Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Agro@mbiente on-line |
Texto Completo: | https://revista.ufrr.br/agroambiente/article/view/5414 |
Resumo: | Weeds negatively affect cowpea plants, causing reduced growth, delayed development and yield loss. The aim of this study was to assay selectivity and effectiveness of weed control herbicides in cowpea cropping field conditions. For selectivity evaluation, the herbicide S-metolachlor, was used pre-emergence (PRE), and carfentrazone-ethyl, clethodim, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, fluazifop-p-butyl and quizalofop-p-ethyl post-emergence (POST). In effectiveness evaluation, S-metolachlor (PRE), and carfentrazone-ethyl (POST), S-metolachlor in PRE and fluazifop-p-butyl (POST), clethodim, carfentrazone-ethyl and clethodim, fenoxapropp-ethyl, carfentrazone-ethyl and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, fluazifop-p-butyl, carfentrazone-ethyl and fluazifop-pbutyl, quizalofop-p-ethyl and carfentrazone-ethyl and quizalofop-p-ethyl (POST). Two controls were included, one with weeding at 15 and 35 days after sowing (DAS) and the other without weed control. Carfentrazone-ethyl caused mild phytotoxicity in plants seven days after application, but did not reduce yield (2337 kg ha-1). The levels of weed control and productivity obtained with S-metolachlor alone or in association with carfentrazoneethyl or fluazifop-p-butyl, associated or not with carfentrazone-ethyl, were similar to those obtained with weeds. Spraying with carfentrazone-ethyl alone resulted in low control effectiveness and reduced yield (1511 kg ha-1). Weed interference during the crop cycle reduced yield by 77% (531 kg ha-1). The selectivity and effectiveness obtained with the herbicides should be considered as an agronomic and economically-viable. |
id |
UFRR-4_8c989d7b7c73243428feb766f88d158c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:oai.revista.ufrr.br:article/5414 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRR-4 |
network_name_str |
Agro@mbiente on-line |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpeaVigna unguiculata. Weeds. Chemical control. Phytotoxicity.Weeds negatively affect cowpea plants, causing reduced growth, delayed development and yield loss. The aim of this study was to assay selectivity and effectiveness of weed control herbicides in cowpea cropping field conditions. For selectivity evaluation, the herbicide S-metolachlor, was used pre-emergence (PRE), and carfentrazone-ethyl, clethodim, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, fluazifop-p-butyl and quizalofop-p-ethyl post-emergence (POST). In effectiveness evaluation, S-metolachlor (PRE), and carfentrazone-ethyl (POST), S-metolachlor in PRE and fluazifop-p-butyl (POST), clethodim, carfentrazone-ethyl and clethodim, fenoxapropp-ethyl, carfentrazone-ethyl and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, fluazifop-p-butyl, carfentrazone-ethyl and fluazifop-pbutyl, quizalofop-p-ethyl and carfentrazone-ethyl and quizalofop-p-ethyl (POST). Two controls were included, one with weeding at 15 and 35 days after sowing (DAS) and the other without weed control. Carfentrazone-ethyl caused mild phytotoxicity in plants seven days after application, but did not reduce yield (2337 kg ha-1). The levels of weed control and productivity obtained with S-metolachlor alone or in association with carfentrazoneethyl or fluazifop-p-butyl, associated or not with carfentrazone-ethyl, were similar to those obtained with weeds. Spraying with carfentrazone-ethyl alone resulted in low control effectiveness and reduced yield (1511 kg ha-1). Weed interference during the crop cycle reduced yield by 77% (531 kg ha-1). The selectivity and effectiveness obtained with the herbicides should be considered as an agronomic and economically-viable.UFRR2019-07-23info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revista.ufrr.br/agroambiente/article/view/541410.18227/1982-8470ragro.v13i0.5414AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE JOURNALRAGR; Vol. 13 (2019): Edição Continuada; 101-114REVISTA AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE; Vol. 13 (2019): Edição Continuada; 101-114REVISTA AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE; v. 13 (2019): Edição Continuada; 101-1141982-8470reponame:Agro@mbiente on-lineinstname:Universidade Federal de Roraima (UFRR)instacron:UFRRporhttps://revista.ufrr.br/agroambiente/article/view/5414/2672Copyright (c) 2019 REVISTA AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINEinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAntoniol Fontes, José RobertoOliveira, Inocencio JuniorMorais, Ronaldo Ribeiro2019-12-06T15:37:15Zoai:oai.revista.ufrr.br:article/5414Revistahttps://revista.ufrr.br/index.php/agroambientePUBhttps://revista.ufrr.br/index.php/agroambiente/oai||scpuchoa@dsi.ufrr.br|| arcanjoalves@oi.com.br1982-84701982-8470opendoar:2019-12-06T15:37:15Agro@mbiente on-line - Universidade Federal de Roraima (UFRR)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea |
title |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea |
spellingShingle |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea Antoniol Fontes, José Roberto Vigna unguiculata. Weeds. Chemical control. Phytotoxicity. |
title_short |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea |
title_full |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea |
title_fullStr |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea |
title_full_unstemmed |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea |
title_sort |
Herbicide selectivity and weed control in cowpea |
author |
Antoniol Fontes, José Roberto |
author_facet |
Antoniol Fontes, José Roberto Oliveira, Inocencio Junior Morais, Ronaldo Ribeiro |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Oliveira, Inocencio Junior Morais, Ronaldo Ribeiro |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Antoniol Fontes, José Roberto Oliveira, Inocencio Junior Morais, Ronaldo Ribeiro |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Vigna unguiculata. Weeds. Chemical control. Phytotoxicity. |
topic |
Vigna unguiculata. Weeds. Chemical control. Phytotoxicity. |
description |
Weeds negatively affect cowpea plants, causing reduced growth, delayed development and yield loss. The aim of this study was to assay selectivity and effectiveness of weed control herbicides in cowpea cropping field conditions. For selectivity evaluation, the herbicide S-metolachlor, was used pre-emergence (PRE), and carfentrazone-ethyl, clethodim, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, fluazifop-p-butyl and quizalofop-p-ethyl post-emergence (POST). In effectiveness evaluation, S-metolachlor (PRE), and carfentrazone-ethyl (POST), S-metolachlor in PRE and fluazifop-p-butyl (POST), clethodim, carfentrazone-ethyl and clethodim, fenoxapropp-ethyl, carfentrazone-ethyl and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, fluazifop-p-butyl, carfentrazone-ethyl and fluazifop-pbutyl, quizalofop-p-ethyl and carfentrazone-ethyl and quizalofop-p-ethyl (POST). Two controls were included, one with weeding at 15 and 35 days after sowing (DAS) and the other without weed control. Carfentrazone-ethyl caused mild phytotoxicity in plants seven days after application, but did not reduce yield (2337 kg ha-1). The levels of weed control and productivity obtained with S-metolachlor alone or in association with carfentrazoneethyl or fluazifop-p-butyl, associated or not with carfentrazone-ethyl, were similar to those obtained with weeds. Spraying with carfentrazone-ethyl alone resulted in low control effectiveness and reduced yield (1511 kg ha-1). Weed interference during the crop cycle reduced yield by 77% (531 kg ha-1). The selectivity and effectiveness obtained with the herbicides should be considered as an agronomic and economically-viable. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-07-23 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ufrr.br/agroambiente/article/view/5414 10.18227/1982-8470ragro.v13i0.5414 |
url |
https://revista.ufrr.br/agroambiente/article/view/5414 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.18227/1982-8470ragro.v13i0.5414 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ufrr.br/agroambiente/article/view/5414/2672 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 REVISTA AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 REVISTA AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
UFRR |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
UFRR |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE JOURNALRAGR; Vol. 13 (2019): Edição Continuada; 101-114 REVISTA AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE; Vol. 13 (2019): Edição Continuada; 101-114 REVISTA AGRO@MBIENTE ON-LINE; v. 13 (2019): Edição Continuada; 101-114 1982-8470 reponame:Agro@mbiente on-line instname:Universidade Federal de Roraima (UFRR) instacron:UFRR |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Roraima (UFRR) |
instacron_str |
UFRR |
institution |
UFRR |
reponame_str |
Agro@mbiente on-line |
collection |
Agro@mbiente on-line |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Agro@mbiente on-line - Universidade Federal de Roraima (UFRR) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||scpuchoa@dsi.ufrr.br|| arcanjoalves@oi.com.br |
_version_ |
1799770041493749760 |