© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.

org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

Impact of Weed Management Strategies on

Performance of Lentil (Lens culinaris L.)
1
Mansi Nautiyal, 2Priyanka Bankoti
1
Student, 2Assistant professor
1,2
School of Agriculture Sciences
1,2
Shri Guru Ram Rai University, Dehradun 248001, (Uttarakhand), India,

Abstract : The present investigation entitled “Impact of weed management strategies on performance of Lentil (Lens culinaris L.) was carried out at the
Agriculture Research Farm of School of Agriculture Sciences, SGRRU, Dehradun- 248001 (U.K) rabi season of 2018-2019 in Randomized Block Design (RBD)
with four replications and nine treatments to investigate the impact of manual, herbicidal and intergrated treatments.. The treatments consituents quizalofop ethyl
@ 55gm,ha as PE, imazethapyr @ 37gm/ha as PE, Chlorimuran ethyl @ 4.5 gm/ha as PPI, pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg as PE, Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready
– mix) @ 0.20 kg /ha, Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready – mix) @ 1.5 kg a.i/ha as PE, Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE + Hand weeding at 40 DAS, Hand
weeding thrice at 35, 65 and 90 DAS and control plot.. The highest grain and straw yield was recorded 1865 kg/ha and 3099 kg/ha respectively during T 8
treatment and the lowest 1380 kg/ha and 2582 kg/ha of grain and star yield was recorded during T 3 treatment. The prominent weeds found in the ecperimental
plot were Cannabis sativa, Cynodon dactylon , Chenpodium album and Parthenium hysterophorus: and these weeds together consituted 57 percent of the total
weed population.

Keywords: Quizalofop ethyl,imazethapyr,pendimethalin,grain yield, straw yield.

I. INTRODUCTION
Lentil (lens culinaris L.) belongs to family Fabaceae is one of the most important legume crop of all over the world. It is an important
Rabi pulse crop next to gram. It is the first one of the food crop to have been cultivated and maintained excellent socio-economic value for
8000 years. It is mainly grown for its edible seed which matures between 90 to 120 days and popularly known as ‘Masoor’ in India (Taylor
P.K et al., 2007).The nutrient value of lentil composed of 60% of carbohydrates, 26% of protein, 7.5% of iron, 20% of sugars and 0.87% of
thiamine (Vitamin B1), which make it very essential in human and animal feeding where the stubble is also very rich in many valuable
components (Sharara et al., 2011).Lentil is an herbaceous annual plant mostly erect and bushy type with 4 – 6 primary branches. Lentil is
well developed root system including a central tap root with several lateral branches spread out in all directions. The stem is weak and
quadrangular. The leaves are small compound and pinnate. The end of leaflets sometimes forms tendrils. The inflorescence is a raceme of 2
– 4 flowers. Flowers are small, white tinged and blue violet or pink. The pods are oblong, slightly inflated and about 1.5 cm long, each of
them contains two seeds, about 0.5 cm in diameter. In the Characteristics lens shape flowering in lentil plant takes about two weeks on the
single branch and then opens after two three days of the opening of the flowers. The colour begins to lighten nuth complete closing followed
by setting of the pods after three to four days (Shyam et al., 2007). Lentil requires a cold climate. Hence it is sown as a winter/Rabi season
crop. It can be raised successfully up to a height of 3000 m. Unlike gram, it remains unaffected by rain at any stage of its growth including
flowering and fruiting. It is very hardy plant and can tolerate frost and severe winter to a great extent. The optimum temperature for growth
is 18 – 30 0C. Weed control in lentils is important as this crop is a poor competitor due to its short height and slow early growth. Lentil’s low
competitive ability is compounded when growing season temperatures are low or when moisture is scarce. Herbicides are very attractive in
lentil due to increased cost of manual weeding, its poor efficiency and non-availability during critical periods. Herbicides are very attractive
in lentil due to increased cost of manual weeding, its poor efficiency and non-availability during critical periods. Herbicides have
revolutionized agriculture all over the world and have played key roles in enhancing productivity. They are accepted as an essential tool in
weed management as they reduce labour requirement enormously and are easy and convenient to use (Rao and Nagamani, 2010).

IJRAR19K7825 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 957
 © 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

I. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted during Rabi season of 2018–19 in the Research centre of School of Agriculture of SGRRU,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand. It is located in the north western region of Uttarakhand at an altitude of 450 m above mean sea level (MSL) and 3088
square kilometer in size. The climate of Dehradun is humid subtropical. Summer temperatures can reach up to 44°C for a few days and a hot
wind called Loo blows over North India. Winter temperatures are usually between 1 and 20°C and fog is quite common in winters like plains.
During the monsoon season, there is often heavy and protracted rainfall. Average Rainfall is 2074 mm. It was recorded that Dehradun received
1734 mm rainfall from the month of July to October in 2018. The maximum and minimum temperature was recorded during the growing season
of crop (i.e. October 2018 to March 2019) was 25ºc and 3ºC respectively. The soil of research site is classified as ‘sandy loam’ with characteristics
as deep, well drained, coarse loamy cover over fragmental soils and of medium fertility. There were nine treatments consisting of weed
management practices Treatments list and their symbol is given in Table 1. The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design (RBD)
with four replications. Pant L 639 is variety which was sown in Research Centre. This variety is a medium maturing, semi – spreading variety
having light green foliage. Seeds are medium sized and grey mottled. It is highly resistance to blight and milt diseases. It yields potential about
18–20 q grain/ha. Five plants of each experimental plot were selected randomly and tagged. Plant height (cm) of lentil was recorded with the
help of the meter scale from base to the upper most tip of the plant at each stage of observation, averaged them and expressed in cm. Total
number of branches on five randomly selected tagged plants was counted and the average number of branches per plant was worked out. Produce
of net plots was threshed, and grains thus obtained were winnowed, cleaned and weighed. The grain yield recorded in kg plot-1 was standardized
to 10 – 14 percent moisture and then weight was converted in to kg/ha. Yield was calculated by subtracting the grain yield from the total
biological yield of the crop. Finally, straw yield per plot was converted in to kg/ha. Above ground plant parts harvested from net plot area
including the grain and straw were carefully bundled, tagged and taken to the threshing floor separately. The individual bundle was weighed
after complete drying in the sun before threshing and weighed and the biological yield per plot was then converted in to kg/ha. Harvest index is
an indication of the physiological ability of a cultivar to convert the dry matter into economic yield. The harvest index was calculated by using
the following formula:

H.I(%)= Economic yield (grain yield) x 100

Biological yield (grain + straw)

II. EXPERIMENTS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Observations on the plant height were recorded at 35, 65 and 90 DAS and at harvest and the data were statistically analyzed. At 35
days, T7 recorded maximum plant height (4.70 cm), however, was statistically similar to T 6 (4.64 cm), T5 (4.56 cm) and T4 (4.53 cm) and
was significantly higher over rest of the treatments. Weedy check plots had minimum plant height (4.13 cm) which followed in increasing
order as T1 (4.15 cm), T2 (4.16 cm), T3 (4.21 cm) and T8 (4.13 cm). At 65 days of crop growth, the maximum plant height was obtained under
T8 (11.13 cm) being statistically at par with T7 (10.78 cm) and T6 (10.63 cm) and significantly superior over remaining treatments. While the
minimum plant height was observed under weedy check plots (8.78 cm) which was significantly lower than all the weed control treatments
except T3 (9.08 cm). At 90 days stage, weedy check plots recorded significantly lower plant height (20.48 cm) than other weed control
treatments. The maximum plant height (27.28 cm) was obtained under T 8 (hand weeding thrice) but was found statistically at par with T 7
(26.53 cm), T6 (25.28 cm), T5 (25.08 cm), T4 (24.73 cm) and T2 (24.18 cm). Further, no significant differences were observed among T 1
(23.93 cm), T2 (24.18 cm) and T3 (23.78 cm) (Table 2.). Observations on the plant branches per plant were recorded at 35, 65 and 90 DAS
and at harvest and the data were statistically analyzed. At 35 DAS, T7 recorded the maximum number of branches per plant (2.44), which
was statistically at par with T6 (2.39) and T5 (2.36) and had significantly more number of branches over rest of the treatments. Similarly, T 6
(2.39), T5 (2.36), T4 (2.33) and T2 (2.29) were also statistically similar with each other. T 3 recorded the minimum number of branches per
plant (2.13) which was almost equal to weedy check (2.21). Again the differences among T1 (2.25), T2 (2.29) and T4 (2.33) were found non-
significant. At 65 days of crop growth, the maximum number of branches per plant was obtained under T 8 (6.30) and was statistically similar
to T7 (6.23), T6 (6.11), T5 (5.79), T4 (5.56), T2 (5.39) and T1 (5.10). Significantly lowest number of branches per plant was observed in weedy
check plots (3.09) (Table 3). A close observation on the data from the Table 4. that grain yield different significantly due to different weed
control treatments. Treatment T8 (hand weeding thrice) though recorded significantly highest grain yield (1865 kg/ha) but was found at par
with T7 (1755 kg/ha). Similarly, T7 recorded similar grain yield to that of T6 (1619 kg/ha) and T4 (1595 kg/ha). No significant differences
were observed between post-emergence weed control treatments like T2 (1520 kg/ha) and T1 (1465 kg/ha) and pre-emergence application
of pendimethalin alone (1595 kg/ah) followed by pre-emergence application of pendimethaline + imazethapyr (ready – mix) at lower dose
(1698 kg/ha). Among the weed control treatments, T3 (pre-plant incorporation of chlorimuron ethyl @ 4.5 g/ha) proved to be less effective
which recorded lowest grain yield (1380 kg/ha) but was significantly higher than the weedy check (1105 kg/ha). A close examination of data
on straw yield from the Table 4. revealed that weed control treatments significantly enhanced straw yield than weedy check (1952 kg/ha).
Among the weed control treatments, T8 produced significantly higher straw yield (3099 mg/ha) than other treatments. Further, treatment T7
gave slightly higher straw yield (2712 kg/ha) closely followed by pre-emergence treatment like T2 (2582 kg/ha) and T1 (2546 kg/ha). Pre-
plant incorporation of chlorimuron ethyl @ 4.5 g/ha (T 3) recorded lowest straw yield (2297 kg/ha) among the weed control treatments. data
on Biological yield was calculated on the basis of grain and straw yield and the mean data have been presented in Table 4. A close scrutiny
of data revealed that various weed control treatments did not affect the biological yield significantly. The treatment T7 gave the highest value
of biological yield T8 (4964) followed by T7 (4467), T6 (4361), T5 (4236), T4 (4208), T2 (4108), T1 (4011), T3 (3677) and the lowest value of
biological yield was obtained under T9 (3057).Data on the harvest index were gathered on the basis of grain yield and total biological yield
and the mean data have been presented in Table 4. The non-significant differences were observed among the various weed control treatments
for harvest index. However, treatment T7 had the highest harvest index value (39.29%) followed by T6 (38.63%), T5 (38.20%), T4 (37.90%),
T3 (37.53%), T2 (37.05%), T1 (36.52%), T8 (37.57%) while the lowest harvest index was registered under T 9 (36.14%).
IJRAR19K7825 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 958
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
TABLE 1. List of Treatments and their symbol
Symbols Treatments
T1 Quizalofap ethyl @ 55 gm /ha at 30 DAS (Post emergence).
T2 Imazethapyr @ 37 g /ha at 30 DAS (Post emergence).
T3 Chlorimuran ethyl @ 4.5 g /ha as (Pre plant incorporation).
T4 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg /ha as (Pre emergence).
T5 Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready – mix) @ 0.20 kg /ha as (Pre emergence).
T6 Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready – mix) @ 1.5 kg /ha as (Pre emergence).
T7 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg /ha as pre-emergence + Hand weeding at 40 DAS

T8 Hand weeding thrice at 35, 65 and 90 DAS.

T9 Weedy Check (Control plot).

Table 2. Plant height (cm) at various stages of crop growth

Days After Sowing
Treatments
35 65 90

T1 Quizalofop ethyl @ 55 g/ha as POE (30 DAS) 4.15 9.83 23.93

T2 Imazethapyr @ 37 g/ha as POE (30 DAS) 4.16 9.88 24.18

T3 Chlorimuron ethyl @ 4.5 g/ha as PPI 4.21 9.08 23.78

T4 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE 4.53 10.13 24.73

T5 Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready mix) @ 0.20 kg/ha as PE 4.56 10.38 25.08

T6 Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready mix) @ 1.50 kg/ha as PE 4.64 10.63 25.28

T7 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE + HW at 40 DAS 4.70 10.78 26.53

T8 Hand weeding (HW) thrice at 35, 65 and 90 DAS 4.32 11.13 27.28

T9 Weedy check (Control plot) 4.13 8.78 20.48

Table 3. Number of branches per plant at various stages of crop growth

Days After Sowing
Treatments
35 65 90

T1 Quizalofop ethyl @ 55 g/ha as POE (30 DAS) 2.25 5.10 6.44

T2 Imazethapyr @ 37 g/ha as POE (30 DAS) 2.29 5.39 6.51

T3 Chlorimuron ethyl @ 4.5 g/ha as PPI 2.13 4.93 6.17

T4 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE 2.33 5.56 6.95

T5 Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready mix) @ 0.20 kg/ha as PE 2.36 5.79 7.05

T6 Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready mix) @ 1.50 kg/ha as PE 2.39 6.11 7.18

T7 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE + HW at 40 DAS 2.44 6.23 7.20

T8 Hand weeding (HW) thrice at 35, 65 and 90 DAS 2.33 6.30 7.32

T9 Weedy check (Control plot) 2.21 3.09 5.58

IJRAR19K7825 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 959
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

Table 4. Yields of Lentil crop influenced by different treatments

Grain Straw Bio- Harvest
Treatments Yield Yield logical Index
kg/ha kg/ha Yield (%)

T1 Quizalofop ethyl @ 55 g/ha as POE (30 DAS) 1465 2546 4011 36.52

T2 Imazethapyr @ 37 g/ha as POE (30 DAS) 1520 2582 4103 37.05

T3 Chlorimuron ethyl @ 4.5 g/ha as PPI 1380 2297 3677 37.53

T4 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE 1595 2613 4208 37.90

Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready mix) @ 0.20

T5 1618 2618 4236 38.20
kg/ha as PE

Pendimethalin + Imazethapyr (ready mix) @ 1.50

T6 1685 2676 4361 38.63
kg/ha as PE

T7 Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE + HW at 40 DAS 1755 2712 4167 39.29

T8 Hand weeding (HW) thrice at 35, 65 and 90 DAS 1865 3099 4964 37.57

T9 Weedy check (Control plot) 1105 1952 3057 36.14

References

1. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2010, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India.

2. www.farmer.gov.in.ca/Default.aspx?DN=c598883bcc-009f-4031b936-c52c992h9e7d. Acessed January 05, 2018.

3. Taylor, P, K Lindbeck, W chen, R Ford (2007) Lentil diseases. Pages 291-313 in SS Yadav, D McNeil, PC Stevenson, eds,
Lentil: Ancient Crop for Modern Tunes, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Springer Netherlands
4. Sharara, F., El-Shahawy, T. and El-Rokiek, K. (2011). Effect of prometryn/ benzoic acid combination on weeds, seed yield and
yield components of lentil (Lens culinaris L.). Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural University. 14 (1): 2-7.
5. Shyam S. Yadav, David McNeil, Philip C. Stevenson (Editors) (2007). Lentil: An Ancient Crop for Modern Times. Berlin
Science and Business Media ISBN 9781402063121.OCLC 213090571
6. Swanton, CJ and Weise SF, Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach, Weed Technology, 5, 657- 663, 1991.

IJRAR19K7825 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 960