Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Individual and integrated methods on tough lovegrass control.|
|Authors:||FALEIRO, E. A.|
LAMEGO, F. P.
SCHAEDLER, C. E.
VALLE, T. A. del
AZEVEDO, E. B. de
|Affiliation:||EDUARDO AVELINO FALEIRO, UNIPAMPA; FABIANE PINTO LAMEGO, CPPSUL; CARLOS EDUARDO SCHAEDLER, IFSUL; TIAGO ANTONIO DEL VALLE, UNIPAMPA; EDUARDO BOHRER DE AZEVEDO, UNIPAMPA.|
|Citation:||Ciência Rural, v. 52, n. 9, e20210490, 2022.|
|Description:||ABSTRACT: The current study evaluated the efficiency of mechanical, physical, chemical and cultural methods, used exclusively or integrated, to control tough lovegrass. The experimental design was completely randomized, with 15 treatments and four repetitions. Physical control of tough lovegrass was based on the application of fire, whereas mechanical controls consisted in mowing and harrowing/plowing procedures. The herbicide clethodim and different glyphosate salts were evaluated for chemical control. Glyphosate and soil fertility correction were applied as cultural and integrated methods, in addition to isopropylamine + potassium salts combination, soil fertility correction and implantation of one of the following forage plants: Elephant grass, Pangola grass, Forage peanut and Birdsfoot trefoil. The effect of treatments on the incidence of tough lovegrass and on its botanical composition was evaluated one year after their applications. Isolated control methods, except for glyphosate using, did not present efficient tough lovegrass control. Glyphosate salts could control tough lovegrass plants, but their association with improved soil fertility and Pangola grass implantation was the best strategy to control the invasive plant. Key words: Eragrostis plana Nees, native pasture, weed control.|
|Type of Material:||Artigo de periódico|
|Appears in Collections:||Artigo em periódico indexado (CPPSUL)|
Files in This Item:
|Faleiro-et-al.-2022.pdf||824,74 kB||Adobe PDF|