Peral millet being drought tolerant has substantial potential to contribute in food security ensuring the food, fodder and nutritional value in different Asian and African countries. Susceptibility to abiotic and biotic factors and low productivity are the main reasons for decreasing productivity and area of millets. In this context, evaluation of the effect of weed control practices and varying sowing dates on grain yield of kharif season grown pearl millet ( <i> Pennisetum americanum</i> L.) was demonstrated at post graduate agriculture research station, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad during 2015. Forage pearl millet was sown at three different sowing dates <i> i.e.</i> mid-June, end of June and mid-July and four weed control practices viz. weedy check (no weeding), twice hoeing at 15 and 30 days after sowing (DAS), weed control using herbicides <i> i.e.</i> application of Atrazine (Awax 38 SC) @ 330 g a.i. ha -1 at 15 DAS, and twice foliar applications of 10% Sorghum water extract (Sorgaab) (at 15 and 30 DAS). The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) under split plot arrangement, comprising of three replications. The treatments with varying sowing dates were randomized in main plots and weed control practices were in subplots. Results showed that the highest plant height (279.51 cm), leaf area (2777.80 cm2), fresh weight of leaves per plant (155.57 g), maximum number of grains per head (3162.0) and grain yield (3419.7 kg·ha-1 ) were obtained in the treatment combination of 30th June sowing × twice weed hoeing (at 15 and 30 DAS) while, maximum 1000-grain weight (8.45 g) was observed in treatments where weeds were controlled by hoeing (at 15 and 30 DAS). Moreover, cultural weed control practices reduce significantly weed density, fresh and dry Wight of weeds. In sum, it is concluded that to reduce the weed-crop competition and to gain higher productivity of pear l millet , field should be weed free 20 - 45 days after sowing.
Forage crops are getting important in agriculture and total area in Pakistan (Punjab) under forage crops in 2010 was 5.48 million hectares. A total of 3.46 million tones forage production was recorded by national agencies with an average productivity of 420 kg・ha−1 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [
Current forage production is still insufficient in fulfilling the national demand for forage. One of the most important limiting factors for livestock business is shortage of fodder crop. Moreover, poor quality production of forage and seasonal shortage of forage during extreme winter as well in summers and 2.5% decrease in area under forage per decade are key constraints for forage and livestock production [
Under favorable conditions millet has capability to attain height of 6 - 10 feet [
Weeds affect the crop productivity, as they create competition during early growth stages for resources with crop plants and limits the yield and quality of pearl millet [
To estimate the impact of varying sowing dates and different weed control techniques on pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) forage production, an experiment was conducted during 2015 at post agriculture research station, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (31.35-31.47˚N latitude, 72.08-73.0695˚E longitude and 183 m Altitude). Pre-planting soil sample from the experimental site was obtained using auger at 0 - 15 cm and 15 - 30 cm depth. Physico-chemical soil analysis was done in soil fertility laboratory, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad and report is shown in
The experiment was designed using Randomized Complete Block Design
Determination | Unit | Value obtained |
---|---|---|
Sand | % | 64 |
Silt | % | 17.6 |
Clay | % | 18.4 |
EC | dSm−1 | 1.56 |
pH | 7.9 | |
Organic matter | % | 0.89 |
Total N | % | 0.31 |
Available phosphorous | ppm | 5.28 |
Available K | ppm | 187 |
(RCBD) with split plot arrangement, replicated thrice. The factor of sowing dates (SD1 = 15th June, SD2 = 30th June and SD3 = 15th July) was maintained in main plots, while sub-plot factor weed control techniques (W) comprising of W1 = Weedy check (weeds were not controlled), W2 = Weed control with 2 hoeing at 15 and 30 days after sowing (DAS), W3 = Herbicidal weed control method using Atrazine (Awax 38 SC) @ 330 g a.i ha−1 applied at 15 DAS, and W4 = 10% Sorghum water extracts sprayed at 15 and 30 DAS. Experimental plot net size was 8.0 m × 3.6 m. Total experimental units were 36.
Seed of pearl millet (variety MB-87) was obtained from Maize & Millets Research Institute-Yusafwala (Sahiwal). Ridge sowing was done after seed bed preparation (making ridges) using seed rate 8 kg・ha−1 after treating the seed with Chloropyriphos @ 4 ml・kg−1. Planting geometry was 60 cm apart ridges while maintaining 15 cm plant-plant distance. Water extract of sorghum (Sorgaab) has potential to reduce the infestation of weeds species like, Chenopodium album, Cyperus rotundus, Phalaris minor, Rumex dentatus and Senebiera didyma have been observed due to its allelopathic role by releasing allelochemical as “sorgeolone” [
Data regarding growth and yield parameters of pearl millet were collected according to standard procedures. Five plants from each treatment and replication were randomly selected and observation was recorded. Pre-harvest data -plant height, stem diameter, Leaf area per plant (cm2) and fresh weight of leaves (g plant−1); while, post-harvest data -number of grain head−1, 1000-grain weight (g) and grain yield (kg・ha−1) at 90 DAS with respect to each treatment were recorded. Data regarding weed parameters were collected using 0.5 m2 quadrate from two spots in each treatment. As per treatment weeds were identified, counted and then sun-dried after clipping off at soil surface, oven dried wrapping in craft paper at 70 C till constant weight. The statistical analysis was done using Fisher’s analysis of variance technique and least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% level of significance to compare significance of the differences between treatments [
Data presented in
Proper and timely weed control as well as timely sowing reduced crop-weed competition, made possible for crop to acquire input resources efficiently and ultimately resulted in better growth [
which it was noticed that full weed suppression in crop increased the plant height and stem thickness as weed crop competition reduced. Delayed sowing and more weed crop competition resulted in poor crop stand, weak and lean seedling and stunted growth of crop because weeds compete with the crop plants for resources like sunlight, nutrients, space and water [
Influence of planting dates and different weed management strategies on leaf area and leaves fresh weight is showed in
Data presented in
Source of variation | Df | Weed density (m−2) | Fresh weight of weeds (m−2) | Dry weight of weeds (m−2) | Number of grain head−1 | 1000-grain weight (g) | Grain yield (kg・ha−1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Replication (r) | 2 | 18.7 | 572 | 36.5 | 79 | 0.07 | 437 | |
Sowing Date (SD) | 2 | 1416.0 | 6259 | 252.3 | 507,377** | 1.66 | 497,272** | |
Error a | 4 | 117.3 | 614 | 23.2 | 1324 | 0.24 | 1027 | |
Weed Control (W) | 3 | 68,855.1** | 583,760** | 23,196.4** | 2,036,328** | 6.79** | 1,268,685** | |
SD × W | 6 | 82.2 | 421 | 21.3 | 6696** | 0.08 | 14,246** | |
Error b | 18 | 138.6 | 353 | 14.2 | 463 | 0.11 | 1050 | |
Total | 35 | |||||||
** = Highly significant.
Treatments | Weed density (m−2) | Fresh weight of weeds (m−2) | Dry weight of weeds (m−2) | Number of grain head−1 | 1000-grain weight (g) | Grain yield (kg・ha−1) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sowing date (SD) | ||||||||||
SD1: (15th June) | 124.67 | 378.58 | 75.679 | 2392.0b | 7.5150 | 2771.2b | ||||
SD2: (30th June) | 123.58 | 377.33 | 75.653 | 2545.5a | 7.5483 | 2934.8a | ||||
SD3: (15th July) | 105.33 | 338.42 | 67.724 | 2138.3c | 6.8892 | 2530.1b | ||||
LSD (P = 0.05) | 12.28 | 28.07 | 5.46 | 1.25 | 0.56 | 36.33 | ||||
Weed control (W) | ||||||||||
W1: (Control) | 246.22a | 742.33a | 148.20a | 1815.0d | 6.3944d | 2301.4d | ||||
W2: (Cultural practices) | 53.89d | 288.22b | 38.33d | 2942.2a | 8.4544a | 3176.6a | ||||
W3: (Chemical method) | 73.22c | 235.22c | 47.43c | 2483.2b | 7.4322b | 2892.8b | ||||
W4: (Sorghum water extract 10%) | 98.11b | 288.22b | 58.12b | 2194.0c | 6.9889c | 2610.6c | ||||
LSD (P = 0.05) | 11.66 | 18.60 | 3.73 | 21.30 | 0.32 | 32.09 | ||||
Means sharing same letters did not differ significantly at P = 0.05; LSD = Least significant difference. W1: Control (Without weeding); W2: Cultural practices (twice hoeing, i.e. at 15 and 30 DAS); W3: Chemical method (Atrazine Awax 38 SC) @ 330 g a.i ha−1 at 15 DAS); W4: Sorghum water extract 10% (twice sprays, i.e. at 15 and 30 DAS).
Treatments | Weed density (m−2) | Fresh weight of weeds (m−2) | Dry weight of weeds (m−2) | Number of grain head−1 | 1000-grain weight (g) | Grain yield (kg・ha−1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interaction (SD × W) | |||||||
SD1 × W1 | 253.33 ± 8.8(b) | 749.67 ± 17.68 | 148.73 ± 4.06 | 1862.9 ± 13.54h | 6.4567 ± 0.16 | 2360.7 ± 14.99g | |
SD1 × W2 | 60.67 ± 7.8 | 216 ± 13.10 | 43.37 ± 3.03 | 2994.3 ± 15.58b | 8.6 ± 0.44 | 3171.0 ± 19.84b | |
SD1 × W3 | 76.67 ± 7.8 | 247.67 ± 13.53 | 49.82 ± 2.68 | 2453.7 ± 14.32d | 7.7333 ± 0.25 | 2923.7 ± 17.67c | |
SD1 × W4 | 108 ± 7.4 | 301 ± 14.14 | 60.8 ± 2.55 | 2257.0 ± 16.31f | 7.27 ± 0.17 | 2629.3 ± 18.63e | |
SD2 × W1 | 256.67 ± 11.4 | 771 ± 19.38 | 154.73 ± 2.80 | 1988.7 ± 18.79g | 6.62 ± 0.22 | 2406.7 ± 18.67fg | |
SD2 × W2 | 53.67 ± 7.8 | 198.33 ± 18.14 | 39.33 ± 4.16 | 3162.0 ± 14.85a | 8.9 ± 0.35 | 3419.7 ± 16.62a | |
SD2 × W3 | 79.33 ± 6.4 | 236.33 ± 14.32 | 47.89 ± 2.53 | 2674.3 ± 17.55c | 7.5133 ± 0.35 | 3150.0 ± 18.55b | |
SD2 × W4 | 104.67 ± 6.4 | 303.67 ± 14.32 | 60.67 ± 2.23 | 2357.0 ± 18.75e | 7.16 ± 0.05 | 2762.7 ± 17.75d | |
SD3 × W1 | 228.67 ± 9.2 | 706.33 ± 14.24 | 141.14 ± 4.01 | 1593.3 ± 10.80i | 6.1067 ± 0.14 | 2137.0 ± 18.43h | |
SD3 × W2 | 47.33 ± 5.4 | 165.67 ± 6.98 | 32.28 ± 1.67 | 2670.3 ± 19.11c | 7.8633 ± 0.25 | 2939.0 ± 18.83c | |
SD3 × W3 | 63.67 ± 5.5 | 221.67 ± 7.36 | 44.59 ± 1.86 | 2321.7 ± 19.90e | 7.05 ± 0.19 | 2360.7 ± 17.96g | |
SD3 × W4 | 381.67 ± 8.9 | 260 ± 14.14 | 52.89 ± 2.70 | 1968.020.89g | 6.5367 ± 0.16 | 3171.0 ± 18.50b | |
LSD | |||||||
(P = 0.05) | 21.20 | 39.21 | 7.75 | 51.67 | 1.42 | 59.81 | |
(b)the data are presented as the means ± SD; Means sharing same letters did not differ significantly at P = 0.05.
When pearl millet was planted on 30th June, it results in extended period for growth and development with ideal conditions and higher photosynthetic assimilation that ultimately translocated towards the seed attainment at physiological maturity resulting in higher grain weight as compared to the crop sown on 15th July. Siddig et al. [
Highest grain yield was recorded when pearl millet was planted on 30th of June, that proposes availability of suitable climatic conditions and prolonged growth period in comparison with late sown pearl millet. It was due to higher availability and accumulation of photosynthetic assimilates. Furthermore, weed control treatments significantly improved yield. Higher production under various weed control measures due to lower weed-crop competition, low density of weeds and appropriate accessibility of resources to pearl millet crop. These results substantiate the findings of Mass et al. [
ANOVA
Variation in weed density, weed fresh and dry weight by various weed control methods is due to the difference in efficiency in controlling weeds. Sharma and Gautam [
In conclusion, the performance of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) sown on 30th June under two hand hoeings at 15 and 30 DAS for weed control was found to be the best in terms of the grain yield per ha compared with the other treatments. Sowing time and timely weed control practices assured less weed crop competition and increase productivity.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Arslan, N., Zulfiqar, U., Ishfaq, M., Ahmad, M., Anwar, M.N., Ullah, A., Nazar, I., Iqbal, A. and Anjum, M.Z. (2018) Weed Control Practices and Varying Sowing Dates Effects on Seed Production of Pearl Millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) under Semi-Arid Environment. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 9, 1974-1986. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2018.99143