Integrated Weed Management in Rabi Sweet Corn (Zea mays L. var. Saccharata)

Mathukia RK; Dobariya VK; Gohil BS; Chhodavadia SK

doi:10.4172/2329-8863.1000139

ISSN: 2329-8863

Advances in Crop Science and Technology

Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.

Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Integrated Weed Management in Rabi Sweet Corn (Zea mays L. var. Saccharata)

*Mathukia RK^2, Dobariya VK¹, Gohil BS¹ and Chhodavadia SK¹**
¹Ph.D.Scholars Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh-362001 Gujarat, India
²Associate Research Scientist, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh-362001, Gujarat, India
Corresponding Author :	Mathukia RK Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture Junagadh Agricultural University Junagadh-362001, Gujarat, India Tel: 7600455459 E-mail: rkmathukia@jau.in
Received March 24, 2014; Accepted September 27, 2014; Published September 29, 2014
Citation: Dobariya VK, Mathukia RK, Gohil BS, Chhodavadia SK (2014) Integrated Weed Management in Rabi Sweet Corn (Zea mays L. var. Saccharata). Adv Crop Sci Tech 2:139. doi: 10.4172/2329-8863.1000139
Copyright: © 2014 Dobariya VK, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Related article at Pubmed Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at Advances in Crop Science and Technology

View PDF Download PDF Tables & Figures

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during rabi 2010-11 at Junagadh (Gujarat, India) to find out most efficient
and economical method of weed control in rabi sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. saccharata Sturt). The pre-emergence (PRE) herbicides viz., atrazine, pendimethalin and oxadiargyl were combined either with hand weeding (HW) and interculturing (IC) or with post-emergence (POST) herbicide 2, 4-D (SS) to evolve integrated weed management. The weed flora of the experimental site constituted Digera arvensis, Cyperus rotundus, Brachiaria spp., Asphodelus tenuifolius, Indigofera glandulosa, Amaranthus viridis, Acanthospermum hispidum, Panicum colonum, Launaea nudicaulis, Euphorbia hirta, Chenopodium album, Portulaca oleracea, Dactyloctenium aegyptium and Celosia argentea. The results revealed that physical methods viz., weed free, HW and IC twice at 15 and 30 days after sowing (DAS) as well as integrated methods viz., atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i. /ha as PRE+HW and IC at 30 DAS and pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i. /ha as PRE+HW and IC at 30 DAS significantly enhanced growth and yield attributes ultimately higher cob and fodder yields over unweeded check. The treatments viz., weed free, HW and IC twice at 15 and 30 DAS, atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i. /ha as PRE+HW and IC at 30 DAS, and pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i. /ha as PRE+HW and IC at 30 DAS also recorded the lower weed population at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest, dry weight of weed at harvest with lower weed index and higher weed control efficiency and herbicidal efficiency index. These treatments were found economical by recording higher net returns and B: C ratio compared to unweeded check.

style="padding-left:35px;">

Keywords
Sweet corn; Zea mays L. var. saccharata Sturt; Atrazine;Pendimethalin; Oxadiargyl, 2, 4-D.
Introduction
Maize is considered as the “Queen of Cereals”. Being a C₄ plant, it is capable to utilize solar radiation more efficiently even at higher radiation intensity. In Indian agriculture, maize assumes a special significance on account of its utilization as food, feed and fodder besides several industrial uses. Sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. saccharata Sturt), also called Indian corn, sugar corn and pole corn, is a variety of maize with a high sugar content. Nature of weed problem in rabi maize is quite different from that of the rainy season maize. In the rainy season emergence of maize and weed start simultaneously and first 20- 30 days are most critical looking to crop-weed competition. Contrarily in the winter maize, weed emerges most often after the first irrigation. However, wider row spacing and liberal use of irrigation and fertilizers lead to more growth of weeds [1]. Yield loss due to weed in maize varies from 28 to 93%, depending on the type of weed flora and intensity and duration of crop-weed competition [2]. Pre-emergence application of herbicides may lead to cost effective control of the weeds right from the start which otherwise may not be possible by manual weeding. The study was carried out to find economically effective method of weed control for realising higher productivity and profitability of rabi sweet corn.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was carried out at Instructional Farm, Department of Agronomy, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh (Gujarat, India) during rabi-2010-11. The experimental soil was clayey in texture and low in available N and P, and moderate in available potash. Sweet corn variety ‘Sugar-75’ was used in the experiment. The temperature ranged from 9.7 to 20.6°C during rabi season. The crop was sown on 11^th December with the seed rate of 15 kg/ha at spacing of 60 cm x 20 cm. Standard package of practices was followed throughout the cropping season. The crop was harvested on 27^th March.
To evolve integrated weed management, pre-emergence (PRE) herbicides viz., atrazine, pendimethalin and oxadiargyl were combined either with hand weeding (HW) and interculturing (IC) or with postemergence (POST) herbicide 2, 4-D (SS) to evolve integrated weed management. The experiment comprised nine treatments, namely, (1) Atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 days after sowing (DAS), (2) Pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS, (3) Oxadiargyl @ 90 g a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS, (4) Atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as PRE+2,4-D (SS) @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as POST at 30 DAS, (5) Pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i./ha as PRE+2,4-D (SS) @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as POST at 30 DAS, (6) Oxadiargyl @ 90 g a.i./ha as PRE+2,4-D (SS) @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as POST at 30 DAS, (7) HW & IC twice at 15 & 30 DAS, (8) weed free and (9) weedy check, were replicated thrice in randomized block design.
Pre-emergence herbicides were applied next day of sowing and post-emergence herbicide was sprayed at 30 DAS. The spraying was done using knapsack sprayer with flat fan nozzle keeping spray volume of 500 L/ha. Weeding was done by labours and interculturing was done by bullock drawn harrow in between two rows of the crop. In manual weed control treatments, weeds were uprooted and removed at 30 DAS as per treatment. In weed free plots, the weeds were removed manually after every seven days for ensuring complete weed free condition.
Growth and yield attributes as well as cob and fodder yields were recorded at harvest of the crop. Number of weeds (monocots, dicots and sedge) was counted at 30, 60 DAS and harvest using 1 m x 1 m quadrat from each plot. At harvest time, after uprooting of weeds, the weeds were sun-dried completely till reached to constant weight and finally the dry weight was recorded for each treatment and expressed as kg/ha. Weed control efficiency (WCE), weed index (WI) and herbicide efficiency index (HEI) were calculated by the formulae suggested by Kondap and Upadhayay (1985), Gill and Kumar (1969) and Krishnamurthy et al., respectively [3-5].

Where, DW_C and DW_T are dry matter accumulation of weeds in unweeded control and treated plot, respectively

Where; Y_WF and Y_T are the yield from weed-free plot and yield from treated plot, respectively.

Where, Y_t and Y_c are yield from treated and unweeded control plot, respectively.
The data were subjected to statistical analysis by adopting appropriate analysis of variance as described by Gomez and Gomez [6]. Wherever the F values were found significant at 5 per cent level of probability, the critical difference (C.D. at 5%) values were computed for making comparison among the treatment means. The data on weed count were subjected to square root transformation [6]. Gross returns (monetary income from cob and fodder yields), net returns (monetary income obtained after deducting cost of cultivation from gross returns) and B:C ratio (gross returns divided by cost of cultivation) were calculated using prevailing market price of inputs (including treatments), labour and produce for assessing the economic viability of treatments.
Results and Discussion
Weed flora
The weed flora in the experimental site constituted by monocot weeds viz., Brachiaria spp. (19.0%), Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav. (9.5%), Indigofera glandulosa L. (8.8%), Panicum coloratum L. (2.4%) and Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd (1.3%) and dicot weeds viz., Digera arvensis Forsk (21.0%), Amaranthus viridis L. (6.0%), Acanthospermum hispidum DC. (3.7%), Launaea nudicaulis L. (2.3%), Euphorbia hirta L. (2.0%), Chenopodium album L. (1.6%), Portulaca oleracea L. (1.4%), and Celosia argentea L. (1.0%) and sedge weed Cyperus rotundus L. (20.0%).
Crop growth and yield
Growth and yield attributes as well as cob and fodder yield were significantly influenced by different weed control practices (Table 1). Results showed that significantly the highest cob length (22.95 cm), cob girth (16.25 cm), number of cobs per plant (1.40), number of kernels per cob (275.67), fresh weight of cob (136.06 g), highest dry weight of cob (41.97 g), cob yield (7674 kg/ha) and fodder yield (37659 kg/ ha) were recorded under weed free. However, the weed free treatment remained statistically equivalent to HW & IC at 15 & 30 DAS, atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW and IC at 30 DAS and pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS. The improved growth and yield attributes under these treatments might be due to periodical removal of weeds by hand weeding or pre-emergence herbicide supplemented with manual weeding and interculturing as evidenced by less number of weeds and dry weight of weeds (Table 2), which might have maintained high soil fertility status and moisture content by means of less removal of plant nutrients and moisture by weeds. These findings are in close conformity with those reported by Sinha et al., Kolage et al., Mandal et al., Kamble et al. and Deshmukh et al. [7-11].
Weed parameters
The weed management treatments significantly influenced the weed population (Table 2). The weed free check recorded the lowest weed population. HW & IC at 15 & 30 DAS also recorded significantly lower weed population, which remained statistically at par with atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS and pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS. Except weed free, the lowest dry weight of weed was observed under HW & IC at 15 & 30 DAS, though it was found statistically at par with atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS. A perusal of data presented in Table 2 indicated that besides weed free, HW & IC at 15 & 30 DAS contained minimum WI, while maximum WCE and HEI, closely followed by pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 40 DAS and atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS. This might be attributed to the effective control of weeds under these treatments, which reflected in less number of weeds and ultimately lower weed biomass. In addition to this, dense crop canopy might have suppressed weed growth and ultimately less biomass. The weedy check recorded significantly the highest number and dry weight of weeds owing to uncontrolled condition favoured luxurious weed growth leading to increased density and dry matter of weeds (Table 3). These findings are in close conformity with those reported by Sinha et al., Kolage et al. and Verma et al. [8,12,13].
Economics
The investigated data revealed that maximum net returns of `77926/ha and B:C of 3.14 were realized with weed free treatment, followed by HW & IC at 15 & 30 DAS and atrazine @ 0.5 kg/ha as PRE+HW & IC at 30 DAS. The lowest net returns of ` 46540/ha was accrued under treatment weedy check with B: C value of 2.42. The higher benefit under these treatments might be due to higher production of cob as well as fodder leading to increased monetary returns with comparatively lower cost. These findings are in close vicinity with those reported by Malviya and Singh, Rao et al., and Sunitha et al. [14-16].
Conclusion
On the basis of the results obtained from present field study, it can be concluded that effective management of weeds with profitable green cob and fodder yield of sweet corn in rabi season can be obtained by keeping the crop weed free throughout crop period or adopting two hand weeding and interculturing at 15 and 30 DAS. However under paucity of labours, pre-emergence application of atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i./ ha+HW & IC at 30 DAS or pendimethalin @ 0.9 kg a.i. /ha as preemergence+ HW & IC at 30 DAS would be the better option under south Saurashtra Agro-climatic conditions.
References
References value="1" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Porwal MK (2000) Economics of weed-control measures in winter maize (Zea mays). Indian Journal of Agronomy, 45: 433-347. value="2" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Sharma V, Thakur DR (1998) Integrated weed management in maize (Zea mays) under mid-hill condition of north-western Himalayas. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 30: 158-162. value="3" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Kondap SM, Upadhyay UC (1985) A Practical Manual of Weed Control. Oxford and IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi. value="4" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Gill GS, Kumar V (1969) Weed index a new method for reporting weed control trials. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 16: 96-98. value="5" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Krishnamurthy K, Rajshekara BG, Raghunatha G, Jagannath MK, Prasad TVR (1995) Herbicide efficiency index in sorghum. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 7: 75-79. value="6" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Gomez K, Gomez A (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Willey and Sons, New York. value="7" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Sinha SP, Prasad SM, Singh SJ (2000) Effect of integrated weed management on growth, yield attributes and yield of winter maize. Journal of Applied Biology, 10: 158-162. value="8" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Kolage AK, Shinde SH, Bhilare RL (2004) Weed management in kharif maize. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 29: 110-111. value="9" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Mandal, Subhendu, Mondal, Subimal and Nath, Subhadeep (2004) Effect of integrated weed management on yield components, yield and economics of baby corn (Zea mays). Annals of Agricultural Research, 25: 242-244. value="10" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Kamble TC, Kakade SU, Nemade SU, Pawar RV, Apotikar VA (2005) Integrated weed management in hybrid maize. Crop Research Hisar, 29: 396-400. value="11" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Deshmukh LS, Jadhav AS, Jathure RS, Raskar SK (2009) Effect of nutrient and weed management on weed growth and productivity of kharif maize under rainfed condition. Karnataka J.Agri.Sci, 22: 889-891. value="12" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Sinha SP, Prasad SM, Singh SJ, Sinha KK (2003) Integrated weed management in winter maize (Zea mays) in North Bihar. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 35: 273-274. value="13" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Verma VK, Tewari AN, Dhemri S (2009) Effect of atrazine on weed management in winter maize-green gram cropping system in central plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 41: 41-45. value="14" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Malviya Alok, Singh Bhagwan (2007) Weed dynamics, productivity and economics of maize (Zea mays) as affected by integrated weed management under rainfed condition. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 52: 321-324. value="15" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Rao AS, Ratnam M, Reddy TY (2009) Weed management in zero-till sown maize. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 41: 46-49. value="16" id="Reference_Titile_Link">Sunitha N, Reddy PM, Reddy DS (2011) Influence of planting pattern and weed control practices on weed growth, nutrient uptake and productivity of sweet corn (Zea mays L.). Crop Research Hisar, 41: 13-20.