Introduction

Greengram is the third most important pulse crop in India. It is the cheapest source of dietary protein. It is consumed in various forms as whole or split, husked and unhusked. It is rich in protein, carbohydrates, fat, amino acids, and vitamins, and also provides a large quantity of green fodder which serves as the nutrition food for the livestock. It can be grown in all seasons of the year. Green gram improves soil health and maintains its environment. Hence it can be grown as a sole crop, intercrop, mixed crop and in sequential cropping systems.

Among the various factors responsible for poor yield in green gram is an inadequate weed control measure. Weed infestation is one of the major constraints in green gram cultivation and causes 50 to 90% yield loss [24]. Competition with the weeds leads to 30 to 80% reduction in grain yield of green gram during summer and kharifseasons while 70-80% during Rabi season respectively [3]. Weed control is one of the essential agronomic measures to exploit the maximum yield potential of newly developed high yielding varieties [44] reported that the weed infestation if not checked within 20 DAS there would be a severe yield reduction to an extent of 38 per cent in contrast to 20 per cent yield reduction with unchecked weed infestation till 20 DAS in green gram. The traditional practice of hand weeding requires dependence on the increased number of labor duringthe peak period of sowing and harvesting which becoming expensive [57]. However weeding through implements i.e., themechanical way is economical and time saving; it is not satisfactory in a broadcast or mixed cropped area.

For effective and timely weed control in crop plants, use of herbicides with proper liable techniques has become a common practice. A higher rate of herbicides may leave residue [14] to succeeding crops. The use of herbicides in conjunction with cultural practices or other practices would make complete control of weeds and will be acceptable by the poor farmer [5]. Hence, the development of integrated weed management is economically viable as well as ecologically safe for effective weed control and enhances the productivity of green gram.

Common weed spectrum in greengram field

Weed flora in greengram crops differs from region to region with soil conditions. Generally, weeds are found in larger numbers with a more aggressive nature, because of their wider adaptability even under extremities of climate, edaphic and biotic stresses. The high persistence nature of weeds is attributed to their ability of high seed production and seed viability. One should have good knowledge about the persisting weed flora for better management to gain more yield. The information on the weed spectrum of green gram fields is essential for the formulation of effective weed control strategies. The major weed flora found in greengram under sandy loam soil of Rajendranagar, Andhra Pradesh were Cynodon dactylon, Dactyloctenium aegyptium, Celotia argentia, sedges viz. Cyperus rotundus and broad-leaved weeds viz. Digera arvensis, Trianthema portulacastrum, Commelina bengalensis, Parthenium hysterphorus, Euphorbia hirta, Hemidismus indica [34]. Similarly, in the sandy loam soil of Naida (West Bengal), the experimental field was dominated by following weed flora such as Ageratum conyzoids, Boreria hispida, Commelina banghalensis, Echinochloa colona, Cynodon dactylon, Paspalum scrobiculatum, Digiteria sanguinalis andCyperus rotundus [53].

In the deep black soils of Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat) the weed flora consisted of Cyperus rotundus, Echinochloa crusgalli, Digitaria sanguinalist, Sorghum halepense, Cynodon dactylon, Amaranthus viridis, Alternanthera sessillis, Digera arvensiss and Convolvulus arvensis. In medium black soil of Junagarh, GujuratPanicumcolonumL., CynodondactylonL., CyperusrotundusL., DigeraarvensisForsk, Euphorbia hirtaL., Leucas aspera Spreng., Phyllanthus niruri L., Portulaca oleraceaL., Indigoflora glandulosaL., Phyllanthus niruri L. were found [8].

                     Under clay loam soil of Dharwad, Karnataka; broad leaved weeds (BLW) like igera arvensis Forsk, Amaranthus viridisL., Commelina benghalensisL., Cyanotis cucullataL., Phyllanthus niruriL., and Argemonemexicana; grasses like Brachiaria eruciformisL., Cynodon dactylonL., Digitaria sanguinalisL. and Dinebra retroflexaL., and sedge Cyperus rotundusL. are dominant [46]. Amaranthus spinosus, Digera    arvensis,                     Trianthema portulacastrum, Gisekiaporedious, Euphorbia hirta, Aristidadepressa, Portulaca oleracea, Cenchrus biflorus, Cleome viscosa, Tribulus terrestris, Corchorus tridense, Cyperus rotundus, Eleusine verticillata, and Aervato mentosawere the dominant species under loamy sandy soil of Bikaner, Rajasthan [22]. In sandy loam soils of Ludhiana, Punjab Cyperus rotundus and Trianthema portulacastrumwas the major weed flora found in summer green gram [18].

Crop weed competition

The life cycle of most weeds coincides with that of the crop they invade, thus ensuring the mixing of their seed with those of the crops [29]. Due to diversity, weeds are a major threat to agriculture and they out-compete crops for natural resource utilization [8]. Crop weed competition has been established as a major limiting factor for its low productivity causing yield reductions to the extent of 40 to 80 per cent depending upon the type and density of weed species present in the field.

Weeds, being naturally hardy and emerging faster, cause severe competition at an early stage of the crop in respect of light, nutrients, water, and space reflecting in a considerable reduction in crop yield. Thus, it becomes essential to study crop-weed competition scientifically and how it can be reduced to the maximum [38]. Crop need a weed free period of the first 30 days, as the crop is short stature and suffers badly if weeds are not controlled at early stage [31]. Weed competition with mungbean persisting for 20-30 days after emergence was very critical and prolonged competition resulted in substantial yield reduction [33].

Weed competition is very severe during the rainy period, particularly at the early stages (30 to 45 days after sowing) of the legume crops and hence early weed control is essential [2].

The initial 45 day period is considered to be a critical period concerning crop weed competition in green gram [49]. In general, competition between crops and weeds was more severe when the competing plants have similar vegetative habits and demands upon resources.

 

Effect of weed management on Grain yield

Weeds compete with crop plants for all the resources required for growth like space, water, sunlight and air, and cause a reduction in crop yield. Depending on weed type and crop weed competition, it reduces crop yield up to 96.5%  [55], whereas the loss of mung bean yield due to weeds ranges from 65.4 to 79.0% [13]. Weed competition reduces the grain yield of summer green gram by 34.9% during the initial first 30 days after sowing, thereafter it increases to 49.15% [49]. The Competition with the weeds throughout the crop season reduced the seed yield of mungbean by 83.3%  [30]. The weeds infestation if not checked after 20 DAS, severe yield reduction to the extent of 38 per cent was recorded in contrast to 20 per cent yield reduction with unchecked weed infestation till 20 DAS.

Nutrients

Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) are the primary plant nutrients required for plant growth. When crop growth is interfered by weed growth, it reduced the nutrient utilization of crop plants. In general, weeds have a larger nutrient requirement and will absorb as much or more than the crop. In the same way, the adoption of weed  management practices significantly enhanced NPK uptake by the green gram and reduced removal of nutrients by weeds as compared to that of unweeded checks [8]. Weeds removed 61.9, 12.1, and 51.3 kg/ha of N, P₂O₅ and K₂O kg/ha respectively in weedy plots [22]. [51] reported that decreased nutrients uptake by the crop was noticed with an increase in severity and duration of weed infestation.

Quality of grain

A heavy infestation of weeds hampers not only the growth and yield as well as infest the quality of the pod or seed. The protein content of green gram is significantly influenced by weed management practices. Unweeded check reduced the protein content to 18.26 in greengram  [8] compared to the adoption of two hand weeding and two intercultural at 20 DAS & 40 DAS (22.15%) and oxyfluorfen @ 0.180 kg/ha + 1 hand weeding at 30 DAS (21.87%). The experiment laid out on summer mungbean at Pantnagar (Uttaranchal) and noted that protein content was significantly higher in weed free plots and the lowest in the weedy check plot. Harmoniously, the weed species are affecting the quality of pod size and seed due to the long time presence of weed growth and also reducing the market value of produces [12]. Thus, weed flora as well as the weed population in unweeded control plots affected the quality adversely.

Weed management strategies in greengram

Weed free crop situation has created a stable place to crop for getting effective growth in environmental circumstances. Besides causing crop losses, weeds are also responsible for reducing crop quality, nutrient status of soil, etc. The weeds can be checked by adopting various methods like eco-physical, biological, chemical and recently through combining direct and indirect approaches i.e. integrated weed management. Wherever, select the weed control techniques based on the economic threshold levels of weed growth for providing weed free competition and also reduce the environmental biodiversity [1].

Manual Methods

In India, weeds are controlled mostly either manually or mechanically in green gram. Manual weed control techniques manage weed populations through physical methods that remove, injure, kill, or make the growing conditions unfavorable. Hand weeding at 20-25 DAS and followed by another weeding at 12-15 DAS interval up to 50-55 days of the crop. One of the important methods of hand weeding by hoe is effectively controlling the weed species, especially Cyperus rotundusin the inter row spaces of a line sown crop. This method might proovide good physical and environmental conditions to crop growth by way of soil aeration through the stirring of the soil. Still, now, this method could be effective for eliminating weeds, particularly annual and biennial weeds in cropped and non-cropped situations. Hand weeding at 20, 30 and 40 DAS reduced weed infestation most efficiently throughout the growing period of the crop and as a consequence, it produced the highest seed yield of summer green gram [9].

Hand weeding at 20 and 30 DAS and hand hoeing at 20 and 30 DAS enhanced the yield of greengram by 3.4%, 3.6% over the weedy check  [7].[37] reported that at Akola, Maharashtra, hand weeding + 1 hoeing increased the grain yield by 68.9% over control. Removal of weeds using inteculturing and hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS reduced the weed population, dry weight of weeds and improved the weed control efficiency, yield attributes, yield and protein content in greengram. For all that, lower weed biomass, lesser weed density, weed index and weed control efficiency were observed with hand weeding followed by mechanical weeding in both greengram and blackgram [54].

Mechanical Methods

In the recent past, weed control is affected more by chemical means supplemented by mechanical weeding. Increasing demand for labor and escalating cost of agro-chemicals together with phytotoxicity effects pose the farming community to think of mechanical measures, which will help crop production to free itself from the scourge of weed menace with limited labor [17]. Mechanicalweedingcanbedonebyunskilledlabourandisgenerally economical, non-polluting without residual problems, and is relatively safe to the operator.

In the past, there were no mechanical weeders to fight this enemy and the farmer had to use his hands to pull them out. Manual weeding is laborious, back breaking and time consuming and hence efficient mechanical weeders are being developed for weeding operations and help to obtain expected yields from the farm. Although it has undergone a spectacular advancement, to use of simple weeders with hand weeding and it would be easily opertaed, economically more effective in controlling the weed flora and led to anincrease the productivity of crops. Rotary weeder was effective in controlling weeds present in inter-row space, but failed to control the weeds in intra-row space or those in the vicinity of the crop [10]. Similarly  [28], the use of improved weeders increased yield from 169.5 per cent to 329.6 per cent over control.

Mechanical control of weed controls because of  physical changes in the immediate environment may cause positive or negative effects. The suppression of the targeted weeds will open niches in the environment and may also stimulate the growth of other weeds by decreasing their competition and making their environment more favorable. If a desirable plant does not fill the niches, it will eventually be taken over by another weed.

Cultural Methods

Weed control is one of the most important objectives of cultural operations. Following proper cultural operations is more than half the weed control envisaged on a farm. While directly it includes a healthy growth of crops, indirectly it maintains a crop environment that is detrimental to weeds. Among the crop management practices, the method of planting plays a major role in controlling weeds. The reduction of  E. Colona in bed planting of green gram may be due to more foliage growth of bed planted green gram which caused hindrance in the germination of weeds and deeper burial of weed seeds during the formation of raised beds.

Munching can suppress weeds, due to delayed emergence and smothering effect on weeds, especially on broad leaves as compared to grassy weeds  [40]. In green gram, dust mulching significantly reduced the weed dry weight and density which resulted in more uptake of nutrients by the crop and finally increased the yield  [56]. Besides various methods of weed control. A good crop cover by adopting right inter-row and intra-row spacing will smother the growth of the weeds.

Chemical Methods

Hand and mechanical control methods are used on a large scale but, cost is very high, unfavorable weather and soil conditions and also the labors are not available at the proper time. The chemical control of weeds is found to be effective and economical in the initial stages of growth. The use of herbicides has gained impetus from the general rise in farm wages for consistently increasing the economic levels of farms as well as providing non-farm employment opportunities, and drastically use of herbicide as a result of rising opportunity costs of labor across the developing world [2]. Effective weed control depends on the proper selection of herbicides, type of weed flora infesting the crop, the time of application, and further use of the optimum dose of herbicide  [11].

Pre emergence herbicide

Pre emergence herbicide is preferred because of its better efficiency along with time involvement. Also, it causes no mechanical damage to the crop that happens during manual weeding [32]. Pre-emergence herbicides are applied one or two days after the sowing of a crop but before the emergence of crop. Major pre-emergence herbicides viz., Pendimethalin, Oxyfluorfen, Fluchloralin, Clethodium, Terbutryn, etc are used to control the germination of weeds in green gram at early stages.

Application of pendimethalin as pre emergence @1.5 kg/ha along with hand weeding at 30 DAS observed maximum weed control efficiency leading to an increase the productivity of greengram [7]. In the same way, pre emergence application of pendimethalin at 1.50 kg/ha in combination with raised seed bed and ridge planting was effective to control Polygonum alatu and Ageratum conyzoides [23]. Pre emergence application of pendimethalin @ 1.00 kg/ha or imazethapyr 100 g/ha in green gram reduced weed density and dry weight [27]. The pendimethalin was ineffective against sedges and lost its efficacy after 20 days of application against grasses and broad leaves. Application of pendimethalin + imazethapyr provided effective control of all the grass weeds and created weed free conditions till the first 40 days of sowing  [19]. Glyphosate spraying on zero tillage condition at 7 days before sowing plus one hand weeding at 25 days after emergence would be economic for mungbean production, besides reducing the density of Echinochloa crusgalli, Digitaria sangunalis and Cyperus rotundus [21].

Post emergence herbicides

The use of post-emergence herbicides alone or in combination may broaden the window of weed management through broad spectrum weed control [35]. Recently, some new post emergence herbicides viz. Imazethapyr, Acifluorfen sodium and Clodinafoppropargyl, Quizalofop ethyl, Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, Cyhalofop-butyl etc. are being marketed with the assurance of selective control of weeds in green gram.

The imazethapyr allows much flexibility in the timing of the applications. Imazethapyr may be applied as pre-plant initiation, pre-emergence or as post-emergences [59]. Although, [43] application of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl @ 60 g/ha effectively controlled the predominant weeds like Echinocloa colonum and Paspalum distichum and recorded significantly lower weed dry matter and higher grain yield.

Application of quizalofop-ethyl @ 0.040 kg/ha (WCE 36.70 percent) was most effective in controlling weeds followed by fenoxaprop-p-ethyl @ 0.075 kg/ha (WCE 36.70 percent)  [8]. Similarly, the application of Quizalofop-p-ethyl @ 50 g a.i. ha^-1 at 21 DAE + hand weeding at 28 DAE recorded lower dry weight of grasses and sedges [25]. The combinations of Haloxyfop-p-methyl at 135 g/ha + Imazethapyr at g/ha, and Quizalofop ethyl at 50 g/ha + Imazethapyr at 75 g/ha were applied at 12-15 days after sowing of a green gram as an early post emergence can be recommended for weed control in green gram [39]. The maximum weed control efficiency was recorded under Imazethapyr 200 g/ha (89.26 per cent) and Imazethapyr 100 g/ha (83.65 per cent) and higher weed smothering and higher yield of green gram  [45]. Pendimethalin 0.75kg/ha as pre emergence + imazethapyr + imazamox 40 g/ha at 30 DAS as a post-emergence application in summer green gram reduced weed density and weed dry weight [22]. The post emergence application of imazethapyr at0.075 kg/ ha applied 20-25 days after sowing was the most remunerative and effective herbicide for controlling the complex weed flora in mungbean  [20]. Similarly, post  emergence application of Imazethapyr @ 100 g ha^-1 with raised panting of green gram recorded maximum weed control efficiency  [58]. Under constraints of labor availability, maximum yield, net profit and effective weed control in green gram crop can be achieved with the application of Imazethapyr or Quizalofop-p- ethyl 100 g/ha 15-20 days after sowing was reported [4]. However, [26] reported that imazethapyr at 75 g/ha was effective against both monocot and dicot weeds and was at par with one  hand weeding at 20 DAS, however, it was more effective against grassy weeds. If enhanced the grain yield by 45.3 per cent over the weedy check.

Integrated weed management strategies

Nowadays, various weed control methods were found to be effective in controlling weeds in greengram, and also its each other methods have their own merits and demerits based on resource availability or environmental condition. However, efficient and cost-effective weed control can be achieved by using either a combination of herbicides or combining herbicides alone or any one of the weed control methods may not control the weeds effectively. In such conditions, an integrated weed management (IWM) practice involving both chemical and other agronomic manipulation may be an efficient tool, as increasing crop density seems to be an alternative to shift crop weed competition in favor of crop.

An integrated weed management practice involving both chemical and other agronomic manipulation may be an efficient tool, as increasing crop density seems to be an alternative to shift crop weed competition in favor of crop [47].

In general, sequence application of weed control methods like pre emergence herbicide prevents or kill the germinated weed seeds and further vigour weed growth was controlled by hand weeding for superior methods than the individual application of other control methods of weeds [42]. Initial pre emergence application of pendimethalin @ 1 kg a.i./ha and followed by one manual weeding minimize total weed density throughout the crop growth period and produces maximum yield [55]. In the same way, the application of quizalofop-p-ethyl @ 50 g a.i. ha^-1 at 21 DAE and followed by one hand weeding at 28 DAE produced the highest yield attributes, seed yield and benefit: cost ratio in mungbean cultivation compared with the application of herbicide alone [25]. Application  ofoxyfluorfen 0.180 kg/ha followed by one hand weeding at 30 DAS significantly superior in reducing the density of monocot and dicot weeds [8]. Application of pre emergence herbicides as pendimethalin (1.00 kg/ha) or oxyfluorfen (0.18 kg/ha) followed by mechanical weeding (hand weed + inter cultivation or two hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS respectively) creating a better weed free situation and also provides economically safe to farmers [6]. Crop grown under line sowing with the application of quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha recorded lowest weed dry weight followed by the broad bed method and ridge method. However,  pre-mix application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin (1000 g/ha) or imazethapyr + imazamox (pre-mix) 70 g/ha reduced total weed population by 63.2 and 62.3 per cent, respectively so given as better performance of the  combination of herbicides might be due to synergistic effect between the two herbicides reducing the population as well as dry matter accumulation of different weed species [42].

Regulation of various weed control methods should be such that they give a competitive edge to crop over weeds. The continuing dependence on a single method of weed control leads to shift of weed flora in favour of more tolerant and difficult to control species and to tackle this problem, there is a need to adopt integrated weed management practices. The rising cost of labour and input will wipe out the profits of farmers unless an integrated approach with the focused attention of ecology and herbicides is adopted.

Conclusion

The above stated review results reveal that, weeds have to be controlled for successful crop production. Significant crop losses due to weeds are simply not acceptable in a world where two billions more people will have to be fed in the next 40 years. Based on the resource available to have to adopt  the best suitable weed control strategies like cultural control, mechanical methods, Herbicide adoption and integrated approaches or indivual, will significantly decrease the weeds, which will lead to even greater yields. Finally, integrated weed management is the key to sustainable crop production throughout the world and will remain the mainstay for weed control for the foreseeablefuture.

Future Scope of the study

Weeds are the most important biotic constraints to agricultural production in both developing and developed countries. To develop effective and sustainable weed management tactics, knowledge of weed biology and ecology is very important. Challenges confronted by the weed researchers are many and multi-pronged with limited opportunities requiring a concerted and multi-disciplinary effort to tackle the future weed problems. Some of the important emerging areas which require intensified and in depth research efforts are the effect of global climate change on crop-weed interactions, protocol development for weed risk analysis, weed management in precision as well as organic agriculture, herbicide tolerant crops (HTCs), and use of remote sensing techniques in weed management and variable rate technology for herbicide application. Proper weed management technologies can result in an additional income of Rs. 1,05,036 crores per annum prorate, which can increase the share of agriculture in India’s GDP by 15%. Thus, the increase in agricultural productivity will eventually result in significantly increasing the country’s overall GDP and its growth rate. The socio-economic status of the farming community especially the rural poor will improve. Our environment will be clean and native biodiversity will be preserved. At the end, proper weed management would strengthen the food security scenario and also alleviate the fears of food insecurity in the country by resulting in significantly increased food production.

Acknowledgement

It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to the director for the deeper knowledge and support towards inscribing this dissertation. I also felt elated to express my bountiful thanks to those who directly or indirectly helped me in the successful completion of this study. A special thanks goes out to the editorial team for finding interest in the present study and publishing the work.

Conflict of interest: Nil

Reference

[1.] Adpawar BS, Karunakar AP, Parlawar ND, ChavhanKR. Effect of weed management practices on productivity of blackgram. Research on Crops. 2011;12(1):99-102.

[2.] Aktar S, Hossain MA, Amin MR, Khatun F, Begum A. Efficacy of herbicides in controlling weeds in Mungbean (VignaradiataL. Wilczek) Field. The Agriculturists, 2015;13(1):127-132.

[3.] Algotar SG, Raj VC, Pate DD, Patel DK. Integrated weed management in greengram, Paper presented at 25th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference on Weed Science for Sustainable Agriculture, Environment and Biodiversity, Hyderabad, India during  13-16 October,2015.

[4.] Ali S, Patel JC, Desai LJ, Singh J. Effect of herbicides on weeds and yield of rainy season Greengram (VignaradiataL. Wilczek). Legume Res., 2011;34(4):300-303.

[5.] Ayansina ADV, Ogunshe AAO, Fagade OE. Proceedings of 11th Annual National Conference of Environment and Behaviour Association of Nigeria, 2003;26-27.

[6.] Balyan JK, Choudhary RS, Kumpawat BS, Choudhary R. Weed management in blackgram under rainfed conditions. Indian    Journal    of    Weed     Science. 2016;48(2):173-177.

[7.] Chaudhari VD, Desai LJ, Chaudhari SN, Chaudhari PR. Effects of weed management on weeds, growth and yields of summer green gram [VignaradiataL.]. The Bioscan, 2016;11(1):531-534.

[8.] Chhodavadia SK, Mathukiya RK, Dobariya VK. Pre- and post-emergence herbicides for integrated weed management in summer green gram. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2013;45(2):137-139.

[9.] Chhodavadia SK, Sagarka BK, Gohil BS. Integrated management for improved weed suppressionin summer greengram (VignaradiataL. Wilczek), The Bioscan, 2014; 45(2):137-139.

[10.] Choubey NK, Tripathi RS, Ghosh BC, Kolhe SS. Effect of water and weed management practices on weed  growth and performance of transplanted rice. Oryza, 1998;35:252-255.

[11.] Chum MUKTA, Batish DR, Singh HP, KohliRK. Comparative phytotoxicity of some benzoxazinoids on the early growth  of  selected  weeds. The  Bioscan,  2010;5(4):537-540.

[12.] Devi D. Weed management in groundnut. In: Groundnut Research in India by Basu MS and Singh NB. 2004; 248- 259.

[13.] Dungarwal HS, Chalot PC, Nagda BL. Chemical weed control in mungbean (Pheseolus radiates L.). Indian J Weed Science. 2003;35(3-4):283-284.

[14.] Fand BB, Suroshe SS, Gautam RD. Fortuitous biological control of insect pests and weeds: a critical review. The Bioscan, 2013;8(1):1-10.

[15.] Gelot DG, Patel DM, Patel KM, Patel IM, Patel FN, Parmar AT. Effect of integrated weed management on weed control and yield of summer green gram (VignaradiataL. wilczek). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(1):324-327.

[16.] Hossain MM. Recent perspective of herbicide: Review of demand and adoption in world agriculture. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University. 2015; 13(452-2016- 35850):13-24.

[17.] Kathiresan RM. Weed management in rice-blackgram cropping system. Indian J Weed Sci. 2002; 34(3):220- 226.

[18.] Kaur G, Brar HS, Singh G. Effect of Weed Managementon Weeds, Growth and Yield of Summer Mungbean [Vignaradiata(L.) R. Wilczek]. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2009;41(3&4):228-231.

[19.] Kaur S, Kaur T, Makhan SB. Imidazolinoneherbicidesfor weed control in greengram. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2016;48(1):37-39.

[20.] Khairnar CB, Goud VV, Sethi HN. Pre and post emergence herbicides for weed management in mungbean. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2014; 46(4):392-395.

[21.] KhanMSA,RahmanMT,BegumS,KakonSS,Ahmed F. Effect of different weed management methods on growth and yield of mungbean. Bangladesh J Weed Sci. 2014; 4&5:7-12.

[22.] Komal SP, Singh RS Yadav. Effect of weed management on growth, yield and nutrient uptake of greengram,  Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2015;47(2):206-210.

[23.] Kumar S, Angiras NN. Efficacy of pendimethalin under different planting methods of blackgram (Vignamungo). Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2005;37(3&4):216-219.

[24.] Kumar A, Malik YP, Yadav A. Weed management in mungbean. Journal of Research. 2006;36(2):127-29.

[25.] Kundu R, Bera PS, Brahmachari K. Effect of different weed management practices in summer mungbean [VignaradiataL.] under new alluvial zone of West Bengal, Journal of Crop and Weed. 2009;5(2):117-121.

[26.] Kushwah SS, Vyas MD. Herbicidal weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2005;50(3):225-227.

[27.] Leva RL, Vaghasiya HY, Patel RV. Combined effect of herbicides and cultural methods of weed control on growthandyieldofsummergreengram(VignaradiataL. Wilczek)  under  south  Gujarat  condition. IJCS.2018;6(4):2348-2352.

[28.] Lidhoo CK. Evaluation of weeding tools for dryland crops. Journal of Research. SKUAST-J. 2004; 3(1):78- 85.

[29.] Mahroof K, Satish K, Hamal IA. Diversity of weed associated with rabi and kharif crops of sewa river catchment area in the north west Himalaya. The Bioscan. 2009;4(3):437-440.

[30.] Mishra JS, Singh VP, Bhan VM. Crop-weed competition studies in French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Protection Quarterly, 2000;15(3):90-91.

[31.] Mirjha PR, Prasad SK, Singh MK, Parikh HR, Patel S, Majumdar M. Effect of weed control measures on weeds, nodulation, growth and yield of mungbean. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2013;58(4):615-17.

[32.] Murti R, Khan AK, Vaishya RD, Pankaj Kumar Yadav. Effect of some dinitroaniline herbicides on growth, nodulation, chlorophyll content and nitrate reductaseactivity of urdbean [Vignamungo(L.) Hepper] crop. Indian J Weed Sci. 2004;36(1&2):124-126.

[32.] Naeem M, Ahmed S. Critical period of weed competition with the growth of mungbean. Pakistan J Biol. Sci. 1990; 2(4):1608-1610.

[33.] Nagender T, Srinivas A, Leela RP, Narender P. Evaluation of efficacy of different pre and post emergence herbicides for efficient weed control in green gram (VignaradiataL.). Environment and ecology. 2016;35(1B):595-600.

[34.] Nirala H, Sonit A, Rathore AL. Post-emergence herbicides for weed control in blackgram. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2016;48(1):76-78.

[35.] Pal D, Dwivedi A, Singh R, Kumar K, Singh A, Tomar SS. Integrated Effect of Land Configurations and Weed Management Regimes on Weed Dynamics and Performance of Urdbean (VignamungoL. Hepper) in an Alluvial Soil. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015;8(11):53266.

[36.] Patil DB, Murade NB, Dhavan SP, Jagtap, Chopade MB. Efficacy of post emergence herbicides on yield ofgreen gram (VignaradiataL.). Bioinfolet. 2014; 11(2C):720- 721.

[37.] Phajage SK. Response of summer blackgram (PhaseolusmungoL.) to dates of sowing and weed management and their residual effect on succeeding kharif fodder sorghum (Sorghum  bicolarL.)   under   south   Gujarat conditions (Doctoral dissertation, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari),2014.

[38.] Poornima S, Siva Lakshmi Y, Ram Prakash T, SrinivasA, Venkata Krishnan L. Nodulation, Leghemoglobin Content and Yield of Greengram as Influenced by New Generation Early Post Emergence Herbicide Combinations. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017; 6(12):2134- 2137.

[39.] Radwan SMA, Hussein HF. Response of onion plant and associated weed to biofertilizer under some plant mulches. Annals of Agricultural Research. 2001; 46(2):543.

[40.] Rao AS. Evaluation of post-emergence herbicides of Cuscuta control in blackgram. The Andhra Agric. J 2001; 57(3):290-291.

[41.] Rao AS, Rao GS, Ratnam M. Bio-efficacy of sand mix application of pre-emergence herbicides alone and in sequence with imazethapyr on weed control in relaycropofblackgram. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 2010;16(3):279-285.

[42.] Reddy CN, Reddy MD, Devi MP. Evaluation of fenoxyprop-P-ethyl and ethoxysulfuron in transplanted rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2000; 32(1/2):105- 107.

[43.] Sheoran P, Singh S, Sardana V, Bawa SS. Studies on Critical Period of Crop-Weed Competition in Green Gram in Kandi Region of Punjab. Indian Journal of Dryland  Agricultural  Research  and  Development. 2008;23(1):19-22.

[44.] Shivran OP, Singh MK, Singh NK. Weed flora dynamics and growth response of green gram (Vignaradiata(L.)R. Wilczek) under varied agri-horti system and weed management practices.Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2017; 9(3):1848-1853.

[45.] Shruthi GK, Salakinkop SR. Efficacy of sequential application of pre and post-emergent herbicides in kharif green gram (VignaradiataL.). Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2015;28:155-159.

[46.] Shweta, Singh VK. Integrated weed management in urdbean during Kharif season. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2005;37(1&2):121-122.

[47.] Singh S, Sheoran P. Studies on integrated weed management practices in rainfed maize under submontaneous conditions. Indian Journal of DrylandAgricultural Research and Development. 2008;23(2):6-9.

 [48.] Singh AN, Singh S, Bhan VM, Singh S. Crop weeds competition in summer greengram (Phaseolusradiatus). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 1996;41(4):616-619.

[49.] Singh Rajiv Kumar, Singh RK, Verma A, Singh DK. Effect of weed management practices on yield of green gram (VignaradiataL.) and weed population under guava based agri-horticultural system in Vindhya region. Environment and ecology, 2015;33(4B):1932-1935.

[50.] Stoimenova I. Nutrient element in the above ground biomass of soybean grown in a pure stand or mixture with Echinochloacrusgalli. RastenievdniNauki, 1995; 32:42-44.

[51.] Sumachandrika D, Venkateswarlu B, Subbaaiah G, Swarajyalaxmi G. Relative efficiency of soil solarization and herbicide for weed control in kharifblackgram. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2003;35:139.

[52.] Tamang D, Nath R, Sengupta K. Effect of Herbicide Application on Weed Management in Green Gram  [Vignaradiata(L.) Wilczek]. Adv Crop Sci Tech. 2015; 3:163.

[53.] Veeraputhiran R. Effect of mechanical weeding on weed infestation and yield of irrigated black gram and green gram. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2009; 41(1&2):75-77.

[54.] Verma SK, Singh SB, Meena RN, Prasad SK, Meena RS, Gaurav. A review of weed management in India: The need of new directions for sustainable agriculture. The Bioscan. 2015;10(1):253-263.

[55.] Verma SK, Singh SB, Rai OP, Singh G. Effect of mulching and irrigation on weeds and yield of summer greengram. Indian Journal of Agricultural  Sciences. 2008;78(12):1082-85.

[56.] Vivek NS, Rana RS, Tomar SS. Effect of weed interference on weeds and productivity of black gram (Phaseolusmungo). Indian J Weed Sci. 2008;40:65-7.

[57.] Yadav R, Kumar S, Dhaka AK, Kumar N. Effect of planting methods and weed management practices on yield of green gram {Vignaradiata(L.) R.Wilczek},weed dynamics visphytotoxicity in green gram. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2019; 53(2):158-164. [58.] York AC, Wilcut JW, Swann CW, Jordan DL, Walls FR. Efficacy of imazethapyr in peanut (Arachishypogaea) as affected by time of application. Weed Science, 1995; 43(1):107-116.