Enhanced the kharif maize production through 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." Maize is cultivated over 139 million ha of area and around 600 million tonnes of maize is produced. Crop occupies the third position next to rice and wheat in area and production (Murdia et al., 2016) [1] . In India, maize is predominantly cultivated during the kharif season but the productivity was less than other maize growing countries of world. 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, 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 manual weeding is highly labour-intensive, time-consuming, expensive and is often not carried out at the most critical stages of cropweed competition. In addition, the increasing scarcity of labour has made it difficult and uneconomical. As a result, farmers are increasingly adopting herbicides, as they provide timely and efficient weed control while significantly reducing the overall cost of weed management under different conditions (Oerke, 2005). 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) [2] . However, excessive or improper use of herbicides can lead to serious issues like development of weed resistance, contamination of ground water and environmental pollution. The 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) [3] . 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) [4] . The adoption of modern weed management practices can enhance maize yield by as much as 30% (Kumar et al., 2017) [5] . These can be achieved by application of pre and 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 uniform application of pre and post emergence herbicides was undertaken by using knapsack sprayer and as per the schedule. 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 1. 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 experiment was designed in randomized block design with twelve treatments that replicated thrice. The following treatments were included in this experiment.

T 1: Weedy check T 2: Weed free check T 3: 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 at25 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 1: Weedy check 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 ): Data about yield attributes, viz. Length of cob (cm), Diameter of cob (cm), Weight of cobs plant -1 (g), Weight of 100 seed (g), Grain yield (q ha -1

) were recorded at harvest. A quadrate of size 1 m x 1 m (1 m 2 ) was placed in each net plot and the weeds within the frame were counted and recorded.

Weed Dynamics: The weed population count of grasses, broad leaves and sedges were recorded at harvest. Individual weed count summed up to obtain total weed count. For stat analysis this count was taken by converting weed count in square root formation. Weed control efficiency was calculated by formula suggested by (Kondap et al., 1985) [6] .

Where, WDM c = Weed dry matter in control plot, WDM t = Weed dry weight in the treated plot. Weed index was computed as procedure given by Gill et al. (1969) [7] using the following formula.

Where, X = yield from weed-free plot, Y = yield from the treated plot.

Economics: Net monetary returns are calculated by using following formula-

𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠 (𝑁𝑀𝑅 ) = 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠 (𝐺𝑀𝑅) -𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝐶𝑂𝐶).

Benefit: Cost Ratio it is calculated by using the following formula given by Rangaswamy et al. (2013) [8] .

𝐵: 𝐶 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠(₹ℎ𝑎 -1 ) 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (₹ℎ𝑎 -1 )

Results and discussion

The field experiment to find out the effective pre and post emergence herbicides was undertaken during kharif-2025 and results are given below.

Yield Attributing Characters: The data pertaining in Table 2 revealed that all evaluated yield-attributing characters exhibited significant variation among the treatments. The weed free treatment (T 2 ) was showing the highest cob length (19.57 cm), diameter of cob was (14.37 cm), weight per plant (171.92 g), weight of grains per cob (124.32 g) and 100-grain weight of seeds (29.48 g). However, it was on par with treatment T 7: the application of atrazine @ 500 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS) and T 11: application of pyroxasulfone @ 127 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) fb topramezone @ 25 g a.i. ha -1 (PoE) at 25 DAS. The minimum yield attributing characters were observed in weedy check treatment (T 1 ) due to the poor vegetative growth and suppressed plant growth attributes, triggered by severe and continuous weed competition throughout the crop growing season (Swetha et al., 2016) [9] and efficiently reducing competition of weed, nutrients, water and sunlight for the crop (Singh et al., 2021 and Koushal et al., 2024) [10] .

Yield (q ha -1 ): It was observed from Table 2 that the weed-free check treatment secured the highest grain and stover yield (74.73 and 90.94 q ha -1

, respectively). This result that did not much differ significantly from treatment T 7 (72.62 and 87.61 q ha -1 respectively) and T 11 (70.76 q ha -1 and 85.60 q ha -1 respectively). This performance is explained by a minimal weed presence, excellent weed control efficiency and a low weed index which promoted superior vegetative growth and upgraded all major yield components, driving the final grain production to its maximum potential (Bada et al., 2022 and Shukla et al., 2024) [11] .

Weed Dynamics: The weed intensity, weed control efficiency and weed index was observed during experimental period and obtained results are enumerated and given in Table 3 [12] . The pre-emergence herbicides (atrazine and pyroxasulfone) effectively suppressed early weed flushes, while the subsequent post-emergence application of topramezone at 25 DAS successfully eradicated late-emerging weeds. ) recorded in treatment T 2 due to requirement more labour and high wages for manual weeding followed by T 3 (₹ 76233 ha -1 ). This is because of combined use of manual weeding, mechanical methods, and additional inputs. Increased labour, equipment, and management complexity raise expenses, though these costs are offset by improved weed control and higher yields. Similar results reported by Lodh et al.,(2021) [13] and Roy et al.,(2023) [14] . The maximum gross and net returns were achieved in treatment T 7 (₹ 196184 ha -1 and ₹ 133635 ha -1 , respectively) with highest B:C ratio (3.15) followed by T 11 (₹ 191232 ha -1 and ₹ 126032 ha -1 , respectively) with B:C ratio (2.95). It might be due to its effective weed control, which significantly improves maize grain yield and crop productivity by minimizing weed competition weed management enhances nutrient, water, and light availability for maize plants, leading to better growth and higher yields. Similar conclusions were made by Begum et al., (2025) and Sanodiya et al. (2025) [15] .

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 achieving higher yield attributes, yield, weed dynamics and economics 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 yield, weed dynamics and economics.

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

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. Sutton P, Richards C, Buren L, Glasgow L. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Management Science. 2002;58(9):981-984.
3. Abdin OA, Zhou XM, Cloutier D, Coulman DC, Faris. Herbicide use and environmental impact in agricultural systems. Environmental Management. 2000;25(3):213-220.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Kondap SM, Upadhyay UC. A practical manual on weed control. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH publ. Co.; 1985.
7. Gill GS, Vijayakumar R. Weed index-A new method for reporting weed control trials. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 1969;14(1):96-98.
8. Rangaswamy R, Dharmaraj V. Agricultural Statistics. New Delhi: New Age International Publishers; 2013.
9. Swetha K, Madhavi M, Pratibha G, Ramprakash T. Efficacy of herbicide mixtures with and without adjuvants for weed management in maize (Zea mays L.). International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2016;8(58):3266-3269.
10. Singh SK, Gupta DK, Sidar RS, Sinha SK, Painkra D. Impact of new herbicides on the productivity of maize. Journal of Plant Development Sciences. 2021;13(9):733-736.
11. 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.
12. Rasool FU, Hakeem SA, Dar ZA, Bhat MI, Lone BA, Haq SA, Jehangir IA. Influence of pre and post-emergence herbicides on weed population and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) Crop. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2020;42(6):49-55.
13. Lodh B, Jena SN, Paikaray RK, Satapathy M, Patra B, Panda S. Production economics of rabi maize (Zea mays L.) Under different weed management practices and residual soil fertility condition. Journal of Eco-Friendly Agriculture. 2021;16(2):56-59.
14. Roy DK, Ranjan S, Sow S. Productivity and profitability of zero till winter maize as influenced by integrated weed management practices. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2023;55(3):264-268.
15. Sanodiya P, Sonowal T. Effect of establishment methods and 4 HPPD inhibitors on weeds, productivity and economics of kharif maize under bael based agri-horti system. Indian Journal of Agroforestry. 2025;27(2).
16. Albrecht LP, Albrecht AJP, Bottcher AA, de Carvalho MG, Danilussi MTY, Silva AFM, Larini WF, Torigoe RT. Terbuthylazine, atrazine, and atrazine + mesotrione for weed control in second-crop maize in Brazil American Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2025;14(1):1-9.
17. Begum S, Rao PM, Padmaja B, Ravi P. Effect of new pre-and post-emergence herbicide molecules in maize on a sandy loam soil of Telangana in India. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(9):1021-1035.
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. 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.
20. Oerke EC. Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2006;144(1):31-43.
21. Sanodiya P, Jha AK, Shrivastava A. Effect of integrated weed management on seed yield of fodder maize. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2013;45(3):214-216.
22. 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.
23. How to cite this article: Harale R, Bhingardeve S, Gajbhiye P, Karad S, Patil J, Shende S, et al. Enhanced the kharif maize production through application of pre and post emergence herbicides. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2026;9(10):289-293. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/2618060