CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experiment was conducted during kharif season (June to November) 2011, to find out the suitable weed management practices for scented rice cultivation. The experimental findings have been thoroughly discussed and interpreted in this chapter through proper reasoning and reviews along with appropriate headings, tables and figures. 4.1 Weather conditions The weather data recorded during the experimental period are presented in Appendix-I and depicted through Fig 3.1. The crop received 1193.7 mm rainfall during entire growth period. The maximum temperature during crop period varied from 33.4 C in the first week of July to 28.3 C in the first week of September, while minimum temperature ranged between 15.2 C in the fifth week of October to 25.8C in the fifth week of July. Relative humidity throughout the crop season varied between 27 to 96 per cent. The average maximum relative humidity for different weeks varied from 88 to 94.25 percent, while, weekly average minimum relative humidity varied between 29 to 78.75 percent. The open pan evaporation mean values ranged from 3.42 to 4.34 mm day1, whereas, average sunshine hours varied from 2 to 8.05 hours day-1. The average wind velocity for different weeks varied from 0.85 to 11.00 km hr1.Thus all weather ingredients were favourable during crop growth period. No severe incidence of diseases and insects were observed during the crop growth period. Thus, whatever variations observed in the various characters studies

within the investigation are attributed to different treatments exercised in this experiment.

4.2 Pre-harvest observations on crop

4.2.1 Plant population (m-2) Plant population of rice recorded during initial and harvest stages as affected by weed control treatments have been presented in Table 4.1. Results showed that significantly lowest plant population (viz. 25.00 and 24.33 at 20 DAT and harvest, respectively) was observed in treatment T2 where space transplanting (20 cm x 20 cm) was done. Treatment T8 resulted in significantly higher plant population (66.33 and 65.65 plants m-2 at 20 DAT and harvest respectively) mainly due to planting of rice in closer row spacing (15 cm x 10 cm). On the other hand weed control treatments did not caused much variations in plant population both at 20 DAT and at harvest stages. Table 4.1 Plant population of rice (m-2) as influenced by various weed management treatments Treatments T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD 5 % Plant population (m-2) 20 DAT Harvest 49.67 48.00 25.00 24.33 49.00 48.33 50.00 49.00 49.00 48.67 50.00 49.00 50.00 48.67 66.33 0.35 1.06 65.65 0.30 0.89

4.2.2 Plant height (cm) Plant height is one of the important growth parameters of any crop plant as it determines or modifies the yield contributing characters and finally shapes the grain yield. The analyzed data presented in Table 4.2 revealed that, on an average, plant height increased with the advancement of crop duration and its value ranged from 43.19 to 129.86 cm depending on crop stage and weed control method used. The increment in plant height was most intensive between 20 and 40 DAT. Compared to weedy check treatments. Plant height was significantly influenced by all weed control methods between 40 DAT till harvest stage of crop growth. At 20 DAT, none of the weed management methods influenced the plant height of rice significantly. At 40 DAT, mechanical weeding through ambika paddy weeder had produced significantly taller plants (96.28 cm), while the unweeded check plots produced significantly shorter plants 83.81 cm. The same pattern was observed at 80 DAT and at harvest stages. With regards to manual weeding, rice plant attains maximum plant height with two weeding, being significantly higher over that recorded in other treatments except with mechanical weeding. The increment in plant height resulting from ambika paddy weeder (T6) over weedy check treatment was 15% at harvest. Use of mechanical weeder brought significant growth in plant height owing due to the reason that mechanical weed control results in better soil aeration and greater root and shoot development. Incorporation of weed with mechanical weeder increased the root activity which stimulated the new cell division in roots by pruning of some upper roots encouraged deeper root growth thereby increased the shoot:root ratio (Uphoff, 2001). Vijayakumar et al.,(2006) also point out that mechanical

weeding could enhance plant height by better soil aeration and incorporation of weeds as a green manure increased the organic carbon content of the soil. Table 4.2: Plant height (cm) of rice at different growth stages as influenced by various weed management treatments Treatments T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%) 4.2.3 Number of tillers (m-2) Tillering plays a vital role in determining rice grain yield since it is closely related to number of panicle per unit ground area. Too few tillers result in too few panicles, but excess tillers enhance high tiller mortality, small panicles, poor grain filling, and consequent reduction in grain yield (Peng et al.,1994). The mean value of the number of tillers (m-2) in the experiment for all treatment (Table 4.3) indicated that increase in number of tillers per plant between 20 and 80 DAT was remarkable. The maximum tiller production reached at 80 DAT (496.67) and gradually declined at later growth stages. The decrease in the number of tillers per plant was attributed to the death of some of the last tillers as a result of their failure in competition for light and nutrients (Fageria, et al.,1997b). Another explanation for this Plant height (cm), DAT 20 40 80 Harves t 38.19 83.81 97.67 112.98 39.24 38.32 39.34 39.65 38.25 39.60 39.87 0.28 NS 94.67 85.21 86.54 87.48 96.28 84.56 88.42 1.08 3.31 121.52 116.56 120.63 117.37 125.32 116.30 113.91 1.17 3.48 125.92 120.44 124.86 118.24 129.7 119.98 117.84 1.04 3.18

effect is that during the panicle initiation stage of crop growth period, competition for assimilates exists between developing panicles and young tillers. Eventually, growth of many young tillers is suppressed, and they may senesce without producing seed (Dofing and Karlsson, 1993). The number of tillers per square meter was significantly influenced by weed control methods at all the dates of observation except at 20 DAT. The lowest number of tillers (viz. 284.67, 410.33 and 358.67 m-2 at 40 DAT, 80 DAT and at harvest respectively) was observed in no weeding (weedy check) which was significantly inferior than those observed in other weed control treatments. At 40 DAT, the highest number of tillers (334.67 m-2) was produced with the use of conoweeder (T2) which stand on a par with weeding performed by Ambika paddy weeder (331.67 m-2) and both of these treatments produced significantly higher number of tillers than rest of the weed control treatments. Similar pattern of maximum tillering was observed at 80 DAT and harvest stages. Next to mechanical weeding, two manual weeding at 25 and 45 DAT produced significantly higher number of tillers during all the stages of observations compared to other methods of weed control used. Vijaykumar et al. (2006) also opined that mechanical weeding not only helped in reducing the weed competition, but also improved root growth by increasing soil aeration and root pruning which ultimately resulted in increased number of tillers per plant (Shad, 1986). Results of this study showed that weed free condition was best for tiller production. Weedy check treatment or ineffective methods of weed control failed to produce more tillers due to severe weed infestation in the experimental plot. Table 4.3: Total number of tillers (m-2 ) of rice at different growth stages influenced by various weed management treatments

Treatments T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%)

No. of tillers (m-2) at 20DA 40DA 80DA T T T 187.0 284.6 410.3 0 7 3 187.6 334.6 495.6 7 7 7 188.6 324.6 398.3 7 7 3 187.6 322.0 484.6 7 0 7 188.6 305.3 478.6 7 3 7 189.0 331.6 496.6 0 7 7 187.6 7 189.0 0 0.59 NS 310.0 0 290.0 0 2.03 6.13 454.3 3 412.3 3 1.43 4.32

Harve st 358.6 7 489.6 7 385.3 3 481.6 7 457.6 7 486.6 7 439.3 3 388.3 3 2.23 6.77

No. of effective tillers m-2 346.67 477.67 376.33 471.33 437.67 470.67 423.67 367.33 1.66 5.04

4.2.4 Number of effective tillers (m-2) Grain yield of cereals is highly dependent upon the number of effective tillers produced by each plant (Nerson, 1980). According to the data presented in Table 4.6, the average number of effective tillers per square meter across all treatment was ranges from 346.67 to 477.33 depending on weed control method used. In general, the number of effective tillers per square meter was significantly increased by all the weed management practices used in this investigation compared to weedy check, however, their efficacy varied depending upon their ability to control the composite population of weeds. The treatment of weeding through cono-weeder produced significantly maximum number of effective tillers (477.67 m-2) compared to any other methods of weed control. Proper control of weeds reduced the weed density which facilitates the

crop plants to have sufficient space, light, nutrient and moisture, and thus the effective tillers increased (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2009). Weedy check (T1) resulted in minimum number of effective tillers (346.67 m-2), being significantly lower than all the weed control treatments. This might be due to the fact that the higher competition of weeds did not allow the rice plant to produce more number of effective (panicle bearing) tillers in the unweeded treatment. Among the various weed control treatments, closer row spacing gave minimum effective tillers due to inter plant competition for longer period which inhibited the plants to produce tiller. Uprety (2005) stated that early weeding enhances production of more primary tillers, which ultimately produces larger panicles having more grains and higher yield. 4.2.5 Dry matter accumulation (g hill-1) The dry matter production per unit area is the prerequisites for higher production. The amount of dry matter production depends on the effectiveness of photosynthesis of the crop which in turn depends on large and efficient assimilating area for adequate supply of solar radiation and carbon dioxide and favorable environmental condition.

Table 4.4: Dry matter accumulation (g hill-1) of rice at different growth stages influenced by various weed management treatments

Treatments

T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%)

Dry matter accumulation (g hill-1) 20DA 40DA 80DA Harves T T T t 3.48 6.72 34.77 47.86 3.48 9.65 53.26 68.44 3.76 3.64 3.51 3.64 3.09 3.14 0.23 NS 7.62 9.58 7.76 9.10 7.55 8.26 0.26 0.81 35.83 45.62 41.26 51.57 36.44 35.88 0.47 1.43 47.90 61.63 55.30 66.00 49.71 48.94 0.45 1.37

The dry matter production (g hill-1) determined at 20, 40, 80 days after transplanting and at harvest are presented in Table 4.4 and depicted through Fig. Analysis of results indicated that all the weed management treatments caused significant variations in DM production compared to weedy check, however their efficacy varied depending upon their ability to suppress the weed growth. Normally dry matter accumulation in rice plant increased upto 80 DAT and after that it declined due to tiller mortality, but it was not true in our experimentation which might be due to a wide gap existed in between 80 DAT and last observation recorded at harvest. Although the variation was non-significant at an early growth stage (20 DAT), however, distinct differences were visible among the weed control treatments in DMA at 40 DAT and onwards until the end of season. Finally, the higher DM production of 9.65, 53.26 and 68.44 g hill-1 of rice at 40, 80 DAT and at harvest, respectively was recorded through T2 treatment (mechanical weeding with cono-weeder), while the

lowest DM production was observed under weedy check (T1). Though the DM production under manual weeding (T4) and weeding through ambika paddy weeder (T6) remained on a par but both of these treatment achieved significantly higher dry matter production compared to rest of weed management practices other than T2 treatments. The increase in DMA was owing to significant increase in plant height and tiller production as well as reduction in density and dry weight of weeds which restrict their ability to restrict their ability to compete with the crop for different growth factors resulting into better expression of dry matter accumulation. Similar results have been reported by Ali et al.(2008). 4.2.6 Crop growth rate (g day-1 hill-1) The data on crop growth rate (CGR) at various stages of crop as influenced by various weed management practices are presented in Table 4.5 and depicted in Fig. 4.2. Results indicated that irrespective of treatments effect, crop growth rate enhanced sharply up to 80 DAT and thereafter it declined. Therefore, growth period in between 40 to 80 days after transplanting appeared to be critical for maximum growth and development of rice crop.

Table 4.5: CGR (g day-1 hill-1) of rice at different growth stages influenced by various weed management treatments

Treatments

CGR (g day-1 hill-1) 204040DAT 0.16 0.31 0.19 0.30 0.21 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.03 NS 80DAT 0.70 1.1 0.70 0.90 0.83 1.0 0.72 0.69 0.02 0.07

80Harvest 0.32 0.38 0.30 0.40 0.35 0.36 0.33 0.32 0.03 NS

T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%)

The crop growth rate from 20-40 DAT of rice did not varied significantly due to weed control treatments. However, numerically lowest CGR was recorded in weedy check (T1) treatment while weeding performed through ambika paddy weeder (T6) resulted in highest CGR. At 40-80 DAT, all the weed control treatment contributed to the superior CGR over the weedy check and treatment mechanical weeding through cono-weeder (T2) gave the highest CGR (1.1 g day-1) which were statistically similar to mechanical weeding done by ambika paddy weeder (T6) and both of these mechanical weedings remained significantly superior over other treatments. Similar trend of CGR at 80-harvest period was noticed but treatment effects could not reach to the level of significance. Results indicated that heavy weed infestation in the weedy check (no weeding treatment) might have hampered the normal growth and development of rice plants and ultimately poor dry matter accumulation which in turn

reduced the CGR compared to all the weed control treatments. The results confirm the findings of Ali et al., (2008) 4.3 Weed infestation studies 4.3.1 Weed density The data on weed density at various stages of crop growth as influenced by methods of weed control are presented in Table 4.6 and depicted in Fig... On an average, the weed density varied from 7.51 to 23.11 m-2 depending upon the stage of crop and weed control method. The weed density was significantly influenced by weed control treatments during all the stages of observation. All the weed management treatments brought down weed densities significantly as compared to that in untreated check( 23.11 m-2). and later treatment recorded the highest weed population (viz. 10.06, 15.87, 20.95 and 23.11 m-2 at 20, 40, 80 DAT and at harvest respectively) compared to all methods of weed control. At 20 DAT, weed density did not varied significantly due to methods of weed control followed, however higher weed density (10.06 m-2) was recorded in weedy check plot (T1) and lower weed density (7.51 m-2) from closed row spacing which might be due to maximum spaced occupied by rice plants leaving minimum ground for growing weed plants. Since, manual and mechanical weed treatments was accomplished at 25 DAT onwards, hence variation in weed density due to these treatments remained non-significant. At 40 DAT, weed density was minimum (7.23 m-2) in hand weeded plot (T3) which was on par with T4, T6 and T8 treatments. Since second hand and mechanical weeding was performed at 45 DAT, hence their effect on weed suppression was not visualized at the time of observation made at 40 DAT. At 80 DAT, mechanical weeding through

ambika paddy weeder resulted in least weed density of 6.99 m-2 which was on a par with that recorded in treatment of cono-weeder and both of these treatment significantly excelled over other methods of weed control. Similar trends of weed density was noticed at harvest. Similar findings was also reported by Rekha et al., (2002) that weed density was lower in all treatments compared to the unweeded control plot.

Table 4.6: Weed density (m-2) in rice field as influenced by different weed management treatments Treatments T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%) Density of weeds (m-2) 20 40 80 Harves DAT DAT DAT t 10.06 15.87 20.95 23.11 9.24 10.21 9.48 9.68 9.28 8.23 7.51 0.10 NS 8.38 7.23 7.56 12.59 7.74 13.44 11.61 0.19 0.60 6.75 13.95 8.69 14.96 7.89 13.22 12.64 0.24 0.72 7.34 14.13 9.14 15.13 6.99 12.77 13.46 0.24 0.73

4.3.2 Weed dry weight (g m-2)

Data on weed dry weight (g m-2) recorded at different growth stages of rice are presented in Table-4.7 and illustrated in Fig. Results revealed that considerable differences in weed dry weight existed between 20 DAT to harvest stage of rice depending upon the methods of weed control used. Among the different treatments, weedy check (T1) resulted in highest weed dry weight (8.98, 14.34, 1945 and 24.36 g m-2 at 20, 40, 80 DAT and harvest respectively) as compared to weed control treatments. Singh and Kumar (1999) also expressed that maximum weed dry weight was recorded in the unweeded control which was significantly higher compared to other weed control treatments. During initial stage of crop growth, significantly minimum weed dry weight (6.19 g m-2) was observed in the treatment of closer row spacing (T8) which was on par with T5 and T7 treatments. Other mechanical and hand weeding treatments did not cause significant variation in weed dry weight because these treatments were applied 25 days after transplanting of rice. Table 4.7: Weed dry weight (g m-2) at various stages of crop growth as influenced by different weed management treatments Treatments T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) Weed dry weight (g) 20 40 80 DAT DAT DAT 8.98 14.34 19.45 7.98 8.90 8.40 6.59 7.86 6.61 4.87 5.29 5.62 9.77 5.01 11.37 7.16 8.81 7.34 10.68 7.62 12.90 Harves t 24.36 8.35 12.14 10.95 14.11 8.33 13.79

15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%)

6.19 0.38 1.01

10.89 0.20 0.62

12.88 0.13 0.42

13.99 0.21 0.64

At 40 DAT, the highest weed dry weight (14.34 g m-2) was recorded at unweeded check treatment (T1) which was significantly greater over all weed control treatments. Significantly lowest weed biomass (4.87 g m-2) was recorded in T2 (cono-weeder) treatment but it was at par with the values obtained under manual weedings (T3 and T4) and soil aerating weeding (T6) treatments. Similar trends of weeds dry weight were displayed during later stages of crop growth. The minimum dry weed biomass in mechanical or hand weeded plots was due to the reason that first and second flush of weeds was suppressed critically and later the regenerated weeds could not compete with the crop when the crop plants attained a reasonable height during 40 DAT to harvest stages. 4.3.3 Weed control efficiency Results indicated that weed control efficiency of different weed control practices had decisive bearing on weed density and weed biomass leading to better weed control efficiency, which was ultimately manifested in better grain yield. The higher was the WCE, the lower was the weed density as well as weed biomass ( Table4.8 ). The ultimate impact was the higher yield (Table yield). At 20 DAT, the highest weed control efficiency was achieved in the treatment of acetic acid (20%) because of suppression of weed growth during initial stage of crop growth. Mechanical weeding through cono-weeder resulted in maximum weed control efficiency of 66.04 and

63.18 % during 40 and 80 DAT respectively. However, at harvest stage of crop growth, mechanical weeding by ambika paddy weeder numerically recorded maximum WCE closely followed by weeding with cono-weeder. Hand weeding treatments stand next to mechanical weeding in terms of increasing weed control efficiency. Mechanical and manual weeding enhanced weed control efficiency due to restricted weed growth, resulted in lower dry matter production of weeds which in turn resulted in higher weed control efficiency.

Table 4.8: Weed control efficiency at various growth stages of rice as influenced by methods of weed control. Treatments 20 T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 11.1 3 0.89 6.45 26.6 1 12.4 7 12.4 7 31.0 6 40 66.04 63.11 60.81 31.86 65.06 20.71 24.06 WCE 80 Harves t 63.18 54.70 62.26 45.08 60.82 33.67 33.77 65.72 50.16 55.05 42.07 65.80 43.39 42.56

4.4 Post harvest observations

4.4.1 Panicle length (cm) Having a direct bearing on vegetative growth, the reproductive growth is the ultimate aim of farmers and scientists alike. The data on panicle length of rice as

influenced by various weed control treatments are presented in Table 4.9. Results revealed that length of rice panicles varied significantly due to the influence of treatments under study. The unweeded check treatment produced significantly lowest length of panicle (27.74 cm) over that observed with mechanical and hand weeding treatments but stand on par with remaining weed control treatments (T5,T7 and T8). The lowest length of panicle might have resulted due to higher competition of weeds with the crop plants failed to produce the normal growth of panicles. Similar observation was also reported by other workers Attalla and Kholosy, 2002 and Ahmad et al., 2008) where weed control treatments significantly enhanced the panicle length. Greater weed infestation in unweeded check might had resulted in shortest panicle length among the weed control treatments. The mechanical weeding through conoweeder significantly excelled all other treatments by producing lengthier panicles (32.44 cm) over rest of the weed control treatments. Rice crop provided with two hand weeding (T4) and weeding through ambika paddy weeder was found to be next superior in terms of producing longer panicles. Table 4.9: Yield-contributing characteristics of rice as influenced by various weed management treatments Treatments Panicle Test Total No. of grains panicle-1 77.00 135.60 104.34 128.76 Sterility % age 36.75 12.58 21.40 12.61

length, cm weight, g spikelets T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 27.74 32.44 29.53 31.39 27.70 30.85 27.96 30.24 panicle-1 105.30 152.67 126.67 145.00

25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%) (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%) 4.4.2 Total spikelets panicle-1

28.31 30.96 28.72 27.99 0.41 1.27

29.48 30.08 28.07 28.00 0.27 NS

137.30 144.30 132.00 128.30 1.19 3.60

102.00 126.68 98.60 107.98 1.01 3.05

34.61 13.91 33.87 18.82 1.05 3.19

Data on total number of spikelets as influenced by various weed control treatments are shown in Table 4.9. The weed control treatments significantly affected the total number of spikelets per panicle. Unweeded control treatment (T1) resulted in the lowest number of spikelets (105.30 panicle-1), being significantly inferior over all weed control treatments. Comparing different weed control treatments, it can be inferred that mechanical weeding through cono-weeder (T2) resulted in highest number of spike lets (152.67 panicle-1), which was significantly different from other weed control tactics used in this investigation. Hand weeding twice and mechanical weeding through ambika paddy weeder came out to be next best treatments (with 145.00 and 144.3 spike lets panicle-1) after T2 treatment in terms of spike lets production. In the treatments where weeds were controlled effectively, there total number of spikelets panicle-1 recorded higher because weeds did not pose competition with the rice plant for nutrients, water, light, etc. The result further indicated that greater weed infestation in the unweeded control and ineffective weed control resulted in the lower number of spikelets per panicle. Similar results were also reported by

Attalla and Kholosy (2002). In an another studies, Sultana (2000) found that there were 40 % reduction of grains per panicle due to competition of E.crussgalli and 28.7 % reduction due to competition of E.colonum at a density of 200 weeds m-2. 4.4.3 Number of grains panicle-1 The number of grains panicle-1 as influenced by different by weed control treatments are presented in Table 4.9. Results demonstrated that all weed control treatments caused the increment of number of grains per panicle over weedy check treatment. Thus, lowest number of grains (77.00 panicle-1) was observed in the unweeded check (T1) which was significantly inferior to other treatments. Mechanical weeding through cono-weeder maintained its superiority in terms of maximum number of grains (135.60 grains panicle-1) which was proved to be significantly superior over other treatments. Hand weeding twice and mechanical weeding through ambika paddy weeder resulted in next higher number of grains (128.76 and 126.68 grains panicle-1) compared to other weed control methods. This might be due to higher crop-weed competition in the weedy check and other treatment where weeds growth was not suppressed effectively, as weeds shared with the crop for its nutrients, water, light or other necessary growth factors and consequently reduced grains panicle-1. These results are in accordance with the findings of Vijaykumar et al. (2006) who reported that use of mechanical weeding resulted in higher nutrient availability subsequently resulting in a better source to sink conversion which enhanced higher number of grains per panicle.

4.3.4 Test weight (g)

The test weight is a stable varietal character because the grain size is rigidly controlled by the size of the hull (Yoshida, 1981). Data on test weight of rice as influenced by different weed control methods are presented in Table 4.9. Results revealed that test weight of rice were not significantly influenced by weed control treatments, althooough they numerically differed among themselves. These results corroborated with the findings of Islam et al.(2003) and they reported that no significant difference in 1,000 grain weight was found between weed free and weed competition levels. The average test weight was 29.04g in the experiment as a whole, ranging between27.70 to 30.85 g depending upon the weed control methods used. Weedy check (T1) produced very light weight seeds (27.70 g) while mechanical weeding through cono-weeder (T2) resulted in heavier test weight (30.85 g) but differences between them was not significant. Similar line of results were also reported by Ahmed et al.,(2008). 4.3.5 Sterility percentage The data on sterility percentage (Table 10) showed that it varied significantly due to the effect of weed control treatments. The average serility percentage observed in the experiment as a whole was23.06 %, and ranged from12.58 to 36.75 % depending upon the weed control treatment. The highest sterility percentage (36.5 %) was observed in the unweeded check (T1) which was significantly higher than those of other treatments. The lowest sterility (12.61 %) was observed in a treatment of two hand weeding (T4), being at par with that found (12.58 %) in the treatment where mechanical weeding was carried out by cono-weeder (T2) and both of these treatments registered their statistical superiority over other treatments. Weed infestation perhaps,

the main reason for such variation of the sterility in different treatments. Weedy check or the treatments where weed control was inadequate there sterility per cent was high because weeds compete with the rice plant for nutrients, water, light and other growth factors and consequently had adverse effect on the grain formation and caused the higher sterility percentage. The results corroborate the findings of Ahmed et al., (2008). 4.3.6 Grain yield (q ha-1) Grain production, which is the final product of growth and development, is controlled by dry matter accumulation during ripening phase (De Datta, 1981). Data pertaining to grain yield of rice as influenced by various weed control treatments are presented in Table 4.11 and depicted in Fig.. Results indicated that grain yield of rice showed marked variations due to weed control methods adopted in this investigation. The rice grain yield in general was found to range from 26.39 to35.68 qha-1 depending upon methods of weed control followed. Weedy check (T1) resulted significantly lowest grain yield (26.39 q ha-1) compared to all methods of weed control due to increased crop-weed competition higher weed dry weight, lowest number of effective tillers m-2 and test weight and this was somewhat similar with the observation of Phogat et al.(1998). This indicates that heavy weed infestation has caused a substantial reduction in the yield of rice. Mechanical weeding through cono-weeder (T2) resulted in significantly highest grain yield over that recorded with other treatments. This was closely followed by mechanical weeding through ambika paddy weeder and two hand weeding which gave 34.69 and 3.29 q grain yield ha-1, being significantly superior over other methods

of weed control except weeding done by cono-weeder. Two soil aerating weeding(cono weeder) increased grain yield by 35.20% over unweeded check treatment. Higher grain yield from mechanical weedings might be due to less weeds competition, lower weed density ( 7.34 m-2), lower dry weight of weeds (8.35 g m-2) and higher weed control efficiency(65.72%) resulted by better weed control under this treatment. Vijaykumar et al.(2006) also reported that incorporation of weeds through by mechanical weeder recorded the higher grain yield. However, Mukhopadhyay (1983) stated that hand weeding is the most common method and two weedings are sufficient to adequately control weeds in transplanted rice. Our findings have the implication that if labour availability is a limiting factor, the mechanical weeding could be another suitable alternative for efficient weed management in transplanted scented rice. 4.3.7 Straw yield (q ha-1) Analysis of the data presented in Table 4.11 showed that straw yield of rice differed significantly due to application of weed control treatments. An average straw yield of 69.61 q ha-1 was recorded across the experimental trials, ranging from 64.53 to 73.88 q ha-1 Straw yields all weed control treatments were significantly higher as compared to that of untreated check (T1). Thus, lowest straw yield (64.53 q ha-1) was observed in the unweeded check treatment because of severe weed infestation that hampered the plant height and also its tillering capacity which in turn reduced the straw yield. The mechanical weeding accomplished through cono-weeder (T2) produced the highest straw yield (73.88 q ha-1) and it was identical with treatment T6 (71.27 q ha-1) and superior to all other weed control treatments. Other methods of

weed control proved significantly better than weedy check but they did not caused significant variations among themselves in terms of straw production. The increase in rice straw yield with efficient weed control treatment may be attributed to better crop growth in the absence of weed-crop competition for any of the growth factor. Rice plant without such competition recorded higher plant height, tillers m-2 and CGR over weedy check because of the greater space captured by rice plants. Ahmed et al.,(2008) also reported the highest straw yields ha-1 from weed free plot and the lowest from no weeding plots. 4.3.8 Harvest index Grain yield in cereals is related to biological yield and grain harvest index (Donald and Hamblin, 1976). Data on harvest index of rice as influenced by different weed control treatments are presented in Table 4.11. Results exhibited that harvest index was significantly different among weed control methods. Weedy check (T1) treatment resulted in significantly lowest harvest index (29.02) over all weed control treatments which was statistically inferior to rest of the treatments. On the other hand the highest harvest index (32.73) was observed in the treatment where mechanical weeding was done through ambika paddy weeder (T6) which was statistically identical to that produced by T2 (32.57) and T4 (32.23) treatments. All these three treatments were found to be significantly superior over other weed control treatment. The HI values recorded in other weed control treatments remained at par among themselves. Heavy weed infestation in turn more weed-crop competition in unweeded check (T1) and inadequate weed control treatments reduced the grain yield which ultimately affected the harvest index. Similar observation also reported by Ahmed et al.,(2008)

that all weed control treatments significantly enhanced grain yield which in turn increased the harvest index. Table 4.10: Grain yield (q ha-1), Straw yield (q ha-1), Harvest index (%) of rice as influenced by various weed management treatment Treatments Grain yield (q ha1) 26. 39 35.68 31.46 33.29 30.44 34.69 30.18 29.99 0.23 0.71 Straw yield (q ha1) 64.53 73.88 70.11 69.97 68.61 71.27 69.89 68.66 1.03 3.17 Harve st index 29.02 32.57 30.97 32.23 30.73 32.73 30.15 30.40 0.23 0.71 Yield losses due to weeds 26.037 16.1157 20.72695 13.30486 23.9262 12.55799 12.004 Yield increase due to weeding treatments 35.20273 19.21182 26.14627 15.34672 31.45131 14.3615 13.64153 -

T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%) 4.4 Grain quality

Data on grain quality parameters viz. length and breadth of paddy and rice grains as influenced by different methods of weed control are presented in Table 4.12. Results showed that most of the quality parameter of paddy grains were found to be unaffected significantly due to weed control treatments. However, numerically longer paddy grains (10.57 mm) was obtained in the crop provided with mechanical weeding

through cono weeder. As regards to rice grains none of the parameters influenced significantly due to weed control treatments. Thus, it could be concluded that grain quality remained unaffected due to weed control treatments. Table 4.11: Length and breadth of paddy and rice grains as influenced by various weed management treatments Treatments T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) SEm+ CD (5%) Paddy grains Rice grains Lengt Bread L/B Lengt Bread L/B h th h th 9.10 2.10 4.37 7.07 1.50 4.72 10.57 9.70 10.33 10.10 10.27 10.07 2.27 2.13 2.23 2.20 2.20 2.20 4.67 4.54 4.63 4.60 4.67 4.58 4.61 0.19 NS 7.93 7.67 7.87 7.73 7.83 7.73 7.70 0.10 NS 1.93 1.57 1.90 1.87 1.87 1.67 1.60 0.05 NS 4.11 4.92 4.15 4.14 4.20 4.65 4.82 0.12 NS

9.97 2.17 0.24 0.06 NS NS

4.5 Economics of treatments Farmers resources such as land, labour and capital are important considerations in making the final choices of weed control method ( De Datta and Barker, 1977). The economical analysis of various treatments under investigation was worked out and presented in the Table 4.12 to evaluate the most beneficial

and economical treatment for the cultivation of scented rice. The details of fixed cost and cost of various weed control treatments are given in Apendix-II and III, respectively. Table 4.12: Economics of various weed management treatments in rice cultivation Treatment Fixed cost Treatment Total cost cost of cultivation (Rs ha-1) 21859.3 25973.22 Gross return (Rs ha-1) Grain yield Straw yield 13886.6 0.63 Net return (Rs ha-1) Benefit: cost ratio

T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45 DAT T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm)

21259.3 600 21259.3 4713.92

29292.9 6453 39604.8 7388

21019.58 0.80

21259.3 3752.8 21259.3 6905.6 21259.3 11715.28

25012.1 28164.9 32974.58

34920.6 7011 36951.9 6997 33788.4 6861

16919.5 15784 7674.82

0.67 0.56 0.23

21259.3 3752.8

25012.1

38505.9 7127

20620.8

0.82

21259.3 15811.92

37071.22

33499.8 6989

3417.58

0.09

21259.3 799.95

22059.25

33288.9 6866

18095.65 0.82

4.5.1 Cost of cultivation The data (Table 4.12 ) showed that, in general treatment T7-Burn oil spray + One
H.W.

required higher cost of cultivation per hectare while unweeded check plot

required the lower cost of cultivation. 4.5.2 Gross return Economic analysis (Table 4.12 ) revealed that average gross return was Rs
41943.15 per hectare and it ranging from to Rs 35745.9 to Rs 46992.8 per hectare

depending up on weed control methods used. All weed control treatments came up with higher gross return over weedy check. The higher gross return (Rs 46992.8/ha) was found under treatment T2-Use of Cono-weeder and lowest (Rs 3574.9/ha) was noted in unweeded check plot. 4.5.3 Net return The analyzed data (Table 4.12 ) indicated that the average net return was Rs14677.32/ha and it ranged from Rs 13886.6 to Rs21019.6/ha depending upon methods of weed control. The higher net return (Rs21019.6/ha) was obtained with treatment T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder, T8-Closer row spacing treatments. Mechanical weeding through cono-weeder at 25 and 45 DAT resulted less weed infestation in the rice field throughout the crop growth which gave favourable condition for rice growth and finally produced higher grain and straw yields, consequently resulted in more profit. All the weed control treatments tried in

this experiment were more profitable than the unweeded check plot. Similar results were also reported by Ahmed et al.,(2008).

4.5.4 Benefit cost ratio Benefit cost ratio(BCR) is the ratio of gross return to cost of cultivation which can also be expressed as returns per rupee invested. The minimum benefit: cost ratio was obtained under the control condition. This was due to the lowest grain yield obtained in control condition (T1).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A field experiment entitled Studies on the effect of weed management options on the growth, yield and economics of scented Rice (Oryza sativa L.) was conducted at the Instructional Farm, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur during the rainy season of 2011. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with three replications, having 8 treatments (T1-weedy check, T2-Cono-weeder, T3-One hand weeding, T4-Two hand weeding, T5-20 % Acetic acid,
+ One H.W

T6- Ambika paddy weeder T7- Burn oil spray

and T8- Closer row spacing) The soil of the experimental site was 22.10 % sand, 23.20 % silt and 53.12 % clay,

clay loam in texture, having

respectively, with pH of 7.18 The soil was low in organic carbon content (0.66 %), low in nitrogen (218.5), medium in available phosphorus (17) and high in

available potassium (335 kg/ha). The results of the experiment are summed up as follows: As compared to weedy check, plant height at various growth stages increased up to harvest stage. Use of cono weeder for weed control brought significantly greater growth in terms of plant height 1. Number of tillers and effective tillers m-2 were maximum under the T2-Use of Cono-weeder . 2. Plant height increased with the advancement of crop age. The maximum increase was recorded under the treatment T6-Ambika paddy weeder followed by T2-Use of Cono-weeder.

3. The highest dry matter accumulation was observed in T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder. 4. Panicle length was found the highest in T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6Ambika paddy weeder . 5. Crop growth rate was found to be the maximum during 40-80DAT, thereafter it deceased (during 80 DAT- at harvest). 6. The maximum test weight was observed with T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by followed by T4-Two H.W. 7. Weed control efficiency was maximum under T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder followed by T4-Two H.W. and T3- One H.W. 8. The maximum grain and straw yield were observed under T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed T6-Ambika paddy weeder followed by T4-Two H.W. 9. The maximum harvest index was recorded under T6-Ambika paddy weeder followed by T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T4-Two H.W.. 10. In the experimental field Comelina bengalensis, Echinochloa colona,

Alternanthera triandra, and cynotis axilaris were the dominant weed species in all the stages of rice. 11. The infestation of weed species increased with the time in unweeded control

treatment. The weed density and dry matter of weeds deceased due to use of different weed management practices. The lowest weed density and weed dry matter at 40, 80 DAT and At harvest observed under the T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment and T6-Ambika paddy weeder and T4-Two H.W.

12.

The highest net return (Rs. 21019.58ha-1) benefit: cost ratio (0.80) and gross

return (Rs. 46992.8ha-1) was noted the T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder. The lowest net return (Rs. 13886.6 ha-1) benefit: cost ratio (0.63) and gross return (Rs.35745.9) were noted under unweeded control (T1). Conclusion On the basis of result obtained, it can be inferred that T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment twice at 25 and 45 DAT found prominent effect on growth characters of rice like plant height, dry matter and number of effective tillers etc. Among yield and yield attributing characters, like number of total tillers, effective tillers, number of grains panicle-1, test weight, grain and straw yield were maximum with T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment twice at 25 and 45 DAT T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment twice at 25 and 45 DAT prominent effect than any others in term of weed density, dry matter of weeds , weed control efficiency.Also its application proved best with respect to rice production (maximum rice yield 35.68q ha-1). The maximum total cost of cultivation (Rs37071.22 ha-1) was recorded under T7-Burn oil spray + One H.W.. Maximum gross return Rs. 46992.8 ha1

was obtained T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder

Suggestions for further research work 1. This experiment should be carried out for few more seasons to draw concrete conclusion for the recommendation to rice growers.

2. Large scale testing and need to be studied under different agro- ecological situation. 3. Effect of different weed management practice of rice can also be tried for early and medium duration rice variety.

Appendix-I : Weekly meteorological data during crop growth period (from 25 June, 2011 to November 18, 2011) Week Month Date Temp (oC) Rainfall Relative Vapour Wind Evaporation Sun No (mm) humidity pressure velocity (mm) shine (%) (Kmph) (Hrs) Max Min I II I II 26 June 25-01 30.6 20.9 11.3 88 69 21.8 21.5 11 3.8 2 Average 30.6 20.9 11.3* 88 69 21.8 21.5 11 3.8 2 27 02-08 33.4 25.1 23.4 86 67 22 21.8 5.1 4.5 4.8 July 09-15 32.6 28 25.5 58 90 67 23.2 23.3 6 4.7 5.3 29 16-22 29.7 24.1 206 94 82 22.3 22.6 10.5 3.9 1.8 30 23-29 30.7 25.1 50.8 88 66 22.9 22.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 31 30-05 32.2 25.8 75 92 77 23.9 25 3.8 4.2 5.4 Average 31.72 25.12 413.2* 90 71.8 22.86 22.98 5.9 4.34 4.36 32 06-12 28.9 24.7 92.4 95 82 22.9 23.6 5.1 3 0.6 33 13-19 30.1 24.6 76.9 94 76 23 23.1 3.9 4.2 3.3 Aug 20-26 30.8 34 24.4 59.6 92 75 23.2 23.5 2.5 3.5 5 35 27-02 29.4 24.6 150.1 96 82 23.3 24.3 3.4 3 2.5 Average 29.8 24.575 379* 94.25 78.75 23.1 23.625 3.725 3.425 2.85 36 03-09 28.3 24.4 226 95 90 22.6 23.6 7.4 3.2 1.6 37 10-16 30.1 2.4 67 95 80 23.1 24.2 4.2 2.8 2 Sep 17-23 38 31 24 69.2 94 74 22.7 22.3 2.9 3.8 5.2 39 24-30 31.2 22.8 2.4 89 52 21.5 17.6 4.6 4 5.8 Average 30.15 18.4 364.6* 93.25 74 22.475 21.925 4.775 3.45 3.65 40 01-07 32.4 21.8 0 90 43 19.6 15.5 2.2 4.4 8.8 41 08-14 32.4 24 24.8 92 57 21.8 19.7 1.7 3.9 7.2 Oct 15-21 32.6 42 20.8 0.8 90 37 17.8 13.2 1.7 4.3 9.1 43 22-28 31.8 17.7 0 92 35 15.5 11.8 1.3 4.4 4.7 44 29-04 30.8 15.2 0 91 27 13.5 8.5 1.4 4.2 9 Average 32 19.9 25.6* 91 39.8 17.64 13.74 1.66 4.24 7.76 45 05-11 33.2 15.8 0 90 28 13.3 9 0.8 4 8.1 Nov 12-18 31.2 46 15.7 0 88 30 12.5 9.7 0.9 3.9 8 Average 32.2 15.75 0* 89 29 12.9 9.35 0.85 3.95 8.05 1193.7**

S. No.

Appendix II : Fixed cost of cultivation of rice ha-1 Particulars Rice Input Rate (Rs.) Total cost (Rs ha-1)

A Nursery . a. Land Preparation (Ploughing, harrowing and levelling) b. Seed bed Preparation c. FYM d. Seed treatment PSB
Azospirillum (AZO)

1 Tractor (1 hrs) 4 Man days 500 kg 600g. 200g

400 157.64 0.7 Rs kg-1 1000 Rs kg1

400.00 630.56 350.00 600 200

1000 Rs kg1

B.

Transplanting a. Ploughing (once) b. Puddling and leveling (once) c. Transplanting d. Irrigation e.Organic manure
Cow dung manure (CDM) Compost crop residue (CCR) vermicompost (VC) BGA Rock phosphate (RP)

1 Tractor (3 hrs) 1 Tractor (3 hrs) 15 man days 4 irrigation,+ 2 man days 1307 1700 1041 10 kg 100kg 15 man days 15 Man days -

400 400 157.64 450+157.64

1200.00 1200.00 2364.60 2115.28

700 ton-1 700 ton-1 2000 ton-1 10 kg-1 750 q-1 157.64 157.64 500.00

915 1190 2082 100 750

C.

f. Harvesting g.Threshing and winnowing Land revenue A. Common cost B. Miscellaneous Grand Total (A+B)

2364.60 2364.60 500.00 19326.64 1932.664 21259.3

10% of common cost

Appendix III : Cost of different weed management treatments

Treatment Quantity (lit. ha-1) Rate (Rs lit-1) No of labour for spraying ( ha-1) Cost of spraying (Rs.ha-1) No of labour for Weeding Weeding (Rs. ha-1) Seed Kg ha1

Rate Rs.kg1

Total cost (Rs. ha-1)

T1-Weedy Check T2-Use of Conoweeder T3- One H.W. T4-Two H.W. T5-20 % Acetic acid T6-Ambika paddy weeder T7-Burn oil spray + One H.W. T8-Closer row spacing

14+14

4413.9 2 3152.8 6305.6 10+10 3152.8

40 20

15 15

600 4713.92

240 -

45 2+2

630.56 -

20 20+20

40 40 40 40

15 15 15 15

3752.8 6905.6 11715.28 3752.8

476.19

24

2+2

630.56

20

3152.8

40

15

15811.92

53.33 15

799.95