Interactive Effect of Land Preparation Methods and Weeding Frequency on Seasonal Soil Properties and Maize Yield

Abstract

Dynamics of soil physical properties and maize yield were investigated in both major and minor cropping seasons under different land preparation methods and weeding frequency. A factorial design experiment was organized on a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The land preparation methods were plough + harrow (P + H) and no-tillage (NT) while weeding frequency treatments comprised 0, 1, 2 and 3-hoeing regimes. In both seasons, P + H yielded good penetration resistance and bulk density, high moisture content and total porosity, and maximum total grain yield than NT. Also, agitating the soil surface at different weeding frequency improved soil physical properties and maize yield parameters. Furthermore, lower penetration resistance and bulk density but higher moisture content and porosity were recorded on hoeing regime(s) than 0-hoeing. The interactive effect of land preparation methods versus weeding frequency on soil properties was significant except penetration resistance during minor season and total porosity during major season. Maximum total grain yield was obtained from P + H vs 2-hoeing treatment plots in both seasons. Generally, increasing weeding frequency on P + H plots enhanced soil physical properties and maize yield than NT treatment plots. Therefore, to obtain suitable seasonal soil conditions for crop production, cultivable soils should be ploughed, harrowed and hoed twice at 2nd and 5th weeks after ploughing (WAP).

The Impact of Tillage and Weed Control Methods on Physical Properties of Sandy Clay Loam Forest Ochrosol in Cassava Cultivation

“…While tillage and weed control treatment permutations have not shown significant interaction effects on penetration resistance, results indicate that tillage with hoe treatment combinations presents lower resistance in the upper (0-15 cm) and middle (15-30 cm) layers in comparison with other permutations. Appah [37] has reported similar findings under maize cultivation and attributed the trend to marked surface disturbance by hoeing. Results obtained by Olaoye [72] while working in Ferric Luvisols in Nigeria confirm the lower penetration resistance under the ploughtill system confirmed in this study.…”

“…While plough-till methods pulverise the soil surface, increase soil voids and encourage water admittance (as recognised by [37], moisture retention can be offset by the apparently little or no mulch cover and deep soil voids, which are flow-active, leading to moisture loss at upper layers through evaporation [61] and at greater depths by percolation. e higher moisture contents in no tillage and minimum tillage treatments with the lower layer in deep tillage is likely because of this phenomenon, a finding corroborated by Sharma et al [49] and Lui et al [62], although it is in contrast with those reported by Kurshid et al ( 2006), Khan et al [51] and Aikins and Afuakwa [19].…”

“…Appah [37] determined the effect of tillage methods and weeding (hoeing) frequency on soil properties and yield of maize. e effect of tillage and weed control methods using different mechanical weed control treatments have rarely been investigated.…”

Effects of varying tillage practices and weed control methods on the efficacy of infiltration models

“…While intense ploughing under CT and weed control interactions pulverise and disrupt the soil surface, increase pore volume and permit water entry (as noted by Appah [60]), retention of moisture can be counterbalanced by the little or no residue retention and deep soil voids which are flow-active, leading to moisture loss by evaporation at the upper layers (15-30 cm) [61] and by percolation at deeper layers [62]. Our study corroborates the results reported by Abdollahi et al [63] who found higher soil moisture content in the middle layer (12-25 cm) of sandy loam soil on CsT and CT plots and ascribed the higher moisture content to better pore connectivity and higher pore volume, respectively, at that depth.…”

“…The direct and indirect effects of weed management, which can be both beneficial and bad, have an effect on soil health and crop productivity [ 44 ]. Soil surface disturbance differs under different tillage, hand weeding, and chemical control methods [ 45 ]. Much research have been conducted to assess the influence of tillage on soil physical properties and the effectiveness of infiltration models.…”