It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The experiment consisted of 12 treatments (weed interference until 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 days after emergence (DAE), weedy until crop maturity, and weed-free until 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and a weed-free until crop maturity) and the treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. This study indicated increased weed interference period reduced the pod yield by 6.5–36 and 0.7–32%, and haulm yield by 6.4 – 34 and 6.5 – 34% during rainy and winter season respectively. Further, reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively. However, weed-free until crop harvest increased RUE by 293% and 314%, chlorophyll content by 8.7 and 10.7%, respectively, during rainy and winter seasons. This study indicated critical duration for crop-weed interference under 5% relative yield loss (RYL) was 16 to 66 DAE in rainy and 15 to 63 DAE in winter. Similarly, at 10%, RYL were 23 to 62 and 21 to 61 DAE, respectively, during the rainy and winter seasons. As a result, farmers should keep their groundnut crop weed-free between 15 and 66 DAE during the rainy and winter seasons.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Department of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India; Department of Agronomy, School of Natural Resource Management, College of P-G Studies (CAU CPGS), Umiam, Meghalaya, India
2 Department of Agronomy, School of Natural Resource Management, College of P-G Studies (CAU CPGS), Umiam, Meghalaya, India
3 Department of Agronomy, College of Agricultural Sciences, Keladi Shivappa Nayaka University of Agricultural & Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga (Iruvakki), Karnataka, India
4 ICAR, Central Coastal Agricultural Research Institute, Old Goa, Goa, India
5 Center for Climate Resilient Agriculture, Keladi Shivappa Nayaka University of Agricultural & Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India
6 Plant Production Department, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
7 Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia