Weed Management in

Oil Palm
 WEEDS IN OIL PALM
• grasses,
• broad-leaf weeds (erect, creeping and
woody types),
• ferns and brackens,
• sedges,
• epiphytes,
• unwanted volunteers and
• others
Weeds can affect crops in many
ways such as by reducing crop
growth and yields through
competition for nutrient, sunlight
and space
Under open conditions, weeds can
immobilize substantial amount of
plant nutrients N, P, K, Mg
Vegetation Dry matter Nutrients immobilized
production (kg/ha)
(kg/ha)
N P K Mg

Mikania1 5986 76 15 120 11

Ischaemum 11390 73 6 188 9

muticum2
12240 84 - - -
 In yielding palms, presence of Mikania
micrantha reduced ffb yield by almost
20% over 4.75 years of recording
(representing 23.8 tonnes FFB per ha).

Cover crops Yield % %

(t/ha) reduction

Pueraria + 118.03 100 -

Centrosema

Mikania 94.32 80 20
micrantha

Source : adapted from Gray and Hew (1968).

 Competitive effect of Ischaemum
muticum on 5 years old oil palm
Treatments 3 years total ffb % %
yield (t/ha) reduction

Blanket 12.2+ 14.0 + 100

spraying 20.5 = 46.7
Circle 10.5 + 10.5 + 78 22
spraying 15.5 = 36.5

Source : adapted from Teo et al. (1990).

 GROUND COVERS
• protect the ground, especially the topsoil,
from soil erosion, runoff and noxious
weeds,
when the soil is bare after land is cleared for
planting
when the creeping legume cover crop (LCC)
gets shaded out by the mature palm canopy.
• and subsequently, they serve to
immobilize and recycle nutrients.
Chiu et. al. (2008) identified 2 stages of
ground cover management
STAGES PLANTINGS & AGE GROUND
COVERS

1 replanting, immaturity LCC

plantings up to early PLANTING
mature plantings (3 – 5
years after planting).
2 exceed 5 years and LCC COVERS of
dies from shading or ferns, soft
herbicides spraying grasses or
noxious weeds
legume covers, or natural ground covers
are maintained, four types of weeding
operations (Corley et al., 1976).
1. clean weeding of palm circle to prevent
competition from weeds and to facilitate loose
fruit collection,
2. strip weeding to provide access for harvesting
and other field operations,
3. selective spot weeding to remove noxious
weeds from the legume covers or natural
ground covers and,
4. periodic control of legume covers or natural
ground covers if growth is too vigorous.
Circle spraying

Strip spraying

Spot spraying
 PLANTING OF CREEPING LCC
• Sound method of preventive weed
management
• usually a mixture of Pueraria phaseoloides,
Centrosema pubescens, Calopogonium
mucunoides, Calopogonium caeruleum
and Mucuna cochinchinensis.
• recently, planting of a new shade tolerant
species, Mucuna bracteata
LCC is an important preventive measure
for exclusion of weeds.
 BENEFITS OF LCC
• many agronomic advantages (reducing
soil erosion; addition of organic matter;
improving soil aeration and structure;
improving soil nutrient status; conserving
moisture; fixing atmospheric nitrogen etc.).
• in Malaysia and Indonesia showed that
palms under LCC cover produce 5.6% -
32.1% higher crop than palms under
natural cover and improvement mainly
contributed from bigger and more bunches
 Improvement of oil palm yields
planted with LCC
FFB yield in t/ha/year Palm References
age
Naturals % (years)
LCC
increase
Mathews and Saw, 2007
19.26 18.24 6 4-6 (Mucuna bracteata )

21.00 15.90 32 6-9 Chiu and Siow, 2007

(Mucuna bracteata )

22.80 19.40 18 3 -12 Yeow et al., 1982

(Pueraria phaseoloides )
 LEGUME COVERS
Legume covers reduce soil
erosion by breaking the
dispersive power of
raindrops and also act as
an impediment to surface
runoff. The faster the
establishment of covers
the greater is the
reduction of surface
runoff and soil loss (Ling
1978).
 Mean rain run-off at different stages of
cover establishment (Ling 1978)
Cumulative loss for the
duration
0-2nd 5th-7th 8th-10th
month month month
Rainfall in mm 269.2 311.3 286.7

Runoff Bare 56.9 70.8 64.3

in mm
Legumes 46.9 18.8 2.4

naturals 3.6 3.5 1.4

 Mean soil loss at different stages of
cover establishment (Ling 1978)
Cumulative loss for the
duration
0-2nd 5th-7th 8th-10th
month month month
Rainfall in mm 269.2 311.3 286.7

Soil Bare 13,503 30,201 11,237

loss in
kg/ha Legumes 9043 1753 9

naturals 12 5 6
 Mucuna bracteata
• Goh et al. (2008) reported that in Sabah,
planting of Mucuna bracteata
decreased runoff losses and erosion in
the first 18 months by 30% compared
with bare ground.
 Mucuna bracteata
• higher production of total biomass (about
10.2-14.8 t/ha) and almost 3 times more
biomass than conventional LCC (Chiu et al.
(2001); Lee et al., (2005); Shaharudin and
Jamaluddin (2007)).
• Presence of Mb cover is efficient in
immobilizing nutrients of the biomass of the
old stand during replanting.
• Mb cover captures up to 19% N, 37% P and
17% K and 23% Mg from the old stand (Goh
et al 2008) .
 LCC gave positive yield response
• LCC have been shown to reduce weed
competition as compared to mixed cover
such as grasses, Nephrolepis biserrata and
giving positive yield response.
• Yeow et al. (1982) reported that the LCC plot
planted in inland soil over 10 years able to
produce higher yield (additional of 3.2 t/ha or
17% more yield than natural ground cover at
19.6 t/ha).
NATURAL GROUND COVERS
• Plants accepted as natural covers are
Paspalum conjugatum, Ottochloa nodosa,
Axonopus compressus, Adiantum
caudatum and Nephrolepis biserrata.
• In some cases, erect broadleaved plants
like Asystasia gangetica, Ageratum
conzoides and Borreria latifolia are
accepted as natural cover crops.
NATURAL GROUND COVERS
 EFFECT OF
BARE GROUND
• Top soils contain many essential elements
and organic matters. Loss of top soil is
serious in bare ground conditions.
• It was reported that in Sabah, planting of
Mucuna bracteata decreased runoff losses
by 30% compared with bare ground and
erosion declined from 1484 kg/ha to 80
kg/ha in the first 18 months (Goh et al.,
2008).
WEED CONTROL & METHODS
• Manual weeding
• Mechanical control
• Cultural control
• Legal control
• Animal grazing
• Biological control
• Chemical control
Weed control aims at general reduction of
weed flora and if possible the eradication
of noxious weeds in the cropping areas.
INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT

• Definition of IPM given by PANEL OF

Experts on Integrated Pest Control, Rome,
FAO 1968
• In the broad sense, pests include animal
pests, insect pests, pathogens, weeds and
others.
• Integrated weed management = “using all
the available tools to manage weeds in an
economical and environmentally safe
manner”
INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT

• mainly • complimented by
planting of LCC, manual weeding,
maintenance of mechanical
ground covers, slashing,
EFB mulching, organized
frond placement, livestock grazing,
biological control
measures and
the spraying of
weedicides
 WEED CONTROL IN REPLANTING FIELDS

• best time for weed control or even eradication

of noxious weeds
• Clidemia hirta, Hedyotis verticellata,
Stenochlaena palustris, Tetracera spp,
Momordica charantia,
Ischaemum muticum,
Imperata cylindrica,
Dieffenbachia sp,
Schismatoglottis sp,
many jungle saplings,
vops, etc.
 WEED CONTROL IN NURSERY
Nursery preparation
Soils for filling
polybags
Mulching
Manual weeding
Grass cutting
Spraying herbicides
WEED CONTROL IN IMMATURE PLANTING
Planting LCC / spraying metsulfuron-methyl to
control encroachment
EFB mulching
Not > 45 day rounds
Training of workers
Use spray shield
 WEED CONTROL IN MATURE PLANTING

maintain interrow natural ground covers

Nephrolepis biserrata, Paspalum conjugatum,
Ottochloa nodosa,
periodic spraying of noxious weeds
use of labour efficient application equipment /
techniques
 SELECTIVE SPOT SPRAYING

Weeds difficult to control

vigorous growth habits, high reproductive
potential, herbicide resistance, underground
structures
Ischaemum muticum, wild bamboo, Pennisetum
polystachion, Rottboellia cochinchinensis,
Stenochalena palustris, Dicranopteris linearis,
Mimosa pigra, Dieffenbachia sp, Caladium sp,
Costus sp, wild ginger, wild banana, tuba root
(Derris elliptica), wild bitter gourd (Momordica
charantia),
Control of Pennisetum polystachyon
spray Glyphosate 60 ml per 18 litres water
Spray Ally at 3 g per 18 litres water
Spray before flowering
control of VOPS
spray Glyphosate 450 ml per 18 litres water
using

spray Glyphosate 250 ml per 10 litres water using

F 120 Sprayer
Control of WILD BITTER GOURD – Momordica
charantia
spray Garlon 60 ml per 18 litres water using CKS
Supresate 60 ml + Ally 3 g per 18 litres water
 2 rounds required (follow up rounds not > 2 months)
ISSUES AND CHALLENGE
IN WEED AND COVER
CROP MANAGEMENT
ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT
• labour shortage, • herbicide phytotoxicity,
• high turn over of spray • weed resistant to
workers, herbicides,
• low productivity of • unpredictable wet
unskilled labour, weather,
• bioefficacy and choice • OSH and RSPO
of herbicides, requirements, and
• spray equipment and • lack of user friendly
calibration, technology
• cheaper generic
products,
 ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT

• labour shortage, • weed control in

immature plantings
• high turn over of
difficult
spray workers,
• cause much delay in
• low productivity weeding rounds
of unskilled • severe adverse
labour, phytotoxicity
• over reliance on
Employ local labour contract labour
force and good wages
 Herbicide spraying using tractor
mounted mechanized sprayer. (Anderson 1976)
Plantings Area (ha) No of No of days
rounds
Immature 55 6 21
1st year
Immature 110 4 28
2nd and
3rd year
Mature 1655 3 168

Total 1820 217

 SPRAY EQUIPMENT
PRODUCTIVITY (Han 1985)

equipment Productivity
(ha/man day)
CDA 4.8 – 7.3

CP 15 2.4

CKS 1.2 – 1.6

 CDA sprayer

• A worker operating a CDA sprayer can cover 5

ha per day
• in a month of 25 working days, 125 ha can be
sprayed.
• 1000 ha of mature oil palms, need a team of 8
workers.
• The spray gang of 8 workers can spray a 2000
ha mature oil palm estate in every 2 – 3 month
rounds giving allowance for holidays, rain
interference and other unforeseen
circumstances.
 ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT

Non-skilled labour,
low productivity of
unskilled labour,
herbicide
phytotoxicity,

training
 ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT

bioefficacy and
choice of
herbicides

results of
field evaluation
to determine
their
cost-effectiveness. Stem painting of triclopyr products
 ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT

weed resistant to
herbicides

Practice
Integrated
Weed
Management
 What is herbicide resistance ?
• Herbicide resistance, the evolved capacity
of a previously herbicide-susceptible weed
population to withstand a herbicide and
complete its life cycle when the herbicide
is used at its normal dose in an agricultural
situation, has increased steadily over the
past several years (Heap and LeBaron,
2001 - internet).
How herbicide resistance occurs ?
• After a long period of repeated and
frequent spraying of a single herbicide
against the same target weed species,
small number of resistant weed emerged.
• More and more of such resistant weeds
survived and produced seeds which are
deposited in the seed bank (the top few
cm of soils).
• Finally, the herbicide is found to be less
effective or completely ineffective at the
recommended dosage, due to emergence
more resistant weed population.
 ELEUSINE INDICA
RESISTANT TO GLYPHOSATE (0.54kg/ha)

Expt 1. SUSCEPTIBLE BIOTYPE Expt 2. RESISTANT BIOTYPE

Complete kill Regeneration
At 28 days after spraying At 28 days after spraying
HERBICIDES RESISTANCE IN GENERAL
• Weed resistance to some herbicides in
Malaysia started to appear in the 1990s.
> 50 cases have been reported up to
now (Chuah and Ismail 2009).
• World wide, > 300 cases of herbicide
resistant weeds have been reported by
Dr. Ian Heap (cited in Chuah and Ismail
2009).
 Chuah and Ismail (2009)
• reported herbicide resistance (glyphosate,
paraquat, metsulfuron and triclopyr) have been
detected in oil palm and rubber plantations of
Terengganu.

Eleusine indica
glu Pq / flu / gly
The Chronological Increase of Herbicide-Resistant
Weeds in Malaysia

60

Number of resistant biotypes

50

40

30

20

10

0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Chromolaena odorata Hedyotis verticillata Year

Gly / tri Pq / gly / met

HOW TO PREVENT HERBICIDE RESISTANCE ?

• should integrate weed control tactics (IWM)

• avoid spraying herbicides of same mode of
action
• spray herbicides with different mode of
action in sequence
• spray mixtures of 2 or more herbicides with
different mode of action
• timely follow up spraying of weeds at early
stage before they flower & produce seeds
• integrate non chemical methods of weed
control (cutting, mulching)
The world authority in weed resistance
management Professor Dr Powles when asked
recently in UPM “…..”, he replied that all
herbicides must be preserved as tools for the
management of herbicide resistant weeds.
This is an important point for weed scientists,
government regulators and planters to
remember.
 ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT

• unpredictable wet • Mulching

weather, • Slashing

keep weed control

at tip top condition

spraying during
more favourable
weather conditions.
 ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT

OSH and RSPO

requirements

OSH must be
complied
at all times.

inconvenient and
time consuming
 ISSUES AND CHALLENGE IN WEED AND
COVER CROP MANAGEMENT

• lack of user • Biological control

friendly • Planting LCC
technology

Increase research
in biological control
TERIMA KASIH
THANK YOU