You are on page 1of 6

Legume Research, 39 (1) 2016: 86-90 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE

Print ISSN:0250-5371 / Online ISSN:0976-0571 www.arccjournals.com/www.legumeresearch.in

Critical period for weed control in field pea


Mainpal Singh*1, Rakesh Kumar, Satish Kumar and Virender Kumar2
Department of Agronomy,
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 001, India
Received: 16-05-2013 Accepted: 16-11-2013 DOI: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.6787
ABSTRACT
Field studies were conducted during 2008-09 and 2009-10 at Hisar, India to assess the effect of weed competition on crop
growth and yield of field pea. Weed density increased up to 60 days and then decreased at later stages of crop growth. Seed
yield of field pea was decreased by 50% when weeds were allowed to compete for the entire season. The critical period for
weed control was 21-63 days in year 1 and 20-70 days in year 2 to achieve 95% of weed-free yield. It is therefore concluded
that, to minimize yield loss due to weed competition in field pea, weed control measures should be targeted to avoid weed
competition between 20-70 days after sowing.

Key words: Critical period, Field pea, Seed yield, Weeds.

INTRODUCTION tendril pea under tarai of Uttaranchal. Kumar et al. (2009)


Field pea is one of the most important grain pulse also reported the critical period of crop-weed competition
crop of the world. Field peas are of two types based on the between 30-60 days after sowing in field pea under rainfed
consumption: dry peas and green peas. Dry peas are used as subtropical conditions of Kandi belt of Jammu.
split (dal) and besan for various preparation and green pods To our knowledge, there is no information available
are used as vegetables. Crop management factors, such as on CPWC in field pea in plain area of India. Therefore, the
optimum sowing time and method, plant population, weed present investigation was undertaken to identify the CPWC
competition, water and nutrients affect the yield of field pea. in field pea to render weed management more effective and
Among these, competition due to weeds is important as economical.
uncontrolled weed growth has been reported to cause yield
MATERIALS AND METHODS
reduction 77.2 per cent (Tripathi et al. 2001). Slow initial
growth of field pea and wide spacing provide congenial A field experiment was conducted during winter
environment for weeds to grow and compete with crop. season of 2008-09 and 2009-10 at Pulse Research Farm
(29º102 N latitude and 75º462 E longitude) of Chaudhary
The weed emergence timing and duration of weed Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University Hisar,
competition has significant effect on crop yield. A few days Haryana. The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam in
of early growth by crop relative to weeds give competitive texture, slightly alkaline in reaction (pH 7.85), medium in
advantage in favor of crop over weeds (Mohler 2001). organic C (0.43%), available N (154 kg ha-1) and P (43.5 kg
Therefore, it is important to identify the critical period for ha-1) and high in K (306 kg ha-1). To determine CPWC,
weed control (CPWC) so that weed control measures can be treatments with increasing duration of weed interference (to
targeted during this window to avoid weed competition as estimate beginning of CPWC) and weed-free period (to
part of overall integrated weed management strategy.The estimate end of CPWC) were included. The increasing
CPWC is defined as the critical window during which weed duration of weed interferences treatments were established
competition with crop is maximum and must be controlled to by allowing weeds to compete with field pea for 20, 40, 60,
avoid yield losses. The knowledge of CPWC would be useful 80 and 100 days after crop sowing (referred to as weedy plots),
in improving weed control by targeting weed control measures after which the plots were kept weed-free until harvest. The
at right time (herbicide application and non-chemical methods increasing duration of weed-free period, was established by
including in row cultivation). Tripathi et al.(2001) reported keeping the plots weed-free for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 days
the critical period of weed competition from 15-60 days in after crop sowing (referred to as weed-free plots) and then
*Corresponding authors e-mail: mainpal.mehla@gmail.com. 1National Agri-food Biotechnology Institute, Industrial Area Phase-8 Mohali.
2
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)-India office, Pusa, New Delhi.
Volume 39 Issue 1 (2016) 87
weeds were allowed to compete for the remainder of the increased up to 60 DAS and then, a decreasing trend was
growing season. In addition, season-long weedy check and observed in season-long weedy treatment (Table 1). Tripathi
weed-free check were also included. Weeds were removed et al. (2001) found the increase in the density of weeds up to
as per treatment with the help of hand hoe. The experiment 60 DAS in tendril pea. This showed that majority of weeds
was conducted under naturally occurring weed population in emerged up to 60 DAS. This might be because of shading
randomize complete block design with three replications. The effect of taller weeds and crop on the germination of new
plot size was 15 m2. The field pea variety “Uttara” was planted flush of weeds. At crop harvest, maximum density of weeds
in rows 30 cm apart using 75 kg seed/ha on 14 November was recorded in season-long weedy check treatment, which
and 4 November during winter 2008-09 and 2009-10, was significantly higher than all the treatments. As the weed-
respectively. A basal dose of 20 kg N ha-1 in the form of urea free duration increased from 20 to 100 days, weed density
and 40 kg P2O5 ha-1 in the form of diammonium phosphate decreased significantly. Dry weight of weeds was influenced
were applied uniformly to all treatments. significantly due to crop-weed competition (Table 1). In
Recommended package and practices other than season-long weedy check treatment, dry weight of weeds
weed control were adopted to grow the experiment crop. The increased up to crop harvest. Weed dry weight decreased with
density of individual weeds and total dry weight of weeds the increase in weed-free duration and increased with increase
were recorded from two randomly selected quadrates in weedy duration in the crop. At harvest, season-long weedy
(0.25 m-2) in each plot at 20 days interval, and weed sample check treatment had maximum weed dry weight and which
were dried in oven at 600C to constant weight. At crop harvest, decreased with increasing duration of weed free period up to
plant height, grain yield and yield attributes (number of pods 80 days. However, and further increase in duration of weed-
per plant, number of grain per pod, 1000-grain weight) were free period had no effect on weed dry weight.
recorded. Critical period for weed control: Based on the best fitted
Statistical Analysis: Data were subjected to analysis of regression equations (logistic and Gompertz), the window
variance (ANOVA) and treatment means were separated by for CPWC was 20-63 days and 20-70 days after field pea
least significant difference test at P < 0.005.Non-linear sowing in year 1 and 2, respectively at 5% level of acceptable
regression analysis was done to estimate CPWC.To determine yield loss (AYL) (Fig 1 and 2). This window decreased to
the beginning of CPWC, the logistic equation was fitted to 30-53 days and 30-59 days after sowing in year 1 and 2,
respectively at 10% level of AYL. These results represent
relative yield (% of season-long weed-free period) with the
the length of weed control required to protect crop yield from
increasing duration of weed interference, whereas to
more than a 5 and 10% yield loss. The majority of studies
determine the end of CPWC, modified Gompertz equation
report 2-5% as the maximum AYL. However, it can vary from
was fitted to relative yield with increasing length of weed-
farmer to farmer subject to economic risks one is willing to
free period (Knezevic et al. 2002). The Gompetrz equation
take depending on the market price of the crop and the cost
fitted is defined as:Y= a*exp (-exp (-(x-xo)/b))
of weed control (Knezevic et al. 2002). The parameter
Where Y is the relative yield, a is the yield estimates of both regression equations are given in Table 2.
asymptote, b and xo are constants and x is the time of weed
Crop growth, seed yield and yield attributes: Plant height
free period from sowing (days). Logistic equation fitted is
increased with the increase in duration of weed interference
defined: asY=a/1+(x/xo)b
and decreased with the increase in weed-free period in the
Where Y is the relative yield, a and b are constant, crop. This was due to severe competition between crop and
xo is point of inflection, x is the time of weedy period from weed for light and space in plots with increasing duration
the sowing (days). The yield loss levels of 5 and 10 % were of weed interference and less in plots with increasing
chosen arbitrarily. Curve fitting and parameter estimation was duration of weed-free period which allowed more space
done using statistical package Sigma Plot 8.0. available for lateral spreading (Table 3). During both the
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION years, all the yield attributes including number of branches
Weed density and growth: Predominant weed species in plant -1, pods plant -1, and grains pod -1 were influenced
the experiment were: Melilotus indica (38%), Fumaria significantly by treatments with different weedy and weed-
parviflora 20%), Cornopus didymus (19.5%), Cyprus free periods. Yield attributes increased with increase in
rotundus (12.5%), Avena ludoviciana (11.5%), Anagalis weed-free duration and decreased with increase in weedy
arvensis (9%), Convolvulus arvensis (6.5%) and period. The yield attributes were highest in season-long
Chenopodium album (6.5%). In both years, weed density weed-free period and at par with weed-free for initial 40
88

TABLE 1: Effect of crop weed-competition on density (No. m-2) and dry matter (g m-2) of weeds in field pea1.
Treatments Weed density Weed dry weight
20 DAS 60 DAS At harvest 20 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10
Weedy check 5.8 (32.3) 7.9 (62.1) 8.5 (71.8) 1.7 (2.0) 7.3 (51.9) 10.5 (109.8) 1.7 (2.0) 1.8 (2.1) 10.8 (116.1) 11.2 (124.4) 19.6 (382.8) 20.3 (411.9)
throughout
Weed free 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 2.0 (2.9) 2.7 (6.1) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.45 (1.1) 1.6 (1.5)
throughout
Weed free up 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 5.1 (25.0) 1.0 (0.0) 5.0 (23.8) 6.6 (42.2) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 18.8 (353.6) 19.4 (375.4)
to 20 DAS
Weed free up 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 3.6 (12.0) 1.0 (0.0) 4.4 (18.0) 5.7 (31.4) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 9.3 (86.0) 9.7 (92.6)
to 40 DAS
Weed free up 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 4.0 (15.1) 5.4 (27.7) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 5.5 (29.0) 5.6 (30.3)
to 60 DAS
Weed free up 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 2.9 (7.4) 4.3 (17.2) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.7 (1.8) 1.8 (2.3)
to 80 DAS
Weed free up 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.9 (2.4) 2.5 (5.4) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.8 (2.4) 1.9 (2.6)
to 100 DAS
Weedy up to 5.7 (31.0) 7.9 (61.3) 1.0 (0.0) 1.7 (2.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.7 (2.0) 1.8 (2.1) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0)
20 DAS
Weedy up to 5.6 (30.4) 7.9 (62.2) 1.0 (0.0) 1.7 (1.9) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.7 (1.9) 1.8 (2.2) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0)
40 DAS
Weedy up to 5.8 (33.1) 8.0 (62.9) 8.4 (70.2) 1.72 (2.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.72 (2.0) 1.8 (2.1) 10.8 (114.8) 11.2 (124.4) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0)
60 DAS
Weedy up to 5.8 (33.2) 8.0 (62.6) 8.4 (69.8) 1.7 (1.9) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.70 (1.9) 1.8 (2.2) 10.7 (113.3) 11.1 (122.7) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0)
LEGUME RESEARCH - An International Journal

80 DAS
Weedy up to 5.8 (32.9) 8.1 (64.6) 8.5 (71.1) 1.7 (1.9) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 1.7 (1.9) 1.8 (2.1) 10.8 (116.3) 11.1 (121.1) 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0)
100 DAS
SEm (±) 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.25
CD at 5% 0.46 0.65 0.59 0.03 0.36 0.51 0.09 0.08 0.46 0.51 0.47 0.73
1
Data are x+1 transformed and data in parentheses are original
Volume 39 Issue 1 (2016) 89
1
TABLE 2: Parameter estimates for the Gompertz and logistic equations .
Year Gompertz parameters Logistic parameters
a b xo R2 a b xo R2
2008-09 111.85 37.23 -4.70 0.74 101.68 1.64 107.06 0.81
2009-10 108.74 37.87 -6.13 0.73 100.72 1.68 107.04 0.82
1
a : yield asymptote (% of season long weed-free field pea); b and xo constants; R2 coefficient of determination (%).

TABLE 3: Effect of crop-weed competition on plant height, yield attributes, grain and straw yield of field pea
Treatments Plant height (cm) No of branches plant-1 No of pods plant-1 No of grains pod-1 Grain yield kg ha-1
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10
Weedy check 82.67 72.67 1.52 1.44 10.56 10.09 3.11 2.93 1118 1008
Weed free 60.80 55.32 3.04 2.87 19.26 18.89 4.67 4.40 2224 2015
Weed free up to 77.33 70.69 1.67 1.58 11.90 11.42 3.18 2.99 1245 1118
20 DAS
Weed free up to 63.67 57.09 2.67 2.46 17.11 16.45 3.85 3.63 1938 1730
40 DAS
Weed free up to 62.00 56.47 2.84 2.70 18.98 17.63 4.25 4.12 2159 1888
60 DAS
Weed free up to 61. 70 55.99 2.78 2.84 19.28 18.76 4.20 4.39 2235 1954
80 DAS
Weed free up to 61.67 55.83 2.98 2.81 19.34 18.51 4.62 4.36 2246 1995
100 DAS
Weedy up to 61.33 56.21 2.80 2.74 19.22 18.27 4.53 4.27 2215 1946
20 DAS
Weedy up to 63.00 60.31 2.22 2.18 15.65 15.15 4.02 3.78 1783 1656
40 DAS
Weedy up to 69.33 63.39 2.09 2.07 14.47 13.98 3.36 3.17 1624 1456
60 DAS
Weedy up to 72.61 67.00 1.82 1.72 13.47 12.98 3.22 3.04 1423 1277
80 DAS
Weedy up to 76.61 68.67 1.64 1.55 12.50 11.97 3.13 2.95 1179 1058
100 DAS
SEm± 3.79 3.04 0.14 0.17 0.89 1.09 0.31 0.22 107 95
CD at 5% 11.20 8.97 0.42 0.51 2.83 3.21 0.90 0.66 314 280
140
●Weedy ●Weedy
Relative yield (% of season long weed free)
Relative yield (% of season long weed free)

○Weed free ○Weed free


120

100
5 % yield loss
10 % yield loss
80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 1 00 120

D ays after sow ing


FIG 1: Critical period for weed control in field pea in FIG 2: Critical period for weed control in field pea in
2008-09. 2009-10.
days or plots kept weedy only for initial 20 days. Yield for the photosynthesis and resulted in less number of yield
attributes were adversely affected in plots where weed attributes under weedy condition (Vasilakoglou and Dhima
competition were allowed for longer than initial 20 days. 2012). Akhter et al. (2009) also reported decrease in yield
This might be due to the shading effect caused by taller attributes of field pea under the reduced photosynthetically
weeds like wild oat which reduced the availability of light active radiation conditions.
90 LEGUME RESEARCH - An International Journal
Seed yield was highest in season-long weed free competition started when weeds were present for longer than
treatment and lowest in season-long weedy check treatment 20 days.
(Table 3). In both years, season-long weed competition CONCLUSIONS
caused 50% yield reduction. The reduction in yield was also Based on 2 year study, it was found that presence of
reported by Tepe et al. (2011). Yield increased significantly weeds during the initial 20 days did not affect seed yield of
with increase in weed-free duration up to 40 days after sowing, field pea and when weeds were allowed for longer than 20
and further increase in weed-free duration had no effect on days had adverse effect on seed yield. The window for CPWC
yield. Seed yield of season-long weed-free plots and plots in field was 20-70 DAS at 5% AYL and 30-53 DAS based on
where weed competition was allowed only for initial 20 days 10% AYL. Therefore, weed control measures should be
were not significantly different. This suggests that weeds did deployed in such a way that there is minimum crop-weed
not start competing with crop in the initial 20 days and competition during the window of CPWC.

REFERENCES
Akhter, N., Rahman, M.M., Hasanuzzaman, M. and Nahar, K. (2009). Plant characters and seed yield of garden pea under
different light intensity. Am.-Eur. J. Agron.2: 152–155.
Harker, K.N., Blackshaw, R.E. and Clayton, G.W. (2001). Timing weeds removal in field pea (Pisum sativum). Weed
Technology. 15: 277-283.
Knezevic, S.Z., Evans, S.P., Blankenship, E.E.,Van Acker, R.C. and Lindquist, J.L. (2002). Critical period for weed control:
the concept and data analysis. Weed Science50: 773-786.
Kumar, A., Sharma, B.C., Nandan, B. and Sharma, K.P. (2009).Crop-weed competition in field pea under rainfed subtropical
conditions of Kandi belt of Jammu. Indian J. of Weed Sci. 41(1&2) : 23-26.
Mohler, C.L. (2001). Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. In M. Liebman, C. Mohler, and C. Stave reds. Ecological
Management of Agricultural weeds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 269-321.
Tepe, I., Erman, M., Yarcin, R. and Bukun, B. (2011).Critical period of weed control in chickpea under non-irrigated
condition.Turk. J. Agric. For. 35 : 525-534.
Tripathi, S.S., Singh, R., Singh, S. and Singh, R.K. (2001). Study on crop-weed competition in tendril pea (Pisum sativum
L.) under Tarai of Uttaranchal. Indian J. of Weed Sci.33 (1&2) : 46-48.
Vasilakoglou, Loannis and Kico Dhima (2012). Leafy and semi-leafless field pea competition with wild oat as affected by
weed density. Field Crop Research. 126: 130-136.
Copyright of Legume Research: An International Journal is the property of Agricultural
Research Communication Centre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.