Paper · 2019 · Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental

Agronomic performance of canola submitted to desiccation with herbicides at different maturation stages

Willian B. Rosa; José B. Duarte Júnior; Ivonei Perego; et al.

8
claims
8
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

ABSTRACT Uneven maturation in canola is an important challenge for its management in regions subject to frost and high rainfall at the end of the cycle. In order to identify practices to maximize grain yield under these growing conditions, this work evaluated the effects of desiccation with herbicides at different phenological stages on Hyola 433, one of the most commonly used hybrids in Brazil. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with four repetitions in a 6 x 4 factorial scheme, with five herbicides: paraquat, diquat and ammonium glufosinate at dose of 400 g a.i. ha-1, glyphosate at 1,440 g a.i. ha-1 and saflufenacil at 70 g a.i. ha-1, plus the control, at four phenological stages of silique maturation (G2, G3, G4 and G5). Desiccation at G2 and G3 reduced the oil content and thousand-grain weight on average by 60%, affecting directly grain yield. Desiccation at G4, regardless of herbicide, did not influence thousand-grain weight and oil content, but the use of diquat reduced canola yield by 187 kg ha-1. In the desiccation at G5, none of the herbicides led to differences compared to the control for thousand-grain weight, yield and oil content, and it allowed harvest to be brought forward by five days. In general, the crop presents adequate responses to the desiccation with different herbicides at the phenological stages G4 and G5.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Desiccation at G2 and G3 reduced canola oil content by 60% on average.

Treatment
Desiccation at G2 and G3e0
Outcome
oil contente0
Direction
reducede0
Value
60%e0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Desiccation at G2 and G3 reduced the oil content and thousand-grain weight on average by 60%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–849 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Desiccation at G2 and G3 reduced thousand-grain weight by 60% on average.

Treatment
Desiccation at G2 and G3e0
Outcome
thousand-grain weighte0
Direction
reducede0
Value
60%e0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Desiccation at G2 and G3 reduced the oil content and thousand-grain weight on average by 60%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–849 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Desiccation at G2 and G3 affected grain yield.

Outcome
grain yielde0

Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“affecting directly grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 851–881 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At G4, desiccation did not influence thousand-grain weight or oil content.

Treatment
Desiccation at G4e0
Outcome
thousand-grain weight and oil contente0
Direction
did not influencee0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Desiccation at G4, regardless of herbicide, did not influence thousand-grain weight and oil content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 883–982 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Diquat at G4 reduced canola yield by 187 kg ha-1.

Treatment
diquate0
Outcome
canola yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
187 kg ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the use of diquat reduced canola yield by 187 kg ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 988–1041 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At G5, herbicides produced no difference in thousand-grain weight, yield, or oil content versus control.

Treatment
herbicidese0
Outcome
thousand-grain weight, yield and oil contente0
Direction
none of the herbicides led to differencese0
Comparator
controle0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“none of the herbicides led to differences compared to the control for thousand-grain weight, yield and oil content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1069–1183 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Desiccation at G5 advanced harvest by five days.

Outcome
harveste0
Direction
brought forwarde0
Value
five dayse0

Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0

“it allowed harvest to be brought forward by five days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1242 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors judged G4 and G5 suitable stages for desiccation with different herbicides.

Outcome
desiccation with different herbicides at the phenological stages G4 and G5e0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“the crop presents adequate responses to the desiccation with different herbicides at the phenological stages G4 and G5”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1256–1374 · show in text ↑

diquat · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative
See all 4 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.