Effects of conservation tillage on weed infestation and maize yield under changing climate conditions

Received: 14-Feb-2025, Manuscript No. mp-25-161343; Accepted: 16-Mar-2025, Pre QC No. mp-25-161343 (PQ); Editor assigned: 17-Feb-2025, Pre QC No. mp-25-161343 (PQ); Reviewed: 04-Mar-2025, QC No. mp-25-161343 (Q); Revised: 10-Mar-2025, Manuscript No. mp-25-161343 (R); Published: 22-Mar-2025, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16838829

Introduction

A critical constraint in modern maize cultivation technologies is the prevalence of weed infestation, which substantially diminishes the efficacy of agronomic interventions designed to enhance grain yield. Although the widespread adoption of advanced and highly selective herbicides has improved weed management, undesirable plant species continue to exert considerable competitive pressure on maize crops. This competition leads to significant reductions in nutrient availability, moisture retention, and overall crop vigor. Consequently, weed interference remains a major agronomic challenge, often resulting in yield losses exceeding 30%, thereby undermining the productivity and economic sustainability of maize production systems (Brandsaeter, 2018; Beckie, 2020; Mytsyk, 2024).

The dynamic interplay between crops and weeds is deeply rooted in their co-evolution within agroecosystems, where both components continuously adapt to environmental conditions and agronomic practices. Weeds should not be viewed in isolation, as they constitute an inherent part of agricultural landscapes, interacting with crops through competition for resources such as light, water, and nutrients. Variations in weed density and species composition are predominantly driven by ecological transformations, including climate fluctuations, soil properties, and biodiversity shifts. Additionally, the long-term effects of agricultural succession, the intensity and frequency of soil tillage, crop rotation schemes, and specific cultivation techniques collectively shape weed communities, influencing their persistence, adaptability, and impact on crop productivity. Understanding these complex interactions is essential for developing integrated weed management strategies that balance crop production with sustainable agroecosystem functioning (Lundgren, 2023; Sachin Kumar, 2024).

Over the past decades, the potential weed infestation of chernozem soils in the arable layer has increased significantly due to crises in agriculture and a decline in cultivation practices. The number of vegetative reproductive organs reaches 150,000-300,000 shoots per hectare, while seed numbers range from 0.5 to 1.0 billion per hectare. A "clean" soil (in a cultivated state) contains fewer than 1,000 perennial weed roots and up to 10 million viable seeds of annual weeds per hectare in the arable layer. However, in row crops, up to 1,500-2,000 annual weed seedlings and 15-30 perennial weed sprouts or shoots per square meter may emerge during the growing season (Maqsood, 2018; Ali, 2022; Ghosh, 2023; Schnee, 2023; Md-AKhir, 2023; Tsylіuryk, 2023).

Scientific data regarding changes in weed infestation levels, phytosanitary conditions, and soil's agro-physical and anti-erosion properties under systematic soil conservation tillage in crop rotations may serve as a valuable resource for timely ecological monitoring (Nath, 2022). This will help optimize machinery and tools for performing essential operations in crop cultivation technologies, such as primary tillage, sowing, herbicide application, and fertilizer incorporation (Jinwei Zhang, 2024; Talent Namatsheve, 2024; Sachin Kumar, 2024).

Many researchers confirm that post-harvest stubble plowing followed by fall plowing is the most effective measure to control weeds. This is achieved by burying seeds in deeper soil layers, where they lose their ability to germinate (Idziak et al., 2022). However, Sachin Kumar (2024) disputes this claim, emphasizing that weed seeds buried at certain depths or evenly distributed within the soil profile are often brought back to the surface during subsequent plowing, entering a zone where germination becomes possible. This view is supported by other scientists (Christophe Lacroix, 2024; Romashchenko, 2025), who note that no-till systems, combined with annual herbicide application, do not lead to increased weed infestation compared to continuous plowing.

The aforementioned points illustrate that there is no consensus among scientists regarding the impact of soil tillage systems on weed infestation levels. Further studies on this issue remain relevant, especially in light of recent trends toward minimal tillage and the introduction of highly effective herbicides, which partially mitigate the impact of "soil tillage" on weed infestation in field crops (Tsylіuryk, 2023).

This study aimed to identify the patterns of weed species composition and assess their quantitative dynamics in maize agrocenoses. Additionally, it sought to evaluate the effects of various primary soil tillage methods on the development rates of weed communities and the extent of infestation in maize fields. Furthermore, the research focused on determining maize grain yield and quality parameters in relation to different tillage practices and fertilization strategies.

Materials and Methods

Field experiments were conducted at the State Enterprise "Dnipro Experimental Farm" of the State Institution "Institute of Grain Crops" of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine. Additionally, research was carried out at the experimental field of the Research and Educational Center of Dnipro State Agrarian and Economic University. The study site was located near Dnipro in the northern steppe zone of Ukraine. The field experiments were carried out under the framework of a five-field crop rotation system: clean fallow – winter wheat – sunflower – spring barley - maize. The trials were implemented in the laboratory of crop rotations and soil conservation systems as part of long-term studies conducted during 1988-1990 and 2011-2024 (Steel, 1997; Ushkarenko, 2008). The agricultural technology used for maize cultivation, involving hybrids Dniprovs'kyi 273 AMV, Bilozirs'kyi 295 SV, and DN Astra, adhered to generally accepted standards for the steppe zone (Pabat, 1988; Lebed, 2012; Shevchenko, 2024).

Three primary tillage methods were applied to the maize fields: moldboard tillage (control) – plowing with a PO-3- 35 plow to a depth of 23 cm-25 cm; chisel (mulch) tillage – performed with a chisel plow to a depth of 14 cm-16 cm; flat-cut (mulch) tillage – performed using a heavy cultivator (KSHN-5.6 "Resident") to a depth of 14 cm-16 cm.

Before pre-sowing cultivation, mineral fertilizers were applied at the following rates: control – without fertilizers + post-harvest residues of the predecessor crop; moderate fertilization – N30P30K30 + post-harvest residues of the predecessor crop; high fertilization – N60P30K30 + post-harvest residues of the predecessor crop.

Weed infestation was evaluated by species and weight, sampling diagonally across each plot with five replicates. Data analysis employed Statistica 12.0 software (StatSoft Inc.), presenting results as the mean (x̄) ± Standard Deviation (SD). To compare differences between the control and experimental treatments, Tukey’s post hoc test was applied with statistical significance set at p<0.05 and the Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Crop capacity was determined using mathematical statistics.

Results and Disussion

Before the first inter-row tillage, weed infestation in maize fields exhibited a clear trend of increasing with higher nitrogen fertilizer application rates, both in terms of plant density and biomass, regardless of the tillage system applied. This effect was particularly pronounced for nitrophilous weed species, such as common lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), which thrive under elevated nitrogen availability. The intensified weed pressure under fertilized conditions suggests that nitrogen not only supports crop growth but also enhances the competitive potential of certain weed species, potentially leading to higher infestations if not managed properly.

Weed density and biomass varied significantly across different tillage methods. Under mouldboard plowing, weed infestation ranged from 9.7 plants/m² to 12.7 plants/m², with a biomass accumulation of 2.6 g/m²-3.0 g/m². Chisel plowing resulted in slightly lower weed density (9.1 plants/m²-10.3 plants/m²), but biomass values were somewhat higher (2.9 g/m²-3.5 g/m²), likely due to the preservation of soil moisture and organic matter in the upper layers, which favored weed growth. The highest levels of weed infestation were observed under flat-cut tillage, where weed density reached 13.2 plants/m²-15.7 plants/m², with biomass ranging from 3.4 g/m² to 5.1 g/m². This increase can be attributed to the minimal soil disturbance associated with shallow tillage, which preserves the weed seed bank in the upper soil layers and promotes germination.

The lowest quantitative and weight indicators of weed infestation were observed under chiseling and plowing. At the same time, the use of flat-cut tillage led to an increase in weed infestation in maize fields due to the higher localization of weed seeds in the upper soil layers (Tab. 1).

Table 1. Species composition and weed density in maize crops (average for 2011-2024, x ± SD, n=8).

By harvest time, weed infestation in maize fields decreased 1.2-3.1 times depending on the tillage method (to 4.1 plants/m²-10.6 plants/m²) and 1.3 times with N30P30K30 fertilization. This reduction resulted from increased maize competitiveness in later growth stages. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) dominated the weed composition (40%-60%), along with annual grasses (Poaceae), common lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album L.), and sunflower volunteers, whose seeds remained viable for years. Infestation was highest under flat-cut tillage (7.2 plants/m²-10.6 plants/m², 17.0 g/m²-19.4 g/m²).

Table 2. Weed germination in maize crops under different tillage methods, pcs/m² (x ± SD, n=12).

Weed germination in maize fields declined over six crop rotations due to reduced seed contamination. From 2011-2024, germination under mouldboard plowing was 64.5 plants/m², and under chisel tillage, 80.2 plants/m², 1.3-1.6 times lower than at the start of crop rotation.

A significant shift in weed composition was observed, with declines in Setaria glauca L., Echinochloa crus-galli L., Amaranthus retroflexus L., and Chenopodium album L. Their reduction (0.9 plants/m²-23.1 plants/m²) varied by tillage method and was primarily due to herbicide application (Harness, Maister), which effectively controlled these species.

The rising resistance of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) to herbicides, coupled with its strong adaptability, poses a growing threat to agriculture and the environment.

Maize yield analysis revealed a slight advantage of plowing and chiseling over untreated fields and N30P30K30 application due to improved nutrient availability and lower weed pressure. At N60P30K30, flat-cut loosening achieved yields comparable to plowing and chiseling, neutralizing prior disadvantages. Given the minimal yield differences among tillage methods, their effectiveness can be considered equivalent.

Table 3. Yield and quality of maize grain depending on tillage and fertilization methods, t/ha (average for 2011–2024, x ± SD, n=8).

Applying N30P30K30 increased maize yield by 8.4%-8.9%, with the highest gain under flat-cut loosening (0.47 t/ha). Doubling nitrogen (N60P30K30) further raised yield by 12.9%-14.4%. In the early crop rotation stages, high weed infestation and low soil fertility reduced yield by 0.25 t/ha-0.38 t/ha.

Tillage had minimal impact on grain quality, though mouldboard plowing slightly increased protein content due to better nitrogen availability. Fertilization, especially with crop residue, raised protein by 0.4%-1.1% while reducing starch by 0.7%-1.7%.

Conclusions

Weeds possess high regenerative potential, enabling them to overcome control measures. Their biodiversity cannot be eliminated but must be managed to keep infestation below the economic threshold.

Weed community composition is determined by adaptive traits and field conditions. Key factors influencing weed dominance include herbicide resistance, broad germination, and morphological plasticity.

Shallow non-inversion tillage (chisel plowing, flat-cut loosening) increases weed infestation by 1.4–1.8 times, requiring enhanced herbicide use to prevent yield losses.

Moldboard and chisel plowing slightly improve maize yield under unfertilized conditions and with N30P30K30 due to better nutrient availability. At N60P30K30, flat-cut loosening provides similar yields by mitigating previous disadvantages.

With low weed infestation (9.0 plants/m²–12.6 plants/m²), tillage methods do not significantly affect grain quality, though nitrogen fertilization increases protein content while reducing starch levels.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to their colleagues in the Dnipro State Agrarian and Economic University and Institute of Grain Crops of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine for their support and assistance. We also thank anonymous reviewers for helping us to improve this paper.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

1. Ali S, Hanif MA, Umar M, Manzoor A, Shafique O, Khan BA, Ahmed I. (2022). Broad-leaved weed seed bank and flora dynamics in wheat as affected by different herbicides. Pak J Agric Res. 35:58-69.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Beckie HJ, Owen MJ, Borger CP, Gill GS, Widderick MJ. (2020). Agricultural weed assessment calculator: An Australian evaluation. Plants. 9:1737.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Brandsaeter LO, Netland J, Meadov R. (2018). Yields, weeds, pests, and soil nitrogen in a white cabbage-living mulch system. Biol Agric Hortic. 16:291-309.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

4. Ghosh S, Das TK, Nath CP, Bhatia A, Biswas DR, Bandyopadhyay KK. (2023). Weed seedbank, above-ground weed community, and crop yields under conventional and conservation agriculture practices in maize-wheat-mungbean rotation. Weed Res. 63:270-281.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

5. Idziak R, Waligóra H, Szuba V. (2022). The influence of agronomical and chemical weed control on weeds of corn. J Plant Prot Res. 62:215-222.

   [Google Scholar]

6. Kumar S, Kumari S, Rana S, Rana R, Anwar T, Qureshi H. (2024). Weed management challenges in modern agriculture: The role of environmental factors and fertilization strategies. Crop Prot. 185:1.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

7. Kumar S, Rana S, Abdelrahman K, Uddin MG, Fnais M, Abioui M. (2024). Impact of conservation agriculture and weed management on carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and sustainability in maize-wheat cropping systems. Energy. 309:1-14.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

8. Lacroix C, Vandenberghe C, Monty A, Dumont B. (2024). Effect of long-term tillage and residue managements on weed flora and its impact on winter wheat development. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 366:1.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

9. Lundgren JG, Anderson RL. (2023). Suppression of weed communities by granivores over time in an agroecosystem. Ecosphere. 14:4641.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

10. Maqsood Q, Abbas RN, Khaliq A, Zahir ZA. (2018). Weed seed bank dynamics: Weed seed bank modulation through tillage and weed management. Planta Daninha. 36:018166706.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

11. Md-Akhir AH, Isa N, Mispan MS. (2022). Natural distribution of weed seedbank in different land activities due to abandoned land reclamation for agriculture. Appl Ecol Environ Res. 20:2597-2607.

    [Google Scholar]

12. Mytsyk O, Havryushenko O, Tsyliuryk O. (2024). Reclamation of derelict mine land by simply growing crops. Int J Environ Stud. 81:230-238.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

13. Namatsheve T, Cardinael R, Chikowo R, Corbeels M, Rugare JT, Mabasa S, Ripoche A. (2024). Do intercropping and mineral nitrogen fertilizer affect weed community structures in low-input maize-based cropping systems? Crop Prot. 176:1.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

14. Nath CP, Hazra KK, Kumar N, Singh SS, Praharaj CS, Singh U. (2022). Impact of crop rotation with chemical and organic fertilization on weed seed density, species diversity, and community structure after 13 years. Crop Prot. 153:105860.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

15. Romashchenko M, Faybishenko B, Onopriienko D, Hapich H, Novitskyi R, Dent D. (2025). Prospects for restoration of Ukraine’s irrigation system. Water Int. 14:1-7.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

16. Schnee L, Sutcliffe LME, Leuschner C, Donath TW. (2023). Weed seed banks in intensive farmland and the influence of tillage, field position, and sown flower strips. Land. 12:926.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

17. Shevchenko S, Derevenets-Shevchenko K, Desyatnyk L, Shevchenko M, Sologub I, Shevchenko O. (2024). Tillage effects on soil physical properties and maize phenology. Int J Environ Stud. 81:393-402.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

18. Steel RD, Torrie JH, Dickey D. (1997). Principle and procedure of statistics: A biometrical approach. New York: McGraw–Hill. 466.
19. Zhang J, Zhao J, Sun J, He Y, Xie Y, Liang Q. (2024). Herbigation combined with plastic film mulching to control weeds in maize (Zea mays L.) fields in the Hexi Corridor region, Northwest China. Crop Prot. 176:1.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]