Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:38:40.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maize/Weed Competition Experiments: Implications for Tropical Small-Farm Weed Control Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. Vernon and
J. M. H. Parker
R. Vernon
Affiliation:
Mount Makulu Research Station, P. Bag 7, Chilanga, Zambia
J. M. H. Parker
Affiliation:
Mount Makulu Research Station, P. Bag 7, Chilanga, Zambia
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two sets of experiments examined the effects of weeds on maize yields using weeding methods typical of small farms in Zambia where oxen are used for cultivation. Maize yield losses of 30% due to weeds were evident with common weeding practices. A critical period of competition, during which the crop should be kept clean, was demonstrated from 10 to 30 days after emergence. This is a period of peak labour demand and the prospect of using chemical weed control to ease the situation is considered. The value of weed competition data, given its variability between sites, is discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , October 1983, pp. 341 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allen, A. Y. & Laycock, D. (1976). Maize yields in Western Kenya: effects of plant numbers per hill and stage at thinning. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 42:141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIMMYT (1979). Eastern African Economics Programme, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), P.O. Box 15171, Nairobi, Kenya. Occasional Paper 5, Some Issues in Off-Station Experimentation.Google Scholar
Hammerton, J. L. (1974). Problems of herbicide use in peasant farming. IPPC Paper A2. International Plant Protection Centre, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. (1977). Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klingman, G. C. & Ashton, F. M. (1975). Weed Science, Principles and Practices. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nieto, J. H., Brondo, M. A. & Gonzalez, J. T. (1968). Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pest Articles and News Summaries (PANS) 14:159.Google Scholar
Parker, C. & Fryer, J. D. (1975). Weed control problems causing major reductions in world food supplies. Plant Protection Bulletin 23:83. Rome:FAO.Google Scholar
Parker, J. M. H. & Vernon, R. (1982). Maize herbicides for small-scale farmers in Zambia. Tropical Pest Management 28:259–265.Google Scholar
Plucknett, D. L., Rice, E. J., Burrill, L. C. & Fisher, H. H. (1976). Approaches to weed control in cropping systems. 1976 Cropping Systems Symposium of the International Rice Research Institute 295. Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI.Google Scholar
Zahran, M. K., Ibrahim, T. S. & EI-Maghraby, (1976). A new approach towards easy application for cotton herbicides in Egypt. In Proceedings, 13th British Weed Control Conference, London, U.K. 159–163. British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Zambia Department of Agriculture (1980). Small-farm investigations. Annual Report of the Weed Control Research and Extension Team: 1980, 61. P. Bag 7, Chilanga, Zambia.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. (1980). Weed Crop Competition – A Review. International Plant Protection Centre, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar