Next Article in Journal
Bamboo: Global Occurrence and Its Significance as Food and Related Products
Previous Article in Journal
Indigenous Knowledge on Edible Wild Yams (Kumbu) in the Mount Cameroon Region: Towards Domestication for Enhanced Food Security
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Crops
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/crops5020010
crops-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of ALS and 4-HPPD Inhibitor Herbicides on Maize Lines

by
José I. Saavedra-Avila
1,*,
J. Jesús García Zavala
1,
Amalio Santacruz Varela
1,
Fernando Castillo González
1 and
José Crossa
2,3
1
Programa de Genética, Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Montecillo, Carretera Mexico-Texcoco Km. 36.5, Texcoco 56264, Mexico
2
Programa de Estadística, Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Montecillo, Carretera Mexico-Texcoco Km. 36.5, Texcoco 56264, Mexico
3
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT), El Batán Km. 45, Texcoco 56237, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Crops 2025, 5(2), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020010
Submission received: 15 November 2024 / Revised: 6 January 2025 / Accepted: 14 January 2025 / Published: 14 March 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nicosulfuron and topramezone are herbicides with different mechanisms of action, and are recommended for weed control in maize (Zea mays L.). The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of both herbicides, at increasing doses of 0, 1× and 3×, equivalent to 0, 60, and 180 g ai ha−1 for nicosulfuron, and 0, 33.6, and 100.8 g ai ha−1 for topramezone, on physiological and agronomic characteristics in 29 maize lines, including S2, S3 and S4, using an alpha-lattice incomplete block design. The cluster analysis divided our genotypes into two groups for both herbicides, based on their higher or lower fresh weight. The results showed a reduction in the SPAD index for both herbicides at 7 days after application, and nicosulfuron caused a reduction in the green matter weight of 33.4%. Similarly, nicosulfuron caused a delay and a reduction in its doses, after an initial increase, for all the agronomic variables, female flowering (FF), male flowering (MF), plant height (PH), ear height (EH), and grain weight (GW), in doses of 60 and 180 g ai ha−1, while topramezone only affected PH (1×–3×) and EH (3×). When comparing the applications of both herbicides on the maize genotypes, a difference in female and male flowering of 5.09 and 4.86 days, respectively was observed. A differential response and greater damage to nicosulfuron were observed in maize genotypes, with respect to topramezone applications.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is a crop of great importance in the world, characterized by its high productivity and high export volumes. It is cultivated in more than 170 regions globally, and its main production areas are regions of North and South America [1]; however, as with all crops, one of the main problems in producing this cereal is weed competition, which can cause yield losses of 18 to 65% [2,3,4,5]. To avoid considerable losses in maize yield due to weeds, it is necessary to keep the crop free of weeds within six weeks after planting [6], and selective herbicides, such as nicosulfuron and topramezone, applied postemergence, are used for this purpose [7,8,9].
Topramezone [3-(4,5-dihydro-isoxazol-3-yl)-4-methanesulfonyl-2-methyl-phenyl](5-hydroxy-1-methyl1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanone is an inhibitor of the enzyme 4-hydroxyphenyl-pyruvate dioxygenase (4-HPPD), which impacts carotenoid biosynthesis, causing bleaching chlorosis in susceptible plants [10,11,12]. On the other hand, nicosulfuron inhibits the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), a precursor of the production of essential amino acids such as valine, leucine and isoleucine [13]; its inhibition in plants causes deformation, yellowing and necrosis [14].
Nicosulfuron (2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamide) is a herbicide widely used in agriculture, and it has been shown that it can cause damage to some hybrids and lines of maize [15,16,17,18]. On the other hand, some studies indicate that topramezone applications do not cause severe damage to maize [19]. There are several studies about phytotoxicity in maize [20,21,22,23]; however, there are few precedents with which to compare the effect of both herbicides on different maize genotypes, which is why the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of nicosulfuron and topramezone on different Mexican maize lines postemergence.

2. Materials and Methods

Twenty-nine Mexican maize genotypes from the genetic breeding program of the Colegio de Postgraduados, consisting of lines from S2 to S4, were evaluated (Table S1).

2.1. Field Experiment

This experiment was established in incomplete blocks under an alpha-lattice design, in a row irrigation system, where two herbicides (nicosulfuron and topramezone), and three doses of each herbicide (the control, the commercial dose and triple the commercial dose) were evaluated on 29 maize lines, with two replications. Each experimental unit consisted of furrow measuring 3 m long by 0.80 m wide, with an approximate population of 41,667 plants ha−1. The experiment was conducted in the spring of 2021, in the experimental field of the Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Montecillo. After sowing, Atrazine herbicide (Gesaprim® Calibre90; Syngenta, Wilmington, DE, USA) was applied pre-emergence at a rate of 2 kg ha−1. At 18 days after planting, the insecticide Lambdacyhalothrin (Karate Zeon® 5 CS; Syngenta, Brussels, Belgium) was applied to control insects, mainly Spodoptera frugiperda, at a dose of 300 cc ha−1. Before the application of the treatments, thinning was carried out, leaving one plant per planting point every 30 cm; the harvest stage of the experiment was carried out 175 days after planting.

2.2. Application of the Treatments

When the plants of the maize lines had three to four true leaves, nicosulfuron was applied at increasing doses of 0 (the control), 60 (the commercial dose) and 180 g ai ha−1 (three times the recommended commercial dose); similarly, for the herbicide topramezone, increasing doses of 0 (the control), 33.6 (the commercial dose) and 100.8 g ai ha−1 (three times the recommended commercial dose) were applied. The treatments were applied with an electric sprayer (Pandora; Taizhou, China) calibrated to spray at a rate of 180 L ha−1.

2.3. Variables Evaluated

2.3.1. SPAD Index

The relative chlorophyll content (SPAD index) [24] was evaluated at 7 and 21 days after the application of the treatments, using an atLEAF® meter (CHL STD; atLEAF®; Wilmington, DE, USA). Measurements were taken from the center of the leaf laminae, avoiding measuring the leaf veins.

2.3.2. Fresh Weight

At 21 days after the application of the treatments (DAT), the fresh weight (FW) of the genotypes under study was evaluated. Three plants were cut from the center of the furrow of each experimental unit and placed in mesh bags that had been previously labeled; the fresh samples were immediately weighed on a balance (esnova®; Model TH-II; Capacity 10 kg × 1 g).

2.3.3. Agronomic Variables

The variables plant height (PH) and ear height (EH) in centimeters were evaluated, and the average of three randomized plants in competition was obtained from each experimental unit 110 days after planting; PH and EH were measured from the ground to the top node before the male ear and to the insertion node of the first ear, respectively. Days to male flowering (MF) and female flowering (FF) were taken from all plants of each experimental unit, from germination until 50% of the plants released pollen and presented turgid stigmas, respectively. The weight of 200 grains in grams (WG) was also obtained, and 200 corn kernels from each experimental unit (WG) were weighed on a balance (esnova®; Model TH-II; Capacity 10 kg × 1 g).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Two analyses of variance (p ≤ 0.05) were performed with the data obtained. The first one was an individual analysis and was performed within each herbicide (nicosulfuron and topramezone), and the second one was a combined analysis of variance and was performed across both herbicides (nicosulfuron + topramezone) using the generalized linear mixed model with the Proc Glimmix command of the SAS® OnDemand for Academics online software (https://www.sas.com/es_mx/software/on-demand-for-academics.html) (accessed on 20 February 2022). For mean comparisons, the LSMeans command of the same software was used, with a specific probability (p ≤ 0.05). The average fresh weight for each herbicide, corresponding to its doses and genotypes, was used for the cluster analysis, and data were scaled. The hierarchical clustering method was applied using Euclidean distance and a complete linkage approach. The doses evaluated included 0, 1× and 3× for each herbicide. The analysis was performed using the “hclust” function of the R software [25]. The optimal number of clusters (K) was determined using the “NbClust” package [26], and a dendrogram was generated with the “factoextra” package using the “fviz_dend” function [27].

3. Results

3.1. SPAD Index

The results of the greenness index at 7 DAT showed a decreasing trend for progressive doses of the herbicides nicosulfuron and topramezone. The reduction in the greenness index under commercial doses was 8.3 and 3.4% compared with that under the control doses. This trend of reduction was further exacerbated in the triple doses of both herbicides, with decreases between 18.3% (nicosulfuron) and 14.6% for topramezone compared with the untreated controls. The trend of observations at 21 DAT continued in the same way for the herbicide nicosulfuron, with a reduction in the index by 6.2% in its commercial dose and 23.3% in its triple doses; however, the herbicide topramezone showed a lower reduction in the SPAD index in its commercial dose; this decreased by only 0.5% and 3.1% in its triple dose compared with its control dose (Figure 1).

3.2. Fresh Weight

The results of the combined analysis of variance showed significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between nicosulfuron and topramezone for the fresh weight variable. The average fresh weight was higher in lines in which topramezone was applied (631.7 g) compared with those in which nicosulfuron was applied (420.7 g) (Figure 2).
The results also showed that all lines presented differences in fresh weight, with line 28 (Criollo del Mezquital S2) having the highest fresh weight for both nicosulfuron and topramezone (683.6 and 951.8 g); however, line 3, Zacatecas 58 S2) was the most affected by nicosulfuron (202.8 g). Regarding topramezone applications, the lowest fresh weight was obtained in line 16 (Mexico grupo 10 S3) (325.1 g) (Figure 3A). Cluster analysis grouped the genotypes into two groups based on their fresh weight for both herbicides. For nicosulfuron, 48.3% were grouped in the lowest fresh weight group and 51.7% in the highest. For topramezone, 41.4% were classified in the highest fresh weight group, while 58.6% were in the lowest (Figure 3B).
In turn, nicosulfuron presented a reduction of 9.92% in fresh weight (FW) in its commercial dose and of 33.02% in its triple dose, compared with its control dose; however, no significant differences in green matter weight were observed in all maize lines under topramezone application in different doses (Table 1).

3.3. Agronomic Variables

Nicosulfuron affected male (MF) and female (FF) flowering in maize lines at increasing doses, delaying flowering by 2.19 and 2.13 days at the 60 g ai ha−1 dose; this trend increased at the 180 g ai ha−1 dose, delaying MF and FF by 4.47 and 4.85 days compared with the control dose. In contrast, both flowering periods were not affected when topramezone was applied. Plant and ear height were affected by applications of nicosulfuron, decreasing by 17.01 and 9.86 cm at a dose of 60 g ai ha−1. The highest dose of nicosulfuron caused a reduction of 18.64 and 13.78 cm compared with its control dose; similarly, plant height was affected by applications of topramezone, reducing by 9.18 and 24.82 cm at a dose of 33.6 and 100.8 g ai ha−1. However, ear height did not show differences under the commercial dose (33.6 g ai ha−1), except with the dose of 100.8 g ai ha−1, which reduced it by 11.82 cm compared with the control. Another variable affected by nicosulfuron was the weight of 200 grains (WG), which showed a reduction of 7.19 and 11.26% with doses of 60 and 180 g ai ha−1 compared with the control. In contrast, topramezone did not affect this variable (Table 2).
Discrepancies were observed in female and male flowering due to the effect of each herbicide, with variations of 5.09 and 4.86 days for FF and MF; however, there were no significant differences between herbicides for plant height (PH), ear height (EH) and grain weight (GW) (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Applications with topramezone at increasing doses exhibited the least damage in maize genotypes compared with nicosulfuron [28]. Some have authors studied phytotoxicity in 60 maize genotypes by the application of different herbicides, including nicosulfuron and topramezone at 1× and 2× doses; their genotypes exhibited a lower degree of phytotoxicity with applications of topramezone, compared with that observed with nicosulfuron. In the present study, both herbicides caused a reduction in the greenness index (SPAD) at 7 DAT; however, at 21 DAT, the maize lines treated with topramezone recovered faster. These results were reflected in the weight of green matter, showing that the application of nicosulfuron reduced the weight of green matter by 33.4% with respect to applications with topramezone. The 1× and 3× doses of nicosulfuron caused symptoms of phytotoxicity in susceptible genotypes, such as growth arrest and necrosis, contrary to what occurred in applications with topramezone, in which bleaching chlorosis was observed only in the high doses, and this disappeared soon after. Also, a differential response was evidenced in all genotypes under study. Some authors mention that the selectivity of herbicides is mainly based on the differential metabolism between weed species and crops: susceptible weed species have a limited detoxification capacity, while tolerant crops have enhanced metabolism for herbicide detoxification. The metabolic half-life for nicosulfuron varies from 1 to 5 h in tolerant plants and reaches > 20 h in susceptible plants, while the selectivity of topramezone in maize has been quantified at more than 1000-fold with respect to susceptible weed species [12,29,30]. In relation to the agronomic variables associated with the effect of increasing doses of nicosulfuron, applications of this herbicide caused a delay in MF and FF and a reduction in PH and EH. The same effect on PH was observed with topramezone; however, EH was only affected when topramezone was applied at three times its commercial dose, while FF and MF were not affected by applications of topramezone, which could indicate the greater selectivity of this herbicide on the maize crop. Authors such as [16] mention that tolerance and susceptibility to herbicides are related to the genetic variability of plants and can be altered by different factors such as mutation, selection pressure, and crossing.

5. Conclusions

Cluster analysis divided the genotypes into two groups based on their fresh weight for both herbicides. No differences were observed when comparing both herbicides in terms of grain weight, plant height and ear height; however, male and female days to flowering were affected when comparing both herbicides. In terms of increasing doses, nicosulfuron caused greater damage in our evaluated lines, contrary to applications with topramezone. This suggests that topramezone could be an alternative in integrated weed management due to its low toxicity in maize.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/crops5020010/s1: Table S1: List of lines studied in the Colegio de Postgraduados improvement program.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.I.S.-A. and J.J.G.Z.; methodology, J.I.S.-A.; software, J.I.S.-A., J.C. and F.C.G.; validation, J.C. and F.C.G.; formal analysis, J.I.S.-A., J.C. and F.C.G.; investigation, J.I.S.-A. and J.J.G.Z.; resources, J.J.G.Z.; data curation, J.I.S.-A., J.C. and F.C.G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.I.S.-A., J.J.G.Z., A.S.V., F.C.G., J.C.; writing—review and editing, J.I.S.-A., J.J.G.Z., A.S.V., F.C.G. and J.C.; visualization, J.I.S.-A.; supervision, J.J.G.Z., A.S.V., F.C.G. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has not received external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available upon request.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the field staff of the Colegio de Postgraduados, headed by Carlos Espinosa Ramírez, for their valuable support during this experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wang, J.; Hu, X. Research on corn production efficiency and influencing factors of typical farms: Based on data from 12 corn-producing countries from 2012 to 2019. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mhlanga, B.; Chauhan, B.S.; Thierfelder, C. Weed management in maize using crop competition: A review. Crop Prot. 2016, 88, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Galon, L.; Bagnara, M.A.M.; Gabiatti, R.L.; Reichert, F., Jr.; Basso, F.J.M.; Nonemacher, F. Interference periods of weeds infesting maize crop. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 10, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gharde, Y.; Singh, P.; Dubey, R.; Gupta, P. Assessment of yield and economic losses in agriculture due to weeds in India. Crop Prot. 2018, 107, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rehman, A.; Qamar, R.; Safdar, M.E.; MR Javeed, H.; Maqbool, R.; Farooq, N.; Shahzad, M.; Ali, M.; Tarar, Z.H. Critical competition period of Parthenium hysterophorus L. in spring maize (Zea mays L.). Plant. Daninha 2020, 38, e020214143. [Google Scholar]
  6. Imoloame, E.; Omolaiye, J. Impact of different periods of weed interference on Growth and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.). J. Trop. Agric. 2016, 93, 245–257. [Google Scholar]
  7. Giraldeli, A.L.; Silva, G.S.d.; Silva, A.F.M.; Ghirardello, G.A.; Marco, L.R.d.; Victoria Filho, R. Efficacy and selectivity of alternative herbicides to glyphosate on maize. Rev. Ceres 2019, 66, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mahto, R.; Kumar, C.; Singh, R.K. Weed Management in maize (Zea mays L.) through 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitor herbicide with or without a methylated seed oil adjuvant. J. Pest. Res. 2020, 32, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, J.; Gao, H.; Guo, Z.; Meng, Y.; Yang, M.; Li, X.; Yang, Q. Adaptation responses in C4 photosynthesis of sweet maize (Zea mays L.) exposed to nicosulfuron. J. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 214, 112096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ndikuryayo, F.; Moosavi, B.; Yang, W.-C.; Yang, G.-F. 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors: From chemical biology to agrochemicals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 8523–8537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Chen, P.; Xu, C.; Qiu, Y.; Wang, Y. A novel Zn2+-coordination fluorescence probe for sensing HPPD inhibitors and its application in environmental media and biological imaging. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 273, 116144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Grossmann, K.; Ehrhardt, T. On the mechanism of action and selectivity of the corn herbicide topramezone: A new inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Chakraborty, M.; Das, R.; Mondal, S.K. Study of acetolactate synthase and its mechanism of inhibition by sulfonylurea active ingredients: Amidosulfuron, nicosulfuron, cyclosulfuron–in-silico approach. Int. J. Chem. Environ. Sci. 2020, 1, 7–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, L.; Riaz, M.; Song, B.; Song, X.; Huang, W.; Bai, X.; Zhao, X. Study on phytotoxicity evaluation and physiological properties of nicosulfuron on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 998867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Choe, E.; Williams, M.M. Expression and comparison of sweet corn CYP81A9s in relation to nicosulfuron sensitivity. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 3012–3019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Oliveira, M.F.; Trindade, R.d.S.; de Oliveira, A.C.; Sallum, D.B.; Sallum, D.B. Tolerância diferencial de híbridos de milho ao herbicida nicosulfuron. Embrapa 2021, 1–14. Available online: https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1136317 (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  17. Ashburn Poppell, C.; Hayes, R.M.; Mueller, T.C. Dissipation of nicosulfuron and rimsulfuron in surface soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 4581–4585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Regitano, J.B.; Koskinen, W.C. Characterization of nicosulfuron availability in aged soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 5801–5805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gitsopoulos, T.K.; Melidis, V.; Evgenidis, G. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to post-emergence applications of topramezone. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 1091–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Spader, V.; Vidal, R.A. Seletividade e dose de injúria econômica de nicosulfuron aplicado em diferentes estádios de desenvolvimento da cultura do milho. Ciê. Rur. 2001, 31, 929–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cavalieri, S.; Oliveira Junior, R.; Constantin, J.; Biffe, D.; Rios, F.; Franchini, L. Tolerância de híbridos de milho ao herbicida nicosulfuron. Planta Daninha 2008, 26, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tizhe, T.; Alonge, S.O.; Iortsuun, D.N.; Adekpe, D.I.; Batta, K. Evaluation of the effect of nicosulfuron at different times of application on the chemical component of maize (Zea mays). NUS Biosci. 2022, 14, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tizhe, T.D.; Alonge, S.O.; Adekpe, D.I.; Ioortsuun, D.N. Evaluation of the effect of nicosulfuron and bentazone herbicides on growth and yield performance of two maize varieties in Mubi, Nigeria. Asian J. Agric. 2023, 7, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Novichonok, E.; Novichonok, A.; Kurbatova, J.; Markovskaya, E. Use of the atLEAF+ chlorophyll meter for a nondestructive estimate of chlorophyll content. Photosy 2016, 54, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Team, R.C. RA Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020. Available online: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370298755636824325 (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  26. Charrad, M.; Ghazzali, N.; Boiteau, V.; Niknafs, A. NbClust: An R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. J. Stat. Softw. 2014, 61, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kassambara, A. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses, R package version 1; 2016. Available online: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370004235968325765 (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  28. Bónis, P.; Árendás, T.; Szőke, C.; Sugár, E.; Fodor, N.; Darkó, É.; Marton, L. Sensitivity of maize to herbicides in experiments in Martonvásár in 2015. Acta Agrar. Debr. 2015, 66, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brown, H.M. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 1990, 29, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carvalho, S.J.P.d.; Nicolai, M.; Ferreira, R.R.; Figueira, A.V.d.O.; Christoffoleti, P.J. Herbicide selectivity by differential metabolism: Considerations for reducing crop damages. Sci. Agric. 2009, 66, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crops 05 00010 g001
Figure 1. SPAD index percentage at 7 and 21 DAT in maize lines according to the effect of increasing doses of ALS and 4-HPPD-inhibitory herbicides. Averages followed by a common letter are not significantly different.
Figure 1. SPAD index percentage at 7 and 21 DAT in maize lines according to the effect of increasing doses of ALS and 4-HPPD-inhibitory herbicides. Averages followed by a common letter are not significantly different.
Crops 05 00010 g001
Crops 05 00010 g002
Figure 2. Comparison of means (LsMeans) of herbicides of the generalized mixed model applied in maize lines for fresh weight. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different at a probability of 0.05.
Figure 2. Comparison of means (LsMeans) of herbicides of the generalized mixed model applied in maize lines for fresh weight. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different at a probability of 0.05.
Crops 05 00010 g002
Crops 05 00010 g003
Figure 3. (A) Comparison of means (LsMeans) of the generalized mixed model in maize lines for fresh weight by effect of nicosulfuron and topramezone. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05). (B) Dendrogram of the 29 lines evaluated for each herbicide.
Figure 3. (A) Comparison of means (LsMeans) of the generalized mixed model in maize lines for fresh weight by effect of nicosulfuron and topramezone. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05). (B) Dendrogram of the 29 lines evaluated for each herbicide.
Crops 05 00010 g003
Table 1. Fresh weight in maize lines by application of increasing doses of nicosulfuron and topramezone.
Table 1. Fresh weight in maize lines by application of increasing doses of nicosulfuron and topramezone.
DosesNicosulfuronTopramezone
Control491.02SE (±)14.33a601.48(±)22.92ns
1×442.29(±)14.33b654.05(±)22.92
3×328.90(±)14.33c639.55(±)22.92
SE: standard error; ×: commercial doses. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05). ns: not significant.
Table 2. Response of maize lines to the effect of increasing doses of ALS and 4-HPPD inhibitor herbicides on different agronomic variables.
Table 2. Response of maize lines to the effect of increasing doses of ALS and 4-HPPD inhibitor herbicides on different agronomic variables.
VariablesDoses g ai ha−1NicosulfuronDoses g ai ha−1Topramezone
MF (days)073.93SE (±)0.76c071.76(±)0.35ns
6076.12(±)0.76b33.671.1(±)0.35
18078.4(±)0.76a100.871(±)0.35
FF (days)076.96(±)0.79c074.88(±)0.40ns
6079.09(±)0.79b33.673.83(±)0.40
18081.81(±)0.79a100.873.88(±)0.40
PH (cm)0217.53(±)3.94a0218.06(±)2.52a
60200.52(±)3.94b33.6208.88(±)2.52b
180198.89(±)3.93b100.8193.24(±)2.52c
EH (cm)0129.1(±)4.09a0125.74(±)1.90a
60119.24(±)4.10b33.6123.84(±)1.90a
180115.32(±)4.09b100.8113.92(±)1.91b
GW (g)050.9(±)1.53a051.05(±)1.44ns
6047.24(±)1.53b33.652.62(±)1.44
18045.17(±)1.53b100.850.98(±)1.44
SE: standard error; ns: not significant. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Comparison of nicosulfuron and topramezone on agronomic variables in maize lines.
Table 3. Comparison of nicosulfuron and topramezone on agronomic variables in maize lines.
VariablesHerbicidesMeansSE Pr > F
FF (days)Topramezone74.20(±)0.50b0.0185
Nicosulfuron79.29(±)0.50a
MF (days)Topramezone71.29(±)0.50b0.0204
Nicosulfuron76.15(±)0.50a
PH (cm)Topramezone206.71(±)2.44ns0.7868
Nicosulfuron205.64(±)2.44
EH (cm)Topramezone121.14(±)2.76ns0.9863
Nicosulfuron121.22(±)2.76
GW (g)Topramezone51.55(±)1.24ns0.1643
Nicosulfuron47.77(±)1.24
SE: standard error; ns: not significant. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saavedra-Avila, J.I.; García Zavala, J.J.; Santacruz Varela, A.; Castillo González, F.; Crossa, J. Effect of ALS and 4-HPPD Inhibitor Herbicides on Maize Lines. Crops 2025, 5, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020010

AMA Style

Saavedra-Avila JI, García Zavala JJ, Santacruz Varela A, Castillo González F, Crossa J. Effect of ALS and 4-HPPD Inhibitor Herbicides on Maize Lines. Crops. 2025; 5(2):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saavedra-Avila, José I., J. Jesús García Zavala, Amalio Santacruz Varela, Fernando Castillo González, and José Crossa. 2025. "Effect of ALS and 4-HPPD Inhibitor Herbicides on Maize Lines" Crops 5, no. 2: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020010

APA Style

Saavedra-Avila, J. I., García Zavala, J. J., Santacruz Varela, A., Castillo González, F., & Crossa, J. (2025). Effect of ALS and 4-HPPD Inhibitor Herbicides on Maize Lines. Crops, 5(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop