Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rocha Pereira, Maria Renata
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Marchi, Sidnei Roberto de, Martins, Dagoberto
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Bioscience journal (Online)
Texto Completo: https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/53823
Resumo: Select herbicides with different mechanism of action is a satisfactory option for resistant weed control. Then, the present work aimed to study the efficiency of different herbicides and their mixtures on Bidens pilosa (blackjack) and Euphorbia heterophylla (wild poinsettia) biotypes, resistant to ALS herbicides in two development stages. The trials we arranged in a completely randomized design with four replications. The treatments tested were (g a.i/a.e ha-1): imazethapyr at 70 and 140 (WG formulation) + 1.0% Assist; imazethapyr at 57.6 and 72 (SL formulation) + 1.0% Assist; imazapic + imazethapyr at 56 and 70 + 1.0% Assist; glyphosate + imazethapyr (596); saflufenacil + glyphosate at 35 + 720 + 0.5% Dash in tank mix, glyphosate at 720 and, a control without herbicide application. Control efficiency was evaluated, as well as dry matter accumulation at the end of the studies. Plants of both species were more susceptible to herbicides at the early stage of development (2 to 4 leaves). The treatments with saflufenacil + glyphosate, (imazethapyr + glyphosate) and glyphosate promoted the best controls, regardless of the species studied and the application stage. The mixture with saflufenacil provided the highest control speed, and the mixture (imazethapyr + glyphosate) was less efficient among three excellent treatments when applied to plants in the 4-6 leaf stage. The treatments (imazethapyr, in both formulations) and (imazethapyr + imazapic) were ineffective in controlling the studied biotypes, regardless of dose and developmental stage studied.
id UFU-14_d3c1f5a31791e5788d9f0f292e973adc
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.www.seer.ufu.br:article/53823
network_acronym_str UFU-14
network_name_str Bioscience journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitorsAcetolactate SynthaseBlackjackResistanceWild Poinsettia. Agricultural SciencesSelect herbicides with different mechanism of action is a satisfactory option for resistant weed control. Then, the present work aimed to study the efficiency of different herbicides and their mixtures on Bidens pilosa (blackjack) and Euphorbia heterophylla (wild poinsettia) biotypes, resistant to ALS herbicides in two development stages. The trials we arranged in a completely randomized design with four replications. The treatments tested were (g a.i/a.e ha-1): imazethapyr at 70 and 140 (WG formulation) + 1.0% Assist; imazethapyr at 57.6 and 72 (SL formulation) + 1.0% Assist; imazapic + imazethapyr at 56 and 70 + 1.0% Assist; glyphosate + imazethapyr (596); saflufenacil + glyphosate at 35 + 720 + 0.5% Dash in tank mix, glyphosate at 720 and, a control without herbicide application. Control efficiency was evaluated, as well as dry matter accumulation at the end of the studies. Plants of both species were more susceptible to herbicides at the early stage of development (2 to 4 leaves). The treatments with saflufenacil + glyphosate, (imazethapyr + glyphosate) and glyphosate promoted the best controls, regardless of the species studied and the application stage. The mixture with saflufenacil provided the highest control speed, and the mixture (imazethapyr + glyphosate) was less efficient among three excellent treatments when applied to plants in the 4-6 leaf stage. The treatments (imazethapyr, in both formulations) and (imazethapyr + imazapic) were ineffective in controlling the studied biotypes, regardless of dose and developmental stage studied.Selecionar herbicidas com diferentes mecanismos de ação é uma opção para controle de plantas daninhas resistentes. Desta forma o presente trabalho teve por objetivo estudar a eficiência de diferentes herbicidas e suas misturas sobre biótipos de Bidens pilosa (picão-preto) e Euphorbia heterophylla (amendoim-bravo), resistentes aos herbicidas inibidores da ALS, em dois estádios de desenvolvimento. Os experimentos foram dispostos em delineamento inteiramente casualizado, com quatro repetições. Os tratamentos testados foram (g i.a/e.a ha-1): imazethapyr a 57,6 e 72 na formulação SL e, a 70 e 140 na formulação WG + 1,0% de Assist, (imazapic + imazethapyr) a 56 e 70 + 1,0% Assist, (glyphosate + imazethapyr) a 596, mistura de tanque de saflufenacil + glyphosate a 35 + 720 + 0,5% Dash, glyphosate a 720 e uma testemunha sem herbicida. Avaliou-se a eficiência de controle, bem como o acúmulo de matéria seca ao final dos estudos. As plantas de ambas espécies se mostraram mais suscetíveis aos herbicidas no estádio inicial de desenvolvimento (2 a 4 folhas). Os tratamentos com saflufenacil + glyphosate, (imazethapyr + glyphosate) e glyphosate promoveram os melhores controles, independente da espécie estudada e do estádio de aplicação, sendo que a mistura com saflufenacil proporcionaou a maior velocidade de controle e a mistura (imazethapyr + glyphosate) mostrou-se menos eficientes dentre estes tratamentos quando aplicada sobre plantas no estádio de 4 a 6 folhas. Os tratamentos (imazethapyr, ambas formulações) e (imazethapyr + imazapic) foram ineficientes no controle dos biótipos estudados, independente da dose e estádio de desenvolvimento das plantas.EDUFU2022-03-31info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/5382310.14393/BJ-v38n0a2022-53823Bioscience Journal ; Vol. 38 (2022): Continuous Publication; e38018Bioscience Journal ; v. 38 (2022): Continuous Publication; e380181981-3163reponame:Bioscience journal (Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)instacron:UFUenghttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/53823/33627Brasil; ContemporaryCopyright (c) 2022 Maria Renata Rocha Pereira, Sidnei Roberto de Marchi, Dagoberto Martinshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRocha Pereira, Maria RenataMarchi, Sidnei Roberto deMartins, Dagoberto2022-03-31T16:34:16Zoai:ojs.www.seer.ufu.br:article/53823Revistahttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournalPUBhttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/oaibiosciencej@ufu.br||1981-31631516-3725opendoar:2022-03-31T16:34:16Bioscience journal (Online) - Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
title Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
spellingShingle Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
Rocha Pereira, Maria Renata
Acetolactate Synthase
Blackjack
Resistance
Wild Poinsettia.
Agricultural Sciences
title_short Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
title_full Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
title_fullStr Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
title_full_unstemmed Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
title_sort Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
author Rocha Pereira, Maria Renata
author_facet Rocha Pereira, Maria Renata
Marchi, Sidnei Roberto de
Martins, Dagoberto
author_role author
author2 Marchi, Sidnei Roberto de
Martins, Dagoberto
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rocha Pereira, Maria Renata
Marchi, Sidnei Roberto de
Martins, Dagoberto
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Acetolactate Synthase
Blackjack
Resistance
Wild Poinsettia.
Agricultural Sciences
topic Acetolactate Synthase
Blackjack
Resistance
Wild Poinsettia.
Agricultural Sciences
description Select herbicides with different mechanism of action is a satisfactory option for resistant weed control. Then, the present work aimed to study the efficiency of different herbicides and their mixtures on Bidens pilosa (blackjack) and Euphorbia heterophylla (wild poinsettia) biotypes, resistant to ALS herbicides in two development stages. The trials we arranged in a completely randomized design with four replications. The treatments tested were (g a.i/a.e ha-1): imazethapyr at 70 and 140 (WG formulation) + 1.0% Assist; imazethapyr at 57.6 and 72 (SL formulation) + 1.0% Assist; imazapic + imazethapyr at 56 and 70 + 1.0% Assist; glyphosate + imazethapyr (596); saflufenacil + glyphosate at 35 + 720 + 0.5% Dash in tank mix, glyphosate at 720 and, a control without herbicide application. Control efficiency was evaluated, as well as dry matter accumulation at the end of the studies. Plants of both species were more susceptible to herbicides at the early stage of development (2 to 4 leaves). The treatments with saflufenacil + glyphosate, (imazethapyr + glyphosate) and glyphosate promoted the best controls, regardless of the species studied and the application stage. The mixture with saflufenacil provided the highest control speed, and the mixture (imazethapyr + glyphosate) was less efficient among three excellent treatments when applied to plants in the 4-6 leaf stage. The treatments (imazethapyr, in both formulations) and (imazethapyr + imazapic) were ineffective in controlling the studied biotypes, regardless of dose and developmental stage studied.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-03-31
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://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/53823
10.14393/BJ-v38n0a2022-53823
url https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/53823
identifier_str_mv 10.14393/BJ-v38n0a2022-53823
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/53823/33627
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 Maria Renata Rocha Pereira, Sidnei Roberto de Marchi, Dagoberto Martins
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 Maria Renata Rocha Pereira, Sidnei Roberto de Marchi, Dagoberto Martins
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv Brasil; Contemporary
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv EDUFU
publisher.none.fl_str_mv EDUFU
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Bioscience Journal ; Vol. 38 (2022): Continuous Publication; e38018
Bioscience Journal ; v. 38 (2022): Continuous Publication; e38018
1981-3163
reponame:Bioscience journal (Online)
instname:Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)
instacron:UFU
instname_str Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)
instacron_str UFU
institution UFU
reponame_str Bioscience journal (Online)
collection Bioscience journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Bioscience journal (Online) - Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv biosciencej@ufu.br||
_version_ 1797069082488471552