Direct seeded rice
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Direct seeded rice

on

  • 898 views

ppt direct seeded rice

ppt direct seeded rice

Statistics

Views

Total Views
898
Views on SlideShare
898
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
34
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Direct seeded rice Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Integrated Weed control in Direct Seeded Rice Harjeet Singh Brar L-2007-A-08-M
  • 2. INDIA (Rice) Area Production Productivity 43.8 mha 96.4 mt 2.2 t/ha PUNJAB (Rice) Area Production Productivity 2.6 mha 10.5 mt 4.04 t/ha 2
  • 3. Weed - A plant growing out of place 3
  • 4. Weed Control Process of limiting weed infestations so that the crops can be grown profitably 4
  • 5. Integrated Weed Control Combination of two or more methods in a mutually supportive manner 5
  • 6. Direct Seeding Practice of sowing sprouted/unsprouted seeds into puddled/ unpuddled soil by broadcasting/dibbling /drum seeding 6
  • 7. Why shift from transplanting to direct seeding?  Lowering of water table  Costly  Destruction of soil structure 7
  • 8. Advantages of DSR    Reduce Labour requirement-cost  Water requirement Helps maintain proper plant stand Helps finish sowing in stipulated time frame 8
  • 9. Problems of Direct Seeding Rice  Establishment  Weeds – More diverse weed flora 9
  • 10. Weed flora of direct seeded rice  Grasses - Echinochloa crusgalli , E. colonum Ischaemum rugosum, Digera arvensis Leptochloa apnicea  Sedges - Cyperus iria, Cyperus difformis, Cyperus rotundus  Broad Leaf - Ammania baccifera, Caesulia axillaris 10
  • 11. Different methods of rice establishment Dry Seeding Wet Seeding Transplanting Broadcasting Broadcasting Manual Drilling Drum Seeding Mechanical 11
  • 12. Effect of crop-weed competition on weed dry weight and grain yield in DSR Treatment Weed dry weight (q/ha) Grain yield (q/ha) 15 DAS 9.50 34.96 30 DAS 20.76 28.89 45 DAS 26.12 23.35 60 DAS 31.29 25.18 Maturity 37.69 16.01 15 DAS 29.27 22.65 30 DAS 24.55 27.89 45 DAS 8.12 35.30 60 DAS 7.97 36.20 Maturity 0 37.14 CD (p=0.05) 0.91 2.19 Weedy up to Weed free up to Silty clay loam, Mahasuri & RBD, dry seeding Singh et al (1999) Bahraich, UP Indian J of Agron. 44 (4): 722-27 12
  • 13. Effect of Establishment Methods 13
  • 14. Effect of sowing methods in DSR Treatment Weed dry matter Effective tillers (q/ha) /m2 Grain yield (q/ha) Pudding- direct broadcast 2.71 (9.8) 258 41.4 ZT- direct line 3.23 (14.8) 173 35.9 ZT- direct broadcasting 3.42 (16.8) 190 38.2 1.0 (0) 240 54.9 1.09 (1.2) 260 49.3 0.28 37 8.9 Transplanting Late transplanting CD (p=0.05) Lomy sand, PR 115 Walia et al (2006) Ludhiana J Res Punjab Agric Univ 43 (2) 94-97 14
  • 15. Effect of crop establishment methods in DSR Plant height (cm) LAI at 60 DAS Weed dry matter Grain yield (q/ha) B:C ratio Dry seeding 80.8 2.89 32.3 38.41 0.48 Drum seeding 82.1 3.27 19.4 50.62 1.19 Zero tillage 83.0 2.98 38.9 42.27 0.80 Transplanted 83.3 3.46 15.3 55.29 0.96 CD (p=0.05) 0.9 0.17 7.1 4.12 - Treatment Sity loam Yadav and Singh (2006) Faizabad (UP) Indian J Agron 51 (4): 301-03 15
  • 16. Effect of establishment methods and weed management on grain yield of DSR Grain yield (q/ha) Rice establishment methods Weedy Weed free Transplanting 56 80 Sprouted seed by drum 8 81 Dry seeding 0 9 Dry seeding at field capacity 0 68 Zero tillage fb Glyphosate 0 66 CD (p=0.05) Compare weed control methods 0.9 Compare establishment methods 1.6 Clay loam Dhyani et al (2005) Pantnagar (Uttaranchal) Indian J Weed Sci 37 (3&4): 260-62 16
  • 17. Effect of Genotypes 17
  • 18. Performance of rice genotypes under weedy and weed free condition in DSR Varieties Plant height (cm) Tillers/m row length Grain yield (q/ha) Weed Free Weedy Weed Free Weedy Weed Free Weedy (%) reduction PR-118 46.4 38.6 38.4 9.3 20.5 9.7 52.8 PR 116 63.4 62.7 82.3 62.1 67.7 40.1 40.1 PAU 201 61.4 59.8 75.0 58.6 64.6 31.8 50.8 PR-115 55.1 47.8 65.8 19.3 50.9 20.7 59.2 CD (p=0.05) 7.8 6.8 22.4 9.8 9.9 6.0 - Anonymous 2007, 2nd Annual Technical Report 18
  • 19. Performance of rice genotypes under DSR Genotypes SBR 34-69-1 Dry weight of Plant height weeds (g/m2) (cm) Panicle/m2 Panicle length (cm) Grain yield (q/ha) 41.2 68.0 281.4 19.5 21.5 ES 18-11-2 62.8 63.0 264.7 18.5 19.2 CD (p=0.05) 4.0 3.2 6.8 0.5 1.2 Sandy loam Roy and Mishra (1999) Pusa, Bihar Indian J Agron 44 (1) 105-08 19
  • 20. Effect of genotypes on weeds and grain yield of DSR Weeds ( No./m2) Weed dry matter (g/m2) Grain yield (q/ha) C- 1 29.83 23.35 11.77 Jaya 29.39 23.80 13.30 Banglami (local) 27.44 20.69 15.24 NS NS 0.67 Genotype CD (p=0.05) Sandy loam Gogoi and Kalita (1990) Assam Indian J Agron 35 (4): 433-34 20
  • 21. Effect of Herbicides 21
  • 22. Effect of weed control treatments on weeds and grain yield of DSR Weeds (No/m2) Dry matter (q/ha) WCE (%) Grain yield (q/ha) Pendimethalin 1.0* 8.1 11.83 50.7 31.6 Pendimethalin 1.0 fb 2,4-D 0.5 6.8 9.34 61.1 37.4 Anilophos 0.4 8.8 17.00 29.2 22.6 Anilophos 0.4 fb 2,4-D 0.5 8.5 15.23 36.5 25.9 Weed free 1.0 0.0 - 43.0 Weedy check 11.8 24.00 - 14.0 CD (p=0.05) 0.3 0.84 - 2.9 Treatments IR 64, *a.i. kg/ha Ram et al (2004) Haryana Indian J Agron 49 (2): 108-10 22
  • 23. Effect of weed control treatments on weed and yield of DSR Weed dry matter (g/m2) WCE (%) Panicles / m2 Grain yield (q/ha) Butachlor 1.5 35.23 77.59 444 26.9 Butachlor 1.0 fb 2,4-D 0.6 34.84 77.84 460 27.8 Pendimethalin 1.5 25.71 83.67 460 28.0 Pendimethalin 1.0 fb 2,4-D 0.6 17.81 88.67 465 30.0 Weed free 6.04 96.16 518 31.3 Unweeded 157.24 - 283 14.3 CD (p=0.05) 21.62 - 58 3.4 Treatment Sility clay loam, Dhan 221 Kalia and Bindra (1996) Malan (HP) Indian J Weed Sci 28 (3&4): 147-49 23
  • 24. Effect of different weed control treatments on weeds and DSR Weed density (No/m2) Weed dry wt. (g/m2) Grain yield (q/ha) Pretilachlor 0.37 + Safener 3.8 (14.0)* 15.2 (13.3) 57.3 Pretilachlor 0.56 + Safener 3.6 (12.0) 14.8 (1.2) 57.7 Pretila 0.37 + Safe + 1 HW 2.4 (5.0) 12.4 (5.3) 59.7 Pretilachlor 0.62 4.5 (20.0) 17.5 (20.7) 55.4 Pretilachlor 0.94 3.9 (14.0) 16.1 (15.8) 57.2 Pretila 0.62 + 1 HW 3.0 (8.0) 13.5 (8.2) 59.0 2 HW (20 and 45 DAS) 8.7(74.3) 24.5 (50.0) 58.3 Weedy 9.6 (92.3) 33.0 (99.7) 40.8 CD (p=0.05) 0.8 (6.8) 1.8 (10.3) 0.5 Treatment *Figures in parenthesis are original values Sq. root transformation is used Mahajan et al (2003) Gurdaspur Indian J Weed Sci 35 :128-130 24
  • 25. Effect of weed control treatments on weeds and dry seeded rice Weed dry matter (q/ha) Plant height (cm) Effective tillers/m2 Panicle length (cm) Grain yield (q/ha) 4.44 (19.5)* 51.7 41.4 18.8 39.52 Pendi 0.75 f.b bispyribac 0.025 2.95 (9.6) 59.2 50.4 21.4 56.18 Pretilachlor 0.50 8.94 (80.7) 38.9 35.5 15.7 13.17 Pretila 0.50 f.b. bis 0.025 6.02 (35.4) 45.9 42.9 18.3 39.2 Bispyribac 0.025 6.57 (42.3) 45.5 37.5 18.6 19.91 Bispyribac 0.030 6.43 (42.9) 49.3 40.2 19.5 24.20 Unweeded 8.49 (71.6) 36.7 29.6 19.1 11.91 1.07 7.8 5.29 NS 4.25 Treatments Pendi 0.75 CD (p=0.05) *Figures in parenthesis are original values Sq. root transformation is used Anonymous2007, 2nd Annual Technical Report 25
  • 26. Effect of weed control treatments on yield of wet seeded rice Treatments Weed dry matter (q ha-1) Effective tillers/m2 Panicle length (cm) Grain yield (q/ha) Pretilachlor 0.4 3.07 (10.1) 51.8 24.0 37.7 Pretila 0.4 f.b. bispyribac 0.025 1.77 (2.2) 68.8 25.3 51.5 Pretila 0.4 f.b. bispyribac 0.030 1.52 (1.6) 63.5 23.6 51.6 Pendi 0.75 f.b bispyribac 0.025 1.27 (0.7) 66.8 25.3 48.8 Bispyribac 0.30 1.58 (1.52) 64.3 24.8 48.1 Unweeded 5.82 (35.6) 18.3 20.5 11.9 1.20 11.5 2.5 8.0 CD (p=0.05) Figures in parenthesis are original values Sq. root transformation is used Anonymous2007, 2nd Annual Technical Report 26
  • 27. Integrated Weed Control 27
  • 28. Effect of weed control treatment on weeds, growth and yield of DSR Treatment Weeds (No/m2) Panicles (no/m2) Grain/ panicle Grain yield (q/ha) Weed check 14.78 215 62.7 23.02 Two HW 5.12 370 95.5 51.98 Pretila 0.4 + HW 5.01 385 97.5 53.97 Pretila 0.4 + Dhaincha 7.15 406 103.3 55.81 15 3.9 1.96 CD (p=0.05) 0.29 Clay loam, ADT 44 Subramanian and Martin (2006) TN Indian J weed Sci 38 (3&4): 218-20 28
  • 29. Effect of seed rate and weed control on weeds and DSR E. colona Cyperus spp 100 41.8 14.7 57.7 513 45.64 125 36.8 17.8 52.1 574 49.49 150 30.4 21.1 52.6 577 51.66 CD (p=0.05) 5.3 3.0 1.9 39 2.19 Oxyflouren 1.25 + HW 4.3 5.5 12.2 607 53.45 Pendi 1.25 + HW 5.1 8.9 14.0 530 49.60 Pretila 0.75 + HW 14.9 9.5 20.0 527 42.45 2 HW 45.0 18.5 47.0 450 41.62 Unweeded 199.8 51.9 194.0 421 33.52 2.5 3.9 2.7 27 5.73 Treatment Weed dry Productive Grain matter (g/m2) tillers/m2 yield (q/ha) Seed rate (kg/ha) Weed management CD (p=0.05) Clay loam Kathiresan and Manoharan (2002) Tamil Nadu Indian J Agron 47 (2): 212-15 29
  • 30. Effect of seed rate and weed control on weeds in WSR Cyperus rotundus Digitaria sanguinalis Eragrostis pilosa Total weed 40 2.98 (10.4) 1.81 (2.8) 1.40 (1.3) 1.24 (0.6) 1.12 (0.3) 3.47 (13.3) 50 2.93 (10.2) 1.69 (2.2) 1.38 (1.1) 1.24 (0.6) 1.11 (0.3) 3.39 (12.6) 60 2.99 (10.4) 1.63 (2.0) 1.29 (0.8) 1.24 (0.6) 1.09 (0.2) 3.07 (10.6) NS NS NS NS NS 0.19 Pretila 0.75 2.94 (10.3) 1.41 (1.2) 1.15 (0.4) 1.17 (0.4) 1.05 (0.1) 3.35 (14.7) Pendi 0.75 2.91 (10.2) 1.34 (0.9) 1.13 (0.3) 1.14 (0.3) 1.00 (0) 3.21 (14.0) 2 HW 1.37 (1.3) 1.23 (0.6) 1.07 (0.2) 1.14 (0.3) 1.05 (0.1) 3.10 (13.4) Weedy 2.93 (10.2) 3.11 (13.6) 2.25 (4.1) 1.62 (1. 7) 1.43 (1.1) 8.00 (40.3) 0.28 0.19 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.28 Treatments Echinochloa Eleusine crusgalli aegyptiacum Seed rate (kg ha-1) CD (p=0.05) Weed control CD (p=0.05) Ghansham Payman M.Sc thesis (2007) 30
  • 31. Effect of seed rate and weed control in WSR Weed dry matter (q/ha) WCE (%) Effective tillers/m2 Grain yield (q/ha) 40 9.23 52.63 389.9 44.7 50 9.22 52.74 394.8 45.8 60 9.21 52.85 401.3 46.2 CD (p=0.05) NS - NS NS Pretila 0.75 7.67 61.59 410.4 50.6 Pendi 0.75 7.63 61.93 417.6 53.6 2 HW 7.56 65.52 420.3 54.2 Unweeded 15.47 - 306.1 15.4 CD (p=0.05) 0.17 - 29.2 4.54 Treatment Seed rate (kg/ha) Weed control treatments Loamy sand, Wet seeding, SPD Payman and Singh (2008) Ludhiana Indian J weed sci 40 (1&2): 11-15 31
  • 32. Correlation between grain yield and weed dry matter Weed dry matter Grain yield Weed dry matter (q ha-1) Ghansham Payman M.Sc thesis (2007) 32
  • 33. Effect of seed rates and weed control on weeds in DSR Digera arvensis E. crusgalli Panicum crugalli Leptochloa apnica Cyprus iria 30 1.24 (0.67) 1.27 (0.83) 2.35 (5.08) 1.27 (0.75) 1.20 (0.58) 45 1.24 (0.83) 1.23 (0.67) 1.98 (3.83) 1.27 (0.75) 1.35 (1.00) 60 1.20 (0.67) 1.12 (0.33) 1.90 (3.33) 1.17 (0.50) 1.23 (0.67) 75 1.19 (0.58) 1.03 (0.08) 1.56 (2.08) 1.16 (0.42) 1.07 (0.17) NS 0.15 0.50 NS NS Pendi 0.75 1.75 (2.42) 1.62 (1.83) 2.96 (7.92) 1.67 (1.92) 1.68 (2.00) Pendi 0.75 f.b bispyribac 0.025 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.14 (0.42) 1.0 (0.00) 1.0 (0.00) Pendi 0.75 f.b azimsulfuron 0.020 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.66 (2.33) 1.13 (0.33) 1.0 (0.00) Pendi 0.75 f.b 2, 4-D 0.50, BM 1.12 (0.33) 1.03 (0.08) 2.02 (3.67) 1.07 (0.17) 1.15 (0.42) 0.31 0.17 0.47 0.20 0.19 Treatments Seed rate (kg/ha) CD (p=0.05) Weed control treatments CD (p=0.05) Anonymous2007, 2nd Annual Technical Report 33
  • 34. Effect of seed rate and weed control weeds and DSR Dry matter of weeds (q/ha) Plant height (cm) Effective tillers/m row Panicle length (cm) Grain yield (q/ha) 30 2.40 54.9 50.1 24.0 40.70 45 2.14 54.4 52.6 23.6 48.93 60 1.98 54.0 52.4 23.9 48.33 75 1.80 52.5 54.2 23.0 51.80 CD at 5% 0.43 NS 2.3 NS 5.10 Pendi 0.75 3.76 52.2 47.3 22.7 37.80 Pendi 0.75 f.b. bispyribac 0.025 1.10 56.6 58.6 24.6 52.62 Pendi 0.75 f.b. azimsulfuron 0.02 1.44 55.1 56.0 24.1 49.07 Pendi 0.75 f.b 2, 4-D 0.50 , BM 2.02 51.9 47.4 23.0 50.27 CD (p=0.05) 0.87 2.5 6.4 1.1 4.21 Treatments Main plots (Seed rate) Sub plots (Weed control treatments) Anonymous2007, 2nd Annual Technical Report 34
  • 35. Effect of sowing time and weed management in DSR Treatment Weeds (no/m2) Weed dry matter (g/m2) Grain yield (q/ha) B:C ratio Before monsoon 5.48 6.71 23.04 1.34 After monsoon 4.93 5.12 32.63 1.74 CD (p=0.05) 0.29 0.55 1.78 Weed control Pendi 1.0 + HW 4.05 4.50 32.46 1.75 Pendi 1.0 fb 2,4-D 0.5 5.12 6.06 31.37 1.71 Dhaincha + pendi 1.0 fb 2,4-D 0.5 5.10 5.19 26.74 1.35 2 HW 4.55 4.37 34.10 1.77 Weedy check 8.60 10.56 13.60 0.95 CD (p=0.05) 0.35 0.51 2.25 Time of sowing Clay loam, Kranti, SPD Mishra and Singh et al (2008) Nat symp “New Paradigms in Agronomic Research” Nov 19-20,pp 319-20 35
  • 36. Effect of seeding methods, intercropping and weed management in DSR Weed density (no/ha) Panicles/m2 Grain yield (q/ha) B:C ratio Surface 1.85 (90.4) 365 46 1.77 Anaerobic 1.83 (87.1) 373 47 1.84 NS NS NS Sole rice 2.07 (129.7) 356 41 1.65 Rice + Dhaincha 1.61 (47.8) 381 52 1.97 0.02 9 3 Pretila 0.3 fb HW 1.63 (49.6) 413 57 2.21 2 HW 1.73 (58.9) 381 53 1.97 Unweeded 2.22 (178.1) 291 22 0.98 0.06 13 3 Treatment Seeding methods CD (p=0.05) Intercropping CD (p=0.05) Weed management CD (p=0.05) Clay loam Ravisankar et al (2008) Coimbatore, T.N Indian J Agron 53(1): 57-61 36
  • 37. CONCLUSION      Weeds are one of major problem in DSR Weds must be controlled especially during first 15- 45 days Pre emergence herbicides viz. Pretilachlor 0.4 kg, pendimethalin 0.75 -1.5 kg in combiantion with post emergence herbicides 2,4-D 0.5 kg, bispyribac 0.025 kg and azimsulfuron 0.020 kg/ha or hand weeding are effective Brown manuring Higher seed rate and quick growing varieties  Hold promise for weed control in direct seeded rice 37