Effect of different herbicides on Bidens pilosa and Euphorbia heterophylla biotypes resistant to ALS inhibitors
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , |
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 |