Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Impact of sowing techniques and herbicidal interventions on weed management and residue dynamics in fodder maize

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14018
Submitted
6 February 2026
Published
12-05-2026 — Updated on 03-07-2026
Versions

Abstract

Fodder maize is a major fodder crop valued for its rapid growth, high biomass and superior digestibility. However, its productivity is constrained by intense weed competition and herbicide residue concerns. A field experiment was conducted during the year 2023–24 cropping season at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, in a split-plot design with two sowing methods (manual and machine sowing) and 5 weed management practices (atrazine 50 % wettable pwder (WP) at 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 pre-emergence (PE) at 3 days after sowing (DAS) + hand weeding (20 DAS), topramezone at 25 g ha-1 early post-emergence (EPoE) at 15 DAS, tembotrione at 0.120 kg ha-1 (EPoE) at 15 DAS, mechanical weeding at 15 and 30 DAS and unweeded control). Sowing methods had no significant influence on yield or weed dynamics, though manual sowing reduced early weed biomass and machine sowing improved weed control efficiency at later stages. Among weed management practices, tembotrione recorded the highest plant growth, maximum green fodder yield (61.1 t ha-1), net income (₹77648 ha-1) and B:C ratio (2.79). Topramezone was most effective against broad-leaved weeds, while atrazine + hand weeding effectively managed sedges. Residue analysis showed only trace herbicide levels, all within permissible limits. Correlation and regression analyses confirmed significant positive relationships between growth traits and weed control efficiency with yield, while weed density and biomass were negatively associated with fodder yield.

References

  1. 1. Mohan G, Kurmi K. Nutrient management potential for maize grown as food-cum-fodder. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2018;7(12):1078–87. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.712.134
  2. 2. Hayat MK, Mumtaz MM, Ali MA, Huaira A, Rehman MN, Shabbir MA, et al. Optimizing livestock feed systems for sustainable and resilient animal agriculture: A comprehensive review. J Plant Biota. 2024;3:27–33. https://doi.org/10.51470/JPB.2024.3.2.27
  3. 3. Dhamodharan P, Bhuvaneshwari J, Sowmiya S, Chinnadurai R. Revitalizing fodder production: Challenges and opportunities. Int J Res Agron. 2024;7(1):208–17. https://doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2024.v7.i1c.215
  4. 4. Mudzengi CP, Dahwa E, Kapembeza CS. Livestock feeds and feeding in semi-arid areas of southern Africa. In: Livest Health Farm. IntechOpen; 2020.
  5. 5. Shrestha J, Timsina KP, Subedi S, Pokhrel D, Chaudhary A. Sustainable weed management in maize production: A review from southern Asia. Turk J Weed Sci. 2019;22(1):133–43. https://doi.org/10.21704/pja.v2i2.1201
  6. 6. Ekwealor KU, Echereme CB, Ofobeze TN, Okereke CN. Economic importance of weeds: A review. Asian Plant Res J. 2019;3(2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/aprj/2019/v3i230063
  7. 7. Sosnoskie LM, Duke SO. Implications of weakening USGS pesticide synthesis for weed scientists. Weed Sci. 2023;71(6):517–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2023.59
  8. 8. Uygur S, Gürbüz R, Uygur FN. Weeds of onion fields and herbicide effects in Cukurova region, Turkey. Afr J Biotechnol. 2010;9(42):7037–42.
  9. 9. Gianessi LP, Reigner NP. The value of herbicides in US crop production. Weed Technol. 2007;21(2):559–66. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-06-130.1
  10. 10. Parven A, Meftaul IM, Venkateswarlu K, Megharaj M. Herbicides in modern sustainable agriculture: Environmental fate, ecological implications and human health concerns. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2025;22(2):1181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05818-y
  11. 11. Weber R, Herold C, Hollert H, Kamphues J, Blepp M, Ballschmiter K. Relevance of dioxin and PCB sources in food of animal origin. Environ Sci Eur. 2018;30(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0166-9
  12. 12. Tibebu A, Tamrat H, Bahiru A. Impact of food safety on global trade. Vet Med Sci. 2024;10(5):e1585. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1585
  13. 13. Choudhary R, Meena SS. Innovation and improvement in weeding technology: A review. J Exp Agric Int. 2025;47(7):230–55. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i73564
  14. 14. Monteiro A, Santos S. Sustainable approaches to weed management: The role of precision weed management. Agronomy. 2022;12(1):118. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010118
  15. 15. Aune JB, Coulibaly A, Woumou K. Intensification of dryland farming in Mali through mechanisation of sowing, fertiliser application and weeding. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2019;65(3):400–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1505042
  16. 16. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Stat Proc Agric Res. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  17. 17. Matloob A, Khaliq A, Tanveer A, Hussain S, Aslam F, Chauhan BS. Weed dynamics influenced by tillage system, sowing time and competition duration in dry-seeded rice. Crop Prot. 2015;71:25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.01.009
  18. 18. Gharsiram J, Jaryal R, Kumar P, Solanki B. Effect of irrigation and sowing techniques on weed dynamics in alfalfa under South Saurashtra agro-climatic zone of Gujarat, India. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i193667
  19. 19. Kaur R, Deol J, Kaur N, Kaur S. Weed seed bank and dynamics in wheat as affected by sowing time and rice residue management. Indian J Weed Sci. 2024;56:24–29. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2024.00005.4
  20. 20. Rakesh J, Patra B, Bandhopadhay P, Dey S, Banerjee S. Effect of sowing dates and weed management practices on weed density in summer sesame. J Sci Res Rep. 2025;31(5):14–28. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2025/v31i53001
  21. 21. Halli H, Angadi S, Govindasamy P, Madar R, Sannagoudar M, El-Sabrout AM, et al. Integrated effect of deficit irrigation and sowing methods on weed dynamics and system productivity of maize–cowpea sequence on vertisols. Agronomy. 2021;11:808. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040808
  22. 22. Gorsic M, Barić K, Galzina N, Šćepanović M, Ostojić Z. Weed control in maize with new herbicide topramezone. Cereal Res Commun. 2008;36:1627–30.
  23. 23. Chhokar R, Sharma R, Gill S, Singh G. Tank-mix application of p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibiting herbicides with atrazine improves weed control in maize (Zea mays L.). Weed Sci. 2020;68(3):556–81.
  24. 24. Lavanya Y, Srinivasan K, Chinnamuthu C, Arthanari P, Shanmugasundaram S. Effect of weed management practices on weed dynamics and productivity of kharif maize. Pharma Innov J. 2021;10(1):662–65. https://doi.org/10.22271/tpi.2021.v10.i1i.5604
  25. 25. Gazoulis I, Kanatas P, Antonopoulos N, Kokkini M, Tsekoura A, Demirtzoglou T, et al. Integrated effects of biostimulant application, mechanical weed control and herbicide application on weed growth and maize yield. Agronomy. 2023;13(10):2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13102614
  26. 26. Raghuwanshi M, Jha A, Verma B, Sahu M, Dubey A. Effect of weed management practices on weed flora, growth and yield of fodder maize. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(11):112–20. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i112952
  27. 27. Raghuwanshi M, Jha A, Verma B, Yadav P, Shrivastava A. Weed dynamics of fodder maize as influenced by different herbicides. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(7):245–51. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i71873
  28. 28. Singh M, Balana S, Devapatni M, Prashar J, Menon S. Effect of HPPD-inhibitor herbicides on weed dynamics and yield of kharif maize. Ecol Environ Conserv. 2023;29:1–8. https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2023.v29i04.016
  29. 29. Thennavan S, Kathirvelan P, Vasuki V, Djanaguiraman M, Dhananchezhiyan P. Optimizing establishment methods and weed management in irrigated maize. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(18):2095–105. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i183497
  30. 30. Rafain EF, Gubian JE, Rosa DPD, Nunes AL. Correlation between sowing and fertilizer application systems and weeds in soybean crops. Rev Caatinga. 2020;33(2):281–86. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252020v33n201rc
  31. 31. Kashyap S, Kumar R, Ram H, Kumar A, Basak N, Sheoran P, et al. Quantitative and qualitative response of fodder maize to bulk and nano-fertilizers in north-western plains of India. Agronomy. 2023;13(7):1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071889
  32. 32. Banik R, Kumar N, Nanda G, Mansingh B, Kalita P, Sow S, et al. Impact of nitrogen levels and varieties on growth and fodder yield of maize. Bangl J Bot. 2025;54(1):159–66. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjb.v54i1.80703
  33. 33. Kaur T, Bhullar MS, Kaur S. Tembotrione as a post-emergence herbicide for control of diverse weed flora in maize. Maydica. 2019;63:8.
  34. 34. Vijaya P, Sreelatha D, Padmaja B, Rajaiah P. Performance of planters under different tillage practices in rabi maize. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2022;12(11):2289–99. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2022/v12i1131223
  35. 35. Khanadale S, Sharma JD, Mandra DB, Tuppad P, Karad S, Veerbhadrayya M. Effect of pre- and post-emergence herbicides on weed flora, yield and economics of kharif maize. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(22):1418–23. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2022/v34i2231514
  36. 36. Yadav DB, Yadav A, Punia SS, Duhan A. Tembotrione for post-emergence control of complex weed flora in maize. Indian J Weed Sci. 2018;50:131–36. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00033.3
  37. 37. Mukherjee PK, Sondhia S, Singh P, Sagar RL. Atrazine use and residue determination in fodder maize and sorghum. Indian J Weed Sci. 2019;51:163–68. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2019.00035.2

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.