weed management in cereal based cropping system

2. Seminar – I
on
Shashikumar, E.
PGS16AGR7102
Jr. M.Sc.(Agri.)
INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT IN
CEREAL BASED CrOPPING SYSTEM
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY

3. Sequence of Presentation
 Introduction
 Research studies
– Integrated weed management in rice, maize, sorghum
and pearl millet based cropping systems
 Conclusion
 Future line of work

4. Why Integrated Weed Management …..??
 One method of weed control may be effective and economical in a situation and it
may not be so in other situation.
 No single herbicide is effective in controlling wide range of weed flora
 Continuous use of same herbicide creates resistance in weed flora or causes shift in
the flora.
 In Rice –wheat cropping system – Phalaris minor developed resistance against
isoproturon
 Only one method of weed control may lead to increase in population of particular
weed.
 Indiscriminate herbicide use and its effects on the environment and human health
 The continuous use of the same method leads to build up of tolerant weeds.
Therefore, the suitable combination of different methods of weed control or
integrated weed management (System Approach) should be practiced for
minimizing the losses caused by weeds in different crops and also for protection of
the environment.

5. Integrated weed management
• An integrated weed management (IWM) may be defined as the combination
of two or more weed-control methods at low input levels to reduce weed
competition in a given cropping system below the economical threshold
level.
• IWM involves the utilization of a combination of mechanical, chemical and
cultural practices of weed management in a planned sequence, so designed
as not to affect the ecosystem
• Integrated Weed Management (IWM) approach aims at minimizing the
residue problem in plant, soil, air and water.

6. Some of the potent considerations that determine the
success for the exploitation of the IWM approach
 The nature and intensity of the species to be controlled
 The sequence of crops that are raised in the rotation
 The standard of crop husbandry
 The ready and timely availability of any method
 The economics of different weed-management techniques

7. COMPONENTS OF IWM

8. CROPPING SYSTEM
• Cropping system is a critical aspect in developing an
effective ecological farming system to manage and
organize crops so that they best utilize the available
resources. (soil, air, sunlight, water, labor,
equipments)
• It represents cropping patterns used on a farm and
their interaction with farm resources and farm
enterprises and available technology which determine
their makeup. It is executed in the field level.

9. Basic principles of Cropping systems
 Choose the crop that complement to each other.
 Choose crops and a cropping rotation which utilize available
resources efficiently.
 Choose crops and a cropping system that maintain and enhance
soil fertility.
 Choose crops which have a diversity of growth cycles.
 Choose a diverse species of crops.
 Keep the soil covered.
 Strategically plan and modify cropping system as needed.

10. Major Cropping Systems in India
Rice – wheat (10.5 m ha)
Rice – rice (5.89 m ha)
Cotton – wheat (1.09 m ha)
Soybean – wheat (2.23 m ha)
Maize – wheat (1.86 m ha)
P. millet - wheat (2.26 m ha)

11. Major Rice Based cropping pattern
• Rice -Rice- Rice
• Rice- Rice - Cereals other than rice
• Rice –Rice-pulses
• Rice -Groundnut
• Rice - wheat
• Rice -wheat - pulses
• Rice- Toria - wheat

12. Agro climatic region Cropping systems
Irrigated Rainfed
1. Western Himalayan region Maize-Potato-Wheat Maize-Mustard
2. Eastern Himalayan region Maize-Maize Sesame-Rice-Maize
3. Lower Gangetic plain region Jute-Rice-Maize Rice-Maize
4. Middle Gangetic plain region Maize-Wheat Maize-Wheat
5. Upper Gangetic plain region Maize-Wheat-Mungbean Maize-Wheat
6. Trans Gangetic plain region Maize-Wheat-Mungbean Maize-Wheat
7. Eastern plateau and hills region Maize-Wheat-Vegetables Rice-Potato-Maize
8. Southern plateau and hills region Maize-Rice Sorghum-Maize
9. East coast plain and hills region Maize-Rice Rice-Maize
10. West coast plainand hills region Rice-Maize Rice-Maize
11. Gujarat plain and hills region Rice-Maize Maize+Groundnut
12. Western dry region Maize-Chickpea Maize + Legumes
13. Island region Maize-Rice Rice-Maize+Cowpea
Maize based sequential cropping systems in different ago-climatic zones of India
Prasad and Yadav (1998)

13. Wheat based cropping systems
• Wheat – chickpea
• Wheat – fallow
• Wheat- rice- wheat
• Wheat- green manure- wheat
• Wheat- fallow- wheat.

14. Intercropping system prevailing in different regions
Region Intercropping system Ratio
Semi-arid alfisol of southern Telengana Sorghum + Pigeonpea
Sorghum + Mungbean
2:2
1:1
Vidharbha region of Maharashtra Sorghum + Pigeonpea 2:1
Malwa plateau of MadyaPradesh Sorghum + Pigeonpea 2:1
Vertisols of south coast Rajasthan Sorghum + Pigeonpea
Sorghum + Mungbean
2:1
1:1
Deccan region of Maharashtra Pearl millet + Pigeonpea 2:1
Deccan region of Karnataka Pearl millet + Pigeonpea 2:1
Vertic inceptisols of Rajkot region Pearl millet + Pigeonpea
Peanut + Pigeonpea
4:1
6:1
Sub-humid Alfisols region of Orissa Rice + Pigeonpea 5:2
Sub-humid Alfisol region of Chotanagapur Rice + Pigeonpea 4:1
Semi-arid Alfisols Rayalaseema region Peanut + Pigeonpea 5:1
Panda (1994)

15. Weed flora found in different intercropping system
Maize + Black gram
Trianthima portulacastrum,
Digera arvensis,
Physalis minima,
Echinochloa colona,
Echinochloa crusgalli,
Cynodon dactylon and
Cyperus rotundus.
Maize + Soybean
Echinochloa colona,
Bracharia ramosa,
Eluesine indica,
Ageratum conyzoides,
Commelina benghalensis and
Cyperus rotundus.
Maize + Cowpea
Cynodon dactylon,
Digitaria sanguinalis,
Cyperus rotundus,
Acalypha indica,
Celosia argentia,
Cleome viscosa,
Commelina benghalensis,
Digera arvensis,
Euphorbia hirta,
Lagasca mollis Phyllanthus
niruri and
Tridex procumbence.
Sorghum + Cowpea / Black gram / Green gram
Trianthima portulacastrum,
Cyperus spp.
Eragrostis plumosa,
Dactyloctenium aegyptium,
Commelina benghalensis,
Celosia argentia and
Euphorbia hirta.

16. RESEARCH STUDIES

17. Rice based cropping system

18. Fig: Shift in weed flora due to continuous use of herbicides in transplanted rice in kharif,
1999 to summer,2015
Kathlagere (Davangere) Anon. (2015)

19. Table 1 : Total weed density and dry weight as influenced by long-term herbicide and
source of N in Rice-Rice cropping system
Treat
ment
Treatment Total weed
density
(No./m2)
Total weed
dry weight
(g/m2)
W1 N1 HW twice + 100% inorganic N 19.2 24.4
W1N2 HW twice + 75% inorg. N + 25% org.N 14.1 16.9
W2N1 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 100% inorg.N 13.8 15.2
W2N2 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 75% inorg.N+ 25%
org.N– PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 100% inorg.N
8.9 9.8
W3N1 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 100% inorg.N- PE
Pretilachlor 0.75 + POE 2,4 DEE 0.4 kg/ha +100% inorg. N
11.1 12.0
W3N1 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 75% inorg.N + 25%
org. N - PE Pretilachlor 0.75 + POE 2,4 DEE 0.4 kg/ha +100%
inorg. N
5.9 7.1
S.Em± 0.8 1.0
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.5 2.3
TNAU, TN Anon. (2014)

20. Table 2 : Total weed density as influenced by herbicide treatments in rice-wheat
cropping system
Treatment Rice Wheat
First year Second year First year Second year
Butachlor*- Isoproturon** (10.0) 2.34 (9.0) 2.29 (82.0) 4.42 (75.0) 4.32
Butachlor - HW (15.0 ) 2.77 (12.0) 2.54 (43.0) 3.76 (51.0) 3.94
Butachlor - WD (10.0) 2.39 (9.0) 2.29 (290.0) 5.67 (280.0) 5.63
HW- Isoproturon (5.0) 1.79 (2.0) 1.06 (78.0) 4.37 (67.0) 4.21
HW - HW (5.0) 1.61 (5.0) 1.75 (41.0) 3.71 (53.0) 3.97
HW - WD (4.0) 1.61 (6.0) 1.93 (300.0) 5.69 (281.0) 5.64
WD - Isoproturon (47.0) 3.87 (43.0) 3.78 (77.0) 4.35 (65.0) 4.19
WD - HW (59.6) 4.02 (43.3) 3.79 (45.0) 3.80 (55.0) 3.86
WD - WD (59.6) 4.10 (49.0) 3.90 (308.0) 5.72 (296.30) 5.69
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.54 0.42 0.33 0.22
* In rice, ** in wheat , Butachlor @1.5 kg/ha , Isoproturon @ 1.0 kg/ha , HW – Hand weeding @ 30 & 60
DAS WD- Weedy
Pantnagar Sachan et al. (2007)

21. Table 3 : Tillage ,crop establishment and weed management methods on weed control efficiency and
rice grain yield in rice based system
Treatment Weed control efficiency (%) Rice yield (t/ha)
Means of kharif
2012 and 2013
Means of rabi
2012-13 and
2013-14
Kharif
2012
Rabi 2012 Kharif
2013
Rabi
2013-2014
Crop establishment and tillage
TR (CT-CT-ZT) 84.8 83.8 5.10 5.59 5.05 5.43
TR (CT-ZT-ZT) 80.6 77.7 4.93 5.19 4.81 5.03
TR (ZT+CR-ZT+CR-ZT) 72.2 70.9 4.39 4.53 4.43 4.66
DSR (CT-CT-ZT) 80.0 79.0 4.67 4.78 4.73 4.97
DSR (CT-ZT-ZT) 69.4 64.2 4.17 4.15 4.13 4.22
DSR (ZT+CR-ZT+CR-ZT) 62.6 56.3 3.90 3.10 3.70 3.22
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.30 0.33 0.28 0.39
Weed management
Rec. Herbicide 67.9 63.1 4.93 4.87 4.86 5.02
IWM 81.9 80.9 5.46 5.78 5.56 5.82
Un weeded check - - 3.19 3.02 3.01 2.93
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.33 0.39 0.31 0.44
TNAU, Coimbatore Govindan et al. (2015)
Rec. Herbicide – Transplanted rice (TR)- PE Butachlpor 1.0 kg/ha for kharif , PE Pretilachlor 1.0 kg/ha for rabi
and Direct seeded rice (DSR) – PE pretilachlor 0.45 kg/ha IWM- Rec. Herbicide + Green manure Daincha
incorporation and weeding at 35 DAS/T.

22. Table 4 : Effect of off-season land management and weed control treatment on weed
control index and grain yield of rice in rice based cropping system
Treatment Weed control index (%) Grain yield (t/ha)
AU farm Paradhur AU farm Paradhur
Main treatment
Raising green manure in off-season 53.36 54.69 4.22 4.29
Off-season ploughing 55.48 56.94 4.38 4.47
Off-season fallow - - 3.49 3.58
CD. (P=0.05) 3.02 3.01 0.27 0.29
Sub treatment
Un-weeded control - - 2.50 2.06
Two hand weeding (20 & 40 DAS) 51.78 53.71 5.20 5.27
Butachlor @ 1.25 kg /ha 43.05 43.62 3.67 3.79
Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha 40.45 42.64 3.42 3.50
Butachlor @ 1.25 kg /ha + 2,4 D @ 1 kg/ha 51.06 53.32 4.89 4.96
Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha + 2,4 D @ 1 kg/ha 55.93 49.61 4.50 4.56
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.43 3.45 0.38 0.39
Tamilnadu Arivukkarasu and Kathiresan (2007)

23. Table 5 : Weed growth and yield of rice as influenced by different crop establishment and weed
management under rice- based cropping system
Treatment Weed density (no./m2) Weed dry weight (g/m2) Grain yield (t/ha)
Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Rice REY
Tillage and crop establishment
CT (DSR)+S-CT-ZT 39.1 (6.3) 171.9 (13.3) 66.4 (8.18) 68.2 (8.3) 2.92 3.88
CT (DSR)+S+R-CT+R-ZT 42.8 (6.6) 200.0 (14.2) 54.7 (7.4) 69.5 (8.4) 3.17 4.07
ZT (DSR)+S-ZT-ZT 44.0 (6.7) 241.0 (15.5) 90.7 (9.6) 98.9 (10.0) 3.14 4.06
ZT(DSR)+S+R-ZT+R-ZT 29.9 (5.5) 206.0 (14.4) 60.3 (7.6) 78.2 (8.9) 3.46 4.08
CT(TPR)-CT 17.5 (4.2) 165.4 (12.9) 19.6 (4.5) 55.9 (7.5) 3.65 3.57
CD. (P=0.05) 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.1 0.09 0.10
Cropping system
DSR-Pea 38.1 (6.2) 229.0 (15.2) 55.3 (7.5) 71.8 (8.5) 3.05 3.05
DSR- Mustard 43.1 (6.6) 305.8 (17.5) 58.6 (7.7) 71.4 (8.5) 3.61 3.19
DSR- winter maize 22.3 (4.8) 89.8 (9.5) 50.9 (7.2) 77.3 (8.8) 3.15 5.56
CD. (P=0.05) 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.06 0.14
Weed control
Weedy check 150.1 (12.3) 374.7 (19.4) 263.2 (16.2) 162.8 (12.8) 2.42 3.02
Herbicide 8.5 (3.0) 162.8 (12.8) 5.0 (2.4) 60.0 (7.8) 3.77 4.04
Herbicide + HW 5.1 (2.4) 99.9 (10.0) 13.4 (3.7) 27.2 (5.3) 3.62 4.67
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.06 0.09
DSR – Direct seeded rice, TPR – Transplanted rice, S- Sesbania brown manuring , CT – Conventional tillage , ZT- Zero tillage , R- residue
Herbicide- Bisphyribac sodium @ 25 g/ha as PoE.
Jabalpur, MP Clay loam Singh et al. (2015)

24. Table 6 : Yield attributes and economics as influenced by long-term herbicide usage and
source of N in Rice-Rice cropping system
Treatment Treatment details Producti
ve tillers
(No./m2)
Grain
yield
(kg/ha)
Net
return
(Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
W1N1 HW twice + 100% inorganic N 283 4784 16643 1.67
W1N2 HW twice + 75% inorg. N + 25% org.N 301 4950 24577 1.94
W2N1 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 100% inorg.N 318 5250 39345 2.32
W2N2 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 75%
inorg.N+ 25% org.N– PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE
0.4 kg/ha + 100% inorg.N
347 5700 41324 3.37
W3N1 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 100% inorg.N-
PE Pretilachlor 0.75 + POE 2,4 DEE 0.4 kg/ha +100% inorg.
N
325 5388 42567 2.43
W3N1 PE Butachlor 0.75 +POE 2,4-DEE 0.4 kg/ha + 75%
inorg.N + 25% org. N - PE Pretilachlor 0.75 + POE 2,4
DEE 0.4 kg/ha +100% inorg. N
364 5963 45765 2.63
S.Em± 18.74 172
C.D. (P=0.05) 34.72 361 - -
TNAU, Coimbatore Anon. (2014)

25. Table 7 : Economics of different treatments on rice based cropping system
Treatment Cost of cultivation (Rs ha-1) Gross return (Rs ha-1) Net return ( Rs ha-1) B:C ratio
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10
Rice- Wheat
H.W. 25498 27440 86978 95100 61480 67660 2.41 2.46
Weedy 23998 25940 54785 66101 30778 40161 1.28 1.54
Rice-Chickpea
H.W. 22471 24313 69631 80296 47160 55983 2.01 2.30
Weedy 20971 22813 31614 41534 10643 18721 0.51 0.82
Rice-Fieldpea
H.W. 22521 24063 75641 80820 53120 56757 2.35 2.36
Weedy 21021 22563 29011 34526 7990 11963 0.38 0.53
Rice-Mustard
H.W. 24078 25420 61113 62669 37035 42249 1.53 1.66
Weedy 22578 23920 30457 34067 7879 10147 0.34 0.42
Rice-Linseed
H.W. 21613 21055 61976 67925 40363 44870 1.86 1.94
Weedy 20113 21555 29934 36056 9821 14501 0.48 0.67
Rice-Berseem
H.W. 21353 22595 99620 113106 78267 90511 3.66 4.00
Weedy 19853 21095 62704 75480 42851 54385 2.17 2.57
Faizabad, UP Silt loam Kamleshkumar et al. (2016)

26. Table 8 : Economics of rice-based cropping system
Treatment Rice
equivalent
yield (t/ha)
Gross return
(x10³ Rs/ha)
Net return
(x10³ Rs/ha)
B:C ratio
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Rice – fallow 3.01 3.63 30.12 32.83 25.62 27.67 2.85 2.92
Rice – Wheat 5.42 11.75 54.20 59.08 47.20 50.98 4.10 4.22
Rice – Garden pea 6.61 17.19 66.13 72.08 58.63 63.32 4.89 5.02
Rice – Chickpea 7.20 20.76 72.04 78.52 63.43 68.50 4.84 4.97
Rice – summer
maize
4.83 9.32 48.26 52.60 40.16 43.37 3.19 3.27
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.78 2.01 0.18 19.45 16.23 17.53 0.76 0.81
Jagdalpur, Chhatisgarh Sandy loam Adikant et al. (2014)

27. Maize based cropping system.

28. Table 9 : Response of chemical weed management on weed indices in maize (M)+
cowpea(C) fodder intercropping system
Treatments Weed population
(no/m2)
Weed dry weight
(g/m2)
Weed control
efficiency (%)
Weed index
(%)
Alachlor @ 1.00 kg/ha 2.48 (11) 1.93 (5.87) 94.15 17.60
Alachlor @1.5 kg/ha 1.39 (03) 1.09 (1.97) 98.04 15.67
Pendimethalin @ 1.00
kg/ha
0.00 (00) 0.00 (0.00) 100.00 11.37
Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha 0.00 (00) 0.00 (0.00) 100.00 3.86
Metolachlor @ 1.00 kg/ha 3.09 (21) 2.15 (7.60) 92.43 16.09
Metolachlor @ 1.50 kg/ha 2.08 (07) 1.41 (3.10) 96.91 7.51
Imazethapyr @ 0.10 kg/ha 3.73 (41) 3.01 (19.30) 80.78 16.52
Imazethapyr @ 0.15 kg/ha 3.09 (21) 1.90 (5.70) 94.32 7.94
Weed free (M+C) 0.00 (00) 0.00 (0.00) 100.00 0.00
Weedy (M+C) 4.97 (144) 4.61 (100.40) - 27.90
Weedy (M) 5.23 (186) 5.00 (148.58) - 61.59
Weedy (C) 0.00 (00) 0.00 (00) - 43.99
CD.(P=0.05) 1.67 1.67 - -
Faizabad, UP Saurabh et al. (2015)

29. Table 10 : Effect of Intercropping and weed management practices on weed indices in
maize
Treatment Dry weight of Weeds (kg/ha) Weed control efficiency(%)
Intercropping
C1 : Maize (sole) 30.55 (964) -
C2 : Maize+ Greengram (1:1) 25.92 (698) 27.55
C3 : Maize+ soybean (1:1) 20.86 (471) 51.16
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.32 -
Weed Management
W0 : Weedy check 33.50 (1161) -
W1 : Alachlor @ 1.0 kg/ha (PE) 28.52 (847) 27.09
W2 : Pendimethalin 0.5 kg/ha (PE) 27.85 (793) 31.72
W3 : Alachlor @ 1.0 kg/ha (PE) + HW (45 DAS) 20.72(451) 61.19
W4 : Pendimethalin 0.5 kg/ha (PE) + HW (45DAS) 20.22 (430) 62.99
W5 : Soil solarization (50µm) 23.88 (584) 49.71
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.14 -
Anand Loamy sand Shah et al. (2011)

30. Table 11 : Effect of intercropping systems on associated weeds in maize – vegetables
intercropping system
Treatment Weed population
(no/m2)
Weed dry wt.
(g/m2)
WCE (%)
Sol maize (60 cm x 30 cm) 62.2 29.3 -
Sol maize (90 cm x 20 cm) 68.5 30.2 -
Maize + Cowpea (100:33%) (1:1) 46.6 18.8 29.6
Maize + Cowpea (100:66%) (1:2) 45.7 17.6 30.9
Maize + Cowpea (50:83%) (1:5) 39.5 16.1 40.3
Maize + Frenchbean (100:33%) (1:1) 48.1 20.8 27.1
Maize + Frenchbean (100.66%) (1:2) 44.9 18.5 32.1
Maize + Frenchbean (50:83%) (1:5) 41.6 18.4 37.1
Maize + Coriander (100:33%) (1:1) 62.5 28.8 5.5
Maize + Coriander (100:66%) (1:2) 60.2 27.6 9.0
Maize + Coriander (75:83%) (1:5) 66.4 28.9 -
S.Em ± 2.9 0.95 -
C.D. (P=0.05) 8.6 2.8
Dharwad Clay loam Hugar and Palled (2008)

31. Treatments Weed density (no. m-2 ) Weed dry wt. (g m-2)
Monocots Dicots Total Monocots Dicots Total
Planting pattern
Maize sole 100 22 216 47.73 13.79 61.52
Soybean sole 59 12 128 34.25 9.55 43.81
Maize + Soybean (1:1) 74 16 160 40.14 10.97 51.12
Maize + Soybean (2:2) 58 11 123 33.54 9.36 42.91
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.36 0.14 0.48 1.81 0.50 2.17
Weed management
Weedy 261 39 463 102.60 21.63 124.23
Hoeing @ 25DAS 41 7 84 25.16 8.29 33.45
Alachlor @1.5kg ha-1 44 21 130 28.06 12.66 40.72
Pendimethalin @1kg ha-1 62 13 137 40.80 9.34 50.14
Alachlor + hoeing @ 25DAS 26 6 60 15.58 7.18 22.76
Pendimethalin + hoeing @25DAS 33 5 67 21.31 6.42 22.73
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.44 0.17 0.58 2.21 0.61 2.65
Table 12 : Effect of planting pattern and weed management on density and dry matter of
weeds at 50DAS in maize- soybean cropping (Mean of two season)
Singh et al. (2005)Udaipur (RJ) Clay loam

32. Table 13 : Effect of IWM in Maize on yield and system productivity of maize-wheat
rotation (pooled data of 2 years)
Treatment Grain yield of
Maize (kg/ha)
Grain yield of
Wheat (kg/ha)
MEY
(kg/ha)
System productivity
(kg/ha)
Atrazine @1 kg /ha PE 2850 4222 4926 7776
Metribuzin @0.25 kg /ha PE 3386 4272 4984 8370
Oxyfluorfen @ 0.15 kg /ha PE 3378 4315 5034 8412
Atrazine @0.5 kg /ha PE fb 2,4 DEE @ 0.4
kg /ha POE @ 25DAS
3776 4434 5173 8949
Maize + cowpea 5287 5684 6631 11919
Atrazine @1 kg /ha PE + 1 HW 3656 4650 5425 9081
Metribuzin @0.25 kg /ha PE + 1 HW 3884 4580 5343 9290
Oxyfluorafen 0.15 kg /ha + 1 HW 3560 4460 5203 8763
Weedy check 864 3640 4247 5110
Weed free 5837 5178 6041 11878
C.D. (P=0.05) 566 598 697 1035
ARS, Banswara, Rajasthan Clay loam Hargilas (2016)

33. Table 14 : Effect of tillage and weed management practices on yield of maize – sunflower cropping
system
Treatments Maize Sunflower
Grain yield (t ha-1) Stover yield (t ha-1 ) Seed yield (t ha-1)
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
Tillage
Conventional tillage 5.98 4.98 8.94 8.26 1.62 1.53
Minimum tillage 5.46 4.72 8.51 8.13 1.50 1.42
Zero tillage 5.04 4.35 7.87 7.60 1.28 1.21
CD (P=0.05) 0.27 0.11 0.32 0.19 0.11 0.11
Weed control
Atrazine @ 0.5kg ha-1 for maize and
Pendimethalin @ 1kg ha-1 for sunflower + hand
weeding @ 40DAS.
6.23 5.30 9.25 8.76 1.64 1.56
Atrazine @ 0.5kg ha-1 for maize and Pendimethalin
@ 1kg ha-1 for sunflower + power weeding @
40DAS.
5.96 5.08 8.65 8.28 1.54 1.38
Hand weeding twice on 20 and 40DAS. 5.70 4.86 8.43 8.03 1.46 1.45
Power weeding @ 20 and 40DAS. 5.54 4.73 8.07 7.63 1.38 1.23
Unweeded check 4.03 3.44 7.79 7.28 1.33 1.24
CD. (P=0.05) 0.41 0.17 0.29 0.27 0.09 0.08
Perambulur, TN Clay loam Baskaran and Kavimani (2014)

34. Table 15 : Effect of tillage and weed management practices on weed density and dry
weight at 40 DAS in Maize – Sunflower cropping system
Treatments Weed growth in maize weed growth in sunflower
Density (no m-2) Dry wt. (g m-2) Density (no m-2) Dry wt. (g m-2)
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
Tillage
Conventional tillage (53.7)
6.8
(55.1)
6.8
(184.4)
13.1
(202.4)
13.8
(178.6)
13
(29.6)
5.0
(178.6)
13.0
(194.2)
13.6
Minimum tillage (66.6)
7.5
(67.9)
7.6
(255.8)
15.5
(184.2)
13.5
(228.2)
14.5
(38.4)
5.9
(228.2)
14.5
(236.2)
14.8
Zero tillage (82.8)
8.46
(84.5)
8.5
(276)
15.87
(236.2)
14.7
(252.6)
15.1
(47.3)
6.5
(252.6)
15.1
(277.2)
15.9
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.53 0.19 0.49 0.19 0.34 0.17 0.34 0.45
Weed control
Atrazine @ 0.5kg ha-1 for maize and Pendimethalin @
1kg ha-1 for sunflower +1 hand weeding @ 40DAS.
(27.6)
5.2
(29.6)
5.4
(141.3)
11.8
(145.0)
11.9
(126.0)
11.1
(16.1)
4.0
(126.0)
11.1
(137.3)
11.6
Atrazine @ 0.5kg ha-1 for maize and Pendimethalin @ 1kg
ha-1 for sunflower + power weeding @ 40DAS.
(33.3)
5.7
(35)
5.9
(164.6)
12.7
(160.7)
12.6
(140.6)
11.8
(21.8)
4.6
(140.6)
11.8
(160.6)
12.6
Hand weeding twice on 20 and 40DAS. (40.6)
6.3
(41.5)
6.4
(180.0)
13.3
(176.0)
13.2
(169.6)
12.9
(27.0)
5.1
(169.6)
12.9
(181.6)
13.4
Power weeding @ 20 and 40DAS. (50.9)
7.1
(49.4)
7.01
(208.0)
14.3
(196.7)
13.9
(192.6)
13.8
(33.5)
5.7
(192.6)
13.8
(211.0)
14.4
Unweeded check (184.4)
13.4
(190)
13.7
(499.6)
22.1
(359.7)
18.4
(470)
21.4
(93.6)
9.6
(470.0)
21.4
(488.6)
21.8
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.48 0.35 0.89 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.82
Baskaran and Kavimani (2014)Perambalur (TN) Clay Loam

35. Table 16 : Effect of cropping system and weed control treatments on weed density,
WCE, weed index in Maize based intercropping system
Treatment Weed density
(no./m2)
WCE (%) Weed index
Cropping system
Maize alone (89.09)9.44 65.41 52.56
Maize + Blackgram (70.29) 8.38 68.12 43.82
Maize + Cowpea (58.16)7.63 68.36 29.28
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.30 -
Weed management
PE Pendimethalin + one Rotary hoing (42.41) 6.51 85.88 13.34
PE Alachlor + one Rotary hoeing (35 DAS) (56.89) 7.54 84.19 25.17
PE Oxyfluorafen + one Rotary hoeing (70.89) 8.42 81.56 37.57
Rotary hoeing twice (15 & 35 DAS) (78.34) 8.85 77.25 50.91
Hand weeding twice (15 & 35 DAS) (78.83) 8.88 74.92 55.74
Unweeded check (136.56) 11.69 - 68.57
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.73 - -
Madurai, TN Rajeshkumar et al. (2015)
Pendimethalin at 0.75 kg/ha, alachlor at 1 kg/ha, oxyfluorfen at 0.2 kg/ha

36. Table 17 : Economics of maize-wheat system under various weed management practices in maize
(pooled data of 2 years)
Treatment COC (Rs/ha) Gross return
(Rs/ha)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C ratio
Atrazine @1 kg /ha PE 36590 93309 56719 1.55
Metribuzin @0.25 kg /ha PE 37150 100435 63285 1.70
Oxyfluorafen @ 0.15 kg /ha PE 37475 100941 63466 1.69
Atrazine @0.5 kg /ha PE fb 2,4 DEE @ 0.4 kg
/ha POE @ 25DAS
37310 107385 70075 1.88
Maize + cowpea 38745 143024 104279 2.69
Atrazine @1 kg /ha PE + 1 HW 40150 108972 68822 1.71
Metribuzin @0.25 kg /ha PE + 1 HW 40710 111480 70770 1.74
Oxyfluorafen 0.15 kg /ha + 1 HW 41035 105160 64125 1.56
Weedy check 35000 61324 26324 0.75
Weed free 40990 142532 101542 2.48
C.D. (P=0.05) 12423 12423 0.32
ARS, Banswara, Rajasthan Clay loam Hargilas (2016)

37. Table 18 : Effect of integrated weed management on weed indices in Maize-wheat
cropping system (pooled data of 2 years)
Treatment Weed intensity
(no./m2)
Weed dry
matter (g/m2)
WCE (%) Weed index
(%)
Atrazine @1 kg /ha PE 81.4 122.54 48.51 50.47
Metribuzin @0.25 kg /ha PE 67.6 102.55 56.91 41.38
Oxyfluorafen @ 0.15 kg /ha PE 65.8 96.75 59.35 41.95
Atrazine @0.5 kg /ha PE fb 2,4 DEE @ 0.4
kg /ha POE @ 25DAS
51.7 68.84 71.08 35
Maize + cowpea 29.7 22.35 90.61 8.77
Atrazine @1 kg /ha PE + 1 HW 45.0 62.52 77.73 36.90
Metribuzin @0.25 kg /ha PE + 1 HW 30.0 55.58 76.65 31.81
Oxyfluorafen 0.15 kg /ha + 1 HW 25.6 50.39 78.83 38.96
Weedy check 324.9 238.0 0.00 85.06
Weed free 15.3 11.52 95.16 0.00
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.12 11.12 9.17
ARS, Banswara, Rajasthan Clay loam Hargilas (2016)

38. Table 19 : Effect of cropping system and weed management on weed density and dry
weight in maize based intercrop
Treatment Weed density Weed dry weight
M S G M+S M+G M S G M+S M + G
WCE
(%)
Weedy check 138.8 127.7 132.9 95.5 110.2 42.7 35.5 34.2 28.0 30.5 -
Weeding thrice 25.6 29.1 29.5 17.5 20.6 15.5 13.9 14.8 9.0 10.5 61.0
Oxyfluorafen
(PE)
28.3 32.2 31.3 21.2 26.5 16.4 15.1 15.7 9.6 11.5 59.8
Alachlor PE 32.8 35.1 34.4 21.9 25.9 17.3 17.2 16.8 10.8 12.5 57.7
Butachlor (PE) +
Quizalofop -
ethyl (PoE)
36.0 35.7 39.9 29.2 34.0 19.3 19.1 18.9 12.1 14.0 54.4
S.Em± 1.03 0.85 1.8 1.8 2.07 0.53 0.27 0.6 0.8 1.32 -
CD. (P=0.05) 3.03 2.4 5.12 5.12 5.89 2.11 0.75 2.01 2.67 2.86 -
Ranchi Red sandy loam Haque et al. (2016)
M-Maize S-soybean G-Groundnut M+S –Maize + Soybean M+G – Maize + Groundnut

39. Treatments Maize Black gram
PRI PE PRI PE
2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005
Planting geometry
Maize sole 146.8 107.1 28.8 20.8 - - - -
Black gram sole - - - - 211.2 221.9 8.1 8.57
Maize + Black gram (1:1) 154.0 111.8 30.2 21.7 127.5 151.1 4.9 5.8
Maize + Black gram (2:1) 157.8 115.6 30.8 22.4 63.4 109.8 2.4 4.2
Maize + Black gram (2:2) 117.8 86.9 23.1 16.9 97.8 13708 3.7 5.3
CD.(P=0.05) 8.2 7.7 1.6 1.5 14.8 21.9 0.6 0.8
Weed management
Weedy check 105.9 76.9 20.8 14.9 88.3 84.5 3.4 3.3
HW at 30 DAS 154.8 111.2 30.4 21.6 135.8 162.7 5.2 6.2
Alachlor 2 kg/ha 146.6 102.8 28.7 20.0 133.3 172.0 5.1 6.7
Alachlor 1.5 kg/ha + HW at 40 DAS 168.5 130.5 33.1 25.3 142.4 200.8 5.4 7.7
C.D.(P=0.05) 3.5 6.6 0.7 1.3 12.7 15.4 0.5 0.6
Table 20 : Effect of planting geometry and weed management in maize + Black gram
intercropping system on PRI and PE
Raipur, Chhattisgarh Sanjay et al. (2011)
PRI – Productivity rating index , PE – Production efficiency
Vertisol

40. Table 21 : Integrated weed management in maize based cropping system
Dose Soil type WCE (%) Location References
Alachlor 2.0 kg/ha + HW at 30 DAS Medium to deep
black
55.6 Bijapur, Karnataka Singh et al. (2009)
Atrazine 0.5 kg/ha + Pendimethalin
0.5 kg/ha fb 1 HW
Loamy sand 86.7 Ludhiana, Punjab Walia et al.(2007)
Atrazine 0.5 kg/ha + Alachlor 0.75
kg/ha fb 1 HW
Loamy sand 89.4 Ludhiana, Punjab Walia et al.(2007)
Atrazine 0.5 kg/ha + Trifluralin 0.6
kg/ha fb 1 HW
Loamy sand 84.9 Ludhiana, Punjab Walia et al.(2007)
Atrazine 0.5 kg/ha + 1 HW and IC at
30 DAS (Rabi)
Clay 63.4 Junagarh, Gujarat Dobariya et al.
(2014)
Pendimethalin 0.9 kg/ha+1HW and IC
at 30 DAS (Rabi)
Clay 51.1 Junagarh, Gujarat Dobariya et al.
(2014)
Imazethpyr 50 g/ha as PE + HW at 40
DAS (Rabi)
Sandy loam 73.4 Tirupati, AP Rani et al. (2011)
Sulfosulfuron 30 g/ha as PE + HW at
40 DAS (Rabi)
Sandy loam 71.5 Tirupati, AP Rani et al. (2011)
Sulfosulfuron 15 g/ha + Imazethapyr
25 g/ha as PE with 1 HW at 40 DAS
(Rabi)
Sandy loam 88.8 Tirupati, AP Rani et al. (2011)
Anilkumar et al. (2015)

41. Wheat based Cropping system.

42. Table 22 : Weed density, dry weight and weed control efficiency (WCE) as affected by weed
control treatment in wheat (mean of 3 years)
Treatment Weed density
(no. m-2)
Dry weight
(g m-2)
WCE (%)
Farmer practice 14.51 14.23 33.5
Fenoxa prop-p-ethyl (100 g ha-1) 11.0 10.88 61.2
Isoproturon (0.75 kg ha-1) + 2,4-D
(0.6 kg ha-1)
9.48 9.24 72.0
Sulfosulfuron (25 g ha-1) 10.05 10.31 65.3
Metribuzin (200 g ha-1) 9.91 9.92 67.8
Two hand weeding (20 and 40DAS) 7.82 2.58 79.6
Weed free 0.00 0.00 -
Weedy check 17.61 17.44 -
S.Em± 1.98 0.71 1.9
C.D. (P=0.05) 4.86 1.78 4.9
Singh et al. (2010)U.P Sandy loam

43. Treatment Weed density (no/m2) Weed dry matter (g/m2)
Wheat Maize Wheat Maize
Tillage systems Grass BLW Grass BLW Grass BLW Grass BLW
Wheat (CT) -Maize(CT) 19.8 115.9 73.00 35.5 3.57 24.13 25.77 12.03
Wheat (ZT)-Maize(ZT) 24.6 111.5 91.8 28.5 5.04 24.05 32.08 9.59
Wheat (ZT)-Maize(CT) 21.3 107.6 74.1 34.6 4.15 23.67 27.18 11.67
Wheat (CT)-Maize(ZT) 20.2 111.9 75.8 32.8 3.75 23.98 28.70 11.21
Wheat (FIRB)- Maize(Bed) 21.0 127.7 74.4 37.1 3.96 26.22 26.89 12.46
S.Em± 0.018 0.322 0.170 0.089 0.163 0.883 1.17 0.338
CD. (P=0.05) 0.242 NS 0.510 0.266 0.488 NS NS 1.013
Weed control
Weedy check 37.6 192.0 187.1 67.7 7.62 43.28 70.54 22.99
Isoprutoron (0.75 kg/ha) */
Atrazine (0.5 kg/ha) **
14.1 87.4 24.3 17.6 2.58 17.47 7.08 5.86
2 hand weedings 12.4 65.4 22.2 15.9 2.08 12.47 6.75 5.32
S.Em± 0.41 0.104 0.088 0.053 0.116 0.618 0.799 0.244
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.117 0.297 0.250 0.015 0.331 1.765 2.284 0.697
Table 23 : Effect of tillage and weed management on weed parameters in wheat- maize
cropping system at 60 DAS (pooled data of 2 years)
RCA,Udaipur Clay loam Shekhar et al. (2014)

44. Treatment Yield (t/ha) System
Wheat Maize Wheat equivalent Net returns
(×103 ha-1)
B:C
ratio
Tillage systems Grain Straw Grain Straw Grain Straw
Wheat (CT) -Maize(CT) 5.08 6.84 3.55 5.57 7.75 13.81 72.47 1.94
Wheat (ZT)-Maize(ZT) 4.84 6.52 2.93 4.43 7.06 12.07 66.54 2.03
Wheat (ZT)-Maize(CT) 5.04 6.76 3.55 5.45 7.70 13.57 73.86 2.11
Wheat (CT)-Maize(ZT) 4.93 6.63 3.20 4.88 7.33 12.73 68.44 1.95
Wheat (FIRB)-
Maize(Bed)
4.49 6.08 3.52 5.51 7.13 12.97 63.55 1.68
SEm± 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.16 1.15 0.03
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.22 0.27 0.19 0.32 0.25 0.49 3.45 0.10
Weed control
Weedy check 4.14 5.51 2.12 3.16 5.74 9.46 47.31 1.44
Isoprutoron (0.75 kg/ha)
*/ Atrazine (0.5 kg/ha) **
5.12 6.89 4.19 6.48 8.26 15.00 82.74 2.41
2 Hand weedings 5.37 7.29 3.74 5.87 8.18 14.64 76.87 2.98
SEm± 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.72 0.02
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.15 0.29 2.06 0.06
Table 24 : Effect of tillage and weed management on weed parameters in wheat- maize
cropping system at 60 DAS (pooled data of 2 years)
Udaipur Clay loam Shekhar et al. (2014)

45. Pearl millet and sorghum based Cropping system

46. Table 25 : Effect of IWM pearl millet – pigeon pea intercropping system on weed
indices
Treatment Weed dry wt.
(g m-2)
Grain yield (kg ha-1) B:C ratio
Pigeon pea Pearl millet
Weedy (sole pigeonpea) 123 1902 - 2.00
Weedy (intercropping system) 103 1448 946 1.58
Weed free 31 1808 1497 1.81
Two hoeing (15 and 25 DAS) + one
hand weeding (40DAS)
61 1667 1303 1.70
Pendimethalin (1.5 kg ha-1) 52 1749 1355 1.96
Pendimethalin (1.5 kg ha-1) + one hand
weeding (40DAS)
42 1880 1513 2.02
Pendimethalin (0.75 kg ha-1) + one
hand weeding (40DAS)
55 1660 1375 1.79
C.D. (P=0.05) 58 106 0.15
Shinde et al. (2003)Clayey loamRahuri, MH

47. Table 26 : Effect of intercropping systems and weed management practices on weed
indices at harvest in pearl millet
Treatment Weed density (no. m-2 ) Weed dry matter (kg ha-1) WCE (%)
Intercropping system
Sole pearlmillet 162 1333 60.42
Pearlmillet + cowpea 117 975 66.34
Pearlmillet + clusterbean 129 1023 63.98
Pearlmillet + Greengram 119 988 64.83
C.D. (P=0.005) 8 56 2.13
Weed control
Unweeded 363 2982 -
Pendimethalin (1kg ha-1) 111 894 70.25
Pendimethalin (1kg ha-1 ) + hand
weeding once at 45 DAS
161 641 78.97
Oxadiazon (1kg ha-1) 114 913 69.62
Oxadiazon + hand weeding at 45 DAS 191 649 77.47
Hand weeding at 30 DAS 103 858 71.47
Hand weeding twice at 30 & 45 DAS 77 625 79.46
C.D. (P=0.05) 8 62 2.29
Ram et al. (2005)Loam sandyJobner, RJ

48. Treatment Number of
effective
tillers /plant
Grain weight /
earhead
1000-grain
weight (g)
PM grain
equivalent yield
(kg/ha)
Intercropping
Pearlmillet sole (PM) 5.31 8.78 9.62 2633
PM + Greengram (1:1) 4.76 7.97 9.11 4153
PM + Blackgram (1:1) 4.58 7.57 8.57 4442
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.28 0.53 0.46 415
Weed management
Unweeded conrol 4.20 7.00 7.57 2970
Twice HW @ 3 and 6 WAS 5.32 8.85 9.98 4191
Pendimethalin 0.75 kg /ha
(PE)
4.87 8.06 9.24 3786
Pendimethalin 0.75 kg /ha
(PE) + HW @ 6 WAS
5.15 8.52 9.60 4053
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.42 0.74 0.37 157
Junagad Black clayey Mathukia et al. (2015)
Table 27 : Effect of intercropping and weed management on yield attributes of
pearl millet

49. Treatment Monocts
(no./m2)
Dicots
(no./m2)
Weed dry
weight
(kg/ha)
Weed control
efficiency (%)
Weed
smothering
efficiency (%)
Intercropping
Pearlmillet sole (PM) 26.25 19.19 325 56.3 0.0
PM + Greengram (1:1) 18.06 12.69 238 63.5 39.3
PM + Blackgram (1:1) 13.88 9.13 196 65.8 52.0
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.38 0.74 38 - -
Weed management
Unweeded conrol 39.17 21.58 659 0.0 11.1
Twice HW @ 3 and 6
WAS
9.67 8.75 55 92.0 37.3
Pendimethalin 0.75 kg /ha
(PE)
18.17 14.67 238 64.5 34.0
Pendimethalin 0.75 kg/ha
(PE) + HW @ 6 WAS
10.58 9.67 60 91.1 39.2
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.25 0.39 39 - -
Junagad Black clayey Mathukia et al., (2015)
Table 28 : Effect of intercropping and weed management on weed parameters in
pearl millet (pooled data of 2 years)

50. Treatment Weeds
(no.m-2)
Dry weight
(gm--2 )
Sorghum
Yield (kg ha-1)
Straw yield
(kg ha-1)
Pulse yield
(kg ha-1)
Sorghum (pure crop) with
Atrazine @ 0.25 kg ha-1
60.7 42.5 1507 2863 -
Sorghum + Cowpea 332 49.9 889 1682 670
Sorghum + Cowpea with
Metolachlor
47.3 37.5 1389 2642 945
Sorghum + Blackgram 443.3 78 975 1852 384
Sorghum + Blackgram
With metolachlor
52.0 35.4 1455 2778 520
Sorghum + Green gram 329.3 62.8 967 1821 524
Sorghum + Green gram
With metolachlor
65.3 28.00 1432 2714 672
C.D. (P=0.05) 91.1 NS 103 726 NA
Table 29 : Effect chemical weed control in sorghum intercropping system under rainfed
condition
RRS , Paiyur Red sandy Loam Budhar and Tamilselvan (2004)
Note: application of metolachlor @ 1.0 kg ha-1 on third day after sowing in sorghum intercrop

51. Table 30 : Effect of intercropping and weed management practices on irrigated
sorghum
Treatment Plant ht.
(cm)
Yield parameters Grain yield (kg ha-1)
No. of grains
panicle-1
Panicle
length
No. of rachis
panicle-1
Intercropping
Sorghum Blackgram Cowpea
Intercropping system
Sole sorghum 157.1 1256 23.1 37.8 5062 -- --
Sorghum + Blackgram 163.6 1349 24.1 39.4 4771 340 --
Sorghum + Cowpea 171.9 1414 25.8 41.8 4578 -- 246
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.6 31 0.6 0.9 117 -- --
Weed control treatments
Butachlor 1.0 kg / ha +
HW (40DAS)
171.2 1395 25.6 40.1 5041 341 245
Fluchloralin 1.0 kg/ ha +
HW (40DAS)
167.8 1366 25.1 39.3 4934 326 223
Pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ ha
+ HW (40DAS)
183.9 1499 27.5 43.1 5414 402 287
Metalochlor 1.0 kg/ha
+ HW (40DAS)
193.4 1574 28.5 45.2 5698 417 291
HW twice
(20 & 40 DAS)
174.7 1724 26.1 40.9 5143 352 258
Unweeded control 94.0 778 13.1 18.8 2572 201 169
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.9 32 0.6 1.0 127 26 19
Malai and Muthusankaranarayanan (1999)Tamilnadu

52. Conclusion
 Conventional tillage (CT) in transplanted rice and zero tillage (ZT) in direct seeded rice
along with application of Butachlor @ 0.75 kg/ha (PE) + 2,4- DEE 0.4 kg/ha during
kharif season. Application of Pretilachlor @ 0.75 kg/ha (PE) + 2,4- DEE 0.4 kg/ha
during rabi + intercrop with Sesbania incorporation, along with one hand weeding @ 40
DAS can mange the weeds effectively in rice-rice based cropping system.
 IWM practices like conventional tillage, adoption of intercropping like maize+soybean,
maize+blackgram, maize+greengram, maize + cowpea, maize + frenchbean with
application of herbicide pendimethalin @ 0.75 kg/ha as PE + one hoeing @ 25 DAS
recorded significantly higher weed control efficiency, yield and netreturns.
 By practicing two hand weeding @ 3 and 6 WAS or pendimethalin @ 0.75 kg/ha as PE +
one HW @ 6 WAS reduces the yield loss by weeds in pearlmillet based intercrop.
 In sorghum + pulse intercropping system application of metolachlor @ 1.0 kg/ha
increases net income per unit area.

53. Future line of work
 Study of new generation herbicide in cereal based cropping
may be studied
 Biological control methods need to be explore in cropping
systems

54. THANK YOU