Agric. Sci. Digest.

, 35 (2) 2015: 130-133 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE

Print ISSN:0253-150X / Online ISSN:0976-0547 www.arccjournals.com

Weed management in rabi onion (Allium cepa L.)

Vikas Vishnu*, K.B. Asodaria and Ashok Suthar
Department of Agronomy,
Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh (Gujarat)-362001, India.
Received: 15-10-2014 Accepted: 20-05-2015 DOI: 10.5958/0976-0547.2015.00023.3
ABSRTACT
A field experiment was carried out during rabi season of 2012-13 at Junagadh to find out practically convenient and
economically feasible weed management practice in onion. The experiment comprised of ten treatments of pre-emergence
and post- emergence herbicides, their combination with hand weeding, weed free and unweeded control. The experiment
was laid out in randomized complete block design with three replications. Weed free check treatment (three hand weeding at
15, 30, 45 and 60 DAT) recorded significantly the lowest dry matter of weeds and the highest weed control efficiency. All the
growth and yield attributes of onion viz., plant height (58.87 cm), no. of leaves (15.11), neck thickness (1.4 cm), A grade bulb
(42.60 %), fresh bulb weight (70 g), bulb diameter (5.75 cm) and bulb yield (40.9 t ha-1) were recorded maximum in weed
free plots. This treatment also recorded minimum bolters (0.0 %) and doubles (1.12 %), the highest gross ( 3,27,200 ha-1)
& net return ( 2,87,471) and maximum B:C ratio (7.12). However, treatment combined spray of oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-
1
and propaquizafop @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as PE followed by second spray as POE at 45 DAT was equally effective with this
treatment.

Key words: Bulb yield, Herbicide mixture, Monetary return, Onion, Pre & post emergence.

INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS

Onion (Allium cepa L.) is popularly known as Queen
of kitchen because of its characteristic flavour. India is the
second largest producer of onion in the world, next to China,
accounting for 26.79 per cent of the world area (3.97 m ha)
and 19.90 per cent of the world production (75.98 m t). In
India, it is being grown on an area of 1.06 m ha with a
production of average 15.12 m t and the productivity is 14.20
tonnes per hectare which is quite low (Anonymous, 2012).
Its poor competitive ability with its slow initial growth and
lack of adequate foliage makes onion weak against weeds. In
addition, their cylindrical upright leaves do not shade the soil
to smother weed growth. Yield loss due to weed infestation
in onion has been recorded to the tune of 40 to 80% (Tewari
et al., 2003, Channapagoudar and Biradar, 2007 and Angiras
et al., 2008). The conventional method of weed control
(hoeing or hand weeding) is laborious, expansive and some
time causes damages to the crop. On the other hand, use of
herbicides alone does not prove effective for weed control
because of their selectivity and environmental hazards with
its continuous use. Hence an attempt has been made to find
out the appropriate combination of cultural and chemical weed
management practices for weed control in onion which is
practically effective and economically feasible for farmers.
*Corresponding authors e-mail: vishnu05vikas@gmail.com. Address: Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari-396450.
The field experiment was carried out during rabi
season of the year 2012-13 at Junagadh, which is situated in
South Saurashtra Agro-climatic Zone of Gujarat state and
enjoys a typically subtropical climate characterized by fairly
cold and dry winter. The soil of experimental field was
medium black clayey and calcareous with slightly alkaline
nature (pH 7.9). The experiment was laid out in randomized
complete block Design with three replications and ten
treatments (Table 1). The treatments included pre-emergence
application of herbicides viz., pendimethalin (0.900 kg
ha-1), oxyfluorfen (0.240 kg ha-1) and propaquizafop (0.090
kg ha-1) and the post-emergence herbicides viz., oxyfluorfen
(0.240 kg ha-1), propaquizafop (0.090 kg ha-1), oxadiargyl
(0.090 kg ha-1) and imazethapyr (0.050 kg ha-1 ) were applied
uniformly 45 DAT using knapsack sprayer with spray volume
of 500 l ha 1. The commercial formulation and trade name of
the chemicals used in the investigation are pendimethalin
(Stomp 30% EC), oxyfluorfen (Goal 23.5% EC),
propaquizafop (Agil 10% EC), oxadiargyl (Tostar 6% EC)
and imazethapyr (Pursuit 10% EC). Seven week old seedlings
of onion (cv. Gujarat White Onion-1) were trans
plantedmanuallyinfourthweekofDecemberduringtheyear
of 2012, keeping inter row spacing of 15 cm and intra row
 Volume 35 Issue 2 (2015)
spacing 10 cm on flatbed. The crop was fertilized with 75 kg
nitrogen, 60 kg phosphorus and 50 kg potash per hectare.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Effect on weeds: All treatments caused significant reduction
in dry matter of weeds as compared to unweeded control
(Table 1). Significantly lower dry matter of weeds and higher
weed control efficiency were observed under weed free check
closely followed by treatments pendimethalin @ 0.90 kg
ha-1 as PE fb imazethapyr @ 0.050 kg ha-1 as POE at 45 DAT
and combined spray of oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 and
propaquizafop @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as POE
at 45 DAT. This is attributed to the effective control of weeds
under these treatments, which reflected on less number of
weeds and ultimately lower weed biomass. The unweeded
check recorded the highest dry matter of weeds and the lowest
weed control efficiency, where is due to uncontrolled
condition favoured luxurious weed growth leading to
increased dry matter accumulation. The findings were in
conformity with those reported by Nandal and Singh (2002),
Channappagoudar and Biradar (2007), Yadav et al. (2009)
and Bharathi et al. (2011). Application of pendimethalin @
0.90 kg ha-1 as PE fb imazethapyr @ 0.050 kg ha-1 as POE at
45 DAT was not superior due to application of imazethapyr
@ 0.050 kg ha-1 as POE at 45 DAT almost destroyed majority
of the plants and only few plants can survive.
Effect on crop: All the weed management treatments were
significantly superior over control in respect of all growth
and yield attributes (Table 2 and 3) and bulb yield (Table 1).
Significantly the highest growth attributes (viz., plant height,
no. of leaves, neck thickness, A grade bulb, bolters and
131
doubles) and yield attributes (bulb diameter and fresh bulb
weight) and bulb yield were observed in weed free check.
However, combined spray of oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1
and propaquizafop @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as
POE at 45 DAT was at second place in respect of all these
attributes. Whereas, significantly the lowest all growth & yield
attributes and bulb yield were reported under application of
pendimethalin @ 0.900 kg ha-1 as PE fb imazethapyr @ 0.050
kg ha-1 as POE at 45 DAT followed by the unweeded treatment
(W10). It might be due to less weed crop competition
throughout crop growth period by manual weeding, which in
turn maintain the soil fertility status by way of removing less
plant nutrients through weeds and ultimately have favourable
effect on growth parameters and yield attributes. These
findings are in close conformity with those reported by Ved
Prakash et al. (2000), Bharathi et al. (2011), Kalhapure and
Shete (2012) and Kalhapure et al. (2013).
Economics: From the economic point of view, the highest
gross (Rs. 327200 ha-1) and net return (2,87,471) was obtained
under weedy check with benefit: cost ratio of 7.12 which
was stastically at par with combined spray of oxyfluorfen @
0.240 kg ha-1 and propaquizafop @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as PE and
second spray as POE at 45 DAT, two HW at 25-30 and 45-
50 DAT, oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray
as POE at 45 DAT, oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb 1
HW at 45 DAT and oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb
oxadiargyl @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as POE at 45 DAT). The lowest
gross income of Rs. 28700 ha-1 was received under treatment
pendimethalin @ 0.90 kg ha-1 as PE fb imazethapyr @ 0.050
kg ha-1 as POE at 45 DAT followed by W10 (unweeded). These

TABLE 1: Effect of different weed management treatments on dry matter of weeds, weed control efficiency, bulb yield and economics
Treatment Dry matter WCE Bulb Gross Net B:C
of weeds (%) yield return return ratio
kg ha-1 (t ha-1) ( ha-1) ( ha-1)
W1 = Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb 1 HW at 45 DAT 675.00 71.85 33.18 265440 222375 6.16
W2 = Pendimethalin @ 0.900 kg ha-1 as PE fb HW at 45 DAT 630.00 73.78 31.40 251227 208678 5.90
W3= Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb Oxadiargyl @ 0.090 kg ha-1 285.00 88.27 32.90 263200 219640 6.04
as POE at 45 DAT
W4= One HW at 25 DAT fb Propaquizafop @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as POE at 316.67 86.77 32.47 259733 217124 6.09
45 DAT
W5 = Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as POE at 45 186.00 92.24 34.41 275306 231305 6.25
DAT
W6=Combined spray of Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 and 160.00 93.32 36.40 291200 244679 6.26
Propaquizafop@ 0.090 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as POE at 45
DAT
W7=Pendimethalin @ 0.900 kg ha-1 as PE fb Imazethapyr @ 0.050 kg 128.33 94.24 8.20 28700 -13719 0.67
ha-1as POE at 45 DAT
W8 =Two HW at 25-30 and 45-50 DAT 711.67 70.38 35.93 287467 244858 6.74
W9 = Weed free 0.00 100 40.90 327200 287471 7.12
W10 = Control (unweeded) 2432.00 0.00 21.03 168266 128537 4.23
S. Em.+ 58.49 - 2.76 22088.17 - -
C. D. at 5% 173.80 - 8.21 65629.74 - -
PE- Pre emergence, POE- Post emergence, DAT- Days after transplanting, HW- Hand weeding, fb- fallowed by
132 AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE DIGEST
TABLE 2: Efficiency of different weed management treatments on growth parameters of onion at harvest
Treatment Plant No. of Neck Bulb grade (%)
height leaves per thickness
(cm) plant (cm) A B C

W1 = Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb 1 HW at 45 DAT 53.00 9.55 1.30 32.20 43.60 24.20
W2 = Pendimethalin @ 0.900 kg ha-1 as PE fb 1 HW at 45 DAT 54.00 9.63 1.28 32.80 36.70 30.50
W3= Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb Oxadiargyl @ 0.090 kg ha-1 53.44 11.66 1.31 33.60 41.30 25.10
as POE at 45 DAT
W4= One HW at 25 DAT fb Propaquizafop @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as POE at 53.66 12.22 1.32 39.10 34.20 26.70
45 DAT
W5 = Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as POE at 45 55.00 12.94 1.33 42.30 36.50 21.20
DAT
W6=Combined spray of Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 and 57.24 13.33 1.35 38.50 42.60 18.90
Propaquizafop@ 0.090 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as POE at 45
DAT
W7=Pendimethalin @ 0.900 kg ha-1 as PE fb Imazethapyr @ 0.050 kg 14.89 2.44 0.97 0.00 3.80 96.20
ha-1as POE at 45 DAT
W8 =Two HW at 25-30 and 45-50 DAT 54.11 9.60 1.25 38.80 36.30 24.90
W9 = Weed free 58.87 15.11 1.44 42.60 41.80 15.60
W10 = Control (unweeded) 45.78 9.39 1.23 19.40 27.80 52.80
S. Em.+ 1.38 0.90 0.07 1.60 1.63 1.66
C. D. at 5% 4.09 2.69 0.20 4.75 4.86 4.93
PE- Pre emergence, POE- Post emergence, DAT- Days after transplanting, HW- Hand weeding, fb- fallowed by

TABLE 3: Growth parameters and yield attributes as influenced by different weed management treatments in onion.
Treatment Bolters Doubles Bulb diameter Fresh bulb
(%) (%) (cm) weight (g)
W1 = Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb 1 HW at 45 DAT 0.18 1.29 5.50 67.00
W2 = Pendimethalin @ 0.900 kg ha-1 as PE fb 1 HW at 45 DAT 0.12 1.18 5.55 64.00
W3= Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb Oxadiargyl @ 0.090 kg ha-1 0.00 1.26 5.60 66.33
as POE at 45 DAT
W4= One HW at 25 DAT fb Propaquizafop @ 0.090 kg ha-1 as POE at 0.00 1.31 5.54 65.33
45 DAT
W5 = Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as POE at 45 0.21 1.32 5.61 67.67
DAT
W6=Combined spray of Oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 and 0.00 1.14 5.73 68.00
Propaquizafop@ 0.090 kg ha-1 as PE & second spray as POE at 45
DAT
W7=Pendimethalin @ 0.900 kg ha-1 as PE fb Imazethapyr @ 0.050 kg 12.33 22.89 3.06 26.67
ha-1as POE at 45 DAT
W8 =Two HW at 25-30 and 45-50 DAT 0.00 1.13 5.36 67.33
W9 = Weed free 0.00 1.12 5.75 70.00
W10 = Control (unweeded) 0.95 1.95 4.29 51.33
S. Em.+ 0.23 0.57 0.19 5.18
C. D. at 5% 0.68 1.68 0.56 15.40
PE- Pre emergence, POE- Post emergence, DAT- Days after transplanting, HW- Hand weeding, fb- fallowed by

findings are in close vicinity with those reported by Bharathi
et al. (2011) and Kalhapure and Shete (2012).
CONCLUSION
On the basis of one year results of present
investigation, it can be concluded that the maximum
production and profit in rabi onion under South Saurashtra
Agro Climatic condition can be achieved by two HW at 25-
30 and 45-50 DAT or under scarcity of labours we can use
oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb 1 HW at 45 DAT or
oxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE fb oxadiargyl @ 0.090 kg
ha-1 as POE at 45 DAT oroxyfluorfen @ 0.240 kg ha-1 as PE
fb second spray as POE at 45 DAT. Use of imazethapyr @
0.050 kg ha-1 as POE is not advisable because of its phytotoxic
effect on crop.
 Volume 35 Issue 2 (2015) 133
REFERENCES
Angiras, N. N.; Kumar, S. and Rana, S. S. (2008). Efficacy of new herbicides alone and in integration with hand weeding
to manage weeds in onion (Allium cepa). Himachal J. Agri. Res., 34(2):109-112.
Anonymous. (2012). FAO information site, http: www.faostat.org.in
Bharathi, S.; Rao, A. S. and Surya Kumari, S. (2011). Eeffect of weed management practices on weed control and yield of
onion (Allium cepa L.) in vertisols. J. Res., ANGRAU 39(1&2):10-13.
Channapagoudar, B. B. and Biradar, N. R. (2007). Physiological studies on weed control efficiency in direct sown onion
(Allium cepa L.). Karnataka J. of Agri. Sci., 20(2): 375-376.
Kalhapure, A. H. and Shete, B. T. (2012). Integrated weed management in onion. Indian J. of Weed Sci., 44(2): 8891
Kalhapure, A. K.; Shete, B. T. and Bodake, P.S. (2013). Integrated weed management in onion (Allium cepa L.) Indian J. of
Agron., 58(3):408-411.
Nandal, T. R. and Singh, R. (2002). Integrated weed management in onion (Allium cepa L.) under Himachal Pradesh conditions.
Indian J. of Weed Sci., 34: 72-75
Tewari, A. N.; Tiwari, S. N.; Rathi, P. P. S.; Shing, B. and Tripthi, A. K. (2003). Studies on crop-weed competition in
kharif onion (Allium cepa L.). Indian J. of Weed Sci., 35(1&2): 156-158.
Ved Prakash; Pandey, A. K.; Singh, R. D. and Mani, V. P. (2000). Integrated weed management in winter onion (Allium cepa
L.) under mid hill condition of North -Western Himalayas. Indian J. of Agron., 45(4): 816-825.
Yadav, A. C.; Punia, S. S.; Suresh, T. and Singh, A. (2009). Performance of different herbicides in onion as affected by
method of application Indian J. of Weed Sci., 41(3&4): 193-194.
Copyright of Agricultural Science Digest is the property of Agricultural Research
Communication Centre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.