Dynamics of Clomazone Formulations Under Different Applications Conditions

TROPALDI, L.; BRITO, I.P.F.S.; DIAS, R.C.; TRINDADE, M.L.B.; CARBONARI, C.A.; VELINI, E.D.

doi:10.1590/S0100-83582019370100076

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Planta daninha 37 • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582019370100076 copy

Dynamics of Clomazone Formulations Under Different Applications Conditions

Dinâmica de Formulações de Clomazone em Diferentes Condições de Aplicação

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT:

Maintenance of straw on the soil surface in sugarcane production areas can influence weed occurrence and herbicide dynamics. After application, considerable losses of clomazone can occur as a result of its physicochemical characteristics. For this reason, novel formulations have been developed. In addition to the conventional formulation, microencapsulated formulations are currently available. Thus, the aim of this study was to observe and compare the effect of clomazone formulations under different application conditions. For this purpose, the experiment was carried with 12 treatments in a completely randomized design, with four replications, using clomazone formulations (1,200 g a.i. ha-1), on soils with different moisture levels, in the presence and absence of sugarcane straw, followed or not by rainfall simulation. The treatments were compared by observation of number of emerged plants and phytotoxicity at 7 and 14 DAA, as well shoot dry matter at 14 DAA for Ipomoea nil, Urochloa decumbens and Panicum maximum. In general, the microencapsulated formulation presented a better performance under the less suitable application conditions when compared to the conventional one. However, for the other conditions, both formulations had a similar performance.

Keywords:
straw; herbicide; volatilization; Ipomoea nil (L.) Roth; Urochloa decumbens (Stapf.) R.D.Webster; Panicum maximum Jacq

Sociedade Brasileira da Ciência das Plantas Daninhas Departamento de Fitotecnia - DFT, Universidade Federal de Viçosa - UFV, 36570-000 - Viçosa-MG - Brasil, Tel./Fax::(+55 31) 3899-2611 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rpdaninha@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: <l.tropaldi@unesp.br>

Treatment	Description
1	Control without straw
2	Control with straw
3	Gamit 360 CS^® on dry soil without straw and rainfall simulation at 1 DAA⁽¹⁾
4	Gamit 360 CS^® on dry soil, followed by straw mulch and rainfall simulation at 1 DAA
5	Gamit 360 CS^® on moist soil, followed by straw mulch
6	Gamit 360 CS^® on straw, with moist soil
7	Gamit 360 CS^® on straw, with dry soil and rainfall simulation at 1 DAA
8	Gamit Star^® on dry soil without straw and rainfall simulation at 1 DAA
9	Gamit Star^® on dry soil, followed by straw mulch and rainfall simulation at 1 DAA
10	Gamit Star^® on moist soil, followed by straw mulch
11	Gamit Star^® on straw, with moist soil
12	Gamit Star^® on straw with dry soil and rainfall simulation at 1 DAA

Treatment	Number of plants		SDM 14 DAA⁽¹⁾
Treatment	7 DAA	14 DAA	(g)	% of control
T1	27.25	32.50	1.01	100.00
T2	37.80	36.50	1.67	100.00
T3	30.75	9.25	0.29	28.63
T4	25.50	8.75	0.27	16.02
T5	16.25	9.50	0.32	19.23
T6	26.50	24.25	0.61	36.49
T7	25.00	12.25	0.28	17.02
T8	27.00	7.75	0.19	19.33
T9	23.75	7.50	0.21	12.95
T10	18.75	5.00	0.16	9.75
T11	28.00	19.00	0.49	29.16
T12	30.50	27.75	0.70	42.08
F treatments	129.75**	23.31**	32.13**
T1 vs T2	121.45**	1.52^ns	35.43**
T1 vs T3,8	4.73*	73.0**	64.40**
T2 vs T4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12	335.61**	81.32**	238.64**
CV⁽²⁾ (%)	4.62	27.52	30.19
LSD⁽³⁾ - T-test at 5%	1.23	4.65	0.15

Treatment	Number of plants		Dry weight 14 DAA⁽¹⁾
Treatment	7 DAA	14 DAA	(g)	% of control
T1	106.25	159.00	1.51	100.00
T2	77.80	138.75	1.18	100.00
T3	90.75	0.25	0.00	0.00
T4	42.75	0.00	0.00	0.00
T5	55.25	0.00	0.00	0.00
T6	68.25	90.50	0.38	32.59
T7	61.00	15.25	0.04	3.54
T8	93.00	1.50	0.00	0.00
T9	48.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
T10	56.75	0.00	0.00	0.00
T11	67.75	79.50	0.35	29.45
T12	61.00	70.25	0.22	18.99
F treatments	5.31*	106.63**	180.11**
T1 vs T2	6.22*	6.23*	37.00**
T1 vs T3,8	2.48^ns	507.25**	1057.26**
T2 vs T4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12	8.86**	308.60**	687.88**
CV⁽²⁾ (%)	21.50	24.78	24.70
LSD⁽³⁾ - T-test at 5%	15.09	11.62	0.07

Treatment	Number of plants		SDM 14 DAA⁽¹⁾
Treatment	7 DAA	14 DAA	(g)	% of control
T1	61.00	135.75	0.24	100.00
T2	43.20	112.25	0.24	100.00
T3	58.25	0.00	0.00	0.00
T4	15.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
T5	26.50	0.00	0.00	0.00
T6	21.75	44.25	0.04	18.99
T7	24.50	0.75	0.00	0.00
T8	66.25	0.00	0.00	0.00
T9	22.75	0.00	0.00	0.00
T10	24.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
T11	18.00	22.00	0.02	9.41
T12	19.00	10.25	0.01	4.27
F treatments	38.10**	170.43**	83.86**
T1 vs T2	18.15**	121.46**	<0.01^ns
T1 vs T3, 8	0.11^ns	4.74*	383.30**
T2 vs T4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12	46.99**	335.61**	475.46**
CV⁽²⁾ (%)	17.92	26.81	42.87
LSD⁽³⁾ - T-test at 5%	6.05	7.37	0.02

Treatment	7 DAA⁽¹⁾			14 DAA
Treatment	I. nil	U. decumbes	P. maximum	I. nil	U. decumbens	P. maximum
T1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
T2	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
T3	52.50	81.25	83.75	52.50	98.75	100.00
T4	67.50	83.75	87.50	46.25	100.00	100.00
T5	67.50	86.25	88.75	52.50	100.00	100.00
T6	40.00	33.75	36.25	27.50	43.75	62.50
T7	62.50	68.75	100.00	52.50	72.50	86.25
T8	62.50	81.25	83.75	53.75	100.00	100.00
T9	73.75	85.00	87.50	52.50	100.00	100.00
T10	82.50	86.25	100.00	71.25	100.00	100.00
T11	52.50	33.75	51.25	40.00	22.50	70.00
T12	37.50	50.00	56.25	35.00	43.75	55.00
F treatments	142.32**	353.45**	332.10**	28.64**	679.06**	436.84**
C.V.⁽²⁾ (%)	8.95	6.14	6.12	20.17	4.83	4.94
LSD⁽³⁾ T-test at 5%	4.53	3.58	4.01	8.25	3.19	3.66