Abstract
We evaluated four chemical treatments (herbicides) used to fight weeds, as compared to manual weed picking and using a witness treatment. All treatments had a rotational handling with 6.5 animal units (12 animals of 250 kg per five haurs). We used a proteid bank or monoculture of forage peanut, in an arca of 1080 sq.mt., with a 30 days break. In order to evaluate the many variables, we used an experimen-tal design of complete random blocks, with six treatments and tree repetitions per treatment. In order to determine the coverage of the culture, its tolerance to the active ingredient and the level of treatment control, we carried out four evaluations: 0, 30, 60, and 90 days of treatment application. We found differences (P<0.01) between treatments related to the degree of coverage of the forage peanut plants. With Gliphosate and manual weeding, we obtained a dominant coverage of forage peanut, while with the witness treatment the degree of coverage was inferior. The production of dry matter from the weeds, as well as their percentage in the pasture, decreased in a significant way (P<0.01), through the sampling process. With the witness treatment we obtained the largest amount of dry matter in the weeds, and also the highest percentage of weeds in the pasture.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
Forage peanut cover differed between weed-control treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“We found differences (P<0.01) between treatments related to the degree of coverage of the forage peanut plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate produced dominant forage peanut cover.
Verbatim
e0“With Gliphosate and manual weeding, we obtained a dominant coverage of forage peanut, while with the witness treatment the degree of coverage was inferior.”
Claim · model-written summary
Manual weeding produced dominant forage peanut cover.
Verbatim
e0“With Gliphosate and manual weeding, we obtained a dominant coverage of forage peanut, while with the witness treatment the degree of coverage was inferior.”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed dry matter production and weed percentage in pasture decreased during sampling.
- Outcome
- production of dry matter from the weeds, as well as their percentage in the pasturee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The production of dry matter from the weeds, as well as their percentage in the pasture, decreased in a significant way (P<0.01), through the sampling process.”
Claim · model-written summary
The witness treatment had the highest weed dry matter and weed percentage.
- Treatment
- witness treatmente0
- Outcome
- amount of dry matter in the weeds, and also the highest percentage of weeds in the pasturee0
- Direction
- largeste0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“With the witness treatment we obtained the largest amount of dry matter in the weeds, and also the highest percentage of weeds in the pasture.”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · organism · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.