Soil management and weed control affect wheat productivity and resilience in semi-arid systems

Kelvin Harrison Diri; Gani Stybayev; Meisam Zargar; Aliya Baitelenova; Bekzak Amantayev; Saltanat Kulzhanova; Yeldos Kulzhabayev; Rakhiya Yelnazakyzy; Kelvin Harrison Diri; Gani Stybayev; Meisam Zargar; Aliya Baitelenova; Bekzak Amantayev; Saltanat Kulzhanova; Yeldos Kulzhabayev; Rakhiya Yelnazakyzy

doi:10.3934/agrfood.2026016

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2026, Volume 11, Issue 2: 300-319. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2026016

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Soil management and weed control affect wheat productivity and resilience in semi-arid systems

1.
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Agronomy, Saken Seifullin Kazakh Agrotechnical University, Astana, Kazakhstan
2.
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Agriculture, RUDN University, 117198 Moscow, Russia
3.
Center of Excellence of the AEO "Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools", Astana, Kazakhstan

Received: 12 March 2026 Revised: 30 April 2026 Accepted: 18 May 2026 Published: 29 May 2026

Soil management and herbicide selection are vital to wheat production in semi-arid agroecosystems; however, their relative contributions to crop physiology and yield formation remain poorly quantified under field conditions, particularly in semi-arid environments. This study, conducted during the 2025–2026 growing season, evaluated three sulfonylurea-based treatments: Metsulfuron methyl, tribenuron methyl + metsulfuron methyl (mixture), and thifensulfuron methyl in spring wheat under two management systems, conventional tillage (CT) and stubble retention (SR), across two sites in Northern Kazakhstan. Results indicated that canopy development, physiological performance, and grain yield were significantly enhanced (p < 0.05) under CT compared with stubble retention, with yield increases ranging from 14% to 65% depending on site and treatment. Herbicide-treated plots recorded a significant 24%–30% higher grain yield than the untreated control, although differences among active ingredients were generally modest. Physiological indices indicated no evidence of herbicide-induced stress at recommended rates, as chlorophyll content (SPAD) and the effective quantum yield of photosystem Ⅱ remained stable at heading. Strong and moderate positive correlations were observed between grain yield and tillering coefficient and grains per spike (r = 0.86*** and r = 0.47**, respectively). Yield path analysis further revealed site-specific mechanisms, with tillering coefficient exerting the strongest direct effect on yield at Site A (β = 0.60), and grains per spike dominating at Site B (β = 0.55). Hierarchical clustering further revealed that soil management defined overall trait structure, whereas herbicide-related differences were secondary and expressed primarily under favorable conditions. The research findings highlight the predominant role of soil management in regulating wheat productivity and physiological performance. This further emphasizes the importance of integrating effective weed control with adaptive soil management strategies to improve yield stability in semi-arid agroecosystems.
- wheat,
- sulfonylurea herbicide,
- soil management,
- grain yield,
- chlorophyll fluorescence
Citation: Kelvin Harrison Diri, Gani Stybayev, Meisam Zargar, Aliya Baitelenova, Bekzak Amantayev, Saltanat Kulzhanova, Yeldos Kulzhabayev, Rakhiya Yelnazakyzy. Soil management and weed control affect wheat productivity and resilience in semi-arid systems[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2026, 11(2): 300-319. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2026016

Related Papers:

Abstract

Soil management and herbicide selection are vital to wheat production in semi-arid agroecosystems; however, their relative contributions to crop physiology and yield formation remain poorly quantified under field conditions, particularly in semi-arid environments. This study, conducted during the 2025–2026 growing season, evaluated three sulfonylurea-based treatments: Metsulfuron methyl, tribenuron methyl + metsulfuron methyl (mixture), and thifensulfuron methyl in spring wheat under two management systems, conventional tillage (CT) and stubble retention (SR), across two sites in Northern Kazakhstan. Results indicated that canopy development, physiological performance, and grain yield were significantly enhanced (p < 0.05) under CT compared with stubble retention, with yield increases ranging from 14% to 65% depending on site and treatment. Herbicide-treated plots recorded a significant 24%–30% higher grain yield than the untreated control, although differences among active ingredients were generally modest. Physiological indices indicated no evidence of herbicide-induced stress at recommended rates, as chlorophyll content (SPAD) and the effective quantum yield of photosystem Ⅱ remained stable at heading. Strong and moderate positive correlations were observed between grain yield and tillering coefficient and grains per spike (r = 0.86*** and r = 0.47**, respectively). Yield path analysis further revealed site-specific mechanisms, with tillering coefficient exerting the strongest direct effect on yield at Site A (β = 0.60), and grains per spike dominating at Site B (β = 0.55). Hierarchical clustering further revealed that soil management defined overall trait structure, whereas herbicide-related differences were secondary and expressed primarily under favorable conditions. The research findings highlight the predominant role of soil management in regulating wheat productivity and physiological performance. This further emphasizes the importance of integrating effective weed control with adaptive soil management strategies to improve yield stability in semi-arid agroecosystems.

References

[1]	Curtis T, Halford NG (2014) Food security: The challenge of increasing wheat yield and the importance of not compromising food safety. Ann Appl Biol 164: 354–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12108 doi: 10.1111/aab.12108
[2]	FAO (2020) FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Data. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/.
[3]	Romanovska P, Schauberger B, Gornott C (2023) Wheat yields in Kazakhstan can successfully be forecasted using a statistical crop model. Eur J Agron 147: 126843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.126843 doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2023.126843
[4]	Karatayev M, Clarke M, Salnikov V, et al. (2022) Monitoring climate change, drought conditions and wheat production in Eurasia: The case study of Kazakhstan. Heliyon 8: e08660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08660 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08660
[5]	Kaplin V, Urakchintseva G (2017) Weed communities and their effect on productivity of bread spring wheat in dry steppe of Western Kazakhstan. Bulg J Agric Sci 23. Available from: https://www.agrojournal.org/23/05-13.html.
[6]	Oerke EC, Dehne HW, Schönbeck F (1994) Estimated crop losses due to pathogens, animal pests and weeds, In: Oerke EC et al. Eds., Crop production and crop protection, Academic Press, 72–88.
[7]	Hickmann S (2006) Conservation agriculture in northern Kazakhstan and Mongolia.
[8]	Sultangazin U, Muratova N, Doraiswamy P, et al. (2003) Estimation of weed infestation in spring crops using MODIS data, In: 2003 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Proceedings, IEEE, 392–394. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2003.1293786
[9]	Erzhanova KM, Zholamanov KK, Salpiev R (2014) Influence of herbicides on weed plants on crops of spring wheat in Western Kazakhstan. P Natl Acad Sci Kazakhstan 3: 21–23.
[10]	Sandhu BS, Dhaliwal NS (2016) Chemical weed management to increase productivity of wheat. Indian J Weed Sci 48: 381. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00099.X doi: 10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00099.X
[11]	Woyessa D (2022) Weed control methods used in agriculture. Am J Life Sci Innov 1: 19–26. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajlsi.v1i1.413 doi: 10.54536/ajlsi.v1i1.413
[12]	Abdriisov DN, Rzaeva VV (2019) Effect of herbicides and their mixtures on weed infestation and yield of spring wheat. Agrar Bull Urals 186: 4–11. https://doi.org/10.32417/article_5d52af43ddcb37.37896191 doi: 10.32417/article_5d52af43ddcb37.37896191
[13]	Salama S (2004) Effects of handweeding and some herbicides on wheat plant and its associated weeds. J Plant Prod 29: 1801
[14]	Lei Q, Zhong J, Chen SF, et al. (2023) Microbial degradation as a powerful weapon in the removal of sulfonylurea herbicides. Environ Res 235: 116570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116570 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116570
[15]	Rao VS (2000) Principles of weed science, CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482279603
[16]	Zarzecka K, Gugała M (2003) The effect of herbicide applications on the content of ascorbic acid and glycoalkaloids in potato tubers. Plant Soil Environ 49: 237–240. https://doi.org/10.17221/4119-PSE doi: 10.17221/4119-PSE
[17]	Dos Santos JC, Mendes MC, do Rosário JG, et al. (2015) Effect of sulfonylurea herbicide application timing on annual ryegrass control in wheat. Weed Control J 14: 117–127. https://doi.org/10.7824/rbh.v14i2.284 doi: 10.7824/rbh.v14i2.284
[18]	Feng FX, Huang GB, Chai Q, et al. (2010) Tillage and straw management impacts on soil properties, root growth, and grain yield of winter wheat in Northwestern China. Crop Sci 50: 1465–1473. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.10.0590 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.10.0590
[19]	Basir A, Jan MT, Alam M, et al. (2016) Impacts of tillage, stubble management and nitrogen on wheat production and soil properties. Can J Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1139/CJSS-2015-0139
[20]	Laban TL, Van Zyl PG, Liebenberg SC, et al. (2026) Growth and physiological responses of two sugarcane cultivars exposed to elevated surface ozone. S Afr J Sci 122. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2026/21915 doi: 10.17159/sajs.2026/21915
[21]	Bartold M, Kluczek M (2024) Estimating of chlorophyll fluorescence parameter Fv/Fm for plant stress detection at peatlands under Ramsar Convention with Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. Ecol Inform 81: 102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102603 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102603
[22]	Suleimenov M, Kiyas A, Kaskarbayev Z (2014) Long-term continuous spring wheat productivity in the semi-arid steppe of North Kazakhstan. Int J Agri Policy Res 2: 296–300.
[23]	O'Leary GJ, Connor DJ (1997) Stubble retention and tillage in a semi-arid environment: Soil water accumulation during fallow. Field Crop Res 52: 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00034-8 doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00034-8
[24]	Peng Z, Ting W, Haixia W, et al. (2015) Effects of straw mulch on soil water and winter wheat production in dryland farming. Sci Rep 5: 10725. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10725 doi: 10.1038/srep10725
[25]	Li F, Wang Z, Dai J, et al. (2014) Summer fallow soil management–impact on rainfed winter wheat. Acta Agr Scand B 64: 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2014.919347 doi: 10.1080/09064710.2014.919347
[26]	Mukherjee I, Das TK, Kumar A, et al. (2015) Behavior and bioefficacy of tribenuron-methyl in wheat under irrigated agro-ecosystem in India. Environ Monit Assess 187: 610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4826-6 doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-4826-6
[27]	Scott BJ, Eberbach PL, Evans J, et al. (2010) Stubble retention in cropping systems in Southern Australia: Benefits and challenges. EH Graham Centre Monograph No. 1. Available from: http://www.csu.edu.au/research/grahamcentre/.
[28]	Dao TH (1991) Field decay of wheat straw and its effects on metribuzin and S-ethyl metribuzin sorption and elution from crop residues. J Environ Qual 20: 203–208. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1991.00472425002000010032x doi: 10.2134/jeq1991.00472425002000010032x
[29]	Wolf TM, Harrison SK, Hall FR, et al. (2000) Optimizing postemergence herbicide deposition and efficacy through application variables in no-till systems. Weed Sci 48: 761–768. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0761:OPHDAE]2.0.CO;2 doi: 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0761:OPHDAE]2.0.CO;2
[30]	Zargar M, Bayat M, Lyashko M, et al. (2019) Postemergence herbicide applications impact Canada thistle control and spring wheat yields. Agron J 111: 2874–2880. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.02.0125 doi: 10.2134/agronj2019.02.0125
[31]	Damalas CA (2004). Herbicide tank mixtures: Common interactions. Int J Agric Biol 1: 209–212.
[32]	Zargar M, Pakina E, Plushikov V, et al. (2017) Efficacy of reducing herbicide doses and biological components for weed control in wheat fields. Bulg J Agric Sci 23: 980–989.
[33]	Galon L, David FA, Forte CT, et al. (2018) Chemical management of weeds in corn hybrids. Weed Biol Manag 18: 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/wbm.12141 doi: 10.1111/wbm.12141
[34]	Sondhia S (2008) Determination of imazosulfuron persistence in rice crop and soil. Environ Monit Assess 137: 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9741-z doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9741-z
[35]	Singh S, Punia SS, Balyan RS, et al. (2008) Efficacy of tribenuron-methyl applied alone and tank mix against broadleaf weeds of wheat. Indian J Weed Sci 40: 109–120.
[36]	Hamouz P, Hamouzová K, Novotná K (2015) Effects of spring herbicide treatments on winter wheat growth and grain yield. Sci Agric Bohem 46: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/sab-2015-0010 doi: 10.1515/sab-2015-0010
[37]	Ojha R, Sarkar A, Aryal A, et al. (2018a) Correlation and path coefficient analysis of wheat genotypes. Farming Manag 3: 136–141. https://doi.org/10.31830/2456-8724.2018.0002.19 doi: 10.31830/2456-8724.2018.0002.19
[38]	Nasri R, Kashani A, Paknejad F, et al. (2014) Correlation, path analysis and stepwise regression in yield and yield components in wheat. Indian J Fundam Appl Life Sci 4: 188–198.
[39]	Jaisi S, Thapa A, Poudel MR (2021) Study of correlation coefficient and path analysis among yield parameters of wheat: A review. ITech Mag 3: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.26480/itechmag.03.2021.01.04 doi: 10.26480/itechmag.03.2021.01.04
[40]	Parida PK, Somasundaram E, Krishnan R, et al. (2024) UAV-measured multispectral vegetation indices for predicting LAI, SPAD chlorophyll, and yield of maize. Agriculture 14: 1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14071110 doi: 10.3390/agriculture14071110
[41]	Agostinetto D, Perboni LT, Langaro AC, et al. (2016) Changes in photosynthesis and oxidative stress in wheat plants submitted to herbicide application. Planta Daninha 34: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582016340100001 doi: 10.1590/S0100-83582016340100001
[42]	Todorova D, Aleksandrov V, Anev S, et al. (2022) Photosynthesis alterations in wheat plants induced by herbicide, soil drought or flooding. Agronomy 12: 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020390 doi: 10.3390/agronomy12020390
[43]	Todorova D, Aleksandrov V, Anev S, et al. (2023) Comparative study of photosynthesis performance of herbicide-treated young triticale plants during drought and waterlogging stress. Agronomy 13: 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13081992 doi: 10.3390/agronomy13081992

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2026 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)