ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences

The official scientific journal of Salahaddin University-Erbil

ZJPAS (2016), 28 (s6); s1-s21

Study the Allelopathic Potential of Wild Barley (Hordeum spontaneum

Koch.) as an Integrated Weed Management (IWM) Tool

Didar J. Tawfeeq1 and Kawa A. Ali 2

1- Department of field crops, College of Agriculture Engineering, Salahaddin University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
2- Dean of College of Agriculture Engineering, Salahaddin University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History:
Received: 21/07/2016
Accepted: 11/08/2016
Published: 19/11/2016
Keywords:
Triticum durum; Hordeum
distichum; Weeds;
Hordeum spontaneum
Herbicides; Wild barley
extracts; allelopathic
effects.
*Corresponding Author:
Didar Tawfeeq
Didar_jameel@yahoo.com
A randomized complete block design (RCBD) field experiment was
conducted on Grdarasha agriculture experimental station fields, college of
Agriculture, Salahaddin University, during agricultural growing season 2014-
2015 to study the effect of spraying of two post emergence herbicides Nominee
(Bispyribac Sodium 10% W/V, 300 ml. ha-1), and Bonanza 10g granular
(Trifluralin10%, 50 g.ha-1) with aqueous extracts of Wild barley (Hordeum
spontaneum Koch.) at the rate (200 g.L-1) on growth and yield of two crop
species durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) and two-rowed barley (Hordeum
distichum L.). Zero weed (weed free) and weedy check plots were included for
comparison. Treatments caused significant effects on Photosynthetic pigment,
Flag leaf area (cm2), Plant Height (cm), Number of tillers.m-2, Number of spikes
(m2), Number of grains.spike-1, Weight of 1000 grain (g), Grain yield (ton.ha-1),
Straw yield (ton.ha-1), Biological yield (ton.ha-1), Harvest index (HI %), Weed
index (WI %). Results showed significant differences between all treatments,
minimum grain yield was recorded in Bonanza herbicide comparing to other
treatments and maximum grain yield was registered with weed free treatments,
highest level of chlorophyll content was recorded with weedy check and weed
free plots while lowest level of chlorophyll content was recorded in plots treated
with Bonanza herbicide.

1. INTRODUCTION wheat was 1,012,000 tons in Kurdistan region

Cereals are the most important source for food
and feed in the world. They provide both of the
energy and protein, the cereal grains are
important dietary source of carbohydrate, fiber
(insoluble and soluble), protein, certain
vitamins (B complex and E) and minerals. In
Kurdistan wheat and barley are the main
economic crops the approximate production of
(MOA, 2015). Biotic and a biotic factors
reduces cereal production and the most
important biotic factors are weeds, which
interferes with the growth of desirable crop and
are usually persist and damages cropping
systems, natural ecosystems and human
activities (Zimdahl, 2007 and Ross and Lembi.,
2008). Many weeds are present in cereal fields
2 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
in Kurdistan, among them the wild barley
(Hordeum spontaneum Koch.) It is an herby
plant from the family Poaceae, which threatens
wheat farms and makes trouble for its
sustainable production. This species have a
close genetic relation with barely and is known
as its ancestor (Zohary et al., 2012). Yield
reductions due to uncontrolled weed growth
throughout crops growing season have been
estimated as 45 to 95%, depending on crop
species (Ampong-Nyarko & De Datta, 1991).
Management practices are essential to manage
this noxious weed plant, while Kurdish farmers
prefer chemical control due to its fast impact
on weed plants (Ali et al., 2012). Many
researches focus today on environmental
pollution, soil irrigation, water contamination
and herbicide resistance phenomenon that
occurs by weed plants toward herbicides as
mentioned by Heap (2013) who’s documented
worldwide herbicide-resistant biotypes for 221
weed species. Integrated weed management
(IWM) which is defined as the sustainable use
of all available control methods to minimize
weed impact without reducing farm income
and damaging the environment, integration of
effective and environmentally safe weed
control methods (Monaco et al., 2002).
Allelopathic studies have been proposed
recently as a science concern with interference
of weed with crop plants or vice versa (Kong et
al., 2006). The term allelopathy, derived from
the two Greek words "Allelon" which means
from each other and "pathos" meaning
suffering or mutual harm, was first introduced
by Molish (1937), While Muller (1966)
defined allelopathy as a process in which a
plant releases toxic compounds into the
environment in order to control neighbouring
plants growth and distribution in the same
habitat. Rice (1984) defined allelopathy as
inhibitory or stimulatory influences by one plant
including microorganisms on other plants
through production of chemical compounds
(allelochemicals) that escape to the environment.
However, the stimulatory and inhibitory effects
of allelochemicals depend upon the
concentrations of the allelochemical compounds
(Bhowmik and Inderjiit, 2003). Allelopathy as a
tool can be utilized to combat the challenges of
environmental pollution and herbicide resistance
development, and used for suppressing weeds in
field crops, though allelopathy has a relatable
significance for ecological, sustainable and
integrated weed management systems (Jabran et
al., 2015). Secondary plant metabolites or
allelochemicals considered as a huge warehouse
of materials and compounds with evolved
biological activity including phytotoxicity, it has
been professed that some of these compounds
may be utilized as herbicides or as models for
herbicide development (Kruse et al., 2000;
Hoagland, 2001; Duke et al., 2002 and
Ali.2009). Allelopathy in Poaceae plant family
was attributed mostly to hydroxamic acids and
some other phenolic acids (Sanchez-Blanco et
al., 2004).
Bio-herbicides as alternatives for synthetic
herbicides, which cause serious threats to the
environment, consumers, and increase costs of
crop production (Asghari and Tewari, 2007 and
Bouhaouel et al., 2014). Most crop plants or
weed plants which possess allelopathic activity
in their plant body parts perchance selected for
different uses as bio-herbicidal alternatives
(Cheema et al., 2005; Ashrafi et al., 2007 and
Sadeghi et al., 2010). Allelochemicals possibly
will be used to advance new tools for evolution
of herbicide resistance in weed plants (Anjum
and Bajwa, 2005). Correspondingly, it is an
opportunity to utilize allelopathy in weed control
by extracts of allelopathic plants as bio-
herbicides (Dayan, 2002; Singh et al., 2005;
Ghafarbi et al., 2012 and Bravo et al., 2013). A
number of researchers have mentioned the
employ of plant extracts for weed management
with variable achievement (Hussain et al., 2007;
Iqbal et al., 2009 and Naseem et al., 2009).
Tawaha and Odat (2010) studied the ability of
utilizing the allelopathic properties of two crops
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) and maize (Zea
mays L.) to control germination and growth of
wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum Koch.) they
reported a significant reduction of germination
percentage; hypocotyl length and seedlings dry
weight of all the bio-assayed crops when
compared with water control. It has been
reported that sorgaab water extract of mature
(Sorghum bicolor L.) plants act as natural weed
inhibitor when (Triticum aestivum L.) was
sprayed with different concentrations and
application times. Results showed that foliar
spraying of sorgaab significantly decreases weed
population up to 49% either when used once or
twice, and increased wheat yield by 10-21%
(Cheema and Khaliq, 2000). Utilizing the shoot
3 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
and residues aqueous extracts of french psyllium
plant (Plantago psyllium) on germination and
growth parameters of wild barley (Hordeum
leporinum), black mustard Brassica nigra,
lambs quarters (Chenopodioum album L.) and
redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus),
simultaneously caused inhibition of germination
and dry matter accumulation of all tested plants
except wild barley plants (Rahimi et al., 2006).
In a study Ashrafi (2009) evaluated the impact of
some IWM methods; chemical and cultural
control on the yield and yield components of
wheat crop plants (T. aestivum L.) sown at
different row spacing and the herbicides applied
were; broad spectrum 2,4-D butyl Ester: 72 EC +
Isoproturon 75 WP 865 ml and 865 g ha-1,
respectively, broad leaf Buctril M 40 EC 1.25
liter ha-1 and a weedy check (no herbicide), the
results showed that row spacing significantly
affected all parameters. While, among the
herbicides, the minimum weeds density.m-2 and
other parameters were recorded in plots treated
with broad-spectrum herbicide followed by
Buctril-M 40 and the weedy check. Abdul-
Majeed et al., (2012) evaluated the allelopathic
potential of different concentrations of fresh
water soluble leaf extracts of (Chenopodium
album L.) on some growth and yield traits of
wheat (T.aestivum L.), results showed that
application of concentrated extracts had
detrimental impacts on plant height, number of
tillers and spike length which corresponded to
significantly low grain yield. Hamidi and
Mohamoodi (2012) estimated the influences of
soil moisture phosphorus and wheat residues on
germination and seedling growth of wild barley
(H. spontaneum Koch.) and radish (Raphanus
sativa L.) results showed that under soil moisture
and phosphorus stress, wheat residues
significantly inhibited wild barley and radish
seed germination and some recorded growth
parameters. Ahmed and Saleh (2013) evaluated
the effect of three crew330 post emergence
herbicide doses and three wheat seeding rates in
a field experiment where results professed the
significant effects on wild barley weed plants
density and dry weight which were proportional
to seed rate and herbicide doses. Mandal et al.,
(2014) evaluated the effects of some weed
control methods on growth and yield of wheat,
the experiment was conducted with four weed
control methods; no weeding, hand hoeing, using
late post emergence herbicide Topstar 80WP
(Oxadiargyl) and Sunrice 150WG
(Ethoxysulfuron) as early post-emergence
herbicide. Results exhibited the most effect
performance of Sunrice 150WG as early post-
emergence in comparison with other tested
methods. The early post emergence herbicides
were promising for the better weed control
practices.
A study demonstrated that the progenitor of wild
barley contains gramine, the allelochemical
which is well-known constituent of young shoots
of (Hordeum spontaneum) significantly
possesses higher concentrations than that of the
other modern barley cultivars, the same results
have been undertaken in (T.aestivum L.) that
indicated levels of cyclic hydroxamic acids in a
screening of 52 Chilean cultivars (Wu et al.,
1999).
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study Site:
The experiment was conducted in the fields of
the Grdarasha agriculture experimental station,
College of Agriculture, Salahaddin Univ. Erbil–
KRG; Lat. 36° 4' N, Long. 44° 2' E, elevation
400 m above sea level under semi granted Iraqi
rain zone during the winter season 2014-2015.
The soil texture was silt clay with pH 7.42,
organic matter 0.9 % and Electrical conductivity
0.2dS.m-1, meteorological data was recorded by
the automated meteorological station in the field
during the period of the study (Tabe-1).
2.2. Experimental design:
the experiment contains ten treatments; non
sprayed wheat (weed free); non sprayed barley
(weed free); non-sprayed wheat (weedy check);
non-sprayed barley (weedy check); two plots
were wheat and barley sprayed with Nominee
(Bispyribac Sodium 10% W/V); two plots were
wheat and barley sprayed with Bonanza 10g
granular (Trifluralin10%) and two other plots
were wheat and barley sprayed with the shoot
aqueous extracts of the wild barley. The study
was laid out in a randomized completely block
design (R.C.B.D) having three replications with
plot size (2×2 m) each plot consisting 10 rows
with 20 cm apart, while the distance between
plots was 50cm and space between replications
were one meter.
4 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
2.3. Agronomical practices:
Experimental plots were prepared by two crossed
plowings, land levelling then by rotavator, finally
it was hand seeded at 26th of November 2014
with the seed rate (100 kg. ha-1) for both of
wheat and barley. Ten wild barley seeds were
sowed between each rows of wheat and barley
plots, then thinned to 5 plants at post-emergence
stage and calculated statistically to achieve the
required plant populations (plant.m2). Di-
ammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizer was
applied at the rate (120 kg.ha-1) with the first
dose of Urea fertilizer at rate (60 kg.ha-1) while
60 days after sowing, the second dose of Urea
was added at the rate (60 kg.ha-1).
2.4. Herbicide Application:
Post emergence herbicides were Nominee
(Bispyribac Sodium 10% W/V) with the rate of
(300 ml.ha-1), and Bonanza 10 gm. granular
(Trifluralin10%) with the rate of (50 g.ha-1),
with aqueous extracts of the wild barley (H.
spontaneum) at the rate of (200 g.L-1) (A100)
was used as adjuvant and mixed with both
herbicides mentioned before. The spraying
process was carried out at 21/1/2015 as post-
emergence when the wheat and barley where at
the phase of (2-3) real leaves and even nodes
stage, for weed plant after the appearance of (3-
4) leaves, by knapsack Matabi 16 L pressure
sprayer with Teejet nozzle after calibration
process for insuring that the treated dose for each
plot is the same.
2.5 Data Recording:
Chlorophyll content was measured for wheat,
barley and wild barley via two methods
(destructive and non- destructive) first was
measuring the chlorophyll contents using ethanol
extraction, and second was using "atLEAF+"
instrument. First method was conducted five
times after 3, 9, 15, 21 and 30 days of spraying
by weighting 0.25 g fresh leaves of wheat, barley
and wild barley then put it in dark bottle with 5
ml of ethanol and stored in a dark place for 3
days each day 5 ml of 99% ethanol was added,
finally it was estimated by using PD-303
spectrophotometer at 665 and 649 nm wave
length, then according to the following equation
chlorophyll content were recorded (Knudson et
al.,1977).
μg Chl a/ ml solution = (13.70) (A665nm) –
(5.76) (A649nm)…… (1)
μg Chl b/ ml solution = (25.80) (A649nm) –
(7.60) (A665nm)…… (2)
The second method started after 56 days of
spraying when the plants were in booting stage
and repeated three times every 15 days total
chlorophyll was measured by using "atLEAF+"
chlorophyll meter (Zhu et al., 2012). Other
parameters for wheat, barley and wild barley
were Flag leaf area (cm2), Plant Height (cm),
Number of tillers.m-2, Number of spikes (m2),
Number of grains.spike-1, Weight of 1000 grain
(g), Grain yield (ton.ha-1), Straw yield (ton.ha-
1), Biological yield (ton.ha-1), Harvest index (HI
%) and Weed index (WI %). Where Weed index
was estimated from grain yield of weed free plots
and plots treated with both herbicide and the
aqueous wild barley extracts by using the
formula of Misra and Misra (1997).
WI=X−YX ×100…… (3)
Where X = grain yield of weed free, Y = grain
yield of treated plots.
2.6 Statistical analysis:
all recorded data were performed using statistical
package for the social science (SPSS version 18)
and excel statistical programmer, subjected to
standard analysis of variance and means were
compared at significant 5% level by Tukey's test
known as Tukey's honest significant difference
(T-HSD) (Steel and Torrie, 1969).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results in table (2) & (3) showed
significant differences (P≥0.05) among treated
plants only after 21 days after spraying (DAS).
The recorded data for chlorophyll a, b and total
content in table (4) did not show any
significant differences (P≥0.05) on 3rd, 9th,
15th and 30th (DAS), while on 15 days only
total chlorophyll exhibited highest level in
weedy check and the lowest level in the
Nominee herbicide treatment, and on 21 days
after spraying only chlorophyll (a) showed
significant differences, the highest level in
weedy free and the lowest in Bonanza
herbicide. whilst the influence of treatments on
chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content
of wild barley showed significant differences
(P≥0.05) on 15th, 21th and 30th (DAS) (Table-
5 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

5). These results are also in line with the

findings of Sharma and Bandana, (2002)
Nemat et al., (2008) and Kieloch and Rola,
(2010) reported that Isoproturon and and
pendimethalin herbicide reduced chlorophyll
content of maize and wheat when they
compared with untreated plots. Table (6)
combination effects of plant species and
treatments significantly (P≥0.05) affected
chlorophyll content of wheat and barley.
Results in this experiment indicated that the
wild barley straw extracts, Nominee and
Figure-2: The effect of plant species on total
Bonanza herbicide caused reduction of Chlorophyll content of wild barley
chlorophyll content when compared with weed
free and weedy check plots. However, the The influence of treatments on total
lowest levels of chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content for both crop plants not
chlorophyll content were observed when plots imposed any significant differences (P≥0.05)
sprayed with Bonanza herbicide. Similar on 56th, 71st and 86th (DAS) (figure-3),
results were achieved by (Ali et al., 2012). The
part of results were in agreement to what have
been reported by Akhtar et al., (2001); Cheema
et al., (2005); Ali., (2009) and Hasan., (2011)
when they studied the aqueous extracts as a
bio-herbicidal activity of some plant species
for weed controlling. Total chlorophyll content
of wheat and barley crops were measured by
"atleaf+" chlorophyll meter showed significant
differences (P≥0.05). The highest values were
with wheat plots and the lowest values were on
56th, 71st, 86th days after spraying was with Figure -3: The effect of treatments on total
barley plots (Figure-1). Chlorophyll content of wheat and barley
while the total chlorophyll content of wild
barley plant was significant differences
(P≥0.05) on 56th, 71st and 86th (DAS). The
highest values for total chlorophyll recorded in
weedy check plots, whereas the lowest values
were registered with Bonanza herbicide on
56th, 71st and 86th days after spraying
(Figure-4).

Figure -1: The effect of plant species on total

Chlorophyll content of wheat and barley

However the data of wild barley not showed

any significant differences (P≥0.05) for total
chlorophyll on the 56th, 71st, 86th days after
spraying (Figure-2).
6 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
Figure - 4: The effect of treatments on total
Chlorophyll content of wild barley
The inspiration of combination between plant
species and treatments caused significant
differences (P≥0.05) on chlorophyll content of
wheat and barley (Figure-5).
Figure -5: Effect of combination plant species and
treatments on total Chlorophyll content of wheat and
barley
The highest records of total chlorophyll were
with weed free plots in wheat crop on the 56th
and 86th (DAS), where at the lowest data were
obtained for the barley plots which was
sprayed with Bonanza herbicide 56th (DAS).
The lowest data was with weed free plots in
barley crop on the 86th (DAS). However, the
maximum values of chlorophyll content on
71st (DAS) were with AEWB plots in wheat
crop and the minimum values were in barley
plots sprayed with Bonanza herbicide.
Correspondingly the wild barley weed show
significant differences (P≥0.05) in total
chlorophyll content (Figure-6).
Figure -6: Effects of combination plant species and
treatments on total Chlorophyll content of wild
barley
The highest levels of total chlorophyll were
registered with weedy check plots in wheat
crop on the 56th, 71st and 86th (DAS). The
lowest level was in wheat plots sprayed with
Bonanza herbicide on the 56th days after
spraying, but the lowest levels of total
chlorophyll content on the 71st and 86th
(DAS) were recorded with Bonanza herbicide
plots in barley crop. These results are in line
with the findings reported by (Hawkins et al.,
2007; Bannari et al., 2007; Zhu et al., 2012;
Wang et al., 2014 and Ahmed, 2014). Table (7)
shows the significant effects (P≥0.05) of plant
species on different growth and yield
parameters of wheat and barley. The maximum
grain, straw, and biological yield were
produced in wheat crop, while the minimum
values were recorded in barley crop. The
analysis of data showed non-significant
differences (P≥0.05) between plant species on
some growth and yield parameters of wild
barley (Table-8). These results are in
agreement with (Tanveer et al., 1999; Khan et
al., 1999; Khan et al., 2001 and Hussain et al.,
2003) reported a significant increase in wheat
grain yield due to different herbicidal
application as a result of competition
elimination in early crop growth stages.
Influences of different treatments of wheat and
barley were significant (P≥0.05) on the growth
and yield parameters (Table-9). The highest
data for grain, straw, and biological yield were
obtained in weed free plots, while the lowest
values were registered for Nominee herbicide
plots. The maximum harvest index was
recorded in the aqueous extracts of wild barley
(AEWB) plots, whereas the minimum harvest
index was recorded in weedy check plots.
However, the highest value of weed index was
registered in Bonanza herbicide plots, while
the lowest data for weed index was recorded in
weed free plots. The data from table (10)
illustrate that the effects of treatments caused
significant differences (P≥0.05) on the growth
and yield parameters of wild barley. The
maximum values of grain, straw, and
biological yield were registered in weedy
check plots, whereas the minimum values were
recorded in Bonanza herbicide plots. However,
the harvest index for all treatments received
not indicated any significant difference. These
results clearly showed that there were
significant effects of different herbicides on
(H.spontaneum) at different days after spraying
when compared to the weedy check control
7 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
plots. (Tunio et al., 2004, Sherawat et al.,
2005; Baghestani et al., 2007; Chhokar et al.,
2008; Shehzad et al., 2012; Khalil et al., 2013;
Shah Fahad et al., 2013 and Mitiku and Dalga,
2014) found that application of herbicides
proved effective in controlling weeds and
maximizing wheat grain yield. Combination
between plant species and treatments imposed
significant effect (P≥0.05) on growth
development and yield parameters of wheat
and barley (Table-11). The maximum value of
grain yield was obtained in the weed free plots
of wheat, whereas the minimum value was
barley plots when spraying with Bonanza
herbicide. The highest value of straw yield was
with Bonanza herbicide plots in wheat crop,
but the maximum value of biological yield was
with the weed free plots in the same wheat
crop, while the lowest values of straw and
biological yield were registered in barley plots
which were treats with Bonanza herbicide.
Nevertheless, the maximum percentage of
harvest index was in barley plots when sprayed
with AEWB, whereas the minimum value with
weedy check plots in barley crop. Maximum
weed index ratio was in barley plots that
treated with Bonanza herbicide and the
minimum value was recorded with weed free
plots for both wheat and barley crops.
However, combination between plant species
and treatments are also showing significantly
(P≥0.05) affected on growth and yield
parameters of wild barley plant (Table-12).
The maximum values of plant height, grains
per spike, 1000-grain weight, grain yield, straw
yield and biological yield were registered with
weedy check plots in wheat crop, whereas the
minimum values were recorded in barley plots
when sprayed with Bonanza herbicide.
Although, the highest percentage ratio of
harvest index was recorded with Bonanza
herbicide plots in wheat crop and the lowest
percentage was in barley plots when treats by
Bonanza herbicide. Those results demonstrated
that herbicide treatments have a great influence
on plant species especially barley crop and
wild barley weed, whereas a wheat yield
increased with applying Bonanza herbicide
when compared with weedy check plots. These
results are in agreement with (Ashrafi et al.,
2010) reported that wheat yield increase with
reduction of H. spontaneum when applied
Chevalier herbicide. Also Hussain et al.,
(2008) reported that the Nominee 100SC gave
the highest weed control (90.5%) in rice crop.
However, decreasing in weed density and
biomass in wheat crop are in agreement with
Zand et al., (2010); Safdar et al., (2011); Das
and Yaduraju, (2012) and Khaliq et al., (2014).
Higher grain yield in herbicide treated plots
may be a product of efficient weed control
realized there. These results are in line with
those of Baghestani et al., (2008) and Santos,
(2009) who reported that herbicides offer
considerable increase in crop productivity
conforming to their weed control range. Weed
density and biomass had negative correlation
with wheat yield and reflects negative
inferences of weed competition on final yield
(Khaliq et al., 2011 and Khaliq et al., 2014)
also they reported that wheat yields were
negatively associated with weed growth.
4. CONCLUSIONS:
Application of Bonanza herbicide foliage
as eliminate growth and development of wild
barley weed plants compared with the weedy
check in wheat plots, while it reduces the yield
of barley comparing to both weedy check and
weed free treatments. Nominee herbicide
reduces the yield of wheat and barley and has
less effect on weed plants when compared with
the Bonanza herbicide. The application of
Bonanza herbicide recorded the lowest weed
index in wheat crop plants when compared
with barley crop plants and other treatments.
Shoot aqueous extracts of H. spontaneum
possesses high allelopathic negative effect on
weed plants in the first stages of growth
especially in barley plots.
8

Table (1): Some meterological data of Grdarasha field station during the season of 2014-2015.

Parameters Temperature C˚ Rainfall Relative Soil

Humidity temperature C˚
% 30cm
Min. Max. Avg. (mm) Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. Avg.
Year/Month
2014 Aug. 22.5 45.6 34.6 0.0 4.5 39.9 15.9 31.6 34.8 33.4
Sep. 16.8 43.9 30.0 0.0 5.4 60.5 23.7 27.9 34.2 30.9
Oct. 10.6 35.3 22.7 56.4 9.0 97.0 45.9 18.7 28.5 23.9
Nov. 4.5 25.5 14.2 77.7 12.3 99.6 58.8 11.7 19.8 15.2
Dec. 2.5 21.8 11.4 44.4 25.8 97.0 70.5 9.6 13.2 11.8
2015 Jan. -0.2 19.3 8.3 30.0 18.1 99.6 67.9 7.3 10.7 9.1
Feb. 0.4 21.5 10.2 35.3 16.3 97.0 64.5 8.3 12.2 10.3
Mar. 4.1 25.1 13.9 40.4 9.9 95.6 58.4 10.5 15.9 13.4
Apr. 5.3 34.8 18.8 0.4 7.3 92.2 44.9 14.8 23.0 18.6
Ma. 14.4 41.0 27.4 0.1 7.0 77.4 24.5 21.7 29.2 25.8
Jun. 19.3 44.1 32.1 0.0 4.1 50.3 18.8 26.5 33.1 30.8
Jul. 21.3 47.9 36.6 0.0 2.9 38.2 14.2 31.2 36.4 34.3
Total 284.7
9 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Table (2): The effect of plant species on Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content of wheat and barley
Days 3 Days 9 Days 15 Days 21 Days 30 Days
Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total
Chl chl chl chl chl chl
Treatments
wheat 8.54 3.38 11.92 8.43 4.33 12.76 9.88 5.39 15.28 11.83 7.10 18.94 13.20 7.66 20.87

barley 8.79 3.49 12.29 7.64 3.49 11.14 6.78 2.71 9.49 5.83 2.73 8.56 8.18 4.17 12.36

Tukey's 3.40 3.51 6.82 4.66 3.78 6.84 4.60 3.27 7.77 5.09 3.82 8.83 8.90 5.91 14.72
HSD(0.05)

Table (3): The effect of plant species on Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content of wild barley
Days 3 Days 9 Days 15 Days 21 Days 30 Days
Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total
Chl chl chl chl chl chl
Treatment
s Wild barley in 6.98 3.00 9.98 6.51 2.67 9.17 5.97 2.69 8.66 5.24 2.40 7.64 5.85 3.23 9.08
wheat
Wild barley in 6.15 2.22 8.37 5.44 1.87 7.31 4.98 1.97 6.95 3.73 1.57 5.30 4.60 2.15 6.75
barley
Tukey's 3.40 3.51 6.82 4.66 3.78 6.84 4.60 3.27 7.77 5.09 3.82 8.83 8.90 5.91 14.72
HSD(0.05)
10 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Table (4): The effect of treatments on Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content of wheat and barley

Days 3 Days 9 Days 15 Days 21 Days 30 Days

Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total
Chl
Plant Days 3 Days chl 9 Days chl 15 Days chl 21 Days chl 30 Days chl Ta T
species Weed free 9.04 3.80 12.84 10.13 5.50 15.63 10.27 5.28 15.55 11.58 6.69 18.27 11.75 6.94 18.69 ble
Weedy check 8.57 3.13 11.70 9.17 5.42 14.60 10.41 5.82 16.22 11.28 6.72 18.00 12.22 7.15 19.37 (5)
Nominee 8.22 3.16 11.38 6.97 3.62 10.59 6.08 2.31 8.38 6.61 3.24 9.84 9.40 4.96 14.36 :
Bonanza 8.60 3.59 12.20 6.77 2.34 9.10 6.53 2.87 9.39 6.17 3.39 9.57 9.60 5.03 14.63 Th
AEWB 8.88 3.52 12.40 7.15 2.67 9.82 8.39 3.98 12.37 8.53 4.54 13.08 10.50 5.52 16.02 e
Tukey's 3.40 3.51 6.82 4.66 3.78 6.84 4.60 3.27 7.77 5.09 3.82 8.83 8.90 5.91 14.72 eff
HSD(0.05) ect
of treatments on Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content of wild barley

Days 3 Days 9 Days 15 Days 21 Days 30 Days

Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total
Chl
Treatments chl chl chl chl chl
Weed free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weedy check 7.52 2.51 10.03 9.45 4.20 13.64 11.05 6.25 17.31 10.86 6.58 17.43 11.82 7.06 18.88
Nominee 7.58 2.74 10.32 6.55 2.08 8.63 4.79 1.34 6.13 3.23 0.85 4.08 3.91 1.63 5.54
Bonanza 8.69 3.77 12.46 6.43 2.14 8.57 4.18 1.15 5.33 3.34 0.75 4.09 2.96 1.00 3.96
AEWB 9.06 4.03 13.08 7.43 2.92 10.36 7.36 2.91 10.26 5.00 1.75 6.75 7.44 3.75 11.19
Tukey's 3.40 3.51 6.82 4.66 3.78 6.84 4.60 3.27 7.77 5.09 3.82 8.83 8.90 5.91 14.72
HSD(0.05)
Table (6): The effect of combination of plant species and treatments on Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content of wheat and
barley
11 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total
Chl chl chl chl chl chl

Treatments
Wheat Weed free 9.02 3.92 12.94 10.74 6.20 16.94 12.01 6.95 18.96 13.24 7.78 21.02 12.76 7.58 20.34
Weedy check 8.44 3.09 11.54 9.17 6.43 15.60 11.13 6.80 17.93 12.48 7.72 20.21 14.08 8.17 22.26
Nominee 8.25 3.05 11.30 7.86 3.42 11.28 6.11 2.35 8.45 10.00 5.65 15.65 10.87 6.25 17.13
Bonanza 7.69 2.86 10.55 7.45 3.07 10.51 9.90 5.19 15.09 10.53 6.51 17.05 14.49 8.43 22.92
AEWB 9.28 3.99 13.27 6.94 2.51 9.45 10.28 5.68 15.95 12.92 7.84 20.75 13.81 7.89 21.70
Barley Weed free 9.06 3.68 12.74 9.51 4.81 14.32 8.54 3.60 12.13 9.91 5.60 15.51 10.74 6.30 17.05
Weedy check 8.71 3.17 11.87 9.17 4.41 13.59 9.68 4.84 14.52 10.07 5.71 15.78 10.35 6.12 16.47
Nominee 8.19 3.27 11.46 6.08 3.81 9.90 6.04 2.26 8.30 3.21 0.83 4.03 7.93 3.66 11.59
Bonanza 9.52 4.33 13.85 6.07 1.61 7.70 3.15 0.54 3.70 1.82 0.26 2.08 4.71 1.63 6.34
AEWB 8.49 3.04 11.53 7.37 2.83 10.20 6.50 2.29 8.78 4.14 1.25 5.40 7.18 3.16 10.34
Tukey's HSD(0.05) 3.40 3.51 6.82 4.66 3.78 6.84 4.60 3.27 7.77 5.09 3.82 8.83 8.90 5.91 14.72
12 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Table (7): The effect of combination of plant species and treatments on Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content wild barley

Plant Days 3 Days 9 Days 15 Days 21 Days 30 Days

species
Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total Chl(a) Chl(b) Total
Chl chl chl chl chl chl

Treatments
Wild Weed free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
barley
in wheat Weedy check 7.99 2.84 10.84 10.26 4.77 15.02 11.81 6.98 18.79 11.17 6.76 17.94 12.81 7.91 20.72

Nominee 7.62 2.51 10.13 6.29 1.91 8.20 4.89 1.38 6.27 3.97 1.24 5.21 4.03 1.94 5.97

Bonanza 9.64 4.84 14.48 7.00 2.55 9.55 4.50 1.29 5.79 3.77 0.92 4.69 3.23 1.26 4.49
AEWB 9.67 4.80 14.47 8.99 4.09 13.08 8.66 3.81 12.47 7.28 3.07 10.36 9.19 5.03 14.22
Wild Weed free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
barley Weedy check 7.04 2.18 9.22 8.64 3.63 12.26 10.29 5.52 15.82 10.54 6.39 16.93 10.83 6.21 17.04
in
barley Nominee 7.54 2.97 10.51 6.82 2.24 9.06 4.68 1.31 5.99 2.50 0.45 2.94 3.79 1.31 5.10
Bonanza 7.74 2.70 10.44 5.86 1.74 7.60 3.87 1.00 4.87 2.92 0.57 3.48 2.69 0.74 3.43
AEWB 8.44 3.26 11.70 5.88 1.75 7.63 6.05 2.01 8.06 2.72 0.43 3.14 5.69 2.47 8.16
Tukey's HSD(0.05) 3.40 3.51 6.82 4.66 3.78 6.84 4.60 3.27 7.77 5.09 3.82 8.83 8.90 5.91 14.72
13 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Table (8): The effects of plant species on some growth and yield parameters of wheat and barley

Flag Leaf Plant Tiller Spikes. Grains. 1000- Grain Straw Biological Harvest Weed
Traits area (cm2) height plant-1 m-2 spike-1 grain yield yield yield index % index %
(cm) weight (g) (ton.ha-1) (ton.ha-1) (ton.ha-1)

Plant species
Wheat 44.51 82.50 280.20 262.60 57.37 50.46 5.32 3.71 9.03 58.74 17.32

Barley 9.97 73.87 426.08 344.32 23.97 41.87 2.41 1.69 4.10 58.69 22.51
Tukey's 9.98 8.39 81.77 92.23 6.37 6.45 0.83 0.59 1.25 5.80 20.65
HSD(0.05)

Table (9): The effects of plant species on some growth and yield parameters of wild barley

Flag Leaf Plant height Grains. 1000- grain Grain yield (g. Straw yield (g. Biological yield Harvest index
Traits area (cm2) (cm) spike-1 weight (g) plant-1) plant-1) (g.plant-1) %

Plant species
Wild barley in wheat 4.64 73.03 17.83 25.30 6.34 6.66 13.00 39.19
Wild barley in barley 5.70 67.83 18.29 22.07 5.49 6.46 11.95 36.58
Tukey's HSD(0.05) 3.31 7.63 4.90 7.50 2.41 1.58 2.68 13.92
14 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Table (10): The effects of treatments on some growth and yield parameters of wheat and barley
Flag Leaf Plant Tillers Spikes. Grains. 1000- grain Grain Straw Biological Harvest Weed
Traits
area (cm2) height plant-1 m-2 spike-1 weight (g) yield yield yield index % index %
Treatments (cm) (ton.ha-1) (ton.ha-1) (ton.ha-1)
Weed free 31.74 92.63 384.20 333.70 45.73 52.67 4.78 3.21 8.00 59.26 0.00
Weedy check 35.50 92.70 379.10 317.90 44.88 48.90 3.88 3.06 6.94 55.64 16.33
Nominee 22.75 71.92 353.50 310.50 37.53 41.24 3.16 2.33 5.48 57.79 30.05
Bonanza 20.44 48.47 287.40 247.20 35.58 42.05 3.52 2.50 6.01 57.62 38.19
AEWB 25.78 85.20 361.50 308.00 39.62 45.96 3.98 2.41 6.39 63.25 15.01
Tukey's 9.98 8.39 81.77 92.23 6.37 6.45 0.83 0.59 1.25 5.80 20.65
HSD(0.05)

Table (11): The effects of treatments on some growth and yield parameters of wild barley

Flag Leaf Plant Grains. 1000- grain Grain yield Straw yield Biological yield Harvest
Traits
area (cm2) height spike-1 weight (g) (g. plant-1) (g. plant-1) (g.plant-1) index %
Treatments (cm)
Weed free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weedy check 11.50 128.48 32.42 42.33 13.84 15.08 28.92 47.68
Nominee 5.45 94.32 22.52 27.95 6.26 6.81 13.06 47.73
Bonanza 3.39 19.32 11.95 15.89 1.91 2.06 3.96 47.94
AEWB 5.50 110.03 23.40 32.26 7.58 8.85 16.43 46.07
Tukey's HSD(0.05) 3.31 7.63 4.90 7.50 2.41 1.58 2.68 13.92
15 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Table (12): The effect of combination of plant species and treatments on some growth and yield parameters of wheat and barley

Plant Flag Leaf Plant Tillers. Spikes. Grains. 1000- grain Grain yield Straw yield Biological Harvest Weed
Traits
species area height plant-1 m-2 spike-1 weight (g) (ton.ha-1) (ton.ha-1) yield index % index %
(cm2) (cm) (ton.ha-1)
Treatments
Wheat Weed free 51.04 92.20 270.00 249.00 63.67 54.43 6.43 4.14 10.58 60.81 0.00

Weedy 53.31 91.77 267.00 251.00 60.53 51.69 4.96 3.78 8.74 56.67 23.02
check
Nominee 39.71 67.43 259.00 241.00 53.83 44.77 3.81 2.90 6.71 56.79 40.76

Bonanza 36.22 73.67 354.00 336.00 52.23 50.57 6.16 4.33 10.49 58.82 4.16

AEWB 42.26 87.43 251.00 236.00 56.57 50.86 5.22 3.39 8.61 60.59 18.64

Barley Weed free 12.44 93.07 498.40 418.40 27.80 50.92 3.13 2.28 5.42 57.70 0.00

Weedy 17.69 93.63 491.20 384.80 29.23 46.10 2.80 2.33 5.14 54.61 9.64
check
Nominee 5.78 76.40 448.00 380.00 21.23 37.72 2.50 1.75 4.26 58.80 19.33

Bonanza 4.65 23.27 220.80 158.40 18.93 33.53 0.87 0.66 1.53 56.42 72.22

AEWB 9.30 82.97 472.00 380.00 22.67 41.06 2.75 1.42 4.17 65.90 11.38

Tukey's HSD(0.05) 9.98 8.39 81.77 92.23 6.37 6.45 0.83 0.59 1.25 5.80 20.65
16 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

Table (13): The effect of combination of plant species and treatments on some growth and yield parameters of wild barley

Plant Flag leaf Plant Grains. 1000- grain Grain yield Straw Biological Harvest
Traits area (cm2) height spike-1 weight (g) (g.plant-1) yield (g. yield (g.plant- index %
species
Treatments (cm) plant-1) 1
)

Wild Weed free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
barley
Weedy check 8.55 134.60 33.13 47.13 15.72 16.32 32.04 49.06
in
wheat Nominee 5.71 94.97 20.83 28.59 6.05 6.40 12.45 48.52
Bonanza 3.73 23.57 11.63 17.44 2.08 2.00 4.08 50.48
AEWB 5.22 112.00 23.53 33.37 7.88 8.58 16.46 47.88
Wild Weed free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
barley
Weedy check 14.45 122.37 31.70 37.53 11.97 13.84 25.81 46.31
in
barley Nominee 5.20 93.67 24.20 27.30 6.46 7.22 13.68 46.95
Bonanza 3.04 15.07 12.27 14.34 1.74 2.11 3.85 45.40
AEWB 5.78 108.07 23.27 31.16 7.28 9.13 16.41 44.25
Tukey's HSD(0.05) 3.31 7.63 4.90 7.50 2.41 1.58 2.68 13.92
17
REFERENCES
ABDUL-MAJEED; CHAUDHRY, Z. AND
MUHAMMAD, Z. (2012). Allelopathic
assessment of fresh aqueous extracts of
Chenopodium album L. for growth and yield
of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Pak. J. Bot.
44(1), p.165-167.
AHMED, L. K. AND SALEH, S. M. (2013). Effect
of herbicide and seeding rates on wild barley
weed Hordeum spp and some other weeds on
wheat fields. J. of Tikrit Univ. of Agric. Sci.
13(4), p.172-179.
AHMED, N.J. (2014). Influence of water stress on
growth and some physiological traits of
wheat (Triticum spp.) cultivars. M. Sc.
Thesis in Field Crops - Crop physiology.
College of Agriculture – Salahaddin
University. Iraq, pp.46.
AKHTAR, N.; ARSHAD, J. AND BAJWA, R.
(2001). Herbicidal activity of aqueous
extracts of Cirsium arvense and Ageratum
conyzoides against weed of wheat. Pak. J. of
Bio.Sci. 4(11), p.1364-1367.
ALI, K.A. (2009). Utilizing the Allelopathic
Potential of Cephalaria syriaca for
Controlling Some Endemic Weed Species.
PhD. Thesis. Coll. of Sci. University. of
Salahaddin. Iraq.
ALI, K.A.; QADIR, M.M. AND RASOOL, S.O.,
HAMAD, O.M. (2012). The effect of
spraying of wheat straw extracts on
controlling some weed species. J.of Agric.
and Vete. Sci. (IOSR-JAVS). 1(5), p.36-39.
AMPONG-NYARKO, K. AND DE DATTA, S.K.
(1991). A Handbook for Weed Control in
Rice. Instit.Rice Res. Ind. Manila,
Philippines. P: 384.
ANJUM, T. AND BAJWA R. (2005). A bioactive
annuionone from sunflower leaves.
Phytochemistry. 66, p.1919-1921.
ASGHARI, J. AND TEWARI J.P. (2007).
Allelopathic potentials of eight barley
cultivars on Brassica jucea (L.) Czern. and
Setaria viridis (L.) p. Beauv. J. Agric. Sci.
Technol. 9, p.165-176. Ashrafi, Z.Y.;
Rahnavard, A. and Sadeghi, S. (2010). Study
of respond wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to
rate and time application Chevalier®. J. of
Agric. Tech. 6(3), p.533-542.
ASHRAFI, Z.Y.; SADEGHI, S. AND
MASHHADI, H.R. (2007). Allelopathic
effects of Barley(Hordeum vulgare) on
germination and growth of Wild Barley (H.
spontaneum). Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 13(1-2),
p.99-112.
ASHRAFI, Z.Y.; SADEGHI, S. AND
MASHHADI, H.R. (2009). Study of
Integrate Methods Chemical and Cultural
Control of Weeds to Wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.). J.of Agric. Sci. 1(2), p.113-
119.
BAGHESTANI, M.A.; ZAND E.; SOUFIZADEH
S.; BAGHERANI N. AND DEIHIMFARD
R. (2007). Weed control and wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) yield under application of 2, 4-
D plus carfentrazone-ethyl and florasulam
plus flumetsulam: Evaluation of the efficacy.
Crop Prot. 26(12), p.1759-1764.
BAGHESTANI, M.A.; ZAND, E.; SOUFIZADEH,
S.; BEHESHTIAN, M.; HAGHIGHI, A.;
BARJASTEH, A.; BIRGANI, D.G. AND
DEIHIMFARD, R. (2008). Study on the
efficacy of weed control in wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) with tank mixtures of grass
herbicides with broadleaved herbicides. Crop
Prot. 27, p.104-111.
BANNARI, A.; KHURSHID, K.S.; STAENZ, K.
AND SCHWARZ, J.W. (2007). A
comparison of hyperspectral chlorophyll
indices for wheat crop chlorophyll content
estimation using laboratory reflectance
measurements. Ieee Transactions on
geoscience and remote sensing [online].
45(10). Available from DOI:
10.1109/TGRS.2007.897429 [OCT. 2007].
BHOWMIK, P. AND INDERJIT (2003).
Challenges and opportunities in
implementing allelopathy for natural weed
management. Crop Prot. 22, p.661-671.
18 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
BOUHAOUEL, I.; GFELLER, A.;
FAUCONNIER, M.L.; REZGUI, S.;
AMARA H.S. AND DU JARDIN, P. (2014).
Allelopathic and autotoxicity effects of
barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ssp. vulgare)
root exudates. International Organization for
Biological Control. Available from: DOI
10.1007/s10526-014-9634-3.[14 Nov. 2014].
BRAVO, H.R.; COPAJA, S.V. AND
LAMBOROT, M. (2013). Phytotoxicity of
Phenolic acids from cereals. Intech open Sci.
p.38-49.
CHEEMA, Z.A. AND KHALIQ, A. (2000). Use of
sorghum Allelopathic properties to control
weeds in irrigated wheat in semi-arid region
of Punjab. Agric. Ecos. and Envi. 79, p.105-
112.
CHEEMA, Z.A.; ALI, B. AND KHALIQ, A.
(2005). Determining suitable combination of
sorgaab and pendimenthalin for weed control
in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Inter.J. of
Agric. and Biol. 7(6), p.889-891.
CHHOKAR, R.S.; SINGH, S. AND SHARMA,
R.K. (2008). Herbicides for control of
isoproturon-resistant Littleseed Canarygrass
(Phalaris minor) in wheat. Crop Prot. 27,
p.719-726.
DAS, T.K. AND YADURAJU, N.T. (2012). The
effects of combining modified sowing
methods with herbicide mixtures on weed
interference in wheat crops. Int. J. Pest
Manage. 58, p.310-319.
DAYAN, F.E. (2002). Natural Pesticides. In
Pimentel, D. (ed.) Encylopedia of pest
management. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York. p.521-525.
DUKE, S.O.; DAYAN, F.E.; RIMANDO, A.M.;
Schrader, K.K.; Aliotta, G.; Oliva, A. and
Romagni, J.G. (2002). Chemicals from
nature for weed management. Weed Sci. 50,
p.138-151.
FAHAD, S.; NIE, L.; RAHMAN, A.; CHEN, C.;
WU, C.; SAUD, S. AND HUANG, J. (2013).
Comparative efficacy of different herbicides
for weed management and yield attributes in
wheat. American Journal of Plant Sciences.
4, p.1241-1245.
GHAFARBI, S.P.; HASSANNEJAD, S. AND
LOTFI, R. (2012). Allelopathic effects of
wheat seed extracts on seed and seedling
growth of eight selected weed species. Inter.
J. of agric. and crop Sci. 4(19), p.1452-1457.
GHAFARBI, S.P.; HASSANNEJAD, S. and Lotfi,
R. (2012). Seed to seed allelopathic effects
between wheat and weeds. Inter. J. of Agric.
and Crop Sci. Intl J Agri Crop Sci. 4(22),
p.1660-1665.
HAMIDI, R. AND MAHMOODI, S. (2012).
Changes in allelopathic potential of winter
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) residues under
various soil moisture and phosphorus levels.
J Pharm Biomed Sci. 24(24), p.15-21.
HASAN, G.K. (2011). Allelopathic effect of
aqueous extract of fenugreek seeds
(Trigonella foenum graecum L.) on growth
and yield components for two wheat
cultivars. J. of Tikrit pure Sci. 16(2), p.114-
122.
HAWKINS, J.A.; SAWYER, J.E.; BARKER,
D.W. and Lundvall, J.P. (2007). Using
relative chlorophyll meter values to
determine nitrogen application rates for corn.
Agron J. 99, p.1034-1040. Heap, I.M. (2013).
International Survey of Herbicide Resistant
Weeds.
HOAGLAND, R.E. (2001). Bioherbicides:
Phytotoxic natural products. Amer. Chem.
Soc. Symp. Ser. 774, p.72-90.
HUSSAIN, N.; KHAN, M.B.; TARIQ, M. AND
HANIF, S. (2003). Spectrum of Activity of
Different Herbicides on Growth and Yield of
Wheat (Triticum aestivum).Inter. J. of Agric.
&Bio.. 5(2), p.166-168.
HUSSAIN, S.; RAMZAN, M.; AKHTER, M. AND
ASLAM, M. (2008). Weed management in
direct seeded rice. J. Anim. Pl. Sci. 18(2-3).
19 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
HUSSAIN, S.; SIDDIQUI, S.; KHALID, S.;
JAMAL, A.; QAYYUM, A. AND AHMAD,
Z. (2007). Allelopathic potential of Senna
(Cassia angustifoliaVahl.) on germination
and seedling characters of some major cereal
crops and their associated grassy weeds. Pak.
J. Bot. 39, p.1145-1153.
IQBAL, J.; CHEEMA, Z.A. AND MUSHTAQ,
M.N. (2009). Allelopathic crop water extracts
reduce the herbicide dose for weed control in
cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Int. J. Agric.
Biol. 11, p.360-366.
JABRAN, K.; MAHAJAN, G.; SARDANA, V.
AND CHAUHAN, B.S. (2015). Allelopathy
for weed control in agricultural systems.
Crop Prot. 72, p.57-65. Khalil, M. F.;
Hassan, G.; Ahmad, G.; Anwar, S. and Khan,
S. (2013). Comparative efficacy of herbicides
on yield and yield components of wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.). ARPN J. of Agric.
and Bio. Sci. 8(1), p. 76-80.
KHALIQ, A.; HUSSAIN, M.; MATLOOB, A.;
TANVEER, A.; ZAMIR, S.I.; AFZAL, I.
AND ASLAM, F. (2014). Weed growth,
herbicide efficiency indicies, crop growth
and yield of wheat are modified by herbicide
and cultivar interaction. Pak. J. Weed Sci.
Res. 20(1), p.91-109.
KHALIQ, A.; HUSSAIN, M.; MATLOOB, A.;
TANVEER, A.; ZAMIR, S.I.; AFZAL, I.
AND ASLAM, F. (2014). Weed growth,
herbicide efficiency indicies, crop growth
and yield of wheat are modified by herbicide
and cultivar interaction. Pak. J. Weed Sci.
Res. 20(1), p.91-109.
KHALIQ, A.; MATLOOB, A.; CHEEMA Z.A.
AND FAROOQ, M. (2011). Allelopathic
activity of crop residue incorporation alone
or mixed against rice and its associated grass
weed jungle rice (Echinochloa colona [L.]
Link). Chllean J.of Agric. Res. 71(3), p.418-
423.
KHAN, M.A.; ZAHOOR, M.; AHMAD, L.;
HASSAN, G. AND BALOCH, M.S. (1999).
Efficacy of different herbicides for
controlling broad leaf weed in wheat.
Pakistan J. Biol. Sci. 2, p.732-4.
KIELOCH, R. AND ROLA, H. (2010). Sensitivity
of winter wheat cultivars to selected
herbicides. J. Plant Prot. Res. 50, p.35-40.
KNUDSON; LINDA, L.; TIBBITTS, T.W. AND
EDWARDS, G.E. (1977). Measurement of
ozone injury by determination of leaf
chlorophyll concentration. Plant Physi. 60,
p.606-608.
KRUSE, M.; STRANDBERG, M. AND
STRANDBERG, B. (2000). Ecological
Effects of Allelopathic Plants-A Review.
National Environmental Research Institute -
NERI Technical Report. No. 315. Silkeborg,
Denmark. length of crops. Int. J. Agric. Biol.
12, p.769-772.
KONG, C.H.; WANG, P. AND XU, X.H. (2006).
Allelopathic interference of Ambrosia trifida
with Wheat (Triticum aestivum). Agr Ecosy
Envi. 119, p.416-420.
MANDAL, M.S.H.; ALI, M.H.; AMIN, A.K.M.R.;
MASUM,S.M. AND MEHRAJ, H. (2014).
Assessment of different weed control
methods on growth and yield of wheat. Inter.
J. of Agron. and Agric. Res. (IJAAR). 5(5),
p.65-73.
MISRA, M. AND MISRA, A. (1997). Estimation
of IPM index in jute: a new approach. Indian
J. Weed Sci. 29, p.39-42.
MITIKU, A. AND DALGA, D. (2014). Effect of
herbicides on weed dynamics and yield and
yeild attribute of bread wheat (Triticum
Aestivum L.) in south eastern part of
ethiopia. Inter. J. of Techn. enhancements
and emerging engineering research. 2(4), p.
2347-4289.
MOA, (2015). ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURAL-K.R.G.
MULLER, C.H. (1966). The role of chemical
inhibition (allelopathy) in vegetational
composition. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 93,
p.332-351.
20 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21
MONACO, J.T.; WELLER, C.S. AND ASHTON,
M.F. (2002). Weed Science: Principles and
Practices. 4th edition. New York. p 44.
NASEEM, M.; ASLAM, M.; ANSAR, M. AND
AZHAR, M. (2009). Allelopathic effects of
sunflower water extract on weed control and
wheat productivity. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res.
15, p.107-116.
NEMAT, A. M.; HASSAN,N.M. AND EL-
BASTAWISY, Z.M. (2008). Changes in
antioxidants and kinetics of glutathione-
Stransferase of maize in response to
isoproturon treatment. Plant Biosyst. 142,
p.5-16.
RAHIMI, A.; RAHIMIAN MASHHADI, H.R.;
JAHANSOZ; SHARIFZADE, M.R.F. AND
POSTINI, K. (2006). Allelopathic effect of
plantago psyllium on germination and growth
stages of four weed species. Iranian J. of
Weed Sci. 2(2), p.13-30.
ROSS, M.A. AND LEMBI, C.A. (2008). Applied
Weed Science. Including the ecology and
management of invasive plants. 3rd Edit. p
13-19.
SADEGHI, S.; RAHNAVARD, A. AND
ASHRAFI, Z.Y. (2010). Response of wheat
(Triticum aestivum) germination and growth
of seedling to allelopathic potential of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.) extracts. J. of
Agric.Tech. 6(3), p.573-577.
SAFDAR, M.E.; ASIF, M.; ALI, A.; AZIZ, A.;
YASIN, M.; AZIZ, M.; AFZAL, M. AND
ALI, A. (2011). Comparative efficacy of
different weed management strategies in
wheat. Chilean J. of agric. Res. 71(2), p.195-
204.
SANCHEZ-BLANCO, M.J.; RODRIGUEZ, P.;
OLMOS, E.; MORALES, M.A. AND
TORRECILLAS, A. (2004). Differences in
the effects of simulated sea aerosol on water
relations, mineral content and ultra-structural
in Cistus albidus and Cistus monspeliensis
plants. J. Environ. Quality. 33, p.1369-1375.
Santos, B.M. (2009). Drip-applied metam
potassium and herbicides as methyl bromide
alternatives for Cyperus control in tomato.
Crop Prot. 28, p.68-71.
SHARMA, N. AND BANDANA (2002).
Chlorophyll and sugar content in wheat
leaves as influenced by isoproturon
application and its relationship with grain
sugar content. Indian J Plant Phys. 7, p.401-
3.
SHEHZAD, M.A.; MAQSOOD, M.; ANWAR-
UL-HAQ, M. AND NIAZ, A. (2012).
Efficacy of various herbicides against weeds
in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). African J.
of Biotechn. 11(4), p.791-799.
SHERAWAT, S.M.; INAYAT, M. AND AHMAD,
M. (2005). Bio-Efficacy of different
graminicides and their effect on the growth
and yield of wheat crop. Inter. J. of Agric.
and Biol. 7(3), p.438-440.
SINGH, H.P.; BATISH, D.R.; KAUR, S.; SETIA,
N. AND KOHLI, R.K. (2005). Effects of 2-
benzoxazolinone on the germination, early
growth and morphogenetic response of mung
bean (Phaseolus aureus). Ann. Appl. Biol.
147, p.267-274.
TANVEER, A.; AYUB, M. AND ALI, A. (1999).
Herbicide application alone and combination
with urea for control of weeds in wheat.
Pakistan J. Biol. Sci. 2, p.1572-4.
TAWAHA, A.M. AND ODAT, N. (2010). Use of
sorghum and maize allelopathic properties to
inhibit germination and growth of wild
barley (Hordeum spontaneum). Not. Bot.
Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 38(3), p. 124-127.
TUNIO, S.D.; KAKA, S.N.; JARWAR, A.D. AND
WAGAN, M.R. (2004). Effect of integrated
weed management practices on wheat. Pak. J.
Agric. Engg. Vet. Sci. 20(1), p.5-10.
WANG, G.; BRONSON, K.F.; THORP, K.R.;
MON, J. AND BADARUDDIN, M. (2014).
Multiple leaf measurements improve
effectiveness of chlorophyll meter for durum
21 Tawfeeq & Ali /ZJPAS: 2016, 28(s6): s1-s21

wheat nitrogen management. Crop Sci.

Society of America. 54, p.817–826.

WU, H.; PRATLEY, J.; LEMERLE, D. AND

HAIG, T. (1999). Crop cultivars with
allelopathic capability. Weed Res. 39, p.171-
180.

ZAND, E.; BAGHESTANI, M.A.; ALIKHANI,

M.A.; SOUFIZADEH, S.; KHAYAMI,
M.A.; AZAR, R.P.; SABETI, P.; JAMALI,
M.; BAGHERANI, N. AND FOUROZESH,
S. (2010). Chemical control of weeds in
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Iran. Crop
Prot. 29, p.1223-1231.