Content uploaded by Bilal Lone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bilal Lone on Nov 10, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: E-mail: faisulrasool1@gmail.com;
Journal of Experimental Agriculture International
42(6): 49-55, 2020; Article no.JEAI.58068
ISSN: 2457-0591
(Past name:
American Journal of Experimental Agriculture,
Past ISSN: 2231-0606)
Influence of Pre and Post-emergence Herbicides on
Weed Population and Yield of Maize
(Zea mays L.) Crop
Faisul-Ur-Rasool
1*
, S. A. Hakeem
1
, Z. A. Dar
1
, M. I. Bhat
2
, B. A. Lone
1
,
S. A. Haq
1
and I. A. Jehangir
3
1
Dryland (Karewa) Agriculture Research Station, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences
and Technology of Kashmi, Shalimar, India.
2
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Budgam, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and
Technology of Kashmi, Shalimar, India.
3
Mountain Research Centre for Field Crops, Anantnag, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural
Sciences and Technology of Kashmi, Shalimar, India.
Authors’ contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. Author FUR designed the study,
performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
Authors SAH and ZAD managed the analyses of the study. Authors MIB, BAL, SAH and IAJ managed
the literature searches. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/JEAI/2020/v42i630537
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Dalong Guo, Henan University of Science and Technology, China.
(2)
Dr. Masayuki Fujita, Kagawa University, Japan.
(3)
Dr. Daniele De Wrachien, Retd, State University of Milan, Italy.
Reviewers:
(1)
Yasser Abd Elsabour Mohamed Khalifa, Al Azhar University, Egypt.
(2)
Gul Hasssan, Weed Science University of Agriculture, Pakistan.
Complete Peer review History:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/58068
Received 12 April 2020
Accepted 17 June 2020
Published 15 July 2020
ABSTRACT
Field experiments were conducted during 2017-18 at Dryland Agriculture Research Station, Sher-e-
Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir to evaluate the impact of
post and pre emergence herbicides application on weed growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.).
The experiment was laid in a randomized block design with four replications using maize variety Bio-
605. The experimental details are as: Atrazine 50% WP @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as pre-emergence and
paraquat dichloride 24 % SL @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha
-1
, 2,4-D Sodium salt 58% WSC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as
Original Research Article
Rasool et al.; JEAI, 42(6): 49-55, 2020; Article no.JEAI.58068
50
post-emergence herbicides (application at 2-3 leaf stage of weeds), hand weeding as standard
check and weedy check as control. The weeds mainly encountered during the cropping season
were Echinochloa spp., Eleusine indica, Digitaria sanguinalis, Amaranthus viridis, Sorghum
halepense and Cyperus spp. Among all the herbicidal treatments, the highest weed control
efficiency was recorded with the application of atrazine 50% WP @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as pre-
emergence with values ranging from 75.52% to 83.10% except for Cyperus spp. with only 2.84%
efficiency. Also there was no compromise on maize yield with the application of atrazine as
compared to paraquat dichloride and 2,4-D. This is an indication of the reliability and the potential of
the atrazine 50% WP @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as pre-emergence herbicide in the efficient control of weeds
in maize crop.
Keywords: Atrazine; paraquat dichloride; 2,4-D sodium salt; weed control efficiency; Zea mays.
1. INTRODUCTION
Maize is the third most important cereal crops in
India after rice and wheat. But in terms of
productivity it surpasses all cereal crops. In India,
it is grown over an area of 9.43 Mha with a total
production of 24.35 MT Anonymous, [1]. In
addition to serving as an important staple food
for an economically vulnerable segment of the
population, it also ranks first in importance as a
feed crop and further more is an important
source of raw materials used in numerous
industrial processes. Maize is scientifically called
Zea mays and it belongs to family Poaceae. The
first coordinated crop improvement project was
launched on maize by Indian Council of
Agriculture Research in 1957. In India, maize is
used as human food (23%), poultry feed (51%),
animal feed (12%), industrial use (starch)
products (12%), beverages and seed (1% each).
Globally, maize is cultivated over an area of 160
M ha with a production of 887 MMT and
productivity of 5.5 MT ha
-1
FAO, [2]. Maize is the
major crop of Jammu & Kashmir and is grown
during kharif season. About 85% of the cropped
area is rainfed. In this state, it is grown over an
area of 315.8 Thousand ha with production of
633 Thousand tons and productivity of 20.04 q
ha
-1
Anonymous, [1]. The leading maize
producing districts are Kupwara, Baramulla,
Budgam and Anantnag.
The major constraints of maize production in
Jammu and Kashmir include both biotic (weeds,
plant pathogens, insect pests, rodents, wild
animals) and abiotic factors (drought, hailstorm,
flood, nutrient deficiency, soil type, topographic
features) Ransom et al. [3]. Among the biotic
factors, weed infestation is of supreme
importance and often inflicts huge losses ranging
from 28 to 100 per cent Patel et al. [4]. Pre-
dominant weed species present in the
experimental site were Echinochloa spp.,
Eleusine indica, Digitaria sanguinalis,
Amaranthus viridis, Sorghum halepense and
Cyperus spp Kumar et al. [5], Kakade et al. [6].
Worldwide maize production is hampered up to
40% by competition from weeds which are the
most important pest group of this crop Chikoye et
al. [7]. Generally weeds reduce crop yields by
competing for light, nutrients, water and carbon
dioxide as well as interfering with harvesting and
increasing the cost involved in crop production.
Overall, weeds impose the highest loss potential
(37%), which is higher than the loss potentials
due to insect pests (18%), fungal and bacterial
pathogens (16%) and viruses (2%) Chikoye et al.
[8]. Weeds have a more direct influence on
human beings than any other pest in developing
countries like India. Weeds not only cause
severe crop losses but also compete with
farmers and their families to spend a
considerable amount of their time on weeding.
More than 50% of labour is devoted to weeding,
mainly done by the women and children in the
farming families. Weed competition in a cereal
generally reduces crop vigour, cob size, kernel
weight and consequently, grain yield. Control of
weeds in the fields of maize is, therefore, very
essential for obtaining good crop-harvest. Weed
control practices in maize resulted in 77 to 96.7
% higher grain yield than the weedy Tesfay et al.
[9]. Different weed control methods have been
used to manage the weeds but mechanical and
chemical methods are more frequently used for
the control of weeds than any other control
methods. Mechanical methods including hand
weeding are still useful but are getting expensive,
laborious and time-consuming. In the less
developed countries, the situation still exists
where the peak labour requirement is often for
hand weeding Chikoye et al. [10]. Chemical
weed control is an important alternative to
manual weeding because it is cheaper, faster
and gives better weed control Correa et al. [11]
and Owen et al. [12]; Ali et al. [13]; Chikoye et al.
Rasool et al.; JEAI, 42(6): 49-55, 2020; Article no.JEAI.58068
51
[7]; Chikoye et al. [8]. However, continuous
application of currently registered herbicides
caused changing weed flora, poor control and
evolution of herbicide resistant weed biotypes.
This necessitates the introduction of some other
new herbicide options with different modes of
action. Therefore, this research work was carried
out to evaluate the effect of herbicide (Atrazine;
Paraquat dichloride; 2,4-D Sodium salt) on
weeds and yield of maize under field condition at
Dryland Agriculture Research Station, Sher-e-
Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and
Technology of Kashmir, India.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
During kharif seasons of 2017 and 2018, field
experiments were performed at Dryland
Agriculture Research Station, Sher-e-Kashmir
University of Agricultural Sciences and
Technology of Kashmir. The physico-chemical
properties of the experimental soil were silt clay
in texture with sand, clay and silt percentage of
9.5 %, 27.9% and 62.6% respectively. The bulk
density of the field was 1.48 g cc
-1
, moisture
content 15.6% and medium water holding
capacity with the value of 34.0%. Chemical
properties of the experimental soil revealed the
soil having medium fertility status with pH: 7.2,
Electrical Conductivity: 0.15 dS m
-1
, Organic
Carbon: 0.38 %, Available Nitrogen: 380.2 kg ha
-
1
Available Phosphorus: 9.5 kg ha
-1
, and
Available Potash: 202.4 kg ha
-1
. The crop was
grown under rainfed conditions. The
experimental site is situated in the temperate belt
of J&K with the moderately hot summer and long
cold winter. The details of the climatic condition
such as temperature, rainfall, relative humidity
and sunshine hours day
-1
pertaining to the period
of experimentation (April to September) as
observed and recorded from the meteorological
observatory, Rambagh Srinagar is depicted
below (Fig. 1). The average minimum
temperature ranged from 11.95°C to 25.42°C
over two years (2017-18). The temperature
range during the both cropping seasons was
more or less normal. The total rainfall received
during the experiment season of April to
September during 2017-18 was 315.4 mm. The
maximum rainfall was 84.5 mm & 63.4 mm
during April & June months in two years
respectively. The monthly average relative
humidity during the crop growing period of two
years varied from 57.15% to 81.01%.
At optimum moisture, the land was ploughed
thoroughly criss-cross with tractor drawn harrow
and final land preparation with mould board
plough for obtaining good tilth. After that clods
and stubbles of previous crops were removed
from the land. The field was laid as per the
design of experimentation by making bund in
each channel for irrigation as well as drainage.
The maize seed was treated with Captan 50 WP
along with Imidachlorpid @ 2-4 g kg
-1
seed.
Seeding depth was 2–3 cm (approx), hybrid
maize variety Bio-605 was sown at seed rate 20
kg ha
-1
on 20
th
of April, 2017 & 16
th
of April, 2018
with the spacing of 60 cm x 20 cm. Well
decomposed organic manure was applied in the
experimental unit at final land preparation. The
recommended dose of viz: N:P
2
O
5
:K
2
O:Zn ha
-1
were applied @ 150:75:40:20 kg of respectively.
The sources of fertilizers were Urea for N; Single
super phosphate (SSP) for P; Muriate of potash
(MOP) for K and Zinc sulphate for Zn. The basal
dose consists of ½ of total N and full dose of
P
2
O
5
; K
2
O; Zn. The remaining ½ N was top
dressed at knee high stage and tasselling stage.
The selected site had moderate weed infestation
and experiment was conducted under rainfed
ecology. The herbicide Atrazine 50 % WP at
dosages of 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
, Paraquat dichloride
24% SL @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha
-1
and 2,4-D Amine Salt
58% WSC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
were applied at 3
days after sowing in both the years (Table 1)
using Knapsack sprayer fitted with Flat fan
nozzle using water volume of 600 litres ha
-1
, post
emergence application at 2-3 leaf stage of weeds
respectively. At the time of herbicide application,
the soil had sufficient moisture. While recording
weed population the biomass was harvested
from each quadrate. The harvested weeds were
placed separately and drying in an oven at a
60
0
C temperature for 24 hours till constant dry
weight was attained and converted in to g
-2
. The
weed control efficiency (WCE) was calculated
based on weed dry weight recorded at 45 DAA
using the following formula:
(%) =
x 100
Where, DMC = Dry matter of weeds in control
plot and DMT = Dry matter of weeds in treated
plot.
The level of phyto-toxicity was estimated by
visual assessment based on Phyto-toxicity rating
scale (PRS), where 0 = No crop injury and 10 =
Heavy injury or complete destruction of test crop.
The grain yields of maize were recorded plot
wise and further converted to quintals per
hectare (q ha
-1
) after proper drying and
threshing. Population density and dry matter
Rasool et al.; JEAI, 42(6): 49-55, 2020; Article no.JEAI.58068
52
Fig. 1. Meteorological data during the experimental period (Averaged over two years 2017-18)
Table 1. Treatment details of the experiment during 2017-18
S. no.
Treatments
Dose
(kg a.i. ha
-1
)
Dosage of
product (kg ha
-1
)
Method and time of
application
1.
Hand weeding - - Manual hand weeding
2.
Atrazine 50% WP 1.0 2.0 Spraying at 0-3DAS
3.
Paraquat dichloride 24% SL 0.5 2.0 Post emergence
application at 2-3 leaf
stage of weeds
4.
2,4- D Sodium salt 58% WSC 1.0 1.25 Post emergence
application at 2-3 leaf
stage of weeds
5.
Weedy check - - -
production of weeds data were subjected to
square root transformation √(X+5) in order to
have normally distributed data. Mean separation
was conducted for significant treatment means
using least significance differences (LSD) at 5%
probability level.
3. RESULTS
The weed dry matter (Table 2) showed
significant effect of atrazine 50% WP at 1.0 kg
a.i. ha
-1
dose to control broad-leaved weeds and
grasses except sedges. Similar influence
against dry matter of sedges viz. Cyperus spp.
was shown by other herbicides as well. Better
efficacy was obtained by the herbicides as
against control plots which showed the
maximum weed dry matter of the grassy and
broad-leaved weeds. The highest weed dry
weight m
-2
for all the weed species were
observed in the control and the lowest was
observed in the hand weeded plot. Among the
herbicidal treatments, the weed dry matter
significantly decreased with the application of
atrazine compared to other treatments. The
result further indicates that herbicides are more
effective in reducing density and dry weights of
weeds next to hand weeding and hoeing as
compared to weedy check.
According to Table 3, the highest weed control
efficiency for the entire weed species were
observed in the hand weeded plots at all the
stages of growth and during both the years.
Among the herbicidal treatments, significantly
best results were recorded for the application of
atrazine 50% WP @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
.
The data in Table 4 depicted that application of
atrazine 50% WP, untreated control on 1,3,5,7
and 10 days after application of herbicides did
not show any kind of phyto-toxic symptoms
(Maize leaf epinasty or hyponasty, leaf necrosis
or chlorosis and wilting or stunting growth) on the
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Meteorological data (2017-18)
Total Rainfall (mm)
Temperature (0C)
Temperature (0C)
Relative humidity (%) Relative humidity (%)
Rasool et al.; JEAI, 42(6): 49-55, 2020; Article no.JEAI.58068
53
maize plants. However, Paraquat dichloride 24 %
SL and 2,4- D Sodium salt 58% WSC showed
slight discoloration, chlorosis, stunted growth, a
few plants were killed. The injury was more
pronounced but, its effect was temporary and
possibly causing reduction in yield.
Among the herbicidal treatments, atrazine 50%
WP @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as pre-emergence
herbicide recorded significantly higher yield and
the values were statistically significant compared
to paraquat dichloride 24 % SL @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha
-1
and 2,4- D Sodium salt 58% WSC @ 1.0 kg a.i.
ha
-1
as post-emergence . The increase in yield
was 16.5% over the control. Increase in maize
yield in these treatments may be attributed to
effective control of weeds and marked
improvement in crop growth and yield attributes.
Table 2. Major weeds in maize and dry matter (g m
-2
) at 45 DAA pooled over two years
Treatments
Echinochloa
spp.
Eleusine
indica
Digitaria
sanguinalis
Amaranthus
viridis
Sorghum
halepense
Cyperus
spp.
Hand weeding 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atrazine 50%
WP
3.68 4.44 4.33 3.64 4.34 36.63
Paraquat
dichloride 24%
SL
11.56 9.65 7.49 9.52 6.49 36.66
2,4- D Sodium
salt 58% WSC
12.32 9.55 8.36 6.28 7.12 48.58
Weedy check 19.57 20.38 21.4 21.04 19.19 36.30
CD at 5% 0.38 0.26 0.32 0.28 0.38 0.67
Table 3. Weed control efficiency (%) at 45 DAA pooled over two years
Treatments
Echinochloa
spp
.
Eleusine
indica
Digitaria
sanguinalis
Amaranthus
viridis
Sorghum
halepense
Cyperus
spp
.
Hand weeding
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Atrazine 50%
WP
83.10
82.20
83.16
79.58
75.52
2.84
Paraquat
dichloride 24%
SL
46.98
59.42
61.35
50.55
68.12
1.65
2,4
- D Sodium
salt 58% WSC
38.95
43.75
34.83
27.45
46.20
3.85
Weedy check
0
0
0
0
0
0
CD at 5%
0.28
0.16
0.18
0.15
0.14
2.17
Table 4. Phyto-toxicity effect of herbicides on maize crop
Treatments
Epinasty & hyponasty
Necrosis or chlorosis
Wilting & Stunting growth
DAA (Days after Application)
1
3
5
7
10
1
3
5
7
10
1
3
5
7
10
Hand weeding
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Atrazine 50%
WP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Paraquat
dichloride 24%
SL
0
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
0
2,4
- D Sodium
salt 58% WSC
0
1
2
1
2
0
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
2
Weedy check
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rasool et al.; JEAI, 42(6): 49-55, 2020; Article no.JEAI.58068
54
Table 5. Grain and straw yield (q ha
-1
) of maize as influenced by application of herbicides
Treatments
Grain yield
(q ha
-1
)
Stover yield
(q ha
-1
)
% increase in maize grain
yield over control
Hand weeding 66.70 134.30 42.82
Atrazine 50 % WP 54.41 106.05 16.50
Paraquat dichloride 24 % SL 50.37 92.55 7.85
2,4- D Sodium salt 58% WSC 48.08 86.56 2.95
Weedy check 46.70 81.7 -
CD at 5% S S -
#
S= signifance
4. DISCUSSION
As a result of the study, it was observed that
there were significant differences among different
herbicides in controlling weeds as well as
influencing the growth attributes and yield of
maize crop. Application of atrazine 50% WP @
1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as pre-emergence followed by
hand weeding helps in best control of all the
weed species viz. grasses, broad leaved weeds
as well as sedges compared to paraquat
dichloride 24 % SL @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha
-1
, 2,4-D
Sodium salt 58% WSC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as post-
emergence herbicides. These results are in
accordance with Mehmeti et al. [14] who reported
that herbicides reduced the weed infestation and
control weeds in the maize crop as comparison
to the control plots. Hand weeding is the best
cultural practice to control weeds but being time
consuming and laborious, pre-emergence usage
of atrazine showed paramount results. Similar
results of significance compared to weedy check
were recorded by Lyon et al. [15]. The
recommended doses of pre-emergence herbicide
was found safe to the maize crop but use of post-
emergence herbicides caused phytotoxic effect
on maize such as necrosis and wilting etc. The
photo-synthetic activity of plants was adversely
affected and decreased in their dry matter
production rate and finally reduction of maize
yield. These results are in line with the findings
as reported by Singh [16] and Rao et al. [17].
Atrazine resulted in higher growth and yield
attributes of maize viz. plant height, plants m
-2
,
cob length, cob girth, 1000-seed weight and
other yield influencing factors as well, therefore
improved grain as well as stover yield of maize
was recorded compared to paraquat dichloride
and 2,4- D Sodium salt as post-emergence. The
increase in yield was 16.5% over the control.
Increase in maize yield in these treatments may
be attributed to effective control of weeds and
marked improvement in crop growth. The lowest
value was obtained in the control plot and
highest in hand weeded plots. Improved grain
yield with the application of herbicides was also
reported by Hassan et al. [18] and Takele
[19].
5. CONCLUSION
Keeping in view the results obtained from
present investigation the following broad
conclusions can be drawn. All the
treatments significantly reduced the biomass of
total weeds (except Cyperus spp.) as
compared to weedy check. Application of
atrazine 50% WP @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as pre-
emergence herbicide plus hand weeding
twice at 20 DAS and 40 DAS was found very
effective in reducing the biomass of all
categories of weeds and in improving the yield of
maize crop as compared to Paraquat dichloride
24 % SL @ 0.5 kg a.i. ha
-1
and 2,4- D Sodium
salt 58% WSC @ 1.0 kg a.i. ha
-1
as post-
emergence herbicides. Also, the rhizosphere
region of the experimental soil in the maize field
showed no significant variations in the physical,
chemical & mechanical properties due to
application of herbicide atrazine at recommended
dosage.
COMPETING
INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. Anonymous. Agriculture statistics at a
glance. Directorate of economics and
statistics, Department of Agriculture and
Cooperative, Ministry of Agriculture, Gov.
of India; 2018.
2. FAO; 2017.
Available:http//faostat.fao.org/page id 567
3. Ransom JK, Short K, Waddington S.
Improving productivity of maize under
stress conditions. 30-33. In: Benti T. and
Ransom J.K. ed; 1993
Rasool et al.; JEAI, 42(6): 49-55, 2020; Article no.JEAI.58068
55
4. Patel VJ, Upadhyay PN, Patel JB,
Meisuriya MI. Effect of herbicide mixture
on weeds in Kharif maize (Zea mays L.)
under middle Gujarat conditions. Indian
Journal of Weed Science.
2006;38(1&2):54-57.
5. Kumar B, Prasad S, Mandal D, Kumar R.
Influence of integrated weed management
practices on weed dynamics, productivity
and nutrient uptake of rabi maize (Zea
mays L.). International Journal of
Current Microbiology and Applied
Sciences. 2017;6(4):1431-1440.
6. Kakade SU, Deshmukh JP, Bhale VM,
Solanke MS, Shingrup PV. Efficacy of pre
and post emergence herbicides in Maize.
Extended Summaries. 4
th
International
Agronomy Congress, Nov. 22–26, 2016,
New Delhi, India. 2016;1:442-443.
7. Chikoye D, Schulz S, Ekeleme F.
Evaluation of integrated weed
management practices for maize in the
northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Crop
Protection. 2004; 23:895-900.
8. Chikoye D, Udensi UE, Fontem LA.
Evaluation of a new formulation of atrazine
and metolachlor mixture for weed control
in maize in Nigeria. Crop Protection.
2005;24: 1016-1020.
9. Tesfay A, Amin M, Mulugeta N.
Management of weeds in maize (Zea
mays L.) through various pre and post
emergency herbicides. Advances in Crop
Science and Technology. 2014;2:1-5.
10. Chikoye D, Ellis-Jone J, Riches C,
Kanyomeka L. Weed management in
Africa: Experiences, Challenges and
Opportunities. 16
th
International Plant
Protection Congress. 2007;652-653.
11. Correa AJA, De La Rosa MM, Mora,
Dominguez YJA. Demonstration plots for
chemical weed control in rain fed maize
(Zea mays L.) sown with minimum tillage
in Acolmn Mexico. Revista Chapingo.
1990; 15:164-166.
12. Owen MDK, Hartzler RG, Lux J. Wooly
cup grass (Eriochloa villosa) control in
corn (Zea. mays L.) with Chloroacetamide
herbicides. Weed Technology.
1993;7:925-929.
13. Ali R, Khalil SK, Raza SM, Khan H. Effects
of herbicides and row spacing on maize
(Zea mays L.). Pakistan Journal of Weed
Science Research. 2013;9:171-178.
14. Mehmeti AA, Demaj I, Demelezi, Rudari H.
Effect of Post-Emergence Herbicides on
Weeds and Yield of Maize. Pakistan
Journal of Weed Science Research. 2012;
18:27-37.
15. Lyon R, Alex R, Martin, Klein N. Cultural
practices to improve weed control in winter
wheat. The University of Nebraska-
Lincoln; 2006.
16. Singh S. Studies on integrated weed
management in maize (Zea mays L.)
under Ghataprabha command area. M.Sc.
(Agriculture) Thesis, University of
Agricultural Science, Dharwad; 2011.
17. Rao AS, Ratnam M, Reddy TY. Weed
management in zero-till sown maize.
Indian Journal of Weed Science.
2009;41(1&2): 46-49.
18. Hassan G, Tanveer S, Khan NU, Munir M.
Integrating cultivars with reduced herbicide
rates for weed management in maize.
Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2010;42:1923-
1929.
19. Takele A. Witch weed [Striga hermonthca
(Del.) Benth.]. Infestation and Component
crop productivity as Influenced by Different
Intercropping Patterns of Groundnut
Varieties in Maize at Metekel Zone, North-
western Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya
University, Ethiopia. 2008;1-3.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2020 Rasool 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:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/58068