Printer Friendly

Floristic composition of weeds in different winter and summer covers.

Introduction

Among the cultural tools to manage weed species, the usage of soil covering plants in a no-till system is a practice that shows positive effects, since the straw of the previous crop aids in the emergency suppression of weeds, through physical and allelopathic effect (Constantin, 2007). Physically, the cover plant has influence over light, temperature and soil moisture, hardening the dormancy breaking process and preventing the germination of seeds and/or propagules of weeds, acting as a mechanical barrier. As to the chemical effects, they might occur through the release of known substances in the environment, known as allelochemicals (Souza et al., 2006), which might compromise the germination and the development of weeds (Pires & Oliveira 2007).

It is desirable that the cover plants provide nutrients for cultivated plants through straw decomposition, but also that they suppress the weeds. (Moraes et al., 2009). The allelopathic action, during the vegetative growth and in the decomposition process of vegetal remainings, exercises interspecific inhibition over other species (Meschede et al., 2007). This occurs due to the reduced availability of light and to the consequences of the acting compounds (Kadioglu et al., 2005).

Among the benefits that soil coverings proportionate to the crops, the effect of emergence suppression of weeds is highlighted, associated to a possible reduction in the application of herbicides. This practice might complement the chemical method of weed control, since the residues of the previous crop reduces or delays the emergence of unwanted plants (Rizzardi & Silva, 2006).

The evaluation of weed species occurring under field conditions of different covering plants might be performed through a phytosociological survey. Phytosociology is comprehended as one of the most utilized methods in the foristic reconnaissance of agricultural areas, being proposed by Mueller & Ellemberg (1974). It is possible to stablish, for example, the occurrence frequency of a determined species in an area. Associating this information with the usage of different soil covering plants both in winter and in summer, it is possible to estimate which covering has a greater or lesser suppressing effect over infesting weeds.

This work aimed to identify and to quantify the foristic composition of weeds through phytosociological characterization in a cultivated area with covering plant species during two growing seasons, winter and summer, with the objective of verifying the suppression capacity of covering species over the weeds.

Material and Methods

The work was carried out in the agricultural years of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 in an experimental area of the Federal University of Santa Maria--UFSM, Campus of Frederico Westphalen, Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil, under the coordinates 27[degrees]21'33" S, 53[degrees]23'40" W and at 522m of altitude. The adopted experimental design was in randomized blocks, with four repetitions, with the experimental units of 4 [m.sup.2] (2,0 m x 2,0 m). The treatments utilized as covering plants are listed on Table 1. Previously to the sowing of the winter and summer coverings, the area was desiccated with 720 g e.a [ha.sup.-1] of the glyphosate herbicide.

The sowing of the covering species for the winter was performed through broadcast sowing, on June 5, 2011, and June 9, 2012, in density, aiming to stablish the plant population in the area, according to the technical recommendation for each covering (Table 1). In the first year of the experiment implantation an infestation of the parcels was performed with seeds of Bidens spp., in the population of 21 plants [m.sup.-2], at the same moment of the covering sowing. The sowing of the summer covering plants was performed on November 10, 2011, and November 19, 2012, according to the described for the winter coverings (Table 1). Fertilization with NPK (05-20-30) was performed in the dosage of 300 Kg [ha.sup.-1], in both years and for both sowing seasons.

The evaluation of the weed species in winter was performed through phytosociological survey at 90 days after sowing (DAS) of the winter coverings, which were near to the end of the cycle. For the summer coverings, the evaluation of weed species was performed at 28 days after seedling emergence (DAE) of the coverings, when they were already stablished in the area and inside the critical period of interference prevention. Such proceedings were identical in the two years in which the research was conducted.

The sampling for the survey was performed by randomly casting a hollow quadrant with an internal area of 0,25 [m.sup.2], one time per parcel, according the methodology proposed by Oliveira & Freitas (2008). The plants were counted and identified according to Lorenzi (2006). The shoot dry matter (SDM ) of the vegetal coverings in winter and summer was obtained through collection of the pre-flowering shoot parts and desiccation in Kiln at 60 [degrees]C, until reaching constant weight.

With the collected information, the following phytosociological parameters were calculated: frequency (occurrence rate of species in each square), density (amount rate of individuals of a same species in each square), abundance (concentration of the species in different points of the total area), relative frequency, relative density and relative abundance (relating one species to all remaining species in the area) and the importance value index, according to Mueller & Ellenberg (1974), based on the following equations:

Frequency = [[Number of releases that contain the species]/Total number of releases]

Relative Frequency = [[Species frequency x 100]/Total frequency of all species]

Density= [[Total number of individuals per species]/Total area sampled]

Relative density = [[Species density x 100]/Total density of all species]

Abundance = [[Total number of individuals per species]/Number of releases that contain the species]

Relative abundance = [[Species abundance x 100]/Total abundance of all species]

Importance Value lndex=Relative frequency +Relative density+ Relative abundance

Results and Discussion

In the winter period, the production of shoot dry matter (SDM) for the wheat treatment was superior to the remaining soil covering species for both years, with an average of 6548,80 kg [ha.sup.-1] in 2011 and 6625,12 kg [ha.sup.-1] in 2012 (Table 2). The second higher production of SDM was obtained by the wild radish (5611,20 kg [ha.sup.-1]) in 2011; as to the 2012 period the second higher production of SDM was recorded with wild radish (5193,70 kg [ha.sup.-1]) and also with black oat (4914,00 kg [ha.sup.-1]). Among covering species, vetch presented a lower amount of SDM when sampling both years of experiment conduction, with averages equivalent to 956,80 and 1023,09 kg [ha.sup.-1] for 2011 and 2012 respectively (Table 2).

In the summer period the higher production of SDM was recorded for sunflower, compared to the remaining covering species in both years, with an average production equivalent to 17465,20 and 15836,27 kg [ha.sup.-1] for both periods of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, respectively (Table 2). The second higher SDM production was obtained by sorghum for both crops, followed by the black velvet bean and the dwarf velvet bean, with the lowest SDM production observed for the gray velvet bean (2844,80 kg [ha.sup.-1]) in 2011/2012 and for gray velvet bean (2853,34 kg [ha.sup.-1]) and green velvet bean (2975,30 kg [ha.sup.-1]) in 2012/2013 (Table 2). High amounts of dry mass over the soil tend to reduce the establishment of weed species in function of the thermal amplitude reduction by the formation of a physical barrier (Monquero et al., 2009; Gomes Jr. & Christoffoleti, 2008), hardening the emergence of weeds. Thus, the higher the SDM production obtained by the coverings, the higher the suppression capacity on weed species.

According to the performed phytosociological surveys, the presence of a large seed bank of weeds in the experimental area was discovered, a fact observed both in winter and in summer. For the winter essays, a higher incidence of weed species was recorded in the uncultivated treatment. Regarding the families of the present species, a higher diversity was also observed for this treatment (uncultivated) in both evaluated years.

In 2011, the lowest numbers of weed species were recorded in the treatments with wild radish and ryegrass coverings, with ten species observed for each treatment. In the following year, the lowest infestation diversity was again observed for the wild radish and ryegrass coverings, with seven and eight identified species, respectively (Table 3).

The usage of wild radish and ryegrass as soil covering plants during winter presented superior results when compared to the remaining evaluated species as to weed suppression in both evaluation years (Table 3). The remaining covering plants, wheat, black oat and vetch did not differ from the uncultivated treatment in 2011; as to the second year, the covering composed by black oat and wheat straw ranked in an average situation compared to the total number of species, which were able to reduce the number of weed species in the area, compared to the uncultivated treatment.

Concerning the number of families obtained in the 2011 survey, the coverings with ryegrass, wild radish, wheat and vetch were inferior to the result obtained in the uncultivated condition, which was similar to the black oat and also did not differ from wheat (Table 3). In the following year all utilized covering species reduced the number of families obtained with the evaluations, when compared to the result found for the uncultivated condition, except for the vetch, which did not differ within conditions (Table 3). It allowed to infer, on a general manner, that the usage of soil coverings in the winter period tend to lower the number of weed species throughout the years, turning out to be an important tool in the integrated management for the control of weeds. The usage of covering plants in no-till systems contributes for the reduction of weeds in the crops. However, the intervention with herbicides is usually important to avoid yield reduction in function of weed interference (Balbinot Jr et al., 2007), highlighting the importance of the integrated management.

As to the importance value index (IVI) calculated at 90 DAS, it is observed that in 2011 the weed species Bowlesia incana, belonging the Apiaceae family, presented the highest value for the treatments with ryegrass (75,01), wild radish (65,36) and wheat (44,43). As to the treatments composed by black oat and vetch, the species which presented highest IVI was Stellaria media, weed plant belonging to the Caryophyllaceae family, with values equivalent to 45,53 and 38,11, respectively. For the uncultivated treatment, the species with highest IVI was Ipomoea spp. (33,67), weed plant of the Convolvulaceae family. Unwanted plants belonging to the Commelinaceae, Asteraceae and Plantaginaceae families did also present considerable IVI (Table 4).

For the IVI calculated at 90 DAS in the second year of the winter coverings experiment conduction (2012), it was observed that the species Bidens spp. (Asteraceae) presented higher value for the treatments: uncultivated (140,23), ryegrass (105,0), black oat (165, 45) and wheat (150,21) (Table 5). For the wild radish and vetch treatments, the highest IVI were obtained for the species: Sorghum bicolor (144,02), belonging to the Poaceae family, and Galinsoga parvifora (168,33), belonging to the Asteraceae family, respectively (Table 5). It was observed, on a general manner, that the Asteraceae family highlighted from the remaining families within the evaluated treatments.

Relating both years of winter covering plants, it is observed that there was an alteration in the IVI for the treatments, concerning the weed species, where Bidens spp. reached a higher importance in the second year (Table 5); this result might be associated to the purposeful infestation realized during the sowing of the winter coverings in the first year of the experiment. The increase in frequency and dominance of the species Bidens spp. for the second year of the experiment conduction might be possibly related to the area infestation performed in 2011, which refers to the idea that there was emergence in summer and a large scale seed production due to the observed population in the survey performed in the second year; furthermore, the high sorghum infestation in the treatments with wild radish (Table 5) is related to crop rotation, since that in summer the sorghum was utilized as soil covering in the parcels in which wild radish was used as covering, during winter.

Regarding the soil coverings utilized in the summer period, for the evaluations performed at 28 DAE in both years in which the study was conducted, no significative difference was verified as to the number of recorded weed species (Table 6). No significative difference was also found for the number of families of weed species for the first year; as to the following year, the higher occurrence of weed species was observed in the black velvet bean treatment, with eight occurrent species (Table 6); the fact that this area with black velvet bean was uncultivated during winter might justify the superiority in number of existent species compared to the remaining treatments which had covering plants during winter.

Through the phytosociological analysis performed at 28 DAE in 2011/12, a lower frequency of weeds was observed for the treatment with sorghum cover compared to the infesting weed Ipomoea spp., highlighted in all treatments. As to the IVI for the referred species, it was the lowest observed in the sorghum cover, followed by sunflower (Table 7), with this result possibly associated to a higher production of shoot dry mass, comparing with the remaining studied coverings (Table 2). The dwarf velvet bean was the cover species which offered a higher result for the IVI parameter calculated for the Ipomoea spp. (Table 7), corroborating the results observed by Lamengo et al. (2015), in which they verified that the dwarf velvet bean presented higher phytosociological indexes among the studied soil coverings for Raphanus spp. These results might be related to the higher amount of dry mass produced by the covering (Table 2), if compared to the results obtained, for example, by sorghum and sunflower. Furthermore, according to Formentini et al. (2009) the maximum shoot dry mass production that the dwarf velvet bean might reach lies around 4 t [ha.sup.-1].

According to the calculated parameters, it is observed that for the second year of experiment conduction with the summer coverings, the IVI was superior for the species Bidens spp., followed by the species Ipomoea spp., occurring an inversion, comparing it with the previous year (Table 8). The covering which presented a lower index for this parameter was again sorghum followed by sunflower. As to the sunflower, there are studies which infer that even in the seedling stage it is capable of inhibiting the germination or to compromise root and shoot growth in Bildens pilosa (Silva et al. 2009); studies performed by Macias et. al (2003) indicate yet that the crop might interfere in the development of neighboring plants through allelopathy, although the method of action of these allelopathic compounds is little known.

As to the sorghum, the observed reduction in the phytosociological parameters (Table 8) might also be associated to the synthetization of allelopathic substances, in this example, the sorgoleone (Santos et. al, 2012). The mixture of lipid substances associated to specialized enzymes 2-hidroxi- 5metoxi-3-[(Z,Z)-8', 11',14'-pentadecatriene]- p-benzoquinone is known as sorgoleone (Dayan, 2006), which is naturally produced in the trichomes of sorghum roots; in contact with the weeds they are capable of inhibiting their development, by actuating in the inhibition of the photosyntheticall via (Santos et.al, 2012).

The usage of summer covering plants is efficient in the management of weed suppression, although it is dependent of the utilized covering species (Lamego et al., 2015). The amount of dry mass produced and deposited over the soil has a great influence over suppression, since that high amounts of dry mass over the soil tend to reduce the establishment of weed species in function of the decrease of thermal amplitude and the formation of a physical barrier (Monquero et al., 2009),

In the first year of the winter coverings, Bowlesia incana was a highlighted weed species among coverings, differently from Ipomoea spp., which was the one with higher IVI in the uncultivated treatment. In summer, however, Ipomoea spp. Was the predominant weed, independently of the cultivated vegetal covering. In sequence, in the second year of the winter coverings, the purposeful sowing of Bidens spp. was stablished in the area, being this weed the predominant among coverings. This infestation was repeated in the experimental area in the summer coverings and was better suppressed when of the succession of wild radish in winter to sorghum in summer, comparing with the remaining coverings.

For the second year, in winter, the vetch covering presented a higher IVI for Bidens spp. However, in summer, being the sunflower the succession crop for the vetch, this parameter was inferior to the results obtained for the velvet beans, highlighting the suppression capacity of the sunflower over the weed.

Although the infestation by Bidens spp. in the second evaluation year was elevated, a reduction was observed in the treatments in which sorghum and sunflower were the summer covering plants. The vegetal mass produced by the coverings must be considered (Table 2), which is responsible for the physical effect of weed suppression; this might be completed by a produced allelochemical, although this study has not focused in its determination. The sorghum capacity of synthetizing the sorgoleone substance in its root trichomes is widely known, associating it to the weed control in its cultivation areas (Santos et al., 2012).

According with a work developed by Meschede et al. (2007), evaluations performed in different types of soil covering in the cerrado region involving sorghum, millet and crotalaria demonstrated significative weed suppression, as well as higher soil covering by these species. In a study with corn straw over the soil, a numerically inferior emergence of weeds was verified, comparing with the uncultivated area (Luz et al, 2014). Studies also described that the decomposition of the oat straw in the soybean crop presented positive effects over the incidence of weeds, not affecting the grain yield of the crop (Pereira et al., 2011).

Considering the negative effects of the competition generated by the weeds with the cultivated plants, the utilization of strategies for the management of these weeds in the production environments is utterly necessary. With the current society demand for cleaner and sustainable technologies, the usage of covering plants aiming the support in the weed control becomes an important tool for the integrated management of these unwanted species. Studies such as this might provide information for the establishment of efficient alternatives in production systems, avoiding significative reductions in the yield of agricultural crops, aside from offering a possible lower impact to the environment through the reduction of herbicide usage.

Conclusions

The cultivation of ryegrass, black oat, vetch, wheat and wild radish as winter covering plants contributes for the emergence suppression of weeds when compared to the area left uncultivated, with a higher suppressive effect obtained by ryegrass and wild radish coverings.

Sorghum and sunflower are efficient in the production of vegetal mass, decreasing the intensity of emergent weed species, specially Bidens spp., when compared to the species of black velvet bean, dwarf velvet bean and gray velvet bean.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the research funding agencies FAPERGS, CAPES and CNPq for the graduate and postgraduate scholarships of the post-graduation program in Agronomy: Agriculture and Environment--PPGAAA/UFSM. To Prof. Antonio Luis Santi of UFSM, Campus of Frederico Westphalen for the donation of the provided seeds.

References

Balbinot JR, A. A., Moraes, A., Backes, R.L. 2007. Efeito de coberturas de inverno e sua epoca de manejo sobre a infestacao de plantas daninhas na cultura de milho. Planta Daninha 25: 473-480.

Constantin, J. 2007. Metodos de Manejo. In: Oliveira Jr, R. S., Constantin, J., Inoue, M., H. Biologia e Manejo de Plantas Daninhas. Omnipax, Curitiba, Brazil. 348p.

Dayan, F.E. 2006. Factors modulating the levels of the allelochemical sorgoleone in Sorghum bicolor. Planta 224: 339-346.

Formentini, E.A., Loss, F.R., Bayerl, M.P., Lovati, R.D., Baptisti, E. 2008. Cartilha sobre adubacao verde e compostagem. INCAPER, Vitoria, Brazil. 27 p.

Lamego, F. P., Caratti, F. C., Reinehr, M., Gallon, M., Santi, A. L., Basso, C. J. 2015. Potencial de supressao de plantas daninhas por plantas de cobertura de verao. Comunicata Scientiae 6: 97-105.

Gomes JR., F. G., Christoffoleti, P. J. 2008. Biologia e manejo de plantas daninhas em areas de plantio direto. Planta Daninha 26: 789-798.

Kadioglu, I., Yanar, Y., Asav, U. 2005. Allelopathic effectsof weeds extracts against seed germination of some plants. Journal of Environmental Biology 26:169-173.

Lorenzi, H. 2006. Manual de identificacao e controle de plantas daninhas: plantio direto e convencional. Instituto Plantarum, Nova Odessa, BR. 339 p.

Luz, F. N., Yamashita, O. M., Ferraresi, D. A., Carvalho, M. A. C., Campos, O. R., Koga, P. S., Massaroto, J. A. 2014. Interferencia de luz, temperatura, profundidade de semeadura e palhada na germinacao e emergencia de Murdannia nudifora. Comunicata Scientiae 5: 25-33.

Macias, F. A. et al. 2003. Allelopathy as a new strategy for sustainable ecosystems development. Biological Sciences in Space, 17:18-23,

Meschede, D.K., Ferreira, A.B., Ribeiro JR, C.C. 2007. Avaliacao de diferentes coberturas na supressao de plantas daninhas no Cerrado. Planta Daninha 25:465-471.

Monquero, P.A., Amaral, L.R., Inacio, E.M., Brunhara, J.P., Binha, D.P., Silva, P.V., Silva, A.C. 2009. Efeito de adubos verdes na supressao de especies de plantas daninhas. Planta Daninha 27:85-95.

Moraes, P.V.D., Agostinetto, D., Vignolo, G.K., Santos, L.S., Panozzo, L.E. 2009. Manejo de plantas de cobertura no controle de plantas espontaneas na cultura do milho. Planta Daninha 27:289-296.

Mueller, D., Ellenberg, H.A. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley. Nova Iorque, EUA. 547 p.

Oliveira, A.R., Freitas, S.P. 2008. Levantamento fitossociologico de plantas daninhas em areas de producao de cana-de-acucar. Planta Daninha 26: 33-46.

Pereira, R.A., Alves, P.L.C.A., Correa, M.P., Dias, T.C.S. 2011. Influencia da cobertura de aveiapreta e milheto sobre comunidade de plantas daninhas e producao de soja. Revista de Ciencias Agrarias 6: 1-11.

Pires, N. M., Oliveira, V.R. 2007. Alelopatia. In: Oliveira Jr, R. S., Constantin, J., Inoue, M., H. Biologia e Manejo de Plantas Daninhas. Omnipax, Curitiba, BR. 348p.

Rizzardi, M.A., Silva, L.F. 2006. Influencia das coberturas vegetais antecessoras de aveia-preta e nabo-forrageiro na epoca de controle de plantas daninhas em milho. Planta Daninha 24: 669-675.

Santos, I.L.V.L., Silva, C.R.C., Maia,, M.M.D. 2012. Sorgoleone: Benzoquinona lipidica de sorgo com efeitos alelopaticos na agricultura como herbicida. Arquivos do Instituto Biologico 79:135-144.

Silva, H.L., Trezzi. M.M., Marchese, J.A., Buzzello, G., Miotto Jr. E., Patel, F., Debastiani, F., Fiorese, J. 2009. Determinacao de especie indicadora e comparacao de genotipos de girassol quanto ao potencial alelopatico. Planta Daninha 27: 655-663.

Souza, L.S., Velini, E.D., Martins, D., Rosolem, C.A. 2006. Efeito alelopatico de capim-braquiaria (Brachiaria decumbens) sobre o crescimento inicial de sete especies de plantas cultivadas. Planta Daninha 24: 657-668.

Fernanda Cassiane Caratti (1*), Fabiane Pinto Lamego (2), Marcela Reinehr (1), Mirian Fracasso Fabiani (1), Daiane Frizon (1), Marines Mazzon (1)

(1) Federal University of Santa Maria, Frederico Westphalen,Brazil

(2) Brazilian Company of Agricultural Researches, Bage, Brazil.

(*) Corresponding author, e-mail: nandacaratti@yahoo.com.br

Received: 22 April 2017

Accepted: 17 August 2017

DOI: 10.14295/CS.v9i3.1268
Table 1. Species of ground couver applied in succession during the
periods of summer and winter. UFSM, Campus de Frederico Westphalen, RS,
2011/12-2012/13.

Treatment  Commom name          Scientific name

                                Winter cover
T1         Fallow               -
T2         Italian ryegrass     Lolium multiflorum
T3         Turnip               Raphanus spp
T4         Vetch                Vicia sativa
T5         Black oats           Avena strigose
T6         Wheat (cv. Quartzo)  Triticum aestivum
                                Summer cover
T1         Black velvet bean    Mucuna aterrima
T2         Gray velvet bean     Mucuna cinerea
T3         Sorghum              Sorghum bicolor
T4         Sunflower            Helianthus annuus
T5         Dwarf velvet bean    Stizolobium deeringianum
T6         Green velvet bean    Mucuna pruriens var.utilis

Treatment  Family        Density
                         pl [ha.sup.-1]


T1         -             -
T2         Poaceae       300.000
T3         Brassicaceae   30.000
T4         Leguminosae   150.000
T5         Poaceae       300.000
T6         Poaceae       300.000

T1         Fabaceae       30.000
T2         Fabaceae       30.000
T3         Poaceae       150.000
T4         Asteraceae     40.000
T5         Fabaceae       30.000
T6         Fabaceae       30.000

Table 2. SDM (kg [ha.sup.-1]) from the covering plants used on both
winter and summer. UFSM, Frederico Westphalen Campus -RS, 2011 and
2012/13.

Covering          MSPA - Winter             Cover
                  2011           2012

Fallow            2140.80 e (*)  1876.40 d  Sunflower
Black oats        4864.00 c      4914.00 b  Sorghum
Turnip            5611.20 b      5193.70 b  Black velvet bean
Vetch              956.80 f      1023.09 e  Gray velvet bean
Wheat             6548.80 a      6625.12 a  Dwarf velvet bean
Italian ryegrass  4315.20 d      4335.30 c  Green velvet bean
C.V. (1) (%)         3.5            5.2

Covering          MSPA - Summer
                  2011/2012      2012/2013

Fallow            17465.20 a     15836.27 a
Black oats        12167.60 b     11978.56 b
Turnip             3563.20 c      3457.28 c
Vetch              2844.80 e      2853.34 d
Wheat              3460.80 c      3376.89 c
Italian ryegrass   3206.40 d      2975.30 d
C.V. (1) (%)          0.8            2.4

(*) Means followed by the same lowercase letters in the columns do not
differ from each other by the test Tukey, with 5% probability. 1
Coefficient of variation.

Table 3. Total number of weed species and its families (plants
[m.sup.-2]), identified through a phytosociological survey at 90 days
after seeding (DAS) of the covering plants during the winter. UFSM,
Campus de Frederico Westphalen, RS, 2011-2012.

Treatment         90 DAS
            total Number of species  Families
            2011  2012               2011  2012

Fallow      19 a  17 a                9 a  10 a
Ryegrass    10 b   8 c                5 b   4 b
Turnip      10 b   7 c                5 b   5 b
Black oats  15 a  13 ab               9 a   6 b
Wheat       15 a  10 bc               7 ab  4 b
Vetch       15 a  16 a                5 b   7 ab
c.v. (%)    15,2  17,4               25,9  25,9

(*) Means followed by the same lowercase letters in the columns, do not
differ from each other by the test Tukey, with 5% of probability.
(1) Coefficient of variation.

Table 4. Species, frequency (F), dominance (D), abundance (A), relative
frequency (RF), relative dominance (RD), relative abundance (RA) and
importance value index (IVI) of all identified weed species on the
phytosociological survey 90 DAS (Days After Seeding), in winter
covering plants. UFSM, Campus de Frederico Westphalen, RS, 2011.

Treatment   Specie               F     D      A      FR (%)  DR (%)

            Bowlesia incana      0,50  28,00  14,00   5,71    8,97
Fallow      Ipomoea spp.         0,75  48,00  16,00   8,57   15,38
            Stellaria media      0,50  36,00  18,00   5,71   11,53
            Bowlesia incana      0,75  72,00  24,00  13,64   34,61
Ryegrass    Apium leptophyllum   1,00  36,00   9,00  18,18   17,31
            Sonchus oleraceus    0,75  20,00   6,67  13,64    9,62
            Bowlesia incana      1,00  40,00  10,00  25,00   29,41
Turnip      Murdannia nudiflora  0,25  20,00  20,00   6,25   14,71
            Soliva pterosperma   0,25  20,00  20,00   6,25   14,71
            Stellaria media      0,75  36,00  12,00  12,50   15,38
Vetch       Murdannia nudiflora  0,50  28,00  14,00   8,33   11,97
            Apium leptophyllum   0,75  34,00  11,33  12,50   14,53
            Bowlesia incana      1,00  40,00  10,00  14,81   18,87
Black oats  Stellaria media      0,75  44,00  14,67  11,11   20,75
            Plantago tomentosa   0,75  20,00   6,67  11,11    9,43
            Bowlesia incana      0,75  52,00  17,33  10,00   19,05
Wheat       Stellaria media      0,75  40,00  13,33  10,00   14,65
            Murdannia nudiflora  0,50  40,00  20,00   6,67   14,65

Treatment   AR (%)  IVI

             8,50   23,18
Fallow       9,72   33,67
            10,93   28,17
            26,76   75,01
Ryegrass     9,21   44,70
             6,83   30,08
            10,95   65,36
Turnip      21,90   42,85
            21,90   42,85
            10,23   38,11
Vetch       11,93   32,23
             9,66   36,69
             9,32   43,00
Black oats  13,67   45,53
             6,21   26,76
            15,38   44,43
Wheat       11,83   36,49
            17,75   39,07

Table 5. Species, frequency (F), dominance (D), abundance (A), relative
frequency (RF), relative dominance (RD), relative abundance (RA) of
weeds, importance value index (IVI), 90 Days After Seeding (DAS) of
species used as cover during the winter. UFSM, Campus de Frederico
Westphalen, RS, 2012.

Treatment   Species                 F     D     A     FR (%)  DR (%)

            Bidens spp.             1,00  316  79,00  20,00   69,91
Fallow      Apium leptophyllum      1,00   24   6,00  20,00    5,31
            Euphorbia heterophylla  0,50   20  10,00  10,00    4,42
            Bidens spp.             0,25    8   8,00  25,00   40,00
Ryegrass    Bowlesia incana         0,25    4   4,00  25,00   20,00
            Ipomoea spp.            0,25    4   4,00  25,00   20,00
            Bidens spp.             0,50   16   8,00  20,00   11,43
Turnip      Sorghum bicolor         0,75   88  29,33  30,00   62,86
            Sonchus oleraceus       0,50   16   8,00  20,00   11,43
            Galinsoga parviflora    0,25   12  12,00  33,33   60,00
            Lolium multiflorum      0,50    8   4,00  66,67   40,00
            Bidens spp.             0,75   40  13,33  50,00   66,67
Black oats  Sonchus oleraceus       0,50   12   6,00  33,33   20,00
            Ipomoea spp             0,25    8   8,00  16,67   13,33
            Bidens spp.             0,75   80  26,67  33,33   71,43
Wheat       Ipomoea spp             0,25    4   4,00  11,11    3,57
            Bowlesia incana         0,25    8   8,00  11,11    7,14

Treatment   AR (%)  IVI

            50,32   140,23
Fallow       3,82    29,13
             6,37    20,79
            40,00   105,00
Ryegrass    20,00    65,00
            20,00    65,00
            13,95    45,38
Turnip      51,17   144,02
            13,95    45,38
            75,00   168,33
            25,00   131,67
            48,79   165,45
Black oats  21,95    75,29
            29,27    59,27
            45,45   150,21
Wheat        6,82    21,50
            13,64    31,89

Table 6. The total amount of weed species (plants [m.sup.-2]), and the
number of families of many species, identified through the
phytosociological survey by the 28 days after emergence (DAE) of the
summer cover plants. UFSM, Campus de Frederico Westphalen, RS,
2011-2012/2013.

Treatment           28 DAE
                    Total species number   Familes
                    2011/12  2012/13       2011/12   2012/13

Black velvet bean   6 a      8 a           5 a       9 a
Gray velvet bean    6 a      7 a           3 a       4 b
Sorghum             7 a      5 a           4 a       3 b
Dwarf velvet bean   4 a      6 a           5 a       3 b
Green velvet bean   5 a      5 a           4 a       3 b
Sunflower           6 a      5 a           4 a       4 b
c.v. (%)           26,9     23,7          30,77     21,5

(*) Means followed by the same lowercase letters in the columns, do not
differ from each other by the test Tukey, with 5% probability .1
Coefficient of variation.

Table 7. Species, frequency (F), dominance (D), abundance (A), relative
frequency (RF), relative dominance (RD), relative abundance (RA) of
weeds, importance value index (IVI), 28 days after the species
emergence as summer covering plants. UFSM, Campus de Frederico
Westphalen, RS, 2011/2012.

Treatment     Specie                  F      D     A      RF (%)

              Ipomoea spp             0,75   40,0  13,33  25,0
Sunflower     Bidens spp.             0,75   12,0   4,0   25,0
              Euphorbia heterophylla  0,5     8,0   4,0   16,67
              Ipomoea spp.            0,5    16,0   7,0   25,0
Sorghum       Bidens spp.             0,25    4,0   4,0   12,5
              Euphorbia heterophylla  0,5     8,0   4,0   25,0
              Ipomoea spp.            1,0    60,0  15,0   36,36
              Bidens spp.             0,75   48,0  16,0   27,27
bean          Euphorbia heterophylla  0,25    8,0   8,0    9,09
Gray velvet   Ipomoea spp             0,75   40,0  13,33  37,5
              Euphorbia heterophylla  0,25    4,0   4,0   12,5
bean          Xanthium strumarium     0,75   24,0   8,0   37,5
Dwarf velvet  Ipomoea spp.            1,0   112,0  28,0   36,36
              Bidens spp.             0,25   12,0  12,0    9,09
bean          Galinsoga parvifora     0,5     8,0   4,0   18,18
              Ipomoea spp.            1,0    60,0  15,0   40,0
              Bidens spp.             0,5     8,0   4,0   20,0
bean          Euphorbia heterophylla  0,25    4,0   4,0   10,0

Treatment     RD (%)  RA (%)  IVI

              47,62   29,41   102,03
Sunflower     14,29    8,82    48,11
               9,52    8,82    35,01
              40,0    30,73    95,73
Sorghum       10,0    17,39    39,89
              20,0    17,39    62,39
              46,87   29,41   112,64
              37,5    31,37    96,14
bean           6,25   15,69    31,03
Gray velvet   55,56   45,46   138,52
               5,56   13,64    31,69
bean          33,33   27,28    98,11
Dwarf velvet  73,68   43,76   153,8
               7,89   18,75    35,73
bean           5,26    6,25    29,69
              68,18   38,46   146,64
               9,09   10,25    39,34
bean           4,55   10,26    24,8

Table 8. Species, frequency (F), dominance (D), abundance (A), relative
frequency (RF), relative dominance (RD), relative abundance (RA) of
weeds, importance value index (IVI), 28 days after the specie's
emergence as summer cover. UFSM, Campus de Frederico Westphalen, RS,
2012/2013.

Treatment     Specie                   F     D       A    RF (%)

              Bidens spp.             1,0   112,0   28,0  26,7
Sunflower     Ipomoea spp             1,0    36,0    9,0  26,7
              Solanum americanum      0,8    24,0    8,0  20,0
              Bidens spp.             1,0    44,0   11,0  30,8
Sorghum       Ipomoea spp             0,5    28,0   14,0  15,4
              Xanthium strumarium     0,8    24,0    8,0  23,1
Black velvet  Bidens spp.             1,0  1408,0  352,0  25,0
              Euphorbia heterophylla  1,0    72,0   18,0  25,0
bean          Xanthium strumarium     0,5    24,0   12,0  12,5
              Bidens spp.             1,0  1724,0  431,0  22,2
              Ipomoea spp             1,0    36,0    9,0  22,2
bean          Euphorbia heterophylla  1,0    56,0   14,0  22,2
Dwarf velvet  Bidens spp.             1,0   612,0  153,0  21,1
              Ipomoea spp.            1,0   160,0   40,0  21,1
bean          Cynodon dactylon        0,8    20,0    6,7  15,8
Green velvet  Bidens spp.             1,0  2244,0  561,0  28,6
              Ipomoea spp.            0,8    64,0   21,3  21,4
bean          Euphorbia heterophylla  1,0    72,0   18,0  28,6

Treatment     RD (%)  ra (%)  IVI

              57,1    49,1    132,9
Sunflower     18,4    15,8     60,8
              12,2    14,0     46,3
              35,5    23,1     89,3
Sorghum       22,6    29,4     67,3
              19,4    16,8     59,2
Black velvet  90,5    86,3    201,8
               4,6     4,4     34,0
bean           1,5     2,9     17,0
              91,9    89,1    203,2
               1,9     1,9     26,0
bean           3,0     2,9     28,1
Dwarf velvet  70,8    67,2    159,1
              18,5    17,6     57,1
bean           2,3     2,9     21,0
Green velvet  93,2    90,7    212,5
               2,7     3,5     27,5
bean           3,0     2,9     34,5
COPYRIGHT 2018 Federal University of Piaui
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Article
Author:Caratti, Fernanda Cassiane; Lamego, Fabiane Pinto; Reinehr, Marcela; Fabiani, Mirian Fracasso; Frizo
Publication:Comunicata Scientiae
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EUIT
Date:Jul 1, 2018
Words:5944
Previous Article:Quality maintenance of 'Laetitia' plum by application of 1- methylcyclopropene, ethanol vapor and heat treatment.
Next Article:Relative yield of wheat in coexistence with concurrent plants as indicator of competitiveness.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters