volume 22 issue 3 (september 2002) : 179 - 181

INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT IN LATE SOWN CHICKPEA

R
R.J. PatH
D
D.D. Dudhade*
J
J.V. PatH
1Pulses Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri - 413 722, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- PatH R.J., Dudhade* D.D., PatH J.V. (2025). INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT IN LATE SOWN CHICKPEA. Agricultural Science Digest. 22(3): 179 - 181. doi: .
Field studies consisting of eleven weed control treatments were conducted during rabi 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97. The pooled results indicate that unchecked weed caused 56.45%, 100.75% and 140.00% reduction in the grain yield during 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 seasons respectively. Application of Pandimethalin at 0.75kg/ha+one hand weeding at 45 DAS recorded highest yield than the other treatments. This treatment also gave highest net profit of Rs. 14,000/ha and benefit cost ratio of 2.18.
    1. Singh etal. (1986).lndianJ. Agron. 31:269-272.
    2. Sesharee etal. (1996). IndianJ. Agron. 41:496-497.
    3. Vaishya et al. (1996). Indian J. Pulses Res. 9:34-38.
    volume 22 issue 3 (september 2002) : 179 - 181

    INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT IN LATE SOWN CHICKPEA

    R
    R.J. PatH
    D
    D.D. Dudhade*
    J
    J.V. PatH
    1Pulses Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri - 413 722, India
    • Submitted|

    • First Online |

    • doi

    Cite article:- PatH R.J., Dudhade* D.D., PatH J.V. (2025). INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT IN LATE SOWN CHICKPEA. Agricultural Science Digest. 22(3): 179 - 181. doi: .
    Field studies consisting of eleven weed control treatments were conducted during rabi 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97. The pooled results indicate that unchecked weed caused 56.45%, 100.75% and 140.00% reduction in the grain yield during 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 seasons respectively. Application of Pandimethalin at 0.75kg/ha+one hand weeding at 45 DAS recorded highest yield than the other treatments. This treatment also gave highest net profit of Rs. 14,000/ha and benefit cost ratio of 2.18.
      1. Singh etal. (1986).lndianJ. Agron. 31:269-272.
      2. Sesharee etal. (1996). IndianJ. Agron. 41:496-497.
      3. Vaishya et al. (1996). Indian J. Pulses Res. 9:34-38.
      In this Article
      Published In
      Agricultural Science Digest

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)