| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Semiárido. |
|
Data corrente: |
11/05/2012 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
22/05/2012 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
MELO, J. W. S.; DOMINGOS, C. A.; PALLINI, A.; OLIVEIRA, J. E. de M.; GONDIM JÚNIOR, M. G. C. |
|
Afiliação: |
JOSÉ WAGNER S. MELO, UFRPE; CLEITON A. DOMINGOS, UFRPE; ANGELO PALLINI, UFV; JOSE EUDES DE MORAIS OLIVEIRA, CPATSA; MANOEL G. C. GONDIM JÚNIOR, UFRPE. |
|
Título: |
Removal of bunches or spikelets is not effective for the control of Aceria guerreronis. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2012 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
HortScience, v. 47, n. 5, p. 626-630, 2012. |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Worldwide, there remains a reliance on repeated chemical applications as a control strategy for the coconut mite, but these are impractical, not economical, and environmentally hazardous. In this study, the damage severity of Aceria guerreronis on coconut fruits was studied under different conditions to investigate the effects of bunch management on the amount of damage to newly produced bunches. The damage was evaluated using a diagrammatic scale under four different conditions: 1) plants with bunches removed; 2) bunches with the distal portion of the spikelet removed; 3) bunches sprayed monthly with abamectin (9 g a.i./ha); and 4) control plants. For each treatment, two fruits from bunches 1 to 6 (counted from the last open inflorescence) from 10 plants were randomly collected every month for 4months. The removal of the distal portion of the spikelets had no effect on the damage level of new bunches but delayed the damage severity by 1 month. After the removal of all of the bunches, the damage severity was restored within 2 months to the newly produced bunches, whereas the chemical control with abamectin kept the A. guerreronis damage intensity at a low level. Thus, the removal of bunches or the distal portion of spikelets is not an effective practice for the control of A. guerreronis in areas with high levels of infestation. |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Coconut. |
|
Thesagro: |
Ácaro; Aceria guerreronis; Coco; Cocos Nucifera; Controle Biológico; Praga. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
F Plantas e Produtos de Origem Vegetal |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/59805/1/Eudes-2012.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02058naa a2200253 a 4500
001 1924435
005 2012-05-22
008 2012 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aMELO, J. W. S.
245 $aRemoval of bunches or spikelets is not effective for the control of Aceria guerreronis.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2012
520 $aWorldwide, there remains a reliance on repeated chemical applications as a control strategy for the coconut mite, but these are impractical, not economical, and environmentally hazardous. In this study, the damage severity of Aceria guerreronis on coconut fruits was studied under different conditions to investigate the effects of bunch management on the amount of damage to newly produced bunches. The damage was evaluated using a diagrammatic scale under four different conditions: 1) plants with bunches removed; 2) bunches with the distal portion of the spikelet removed; 3) bunches sprayed monthly with abamectin (9 g a.i./ha); and 4) control plants. For each treatment, two fruits from bunches 1 to 6 (counted from the last open inflorescence) from 10 plants were randomly collected every month for 4months. The removal of the distal portion of the spikelets had no effect on the damage level of new bunches but delayed the damage severity by 1 month. After the removal of all of the bunches, the damage severity was restored within 2 months to the newly produced bunches, whereas the chemical control with abamectin kept the A. guerreronis damage intensity at a low level. Thus, the removal of bunches or the distal portion of spikelets is not an effective practice for the control of A. guerreronis in areas with high levels of infestation.
650 $aÁcaro
650 $aAceria guerreronis
650 $aCoco
650 $aCocos Nucifera
650 $aControle Biológico
650 $aPraga
653 $aCoconut
700 1 $aDOMINGOS, C. A.
700 1 $aPALLINI, A.
700 1 $aOLIVEIRA, J. E. de M.
700 1 $aGONDIM JÚNIOR, M. G. C.
773 $tHortScience$gv. 47, n. 5, p. 626-630, 2012.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Semiárido (CPATSA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Gado de Corte. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpgc.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Gado de Corte. |
|
Data corrente: |
01/11/2007 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
20/07/2011 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Anais de Congresso / Nota Técnica |
|
Autoria: |
KICHEL, A. N.; QUEIROZ, H. P. de. |
|
Afiliação: |
Armindo Kichel, CNPGC; Haroldo Pires de Queiroz, CNPGC. |
|
Título: |
Errores comunes en la implantación y manejo de pasturas. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2007 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: SIMPOSIO LATINOAMERICANO PRODUCTIVIDAD EN GANADO DE CORTE, 10., 2007, Santa Cruz. [Anais...] [Santa Cruz: ASOCÉBU, 2007]. |
|
Páginas: |
p. 22-28. |
|
Idioma: |
Espanhol |
|
Conteúdo: |
Elección de la especie o variedad forrajera. Formación de la pastura. Limpieza del área. Conservación del suelo. Corrección de la acidez, fósforo, potasio, azufre y micro nutrientes. Preparación del suelo. Cantidad de semillas y profundidad de cultivo. Época de cultivo. Método de cultivo. Estabelecimento de consorcios. Control de plagas en la formación de las pasturas. Control de invasoras. Manejo de formación de pasturas. Manejo de las pasturas. |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Consorciação; Cultivo; Formação; Management; Mixed pastures; Pests of plants; Soils. |
|
Thesagro: |
Erva Daninha; Manejo; Pastagem Cultivada; Praga de Planta; Solo. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
cropping systems; pastures; sown pastures; weeds. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01372naa a2200337 a 4500
001 1318693
005 2011-07-20
008 2007 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aKICHEL, A. N.
245 $aErrores comunes en la implantación y manejo de pasturas.
260 $c2007
300 $ap. 22-28.
520 $aElección de la especie o variedad forrajera. Formación de la pastura. Limpieza del área. Conservación del suelo. Corrección de la acidez, fósforo, potasio, azufre y micro nutrientes. Preparación del suelo. Cantidad de semillas y profundidad de cultivo. Época de cultivo. Método de cultivo. Estabelecimento de consorcios. Control de plagas en la formación de las pasturas. Control de invasoras. Manejo de formación de pasturas. Manejo de las pasturas.
650 $acropping systems
650 $apastures
650 $asown pastures
650 $aweeds
650 $aErva Daninha
650 $aManejo
650 $aPastagem Cultivada
650 $aPraga de Planta
650 $aSolo
653 $aConsorciação
653 $aCultivo
653 $aFormação
653 $aManagement
653 $aMixed pastures
653 $aPests of plants
653 $aSoils
700 1 $aQUEIROZ, H. P. de
773 $tIn: SIMPOSIO LATINOAMERICANO PRODUCTIVIDAD EN GANADO DE CORTE, 10., 2007, Santa Cruz. [Anais...] [Santa Cruz: ASOCÉBU, 2007].
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Gado de Corte (CNPGC) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
