International Journal of Plant & Soil Science

Volume 35, Issue 11, Page 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

ISSN: 2320-7035

Assessing the Effect of Weed

Management Practices on Weed
Flora, Growth and Yield of
Fodder Maize (Zea mays L.)
Monika Raghuwanshi a, A. K. Jha a, Badal Verma a*,
M. P. Sahu a and Abhijeet Dubey b
a
Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya,
Jabalpur (MP) 482004, India.
b
Department of Physics and Agrometeorology, College of Agricultural Engineering,
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (MP) 482004, India.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.

Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/IJPSS/2023/v35i112952

Open Peer Review History:

This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers, peer
review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/99337

Received: 21/02/2023
Original Research Article Accepted: 26/04/2023
Published: 04/05/2023

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at Research Farm, AICRP on Forage Crops, Department of
Agronomy, JNKVV, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) during of the year 2019. The main objective of the
experiment was to find out the effect of different weed control treatments on complex weed flora in
fodder maize. Ten treatments were tested in randomized block design with three replications.
Treatments consisted of pre-emergence application of atrazine 1000 g/ha, pendimethalin 750 g/ha,
atrazine 750 g/ha + pendimethalin 750 g/ha and post emergence application of 2, 4-D 500 g/ha,
tembotrione 120 g/ha, topramezone 35 g/ha, tembotrione 120 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha,
topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha, hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS and weedy
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: badalv82282@gmail.com;

Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

check. Weed intensity and dry matter accumulation by weeds were recorded species wise and then
the effectiveness of weed management and the weed control efficiency were calculated. In maize
field, the predominated weeds were Echinochloa colona, Commelina communis, and Digitaria
sanguinalis among monocots, Phyllanthus niruri and Eclipta alba among dicots along with a
respectable sum of numerous minor weeds. Experimental results indicated that hand wedding has
recorded highest weed control efficiency (88.64%) followed by PoE application of topramezone 35
g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha (74.38%) and tembotrione 120 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha (68.31%). All
weed control treatments significantly affected the plant height, LAI, stem girth and leaf: stem ratio of
crop. Among different herbicidal treatments, topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha was found
significantly superior and gives highest green fodder yield (47.26 t/ha), dry fodder yield (13.64 t/ha),
crude protein yield (1.51 t/ha), net monetary returns (Rs. 44824/ha) and B: C ratio (2.72). Thus,
herbicide application of topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha was found more reliable to
control complex weed flora of fodder maize with higher green fodder yield and net returns.

Keywords: Fodder maize; green fodder yield; herbicides; weed control efficiency; weed flora.

1. INTRODUCTION “In this context, the use of suitable herbicides is

the only substitute to get higher productivity
“Maize (Zea mays L.) is known as ‘Queen of with lower cost involvement. However continuous
Cereals’ because of its high production potential use of the herbicide causes shift in weed
and wider adaptability” [1,2]. “The agricultural flora and development of resistance to
production systems in India are based upon herbicides” [13,14]. Herbicides are used to
mixed farming in which two major enterprises are retain weed-free conditions, during the early
crops and livestock. Livestock is the backbone of stage of growth, either by cultural or mechanical
Indian agriculture and accounts for around 4.4 means or through pre-planting, pre-emergence
percent of the country's gross domestic product” and post-emergence herbicide applications
[3]. “India ranks first in the milk production all [15,16]. “Atrazine, recommended as a pre-
over the world. Thus, production of good quality emergence herbicide, is not effective against
fodder and forage is of great importance for the some of the weeds. Globally, 45 weed species
development of livestock industry in the country” across the many corn growing areas
[4,5]. “Fodder plays an important role in shown resistance against photosystem II (PS II)
economizing the cost of production of livestock inhibitor herbicides, like atrazine (Heap 2019).
products especially of milk. Green fodder is the Pre-emergence or early post-emergence
essential component of feeding high yielding atrazine application followed by intercultivation
milch animals to obtain optimum level of milk has been shown to be quite successful in
production” [6]. “The green fodder maize (African kharif maize. Farmers sometimes fails to apply
Tall) contains dry matter (22.2%), crude protein atrazine as a pre-emergence spray due to
(7.1%), crude fiber (30.2%), in-vitro dry matter excessive soil moisture as a result of exceptional
digestibility (65.0%), neutral detergent fibre rains. In such cases, applying a post-emergence
(67.6%), acid detergent fibre (38.3%) and total herbicide may be a viable option. Most currently
ash (6.0%)” [7]. available herbicides, such as atrazine,
pendimethalin, and alachlor, provide only a
“Weed management is a severe issue in forage narrow spectrum of weed control in maize [17],
crop production and weeds play a large piece in and repeated use of a single herbicide leads to
fodder maize production. Worldwide yield losses the evolution of herbicide resistant weed
in maize due to weeds are estimated to be species and a shift in weed flora” [18]. So,
around 37%” [8]. “Farmers usually give prime there is a need for some alternate post-
importance to few cultural practices and neglect emergence herbicide which can provide broad
other factors like weed control” [9]. “Maize crops spectrum weed control in kharif maize without
are infested with a variety of weeds and affecting the crop growth and yield of crop.
subjected to intense weed competition, resulting Henceforth, the current experiment was
in huge losses. Weeds are a major problem in conducted to find out the suitable herbicides
rainy season crops due to favorable growth or herbicidal combination with appropriate
conditions, primarily wide spacing and initial slow dose to control complex weed flora associated
growth, frequent rains, causing huge losses with fodder maize and attained the highest
ranging from 28 to 100%” [10,11,12]. yields.

113
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS weeds (Commelina communis, Phyllanthus niruri

and Eclipta alba) were observed in association
A field experiment was conducted at Research with maize in the experimental site.
Farm, AICRP on Forage Crops, Department of
Agronomy, JNKVV, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) 3.2 Weed Density and Dry Weight
during Kharif season of the year 2019 to study
the effect of different herbicides on growth and All the weed management treatments
yield of fodder maize. The soil of the significantly affected the grassy, sedges and
experimental field was neutral in reaction (pH broad leaved weeds at 45 DAS (Table 1). The
7.21) and medium in organic carbon (0.54%) as data revealed that topramezone 35 g/ha +
well as with medium available nitrogen (231.56 Atrazine 250 g/ha recorded the lowest density of
kg/ha), available phosphorus (16.59 kg/ha) and all the grassy, sedges and broad leaved weeds
available potassium (313.66 kg/ha) contents with significantly compared to all other herbicidal
normal electrical conductivity (0.33). The treatments and at par with tembotrione 120 g/ha
experiment was laid out in a randomized + atrazine 250 g/ha. However, hand weeding
complete block design (RCBD) with the following was superior among all the weed control
treatments viz., tembotrione 120 g a.i/ha at 20 treatments and recorded the lowest density of all
DAS, topramezone 35 g a.i/ha at 20 DAS, pre- the weed species. At the same time, the density
emergence application of atrazine 1000 g a.i/ha, of all the dominant weeds was higher in weedy
pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 750 check due to uninterrupted growth of weeds as
g a.i /ha, tembotrione 120 g/ha + atrazine 250 g no weed control measures were adopted in
a.i/ha at 20 DAS, topramezone 35 g a.i/ha + weedy check plots [21].
atrazine 250 g a.i/ha at 20 DAS, pre emergence
application of atrazine 750 g a.i/ha + Significant variation in weed dry weight was
pendimethalin 750 g a.i/ha, 2,4-D 500 g a.i/ha at recorded due to different weed-management
20 DAS, hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS practices at 45 DAS (Table 2). The recorded data
and control. African tall variety of maize was indicated that higher weed dry weight was
sown with row spacing of 50 cm and seed rate of recorded in the weedy check treatment, while the
40 kg per ha. Observations on weed density, lowest weed dry weight was recorded in the hand
weed dry matter, weed control efficiency, plant weeding treatment. However, among herbicidal
growth parameters, yield and economics of treatments, the application of pre-emergence
fodder maize were recorded. The quadrate of herbicide topramezone 35 g/ha + Atrazine 250
0.25 square meter (0.5 m × 0.5 m) was randomly g/ha recorded significantly minimum weed dry
placed at four places in each plot and then the weight that established its superiority over other
species wise and total weed count was recorded. treatments, which is at par with tembotrione 120
The data thus obtained, were transformed and g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha. Because, topramezone
expressed in number per square meter. For with the combination of atrazine performed better
calculating weed dry weight, the weeds were first to control grasses and braod leaved weeds,
sun dried and thereafter kept in paper bags and which leads to lower dry weight of weeds [22].
dried in oven at 60˚C for 48 hours and kept for
drying till constant dry weight of weeds was 3.3 Weed Control Efficiency (%)
achieved. The data recorded from the
experiment on various studies were tabulated The weed control efficiency (WCE) had
and subjected to their statistical analysis by the significant inverse relationship with dry matter
methods of analysis of variance as suggested by production by weeds. The weed control efficiency
[19]. The data on weeds had considerable was recorded maximum with hand weeding twice
variation and hence subjected to square root (88.64%) at 45 DAS, because associated weeds
transformation √ x ± 0.5 before analysis produced minimum dry matter with this treatment.
statistically as per methods proposed by [20]. The dry matter accumulation by weeds
correspondingly reduced in 2,4-D 500 g/ha,
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Atrazine 750 g/ha + Pendimethalin 750 g/ha,
Pendimethalin 750 g/ha and Atrazine 1000 g/ha,
3.1 Weed Flora therefore the weed control efficiency
correspondingly increased with these treatments.
The important grassy weeds (Echinochloa colona, Post emergence application of tembotrione 120
Digitaria sanguinalis and Eleusine indica), g/ha, topramezone 35 g/ha, tembotrione 120
sedges (Cyperus rotundus) and broad-leaved g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha and topramezone 35

114
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha had minimum dry LAI differed significantly due to different weed
matter production by weeds. Consequently, control treatments at 60 DAS (Table 3). The LAI
these treatments had greater value of weed was maximum in weed free plot (10.24) among
control efficiency than other herbicides. However, all weed control treatments, whereas minimum
highest weed control efficiency was recorded value of LAI was recorded in weedy check plots.
under topramezone 35 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha Application of post emergence herbicides
treatment (74.38%) among herbicidal treatments. produced significantly higher LAI as compared to
[23,24] also reported that, topramezone + weedy check but, they were inferior to that of
atrazine proved most effective and they reduced weed free plot. Among herbicidal treatments,
the weed density and weed biomass significantly, maximum LAI was recorded in topramezone 35
which in turn increased WCE compared with g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha (8.94). This may be
weedy check. because of better growth and development of
foliage under weed free environment and
3.4 Growth Parameters consequently resulted in more assimilatory area
per unit land area [26,27]. Stem girth remarkably
The plant height, in general was less under differed due to different treatments at 60 DAS
all the treatment during early period of crop crop stage (Table 3).
growth, which was increased with age of
crop and was found maximum at 60 DAS Stem girth was less (2.02 cm) in weedy check
(Table 3). Plant height was minimum (115.41 cm) plot, due to poor control of associated
under weedy check plots. However, maximum weeds at 60 DAS. Application of post emergence
height was recorded in plots receiving twice herbicides resulted in increased in the stem girth
hand weeding (180.58 cm). Among herbicidal at all the stages. But found significantly inferior to
treatments, application of topramezone 35 that of topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha,
g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha caused significant (2.23 cm) as well as weed free treatment (2.27
increase of plant height (178.97 cm) which cm) because, both the treatments provided
is at par with tembotrione 120 g/ha + atrazine excellent control of associated weeds, resulting
250 g/ha, topramezone 35 g/ha and in almost weed free environment throughout the
tembotrione 120 g/ha. “The excellent control critical period of crop-weed competition which,
of weeds under these treatments led to led to optimum growth and development of
optimal utilization of growth resources crop plants and ultimately resulted in more
therefore, these treatments have long stature number of leaves per plant under these
plants” [25]. treatments [28].

Weed control efficiency (%)

100
88.64%
90
80 74.38%

70 68.31%
60.85%
60 54.49%

50 47.08%
41.6%
37%
40
30.13%
30
20
10
0%
0
Tembotrione Topramezone Atrazine 1000 Pendimethalin Tembotrione Topramezone Atrazine 750 2,4-D 500 g/ha Hand weeding Weedy Check
120 g/ha 35 g/ha g/ha 750 g/ha 120 g/ha + 35 g/ha + g/ha +
Atrazine 250 Atrazine 250 Pendimethalin
g/ha g/ha 750 g/ha

Fig. 1. Influence of different weed control treatments on weed control efficiency at 45 DAS

115
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

2
Table 1. Influence of different weed control treatments on density of weeds (no/m ) at 45 DAS

Treatments Echinochloa Digitaria Eleusine Cyperus Commelina Phyllanthus Eclipta

colona sanguinalis indica rotundus communis niruri alba
Tembotrione 120 g/ha 8.34 (69.08) 4.76 (22.15) 2.85 (7.65) 4.57 (20.42) 4.94 (23.92) 4.75 (22.08) 2.99 (8.50)
Topramezone 35 g/ha 8.12 (65.50) 4.58 (20.44) 2.69 (6.77) 4.47 (19.50) 4.76 (22.17) 4.53 (20.00) 2.88 (7.83)
Atrazine 1000 g/ha 9.41 (88.17) 5.34 (28.07) 3.69 13.11) 5.02 (24.75) 5.38 (28.50) 5.38 (28.50) 3.65 (12.8)
Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 9.68 (93.17) 5.44 (29.07) 3.96(15.17) 5.19 (26.50) 5.74 (32.50) 5.68 (31.75) 3.75 (13.6)
Tembotrione 120 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 7.26 (52.17) 4.33 (18.27) 2.58 (6.17) 4.17 (16.92) 4.51 (19.83) 4.26 (17.67) 2.58 (6.17)
Topramezone 35 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 6.68 (44.58) 4.22 (17.33) 2.46 (5.58) 3.94 (15.00) 4.36 (18.50) 4.03 (15.75) 2.26 (4.67)
Atrazine 750 g/ha + Pendimethalin 750g/ha 9.00 (80.58) 5.06 (25.10) 3.05 (8.83) 4.87 (23.25) 5.18 (26.33) 5.14 (26.00) 3.67 (13.0)
2,4-D 500 g/ha 8.51 (71.92) 4.90 (23.53) 2.97 (8.33) 4.83 (22.83) 5.13 (25.83) 4.97 (24.17) 3.31 (10.5)
Hand weeding 2.99 (8.50) 3.72(13.38) 2.17 (4.25) 2.04 (3.67) 2.59 (6.25) 2.45 (5.50) 1.82 (2.83)
Weedy Check 10.17 (103.00) 5.85 (33.83) 5.00(24.63) 5.58 (30.67) 6.05 (36.25) 5.91 (34.42) 4.64 (21.0)
SEm± 0.20 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.14
CD at 5% 0.59 0.21 0.26 0.17 0.37 0.25 0.41
2
Table 2. Influence of different weed control treatments on dry weight of weeds (g/m ) at 45 DAS

Treatments Echinochloa Digitaria Eleusine Cyperus Commelia Phyllanthus Eclipta alba

colona sanguinalis indica rotundus communis niruri
Tembotrione 120 g/ha 4.59 (20.55) 4.10 (16.34) 3.58 (12.32) 3.21 (9.80) 3.87 (14.51) 3.88 (14.56) 3.52 (11.90)
Topramezone 35 g/ha 4.36 (18.47) 3.73 (13.40) 3.40 (11.07) 2.94 (8.13) 3.54 (12.02) 3.60 (12.47) 3.35 (10.74)
Atrazine 1000 g/ha 5.48 (29.53) 4.80 (22.53) 3.96 (15.17) 4.01 (15.61) 4.40 (18.92) 4.64 (20.99) 4.12 (16.45)
Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 5.55 (30.30) 5.00 (24.51) 4.17 (16.90) 4.46 (19.37) 4.66 (21.20) 4.99 (24.37) 4.30(17.96)
Tembotrione 120 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 3.85 (14.36) 3.48 (11.61) 3.01 (8.58) 2.76 (7.10) 2.99 (8.45) 3.32 (10.54) 3.05 (8.80)
Topramezone 35 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 3.50 (11.75) 3.29 (10.34) 2.65 (6.53) 2.58 (6.13) 2.77 (7.19) 2.82 (7.43) 2.72 (6.90)
Atrazine 750 g/ha + Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 5.36 (28.29) 4.56 (20.32) 3.88 (14.52) 3.63 (12.70) 4.15 (16.76) 4.53 (20.03) 4.00 (15.51)
2,4-D 500 g/ha 5.17 (26.27) 4.34 (18.32) 3.72 (13.37) 3.45 (11.43) 3.97 (15.23) 4.11 (16.39) 3.84(14.27)
Hand weeding 2.79 (7.31) 1.53 (1.88) 1.26 (1.10) 1.60 (2.10) 2.36 (5.18) 2.48 (5.73) 1.52 (1.81)
Weedy Check 8.49 (71.53) 5.36 (28.18) 4.39 (18.80) 5.20 (26.58) 5.52 (29.93) 5.47 (29.45) 4.77(22.28)
SEm± 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.04
CD at 5% 0.18 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.27 0.18 0.13

116
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

Table 3. Effect of weed control treatments on plant height, leaf area index, stem girth and leaf:
stem ratio of maize at different growth stages

Treatments Plant Leaf Stem Leaf:

height (cm) area girth (cm) Stem
index
Tembotrione 120 g/ha 168.97 6.96 2.15 0.75
Topramezone 35 g/ha 170.44 7.44 2.17 0.76
Atrazine 1000 g/ha 148.07 4.04 2.07 0.69
Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 139.43 3.51 2.06 0.68
Tembotrione 120 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 178.16 7.19 2.20 0.78
Topramezone 35 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 178.97 8.94 2.23 0.79
Atrazine 750 g/ha + Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 151.91 5.30 2.09 0.71
2,4-D 500 g/ha 154.99 6.30 2.12 0.73
Hand weeding 180.58 10.24 2.27 0.82
Weedy Check 115.41 2.35 2.02 0.66
SEm± 1.43 0.27 0.01 0.004
CD at 5% 4.25 0.81 0.02 0.01

All the weed control treatments significantly topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha
affected the leaf: stem ratio at harvest stage recorded maximum green fodder, dry matter and
(Table 3). Significantly higher L:S ratio was crude protein yield (47.26, 13.64 and 1.51 t/ha,
observed in twice hand weeding (0.82) and was respectively). “It was due to elimination of
at par with topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 grasses as well as broad leaved weeds from
g/ha (0.79). Sıgnificantly lower L:S ratio among inter and intra row spaces besides better
all the weed management practices was noticed aeration due to manipulation of surface soil and
in control plot (0.66) The higher L:S ratio in twice thus, more space, water, light and nutrients were
hand weeding might be due to higher vegetative available for the better growth and development,
growth especially leaf growth. This was due to which resulted into superior yield attributes and
increased availability of nutrients to the crop by development, and consequently the highest
reducing weed growth efficiently. Whereas, lower yield” [31].
L:S ratio in unweeded control was mainly due to
less crop growth especially leaf growth resulted 3.6 Economics
from higher crop weed competition during critical
stages of crop growth [29]. Economic analysis of different weed control
treatments in fodder maize is given in Table 5.
3.5 Yields The maximum GMR of Rs. 70975/ha was
registered in hand weeding treatment, however
Green fodder, dry matter and crude protein yield maximum NMR of Rs. 44824/ha was registered
varied significantly under different treatments in topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha
(Table 4). Among all the treatments, the followed by tembotrione 120 g/ha + atrazine 250
minimum green fodder, dry matter and crude g/ha (Rs. 40871/ha). Similarly, maximum benefit
protein yield were recorded under weedy check cost ratio was found with application of
plot (34.31, 9.59, 1.04 t/ha, respectively) which topramezone 35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha (2.72)
was increased significantly when weed control followed by tembotrione 120 g/ha + atrazine
measures were adopted. It was due to severe 250 g/ha (2.60). It may be due to good green
competition stress right from crop establishment fodder yield obtained under these treatments
up to the end of critical period of crop growth, because of better management of weeds. The
leading to poor growth parameters, green fodder GMR, NMR, and B: C ratio was lowest in weedy
and crude protein yield [30]. Maximum green check due to more population of weeds and
fodder, dry matter and crude protein yield were lesser green fodder yield in the particular
recorded in twice hand weeding at 20 and 40 treatment [32]. The differences in B: C ratio is
DAS (47.31, 13.89 and 1.52 t/ha, respectively). due to the cost of herbicides and productivity of
However, among herbicidal treatments, the crop.

117
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

Table 4. Effect of weed control treatments on green fodder yield, dry matter yield and cruid
protein yield of maize

Treatments Green fodder Dry matter Crude protein

yield (t/ha) yield (t/ha) yield (t/ha)
Tembotrione 120 g/ha 40.53 12.28 1.43
Topramezone 35 g/ha 42.34 12.37 1.45
Atrazine 1000 g/ha 36.61 11.06 1.25
Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 35.47 10.76 1.12
Tembotrione 120 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 44.26 13.35 1.50
Topramezone 35 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 47.26 13.64 1.51
Atrazine 750 g/ha + Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 37.08 11.82 1.33
2,4-D 500 g/ha 37.23 12.02 1.41
Hand weeding 47.31 13.89 1.52
Weedy Check 34.31 9.59 1.04
SEm± 2.03 0.64 0.02
CD at 5% 6.34 1.91 0.06

Table 5. Economic analysis of different weed control treatments in fodder maize

Treatments Cost of Gross Net B:C

cultivation monetary monetary Ratio
(Rs/ha) returns returns
(Rs/ha) (Rs/ha)
Tembotrione 120 g/ha 25440 60805 35365 2.39
Topramezone 35 g/ha 25990 63513 37523 2.44
Atrazine 1000 g/ha 24590 54917 30327 2.23
Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 24765 53218 28453 2.15
Tembotrione 120 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 25528 66399 40871 2.60
Topramezone 35 g/ha + Atrazine 250 g/ha 26078 70902 44824 2.72
Atrazine 750 g/ha + Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 25115 55634 30519 2.22
2,4-D 500 g/ha 24390 55855 31465 2.29
Hand weeding 34240 70975 36735 2.07
Weedy Check 24240 51469 27229 2.12

4. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

From the experimental results, it can be 1. Kumar R, Bohra JS, Kumawat N, Kumar A,
concluded that application of topramezone 35 Kumari A, Singh AK. Root growth,
g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha as post emergence productivity and profitability of baby corn
application at 20 DAS effectively controlled the (Zea mays L.) as influenced by nutrition
complex weed flora of fodder maize with highest levels under irrigated eco-system. Res.
weed control efficiency and this combination of Crops. 2016;17:41-46.
herbicide was found to be most suitable for 2. Kumar B, Prasad S, Mandal D, Kumar R.
obtaining higher green fodder yield, net return Influence of integrated weed management
and B: C ratio. Thus, it should be recommended practices on weed dynamics, productivity
to the farmers that combination of topramezone and nutrient uptake of Rabi maize (Zea
35 g/ha + atrazine 250 g/ha can be used instead mays L.). International Journal of Current
of any single herbicide to effectively controls the Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;
severe infested weeds in the fodder maize with 6(4):1431-1440.
higher green fodder yield. 3. Jha AK, Yadav PS, Shrivastava A,
Upadhyay AK, Sekhawat LS, Verma B,
COMPETING INTERESTS Sahu MP. Effect of nutrient management
practices on productivity of perennial
Authors have declared that no competing grasses under high moisture condition.
interests exist. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia,

118
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

Africa and Latin America. 2023;54(3): Africa and Latin America. 2022;53(6):
12283-12288. 8511-8521.
4. Yadav PS, Kewat ML, Jha AK, Hemalatha 13. Verma B, Bhan M, Jha AK, Khatoon S,
K, Verma B. Effect of sowing management Raghuwanshi M, Bhayal L, Sahu MP,
and herbicides on the weed dynamics of Patel Rajendra, Singh Vikash. Weeds of
berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum). Pharma direct- seeded rice influenced by herbicide
Innovation. 2023;12(2):2845-2848. mixture. Pharma Innovation. 2022;11(2):
5. Kantwa SR, Agrawal RK, Jha A, Pathan 1080-1082.
SH, Patil SD, Choudhary M. Effect of 14. Patel Raghav, Jha AK, Verma Badal,
different herbicides on weed control Kumbhare Rahul, Singh Richa. Bio-
efficiency, fodder and seed yields of efficacy of pinoxaden as post-emergence
berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) in herbicide against weeds in wheat crop.
central India. Range Management and Pollution research. 2023;42(1):115-117.
Agroforestry. 2019;40(2):323-328. 15. Sahu V, Kewat ML, Verma B, Singh R, Jha
6. Kumhar Bheru Lal, Agrawal KK, Rai HK, AK, Sahu MP, Porwal M. Effect of
Jakhar SR, Verma Badal, Kumar Vijay and carfentrazone-ethyl on weed flora, growth
Jha AK. Impact of grass-based cropping and productivity in wheat. The Pharma
systems on improvement in particle size Innovation Journal. 2023;12(3):3621-3624.
distribution and aggregate size. Frontiers 16. Shiv Swati, Agrawal SB, Verma Badal,
in Crop Improvement. 2021;9:3180-3184. Yadav Pushpendra Singh, Singh Richa,
7. Chaudhary DP, Kumar A, Mandhania SS, Porwal Muskan, Sisodiya Jirtendra and
Srivastava P, Kumar RS. Maize as Fodder? Patel Raghav. Weed dynamics and
An alternative approach, Directorate of productivity of chickpea as affected by
Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New weed management practices. Pollution
Delhi, Technical Bulletin. 2012;04:32. Research. 2023;42(2):21-24.
8. Kumawat Narendra, Yadav Rakesh Kumar, 17. Kumawat Rohit Kumar, Samaiya RK,
Bangar KS, Tiwari SC, Morya Jagdeesh, Singh Yogendra, Thakur Satyendra.
Kumar Rakesh. Studies on integrated Response of post emergence application
weed management practices in maize- A of herbicides on phenophases, yield,
review. Agricultural Reviews. 2019;40(1): biochemical components and economic
29-36. analysis of maize [Zea mays (L.)]. Journal
9. Tanisha Nirala, A.K. Jha, Badal Verma, of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry.
Pushpendra Singh Yadav, Mahendra 2021;10(2):276-279.
Anjna and Lakhan Bhalse. Bio efficacy of 18. Mali GR, Verma A, Malunjker Bharat D,
Pinoxaden on Weed Flora and Yield of Choudhary Roshan, Mundra SL, Sharma
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Biological Mahendra. Efficacy of atrazine based post-
Forum – An International Journal. 2022; emergence herbicide mixtures on weed
14(4):558-561. dynamics and maize (Zea mays L.)
10. Verma B, Bhan M, Jha AK, Singh V, Patel Productivity in Sub-Humid Southern Plain
R, Sahu MP, Kumar V. Weed of Rajasthan. International Journal of
management in direct-seeded rice Current Microbiology and Applied
through herbicidal mixtures under diverse Sciences. 2019;8(01):2888-2895.
agro-ecosystems. AMA, Agricultural 19. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical
Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin Methods for Agriculture Workers. ICAR
America. 2022;53(4):7299-7306. New Delhi. 1967; 199-202.
11. Shukla S, Agrawal SB, Verma B, Anjna M, 20. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical
th
Ansari T. Evaluation of different doses and methods. 6 Edition, Ames, Lowa, the
modes of application of ferrous ammonium Lowa State University. 1967.
sulfate for maximizing rice production. 21. Baldaniya MJ, Patel TU, Zinzala MJ,
International Journal of Plant & Soil Gujjar PB, Sahoo S. Weed management in
Science. 2022;34(23):1012-1018. fodder maize (Zea mays L.) with newer
12. Sahu MP, Kewat ML, Jha AK, Sondhia S, herbicides. International Journal of
Choudhary VK, Jain N, Verma B. Weed Chemical Studies. 2018;6(5):2732-2734.
prevalence, root nodulation and chickpea 22. Shravan Kumar M, Susheela R, Ramulu
productivity influenced by weed V, Surendrababu P. Effect of weed
management and crop residue mulch. management practices on yield and
AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia. nutrient uptake of fodder maize

119
 Raghuwanshi et al.; Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 112-120, 2023; Article no.IJPSS.99337

(Zea mays L.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and ecophysiology, Babolsar, Iran. 2006;1:
and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(3):122- 449-452.
124. 28. Tripathi A, Tewari AN, Prasad A.
23. Reddy A, Ramamoorthy D, Kandaswamy Integrated weed management in rainy
OS. Integrated weed management in rabi season maize (Zea mays L.) in Central
maize and it's residual effect on Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Weed
succeeding groundnut. Andhra Agricultural Science. 2005;37(3/4):269-270.
Journal. 2004;51(3&4):517-521. 29. Jha AK, Shrivastva Arti, Raguvanshi NS.
24. Malviya A, Singh B. Weed dynamics, Effect of weed control practices on the
productivity and economics of maize (Zea fodder and seed productivity of Berseem
mays L.) as affected by integrated weed under irrigated condition of Madhya
management under rainfed condition. Pradesh. Range management & Agro-
Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2007;52(4): forestry. 2014;35(1):61-65.
321-324. 30. Prasad TVR, Dwarakanath N, Narasimha
25. Kumhar Bheru Lal, Agrwal KK., Jha AK, N, Krishnamurthy K. Integrated weed
Rai HK, Kumar Vijay, Choudhary Mukesh, management in maize (Zea mays L.) effect
Kantwa SR. Productivity and economical on weeds, crop growth and yield. Mysore
viability of grass-based cropping systems. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1990;
Range Management and Agroforestry. 24(1):39-44.
2022;43(1):167-171. 31. Patel GN, Patel GJ, Goyal SN, Patel BG.
26. Singh RP, Gopal H, Awasthi OP. Weed Integrated weed management in rabi
control in multiple cropping. Indian maize. Gujarat Agricultural University
Farming. 1982;13(3):17-18. Research Journal. 2000;25(2):88-90.
27. Gholizadesh MRE, Lorzadesh S. The 32. Swetha K, Madhavi M, Pratibha G,
response of corn yield and yield Ramprakash T. Weed management with
component to integrated weed new generation herbicides in maize. Indian
rd
management. Proceedings of 3 Iranian Journal of Weed Science. 2015;47(4):
Weed Science Congress. Weed biology 432-433.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2023 Raghuwanshi et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/99337

120