Effect of intercropping and zinc management on weed density and fodder yield in oats

被引:0
|
作者
Porwal, Muskan [1 ]
Kantwa, S. R. [2 ]
Singh, S. S. [1 ]
Govindasamy, Prabhu [2 ,3 ]
Verma, Badal [4 ]
Ramakrishnan, Srinivasan
机构
[1] Rani Lakshmi Bai Cent Agr Univ, Jhansi 284003, India
[2] ICAR Indian Grassland & Fodder Res Inst, Jhansi 284003, India
[3] ICAR Indian Agr Res Inst, New Delhi 110012, India
[4] Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur 482004, India
关键词
Green Fodder Yield; Intercropping; Nano zinc; Nutrient management; AVENA-SATIVA L;
D O I
10.59515/rma.2024.v45.i1.24
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
A study was conducted to investigate the effect of intercropping and zinc application on weed density and forage yield in the Bundelkhand region during the Rabi season of 2020-2021 at the Research Farm of Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University, Jhansi. The experiment comprised eight treatments with sole cropping of oat (CS1) and intercropping of oat with berseem (CS2)] in the main plot and four nutrient management practices [control (NM1), recommended dose of fertilizers RDF (NM2), recommended dose of fertilizers with zinc sulfate (NM3) and recommended dose of fertilizers with nano zinc (NM4)] in sub-plots in split plot design. The results showed that the weed density (150 m(-2)) and weed biomass (26.1 g m(-2)) in CS2 was found significantly lower than CS1 (186 m(-2) and 34.5 g m(-2), respectively). NM4 treatment had significantly lower weed density (158 m(-2)) and weed biomass (25.6 g m(-2)) than NM3 (215 m(-2) and 45.13 g m(-2)) and NM2 (175 m(-2) and 25.6 g m(-2)) among nutrient management practices. Also, intercropping + RDFnZn treatment produced significantly the highest green fodder yield (57.3 t ha(-1)) when compared to the rest of the treatments.
引用
收藏
页码:171 / 174
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effect of range legumes intercropping and weed management on weed control and fodder productivity of Guinea grass (Panicum maximum Jacq.)
    Ram, S. N.
    Trivedi, B. K.
    RANGE MANAGEMENT AND AGROFORESTRY, 2016, 37 (01) : 44 - 49
  • [2] EFFECT OF COWPEA INTERCROPPING ON WEED CONTROL AND CORN YIELD
    Silva, P. S. L.
    Oliveira, O. F.
    Silva, P. I. B.
    Silva, K. M. B.
    Braga, J. D.
    PLANTA DANINHA, 2009, 27 (03) : 491 - 497
  • [3] EFFECTS OF CUTTING MANAGEMENT AND NITROGEN-FERTILIZATION ON THE GROWTH, YIELD AND QUALITY OF FODDER OATS .1. FODDER YIELD
    BORUAH, AR
    MATHUR, BP
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY, 1979, 24 (01) : 50 - 53
  • [4] Effect of integrated weed management and intercropping systems on growth and yield of pearlmillet (Pennisetum glaucum)
    Ram, B
    Chaudhary, GR
    Jat, AS
    Jat, ML
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY, 2003, 48 (04) : 254 - 258
  • [5] GENETIC-ANALYSIS OF FODDER YIELD IN OATS
    MANGA, VK
    SIDHU, BS
    ACTA AGRONOMICA ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM HUNGARICAE, 1984, 33 (3-4): : 373 - 377
  • [6] Integrated weed management practices in gladiolus and their effect on flowering, weed density and corm yield
    Dhakar, Sunita
    Swaroop, K.
    Singh, Kanwar P.
    Das, T. K.
    Kumar, Prabhat
    Singh, Naveen
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE, 2016, 73 (04) : 570 - 575
  • [7] EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND WEED MANAGEMENT ON GROWTH, YIELD AND NITROGEN UPTAKE BY SORGHUM AND SOYBEAN INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS
    BALYAN, JS
    SINGH, RR
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY, 1986, 31 (03) : 235 - 239
  • [8] Effect of intercropping row ratios on yield and nutritive value of maize and cowpea fodder
    Arif, Mohd.
    Kumar, Arvind
    Pourouchottamane, R.
    Gupta, D. L.
    Singh, M. K.
    Rai, B.
    RANGE MANAGEMENT AND AGROFORESTRY, 2022, 43 (02) : 292 - 298
  • [9] FACTOR-ANALYSIS OF FODDER YIELD COMPONENTS IN OATS
    MEHRA, KL
    MAL, B
    SREENATH, PR
    MAGOON, ML
    KATIYAR, DS
    EUPHYTICA, 1971, 20 (04) : 597 - &
  • [10] Weed characteristics, yield attributes and crop yield as influenced by integrated weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)-based intercropping system
    Manickam, G
    Durai, R
    Gnanamurthi, P
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY, 2000, 45 (01) : 70 - 75