Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Weed growth, herbicide efficacy, and rice productivity in dry seeded

paddy field under different wheat stubble management methods

Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq1, 2, Abdul Khaliq1, Qiang Sheng2, Amar Matloob3, Saddam Hussain1, Saba
Fatima4, Zeshan Aslam5

1
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
2
Weed Research Laboratory, College of Life Sciences, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, P.R.China
3
Department of Agronomy, Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan 60000, Pakistan
4
Department of Economics, National College of Business Administration and Economics, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
5
Pesticide Residue Laboratory, Kala Shah Kaku, Institute of Soil Chemistry and Environmental Sciences, Government of Punjab,
Lahore 54000, Pakistan

Abstract
To ascertain the influence of wheat stubble management options and chemical weed control methods on weed growth
and productivity of dry direct-seeded fine rice, a two years’ field study was undertaken at the Agronomic Research Farm,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan in 2013 and 2014. Different wheat stubble management methods, viz.,
incorporation, burning and retention were executed during seed-bed preparation. While, herbicide treatments comprised of
a weed check, weed free, pendimethalin followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl, and bispyribac
sodium followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl. Results revealed that weed control efficacy
of both herbicide treatments ranged from 84 to 94%. Herbicide treatments significantly reduced weed density (88–90%)
and dry weight (86–88%), while improved the rice growth attributes compared with weed check. Application of bispyribac
sodium followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl in stubble retention recorded 226 and 273%
increase in kernel yield over weedy check in 2013 and 2014, respectively. In stubble incorporation, pendimethalin followed
by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl was more effective in increasing (256–293%) rice yields over
weedy check. Among different treatment combinations, the maximum net benefits (1 397.49–1 472.22 USD ha–1), net
returns (636–700 USD ha–1), benefit cost ratio (1.77–1.83) and marginal rate of return (2 187–2 330%) were recorded with
the application of bispyribac sodium followed by fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl in stubble retention. In crux,
application of bispyribac sodium followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl in stubble retention is
efficient approach to control weeds, and get maximum rice productivity and net economic returns under dry seeded system.

Keywords: herbicide mixture, weedy check, stubble management, weeds density and dry weight, DSR

Received 13 March, 2018 Accepted 24 April, 2018

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e M u h a m m a d Zi a - U l - H a q , M o b i l e : + 8 6 -
13260809813, E-mail: ziaagr@yahoo.com
© 2019 CAAS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62004-0
1. Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is an important crop and staple food
for half of the world’s population. Asia alone contributes
90% of the total rice production and consumption (FAO
908 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926
2014). Out of total cultivated area in South Asia, more than
50% is covered by rice based cropping systems. Most of
the rice in Asia has been grown under traditional puddled
transplanted conditions with prolonged periods of flooding.
However, in the context of dwindling water supplies and
less accessibility of labor, the traditionally transplanted rice
system is losing its sustainability and economic feasibility
(Bhushan et al. 2007). Resource conservation technologies
are becoming increasingly important in rice-wheat system
because these reduce cost of production and increase
net profit of farmers (Singh et al. 2006). To secure future
food supply, conventional rice growing method should be
replaced with such a production technique that requires
less water and labor while securing yields. Rice grown by
direct seeding method is a substitute to manage the issues
of water and labor shortage accompanying with traditionally
submerged rice growing system (Weerakoon et al. 2011).
Weed infestation is a major threat to the efficiency of
dry seeded rice (DSR) system (Rao et al. 2007). In DSR,
weeds grow rapidly as compared to flooded transplanted
rice (Chauhan and Johnson 2009a). Moreover, rice and
weeds emerge simultaneously in DSR system so that
appropriate stage and technique of weed management
has remained a crucial phenomenon (Khaliq and Matloob
2011). Yield reduction caused by uncontrolled weeds in dry-
seeded rice grown under conventional tillage system was
>80% (Khaliq et al. 2012b). To reduce the weed burden in
DSR, numerous weed management strategies have been
proposed (Chauhan et al. 2010). Hand weeding (effective
in reducing weeds) has been limited due to numerous
economic and technical reasons (Khaliq et al. 2011). In
DSR, chemical control of weeds has appeared as promising
approach, since it is easy, rapid and economically feasible.
It has expanded manifolds in recent years (Khaliq et al.
2012b). Numerous pre-emergence herbicides have been
tested to combat weed menace in DSR (Baloch et al.
2005). Pendimethalin, oxadiazon, butachlor and nitrofen
are few herbicides that are being used to control weeds in
rice worldwide (Rao et al. 2007). Sequential application of
herbicide is mandatory to control all types of weeds in DSR
(Singh et al. 2016).
Crop residue management problem has increased where
combine harvesting was used because it leaves stubble and
mostly spreads straws in the field (Prasad et al. 1999). For
direct seeding, rice can be sown into a prepared seedbed,
after cultivation or under zero tillage (ZT) system (Rao et al.
2007). ZT systems (in which crop residues are left on the
soil surface) have been reported to facilitate in conservation
of soil moisture (Benegas 1998), maintenance of aggregate
stability, enhanced soil organic matter and water infiltration,
and a decrease in soil erosion and weed density (Franke
et al. 2007). In ZT, weed seeds are present mostly on or
close to soil surface (Chauhan et al. 2006); hence growth
of weeds, which require light for germination, could be
increased (El-Titi 2003; Chauhan and Johnson 2009b).
Mishra and Singh (2012) emphasized that the cost of weed
management should be compensated with savings in tillage
processes in ZT. Tillage also modifies soil temperature,
moisture, aeration and nutrients, so all these attributes
may increase weed problem (El-Titi 2003). For residue
management, burning is common practice in Asia (Singh
et al. 2005). Burning causes the loss of plant nutrients like
nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur and boron, and has health
and environmental concerns (Prasad and Power 1991).
A lot of information is available on the influence of
herbicides, row spacing, fertilizers, seeding densities
and their possible interactions on dynamics of weed-crop
competition and herbicide performance in rice. However,
fewer studies have addressed wheat residue management
in the wake of weed management in DSR fields. Thus,
interaction of various wheat residue management methods
with herbicides remains a germane issue. Hence, it needs
to be considered in the perspective of integrated weed
management for improved production of following rice crop
in rice-wheat cropping system.
The present study was therefore designed, (1) to find
out effect of wheat stubble management methods on the
weed control efficacy of herbicides in DSR, (2) to assess the
weed control efficacy of different herbicides and their tank
mixture in DSR, and (3) to compare the economic feasibility
of different stubble and weed management options in dry
seeded fine rice.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
Efficacy of sequential application of pre- and post-
emergence herbicides in DSR was evaluated under different
wheat stubble management methods in a field experiment
in summer of 2013 and 2014 at Agronomic Research
Area, Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad (31.25°N latitude, 73.09°E longitude, 184 m
a.s.l). Soil belongs to Lyallpur soil series, by USDA
classification that is aridisol-fine-silty, mixed, hyperthermic
Ustalfic, Haplargid and by FAO classification Haplic
Yermosols. Saturated soil paste of the site recorded pH 7.3
and 0.81 dS m–1 were the total soluble salts.
2.2. Experimental design and treatments
The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block
design (RCBD) with split-plot arrangement having three
replications. The net plot size was 8 m×3.4 m. Different
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926 909

stubble management treatments, viz., S1: incorporation
(chopping and mixing with soil); S2: burning (in situ); and
S3: stubble retention (7–8 cm) were assigned to main plot,
while herbicide treatments were allocated to sub-plots.
The herbicide treatments comprised of, W1: pendimethalin
(Stomp 330EC at 825 g a.i. ha–1) (0 day after sowing (DAS))
followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl (Puma super
7.5EW at 86.25 g a.i. ha–1)+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (Sunstar
60WG at 30 g a.i. ha–1; 28 DAS) (HC1); W2: Bispyribac
sodium (Nominee 100SC at 30 g a.i. ha–1; 15 DAS) followed
by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl (Puma super 7.5EW
at 86.25 g a.i. ha–1)+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (Sunstar 60WG
at 30 g a.i. ha–1; 28 DAS) (HC2); W3: weed-check; and
W4: weed-free. Seed of popular fine rice cv. Basmati-515
was obtained from the Rice Research Institute, Kala Shah
Kaku, Sheikhupura, Pakistan. Different herbicides used in
the present study were obtained from shops of authorized
dealers of respective manufacturers. Services of Agro-
Meteorological Observatory, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan were obtained for meteorological data
during the course of study (Fig. 1).
Under field conditions, stubble incorporation was
accomplished by chopping and incorporating wheat stubbles
into the soil with a tractor mounted rotavator, then cultivating
the soil twice followed by planking each time. For straw
burning, wheat stubbles were burnt in situ followed by two
normal cultivations each followed by planking. In case of
stubble retention, glyphosate at 2.5 L ha–1 was applied to
kill the established weeds and seed was directly sown with
a single row drill into an undisturbed seed bed with 7–8 cm
anchored wheat stubbles with little amount of loose straw
on surface. For weed-free treatment, four weeding were
done at 20 days intervals. For weed-check treatment
(control), weeds were allowed to grow for the full crop period.
Pendimethalin was applied as pre-emergence immediately
after rice sowing. Bispyribac sodium was applied as early
post emergence (15 DAS) and tank mixture of fenoxaprop
p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl was applied as late post
emergence (28 DAS). All herbicides were applied using flat-
fan type nozzle (Lurmark Evenspray 80, M. K. Rittenhouse
& Sons Limited (CA)) fitted to a manual knapsack sprayer.
Volume of spray (330 L ha–1) was calibrated using water to
prior to treatment application.
2.3. Crop husbandry
Preparation of seedbed was accomplished according to the
treatments. Rice cultivar Basmati 515 was sown in 20-cm
spaced rows on July 5, 2013 and July 2, 2014 dry direct
seeding using seed rate of 50 kg ha–1. Recommended rate

2013
Rainfall (mm) Relative humidity (%) Max. temperature (°C) Min. temperature (°C)
120 50
Relative humidity (%)

100 40

temperatures (°C)
Min. and max.
80
Rainfall (mm)

30
60
20
40
20 10

0 0
15 –1 ly

22 y–2 ly

29 –2 ly
ly uly

12 .– ug.

19 .–1 ug.

26 .–25 .

2 .–1 .
9 p.– p.

Se 15 .

Se 22 .
30 –29 p.

–6 .
14 t.–1 ct.

21 t.–2 ct.

28 –27 t.

11 .–1 v.

18 v.– ov.

25 –24 v.

2 .–1 .
.– c.

.
ov Nov
ug

16 p.– ep

23 p.– ep

ct

ec
c

o
u

ec De
Au

Se

p. Se

Se Se

N
Ju 7 J

Ju 4 J

Ju 1 J

Ju 8 J

D
Au 4 A

A
Au 8 A

N –3

7
Au 11

Se 8

8
–

1
–
ly

p.

.
ct
ly

ly

.
Ju

.
ct

ov

ov
g
l

g
Au

Se

D
O

N
1
8

7
5

2014
Rainfall (mm) Relative humidity (%) Max. temperature (°C) Min. temperature (°C)
120 50
Relative humidity (%)

100
temperatures (°C)

40
Min. and max.
Rainfall (mm)

80
30
60
20
40

20 10

0 0
15 –1 ly

22 y–2 ly

–2 ly

ly

g.

26 –25 .
g. ug.

9 p.– p.
16 p.– ep.

23 .–2 ep.

30 –29 .

–6 .
14 .–1 ct.

21 t.–2 ct.

28 –27 t.

11 .–1 v.

18 v.– ov.

25 –24 v.

.
ov Nov
ug

ug

ep

ct

ec

ec
c

o
u

u
Ju

Se

Se Se

N
Ju 7 J

Ju 4 J

Ju 1 J

D
Au 4 A

Au 11 A

Au 18 A

S
Se 2 S
8

8
–1

Se 8

Se 15
y–

.–

1
–

.–

.–
p.
12 g.–
ly

ct
l

ec
ly

ly

.
Ju

.
g.

g.

p.

ct

ct
Ju

ov

ov
l

Au

Se

D
O

N
1

29

2
8

7
5

4
19

Fig. 1 Meteorological data during the study period (Agro-Meteorological Observatory, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan).
910 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926
of fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O=120:70:50 kg ha–1) was applied
during the experiment both years. The sources used for
fertilizer were urea (46% N), diammonium phosphate (18%
N, 46% P2O5) and sulphate of potash (50% K2O). Full dose
of phosphorus and potassium along with half of the nitrogen
was applied at the time of sowing, while the remaining
nitrogen was applied in two equal splits with the first and
second irrigations. The crop was irrigated as and when
required to meet consumptive use of water. At physiological
maturity, crop was manually harvested. All other agronomic
operations except those under study were kept uniform for
all the treatments.
2.4. Observations
Weed density and dry weight Weed density was recorded
from a randomly placed quadrate (50 cm×50 cm; 0.25 m2).
Weeds were clipped off the soil surface and individual weed
counts were made for every quadrate from each plot at
45 DAS. Average of two quadrats was computed and data
on weed density were converted into square meters.
Individual weeds were harvested and put in Kraft paper
bags. The weed samples were sun-dried for three to four
days and then placed in an electric oven at 70° for 48 h till
a constant weight was achieved. The weed dry weight was
recorded using a digital balance.
Herbicide efficiency Weed control efficiency (WCE)
of herbicides treatments was calculated as follows
(Hasanuzzaman et al. 2008):
WCE (%)=(DWC–DWT)/DWC×100
Where, DWC=dry weight of weeds in weed-check plots,
and DWT=dry weight of weeds in treated plots.
growth Samples for growth analysis were collected from
an area of 20 cm×50 cm, and were separated into leaves
and stems. For leaf area measurement, 2 g sample was
separated from each plot leaves. Leaf area was measured
by a leaf area meter (Licor, Model 3100). Leaf area index
was calculated as the ratio between leaf area and land area
(Watson 1947). Remaining samples were sun-dried for 24
h then oven-dried for 48 h for the calculation of other growth
parameters. Leaf area duration, crop growth rate and net
assimilation rate for the crop were estimated by using the
following formula of Hunt (1978).
LAD=(LAI1+LAI2)(t2–t1)/2
Where, LAD=leaf area duration, LAI1=leaf area index
at first harvest, LAI2=leaf area index at second harvest,
t1=date of observation of first LAI, t2=date of observation
of second LAI.
CGR=(W2–W1)/(t2–t1)
Where, CGR=crop growth rate, W1=total dry matter
(TDM) at the first harvest, W2=total dry matter at the second
harvest, t1=date of observation of first TDM, and t2=date of
observation of second TDM.
NAR=TDM/LAD
Where, NAR=net assimilation rate, TDM=total dry matter
at the specific harvesting, and LAD=leaf are duration at
specific stage.
Agronomic traits of rice Panicle bearing tillers were
counted from an area of 1 m×1 m randomly selected from
two different points in each plot. The average number
of productive tillers per unit area (m2) was worked out
thereafter. Ten panicles randomly harvested from each
experimental plot were threshed. Their kernels were
manually counted and averaged thereafter. 1 000-kernel
weight of normal kernels was recorded three times in grams
by using electric balance and average of three repeats was
computed. At physiological maturity (20% grain moisture
contents), crop was manually harvested with a sickle leaving
appropriate borders (4 m2). The harvested crop was tied
into bundles and kept in respective plots for five days for sun
drying. Biological yield was recorded at 14% grain moisture
contents, in kilogram per plot by using a digital electrical
balance and converted into tons per hectare. Produce of
each plot was manually threshed against a steel drum. The
harvested paddy yield in kilogram per plot was converted
into tons per hectare. Produce of each plot was manually
threshed by beating against a steel drum. The rice straw
was weighed using a digital electrical balance. Weight in
kilogram per plot was transformed into tons per hectare.
Harvest index (HI) was calculated as the ratio of kernel
yield to biological expressed as percentage as per Beadle
(1993). Percent relative yield loss (RYL) due to weeds and
percent yield increase over control (YOC) was calculated
as per Anwar et al. (2012).
Economic and marginal analyses Economic and marginal
analysis based on variable and fixed costs was carried out to
look into comparative benefits of different treatments using
the procedures developed by CIMMYT (1988). Net field
benefit is the difference between gross income and variable
cost, whereas, net returns is the difference between gross
income and total cost. Benefit cost ratio is increase in net
return with the given increase in total cost of production.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance was carried out by using Fisher’s
analysis of variance technique with the help of statistical
package DSAASTAT ver. 1.021 (Onofri 2007) and least
significance difference (LSD) test at 5% was applied to
compare the differences among treatment means (Steel
et al. 1997). Correlation analysis was carried out by using
Microsoft Excel 2016.
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926 911

3. Results

Table 1 Influence of different wheat stubble management methods, weed control treatments and their interaction on density (m2) and dry weight (g m–2) of total weeds in dry seeded

40.56 b

36.15 b
46.89 b

43.73 b
578.11 a

301.63 a
Mean

Mean
3.1. Weed dynamics and growth

LSD0.05 for stubble management×weed control treatments=134.572

Weed community of experimental site comprised

LSD0.05 for stubble management×weed control treatments=ns

of different narrow and broad leaf weeds including
jungle rice (Echinochloa colona L.), crowfoot grass

134.11 b
324.33 b

40.67 c
37.33 c
Retention

Retention

117.22
34.10
53.06
264.50
(Dactyloctenium aegyptium L.), purple nutsedge
(Cyperus rotundus L.), horse purslane (Trianthema

a2: 2014 wheat stubble management

b2: 2014 wheat stubble management

partulacastrum L.), bermuda grass (Cynodon

LSD0.05 for weed control treatments=79.367

LSD0.05 for weed control treatments=40.204

dactylon L.), alligator weed (Alternanthera

LSD0.05 for stubble management=77.695

philoxerides L.) and rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria L.).

LSD0.05 for stubble management=ns

291.33 a
770.33 a

53.00 c
50.67 c
Data regarding weed density recorded at

Burning

Burning

151.75
57.85
44.94
352.46
45 DAS revealed that different wheat stubble
management methods, herbicide treatments and
their interaction significantly (P≤0.05) influenced

Different letters in columns indicate significance between treatment at α=0.05 according to LSD test, and ns means non-significant.
total weed density in both years (Table 1, a1 and
Incorporation

Incorporation

112.53 ns
287.92 ns
a2). Under weed-check treatment, total weed

240.11 a
639.67 a

28.00 c
52.67 c

Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium.

16.49
33.18
density in wheat stubble retention treatment
was significantly (P≤0.05) less (43 and 45% in
2013 and 49 and 58% in 2014, respectively) as
compared to stubble incorporation and stubble
burning treatments, respectively. Both herbicide
48.44 B

39.05 B
47.11 B

38.61 B
596.00 A

318.82 A
treatments, i.e., HC1 or HC2 performed equally
Mean

Mean
well and significantly (P≤0.05) reduced the weed
LSD0.05 for stubble management×weed control treatments=126.833

density by >90% in 2013 (Table 1, a1) and >88%

LSD0.05 for stubble management×weed control treatments=ns

in 2014 (Table 1, a2) against weed-check under
all wheat stubble management methods. Data
155.11 B
389.33 b

37.33 c
38.67 c
Retention

Retention

regarding total weed dry weight (Table 1, b1 and 134.28

39.75
46.04
317.05

b2) revealed that only main effect of herbicide

a1: 2013 wheat stubble management

b1: 2013 wheat stubble management

treatments was significant (P≤0.05). Both

LSD0.05 for weed control treatments=73.227

LSD0.05 for weed control treatments=43.854

herbicide treatments performed equally well and
LSD0.05 for stubble management=54.065

significantly (P≤0.05) reduced weed dry weight

LSD0.05 for stubble management=ns
274.67 A
714.67 a

64.00 c
45.33 c

over weed-check. HC1 reduced weed dry weight

Burning

Burning

140.09
52.03
40.45
327.79

by 88% in 2013 (Table 1, b1) and 86% in 2014

(Table 1, b2). Weed suppression magnitude
amounted to 88% in 2013 and 2014 when HC2
was applied (Table 1, b1 and b2).
Incorporation

Incorporation

122.11 ns
311.62 ns
261.78 A
684.00 a

44.00 c
57.33 c

25.37
29.35

3.2. Herbicide efficacy against narrow- and

broad-leaf weeds

WCE of herbicide mixtures is a measure of

Total weeds dry weight (g m–2)

treatment efficiency in controlling weeds as

Weed control treatments1)

compared to weed-check. It was measured

Total weeds density (m2)

Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy

Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy
Weed control treatment1)
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy

Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy

against narrow leaf weeds, broad leaf weeds and

total weeds.
Both herbicide treatments were efficient in
Weed-check

Weed-check

controlling narrow leaf weeds. In 2013, the

fine rice

maximum WCE (96%) was observed when

Mean

Mean

HC1 was applied in stubble retention against

1)
912 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

their respective weed check. While, the minimum (80%)
narrow leaf WCE was recorded by the application HC2
in stubble burning against their respective weed-check
(Fig. 2-A). Application of HC2 in stubble retention recorded
the maximum WCE against narrow leaf weeds in 2014.
However, the same herbicide remained least efficient in
controlling narrow leaf weeds in stubble burning in both
years (Fig. 2-A).
WCE of herbicide treatments against broad leaf weeds
ranged from 43 to 96% (Fig. 2-B). In 2014, the highest
WCE (96%) was observed in stubble incorporation where
HC2 was applied. However, the other herbicide combination
was equally effective under same stubble management
method. In stubble burning, WCE against broad leaf weeds
was quite satisfactory for 2013 and 2014 (Fig. 2-B). The
lowest WCE (43 and 65%) against broad leaf weeds was
observed in stubble retention when HC1 was applied in both
years (Fig. 2-B).
Overall WCE of both herbicide treatments ranged from
80 to 94% in both years (Fig. 2-C). The WCE of both
herbicide combinations was higher (WCE≥88%) in stubble
incorporation than stubble burning or stubble retention.
In stubble burning, HC1 was more effective in both years
(Fig. 2-C). Nonetheless, HC 2 was superior in stubble
retention in controlling weeds in both years.
3.3. Rice growth
Different growth parameters such as leaf area index (LAI),
leaf area duration (LAD), crop growth rate (CGR) and net
assimilation rate (NAR) were recorded at regular intervals.
The maximum CGR was recorded at 70–85 DAS in all
treatments expect weed-check in both years (Fig. 3). Among
different treatments, weed-check recorded lower CGR
during whole crop span. In 2013, stubble incorporation
under weed-free conditions recorded the maximum CGR
at 70–85 DAS that was statistically equal to application
of HC1. While in stubble retention, application of HC 2
recorded CGR equal to weed-free treatment at 70–85
DAS (Fig. 3-A). In 2014, application of HC1 in stubble
incorporation recorded the highest CGR among all other
treatment combinations (Fig. 3-B). While in stubble burning
and retention, application of HC2 scored equal CGR as
weed-free treatment did (Fig. 3).
Periodic data of LAI (Fig. 4) indicates consistent till
85 DAS. Weed free treatment revealed significantly the
maximum LAI as compared to other treatments in both year
of experiment. While weed-check recorded the minimum LAI
(Fig. 4). In both years, both herbicide treatments performed
equally well and were recorded similar improvements in LAI
in stubble incorporation and stubble burning, compared with

Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy.

2013
A B C
120
Weed control efficiency (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
2014
Weed control efficiency (%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
at le

rn ble

nt le

tio e

rn ble

nt le

at le

rn ble

nt le
ra bl
or bb

te bb

te bb

or bb

te bb
n

n
n

n
bu tub

po tub

bu ub

bu tub
io

in

io

in

io

io

in

io
rp Stu

re tu

re u

rp Stu

re Stu
St

t
S

S
or
co

co
c
in

in

in

Narrow-leaved weeds Broad-leaved weeds Total weeds

Fig. 2 Influence of herbicide treatments on weed control efficiency (WCE, %) in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat
stubble management methods. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl;
bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. Vertical bars above mean denote standard error of three replicates.
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926 913

Weed-check Weed-free
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy.
A
40
2013
Crop growth rate (g m–2 d–1)
30

20

10

B 2014
40

30
Crop growth rate (g m–2 d–1)

20

10

0
DAS
0

00

00

00
–7

–8

–7

–8

–7

–8
–1

–1

–1
55

70

55

70

55

70
85

85

85

Incorporation Burning Retention

Stubble management methods

Fig. 3 Influence of weed control treatments on crop growth rate in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble
management methods. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl;
bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. DAS=days after sowing. Vertical bars above mean denote the standard error of three replicates.

weed-check. However, in stubble retention, higher LAI was
observed by the application of HC2 as compared to HC1 in
both years (Fig. 4).
Leaf area duration was positively influenced by both
herbicide treatments against weedy check treatment in
both years (Fig. 5). In both years, the maximum LAD
was recorded in weed free, while weed-check recorded
the minimum LAD due to the greater weed competition.
In stubble incorporation and burning, both herbicide
treatments performed similar. However, in stubble retention,
application of HC2 recorded the higher LAD as compared
to application of HC1 in both study years (Fig. 5). Pre-
and post-anthesis net assimilation rate is represented in
Fig. 6. All the treatments recorded the higher NAR during
pre-anthesis stage, while it was decreased during post-
anthesis stage. In 2013, application of HC2 in stubble
incorporation recorded the maximum pre-anthesis NAR. In
stubble burning, performance of both herbicide treatments
was similar. However, in stubble retention, application of
HC1 outperformed the other one in both stages (Fig. 6-A).
In 2014, weed free treatment under stubble incorporation,
application of HC 1 in stubble burning and application
of HC2 in stubble retention recorded the maximum pre-
anthesis NAR (Fig. 6-B). Regarding post-anthesis stage,
and application of HC 2 in stubble incorporation and
burning, and both herbicide treatments in stubble retention
outperformed (Fig. 6-B). Seasonal NAR (Table 2) revealed
that both herbicide treatments recorded the higher NAR as
compared to weedy check treatment that was even higher
than weed-free treatment in both years. The maximum
seasonal NAR ((4.42±0.2) and (4.17±0.01) g m–2 d–1 in 2013
and 2014, respectively) was observed in stubble retention
by application of HC1, while control recorded the lowest
seasonal NAR in stubble retention in both years.
914 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

Weed-check Weed-free
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy.
A 14
2013
Leaf area index 12

10

B 14
2014
12

10
Leaf area index

0
DAS
55

70

85

55

70

85

55

70

85

0
10

10

10

Incorporation Burning Retention

Stubble management methods

Fig. 4 Influence of weed control treatments on leaf area index in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble management
methods. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac
sodium. DAS=days after sowing. Vertical bars above mean denote the standard error of three replicates.

3.4. Rice yield and yield-related attributes
Wheat stubble management methods, herbicide treatments
and their interactive effects were significant (P≤0.05)
regarding productive tillers (m 2; Fig. 7-A and C) and
1 000-kernel weight in 2013. Weed-free treatment recorded
the maximum number of productive tillers and 1 000-kernel
weight (77% more tillers and 47–52% more 1 000-kernel
weight than weed-check). The application of HC1 in stubble
burning and HC2 in stubble retention recorded maximum
(58–83%) productive tillers and the maximum 1 000
kernel weight also (42–44%) among herbicide treatments
(Fig. 7-A and C). These above mentioned treatments were
statistically at par with weed-free plot under all stubble
management methods.
In 2014, main effect of herbicide treatments proved
significant (P≤0.05) and weed-free plot recorded the
maximum number of productive tillers (m2; Fig. 7-B) and
1 000-kernel weight. Both herbicide treatments performed
similar and recorded 61% increase in productive tillers and
42% increase in 1 000-kernel weight as compared to weedy
check (Fig. 7-B and D).
Data on number of kernels per panicle varied significantly
(P≤0.05) under the influence of herbicide treatments in both
years (Fig. 8-A and B). Averaged across different stubble
management options, weed-check treatment recorded
20–26% lower number of kernel per panicle as compared
with weed-free treatment in both years. Weed-free- and
herbicide-treated scored statistically (P≤0.05) similar
number of kernels per panicle, however, these values were
significantly higher than weed-check (Fig. 8-A and B).
Interactive effect of herbicide treatments and wheat
stubble management methods was significant (P≤0.05)
regarding biological yield (Fig. 8-C and D), straw yield, and
kernel yield (Fig. 9) in both years.
Weedy check recorded the minimum biological yield in
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926 915

Weed-check Weed-free
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy.

A 400 2013
Leaf area duration (d)
300

200

100

B
500 2014
Leaf area duration (d)

400

300

200

100

0
DAS
0

00

00

00
–7

–8

–7

–8

–7

–8
–1

–1

–1
55

70

55

70

55

70
85

85

85
Incorporation Burning Retention

Stubble management methods

Fig. 5 Influence of weed control treatments on leaf area duration (days) in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat
stubble management methods. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl;
bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. DAS=days after sowing. Vertical bars above mean denote the standard error of three replicates.

both years under all stubble management methods. In 2013,
weed-free treatment recorded 216, 224, and 258% more
biological yield than weed-check under stubble incorporation,
burning and retention, respectively. However, weed-free
treatment under stubble incorporation was statistically
(P≤0.05) at par with the application of HC2 under stubble
retention. This treatment recorded 225% more biological
yield than weed-check (Fig. 8-C). Among herbicide
treatments, HC2 under stubble burning recorded significantly
(P≤0.05) minimum biological yield and this was at par with
the application of HC1 under same stubble management
method (Fig. 3-A). In 2014, weed-free treatment in stubble
burning method recorded significantly (P≤0.05) maximum
biological yield, which corresponded 207% increment than
weed-check. This yield was statistically (P≤0.05) similar to
yield recorded from weed-free in stubble retention method
(Fig. 8-D). Weed-free under stubble incorporation and HC2
under stubble retention proved equally good and triggered
an augmentation of 256 and 237% than weed-check in
biological yield, respectively (Fig. 8-D).
In 2013, weed-free treatment under stubble burning and
retention method, and application of HC2 under stubble
retention recorded statistically (P≤0.05) maximum straw
yield (214, 246 and 224% than weed-check, respectively).
However, weed-free treatment under stubble incorporation
was also at par with these treatments (Fig. 9-A). Among
herbicides, HC2 under stubble burning recorded significantly
(P≤0.05) minimum straw yield and this was at par with
the application of HC1 under same stubble management
method. In 2014, weed-free plot under stubble burning
method showed maximum (170% than weed-check)
straw yield. Nonetheless, this increment was statistically
(P≤0.05) at par with straw yield obtained from weed-free
plot in stubble incorporation and retention method, and
HC 2 application under the later stubble management
method (Fig. 9-B). Increment in straw yield recorded by
these treatments combination was 215, 258 and 225%
respectively, as compared to their respective weed-check.
In 2013, weed-free treatment recorded significantly
(P≤0.05) more kernel yield under all stubble management
methods. However, weed pressure in weed-check
reduced kernel yield by 76, 72 and 74% as compared to
weed-free treatment under stubble incorporation, burning
and retention, respectively. Among herbicide treatments,
application of HC2 under stubble retention recorded the
maximum kernel yield (226% over weed-check). However,
916 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

Weed-check Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy.

Weed-free Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy.
A
10

Net assimilation rate (g m–2 d–1)

2013
8

B
10 2014
Net assimilation rate (g m–2 d–1)

0
is

is

is

s
si

si

si
es

es

es
he

he

he
th

th

th
nt

nt

nt
an

an

an
-a

-a

-a
e-

e-

e-
st

st

st
Pr

Pr

Pr
Po

Po

Po

Incorporation Burning Retention

Stubble retention methods

Fig. 6 Influence of weed control treatments on net assimilation rate (g m–2 d–1) in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat
stubble management methods. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl;
bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. Vertical bars above mean denote the standard error of three replicates.

Table 2 Influence of different wheat stubble management methods, weed control treatments and their interaction on seasonal net
assimilation rate (g m–2 d–1) of dry seeded fine rice
2013 2014
Weed control treatment1) Stubble management methods Stubble management methods
Mean Mean
Incorporation Burning Retention Incorporation Burning Retention
Weed-check 3.11±0.04 2.93±0.05 2.77±0.10 2.94 3.04±0.05 2.80±0.02 2.46±0.03 2.76
Weed-free 3.83±0.10 3.51±0.03 3.59±0.04 3.64 3.71±0.03 3.23±0.01 3.42±0.05 3.45
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. 4.08±0.03 3.75±0.07 4.42±0.20 4.09 3.73±0.01 3.52±0.05 4.17±0.01 3.80
Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy. 4.29±0.04 3.83±0.01 4.01±0.07 4.04 3.67±0.08 3.27±0.02 3.91±0.05 3.61
Mean 3.83 3.50 3.70 3.54 3.20 3.49
1)
Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium.
Data are mean±standard error of three replicates, and ns means non-significant.

the same herbicide application under stubble incorporation
and application of HC1 under stubble incorporation and
burning were equally efficient in increasing kernel yield
(Fig. 9-C). In 2014, among herbicide treatments, application
of HC2 under stubble retention proved best regarding kernel
yield and produced 271% more yield than weed-check.
Nevertheless, HC1 application in stubble incorporation
was equally efficient, whilst, same herbicide combination
in stubble retention recorded minimum kernel yield among
herbicide treatments (Fig. 9-D).
Harvest index is efficiency of a crop to transform
photosynthates into kernel (economic) yield. Main effect
of herbicide treatments in 2014 and their interactive effects
with wheat stubble management methods in 2013 differ
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926 917

A 2013 B 2014
Weedy-check Weed-free
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy. 400

Productive tillers (m2)

a b b
400 300
Productive tillers (m2)

ab bc a abc ab abc 200 c

300 cd cd d
e 100
200 e
f 0

h o .+

h o .+
k
100

ec

re

et nox

et nox
.

.
xy

xy
ch

d
ee

fe

fe
dy

W
0

fb

fb
ee

i.

i.
Incorporation Burning Retention

nd

yr
sp
Pe

Bi
Wheat stubble management methods Herbicide treatments

C 2013 D 2014
Weedy-check Weed-free
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy. 30
a

1 000-kernel weight (g)

30 b b
1 000-kernel weight (g)

20 c
a a b a a
c c c c 10
20
de d e
0

ho .+

ho .+
ck
10

fre

et nox

et nox
he

.
ry

ry
d-
-c

e
ee
dy

.f

.f
W

fb

fb
ee

i.

i.
W

nd

yr
Incorporation Burning Retention

sp
Pe

Bi
Wheat stubble management methods Herbicide treatments

Fig. 7 Effect of herbicide mixture on productive tillers (m2) in year 2013 (A, LSD0.05=18.849) and year 2014 (B, LSD0.05=12.916) and
1 000-kernel weight (g) in year 2013 (C, LSD0.05=0.496) and year 2014 (D, LSD0.05=12.916) of dry seeded fine rice grown under different
wheat stubble management options. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron
ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. Error bars above means denote the standard error of three replicates. Different letters in bars
indicate significance between treatment at α=0.05 according to LSD test.

significantly (P≤0.05) regarding harvest index (Fig. 10). In
2013, significantly (P≤0.05) the maximum harvest index
was observed by the application of HC2 under stubble
burning and HC1 under same stubble management method.
However, these were at par under stubble incorporation in
the case of both herbicide treatments (Fig. 10-A).
Both herbicide combinations and weed-free treatment
performed equally (P≤0.05) well regarding harvest index
in 2014. Weed-check plot recorded low harvest index
(Fig. 10-B).
3.5. Relative yield loss (%) and yield increase over
control (%)
RYL is the measure of reduction in yield due the presence
of weeds (treatment’s yield compared with weed-free yield).
Yield loss was the maximum (72–79%) in weed-check
regardless of the stubble management method opted in both
years of study (Fig. 11-A). Herbicide-treated plot recorded
low yield loss due to less competition by weeds. In 2013,
HC1 recorded higher relative yield loss (26%) under stubble
retention plots while other stubble managed plots were at
same level of yield loss (14–15%). HC2 recorded relative
yield loss ranged between 16–21% between different stubble
management methods (Fig. 11-A). In 2014, application of
HC2 recorded the minimum yield loss in stubble retention
plots while performance of HC1 in stubble incorporation was
quite better (Fig. 11-A).
YOC is measure of increment in yield by the treatment as
compared to their respective weedy check control. Weed-
free treatment recorded the maximum YOC (Fig. 11-B) in
both years of study. In 2013, weed-free treatment under
stubble burning, HC1 and HC2 application under stubble
incorporation recorded statistically similar trends regarding
YOC (Fig. 11-B). In 2014, among herbicide treatments
application of HC1 recorded the maximum yield increase
in stubble incorporation plots, whilst HC2 application was
following the previous one under same stubble management
method (Fig. 11-B).
3.6. Economic and marginal analysis
Net field benefits were calculated against the variable cost
(Tables 3 and 4). Economic analysis of the experiment
918 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

A 2013 B 2014
No. of kernels per panicle

No. of kernels per panicle

100 a a a 100 a a a
80 b 80 b
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
e

ho .+

ho .+

ho .+

ho .+
ec -

ec -
ch edy

ch edy
fre

fre
et nox

et nox

et nox

et nox
.

.
k

k
xy

xy

xy

xy
d-

d-
e

e
fe

fe

fe

fe
w

w
ee

ee
al

al
fb

fb

fb
W

.f
rti

rti
i.

i.

i.
i
Pa

Pa
nd

yr

nd

yr
sp

sp
Pe

Pe
Bi

Bi
Wheat stubble management methods Wheat stubble management methods

2013 2014
C Weedy-check Weed-free D Weedy-check Weed-free
Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy.
15 15
Biological yiled (t ha–1)

Biological yiled (t ha–1)

ab a a a ab
12 b bc bc
c c 12
c d de cd
cd de
9 d 9 e
6 6 f
e e e f f
3 3
0 0
Incorporation Burning Retention Incorporation Burning Retention
Wheat stubble management methods Wheat stubble management methods

Fig. 8 Effect of herbicide mixture on no. of kernel per panicle in year 2013 (A, LSD0.05=4.001) and year 2014 (B, LSD0.05=3.525) and
biological yiled (t ha–1) in year 2013 (C, LSD0.05=1.117) and year 2014 (D, LSD0.05=1.481) of dry seeded fine rice grown under different
wheat stubble management options. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron
ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. Error bars above means denote the standard error of three replicates. Different letters in bars
indicate significance between treatment at α=0.05 according to LSD test.

Weedy-check Weed-free Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy.

A 2013 B 2014
10 a 10
ab a a abcd a ab abc
Straw yiled (t ha–1)

Straw yiled (t ha–1)

8 c c 8 cdef bcde
bc def
6 cd ef
d 6
fg
4 e e 4 gh
e h h
2 2
0 0
Incorporation Burning Retention Incorporation Burning Retention
Wheat stubble management methods Wheat stubble management methods

C 5 2013 D 5 2014

4 a a a a a a
Kernel yiled (t ha–1)

Kernel yiled (t ha–1)

4
b b b b bccd cdcd b
c c d
3 3
2 2
e d de e e e
1 1
0 0
Incorporation Burning Retention Incorporation Burning Retention
Wheat stubble management methods Wheat stubble management methods

Fig. 9 Effect of herbicide mixture on straw yield (t ha–1) in year 2013 (A, LSD0.05=0.123) and year 2014 (B, LSD0.05=0.198) and
kernel yield (t ha–1) in year 2013 (C, LSD0.05=0.123) and year 2014 (D, LSD0.05=0.121) of dry seeded fine rice grown under different
wheat stubble management options. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron
ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. Error bars above means denote the standard error of three replicates. Different letters in bars
indicate significance between treatment at α=0.05 according to LSD test.
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926 919

A 2013 B 2014
Weedy-check Weed-free
40

Harvest index (%)

Pendi. fb fenox.+ethoxy. Bispyri. fb fenox.+ethoxy. a a a
40 a a 30 b
ab ab ab bc
cd bc bc cd
Harvest index (%)

cd 20
30 d
10
20
0

ho .+

ho .+
ck
10

fre

et nox

et nox
e

.
xy

xy
ch

fe

fe
ee
dy

fb

fb
W
0

ee

i.

i.
W

nd

yr
Incorporation Burning Retention

sp
Pe

Bi
Wheat stubble management methods Herbicide treatments

Fig. 10 Effect of herbicide mixture on harvest index (%) in year 2013 (A, LSD0.05=4.264) and year 2014 (B, LSD0.05=4.208) of dry
seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble management options. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop
p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. Error bars above means denote the standard error of three
replicates. Different letters in bars indicate significance between treatment at α=0.05 according to LSD test.

Stubble incorporation Stubble burning Stubble retention

A B
100 400
Relative yield loss (%)

Yield increase over

80 300
control (%)

60
200
40
100
20
0 0
C D
100
Relative yield loss (%)

500
Yield increase over

80
400
control (%)

60
300
40 200
20 100
0 0
e

.
xy

xy
y.
ck

y.

e
ox

-fr

o
he

ho

th

th
d
th
-c

+e

+e
ee
t
+e

+e
dy

.
ox

ox
x.

x.
ee

no

no

n
W

fe

fe
fe

fe

fb
fb

fb

.f

ri.
i
i.

ri.

nd

y
nd

py

sp
Pe
Pe

Bi
Bi

Weed control treatments Weed control treatments

Fig. 11 A, Influence of weed control treatments on relative yield loss (%) in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble
management methods. B, influence of chemical weed control treatments on yield increase over control (%) in dry seeded fine rice
grown under different wheat stubble management methods. Pendi.=pendimethalin; fb=followed by; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl;
ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium. Error bars above means denote the standard error of three replicates.

revealed that weed-free treatment recorded the highest Nonetheless, application of HC1 in stubble incorporation
net field benefits (Table 5). Among herbicide treatments, stood the second best regarding net field benefit in both
the maximum (1 397.49 and 1 472.22 USD ha –1) net years (Table 5). Weed-check treatment recorded the
field benefits were achieved by the application of HC2 minimum net field benefits.
under stubble retention in both years, respectively. This Weed-free treatments recorded the higher benefit cost
treatment recorded an increment of 250–275% in net field ratio (BCR) in both year of experiment, regardless of
benefits as compared to respective weed-check (Table 5). stubble management method (Table 6). Among herbicide
920 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

Table 3 Total fixed cost (USD) for the experiment

Price (USD) Total cost (USD ha–1)
Operation/Input Frequency/Amount
2013 2014 2013 2014
Seed 50 kg ha–1 0.96 kg–1 0.97 kg–1 47.79 48.50
Sowing
Bund making 2 men for 1/2 day 2.87 2.91 2.87 2.91
Charges for Pora/Kera 8 men for a day 2.87 2.91 22.94 23.28
25.81 26.19
Fertilizer
Urea 4 bags 16.44 16.68 65.76 66.73
DAP 3 bags 36.32 36.86 108.97 110.57
Potash 2 bags 38.23 38.80 76.47 77.59
Zinc 7.5 L ha–1 1.53 1.55 11.47 11.64
Application charges 1 man for 1 day 2.87 2.91 2.87 2.91
265.53 269.45
Irrigation
Canal (water rate) 2.39 USD ha–1 2.39 2.42
Tube well 10 h 2.87 2.91 28.68 29.10
Labor charges for irrigation 1 man for 2 days 2.87 2.91 5.74 5.82
Cleaning of water channel 1 man for 2 days 2.87 2.91 5.74 5.82
42.53 43.16
Plant protection
Fipronil 25 kg ha–1 8.12/10 kg 8.24/10 kg 20.31 20.61
Thiophenate methyl 1.25 kg ha–1 4.78/500 g 4.85/500 g 11.95 12.12
Spray and application cost 1 man for 2 days 2.87 2.91 5.74 5.82
37.99 38.55
Harvesting
Harvesting charges 4 men ha–1 2.87 2.91 11.47 11.64
Threshing charges 4 men ha–1 2.87 2.91 11.47 11.64
22.94 23.28
Land rent 5 months 382.34 387.97 318.61 323.31
Total fixed cost 761.21 772.43

treatments, HC2 under stubble retention recorded maximum
(1.77, 1.83) BCR in both years. In case of stubble
incorporation method, HC1 application proved best in both
years.
Data given in Table 7 indicated that net field benefit of
some treatments were less to those with lower cost, thus
these treatments were dominated (D). The remaining (un-
dominated) treatments were further considered for marginal
analysis. Weed-check treatments and application of HC1
under stubble retention and among herbicide treatments
were dominated in both years (Table 7).
Maximum marginal rate of return (2 187 and 2 330%) was
obtained the application of HC2 under stubble retention in
both years. Therefore, this treatment combination is best
to get maximum benefits with limited resources.
3.7. Correlation between different variables
Strong negative correlation was observed between total
weed dry weight and kernel yield (r=0.95 and 0.94), total
weed dry weight and 1 000-kernel weight (r=0.93 and
0.92), and total weed dry weight and productive tillers
(r=0.94 and 0.94) in 2013 and 2014, respectively (Fig. 12).
Nevertheless, WCE and kernel yield (r≥0.92) had a strong
positive relationship with each other, in both study years
(Fig. 13-A–F).
4. Discussion
Using one herbicide often fails to produce satisfactory weed
control in DSR (Khaliq et al. 2011) because of recalcitrant
weed flora that comprise of difficult-to-control weeds and
other non-native weeds. Several researchers have indicated
that lack of season long weed control and persistence
of certain grassy weeds was the major bottleneck by
the application of single herbicide (Khaliq et al. 2012b;
Rahman et al. 2012). Besides yield reduction in current
crop, surviving weeds can add to soil seed bank posing
threat to future weed management and choice of crop
rotation. Therefore, it seems imperative to apply herbicides
sequentialy for proper weed control (Singh et al. 2016). The
present study revealed that weed density as well as dry
weight were significantly (P≤0.05) reduced by the sequential
application of pre- or post-emergence herbicides when these
Table 4 Total variable cost of weed control treatments in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble management methods
Cost (USD ha–1)2)
Total variable cost
Year Treatment1) Ploughing Spray Sprayer Spray Sprayer
Rotavator Burning Glyphosate Weeding Pendi. Bispyri. Fenox. Ethoxy. (USD ha–1)
+Planking application rent application rent
2013 T1 23.90 47.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71.69
T2 23.90 47.79 0 0 0 0 114.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 186.39
T3 23.90 47.79 0 0 0 0 0 20.31 0 15.53 10.75 5.74 2.87 126.89
T4 23.90 47.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.75 15.54 10.75 5.74 2.87 117.34
T5 0 47.79 1.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.23
T6 0 47.79 1.43 0 0 0 114.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 163.93
T7 0 47.79 1.43 0 0 0 0 20.31 0 15.53 10.75 5.74 2.87 104.43
T8 0 47.79 1.43 0 0 0 0 0 10.75 15.54 10.75 5.74 2.87 94.88
T9 0 0 0 20.31 2.87 1.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.61
T10 0 0 0 20.31 2.87 1.43 114.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 139.31
T11 0 0 0 20.31 2.87 1.43 0 20.31 0 15.53 10.75 5.74 2.87 79.81
T12 0 0 0 20.31 2.87 1.43 0 0 10.75 15.54 10.75 5.74 2.87 70.26
2014 T1 24.25 48.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72.74
T2 24.25 48.50 0 0 0 0 116.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 189.14
T3 24.25 48.50 0 0 0 0 0 20.61 0 15.76 10.91 5.82 2.91 128.76
T4 24.25 48.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.91 15.77 10.91 5.82 2.91 119.07
T5 0 48.50 1.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.95
T6 0 48.50 1.45 0 0 0 116.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 166.34
T7 0 48.50 1.45 0 0 0 0 20.61 0 15.76 10.91 5.82 2.91 105.97
T8 0 48.50 1.45 0 0 0 0 0 10.91 15.77 10.91 5.82 2.91 96.28
T9 0 0 0 20.61 2.91 1.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.98
T10 0 0 0 20.61 2.91 1.45 116.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 141.37
T11 0 0 0 20.61 2.91 1.45 0 20.61 0 15.76 10.91 5.82 2.91 80.99
T12 0 0 0 20.61 2.91 1.45 0 0 10.91 15.77 10.91 5.82 2.91 71.30
1)
T1=stubble incorporation+weed-check; T2=stubble incorporation+weed-free; T3=stubble incorporation+pendimethalin (0 day after sowing (DAS)) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop
p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS); T4=stubble incorporation+bispyribac sodium (15 DAS) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS); T5=stubble
burning+weed-check; T6=stubble burning+weed-free; T7=stubble burning+pendimethalin (0 DAS) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS); T8=stubble
burning+bispyribac sodium (15 DAS) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS); T9=stubble retention+weed-check; T10=stubble retention+weed-free;
T11=stubble retention+pendimethalin (0 DAS) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS); T12=stubble retention+bispyribac sodium (15 DAS) followed
by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS).
2)
Pendi.=pendimethalin; bispyri.=bispyribac sodium; fenox.=fenoxaprop p-ethyl; ethoxy.=ethoxysulfuron ethyl.
Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

those emerging later

Such a reduction can

their abundance and

practices a shift in
77–88% reduction in
treatments recorded
reduced the weed

better suppression of
also reported that use of
herbicide tank mixture
mixture. In a field
of herbicide tank
pendi methalin was
fact that weeds like
spectrum herbicide

2012). Hence, it can

in DSR. Weeds are
to single herbicide
(2012a) found that
study on direct seeded
late season application
emergence application
survived pre- and post-

to occur (Anwar et al.

in management
and with the alteration
dynamic in nature
herbicide mixture gives
Bhullar et al. (2016)
Singh et al. (2016) and
(Table 1, b1 and b2).
total weed dry weight
fine rice, Khaliq et al.
efficiently controlled by
exhausted), were
tank mixture (Table 1).

dominance is expected
weeds as compared
s t u d y, h e r b i c i d e
check. In the present
density over weed-
ethyl+ethoxysulfuron
(pyrazosulfuron

e t h y l ) s i g n i fi c a n t l y
in the season (when
bispyribac sodium or
and C. rotundus that
D. aegyptium, E. colona
be attributed to the
were followed by broad-

resi dual con tr ol of

of pendimethalin and
921
Table 5 Economic analysis of weed control treatments in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble management methods for years 2013 and 2014
922
20131)
Stubble management Stubble incorporation Stubble burning Stubble retention
W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4
Kernel yield (t ha–1) 0.91 3.82 3.24 3.14 1.08 3.80 3.26 2.98 1.00 3.86 2.87 3.26
10% loss (kernel, to bring at farmer level) 0.09 0.38 0.32 0.31 0.11 0.38 0.33 0.30 0.10 0.39 0.29 0.33
Adjusted kernel yield (t ha–1) 0.82 3.44 2.91 2.83 0.97 3.42 2.93 2.68 0.90 3.47 2.58 2.93
Income from kernel yield (477.92 USD t–1) 391.85 1 641.66 1 392.75 1 352.04 464.82 1 632.91 1 400.21 1 282.79 431.71 1 659.43 1 234.04 1 400.21
Straw yield (t ha–1) 2.70 7.60 6.34 6.19 2.73 8.56 5.67 4.93 2.42 8.39 6.60 7.85
10% loss (straw, to bring at farmer level) 0.27 0.76 0.63 0.62 0.27 0.86 0.57 0.49 0.24 0.84 0.66 0.79
Adjusted straw yield (t ha–1) 2.43 6.84 5.71 5.57 2.46 7.71 5.10 4.44 2.17 7.55 5.94 7.07
Income from straw yield (9.56 USD t–1) 23.23 65.39 54.58 53.26 23.49 73.69 48.80 42.43 20.78 72.19 56.82 67.54
Gross income (USD ha–1) 415.07 1 707.04 1 447.33 1 405.29 488.31 1 706.60 1 449.01 1 325.22 452.49 1 731.62 1 290.85 1 467.75
Total variable cost (USD ha–1) 76.47 186.39 126.89 117.34 77.90 163.93 104.43 94.88 53.29 139.31 79.81 70.26
Net benefit (USD ha–1) 338.61 1 520.65 1 320.44 1 287.95 410.41 1 542.67 1 344.59 1 230.34 399.20 1 592.31 1 211.04 1 397.49
20141)
Stubble management Stubble incorporation Stubble burning Stubble retention
W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4
Kernel yield (t ha–1) 0.84 3.95 3.30 3.18 0.93 4.03 3.12 3.17 0.91 3.89 3.01 3.39
10% loss (kernel, to bring at farmer level) 0.08 0.40 0.33 0.32 0.09 0.40 0.31 0.32 0.09 0.39 0.30 0.34
Adjusted kernel yield (t ha–1) 0.76 3.56 2.97 2.87 0.84 3.62 2.81 2.85 0.82 3.50 2.71 3.05
Income from kernel yield (477.92 USD t–1) 368.53 1 724.07 1 442.40 1 389.44 406.79 1 757.97 1 363.25 1 382.16 398.21 1 698.46 1 314.80 1 479.06
Straw yield (t ha–1) 2.27 7.13 5.94 5.82 3.21 8.67 5.47 4.51 2.27 8.12 6.79 7.38
10% loss (straw, to bring at farmer level) 0.23 0.71 0.59 0.58 0.32 0.87 0.55 0.45 0.23 0.81 0.68 0.74
Adjusted straw yield (t ha–1) 2.04 6.42 5.35 5.23 2.89 7.80 4.92 4.06 2.05 7.31 6.11 6.65
Income from straw yield (9.56 USD t–1) 19.79 62.27 51.88 50.78 28.04 75.66 47.76 39.41 19.85 70.92 59.31 64.46
Gross income (USD ha–1) 388.31 1 786.34 1 494.28 1 440.22 434.83 1 833.62 1 411.01 1 421.57 418.06 1 769.38 1 374.11 1 543.52
Total variable cost (USD ha–1) 72.74 189.14 128.76 119.07 49.95 166.34 105.97 96.28 24.98 141.37 80.99 71.30
Net benefit (USD ha–1) 315.57 1 597.20 1 365.52 1 321.15 384.88 1 667.28 1 305.04 1 325.30 393.08 1 628.01 1 293.12 1 472.22
1)
W1–W4 are weed control treatments. W1=weed-check; W2=weed-free; W3=pendimethalin (0 day after sowing (DAS)) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28
DAS); W4=bispyribac sodium (15 DAS) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS).
Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

controlling weeds.

availability of resources
were mainly from physical
herbicides when these
sequential application of

to rice plants and hence

among different stubble
in weed-check of stubble
et al. 2010). Although,
lower weed density (Singh
suppression instead of
both herbicide treatments
mixture reduced weed

as herbicide treatments
long weed-free as well
but more vigorous. Season
weed-check was less than
be concluded that the

weed-check were shared

Table 2). Resources in
improved growth (Figs. 3–6;
that resul ted i n bet t er
weed-check. This indicates
management techniques in
weed dry weight was similar
total weed density was less
wheat stubbles might have
retention than incorporation
A higher effect of surface
dormant (Singh et al. 2002).
due to less soil disturbance
in stubble retention may be
burning (Table 1, a1 and

that weeds in stubble

retention treatment, yet
also contributed towards
physical hindrance of
allelopathy. Moreover,
spectrum herbicide tank

minimized weed competition

comparatively less dense
retention treatment were
indicated that such effects
that kept the weed seeds
a2). Lower weed density
Total weed density in
density and dry weight and

stubble incorporation and

stubble retention under
were equally promising in
were followed by broad
pre- or post-emergence
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926 923

Table 6 Benefit cost ratio (BCR) of weed control treatments in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble management
methods
2013 2014
Stubble Weed control
Total cost Gross income Net return BCR Total cost Gross income Net return BCR
management treatment1)
USD ha–1 USD ha–1
Incorporation W1 832.90 343 –418 0.50 845.18 388.31 –456.87 0.46
W2 947.60 1 521 759 1.80 961.57 1 786.34 824.77 1.86
W3 888.10 1 320 559 1.63 901.19 1 494.28 593.09 1.66
W4 878.55 1 288 527 1.60 891.50 1 440.22 548.71 1.62
Burning W1 810.44 439 –322 0.60 822.39 434.83 –387.55 0.53
W2 925.14 1 543 781 1.84 938.78 1 833.62 894.85 1.95
W3 865.64 1 345 583 1.67 878.40 1 411.01 532.61 1.61
W4 856.09 1 230 469 1.55 868.71 1 421.57 552.86 1.64
Retention W1 785.82 428 –333 0.58 797.41 418.06 –379.36 0.52
W2 900.53 1 592 831 1.92 913.80 1 769.38 855.58 1.94
W3 841.02 1 211 450 1.53 853.42 1 374.11 520.68 1.61
W4 831.48 1 397 636 1.77 843.73 1 543.52 699.78 1.83
1)
W 1 =weed-check; W 2 =weed-free; W 3 =pendimethalin (0 day after sowing (DAS)) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop
p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS); W4=bispyribac sodium (15 DAS) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron
ethyl (28 DAS).

Table 7 Dominance and marginal analysis of weed control treatments in dry seeded fine rice grown under different wheat stubble
management method
2013 2014
Weed Marginal Marginal
Stubble Variable Net Marginal Marginal Variable Net Marginal Marginal
control rate of rate of
management cost benefit cost net benefit cost benefit cost net benefit
treatment 1)
return return
USD ha–1 USD USD ha –1
USD
Retention W1 24.61 399.20 D 24.98 393.08 D
W4 70.26 1 397.48 45.65 998.28 2 187 71.30 1 472.22 46.32 1 079.14 2 330
W3 79.81 1 211.03 D 80.99 1 293.12 D
W2 139.31 1 592.30 59.50 381.27 641 141.37 1 628.01 60.38 334.89 555
Burning W1 49.23 410.41 D 49.95 384.88 D
W4 94.88 1 230.34 45.65 819.92 1 796 96.28 1 325.30 46.32 940.42 2 030
W3 104.43 1 344.58 9.55 114.24 1 196 105.97 1 305.04 D
W2 163.93 1 542.66 59.50 198.08 333 166.34 1 667.28 60.38 362.24 600
Incorporation W1 71.69 338.61 D 72.74 315.57 D
W4 117.34 1 287.94 45.65 949.34 2 080 119.07 1 321.15 46.32 1 005.58 2 171
W3 126.89 1 320.43 9.55 32.49 340 128.76 1 365.52 9.69 44.37 458
W2 186.39 1 520.64 59.50 200.21 336 189.14 1 597.20 60.38 231.68 384
1)
W 1 =weed-check; W 2 =weed-free; W 3 =pendimethalin (0 day after sowing (DAS)) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop
p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl (28 DAS); W4=bispyribac sodium (15 DAS) followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron
ethyl (28 DAS).
D means dominated.

between crop and weeds which resulted in less assimilation
of photosynthates, hence a decrease in LAI, LAD and CGR
was observed. In herbicide treatments, higher CGR was
reflected in terms of improved LAI, LAD and NAR. In an
experiment, Mubeen et al. (2014) recorded significantly
higher LAI and LAD from herbicide treatments as compared
to weed-check in DSR. Weed-check treatment recorded the
minimum seasonal NAR due to heavy weed competition, low
leaf area and shortage of resources. Irshad and Cheema
(2002) reported decreased NAR due to increased weed
crop competition period in transplanted rice. Baloch et al.
(2006) also reported decreased NAR under weed-check in
rice. While, herbicide application provides more favorable
conditions for rice growth by eliminating competition
between crop and weeds.
Under stubble retention, HC2 performed better regarding
1 000-kernel weight than the application of HC1. Weed
intensity and flora changes in zero-tillage (ZT), so the
herbicides used in conventional tillage may not be suitable
for weed management in ZT (Singh et al. 2010) as it was
observed in case of later herbicide treatment.
Number of kernels per panicle was varied between weed
control treatments. However, herbicides treatments could
not reach to the level of weed-free treatment with respect to
924 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926

A B 2013 C
4 25 1 000 K.W=–0.0167x+19.219 300
K.Y=–0.007x+3.3466 P.T=–0.3434x+279.94
R2=0.912 R2=0.873 R2=0.880

1 000 kernel weight (g)

Productive tillers (m2)

3 r=–0.955 20 r=–0.934 r=–0.938
Kernel yield (t ha–1)

200
15
2
10
100
1
5

0 0 0
0 250 500 0 250 500 0 250 500

D E F
2014
4 25 1 000 K.W=–0.0199x+19.541 300 P.T=–0.3583x+280.12
K.Y=–0.0079x+3.4384
1 000 kernel weight (g)

R2=0.8649

Productive tillers (m2)

R2=0.8403
Kernel yield (t ha–1)

R2=0.893 r=–0.930
3 20 r=–0.916***
r=–0.945***
200
2 15

10
1 100
5
0
0 250 500 0 0
–1 0 250 500 0 250 500
Total weed dry weight (g m–2)

Fig. 12 Relationship of kernel yield (t ha–1), 1 000-kernel weight (g) and productive tillers (m2) with total weed dry weight (g m–2)
in dry seeded fine rice as affected by different wheat stubble management methods and herbicide treatments. K.Y=kernel yield;
K.W=kernel weight; P.T=productive tillers; R2=coefficient of determination; r=correlation coefficient.

A B 4 2013 C
4
4
Kernel yield (t ha–1)

Kernel yield (t ha–1)

Kernel yield (t ha–1)

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 K.Y=0.0228x+1.037 1 K.Y=0.0224x+1.209 1 K.Y=0.0241x+1.006

R2=0.956 R2=0.856 R2=0.978
r=0.977*** r=0.925*** r=0.988***
0 0 0
–20 30 80 130 –20 30 80 130 –20 30 80 130

D E 2014 F
4 4
4

3 3
Kernel yield (t ha–1)

Kernel yield (t ha–1)

Kernel yield (t ha–1)

2 2 2

1 K.Y=0.0269x+0.8979 1 K.Y=0.0254x+0.9859 1 K.Y=0.0264x+0.9064

R2=0.978 R2=0.9267 R2=0.9801
r=0.985*** r=0.963*** r=0.990***
0 0 0
–20 30 80 130 –20 30 80 130 –20 30 80 130
WCE against total weeds (%)

Fig. 13 Relationship of weed control efficiency (WCE, %) against narrow, broad and total weed with kernel yield (t ha–1) in dry seeded
fine rice as affected by different wheat stubble management methods and herbicide treatments. K.Y=kernel yield; R2=coefficient
of determination; r=correlation coefficient.
 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926
number of kernel per panicle. Due to less weed pressure,
herbicides treated plots revealed improved productive tillers
per m2.
Biological yield, kernel yield, straw yield and harvest index
were significantly improved due to less weed pressure in
herbicide treatments (Figs. 8–10). Kernel yield is the result
of all agronomical and yield attributes. Herbicide treatments
eliminated weeds burden and made the environment more
favorable for the growth of rice. Hence, kernel yield was
also increased in herbicide treatments as compared to weed-
check. Regarding kernel yield, HC1 performed better under
the stubble incorporation conditions and the same herbicide
combination performance was not as good under the stubble
retention conditions. Stubbles present in these plots might
have been hindered with the effective application and action
of pendimethalin herbicide. As Singh et al. (2015) described
that effectiveness of pre-emergence herbicides is reduced in
ZT systems due to the interception of herbicides. However,
HC2 application in stubble retention condition proved the best
regarding kernel yield (Fig. 9-C and D). Bharadwaj et al.
(2004) compared conventional and ZT for 10 years and
found that wheat yield was at par or slightly higher under
ZT. Mubeen et al. (2014) recorded more kernel yield and
harvest index due to herbicide application than weed-check
in DSR. Weeds can be controlled by herbicide mixtures
and beside the stubble incorporation; ZT (stubble retention)
can be adopted for DSR as it performed as good as stubble
incorporation method.
Hand weeding was performed for weed removal in
weed-free treatment. But hand weeding is not possible
on such a big level due to major technical reasons such
as labor availability and efficiency (Khaliq et al. 2011). So
herbicides are good alternative because these are easy
to use and efficient. Keeping in view the economic and
marginal analysis the application of HC2 in stubble retention
was the best, which might be attributed to less cost for land
preparation in this treatment. Pendimethalin being a pre-
emergence herbicide proved less efficient in controlling early
season weeds under stubble retention, which indicate the
poor efficacy of pre-emergence herbicides in ZT systems
(Singh et al. 2015). Bispyribac sodium being an early post
emergence proved efficient in controlling early season
weeds and provide DSR a good condition to grow and
enhanced yield under stubble retention methods.
5. Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that the efficacy of
herbicides varied with the stubble management method
whereas, under stubble retention method, application of
bispyribac sodium followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop
p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl proved best in increasing
925
kernel yield and net economic returns. However, if the
stubble incorporation is being adopted, application of
pendimethalin followed by tank mixture of fenoxaprop
p-ethyl+ethoxysulfuron ethyl was an efficient approach
regarding yield increment and same herbicide combination
is good for stubble burning method.
References
Anwar M P, Juraimi, A S, Puteh A, Man A, Rahman M M. 2012.
Efficacy, phytotoxicity and economics of different herbicides
in aerobic rice. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section
B - Soil & Plant Science), 62, 604–615.
Baloch M, Hassan G, Morimoto T. 2005. Weeding techniques
in transplanted and wet-seeded rice in Pakistan. Weed
Biology and Management, 5, 190–196.
Baloch M S, Awan I U, Hassan G, Khakwani A Z. 2006. Effect of
establishment methods and weed management practices on
some growth attributes of rice. Rice Research, 13, 131–140.
Beadle C L. 1993. Growth analysis. In: Hall D C, Scurlock J M
O, Bolhar-Nordenkampf H R, Leegod R C, Plong S, eds.,
Photosynyhesis and Production in a Changing Environment.
A Field and Laboratory Manual. Chapman and Hall, London.
pp. 36–46.
Benegas C P. 1998. Effect of no-tillage systems on chemical
and physical characteristics of soil in Paraguy. In: Kokubun
M, ed., No-Tillage Cultivation of Soybean and Future
Research Needs in South America. Working Report. vol.
13 JIRCAS. Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fishery,
Ibaraki. pp. 19–28.
Bharadwaj A K, Singh R K, Singh S P, Singh Y, Singh G, Misra
R D, Singh M, Kumar A. 2004. Weed management in zero till
sown wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 36, 175–177.
Bhullar M S, Kumar S, Kaur S, Kaur T, Singh J, Yadav R,
Chauhan B S, Gill G. 2016. Management of complex weed
flora in dry-seeded rice. Crop Protection, 83, 20–26.
Bhushan L, Ladha J K, Gupta R K, Singh S, Tirol-Padre A,
Saharawat Y S, Gathala M, Pathak H. 2007. Saving of water
and labor in a rice-wheat system with no-tillage and direct
seeding technologies. Agronomy Journal, 99, 1288–1296.
Chauhan B S, Gill G, Preston C. 2006. Influence of tillage
systems on vertical distribution, seeding recruitment and
persistence of rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) seed bank.
Weed Science, 54, 669–676.
Chauhan B S, Johnson D E. 2009a. Ecological studies on
Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria and Fimbristylis miliacea:
Three troublesome annual sedge weeds of rice. Annals of
Applied Biology, 155, 103–112.
Chauhan B S, Johnson D E. 2009b. Influence of tillage systems
on weed seedling emergence pattern in rain fed rice. Soil
and Tillage Research, 106, 15–21.
Chauhan B S, Migo T, Westerman P R, Johnson D E. 2010.
Post-dispersal predation of weed seeds in rice fields. Weed
Research, 50, 553–560.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center).
926 Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18(4): 907–926
1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations:
An Economics Training Manual. Completely revised edition.
CIMMYT, Mexico D.F. pp. 25–33.
El-Titi A. 2003. Soil Tillage in Agroecosystems. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2014. FAOSTAT
Database. FAO, Rome.
Franke A C, Singh S, McRoberts N, Nehra A S, Godara S,
Malik R K, Marshall G. 2007. Phalaris minor seed bank
studies: longevity, seedling emergence and seed production
as affected by tillage regime. Weed Research, 47, 73–83.
Hasanuzzaman M, Islam M O, Bapari M S. 2008. Efficacy of
different herbicides over manual weeding in controlling
weeds in transplanted rice. Australian Journal of Crop
Sciences, 2, 18–24.
Hunt R. 1978. Plant Growth Analysis. Edward Arnald, London.
p. 37.
Irshad A, Cheema Z A. 2002. Growth analysis of transplanted
fine rice under different competition durations with barnyard
grass. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 4,
123–126.
Khaliq A, Mahmood S, Matloob A, Khan M B, Awan I U. 2012a.
Optimizing seeding density and tank mixture of herbicides
help reduce yield losses in dry seeded fine rice. Pakistan
Journal of Weed Science Research, 18, 167–181.
Khaliq A, Matloob A. 2011. Weed crop competition period in
three fine rice cultivars under DSR culture. Pakistan Weed
Science Research, 17, 229–243.
Khaliq A, Matloob A, Ahmad N, Rasul F, Awan I U. 2012b. Post
emergence chemical weed control in direct seeded fine
rice. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 22, 1101–1106.
Khaliq A, Riaz Y, Matloob A. 2011. Bio-economic assessment
of chemical and non-chemical weed management strategies
in dry seeded fine rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Plant
Breeding and Crop Science, 3, 302–310.
Mishra J S, Singh V P. 2012. Tillage and weed control effects on
productivity of a dry seeded rice-wheat system on a vertisol
in Central India. Soil and Tillage Research, 123, 11–20.
Mubeen K, Nadeem M A, Tanveer A, Jhala A J. 2014. Effects
of seeding time and weed control methods in DSR (Oryza
sativa L.). Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 24,
534–542.
Onofri A. 2007. Routine statistical analyses of field experiments
by using an Excel extension. In: Proceedings 6th National
Conference Italian. Biometric Society, Statistics in the Life
Sciences and the Environment, Pisa. pp. 93–96.
Prasad R, Gangaiah B, Aipe K C. 1999. Effect of crop residue
management in a rice-wheat cropping system on growth and
yield of crops and on soil fertility. Experimental Agriculture,
35, 427–435.
Prasad R, Power J F. 1991. Crop residue management.
Advances in Soil Science, 15, 205–251.
Rahman M, Juraimi A S, Jaya Suria A S M, Man A B, Anwar
P. 2012. Response of weed flora to different herbicides in
aerobic rice. Scientific Research and Essays, 7, 12–23.
Rao A N, Johnson D E, Sivaprasad B, Ladha J K, Mortimer A M.
2007. Weed management in direct-seeded rice. Advances
in Agronomy, 93, 153–255.
Singh M, Bhullar M S, Chauhan B S. 2015. Influence of tillage,
cover cropping, and herbicides on weeds and productivity
of dry direct-seeded rice. Soil and Tillage Research, 147,
39–49.
Singh S, Bhushan L, Ladha J K, Gupta R K, Rao A N,
Sivaprasad B. 2006. Weed management in dry-seeded rice
(Oryza sativa) cultivated in the furrow-irrigated raised-bed
planting system. Crop Protection, 25, 487–495.
Singh S, Yadav A, Malik R K, Singh H. 2002. Long term effect of
zero tillage sowing technique on weed flora and productivity
of wheat in rice-wheat cropping zones of Indo-Gangetic
plains. In: Malik R K, Balyan R S, Yadav A, Pahwa S K,
eds., Herbicide Resistance Management and Zero Tillage
in Rice-Wheat Cropping System. Chaudhary Charan
Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAUH), Hisar,
Haryana, India. pp. 155–157.
Singh V P, Dhyani V C, Singh S P, Kumar A, Manalil S, Chauhan
B S. 2016. Effect of herbicides on weed management in
dry-seeded rice sown under different tillage systems. Crop
Protection, 80, 118–126.
Singh V P, Kumar A, Banga A. 2010. Current status of zero
tillage in weed management. Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 42, 1–9.
Singh Y, Singh B, Timsina J. 2005. Crop residue management
for nutrient cycling and improving soil productivity in
rice-based cropping systems in the tropics. Advance in
Agronomy, 85, 269–407.
Steel R G D, Torrie J H, Dickey D. 1997. Principles and
Procedure of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. 3rd ed.
McGraw Hill Book, New York. pp. 352–358.
Watson D J. 1947. Comparative physiological studies on the
growth of field crops. I. Variation in net assimilation rate
and leaf area between species and varieties and between
years. Annals of Botany, 11, 41–76.
Weerakoon W M W, Mutunayake M M P, Bandara C, Rao A N,
Bhandari D C, Ladha J K. 2011. Direct-seeded rice culture
in Sri Lanka: Lessons from farmers. Field Crops Research,
121, 53–63.
Executive Editor-in-Chief WAN Fang-hao
Managing editor ZHANG Juan