Effects of ground cover from branches of arboreal species on weed growth and maize yield

Silva, Paulo Sérgio Lima e; Oliveira, Vianney Reinaldo de; Silva, Paulo Igor Barbosa e; Chicas, Larissa da Silva; Tomaz, Francisco Linco de Souza

doi:10.5935/1806-6690.20150069

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Ciência Agronômica

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Crop Science • Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 46 (4) • Oct-Dec 2015 • https://doi.org/10.5935/1806-6690.20150069 copy

Effects of ground cover from branches of arboreal species on weed growth and maize yield

Efeitos da cobertura do solo com ramos de espécies arbóreas no crescimento das plantas daninhas e rendimento do milho

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Cultivating maize under systems of alley cropping results in improvements to the soil, a reduction in weeds and an increase in yield. Studies using ground cover from tree shoots produce similar results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects on weed growth and maize yield of ground cover made up of 30 t ha-1 (fresh matter) of branches from the tree species: neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss), gliricidia [Gliricidia sepium(Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp.], leucaena [Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit.] and sabiá (Mimosa caesalpiniifolia Benth.). Two treatment groups (cultivars and weed control) were evaluated. The cultivars AG 1041 and AL Bandeirantes were subjected to the following treatments: no hoeing, double hoeing, and ground a cover of branches of the above species when sowing the maize. A randomised block design was used with split lots (cultivars in the lots) and ten replications. The cultivars did not differ for green ear or grain yield. Double hoeing was more effective than ground cover at reducing the growth of weeds. However, both weeding and ground cover resulted in similar yields for green ears and grain, which were greater than those obtained with the unweeded maize.

Key words:
Zea mays ; Azadirachta indica ; Gliricidia sepium ; Leucaena leucocephala ; Mimosa caesalpiniifolia ; Hoeing; Green corn

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Weed biomass (g m^-2)		Corn height (cm)
		Fresh	Dry	Plant	Ear
		----------------------------Mean squares¹ 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ----------------------------
Blocks	9	1,485,606.1	26,834.0	225.3	150.2
Cultivars	1	366,528.5^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	76.8^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	3,774.4^* 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	5.6^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 1	9	104,760.0	9,554.0	141.4	100.8
MWC	5	13,280,354.2^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	473,015.9^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	4,274.4^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	2,651.1^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	415,466.4^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	11,621.3^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	100.9^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	77.8^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	331,659.5	150,36.8	242.8	158.1

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Azadirachta indica or Mimosa caesalpiniifolia	Mass of weed shoots (g m^-2)		Corn height (cm)
	Fresh	Dry	Plant	Ear
No hoeing	2,719 a	529 a	163 c	81 c
Two hoeings	432 c	73 d	181 b	94 b
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	1,333 b	220 b	203 a	113 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	2,324 a	338 c	197 a	108 a
Ground cover of Neem branches	1,310 b	210 b	193 ab	102 ab
Ground cover of sabia branches	1,443 b	231 bc	195 ab	107 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	1,538 A	268 A	183 B	101 A
AL Bandeirantes	1,649 A	266 A	194 A	101 A
CV_plots (%)	20.3	36.6	6.3	10.0
CV_sublots (%)	36.1	46.0	8.3	12.5

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Number of ears per ha
		Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
		--------------------------Mean squares¹ 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ----------------------------
Blocks	9	33,468,647.4	72,784,700.8	133,878,658.7
Cultivars	1	10,691,673.0^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	25,920,037.0^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	20,291,075.2^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 1	9	10,782,819.5	57,793,432.8	70,763,262.0
MWC	5	50,966,784.5^* 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	1,083,260,530.0^* 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	1,189,037,050.0^* 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	27,691,714.2^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	71,315,896.1^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	60,045,349.5^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	14,181,409.2	48,431,881.7	52,081,472.3

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Azadirachta indica or Mimosa caesalpiniifolia	Number of ears per ha
	Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
No hoeings	47,635 b	25,915 b	18,832 b
Two hoeings	51,603 a	43,884 a	35,670 a
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	50,293 ab	43,662 a	38,956 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	50,361 ab	43,846 a	38,411 a
Ground cover of Neem branches	52,256 a	45,000 a	37,978 a
Ground cover of sabia branches	49,947 ab	42,956 a	36,307 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	50,648 A	41,342 A	34,770 A
Al Bandeirantes	50,051 A	40,412 A	33,948 A
CV_plots (%)	6.5	18.6	24.5
CV_sublots (%)	7.5	17.0	21.0

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Weight of ears (kg ha^-1)
		Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
		-----------------------------Mean squares¹ 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ---------------------------
Blocks	9	9,553,079.2	9,038,113.6	4,193,623.5
Cultivars	1	1,894,550.7^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	1,236,473.0^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	3,579,380.2”^s
Error 1	9	6,714,083.1	6,200,830.3	4,365,788.5
MWC	5	168,877,916.8^* 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	245,601,940.3^* 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	99,542,828.5^* 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	5,563,690.9^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	7,720,803.0^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	4,301,614.4^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	5,410,565.9	6,537,228.1	2,970,437.8

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Azadirachta indica or Mimosa caesalpiniifolia	Weight of ears (kg ha^-1)
	Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
No hoeing	7,205 b	5,008 b	2,288 b
Two hoeings	13,343 a	12,774 a	6,810 a
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	14,697 a	14,096 a	8,169 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	14,550 a	13,808 a	8,094 a
Ground cover of neem branches	14,488 a	13,656 a	7,496 a
Ground cover of sabia branches	14,017 a	13,252 a	7,523 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	12,924 A	11,997 A	6,903 A
Al Bandeirantes	13,175 A	12,200 A	6,557 A
CV_plots (%)	19.9	20.6	31.0
CV_sublots (%)	17.8	21.1	25.6

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Kernels (No ear^-1)	100-kernel weight (g)	Grain yield (kg ha^-1)
Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	-------------------------------Mean squares¹ 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ----------------------------
Blocks	9	3,975.4	13.6	1,692,049.5
Cultivars	1	38,449.2^* 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	46.1^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	4,110,700.8^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 1	9	4,003.9	27.4	2,924,141.9
MWC	5	92,773.8^* 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	146.0^* 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	50,363,068.0^** 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	1,255.5^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	6.3^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	728,070.1^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	1,895.6	7.0	1,415,771.1

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala or Azadirachta indica	Kernels (No ear^-1)	100-kernel weight (g)	Grain yield (kg ha^-1)
No hoeing	285 b	25.4 b	2,731 b
Two hoeings	428 a	30.6 a	6,351 a
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	468 a	31.8 a	6,534 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	455 a	32.7 a	6,692 a
Ground cover of neem branches	451 a	31.8 a	6,956 a
Ground cover of sabia branches	443 a	32.1 a	6,352 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	440 A	30.1 A	6,264 A
Al Bandeirantes	404 B	31.4 A	5,826 A
CV_plots (%)	15.0	17.0	28.8
CV_sublots (%)	10.0	8.6	20.0

Universidade Federal do Ceará Av. Mister Hull, 2977 - Bloco 487, Campus do Pici, 60356-000 - Fortaleza - CE - Brasil, Tel.: (55 85) 3366-9702 / 3366-9732, Fax: (55 85) 3366-9417 - Fortaleza - CE - Brazil
E-mail: ccarev@ufc.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Autor para correspondência