| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Arroz e Feijão; Embrapa Meio Norte / UEP-Parnaíba; Embrapa Roraima; Embrapa Semiárido. |
|
Data corrente: |
28/01/1993 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
19/08/2009 |
|
Autoria: |
AUGUSTO, S. G.; SILVA, J. G. F. da. |
|
Título: |
Manejo de irrigação para as culturas de feijão, milho e arroz de sequeiro favorecido. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
1990 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Vitória: EMCAPA, 1990. |
|
Páginas: |
29 p. |
|
Série: |
(EMCAPA. Documentos, 64). |
|
Idioma: |
Português |
|
Conteúdo: |
Introdução; Profundidade efetiva do sistema radicular; Evapotranspiração; Métodos para o manejo da irrigação; Lâmina bruta a ser aplicada; Literatura citada. |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Arroz de sequeiro; Bean; Cultivo; Maize; Management; Sequeiro; Upland rice. |
|
Thesagro: |
Arroz; Feijão; Irrigação; Manejo; Milho; Oryza Sativa; Phaseolus Vulgaris; Zea Mays. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
irrigation; rice. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
--
A Sistemas de Cultivo |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01015nam a2200349 a 4500
001 1694558
005 2009-08-19
008 1990 bl uuuu u0uu1 u #d
100 1 $aAUGUSTO, S. G.
245 $aManejo de irrigação para as culturas de feijão, milho e arroz de sequeiro favorecido.
260 $aVitória: EMCAPA$c1990
300 $a29 p.
490 $a(EMCAPA. Documentos, 64).
520 $aIntrodução; Profundidade efetiva do sistema radicular; Evapotranspiração; Métodos para o manejo da irrigação; Lâmina bruta a ser aplicada; Literatura citada.
650 $airrigation
650 $arice
650 $aArroz
650 $aFeijão
650 $aIrrigação
650 $aManejo
650 $aMilho
650 $aOryza Sativa
650 $aPhaseolus Vulgaris
650 $aZea Mays
653 $aArroz de sequeiro
653 $aBean
653 $aCultivo
653 $aMaize
653 $aManagement
653 $aSequeiro
653 $aUpland rice
700 1 $aSILVA, J. G. F. da
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Roraima (CPAF-RR) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril; Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia. |
|
Data corrente: |
28/03/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
27/01/2023 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 2 |
|
Autoria: |
PAULA, D. P.; BARROS, S. K. A.; PITTA, R. M.; BARRETO, M. R.; TOGAWA, R. C.; ANDOW, D. A. |
|
Afiliação: |
DEBORA PIRES PAULA, Cenargen; SUELLEN KARINA ALBERTONI BARROS, UFMT; RAFAEL MAJOR PITTA, CPAMT; MARLITON ROCHA BARRETO, UFMT; ROBERTO COITI TOGAWA, Cenargen; DAVID A. ANDOW, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. |
|
Título: |
Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
GigaScience, v. 11, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2022. |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giac020 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Abstract: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, weevaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). Inamockpreycommunity,metabarcodingdidnotdetectanyprey,probablyowingtoprimerchoiceand/orpreferentialpredator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43?71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46?273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy.There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro,while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar,but partially complementary,detection of prey in arthropod predator guts.However, while Lazaro wasalmost2×moreexpensive,thenumberofreadswasrelatedtotheamountofpreyDNA,suggestingthatLazaro mayprovide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not. MenosAbstract: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, weevaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). Inamockpreycommunity,metabarcodingdidnotdetectanyprey,probablyowingtoprimerchoiceand/orpreferentialpredator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43?71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46?273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy.There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro,while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar,but partially complementary,detection of prey in arthropod predator guts.However, while Lazaro wasalmost2×moreexpensive,thenumberofreadswasrelatedtotheamountofpreyDNA,suggestingthatLazaro mayprovide quantitative prey information while ... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Diet analysis; Environmental DNA; Generalist predators; Gut content analysis. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
--
O Insetos e Entomologia |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/232999/1/giac020.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02285naa a2200241 a 4500
001 2151304
005 2023-01-27
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giac020$2DOI
100 1 $aPAULA, D. P.
245 $aMetabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
520 $aAbstract: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, weevaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). Inamockpreycommunity,metabarcodingdidnotdetectanyprey,probablyowingtoprimerchoiceand/orpreferentialpredator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43?71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46?273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy.There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro,while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar,but partially complementary,detection of prey in arthropod predator guts.However, while Lazaro wasalmost2×moreexpensive,thenumberofreadswasrelatedtotheamountofpreyDNA,suggestingthatLazaro mayprovide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not.
653 $aDiet analysis
653 $aEnvironmental DNA
653 $aGeneralist predators
653 $aGut content analysis
700 1 $aBARROS, S. K. A.
700 1 $aPITTA, R. M.
700 1 $aBARRETO, M. R.
700 1 $aTOGAWA, R. C.
700 1 $aANDOW, D. A.
773 $tGigaScience$gv. 11, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril (CPAMT) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
