an assessment of nutritional quality of ......results indicated that the leaves plant-1, cobs plant...
TRANSCRIPT
Pure Appl. Biol., 8(1): 718-726, March, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80013
Published by Bolan Society for Pure and Applied Biology 718
Research Article
Control of different weeds through
various weed control methods for
improving growth and yield of hybrid
maize Pioneer-1543
Tofique Ahmed Bhutto1, Safdar Ali Wahoocho2, Mahmooda Buriro1,
Abdul Qadir Gola2*, Niaz Ahmed Wahoocho2, Muhammad Ali
Ansari1, Islamuddin Majeedano5, Muhammad Nawaz Kandhro1,
Muzamil Hussain Soomro4, Sanam Kumbhar1, Nadeem Ahmed
Buledi1 and Khuda Bux Bhutto3 1. Department of Agronomy, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam-70060-Pakistan
2. Department of Horticulture, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam-70060-Pakistan
3. Department of Soil Science, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam-70060-Pakistan
4. Department of Plant Protection, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam-70060-Pakistan
5. Agronomy Section, Agriculture Research institute Tandojam-Pakistan
*Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]
Citation Tofique Ahmed Bhutto, Safdar Ali Wahoocho, Mahmooda Buriro, Abdul Qadir Gola, Niaz Ahmed Wahoocho,
Muhammad Ali Ansari, Islamuddin Majeedano, Muhammad Nawaz Kandhro, Muzamil Hussain Soomro,
Sanam Kumbhar, Nadeem Ahmed Buledi and Khuda Bux Bhutto. Control of different weeds through various
weed control methods for improving growth and yield of hybrid maize Pioneer-1543. Pure and Applied Biology.
Vol. 8, Issue 1, pp718-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80013
Received: 21/11/2018 Revised: 11/01/2019 Accepted: 14/01/2019 Online First: 24/01/2019
Abstract This study was conducted, the effects of various weed control methods to suppress the growth and
development of weeds for enhancing growth and yield of maize, at the experimental area of Agronomy
section, Agriculture Research Institute, Tandojam, during winter season 2011-12. The experiment was
comprised of five treatments viz; T1= Weedy check, T2= Hand hoeing, T3= Mechanical, T4= Cultural
and T5= Chemical weed control in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications.
Different weed species were found in the experimental field viz; 1Chenopodium album L, 2Rumex
dentatus L., 3Phalaris minor, 4Anagallis arvensis, 5Convolvulus arvensis, 6Chenopodium morale L, 7Cynodon dactylon, 8Cyperus rotundus. Results indicated that the Leaves plant-1, Cobs plant-1, Plant
height (cm) and Grain yield kg ha-1 of maize were significant (p<0.05) and days to tasseling and silking
were non-significant (p>0.05) in all treatments except weedy check. Hand hoeing weed control method
effectively reduced weeds as compared to other weed control methods. On the other hand, when weeds
frequency increased significantly decreased parameters of maize. It was concluded that the hand hoeing
weed control method was found suitable and effective to suppress weeds and improved grain yield of
hybrid maize crop as compare to other weed control methods.
Keywords: Grain yield kg ha-1; Hybrid corn (Zea mays L); Weeds; Weed control methods
Introduction Maize (Zea mays L.) is the third ranked an
essential cereal crop after wheat and rice of
Pakistan and getting valuable position in
agriculture sector because it has possessed
more potential for grain yield and having
short-term growth crop. Maize is the main
resource of food and fodder which has been
using for the making of corn sugar, corn oil,
corn protein, corn-flacks and corn syrup
Bhutto et al.
719
etc. Maize contributes 2.7 percent to the
value added in agriculture and 0.5 percent
to GDP. The under area during (2016-17)
1334 (000) hectares cultivated, production
6.130 million tonnes and 3458 kg ha-1
average yield of maize in Pakistan
(Pakistan Economic Survey, 2016-17). The
grain yield kg ha-1 of maize is very low of
Pakistan as compared to other corn growing
countries such as, Italy, USA, Canada,
Argentina and China (9530, 8600, 6630,
5650, 4570 kg ha-1 reported by [1]. The
available favorable condition for high
yielding cultivars of maize, still that
average yield is very of Pakistan. The
highly reduction of 66–80% in crop yields
due to more growth of weeds density.
Among the considering factors, main
responsible factor for low yield as weed
competition which competes with plants for
available growth resources. Weeds are
fighting with the crop plants for space,
light, dampness, supplements and carbon
dioxide, which decreased not just the yield,
grain quality and prevent harvest activities
yet additionally increment the cost of
production. Different weed control
practices have resulted about around 77-
96% higher yield [2, 3]. Today, integrated
weed management (IWM) program is a
mean combined (hand hoeing, Mechanical,
cultural and chemical control) techniques
and under attention, after environmental
and health damages of herbicides were
revealed to the public and weeds become
resistant to herbicides. Researchers are
working on alternative methods to replace
them instead of the chemical method and
reduce the need for herbicide application
[4, 5]. Herbicide dose can be decreased by
15-30% without significant reduction in
yield reported by [6, 8]. While the authentic
mechanical and cultural methods they are
parts of IWM and can be used integrated
farming practice [9, 10]. Among the
integrated weed management practices the
hoeing with the hand is a best historical
weed control method in agriculture before
activation of technology and it has been
continually used in crop production for
maximum crop yield [11]. This practice is
effective for all crops, sometime when
crops and weeds, both become mature in
the standing crop due to less attention of
farmers then they cannot be controlled
completely using chemicals and famous
weedicides products provides failure results
[12, 13]. Secondary the cultural control
measures include winter tillage and good
seedbed preparation, optimizing planting
date, seeding rate and depth, fertility
management, understanding of the crop,
field sanitation and the use of adapted
varieties [14]. In this regard before sowing
the tillage with mould board (MB) reduced
weeds through the damaged of the
germinated weeds after harvested of
previous crop [15, 16]. On other hand, the
mechanical weed control method manages
the excessive growth of weed by mean
various physical practices and it makes
their growing conditions unfavorable,
therefore these methods almost completely
remove weeds and causing lethal injury as
compared to chemical control [17]. The
chemical weed control is considered to be
effective in modern agriculture, but it has
also certain drawbacks like pollution
development of weedicides etc [18].
Chemicals cause harm to the user and to
millions of microorganisms in the soil-crop
ecosystem. Herbicides are expensive, and,
in some cases, they are not available at the
market [19]. Keeping in view all these
limitations, chemical weed control is the
main alternative due to the shortage man-
power and high labour price [20]. Poor
weed control methods are responsible for
the gap between the potential and actual
grain yield of maize All field crops in Sindh
are heavily infested with weeds. The
traditional weed controls practices
including tillage, hand hoing and hand
hoeing are effectively have been used for
weeds control practices. Use of herbicides
has not become a common control for the
poor farmers Therefore, at that time hoeing
plays an important role for weed control
and effectively controls the weeds. Hoeing
is the most suitable method of weed control
Pure Appl. Biol., 8(1): 718-726, March, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80013
720
and it is recommended for getting
maximum yields and Hand hoeing practice
was done at pre-emergence weeds in the
crop [21].
The present study was targeted, the effect
of different weed control methods to
suppress the growth and development of
weeds for improving growth and yield of
hybrid maize.
Materials and methods
This study was performed at Agronomy
section, Agriculture Research Institute,
Tandojam, Sindh, Pakistan (Figure 1) “the
effect of different weed control methods to
suppress growth and development of weeds
for improving growth and yield of hybrid
maize”. The experiment was comprised of
five weed control methods viz; T1= Weedy
check, T2= Hand hoeing, T3= mechanical,
T4= Cultural and T5= Chemical control
(Mark @ 1000 ml ha-1) with randomized
complete block design having net plot size
3 x 5m with three replications. Maize
(Pioneer-1543) was sown on during in
Winter Season 2011-12 year. The
recommended seed rate of maize 25 kg ha-1
(two seeds per hill) with the row to row 75
cm and plant to plant distance of 20 cm was
applied. Land preparation was done
properly at recommended depth plough for
better root penetration and equal
distribution of irrigation and fertilizers.
Initially disc plough was used to break the
hardpan, followed by leveling and
planking. After soaking dose, when the land
came in proper moisture condition, the
seedbed was prepared by using disc harrow,
followed by motivator. Entire phosphates
(DAP) and potassium (MOP) and 1/4 of
Nitrogen (Urea) fertilizers were applied at
the time of sowing and remaining 1/4 reach
at knee height stage, 1/4 at pollination stage
and remaining 1/4 was applied at grain
filling stage.
Observations were recorded
The observations on Weeds frequency m-2
15,30,45 DAS, leaves plant-1, days to
tasseling and silking (50%), cobs plant-1,
plant height (cm), grain yield kg ha-1 were
recorded. The different weed flora species
were found in the experimental field and
noted their Local, English and Technical
names as shown in (Table 1) as well as their
images are displayed in (Figure 2). Weeds
frequency m-2 was counted at 15, 30 and 45
days after sowing by using the wooden
frame in all plots. The leaves plant-1 were
counted of five randomly selected plants
from each treatment. Days to tasseling and
silking (50%) was recorded by counting the
number of days from sowing to 50% of a
plant developed tassels and silking. Cobs
plan-1 were obtained at the time of maturity
of maize from selected plants. Plant height
(cm) was recorded at physiological
maturity of the maize crop in five randomly
selected plants, using measuring tape from
ground to tip of the tassel. The grain yield
kg ha-1 received from each plot then
weighed based on grain yield kg ha-1 per
plot according to formula:
Grain yield (kg ha-1) = Yield plot-1 of given
treatment (kg)/Plot area (m-2) x 10000.
Statistical analysis
The data statistical analysis was analyzed
the variances in treatment means. L.S.D
(Least significant difference) test was
applied for the statistical differences within
treatments, following the method
developed by [22].
Results and discussion
In Pakistan, the production of maize very
low due to various factors, weeds
infestation is one of the key factors among
them [23], reported that the weeds caused,
decreasing of growth and yield parameters
of maize crop. The statistical analysis of
variance indicated that the all growth, and
yield contributing parameters of maize such
as, leaves plant-1, days to tasseling and
silking (50%), cobs plant-1, plant height
(cm) and grain yield kg ha-1, as well as total
weeds frequency m-2 15, 30 and 45 DAS,
were significantly (P>0.05) influenced by
various weed control methods. The analysis
of variance indicated that the all traits of
maize crop among the different weed
control methods was statistically significant
Bhutto et al.
721
(p<0.05) except days to tasseling and
silking (50%) as indicated in (Table 2).
1st weeds frequency 15 DAS
The data of weeds frequency of 15 days
after sowing revealed that the minimum
reduction of weeds frequency (11.0 m-2)
was recorded in hand hoeing, followed by
(28.0, 34.0 and 52.0 m-2) observed in
mechanical, cultural and chemical weed
control method respectively. However,
maximum weeds frequency (105.0 m-2) was
observed in weedy check plot presented in
(Figure 3).
2nd weeds frequency 30 DAS The results of weeds frequency of 30 days
after sowing was difference. The lowest
weeds frequency (16.0 m-2) was noticed in
hand hoeing, followed by (35.0, 44.0 and
61.0 m-2) recorded in mechanical, cultural
and chemical control methods respectively
[24]. While, highest weeds frequency
(118.0 m-2) obtained from weedy check plot
as shown in (Figure 3).
3rd weeds frequency 45 DAS According to the data of 45 days after
sowing, the lower weeds frequency (13.7
m-2) was recorded in hand hoeing and
higher (118.0 m-2) was observed in the
weedy check plot, Moreover, the weeds
frequency (33.0, 41.0 and 59.0 m-2) were
noted in mechanical, cultural and chemical
weed control methods respectively as
displayed in (Figure 3). In this regard, the
chemical weed control was not effective as
compared to hand hoeing, mechanical and
cultural weed control methods. This result
indicated that the hand hoeing weed control
was more effective to reduced weeds as
compared to other weed control methods.
These results are agreed with [25], who
observed that the significantly variations in
weeds frequency of various weeding
methods and had negatively affected the
weed growth. According to this the hoeing
with hand produced maximum grain yield
and appropriately eradicates the weeds
reported [26].
Leaves plant-1 The results of leaves plant-1 in maize was
significantly affected by different weed
control methods are given in (Table 3). The
results showed that maximum leaves plant-
1 (14.0 and 12.3) obtained in hand hoeing
and mechanical weed control methods
respectively, followed by (9.0 and 7.0)
leaves plant-1 observed in cultural and
chemical weed control method
respectively. However, more reduction in
leaves plant-1 (4.5) noted in weedy check
plot. This might be attributed to severe
competition of high weed densities for
resources viz; sunlight, moisture and
nutrients thereby making maize plants
weaker. These results are in accordance
with findings of reported by [27], higher
leaves plant-1 due to lesser weed
competition during early and critical stages
of crop leads to better resource use
efficiency. Increasing LAI due to an
increased competition and increased leaves
plant-1 of maize crop.
Days to tasseling and silking (50%) The days to tasseling and silking of maize
are playing an important role in maize grain
production due to male and female part of
maize plant, this may influence on grain
production. The data of analysis of variance
indicated that the days to tasseling and
silking was non-significantly (p>0.05)
influenced by various weed control
methods which showed in (Table 3). The
minimum days to tasseling (65.0) recorded
in hand hoeing weed control method. The
bar data of days to tasseling (66.0) was
observed in mechanical, cultural and
chemical weed control methods
respectively. However, maximum days to
tasseling (70.0) were noted by weedy check
plot. On the other hand, lower days to
silking 50% (68.0 and 69.0) observed in
hand hoeing and mechanical weed control
methods, followed by (71.0 and 72.0) were
noted in cultural and chemical weed control
methods. Moreover, higher days to silking
(70.0) recorded in weedy check plot. The
results of this study revealed the lower days
to tasseling and silking (50%) were noted in
hand hoeing weed control method and
higher days were observed in weedy check
plot. These results are occurrence similar
Pure Appl. Biol., 8(1): 718-726, March, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80013
722
with [28], who observed that the better
weed control method could be effectively
control of weeds in early growth stages of
the maize crop, therefore, that crop plants
will be provided better environment to
utilize by crop for growth and development.
The higher days of tasseling and silking
could be long-term duration and take more
days to physiological maturity.
Cobs plant-1 Cobs plant-1 of maize are a main of major
yield component and with linear affected on
grain yield of maize. The data of cobs plant-
1 was significantly influenced by different
weed control methods as given in (Table 3).
The higher cobs plant-1 (1.8) was recorded
in hand hoeing weed control method,
followed by (1.3, 1.2 and 1.1) were
obtained from mechanical, cultural and
chemical control methods. However, the
lower cobs plant-1 (1.0) recorded in the
weedy check. These results of our study are
agreed with [29], observed that the numbers
of cobs plant-1 were significantly affected
by various weed control methods.
Plant height (cm)
Tallness in maize plant is mostly associated
with the better growth and development of
maize plant that could be due to effective
weeds control method. Plant height has
been reported to be positively correlated
with the productivity of plants reported by
[30]. The results showed that the tallest
plant height (179.0 cm) was noted in hand
hoeing weed control method and shortest
(79.0 cm) recorded in weedy check plot.
However, different plant heights (155,115
and 103 cm) were observed mechanical,
cultural and chemical weed control
methods respectively which demonstrated
in (Table 3). Although, this study revealed
that chemical weed control method had not
effectively to reduce weeds for production
of taller plant. These results are confirmed
to findings of the higher plants were
observed due to effective weed control
method. Whereas, shorter plants were
found when weed control method was
delayed reported by [31].
Grain yield (kg ha-1) The grain yield of maize is the ultimate
objective of all research such as cobs plant-
1 and number grain cob-1. The data revealed
that the different weed control methods
significantly affect on grain yield of maize
crop as mentioned in (Table 3). The highest
grain yield of maize (6400.0 kg ha-1) was
recorded in hand hoeing weed control
method, followed by (6032.0, 5900.0 and
5700.0 kg ha-1) observed in mechanical,
cultural and chemical weed control
methods respectively. Moreover, lowest
grain yield (5520.0 kg ha-1) was obtained by
weedy check plot. These results occurrence
with those of other researchers [32],
suggested that the nonchemical weed
control practice resulted in higher grain
yield than that of chemically weed control
method.
Table 1. Different weeds flora in the experimental field of maize.
Local Name English Name Botanical Name Life of Span
Naro Bind weed Convolvulus arvensis Biennials
Nalibuti Pimpernel Anagallis arvensis Annual
Danak Bunch grass Phalaris minor Annual
Jhunli palak Sheep clock sorrel Rumex dentatus L. Biennial
Jhill Lambs quartes Chenopodium album L. Annual
Kurund Nattleleaf goosefoot Chenopodium morale L. Biennial
Chabbar Lawn grass Cynodon dactylon Perennials
Kabbah Nut grass Cyperus rotundus Perennials
Bhutto et al.
723
Figure 1. The map of eperimental site
Figure 2. Weeds were found in the experimental field of maize
Pure Appl. Biol., 8(1): 718-726, March, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80013
724
Figure 3. Effect of different weed control methods on weeds frequency m-2 of 15, 30 and
45 days after sowing
Table 2. Mean square ANOVA of weed frequency m-2 15,30,45 DAS, leaves plant-1, days
to tasseling and silking (50%), cobs plant-1, plant height (cm) and grain yield kg ha-1
Sources
of
variation
DF WF/15
DAS
WF/30
DAS
WF/ 45
DAS LP
DT
50%
DS
50% CP
PH
(cm)
GY
(kg ha-
1)
Rep 3 145.43 132.05 170.32 0.5107 104.721 4.0267 0.08390 119.05 61811
Weeding 4 5156.20NS 6142.05NS 7254.25 59.1367 14.859 38.8593 0.39550 6418.66 451405
Error 12 93.74 180.72 157.15 4.0078 13.071 5.7446 0.04056 60.87 132335
Total 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Whereas. Df= degree of freedom, WF= weed frequency, LP= leaves plant-1, DT= days to tasseling, DS= days to
silking, CP= cobs plant-1, PL= plant height (cm), GY=grain yield kg ha-1
Table 3. Effects of different weed control methods on leaves plant-1, days to tasseling and
silking (50%), cobs plant-1, plant height (cm) and grain yield kg ha-1 of maize
Weed
control
methods
Leaves
plant-1
Days to
tasseling
(50%)
Days to
silking
(50%)
Cobs
plant-1
Plant height
(cm)
Grain yield
kg ha-1
Weedy check 4.5 c 70.0 a 76.0 a 1.0 c 79.9 d 5520.0 b
Chemical 7.0 bc 66.0 a 72.0 ab 1.1 bc 103.1 c 5700.0 b
Cultural 9.0 b 66.0 a 71.0 bc 1.2 bc 115.0 c 5900.0 ab
Mechanical 12.3 a 66.0 a 69.0 c 1.3 b 155.0 b 6032.0 ab
Hand hoeing 14.0 a 65.0 a 68.0 c 1.8 a 179.0 a 6400.0 a
LSD 0.05 3.0843 NS(5.5701) NS(3.6926) 0.3103 12.020 5604.6 b
SE:± 1.4156 2.5565 1.6948 5.5168 0.1424 257.23
CV 21.34 5.42 3.36 15.52 6.17 6.15
Bhutto et al.
725
Conclusion
It was concluded that the hand hoeing weed
control method was found suitable and
effective to suppress weeds and improved
grain yield of hybrid maize crop as
compared to other weed control methods,
because this method effectively controls
weeds at the early growth stage and when
weeds become mature in standing crop of
maize.
Authors’ contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments:
TA Bhutto AQ Gola & M Soomro.
Performed the experiments: TA Bhutto, SA
Wahocho, MN Kandhro, AQ Gola & NA
Wahocho. Analyzed the data: NA
Wahocho, M Soomro, I Majedano & M
Buriro. Contributed reagents/ materials/
analysis tools: S Kumbhar, N Buladi, KB
Bhutto, AQ Gola & MA Ansari. Wrote the
paper: TA Bhutto.
References
1. Anonymous, World Agriculture
Production in Dec (2001). Production
estimates and crop assessment Div,
FAS, USDA (2005).
2. Rutta A, Vanderlip RL, Higgins RA,
Moshier IJ & Feyerherym AM (1991).
Suitability of corn growth models for
incorporation of weed and in set stress.
Agron J 13(83): 757-763.
3. Khan MA & Haq NU (2004). Effect of
pre-emergence herbicides on weed
control in maize grain yield. Sarhad J
Agric 9(5): 415- 421.
4. Devlin DL, Long JH & Maddux LD
(1991). Using reduced rates of post
emergence herbicides in soybean.
Weed Technol 4(5): 834-840.
5. Blackshaw RE, Donovan JT, Harker
KN, Clayton GW & Stougaard RN
(2006a). Reduced herbicide doses in
field crops. A review. Weed Biol
Manage 6(1): 10-17.
6. Ahmed SAS, Din RN & Metwally IM
(2001). Weed management practices
for cereals. Annals Agric Sci Mosh
2(39): 805-823.
7. Kirkland KJ, Holm FA & Stevenson
FC (2000). Appropriate crop seeding
rate when herbicide rate is reduced.
Weed Technol 1(14): 692-698.
8. Lesnik M (2003). The impact of maize
stands density on herbicide efficiency.
Plant Soil Environ 5(49): 29-35.
9. Barros JFC, Basch G & de-Carvalho M
(2007). Effect of reduced doses of a
post-emergence herbicide to control
grass and broad-leaved weeds in no-till
wheat under Mediterranean conditions.
Crop Prot 1(26): 1538-1545.
10. Baumann D (1992). Mechanical weed
control with spring tine harrows (weed
harrows) in row crops. IXth
International Symposium on the
Biology of Weeds, Dijon France. 123-
128.
11. Pleasant JM, Burt RF & Frisch JC
(1994). Integrating mechanical and
chemical weed management in corn
(Zea mays L.). Weed Technol 5(8):
217–223.
12. Rakesh KS & Shirvastava UK (2002).
Weed control in soybean (Glycine
max). Indian J Agron 2(47): 269-272.
13. Blackshaw RE, Donovan JT, Harker
KN, Clayton GW & Stougaard RN
(2006b). Reduced herbicide doses in
field crops. A review. Weed Biol
Manage 6(1): 10-17.
14. Gruber S, Pekrun C, Mohring J &
Claupein W (2012). Long-term yield
and weed response to conservation and
stubble tillage in SW Germany. Soil
Tillage Res 3(121): 49-56.
15. Hossein B, Mahmoud G, Amin AM,
Afshin S & Saman A (2014).
Investigate the effect tillage methods
and chemical weed control on the yield
of forage corn. Int J Agric Crop Sci
7(14): 1385-1391
16. Tollenaar M, Dibo AA, Aguilera A,
Weise SF & Swanton CJ (1994). Effect
of crop density of weed interference in
maize. Agron J 10(86): 591-595.
17. Mishra JS (1997). Critical period of
weed competition and losses due to
weeds in major field crops. Farmer and
Parliament. 33(6): 19-20.
Pure Appl. Biol., 8(1): 718-726, March, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80013
726
18. Pannel DJ (2004). The human
dimensions of integrated weed
management. Sustainability and
Economics in Agriculture. (SEA) SEA
Working Paper 02/04.
19. Khan MA, Marwat KB, Hassan G &
Khan N (2002). Impact of weed
management on maize (Zea mays L.)
planted at night. Pak J Weed Sci Res
2(8): 57-62.
20. Khan MA & Haq NU (2004a). Effect
of pre-emergence herbicides on weed
control in maize grain yield. Sarhad J
Agric 9(5):415- 421.
21. Khoso AW (1977). BOOK, Crops of
sindh, fifth adition. Bhitai Computer
Composers, Hyderabad, Sindh,
Pakistan.
22. Galal AH (2003). Effect of weed
control treatments and hill-spacing on
soybean and associated weeds. Assiut J
Agric Sci 4(34):15-32.
23. Vander DA, Schans PO, Bleeker L,
Molendijk M, Pletinger RYW, Vander
LAP, Lotz R, Bauermeister R, Total &
Bauman DT (2006). Practical weed
control in arable farming and outdoor
vegetable cultivation without
chemicals. Appl Pl Res. Pp1-5.
Wageningen University and Research
Centre, Lelystad, Netherlands.
24. Gardiol JM, Serio LA & Maggiora
AID (2003). Modelling
evapotranspiration of corn (Zea mays
L.) under different plant densities. J
Hydrol 11(271): 188-196.
25. Carruthers K, Fe Q, Cloutier D &
Smith DL (1998). Intercropping corn
with soybean, lupin and forages weed
control by intercrops combined with
interrow cultivation. Eur J Agron 8(2):
225-238.
26. Pandey AK, Prakash V, Singh RD &
Mani VP (2000). Effect of herbicide
mixtures and cultural practices on
maize and associated weeds under
mid-hills of N-W Himalayas. Annals
Agric Res 3(2): 58-64.
27. Shahid R & Khan MH (2016). Growth
and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) as
influenced by integrated weed
management under temperate
conditions of North Western
Himalayas. American J Exp Agric
14(1): 1-9.
28. Akhtar M, Aslam M & Malik HN
1998. Effect of various weed control
methods on maize (Zea mays L.)
growth and yield in heavily populated
weed fields of Islamabad. Sarhad J
Agric 14(4): 345-350.
29. Saeed IM, Abbasi K & Kazim M
(2001). Response of maize to nitrogen
and phosphorus fertilization under
agronomic condition of Rawalokot
Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Pak J Biol
7(4):3 949-952.
30. Umme EK, Kakar SD, Khan MA,
Hussein Z & Khan A (2012). Response
of maize and three perennial weeds to
different combinations of macro-
nutrients. Pak J Weed Sci Res 18(4):
433-443.
31. Stefanovic L, Milivojevic M, Husic I,
Samic M & Hojka Z (2004a).
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.
(CAB Abstract).
32. Singh AP & Singh PC (2003). Effect of
different weed control methods on
growth and yield of rabi-sown hybrid
maize cv. hybrid 4640. J Living World
4(10): 12-15.