The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Yield

A field trial was conducted (2020–2021) in a randomized complete block design arranged according to the split-plot design to evaluate the integrated effects of an alternative fertilization practice based on the application of a microbial biostimulant in combination with different weed control method...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ioannis Gazoulis, Panagiotis Kanatas, Nikolaos Antonopoulos, Metaxia Kokkini, Anastasia Tsekoura, Triantafyllia Demirtzoglou, Ilias Travlos
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2023-10-01
Series:Agronomy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/10/2614
_version_ 1797575056019161088
author Ioannis Gazoulis
Panagiotis Kanatas
Nikolaos Antonopoulos
Metaxia Kokkini
Anastasia Tsekoura
Triantafyllia Demirtzoglou
Ilias Travlos
author_facet Ioannis Gazoulis
Panagiotis Kanatas
Nikolaos Antonopoulos
Metaxia Kokkini
Anastasia Tsekoura
Triantafyllia Demirtzoglou
Ilias Travlos
author_sort Ioannis Gazoulis
collection DOAJ
description A field trial was conducted (2020–2021) in a randomized complete block design arranged according to the split-plot design to evaluate the integrated effects of an alternative fertilization practice based on the application of a microbial biostimulant in combination with different weed control methods on weed growth and maize productivity. Two fertilization practices, conventional (CF) and alternative (AF), formed the main plots. The CF supplied maize with 160 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>. The AF included a foliar application of the biostimulant NitroStim<sup>®</sup>, which contains N<sub>2</sub>-fixing bacteria (1 × 10<sup>12</sup> colony forming units; CFU L<sup>−1</sup>) along with a 50% lower fertilizer incorporation rate (80 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>). Four weed control treatments formed the subplots: one inter-row mechanical cultivation (M1), two inter-row mechanical cultivations (M2), tembotrione application (99 g a.i. ha<sup>−1</sup>; H), and an untreated control (CON). Combined over the years (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.05), fertilization, weed control, and their interactions affected (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.05) weed density and biomass, maize grain yield, and nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP<sub>N</sub>). The AF reduced weed biomass by 28% compared to the CF. M1 resulted in a high value (389 g m<sup>−2</sup>). M2 and H reduced weed biomass compared to (M1 ≥ 70%). Weed biomass dropped below 35 g m<sup>−2</sup> in the AF × H and AF × M2 subplots. Observations on weed density were similar. The AF resulted in 12 and 56% higher maize grain yield and PFP<sub>N</sub> than the CF, respectively. M2 increased grain yield by 18 and 25% compared to M1 and CON, respectively, and was not different from H. Moreover, AF × H and AF × M2 were the highest-yielding interactions (≥12,000 kg grain ha<sup>−1</sup>). AF × M2 increased PFP<sub>N</sub> by 56, 58, 64, and 67% compared to CF × H, CF × M2, CF × M1, and CF × CON, respectively, while AF × H resulted in similar PFP<sub>N</sub>.
first_indexed 2024-03-10T21:30:55Z
format Article
id doaj.art-feba993b68af452a90db791c0f37f23d
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2073-4395
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-10T21:30:55Z
publishDate 2023-10-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Agronomy
spelling doaj.art-feba993b68af452a90db791c0f37f23d2023-11-19T15:22:39ZengMDPI AGAgronomy2073-43952023-10-011310261410.3390/agronomy13102614The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) YieldIoannis Gazoulis0Panagiotis Kanatas1Nikolaos Antonopoulos2Metaxia Kokkini3Anastasia Tsekoura4Triantafyllia Demirtzoglou5Ilias Travlos6Laboratory of Agronomy, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, GreeceLaboratory of Sustainable Waste Management Technologies, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patra, GreeceLaboratory of Agronomy, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, GreeceLaboratory of Agronomy, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, GreeceBenaki Phytopathological Institute, 14561 Kifisia, GreeceR&D Department of HUMOFERT S.A., 14452 Athens, GreeceLaboratory of Agronomy, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, GreeceA field trial was conducted (2020–2021) in a randomized complete block design arranged according to the split-plot design to evaluate the integrated effects of an alternative fertilization practice based on the application of a microbial biostimulant in combination with different weed control methods on weed growth and maize productivity. Two fertilization practices, conventional (CF) and alternative (AF), formed the main plots. The CF supplied maize with 160 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>. The AF included a foliar application of the biostimulant NitroStim<sup>®</sup>, which contains N<sub>2</sub>-fixing bacteria (1 × 10<sup>12</sup> colony forming units; CFU L<sup>−1</sup>) along with a 50% lower fertilizer incorporation rate (80 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>). Four weed control treatments formed the subplots: one inter-row mechanical cultivation (M1), two inter-row mechanical cultivations (M2), tembotrione application (99 g a.i. ha<sup>−1</sup>; H), and an untreated control (CON). Combined over the years (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.05), fertilization, weed control, and their interactions affected (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.05) weed density and biomass, maize grain yield, and nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP<sub>N</sub>). The AF reduced weed biomass by 28% compared to the CF. M1 resulted in a high value (389 g m<sup>−2</sup>). M2 and H reduced weed biomass compared to (M1 ≥ 70%). Weed biomass dropped below 35 g m<sup>−2</sup> in the AF × H and AF × M2 subplots. Observations on weed density were similar. The AF resulted in 12 and 56% higher maize grain yield and PFP<sub>N</sub> than the CF, respectively. M2 increased grain yield by 18 and 25% compared to M1 and CON, respectively, and was not different from H. Moreover, AF × H and AF × M2 were the highest-yielding interactions (≥12,000 kg grain ha<sup>−1</sup>). AF × M2 increased PFP<sub>N</sub> by 56, 58, 64, and 67% compared to CF × H, CF × M2, CF × M1, and CF × CON, respectively, while AF × H resulted in similar PFP<sub>N</sub>.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/10/2614NitroStim<sup>®</sup>nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP<sub>N</sub>)nitrogen fertilizationinter-row cultivationtembotrione
spellingShingle Ioannis Gazoulis
Panagiotis Kanatas
Nikolaos Antonopoulos
Metaxia Kokkini
Anastasia Tsekoura
Triantafyllia Demirtzoglou
Ilias Travlos
The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Yield
Agronomy
NitroStim<sup>®</sup>
nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP<sub>N</sub>)
nitrogen fertilization
inter-row cultivation
tembotrione
title The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Yield
title_full The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Yield
title_fullStr The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Yield
title_full_unstemmed The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Yield
title_short The Integrated Effects of Biostimulant Application, Mechanical Weed Control, and Herbicide Application on Weed Growth and Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Yield
title_sort integrated effects of biostimulant application mechanical weed control and herbicide application on weed growth and maize i zea mays i l yield
topic NitroStim<sup>®</sup>
nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP<sub>N</sub>)
nitrogen fertilization
inter-row cultivation
tembotrione
url https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/10/2614
work_keys_str_mv AT ioannisgazoulis theintegratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT panagiotiskanatas theintegratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT nikolaosantonopoulos theintegratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT metaxiakokkini theintegratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT anastasiatsekoura theintegratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT triantafylliademirtzoglou theintegratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT iliastravlos theintegratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT ioannisgazoulis integratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT panagiotiskanatas integratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT nikolaosantonopoulos integratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT metaxiakokkini integratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT anastasiatsekoura integratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT triantafylliademirtzoglou integratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield
AT iliastravlos integratedeffectsofbiostimulantapplicationmechanicalweedcontrolandherbicideapplicationonweedgrowthandmaizeizeamaysilyield