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: abdulqadiragri@gmail.com

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.