J. Farm Sci., 32(2): (137-141) 2019
RESEARCH PAPER
Evaluation of weed management practices in fodder maize
E. SHASHIKUMAR, F. M. DURAGANNAVAR, S. S. ANGADI AND B. B. CHANNAPPAGOUDAR
Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Dharwad
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, Karnataka, India
E-mails: shashi.yash45@gmail.com, fmdurgannavar@gmail.com
(Received: December, 2018
;
Accepted: May, 2019)
Abstract: A field experiment was conducted during kharif 2017 on medium deep black soil at the Main Agricultural
Research Station, UAS, Dharwad to study the weed management in fodder maize. The study involved eight treatments,
viz., T1: Atrazine 50 WP @ 1.25 kg a.i. ha-1 as pre emergence (PE), T2: Pendimethalin 30 EC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE),
T3: Oxyfluorfen 23.5 EC @ 0.15 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE), T4: Metribuzin 70 WP @ 0.25 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE), T5: Tank mixture of atrazine
50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE), T6: Mixed cropping of maize at 60 kg ha-1 + cowpea
at 15 kg ha-1, T7: Weed free check and T8: Weedy check. Among weed management practices application of tank mixture of
atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 recorded higher plant height (246.3 cm), number
of leaves (12.6), leaf area (48.27 dm2 plant-1), total drymatter production (121.53 g plant-1) at harvest, higher green fodder
yield (52.81 t ha-1), dry fodder yield (13.83 t ha-1), lower weed index (7.55 %), higher crude protein yield (1112.3 kg ha-1),
higher gross returns (` 95,058 ha-1), net returns (` 57,915 ha-1) and BC ratio (2.57).
Key words: Economics, Green fodder yield, Herbicide, Maize fodder, Quality
Introduction
India is an agricultural country, where both crops and
livestock are important enterprises of farming community. The
country has highest livestock population thus needs the
attention to meet the fodder requirement. Green forages usually
have very important role in animal nutrition in which fodder
maize is very important because of its higher production
potential of green herbage, which is succulent, sweet, palatable
and nutritious with lactogenic effect and highly relished by the
milch cattle and can be fed at any stage of the crop growth. It is
the only fodder which produces better nutritional quality along
with good quantity of biomass. Its quality is much better than
sorghum and pearlmillet since both sorghum as well as pearl
millet possess anti-nutritional factors such as HCN and oxalate,
respectively. In India fodder maize is grown in about 9 lakh ha
area with the productivity of 30-55 t ha-1 (Anon., 2016). The
productivity of fodder maize can be increased through various
agronomic management practices viz., planting geometry,
nutrient, water and weed management etc. Among these weed
management is foremost issue, since weeds compete with crop
plants for various inputs like water, nutrients and sunlight
resulting in yield losses. The presence of some weeds might
cause physical damage to animals, some weeds are poisonous
or unpalatable, cause milk tainting or affect the silage
fermentation process. Several weed management approaches
are available but selection of appropriate management practice
is a prime concern. Mechanical and manual methods have been
employed for weed control since historical time but it is difficult
under the circumstances of non-availability, inefficient and
costly labour. Weed control through use of herbicides assumes
a greater significance due to accessibility, selective and quick
action. Herbicides use in crop land, helps to manage weeds,
increases crop yield, improves crop quality and reduces
production cost.
Pre-emergence application of herbicides may lead to cost
effective control of the weeds right from the start. In the rainy
season emergence of maize and weed start simultaneously and
the first 20 to 30 days are most critical for crop-weed
competition. Simultaneous emergence and rapid growth of
weeds lead to severe crop-weed competition for light, moisture,
space and nutrients resulting in drastic reduction in yield.
Herbicide alone or in combination reduces crop-weed
competition and the risk of yield losses due to weeds
(Chopra and Angiras, 2007 and Karashanbhai, 2016). Growing
of cover crops is an alternative method for control of weeds. In
the similar way, the mixed cropping of legumes especially
cowpea in cereal crops helps to reduce the pressure of weeds
(Paramjit et al., 2016). Considering the significance of fodder
the present investigation was conducted to study the weed
management in fodder maize.
Material and methods
A field experiment was conducted during kharif, 2017 at
the Main Agricultural Research Station, University of
Agricultural Science, Dharwad on medium deep black soil.
African tall variety of fodder maize was sown by opening furrow
using marker with a row spacing of 30 cm and was harvested at
80 days after sowing (DAS). The experiment was laid out in
Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications and
eight treatments viz., T1: Atrazine 50 WP @ 1.25 kg a.i. ha-1 as
pre emergence (PE), T2: Pendimethalin 30 EC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1
(PE), T3: Oxyfluorfen 23.5 EC @ 0.15 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE), T4:
Metribuzin 70 WP @ 0.25 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE), T5: Tank mixture
atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75
kg a.i. ha-1 (PE), T6: Mixed cropping of maize at 60 kg ha-1 +
cowpea at 15 kg ha-1, T7: Weed free check and T8: Weedy check.
The observations were recorded by following standard
procedures. Plant height was measured from the base of the
137
J. Farm Sci., 32(2): 2019
plant to the fully opened top leaf. Number of leaves were
counted. Leaf area was calculated by using formula given below.
Leaf area = Leaf length × Width × Number of leaves × 0.75
Five randomly selected plants from the sampling area were
used to record the stem, leaf and total dry matter production at
different growth stages of fodder maize. After air drying the
samples were dried in oven at 60-70 C till a constant dry weight
was achieved. Total dry matter production was expressed in g
per plant.
The weed control index (WCI) and weed index were
calculated by using the formulae given below:
Dry weight of
Dry weight of
weeds in weedy plot - weeds in treatment plot
WCI (%) = —————————————————— × 100
Dry weight of weeds in weedy plot
X- Y
Weed index (%) = ————— × 100
X
X = Total yield from the weed free plot
Y = Total yield from the treatment for which weed index has
to be calculated
Dry fodder yield obtained by drying known quantity of
green forage from each plot in hot air oven at 70 °C to a constant
weight and expressed in tonnes per hectare.
The analysis of proximate principles (Crude protein and
crude fibre) in forage was done by the method recommended
by Association of Official Agriculture Chemist (Anon., 1990).
Per cent crude protein = % N × 6.25
Crude protein
yield (kg ha-1)
Per cent
=
Drymatter
crude protein
×
yield
Weight before ashing - Weight after ashing
Crude = ———————————————————×100
fibre (%)
Weight of the sample taken
The crude fibre yield was worked out by multiplying crude
fibre percentage with drymatter yield and expressed in kg ha-1.
Economics was worked out by using cost of cultivation,
gross returns and net returns. The net returns was calculated
by deducting cost of cultivation from the gross returns. The
benefit cost ratio was worked out as under
Gross returns (` ha-1)
Benefit: cost =————————————————
Total cost of cultivation (` ha-1)
Results and discussion
Weed dynamics
Weed free check recorded significantly lower weed count,
weed dry weight and higher weed control index due to removal
of weeds by cultural methods viz., hand weeding and
intercultivation. Among the weed management practices,
application of oxyfluorfen 23.5 EC @ 0.15 kg a.i. ha-1 (T 3)
recorded significantly lower total weed count (3.33, 10.67 and
14.67 m-2), total weed dry weight (1.46, 12.93 and 26.93 g m-2)
and higher weed control index (96.06, 80.65 and 73.50 %) at 30,
50 DAS and at harvest, respectively (Table 1), because of its
efficacy in inhibiting emerging seedlings of weeds. Nadiger
(2011) also reported similar results in maize. However, it was
stastically at par with tank mix application of atrazine 50 WP @
Table 1. Weed dynamics in fodder maize at harvest as influenced by weed management practices
Tr. Treatment
No.
T 1 Atrazine 50 WP @ 1.25 kg
a.i. ha-1 (PE)
T 2 Pendimethalin 30 EC @ 1.0 kg
a.i. ha-1 (PE)
T 3 Oxyfluorfen 23.5 EC @ 0.15 kg
a.i. ha-1 (PE)
T 4 Metribuzin 70 WP @ 0.25 kg
a.i. ha-1 (PE)
T 5 Atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1
+ Pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75 kg
a.i. ha-1 (PE)
T 6 Maize at 60 kg ha-1 +
Cowpea at 15 kg ha-1
T 7 Weed free check
Weed density (m-2)*
30 DAS 50 DAS At harvest
4.34c
4.60b
5.37b
(18.33) (20.67) (28.33)
4.10c
4.71b
5.50b
(16.33) (21.67) (29.67)
1.96e
3.35c
3.89c
(3.33)
(10.67) (14.67)
4.21c
4.64b
5.34b
(17.33) (21.00) (28.00)
2.48d
3.08c
3.71c
(5.67)
(9.00)
(13.33)
Weed dry weight (g m-2)*
30 DAS 50 DAS At harvest
3.11c
4.93b
6.48b
(9.17)
(23.87) (41.67)
3.02c
5.00b
6.78b
(8.60)
(24.36) (45.53)
1.40e
3.66c
5.24c
(1.46)
(12.93) (26.93)
3.31c
4.95b
6.58b
(10.43) (23.93) (42.86)
2.15d
3.70c
5.34c
(4.13)
(13.47) (28.20)
Weed control index (%)
30 DAS 50 DAS At harvest
75.50c
64.13c
59.61c
76.80c
63.37c
55.84c
96.06a
80.65b
73.50b
72.07c
63.57c
58.25c
88.92b
80.00b
72.65b
5.76b
4.88b
5.76b
4.73b
5.53b
7.01b
41.42d
54.88c
(32.67) (23.33) (32.67)
(21.80) (30.10) (48.70)
0.71e
0.71d
0.71d
0.71f
0.71d
0.71d
100a
100a
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
T 8 Weedy check
7.16a
7.25a
7.25a
6.15a
8.19a
10.15a
0.00e
0.00e
(50.67) (52.00) (52.00)
(37.26) (66.57) (102.83)
S.Em.±
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.21
0.24
1.43
3.29
PE : Pre-emergence a.i. : Active ingredient WP : Wettable powder EC : Emulsifiable concentrate DAS : Days after sowing
* Figures in the parentheses indicate original values and outside are X+0.5 transformed valuses
Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different according to DMRT (P = 0.05).
138
51.66c
100a
0.00e
2.63
139
121.53a
98.39b
133.43a
73.95c
4.45
58.30a
43.00b
59.42a
32.93c
2.36
6.65ab
5.11cd
7.40a
4.13de
0.34
48.27a
42.49b
49.26a
36.09c
1.65
PE : Pre-emergence a.i. : Active ingredient WP : Wettable powder EC : Emulsifiable concentrate DAS : Days after sowing
Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different according to DMRT (P = 0.05).
33.23a
27.90b
36.50a
20.67c
1.25
12.05ab
8.46de
13.91a
7.73e
0.68
12.60ab
11.60b
13.13a
10.27c
0.37
10.47a
9.67a
10.80a
8.40b
0.40
246.3ab
224.7bc
267.6a
214.3c
9.34
146.3ab
125.7bc
159.8a
117.3c
7.81
6.87a
6.20a
7.27a
6.13a
0.39
50 DAS
48.15b
45.70b
41.83b
47.00b
30 DAS
5.83bc
5.66bc
3.69e
5.53c
At harvest
42.84b
42.57b
42.54b
42.67b
50 DAS
28.39b
28.17b
26.13b
28.25b
30 DAS
10.77bc
10.57bc
8.13de
9.84cd
At harvest
11.73b
11.67b
11.53b
11.73b
At harvest
233.7bc
234.3bc
231.0bc
237.0bc
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
`
T6
T7
T8
30 DAS
Atrazine 50 WP @ 1.25 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE)
26.6a
-1
Pendimethalin 30 EC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha (PE)
26.1a
-1
Oxyfluorfen 23.5 EC @ 0.15 kg a.i. ha (PE)
19.3c
-1
Metribuzin 70 WP @ 0.25 kg a.i. ha (PE)
25.9a
-1
Atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha + Pendimethalin
30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE)
27.2a
-1
-1
Maize at 60 kg ha + Cowpea at 15 kg ha
24.5b
Weed free check
29.00a
Weedy check
24.3b
S.Em.±
1.56
50 DAS
132.9bc
131.3bc
128.7bc
132.7bc
30 DAS
6.60a
6.53a
5.33a
6.53a
50 DAS
9.80a
9.73a
9.67a
9.80a
Leaf area
(dm2 plant-1)
Number of leaves
Plant height
(cm)
Tr. Treatment
No.
Yield
The higher green fodder yield and dry fodder yield of fodder
maize (56.98 and 14.86 t ha-1) was recorded with weed free
check owing to weed free condition (Table 3). The crop
efficiently utilized nutrients, moisture, light and space in turn
influenced the luxuriant growth of crop indicated by higher
total dry matter production, plant height, higher number of
leaves and leaf area per plant. However, pre emergence tank mix
application of atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimethalin
30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (T5) recorded stastically similar green
fodder (52.81t ha-1) and dry fodder yield (13.83 t ha-1) with weed
free check (T7). The higher fodder yield in this treatment was
attributed to improved TDMP which is most important yield
component in fodder crops, leaf area per plant, LAI and lower
Table 2. Growth parameters in fodder maize at harvest as influenced by weed management practices
Growth components
Growth components of fodder maize varied significantly
due to weed management practices (Table 2). Weed free check
(T 7) recorded significantly higher plant height (29.0, 159.8 and
267.6 cm), number of leaves (7.27, 10.80 and 13.13), leaf area
(13.91,36.50 and 49.26 dm2 plant-1) and total dry matter
production (TDMP) of 7.40, 59.42 and 133.43 g plant-1 at 30, 50
DAS and at harvest (Table 2) and was stastically at par with
atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75
kg a.i. ha-1 (T 5). The higher TDMP in T5 at 30, 50 DAS and at
harvest (6.65, 58.30 and 121,53 g plant -1, respectively) was the
result of luxuriant crop growth as indicated by higher plant
height (27.2, 146.3 and 246.3 cm, respectively) and leaf area
(12.05, 33.23 ad 48.27 dm2 plant-1, respectively). Thus, the
improvement in growth components was a consequence of
lower crop weed competition due to higher weed control index,
which shifted the balance in favour of crop in the utilization of
nutrients, moisture, light and space.
Total dry matter production
(g plant-1)
0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (T5)
which recorded weed control index of 88.92, 80.00 and 72.65 %
at 30, 50 DAS and at harvest respectively, due to lower total
weed count and dry weight as outcome of broad spectrum weed
control through different mode of action of atrazine and
pendimethalin wherein, atrazine interfere with photosynthesis
by binding to the D-1 protein involved in photosynthetic
electron transfer (PS-II inhibitors) and pendimethalin inhibits
cell division and cell elongation of shoot and root of weeds
which resulted in managing grassy, broad leaved weeds and
sedges. These results corroborate with the findings of Sindhu
et al. (2015) in hybrid napier grass and Karashanbhai (2016) in
fodder maize. Whereas, different treatments viz., atrazine 50
WP @ 1.25 kg a.i. ha-1(T 1), pendimethalin 30 EC @ 1.0 kg a.i.
ha-1 (T 2), metribuzin 70 WP @ 0.25 kg a.i. ha-1 (T 4) and mixed
cropping of maize at 60 kg ha-1 + cowpea at 15 kg ha-1 (T6) were
found to be stastically on par with each other with respect to
weed count and dry weight because of efficacy of atrazine,
pendimethalin, metribuzin in controlling weeds in respective
treatment and due to smothering effect of cowpea in maize +
cowpea mixed crop treatment. Singh (2011) also reported
effective control of weeds due to smothering effect of cowpea
in maize.
At harvest
101.21b
100.09b
99.81b
101.11b
Evaluation of weed management practices .................
J. Farm Sci., 32(2): 2019
Table 3. Green fodder, dry fodder yield and weed index in fodder maize as influenced by weed management practices
Tr. Treatment
Green fodder yield (t ha-1)
Dry fodder yield (t ha-1)
No.
Maize
Cowpea Total
Maize
Cowpea Total
-1
b
b
b
T 1 Atrazine 50 WP @ 1.25 kg a.i. ha (PE)
45.92
0.00
45.92
11.57
0.00
11.57b
-1
b
b
b
T 2 Pendimethalin 30 EC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha (PE)
44.67
0.00
44.67
11.17
0.00
11.17b
T 3 Oxyfluorfen 23.5 EC @ 0.15 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE)
43.28b
0.00
43.28b
10.64b
0.00
10.64b
T 4 Metribuzin 70 WP @ 0.25 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE)
44.89b
0.00
44.89b
11.22b
0.00
11.22b
T 5 Atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + Pendimethalin
30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE)
52.81a
0.00
52.81a
13.83a
0.00
13.83a
-1
-1
b
b
b
T 6 Maize at 60 kg ha + Cowpea at 15 kg ha
41.41
5.30
46.71
10.13
0.67
10.80b
a
a
a
T 7 Weed free check
56.98
0.00
56.98
14.86
0.00
14.86a
c
c
c
T 8 Weedy check
33.30
0.00
33.30
7.62
0.00
7.62c
Weed
index (%)
19.44b
21.63b
24.11b
21.22b
7.55c
18.16b
0.00d
41.21a
S.Em.±
1.96
1.87
0.62
0.60
3.11
PE : Pre-emergence, a.i. : Active ingredient, WP : Wettable powder, EC : Emulsifiable concentrate, DAS : Days after sowing
Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different according to DMRT (P = 0.05).
weed index (7.55 %). The decreased weed index was mainly due
to improved growth of crop plants which was an outcome of
effective broad spectrum weed control and reduced crop-weed
competition which resulted to produce more photosynthates
in crop and converted into numerous metabolites needed for
growth and yield. These results are in conformity with the
findings of Chopra and Angiras (2007), Inalli et al. (2014),
Channabasavanna et al. (2015), Kamble et al. (2015) and Yadav
(2017) in maize. The cultural methods to control weeds mixed
i.e., cropping of maize at 60 kg ha-1 + cowpea at 15 kg ha-1
produced green + dry fodder yield to the tune of 41.41 t ha-1
and 10.13 t ha-1, respectively and recorded comparatively lower
weed control index (WCI) even though the fodder maize yield
was comparable with other single herbicides which might be
attributed to nitrogen fixing ability of cowpea. These results
corroborate with the findings of Paramjit et al. (2016) and
Hargilas (2016) in maize cowpea intercropping system.
The lower green and dry fodder yield (33.33 and 7.62 t ha-1)
and higher weed index (41.21 %) was recorded in weedy check
due to higher removal of nutrients and moisture by weeds
and severe crop weed competition that made the crop plants
inefficient to utilize the resources and consequently resulted
in poor source and sink development with poor growth
components viz., lower TDMP, plant height, total number of
green leaves and leaf area during all the stages of crop growth.
The results are in conformity with the findings of Sindhu
et al. (2015) in hybrid napier grass, Singh (2015) in fodder
maize for seed production and Karashanbahai (2016) in fodder
maize.
Quality
Weed management practices in fodder maize did not affect
on quality parameters such as crude protein and crude fibre.
However, the crude protein and crude fibre yield differed
significantly by weed management practices (Table 4). Crude
protein yield of fodder maize was significantly higher in T7: weed
free check (1213.7 kg ha-1) and was statistically at par with tank
mixture application of atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 +
pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (1112.3 kg ha-1) which
was resulted by higher drymatter production. Whereas, crude
fibre yield of fodder maize was higher in weed free check
(4329.46 kg ha-1) and was on par with rest of treatments except
weedy check.
Table 4. Quality and economics of fodder maize as influenced by weed management practices
Tr. Treatment
Crude Crude
Crude Crude
Cost of
Gross
Net
BC
No.
protein protein fibre
fibre
cultivation returns returns ratio
(%)
yield
(%)
yield
(` ha-1)
(` ha-1)
(` ha-1)
(kg ha-1)
(kg ha-1)
T1
Atrazine 50 WP @ 1.25 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE)
7.73a
893.2b
33.72a 3884.5a 35801
82662b
46862b 2.31b
-1
a
b
a
a
b
T2
Pendimethalin 30 EC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha (PE)
7.58
846.9
33.24
3720.6
35794
80400
44606b 2.25b
-1
a
b
a
a
b
T3
Oxyfluorfen 23.5 EC @ 0.15 kg a.i. ha (PE)
7.88
835.1
33.18
3528.2
35530
77904
42374b 2.19b
-1
a
b
a
a
b
T4
Metribuzin 70 WP @ 0.25 kg a.i. ha (PE)
7.73
867.2
34.29
3850.8
34995
80796
45801b 2.31b
T5
Atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + Pendimethalin
30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (PE)
8.02a
1112.3a 30.17a 4204.4a 37144
95058 a 57915a 2.57a
-1
-1
a
b
a
a
T6
Maize at 60 kg ha + Cowpea at 15 kg ha
7.58
767.7
33.69
3447.4
34335
81157b
46823b 2.36ab
a
a
a
a
a
T7
Weed free check
8.17
1213.7 29.12
4329.5
43283
102558 59276a 2.38ab
a
c
a
b
T8
Weedy check
7.44
568.8
34.47
2626.8
32122
59946c
27825c 1.87d
S.Em.±
0.17
57.5
1.33
275.4
3407.87 3121.66 0.08
PE : Pre-emergence, a.i. : Active ingredient,
WP : Wettable powder, EC : Emulsifiable concentrate, DAS : Days after sowing
Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different according to DMRT (P = 0.05)
Market price: Green fodder of maize - ` 1800 t-1, Green fodder of cowpea - 1250 t-1
140
Evaluation of weed management practices .................
Economics
Gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio differed
significantly due to weed management practices. The treatment
weed free check recorded higher gross returns (` 102558 ha-1)
and net returns (` 59276 ha-1). Among the weed management
practices, tank mixture application of atrazine 50 WP @ 0.5 kg a.i.
ha-1 + pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 (T5) recorded higher
gross returns (` 95058 ha-1) and net returns (` 57915 ha-1) and
was at par with treatment weed free check (T7). The BC ratio was
higher (2.57) with tank mixture application of atrazine 50 WP @
0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimethalin 30 EC @ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 which was
statistically at par with weed free check (2.38) and mixed cropping
of maize at 60 kg ha-1 + cowpea at 15 kg ha-1 (2.36). Increased BC
ratio in T6 may be ascribed to additional monitory returns by
cowpea fodder and lower cost of cultivation.
Conclusion
Resuts of the study revealed that, pre-emergence tank mix
application of atrazine 50WP @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + pendimehalin 30
EC @ 0.75 kg a.i ha-1 can be adopted for chemical weed control in
maize fodder resulted in higher maize green fodder yield, dry
fodder yield, lower weed index, higher crude protein yield, net
returns and BC ratio. For cultural control of weeds mixed cropping
of Maize @ 60 kg ha-1 + Cowpea @ 15 kg ha-1 can be helpful as
cowpea adds to fodder and also involves less cost of cultivation
as compared to chemical weed control.
References
Anonymous, 1990, Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
International Official Methods of Analysis, 17th Ed. Horwitz,
AOAC Inc., Arlington, USA.
Anonymous, 2016, Hand Book of Agriculture. Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, New Delhi, pp. 1353-1416.
Channabasavanna A S, Shrinivas C S, Rajakumar H and Kitturmath
M S, 2015, Efficiency of tank mix application of atrazine 50
WP and pendimethalin 30 EC weedicides in maize. Karnataka
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 28(3): 327-330.
Chopra P and Angiras N N, 2007, Influence of tillage and weed control
methods on growth, productivity and quality of maize (Zea
mays L.). Journal of Crop and Weed, 3(2): 10-14.
Hargilas, 2016, Integrated weed management in maize (Zea mays L.)
for sustainable productivity and profitability of maize-wheat
cropping system in Southern Rajasthan. International Journal
of Bio-resource Stress Management, 7(3): 382-387.
Inalli K, Arvindkumar B N and Ramesh B, 2014, Efficacy of tank
mixture herbicides for weed control in maize. Trends in
Biosciences, 7(14): 1835-1838.
Kamble A S, Yogeesh L N, Prashanth S M, Channabasavanna A S and
Channagoudar R F, 2015, Effect of weed management practices
on weed growth and yield of maize. International Journal of
Science, Environment and Technology, 4(6): 1540-1545.
Karashanbhai K J, 2016, Efficacy of pre and post emergent herbicides
in fodder maize (Zea mays L.) M. Sc. Thesis, Junagadh
Agricultural University, Junagadh, Gujarat, India.
Nadiger S, 2011, Bio-efficacy of pre-emergent herbicide on weed
management in maize (Zea mays L.). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka,
India.
Paramjit K S, Amanpreet K and Kuldeep S, 2016, Integrated weed
management in kharif maize at farmers field in central Punjab.
International Journal of Agricultural Sciences Research,
6(2): 97-100.
Sindhu V K, Singh J, Tiwana U S and Singh A S, 2015, Effect of
different weed management practices on weeds and fodder
yield of napier-bajra hybrid. 25th Proceedings of Asian-Pacific
Weed Science Society Conference on Weed Science for
Sustainable Agriculture, Environment and Biodiversity,
Hyderabad, India, 13-16, October 2015, pp: 13-16.
Singh, 2015, Effect of weed control practices on weeds, growth and
seed yield of fodder maize (Zea mays. L.). M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur,
Madya Pradesh, India.
Singh S, 2011, Studies on integrated weed management in maize (Zea
mays L.) under Ghataprabha command area. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad,
Karnataka, India.
Yadav T K, 2017, Herbicidal weed management in maize (Zea mays
L.). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis. Maharana Pratap University of
Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India.
141