International Research Journal of Plant Science (ISSN: 2141-5447) Vol. 2(9) pp. 262-270, September, 2011
Available online http://www.interesjournals.org/IRJPS
Copyright © 2011 International Research Journals
Full length Research Paper
Use of allelopathic water extract of field crops for weed
control in wheat
Mehboob Elahi1, Zahid Atta Cheema1, Shahzad Maqsood Ahmed Basra2, Muhammad Akram1
and *Qurban Ali3
1
Department of Agronomy, 2Department of Crop Physiology, 3Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of
Agriculture, Faisalabad Pakistan
Accepted 11 July, 2011
Two field trials were conducted at Research Area, Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture
Faisalabad, Pakistan. In first study water extracts of sorghum, sunflower, rice and brassica were tank
mixed each @ 12 L ha-1 with each other and also with reduced rates of phenoxaprop-p-ethyl (287 g ha-1)
and isoproturon (333 g ha-1). Both herbicides at recommended rates (862 and 1000 g ha-1 respectively)
were used as standard treatments. In second study sorghum and sunflower water extracts @ 12 and 15
l ha-1 were combined with each other in 3:2 ratio of affinity as well as recommended dose of affinity and
isoproturon were used as a standard. A weedy check was also included in both experiments for
comparison. Result of first study revealed that weed dry matter production by sorgaab, sunfaab and
rice water extracts with one third dose of isoproturon was 92 and 93% at 40 and 70 DAS. It was superior
(61 and 62% at 40 and 70 DAS) to the label dose of phenoxaprop-p-ethyl and increased grain yield by
22.79%; it was also economical, giving higher net returns and percent marginal returns whereas
another economical treatment was isoproturon @ 1000 g ha-1 which gave 93% reduction in weed dry
weight and 30% increase in grain yield. Results of second study revealed that weed dry matter
production by sorgaab, sunfaab and 1/2 dose of affinity was 99%(100 DAS) which increased grain yield
by 38.02%; it was also economical, giving higher net benefits and marginal rate of return whereas
sorgaab + sunfaab @ 12 L ha-1 two sprays (40 and 60 DAS) was also an economical treatment and
increased grain yield by 6.77%.
Keywords: Allelopathy, crop water extracts, phenoxaprop-p-ethyl, isoproturon, affinity, wheat.
INTRODUCTION
Among herbicides phenoxaprop-p-ethyl (poma super) is
commonly used by Pakistani farmers for controlling
narrow leaf weeds while affinity and Isoproturon are
broad spectrum herbicides used for both type of weeds in
wheat. Their continuous use may lead to the
development of resistance in weeds of wheat and may
also enhance environmental problems (Meyer and
Thuman, 1996). Allelopathic crop water extracts as
sorghum, sunflower and Brassica are being investigated
as alternative of herbicides for weed control and have
shown ability to inhibit the density and dry weight of
weeds such as canary grass (Phalaris minor Retz), wild
*Corresponding author E-mail: saim_1692@yahoo.com,
+923219621929)
oat (Avena fatua L.), broad leaf dock (Rumax dentatus
L.), lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and field
bind weed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) by 40-50% (Cheema
and Ahmad, 1992; Cheema et al., 2009). Allelopathy can
be utilized in various ways to manage weeds as inclusion
of allelopathic crops in rotation and intercrop systems,
foliar sprays of allelophathic water extracts, allelopathic
crop residues mulches. The growing crops suppress
growth of certain weed species, while residues of some
crops also inhibit the seed germination of weeds by the
release of phytotoxins (Narwal, 1994). The allelopathic
potential of different crops such as sorghum (Cheema
and Ahmad, 1992; Cheema et al., 2009; Mushtaq et al.,
2010; Jamil, et al., 2009), sunflower (Cheema et al.,
2005), brassica (Turk et al., 2003), rice (Duke et al.,
2002), eucalyptus (Dur-e-Shahwar, 1996) has been
indicated. It is suggested that herbicides and allelopathic
Elahi et al. 263
products may work complementarily and the herbicidal
dose may be reduced when applied in combination with
allelopathic products (Cheema et al., 2002). In a relevant
study sorgaab controlled weeds up to 35-49% and
increased wheat yield by 10-20%. Mature sorghum,
chopped herbage (2-6 Mg ha-1) incorporated in the soil at
sowing, controlled weeds up to 40-50% and increased
wheat yield by 15% (Cheema and Khaliq, 2000; Mushtaq
et al., 2010). A single spray of 5% sorgaab solution
applied 30 days after sowing increased wheat yield by
14% and suppressed weed biomass by 20-40% (Cheema
et al., 1997). The objectives of present study were to
evaluate the efficacy of different allelopathic water
extracts as sorghum, sunflower, rice and brassica tank
mixed with lower doses of three herbicides under semi
arid conditions of Faisalabad, Punjab.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental details
Field experiments were conducted to study the
effectiveness of allelopathic properties of sorghum,
sunflower, brassica and rice for weed control in wheat
grown at the Agronomic Research Area, University of
Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. The soil belongs to
Lyallpur
soil
series
(Aridisol-fine-silty,
mixed,
hyperthermic Ustalfic, Haplargid in USDA classification
scheme). The pH of saturated soil paste and electrical
conductivity (EC) were 7.9 and 0.41 dS m-1, respectively.
Sorghum, sunflower, brassica and rice plant herbages
were harvested at maturity, dried, chaffed with fodder
cutter in 2 cm pieces and kept under cover to avoid
possible leaching by rain water. Chaffed material was
soaked in distilled water in 1:20 ratio (Hussain and
Gadoon, 1981) for 24 h at room temperature and then
filtered through a screen to prepare water extracts. The
0
water extracts were either used fresh or frozen at –15 C
for subsequent use. Seedbed was prepared by giving
three cultivations and plankings. Wheat was sown
manually on a moist seedbed by a single row hand drill in
22 cm apart. In addition to soaking, irrigation was applied
at tillering, stem elongation, booting, anthesis and grain
development stages. Soaking irrigation and each of the
subsequent irrigation comprised 4 and 3 ha cm,
respectively.
Data on weed density and weed biomass were
recorded on 40, 60, 70 or 90 days after sowing (DAS)
from two randomly selected quadrates (m2) from each
experimental plot. Weed dry weight was recorded after
drying the weeds in an oven at 70 0C for 72 h. Data on
wheat plant height and grains per spike were recorded
from 20 randomly selected samples taken from each plot.
Fertile tillers per unit area (m2) were recorded from two
randomly selected sites from the experimental plot. A
random sample was obtained from each plot to take
1000-grain weight. Grain yield was recorded on plot basis
and converted to Mg ha-1. Data collected were analyzed
statistically by using the MSTAT program (Freed and
Eisensmith, 1986; Cheema et al., 2009).
Experiment 1: Effect of sorghum, sunflower, brassica
and rice water extracts on weeds and wheat
Allelopathic effects of sorghum, brassica, sunflower and
rice water extracts were studied on the growth of different
rabi (winter) weeds and on the growth yield of wheat
during 2004-05. The study comprised the following
treatments: sorgaab + brassica + sunfaab, sorgaab +
brassica + rice, sorgaab + sunfaab + rice and brassica +
sunfaab + rice each @ 12 L ha-1. All the treatments were
tank mixed with either 287 g ha-1 (1/3rd of the label dose)
-1
rd
of phenoxaprop-p-ethyl or 333 g ha (1/3 of the label
-1
dose) of isoproturon and 862 g ha of phenoxaprop-pethyl as well as 1000 g ha-1 of isoproturon used as
standard treatments. A weedy check was maintained as
control.
The experiment was laid out in randomized complete
block design with four applications in plots 7m x 2.2m.
Wheat (variety Uqab-2002) was sown on a well prepared
land in 22cm spaced rows with single row hand drill on
November 25, 2004, using 125 kg ha-1 seed. Fertilizer @
-1
-1
64 kg ha N. and 46kg ha P2O5 was used in the form of
urea and diammonium phosphate, respectively. Half
nitrogen and full dose of the phosphorus were applied at
the time of sowing, while the remaining half was applied
at first irrigation. Volume of spray (320 L ha-1) was
determined by calibration. Crop water extracts such as
sorghum, sunflower, brassica and rice were tank mixed in
combination with each other and with reduced dose (1/3)
-1
of phenoxaprop -p-ethyl @ 287 g ha or isoprotoron @
-1
333 g ha applied in the respective plots, using knapsack
hand sprayer using T-jet nozzle.
Experiment 2: Effect of volume and frequency of
water extracts on weeds and wheat
The effects of volume (12 and 15 L ha-1) and frequency of
sprays of sorgaab and sunfaab on the growth of weeds
and wheat during 2004-05 were compared with standard
doses of chemical herbicides. The experimental
procedures were same as in experiment 1. Same
procedures were adopted to grow weed in the plot
measuring in the same plot size. The second study
comprised the following treatments: sorgaab + sunfaab
either @ 12 L ha-1 or 15 L ha-1 with either 500 g ha-1 (one
half of the label dose) or 333 g ha-1 (1/3rd of the label
dose) of affinity and 1000 g ha-1 of both herbicides (label
264 Int. Res. J. Plant Sci.
dose of affinity as well as isoproturon) used as standard.
A weedy check was maintained as a control treatment.
Economic analysis
Total cost for all the experimental treatments was
calculated after determining the prices of all inputs used
in field. Costs that vary (Variable cost) are the costs (per
ha) of purchased inputs, labour, and machinery that vary
between experimental treatments (Byerlee, 1988).
Average yield was adjusted downward (10%) to reflect
difference between the experimental yield and the yield
farmer could expect from the same treatment. Net
benefits were calculated by subtracting the total variable
cost from the gross benefits for each treatment.
Dominance analysis was carried out by first listing the
treatments in the order of increasing variable costs. Any
treatment that had net benefits that were less than or
equal to those of a treatment with lower variable cost was
taken to be dominated. Finally marginal rate of return
(MRR) was calculated by dividing the marginal net
benefits (change in net benefits) by the marginal cost
(change in cost) and expressed as a percentage.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experiment 1: Effect of sorghum, sunflower, Brassica
and rice water extracts on weeds and wheat
Weed population and weed dry matter production of both
broad and narrow leaf weeds were significantly
suppressed by all the treatments as compared with
weedy check (Table 1). The prominent weed species
observed in the experimental field were Phalaris minor
Retz, Coronopus didymus (L) Smith and Melilotus
Parviflora Desf. Combination of 1/3rd doses of isoproturon
(333 g ha-1) with sorgaab + brasaab + sunfaab, sorgaab
+ brasaab + ricaab, sorgaab+ sunfaab + ricaab and
brassica +sunfaab + ricaab each at 12 L ha-1 applied as
foliar spray at 25DAS inhibited the population and dry
matter production of broad leaf weeds by 94 to 97% and
96 to 99% respectively and it was equal to the
recommended dose of isoproturon (1000 g ha-1) with 9899%. Among water extract combinations, sorgaab +
sunfaab + ricaab with 1/3rd dose of isoproturon (333 g ha1
rd
-1
) and1/3 dose of phenoxaprop-p-ethyl (287 g ha )
resulted in best control of narrow leaf weed population
(93, 89%) and dry matter (85, 99%) which was
statistically equal to the label dose of isoproturon (91 ,
82%) and better than lable dose of phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
(45 , 60%). Mixing of sorgaab + brasaab + ricaab and T5
rd
with either of the herbicides (1/3 dose) was relatively
less effective against narrow leaf weeds; however, in
case of broad leaf weeds, T5 was quite inhibitory.
rd
Combination of brasaab + sunfaab + ricaab with 1/3
dose of isoproturon was also very effective in controlling
both the broad leaf and narrow leaf weeds. These water
extracts mixed with 1/3rd dose of phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
were also quite inhibitory against narrow leaf weeds. The
results indicate that water extracts such as sorgaab +
sunfaab + ricaab can be used to reduce the doses of the
herbicides by 67% and these extract combinations
enhance the effectiveness of certain herbicides. These
findings support the suggestion of Cheema et al. (2003,
2009) that allelopathy may be manipulated to reduce
herbicide dose.
Wheat grain yield (5.4 Mg ha-1) was highest in given
treatment details by isoproturon at 1000 g ha-1 (label
dose) but statistically on par followed by T7 (5.08), T10
(5.01).
The
treatment
combination
T2
(sorgaab+sunfaab+brasaab)
and
T8
rd
(brasaab+sunfaab+ricaab)
with
1/3
dose
of
phenoxaprop-p-ethyl was least effective with only 4.56
and 4.67 Mg wheat yield (Table 2). The water extract
combination of sorgaab, sunfaab and ricaab with 333 g
ha-1 (1/3rd dose) of isoproturon also enhanced productive
tillers and 1000-grain weight. The increase in grain yield
was due to better weed control in these treatments.
Weed inhibition was due to suppressive effect of water
extracts and compatibility with the herbicides that
possibly enhanced plant food resources availability for
plant growth and more translocation of photosynthates
towards reproductive parts that ultimately increased grain
yield (Salisbury and Ross, 1978; Cheema et al., 2009;
Jamil et al., 2009).
Economic and marginal analyses show that @1000 g
ha-1 (lable dose) produced highest net benefits of Rs.
47585 ha-1 with an expenditure of Rs. 898 per hectare
and marginal rate of return of 795% (Tables 3 and 4).
The combination of sorgaab, sunfaab and ricaab with
1/3rd dose of isoproturon was also an economical
-1
treatment with fairly net benefits (Rs. 45131ha ) with an
expenditure of Rs. 589 per hectare and reasonably high
MMR 134% (Table 4); while all other treatments were
uneconomical and dominated due to high costs that vary.
Experiment 2: Effect of volume and frequency of
water extracts of sorghum and sunflower on weeds
and wheat
The effect of different treatments on total weed dry weight
was not uniform (Table 1b). The reduction in dry weight
was very effective by treatment combination of sorgaab
and sunfaab each @ 15 l ha-1 with 333 g ha-1 (1/3rd dose
of affinity) ranging from 94-99%. This decrease in dry
weight was comparable to the full doses of both herbicide
(affinity, isoproturon), giving 70-100%. The treatment
Elahi et al. 265
Table 1a. Effect of various allelopathic crop water extracts in combination with reduced rates of two wheat herbicides on weed density
and dry weights (0.25 m2)
Treatment
No.
Extract /Herbicide
Broad leaf weeds
Rate
Dry
weight
Dry
weight
4.98a
(-)
3.03b
(39.16)
1.49a
(-)
0.08h
(94.63)
6.47a
(-)
3.11b
(51.93)
12 L each +333 g
a.i.ha-1
0.06g
(98.79)
0.44f
(70.47)
0.50d
(92.27)
12 L each+287g
a.i.ha-1
1.36d
(72.69)
0.82c
(44.97)
2.18bc
(66.31)
12 L each +333 g
a.i.ha-1
0.11fg
(97.79)
1.09b
(26.84)
1.20c
(81.45)
12L each +287g
a.i.ha-1
0.72e
(85.54)
0.01
(99.33)
0.73d
(88.72)
12 L each +333 g
a.i.ha-1
0.18g
(96.38)
0.22g
(85.23)
0.40d
(93.81)
12 L each +287g
a.i.ha-1
1.51d
(69.68)
0.12h
(91.95)
1.63c
(74.81)
12 L each +333 g
a.i.ha-1
862 g a.i.ha-1
0.19fg
(96.18)
0.44f
(70.47)
0.63d
(90.26)
1.84c
(63.05)
0.12fg
(97.59)
0.33
0.60e
(59.73)
0.27g
(81.88)
0.07
2.44bc
(62.29)
0.39d
(93.97)
0.012
Control (weedy check)
2
12 L each+287g
a.i.ha-1
10
Sorgaab+brassica+sunflo
wer WE +phenoxapropp-ethyl
Sorgaab+ brassica +
sunflower
WE+Isoproturon
Sorgaab+brassica+rice
WE2 +phenoxaprop-pethyl
Sorgaab+brassica+rice
WE
+Isoproturon
Sorgaab+sunflower+rice
WE
+phenoxaprop-pethyl
Sorgaab+sunflower+rice
WE
+Isoproturon
Brassica+sunflower+rice
WE
+phenoxaprop-pethyl
Brassica+sunflower+rice
WE+Isoproturon
phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
11
Isoproturon
1000 g a.i.ha-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total weeds
Dry
weight
1
3
Narrow leaf weeds
LSD value at 5 %
1
Days after sowing; 2Water extract3Any two means not sharing a letter in common differ significantly at 5% level of probability; 4Figures
given in parenthesis show % decrease over control.
Table 1b. Effect of various allelopathic crop water extracts in combination with herbicides on plant height, 1000-grain weight,
productive tillers and grain yield of Wheat
Treatment
No.
Extract /Herbicide
1
Control (weedy check)
2
Sorgaab+brassica+sunflower
WE1 +phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
Sorgaab+
brassica
+
sunflower WE+Isoproturon
Sorgaab+brassica+rice WE2
+phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
Sorgaab+brassica+rice WE
+Isoproturon
3
4
5
Plant height
91.55
1000-grain
weight
40.32f
Productive tillers
m -2
380.0d
g
94.42
42.42ef
417.8cd
+333 g
97.85
47.57cd
423.5c
+287 g
96.58
43.01ef
428.3c
+333 g
9350
48.14cd
459.4bc
Rate
NS
12 L each
a.i.ha-1
12 L each
a.i.ha-1
12 L each
a.i.ha-1
12 L each
a.i.ha-1
+287
Grain yield
4.137d
(0.00)2
4.563c
(10.29)
4.805bc
(16.15)
4.675bc
(13.00)
4.932bc
(19.24)
266 Int. Res. J. Plant Sci.
6
10
Sorgaab+sunflower+riceWE
+phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
Sorgaab+sunflower+riceWE
+Isoproturon
Brassica+sunflower+rice WE
+phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
Brassica+sunflower+rice
WE+Isoproturon
phenoxaprop-p-ethyl
12 L each +287
-1
a.i.ha
12 L each +333
a.i.ha-1
12 L each +287
-1
a.i.ha
12 L each +333
a.i.ha-1
862 g a.i.ha-1
11
Isoproturon
1000 g a.i.ha-1
7
8
9
LSD value at 5 %
g
96.15
44.83de
489.5b
g
94.12
54.77a
512.8a
g
93.28
42.63ef
473.0b
g
99.50
49.18bc
430.3c
93.90
52.26ab
467.3b
97.98
53.05a
502.8a
NS
3.48
3.34
1
4.077bc
(15.35)
5.080ab
(22.79)
4.670bc
(12.88)
4.965abc
(20.01)
5.063ab
(22.38)
5.387a
(30.21)
0.424
2
Water extract Any two means not sharing a letter in common differ significantly at 5% level of probability; Figures given in parenthesis show %
increase over control.
Table 1c. Economic analysis for using sorghum, sunflower, Brassica and rice water extracts on weeds and wheat
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Total
grain 4137
4563 4805 4675 4932 4077 5080
yield
Adjusted yield 3723.3.3 4106.7 4324.5 4207.5 4438.8 3669.3 4572
T8
4670
T9
4965
T10
5063
T11
5387
Remarks
Kg ha-1
4303
4468.5 4556.7 4848.3 To bring at
farmer’s level
Gross income 37233 41067 43245 42075 44388 36693 45720 43030 44685 45567 48483 Rs.400/Kg
Cost
of ---------- 375
228.9 375
228.9 375
288.9 375
228.9 1126 687.5 Phenoxaprop-pherbicide
ethyl
Rs.
490/500mL
Isoproturon
Rs. 275 /800 g
Cost of water ---------- 180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
-------- --------- Expenditure on
extract
preparation of 12L
water extract Rs.
60/ Spray
---------- 120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Rs. 120/ man
application
(one man day per
hactare)
Spray rent
---------- 60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Rs. 60/spray
Cost that vary ----------- 735
588.9 735
588.9 735
588.9 735
588.9 1306 897.5 Rs. ha-1
Net benifits
37233 40332 42656 41340 43799 35958 45131 42295 44096 44261 47585 Rs. ha-1
T1 = Control;T2 = Sorgaab +brassica + sunflower each @ 12 l ha-1+ phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287g ha-1( 75%EW);T3 = Sorgaab
+brassica + sunflower each @ 12 L ha-1+Isoproturon @ 333 g ha-1 (50%WP);T4 = Sorgaab +brassica + rice each @ 12 l ha-1+
phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287 g ha-1( 75%EW); T5 = Sorgaab +brassica + rice each @ 12 L ha-1+Isoproturon @ 333 g ha1(50%WP);T6 = Sorgaab + sunflower + rice each @ 12 L ha-1+ phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287 g ha-1( 75%EW);T7 = Sorgaab +
sunflower + rice each @ 12 l ha-1+Isoproturon @ 333 g ha-1(50%WP);T8 = Brassica + sunflower + rice each @ 12 L ha-1+
phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287 g ha-1( 75%EW);T9 = Brassica + sunflower + rice each @ 12 l ha-1+ Isoproturon @ 333 g ha1(50%WP);T10 = phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 862 g ha-1 ( 75%EW);T11 = Isoproturon @ 1000 g ha-1 (50%WP)
Elahi et al. 267
Table 1d. Marginal analysis for using sorghum, sunflower, Brassica and rice water extracts on weeds and wheat
Treatments
Cost that vary
0
588.9
Net
benefits
Rs.
37233
45131
Change
input cost
588.9
T1 = Control
T7 = Sorgaab + sunflower + rice each @ 12 L
-1
-1
ha +Isoproturon @ 333 g a.i.ha (50%WP)
T9 = Brassica + sunflower + rice each @ 12 L
-1
-1
ha + Isoproturon @ 333 g a.i.ha (50%WP)
T5 = Sorgaab +brassica + rice each @ 12 L ha
1
-1
+Isoproturon @ 333 g a.i.ha (50%WP)
T3 = Sorgaab +brassica + sunflower each @ 12
-1
-1
L ha +Isoproturon @ 333 g a.i.ha (50%WP)
T8 = Brassica + sunflower + rice each @ 12 L
-1
ha + phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287 g a.i.ha
1
(75%EW)
T4 = Sorgaab +brassica + rice each @ 12 L ha
1
-1
+ phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287 g a.i.ha (
75%EW)
T2 = Sorgaab +brassica + sunflower each @ 12
-1
L ha + phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287 g a.i.ha (
75%EW)
T6 = Sorgaab + sunflower + rice each @ 12 L
-1
-1
ha + phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 287 g a.i.ha (
75%EW)
-1
T11 = Isoproturon @ 1000 g a.i.ha (50%WP)
-1
T10 = phenoxaprrop-p-ethyl@ 862 g a.i.ha
( 75%EW)
588.9
44096
588.9
in
Change in net
benefit
7898
Marginal rate of
return %
1341
-
-
D
43799
-
-
D
588.9
42656
-
-
D
735
42295
-
-
D
735
41340
-
-
D
735
40332
-
-
D
735
35958
-
-
D
897.5
1306
47585
44261
308.6
-
5454
-
795
D
D = Dominated due to less benefits than preceding treatments; Variable cost = the cost of purchase inputs, labour and machinery
ha-1 that varies between the experimental treatments; Net benefit = Gross income-variable cost.
Change in net benefit
Marginal Rate of Return %
=
X 100
Change in input cost
Table 2a: Combined effect of allelopathic crop water extracts with lower doses of affinity on total density and growth of weeds in wheat.
2
Affinity
(Isoproturon+Carfentrazon)
1000g a.i. ha-1
(40 DAS).
Broad leaf weeds
Density
Dry weight
63.20 a
10.23 a
(0)
(0)
0.00 e
0.73 c
(100)
(92.86)
3
Isoproturon
1000g a.i. ha-1
(40 DAS).
4.66 c
(92.62)
4.33 b
(57.67)
0.33 b
(95.37)
0.15 c
(97.06)
5.00 c
(92.89)
4.48 c
(70.79)
4
Sorgaab + SFWE
9.19 b
(69.63)
6.59 b
(35.58)
1.00 b
(85.57)
0.68 c
(86.69)
20.19 b
(71.29)
10.28 b
(32.98)
5
Sorgaab+SFWE +Affinity
Each 12 L ha-1
(40 and 60 DAS two
sprays).
Each 12 L ha-1 +500g a.i
ha-1 (40 DAS).
0.50 de
(99.20)
0.19 c
(98.14)
0.50 b
(92.98)
2.03 b
(60. 27)
1.00 d
(98.57)
3.23 d
(78.94)
6
Sorgaab+SFWE +Affinity
0.00 e
(100)
0.00 c
(100)
0.16 b
(97.75)
2.38 b
(53.43)
0.16 d
(99.77)
2.38 e
(77.96)
7
Sorgaab+SFWE +Affinity
0.83 de
(98.68)
0.37 c
(96.38)
0.33 b
(95.37)
0.30 c
(94.41)
1.16 d
(98.35)
0.61 f
(96.02)
8
Sorgaab+SFWE +Affinity
1.50 d
0.43 c
(95.79)
0.33 b
(95.37)
0.41 c
(91.97)
1.83 cd
(97.39)
0.82 f
(94.65)
2.955
1.592
1. 256
2.290
0.4828
No.
1
Treatment
Extract /Herbicide
Control (weedy check)
LSD value at 5 %
1
4
Rate
-1
Each 12 L ha
+333.33ga.i.ha- 1(40
DAS).
-1
Each 15 L ha
+500ga.i h.a-1
(40 DAS).
Each 15 L ha-1
+333.33ga.i.ha-1(40
DAS).
(97.67)
1.199
Narrow leaf weeds
Density
Dry weight
7.13 a
5.11 a
(0)
(0)
0.00 b
0.00 c
(100)
(100)
Total weeds
Density
70.33 a
(0)
0.00 d
(100)
Dry weight
15.34 a
(0)
0.73 f
(95.24)
Days after sowing; 2Water extract3Any two means not sharing a letter in common differ significantly at 5% level of probability;
Figures given in parenthesis show % decrease over control.
268 Int. Res. J. Plant Sci.
Table 2b. Combined effect of allelopathic crop water extracts with lower doses of herbicide on plant height,
No.of grains per spike, 1000 grain weight, Fertile tiller (m-2),and grain yield in wheat.
Plant height
weight
(cm)
101.9 NS
No
1
Treatments
Control ( weedy check )
Rate
2
Affinity
( Isoproturon +Carfentrazon)
1000g a.i. ha
3
Isoproturon
1000g a.i. ha
4
Sorgaab + SFWE
5
Sorgaab + SFWE +Affinity
Each 12 L ha
(40,60DAS two
sprays)
-1
Each 12 L ha
-1
+500g a.i ha
6
Sorgaab + SFWE +Affinity
7
Sorgaab+ SFWE +Affinity
8
Sorgaab+ SFWE +Affinity
326.3 ab
(5.08)
1.92 b
(0)
2.51a
(+30.72)
49.18c
(21.97)
44.83de
(11.18)
354.7 ab
(14.23)
327.3 ab
(5.41)
2.54 a
(+32.29)
2.05b
(+6.77)
104.68
48.14cd
(19.39)
381.0 a
(22.70)
2.65a
(+38.02)
103.95
47.57cd
(17.98)
351.7 ab
(13.26)
2.54a
(+32.29)
104.65
47.57cd
(17.98)
54.77a
(35.83)
320.0
(3.05)
321.0
(3.38)
2.51a
(+30.72)
2.56 a
(33.33)
3.48
68.29
0.5887
-1
103.73
-1
104.3
104.08
1
LSD value at 5 %
-2
Grain yield
(m )
310.5 b
103.36
-1
Productive tiller
(g)
40.32f
(0)
52.26ab
(+29.61)
-1
Each 12 L ha
+ 333.33g a.i
1
ha-1
Each 15 L ha
-1
+500g a.i ha
-1
Each 15 L ha
+ 333.33g a.i ha
1000 grains
NS
(t/ha)
DAS: Days after sowing; SFWE: Sunflower water extract; Sorgaab: Sorghum water extract.
Table 2c. Economic analysis for using water extracts of sorghum and sunflower on weeds and wheat.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
Remarks
Grain yield
2688
3514
3560
2870
3718
3557
3514
3573
Kg ha- 1
Adjusted Yield
2419
3162
3204
2583
3346
3201
3162
3215
To bring at farmers level (10%)
Gross income
24192
31626
32040
25830
33462
32013
31626
32157
Rs. 400/40 Kg.
Cost of herbicide
0
1500
875
0
500
750
500
750
Affinity Rs.1500/1000 g a.i.
Isoproturon Rs. 875/1000 g a.i.
Cost of Extracts
0
0
0
240
120
120
120
120
Sprayer rent
0
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Spray application
0
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Cost that vary
0
1680
1055
420
800
1050
800
1050
Net Profit
24192
29946
30985
25410
32662
30963
30826
31107
Rs. 60 /15 L Allelopathic water
extract.
Rs. 60/spray
Rs. 120/man. (1man/day/ha)
Rs. ha- 1
-1
Rs. ha- 1
-1
-
T1 = Control (weedy check); T2 =Affinity (Isoproturon+Carfentrazon)@1000g a.i.ha ; T3 = Isoproturon@1000g a.iha ; T4 = Sorgaab@12Lha
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
+Sunflower@12Lha
(two sprays);T5 = Sorgaab@12Lha +Sunflower@12Lha +1/2Affinity@500g a.i.ha ; T6 = Sorgaab@12Lha
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
+Sunflower@12Lha +1/3Affinity@333.33g a.i.ha ; T7 = Sorgaab@15Lha +Sunflower@15Lha +1/2Affinity@500g a.i.ha ; T8 = Sorgaab@15Lha
1
-1
-1
+Sunflower@15Lha +1/3Affinity@333.33g a.i./ha .
Elahi et al. 269
Table 2d. Marginal analysis for using water extracts of sorghum and sunflower on weeds and wheat.
Treatments
Rates
T1 ═ Control ( weedy check )
T4 ═ Sorgaab + SFWE
T5 ═ Sorgaab + SFWE +Affinity
T7 ═ Sorgaab + SFWE +Affinity
T8 ═ Sorgaab + SFWE +Affinity
T6 ═ Sorgaab + SFWE +Affinity
T3 ═ Isoproturon
T2
═
Affinity
+Carfentrazon)
Cost
that vary
(Rs.)
(Isoproturon
0
-1
Each 12 L ha
(40 AND 60 DAS two
sprays).
Each 12 L ha-1
+500g a.i ha-1
(40 DAS).
-1
Each 15 L ha
-1
+500g a.i ha
(40 DAS).
Each 15 L ha-1
+333.33g a.i ha-1
(40 DAS).
Each 12 L ha-1
+333.33g a.i ha-1
(40 DAS).
1000g a.i. ha-1
(40 DAS).
1000g a.i. ha-1
(40 DAS).
Net
profits
Change
in cost
(Rs.)
Change in
net benefit
(Rs.)
Marginal rate
of return
(%)
0
420
(Rs.)
24192
25410
0
420
0
1218
0
290
800
32662
380
7252
1908.42
800
30826
0
-
D
1050
31107
250
-
D
1050
30963
0
-
D
1055
30985
5
-
D
1680
29946
625
-
D
D = Dominated;
Marginal rate of return (%) =
Change in net benefit
x 100;
Change in cost
Cost that varies = the cost that is incurred on variable inputs in the production of a particular commodity.
-1
containing sorgaab + sunfaab each @ 12 l ha with 500
g ha-1 (1/2 of the label dose) of affinity resulted in
maximum (38%) increase in grain yield and it was the
treatment which gave the highest net benefit (Rs. 32662
-1
ha ) as well as marginal rate of return of 1908% (Table
1a,1c and 1d). These results are in line with Cheema et
al. (1997). They reported 14% more grain yield than
control due to single spray of sorgaab at 30 DAS.
However, the label dose of both herbicides gave less net
benefit and was dominated due to higher cost.
CONCLUSION
From the above review, it appeared that crops/plants are
allelopathic to different weeds and possibility exist to
reduce herbicidal dosage by combining the allelopathic
water extracts for controlling weeds in wheat. It is
concluded that allelopathic crop water extracts can be
used to control weeds in order to enhanced crop yield
and for reducing herbicide dose for weed control.
REFERENCES
Byerlee D (1988). From agronomic data to farmer recommendation. An
economic training manual. CIMMYT. Mexico. 31-33.
Cheema ZA, Luqman, M, Khaliq A (1997). Use of allelopathic extracts
of sorghum and sunflower herbage for weed control in
wheat.J.Anim.Pl.Sci;7:91-93.
Cheema ZA, Ahmad S (1992). Allelopathy: A potential tool for weed
management. National seminar on the role of plant health and care in
agri. Production. Dec. 28-29.
Cheema ZA, M Iqbal, Ahmad R (2002a). Response of wheat varieties
and some Rabbi weeds to allelopathic effects of sorghum water
extract. Int. J. Agri. Biol. 52-55.
Cheema ZA, A Khaliq, Tariq M (2002b). Evaluation of concentrated
Sorgaab alone and in combination with reduced rates of three preemergence herbicides for weed control in cotton(Gossypium hirsutum
L.). Int. J. Aggri. and Biol. 4(4): 549-552.
Cheema ZA, Mushtaq MN, Farooq M, Hussain A, Din IU (2009). Purple
nutsedge management with allelopathic sorghum. Allelopathy J.
23:305–312.
270 Int. Res. J. Plant Sci.
Dur-E-Shahwar (1996). Evaluation of aqueous leaf extracts of
Eucalyptus comaldulensis for its allelopathic effects on germination
and growth of wheat and wheat weeds. M.Sc.(Hons.) Agri. Thesis,
University of Agri. Faisalabad.
Jamil M, Cheema ZA, Mushtaq MN, Farooq M , Cheema MA (2009).
Alternative control of wild oat and canary grass in wheat fields by
allelopathic plant water extracts. Agron Sustain Dev. 29:475–482.
Meyer MT, Thusman, EM(1996). Herbicide Metabolites in surface
water and Ground water. American Chemical Society Symposium
Series 630; Washington DC.
Mushtaq MN, Cheema ZA, Khaliq A (2010). Effects of mixture of
allelopathic plant aqueous extracts on Trianthema portulacastrum L.
weed. Allelopathy J 25:205–212.
Narwal SS(1994). Allelopathy in Crop Production. Scientific Publishers,
Jodhpur, India.
Purvis CE, Jones GPG (1990). Differential response of heat to retained
crop stubbles. Other factors influencing allelopathic potential,
intraspecific variation, soil type and stubble quality. Australian J. Agri.
Res. 41(2):243-251(sorghum and millet Abst; 15(5):796:1990).
Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1997). Principles and Procedures of Statistics.
McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, USA. 232-251.
Salisbury FB, Ross CW (1978). Allelochemicals and Allelopathy. In:
nd
Plant Physiology, 2 Ed. Wordsworth Pub. Co. Inc. Belmont, CA,
USA. Pp. 123-145.