PRESENTER: JOYCE KAMENE KIMEUAD/NO. A138/19361/2011

DIPLOMA IN CROP PROTECTIONSUPERVISOR: DR. E.S. ARIGA

EFFECT OF BEAN PLANTING ARRANGEMENT ON WEED

POPULATION AND YIELDS IN MAIZE / BEAN INTER – CROPPING.

 

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUNDMaize – most important and popular cereal in the world.

PRODUCTION •developing countries – Half•sub sahara – 50%

Uses •Human - staple food•Livestock –•Industry – raw materials

Intercropping with legumesChallenges: weeds – A major constraint to productionContact– Hand weeding, Herbicides & intercropping

Materials and methods:Site – Field station at Kabete CampusSize – 08 Plot 2m x 2m In 3 repricatesTime – july 2012 – Maize spacing 75x25cmBeans 45x20Intercrop-single row 37.5cmDouble row 17.5 x 40cm x 15Maize variety H520Beans GLP2

Treatment Amaranthius SPP Black Jack Gallant soldier Kikuyu Grass Oxalis

Beans pure stand 1.7b 6.2ab 17.5b 10.7a 32.5b

double row 3.8a 6.0ab 33.8a 9.3a 65.8a

Maize pure stand 2.8ab 2.7b 26.7ab 16.5a 18.8c

single row 3.2a 11.2 29.2a 18.8a 67.5a

Lsd 1.8 9.51 11.4 14.8 11.7

Cv % 52.7 116.9 35.5 88.8 119.4

Table 1: Weed count

Means followed by the same letter (s) along the column are not significant.

Treatment Cob length

un-weeded double row 4.8b

un-weeded single rows 4.9b

un-weeded pure stand maize 5.1ab

weeded double row 5.7a

weeded pure stand maize 5.7a

weeded single row 5.5a

Lsd 0.9

cv % 13.7

Table 2: Height of Maize

Means followed by the same letter (s) along the column are not significantly different.

Treatment Cob length

un-weeded single row 15.1ab

un-weeded double rows 13.6ab

un-weeded pure stand maize 11.0b

weeded double row 16.1a

weeded pure stand maize 13.3b

weeded single row 16.4a

Lsd 3.9

cv % 18.5

Table 3: Cob length

Means followed by the same letter (s) along the column are not significantly different.

Treatment Weight (grams)

un-weeded double row 99.4ab

un-weeded single row 106.0ab

Un-weeded Pure stand maize 87.1ab

un-weeded pure stand beans 21.1bc

weeded double row 148.3a

weeded pure stand beans 57.8b

Weeded Pure stand maize 96.5a

weeded single row 149.9a

   

Lsd 77.7

cv% 59.5

Table 4: Weight (grams)

Means followed by same letter (s) along the column are not significantly different.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSWeed countThe most common weeds identified in all the treatments were fine (Table 1). The most significant weed in three of the treatment was Black jack except in the single row.In the maize pure stand, Oxalis was also significant while in single row Amaranthus Spp was significant. Therefore weed control is necessary within the first 4 weeks after planting.Height of maizeThere were no significant differences in all the weeded treatments (Table 2). It shows that intercropping and weed control can reduce the effect of plant height and contribute to higher yields. Among the un-weeded treatments, pure stand maize significantly differed with other treatments.

Cob lengthThere were no significant differences in both the single and double row weeded treatments. Weeded and un-weeded pure stand maize showed no significant difference. For un-weeded single and double, there was an effect to the length of the cobs. Uncontrolled weeds can therefore affect both the plant in the field as well as the produce.Maize yieldThere was no significant difference in un-weeded double row, single row and pure stand. Weeds affected all the treatments. For the weeded single, double and pure stand, no significant differences were shown. Un-weeded pure stand beans were most affected for there was significant difference. Weeds affect yields in any crop arrangement. The significant difference within the weeded and un-weeded is evident.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONThe analysis done within the above different parameters showed that weed affects crops in all stages of growth. In the intercrops, suppression of weeds was evident.I therefore encourage farmers to intercrop maize with beans or other leguminous crops as a way of managing weeds since it is cheap, requires low technical knowhow, is environmentally friendly and has no chance of weed resistance build up.

 

REFERENCES1.Bremer, 2008; Plessis, 2003: Ntage at el, 1997.2.Bryan, E. Rigler, C. Okoba, B. Koo, J. Heraw M. and Silrestri . s {2011}3.Ita B. Nyaga, Michieke w. Ratemo, Ariga E. Safari, Muiru w. Maina4.Jaetzold and Schmidt5.Joel. K. Ransom6.Khaliq, T,T. michieke, w. Ratemo; Ariga, E. safari mbivo w. maina.7.Lavabre, E.M {1991}Lavabre, E.M {1991}8.Leaky, {1970}9.Ofori, E. and Kyei, B.N {2004’’a}10.Stinter and Weiss {1986} STIGTER C.J and WEISSA {1986}11.Stork et al, {1991}