Bangladesh Agron. J. 2024, 27(1): 1-8 DETERMINATION OF DIFFERENT DOSES OF HERBICIDE (CLIO) TO CONTROL WEEDS IN MAIZE FIELD M.R. Karim1*, J.A. Chowdhury1, T.A. Mujahidi2, M.M. Karim3, S. Mazumder4 and S.K. Paul1,5 1Agronomy Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur-1701, Bangladesh 2Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, RARS, Hathazari, Bangladesh 3Oilseed Research Center, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur-1701, Bangladesh 4Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh 5The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, 2308, NSW, Australia *Corresponding author, Email: mrkarimsau09@gmail.com (Received: 09 September 2024, Accepted: 31 March 2025) Keywords: Herbicide, CLIO, weeds, maize Abstract Various weed management practices including physical, mechanical, biological and chemical methods are commonly applied by the farmers. Of all possible weed control practices, use of chemicals (herbicides) stands first and a large number of herbicide groups having different mode of actions are commonly used. However, considering the effectiveness and safe use with eco-toxicological aspect, it is important to finalize the optimum dose before application to the farmer’s fields. An experiment was conducted at the research field of Agronomy Division, Joydebpur, Gazipur during the Kharif-1 season of 2017 and Rabi 2017-2018 to find out the optimum rate of herbicide (CLIO) to control weeds in maize field for getting higher yield. Six treatments viz., i) CLIO @35 mL ha−1, ii) CLIO @55 mL ha−1, iii) CLIO @75 mL ha−1, iv) CLIO @95 mL ha−1, v) CLIO @115 mL ha−1 and vi) control were tested on maize (cv. BARI Hybrid maize-9). Herbicides were sprayed at 10 Days After Sowing (DAS) according to treatments. Weed samples were taken at 25 and 45 DAS. Major weeds flora were Bathua (Chenopodium album), Durba (Cynadon dactylon), Anguli (Digitaria sanguinalis), Helencha (Jussica repens), Hatishur (Heliotropium indicum), Shama (Echinochloa crusgalli), Bangchora, Swetlomy (Gnaphalium japonicum), Mutha (Cyperus rotundus), Shaknote (Amaranthus viridis), Gaicha (Paspalum commersonii), Chapra (Eleusine indica), Bon Masur (Vicia sp.). Weed dry matter weight significantly varied in different treatments. Weed relative density were highest in no weeding in both Kharif-I, 2017 and Rabi 2017-18. The highest dry weight of weeds at 25 DAS (14.15 g m−2) and (15.16 g m−2) and at 45 DAS (44.31 g m−2) and (48.37 g m−2), respectively in Kharif-1, 2017 and Rabi 2017-18 were found in control plot whereas the lowest in spraying of CLIO @115 gm m−2 both at 25 and 45 DAS. The maximum weed control efficiency (WCE) over control both at 25 DAS (84.95% in Kharif-, 2017 and 89.95% in Rabi 2017-18) and at 45 DAS (80.48% in Kharif- I, 2017 and 89.45% in Rabi 2017-18), respectively in spraying of CLIO @115 mL ha−1. The maximum grain yield both in Kharif-I, 2017(9.77 t ha−1) and Rabi 2017-18 (9.51 t ha−1) was found in spraying of CLIO @115 mL ha−1 which was statistically identical with spraying of CLIO @75 mL ha−1 and 95.00 mL ha−1 and lowest in no weeding. The highest marginal benefit–cost ratio (MBCR) both in Kharif-1, 2017 (2.28) and Rabi 2017-18 (2.41) was observed in spraying of CLIO @95 mL ha−1 and lowest in no weeding. Results revealed that application of CLIO @ 95 mL ha−1 at 10 DAS of maize is economical viable, and it needs further trial to investigate eco-toxicological consequences to environment and living organisms after application. Introduction Maize is an important cereal crop in Bangladesh. It ranks 3rd after rice and wheat. Its demand and production area is increasing day by day. It is used as feed for poultry, fodder for 2 Karim et al. livestock and also used as various food items. Hybrid maize is a high yield potential cereal crop (Jahan, 2014). Its yield potential varies depending on variety, season and management practices. Among management options, weeding is the most critical one. Weed infestation reduces crop yield every year. Weeds cause around 33% of total crop loss in Asia and other countries (Oerke, 2006., Kobir et al., 2019, Paul et al., 2019., Kobir et al., 2021., Paul et al., 2022., Paul et al., 2024b). On an average 37.3% of crop produce is damaged by weeds in Bangladesh. Various weed management practices including physical, mechanical, biological and chemical methods are commonly applied by the farmers. Of all possible weed control practices, use of chemicals (herbicides) stands first and a large number of herbicide groups having different mode of actions are commonly used. However, considering the effectiveness and safe use with eco-toxicological aspect, it is important to finalise the optimum dose before application to the farmer’s fields. In Bangladesh different chemicals were used to control weeds (Hajong et al., 2015, Mondal et al., 2015, Hajong et al., 2016, Khan et al., 2016, Haque, 2017). These chemicals are very much costly and have residual effects (Ahmed et al., 2016, Paul and Naidu, 2022, Paul et al., 2024a,). This is also harmful for the environment and health of human beings. The indiscriminant use of herbicide destroys soil health (Paul et al., 2023, Paul et al., 2024a, Paul et al., 2024b). Literature revealed that CLIO is effective at lower dose in controlling weeds in maize field. It is a post emergence herbicide which contains a new active ingredient namely Topramezone, a new subclass of the Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicide. As a result, the possibility of adverse effect of this herbicide is lower than other herbicides. Hence, the experiment was conducted to determine the optimum dose of herbicide (CLIO) to control weeds in maize field. Materials and Methods An experiment was conducted at the research field of Agronomy Division, Joydebpur, Gazipur during the Kharif-1 season of 2017 and Rabi 2017-2018 to find out the optimum rate of herbicide (CLIO) to control weeds in maize field for getting higher yield. The land was medium high and the soil was clay loam in texture. Six treatments viz., i) CLIO @35 mL ha−1, ii) CLIO @55 mL ha−1, iii) CLIO @75 mL ha−1, iv) CLIO @95 mL ha−1, v) CLIO @115 mL ha−1, vi) no weeding were tested in this study. The unit plot size was 3m × 4m. Hybrid maize (var. BARI Hybrid maize-9) was shown on 03 April 2017 (for Kharif-1 season of 2017) and 17 November (for Rabi 2017-2018) with 60 × 20 cm spacing. Maize was fertilized with 190-90- 75-80-7 kg ha−1 of N, P, K, S, Zn (FRG, 2012) as urea, triple superphosphate (TSP), muriate of potash (MOP), gypsum and zinc sulphate. One third of N, whole amount of TSP, MOP, gypsum, zinc sulphate and boric acid were applied as basal. Remaining 2/3 N was top dressed at 25 and 45 (days After Sowing) DAS. Three irrigations were given to the crop at 21, 45 and 60 DAS. Herbicides were sprayed with a knapsack sprayer at 10 DAS. All other operations were done as and when required. Weed samples were collected at 25 and 45 DAS. Data on yield components were taken from 10 plants and grain yield was taken from whole plot. Collected data were analyzed statistically using MSTAT-C program. The Relative Density (RD) and weed control Efficiency (WCE) were calculated by the following formula. Relative Density (RD) = No. of specific weed species Total no. of weeds ×100 Weed Control Efficiency (WCE) = Dry wt. of control plot -Dry wt. of specific plot Dry wt. of control plot ×100 Results and Discussion The results revealed that CLIO has better weed control efficacy in maize field fields. It contains a new active ingredient namely Topramezone, a new subclass of the HPPD-inhibiting Determination of different doses of herbicide to control weeds in maize field 3 herbicide. As a result, the possibility of adverse effect of this herbicide is lower than other herbicides. Major weeds flora in the experiment was Bathua (Chenopdium album), Durba (Cyradon dactylon), Anguli (Digitaria sanguinalis), Helencha (Jussica repens), Hatishur (Heliotropium indicum), Shama (Echinochola crusgalli), Bangchora, Swetlomy (Gnaphlium japonicum), Mutha (Cyperus rotundus), Shaknote (Amaranthus viridis), Gaicha (Paspalum commersonii), Chapra (Elusine indica), and Bon Masur (Vicia sp.). Weed relative density were highest in no weeding condition in both Kharif-1, 2017 and Rabi 2017-18 (Table 1). Table 1. Weed infestation in maize field at 30 and 60 days after seedling (DAS) Treatments Weeds species Number of weeds m−2 Relative Density (%) Local name Scientific name 25 DAS 45 DAS 25 DAS 45 DAS Kharif 2017 Rabi 2017- 18 Kharif 2017 Rabi 2017- 18 Kharif 2017 Rabi 2017- 18 Kharif 2017 Rabi 2017-18 CLIO @35 mL ha−1 Bathua Chenopodium album 2 5 6 2 2.74 12.50 5.79 4.90 Durba Cynadon dactylon 14 11 17 5 19.18 2.78 16.35 5.89 Anguli Digitaria sanguinalis 3 0 6 0 4.11 4.17 5.79 9.80 Helencha Jussica repens 3 4 7 6 4.11 16.67 6.73 5.89 Hatishur Heliotropium indicum 1 2 3 2 1.37 4.17 2.88 3.90 Shama Echinochloa crusgalli 25 11 32 10 34.25 12.50 30.74 28.43 Bangchora 3 2 4 4 4.11 2.78 3.84 9.80 Swelomy Gnaphalium japonicum 0 1 1 - 0 - 0.96 0 Mutha Cyperus rotundus 3 3 7 2 4.11 19.44 6.73 7.85 Shaknote Amaranthus viridis 1 2 2 3 1.37 9.72 1.92 5.89 Gaicha Paspalum commersonii 2 4 1 - 2.74 4.17 0.96 0 Chapra Eleusine indica 16 8 18 8 21.91 5.55 17.31 11.76 Bon Masur Vicia sp. - 7 - 1 - 5.55 - 5.89 Total 73 84 104 93 100 100 100 100 CLIO @55 mL ha−1 Bathua C. album 5 5 9 5 10.64 5.45 12.50 2.74 Durba C. dactylon 1 1 2 6 2.13 6.36 2.78 19.18 Anguli Digitaria sanguinalis 0 0 3 10 0 14.55 4.17 4.11 Helencha Jussica repens 6 6 12 6 12.76 7.28 16.67 4.11 Hatishur Heliotropium indicum 0 0 3 4 0 6.36 4.17 1.37 Shama Echinochloa crusgalli 12 12 9 29 25.53 22.73 12.50 34.25 Bangchora 0 0 2 10 0 2.78 4.11 Swetlomy Gnaphalium japonicum - - - 0 - 1.81 - 0 Mutha Cyperus rotundus 11 11 14 8 23.41 10.91 19.44 4.11 Shaknote Amaranthus viridis 3 3 7 6 6.38 7.28 9.72 1.37 Gaicha Paspalum commersonii 1 1 3 0 2.13 0.91 4.17 2.74 Chapra Eleusine indica 6 6 4 12 12.76 10 5.55 21.91 Bon Masur Vicia sp. 2 2 4 6 4.26 6.36 5.55 - 4 Karim et al. Total 47 47 72 87 100 100 100 100 CLIO @75 mL ha−1 Bathua Chenopodium album 2 2 2 5 4.65 4.90 3.92 4.90 Durba Cynadon dactylon 5 5 6 1 11.65 5.89 11.76 5.89 Anguli Digitaria sanguinalis 0 0 0 0 0 9.80 0 9.80 Helencha Jussica repens 6 6 8 6 13.95 5.89 15.68 5.89 Hatishur Heliotropium indicum 2 2 3 0 4.65 3.90 5.89 3.90 Shama Echinochloa crusgalli 10 10 8 12 23.25 28.43 15.68 28.43 Bangchora 4 4 7 0 9.30 9.80 13.72 9.80 Swetlomy Gnaphalium japonicum - - - - - 0 - 0 Mutha Cyperus rotundus 2 2 3 11 4.65 7.85 5.89 7.85 Shaknote Amaranthus viridis 3 3 3 3 6.98 5.89 5.89 5.89 Gaicha Paspalum commersonii - - - 1 - 0 - 0 Chapra Eleusine indica 8 8 8 6 18.60 11.76 15.68 11.76 Bon Masur Vicia sp. 1 1 3 2 2.32 5.89 5.89 5.89 Total 43 43 51 94 100 100 100 100 CLIO @95 mL ha−1 Bathua Chenopodium album 1 1 2 5 4.55 2.74 6.90 4.90 Durba Cyradon dactylon 1 1 3 1 4.55 19.18 10.34 5.89 Anguli Digitaria sanguinalis - - - 0 - 4.11 - 9.80 Helencha Jussica repens 5 5 3 6 22.72 4.11 10.34 5.89 Hatishur Heliotropium indicum - - 2 0 - 1.37 6.90 3.90 Shama Echinochloa crusgalli 3 3 5 12 13.63 34.25 17.24 28.43 Bangchora 1 1 - 0 4.55 4.11 - 9.80 Swetlomy Gnaphalium japonicum - - 2 - - 0 6.90 0 Mutha Cyperus rotundus 6 6 5 11 27.27 4.11 17.24 7.85 Shaknote Amaranthus viridis 4 4 - 3 18.18 1.37 - 5.89 Gaicha Paspalum commersonii - - - 1 - 2.74 - 0 Chapra Eleusine indica - - 5 6 - 21.91 17.24 11.76 Bon Masur Vicia sp. 1 1 2 2 4.55 - 6.90 5.89 Total 22 22 29 101 100 100 100 100 CLIO @115 mL ha−1 Bathua Chenopodium album - - 3 2 - 4.90 10.00 2.74 Durba Cynadon dactylon - - 2 5 - 5.89 6.67 19.18 Anguli Digitaria sanguinalis 1 1 1 0 4.54 9.80 3.33 4.11 Helencha Jussica repens 11 11 8 6 50.00 5.89 26.66 4.11 Hatishur Heliotropium indicum 1 1 2 2 4.54 3.90 6.67 1.37 Shama Echinochloa crusgalli - - - 10 - 28.43 - 34.25 Determination of different doses of herbicide to control weeds in maize field 5 Bangchora 4 4 3 4 18.19 9.80 10.00 4.11 Swetlomy Gnaphalium japonicum 1 1 2 - 4.54 0 6.67 0 Mutha Cyperus rotundus - - 3 2 - 7.85 10.00 4.11 Shaknote Amaranthus viridis 4 4 - 3 18.19 5.89 - 1.37 Gaicha Paspalum commersonii - - - - - 0 - 2.74 Chapra Eleusine indica - - 6 8 - 11.76 20.00 21.91 Bon Masur Vicia sp. - - - 1 - 5.89 - - Total 22 22 30 64 100 100 100 100 No weeding Bathua Chenopodium album 5 5 16 2 4.90 12.50 5.45 4.90 Durba Cyradon dactylon 6 6 7 5 5.89 2.78 6.36 5.89 Anguli Digitaria sanguinalis 10 10 16 0 9.80 4.17 14.55 9.80 Helencha Jussica repens 6 6 8 6 5.89 16.67 7.28 5.89 Hatishur Heliotropium indicum 4 4 7 2 3.90 4.17 6.36 3.90 Shama Echinochloa crusgalli 29 29 25 10 28.43 12.50 22.73 28.43 Bangchora 10 10 - 4 9.80 2.78 9.80 Swetlomy Gnaphalium japonicum 0 0 4 - 0 - 1.81 0 Mutha Cyperus rotundus 8 8 12 2 7.85 19.44 10.91 7.85 Shaknote Amaranthus viridis 6 6 8 3 5.89 9.72 7.28 5.89 Gaicha Paspalum commersonii 0 0 1 - 0 4.17 0.91 0 Chapra Eleusine indica 12 12 13 8 11.76 5.55 10 11.76 Bon Masur Vicia sp. 6 6 7 1 5.89 5.55 6.36 5.89 Total 102 102 124 122 100 100 100 100 Weed dry matter weight was significantly varied in different treatments. The highest dry weight of weeds at 25 DAS (14.15 g m−2) and (15.16 gm m−2) and at 45 DAS (44.31 g m−2) and (48.37 gm m−2), respectively in Kharif-1, 2017 and Rabi 2017-18 were found in control plot whereas the lowest in spraying of CLIO @115 mL ha−1 both at 25 and 45 DAS (Table 2). Table 2. Dry weight of weeds and weed control efficiency in maize field at 25 DAS and 45 DAS as affected by different doses of CLIO Treatments At 25 DAS At 45 DAS Weed dry Weight (gm m−2) Weed control Efficiency (%) Weed dry weight (gm m−2) Weed control Efficiency (%) Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 T1 7.75 8.76 45.22 55.24 19.95 23.94 54.98 57.92 T2 4.10 5.11 71.02 81.02 16.56 18.50 62.67 68.62 T3 3.15 4.16 77.73 75.73 11.56 13.44 74.16 77.17 T4 2.20 3.21 84.45 89.47 8.85 8.84 80.03 88.14 T5 2.13 3.14 84.95 89.95 8.65 8.58 80.48 89.45 T6 14.15 15.16 - - 44.31 48.37 - - T1= CLIO @35 mL ha−1, T2=CLIO @55 mL ha−1, T3= CLIO @75 mL ha−1, T4= CLIO @95 mL ha−1, T5= CLIO @115 mL ha−1, T6= No weeding 6 Karim et al. The results corroborate with previous investigation (Mondal et al., 2015, Paul et al., 2015a, Paul et al., 2015c, Paul et al., 2017). The maximum WCE over control both at 25 DAS (84.95% in Kharif-1, 2017 and 89.95% in Rabi 2017-18) and at 45 DAS (80.48% in Kharif-1, 2017 and 89.45% in Rabi 2017-18) respectively in spraying of CLIO @115 mL ha−1 (Table 2). The maximum grain yield both in Kharif-1, 2017(9.77 t ha−1) and Rabi 2017-18(9.51 t ha−1) was found in spraying of CLIO @115 mL ha−1 which was statistically identical with spraying of CLIO @ 75 mL ha−1 and 95 mL ha−1 and lowest in no weeding (Table 3). Table 3. Yield and yield contributing characters of maize as affected by different weed management methods T1= CLIO @35 mL ha−1, T2=CLIO @55 mL ha−1, T3= CLIO @75 mL ha−1, T4= CLIO @95 mL ha−1, T5= CLIO @115 mL ha−1, T6= No weeding The maximum benefit–cost ratio (MBCR) in Kharif-1, 2017 (2.28) was obtained from CLIO @75 mL ha−1 which closely followed by CLIO @95 mL ha−1 of same MBCR but in Rabi 2017- 18 (2.41) both performed similar with spraying of CLIO @75 mL ha−1 followed by @95 mL ha−1 and lowest in no weeding (Table 4). Table 4. Cost and Benefit analysis of maize as influenced by different weed control management practice Price: 15 Tk Kg−1. T1= CLIO @35 mL ha−1, T2=CLIO @55 mL ha−1, T3= CLIO @75 mL ha−1, T4= CLIO @95 mL ha−1, T5= CLIO @115 mL ha−1, T6= No weeding, MBCR = maximum benefit–cost ratio Treatments Plant height (cm) Cob length (cm) Cob diameter (cm) 1000-grains weight (gm) Grain yield (t ha−1) Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 T1 236.3 248.7 21.13 25.12 4.58 4.67 391.8 387.5 8.35 8.52 T2 219.4 248.4 20.20 18.34 4.87 4.75 295.5 312.1 8.45 8.77 T3 224.2 226.3 17.86 21.44 5.46 5.57 292.6 324.7 8.62 8.24 T4 248.4 236.8 21.43 22.12 4.47 4.82 397.7 392.8 9.56 9.44 T5 212.3 224.2 18.33 20.21 4.85 4.79 324.1 295.5 9.77 9.51 T6 226.3 235.4 17.67 21.13 5.11 5.44 312.1 292.7 4.25 4.37 CV (%) 14.56 13.45 14.44 8.59 32.72 21.35 13.76 13.92 12.98 16.22 LSD (0.05) 3.76 4.22 3.97 3.97 2.95 4.21 4.57 4.25 2.97 3.11 Treatments Gross return (Tk ha−1) Total variable cost (Tk ha−1) Gross margin (Tk ha−1) MBCR Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 Kharif-1, 2017 Rabi 2017-18 T1 93,424 99,455 80,700 80,700 12,724 18,755 2.16 2.23 T2 93,280 1,09,512 80,900 80,900 12,380 28,612 2.15 2.35 T3 1,03,880 1,13,896 81,200 81,200 22,680 32,696 2.28 2.40 T4 1,04,002 1,14,580 81,400 81,400 22,602 33,180 2.28 2.41 T5 1,06,070 1,16,373 83,828 83,828 22,242 32,545 2.27 2.39 T6 83,812 89,805 79,900 79,900 3,912 9,905 2.05 2.12 Determination of different doses of herbicide to control weeds in maize field 7 Conclusion Chemical weed control technique is always prioritized first to the farmers due to its’ quick response and effective weed control efficacy. However, selection of an optimized dose for each and every herbicide is crucial considering its’ effectivity and eco-toxicological aspect. A chemical herbicide named CLIO was used to finalize an optimum dosage for weed control in maize field. The herbicide CLIO contains a new active ingredient named Topramezone, a new subclass of the HPPD-inhibiting herbicide. As a result, the possibility of adverse effect of this herbicide is lower than other herbicides. From the experimental results and findings, it might be concluded that CLIO has effective weed control efficacy on different weed species in maize fields. Application of CLIO @ 95 mL ha−1 at 10 DAS of maize is economically profitable and it needs further trials to investigate eco-toxicological consequences to environment and living organisms after application. References Ahmed, M., S. Ishtiaque, M.M.R. Sarker, A.S.M.M.R. Khan, A.K. Choudhury, M.K. Hasan, F. Hossain, S.K. Paul, and M.U. Islam. 2016. Hybrid maize and chilli intercropping in the hilly areas of bandarban. Bangladesh Agron.J. 19(1): 45-48. Hajong, P., S. Mondal, D. Saha, S. Ishtiaque and S. Paul. 2015. An economic study on panikachu production in Jessore district. J. Sylhet Agril. Univ. 2(1): 137-141. Hajong, P., S. Mondal, B. Sikder, S. Paul and D. Saha. 2016. Existing value chain assessment of date palm is selected areas of greater Jessore districts. J. Sylhet Agril. Univ. 3(1): 53-58. Haque, M.M. 2017. Allelopathic effect of sorghum plants parts water extract to control weeds in wheat field. Haya Saudi J. Life Sci. 2(1): 6-9. Khan, M., J. Chowdhury, M. Razzaque, M. Ali, S. Paul and M. Aziz. 2016. Dry matter production and seed yield of soybean as affected by post-flowering salinity and water stress. Bangladesh Agron. J. 19(2): 21-27. Kobir, M.S., M.O. Ali, M. J. Hossain, M.S. Alam, S. Paul, P. Hajong and M.H. Rahman. 2021. Growth and yield of chickpea as affected by detopping time and height. Bangladesh Agron. J. 24(2): 109-113. Kobir, M.S., M.R. Rahman, A.M. Islam, S. Paul, M.M. Islam, M.N. Farid and P. Hajong. 2019. Yield performance of some maize varieties as influenced by irrigation management at different growth stages. Res. Agric., Livest. Fish. 6(1): 57-67. Jahan, M.A.H.S. 2014. Effect of different weed control methods in wheat. Research report of wheat research centre. pp. 42-46. Mondal, H., S. Mazumder, S. Roy, T. Mujahidi and S. Paul. 2015. Growth, yield and quality of wheat varities as affected by different levels of nitrogen. Bangladesh Agron. J.18(1): 89-98. Oerke, E. C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. Agric. Sci.144(1): 31-43. Paul, S.K., S. Mazumder, S. Mondal, S.K. Roy and S. Kundu. 2015a. Intercropping coriander with brinjal forbrinjal fruit and shoot borer insect suppression. World J. Agric. Res. 11(5): 303-306. Paul, S.K., S. Mazumder, S. Mondal, S.K. Roy and S. Kundu 2015b. Intercropping coriander with chickpea for pod borer insect suppression. World J. Agric. Sci. 11(5): 307-310. Paul, S.K., S. Mazumder, T.A. Mujahidi, S.K. Roy and S. Kundu 2015c. Optimization of herbicide Teana 9 EC dose for controlling weeds in brinjal. Bangladesh Agron. J. 18: 113-119. Paul, S.K., Y. Xi., P. Sanderson and R. Naidu. 2023. Investigation of the physicochemical properties of amine-modified organoclays influenced by system pH and their potential to adsorb anionic herbicide. Geoderma, 436, 116560. Paul, S.K., S. Akther, T.A. Mujahidi. and S. Kundu. 2017. Effect of different doses of herbicide (Metro 70WG) on weed control in maize field. Bangladesh Agron. J. 20(1): 109-111. Paul, S.K., S. Mazumder. and R. Naidu. 2024a. Herbicidal weed management practices: history and future prospects of nanotechnology in an eco-friendly crop production system. Heliyon.10(5): e26527 Paul, S.K. and R. Naidu. 2022. Layered aluminosilicate nanoskeletons: the structure and properties of nanoherbicide formulations. Adva. Agron. 175: 301-345. 8 Karim et al. Paul, S.K., M. Nuruzzaman., T.C., and R. Naidu. 2019. Aluminosilicate nano-skeleton to firm the structure and properties of nano-herbicide formulations. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Contamination Site Remediation Conference. pp. 302-303. Paul, S.K., Y. Xi, P. Sanderson, A.K. Deb, M.R. Islam and R. Naidu. 2023. Investigation of herbicide sorption-desorption using pristine and organoclays to explore the potential carriers for controlled release formulation. Chemosphere, 337, 139335. Paul, S.K., Y. Xi, S. Peter. and R. Naidu. 2024b. Controlled release herbicide formulation for effective weed control efficacy. Sci. Rep. 14(1): 4216. Paul, S.K. and P.S. XY. 2022. RN Controlled release formulation of herbicide: a safe technique for effective weed management practice. In: Proceedings of the international CleanUp Conference. pp. 462-463.