Table 5 Effect of planting geometry, cultivar and non-chemical weed management on cost of cultivation, gross return, net return and B: C ratio.

From: Ecological weed management and square planting influenced the weed management, and crop productivity in direct-seeded rice

Treatment

Cost of cultivation (US$ ha−1)

Gross return (US$ ha−1)

Net return (US$ ha−1)

Benefit: cost ratio

Planting geometry (PG)

 PN

600.55

1124.69 b*

524.14 b

1.87 b

 PS

591.47

1212.45 a

620.98 a

2.05 a

 P value

–

0.0355**

0.0373

0.0200

Cultivar (CV)

 Arize 6444

594.44

1225.14 a

630.70 a

2.06 a

 PHB71

594.44

1112.00 b

517.56 b

1.87 b

 P value

–

0.0050

0.0045

0.0043

Weed management (WM)

 WC

459.46

627.80 d

168.34 c

1.37 c

 HH + WH

547.22

1398.26 a

851.03 a

2.56 a

 HH + SC

510.15

1352.32 a

842.17 a

2.65 a

 HH + MR4

700.00

1176.99 c

477.00 b

1.68 b

 HH + MR6

763.22

1287.48 b

524.26 b

1.69 b

 P value

–

 < 0.0001

 < 0.0001

 < 0.0001

P value (Interaction)

 PG × CV

–

0.1080

0.1165

0.1287

 PG × WM

–

0.0423

0.0423

0.0026

 Cv × WM

–

0.1565

0.1564

0.0791

 PG × CV × WM

–

0.9753

0.9752

0.9939

 Year

–

0.8717

0.8810

0.8623

  1. *Means with different alphabets are significant (p < 0.05). DAS, days after sowing. PN, sowing with seed drill at 18.5 cm row spacing; PS, square planting at 25 cm × 25 cm row to row and plant to plant spacing; WC, weedy check (no weed management); HH + WH, one hand hoeing at 12 DAS fb one hand weeding at 30 DAS; HH + SC, one hand hoeing at 12 DAS fb S. aculeata co-culture and mulched 45 DAS; HH + MR4, one hand hoeing at 12 DAS fb rice residue mulching @ 4 t ha−1; HH + MR6, one hand hoeing at 12 DAS fb rice residue mulching @ 6 t ha−1.
  2. **Bold P values are significant.
Back to article page