Ab ab 0.17 0.03 ab ab 0.91 ab .03.03 ab different from one nother at0.22 0.03 b 29.60 five.57 a 0.18 0.03 a p 0.05. 0.18 0.06 b 30.80 2.72 b 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.04 5 32.60 3.11 0.22 0.03 0.18 0.03 31.40 1.96 0.18 0.06 30.80 two.72 0.21 0.04 32.60 3.11 0.22 0.03 29.60 5.57 0.18 0.03 31.40 1.96 b 0.18 0.06 32.60 3.11 b b b 0.22 0.03 b 29.60 five.57 a a a0.18 0.03 a 31.40 1.96 1.96 0.18 0.06 b30.80 2.72 two.72 b0.21 0.04 b five 555 32.6032.60 3.11 b b0.22 0.03 b b b 29.6029.60 five.57 a0.18 0.03 a a a 31.4031.40 b b b b 0.18 0.06 b b b30.8030.80 b b b0.21 0.04 b b b b 3.11 five.57 1.96 2.Therapy (g) 0 1 2Discussion Discussion C Discussion 4.4.4.4.N Discussion N C N C N Soil collected fromlongterm, heavily infested0.11 0.03 a longterm, heavily infested parthenium weed region was hown 23.80 1.65 a 0.12 Soil collected fromlongterm, heavily infested parthenium weed location was showna oilacollected 1.72a a a a0.14 0.01 a heavily 1.86 a 0.01 27.10 from a 24.ten infested parthenium weed 1.66 a was shown 25.20 region was 0.13 0.01 longterm, parthenium weed region shown Soil collected from to lower 25.70 emergence of wide range test test 0.13 0.05between 20 and 0.14 0.03 ab GYKI 52466 medchemexpress plants in between and 40 (Figure 27.20 1.65 ab to lower seedling emergence 0.13a a a a a variety of two.79 test plants byab between 1.58 and 40 (Figure 0.15 0.02 seedling 3.80 a to lessen seedling emergence of wide 26.80 f of plants by amongst 20and 40 (Figure to reduceabseedling emergence of0.02 wide range test plants by by 27.2020 20 ab40 (Figure of wide variety of ab plants. 29.40 0.91 ab 1); 0.16 on the other hand, the oilahadfurther impact 29.70the Iproniazid Technical Information development in the absurviving test plants. 0.03In a 0.16 the 29.two test 1); 0.11 ab the soil had no no additional impact he development of0.01 surviving 0.86 abplants. In ab 1); 1); however,29.8 soil had no further impact on1.03 abgrowth of the surviving test plants. a a a however, the 3.90 additional impact onon the growth of your surviving test 0.17 In In nevertheless, the soil had no 0.16 0.02 a on the second study,compost amendedawith dried parthenium weed leaf litter 32.60 three.11 b second study, a a a a 5.57 a amended with dried 1.96 parthenium weed 30.80litter b reduced0.04 b 0.22 0.03 b 31.40 parthenium 0.06 b leaf leaf 2.72 lowered seed0.18 weed 0.21 seedsecond study,compost amended with dried parthenium weed leaf litter decreased seedcompost 0.18 0.03 second study, 29.60 compost amended with dried b litter decreased seedling emergence thethe very same test plant species by amongst 20 and 40 (Figure 4); even so, ling emergence of of same test test plant species between 20 and 40 (Figure four); on the other hand, ling ling emergence the same test plant species byby among 20 and 40 (Figure four); even so, emergence of of the exact same plant species by involving 20 and 40 (Figure 4); even so, the compost no further impact on the the development of surviving test plants. Interestingly, the4. Discussion nono additional impact ongrowth of of surviving test plants. Interestingly, one particular compost had thethe compost had no additional effect on the development surviving test plants. Interestingly, one particular one particular compost had had further impact on the development of surviving test plants. Interestingly, one weekSoil emergence, development of of all species was parthenium byby location was to to after emergence, the growth of test species was stimulated week after collected thethe longterm,test test infestedstimulated by by (lettuce) toshown week immediately after emergence, the a development all all test species was stimulatedweed9 (lettuce) 85 to 9 (lettu.
