Comparison of Safflower Cultivation in Two Seasons in the South of Brazil


  •  Marinez Sampaio    
  •  Reginaldo Santos    
  •  Paulo Sérgio Oliveira    
  •  Doglas Bassegio    
  •  Carlos Augusto Moraes Rego    
  •  Lucas Silveira    
  •  Bruna Costa    
  •  Eloisa Mattei    
  •  Juan Herrera    

Abstract

The objective of this work was to evaluate the production components, grain yield and safflower character correlations as a function of two sowing seasons (autumn and winter). Safflower culture was implanted in 2014 in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The evaluation of safflower crop occurred in two seasons of the year, with the first growing season being characterized by sowing on April 30, 2014 (autumn), and the second growing season on July 30, 2014 (winter). The evaluations occur when the plants showed a 50% flowering and the following determination: plant height, number of branches per plant and chapters, stem diameter, dry weight of the stalk, dry mass of the branches dry mass of chapters and mass dry roots, grain yield, oil content and oil productivity. Growth stations were compared at 5% probability of error by the Student t test. For the study of correlations, Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient matrix (r) was estimated between the characters by means of the Student’s t-test, with a 5% probability of error. Except for the oil content and number of branches, safflower characters were benefited by early sowing in autumn. Safflower cultivated in autumn produced 3,820 kg ha-1 and in winter yielded 2,068 kg ha-1. For the early cultivation of autumn, the characters have greater correlation, favored by the climatic conditions. Grain and oil productivity obtained correlation higher than 97% in both seasons.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact