Weeds on Soybeans Crop After the Application of the Association of the Herbicides Imazapic + Imazapyr on Different Liming Rates in a No-till Cropping System


  •  Lucas Rizzon Ferreira    
  •  Taísa Dal Magro    
  •  Elaine Damiani Conte    
  •  Marco Monego    
  •  Lucas de Ross Marchioretto    

Abstract

The repeated use of the herbicide glyphosate has selected weed resistant species to this molecule. The combination of the tank-mix imazapic + imazapyr (Cultivance® technology) turns out being an alternative on the management of glyphosate resistant weeds. The interaction of these molecules with the soil’s chemical properties with the spraying frequency, and the weed diversity are yet unknown. This study evaluated the effects of liming at the weed incidence on the soybeans crop treated with the association of herbicides imazapic + imazapyr in a no-till cropping system. The experiment was installed at the field in a RCBD with four replications. The experiment was conducted in a factorial arrangement 5 × 2 with five rates of calcitic limestone (0, 2.5, 5, 12.5, and 30 ton/ha) and two corresponding to the presence or absence of the herbicides imazapic + imazapyr (rate of 100 g/ha of the commercial product Soyvance®) sprayed in a spray-plant system. After 40 months of surface-liming, the soybean cultivar Lancer® was planted in a no-till field, and it was evaluated: frequency and abundance of weeds, and the chemical soil parameters: pH, Ca, H+Al, and Mg at the depth of 0-10 cm. The most abundant weeds observed were: Desmodium spp., Schlechtendalia luzulifolia, Digitaria horizontalis, Raphanus sativus and Cyperus spp., with predominance of dicot species. In conclusion, as the surface-liming rate was increased, the greater the frequency of dicot weeds, and the lesser the monocots were found in the area.



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