|
|
|
|
Effect of Post-Emergence Herbicides on Control of Weeds in Tomato During Kharif Season Prabukumar G* Department of Millets, Center for Plant Breeding and GeneticsTamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore641003Tamil Nadu, India *Email for correspondence: gprabukumar@yahoo.co.in
Online Published on 12 September, 2022. Abstract Field experiments were conducted at western block of Horticultural College and Research Institute, Periyakulam, Tamil Nadu during kharif season of 2013-2014 to evaluate the performance of pre- and post-emergence herbicides on control of weeds in tomato. The major weed flora of the experimental fields constituted of grasses, sedges and broadleaved weeds. The broadleaved weeds were found to be predominant followed by sedges and grasses throughout the crop growth period. Two grasses Cynodon dactylon and Panicum repens and four broadleaved weeds Trianthema portulacastrum, Euphorbia geniculata, Boerhavia diffusa, Parthenium hysterophorus and Cyperus rotundus were observed in the experimental fields. Eleven treatments were evaluated in randomized block design with 3 replications. The tomato variety PKM 1 was used for the experiments. The recommended dose of N:P:K 150:100:50 kg/ha was applied to all plots at transplanting. The herbicides were applied as per treatments. It was found that treatments comprising T8 [Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT] and T4 [Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT] were superior to all other treatments. After 25 DAS, minimum weed density was recorded in T8 (2.6/m2) and T4 (2.9/m2). Minimum weed dry weight was also recorded in T8 and T4 (4.2 and 4.5 g/m2 respectively). At 50 DAT, minimum weed density was recorded in T4 (3.0/m2) and T8 (3.2/m2). Minimum weed dry weight was recorded in T4, T8 and T6 (3.7, 4.0 and 4.4 g/m2 respectively). Weed control efficiency was maximum in T4 (92.5%) followed by T8 (91.0%). Single fruit weight was maximum in T4, T8 and T6 (18.6, 17.9 and 17.1 g respectively) and maximum yield was recorded in T4, T8 and T6 (20.6, 19.8 and 18.5 tons/ha respectively). Net return was recorded maximum in T8 (Rs 1,11,748/ha) followed by T4 (Rs 1,10,118/ha). Highest B- C ratio was recorded in T8 (3.40) followed by T6 (3.31). Top Keywords Herbicides, Tomato, Weeds, Grasses, Sedges, Broadleaved weeds. Top | Introduction Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) is being cultivated throughout the world. In India, it was cultivated in an area of 781 thousand hectares with production of 19 lakh tons and productivity of 24.3 tons per ha during 2018-19. Abbasi et al (2013) observed that weeds compete with tomato for nutrients and solar radiation and thereby reduce the yield. Wider spacing, frequent irrigations and liberal use of manures and fertilizers in the cultivation of tomato provide favourable conditions for the luxuriant weed growth particularly during early stages of the crop (Singh et al 1984). |
There is a reduction of 80 per cent yield due to uncontrolled weed growth in tomato. The weeds viz Cynodon dactylon and Dactyloctenium aegyptium among grasses, Cyperus rotundus among sedges, Cleome viscosa, Euphorbia hirta, Trianthema portulacastrum, Sida acuta, Amaranthus viridis, Boerhavia diffusa, Eclipta alba, Phyllanthus niruri and Parthenium hysterophorus among broadleaved weeds were observed in tomato by Kavitha et al (2021). Marana et al (1986) reported that the critical period of weed competition is 30-40 days after sowing. Hence weeds should be removed for 40-50 days after sowing. Unrestricted weed growth throughout the crop life cycle resulted in 92 to 95 per cent reduction in tomato fruit yield as reported by Adigun (2002). Due to unavailability of labour and higher wages, manual weeding is costlier as compared to chemical weed control (Singh et al 2012). |
Top Material and Methods Field experiments were conducted at western block of Horticultural College and Research Institute, Periyakulam, Tamil Nadu in kharif season of 2013 and 2014 to evaluate the performance of pre- and post-emergence herbicides on control of weeds in tomato. The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam in texture, low in available nitrogen (136.2 kg/ha), medium in available phosphorus (14 kg/ha) and low in available potash (98 kg/ha). |
Eleven treatments comprised T1: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha [pre-emergence (PE)] + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T2: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T3: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T4: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T5: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha [post-emergence (POE)] on 30 DAT, T6: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T7: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T8: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T9: Mechanical weeding 2530 and 50-60 DAT, T10: Hand weeding 25-30 and 5060 DAT and T11: Unweeded control which were evaluated in randomized block design with 3 replications. The tomato variety PKM 1 was transplanted during kharif 2013 and 2014. The recommended dose of N:P:K 150:100:50 kg/ha was applied to all the plots at the time of transplanting. The rainfall received during the year 2013 and 2014 was 721.2 mm (37 rainy days) and 938 mm (59 rainy days) respectively. The data were analysed statistically by applying analysis of variance and F-test at probability level 0.05 (Cochran and Cox 1977). |
Top Results and Discussion The major weed flora of the experimental fields consisted of grasses, sedges and broadleaved weeds. The broadleaved weeds were found to be predominant followed by sedges and grasses throughout the crop growth period. Two grasses Cynodon dactylon and Panicum repens and broadleaved weeds Trianthema portulacastrum, Euphorbia geniculata, Boerhavia diffusa, Parthenium hysterophorus and Cyperus rotundus were observed in the experimental fields. |
Among the different weed management practices phytotoxicity was observed in alachlor, metribuzin and pendimethalin at 3 DAHS (Table 1). The plants recovered within one week and there was no phytotoxicity observed after 7 DAHS whereas no phytotoxicity was observed in oxyfluorfen applied plots (Table 1). |
All the weed management practices resulted in significant reduction in density and dry weight of weeds in comparison to unweeded control (Table 2). |
After 25 DAS, minimum weed density was recorded in T8 [Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT] (2.6/m2) and T4 [Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT] (2.9/m2), which were statistically at par and maximum in T11 (Unweeded control) (17.0/m2) and T10 (Hand weeding 25-30 and 50-60 DAT) (16.7/m2), the two being at par. Minimum weed dry weight was recorded in T8 and T4 (4.2 and 4.5 g/m2 respectively), both being at par whereas maximum was recorded in T11 (14.0 g/m2) followed by T10 (12.9 /m2). |
At 50 DAT, minimum weed density was recorded in T4 (3.0/m2) and T8 (3.2/m2), which were at par and maximum in T11 (10.8/m2). Minimum weed dry weight was recorded in T4, T8 and T6 [Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT] (3.7, 4.0 and 4.4 g/m2 respectively), which were at par and maximum in T11 (12.9 g/m2). Weed control efficiency was maximum in T4 (92.5%) followed by T8 (91.0%) and minimum in T10 (73.2%) followed by T5 [Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha {post-emergence (POE)} on 30 DAT] (75.2%). |
The data given in Table 3 show that plant height of tomato at harvest varied from 41.3 (T11) to 77.7 (T4) cm. The treatments T1 [Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha {pre-emergence (PE)} + hand weeding on 30 DAT], T2 [Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT], T3 [Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT], T4, T6, T7 [Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT], T8 and T9 (Mechanical weeding 25-30 and 50-60 DAT) were at par with 70.5, 74.0, 67.9, 77.7, 74.7, 72.3, 76.2 and 69.4 cm plant height respectively, all being at par; minimum plant height was recorded in T11 (41.3 cm). |
Number of branches per plant was maximum in T4, T8, T6 and T2 (16.6, 16.0, 15.0 and 14.4 respectively), all being at par and minimum in T11, T10, T5 [Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha {post-emergence (POE)} on 30 DAT] and T3 (9.9, 10.8 11.5 and 12.3 respectively), the four treatments being at par. Similar results were also reported by Sajjapongse et al (1983). |
Maximum number of fruits per plant was recorded in T4, T8, T6, T2 and T7 (31.3, 30.3, 29.4, 29.0 and 28.6 respectively), all being at par whereas minimum number was found in T11, T10 and T5 (21.7, 24.4 and 24.8 respectively), the three being at par. Single fruit weight was maximum in T4, T8 and T6 (18.6, 17.9 and 17.1 g respectively), the three being at par and minimum in T11 (13.2 g). Maximum yield was recorded in T4, T8 and T6 (20.6, 19.8 and 18.5 tons/ha respectively), all three being at par and minimum in T11 (10.3 tons/ha). Samant and Prusty (2014) also made similar observation. |
The data given in Table 4 depict that cost involved in cultivation was maximum in case of treatment T10 (Rs 59,842/ha) followed by T4 (Rs 54,282/ha) whereas it was minimum in T11 (Rs 43,842/ha) followed by T7 (Rs 45,132/ha). Net return was recorded maximum in T8 (Rs 1,11,748/ha) followed by T4 (Rs 1,10,118/ha) and minimum in T11 (Rs 38,558/ha) followed by T10 (Rs 61,758/ha). Gross return was observed maximum in T4 (Rs 1,64,400/ha) followed by T8 (Rs 1,58,400/ha) and minimum in T11 (Rs 82,400/ha) followed by T10 (Rs 1,21,600/ha). Highest B-C ratio was recorded in T8 (3.40) followed by T6(3.31) and lowest in T11 (1.88) followed by T10 (2.03). |
Top Conclusion The treatments oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT and oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT were superior to all other treatmens. Minimum weed density and dry weight were recorded in these treatments. Weed control efficiency was maximum in both these treatments. Net return was also highest in these two treatments. B-C ratio was found maximum in treatment oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT. |
Top Tables | Table 1.: Per cent rating of phytotoxic effects of herbicides in tomato
| | Treatment | Phytotoxicity rating (%) in tomato (DAHS) | | 3 | 7 | 15 | 21 | | T1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | T9 | - | - | - | - | | T10 | - | - | - | - | | T11 | - | - | - | - |
|
| T1: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha [pre-emergence (PE)] + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T2: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T3: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T4: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T5: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha [post-emergence (POE)] on 30 DAT, T6: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T7: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T8: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T9: Mechanical weeding 25-30 and 50-60 DAT, T10: Hand weeding 2530 and 50-60 DAT, T11: Unweeded control; DAHS: Days after herbicide spray | | | Table 2.: Effect of different weed management practices on total weed density and weed dry weight in tomato (pooled data of kharif 2013 and 2014)
| | Treatment | Weed density at 25 DAT (number/m2) | Weed dry weight at 25 DAT (g/m2) | Weed density at 50 DAT (number/m2) | Weed dry weight at 50 DAT (g/m2) | Weed control efficiency at 50 DAT (%) | | T1 | 4.8 (20.8) | 5.6 (29.0) | 4.5 (18.9) | 5.3 (26.0) | 84.0 | | T2 | 4.4 (17.6) | 5.5 (27.8) | 3.9 (13.3) | 4.7 (20.6) | 87.2 | | T3 | 5.8 (31.8) | 6.2 (36.9) | 5.2 (25.1) | 6.2 (36.8) | 77.6 | | T4 | 2.9 (6.4) | 4.5 (18.7) | 3.0 (7.1) | 3.7 (12.0) | 92.5 | | T5 | 3.5 (10.2) | 4.9 (22.2) | 5.4 (27.5) | 6.5 (39.9) | 75.8 | | T6 | 4.6 (19.8) | 5.4 (27.7) | 3.6 (11.5) | 4.4 (17.9) | 88.8 | | T7 | 5.4 (27.3) | 5.9 (33.1) | 4.1 (15.6) | 4.9 (22.8) | 85.8 | | T8 | 2.6 (4.8) | 4.2 (15.6) | 3.2 (8.6) | 4.0 (14.4) | 91.0 | | T9 | 15.0 (226.6) | 11.9 (140.6) | 5.0 (23.1) | 5.8 (32.4) | 80.3 | | T10 | 16.7 (277.4) | 12.9 (165.3) | 5.7 (30.9) | 6.8 (44.3) | 73.2 | | T11 | 17.0 (286.6) | 14.0 (194.2) | 10.8 (115.5) | 12.9 (165.4) | - | | SEd | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | | | CD0.05 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | |
|
| T1: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha [pre-emergence (PE)] + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T2: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T3: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T4: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T5: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha [post-emergence (POE)] on 30 DAT, T6: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T7: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T8: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T9: Mechanical weeding 25-30 and 50-60 DAT, T10: Hand weeding 2530 and 50-60 DAT, T11: Unweeded control; DAT: Days after transplanting; Values are transformed to √ x+2 transformation; Values in the parentheses are original values | | | Table 3.: Effect of different weed management practices on growth attributes in tomato (pooled data of kharif 2013 and 2014)
| | Treatment | Plant height at harvest (cm) | Number of branches/plant | Number of fruits/plant | Single fruit weight (g) | Yield (tons/ha) | | T1 | 70.5 | 13.3 | 27.8 | 15.2 | 16.0 | | T2 | 74.0 | 14.4 | 29.0 | 16.6 | 17.9 | | T3 | 67.9 | 12.3 | 25.7 | 15.9 | 15.7 | | T4 | 77.7 | 16.6 | 31.3 | 18.6 | 20.6 | | T5 | 67.1 | 11.5 | 24.8 | 15.9 | 15.5 | | T6 | 74.7 | 15.0 | 29.4 | 17.1 | 18.5 | | T7 | 72.3 | 13.8 | 28.6 | 16.3 | 17.0 | | T8 | 76.2 | 16.0 | 30.3 | 17.9 | 19.8 | | T9 | 69.4 | 13.0 | 26.5 | 15.6 | 15.9 | | T10 | 66.4 | 10.8 | 24.4 | 16.0 | 15.2 | | T11 | 41.3 | 9.9 | 21.7 | 13.2 | 10.3 | | SEd | 4.9 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.2 | | CD0.05 | 9.9 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 2.5 |
|
| T1: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha [pre-emergence (PE)] + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T2: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T3: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T4: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T5: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha [post-emergence (POE)] on 30 DAT, T6: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T7: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T8: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T9: Mechanical weeding 25-30 and 50-60 DAT, T10: Hand weeding 2530 and 50-60 DAT, T11: Unweeded control | | | Table 4.: Effect of different weed management practices on economics in tomato
| | Treatment | Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha) | Net return (Rs/ha) | Gross return (Rs/ha) | B-C ratio | | T1 | 53,906 | 74,094 | 1,28,000 | 2.37 | | T2 | 53,077 | 90,123 | 1,43,200 | 2.70 | | T3 | 52,762 | 72,838 | 1,25,600 | 2.38 | | T4 | 54,282 | 1,10,118 | 1,64,400 | 3.03 | | T5 | 46,276 | 77,324 | 1,23,600 | 2.67 | | T6 | 45,447 | 1,02,553 | 1,48,000 | 3.31 | | T7 | 45,132 | 91,268 | 1,36,400 | 3.02 | | T8 | 46,652 | 1,11,748 | 1,58,400 | 3.40 | | T9 | 48,612 | 78,188 | 1,26,800 | 2.61 | | T10 | 59,842 | 61,758 | 1,21,600 | 2.03 | | T11 | 43,842 | 38,558 | 82,400 | 1.88 |
|
| T1: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha [pre-emergence (PE)] + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T2: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T3: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T4: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + hand weeding on 30 DAT, T5: Pendimethalin 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha [post-emergence (POE)] on 30 DAT, T6: Metribuzin 0.5 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T7: Alachlor 1 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T8: Oxyfluorfen 0.25 kg ai/ha (PE) + metribuzin 0.15 kg ai/ha (POE) on 30 DAT, T9: Mechanical weeding 25-30 and 50-60 DAT, T10: Hand weeding 2530 and 50-60 DAT, T11: Unweeded control | |
| | |
|
|
|