Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp1 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - II

Optimizing soybean yield, weed dynamics and profitability using herbicides in custard apple-based agri-horti system of the Vindhyan region of Uttar Pradesh, India

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9635
Submitted
26 May 2025
Published
14-10-2025

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the Kharif seasons of 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the weed management effect on weed suppression, crop growth, yield and economics of soybean within a custard apple-based system. The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design comprising seven treatments with three replications. The treatments included pre-emergence (PRE) of pyroxasulfone 85 % w/w WG (GSP sample) 120.0 mL ha-1 (T1), pyroxasulfone 85 % w/w WG (GSP sample) 150.0 mL ha-1 (T2), pyroxasulfone 85 % w/w WG (GSP sample) 187.5 mL ha-1 (T3), pyroxasulfone 85 % w/w WG (Market sample) 150.0 mL ha-1 (T4); early post-emergence (PoE), imazethapyr 10 % SL WC 1000.0 mL ha-1 (T5), hand weeding at 20 and 40 days after sowing (T6) and untreated control (T7). The hand-weeded plots (T6) recorded significantly the lowest weed density (WD) and weed dry weight (WDW) along with the highest weed control efficiency. Among herbicidal treatments, T3 showed significantly better weed suppression, physiological growth indices, biomass accumulation and grain yield of soybean, followed closely by T2. This treatment also delivered superior net returns and benefit-cost ratio compared to other herbicidal options. The combination of effective weed management using pyroxasulfone 85 % WG (GSP sample) at 150 mL ha-1 (T2) and the agri-horti system proved to be a sustainable and profitable approach for soybean production under the given agro-climatic conditions.

References

  1. 1. Malukani B. Export potential of soybean from India: a trend analysis. Prestige Int J Manag Res. 2016;3:43–53.
  2. 2. Hartman GL, West ED, Herman TK. Crops that feed the world 2. Soybean—worldwide production, use and constraints caused by pathogens and pests. Food Secur. 2011;3:5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0108-x
  3. 3. Kanatas P, Travlos I, Papastylianou P, Gazoulis I, Kakabouki I, Tsekoura A. Yield, quality and weed control in soybean crop as affected by several cultural and weed management practices. Not Bot Horti Agrobo. 2020;48(1):329–41. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha48111823
  4. 4. Khan MA, Ahmad S, Raza A. Integrated weed management for agronomic crops. In: Khan GA, Tahir M, Ullah I, Ahmad A, editors. Agronomic crops. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 257–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9783-8_14
  5. 5. Mishra JS, Kumar R, Mondal S, Poonia SP, Rao KK, Dubey R, et al. Tillage and crop establishment effects on weeds and productivity of a rice-wheat-mungbean rotation. Field Crops Res. 2022;284:108577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108577
  6. 6. Song JS, Chung JH, Lee KJ, Kwon J, Kim JW, Im JH, et al. Herbicide-based weed management for soybean production in the Far Eastern region of Russia. Agronomy. 2020;10(11):1823. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111823
  7. 7. Yamaji Y, Honda H, Hanai R, Inoue J. Soil and environmental factors affecting the efficacy of pyroxasulfone for weed control. J Pestic Sci. 2016;41(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.d15-047
  8. 8. Young SL, Pierce FJ, Nowak P. Automation: the future of weed control in cropping systems. In: Lal R, Stewart BA, editors. Sustaining soil and crop productivity in a changing climate. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 249–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7512-1
  9. 9. Westwood J, Charudattan R, Duke S, Fennimore S, Marrone P, Slaughter D, et al. Weed management in 2050: perspectives on the future of weed science. Weed Sci. 2018;66:275–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2017.78
  10. 10. Monteiro A, Santos S. Sustainable approach to weed management: the role of precision weed management. Agronomy. 2022;12(1):118. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010118
  11. 11. Sharma P, Singh MK, Tiwari P, Verma K. Agroforestry systems: opportunities and challenges in India. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(6S):953–7.
  12. 12. Debbarma M, Meena RS, Singh SP, Singh A, Kumar S, Gurjar DS, et al. Effect of integrated nutrient management on mungbean (Vigna radiata) under custard apple (Annona squamosa) based agri-horti system in Vindhyan region, Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Agric Sci. 2020;90(10):197–200. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i10.107987
  13. 13. Shivran OP, Singh MK, Singh NK. Weed flora dynamics and growth response of green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) under varied agri-horti systems and weed management practices. J Appl Nat Sci. 2017;9(3):1848–53. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v9i3.1451
  14. 14. Singh AK, Singh S, Saroj PL, Mishra DS, Yadav V, Kumar R. Cultivation of underutilized fruit crops in hot semi-arid regions: developments and challenges—a review. Curr Hortic. 2020;8(1):12–23. https://doi.org/10.5958/2455-7560.2020.00003.5
  15. 15. Rizvi SJH, Tahir M, Rizvi V, Kohli RK, Ansari A. Allelopathic interactions in agroforestry systems. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 1999;18(6):773–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689991309487
  16. 16. Mishra M, Misra A. Estimation of integrated pest management index in jute–a new approach. Indian J Weed Sci. 1997;29(1-2):39–42.
  17. 17. Lakra K. Effect of irrigation and herbicides on the most tenacious weed Cyperus rotundus in wheat. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2021;11(10):29–37. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2021/v11i1030489
  18. 18. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  19. 19. Bhimwal JP, Verma A, Gupta V, Meena SK, Malunjkar BD. Performance of different tank mix herbicides for broad-spectrum weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Indian J Agric Res. 2018;52(6):682–5. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijare.a-5107
  20. 20. Dhaker SC, Mundra SL, Nepalia V. Effect of weed management and sulphur nutrition on productivity of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Indian J Weed Sci. 2010;42(3–4):232–4.
  21. 21. Meena BL, Meena DS, Baldev R, Sharma MK, Gatum C, Nagar G. Effect of herbicidal weed control on growth and yield of soybean. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(10):2880–4. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.910.347
  22. 22. Purohit NN, Kaur P, Bhullar MS. Synergistic impact of tank mixing pendimethalin and pyroxasulfone on soil enzymatic and microbial dynamics. Environ Monit Assess. 2024;196(11):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-13259-w
  23. 23. Nakatani M, Yamaji Y, Honda H, Uchida Y. Development of the novel pre-emergence herbicide pyroxasulfone. J Pestic Sci. 2016;41(3):107–12. https://doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.J16-05
  24. 24. Knezevic SZ, Pavlovic P, Osipitan OA, Barnes ER, Beiermann C, Oliveira MC, et al. Critical time for weed removal in glyphosate-resistant soybean as influenced by preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 2019;33(3):393–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2019.18
  25. 25. Stephenson DO, Blouin DC, Griffin JL, Landry RL, Woolam BC, Hardwick JM. Effect of pyroxasulfone application timing and rate on soybean. Weed Technol. 2017;31(2):202–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2016.25
  26. 26. Nagre BS, Kamble AB, Danawale NJ, Dhonde MB. Crop geometry and weed management effect on weed dynamics in soybean. Indian J Weed Sci. 2017;49(1):95–7. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2017.00025.9

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.