Does the use of phytostimulants and the cutting times influence the productivity of the soybean crop?

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3121942/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Does the use of phytostimulants and the cutting times influence the productivity of the soybean crop?

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3121942/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The use of techniques and products that maximize the production of a crop is fundamental when considering the scarcity of areas in regions that have adequate edaphoclimatic conditions for production or climatic inconsistency in other regions. Thus, the growth of national soybean production is due to research related to the theme; however, more studies can contribute to a greater productive advance in this segment. With this, the objective was to observe the influence of cutting times and the phytostimulant on the productivity of the soybean crop. Studies developed were in two agricultural years 2014/15 and 2015/16. The plot design was used, where the plots were formed by the cutting periods (40, 50, 60, 70 and 90 days after emergence (DAE) [1]and the subplots by the application of the phytostimulant (auxin, cytokinin and gibberellin), plus the witness without cutting. The Stimulate^® positively (statistically higher) influenced analyzed variables; number of total pods (NVT), number of full pods (NVC), straw yield (RP), crop growth rate (TCC), harvest index (CI) and yield (GY). Cutting the aerial part of soybean plants at 40 DAE does not reduce grain production. Treatment of soybean seed with Stimulate® increases productivity at 15% and up to 60 DAE significantly stimulates soybean growth and regrowth.

Forage

Glycine max (L.) Merrill

crop production and Stimulate®

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill], is one of the main agricultural crops in the world, with Brazil being the largest producer with 124 thousand tons in the 19/20 harvest (Conab, 2020). The constant increase in demand for food guarantees commercialization and ensures good remuneration and profitability for the producer, however the increase in production through new areas is limited by the strong pressure to preserve natural ecosystems. Thus, the development of technologies through public and private sector research provides a means for culture to achieve maximum productivity.

Current technologies can be applied in different phenological stages of soybean in order to provide greater resistance in plant phytosanitary aspects, allow equilibrium nutritional or increase the efficiency of parameters physiological, thereby increasing the productive potential. In the physiological aspect, the phytostimulant [hormonal compounds can be natural or synthetic and at low concentrations (10^− 4 M) ], interfere in morphophysiological processes, promoting change and influence in the productive responses of the cultures (Castro et al., 2005; Albrecht et al., 2011; Drobek et al., 2019). The potential of phytostimulant, to increase the agricultural production minimizing abiotic stresses such as drought and salinity of the soil (Calvo et al., 2014), increased by 48.71% leaf area index and in 38.34% the number of nodes when using Stimulate® up to the dose of 7.50 mL kg^− 1 of seeds (Viana et al., 2018). There is also an incentive to the production of number of pods per plant, number of grains per pod and productivity (Batista Filho et al., 2013), in addition to greater production of total dry mass (Campos et al., 2008).

One of the basic principles to Improve the effectiveness of phytostimulant in soybean is the weather condition outside the required standards, the ensuring agronomic performance and the productivity (Mortele et al, 2008; Albrecht et al., 2009), besides improves seed quality and increasing the oil and protein content, as were obtained for treatedment seeds before sowing (Avila et al., 2008). Thus, the use of phytostimulant promotes a significant increase in production of soybean parameters (Carvalho et al., 2013; Viana et al., 2018) with respect to the gain per area and prevents the exploitation of native biomes.

The use of phytostimulant provides adequate soybean development, improving productivity even in the event of physical or environmental stress. According to Viana et al. (2019), the phytostimulant are associated the technicals of cultivation increase the production of biomass, pods and grains. Phytostimulants, similar to Stimulate®, provide even greater growth of the plants, and enable cultivation dual finality, that is removal of the aerial part to forage production and subsequent regrowth for grain production.

Soybean provides response according to the intensity of stress and their stages of development. Soybean production loses occur only when the stress was severe the enough to cause the reduction of stand result in death of the plant (Melo et al., 2019). From the moment of removal of the aerial part or the percentage of stress, the plants recover and develop without having their grain production affected (Melo et al., 2018), thus expressing the phenotypic plasticity of the crop soybean and the potential for forage exploration, in addition to grains.

Thus, the withdrawal of a percentage of the branches and leaves of soybean plants possibility reduced height, preventing lodging, providing a mechanical harvesting more efficient and does not impair the grain yield (Souza et al., 2013), helping also in improving the harvest and in the best quality of the seeds. Thus, the soybean plant can be cultivated for a dual purpose that is, cutting the aerial part for the production of forage and later regrowth for the production of grain.

In this aspect, plants such as peanuts, soybeans, sesame, etc., have the potential to supply nutrients to animals, not only grains and seeds, but also plant biomass, as they are rich in nutrients and thus the use of biomass in animal feed would be relevant due to to the significant nutritional value ( Melo et al., 2018, Melo et al., 2019, Berto et al., 2021), stimulating the production of these crops associated with the use of technologies that allow maximum exploitation without the need to open new areas.

Thus, in order to highlight the potential of soybean in the Agreste Meridional region of Pernambuco, the objective is to evaluate the production of soybean plants and regrowth.

Plant materials

Conducting the experiments

Two experiments were conducted in the agricultural years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016, in the field, at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco - UFRPE located in the municipality of Garanhuns, with latitude 8º53'25” south, longitude 36º29'34” west, average altitude of 842 m. The soil classification of the experimental area is Yellow Podzolic (Embrapa, 2013).

The climate in the region is As', which corresponds to a hot and humid climate as Köeppen classification (Mota & Agundes, 1986), with an average annual temperature of 20 °C and annual average precipitation of 803.5 mm, and more rainy the months of May and June (Inmet, 2016). The relative humidity ranging from 75 to 83% (Andrade et al., 2008), the climatic data of the cumulative daily precipitation and the average maximum temperature, average and minimum are shown in Figure 1 for agricultural years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.

Fertilization

Prior to installing the experiments, we performed soil samplings, proceeding to the mixture and sending sample for the analysis of laboratory chemistry and soil fertility, UFRPE UAG (CENLAG - Laboratory Center for Research Support, Unity Academic Garanhuns/UAG), Rural Federal University of Pernambuco (UFRPE) and the results are shown in Tables 1.

Table 1. Chemical analysis and soil fertility

		Mg	Ca		Al			Na		K		H+Al
pH	P (mg Kg^-1)	cMoL_cdm^-3
2014/15
7.57	14.70	1.5		2		0.05	0.010		0.33		1.32
2015/16
6,46	70.27	1.7	2.3		0.05			0.70		0.28		1.41

Source: Laboratory of soil chemistry and fertility UFRPE / UAG.

The fertilization followed recommendation to the Pernambuco soils (Cavalcante et al., 2008), by applying respectively phosphorus and potassium in the amount of 60 to 20 Kg ha^-1, for the 2014/2015 agricultural year and 40 and 20 Kg ha^-1 to 2015/16, while the nitrogenium recommended to areas of first crop via seed inoculation with bacteria of the genus Bradyrhizobium, was applied 100 g for 50 Kg of seeds. In this process, the peat inoculant MASTERFIX^® SOYA from Stoller do Brazil was used.

In year's cultivation, the experimental design consisted of four randomized blocks with size of 12 m wide and eight long, namely, 96 m² each replicate a total of 384 m² divided in the experimental plots consist of four rows eight meters long and spaced 0.5 m between rows divided into subplots with the same size and spacing of rows, and are considered as usable area only two meters are located in the two central rows of the subplots.

Variables analyzed

The split-plot designer was used (6x2x2), with the plot formed by the cutting periods (40, 50, 60, 70 and 90 days after emergence (DAE) the most witness who did not receive the cut) and the subplots with (CF) and without (SF) the application of Stimulate^® phyto-stimulant. The treatment with phytostimulant received application via seed at the dosage of 7.5 ml kg^-1 and in the treatment, without phytostimulant was applied the distilled water in the same amount and time. The BRS-Sambaíba cultivar was used, in the amount of 20 seeds per linear meter and the stand for 12 plants per linear meter was standardized, thus forming a population of 240,000 thousand plants per hectare. The cuttings of the aerial part of the soybean plants were made at a height of 20 cm from the soil surface in their respective cutting seasons 40, 50, 60, 70 and 90 DAE. Manual weeding was also carried out to control weeds.

For the crop year 2014/2015, pest control was carried out with the purpose of combating Diabrotica speciosa Germar. at 20 DAE, being made AGRONEE applications (oil Azadirachta indica A. Juss.). In the 2015/2016 agricultural year, the commercial product DIPEL^® (Beauveria bassiana (Bals.-Criv.) Vuill.) was applied at 53 DAE in the formulation of soluble powder for preventive purposes. Micro-sprinkler irrigation was used and activated when necessary to supplement the crop’s water requirement during periods of greater intermittency of rainfall.

The treatments were evaluated using agronomic characteristics: number of pods per plant (NPP), counting the pods of 10 plants per repetition at harvest; number of full pods (NFP), selecting from 10 plants per repetition at the time of harvesting the pods that were completely filled with grains; straw yield (SY), calculated by the difference between the biological productivity (BP) and grain yield (GY) (Floss, 2004) culture growth rate (CGR), given to the ratio between the straw yield (SY) and the number of days to flowering (NDF), (Floss, 2004); harvest index (HI), calculated by the ratio between the biological yield (BY) and the grain yield and multiplied by 100 (Floss, 2004) and grain yield (GY) with plants harvested in the area useful manually traced, the grains being heavy with moisture content and 13%. The yield was obtained by treatment by average production of repetitions and transformed to kg ha^-1.

Statistical analysis

The data were subjected to analysis of variance and the means compared by the Tukey test, at 5% probability. Quantitative data were evaluated by polynomial regression, using the statistical software SISVAR 5.3. (Ferreira, 2011).

The number of full pods (NFP) showed a quadratic behavior, with an increase in NFP for the initial cutting season 40 DAE in relation to the control that did not receive the aerial part cut in the first agricultural year. However, the second agricultural year showed a decreasing linear trend (Figure 2).

In the agricultural year 2014/2015, the maximum point for treatment with the application of Stimulate^® (CF) with 147 pods filled per plant, while in the treatment without Stimulate^®(SF) it was with 111. Thus, the CF treatment was statistically superior to the treatment that did not receive application of the referred product, in seasons cut 40, 50, 60 and 70 DAE and also in relation to the witness that did not receive the cutting of aerial part. For the agricultural year 2015/2016, the maximum number of soybean-filled pods per plant in the CF treatment was 89 NFP, however, in the SF treatment the maximum NFP was 68 per soybean plants, occurring that to the CF treatment the witness who did not receive the cut of the aerial part and the seasons 40, 50 and 60 DAE differed from the SF treatment, reflecting in higher productivity.

The treatments showed a significant difference for total pods (TP) with a quadratic trend curve (Figure 3). In the 2014/2015 agricultural year, the maximum was with 159 pods per plant CF and in the treatment, SF was 119 pods per plant, causing a 26.2% reduction in pod productivity. Regarding the cutting seasons, the highest amount of pods per plant was obtained in treatments 40, 50 DAE respectively.

A similar situation occurred in the 2015/2016 agricultural year, where the CF treatment differed statistically in relation to the SF treatments, except in the cutting times of 70 and 90 DAE. The maximum point in CF treatment was 94 pods per plant, while in SF it was at 50.36 pods. The CF treatments were statistically superior to the SF for the control that did not receive the cut of the aerial part and the cut times 40, 50, 60 and 70 DAE in the 2015/2016 agricultural year, thus demonstrating the efficiency of Stimulate^® in the final soybean crop yield.

The soybean plants showed a significant effect in the cutting seasons when the phytostimulant for straw yield (SY) was applied (Figure 04). The cutting seasons showed linear decreasing behavior up to 90 DAE, in relation to the control treatment that did not receive the cut and when associated with the application of Stimulate^® they were superior to the treatment without application for the two agricultural years. Therefore, the treatment with Stimulate^® via seed differed statistically from the treatment that did not receive application in the cutting seasons 40, 50, 60, and 70 DAE and for the control in the two agricultural years.

Figure 5 shows the growth rate of the soybean crop (CGR), with a linear trend decreasing with the increase in the cutting periods, with the highest values obtained in the control that did not pass through the cutting periods, with more marked reduction in the last two 70 and 90 DAE.

The low recovery of the plants after cutting the aerial part in the last seasons 70 and 90 DAE reflected in the low growth averages, with a small number of regrowth plants for the final periods, mainly at 90 DAE, observing that the regrowth was of low vigor.

For the two agricultural years, treatment with Stimulate^® strongly influenced CBT, differing from not applying it in all cutting periods, except 90 DAE.

The harvest index (HI) showed a quadratic behavior in both agricultural years (Figure 6), with an interaction between the cutting seasons and the application of Stimulate^®, with the highest values occurring for the initial seasons 40 and 50 DAE.

In both agricultural years, the CF treatment differed statistically from the treatment without the product in all cutting periods, except at 90 DAE for the first year and at 70 and 90 DAE in the second.

The productivity of soybeans (GY) (Figure 7) was strongly influenced by the application of Stimulate^®, observing that the soybean plants submitted to cutting in the 40 DAE with the application produced a greater amount of grains. The analysis of variance of the cutting times and application of Stimulate^® finds a significant effect on the PG of the soybean crop at the level of 5% probability for the treatments. The cutoff periods of the aerial part of the soybean significantly altered the GY of the crop, presenting a quadratic trend line as the best fit for the averages. In the first agricultural year, the maximum productivity of CF and SF was at 5,089.3 Kg ha^-1 and 3,801.6 Kg ha^-1, respectively. In the second agricultural year, the maximum point CF and SF was, with 3,663.4 and 3,052 Kg ha^-1, respectively.

In both agricultural years, treatment with Stimulate^® differed statistically from treatment without application of the product, except at 90 DAE in the first year and at 60, 70 and 90 DAE in the second.

The results in the present study showed that the application of vegetables hormones stimulated greater NFP, TP, SY, HI and GY. In this way, phytostimulant, by providing greater plant height, increased stem diameter, greater branch production, alter their architecture, which now supports a greater amount of pods and, consequently, greater productivity (Carvalho et al., 2013). They produced an even greater amount of dry matter, a result that was found in other crops as a 38% increase in alfalfa yield and a 31% increase in red clover yield (Sosnowki et al., 2020). The reduction in plant height provided by the cuttings of the aerial part is an agronomically interesting result in the sense of increasing its tolerance to lodging (Souza et al 2013), becoming an answer to the questioning of this study, which consists of the possibility of forage production by cutting the aerial part of the plants and later regrowth for grain production.

NFP (Figure 3) and TP (Figure 4), were influenced by the phytostimulant in both agricultural years. It is possible that vegetable hormones caused the formation of fruits, as they are involved in various activities, such as the auxins that induce the formation of the fruit without the normal fertilization process and the gibberellins that stimulate parthenocarpy. Thus, an increase in the total number of seeds was observed in pea plants treated with gibberellins (Floss, 2004). Similar are the results observed in the present study, being verified through the application of the phytostimulant greater grain production in all periods of cuts, in relation to non-application. In the first agricultural year, the maximum productivity was 5,089 Kg ha^-1 for the CF treatment, an increase of 15% in relation to the treatment without. The same behavior is observed in the second agricultural year, with maximum productivity for the CF treatment of 3,667 Kg ha^-1, 17% higher than the SF treatment.

When verifying the response of soybeans to the action of biostimulants, it was found that application via seed provides an increase in the number of pods per plant (Klahold et al., 2006; Santini et al., 2015). In addition, the application of Stimulate^® in soybean seeds is technically and economically viable, thus demonstrating the product's efficiency in crop production (Santini et al. 2015), increasing productive characteristics such as straw yield, grain yield and biological performance (Vieira, 2014).

Growth analysis of soybean plants treated with phytostimulant also identified significant results for the variables, relative growth rate (RGR), liquid assimilation rate (LAR), and crop growth rate (CGR) (Campos et al. 2008). In this way, it is possible to identify the highest PR (Figure 5) and IC (Figure 6), provided by the application of the phytostimulant, because by causing greater plant growth results in higher PR, while a higher rate of liquid assimilation is directly correlated with IC. The use of plant growth stimulating solutions such as Stimulate^® favors the production of soybean crops, by providing greater grain production. This is because the grain yield is directly related to the harvest index (CI), with a tendency for higher values of this index when the crops are treated with Stimulate^® (Braga & Costa, 1983).

In this sense, vegetable hormones by regulating plant development, play a direct role in the source-drain relationship, acting on the growth relative to each source and each drain and directly influencing the CI (Castro et al., 2005), the which is verified in the present study, since the highest grain yields are found in the treatment with Stimulate^®, resulting in higher ICs. According to Castro et al. (2005) phytostimulants composed of cytokinins can have a greater impact on CI, by delaying the senescence of flowers and thus also controlling the total amount of photoassimilates that will be produced to increase the drain.

The reduced behavior of the CI in the present study was a reflection of the low vigor of the regrowth only in the last cutting seasons, causing low grain yield, which was observed for the crop growth rate and straw yield. Therefore, the cut in late times of the soybean crop (90 DAE) did not show vigor of the regrowth feasible for the use of grains, different from the cuts in the initial periods 40 and 50 DAE in which the results were equivalent to those observed in the control that did not receive the cut of the aerial part. Thus, these periods are the most recommended for dual purpose cultivation.

The application of phytostimulant has a positive effect on soybean productivity (Alves, 2010; Santos et al., 2013; Carvalho et al., 2013; Binsfeld et al., 2014; Hermes et al., 2015; Szparaga et al., 2018) and this effect was attributed to the stimulation of enzyme activity (catalase, peroxidase, lipoxygenase and nitrate reductase), enhanced activity of ferric ion cells, synthesis of assimilation pigments and a higher rate of nutrient absorption (Szparaga et al., 2018). Thus, by increasing the higher assimilation rate, phytostimulant ensure greater productivity, according to the present study. Results that corroborate with this research for the use of Stimulate^® were obtained by Bertolin et al. (2010) and Batista Filho et al. (2013) who observed an increase in productivity of 40% and 28%, respectively.

The higher productivities of the cultures provided by phytostimulant may occur due to the fact that the cultures develop greater resistance to abiotic stresses, as in the case of cutting, since the plants responded to different biostimulants, with increased root growth, increased absorption of nutrients and stress tolerance (Calvo et al., 2014). According to Ecco et al. (2019), the increase in the length of the root and the height of the aerial part can confirm the effect of the biostimulant on cell division, differentiation and elongation of cells, in addition to increasing the absorption and use of water and nutrients by plants due to the increase contact surface. Therefore, as presented in this research, the application of Stimulate^® provided greater development of soybean plants, consequently greater grain yield (Figure 7), while the periods of cut in the vegetative stages did not interfere in productivity.

The cutting periods of soybean plants changed the behavior of the crop, that is, when the cutting was carried out in the reproductive stages (70 and 90 DAE), it caused a significant reduction in grain production. However, cutting in the vegetative stages (40 and 50 DAE) did not affect grain yield, with a higher number of pods, growth rate, harvest rate and productivity. According to Souza et al. (2014), the abiotic stresses suffered by plants cause short-term changes in the distribution of photoassimilates between the different drains (roots, nodules, expanding leaves, grains), and the source's metabolism adjusts to these conditions.

In this respect, the plants that were cut in the vegetative stages (40 and 50 DAE), have a good time for recovery, increasing the production of photoassimilates and shifting a higher percentage to the drains (grains). Thus, cutting when carried out in the vegetative stages is a stimulating factor for soybean plants (Moscardi et al., 2012; Viana et al., 2018). Therefore, this crop has a high recovery capacity and the reduction in productivity occurred only when the abiotic stress was severe enough to reduce the number of plants in the stand, since soybean plants cut in the early stages of development and associated with Stimulate^® produce as much as those that have not received cuts, thus demonstrating the efficiency of Stimulate^® and the cutting alternative.

Consequently, depending on the soybean cutting season, there is the possibility of grain production, that is, the cutting in the initial vegetative stages does not interfere with production.

Cutting the aerial part of soybean plants at 40 DAE does not reduce grain production.

Treatment of soybean seed with Stimulate^® increases productivity at 15% and up to 60 DAE significantly stimulates soybean growth and regrowth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the Stoller do Brazil, for the Stimulate^® phytostimulant and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientíﬁco e Tecnológico (CNPq) for funding this research.

FUNDING AND/OR CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS/COMPETING INTERESTS

I, JOÃO PAULO GOES DA SILVA BORGES, author responsible for submitting the manuscript entitled “Does the use of psychostimulants and the cutting times influence the productivity of the soybean crop?” and all co-authors, we declare that “WE DO NOT HAVE”, CONFLICT OF INTERESTS of order: personal, commercial, academic, political and financial in the manuscript.

We also declare that all information that could lead to a conflict of interest has already been requested and manifested during the submission process of the aforementioned manuscript, attached as a “Supplementary Document” or in agrément markings during the submission process to this journal.

Garanhuns-PE, July 1, 2023.

JOÃO PAULO GOES DA SILVA BORGES

Responsible for submission

Acikgoz, E., Sincik, M., Karasu, A., Tongel, O., Wietgrefe, G., Bilgili, U., Oz, M., Albayrak, S., Turan, Z. M., & Goksoy, A. T. (2009). Forage soybean production for seed in mediterranean environments. Field Crops Research, 110(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.08.006.
Albrecht, L. P., Braccini, A. L., Scapim, C. A., Ávila, M. R., Albrecht, A. J. P., & Ricci, T. T. (2011). Manejo de biorregulador nos componentes de produção e desempenho das plantas de soja. Bioscience journal: BJ, 27(6), 865–876. https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/7486.
Andrade, A.R.S., Paixão, F.J.R., Azevedo, C.A.V., Gouveia, J.P.G. and Oliveira Junior, J.P.S. (2008). Estudo dos comportamentos de períodos secos e chuvosos no município de Garanhuns-PE, para fins de planejamento agrícola. Revista tecnologia aplicada a ciências agrarias, 1, 54-61.
Amorim F. A., Hamawaki, O. T., Sousa, L. B., Lana, R. M. Q., & Hamawaki, C. D. L. (2011). Época de semeadura no Potencial produtivo de Soja em Uberlândia-MG. Semina. Ciencias agrarias, 32(4), 1793–1802. https://www.bvs-vet.org.br/vetindex/periodicos/semina-ciencias-agrarias/32-(2011)-4/epoca-de-semeadura-no-potencial-produtivo-de-soja-em-uberlandia-mg/.
Arf, O., Rodrigues, R. A. F., Sá, M. E. de, & Crusciol, C. A. C. (2001). Resposta de cultivares de arroz de sequeiro ao preparo do solo e à irrigação por aspersão. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 36(6), 871–879. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204x2001000600004.
Berto T.S., Melo L.D.F.A., Melo Junior J.L.A., Crisostomo N.M.S. and Silva I.C. (2021). Potencial fisiológico de sementes de gergelim submetidas ao estresse salino. In: Ivanildo Claudino da Silva; Everton Ferreira dos Santos; Luan Danilo Ferreira de Andrade Melo; João Correia de Araújo Neto. (Org.). Tecnologias aplicadas em análises de sementes e tópicos sobre a cultura do girassol. 1ed.Ponta Grossa - PR: Atena, v. p. 12-26.
Binsfeld, J. A., Barbieri, A. P. P., Huth, C., Cabrera, I. C., & Henning, L. M. M. (2014). Uso de bioativador, bioestimulante e complexo de nutrientes em sementes de soja. Pesquisa agropecuaria tropical, 44(1), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-40632014000100010.
Braga, N. R., & Costa, J. A. (1983). Avaliação de dez cultivares de soja pelo índice de colheita. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 18(3), 253–260. https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/15201.
Calvo, P., Nelson, L., & Kloepper, J. W. (2014). Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant and Soil, 383(1–2), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2131-8.
Carvalho, J. C., Viecelli, C. A., & de Almeida, D. K. (2013). Produtividade e desenvolvimento da cultura da soja pelo uso de regulador vegetal. Acta Iguazu, 2(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.48075/actaiguaz.v2i1.8166.
Castro, P.R.C., Kluge, R.A. and Peres, L.E.P. (2005). Manual de fisiologia vegetal: teoria e prática. Piracicaba: Editora Agronômicas Ceres, 650.
Cavalcante, F.J.A., (Coord.). (2008). Recomendações de adubação para o estado de Pernambuco: 2ª. aproximação. Recife, PE: IPA.
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento-CONAB. (2020). Monitoramento agrícola: safra 2019/20. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira: grãos, Brasília, 7, 11.
Cunha, D., Viana, J., Silva, W., & Silva, J. (2015). SOJA PARA CONSUMO HUMANO: BREVE ABORDAGEM. Agrarian Academy, 2(03). https://conhecer.org.br/ojs/index.php/agrarian/article/view/5192.
Drobek, M., Frąc, M., & Cybulska, J. (2019). Plant biostimulants: Importance of the quality and yield of horticultural crops and the improvement of plant tolerance to abiotic stress—A review. Agronomy (Basel, Switzerland), 9(6), 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060335.
Ecco, M., Morais, W. G., Reuter, R. J., Pottker, V. L., Lenhardt, V. L., & Vanzella, T. (2019). USO DE DIFERENTES TRATAMENTOS DE BIOESTIMULANTE VEGETAL NA CULTURA DA SOJA. Revista cientifica rural, 21(2), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.30945/rcr-v21i2.350.
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária-EMBRAPA. (2013). Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos. 3, 353.
Ferreira, D. F. (2014). Sisvar: a Guide for its Bootstrap procedures in multiple comparisons. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 38(2), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-70542014000200001.
Batista Filho, C. G., de Marco, K., Dallacort, R., Santi, A., Inoue, M. H., & da Silva, E. S. (2013). EFEITO DO STIMULATE® NAS CARACTERÍSTICAS AGRONÔMICAS DA SOJA. Acta Iguazu, 2(4), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.48075/actaiguaz.v2i4.9112.
Floss, E.M. (2004). Fisiologia das plantas cultivadas: o estudo que está por trás do que se vê. 2. ed. rev. e ampl. Passo Fundo: UPF.
Hermes, E. C. K., Nunes, J., & Nunes, J. V. D. (2015). Influência do bioestimulante no enraizamento e produtividade da soja. Revista Cultivando o Saber, 33–42. https://cultivandosaber.fag.edu.br/index.php/cultivando/article/view/675.
Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia-INMET. (2016). Estações automáticas. Disponível em:http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal/index.php?r=estacoes/estacoesAutomaticas
Melo L.D.F.A, Goncalves E.P. and Viana J.S. (2016). Qualidade sanitária e potencial fisiológico de sementes de amendoim cultivar BR-1 submetidas ao estresse hídrico e salino. Educação Ambiental em Ação, v. 15, p. online. http://revistaea.org/artigo.php?idartigo=2361.
Melo L.D.F.A, Melo Junior J.L.A., Goncalves E.P., Viana J.S., Souto P.C., Ferreira V.M. and Araujo Neto J.C. (2019). Sewage Sludge as Fertilizer in Soybean Cultivation. Journal of Scientific Research And Reports, v. 24, p. 1-6.
Melo, J.P.R. (2013). Técnicas de cultivo para produção de biomassa e grãos de soja. Dissertação (Mestrado em produção agrícola) - UFRPE-UAG, Garanhuns.
Melo, L. D. F. de A., Junior, J. L. de A. M., Gonçalves, E. P., Viana, J. S., Souto, P. C., Ferreira, V. M., Neto, J. C. de A., & Paes, R. de A. (2019). Sewage sludge as fertilizer in soybean cultivation. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2019/v24i630172.
Melo, L.D.F.A, Viana J.S., Goncalves E.P., Melo Junior J.L.A., Silva A.C. and Souto P.C. (2018). Peanut seed yield under influence of fertilizer and biostimulant. Australian Journal of Crop Science, v. 12, p. 1169-1176.
Ministério da Agricultura Pecuaria Abastecimento–MAPA. (2016). Disponível em: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/vegetal/culturas/soja
Moscardi, F., de Freitas Bueno, A., de Freitas Bueno, R. C. O., & Garcia, A. (2012). Soybean response to different injury levels at early developmental stages. Ciência Rural, 42(3), 389-394.
Mota, F.S. and Agendes, O.O. 1986. Clima e agricultura no Brasil. Porto Alegre: Sagra.
Santini, J.M.K., Perin, A., Santos, C.G., Ferreira, A.C., Salib, G.C., (2015). Viabilidade técnico-econômica do uso de bioestimulante na cultura da soja. Tecnologia e Ciência Agropecuária, 9, 1, 57-62.
Sediyama, T., Silva, F., and Borém, A. (2015). Soja: do plantio à colheita. Viçosa, MG: Ed. UFV, pp. 333.
Sosnowisk, J., Truba, M., Redzik P. and Tocziska, E. (2020). The effect of growth regulator Tytanit dose on Medicago x varia T. Martin and Trifolium pratense L. yield and nutritional value. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 27, 2890–2901. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.09.013.
Souza V.Q., Nardino, M., Follmann, D.N., Bahry, C.A., Caron, B.O. and Zimmer, P.D. (2014). Caracteres morfofisiológicos e produtividade da soja em razão da desfolha no estádio vegetativo. Científica, Jaboticabal, 42, 3, 216–223. Doi: https://doi.org/10.15361/1984-5529.2014v42n3p216-223.
Szparaga, A., Kocira, S., Kocira, A., Czerwińska, E., Świeca, E., Lorencowicz, E., Kornas, R., Koszel, M. and Oniszczuk, M. (2018). Modification of Growth, Yield, and the Nutraceutical and Antioxidative Potential of Soybean Through the Use of Synthetic Biostimulants. Front. Plant Science, 08, 9, 1401. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01401.
Viana, J. S., Costa, D. S., Lima, J. J. P., Gonçalves, E. P., Arriel, N. H. C., & Oliveira, J. F. F. de. (2018). Agronomic performance of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) genotypes under phytostimulant application. Bioscience Journal: BJ, 34(4), 848–857. https://doi.org/10.14393/bj-v34n1a2018-39373
Viana, J.S., Melo, J.P.R., Silva, J.C.A., Gonçalves, E.P., Lima, J.J.P. and Telino Júnior, W.R. (2019). Plant biostimulant on the production of biomass and yield grain of soybean. Diversitas journal, 4, 3, 1105-1118. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17648/diversitas-journal-v4i3.842.

Abbreviations: DAE: days after emergence, NVT: number of total pods, NVC: number of full pods, RP: straw yield, TCC: crop growth rate, CI: harvest index, GY: yield.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Does the use of phytostimulants and the cutting times influence the productivity of the soybean crop?

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Declarations

References

Footnotes

Status:

Version 1