This document summarizes a doctoral seminar presentation on herbicide combinations for controlling complex weed flora in transplanted rice. The presentation covered rice production globally and in India/Uttar Pradesh, common weeds of rice, herbicide application methods, research on herbicide mixtures, and findings showing penoxsulam + butachlor and bispyribac + ethoxysulfuron combinations effectively controlled various weed species and increased rice yield compared to individual herbicides.

1. Doctoral Seminar
on
Herbicide combination for control of complex weed flora in
transplanted rice.
Department of Agronomy
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology
Meerut - 250110 (Uttar Pradesh)
By
Mausmi Rastogi, Ph.D ( Agronomy)
Id. No-4815
1

2. Contents of presentation:
 Introduction
 Weed information
 Herbicide and Herbicide Mixture
 Research Finding
 Conclusion 2

3. Introduction
 Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is a staple food of more
than 60% of world population.
 Rice is the global grain cultivated in about 89
countries.
 Good source of energy contain about 70%
carbohydrate and 6-7% protein.
 Rice occupies a pivotal place in Indian
Agriculture.
3

4. Global Rice distribution
• Globally rice production must increase by 36% by 2025
to feed 4 billion rice consumers.(Anonymous - 2020)
FAO, 2021
 Area: 164.19 m ha
 Production:756 mt
 Productivity:32.89 q/ha
4

5. Rice distribution in India
Source - Directorate of Economics and statistics,
Deptt. Of agri. and cooperation (2020-21)
 Area: 45.07 mha
 Production: 122.27 mt
 Productivity:27.13 q/ha
5

6. Rice distribution in Uttar Pradesh
Directorate of Economics and statistics
2020-2021
Anonymous, 2020
 Area:5.68mha
 Production: 15.52 mt
 Productivity:27.59 q/ha
6

7. State Area( M ha) Production (M.T.) Average Yield(Kg/ha)
West Bengal 5.58 16.65 2984
Uttar Pradesh 5.68 15.66 2759
Punjab 2.79 12.18 4366
Odisha 4.03 8.77 2173
Andhra Pradesh 2.32 7.89 3395
Telangana 2.31 7.70 3327
Tamil Nadu 2.04 7.28 3574
Chattisgarh 3.79 7.16 1889
Bihar 3.02 6.88 2276
Assam 2.36 5.26 2224
Others 11.13 26.84 2411
All India 45.07 122.27 2713
Table-1. State wise area, production and productivity of rice in India (2020-21)
Source - Directorate of Economics and statistics,
Deptt. Of agri. and cooperation (2020-21) 7

8. (FAO, 2018)
Pesticide use pattern
8

9. (Source: (GOI, 2020)
State wise pesticide consumption in India (2019-2020)
9

10. 74%
7%
6%
4%
9%
Herbicide use in crops –India
Cereals
Non selectivefields
Plantation crop
Soyabean
Others
(Source- Yaduraju,2006) 10

11. 11

12. Key components for a good crop of
Transplanted rice
 Plant stand
 Water management
 Nutrient management
 Weed management
12

13. Why we need to control weeds?
 Prevent yield loss due to crop weed competition
 Maintain purity and market price of harvested grain
 Prevent build-up of weed seeds in soil
 Prevent weeds that may attract insects or rodents (rats) or
act as a host for diseases
 Reduce time and cost of land preparation and weeding
operations
13

14. Table-2. Estimated yield losses caused by weeds in different
methods of rice establishment in India
Method of Rice
establishment
% reduction in yield due to
weeds
References
TPR 12 to 69.5% Singh et al., 2011
Wet-seeded Rice 85% Singh et al., 2011
Upland direct-seeded Rice 93.6% Ladu and Singh, 2006
Dry-seeded rice zero tillage 98% Singh et al., 2011
Dry-seeded rice 34.4 to 72.6% Moorthy and Saha, 2001
Upland Rice 97.2% Singh et al., 1988
Rice- wheat cropping system 13.1 to 22.4% Singh et al., 2005
14

15. Some ill effects of weeds
 Clog irrigation and drainage channels
 Lengthens time span in land preparation
 Act as alternate host
 Reduce the quality of harvested produce
 Hindrance in harvesting and threshing management
 Decrease WUE and FUE
 Increase cost of cultivation
15

16. A. Annual grassy weeds
1. Echinochloa colona (Jungle rice/Awn less barn yard grass)
2. Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyardgrass)
3. Eleusine indica (Goose grass)
4. Leptochloa chinensis (Red spangle top) / China grass)
5. Ischaemum rugosum (Wrinkle grass/Saw grass)
B. Annual Cyperaceous weeds
1. Cyperus iria (Umbrella sedge)
2. Cyperus rotundus (Purple nut sedge)
3. Cyperus difformis (Small flower umbrella Plant)
4. Cyperus esculentus (Yellow nut grass)
C. Annual broad leaf weeds
1. Eclipta alba (false daisy /Jal Bhangra)
2. Ammania baccifera (Fire leaf)
3. Sphenoclea Zeylanica (Goose weed)
4. Caesulia axillaries (Caesulia)
5. Ludwigia parviflora (water purslane)
6. Commelina benghalensis (Day flower/Tropical spider)
Problematic weeds of transplanted rice
16

17. Digitaria
Sanguinalis
Panicum
dichotomiflorum
Echinochloa
colona
Major weeds of transplanted rice Conti.
17

18. Commelina
Benghalensis
Alternanthera
philoxeroides
Ammannia
baccifera
18

19. 19

20. Herbicide application methods
Pre-plant incorporation Pre-emergence Post-emergence
20

21. Herbicide and herbicide combination
Mixture of selected herbicides offer several advantages over
the use of a single herbicide, including
a) A reduction in cost of cultivation by saving time and labour,
b) A reduction in soil compaction by eliminating multiple field operations,
c) An increase in the spectrum or range of weeds controlled or an extension of
weed control over a longer period of time,
d) An improvement in crop safety by using minimum doses of selected herbicides
applied in combination rather than a single high dose of one herbicide,
e) A reduction in crop or soil residues off persistent herbicides by using minimum
doses of such herbicides.
21

22. Types of herbicide mixtures
22
1) Factory mix/premix/ready mix 2) Tank mix/ field mix herbicide
mixtures
i. Isoguard plus (Isoproturon + 2,4-D)
ii. Aniloguard plus (Anilophos + 2,4-D)
iii. Almix (Metsulfuron methyl +
chlorimuron ethyl) – used in rice
iv. Pursuit plus (Pendimethalin +
Imazethapyr)
i. Atrazine + Alachlor
ii. Atrazine + Pendimethalin
iii. Isoproturon + Tralkoxydim
iv. Sethoxydim + Chlorsulfuron

23. Schematic presentation of herbicide interactions (LD 50 =
rates of herbicides, applied alone or in mixture, for a 50%
weed control) (modified from Green, 1989)
23
L50
L50

24.  The optimum herbicide combinations would be those that
exhibit enhanced activity on target weed species.
To predict the behaviour of each single herbicide in the
mixture.
 To predict the activity of the mixture on plant species and
growth stages.
Objectives :
24

26. S. No. Treatment
Dose
(g/ha)
Density of weeds (no./m2)*
Echinochloa
crus-gall
Ammannia
baccifera
Cyperus
difformis
Cyperus
rotundus
Total
sedges
T1
Penoxsulam + butachlor
41% SE
615 2.04(3.3) 4.65(20.7) 1.49(1.3) 1.73(2.0) 2.07(3.3)
T2
Penoxsulam + butachlor
41% SE
718 1.73(2.0) 3.69(12.7) 1.00(0) 1.49(1.3) 1.49(1.3)
T3
Penoxsulam + butachlor
41% SE
820 1.24(0.7) 2.24(4.0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0)
T4 Penoxsulam 24% SC 22.5 1.66(2.0) 3.31(10.0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0.0) 1.00(0.0)
T5 Butachlor 50% EC 1500 1.49(1.3) 4.49(19.3) 1.73(2.0) 1.90(2.7) 2.37(4.7)
T6 Pretilachlor 50% EC 1000 1.24(0.7) 4.57(20.0) 1.73(2.0) 1.66(2.0) 2.20(4.0)
T7 Weed free 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0)
T8 Weedy check 4.12(16.0) 8.53(72.0) 2.37(4.7) 2.07(3.3) 2.99(8.0)
LSD (p=0.05) 0.73 0.65 0.29 0.46 0.45
(Yadav et. al. 2019)
Table-3. Effect of different herbicidal treatments on density of weeds at 60 DAT in transplanted rice
Hisar 25

27. S. No. Treatment
Dose
(g/ha)
Plant height
(cm)
Effective
tillers
(no./m2)
Panicle
length
(cm)
Grain yield
(t/ha)
T1
Penoxsulam + butachlor
41% SE
615 113.0 454 22.6 5.46
T2
Penoxsulam + butachlor
41% SE
718 112.9 462 23.1 5.61
T3
Penoxsulam + butachlor
41% SE
820 114.2 488 23.7 6.06
T4 Penoxsulam 24% SC 22.5 113.9 474 23.3 5.85
T5 Butachlor 50% EC 1500 114.3 478 22.8 5.92
T6 Pretilachlor 50% EC 1000 113.8 488 22.9 5.95
T7 Weed free 113.6 489 23.5 6.17
T8 Weedy check 112.9 329 22.4 4.13
LSD (p=0.05) NS 28 NS 0.14
(Yadav et. al. 2019)
Table - 4. Effect of different herbicidal treatments on yield and yield attributes of transplanted rice
Hisar 26

28. S. No. Treatment
WDM (g/m2)
Weed control efficiency
(%)
2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 Bispyribac-Na 25 g/ha (POE) 5.50 (29.3) 5.51 (30.7) 65.9 68.9
T2
Pretilachlor 1000 g/ha (PE) 6.36 (39.5) 6.59 (43.6) 53.9 55.8
T3
Pyrazosulfuron 20 g/ha (PE) 6.74 (44.5) 6.88 (47.3) 48.1 52.0
T4
Bispyribac + ethoxysulfuron 25 + 18.75 g/ha (
POE) 4.91 (23.2) 4.94 (24.4) 67.1 75.2
T5
Bispyribac 20 g/ha + Almix 4 g/ha (POE) 4.87 (22.9) 4.86 (23.6) 73.3 76.0
T6
Pretilachlor 750 g/ha (PE) fb ethoxysulfuron
18.75 g/ha (POE) 4.85 (22.5) 4.76 (22.7) 73.8 77.0
T7
Pretilachlor 750 g/ha (PE) fb Almix 4 g/ha
(POE) 4.77 (21.8) 4.56 (20.8) 74.6 78.9
T8
Pyrazosulfuron 20 g/ha (PE) fb manual
weeding 4.56 (19.9) 4.37 (19.1) 76.8 80.6
T9 Pretilachlor + bensulfuron 660 g/ha 5.58 (30.2) 5.68 (32.3) 64.8 67.3
T10 Weed free (hand weeding at 25 and 45 DAS) 3.53 (11.5) 4.34 (18.8) 86.6 88.0
T11
Weedy check 9.31 (85.8) 9.93 (98.5) -
LSD (P=0.05) 0.48 0.51
Table-5. Effect of different pre- and post-emergence herbicides on weed dry matter (WDM)
and weed control efficiency in transplanted rice
(Yakadri et. al. 2016)
Telangana 27

29. S.No. Treatment
Grain yield (t/ha) Gross
returns
(x103 `/ha)
2012
Net
returns
(x103/ha)
BCR
Gross
returns
(x103/ha)
Net
returns
2013
(x103/ha)
BCR
2012 2013
T1
Bispyribac-Na 25 g/ha (POE) 4.48 5.96 58.24 20.18 1.82 78.03 39.98 2.05
T2
Pretilachlor 1000 g/ha (PE) 4.27 5.77 55.57 18.35 1.78 75.56 38.28 2.03
T3
Pyrazosulfuron 20 g/ha (PE) 4.37 5.83 56.87 19.96 1.84 76.42 39.54 2.07
T4
Bispyribac + ethoxysulfuron 25 + 18.75 g/ha
(POE)
5.16 6.65 67.14 28.40 2.05 87.16 48.42 2.25
T5
Bispyribac 20 g/ha + Almix 4 g/ha (POE) 5.28 6.78 68.64 30.18 2.11 88.84 50.39 2.31
T6
Pretilachlor 750 g/ha (PE) fb ethoxysulfuron
18.75 g/ha (POE)
5.47 7.09 71.17 33.11 2.22 92.87 54.82 2.44
T7
Pretilachlor 750 g/ha (PE) fb Almix @4 g/ha
(POE)
5.59 7.05 72.73 35.04 2.29 92.35 54.59 2.45
T8
Pyrazosulfuron 20 g/ha (PE) fb manual weeding 5.83 7.34 75.85 35.97 2.24 96.13 56.26 2.41
T9 Pretilachlor + bensulfuron 660 g/ha 4.57 6.07 59.47 21.44 1.86 79.49 41.49 2.09
T10 Weed free (hand weeding at 25 and 45 DAS) 5.85 7.35 76.05 33.61 2.09 96.33 53.98 2.27
T11
Weedy check 2.97 4.45 38.67 2.47 1.28 58.29 22.19 1.61
LSD (P=0.05) 0.67 0.41
Table-6. Yield and economics as influenced by different weed control treatments in
transplanted rice
(Yakadri et. al. 2016)
Telangana 28

30. S.No.
Treatments
Dose
(g ha-1)
Weed
density
(no. m-2)
Weed dry weight
(g m-2)
Weed
Index (%)
Weed
control
efficiency
(%)
Herbicide
efficiency
index (%)
T1 Bispyribac sodium 25 6.8(46)* 8.16(65.7) 26.5 53.1 4.47
T2 Pendimethalin 1000 7.8(60) 9.39(87.3) 36.3 38.8 2.68
T3
Pendimethalin fb
bispyribac sodium +
Pyrazosulfuron
1000 fb
25+25
3.0(8) 4.47(19.0) 1.2 91.8 23.65
T4 Ethoxysulfuron 18.75 8.0(63) 9.62(91.7) 36.5 35.7 2.53
T5
Bispyribac sodium
fb
ethoxysulfuron
25 fb
18.75
6.2(37) 7.91(61.7) 12.0 62.2 6.21
T6 Weedy check - 9.9(98) 12.60(158.0) 74.3 0.0 -
T7 Weed free check - 1.0(0) 1.00(0) 0 100.0 -
CD at 5% - 0.5 0.54
Table -7: Effect of different treatments on weed count, weed dry weight, herbicide and
weed indices for transplanted Rice (Three years’ pooled data).
(Khippal et. al. 2019)
Karnal 29

31. S.No. Treatments Dose
(g ha-1)
Effective
tillers
m-2
Panicle
length
(cm)
Grains/
panicle
1000 grain
weight (g)
Straw
Yield (Kg
ha-1)
Grain
Yield
(Kg ha-1)
Harvest
Index
(%)
T1 Bispyribac sodium 25 303 22.3 72.0 21.33 4843 2822 36.8
T2 Pendimethalin 1000 285 21.7 69.0 21.13 4315 2447 36.2
T3
Pendimethalin fb
bispyribac sodium +
Pyrazosulfuron
1000 fb
25+25 387 23.6 76.7 22.57 6145 3794 38.2
T4 Ethoxysulfuron 18.75 292 21.7 69.7 21.10 4357 2437
35.9
T5
Bispyribac sodium fb
ethoxysulfuron
25 fb
18.75
344 23.2 73.3 21.50 5577 3381 37.7
T6 Weedy check - 102 19.5 46.7 20.60 1751 987 36.1
T7 Weed free check - 386 23.8 76.7 22.63 6258 3840 38.0
CD at 5% - 15 1.0 5.0 0.64 243 141 0.2
(Khippal et. al. 2019)
Karnal
Table- 8 Effect of different treatments on yield and yield attributing characters of
transplanted rice ( Three Years’ pooled data).
30

32. S.No. Treatment
Dose
(g a.i./ha)
Effective
tillers/m2
Grains/
panicle
1000-
grain
wt (g)
Grain
yield
(t/ha)
Straw
yield
(t/ha)
T1 Weed free 262 47 23.7 4.5 5.4
T2 Pendimethalin alone 1000 186 31 22.8 2.4 3.3
T3 Pendimethalin fb bispyribac sodium 25 230 41 23.0 3.6 4.7
T4 Pendimethalin fb bispyribac + ethoxysulfuron 25+ 35 258 46 23.7 4.4 5.3
T5 Pendimethalin fb bispyribac + azimsulfuron 25+ 18 247 43 23.4 4.0 5.0
T6 Pendimethalin fb bispyribac + 2, 4-D sodium 25+500 240 41 23.2 3.8 4.8
T7 Pendimethalin fb fenoxaprop 90 235 40 23.1 3.6 4.7
T8 Pendimethalin fb fenoxaprop + ethoxysulfuron 90+35 245 40 23.2 3.8 4.9
T9 Pendimethalin fb fenoxaprop + azimsulfuron 90+18 223 38 22.9 3.4 4.5
SEm ± 2.0 0.6 0.27 0.05 0.06
CD(P=0.05) 5.8 1.79 0.80 0.14 0.18
Table -9. Effect of different post-emergence herbicide and tank mixture adaptation on yield
and yield attributes of transplanted rice (Pooled data of 2014-16).
(Kumar et. al. 2018)
ICAR Research Complex Patna 31

33. S.No.
Treatment Dose
( g a.i./ha)
Biological
yield
(kg/ha)
Grain yield
(kg/ha)
Straw
yield
(kg/ha)
Grain/str
aw ratio
Harvest
index
(%)
T1 Bispyribac Na 25 9443 4420 5023 0.88 46.6
T2 Penoxsulam 22.5 10911 5423 5488 0.99 49.5
T3 Bispyribac + Ethoxysulfuron 25 +18.75 11072 5563 5509 1.01 50.1
T4
Bispyribac + Chlorimuron ethyl + Metsulfuron
methyl
20+4 10539 5053 5486 0.92 47.8
T5 Pretilachlor fb Ethoxysulfuron 750 fb 18.75 11522 5897 5625 1.05 51.0
T6
Pretilachlor fb Chlorimuron ethyl +
Metsulfuron methyl
750 fb 4 10906 5464 5442 1.00 49.9
T7
Pyrazosulfuron fb Chlorimuron ethyl +
Metsulfuron methyl
20+4 9938 4854 5084 0.95 48.7
T8 Penoxsulam + Cyhalofop-butyl 135 12524 6320 6204 1.02 50.3
T9 Triafamone + Ethoxysulfuron 60 11753 5966 5787 1.03 50.6
T10 Pendimethaline fb Bispyribac Na 1000 fb 25 13055 6423 6632 0.97 49.0
T11 Hand weeding at 25 and 45 DAT - 12532 6280 6252 1.00 49.9
T12 Weedy check - 8091 3597 4494 0.80 44.3
SEm± 65 72 18 0.005 0.08
C.D. at 5 % 190 211 52 0.01 0.23
Table-10. Biological, grain and straw yield, grain/straw ratio and harvest index as affected
by various weed control treatments of transplanted rice
(Kailkhura et. al. 2015)
Pantnagar 32

34. Table-11. Cost of cultivation, gross return, net return and B: C ratio of Paddy crop
S.No.
Treatment Dose
( g a.i./ha)
Cost of cultivation
(Rs. /ha)
Gross return
(Rs./ha)
Net returns
(Rs./ha)
B:C ratio
T1 Bispyribac Na 25 34655 72228 37573 1.08
T2 Penoxsulam 22.5 34227 86931 52704 1.54
T3 Bispyribac + Ethoxysulfuron 25 +18.75 35352 88873 53521 1.51
T4
Bispyribac + Chlorimuron ethyl + Metsulfuron
methyl
20+4 34741 81931 47190 1.36
T5 Pretilachlor fb Ethoxysulfuron 750 fb 18.75 33877 93672 59795 1.77
T6
Pretilachlor fb Chlorimuron ethyl + Metsulfuron
methyl
750 fb 4 33696 87369 53673 1.59
T7
Pyrazosulfuron fb Chlorimuron ethyl + Metsulfuron
methyl
20+4 33721 78239 44518 1.32
T8 Penoxsulam + Cyhalofop-butyl 135 35005 100830 65825 1.88
T9 Triafamone + Ethoxysulfuron 60 33755 95009 61254 1.81
T10 Pendimethaline fb Bispyribac Na 1000 fb 25 36321 103291 66970 1.84
T11 Hand weeding at 25 and 45 DAT - 40705 100410 59705 1.47
T12 Weedy check - 32003 59795 27792 0.87
SEm± 1008 1008 0.02
C.D. at 5 % 2956 2956 0.07
(Kailkhura et. al. 2015)
Pantnagar
33

35. S.
No.
Treatment
Dose
(g ha-1)
Time of
application
Biological
yield
Grain
yield
Straw
yield
Harvest
index
T1 Penoxsulam + Butachlor 717.5 7 DAT 14283 5839 8444 0.41
T2 Penoxsulam + Butachlor 820 7 DAT 13813 5686
8126 0.41
T3 Penoxsulam 25 8-12 DAT 13355 5621 7734 0.42
T4 Butachlor 1500 1-3 DAT 12844 5316 7529 0.41
T5 Bispyribac sodium 25 20 DAT 13638 5468 8170 0.40
T6
Weed freecondition (25, 45 and 75
DAT)
- - 13608 5664 7943 0.42
T7 Hand weeding twice (25 and 45 DAT) - - 12549 5142 7407 0.41
T8 Weedy check 9477 3769 5708 0.40
T9
Natural farming (Hand weeding at 25
and 45 DAT)
10479
4314
6166 0.41
SE (m±) 468.4 194.0 304.7 0.0
CD (P=0.05) 1404 582 913 NS
Table-12. Effect of weed control treatments on biological yield (kg ha-1), grain & straw yield
(kg ha-1) and harvest index of transplanted rice
(Sharma et. al. 2017)
Palampur 34

36. S.No. Treatment
Dose
(g ha-1)
Time of
application
Cost of
cultivation
Gross
return
Net
return
Net
return per
rupee
invested
T1 Penoxsulam + Butachlor 717.5 7 DAT 32080 106941 74861 2.34
T2 Penoxsulam + Butachlor 820 7 DAT 32330 103904 71574 2.21
T3 Penoxsulam 25 8-12 DAT 32410 101963 69553 2.15
T4 Butachlor 1500 1-3 DAT 31230 96965 65735 2.10
T5 Bispyribac sodium 25 20 DAT 32330 100810 68480 2.12
T6
Weed freecondition (25, 45
and 75 DAT)
- - 45810 103126 57316 1.25
T7
Hand weeding twice (25 and 45
DAT)
- - 40410 94100 53690 1.33
T8 Weedy check 29610 69675 40065 1.35
T9
Natural farming (Hand weeding at 25
and 45 DAT)
38997 78826 39829 1.02
Table- 13. Effect of weed control treatments on gross return (Rs. ha-1), net return (Rs.
ha-1) and net return per rupee invested in transplanted rice
(Sharma et. al. 2017)
Palampur 35

37. S. No. Treatments
Plant height (cm)
No. of tillers
per m2 Grain
yield
(tha-1)
Weed
index
(%)
30 DAS 60 DAS Harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS
T1 Pendimethalin + penoxsulam, 5 DAT @ (625 g/ha) 49.30 85.40 94.77 125 262 4.43 3.70
T2 Pendimethalin + penoxsulam, 10 DAT @ (625g/ha) 50.60 86.26 97.78 136 323 4.29 6.74
T3
Cyhalofop-butyl + penoxsulam, 12 DAT @ (135 g/ha) 53.43 88.03 95.52 130 247 4.38 4.78
T4 Cyhalofop-butyl + penoxsulam, 18 DAT @ (135 g/ha) 51.73 88.83 101.98 122 255 4.24 7.83
T5
Florpyrauxifen-benzyl + cyhalofop-butyl,
12 DAT @ (150 g/ha)
50.13 90.07 93.11 138 290 4.50 2.17
T6
Florpyrauxifen-benzyl + cyhalofop-butyl,
18 DAT @ ( 150 g/ha)
51.40 88.86 97.27 140 280 4.32 6.08
T7
Cyhalofop-butyl @ (80 g/ha) 18 DAT fb Almix @ (4
g/ha ) 19 DAT
50.96 85.43 98.54 131 268 3.52 23.48
T8 Bispyribac sodium, 18 DAT@ (25 g/ha) 52.56 90.46 93.66 134 271 3.40 26.09
T9 Hand weeding, 20 and 40 DAT 50.96 91.53 103.98 145 325 4.60 -
T10 Unweeded control 50.86 84.59 93.05 94 201 1.99 56.74
LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS 6.12 0.72 -
Table- 14. Effect of pre-mix herbicide combinations on rice plant height, tiller
count, grain yield and weed index
(Mounisha et. al. 2021)
Kerala 36

38. S. No. Treatments
Total cost
(Rs.)
Gross
returns
(Rs.)
Net
returns
(Rs.)
B:C
ratio
T1 Pendimethalin + penoxsulam, 5 DAT @ (625 g/ha) 58350 146430 88080 2.5
T2 Pendimethalin + penoxsulam, 10 DAT @ (625g/ha) 58350 142890 84540 2.4
T3
Cyhalofop-butyl + penoxsulam, 12 DAT @ (135 g/ha) 59275 144660 85385 2.4
T4 Cyhalofop-butyl + penoxsulam, 18 DAT @ (135 g/ha) 59275 140940 81665 2.3
T5
Florpyrauxifen-benzyl + cyhalofop-butyl,
12 DAT @ (150 g/ha) 58694 148980 90286 2.5
T6
Florpyrauxifen-benzyl + cyhalofop-butyl,
18 DAT @ ( 150 g/ha) 58694 143520 84826 2.4
T7
Cyhalofop-butyl @ (80 g/ha) 18 DAT fb Almix @ (4 g/ha ) 19
DAT 59871 117120 57249 1.9
T8 Bispyribac sodium, 18 DAT @ (25 g/ha) 58415 113460 55045 1.9
T9 Hand weeding, 20 and 40 DAT 82000 152220 70220 1.8
T10 Unweeded control 55000 66390 11390 1.2
Table- 15. Effect of pre-mix herbicide combinations on economics of rice
cultivation per ha
(Mounisha et. al. 2021)
Kerala 37

39. Conclusion
38
Looking to the foregoing reviews, for transplanted
paddy it can be concluded that pre-emergence
application of pretilachlor 750 g/ha (PE) fb Almix 4
g/ha (POE) performed better in increasing crop
growth, yield attributes, yield and weed control
efficiency with higher net return and benefit cost
ratio.

40. 40