Call for manuscripts for April 2026
IJIER, announces the call for manuscripts...
IJIER, announces the call for manuscripts...
The Journal is moving to a...
Matheus Alegretti de Oliveira
Author
Mario Antônio Bianchi
Author
Jana Koefender
Author
Theodoro Schneider
Author
André Schoffel
Author
Juliane Nicolodi Camera
rs
Author
Diego Pascoal Golle
Author
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.
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>
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.