1
HERBICIDAL ACTIVITY IN MAIZE FIELDS
Emad El-Din M.A. Marzouk
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture,
Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
emadahmad96@yahoo.com
Key Words: Maize, Weeds, Herbicides, Handhoeing, Yield
components, Grain yield.
ABSTRACT
Field experiments were conducted during 2016 and 2017 seasons
at Motubus District, Khafr El-Sheikh Governorate, to evaluate the
efficacy of Starane (fluroxypyr 20 % EC) at 200 cm3 fed-1., Gesaprim
(atrazine 90 % WP) at 600 gm fed-1., Equip (foramisulfuron 22.5 % EC)
at 750 ml fed-1., Titus (rimsulfuron 25 % DF) at 20 gm fed-1., Merline
Extra (isoxaflutole 75 % WG) at 50 gm fed-1.) and handhoeing on density
and biomass of weeds, yield and yield components of maize crop
compared to untreated control. Results showed that the predominant
weed species during the two studied seasons were Portulaca oleracea,
Corchorus olitorius, Xanthium brasilicum and Convuluvulus arvensis as
broadleaved weeds, and Echinochloa colonum as grassy weed.
Broadleaved weeds showed more dominant than grassy weed during the
two seasons. Results also showed that all tested herbicides and hand
hoeing had significant herbicidal activity against predominant weeds
during the two tested seasons over unweeded control. Generally,
fluroxypyr, atrazine and foramisulfuron herbicides were the most
effective treatments in reducing density and biomass of weeds, as well as
increasing yield components and grain yield of maize crop during the two
tested seasons.
INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays L.) is the most important cereal crop in Egypt
and around the world, after wheat and rice. Maize is the most widely
grown crop in Egypt. Maize is used as human food, animal’s and poultry
feed, and in industrial products, (Bibi et al., 2010). Maize also produces
raw materials for starch industry and used in the preparation of other
products. Maize plants are greatly affected by weeds. Weeds delay corn
female flowering and maturation and reduce corn leaf area, biomass,
plant height, and biomass partitioning (Evans, 2003).Moreover, weeds
compete with the crop plants for space, light, moisture, nutrients and
carbon dioxide, which reduced not only the yield, grain quality and
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 39-54
2
hinder harvest operations but also increase the cost of production (Rutta
et al., 1991and Rana, 2017). Excessive growth of weeds in maize field
leads to 66 % to 80 % reduction in crop yield (Adigun, 2001, Ford and
Pleasant, 1994). Weeds pose severe problems for crop husbandry and
infest fallow land, reducing the soil about two hundred and eighty
different types of weeds have been recorded in NWFP with varying
infestation status (Lehoczky and Nagy, 2002). Chemical control method
is quick, more effective, time and labour saving method than others.
Success of weeds control methods depends upon several factors;
however, the weed emergence pattern, application timing and stage of
crop (Hoverstad et al., 2004). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the
efficacy of certain herbicides and handhoeing in controlling weeds and
their effect on yield components and grain yield of maize crop under
field condition in the summer 2016 and 2017 seasons.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Herbicidal activity was evaluated by the application of pre and/ or
post-emergence herbicides in comparison with standard herbicide
(Starane), hand hoeing and untreated control in maize crop during 2016
and 2017 seasons at Motobis districts, Khafr El-Sheikh Governorate. The
experiments were designed as a randomized complete block design
(RCBD) and each treatment was replicated three times with plot size
21m2. Maize seeds (Triple hybrid cv. 310) were sown in 25 May and 3
June in the two successive seasons, respectively. Pre-emergence
herbicides were applied after sowing and before irrigation, while, postemergence
herbicides were applied at 30 days after sowing (DAS). All
tested herbicides were applied using knapsack sprayer using 200 L water
per feddan. Handhoeing treatment was done at 20 and 40 DAS.
Table (1): Herbicidal treatments, their rates and time of application
in maize field during 2016 and 2017 seasons
Rate fed Time of application -1Common names Trade names .
200 cm Post-emergence 3 Fluroxypyr Starane 20% EC
Gesaprim 90% 600 g Pre-emergence
WG
Atrazine
foramisulfuron Equip 22.5 % EC 705 ml Post-emergence
rimsulfuron Titus 25%DF 05 g pre-emergence
Merline Extra 75% 05 g Pre-emergence
WG
isoxaflutole
hand hoeing --- Twice 20 and 40 DAS
untreated --- --- ---
40 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
3
Parameters on weed density (No. of weeds m-2), weed biomass
(fresh weights gm m-2), were recorded by landing a quadrate of 0.25 x
0.25 m2 randomly four times at each plot area, then all weeds inside the
quadrate were collected, identified, counted, weighed, classified and
following parameters were determined as follow:-
Weed density = average number of each weed.
Weed density%= average number of each weed / average number of
total weeds x100.
Weed biomass = Average fresh weight of each weed gm m-2.
Weed biomass %= average fresh weight of each weed / average fresh
weight of total weeds x 100.
Weed control efficiency
Where:
C = Mean weed fresh weight in each untreated plots.
T = Mean weed fresh weight in each treated plots.
At harvest, 10 plants were randomly selected from the central
area of each plot. All cobs were removed from the selected plants, using
a pair of manual shears, dried under the sun light for 4-days under natural
condition, their length (cm) and weight (kg) were measured. Maize grain
(kg plot-1) was also recorded, and the increase percent in maize grain
yield was determined as follow:-
Increase %= T - C / T x 100
Where:
T= Mean maize grain in treatment.
C= Mean maize grain in untreated check.
Statistical Analysis of the data were subjected to the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) technique using MSTATC statistical software
followed by means separation for their significant differences using the
least significant differences (LSD) test according to Steel and Torrie
(1980).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weed density (No.m-2)
Results indicated that the predominant weed species found in the
experimental area were four broadleaved weeds, Portulcea olericea,
Corichorus olitorious, Convulvulus arvensis and Xanthium brasilicum,
and one grassy weed, Echonochloa colonum during the two studied
seasons (Tables 2, 3 and 4). These results are in agreement with those
reported by (Youssef, 1998; Tahir et al., 2009; Mukherje and Rai,
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 41
4
2015; Kakade et al., 2016; Stanzen et al., 2016 and Kumar et al.,
2017). Moreover, results illustrated that broadleaved weeds were the
most predominant weeds during the two tested seasons. Among the
broadleaved weeds, Xanthium brasilicum recorded highest weed density
in the first season, while, Corichorus olitorious was highest in the second
season. The highest weed density was recorded in control treatment
(13.33, 15.66, 11, 17.66 and 22.66 weed m-2 for Portulcea olericea,
Corichorus olitorious, Convulvulus arvensis, Xanthium brasilicum and
Echonochloa colonum, respectively, in the first season, and 17.66, 19,
16.33, 14 and 20 plant m-2, respectively, in the second season.
Table (2): Broadleaved weeds density and biomass in maize crop
during 2016and 2017 winter seasons.
Weed
species
2016 2017
Weed
density
No.m-
2
%
from
total
weeds
Weed
biomass
(g m-2)
%
from
total
weeds
Weed
density
No.m-
2
%
from
total
weeds
Weed
biomass
(g m-2)
%
from
total
weeds
Portulacea
oleracea 13.33 16.60 80.33 19.20 17.66 20.30 89.33 20.26
Corchorus
olitorius 15.66 19.50 79.66 19.04 19.00 21.84 90.66 20.56
Convulvulu
s arvensis 11.00 13.70 66.66 15.93 16.33 18.77 87.00 19.73
Xanthium
brasilicum 17.66 21.99 91.33 21.83 14.00 16.09 83.33 18.90
Echonochlo
a colonum 22.66 28.22 100.33 23.98 20.00 22.99 90.66 20.56
Total weeds 80.31 --- 418.31 --- 86.99 --- 440.98 ---
Effect of herbicides and handhoeing on weed density (No.m-2)
Data in (Tables 2, 3 and 4) indicated that all tested herbicides and
handhoeing significantly reduced broadleaved weed density over
unweeded check during the both tested seasons. Results showed that
Starane and Epuip herbicides significantly (p=0.05) gave maximum
reduction in broadleaved weeds density in 2016 season, they gave 7.00
and 10.33 weeds m-2, respectively, while, Starane and Gesaprim recorded
lowest numbers in the 2017 season, they registered 15 and 15.99 weeds
m-2, respectively. However, Merline Extra and Titus recorded a moderate
reduction in the numbers of broad-leaved weeds compared to untreated
plots during these studies. Handhoeing treatment gave poor reduction in
density of broadleaved weeds during the both seasons.
42 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
5
Table (3): Effect of herbicidal treatments on weed density (No.m-2) and weed biomass (g m-2) in maize
crop during 2016 season.
Portulacea oleracea Corchorus olitorius Convulvulus arvensis Xanthium brasilicum Echonochloa colonum
Treatments Rate/fed.
W.D.* W.B.** R.º% W.D W.B. R.% W.D. W.B. R.% W.D. W.B. R.% W.D W.B. R.%
Starane 200 cm3 0.00 5.55 955 0.55 9.99 00.59 3.00 5.00 92.49 0.66 9.55 96.71 4.33 0.99 05.05
Gesaprim 600 g 4.00 5.00 93.77 9.55 4.33 94.56 2.00 3.33 95.00 3.46 4.67 94.88 7.33 13.66 53.95
Equip 750 ml 3.00 5.00 93.77 3.33 8.33 89.54 2.00 6.33 90.50 0.55 3.33 96.71 9.55 3.99 00.35
Titus 25g 3.33 18.67 03.00 0.33 22. 00 72.38 7.33 16.00 00.00 .0.99 13.33 85.40 5.44 17.33 82.72
Merline Extra 50 g 6.00 10.66 55.05 0.66 90.99 78.24 0.55 15.66 00.55 0.00 11.66 87.23 8.00 15.00 85.04
Handhoeing Twice 5.55 09.55 79.93 0.99 10.00 76.14 0.00 00.55 30.30 6.33 05.99 77.74 19.33 29.66 70.43
Untreated ------- 13.33 80.33 ------- 15.66 79.66 ------ 11.00 66.66 ---- 17.66 99.99 ---- 22.66 100.33 ------
L.S.D. 0.05 % 1.53 2.74 3.11 3.58 1.17 2.45 1.76 4.08 3.00 4.10
W.D.* = weed density (No. m-2).
W.B.** = weed biomass (gm m-2 ).
R.º%= Weed Control efficiency.
Table (4): Effect of herbicidal treatments on weed density (No.m-2) and weed biomass (g m-2) in maize
crop during 2017 season.
Rate/fe Portulacea oleracea Corchorus olitorius Convulvulus arvensis Xanthium brasilicum Echonochloa colonum
d.
Treatments
W.D*. W.B.** R.º% W.D W.B. R.% W.D. W.B. R.% W.D W.B. R.% W.D. W.B. R.%
2.00 4.00 95..52 4.00 6.67 92.64 50.00 8.00 90.80 4.00 7.33 91.20 6.33 11.33 87.50
200
cm3
Starane
Gesaprim 600 g 3.00 4.33 95.15 3.33 7.00 92.27 5.66 10.33 88.50 4.00 8.00 90.39 6.00 10.00 88.96
Equip 750 ml 5.30 10.00 88.80 7.00 15.67 82.71 4.33 8.66 90.04 3.66 7.00 91.59 3.00 5.33 94.12
Titus 25g 8.65 20.33 77.24 6.00 23.66 73.90 13.33 25.33 70.88 7.00 17.99 78.41 7.33 15.66 82.72
Merline Extra 50 g 7.33 19.66 77.99 10.66 24.33 73.16 9.66 23.66 72.80 6.00 15.66 81.20 6.00 13.00 85.66
Handhoeing Twice 11.33 27.00 69.77 14.33 36.66 59.56 13.66 33.00 68.06 10.33 23.34 61.19 13.00 27.66 69.49
Untreated ------- 17.66 89.33 --- 19.00 90.66 --- 16.33 87.00 --- 14.00 83.33 --- 20.00 90.66 ---
L.S.D 0.05 % 9.99 3.93 9.00 3.99 0.59 9.03 0.30 9.09 9.93 3.03
W.D.* = weed density (No. m-2).
W.B.** = weed biomass (gm m-2 ).
R.º%= Weed control efficiency.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 43
6
Concerning grassy weed, Echonochloa colonum was identified during
the two studied seasons. Obtained results showed that Starane and Equip
treatments were found to be the most options in decreasing numbers of this
weed, they gave 4.33 and 3.66 plant m-2, respectively, in the first season, and
4.33 and 3.00 plant m-2, respectively, in the second season (Tables 3, 4 and 5).
Gesaprim and Merline Extra herbicides were gave moderate reduction in
Echonochloa colonum density especially in the second season. Hand hoeing
treatment gave the lowest reduction in density of Echonochloa colonum
compared to untreated control in 2016 and 2017 seasons.
Density of the total weeds was affected by all herbicidal treatments.
Untreated control recorded higher total weed density during the two studied
seasons, it gave 80.30 and 86.99 weed m-2.While, Starane, Gesaprim and Equip
herbicides were the best options in reducing total weed density during these
studies (Tables 3, 4 and 5). On contrary. Titus, Merline Extra treated plots and
hand hoeing treatment registered minimum reduction in density of the total
weeds compared to untrated treatment. These results are in agreement with
those obtained by Hafeezullah (2000), Tahir et al. (2009), Abdelmonem and
El-kholy (2006) who concluded that various weed control treatments
significantly affected weed density in maize fields. The main possible reason in
reducing weed density in treated plots is due to applied of chemical herbicides,
while, handhoeing resulted in mechanical injury to maize plants.
These results about the difference in the efficiency of various weed
control practices are supported by Bogdan et al. (2002) and Janjic et al.
(2004). The suppression in weed density by manual hoeing could be
attributed to uprooting and mechanical injury of weeds and the
differentiation in weeds in the chemically treated plots might have been
difference in the mode of action which significantly controlled the weeds
over control treatments. These results are in line with those reported by
Skoko and Zivanovic (2002) who reported that there has been significant
difference in weed density of various weed control practices and negatively
affected the weed growth. Herbicides have significantly reduced the weed
density in maize crop (Khan et al., 2003; Abdullah, 2007 and Hassan et
al., 2010). Devender et al. (1998) who found that atrazine was the most
effective herbicide for reducing weed density in maize. Khan et al. (2012)
found that the lowest weed density and dry weed biomass in plots were
sprayed with atrazine while the highest weed density and dry weed biomass
was found in control plots. Zimdahl (1999) mentioned that competition for
water is often considered the most important source of weed–crop
competition. Growing weeds with a crop have been shown to reduce soil
moisture, although the depth of additional water extraction depends on the
specific combination of crop and weeds present. Reductions in soil moisture
have been related to increases in weed density or the length of time weeds
remain present with the crop (Dalley et al., 2006).
44 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
7
Table (5): Effect of herbicidal treatments on weed density and biomass of broad-leaved, grassy
and total weeds in maize crop during 2016 and 2017 seasons.
2016 season 2017 season
Treatments Rate/fed.
Broadleaf weeds Grassy weeds Total weeds Broadleaf weeds Grassy weeds Total weeds
W.D. W.B.** R.% * W.D. W.B.** R.% * W.D. W.B.** R.% * W.B.** R.%
W.D.
*
W.D. W.B.** R.% W.D.* W.B.** R.% *
Starane 200 cm3 7.00 11.33 96.43 4.33 9.33 90.70 11.33 15.99 95.21 15.00 26.00 94.95 4.33 11.33 87.50 19.33 31.66 92.45
Gesaprim 600 g 12.00 17.33 94.54 7.33 13.66 86.38 19.33 21.32 93.17 15.99 29.66 91.53 6.00 10.00 88.96 21.99 35.66 91.26
Equip 750 ml 10.33 22.99 92.76 3.66 4.33 95.68 13.99 27.32 93.27 20.32 41.33 89.62 3.00 5.33 94.12 23.32 46.66 88.87
Titus 25g 26.65 70 77.98 6.00 17.33 82.72 31.65 75.32 73.56 34.98 87.31 75.05 7.33 15.66 82.72 42.31 102.97 75.45
42.65 90.31 78.47
50 g 25.66 63.31 80.08 7.00 15.00 85.04 32.66 70.31 75.10 36.65 86.31 77.91 6.00 13.00 85.66
Merline
Extra
Handhoeing Twice 30.66 87.33 68.51 11.33 29.66 70.43 41.99 86.65 72.88 49.65 120.00 66.60 13.00 27.66 69.49 62.65 136.65 67.42
Untreated ------- 57.65 317.98 --- 22.66 100.33 --- 80.31 326.98 --- 66.99 350.32 --- 20.00 90.66 --- 86.99 419.49 ---
L.S.D 0.05 5.21 7.66 3.31 4.02 7.98 10.16 6.33. 9.45 5.00 5.81 9.65 13.47
W.D.* = weed density (No. m-2).
W.B.** = weed fresh weight (gm m-2 ).
R.º%= Weed control efficiency.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 45
8
Effect of herbicidal treatments on weed biomass
1-Broad-leaved weeds:
Results in (Tables 4 and 5) indicated that all herbicidal treatments
significantly decreased biomass of broad-leaved weeds and gave high weed
control efficiency (WCE) during the two studied seasons than untreated check.
Maximum reduction in biomass of broadleaved weed was achieved with
Starane treated plots followed by Equip and Gesaprim treatments in 2016 and
2017 seasons. Starane decreased biomass of these weeds by 96.43 and 94.95
%in 2016 and 2017 seasons, respectively. While, Gesaprim gave 95.54 and
91.53% WCE in 2016 and 2017 seasons, respectively. In addition, Epuip
herbicide gave 92.76 and 89.62% WCE during 2016 and 2017 seasons,
respectively. While, Merline Extra, Titus treated plots and handhoeing
treatment gave a moderate control of these weed compared to the control
treatment.
2-Grassy weed:
Biomass of grassy weed effectively affected by all weed control
treatments in maize field during 2016 and 2017 seasons in comparison with
untreated check (Tables 4 and 5). Maximum reduction in grassy weed was
noted with Equip treatment followed by Starane and Gesaprim treated plots
during these studies, they gave 95.68, 90.70 and 86.38 % WCE, respectively, in
2016 season, and 94.12, 87.50 and 88.96 % WCE, respectively, in 2017 season
compared to untreated plots. Moderate effect against Echonochloa colonum was
observed with Titus, Merline Extra and hand hoeing during the two seasons.
3-Total weeds:
Data presented in (Tables 4 and 5) clearly indicated that all tested
herbicides significantly (p=0.05) inhibited biomass of total weeds and gave high
WCE compared with handhoeing treatment during 2016 and 2017 seasons.
Starane found the best option in controlling the total weeds during the two
seasons followed by Gesaprim and Equip treatments. Starane suppressed fresh
weight of the total weeds by 94.95 and 92.45 % during 2016 and 2017 seasons,
respectively. Likewise, Gesaprim gave 91.53 and 91.26 % WCE of the total
weeds during the both tested seasons, respectively. In addition, Equip treated
plots decreased fresh weight of the total weeds by 89.52 and 88.87%,
respectively, during the two experimental seasons. Merline Extra and Titus
treated plots gave satisfactory control of the total weeds during this study, they
gave 77.91 and 75.05 % WCE in 2016 season, respectively, and 78.47 and
75.45 % WCE, respectively, in 2017 season. The least effect against the total
weeds biomass was observed with hand hoeing treatment compared to untreated
plots, it reduced total weeds biomass by 66.60 and 67.42 %, respectively, during
the two seasons. These results are in analogy with those reported by Helalia
(1993), Muhammad et al., (2009), they reported that application of
metolachlor, atrazine, fluroxpyr provided excellent control of weeds in maize
fields. Likewise, Fluroxypyr, atrazine and foramisulfuron were the more
46 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
9
effective treatments against the total weeds in maize crop (El-Metwally et al.,
2012 and Pathak et al., 2015). Weed control in maize can be effectively
achieved with foramisulfuron at the low rate (Kir and Dogan, 2009). The
reduction in weed fresh weight may be due to the inhibition effect of herbicidal
treatments on growth and development of weeds. Similar results were also
reported by Pannacci and Covarelli (2009); Kir and Dogan (2009) and
Hassan et al. (2010), Elias and Vasilis, (2017).
Effect of herbicidal treatments on yield components of maize
1-Ear length (cm):
Ear length (cm) is very important yield determining factor of maize
crop. Longer the ear length, lead to more number of grains per ear and higher
yield. Statistical analysis of obtained data in (Table 6) show the effect of
different herbicides and hand hoeing on ear length during 2016 and 2017
seasons. Obviously, all treated area with herbicides had significant increase in
ear length compared to untreated plots. Starane, Gesaprim and Equip herbicides
gave maximum increase in ear length during 2016 and 2017 seasons. Starane
increased ear length by 23.51 and 21.86 % in 2016 and 2017 season,
respectively. Moreover, Gesaprim treated plots gave 22.01 and 21.63 %
increase in ear length in 2016 and 2017 season, respectively. Additionally,
Equip treatment gave 22.40 and 21.30 % increase in cob length during 2016 and
2017 season, respectively. Moderate increase in cob length was recorded with
Merline Extra and Titus treated plots during the both seasons. Hand hoeing
treatment gave poor increase in cob length compared to untreated plots. Ear
length was significantly increased with all herbicidal treatments due to timely
and efficiently weed control of weeds and may be less weed competition which
allowed the maize plant to grow better and faster . These results are in harmony
with those obtained by Singh and Singh (2003) and Stefanovic et al. (2004),
who reported that greater cob length was found with application of weed control
treatments and smallest cob length was observed with untreated plots. The cob
length was highly significantly in herbicides treated plot was mainly due to
timely and efficiently weed control of weeds and thus, less weed competition
period in these treatments which allowed the maize plant to produce more
photosynthetic material by using available nutrients.
These results are agreed with those reported by Singh and Singh (2003)
and Stefanovic et al. (2004), who found that the greatest cob length was
recorded in weed control treatments and smallest cob length in weedy check
plots. Kamal et al. (1983) and Ali et al. (2003), they have reported the
promotion of cob length when appropriate weed controlled treatments including
herbicidal weed control was applied for weed control in maize crop.
2- Ear weight (gm)
Data listed in (Table 6) indicated that all weed control treatments
significantly (p-=0.05) increased ear weight (gm) during the two experimental
seasons compared to control treatment.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 47
11
Results illustrated that minimum ear weight (kg) was noticed in
untreated check. On contrary, Starane, Gesaprim and Equip herbicides achieved
maximum increase in ear weight during the two seasons, they gave 32.23, 29.41
and 30.99 % increase in ear weight in 2016 season, respectively, and 30.65,
29.62 and 25.58 %, respectively, in 2017 season. Merline Extra treated plots
recorded 25 and 26.73 % increase in ear weight, respectively, during the two
seasons. In addition, Titus treated plots recorded 22.16 and 20.39 % increase in
cob weight, respectively, in the two seasons. Least increase in ear weight was
observed with hand hoeing treatment, it gave 17.71 and 14.41 increase in ear
weight during the two consecutive seasons, respectively. Our results are in line
with those reported by Soliman and Gharib (2011) who reported that all
chemical and mechanical treatments resulted in a significant increase in ear
length, ear diameter and ear grain weight in comparison with unwedded check.
Table (6): Effect of herbicidal treatments on yield components
of maize crop during 2016 and 2017 seasons.
2016 season 2017 season
Rate
/fed.
Treatments Increase
%
Ear
weight
(kg)
Increase
%
Ear
length
(cm.)
Increase
%
Ear
weight
(kg)
Increase
%
Ear
length
(cm.)
Starane 200 cm3 24.45 23.51 425 90.09 23.87 09.53 411 30.65
Gesaprim 600 g 23.98 00.59 455 00.39 23.80 09.39 400 29.62
Equip 050 ml 24.95 00.35 317 95.09 23.75 09.95 393 25.58
Titus 25g 21.77 93.95 370 00.93 09.89 93.03 371 20.39
20 g 22.35 93.99 384 00 20.65 90.30 389 26.73
Merline
Extra
Handhoeing Twice 21.55 99.00 355 90.09 21.44 13.01 333 14.41
Untreated 0.00 18.70 --- 288 --- 95.30 --- 285 ---
1.06 6.31 0.98 4.67
L.S.D. at
0.05
Effect of herbicides and handhoeing on maize grain yield (kg fed-1)
Data listed in (Table 7) illustrated the effect of weed control treatments
on maize grain yield kg fed-1 during 2016 and 2017 seasons. Results clearly
indicated that all herbicidal treatments significantly (P=0.05) increased maize
grain yield compared to untreated check. Moreovere, least increase in maize
grain yield was found in untreated plots during the two seasons. On contrary,
Starane treated plots achieved highest increase in grain yield of maize followed
by Gesaprim and Equip treatments during the two trials. Starane treatment gave
28 and 26.72 % increase in maize grain yield in 2016 and 2017 seasons,
respectively. Moreover, Gesaprim treated plots gave 27.56 and 25.95 %
increase during 2016 and 2017 seasons, respectively, over untreated plots. Also,
Equip herbicide recorded 24.36 and 22.73% increase in the two seasons,
respectively. Satisfactory increase in maize grains was achieved with Titus and
Merline Extra treated plots, they gave 14.28 and 16.55 % increase in 2016
season, respectively, and 16.07 and 18.11% increase in 2017 season,
48 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
11
respectively .Poor increase in maize grains was observed with hand hoeing
treatment during the two seasons compared to untreated plots. According to the
data obtained from these studies, candidate herbicides showed maximum
control of weeds in maize crop and gave higher WCE than untreated control,
thereby improved plant growth characters and yield parameters and grains.
Effect of candidate herbicides might be mainly due to their effect on weeds
found in maize field leading to reduce competition between weeds and maize
plants, which caused an increase in maize grain yield (Saad El-Din et al. 2004).
Starane, Gesaprim and Equip treatments achieved excellent control of weeds as
well as recorded maximum increase in maize yield. Dalley et al. (2006) and
Abouziena et al. (2007) reported that reduction in maize grain yield is about 66
to 90% due to weed infestation. Reduced maize grain yield is due to weeds may
be attributed to several factors, e.g., competition between maize and weeds for
water, nutrients and allelopathic effects of weeds. These results are in harmony
with those obtained by Eleftherohorinos and Kotoula-Syka (1995) who
concluded that application of herbicides doubled maize grain yields in
comparison with the weed infested control. Hassan and Ahmed (2005) found
that maize yield and yield components (ear length, ear weight, ear kernel weight
and weight 100-grain weight) were increased with herbicides and hand hoeing
as compared with unweeded control. As well, Abouziena et al. (2008) stated
that all weed control treatments improved maize grain yield up to fold
compared with nonweeded check. Hassan et al. (2010) found that herbicidal
control of weeds considered one of the most effective control measures in maize
fields. Grain yields were improved with fluroxypyr applied 6 week after
sowing. However, the highest yields were obtained with hoeing treatment
during the growing season. Whereas, Munsif et al. (2009) reported that weed
control treatments significantly affected weed density, weeds flora, plant height,
grain yield, biological yield and harvest index of maize crop, while, application
of herbicides as foliar spray achieved lower weed density and higher biological
yield and maximum plant height, grain yield and harvest index, whereas, weedy
check occurred higher weed density, dwarf plants, lower biological, grain yields
and harvest index. Higher grain yield in these treatments could be attributed to
improved yield components such as higher number of grains cob, higher grain
weight cob, and 100-grain weight. The improvement in yield components was
intern due to improved growth attributes such higher total dry matter production
and leaf area index. Thus, the improvement in growth and yield components
was as a consequence of lower crop- weed competition, which shifted the
balance in favour of crop in the utilization of nutrients, moisture, light and space
(Walia et al, 2007, Inalli et al., 2014). Likewise, Tahir et al. (2009) found that
the application of herbicides and manual hoeing increasing maize grain yield
compared with untreated check. Khan (2002) and Subhan (2007) concluded
that increased grain yield of maize crop by controlling weeds with application
of herbicides. Similarly, Akmal et al. (2010) and Bibi et al. (2010) have found
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 49
12
higher grain yield of maize in plots treated with herbicides. The lowest grain
yield was recorded in weedy check could be attributed to maximum weed
density which suppressed the growth and development of maize plants by
competing for moisture, light and nutrients (Muhammad et al., 2009). The
efficiency of various chemicals and other weed control practices in enhancing
grain yield had also been observed by Toloraya et al. (2001) and Stefanovic et
al. (2004). So, our study concluded that application of candidate herbicides and
hand hoeing recorded high WCE of predominant weeds in maize field and
increase grain yield and yield components of maize crop in comparison with
unweeded check.
Table (7): Maize grain yield as influenced by different herbicidal
treatments during 2016 and 2017 seasons.
2016 season 2017 season
Rate fed-1Treatments . Increase
%
Grain yield
(Kg plot-1)
Increase
%
Grain yield
(Kg plot-1)
Starane 200 cm3 25.00 28.00 24.20 26.57
Gesaprim 600 g 24.80 27.41 24.00 25.95
Equip 050 ml 24.89 27.50 23.27 22.73
Titus 25g 01..00 14.28 21.47 16.07
Merline Extra 20 g 29.00 17.12 22.00 18.11
Handhoeing Twice 20.12 10.53 20.13 8.73
Untreated 0.00 18.00 ------- 90.77 --------
L.S.D. 0.05 1.20 1.13
REFRENCES
Abdelmonem, A.E. and R.M.A. El-Kholy (2006). Evaluation of chemical and
mechanical control of annual weeds in maize fields. Annals of Agric.
Sci., Moshtohor., 44 (4): 1889-1904.
Abdullah, E.A. (2007). Effect of planting methods and herbicides on yield and
yield components of maize. M.Sc (Hons) Thesis,
Agric.Univ.Peshawar, Pakistan.
Abouziena, H. F.; M. F. El-Karmany; M. Singh and S. D. Sharma (2007).
Effect of nitrogen rates and weed control treatments on maize yield
and associated weeds in sandy soils. Weed Technol., 21:1049–1053.
Abouziena, H. F.; I. M. El-Metwally and E. R. El-Desoki (2008). Effect of
plant spacing and weed control treatments on maize yield and
associated weeds in sandy soils. American-Eurasian J. Agric. and
Environ. Sci., 4 (1): 9-17
Adigun, J.A. (2001).Control of weeds with pre-emergence herbicides in maizepepper
mixture in the Nigerian northern Guinea Savanna: J.
Sustainable Agri. Environ., 3: 378-383.
Akmal, M.; Ur-Rehman; H. Farhatullah; M. Asim and H. Akbar (2010).
Response of maize varieties to nitrogen application for leaf area
50 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
13
profile, crop growth, yield and yield components. Pak. J.
Bot.,42(3):1941-1947.
Ali, R.; S.K. Khalil; S.M. Raza and H. Khan (2003). Effect of herbicides and
row spacing on maize (Zea mays L.). Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 9(3-
4):171-178.
Bibi, Z. ; N. Khan; M. Akram; Q. Khan; M.J. Khan; S. Batool and K.
Makhdum. (2010). Integrating cultivars with reduced herbicides rates
for weed management in maize. Pak. J. Bot., 42(3):1923-1929.
Bogdan, I.; P. Gus; I. Rusu and M. Hategan (2002). The chemical weed
control with simple and complex herbicide in maize (Zea mays L.).
Buletinul-universitatil-de-Stiinte-AgricoleSi-medicina-veterinara-
Cluj-Napoca-SeriaAgriculture. 57: 88-92.
Dalley, C. D.; M. L. Bernards and J. J. Kells (2006). Effect of weed removal
timing and row spacing on soil moisture in corn (Zea mays).Weed
Technol., 20:399–409.
Devender, S.; R.C. Tyagi; S.K. Agarwal and D. Singh (1998). Weed control
methods in spring maize. Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 28(1):21-25.
Eleftherohorinos, I.G. and E. Kotoula-Syka (1995). Influence of herbicide
application rate and timings for post-emergence control of Sorghum
halepense (L.) Pers. maize. Weed Res., 35 (2): 99-103.
Elias, T. and A. Vasilis (2017). Efficacy of the herbicide Lancelot 450 WG
(Aminopyralid + Florasulam) on broadleaf and invasive weeds and
effects on yield and quality parameters of maize.Agriculture,7(62):1-
7.
El-Metwally, I.M.; M.S. Abd El-Salam; R.M.H. Tagour and H.F.
Abouziena (2012). Efficiency of plant population and reduced
herbicides rate on maize productivity and associated weeds. J. of
Appl. Sci. Res., 8(4): 2342-2349.
Evans, P. S. (2003). Influence of nitrogen and duration of weed interference on
corn growth and development. Weed Sci., 51(3): 456-566.
Ford, G. T. and J. Pleasant (1994). Competitive abilities of six corn (Zea
mays L.) hybrids with four weed control practices. Weed Technol., 8
(3): 124-128.
Hafeezullah (2000). Effect of different sowing and weed control methods on
the performance of sunflower. M.Sc. (Hons), thesis, Agric. Univ.,
Peshawer, Pakistan.
Hassan, A.A.A. and M.K.A. Ahmed (2005). The influence of some herbicides
and additional hoeing in maize growth and yield and yield
components. Int. J. Agri. Biol., 7(5): 708-710.
Hassan, G.; S. Tanveer; N. Khan and M. Munir (2010). Integrating cultivars
with reduced herbicides rates for weed management in maize. Pak. J.
Bot., 42(3): 1923-1929.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 51
14
Helalia, A.A.R. (1993).Chemical weed control in maize with some preemergence
herbicides. Al-Azhar J. Agric. Res. ,18: 271-278.
Hoverstad, I. R.; J. L. Gunsolus; G. A. Johson and R. P. King (2004). Risk
efficiency Criteria for evaluating economics of herbicides based weed
management system in corn. Weed Technology, 18:687-697.
Inalli K.; B.N. A. Kumar and R. Babu (2014). Efficacy of Tank Mixture
Herbicides for Weed Control in Maize. Trends in Biosciences., 7(14):
1835-1838.
Janjic, V.; D. Milosevic and I. Alovic (2004). Herbicides efficiency of
sulfonylurea derivative and their combination without compounds in
weed control in maize. Herbologia, 5: 41-51.
Kakade, S.U.; J.P. Deshmukh; V.M. Bhale; M.S. Solanke and P.V.
Shingrup (2016). Efficacy of pre and post emergence herbicides in
Maize. Extended Summaries Vol. 1: 4th International Agronomy
Congress, Nov. 22–26, 2016, New Delhi, India. pp - 442-443.
Kamal, M.S.; M.S. Abdel-Raouf; E.A. Mahmoud and S. Amer
(1983).Response of two maize varieties to different plant densities in
relation to weed control treatments. Ann. Agric. Sci., 19:79-93.
Khan, M.A. (2002). Efficacy of different herbicides on the yield and yield
components of maize. M.Sc (Hons) Thesis, Agric. Univ. Peshawar,
Pakistan.
Khan, B.M.; N. Khan and I.A. Khan (2003). Efficacy of different herbicides
on the yield and yield components of maize. Asian Net. Sci. Info.
3(2):300-304.
Khan, N.W.; N. Khan and I. A. Khan (2012). Integration of nitrogen
fertilizers and herbicides for efficient weed management in maize
crop. Sarhad J. Agric. , 28(3):457-463.
Kir, K. and M. N. Dogan (2009). Weed control in maize (Zea mays L.) with
effective minimum rates of foramsulfuron. Turk. J. Agric. For., 33:
601-610. Kudsk.
Kumar, B.; S. Prasad; D. Mandal and R. Kumar (2017). Influence of
integrated weed management practices on weed dynamics,
productivity and nutrient uptake of rabi maize (Zea mays L.). Int. J. of
Current Microbio. and App. Sci., 6 (4): 1431-1440.
Lehoczky, E. A. and B. Nagy (2002). Effect of early competition between
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli L.) and maize on the growth of
plants. Hungarian Weed Res. and Tech. 3 (1): 13- 20.
Muhammad, T.; R.J. Muhammad; T. Asif and A.N. Muhammad (2009).
Effect of Different Herbicides on Weeds, Growth and Yield of Spring
Planted Maize (Zea mays L.). Pak. j. life Soc. Sci., 7(2): 168-174.
Mukherje, P.K. and A. Rai (2015). Weed management in no-tilled dibbling
maize within rice residue. 25th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society
Conference on “Weed Science for Sustainable Agriculture,
52 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
15
Environment and Biodiversity”, Hyderabad, India during 13-16
October, 2015. pg. 148.
Munsif, F.; K. Ali; I. Khan; H.U. Khan and M. Anwar (2009). Efficacy of
various herbicides against weeds and their impact on yield of maize.
Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 15(2-3): 191-198
Pannacci, E. and G. Covarelli (2009). Efficacy of mesotrione used at reduced
doses for post-emergence weed control in maize (Zea mays L.). Crop
Prot., 28: 57-61.
Pathak, P.K.; S. Singh; R.S. Rinwa and S. Singh (2015). Efficacy of different
weed control methods in spring planted maize. Haryana J. Agron., 31
(1-2): 92-97.
Rana, S. S. (2017).Weed management in maize and maize-wheat cropping
system. Department of Agronomy, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi
Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur 176062, HP, India.
Roy, C.; F. Guggiari and J.M. Compagnon (2002). S-metolachlor; herbicide
for maize, sorghum and sunflower. Syngenta Agro. SAS, Phytoma,
France, No. 548: 51-53.
Rutta, A.; R. L. Vanderlip; R. A. Higgins; I. J. Moshier and A. M.
Feyerherym (1991). Suitability of corn growth models for
incorporation of weed and in set stress. Agron. J., 83: 757-763.
Saad El-Din, Samia, A.; Nadia K. Messiha and G.M. Metwally (2004).
Response of maize and associated weeds to some post-emergence
herbicides. J. Agric.Sci. Mansoura Univ. 29 (3): 1227-1237.
Singh, A.P. and P.C. Singh (2003). Effect of different weed control methods
on growth and yield of rabisown hybrid maize cv. Hybrid 4640. J.
Living World. 10: 12-15.
Skoko, H. and D. Zivanovic (2002). Weed control by herbicide in maize under
agro-ecological conditions of Semberia. Weed Sci. Society of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, 3:99-105.
Soliman, I.E. and H.S. Gharib (2011). Response of weeds and maize (Zea
mays l.)To some weed control treatments under different nitrogen
fertilizer rates. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 38 (2): 249-269.
Stanzen, L.; A. Kumar; B.C. Sharma; R. Puniya and A. Sharma (2016).
Weed dynamics and productivity under different tillage and weedmanagement
practices in maize (Zea mays) - wheat (Triticum
aestivum) cropping sequence. Indian J. Agric., 61 (44): 449-454.
Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie (1984). Principles and Procedures of Statistics:
A Biometrical Approach. 2nd McGraw Hill Book Co., Singapore.
Stefanovic, L.; M. Milivojevic; I. Husic; M. Samic and Z. Hojka (2004).
Selectivity of the sulfonylurea herbicide group in the crop of
commercial KL maize inbred lines. Institute-ze-Kukuruz, Herboglia,
Serbis and Montenegro, 5(1): 53-63.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020 53
16
Subhan, F. (2007). Response of Z.mays crop to various herbicides. Pakistan J
Weed Sci Res., 13: 9-15.
Tahir, M.; M.R. Javed; A. Tanveer; M.A. Nadeem; A. Wasaya; S.A.H.
Bukhari and J. Ur-Rehman (2009). Effect of different herbicides on
weeds, growth and yield of spring planted maize (Zea mays L.). Pak. j.
Life Soc. Sci., 7(2): 168-174.
Toloraya, T.R. ; V. P. Malakanova and M.G Akhtyrtsev (2001).
Effectiveness of dates, methods and doses of applying Zinc Sulphate
and its combination with the selective herbicides (Titus) in maize
sowings. Kukuruza-ISerge. No.2:5-7.
Walia, U. S.; S. Singh and B. Singh (2007). Integrated control of hardy weeds
in maize (Zea mays L.). Indian J. Weed Sci., 39 (1-2): 17-20.
Youssef, M.M.A. (1998). Efficacy of some weed control treatments on
nematode populations in a maize field. Anz. Sch~idlingskde,
Pflanzenschutz, Umwehschutz 71,159-160, Blackwell Wissenschafts-
Verlag, Berlin.
Zimdah, R.L. (1999). Fundamentals of weed science. 2nd ed. New Yourk.
Acadimic Press, 209.
فاعلية مبيدات الحشائش فى حقول الذرة
عماد الدين محمد أحمد مرزوق
قسم وقاية النبات - کمية الز ا رعة – جامعة الأزهر بالقاهرة
رى إجزاء انزجبرة انحقهيخ خلال يىط ىً 2116 و 2117 و فى يزکش يطىثض ث حًبفظخ
ث عًذل 211 جزاو ) EC % کفز انشيخ نزقييى کفبءح يجيذاد حشبئش طزبري ) فهىروکظجيز 21
ث عًذل 611 جزاو نهفذا ، إيکىيت ) فىرايظهفيزو ) WP % نهفذا ، أرزاسي ) جيظبثزيى 91
ث عًذل 21 جزاو ) DF % ث عًذل 751 يم نهفذا ، ريزىص )ري ظًهفيزو 25 ) EC % 2225
ث عًذل 51 جزاو نهفذا و ان قُبوح انيذويخ )WG % نهفذا ، ييزني إکظززا )أيشوکظبفهىرىل 75
عهى انکثبفخ و انىس انزطت نهحشبئش فى حقىل انذرح يقبر خَ ثبنک زُزول غيز ان عًبيم 2 و نقذ
ثي ذُ ان زُبئج أ انحشبئش انظبئذح فى أرض انزجزثخ هى انزجهخ ، ان هًىخيخ ، انشجيظ ، انعهيک
کعزيضخ الأوراق ، و أثى رکجخ کزفيعخ الأوراق خلال يىط ىً انذراطخ 2
و نقذ أظهزد ان زُبئج أيضب أ انحشبئش عزيضخ الأوراق کب ذَ أکثز وجىدا ي رفيعخ
الأوراق 2
و نقذ أکذد ان زُئج أ کم ان جًيذاد ان ظًزخذيخ و ان قُبوح انيذويخ کب ذَ فعبنخ ثصىرح
يع ىُيخ فى يکبفحخ انحشبئش و سيبدح طىل و ط کً جَبربد انذرح و کذنک سيبدح يحصىل
انحجىة يقبر خَ ثغيز ان عًبيم 2
ثىجه عبو کب أکثز ان جًيذاد فبعهيخ يجيذ طزبري ، جيظبثزيى و إيکىيت فى خفط أعذاد
انحشبئش و ووس هَب انزطت و سيبدح يکى بَد ان حًصىل و يحصىل انحجىة ن حًصىل انذرح
خلال يىط ىً انذراطخ 2
54 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (11) 2020
View on SCiNiTO
