Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Publication Date: | 2024 |
Other Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | eng |
Source: | Revista Caatinga |
Download full: | https://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/caatinga/article/view/11681 |
Summary: | Weed control is a challenge in crop management due to the limited number of registered herbicides, especially for pre-emergent application. This study aimed to investigate the selectivity of pre-emergent herbicides with different mechanisms of action for wheat. The experiment consisted of two stages: the first involved screening under greenhouse conditions, and the second assessing the selected treatments under field conditions, with a focus on crop yield. Plant phytointoxication, crop stand, and shoot dry weight were assessed in the greenhouse experiment, and tillering, crop stand, plant height, canopy closure, yield, 1000-grain weight, and hectoliter weight in the field. Under greenhouse conditions, [imazapic + imazapyr], pendimethalin, isoxaflutole, florpyrauxifen, and halosulfuron-methyl produced the best results and were selected for the field experiment. Florpyrauxifen was the only herbicide that was selective both in greenhouse and field experiments. Isoxaflutole and trifluralin did not damage wheat in any of the field evaluations. Despite reducing crop performance in some assessments, pendimethalin and flumioxazin provided yield, hectoliter weight, and 1000-grain weight results equivalent to the herbicide-free control. Florpyrauxifen (1.08 g ha-1) was the most promising herbicide. Trifluralin (900 g ha-1), pendimethalin (1750 g ha-1), isoxaflutole (60 g ha-1), and flumioxazin (40 and 60 g ha-1) also produced grain yields equivalent to the control without herbicide. |
id |
UFERSA-1_4616b5a3eea09f160f3cd5897e18930c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.ufersa.edu.br:article/11681 |
network_acronym_str |
UFERSA-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Caatinga |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheatSeleção de herbicidas pré-emergentes para o trigoFitointoxicação. Mecanismos de ação. Tolerância. Triticum aestivum.Phytointoxication. Mechanisms of action. Tolerance. Triticum aestivum.Weed control is a challenge in crop management due to the limited number of registered herbicides, especially for pre-emergent application. This study aimed to investigate the selectivity of pre-emergent herbicides with different mechanisms of action for wheat. The experiment consisted of two stages: the first involved screening under greenhouse conditions, and the second assessing the selected treatments under field conditions, with a focus on crop yield. Plant phytointoxication, crop stand, and shoot dry weight were assessed in the greenhouse experiment, and tillering, crop stand, plant height, canopy closure, yield, 1000-grain weight, and hectoliter weight in the field. Under greenhouse conditions, [imazapic + imazapyr], pendimethalin, isoxaflutole, florpyrauxifen, and halosulfuron-methyl produced the best results and were selected for the field experiment. Florpyrauxifen was the only herbicide that was selective both in greenhouse and field experiments. Isoxaflutole and trifluralin did not damage wheat in any of the field evaluations. Despite reducing crop performance in some assessments, pendimethalin and flumioxazin provided yield, hectoliter weight, and 1000-grain weight results equivalent to the herbicide-free control. Florpyrauxifen (1.08 g ha-1) was the most promising herbicide. Trifluralin (900 g ha-1), pendimethalin (1750 g ha-1), isoxaflutole (60 g ha-1), and flumioxazin (40 and 60 g ha-1) also produced grain yields equivalent to the control without herbicide.Uma das dificuldades encontradas no manejo da cultura é o controle de plantas daninhas, pois existem poucas opções de herbicidas registrados, principalmente em pré-emergência. O objetivo deste estudo foi investigar a seletividade dos herbicidas pré-emergentes com diferentes mecanismos de ação para a cultura do trigo. Os experimentos foram divididos em duas etapas: na primeira, foi realizada uma seleção preliminar em casa de vegetação e na segunda, os tratamentos selecionados foram avaliados em campo, visando principalmente a produtividade da cultura. Em casa de vegetação foram avaliadas a fitointoxicação, o estande e a massa seca da parte aérea. Em condições de campo, foram avaliados o estande, o perfilhamento, a altura das plantas, o fechamento do dossel, o rendimento, a massa de mil grãos e o peso hectolitrico. Em estufa, [imazapic + imazapyr], pendimethalin, isoxaflutole, florpyrauxifen e halosulfuron-methyl apresentaram os melhores resultados e foram selecionados para os experimentos em condições de campo. O florpyrauxifen foi o único herbicida que se destacou positivamente na estufa e nas experiências de campo. Isoxaflutole e trifluralin não prejudicaram a cultura em nenhuma das avaliações de campo. Pendimethalin e flumioxazin, embora tenham reduzido o desempenho da cultura em algumas avaliações, forneceram resultados em rendimento, peso de hectolitros e mil massa de grãos equivalente ao controle. Florpyrauxifen (1,08 g ha-1) foi o herbicida mais promissor. Trifluralin (900 g ha-1), pendimethalin (1750 g ha-1), isoxaflutole (60 g ha-1) e flumioxazin (40 e 60 g ha-1) apresentaram um rendimento de grãos equivalente ao controle sem herbicida.Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido2024-10-17info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/caatinga/article/view/1168110.1590/1983-21252025v3811681rcREVISTA CAATINGA; Vol. 38 (2025); e11681Revista Caatinga; v. 38 (2025); e116811983-21250100-316Xreponame:Revista Caatingainstname:Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido (UFERSA)instacron:UFERSAenghttps://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/caatinga/article/view/11681/11651Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Caatingainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTeixeira, Celso Augusto SatoWitter, Ana Paula WerkhausenFerreira, Luiz Augusto InojosaSanches, Ana Karoline silvaOliveira Junior, Rubem Silvério deBiffe, Denis Fernando 2025-04-04T14:17:19Zoai:ojs.periodicos.ufersa.edu.br:article/11681Revistahttps://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/index.php/caatinga/indexPUBhttps://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/index.php/caatinga/oaipatricio@ufersa.edu.br|| caatinga@ufersa.edu.br1983-21250100-316Xopendoar:2025-04-04T14:17:19Revista Caatinga - Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido (UFERSA)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat Seleção de herbicidas pré-emergentes para o trigo |
title |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat |
spellingShingle |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat Teixeira, Celso Augusto Sato Fitointoxicação. Mecanismos de ação. Tolerância. Triticum aestivum. Phytointoxication. Mechanisms of action. Tolerance. Triticum aestivum. |
title_short |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat |
title_full |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat |
title_fullStr |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat |
title_full_unstemmed |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat |
title_sort |
Pre-emergent herbicide screening for wheat |
author |
Teixeira, Celso Augusto Sato |
author_facet |
Teixeira, Celso Augusto Sato Witter, Ana Paula Werkhausen Ferreira, Luiz Augusto Inojosa Sanches, Ana Karoline silva Oliveira Junior, Rubem Silvério de Biffe, Denis Fernando |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Witter, Ana Paula Werkhausen Ferreira, Luiz Augusto Inojosa Sanches, Ana Karoline silva Oliveira Junior, Rubem Silvério de Biffe, Denis Fernando |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Teixeira, Celso Augusto Sato Witter, Ana Paula Werkhausen Ferreira, Luiz Augusto Inojosa Sanches, Ana Karoline silva Oliveira Junior, Rubem Silvério de Biffe, Denis Fernando |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Fitointoxicação. Mecanismos de ação. Tolerância. Triticum aestivum. Phytointoxication. Mechanisms of action. Tolerance. Triticum aestivum. |
topic |
Fitointoxicação. Mecanismos de ação. Tolerância. Triticum aestivum. Phytointoxication. Mechanisms of action. Tolerance. Triticum aestivum. |
description |
Weed control is a challenge in crop management due to the limited number of registered herbicides, especially for pre-emergent application. This study aimed to investigate the selectivity of pre-emergent herbicides with different mechanisms of action for wheat. The experiment consisted of two stages: the first involved screening under greenhouse conditions, and the second assessing the selected treatments under field conditions, with a focus on crop yield. Plant phytointoxication, crop stand, and shoot dry weight were assessed in the greenhouse experiment, and tillering, crop stand, plant height, canopy closure, yield, 1000-grain weight, and hectoliter weight in the field. Under greenhouse conditions, [imazapic + imazapyr], pendimethalin, isoxaflutole, florpyrauxifen, and halosulfuron-methyl produced the best results and were selected for the field experiment. Florpyrauxifen was the only herbicide that was selective both in greenhouse and field experiments. Isoxaflutole and trifluralin did not damage wheat in any of the field evaluations. Despite reducing crop performance in some assessments, pendimethalin and flumioxazin provided yield, hectoliter weight, and 1000-grain weight results equivalent to the herbicide-free control. Florpyrauxifen (1.08 g ha-1) was the most promising herbicide. Trifluralin (900 g ha-1), pendimethalin (1750 g ha-1), isoxaflutole (60 g ha-1), and flumioxazin (40 and 60 g ha-1) also produced grain yields equivalent to the control without herbicide. |
publishDate |
2024 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2024-10-17 |
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://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/caatinga/article/view/11681 10.1590/1983-21252025v3811681rc |
url |
https://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/caatinga/article/view/11681 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/1983-21252025v3811681rc |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufersa.edu.br/caatinga/article/view/11681/11651 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Caatinga info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Caatinga |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
REVISTA CAATINGA; Vol. 38 (2025); e11681 Revista Caatinga; v. 38 (2025); e11681 1983-2125 0100-316X reponame:Revista Caatinga instname:Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido (UFERSA) instacron:UFERSA |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido (UFERSA) |
instacron_str |
UFERSA |
institution |
UFERSA |
reponame_str |
Revista Caatinga |
collection |
Revista Caatinga |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Caatinga - Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido (UFERSA) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
patricio@ufersa.edu.br|| caatinga@ufersa.edu.br |
_version_ |
1831468654488715264 |