Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus
Ano de defesa: | 2021 |
---|---|
Autor(a) principal: | |
Orientador(a): | |
Banca de defesa: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
Tipo de acesso: | Acesso aberto |
Idioma: | por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
Centro de Ciências Rurais |
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Agronomia
|
Departamento: |
Agronomia
|
País: |
Brasil
|
Palavras-chave em Português: | |
Palavras-chave em Inglês: | |
Área do conhecimento CNPq: | |
Link de acesso: | http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/23385 |
Resumo: | The fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is considered the main insect pest of corn (Zea mays) in Brazil. The control of this pest is carried out mainly with the use of Bt Plants (Bacillus thuringiensis) and chemical insecticides and, more recently, the use of biological insecticides has grown as a new alternative to be added to Integrated Pest Management. In order to evaluate the efficacy of Bt proteins expressed by some corn hybrids available on the market, as well as the interaction with the use of chemical and biological insecticides based on Baculovirus spodoptera for the control of this species, field experiments were carried out, with infestation natural of S. frugiperda, during two sowing seasons in the 2019/20 crop. Five Bt corn hybrids and one non-Bt corn hybrid were evaluated, in addition to 6 chemical insecticides and 2 biological insecticides. The evaluations were carried out at an interval of five days, attributing damage scores, according to the Davis Scale (1992), in addition to counting the number of plants attacked. For decision-making on insecticide applications, a control level was assigned whenever 10% of the evaluated plants had a damage score ≥ 3. In the first crop of the 2019/2020 season, DKB 290 (Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Cry3Bb1) and Morgan 20A78 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2) required four insecticidal applications, while Pioneer 32R22YHR (Cry1F/ Cry1Ab) and Pioneer 30F53R (non-Bt) required five insecticidal applications to mitigate S. frugiperda damage. In the second crop, DKB 290 and Morgan 20A78 required three to six insecticide applications, while Pioneer 32R22YHR and Pioneer 30F53R (non-Bt) required five to seven insecticide applications. On the other hand, in both cultures, Pioneer 30F53VYHR (Cry1Ab/ Cry1F/ Vip3Aa20) and Brevant 2401 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Vip3Aa20) did not require insecticidal applications, showing the efficiency of Vip toxins. Regarding the combination of chemical + biological insecticides, in the first crop, starting applications with Baculovirus spodoptera was more efficient, and in the Pioneer 30F53R corn hybrid the Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt combination performed better, and in the corn hybrid Pioneer 32R22YHR the best combination was Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt and Avatar. In the second crop, starting applications with chemical insecticides showed lower damage rates, because in both corn hybrids, the best combination was to start treatments using Exalt + Baculovirus spodoptera. Among the chemical insecticides used in this work, the ones that performed better were Exalt and Premio. |
id |
UFSM-20_07c7186f8f9da4ef99eb5d9881e0949f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ufsm.br:1/23385 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSM-20 |
network_name_str |
Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
2021-12-20T19:15:07Z2021-12-20T19:15:07Z2021-09-10http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/23385The fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is considered the main insect pest of corn (Zea mays) in Brazil. The control of this pest is carried out mainly with the use of Bt Plants (Bacillus thuringiensis) and chemical insecticides and, more recently, the use of biological insecticides has grown as a new alternative to be added to Integrated Pest Management. In order to evaluate the efficacy of Bt proteins expressed by some corn hybrids available on the market, as well as the interaction with the use of chemical and biological insecticides based on Baculovirus spodoptera for the control of this species, field experiments were carried out, with infestation natural of S. frugiperda, during two sowing seasons in the 2019/20 crop. Five Bt corn hybrids and one non-Bt corn hybrid were evaluated, in addition to 6 chemical insecticides and 2 biological insecticides. The evaluations were carried out at an interval of five days, attributing damage scores, according to the Davis Scale (1992), in addition to counting the number of plants attacked. For decision-making on insecticide applications, a control level was assigned whenever 10% of the evaluated plants had a damage score ≥ 3. In the first crop of the 2019/2020 season, DKB 290 (Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Cry3Bb1) and Morgan 20A78 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2) required four insecticidal applications, while Pioneer 32R22YHR (Cry1F/ Cry1Ab) and Pioneer 30F53R (non-Bt) required five insecticidal applications to mitigate S. frugiperda damage. In the second crop, DKB 290 and Morgan 20A78 required three to six insecticide applications, while Pioneer 32R22YHR and Pioneer 30F53R (non-Bt) required five to seven insecticide applications. On the other hand, in both cultures, Pioneer 30F53VYHR (Cry1Ab/ Cry1F/ Vip3Aa20) and Brevant 2401 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Vip3Aa20) did not require insecticidal applications, showing the efficiency of Vip toxins. Regarding the combination of chemical + biological insecticides, in the first crop, starting applications with Baculovirus spodoptera was more efficient, and in the Pioneer 30F53R corn hybrid the Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt combination performed better, and in the corn hybrid Pioneer 32R22YHR the best combination was Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt and Avatar. In the second crop, starting applications with chemical insecticides showed lower damage rates, because in both corn hybrids, the best combination was to start treatments using Exalt + Baculovirus spodoptera. Among the chemical insecticides used in this work, the ones that performed better were Exalt and Premio.A lagarta-do-cartucho, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) é considerada o principal inseto-praga da cultura do milho (Zea mays) no Brasil. O controle dessa praga é realizado principalmente com o uso de Plantas Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) e inseticidas químicos e, mais recentemente, tem crescido o uso de inseticidas biológicos como uma nova alternativa a ser somada ao Manejo Integrado de Pragas. Tendo como objetivo avaliar a eficácia das proteínas Bt expressas por alguns híbridos de milho disponíveis no mercado, assim como a interação com o uso de inseticidas químicos e biológicos a base de Baculovirus spodoptera para o controle dessa espécie, foram realizados experimentos em campo, com infestação natural de S. frugiperda, durante duas épocas de semeadura na safra de 2019/20. Foram avaliados 5 híbridos de milho Bt e um híbrido de milho não-Bt, além de 6 inseticidas químicos e 2 inseticidas biológicos. As avaliações foram realizadas em intervalo de cinco dias, atribuindo-se notas de dano, de acordo com a Escala de Davis (1992), além de contabilizar o número de plantas atacadas. Para a tomada de decisão das aplicações inseticidas, foi atribuído um nível de controle sempre que 10% das plantas avaliadas apresentassem nota de dano ≥ 3. No primeiro cultivo da safra 2019/2020, DKB 290 (Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Cry3Bb1) e Morgan 20A78 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2) necessitaram de quatro aplicações inseticidas, enquanto Pioneer 32R22YHR (Cry1F/ Cry1Ab) e Pioneer 30F53R (não-Bt) necessitaram de cinco aplicações inseticidas para mitigar os danos de S. frugiperda. No segundo cultivo, DKB 290 e Morgan 20A78 necessitaram de três a seis aplicações inseticidas, enquanto Pioneer 32R22YHR e Pioneer 30F53R (não-Bt) necessitaram de cinco a sete aplicações inseticidas. Por outro lado, em ambos os cultivos, Pioneer 30F53VYHR (Cry1Ab/ Cry1F/ Vip3Aa20) e Brevant 2401 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Vip3Aa20) não necessitaram de aplicações inseticidas, evidenciando a eficiência das toxinas Vip. A respeito da combinação de inseticida químicos + biológicos, no primeiro cultivo, iniciar as aplicações com Baculovirus spodoptera foi mais eficiente, sendo que no híbrido de milho Pioneer 30F53R a combinação Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt foi a que desempenhou melhor resultado e, no híbrido de milho Pioneer 32R22YHR a melhor combinação foi Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt e Avatar. Já no segundo cultivo, iniciar as aplicações com inseticidas químicos apresentou menor índices de danos, pois em ambos os híbridos de milho, a melhor combinação foi iniciar os tratamentos utilizando Exalt + Baculovirus spodoptera. Dentre os inseticidas químicos utilizados neste trabalho, os que desempenharam melhor resultado foram Exalt e Premio.Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPESporUniversidade Federal de Santa MariaCentro de Ciências RuraisPrograma de Pós-Graduação em AgronomiaUFSMBrasilAgronomiaAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBacillus thuringiensisControle biológicoControle químicoToxinas VipBiological controlChemical controlVip ToxinsCNPQ::CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::AGRONOMIAManejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e BaculovirusManagement of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797) in maize with Bt plants, chemical insecticides and Baculovirusinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisGuedes, Jerson Carushttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0846418627719511Arnemann, Jonas Andréhttp://lattes.cnpq.br/9594849663299829Perini, Clérison RégisMagano, Deivid Araújohttp://lattes.cnpq.br/4836653867090513Giacomelli, Tiago5001000000096006006006006006002bd0e300-d7a8-4db4-9de9-04b7a0f47542cdefb893-0b88-45ce-a071-1e805b9b522cd0fff2aa-3628-4a14-a0f7-0adfe9cecd590dce0432-1086-4222-895c-818bcead3c070ceda81a-ea7c-4962-aace-a20ccfda3832reponame:Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSMinstname:Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)instacron:UFSMORIGINALDIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdfDIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdfDissertação de Mestradoapplication/pdf922161http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/1/DIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf901554657c299c327b0fe1aa5d486be9MD51CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8805http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/2/license_rdf4460e5956bc1d1639be9ae6146a50347MD52LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81956http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/3/license.txt2f0571ecee68693bd5cd3f17c1e075dfMD53TEXTDIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.txtDIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain126704http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/4/DIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.txtbbde2b924b751c0d946cafeaaf0117dcMD54THUMBNAILDIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.jpgDIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.jpgIM Thumbnailimage/jpeg4305http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/5/DIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.jpg0b8b3c3c3016cb9b7547a820c3e41c7dMD551/233852022-08-18 11:17:21.52oai:repositorio.ufsm.br:1/23385TElDRU7Dh0EgREUgRElTVFJJQlVJw4fDg08gTsODTy1FWENMVVNJVkEKCkNvbSBhIGFwcmVzZW50YcOnw6NvIGRlc3RhIGxpY2Vuw6dhLCB2b2PDqiAobyBhdXRvciAoZXMpIG91IG8gdGl0dWxhciBkb3MgZGlyZWl0b3MgZGUgYXV0b3IpIGNvbmNlZGUgw6AgVW5pdmVyc2lkYWRlCkZlZGVyYWwgZGUgU2FudGEgTWFyaWEgKFVGU00pIG8gZGlyZWl0byBuw6NvLWV4Y2x1c2l2byBkZSByZXByb2R1emlyLCAgdHJhZHV6aXIgKGNvbmZvcm1lIGRlZmluaWRvIGFiYWl4byksIGUvb3UKZGlzdHJpYnVpciBhIHN1YSB0ZXNlIG91IGRpc3NlcnRhw6fDo28gKGluY2x1aW5kbyBvIHJlc3VtbykgcG9yIHRvZG8gbyBtdW5kbyBubyBmb3JtYXRvIGltcHJlc3NvIGUgZWxldHLDtG5pY28gZQplbSBxdWFscXVlciBtZWlvLCBpbmNsdWluZG8gb3MgZm9ybWF0b3Mgw6F1ZGlvIG91IHbDrWRlby4KClZvY8OqIGNvbmNvcmRhIHF1ZSBhIFVGU00gcG9kZSwgc2VtIGFsdGVyYXIgbyBjb250ZcO6ZG8sIHRyYW5zcG9yIGEgc3VhIHRlc2Ugb3UgZGlzc2VydGHDp8OjbwpwYXJhIHF1YWxxdWVyIG1laW8gb3UgZm9ybWF0byBwYXJhIGZpbnMgZGUgcHJlc2VydmHDp8Ojby4KClZvY8OqIHRhbWLDqW0gY29uY29yZGEgcXVlIGEgVUZTTSBwb2RlIG1hbnRlciBtYWlzIGRlIHVtYSBjw7NwaWEgYSBzdWEgdGVzZSBvdQpkaXNzZXJ0YcOnw6NvIHBhcmEgZmlucyBkZSBzZWd1cmFuw6dhLCBiYWNrLXVwIGUgcHJlc2VydmHDp8Ojby4KClZvY8OqIGRlY2xhcmEgcXVlIGEgc3VhIHRlc2Ugb3UgZGlzc2VydGHDp8OjbyDDqSBvcmlnaW5hbCBlIHF1ZSB2b2PDqiB0ZW0gbyBwb2RlciBkZSBjb25jZWRlciBvcyBkaXJlaXRvcyBjb250aWRvcwpuZXN0YSBsaWNlbsOnYS4gVm9jw6ogdGFtYsOpbSBkZWNsYXJhIHF1ZSBvIGRlcMOzc2l0byBkYSBzdWEgdGVzZSBvdSBkaXNzZXJ0YcOnw6NvIG7Do28sIHF1ZSBzZWphIGRlIHNldQpjb25oZWNpbWVudG8sIGluZnJpbmdlIGRpcmVpdG9zIGF1dG9yYWlzIGRlIG5pbmd1w6ltLgoKQ2FzbyBhIHN1YSB0ZXNlIG91IGRpc3NlcnRhw6fDo28gY29udGVuaGEgbWF0ZXJpYWwgcXVlIHZvY8OqIG7Do28gcG9zc3VpIGEgdGl0dWxhcmlkYWRlIGRvcyBkaXJlaXRvcyBhdXRvcmFpcywgdm9jw6oKZGVjbGFyYSBxdWUgb2J0ZXZlIGEgcGVybWlzc8OjbyBpcnJlc3RyaXRhIGRvIGRldGVudG9yIGRvcyBkaXJlaXRvcyBhdXRvcmFpcyBwYXJhIGNvbmNlZGVyIMOgIFVGU00Kb3MgZGlyZWl0b3MgYXByZXNlbnRhZG9zIG5lc3RhIGxpY2Vuw6dhLCBlIHF1ZSBlc3NlIG1hdGVyaWFsIGRlIHByb3ByaWVkYWRlIGRlIHRlcmNlaXJvcyBlc3TDoSBjbGFyYW1lbnRlCmlkZW50aWZpY2FkbyBlIHJlY29uaGVjaWRvIG5vIHRleHRvIG91IG5vIGNvbnRlw7pkbyBkYSB0ZXNlIG91IGRpc3NlcnRhw6fDo28gb3JhIGRlcG9zaXRhZGEuCgpDQVNPIEEgVEVTRSBPVSBESVNTRVJUQcOHw4NPIE9SQSBERVBPU0lUQURBIFRFTkhBIFNJRE8gUkVTVUxUQURPIERFIFVNIFBBVFJPQ8ONTklPIE9VCkFQT0lPIERFIFVNQSBBR8OKTkNJQSBERSBGT01FTlRPIE9VIE9VVFJPIE9SR0FOSVNNTyBRVUUgTsODTyBTRUpBIEEgVUZTTQosIFZPQ8OKIERFQ0xBUkEgUVVFIFJFU1BFSVRPVSBUT0RPUyBFIFFVQUlTUVVFUiBESVJFSVRPUyBERSBSRVZJU8ODTyBDT01PClRBTULDiU0gQVMgREVNQUlTIE9CUklHQcOHw5VFUyBFWElHSURBUyBQT1IgQ09OVFJBVE8gT1UgQUNPUkRPLgoKQSBVRlNNIHNlIGNvbXByb21ldGUgYSBpZGVudGlmaWNhciBjbGFyYW1lbnRlIG8gc2V1IG5vbWUgKHMpIG91IG8ocykgbm9tZShzKSBkbyhzKQpkZXRlbnRvcihlcykgZG9zIGRpcmVpdG9zIGF1dG9yYWlzIGRhIHRlc2Ugb3UgZGlzc2VydGHDp8OjbywgZSBuw6NvIGZhcsOhIHF1YWxxdWVyIGFsdGVyYcOnw6NvLCBhbMOpbSBkYXF1ZWxhcwpjb25jZWRpZGFzIHBvciBlc3RhIGxpY2Vuw6dhLgoKRepositório Institucionalhttp://repositorio.ufsm.br/PUBhttp://repositorio.ufsm.br/oai/requestopendoar:39132022-08-18T14:17:21Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)false |
dc.title.por.fl_str_mv |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus |
dc.title.alternative.eng.fl_str_mv |
Management of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797) in maize with Bt plants, chemical insecticides and Baculovirus |
title |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus |
spellingShingle |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus Giacomelli, Tiago Bacillus thuringiensis Controle biológico Controle químico Toxinas Vip Biological control Chemical control Vip Toxins CNPQ::CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::AGRONOMIA |
title_short |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus |
title_full |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus |
title_fullStr |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus |
title_full_unstemmed |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus |
title_sort |
Manejo de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) em milho com plantas Bt, inseticidas químicos e Baculovirus |
author |
Giacomelli, Tiago |
author_facet |
Giacomelli, Tiago |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv |
Guedes, Jerson Carus |
dc.contributor.advisor1Lattes.fl_str_mv |
http://lattes.cnpq.br/0846418627719511 |
dc.contributor.advisor-co1.fl_str_mv |
Arnemann, Jonas André |
dc.contributor.advisor-co1Lattes.fl_str_mv |
http://lattes.cnpq.br/9594849663299829 |
dc.contributor.referee1.fl_str_mv |
Perini, Clérison Régis |
dc.contributor.referee2.fl_str_mv |
Magano, Deivid Araújo |
dc.contributor.authorLattes.fl_str_mv |
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4836653867090513 |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Giacomelli, Tiago |
contributor_str_mv |
Guedes, Jerson Carus Arnemann, Jonas André Perini, Clérison Régis Magano, Deivid Araújo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Bacillus thuringiensis Controle biológico Controle químico Toxinas Vip |
topic |
Bacillus thuringiensis Controle biológico Controle químico Toxinas Vip Biological control Chemical control Vip Toxins CNPQ::CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::AGRONOMIA |
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
Biological control Chemical control Vip Toxins |
dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv |
CNPQ::CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::AGRONOMIA |
description |
The fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is considered the main insect pest of corn (Zea mays) in Brazil. The control of this pest is carried out mainly with the use of Bt Plants (Bacillus thuringiensis) and chemical insecticides and, more recently, the use of biological insecticides has grown as a new alternative to be added to Integrated Pest Management. In order to evaluate the efficacy of Bt proteins expressed by some corn hybrids available on the market, as well as the interaction with the use of chemical and biological insecticides based on Baculovirus spodoptera for the control of this species, field experiments were carried out, with infestation natural of S. frugiperda, during two sowing seasons in the 2019/20 crop. Five Bt corn hybrids and one non-Bt corn hybrid were evaluated, in addition to 6 chemical insecticides and 2 biological insecticides. The evaluations were carried out at an interval of five days, attributing damage scores, according to the Davis Scale (1992), in addition to counting the number of plants attacked. For decision-making on insecticide applications, a control level was assigned whenever 10% of the evaluated plants had a damage score ≥ 3. In the first crop of the 2019/2020 season, DKB 290 (Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Cry3Bb1) and Morgan 20A78 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2) required four insecticidal applications, while Pioneer 32R22YHR (Cry1F/ Cry1Ab) and Pioneer 30F53R (non-Bt) required five insecticidal applications to mitigate S. frugiperda damage. In the second crop, DKB 290 and Morgan 20A78 required three to six insecticide applications, while Pioneer 32R22YHR and Pioneer 30F53R (non-Bt) required five to seven insecticide applications. On the other hand, in both cultures, Pioneer 30F53VYHR (Cry1Ab/ Cry1F/ Vip3Aa20) and Brevant 2401 (Cry1F/ Cry1A.105/ Cry2Ab2/ Vip3Aa20) did not require insecticidal applications, showing the efficiency of Vip toxins. Regarding the combination of chemical + biological insecticides, in the first crop, starting applications with Baculovirus spodoptera was more efficient, and in the Pioneer 30F53R corn hybrid the Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt combination performed better, and in the corn hybrid Pioneer 32R22YHR the best combination was Baculovirus spodoptera + Exalt and Avatar. In the second crop, starting applications with chemical insecticides showed lower damage rates, because in both corn hybrids, the best combination was to start treatments using Exalt + Baculovirus spodoptera. Among the chemical insecticides used in this work, the ones that performed better were Exalt and Premio. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2021-12-20T19:15:07Z |
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2021-12-20T19:15:07Z |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2021-09-10 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
format |
masterThesis |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/23385 |
url |
http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/23385 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.cnpq.fl_str_mv |
500100000009 |
dc.relation.confidence.fl_str_mv |
600 600 600 600 600 600 |
dc.relation.authority.fl_str_mv |
2bd0e300-d7a8-4db4-9de9-04b7a0f47542 cdefb893-0b88-45ce-a071-1e805b9b522c d0fff2aa-3628-4a14-a0f7-0adfe9cecd59 0dce0432-1086-4222-895c-818bcead3c07 0ceda81a-ea7c-4962-aace-a20ccfda3832 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Centro de Ciências Rurais |
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Agronomia |
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv |
UFSM |
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv |
Brasil |
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv |
Agronomia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Centro de Ciências Rurais |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) instacron:UFSM |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) |
instacron_str |
UFSM |
institution |
UFSM |
reponame_str |
Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM |
collection |
Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/1/DIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/2/license_rdf http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/3/license.txt http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/4/DIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.txt http://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream/1/23385/5/DIS_PPGAGRONOMIA_2021_GIACOMELLI_TIAGO.pdf.jpg |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
901554657c299c327b0fe1aa5d486be9 4460e5956bc1d1639be9ae6146a50347 2f0571ecee68693bd5cd3f17c1e075df bbde2b924b751c0d946cafeaaf0117dc 0b8b3c3c3016cb9b7547a820c3e41c7d |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1794524403501891584 |