Herbicide resistance technologies in soybean cultivars
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol10.iss3.3697Keywords:
Biotechnology, Chemical management, WeedsAbstract
The objective of this work was to carry out a technical analysis of the biotechnologies that confer resistance to herbicides in soybeans. Two experiments were carried out (I and II) in the agricultural years 2016/17 and 2017/18, using a randomized block design with six and four replicates. In experiment I, two forms of management in weed control were evaluated for each technology studied (Roundup Ready® and Liberty Link®) and for conventional soybeans, as well as grain yield. In experiment II, the efficiency of using different herbicides to control voluntary soybeans (with and without technology) was evaluated. The pre-emergent herbicides in both managements proposed for the cultivars controlled the weeds from the emergence of the soybean crop to the application of the post-emergent herbicides in both crops. Likewise, all post-emergent herbicides showed weed control above 90% at 14 and 28 days after application. In the evaluation of the chemical control of Garra IPRO voluntary soybean, the herbicide 2,4-D stood out among the others for being more efficient in both agricultural years (above 90%). The herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D and metsulfuron-methyl are the most effective in controlling voluntary soybean cultivars BRS 284 and CZ16B39LL.
Downloads
References
Brunharo CACG, Christoffoleti PJ & Nicolai M (2014) Aspectos do mecanismo de ação do amônio glufosinato: culturas resistentes e resistência de plantas daninhas. Revista Brasileira de Herbicidas, 13: 163-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7824/rbh.v13i2.293
CONAB - Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (2019) Acompanhamento de safra brasileira: grãos, v. 6 - Safra 2018/19 – Nono levantamento, Brasília, 113p.
Fehr WR, Caviness CE (1977) Stages of soybean development. Ames: Iowa State University. 12p. (Special Report, 80).
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO) (2018). The future of food and agriculture – Alternative pathways to 2050. Rome, 224p.
Frans R, Talbert R, Marx D, Crowley H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. In: Camper ND (Ed.) Research methods in weed science. 3rd ed. Champaign: Southern Weed Science Society, p.29-46.
Kruze ND, Trezzi MM, Vidal RA (2000) Herbicidas inibidores da EPSPs: revisão de literatura. Revista Brasileira de Herbicidas, 1:139-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7824/rbh.v1i2.328
NOVO RURAL (2018) A agricultura de hoje e a que viveremos em 2030! Revista Novo Rural, 25. https://issuu.com/revistanovorural/docs/revista_novo_rural_dezembro_18>
Oliveira Junior RS, Constantin J, Inoue MH (2011) Biologia e Manejo de Plantas Daninhas. Omnipax, 384 p.
Pitelli RA (1985) Interferência de plantas daninhas em culturas agrícolas. Informe Agropecuário, 11: 19-27.
Salvadori JR (2016) Indicações técnicas para a cultura da soja no Rio Grande do Sul e em Santa Catarina, safras 2016/2017 e 2017/2018. 41ª Reunião de Pesquisa de Soja da Região Sul. Ed. Universidade de Passo Fundo, 245p.
UNITED STATE DEPARTAMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) (2018) USDA Agricultural Projections to 2027. Disponível em: <https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/projections/USDA_Agricultural_Projections_to_2027.pdf>
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Matheus Alegretti de Oliveira , Mario Antônio Bianchi, Jana Koefender, Theodoro Schneider, André Schoffel, Juliane Nicolodi Camera, Diego Pascoal Golle
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author for more visit Copyright & License.
How to Cite
Accepted 2022-03-06
Published 2022-03-01
