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


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 conducted 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 productivity 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 efficiency 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

Share and Cite:

S. Kannan and C. Chinnagounder, "Evaluation of Weed Control Options for Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Stacked (TC 1507 X NK603) and Conventional Maize Hybrids for Higher Productivity," American Journal of Plant Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 9, 2013, pp. 1713-1720. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2013.49209.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] J. W. Wilcut, H. D. Coble, A. C. York and D. W. Monks, “The Niche for Herbicide-Resistant Crops in US Agriculture,” 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 Integrated Weed Management under Rainfed Condition,” Indian 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, “Differences in Weed Tolerance to Glyphosate Involve Different Mechanism,” Weed Technology, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2001, pp. 725-731. doi:10.1614/0890-037X(2001)015[0725:DIWTTG]2.0.CO;2
[5] C. L. Main, A. J. Michael and E. C. Murdock, “Weed Response and Tolerance of Enhanced Glyphosate-Resistant 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 Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1969, pp. 96-98.
[7] G. W. Snedecor and W. G. Cochran, “Statistical Methods,” Oxford and IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi, 1967, p. 593.
[8] C. H. Koger and R. N. Reddy, “Glyphosate Efficacy, Absorption and Translocation in Pitted Moringglory (Ipomoea 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. Johnson and J. A. Sikors, “Re-Evaluating Glyphosate as a Transition-State Inhibitor of EPSP Synthase: Identification of an EPSP Synthase-EPSP Glyphosate Ternary Complex,” Biochemistry, Vol. 34, 1995, pp. 6433-6440. doi:10.1021/bi00019a024
[10] U. Suwunnamek and C. Parker, “Control of Cyperus rotundus 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 Control Methods on Performance of Sunflower,” M.Sc. Thesis, 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 Competition 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 Herbicide Program,” Crop Protection, Vol. 23, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1007-1010. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.03.004

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.