Management of Weeds in Maize (Zea mays L.) through Various Pre and Post Emergency Herbicides
Received Date: Jun 17, 2014 / Accepted Date: Nov 29, 2014 / Published Date: Dec 01, 2014
Field experiments were conducted in 2013 during main cropping season at Ambo and Guder to determine the effect of different post and pre emergency herbicides application on weed dynamics in maize (Zea mays L.) variety, BH-660 in randomized complete block design with three replications. Six treatments including Nicosulfuron (Arrow 75 WDG) at 0.09 kg ha-1+ silwet gold (adjuvant) at 0.10%, S-metolachlor 290 + Atrazine (Primagram) at 3.00 kg ha-1, s-metolachlor (dual gold) 1.5 kgha-1, hand weeding as standard check and weedy check as control were used. Effect of different herbicides on weed density was significant. The lowest weed density was recorded in plot treated with hand weeding and hoeing (3.12 m-2) followed by Nicosulfuron (18.67 m-2) and Primagram (3.88 m-2). But, the maximum was recorded in weedy check (14.16 m-2). However, no significant difference was observed between Nicosulfuron and Primagram. The minimum dry weight of weeds (0.77 gm-2) was observed in hand weeding and hoeing followed by Nicosulfuron which is not significantly different from s-metolachlor. Moreover, those treatments also significantly increased the yield and yield component of maize. This is an indication of the reliability and promise as well as the exhibition of the great potential of the Nicosulfuron is the effective control of the weeds and enhancing yield of maize in Guder and Ambo, Ethiopia.
Keywords: Atrazine; Nicosulfuron; Primagram; Silwet gold; Zea mays
The major constraints of maize production in Ethiopia include both biotic (weeds, plant pathogens, insect pests, rodents, wild animals) and abiotic factors (drought, hailstorm, flood, nutrient deficiency, soil type, topographic features) . Weed infestation is supreme importance among biotic factors that are responsible for low maize grain yield. Worldwide maize production is hampered up to 40% by competition from weeds which are the most important pest group of this crop . Generally weeds reduce crop yields by competing for light, nutrients, water and carbon dioxide as well as interfering with harvesting and increasing the cost involved in crop production. Overall, weeds impose the highest loss potential (37%), which is higher than the loss potentials due to animal pests (18%), fungal and bacterial pathogens (16%) and viruses (2%) . Kebede  reported that most farmers in Ethiopia commonly lose up to 40, 30, 35, 18 and 30% of yield in maize, sorghum, wheat, barley and teff, respectively, due to weed infestations.
Weeds have a more direct influence on human beings than any other pest in developing countries like Ethiopia. Weeds not only cause severe crop losses but also compete with farmers and their families to spend a considerable amount of their time on weeding . More than 50% of labor time is devoted to weeding, and is mainly done by the women and children in the farmer’s family [6,7]. In the hand hoe system, weeding alone accounts for 40-54% of the total labor input in farming in Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia, requiring 300-400 man-hours per hectare . In most cases, farmers are unable to do their weeding on time due to limitations on family labor. According to Unger , the taller and more numerous the weeds are in relation to the crop, the stronger is the competition. Weed competition in a cereal generally reduces crop vigor, tillers, head size, kernel weight and, consequently, grain yield.
Control of weeds in the fields of maize is, therefore, very essential for obtaining good crop-harvest. Weed control practices in maize resulted in 77 to 96.7% higher grain yield than the weedy check. Different weed control methods have been used to manage the weeds but mechanical and chemical methods are more frequently used for the control of weeds than any other control methods. Mechanical methods including hand weeding are still useful but are getting expensive, laborious and time-consuming. In the less developed countries, the situation still exists where the peak labor requirement is often for hand weeding . Herbicides weed control is an important alternative to manual weeding because it is cheaper, faster and gives better weed control . Chemical control is a better alternative to manual weeding because it is cheaper, faster, and gives better control [2,11]. Weed control in maize with herbicides has been suggested by researchers [12,13]. Ali et al.  also reported that herbicides significantly increased maize yield and decreased the weed density. However, continuous application of currently registered herbicides caused changing weed flora, poor controlling, and evolution of some herbicide resistant weed biotypes. This necessitates the introduction of some other new herbicide options with different modes of action. Therefore, this research work was carried out to evaluate the effect of new herbicide (Nicosulfron) on weeds and yield and yield components of maize under field condition at Guder and Ambo district, West Shoa, Ethiopia.
Materials and Methods
Location of study areas
Field experiments were conducted at two different areas viz. Guder and Ambo in maize cultivated field, West Showa, Ethiopia during the main cropping season of 2013, for the management of weeds. The altitude of the study areas are between 1900 and 3100 m. a. s. l, geographical positions of N 08º 43.423-N 10º 12.082 and E 037º 28.902- 040º 62.590. Guder and Ambo district has total geographical area of 78887 sq.km and is located at 8o 57 ‘North latitude and 38o 07 ‘East longitude at an average elevation of 1800-2300 m. a. s. l. The district lay under different climatic zones, which are 23% of highland, 60% of middle altitude and 17% is low land. In addition, the district has bi-model rainfall distribution with small amount of rainfall during autumn season and much rainfall during summer season. Heavy rain observed from onset of July to the end of August. The annual rainfall ranges from 1000 -1588.06 mm and the temperature of the district ranged between 9.44°C and 21.86°C with average of 15.65°C. The soil of the experimental site is light red in color, clay loam in texture and pH value of 6.8.
Treatments and experimental design
After determining the appropriate rate of application, field experiments were undertaken at both Guder and Ambo to compared the newly introduced herbicide (Nicosulfuron) with the traditional method (hand weeding and hoeing) and with already introduced herbicides (Primagram and s-metolachlor) and weedy check. Field experiment consists of six treatments, S-metolachlor 290. + Atrazine(Primagram) at 3 kg/ha, s-metolachlor (dual gold) 1.5 kg/ha, Nicosulfuron (Arrow 750 WDG) at 0.09 kg/ha + silwet gold (adjuvant) at 0.10%, hand weeding and hoeing and weedy check were carried out and arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Herbicides was applied 2 days after sowing as pre-emergence and 30 days after planting for post emergence using Knapsack/ Backpack sprayer. The spray volume was 600 L of water per ha. The size of each plot was 1.5 m×2.4 m. The distance between adjacent replications (blocks) and plots were 1 m and 0.5 m, respectively.
Agronomic practices for both locations
The experimental plots were ploughed twice to get fine seed bed, by oxen and plots were leveled manually before the field layouts were made. Variety BH-660 was used as a planting material. The maize seeds were planted manually in the month of May at both sites. During planting time, two maize seeds were placed at each hole and thinned to one plant per hill 20 days after sowing. The recommended amount of Nitrogen and phosphorus was applied. The source of nutrients was Urea and DAP, respectively. Half of N and the whole phosphorus were drilled in rows at the time of sowing. The remaining half N was applied at knee high growth stage of the plant.
Population: The weed population was counted before first 45 days after planting and at tasseling. The population count was taken with the help of 0.25 m×0.25 m quadrate thrown randomly at two places in each plot and was identified and converted to population/density per m2.
Dry weight: While recording weed population the biomass was harvested from each quadrate. The harvested weeds were placed into paper bags separately and drying in oven at a 65°C temperature for 24 hours till constant weight and subsequently the dry weight was measured and converted in to gm-2.
Weed Control Efficiency (WCE): It was calculated from weed control treatments in controlling weeds.
; Where WDC= weed dry matter in weedy check,
WDT= weed dry matter in a treatment
Plant height (cm): Plant height was measured from 8 randomly selected (pre tagged) plants at the middle four rows, from the ground level to the apex of each plant at dough stage of the plant.
Number of cobs per plant: The number of productive ears was counted in each sample plants. Eight randomly selected tagged plants from the four central rows were used for counting productive ears.
Ear length (cm): The diameter of eight randomly taken ears was measured at mid length using caliper and the averages was recorded.
Hundred kernels weight (g): Thousand kernels were counted from each plot and their weight was recorded and adjusted to 12.5% moisture content.
Grain yield (kg/ha): The final produce was measured and adjusted to 12.5% moisture content with the help of formula:
Where, M is the measured moisture content in grain and D is the designated moisture content.
Relative yield loss: Crop yield loss was calculated based on the maximum yield obtained from a treatment /treatment combination i.e. interaction as follows:
Where, MY= maximum yield from a treatment, YT = yield from a particular treatment.
Population density of weed was subjected to square root transformation to have data normal distribution using scientific calculator. Data were subjected to the analysis of variance. Mean separation was conducted for significant treatment means using Least Significance Differences (LSD) at 5% probability level.
Results and Discussion
Weed floral composition of the experimental sites
At Ambo, maize was infested with different weed species belongs to different family. 12 weeds species belongs to 8 families were identified. Out of the total weeds, 91.7% were broad leaved whereas the remaining 8.3% were grasses weeds (Tables 1 and 2). These indicate that speciesrich weed community in the experimental field. Similarly at Guder site, 11 weeds species belongs to 9 families were identified. Out of the total weeds 72.7% were broadleaved weeds whereas the remaining 9.09% and 18.19% were grasses and sedges weeds respectively. This result is in agreement with Mehmeti et al.  who found that different weeds species in a single experimental site.
|Common name||Trade Name||Rate||Time of Application|
|Nicosulfuron +silwet gold (adjuvant) at 0.10%||Arrow 75WDG||0.90kgha-1||Post|
|s-metolachlor||Dual Gold||1.50 kgha-1||Pre|
|Primagram||Primagram Gold 660EC||3.00 kgha-1||Pre|
|Hand weeding and hoeing||-||-||Post|
Table 1: Description of treatments used in the experimental sites.
|Botanical name||Family name||Botanical name||Family name|
|1||Amarathushybridus L.||Amaranthaceae||Amarathushybridus L.||Amaranthaceae|
|5||Cyprus esculentus L.||Cyperaceae||Digitariaabysinca.||Poaceae|
|6||Cyprus rotundus L.||Cyperaceae||ErucastrumarabicumFisch and May||Brassicaceae|
|7||Erucastrum arabicum Fisch and May||Brassicaceae||Galinsogaparviflora cav.||Asteraceae|
|8||Galinsoga parviflora cav.||Asteraceae||Ipomeaariocarpa||Convolvulaceae|
|10||Oxalis latifolia L.||Oxalidaceae||Oxalis comiculateL.||Oxalidaceae|
|11||Polygonum nepalense Meisn||Polygonaceae||PolygonumnepalenseMeisn||Polygonaceae|
Table 2: Weed floral composition of at Guder and Ambo study sites.
Density and dry weight of weeds
Effect of different herbicides on weed density both at 45 days after planting and tasseling stage was significant. As described on Table 3, the lowest weed density (0.71) was recorded in plot treated with hand weeding followed by Nicosulfuron (3.68) whereas the maximum was recorded in weedy check (14.16 m-2). Similar finding was reported Mehmeti et al.  who found that highest weed density in weedy check.
|weeds Density (m-2)||Dry weight(gm-2)||weeds Density (m-2)||Dry weight(gm-2)|
|Hand weeding +hoeing||0.71 (0.00)e||0.00c||4.90(24.00)c||26.67d|
Table 3: Effect of different herbicides on density (m-2) and dry weight of weeds (gm-2). Figures or numbers in the parenthesis are original value, LSD= least significant difference, CV= coefficient of variation, means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level using Fisher’s protected LDS test.
Moreover, the effect of herbicides application significantly affected the dry weight of weeds at both stage. The lowest of weight of weeds (0.0 gm-2) was recorded in plot treated with hand weeding followed by Nicosulfuron (2.13 gm-2) however, non-significant difference was existed among them, whereas the highest was observed in weedy check (170.93 gm-2). These results are in agreement with those reported by Hassan et al.  who reported reduced weed biomass due to use of selective pre-emergence and post emergences herbicides best for controlling different maize weed species.
Weed control efficiency
Weed control efficiency at both crop stages was also significantly affected. The minimum weed control efficiency was observed in weedy check (0.00%) whereas the highest (100.0%) was recorded in a plot treated with hand weeding and hoeing which is not significantly different Nicosulfuron (98.8). This result further indicates that herbicides are more effective in reducing density and dry weights of weeds next to hand weeding and hoeing as compared to weedy check. This result was in accordance with Mehmeti et al.  who reported that it is evident herbicides reduced the weed infestation and control better than in the maize crop in comparison to the control plots (Table 4) .
|Treatment||Weed Control Efficiency (%)|
|Hand weeding + hoeing||100.00a||92.98a|
|LSD ( 0.05)||7.95||4.08|
Table 4: Effect of various herbicides on weed control efficiency (%). LSD= least significant difference, CV= coefficient of variation, means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level using Fisher’s protected LDS test.
Maize yield and yield components
At Guder except plant height, cobs number per plant, ear length and diameter were significantly affected by weed control methods. According the result showed in Table 5, plant height was not significantly affected. The maximum number of cobs per plant (1.9) was observed in hand weeding and hoeing followed by Nicosulfuron (1.8) however no significant were exist between them, whereas the lowest was recorded weedy check (0.47). Similarly at Ambo, effect of weed control methods was also significantly affecting the yield component of maize [17-19].
|PH (cm)||Cobs /plant||EL(cm)||ED (cm)||PH (cm)||Cobs /plant||EL(cm)||ED(cm)|
|Hand weeding + hoeing||152.73a||1.93a||16.3ab||8.2a||179.1a||1.9a||19.7a||8.1a|
|LSD ( 0.05)||NS||0.29||2.28||0.8||31.39||0.42||1.90||0.8|
Table 5: Effect of various herbicides on plant height, cobs per plant, ear length and diameter (cm) in Guder and Ambo. PH=plant height, EL=ear length, ED=ear diameter, LSD= least significant difference, CV= coefficient of variation, means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level using Fisher’s protected LDS test.
As described in Table 6, the maximum hundred seed weight was scored on combination of hand weeding and hoeing and the minimum was recorded on weedy check both at Guder and Ambo. Moreover, the highest grain yields were obtained from hand weeding + hoeing and followed by plot treated with Nicosulfuron at both study sites. While, the lowest grain yields were scored on weedy check [20-22].
|Hand weeding + hoeing||45.333a||6989.8a||0.000cd||49.667a||7223.1a||0.00e|
|LSD ( 0.05)||5.19||921.28||9.79||3.29||812.36||5.32|
Table 6: Effect of various herbicides on 100 seed Weight (g), Grain Yield (kgha-1), and Relative Yield Loss (%). HSW =hundred seed weight, GY=grain yield, RYL=relative yield loss, LSD= least significant difference, CV= coefficient of variation, means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level using Fisher’s protected LDS test.
In Ethiopia, maize has been selected as one of the national commodity crops to satisfy the food self-sufficiency program of the country to feed the alarmingly increasing population. Control of weeds in the fields of maize is very essential for obtaining good crop harvest. From the result it can be stated that effect of different pre and post emergency herbicides on weed density, weed dry weight and weed control efficiency were significant. The lowest weed density was recorded in plot treated with hand weeding and hoeing followed by Nicosulfuron whereas the maximum was recorded in weedy check. Like density, dry weight of weeds the minimum was observed in hand weeding and hoeing followed by Nicosulfuron. Moreover, those treatments also significantly increased the yield and yield component of maize. Therefore from this field experiment, hand weeding and hoeing is most effective measure of weed control and increasing yields of maize however, due to labor shortage; herbicides are the most effective in terms of time and cost. Even though herbicides are more effective in time and cost, the candidate herbicide (Nicosulfuron+silwet gold (adjuvant) at 0.10%) is the outstanding for weed control in maize as compared to the already registered herbicides (Primagram and S- metolachlor).
- Ransom JK, Short K, Waddington S (1993) Improving productivity of maize under stress conditions. 30-33. In: Benti T. and Ransom J.K. ed.Proceeding of the First National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia, May 5-7 1992, IAR/ CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
- Chikoye D, Schulz S, Ekeleme F (2004) Evaluation of integrated weed management practices for maize in the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Crop Protection 23: 895-900.
- Chikoye D, Udensi UE, Fontem A, Lum (2005) Evaluation of a new formulation of atrazine and metolachlor mixture for weed control in maize in Nigeria. Crop Protection24: 1016-1020.
- Kebede D (2000) Weed control methods used in Ethiopia. 250-251. In: Starkey, P. and Simalenga, T. (eds.). Animal power for weed control. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA). Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
- Fasil R, Matias M, Kiros M, Kasshun Z, Rezene F, et al. (2006) Weed research in sorghum and maize. pp. 303-323. In: Abraham Tadesse (eds.) Proceeding of the 14th annual conference of the plant protection society of Ethiopia (PPSE) 19-22 December 2006, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 6.
- Ellis-Jones J, Twomlow S, Willcocks T, Riches C, Dhliwayo H, et al. (1993) Conservation tillage/ weed control systems for communal farming areas in Semi-Arid Zimbabwe.Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds 3: 1161-1166.
- Akobundu IO (1996) Principle and practices of integrated weed management in developing countries. In: Proceeding 2nd International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen. Denmark 591-600.
- Akobundu IO (1987)Weed science in the tropics, Principles and Practices. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester 522.
- Unger J (1984) Principles and practice of weed management. College of Agriculture, Alemaya, Ethiopia 185.
- Chikoye D, Ellis-Jone J, Riches C, Kanyomeka L (2007) Weed management in Africa : Experiences, Challenges and Opportunities.In : 16th International plant protection Congress 652-653.
- Chikoye D, Manyong VM, Carsky RJ, Ekeleme F, Gbehounou G, et al. (2002) Response of speargrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch.] to cover crops integrated with handweeding and chemical control in maize and cassava. Crop Protection 21: 145-156.
- Correa AJA, De La Rosa Mora MM, Dominguez YJA (1990) Demonstration plots for chemical weed control in rain fed maize (Zea mays L.) sown with minimum tillage in Acolmn Mexico Revista Chapingo 15: 164-166.
- Owen MDK, Hartzler RG, Lux J (1993) Wooly cup grass (Eriochloa villosa) control in corn (Zea. mays L.) with Chloroacetamide herbicides. Weed Technology 7: 925-929.
- Ali R, Khalil SK, Raza SM, Khan H (2003) Effects of herbicides and row spacing on maize (Zea mays L.). Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research 9: 171-178.
- Mehmeti AA, Demaj I, Demelezi, Rudari H (2012) Effect of Post-Emergence Herbicides on Weeds and Yield of Maize.Pak J Weed Sci Res 18: 27-37.
- Hassan G, Tanveerl S, Khanand NU, Munir M (2010) Integrating cultivars with reduced herbicide Rates for weed management in maize.Pak J Bot 42: 1923-1929.
- Akinyemiju AO (1988) Chemical weed control in maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] in the rainforest zone of southwestern Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Weed Science 1: 29-41.
- Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedure for agricultural research. 2nd edition. A Wiley Interscience Publications, New York 122-123.
- Khan MA, Marwat KB, Khan N (2003) Efficacy of different herbicides on the yield and yield components of maize. Asian Journal of Plant Science 2: 300-304.
- Lyon, Alex R, Martin R, Klein N (2006) Cultural practices to improve weed control in winter wheat.The University of Nebraska- Lincoln.
- Radosevich SR, Todies SH, Ghersa C (1996)Weed Ecology: Implication for 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York 589.
- Takele A (2008) Witch weed (Strigahermonthca (Del.)) Benth. Infestation and Component crop productivity as Influenced by Different Intercropping Patterns of Groundnut Varieties in Maize at Metekel Zone, North-western Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia 1-3.
Citation: Tesfay A, Amin M, Mulugeta N (2014) Management of Weeds in Maize (Zea mays L.) through Various Pre and Post Emergency Herbicides. Adv Crop Sci Tech 2:151. Doi: 10.4172/2329-8863.1000151
Copyright: © 2014 Tesfay A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Share This Article
Open Access Journals
- Total views: 31106
- [From(publication date): 12-2014 - Dec 08, 2021]
- Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views: 26209
- PDF downloads: 4897