Integrated Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Sowing Methods on Weed Dynamics and System Productivity of Maize–Cowpea Sequence on Vertisols
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Location and Weather
2.2. Sowing Methods and Crop Agronomy
2.3. Soil Moisture Measurement and Irrigation Scheduling
2.4. Weeds Count, Moisture Content and Dry Weight
2.5. Nutrient Uptake by Weeds
2.6. Scoring of Insect Pests
2.7. Grain Yield and Maize Equivalent Yield (MEY) of Cowpea
2.8. System Water-Use Efficiency (WUE)
2.9. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Effect of Sowing Methods and Irrigation Levels on Weed Density in Maize
3.2. Weed Dry Weight in Maize
3.3. Weed Moisture Content and Soil Wetting Zone
3.4. N, P and K Uptake of Weeds in Maize
3.5. Weeds Dry Weight, Soil Moisture Content and Incidence of Pod Borer in Cowpea
3.6. Maize Equivalent Yield of Cowpea (MEY) and System Water-Use Efficiency (WUE)
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Census of India. Provisonal Population Totals, Paper 1 of 2011; India Series 1; Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner: New Delhi, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Barik, B.; Ghosh, S.; Sahana, A.S.; Pathak, A.; Sekhar, M. Water–food–energy nexus with changing agricultural scenarios in India during recent decades. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 3041–3060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- FAO. AQUASTAT Website. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [WWW Document]. 2016. Available online: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/IND/ (accessed on 21 January 2018).
- Dalin, C.; Wada, Y.; Kastner, T.; Puma, M.J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 2017, 543, 700–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harris, F.; Green, R.F.; Joy, E.J.M.; Kayatz, B.; Haines, A.; Dangour, A.D. The water use of Indian diets and socio-demographic factors related to dietary blue water footprint. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 587–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Crop Prospects and Food Situation. 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/I9666EN/i9666en.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- Halli, H.M.; Angadi, S.S. Influence of land configuration on rain water use efficiency, yield and economics of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) in maize-cowpea sequence cropping under rainfed condition of Northern Transitional Zone. Legume Res. 2019, 42, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sah, R.P.; Chakraborty, M.; Prasad, K.; Pandit, M.; Tudu, V.K.; Chakravarty, M.K.; Narayan, S.C.; Rana, M.; Moharana, D. Impact of water deficit stress in maize: Phenology and yield components. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbava, N.; Mutema, M.; Zengeni, R.; Shimelis, H.; Chaplot, V. Factors affecting crop water use efficiency: A worldwide meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 228, 105878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gharde, Y.; Singh, P.K.; Dubey, R.P.; Gupta, P.K. Assessment of yield and economic losses in agriculture due to weeds in India. Crop Prot. 2018, 107, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milberg, P.; Hallgren, E. Yield loss due to weeds in cereals and its large-scale variability in Sweden. Field Crop. Res. 2004, 86, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, K.C.; Gupta, A.K.; Rani, S. Weed management in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Wasp.] under rainfed conditions. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 12, 238–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimdahl, R.L. Fundamentals of Weed Science, 4th ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Norris, R.F. Water use efficiency as a method for predicting water use by weeds. Weed Technol. 1996, 10, 153–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastiaans, L.; Paolini, R.; Baumann, D. Focus on ecological weed management: What is hindering adoption? Weed Res. 2008, 48, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, B.S. Grand challenges in weed management. Front. Agron. 2020, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fereres, E.; Soriano, A. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, S.; Oweis, M. Effect of irrigation amounts applied with subsurface drip irrigation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production in a semi-arid climate. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 895–908. [Google Scholar]
- Halli, H.M.; Angadi, S.; Kumar, A.; Govindasamy, P.; Madar, R.; El-Ansary, D.O.; Rashwan, M.A.; Abdelmohsen, S.A.M.; Abdelbacki, A.M.M.; Mahmoud, E.A.; et al. Influence of Planting and Irrigation Levels as Physical Methods on Maize Root Morphological Traits, Grain Yield and Water Productivity in Semi-Arid Region. Agronomy 2021, 11, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halli, H.M.; Angadi, S.S. Influence of land configuration and deficit irrigation on nutrient uptake and grain yield of maize (Zea mays L.). J. Farm. Sci. 2019, 32, 397–402. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, L.S.; Owas, T.; Aziz, A. Irrigation management under water scarcity. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 57, 175–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halli, H.M.; Angadi, S.S. Response of land configuration and deficit irrigation on growth and yield attributes of maize (Zea mays L.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choudhary, V.K. Response of land configuration and mulches on maize-frenchbean-toria cropping system. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 2147–2157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhary, V.K.; Bhagawati, R. Planting method, row arrangement and crop residue mulch influence on weed dynamics and productivity of toria mustard. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2019, 51, 298–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Metwally, I.M.; Abido, W.A.E.; Saadoon, S.M.; Gad, S.B. The integrated effect of deficit irrigation and weed control treatments on peanut productivity under sandy soil conditions with reference to nematode infection. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 2581–2593. [Google Scholar]
- Coolong, C. Using Irrigation to Manage Weeds—A Focus on Drip Irrigation; IBM Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grattan, S.R.; Schwankl, L.J.; Lanini, W.T. Weed control by subsurface drip irrigation. Calif. Agric. 1988, 42, 22–24. [Google Scholar]
- Piper, C.S. Soil and Plant Analysis; University of Adelaide, Australia Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1966; pp. 14–32. [Google Scholar]
- Black, C.A. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part II Agronomy Monograph No. 9; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1967; p. 148. [Google Scholar]
- Veihmeyer, F.J.; Hendrickson, A.H. Methods of measuring field capacity and wilting percentage of soils. Soil Sci. 1949, 68, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis; Prentice Hall India PVT. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 1973; p. 498. [Google Scholar]
- Subbiah, B.V.; Asija, G.L. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr. Sci. 1956, 25, 259–260. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Ji, H.; Li, B.; Liu, Y. Wetting patterns and nitrate distributions in layered-textural soils under drip irrigation. J. Agric. Sci. China 2007, 6, 970–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francis, C.A. (Ed.) Distribution and importance of multiple cropping. In Multiple Cropping Systems; MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedure for Agriculture Research, 2nd ed.; John Willey and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1984; p. 680. [Google Scholar]
- Bartlett, M.S. The use of transformation. Biom. Bull. 1947, 3, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pal, D.; Dwivedi, A.; Singh, R.; Kumar, K.; Singh, A.; Tomar, S.S. Integrated effect of land configurations and weed management regimes on weed dynamics and performance of urdbean (Vigna mungo L. Hepper) in an alluvial soil. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2015, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussein, F.A.; El-Saeid, H.M.; El-Said-Amin, A.B.A. Water loss by weeds: A review. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2015, 7, 323–336. [Google Scholar]
- Saini, M.; Walia, U.S. Effect of land configuration and weed management in onion (Allium cepa). Indian J. Agron. 2012, 57, 275–278. [Google Scholar]
- Subbarao, G.; Patil, R.G. Nutrient content, uptake and yield of rainfed groundnut as influenced by moisture conservation practices and nutrient management. J. Indian Soc. Coast. Agric. Res. 2005, 23, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
- Fusheng, L.; Jihua, L.; Shaozhong, K.; Jianhua, Z. Benefits of alternate partial root-zone irrigation on growth, water and nitrogen use efficiencies modified by fertilization and soil water status in maize. Plant Soil. 2007, 295, 279–291. [Google Scholar]
- Hossain, M.A.; Haque, M.A.; Azizul, M.; Prodhan, M.Z.H. Incidence and Damage Severity of Pod Borer, Helicoverpa Armigera (Hubner) in Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.). Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2008, 44, 221–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selvaraju, R.; Subbian, P.; Balasubramanian, P.; Lal, R. Land configuration and soil nutrient management options for sustainable crop production on Alfisols and Vertisols of southern peninsular India. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 52, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tumbare, A.D.; Bhoite, S.U. Effect of moisture conservation techniques on growth and yield of pearl millet-gram sequence in watershed. Indian J. Dryland. Agric. Res. Dev. 2000, 15, 94–95. [Google Scholar]
- Mandal, K.G.; Hati, K.M.; Misra, A.K.; Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Tripathi, A.K. Land surface modification and crop diversification for enhancing productivity of a Vertisols. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2013, 7, 6814–6818. [Google Scholar]
Sl. No. | Particulars | Value | Method Employed | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
I. | Physical properties | |||
| 6.8 | International pipette method | [28] | |
| 12.0 | |||
| 33.9 | |||
| 47.2 | |||
| Clayey | |||
| 1.2 | Core sampler method | [29] | |
| 32.4 | Field method | [30] | |
| 18.0 | Sunflower indicator method | [30] | |
II. | Chemical properties | |||
| 7.8 | pH meter | [28] | |
| 0.2 | Conductivity bridge | [31] | |
| 0.6 | Walkey and Black’s Wet oxidation method | [31] | |
| 320.3 | Alkaline permanganate method | [32] | |
| 33.2 | Olsen’s method | [31] | |
| 426.5 | Neutral Normal NH4OAC extraction method | [31] |
Weed Species | Common Name | Family |
---|---|---|
Monocots (grasses) | ||
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. | Bermuda grass | Poaceae |
Digitaria marginata Link | Crabgrass | Poaceae |
Dinebra retroflexa Panzer | Viper grass | Poaceae |
Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv. | Watergrass | Poaceae |
Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. | Goosegrass | Poaceae |
Setaria italica L. | Foxtail millet | Poaceae |
Dicots (broad leaved weeds; BL) | ||
Ageratum conyzoides L. | Bill goat weed | Asteraceae |
Alternanthera sessilis L. | Sessile joyweed | Amaranthaceae |
Amaranthus viridis L. | Pigweed | Amaranthaceae |
Argemone mexicana L. | Mexican poppy | Papavaraceae |
Commelina benghalensis L. | Dayflower | Commelinaceae |
Convolvulus arvensis L. | Field bind weed | Convolvulaceae |
Corchorus olitorius L. | Jute mallow | Tiliaceae |
Desmodium diffusum DC. | Telegraphic plant | Leguminosae |
Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Garcke | Threelobe false mallow | Malvaceae |
Parthenium hysterophorus L. | Carrot weed | Asteraceae |
Phyllanthus niruri L. | Niruri | Euphorbiaceae |
Physalis minima L. | Ground cherry | Solanaceae |
Portulaca oleracea L. | Purslane | Portulacaceae |
Sedges | ||
Cyperus rotundus (L.) Palla | Purple nutsedge | Cyperaceae |
Cyperus iria (L.) | Umbrella sedge | Cyperaceae |
Cyperus esculentus (L.) | Yellow nut sedge | Cyperaceae |
Treatments | Monocots (No. m−2) | Dicots (No. m−2) | Sedges (No. m−2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 DAS | 60 DAS | 30 DAS | 60 DAS | 30 DAS | 60 DAS | ||
Sowing methods (L) | |||||||
BBF | 2.64 a, * (6.63) | 2.02 b (4.63) | 2.36 a (5.27) | 1.68 b (2.63) | 1.94 a (3.73) | 1.85 b (3.29) | |
CF | 2.80 a (7.33) | 2.33 a (6.54) | 2.66 a (6.97) | 2.13 a (5.88) | 2.15 a (4.38) | 2.00 ab (4.79) | |
RF | 2.98 a (8.00) | 2.46 a (7.75) | 2.63 a (6.69) | 2.32 a (6.54) | 2.09 a (3.98) | 2.29 a (6.33) | |
S.Em. ± | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.05 | |
Irrigation levels (I) | |||||||
I10D | 2.74 a (7.22) | 2.24 b (6.28) | 2.53 b (6.03) | 1.94 b (4.22) | 1.99 bc (3.75) | 2.00 a (4.17) | |
I40 | 2.95 a (8.39) | 2.44 a (7.11) | 2.76 a (7.37) | 2.28 a (6.28) | 2.25 a (4.72) | 2.20 a (5.28) | |
I50 | 2.87 a (7.89) | 2.37 ab (6.83) | 2.53 b (6.29) | 2.17 a (5.39) | 2.22 ab (4.62) | 2.12 a (5.39) | |
I60 | 2.66 a (6.83) | 2.03 c (5.00) | 2.40 b (5.55) | 1.79 b (4.17) | 1.86 c (3.02) | 1.86 b (4.39) | |
S.Em. ± | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.05 | |
Interaction (I × L) | |||||||
BBF | I10D | 2.57 bc (6.33) | 1.98 c (4.17) | 2.30 cd (4.85) | 1.64 gh (2.33) | 1.85 bc (3.33) | 1.81 de (3.00) |
I40 | 2.66 a-c (6.67) | 2.30 ab (6.00) | 2.67 a-c (6.73) | 1.86 e-g (3.33) | 2.17 a-c (4.37) | 1.99 b-e (3.67) | |
I50 | 3.00 ab (8.50) | 2.24 bc (5.67) | 2.36 b-d (5.35) | 1.70 f-h (2.67) | 2.20 a-c (4.44) | 1.90 c-e (3.50) | |
I60 | 2.32 c (5.00) | 1.58 d (2.67) | 2.11 d (4.16) | 1.52 h (2.17) | 1.76 c (2.63) | 1.69 e (3.00) | |
CF | I10D | 2.64 a-c (6.67) | 2.19 bc (6.17) | 2.57 a-c (6.20) | 2.01 de (5.00) | 2.21 a-c (4.71) | 1.91 c-e (3.83) |
I40 | 2.99 ab (8.67) | 2.46 ab (7.00) | 2.61 a-c (6.49) | 2.37 a-c (7.33) | 2.24 a-c (4.57) | 2.15 a-d (5.33) | |
I50 | 2.80 a-c (7.50) | 2.48 ab (7.50) | 2.77 ab (7.80) | 2.27 b-d (6.67) | 2.29 ab (4.94) | 2.12 a-d (5.50) | |
I60 | 2.77 a-c (7.33) | 2.18 bc (5.50) | 2.32 cd (4.97) | 1.87 e-g (4.50) | 1.79 c (2.78) | 1.83 de (4.50) | |
RF | I10D | 2.82 a-c (7.67) | 2.55 a (8.50) | 2.45 a-d (5.70) | 2.16 c-e (5.33) | 1.92 a-c (3.20) | 2.29 a-c (5.67) |
I40 | 3.19 a (9.83) | 2.57 a (8.33) | 2.99 a (8.89) | 2.60 a (8.17) | 2.36 a (5.23) | 2.47 a (6.83) | |
I50 | 3.02 ab (8.83) | 2.39 ab (7.33) | 2.71 a-c (7.03) | 2.54 ab (6.83) | 2.18 a-c (4.50) | 2.35 ab (7.17) | |
I60 | 2.89 a-c (8.00) | 2.33 ab (6.83) | 2.76 ab (7.51) | 1.99 d-f (5.83) | 2.02 a-c (3.65) | 2.06 a-e (5.67) | |
S.Em. ± | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
Treatments | Monocots (g m−2) | Dicots (g m−2) | Sedges (g m−2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 DAS | 60 DAS | 30 DAS | 60 DAS | 30 DAS | 60 DAS | ||
Sowing methods (L) | |||||||
BBF | 2.57 c, * (6.30) | 1.37 b (1.95) | 2.51 c (6.06) | 1.33 c (1.39) | 1.74 b (2.61) | 1.42 b (1.71) | |
CF | 2.97 b (8.37) | 1.60 b (3.28) | 2.98 b (8.50) | 1.64 b (4.23) | 2.10 b (3.96) | 1.51 b (2.67) | |
RF | 3.23 a (10.02) | 1.86 a (4.09) | 3.42 a (11.27) | 1.87 a (5.28) | 2.30 a (4.91) | 1.70 a (3.89) | |
S.Em. ± | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.02 | |
Irrigation levels (I) | |||||||
I10D | 2.97 b (8.49) | 1.67 a (3.23) | 3.03 b (8.89) | 1.48 c (2.85) | 1.91 b (3.26) | 1.54 a (2.47) | |
I40 | 3.16 a (9.54) | 1.72 a (3.78) | 3.21 a (9.93) | 1.75 a (4.53) | 2.13 a (4.10) | 1.64 a (3.30) | |
I50 | 3.00 b (8.54) | 1.71 a (3.34) | 3.17 ab (9.77) | 1.56 bc (3.79) | 2.24 a (4.65) | 1.55 a (3.03) | |
I60 | 2.57 c (6.35) | 1.48 b (2.08) | 2.47 c (5.85) | 1.65 b (3.37) | 1.92 b (3.30) | 1.43 b (2.21) | |
S.Em. ± | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | |
Interaction (I × L) | |||||||
BBF | I10D | 2.62 d (6.39) | 1.22 c (1.23) | 2.56 e (6.06) | 1.29 d (1.27) | 1.68 d (2.36) | 1.41 cd (1.55) |
I40 | 2.98 c (8.39) | 1.61 ab (3.26) | 2.86 cd (7.73) | 1.36 d (1.59) | 1.94 c (3.36) | 1.51 bc (2.07) | |
I50 | 2.80 c (7.39) | 1.58 b (2.55) | 2.77 c-e (7.39) | 1.37 d (1.57) | 1.86 cd (3.02) | 1.47 b-d (1.87) | |
I60 | 1.88 e (3.05) | 1.07 c (0.78) | 1.87 f (3.06) | 1.29 d (1.13) | 1.47 e (1.69) | 1.27 d (1.34) | |
CF | I10D | 2.86 c (7.72) | 1.90 ab (4.62) | 3.01 bc (8.73) | 1.46 cd (3.27) | 1.96 c (3.36) | 1.55 bc (2.35) |
I40 | 3.19 b (9.72) | 1.64 ab (3.47) | 3.16 b (9.49) | 1.63 bc (4.61) | 2.20 b (4.36) | 1.49 bc (2.96) | |
I50 | 2.98 c (8.39) | 1.65 ab (3.03) | 3.13 b (9.33) | 1.78 b (5.17) | 2.20 b (4.39) | 1.52 bc (3.19) | |
I60 | 2.85 c (7.65) | 1.57 b (2.29) | 2.63 de (6.46) | 1.68 b (3.88) | 2.05 bc (3.72) | 1.46 b-d (2.16) | |
RF | I10D | 3.21 b (9.85) | 1.86 ab (4.12) | 3.52 a (11.89) | 1.70 b (4.01) | 2.08 bc (4.06) | 1.65 b (4.05) |
I40 | 3.43 a (11.35) | 1.94 a (4.33) | 3.62 a (12.59) | 2.11 a (6.86) | 2.65 a (6.52) | 1.92 a (4.85) | |
I50 | 3.32 ab (10.52) | 1.91 ab (4.45) | 3.61 a (12.58) | 1.97 a (5.08) | 2.25 b (4.59) | 1.66 b (3.52) | |
I60 | 2.97 c (8.35) | 1.79 ab (3.18) | 2.92 bc (8.03) | 1.70 b (5.18) | 2.22 b (4.49) | 1.55 bc (3.13) | |
S.Em. ± | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
Treatments | Weeds Moisture Content (%) | Soil Moisture Content (%) | Soil Wetting Zone (cm) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 DAS | 60 DAS | 30 DAS | 60 DAS | 60 DAS | ||
Sowing methods (L) | ||||||
BBF | 67.50 c | 68.3 b | 28.27 b | 26.37 b | 7.6 c | |
CF | 72.18 b | 75.6 a | 30.68 ab | 28.00 a | 10.1 b | |
RF | 78.10 a | 79.6 a | 32.99 a | 30.81 ab | 11.7 a | |
S.Em. ± | 0.68 | 1.40 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.12 | |
Irrigation levels (I) | ||||||
I10D | 69.67 b | 74.3 ab | 31.06 b | 29.47 c | 9.1 b | |
I40 | 76.75 a | 77.3 a | 34.22 a | 32.96 b | 10.8 a | |
I50 | 75.53 a | 75.5 a | 32.13 a | 30.95 a | 10.4 ab | |
I60 | 68.42 b | 70. 8b | 30.18 b | 26.84 bc | 8.9 b | |
S.Em. ± | 0.56 | 1.46 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.19 | |
Interaction (I × L) | ||||||
BBF | I10D | 64.71 g | 67.0 de | 30.74 h | 28.57 e | 6.5 e |
I40 | 70.34 d-f | 71.6 cd | 31.90 b-e | 30.23 d | 9.0 d | |
I50 | 72.39 c-e | 72.1 b-d | 31.74 c-f | 30.26 bc | 8.8 d | |
I60 | 62.56 g | 62.4 e | 26.69 h | 25.41 d | 6.1 e | |
CF | I10D | 68.57 f | 75.7 a-c | 31.08 gh | 29.27 d | 9.2 d |
I40 | 74.47 bc | 74.7 a-d | 33.27 a-c | 32.81 cd | 10.8 bc | |
I50 | 75.92 b | 78.6 a-c | 32.19 a-d | 32.32 a | 10.5 bc | |
I60 | 69.78 ef | 73.5 a-d | 30.19 f-h | 29.59 cd | 9.9 cd | |
RF | I10D | 75.75 b | 80.1 ab | 31.35 e-g | 30.58 b | 11.5 ab |
I40 | 81.95 a | 81.2 a | 34.48 a | 34.28 a | 12.5 a | |
I50 | 81.77 a | 80.3 ab | 33.45 ab | 32.85 ab | 11.9 a | |
I60 | 72.92 cd | 76.6 a-c | 30.66 d-f | 30.52 b | 10.8 bc | |
S.Em. ± | 0.98 | 2.53 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.34 |
Treatments | Soil Moisture Content at 55 DAS (%) | Weeds DW at 55 DAS (g m−2) | Pod Borer Incidence (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sowing methods (L) | ||||
BBF | 29.27 a | 2.81 a, * (7.49) | 32.08 a | |
CF | 26.31 c | 2.41 c (5.45) | 25.63 c | |
RF | 27.20 b | 2.57 b (6.23) | 28.83 b | |
S.Em. ± | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.63 | |
Irrigation levels (I) | ||||
I10D | 27.67 a | 2.58 a (6.28) | 28.17 a | |
I40 | 27.51 a | 2.60 a (6.40) | 28.89 a | |
I50 | 27.63 a | 2.60 a (6.40) | 28.89 a | |
I60 | 27.56 a | 2.61 a (6.47) | 29.44 a | |
S.Em. ± | 0.16 | 0.02 | 1.20 | |
Interaction (I × L) | ||||
BBF | I10D | 29.43 a | 2.79 a (7.38) | 30.83 a-c |
I40 | 29.19 a | 2.80 a (7.45) | 33.33 a | |
I50 | 29.17 a | 2.82 a (7.57) | 31.67 a-c | |
I60 | 29.30 a | 2.82 a (7.58) | 32.50 ab | |
CF | I10D | 26.74 b-d | 2.40 c (5.37) | 25.83 bc |
I40 | 26.01 d | 2.42 c (5.48) | 25.00 c | |
I50 | 26.19 cd | 2.42 c (5.48) | 25.83 bc | |
I60 | 26.29 cd | 2.42 c (5.48) | 25.83 bc | |
RF | I10D | 26.85 b-d | 2.55 b (6.11) | 27.83 a-c |
I40 | 27.32 b | 2.58 b (6.26) | 28.33 a-c | |
I50 | 27.52 b | 2.57 b (6.21) | 29.17 a-c | |
I60 | 27.11 bc | 2.60 b (6.36) | 30.00 a-c | |
S.Em. ± | 0.28 | 0.03 | 2.08 |
Treatments | MEY (kg ha−1) | Total Water Usage (mm) | |
---|---|---|---|
Sowing methods (L) | |||
BBF | 8960 b | 636.0 | |
CF | 9390 a | 717.6 | |
RF | 9600 a | 816.4 | |
S.Em. ± | 161 | - | |
Irrigation levels (I) | |||
I10D | 9140 b | 723.4 | |
I40 | 9590 a | 781.2 | |
I50 | 9590 a | 723.38 | |
I60 | 8930 b | 665.4 | |
S.Em. ± | 144 | - | |
Interaction (I × L) | |||
BBF | I10D | 8910 cd | 636.0 |
I40 | 9390 a-c | 679.6 | |
I50 | 9050 b-d | 636.0 | |
I60 | 8480 d | 592.6 | |
CF | I10D | 9090 b-d | 717.6 |
I40 | 9560 a-c | 774.6 | |
I50 | 10000 a | 717.6 | |
I60 | 8900 cd | 660.6 | |
RF | I10D | 9430 a-c | 816.6 |
I40 | 9810 ab | 889.6 | |
I50 | 9720 a-c | 816.6 | |
I60 | 9410 a-c | 743.0 | |
S.Em. ± | 249 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Halli, H.M.; Angadi, S.; Govindasamy, P.; Madar, R.; Sannagoudar, M.S.; El-Sabrout, A.M.; Alataway, A.; Dewidar, A.Z.; O. Elansary, H. Integrated Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Sowing Methods on Weed Dynamics and System Productivity of Maize–Cowpea Sequence on Vertisols. Agronomy 2021, 11, 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040808
Halli HM, Angadi S, Govindasamy P, Madar R, Sannagoudar MS, El-Sabrout AM, Alataway A, Dewidar AZ, O. Elansary H. Integrated Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Sowing Methods on Weed Dynamics and System Productivity of Maize–Cowpea Sequence on Vertisols. Agronomy. 2021; 11(4):808. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040808
Chicago/Turabian StyleHalli, Hanamant M., Sanganabasappa Angadi, Prabhu Govindasamy, Raghavendra Madar, Manjanagouda S. Sannagoudar, Ahmed M. El-Sabrout, Abed Alataway, Ahmed Z. Dewidar, and Hosam O. Elansary. 2021. "Integrated Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Sowing Methods on Weed Dynamics and System Productivity of Maize–Cowpea Sequence on Vertisols" Agronomy 11, no. 4: 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040808