Periodical dry matter, nutrient uptake and yield at harvest of maize affected by application of pre and post emergence herbicides

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is widely recognized for its high yield potential and is often referred to as the "Queen of Cereals" and the "Miracle Crop." It ranks as the third most important cereal crop globally as well as in India, following rice and wheat (Murdia et al., 2016) [1] . Maize is now cultivated worldwide and serves multiple purposes. It is extensively utilized for human consumption, livestock feed, and as a raw material in various industrial applications, including the production of starch, oil, syrups, and fermentation-based products such as bio-fuels. Furthermore, maize is characterized by a high level of genetic diversity, which contributes to its adaptability across diverse agro-climatic conditions. By considering versatile use of maize, its importance has further increased and ultimately increases the responsibility to enhance the productivity of maize. The various factors affect directly on the productivity. Effective protection of maize from weeds, pests, and diseases is crucial to prevent significant yield losses and to maintain crop quality. Among these factors, weed management is particularly critical, as weeds pose a serious threat to maize, especially during the early stages of growth. Yield reductions due to weed infestation can range from 28% to 93%, depending on the type, intensity, and duration of weed competition. The most sensitive period for crop-weed competition in maize occurs between 1 and 8 weeks after sowing, making timely weed control essential to achieve optimum yields (Sharma et al., 1998) [2] . In India, maize is predominantly cultivated during the kharif season. Chemical weed control is widely regarded as an effective, practical, and economical alternative or supplement to manual weeding. Compared to hand weeding, it is more flexible, requires less labour, and is generally more cost-efficient (Sutton et al., 2002) [3] . However, excessive or improper use of herbicides can lead to serious issues like development of weed resistance, contamination of groundwater and environmental pollution (Abdin et al., 2000) [4] . Weed control can be effectively achieved through both cultural and chemical methods in which yield increased from 77 to 96.7% compared to untreated weedy conditions (Khan et al., 1998) [5] . The manual weeding is highly labour-intensive, time-consuming, expensive and is often not carried out at the most critical stages of crop-weed competition. In addition, the increasing scarcity of labour has made it difficult and uneconomical to rely solely on traditional weed control practices. As a result, farmers are increasingly adopting herbicides, as they provide timely and efficient weed control while significantly reducing the overall cost of weed man agement under different conditions (Oerke et al., 2005). Several postemergence herbicides are commonly used to manage weeds that emerge later in the crop cycle. Chemical weed management is widely recognized as an efficient, practical, and cost-effective alternative, as well as a complement, to manual weeding. Compared with traditional hand weeding, chemical methods offer greater operational flexibility, reduced labour requirements, and improved economic viability (Sutton et al., 2002) [3] . However, indiscriminate or excessive use of herbicides may lead to resistant weed populations, groundwater contamination, and environmental degradation, all of which raise serious concerns for human health (Abdin et al., 2000) [4] . Achieving effective weed control and maximizing crop productivity depends on the careful selection of herbicides based on the dominant weed flora, timely application according to crop growth stages, recommended dosages and application techniques (Mani et al., 1968) [6] . Maize productivity is significantly constrained by biotic factors, particularly nutrient deficiencies and severe weed infestations. More than 90 weed species are known to compete with maize, leading to intense crop-weed competition and substantial yield losses. The crop is highly sensitive to weed interference, with yield reductions of up to 70% reported under heavy infestation. However, the adoption of modern weed management practices can enhance maize yield by as much as 30% (Kumar et al., 2017) [7] . These can be achieved by post-emergence herbicides. Considering these factors, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the effective pre and post emergence herbicides in maize and its economics to enhance the crop performance.

Materials and methods

Experimental Site & Location: The field experiment was carried out during Kharif-2025 at AICRP on Maize Research Farm, Zonal Agricultural Research Station (ZARS), Shenda Park, Kolhapur. The Kolhapur comes under the Sub-montane Zone of Maharashtra and situated at an elevation of 548 m above the mean sea level. The experimental site was located at latitude of 16.67ºN and a longitude of 74.24ºE. During the experimental period, the total rainfall received was 961.9 mm in 72 rainy days. The highest rainy days was observed from 25 to 27 th meteorological week. The average relative humidity was 93.7 per cent in morning and 82.6 per cent in evening. The minimum temperature varied from 20.3℃ to 22.7℃ and maximum temperature was in the range of 25.5℃ to 29.8℃. The high rainfall received during 24 th and 33 rd meteorological weeks. The highest evaporation was recorded 2.8 mm day -1 and lowest being 0.9 mm day -1 on 29 th and 30 th meteorological weeks respectively. Over the entire pleasant climate was observed during crop period that benefitted to the maize crop in entire life cycle.

Experimental Soil:

The soil of the experimental site was sandy clay loam in texture with neutral reaction (pH 7.0), moderate electrical conductivity of 0.15 dSm -1 , low available nitrogen (194.37 kg ha -1 ), medium available phosphorus (21.77 kg ha -1 ), medium available potassium (277.83 kg ha -1 ) and low organic carbon (0.47%).

Experimental Details: The used pre and post emergence herbicides were in label claim. The activities of each pre and post emergence herbicides were varied according to their doses and types of weed fauna i.e. grassy, broad leaf weeds (BLW) and sedges. The uniform application of pre and post emergence herbicides were undertaken by using knapsack sprayer and as per the schedule (25 days after sowing of maize crop) given in Table 1. The detailed information of pre and post emergence herbicides is depicted in Table 2. The experiment was designed in randomized block design with twelve treatments that replicated thrice. The following treatments were included in this experiment.

Table 1. Treatment details of the experiment

Treatment

Application atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb hand weeding at 25 DAS T 4 Application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb hand weeding at 25 DAS T 5

Application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb halosulfuron methyl @ 67 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS T 6

Application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb tembotrione @ 120 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS T 7

Application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS T 8

Application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb mesotrion + atrazine (Ready mix) @ 300 g a.i. ha -1 at 25 DAS T 9

Application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb halosulfuron methyl @ 67 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS T 10 Application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb tembotrion @ 120 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS T 11 Application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS T 12 Application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb mesotrion + atrazine (Ready mix) @ 300 g a.i. ha -1 at 25 DAS fb= followed by, (PE)= Pre-emergence, (PoE)= Post-emergence, DAS= Days after sowing

The maize hybrid 'Phule Maharshi' (QMH-1025) developed by AICRP on maize, Kolhapur affiliated to Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri (M.S) was sown by dibbling at spacing of 60 x 20 cm within 4.8 m x 3.6 m and 3.6 m x 3.4 m as gross and net plot sizes respectively. The features of Phule Maharshi is tabulated in Table 3. The sowing was done by dibbling two seeds per hill opened at 60 cm apart with the help of marker and 20 cm spacing at a depth of 4-5 cm to obtain uniform plant population. The seed rate @ 20 kg ha -1 was used. The inorganic fertilizers were applied as recommended dose (120:60:40 NPK kg ha -1 ) and nitrogen was divided in three equal splits in which first split of nitrogenous fertilizer and full dose of phosphatic and potassic fertilizers were applied at the time of sowing as basal dose. The second half of nitrogenous fertilizer i.e. urea was applied at 30 DAS and third at 45 DAS. The inorganic fertilizers were applied by using urea (46% N), single super phosphate (SSP 16% P 2 O 5 ) and muriate of potash (MOP 60% K 2 O) as the sources of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium respectively. All recommended agronomic practices of maize cultivation were carried out. The results of the experiment were enumerated and given as below.

Observations recorded

Dry matter accumulation plant -1 (g): Five plants were selected from border rows of each treated plot. The plants were uprooted and their roots were separated at collar at all observation day viz. 30, 60, 90, DAS and at harvest. The plant samples were chopped into pieces which were first sun dried and later on dried in the hot air oven at 55 ± 5 °C till constant weight was noticed of the samples. The total dry matter obtained was recorded as mean dry matter plant -1 in gram (g).

Yield of Maize:

Treatment wise total number of cobs from each net plot was harvested at maturity. Shelling of cob after that, grain weight was calculated from the net plot yield and expressed in q ha -1 . Similarly, the corn plants were cut plot wise close to the ground level after harvesting of cobs. The stover yield was calculated after weighing the cut-out portion of stalk from each net plot q ha -1 .

Nutrient Uptake: The plant samples so collected were cleaned and then dried in hot air oven at 65 ± 5 °C. Further, these samples were grinded to required fineness in willey mill and stored in plastic bags/paper bag for further analysis. The powdered plant sample of half a gram was digested and thereafter the methods for analysis were carried out as given in Table 4.

The nutrient uptake at harvest was calculated. For the stage of maize harvest, the nutrient uptake was calculated by "multiplying per cent content of nutrients (N,P and K) in plant sample with yield (grain + stover) of plant at harvest obtained on per hectare basis at maturity and divided it by 100"

Statistical analysis

The experimental data obtained from the research trial was statistically analysed by using a standard procedure of "Analysis of Variance" which was given by Panse and Sukhatme (1975). The standard error of mean was worked out for each factor under study and their critical difference at 5% level of significance was calculated whenever the results were significant. Standard error of mean (S.Em±) was worked out for each factor and interaction.

Results and discussion

Periodical Dry Matter Accumulation Plant -1 (g): The dry matter accumulation increases progressively until harvest. The periodic dry matter accumulation was calculated at 30, 60, 90 DAS and at harvest is given in Table 5. At 30 DAS there was non-significant difference among various weed management treatments. However, the weed free check showed maximum dry matter accumulation at 60, 90 and harvest, (122.92 g, 208.1 g and 248.7 g respectively) and on par with application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS (120.15 g, 205.3 g and 246.7 g) and application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS (119.33 g, 202.2 g and 245.7 g respectively). The unchecked weed growth in resulted in the lowest dry matter accumulation at similar observed days of experiment in all growth stages. Effective suppression of weed competition through these herbicide treatments optimized resource availability for root and canopy development, directly driving maximum dry matter accumulation and final grain yield in maize (Koushal et al., 2025). Uncontrolled weed growth created severe competition for essential resources, which negatively affected crop growth and minimized final dry matter accumu lation. this reduction in biomass highlights how vulnerable the crop is to early weed pressure (Singh et al., 2025) [8] .

Yield (q ha -1 ): It was observed from Table .6 that mean grain (74.73 q ha -1

) and stover yield (90.94 q ha -1 ) during the experiment was highest in the weed-free check treatment. A result that did not much differ significantly from application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS (72.62 and 87.61 q ha -1 as grain and stover yield respectively) and application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS (70.76 and 85.60 q ha -1 as grain and stover yield respec-tively). This outstanding performance is explained by a minimal weed presence, marked by the lowest weed count and dry matter weight, excellent weed control efficiency and a low weed index successfully secured vital resources exclusively for the maize crop. Together, these factors promoted superior vegetative growth and upgraded all major yield components, driving the final grain production to its maximum potential. The lowest grain and stover yield observed in weedy check (35.20 and 46.95 q ha -1 respectively). The experimental outcomes obtained in this study are in complete alignment with the literature reported by Nimanwad et al. (2022) [9] , Bada et al. (2022) [10] and Shukla et al. (2024) [11] . ): The data pertaining to nitrogen, phosphorus, Potassium uptake by maize crop is presented in Table 7. The data revealed that the N, P, K uptake vary significantly due to different weed management treatments. However, the significantly highest total nitrogen uptake (161.23 kg ha -1 ), phosphorus uptake (82.23 kg ha -1 ) and potassium uptake (162.62 kg ha -1 ) was recorded by treatment (T 2 ) which was statistically at par with application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS (T 7 ) and application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS (T 11 ) which recorded total N, P and K uptake to the tune of (154.59 kg ha -1 and 148.96 kg ha -1 ), phosphorus (79.36 kg ha -1 and 75.73 kg ha -1 ) and potassium (154.83 kg ha -1 and 149.83 kg ha -1 ) respectively. The lowest uptake (68.29, 32.14 and 70.42 N,P and K kg ha -1 respectively) was recorded by treatment (T 1 ) i.e. weedy check. Table 6. Grain and stover yield (q ha -1

) of maize as affected by various treatments

Treatments

Grain yield

Stover yield This trend can be explained by the dual benefits of reduced weed interference and maximized soil resource conservation. By combining integrated control tactics with soil organic inputs, weed management fosters a superior rhizosphere environment that facilitates efficient nutrient assimilation, optimizing photosynthetic source-to-sink allocation in the maize plant. The resulting increase in nitrogen content mirrors the parallel observations advanced by Kumar et al. (2012) [12] , Kumar et al. (2017) [7] , Shravan Kumar et al. (2017) [13] , Shid et al. (2022) [14] , Chaudhary et al. (2024) [15] and Lavanya et al. (2024) [16] .

Conclusion

The application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS and also application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS resulted in the higher dry matter accumulation, yield and nutrient uptake of kharif maize. Therefore, application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS and also application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS can be recommended for achieving higher dry matter accumulation, yield and nutrient uptake of kharif maize.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors express their sincere gratitude to the AICRP on Maize Research Farm, Zonal Agricultural Research Station, Shenda Park, Kolhapur and Agronomy Section, RCSM Govt. College of Agriculture, Kolhapur MPKV, Rahuri (Maharashtra), India, for providing the facilities and support required for conducting the field investigations.

References

1. Murdia LK, Wadhwani R, Wadhawan N, Bajpai RK. Weed management in maize using crop competition: A review. Crop Protection. 2016;88:28-34.
2. Sharma AR, Thakur DR. Weed management in maize (Zea mays L.) Under different cropping systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 1998;43(1):92-96.
3. Sutton P, Richards C, Buren L, Glasgow L. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Management Science. 2002;58(9):981-984.
4. Abdin OA, Zhou XM, Cloutier D, Coulman DC, Faris. Herbicide use and environmental impact in agricultural systems. Environmental Management. 2000;25(3):213-220.
5. Khan MA et al. Weed control practices in maize (Zea mays L.) and their impact on yield. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 1998;1(3):213-216.
6. Mani VS, Gautam KC, Chakraborty TK. Losses in crop yield in India due to weed growth. International Journal of Pest Management: Part C. 1968;14(2):142-158.
7. Kumar A, Rana MC, Sharma N. Growth and yield of maize as influenced by different doses of tembotrione under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh. Biennieal Conference of the Indian Science on "Doubling Farmers Income by 2022: The role of weed Science", MPUA and T, Udaipur, India. 2017:187.
8. Singh S, Khan N, Siddiqui MZ, Sachan P, Sachan DS, Lakshman, Mishra A, Kumar P, Kumar A. Impact of different planting methods and weed management practices on growth and phenological parameters of maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2025;31(10):692-702.
9. Nimanwad BB, Idhole GP, Pawar SB, Gore AK. Effect of weed management practices on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(7):287-289.
10. Bada MR, Elankavi S, Baradhan G, Muthuselvam K. Evaluation of weed management practices on weed dynamics and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Research. 2022;57(5-6):330-334.
11. Shukla R, Bhatnagar A, Singh VP, Kumar NTM, Rawat A, Ali SA, Rawat S. Effects of tank-mix herbicides on weed growth and maize productivity. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2024;56(1):84-86.
12. 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. 2012;6(4):14311440.
13. Shravan Kumar M. Effect of post-emergence herbicides on yield and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays L.) under kharif conditions. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2017;49(3):231-235.
14. Shid D, Kadu PR, Konde NM, Deshmukh JP, Jadhvar PR. Effect of fertigation levels and weed management on yield and nutrient uptake by maize in Inceptisols. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2022;11(1):179-184.
15. Chaudhary V, Patel J, Mohd Shah Alam. Effect of weed management practices on nutrient content and their uptake by maize crop (Zea mays L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(7):23-28.
16. Lavanya Y, Srinivasan K, Murali Arthanari P. Impact of weed management strategies on weeds and nutrient uptake of maize. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2024;69(4):391-396.
17. Anonymous. Association of official methods of agricultural chemist 15th Edn. Washington D.C.; 1982.
18. Borle UM, Kulkarni SR, Mahadik SS, Pawar PK. Phule Maharshi -A single cross maize hybrid for Maharashtra. Journal of Agriculture Research and Technology. 2022;47(2):174-177.
19. Jackson ML. Soil chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 1973:256-260.
20. Koushal S, Devi OR, Laishram B, Anbarasan S, Sharma R, Debnath A. Comparative study on the efficacy of pre and post emergent herbicides in enhancing growth and yield of rainfed maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Archives. 2024;24(Special Issue):676-682.
21. Oerke EC. Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2006;144(1):31-43.
22. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for Agricultural workers. ICAR., New Delhi. 1985.
23. Parkinson JA, Allen. A wet oxidation procedure suiTable for the determination of nitrogen and mineral nutrients in biological material. Commun. Soil Sci. Pl. Anal. 1975;6:1-11.