Soil Environ.

39(2): 231-242, 2020

DOI:10.25252/SE/2020/162348
Online ISSN: 2075-1141
Print ISSN: 2074-9546
Influence of different tillage practices and herbicide application on physical
properties of soil and yield of maize crop
Subhan Uddin1*, Muhammad Amin1, Muhammad Ramzan1, Zahid Hussain2 and Salim Shah3
1
Department of Agricultural Mechanization, Faculty of Crop Production Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
2
Department of Weed Science, Faculty of Crop Protection Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa
3
Department of Agriculture, Bacha Khan University Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
[Received: August 21, 2020 Accepted: October 01, 2020 Published Online: November 28, 2020]

Abstract
A field experiment was executed to investigate the influence of different tillage practices and herbicide
application on the physical properties of soil and yield of maize crop at the research farm of the University of
Agriculture, Peshawar, Pakistan during 2018 and 2019. In this experiment four tillage practices (viz., mould
board plough followed by rotavator, disc harrow twice, rotavator twice and cultivator twice followed by
planking) and three times of herbicides application (viz., pre-emergence, post emergence and control) were
arranged in a RCB design with split plot arrangements. Tillage practices were kept in main plots and
herbicide application in sub-plots. Statistical analysis of the data revealed that tillage practices had shown
significant effect on soil bulk density (g cm-3), moisture contents (%), penetration resistance (N cm-2),
biological yield (kg ha-1) and grain yield (kg ha-1) of maize crop. The use of mould board plough and rotavator
were better for improving the physical properties of soil at 0-20 cm depth. The bulk density and penetration
resistance of the soil were lowest and moisture retention was highest with the application of mould board
plough, and vice versa with the use of cultivator twice followed by planking. The same trend was obtained for
biological and grain yield of maize in response to corresponding tillage practices. Moreover, herbicide
application at the pre-emergence stage significantly increased the biological and grain yield of maize crop but
exerted no significant effect on the physical properties of soil measured at any stage. In light of these results,
deep tillage practices (such as mould board plough and rotavator) could be recommended for improving the
physical properties of soil and yield of maize crop.
Keywords: Bulk density, biological yield, grain yield, herbicides, moisture, penetration, tillage

Introduction Pakistan. Out of current production, about 60% is being

utilized in poultry feed, 28% in wet milling like Rafhan
After wheat and rice, maize is the third important and 6% in food indicating increasing demand of maize
cereal crop in Pakistan. It is an important cereal crop as it grain particularly for poultry feed and silage in the
serves as food for human, feed for poultry and fodder for country. There is therefore a need to further increase the
livestock, and also provides raw materials for various production of maize by addressing the factors hindering
industries. It contributes 2.9 percent to value agriculture the yield of maize. Besides other factors weed infestation
and 0.6 percent to GDP of the country. In 2019-20, maize is one of the major problems which not only cause
was cultivated on an area of 1413 thousand hectares of reduction in yield but also deteriorates the quality of
land producing 7236 thousand tonnes of grain with an grains of maize. As reported weeds can reduce the grain
average grain yield of 5121 kg ha -1 (Pakistan Bureau of yield of maize by 25-80%, and in some cases causes
Statistics, 2019-20). Although maize crop has shown an complete failure of crop in case of severe infestation
increasing trend in production due to introduction of (Chikoye and Ekeleme, 2003).
hybrid seed and improved varieties, the total production
is far less than the demand in the country. The demand of Soil tillage is among the important factors that affect
poultry only is more than maize grain production in soil properties and subsequently exert remarkable
*Email: [email protected]

© 2020, Soil Science Society of Pakistan (http://www.sss-pakistan.org)

232 Tillage practices affect soil properties and maize crop

influence on crop yields. Among the crop production water and nutrient uptake (Sunitha et al., 2010). Various
factors, tillage practices affect the sustainable use of soil herbicides are used for effective control of weeds in maize
resources through its influence on soil properties (Lal and crop (Uddin and Amin, 2019). There is however limited
Stewart, 2013) and subsequently contributes up to 20% information on the effect of herbicide application on soil
increase in crop production (Khurshid et al., 2006) and properties. This experiment was therefore undertaken to
tillage practices have been found to improve the physical assess the influence of different tillage practices and
properties of soil by providng suitable condition for herbicide application on the physical properties of soil and
plants to grow and produce (Khattak et al., 2006). Tillage yield of maize crop in a heavy textured soil in Peshawar
practices not only control weeds and reduce its biomass valley.
but also help to break down the crop residues making it
easier to decomposition. Moreover, soil tillage practices Materials and Methods
are used to provide better seedbed for root development Field experiment
and growth, weeds control, crop residue management,
minimize soil erosion, level surface of the soil for proper A field experiment was conducted to assess the
planting, irrigation, drainage, and mixing organic matter influence of different tillage practices & herbicide
in the soil (Temesgen et al., 2001). Among tillage tools, application on the physical properties of soil and yield of
mouldboard plough is used for soil inversion, mixing up maize crop at the research farm of Agriculture University,
the crop residues and eradicates the weeds. Similarly Peshawar during 2018 and 2019.
chisel and disk ploughs are also used and recommended Experimental design
in hard and wet soils to cut the root stubbles. Deep tillage
practices such as mould board plough followed by The experiment was set up in a randomized complete
rotavator, disc plough and chisel reduce the penetration block (RCB) design with split plot arrangements. Tillage
resistance and bulk density of the soil (Khattak et al., practices were kept in main plots while herbicide
2004). Usman et al. (2010) reported significant effect of application in sub plots. The detail of tillage and herbicide
deep tillage on crop production. However, tillage changes treatments were as follows:
the characteristics of the pores network in soil including
Factor 01: Tillage practices
the number, size and distribution of pores which in turn
control the ability of soil to store and diffuse air, water, T1 = Mould Board (MB) plough followed
and agricultural chemicals and, hence regulate erosion, by rotavator
runoff, and crop performance (Khan et al., 2001). T2 = Disc Harrow 2 times
Therefore, only the judicious use of tillage practices can T3 = Rotavator 2 times
be employed, whereas improper tillage may cause a T4 = Cultivator twice followed by planking
variety of problems, for example, destruction of soil (as control)
structure, accelerated erosion, loss of organic matter, soil
fertility and others (Lal, 1993; Khattak et al., 2006). The Factor 02: Herbicide application
excessive and unnecessary tillage operations give rise to H1 = Pre-emergence
phenomena that are harmful to soil. Yalcin et al. (2005) H2 = Post-emergence
suggested that appropriate combination of tillage and Ho = Control plot
herbicide application with recommended doses should be
adopted to increase the crop production. Experimental procedure
Various weed management techniques such as Seedbed was prepared prior to sowing, where mould
chemical, mechanical, cultural and biological control board plough was applied one month before sowing, while
measures have been used to minimize yield losses of crops the remaining tillage practices such as disc harrow,
due to weeds infestation. The cultural methods of weed rotavator and cultivator were applied just before sowing.
control is still effective and popular among farmers, but it Herbicides were applied after sowing the crop. The field
is relatively costly, time consuming and laborious. was irrigated prior to sowing the maize crop. After
Therefore, the judicious use of chemicals (herbicides) has achieving the field capacity, maize variety Azam was
been recommended to control weeds and reduce its planted in rows 75 cm apart with plant to plant distance of
biomass in crops effectively with minimum cost (Chikoye 20 cm using maize planter.
et al., 2004). The application of herbicides at pre- The data on bulk density, moisture content and
emergence stage showed best and promising results in penetration resistance of soil at 0-20 cm depth were
terms of weed control, crop nourishment as well as in recorded at three stages i.e., before tillage application,

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

 Subhan, Amin, Ramzan, Hussain and Shah 233

after tillage application and after crop harvest. Moreover, [ (Wet soil weight)-(Oven dry soil weight) ]× 100
the data on grain and biological yield of maize crop was Oven dry soil weight
recorded at harvest stage.
Measurements of penetration resistance (N cm-2)
Measurement of bulk density (g cm -3)
Penetration resistance of the soil was determined at 0-
The soil bulk density was determined in each 20 cm soil depth using penetrometer in each plot before
treatment plot (3 samples per plot) at 0-20 cm soil depth tillage, after tillage and after crop harvest. Two cm2 cone
with the help of core sampler using digger and auger. The base area in penetrometer was used to calculate the soil
core sampler of 5 cm was driven at the depth of 0-20 cm in penetration resistance using the following equation (Khattak
the soil. Proper care was taken to avoid any hardness or et al., 2006):
break the core during the whole process. After sampling,
the core samples were carefully removed and weighed Core Index (Ci) = Force(F)/Area (A) (Where Ci = Core
with the help of digital balance before keeping in the oven Index (N cm-2), F is the Force applied in (N) and A is the
for drying. The core soil samples were kept in oven at 105 area in per Cm2)
o
C for about 24 hours. The samples were taken out of the Biological yield (kg ha-1)
over and re-weighed for determination of moisture content.
The expression, ρb =Ms / Vt was used to calculate the bulk Biological yield of maize crop was determined in each
density of soil (Ramazan et al., 2012). treatment plot after crop harvest using the following formula
(Amin et al., 2014):
Measurement of soil moisture content (%)
Biological yield (kg ha-1) =
For moisture determination, soil samples were Biological yield in harvested area (kg)
weighed before and after drying in oven at 105oC for 24 × 10,000
Harvested area (m2)
hours. The loss in weight was considered moisture
content in soil and was calculated using the following Grain yield (kg ha-1)
expression (Khattak et al.,2006): Cobs from the harvested plants were removed, dried
Moisture content % = and then threshed using maize sheller. The grains were
weighed on digital balance and then converted to kg ha-1
Table 1: Bulk density (g cm-3) of soil before tillage at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by tillage practices and
herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two Years
MB Plough (T1) 1.48 1.48 1.48c
Disc Harrow (T2) 1.59 1.55 1.57b
Rotavator (T3) 1.54 1.53 1.53b
Cultivator (T4) 1.69 1.63 1.66a
LSD for Tillage 0.06 0.03 0.03
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 1.57 1.55 1.56a
Post-Emergence (H2) 1.57 1.55 1.56a
Control (Ho) 1.57 1.55 1.56a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 1.57
2019 1.55
Significance NS
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

234 Tillage practices affect soil properties and maize crop

using the following formula (Din et al., 2013 a, b): prepared twice with cultivator followed by planking, while
the lowest bulk density (1.48 g cm-3) was obtained in
Grain yield (kg ha-1) =
treatment receiving mould board plough followed by
Grain yield in harvested area (kg)
× 10,000 rotavator. Similar results were reported by Khattak et al.
Harvested area (m2)
(2006) who also found that mould board plough
Statistical analysis significantly lowered the bulk density of soil and improved
the physical conditions of soil.
The data were statistically analysed using statistical
package appropriate to RCB design with split plot For herbicide treatments, no significant differences in
arrangements. The means of the treatments were compared soil bulk density of soil were recorded as all the values
using LSD test at 5% level of probability (Steel et al., were identical (1.56 g cm-3) for all treatment plots. The
1997). The individual effects of tillage, herbicide interactive effect of tillage (T) x herbicide (H), year (Y) x
application and their interactions were expressed in tables H, Y x T and Y x T x H was non-significant on the bulk
for each parameter. density of soil. Amin et al. (2014) also found that the
application of deep tillage such mould board plough
Results and Discussion decreased the bulk density of soil and enhanced the crop
yield. Similar results were also reported by Ramazan et al.
Bulk density of soil before tillage operation
(2012) where mould board plough reduced the hardness
Statistical analysis of the data obtained during 2018 and and compaction of the soil.
2019 revealed that the application of tillage practices had
significant effect but that of herbicide application had a non- Bulk density of soil after tillage operation
significant effect on the bulk density of soil at 0-20 cm The data obtained on bulk density of soil after tillage
depth (Table 1). The interactive effect of tillage (T) and operation during 2018 and 2019 are reflected in Table 2.
herbicide (H) treatment on bulk density of soil was also Statistical analysis of the data showed that the effect of
non-significant (p<0.05). The same trend with respect to tillage practices was significant but that of herbicide
influence of tillage and herbicide treatments was maintained application on bulk density of soil was non-significant
during both the years. On average, the highest bulk density (p<0.05). The interactive effect of tillage x herbicide (TxH)
of soil (1.66 g cm-3) was obtained in treatment which was on bulk density of soil was also non-significant. The highest

Table 2: Bulk density (g cm-3) of soil after tillage at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by different tillage practices and
herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two Year
MB Plough (T1) 1.39 1.39 1.39c
Disc Harrow (T2) 1.51 1.48 1.49a
Rotavator (T3) 1.43 1.43 1.43b
Cultivator (T4) 1.49 1.47 1.48a
LSD for Tillage 0.06 0.03 0.03
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 1.46 1.44 1.45a
Post-Emergence (H2) 1.46 1.44 1.45a
Control (Ho) 1.46 1.44 1.45a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 1.46
2019 1.44
Significance NS
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

 Subhan, Amin, Ramzan, Hussain and Shah 235

Table 3: Bulk density (g cm-3) of soil after crop harvest at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by different tillage
practices and herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two Year
MB Plough (T1) 1.535 1.54 1.54c
Disc Harrow (T2) 1.563 1.56 1.56ab
Rotavator (T3) 1.555 1.56 1.56b
Cultivator (T4) 1.575 1.58 1.58a
LSD for Tillage 0.02 0.02 0.01
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 1.558 1.56 1.56a
Post-Emergence (H2) 1.557 1.56 1.56a
Control (Ho) 1.556 1.56 1.56a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 1.56
2019 1.56
Significance NS
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

soil bulk density of 1.49 g cm-3 was recorded in plots treated the effect of herbicide application was non-significant
with disc harrow while the lowest soil bulk density of 1.39g (Table 3). The highest bulk density of 1.58g cm-3 was
cm-3 was obtained for treatment treated with mould board recorded for treatment treated with cultivator twice
plough. The next lowest bulk density of soil was obtained followed by planking and the lowest bulk density of 1.54 g
for treatment treated with rotavator. Khattak et al. (2006) cm-3 was found in soil receiving mould board plough.
reported that the application of mould board plough Khattak et al. (2006) reported that ploughing with mould
followed by rotavator significantly reduced hardness of the board plough and chisel plough significantly lowered the
soil and improved the soil structure compared to the bulk density of soil.
application of secondary tillage implements. The effect of
Moreover, the effect of herbicide application was non-
herbicide application was also non- significant on bulk
significant on lowering the bulk density of soil measured
density of the soil measured after tillage operation.
after crop harvest. Similarly, the interactive effects of
Moreover, the interactive effects of TxH, YxH, YxT and
T×H, YxH, YxT and YxTxH were also non-significant on
YxTxH were also non-significant on the bulk density of soil
bulk density of the soil. Amin et al. (2014) and Ramzan et
measured after tillage operation. Amin et al. (2014) also
al. (2012) found that mould board plough was more
reported that the application of mould board plough lowered
effective in reducing the bulk density of soil. Ahmad and
the bulk density of soil and reduced hardness of the soil.
Maurya (1988) also found that bulk density of soil was
Wiyo et al. (1987) reported that the bulk density of the
significantly reduced with the application of deep tillage
surface soil was significantly reduced with the application
practices. Mould board plough followed by rotavator
of deep tillage practices. In another experiment, Khattak et
significantly reduced the bulk density of soil as reported
al. (2006) found that mould board plough was more
by Kar et al. (1986). Deep tillage practices such as chisel
effective in decreasing the bulk density of soil and in
plough, mould board plough and disc plough significantly
increasing the crop yield .
lowered the bulk density mostly in compact and hard soil
Bulk density of soil after crop harvest (Ghuman and Sur, 2001). Similar findings were also
repeated by Amin et al.(2014) where application of deep
Mean data on bulk density of soil measured after crop tillage implements such as mould board plough
harvest during 2018 and 2019 revealed that tillage significantly reduced the bulk density of soil.
practices significantly affected the bulk density of soil, but

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

236 Tillage practices affect soil properties and maize crop

Table 4: Moisture contents (%) of soil before tillage at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by tillage practices and
herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two years
MB Plough (T1) 15.9 15.6 15.7a
Disc Harrow (T2) 12.5 13.7 13.1b
Rotavator (T3) 14.1 16.3 15.2a
Cultivator (T4) 11.7 13.9 12.8b
LSD for Tillage 0.88 NS 1.68
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 13.5 14.9 14.2a
Post-Emergence (H2) 13.5 14.9 14.2a
Control (Ho) 13.5 14.9 14.2a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 13.5
2019 14.9
Significance *
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Table 5: Moisture contents (%) of soil after tillage at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by tillage practices and
herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two years
MB Plough (T1) 13.1 15.0 14.1a
Disc Harrow (T2) 10.2 12.1 11.2b
Rotavator (T3) 10.4 12.3 11.3b
Cultivator (T4) 9.8 11.7 10.8b
LSD for Tillage 1.24 1.26 0.82
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 10.9 12.8 11.8a
Post-Emergence (H2) 10.9 12.8 11.8a
Control (Ho) 10.9 12.8 11.8a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 10.9
2019 12.8
Significance **
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Moisture content of soil before tillage operation that the effect of tillage practices on moisture content of
soil was significant but that of herbicide application was
The differences in moisture content of soil among non-significant effect. On average, the maximum moisture
tillage treatments were significant during 2018 but non- content of 15.7% was recorded for treatment receiving
significant during 2019 (Table 4). The average data revealed

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

 Subhan, Amin, Ramzan, Hussain and Shah 237

Table 6: Moisture contents (%) of soil after crop harvest at 0-2 cm soil depth as affected by tillage practices and
herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two years
MB Plough (T1) 13.3 13.4 13.3a
Disc Harrow (T2) 10.4 11.5 10.9b
Rotavator (T3) 11.0 12.3 11.6b
Cultivator (T4) 9.3 9.0 9.2c
LSD for Tillage 0.56 1.73 0.84
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 11.0 11.5 11.2a
Post-Emergence (H2) 11.0 11.5 11.2a
Control (Ho) 11.0 11.5 11.3a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 11.0
2019 11.5
Significance NS
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

mould board plough followed by rotavator while the lowest treatments were statistically non-significant. The
moisture content of 12.8% was recorded for treatment interactions between different factors (TxH ),(YxH), (YxT)
receiving cultivator twice followed by planking. Herbicide and (YxTxH) for moisture contents measured after tillage
application however didn’t exert any significant effect on application were statistically non-significant.
moisture content of soil before tillage application. The
interactive effects of T×H, YxT, YxH and YxTxH were also Moisture content of soil after crop harvest
non-significant for moisture content of soil measured before The results obtained on moisture content of soil after
tillage application. Similar results were achieved by Amin et crop harvest during 2018 and 2019 revealed that differences
al. (2014), Din et al. (2013a and 2013b), Ramazan et al. between tillage treatments were significant but non-
(2012) and Khattak et al. (2006) who also found that significant among herbicide treatments (Table 6). The mean
primary tillage implements such as mould board plough data revealed that maximum moisture content of 13.3% was
followed by rotavator conserved more moisture in the soil as obtained in soil prepared by mould board plough while the
compared with shallow tillage. minimum moisture content of 9.2% was obtained in soil
which was prepared by cultivator twice followed by proper
Moisture content of soil after tillage operation
planking. However, herbicide application revealed a non-
The average data obtained on moisture content of soil significant effect on moisture content of soil after harvest of
after application of tillage practices during 2018 and 2019 maize crop. Moreover, the interactions between different
revealed that the application of different tillage practices factors (T×H), (YxH), (YxT) and (YxTxH) for moisture
significantly affected the moisture content of soil but contents of soil measured after crop harvest were
herbicide application did not exert any significant effect on statistically non-significant. These results are in agreement
soil moisture content of soil (Table 5). On an average, the with the findings of Khattak et al (2006), Amin et al. (2014)
maximum soil moisture content of 14.1% was recorded in and Din et al. (2013a and 2013b) who also found that the
soil which were prepared by mould board plough while the application of mould board plough conserved and stored
minimum moisture content of 10.8% was found in soil more moisture in soil compared with the application of
receiving cultivator twice followed by planking. However, shallow tillage such as cultivator, rotavator and disc harrow.
differences in moisture content of soil between herbicide Al-Tahan et al. (1992) also reported that the as application

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

238 Tillage practices affect soil properties and maize crop

of mould board plough exerted significant effect on soil Penetration resistance (N cm-2) of soil before
moisture content of soil compared with other tillage tillage operation
practices. Moreover, Hobbs (1986) also reported that the
application of mould board plough to the required depth had The data obtained on penetration resistance of soil
significant effect on soil moisture conservation and crop before application of tillage practices during 2018 and
productivity. 2019 are presented in Table 7. The mean data showed

Table 7: Penetration resistance (N cm-2) of soil before tillage at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by tillage practices
and herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two years
MB Plough (T1) 507.5 460.0 483.8d
Disc Harrow (T2) 568.8 510.0 539.4b
Rotavator (T3) 543.8 496.3 520.0c
Cultivator (T4) 590.4 575.4 582.9a
LSD for Tillage 43.34 32.83 25.25
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 552.5 510.3 531.4a
Post-Emergence (H2) 552.5 510.3 531.4a
Control (Ho) 552.8 510.6 531.7a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 552.6
2019 510.4
Significance ***
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Table 8: Penetration resistance (N cm-2) of soil after tillage at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by tillage practices and
herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two Year
MB Plough (T1) 262.5 242.5 252.5d
Disc Harrow (T2) 342.5 322.5 332.5b
Rotavator (T3) 302.5 282.5 292.5c
Cultivator (T4) 402.4 382.4 392.4a
LSD for Tillage 0.13 0.13 0.09
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 327.5 307.5 317.5a
Post-Emergence (H2) 327.5 307.5 317.5a
Control (Ho) 327.4 307.4 317.4a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 327.5
2019 307.5
Significance NS
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

 Subhan, Amin, Ramzan, Hussain and Shah 239

that the application of tillage practices significantly with tillage (p≤ 0.05).
affected the penetration resistance of soil. The data
revealed that penetration resistance was lowest in soil Penetration resistance of soil after tillage
following mould board plough and highest when operation
ploughed with cultivator. On an average, the maximum The data obtained on penetration resistance of soil
penetration resistance of 582.9 N cm -2 was recorded in after application of tillage practices during 2018 and
soil receiving cultivator twice followed by planking 2019 are presented in Table 8. The average data revealed
while the minimum penetration resistance of 483.8 N cm- that penetration resistance of soil was significantly
2
was recorded in soil treated with mould board plough. affected by different tillage practices while non-
These findings are in line with the results obtained by significantly by herbicide application. On average, the
Khattak et al. (2006) who also found that the application maximum penetration resistance of 392.4 N cm-2 was
of mould board plough significantly lowered the obtained in soil which was ploughed by cultivator twice
penetration resistance of soil. The data further showed followed by planking while the lowest penetration
that the maximum penetration resistance of 531.7 N cm-2 resistance of 252.5 N cm-2 was recorded in soil treated
was recorded in soil receiving no-herbicides compared with mould board plough suggesting that the application
with the herbicide treated soils (Table 7). The of mould board plough reduced the penetration resistance
interactions between different parameters such as TxH, of soil. These results are in line with those of Khattak et
YxH, YxT, and YxTxH revealed non-significant effect al. (2006) who also found that primary tillage such as
on penetration resistance of soil. Ramazan et al. (2012) mould board plough significantly lowered the hardness
and Amin et al. (2014) also reported that the application and compaction of soil. The data further showed that the
of deep tillage implements such as mould board plough interactive effects of TxH, YxH, YxT, and YxTxH were
and chisel plough lowered the hardness and compaction non-significant on penetration resistance of soil. The
of soil. However, Idowu et al. (2019) reported that soil findings of Amin et al. (2014) and Ramazan et al. (2012)
physical parameters including mean weight diameter of are in line with our results, who also found that the
dry aggregates, wet aggregate stability, and penetrometer application of tillage tools such as mould board
resistance were mostly not significant with tillage, while ploughsignificantly reduced the penetration resistance of
three out of the six biological parameters (diversity soil.
index, total soil fungi, and AM fungi) were significant

Table 9: Penetration resistance (N cm-2) of soil after crop harvest at 0-20 cm soil depth as affected by tillage
practices and herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two years
MB Plough (T1) 225.0 255.0 240.0c
Disc Harrow (T2) 333.8 363.8 348.8b
Rotavator (T3) 317.4 347.4 332.4b
Cultivator (T4) 390.0 420.0 405.0a
LSD for Tillage 22.97 22.97 15.08
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 316.5 346.5 331.5a
Post-Emergence (H2) 316.6 346.6 331.6a
Control (Ho) 316.6 346.6 331.6a
LSD for Herbicide NS NS NS
Year
2018 316.5
2019 346.5
Significance NS
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH NS YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

240 Tillage practices affect soil properties and maize crop

Penetration resistance of soil after crop harvest tillage practices. On an average, the maximum penetration
resistance of 405.0 N cm-2 was obtained for soil receiving
The data obtained on penetration resistance of soil cultivator twice followed by planking while the lowest
obtained after maize harvest during 2018 and 2019 are penetration resistance of 240.0 N cm-2 was recoded for soil
presented in Table 9. The average data revealed that receiving mould board plough suggesting that the application
penetration resistance of soil was significantly affected by of mould board plough reduced the penetration resistance of

Table 10: Biological yield (kg ha-1) of maize as affected by tillage practices and herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two Year
MB Plough (T1) 10565 10685 10625a
Disc Harrow (T2) 9742 9862 9802c
Rotavator (T3) 10189 10309 10249b
Cultivator (T4) 9075 9195 9135d
LSD for Tillage 199 204 131
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 10483 10603 10543a
Post-Emergence (H2) 10113 10233 10173b
Control (Ho) 9083 9203 9143c
LSD for Herbicide 147 150 101
Year
2018 9893
2019 10013
Significance NS
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH *** YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicide, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Table 11: Grain yield (kg ha-1) of maize as affected by tillage and herbicide application
Year
Tillage 2018 2019 Average of two years
MB Plough (T1) 3461 3408 3434a
Disc Harrow (T2) 3305 3225 3265c
Rotavator (T3) 3407 3327 3367b
Cultivator (T4) 3190 3174 3182d
LSD for Tillage 64 71 44
Herbicide
Pre-Emergence (H1) 3471 3420 3446a
Post-Emergence (H2) 3377 3313 3345b
Control (Ho) 3175 3118 3146c
LSD for Herbicide 24 37 22
Year
2018 3341
2019 3284
Significance ***
Interaction Significance Interaction Significance
YxT NS YxH NS
TxH *** YxTxH NS
Means in last column followed by different letter(s) within each category (i.e., tillage, herbicides, year) are significantly different at 5% level of
probability: * = Significant at 5% level of probability.

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

 Subhan, Amin, Ramzan, Hussain and Shah 241

soil. The data obtained are in line with that of Khattak et al. reported by Din et al. (2013a and 2013b) who found that tillage
(2006) who also found that the application of mould board practices such as mould board plough significantly increased
plough and chisel plough significantly lowered the penetration the yield of corn crop both under rainfed and irrigated
resistance of soil. The data further revealed that herbicide conditions. Similar findings were also reported by Imran et al.
application did not exert any significant effect on penetration (2013) and Amin et al. (2013) where the application of deep
resistance of soil. Moreover, the interactions between different tillage implements significantly increased the grain yield of
factors such as TxH, YxH, YxT, and YxTxH reflected no- crops. However, Wasaya et al. (2017a) suggested that field
significant effect on penetration resistance of soil. Ramazan et should be prepared with chisel plough followed by cultivator to
al. (2012) and Amin et al. (2014) also reported that the obtain higher grain yield of maize and net returns under semi-
application of mould board plough significantly reduced the arid conditions of Pakistan. In another experiment, Wasaya et
penetration resistance of soil. al. (2017b) recommended after two years of experimentation
that farmers should cultivate the soil using chisel plough along
Biological yield of maize (kg ha-1) with cultivator and apply nitrogen in three splits to obtain
The biological yield of maize crop obtained during 2018 higher grain yield of maize hybrid.
and 2019 as affected by different tillage practices and herbicide
References
application are shown in Table 10. The mean data revealed that
the effects of tillage practices, herbicide application and their Ahmad, A. and P.R. Maurya. 1988. The effect of deep
interaction were significant on biological yield. On average, the tillage on irrigated wheat production in a semi-arid
maximum biological yield of 10625 kg ha-1 was obtained for zone of Nigeria. Proceedings of the 11th International
treatment receiving mould board plough while the lowest Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research
biological yield of 9135 kg ha-1 was recorded for treatment Organization (ISTRO), 11–15 July 1988, Edinburgh,
receiving cultivator twice followed by planking. Among Scotland, Vol. 2: 537-541.
herbicide treatments, the maximum biological yield of 10543 Al-Tahan, Y.H., M.H. Hassam and I.A. Hammadi. 1992.
kg ha-1 was recorded for treatment receiving herbicides at pre- Effect of plowing depth using different plow types on
emergence stage while the minimum biological yield of 9143 some physical properties of soil. AMA 23(4): 21-24.
kg ha-1 in the control treatment. Moreover, the interaction Amin, M., M.J. Khan and M.T. Jan. 2013. Effects of tillage
between TxH was significant, while that of YxT, YxH and practices and sowing methods on weeds and biological
YxTxH were non-significant for biological yield of maize. yield of wheat under semi-arid environment. Pakistan
These results are in line with those reported by Imran et al. Journal of Weed Science Research 19(1): 109-121.
(2013), Din et al. (2013a and 2013b), Amin et al. (2013) who Amin. M., M.J. Khan, M.T. Jan, M.U. Rahman, J. A. Tariq,
found that the application of tillage implements such as mould M. Hanif and Z. Shah. 2014. Effect of different tillage
board plough significantly increased the biological yield of practices on soil physical properties under wheat in
crops. semi-arid environment. Soil and Environment 33(1):
33-37.
Grain yield of maize (kg ha-1) Chikoye, D. and F. Ekeleme. 2003. Cover crops for
The statistical analysis of the two year data revealed that cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) management and
the effects of tillage practices, herbicide application and effects on subsequent yield. Weed Science Society of
interactions between TxH were significant on the grain yield of America 51(5): 792-797.
maize crop. On average, the maximum grain yield of 3434 kg Chikoye, D., S. Schulz and F. Ekeleme. 2004. Evaluation of
ha-1 was obtained for treatment ploughed with mould board integrated weed management practices for maize in the
plough while the minimum grain yield of 3182 kg ha-1 was northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Crop Protection.
recorded for treatment ploughed with cultivator twice followed 23(10): 895–900.
by planking. Among herbicide treatments, the maximum grain Din, S.U., M. Ramzan, M.U. Rahman, R. Khan, M, Waqas
yield of 3446 kg ha-1 was recorded for treatments that received and I.U Din. 2013a. Efficacy of tillage and mulching
herbicide at pre-emergence stage compared with 3146 kg ha-1 practices for weed suppression and maize yield under
in the control. The application of herbicides reduces the non-irrigated condition. Pakistan Journal of Weed
population of weeds and increases nutrient uptake in crop Science Research 19(1): 71-78
which results in maximum grain yield of maize crop (Khan et Din, S.U., M. Ramzan, R. Khan, M.U. Rahman, M.
al., 2002). Moreover, the interactions between TxH was Haroom, T.A. Khan and A. Samad.2013b. Impact of
significant, while that of YxT, YxH and YxTxH were non- tillage and mulching practices on weed biomass and
significant for grain yield of maize. Similar findings were yield components of maize under rainfed condition.

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020

242 Tillage practices affect soil properties and maize crop

Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research 19(2): 201- Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. 2019-20. Pakistan Bureau of
208. Statistics, Statistics House, 21-Mauve Area, G-9/1,
Ghuman, B.S., and H.S. Sur. 2001. Tillage and residue Islamabad, Pakistan.
management effects on soil properties and yields of Wiyo K.A., Z.M. Kasmekera and J.A. Qayyum. 1987.
rain-fed maize and wheat in a sub humid subtropical Effect of land preparation method and seed rates on
climate. Soil and Tillage Research 58: 1–10. weed population and wheat yield. MSc (Hons) thesis
Hobbs, P.R. 1986. Conservation agriculture: what is it and submitted to Department of Agronomy. N.W.F.P., Agri.
why is it important for future sustainable food University, Peshawar.
production? Journal of Agriculture Science 145:127- Ramazan, M., G.D. Khan, M. Hanif and S. Ali. 2012.
137. Impact of soil compaction on root length and yield of
Imran, A., J. Shafi, N. Akbar, W. Ahmad, M. Ali and S. corn (Zea mays) under irrigated condition. Middle East
Tariq. 2013. Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum L) Journal of Scientific Research 11(3): 382-385.
cultivars to different tillage practices grown under rice- Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torriea and D.A. Dickey. 1997.
wheat cropping system. Universal Journal of Plant Principle and Procedure of Statistic. A Biometrical
Science 1(4): 125-131. Approach, 3rd ED. McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. New
Kar, S., R.P. Samui, J. Parsad, C.P. Gupta, and T.K. York. USA. Pp.172-177.
Subramanyam.1986. Mulching and tillage depth Sunitha, N., R.P. Maheshwara and S. Malleswari, 2010.
combination for water management and rice production Effect of cultural manipulation and weed management
in low retentive permeable soil. Soil and Tillage practices on weed dynamics and performance of sweet
Research 6: 211-222. corn (Zea mays L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science 42:
Khan, M.A., K.B. Marwat, G. Hassan and N. Khan. 2002. 184-188.
Impact of weed management on maize (Zea mays L.) Temesgen, K.G., S. Goda and H. Abebe. 2001.
planted at night. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Development and evaluation of tillage implements for
Research 8(1-2): 57-62. maize production in the dry land areas of Ethopia.
Khan, F.U.H., A.R. Tahir and I.J. Yule. 2001. Intrinsic Seventh East and South Africa maize conference.11 th-
implication of different tillage practices on soil 15th February 2001: 308-312.
penetration resistance and crop growth. International Uddin, S. and M. Amin. 2019. Comparison of mechanical
Journal of Agriculture and Biology 1: 23–26. and chemical weed control in wheat-maize cropping
Khattak, M.K., M.J. Khan and M.S. Khan. 2006. Impact of system. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research 24
various tillage practices on soil moisture content, bulk (4): 303-313.
density and soil strength on clay loam soil condition Usman, K., S.K. Khalil and M.A. Khan. 2010. Impact of
under Rod-Kohi area of D.I. Khan. Sarhad Journal tillage and herbicides on weed density and some
Agriculture 22(1): 61–69. physiological traits of wheat under rice-wheat cropping
Khurshid, K., M. Iqbal, M.S. Arif and A. Nawaz. 2006. system. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 26(4):475-487.
Effect of tillage and mulch on soil physical properties Yalcin, H., E. Cakir and E. Aykas. 2005. Tillage parameters
and growth of maize. International Journal of and economic analysis of direct seeding minimum and
Agriculture and Biology 8: 593–596. conventional tillage in wheat. Journal of Agronomy
Lal, R. and B.A. Stewart, (eds). 2013. Principles of 4(4): 329-332.
Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems. Vol.
20, CRC Press.
Lal, R. 1993. Tillage effects on soil degradation, soil
resilience, soil quality, and sustainability. Soil and
Tillage Research 27(1–4): 1–8.

Soil Environ. 39(2): 231-242, 2020