Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603) and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

doi:10.4236/ajps.2013.49209

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2013, 4, 1713-1720

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.49209 Published Online September 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajps)

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide

Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603) and

Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

Sivagamy Kannan*, Chinnusamy Chinnagounder

Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India.

Email: *[email protected]

Received June 4th, 2013; revised July 1st, 2013; accepted July 25th, 2013

Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original

work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

Weeds are posing a serious problem in maize. The congenial climatic conditions encourage more weed growth in the

widely spaced crop like maize and cause yield reduction to the tune of 29 to 70 percent. A field experiment was con-

ducted for two years at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore during kharif seasons of 2010 and 2011 to

evaluate the weed management options for transgenic stacked (TC 1507 & NK 603) and conventional maize hybrids.

The experiments were conducted with the following objective to evaluate the weed control efficiency and crop produc-

tivity with K salt of glyphosate formulations under field conditions. Treatments consisted of two transgenic stacked

hybrids named 30V92 and 30B11 applied with glyphosate as early post emergence at 900 and 1800 g a.e ha–1 during

kharif, 2010 and conventional maize hybrids named 30V92 and 30B11 applied with glyphosate by controlled droplet

application method at 900, 1350 and 1800 g a.e ha–1 during kharif, 2011 compared with non transgenic counterpart maize

hybrids applied with pre emergence atrazine at 0.5 kg ha–1 followed by one hand weeding on 40 DAS with and without

insect management. Based on the two years field experimentation, it was found that early post emergence application of

glyphosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 gave significantly lower weed density, weed dry weight and higher weed control effi-

ciency at all the intervals. Higher grain yield was registered with post emergence application of glyphosate at 1800 g a.e

ha–1 in transgenic and conventional maize hybrid of 30V92 (12.21 t ha–1 and 11.23 t ha–1 ) during both seasons of the

study. Unweeded control accounted for grain yield which in turn reflected through higher weed index of 58.39 and

57.26 per cent, respectively during both the years, due to heavy competition of weeds for nutrients, space and light.

Keywords: Herbicide Tolerant Maize; Weed Density; Weed Dry Weight; Yield Attributes; Grain Yield

1. Introduction

The development of crop cultivar with resistance to se-

lected herbicides has a positive impact on agricultural

production. Selection of proper herbicides is essential for

successful weed management in all crop production sys-

tems [1]. Maize was an ideal crop due to availability of

the plant to acclimate to many soil and climate conditions.

It is an important cereal crops cultivated worldwide. It is

not only an important human nutrient source, but also a

basic element of animal feed and raw material for manu-

facture of many industrial products. The major yield re-

ducing factors for maize cultivation in India are weeds

and insects. Weeds cause considerable yield loss due to

competition of resources with maize crop [2].

Herbicidal weed control seems to be a competitive and

promising way to control weeds at initial stages of crop

growth. Post emergence herbicides have been achieving

adequate weed control programmes, due to its broad

spectrum of activity, excellent crop safety, convenience

and flexibility [3]. This necessitates the development and

testing of selective early post emergence herbicides for

weed control in maize. Glyphosate is a foliar applied,

broad spectrum, post emergence herbicide capable of

controlling annual, perennial grasses and dicotyledonous

weeds. The introduction of glyphosate resistant crops has

created new opportunities for the use of effective, non

selective herbicides like glyphosate as selective weed

control in crop production. Prior to the introduction of

*Corresponding author.

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603)

and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

1714

glyphosates resistant crops, glyphosate is being applied

to control existing vegetation prior to sowing the crops.

Now, it can be used as post emergence herbicide in

glyphosate resistant crops [4]. Herbicide resistant corn

plants confer tolerance to glyphosate by production of

glyphosate resistant CP4 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3 phos-

phate synthase (CP4 EPSPS) proteins. Transgenic stacked

hybrid maize (TC1507 X NK 603) was developed for

preventing yield losses for maize crop due to pests and

weeds and to improve productivity. Post emergence ap-

plication of glyphosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 gave signifi-

cantly lower weed index, weed dry weight and high weed

control efficiency at all the intervals. Post emergence

application of glyphosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 in transgenic

maize and post emergence control droplet application

method of glyphosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 in conventional

maize hybrid (30V92) recorded high productivity and

profitability. In view of the above facts, an experiment on

“Evaluation of weed management options for transgenic

stacked and non transgenic maize hybrids’ was formu-

lated with the following objectives:

1) To evaluate the weed management efficiency of

glyphosate K salt formulation under field conditions and

carry-over on succeeding crops;

2) To study the effect of different weed management

practices on maize growth and development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Initial Soil

Characteristics

Field experiments were laid out during kharif seasons of

2010 & 2011 in Eastern block farm of Tamil Nadu Ag-

ricultural University, located at Coimbatore, India. The

geographical location of the experimental site is situated

in western agro climatic zone of Tamil Nadu at 11˚N

longitude and 77˚E latitude with an altitude of 426.7 m

above MSL and the farm receives the total annual rainfall

of 674 mm in 45.8 rainy days. The soil of the experi-

mental site was sandy clay loam in texture (32.48% clay,

18.50% silt and 28.96% coarse sand) with low available

nitrogen,medium in available phosphorous and high in

available potassium. The soil analysed 260, 11.90 and

490 Kg ha–1 of KMnO4-N, Olsen-P and NH4OAc-K, re-

spectively with EC of 0.16 dSm–1, Ph of 8.11 and or-

ganic carbon of 0.31%.

2.2. Experimental Design, Selection of Cultivar

and Sowing

The experiment was laid out in randomized complete

block design (RBD) with sixteen treatments and repli-

cated thrice. The gross plot size adopted was (5 m × 3.6

m) 18 Sq meter. The adopted spacing between the rows

and plants were 60 cm and 25 cm respectively. Herbicide

tolerant transgenic maize test hybrids namely 30V92,

30B11 and conventional hybrids of 30V92, 30B11, BIO

9681 and COHM5 during kharif, 2010. Conventional

maize hybrids 30V92, 30B11, BIO 9681 and COHM5

were raised during kharif, 2011. After sowing the seed,

immediate light irrigation was given to the crop for uni-

form germination.

2.3. Treatment Details

The experiment I and II comprises of sixteen treatments.

The experiment I during kharif, 2010 comprises two

transgenic stacked hybrids 30V92 and 30B11 with post

emergence of glyphosate at 900 and 1800 g a.e ha–1 and

conventional maize hybrids of 30V92 with pre emer-

gence atrazine at 0.5 kg ha–1 on 3 DAS fb HW 40 DAS

and insect control, 30V92 no weeding and insect control,

30V92 no weeding and no insect control, conventional

maize hybrid of 30B11 with pre emergence atrazine at

0.5 kg ha–1 on 3 DAS fb HW 40 DAS and insect control,

30B11 no weeding and insect control, 30B11 no weeding

and no insect control, conventional maize hybrids of BIO

9681 with pre emergence atrazine at 0.5 kg ha–1 on 3

DAS fb HW 40 DAS and insect control, BIO 9681 no

weeding and no insect control, COHM5 with pre emer-

gence atrazine at 0.5 kg ha–1 on 3 DAS fb HW 40 DAS

and insect control, COHM5 no weeding and no insect

control.

The experiment II during kharif, 2011 comprises of

conventional maize hybrid of 30V92 with post emer-

gence controlled droplet application of glyphosate at 900,

1350 and 1800 g a.e ha–1, 30B11 hybrid with post emer-

gence glyphosate at 900,1350 and 1800 g a.e ha–1, 30V92

with pre emergence atrazine at 0.5 kg ha–1 on 3 DAS fb

HW 40 DAS and insect control, 30V92 no weeding and

insect control, 30V92 no weeding and no insect control,

30B11 with pre emergence atrazine at 0.5 kg ha–1 on 3

DAS fb HW 40 DAS and insect control, 30B11 no weed-

ing and insect control,30B11 no weeding and no insect

control, BIO 9681 with pre emergence atrazine at 0.5 kg

ha–1 on 3 DAS fb HW 40 DAS and insect control, BIO

9681 no weeding and no insect control and COHM5 with

pre emergence atrazine at 0.5 kg ha–1 on 3 DAS fb HW

40 DAS and insect control, COHM5 no weeding and no

insect control.

The herbicides as per the treatments schedule were ap-

plied as pre emergence at third day after sowing, gly-

phosate application at 2 - 4 leaf stage of weeds (20 - 25

DAS of maize). Hand operated knapsack sprayer fitted

with a flat fan type nozzle (WFN 40) was used for spray-

ing the herbicides adopting a spray volume of 250 litres

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603)

and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

1715

ha–1. The recommended dose of 150:75:75 Kg of NPK

ha–1 in the form of urea, single super phosphate and mu-

riate of potash. During the course of experiment, the data

were revealed our predominant weed flora, weed density

and dry weight with grain yield.

2.4. Observation on Weeds

2.4.1. Weed D e nsity

The weed count was recorded species wise using 0.5 m ×

0.5 m quadrated four randomly fixed places in each plot

and the weeds falling within the frames of the quadrat

were counted, recorded and the mean values were ex-

pressed in number m–2. The density of grasses, sedges

and broadleaved weeds and the total weeds were re-

corded at 20, 40, 60 and 80 days after sowing and ex-

pressed in number m–2.

2.4.2. Weed Dry Weight

The weeds falling within the frames of the quadrant were

collected, categorized into grasses, sedge and broad-

leaved weeds, shade dried and later dried in hot air oven

at 80ºC for 72 hrs. the dry weight of grasses, sedge and

broadleaved weeds were recorded separately at 20, 40

and 60 days after sowing and expressed in kg ha–1.

2.4.3. Weed Control Efficiency

Weed control efficiency was calculated as per the proce-

dure [5]

WDc WD

WCE% 100





where,

WCE—Weed control efficiency (per cent);

WDc—Weed biomass (g m–2) in control plot;

WDt—Weed biomass (g m–2) in treated plot.

2.4.4. Weed I ndex

Weed index was calculated as per the method [6]

WI 100





where, X = Yield (Kg ha–1) from minimum weed compe-

tition plot, Y = yield (Kg ha–1) from the treatment plot

for which WI is to be worked out.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The data were statistically analysed following the proce-

dure given by Gomez and Gomez (2010) for randomised

block design.The data pertaining to weeds and germina-

tion were transformed to square root scale of



X 2

and analysed as suggested by [7]. Whenever significant

difference existed, critical difference was constructed at

five per cent probability level.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect on Weeds

Weed flora of the experimental field in maize was pre-

dominantly consisted of twelve species of broad leaved

weeds, five species of grasses and a sedge weed. The

dominant broadleaved weeds were Trianthema portula-

castrum, Datura stramonium, Cleome gynandra, Digera

arvensis, Physalis minima and Corchorus olitorius. The

dominant grass weeds were Setaria verticillata and Cy-

nodon dactylon. Cyperus rotundus was the only sedge

present in the experimental field.

3.2. Weed Density

During kharif, 2010 season, lower weed density was

achieved under non transgenic maize hybrid BIO 9681

and 30B11 with pre emergence application of atrazine at

0.5 Kg ha–1 followed by hand weeding at 20 DAS. Rela-

tively, a higher density was observed under unweeded

checks and transgenic maize before imposing post emer-

gence application of glyphosate. At 40 DAS and 60 DAS,

lower weed density observed under transgenic maize

hybrid 30V92 with post emergence application of gly-

phosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 resulted in effective control of

broad leaved weeds, grasses and sedges due to its broad

spectrum action [8]. This may due to more impressive

control of broadleaved weeds like Trainthema portula-

castrum, Datura stramonium, Cleome gy nandra and Ph y-

sallis minima. Foliar application of glyphosate was read-

ily and rapidly translocated throughout the actively grow-

ing aerial and under ground portions at active growing

stage of broadleaved weeds might have blocked the 5-

Enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase enzyme and

arrest the amino acid synthesis which led to complete

control [9] (Table 1). During kharif, 2011 season, post

emergence controlled droplet application of glyphosate at

conventional maize hybrid of 30V92 at 1800 g a.e ha–1

(1.84 Nos m–2) observed lesser total weed density at 40

DAS. Thus glyphosate effectively controlled a broad

spectrum of annual and perennial grasses, sedges and

broadleaved weeds could be due to increased transloca-

tion of glyphosate inside the plant tissues [10] (Table 2).

3.3. Weed Dry Weight

Weed dry weight is the most important parameter to as-

sess the weed competitiveness for the crop growth and

productivity. Considerable reduction in weed dry weight

as recorded with the application of glyphosate at 1800 w

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603)

and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

1716

Table 1. Effect of glyphosate application on total weed density and total weed dry weight in herbicide tolerant transgenic

maize.

Kharif, 2010

Total weed density (No m–2) Total weed dry weight (g m–2) WCE (%)

Treatments

20 DAS 40 DAS 60 DAS 20 DAS 40 DAS 60 DAS 20 DAS40 DAS

T1—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 15.43 (236.22) 2.78 (5.75) 3.4 (9.63) 7.61 (55.94)1.88 (1.52) 2.35 (3.54) 0.00 98.56

T2—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1800 g a.e ha–1 15.33 (233.08) 2.04 (2.15) 2.35 (3.52) 7.37 (52.37)1.58 (0.49) 1.87 (1.50) 0.00 99.53

T3—30V92 POE Glyphosate

(Weedy check) 15.74 (245.60) 14.3 (202.93)13.81 (188.75)7.66 (56.62)10.39 (106.03)10.22 (102.43) 0.00 0.00

T4—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 15.78 (246.89) 3.31 (8.98) 3.84 (12.74) 7.40 (52.79)2.16 (2.68) 2.60 (4.75) 0.00 97.72

T5—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@1800 g a.e ha–1 16.06 (256.07) 2.55 (4.50) 3.06 (7.35) 7.71 (57.41)1.79 (1.20) 2.21 (2.87) 0.00 98.97

T6—30B11 POE Glyphosate

(Weedy check) 15.81 (248.10) 14.5 (209.43)14.42 (205.99)8.18 (64.92)10.94 (117.59)10.22 (102.51) 0.00 0.00

T7—30V92 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 7.99 (61.85) 7.81 (59.00) 5.79 (31.48) 3.68 (11.57)5.78 (31.43)4.52 (18.39) 80.28 72.57

T8—30V92 No Weed control

and only Insect Control 15.45 (236.55) 13.64 (183.99)12.7 (160.36)7.08 (48.17)9.99 (97.79)9.42 (86.77) 0.00 14.66

T9—30V92 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 16.05 (255.75) 14.37 (204.37)14.38 (204.69)7.79 (58.70)10.80 (114.59)10.58 (109.99) 0.00 0.00

T10—30B11 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ insect control 7.55 (55.00) 8.14 (64.34) 5.87 (32.43) 3.88 (13.04)6.12 (35.48)4.72 (20.32) 79.66 70.33

T11—30B11No Weed control

and only Insect Control 15.51 (238.44) 13.5 (182.38)13.12 (170.11)7.41 (52.92)10.3 (105.35)9.97 (97.47) 0.00 11.92

T12—30B11 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 16.25 (262.00) 15.05 (224.47)15.0 (224.57)8.13 (64.14)11.03 (119.61)10.98 (118.66) 0.00 0.00

T13—BIO9681 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 7.15 (49.14) 7.52 (54.58) 5.96 (33.49) 3.74 (11.98)6.23 (36.77)5.12 (24.24) 77.27 68.73

T14—BIO9681No Weed

control and no Insect Control 14.69 (213.70) 13.8 (189.93)14.52 (208.94)7.40 (52.71)10.94 (117.62)10.90 (116.82) 0.00 0.00

T15—CoHM5 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 7.83 (59.37) 8.32 (67.3) 6.20 (36.44) 4.08 (14.61)6.75 (43.55)5.69 (30.32) 79.28 68.56

T16—CoHM5 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 16.38 (266.19) 15.24 (230.37)15.79 (247.44)8.52 (70.54)11.8 (138.52)12.16 (145.78) 0.00 0.00

SEd 1.34 1.11 1.06 0.65 0.83 0.80 - -

CD (P = 0.05) 2.74 2.27 2.17 1.34 1.70 1.63 - -

Figures in parenthesis are original values must need for differentiating the original and transformed values, DAS—Days After sowing, POE—Post-emergence,

PE—Pre emergence, WCE—Weed control efficiency, HW—Hand Weeding.

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603)

and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

1717

Table 2. Effect of glyphosate application on total weed density and total weed dry weight in conventional maize hybrids.

Kharif, 2011

Total weed density (No m–2) Total weed dry weight (g m–2) WCE (%)

Treatments

20 DAS 40 DAS 60 DAS 20 DAS40 DAS 60 DAS 20

DAS 40

DAS

T1—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 15.43 (236.22) 2.78 (5.75)3.4 (9.63) 7.61 (55.94)1.88 (1.52)2.35 (3.54) 5.14 96.15

T2—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1350 g a.e ha–1 15.33 (233.08) 2.04 (2.15)2.35 (3.52)7.37 (52.37)1.58 (0.49)1.87 (1.50) 14.29 97.66

T3—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1800 g a.e ha–1 15.74 (245.60) 14.3 (202.93)13.81 (188.75)7.66 (56.62)10.39 (106.03)10.22 (102.43) 8.73 99.14

T4—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 15.78 (246.89) 3.31 (8.98)3.84 (12.74)7.40 (52.79)2.16 (2.68)2.60 (4.75) 21.41 95.86

T5—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@1350 g a.e ha–1 16.06 (256.07) 2.55 (4.50)3.06 (7.35)7.71 (57.41)1.79 (1.20)2.21 (2.87) 14.16 97.17

T6—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@ 1800 g a.e ha–1) 15.81 (248.10) 14.5 (209.43)14.42 (205.99)8.18 (64.92)10.94 (117.59)10.22 (102.51) 11.15 98.87

T7—30V92 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 7.99 (61.85) 7.81 (59.00)5.79 (31.48)3.68 (11.57)5.78 (31.43)4.52 (18.39) 82.26 68.96

T8—30V92 No Weed control

and only Insect Control 15.45 (236.55) 13.64 (183.99)12.7 (160.36)7.08 (48.17)9.99 (97.79)9.42 (86.77) 13.97 10.25

T9—30V92 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 16.05 (255.75) 14.37 (204.37)14.38 (204.69)7.79 (58.70)10.80 (114.59)10.58 (109.99) 0.00 0.00

T10—30B11 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ insect control 7.55 (55.00) 8.14 (64.34)5.87 (32.43)3.88 (13.04)6.12 (35.48)4.72 (20.32) 80.03 65.71

T11—30B11No Weed control

and only Insect Control 15.51 (238.44) 13.5 (182.38)13.12 (170.11)7.41 (52.92)10.3 (105.35)9.97 (97.47) 13.57 8.31

T12—30B11 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 16.25 (262.00) 15.05 (224.47)15.0 (224.57)8.13 (64.14)11.03 (119.61)10.98 (118.66) 0.00 0.00

T13—BIO9681 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 7.15 (49.14) 7.52 (54.58)5.96 (33.49)3.74 (11.98)6.23 (36.77)5.12 (24.24) 78.97 63.82

T14—BIO9681No Weed control

and no Insect Control 14.69 (213.70) 13.8 (189.93)14.52 (208.94)7.40 (52.71)10.94 (117.62)10.90 (116.82) 0.00 0.00

T15—CoHM5 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 7.83 (59.37) 8.32 (67.3)6.20 (36.44)4.08 (14.61)6.75 (43.55)5.69 (30.32) 73.19 61.68

T16—CoHM5 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 16.38 (266.19) 15.24 (230.37)15.79 (247.44)8.52 (70.54)11.8 (138.52)12.16 (145.78) 0.00 0.00

SEd 1.34 1.11 1.06 0.65 0.83 0.80 - -

CD (P = 0.05) 2.74 2.27 2.17 1.34 1.70 1.63 - -

Figures in parenthesis are original values must need for differentiating the original and transformed values, DAS—Days After sowing, POE—Post-emergence,

PE—Pre emergence, WCE—Weed control efficiency, HW—Hand Weeding.

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603)

and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

1718

g a.e ha–1 in transgenic 30V92 and post emergence con-

trolled application of glyphosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 in

conventional maize hybrid of 30V92 (1.58 and 1.82 g

m–2) at 40 DAS during kharif, 2010 and kharif, 2011

(Tables 1 and 2).This might be weed control as achieved

by glyphosate [11] this findings were in accordance with

earlier reports that post emergence application followed

by pre emergence herbicide reduced total weed dry

weight by at least 97 per cent when compared to without

glyphosate applied plots [12].

3.4. Weed Control Efficiency

Weed control efficiency which indicates the comparative

magnitude of reduction in weed dry matter was highly

influenced by different weed control treatments. Pre

emergence application of atrazine at 0.5 Kg ha–1 fol-

lowed by hand weeding recorded higher weed control ef-

ficiency of 80.28 percent in non transgenic maize hybrid

30V92 at 20 DAS. Whereas at 40 DAS after spraying of

herbicide, higher weed control efficiency of 99.53 per-

cent was recorded in glyphosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 fol-

lowed by 30B11was observed 98.97 percent during

kharif, 2010 (Table 1). Whereas during kharif, 2011

higher weed control efficiency was observed with gly-

phosate at 1800 g a.e ha–1 in conventional maize hybrid

of 30V92 registered maximum weed control efficiency of

99.14 percent owing to the fact that registered lesser

weed density and weed dry weight (Table 2).

3.5. Effect on Crop

During both the years of study, among the weed control

treatments, post emergence application of glyphosate at

1800 g a.e ha–1 in transgenic corn hybrid recorded higher

grain yield of 12.21 t ha–1 this was 36.64 percent higher

than the unweeded check plot of transgenic 30V92 dur-

ing kharif, 2010, whereas, during kharif, 2011post emer-

gence controlled droplet application of glyphosate at

1800 g a.e ha–1 in conventional maize hybrid of 30V92

resulted in higher grain yield of 11.23 t ha–1 (T able 3 and 4).

This was 44.79 percent higher than the unweeded check

Table 3. Effect of weed control methods on yield attributes and grain yield in herbicide tolerant transgenic maize.

Kharif, 2010

Treatments Cob length

(cm) Cob girth

(cm) Number of

kernels/row Number of

rows/cob Test weight

(g) Yield

(t ha–1) Weed index

(%)

T1—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 21.03 16.76 38.80 15 40.11 11.10 9.09

T2—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1800 g a.e ha–1 21.70 16.84 41.27 16 42.67 12.21 0.00

T3—30V92 POE Glyphosate

(Weedy check) 20.06 15.83 37.18 13 33.28 8.84 27.60

T4—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 19.70 16.19 37.90 15 39.10 10.97 10.15

T5—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@ 1800 g a.e ha–1 20.20 16.44 38.50 16 42.05 11.98 1.88

T6—30B11 POE Glyphosate

(Weedy check) 19.36 15.32 35.93 13 32.11 9.12 25.30

T7—30V92 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 19.73 15.92 38.23 15 37.72 10.23 16.21

T8—30V92 No Weed control

nd only Insect Control 19.30 15.68 36.55 12 34.78 8.33 31.77

T9—30V92 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 18.66 15.17 36.23 12 33.12 7.52 38.41

T10—30B11 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ insect control 18.33 15.80 38.00 15 37.00 9.76 20.06

T11—30B11No Weed control

and only Insect Control 17.81 15.50 36.03 12 33.35 8.20 32.84

T12—30B11 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 17.73 15.13 35.90 12 31.23 7.35 39.80

T13—BIO9681 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 17.92 15.87 37.60 14 37.22 8.00 34.47

T14—BIO9681No Weed control

and no Insect Control 15.31 14.93 35.23 12 30.45 6.12 49.87

T15—CoHM5 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 16.20 15.60 36.80 14 31.88 7.33 39.96

T16—CoHM5 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 15.01 13.37 33.93 12 28.54 5.08 58.39

SEd 0.23 0.72 0.47 0.62 1.63 0.41 -

CD (P = 0.05) 0.48 1.47 0.96 1.28 3.33 0.84 -

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603)

and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

1719

Table 4. Effect of weed control methods on yield attributes and grain yield in conventional maize hybrids.

Kharif, 2011

Treatments Cob length

(cm) Cob girth

(cm) Number of

kernels/row Number of

rows/cob Test weight

(g) Yield

(t ha–1) Weed index

(%)

T1—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 18.88 15.67 38 15 36.70 9.12 18.79

T2—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1350 g a.e ha–1 19.90 16.10 38 16 38.70 10.36 7.75

T3—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1800 g a.e ha–1 21.43 16.73 41 16 42.87 11.23 0.00

T4—30B11 POE Glyphosate

@ 900 g a.e ha–1 18.56 15.23 36 14 35.52 8.25 26.54

T2—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1350 g a.e ha–1 19.62 15.89 37 15 38.10 9.52 15.23

T3—30V92 POE Glyphosate

@ 1800 g a.e ha–1 20.12 16.33 39 15 40.45 10.39 7.48

T7—30V92 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 18.43 15.46 39 14 36.55 8.72 22.35

T8—30V92 No Weed control

and only Insect Control 16.76 14.10 33 12 34.62 7.40 34.11

T9—30V92 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 15.79 13.96 34 12 34.00 6.20 44.79

T10—30B11 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ insect control 18.08 15.12 36 14 36.12 8.01 28.67

T11—30B11No Weed control

and only Insect Control 16.12 14.65 33 13 34.78 6.80 39.45

T12—30B11 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 16.01 14.23 32 12 33.24 6.22 44.61

T13—BIO9681 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 17.00 15.00 36 14 35.41 7.10 36.78

T14—BIO9681No Weed control

and no Insect Control 15.50 13.76 32 12 31.13 5.60 50.13

T15—CoHM5 PE atrazine 0.5

kg ha–1 + HW+ Insect Control 16.10 14.17 34 13 34.52 6.10 45.68

T16—CoHM5 No Weed control

and no Insect Control 14.92 13.09 29 12 29.23 4.80 57.26

SEd 1.12 0.67 2.49 1.35 1.65 0.80 -

CD (P = 0.05) 2.29 1.48 5.10 2.76 3.38 1.64 -

plot of conventional maize hybrid. This could be achi-

eved control of weeds with non selective, translocated

herbicide, provided the favourable crop growth environ-

ment at the establishment stage of the crop itself by mini-

mizing the perennial and annual weeds and increased the

seed and stalk yields [13]. This might be due to the fact

that the perennial weeds like Cyperus rotundus, Cynodon

dactylon, troublesome broadleaved weeds like Trian-

thema portulacastrum weeds were effectively controlled

and might increase the maize yield may be due to better

light utilization of narrow row zone and faster canopy

closure [14].

Higher yield attributes of increased cob length, cob

girth and number of grains per cob and test weight were

recorded with post emergence application of glyphosate

at 1800 g a.e ha–1 in both the transgenic and conventional

maize hybrids of 30V92 and 30B11 respectively. This

might due to better control of weeds at critical stages and

shifted the balance in favour of crop in the utilization of

nutrients, moisture, light and space and creates the fa-

vourable environment for recording higher growth of

maize leading to enhanced yield attributes [15]. Among

the weed control treatments methods, lower weed index

was recorded with 9.09 and 10.15 per cent in transgenic

30V92 (T1) and 30B11 (T5) whereas at conventional

maize hybrids observed glyphosate at 1350 g a.e ha–1

recorded lower weed index of 7.75 and 15.23 per cent in

non transgenic maize hybrids of 30V92 (T2) and 30B11

(T5). Unweeded check plots resulted in higher weed in-

dex and performed poorly during both the years of study.

4. Conclusion

From the results of the field experiments, it could be

concluded that post emergence spraying of potassium salt

of glyphosate at 1800 g a.e ha−1 in transgenic and con-

ventional maize hybrid of 30V92 enhanced complete

control of broad spectrum weeds, could keep the weed

density, dry weight reasonable at lower level and en-

hance higher productvity and profitability with higher

grain yield during both the kharif seasons.

Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603)

and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity

1720

REFERENCES

[1] J. W. Wilcut, H. D. Coble, A. C. York and D. W. Monks,

“The Niche for Herbicide-Resistant Crops in US Agri-

culture,” In: S. O. Duke, Ed., Herbicide-Resistant Crops:

Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and

Technical Aspects, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1996, pp.

213-230

[2] A. Malviya and B. Singh, “Weed Dynamics, Productivity

and Economics of Maize (Zea mays) as Affected by Inte-

grated Weed Management under Rainfed Condition,” In-

dian Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 52, No. 4, 2007, pp. 321-

324.

[3] J. A. Ferrell and W. W. Witt, “Comparison of Glyphosate

with Other Herbicides for Weed Control in Corn (Zea

mays): Efﬁcacy and Economics,” Weed Technology, Vol.

16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 701-706.

doi:10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0701:COGWOH]2.0.

CO;2

[4] J. K. Norsworthy, N. R. Burgos and L. R. Oliver, “Dif-

ferences in Weed Tolerance to Glyphosate Involve Dif-

ferent Mechanism,” Weed Technology, Vol. 15, No. 4,

2001, pp. 725-731.

doi:10.1614/0890-037X(2001)015[0725:DIWTTG]2.0.C

O;2

[5] C. L. Main, A. J. Michael and E. C. Murdock, “Weed

Response and Tolerance of Enhanced Glyphosate-Resis-

tant Cotton to Glyphosate,” Journal of Cotton Science,

Vol. 11, No. 2, 2007, pp. 104-109.

[6] G. S. Gill and K. Vijaya Kumar, “Weed Index—A New

Method of Reporting Weed Control Trials,” Indian Jour-

nal of Agronomy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1969, pp. 96-98.

[7] G. W. Snedecor and W. G. Cochran, “Statistical Meth-

ods,” Oxford and IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi, 1967, p.

593.

[8] C. H. Koger and R. N. Reddy, “Glyphosate Efficacy, Ab-

sorption and Translocation in Pitted Moringglory (Ipo-

moea lacunose),” Weed Science, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2005, pp.

277-283. doi:10.1614/WS-04-098R

[9] R. D. Summons, K. J. Grugs, K. S. Andersen, K. A. John-

son and J. A. Sikors, “Re-Evaluating Glyphosate as a

Transition-State Inhibitor of EPSP Synthase: Identifica-

tion of an EPSP Synthase-EPSP Glyphosate Ternary Com-

plex,” Biochemistry, Vol. 34, 1995, pp. 6433-6440.

doi:10.1021/bi00019a024

[10] U. Suwunnamek and C. Parker, “Control of Cyperus ro-

tundus with Glyphosate, the Influence of Ammonium

Sulfate and Other Additives,” Weed Research, Vol. 15,

No. 1, 1975, pp. 13-19.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.1975.tb01090.x

[11] Hafeezullah, “Effect of Different Sowing and Weed Con-

trol Methods on Performance of Sunflower,” M.Sc. The-

sis, Department of Agronomy, Agricultural University of

Peshwar, 2000.

[12] A. Kumar and K. S. Thakur, “Influence of Intercropping

and Weed Control Measures on Weeds and Productivity

of Rainfed Maize (Zea mays),” Indian Journal of Weed

Science, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2005, pp. 65-67.

[13] B. E. Tharp, O. Schabenberger and J. J. Kells, “Response

of Annual Weed Species to Glufosinate and Glyphosate,”

Weed Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1999, pp. 542-547.

[14] S. D. Murphy, Y. Yakuba, S. F. Weise and C. J. Swanton,

“Effect of Planting Patterns on Inter Row and Competi-

tion between Corn and Late Emerging Weeds,” Weed

Science, Vol. 44, 1996, pp. 865-870.

[15] W. J. Grichar, B. A. Besler, K. D. Brewer and B. W.

Minton, “Using Soil-Applied Herbicides in Combination

with Glyphosate in a Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton Herbi-

cide Program,” Crop Protection, Vol. 23, No. 10, 2004,

pp. 1007-1010. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.03.004