1 ) and T 7 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (Rs. 61621, 65956 and 63788 ha - 1 ), T 6 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (61871,62732,62302) and T 12 -hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (Rs. 65568, 67591 and 66580 ha -1 ), whereas treatment T 13 -weedy check control was found inferior regarding net return (Rs. 28391, 30888 and 29640 ha -1 ) during 2023-24, 2024-25 and on mean basis, respectively. The maximum benefit cost ratio was noticed under T 8 -oxyfluorfen150 g ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone20.6 g ha -1 (PoE), (3.24, 3.18 and 3.21) followed by T 6 -metribuzin 350 g ha -1 (PE) fb propaquizafop 100 g ha -1 (PoE), (3.12, 3.08 and 3.10) and lowest B:C ratio was found under weedy check (2.15, 2.21 and 2.18) during both the years and on mean basis, respectively.
References
- Dewangan M, Singh AP, Chowdhury T, Diproshan, Kumar B. Management of complex weed flora in chickpea. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2016;48(1):79-82.
- Dixit GP, Srivastava AK, Singh NP. Status of chickpea research and development in India. Kanpur: ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research; 2019.
- Dubey SK, Kumar A, Singh D, Partap T, Chaurasiya A. Effect of different weed control measures on performance of chickpea under irrigated condition. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(5):3103-3111.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT: Crop and livestock production-Chickpea production statistics. Rome: FAO; 2022.
- Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2 nd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1984. p. 680.
- Meena DS, Ram B, Jadon C, Tetarwal JP. Efficacy of imazethapyr on weed management in soybean. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2011;43(3-4):169-171.
- Pedde KC, Gore AK, Chavan AS. Integrated weed management in chickpea. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2013;45(4):299.
- Ratnam M, Rao AS, Reddy TY. Integrated weed management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2011;43(1-2):70-72.
- Singh G, Singh I. Chemical weed control in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2010;42(34):184-188.
How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.