Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 2:13:866793.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.866793. eCollection 2022.

Efficacy of Metribuzin Doses on Physiological, Growth, and Yield Characteristics of Wheat and Its Associated Weeds

Muhammad Mansoor Javaid  1 , Athar Mahmood  2 , Muhammad Izhar Naeem Bhatti  1 , Hasnain Waheed  1 , Kotb Attia  3 , Ahsan Aziz  1 , Muhammad Ather Nadeem  1 , Naeem Khan  4 , Abdullah A Al-Doss  5 , Sajid Fiaz  6 , Xiukang Wang  7
Affiliations

Efficacy of Metribuzin Doses on Physiological, Growth, and Yield Characteristics of Wheat and Its Associated Weeds

Muhammad Mansoor Javaid et al. Front Plant Sci. .

Abstract

Weeds cause a serious constraint to wheat productivity. Chemical weed control is considered the most effective method to control weeds; however, a suitable dose and combination of herbicide with adjuvants play a vital role in controlling weeds and producing maximum wheat production. A field study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of various doses of metribuzin alone or in combination with adjuvants [Bio-power (alkyl ether sulfates and sodium salts) and Ad-500 (fatty alcohol ethoxylate)] on the growth and yield of wheat and its associated weeds. Metribuzin at 175, 140, and 105 g a.i ha-1, each in combination with adjuvants (Bio-power or Ad-500) at 400 ml ha-1, were sprayed. A weedy check was also included as a control treatment. The wheat crop was infested with Fumaria indica, Melilotus indica, Anagallis arvensis, and Phalaris minor, and metribuzin with or without adjuvant was sprayed at two- to four-leaf stage of the weeds. The photosynthetic activity, weed population of each weed, and biomass of each weed was significantly affected by all herbicides along with the adjuvant. However, maximum inhibition of tested weeds was observed where metribuzin at 175 g a.i ha-1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha-1 were sprayed. Metribuzin sprayed at 175 g a.i ha-1 with or without Bio-power recorded a maximum 1,000-grain weight, biological yield, and grain yield. Conclusively, metribuzin sprayed at 175 g a.i ha-1 + Bio-power at 400 at ml ha-1 have the potential to improve wheat yield by inhibiting weed growth, and Bio-power was superior to Ad-500 in improving the efficacy of metribuzin against weeds of wheat crop.

Keywords: adjuvants; herbicide doses; photosynthetic activity; triticum aestivum; weeds control.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Impact of metribuzin with and without adjuvants on net photosynthetic rate (A), transpiration rate (B), and stomatal conductance (C) of wheat at 3, 10, and 17 days after herbicide spray (average of 2 years’ data). T1, weedy check; T2, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1; T3, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1; T4, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1; T5, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T6, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T7, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T8, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T9, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T10, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Impact of metribuzin with and without adjuvants on net photosynthetic rate of Melilotus indica L. (A), Anagallis arvensis L. (B), Phalaris minor L. (C), and Fumaria indica L. (D) at 3, 10, and 17 days after herbicide spray (average of 2 years’ data). T1, weedy check; T2, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1; T3, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1; T4, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1; T5, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T6, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T7, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T8, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T9, Metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T10, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Impact of metribuzin with and without adjuvants on transpiration rate of Melilotus indica L. (A), Anagallis arvensis L. (B), Phalaris minor L. (C), and Fumaria indica L. (D) at 3, 10, and 17 days after herbicide spray (average of 2 years’ data). T1, weedy check; T2, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1; T3, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1; T4, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1; T5, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T6, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T7, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T8, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T9, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T10, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Impact of metribuzin with and without adjuvants on stomatal conductance of Melilotus indica L. (A), Anagallis arvensis L. (B), Phalaris minor L. (C), and Fumaria indica L. (D) at 3, 10, and 17 days after herbicide spray (average of 2 years’ data). T1, weedy check; T2, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1; T3, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1; T4, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1; T5, metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T6, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T7, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Ad-500 at 400 ml ha–1; T8, Metribuzin at 175 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T9, metribuzin at 140 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1; T10, metribuzin at 105 g a.i. ha–1 + Bio-power at 400 ml ha–1.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abbas T., Nadeem M. A., Tanveer A., Matloob A., Zohaib A., Ehsan M., et al. (2018b). Herbicide mixtures and row spacing effects on fenoxaprop resistant Phalaris minor in Wheat. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 20 2737–2744.
    1. Abbas N., Tanveer A., Ahmad T., Amin M. (2018a). Use of adjuvants to optimize the activity of two broad-spectrum herbicides for weed control in wheat. Planta Daninha 36:e018174762.
    1. Agostinetto D., Perboni L., Langaro A., Gomes J., Fraga D., Franco J. (2016). Changes in photosynthesis and oxidative stress in wheat plants submitted to herbicides application. Planta Daninha 34 01–09.
    1. Ahmad R., Shaikh A. S. (2003). Common weeds of wheat and their control. Pak. J. Water Resour. 7 73–76.
    1. Alister C., Kogan M. (2006). ERI: environmental risk index. A simple proposal to select agrochemicals for agricultural use. Crop Protect. 25 202–211. 10.1016/j.cropro.2005.04.006 - DOI