| |
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Uva e Vinho. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpuv.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Uva e Vinho. |
|
Data corrente: |
11/04/2006 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
12/06/2017 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo de Divulgação na Mídia |
|
Autoria: |
MELLO, L. M. R. de. |
|
Afiliação: |
LOIVA MARIA RIBEIRO DE MELLO, CNPUV. |
|
Título: |
Atuação do Brasil no mercado vitivinícola mundial: panorama 2005. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2006 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Jornal da Fruta, Lages, v. 14, n. 169, p. 14, 2006. |
|
Idioma: |
Português |
|
Notas: |
Publicado também em: Bon Vivant, Flores da Cunha, v. 8, n. 86, p. 4, 2006. |
|
Conteúdo: |
O balanço comercial do setorvitivinícola nacional sinaliza para o equilíbrio no curto prazo. Em 2005, houve acréscimo no valor das exportações brasileiras de uvas, de 85,39% em relação ao ano anterior, perfazendo um total de 120,87 milhões de dólares. O déficit de 5,45 milhões de dólares representa apenas 4,51% do valor das e~ortações e foi reduzido em 86,72%;em relação ao ano de 2004. Cabe destacar o excelente desempenho nas vendasde uvas de mesa, 103,35% superior, en?:valor, ao ano de 2004, aliado aos acréscimos das exportações de vinhos de mesa (61,38%). |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Brasil. |
|
Thesagro: |
Exportação; Importação; Mercado; Produção; Suco; Uva; Vinho; Viticultura. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
E Economia e Indústria Agrícola |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01254nam a2200229 a 4500
001 1541093
005 2017-06-12
008 2006 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aMELLO, L. M. R. de
245 $aAtuação do Brasil no mercado vitivinícola mundial$bpanorama 2005.$h[electronic resource]
260 $aJornal da Fruta, Lages, v. 14, n. 169, p. 14, 2006.$c2006
500 $aPublicado também em: Bon Vivant, Flores da Cunha, v. 8, n. 86, p. 4, 2006.
520 $aO balanço comercial do setorvitivinícola nacional sinaliza para o equilíbrio no curto prazo. Em 2005, houve acréscimo no valor das exportações brasileiras de uvas, de 85,39% em relação ao ano anterior, perfazendo um total de 120,87 milhões de dólares. O déficit de 5,45 milhões de dólares representa apenas 4,51% do valor das e~ortações e foi reduzido em 86,72%;em relação ao ano de 2004. Cabe destacar o excelente desempenho nas vendasde uvas de mesa, 103,35% superior, en?:valor, ao ano de 2004, aliado aos acréscimos das exportações de vinhos de mesa (61,38%).
650 $aExportação
650 $aImportação
650 $aMercado
650 $aProdução
650 $aSuco
650 $aUva
650 $aVinho
650 $aViticultura
653 $aBrasil
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Uva e Vinho (CNPUV) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
| Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Milho e Sorgo. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpms.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Milho e Sorgo. |
|
Data corrente: |
29/09/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
10/11/2022 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
|
Autoria: |
FLAUSINO, B. F.; MACHADO, C. F. M.; SILVA, J. H. C.; RONCHI, C. P.; PIMENTEL, M. A. G.; GONTIJO, L. M. |
|
Afiliação: |
BRUNO F. FLAUSINO, Universidade Federal de Viçosa; CAROLINA F. M. MACHADO, Universidade Federal de Viçosa; JOSÉ HIAGO C. SILVA, Universidade Federal de Viçosa; CLÁUDIO P. RONCHI, Universidade Federal de Viçosa; MARCO AURELIO GUERRA PIMENTEL, CNPMS; LESSANDO M. GONTIJO, Universidade Federal de Viçosa. |
|
Título: |
Intercropping maize with brachiaria can be a double-edged sword strategy. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Pest Management Science, v. 78, p. 5243-5250, 2022. |
|
DOI: |
http://doi.org/10.1002/ps.7143 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
BACKGROUND: Intercropping is commonly implemented as a way of promoting sustainable agriculture. Some of the benefits of intercropping include improving resource-use efficiency and soil quality as well as promoting pest control. As for pest control, intercropping can often engender pest repellency/confusion and promote natural biological control. Nevertheless, intercropping is not always a win?win strategy for pest management, with chances of sometimes either favoring or hampering pests and their natural enemies. Brazilian farmers commonly row-intercrop maize with brachiaria with the intent of forming a grass pasture for the feeding of livestock after maize harvest. However, very little is known about whether this intercropping can influence key pests and natural enemies in the maize agroecosystem. The overall aim of this study was to investigate how multiple groups of maize pests and natural enemies respond in terms of temporal abundance to this intercropping. RESULTS: Defoliation caused by caterpillars was higher in the intercropping treatment. Intercropping appeared to promote Dalbulus maidis while hampering aphids and Diabrotica speciosa. In general, the abundance of natural enemies was favored by intercropping. There was a reduction in maize productivity (i.e. fresh weight) in the intercropping treatment. Most results were season dependent. CONCLUSION: We believe that by considering together the pros and cons of intercropping maize and brachiaria in terms of pest management and soil conservation/fertility, the benefits of implementing this intercropping shall still outweigh its potential challenges. Nevertheless, the results and ensuing recommendations should be considered under the context of time and arthropod species. MenosBACKGROUND: Intercropping is commonly implemented as a way of promoting sustainable agriculture. Some of the benefits of intercropping include improving resource-use efficiency and soil quality as well as promoting pest control. As for pest control, intercropping can often engender pest repellency/confusion and promote natural biological control. Nevertheless, intercropping is not always a win?win strategy for pest management, with chances of sometimes either favoring or hampering pests and their natural enemies. Brazilian farmers commonly row-intercrop maize with brachiaria with the intent of forming a grass pasture for the feeding of livestock after maize harvest. However, very little is known about whether this intercropping can influence key pests and natural enemies in the maize agroecosystem. The overall aim of this study was to investigate how multiple groups of maize pests and natural enemies respond in terms of temporal abundance to this intercropping. RESULTS: Defoliation caused by caterpillars was higher in the intercropping treatment. Intercropping appeared to promote Dalbulus maidis while hampering aphids and Diabrotica speciosa. In general, the abundance of natural enemies was favored by intercropping. There was a reduction in maize productivity (i.e. fresh weight) in the intercropping treatment. Most results were season dependent. CONCLUSION: We believe that by considering together the pros and cons of intercropping maize and brachiaria in terms of pest manage... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Thesagro: |
Controle Biológico; Milho; Praga de Planta. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Dalbulus maidis. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
F Plantas e Produtos de Origem Vegetal |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02464naa a2200241 a 4500
001 2146980
005 2022-11-10
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $ahttp://doi.org/10.1002/ps.7143$2DOI
100 1 $aFLAUSINO, B. F.
245 $aIntercropping maize with brachiaria can be a double-edged sword strategy.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
520 $aBACKGROUND: Intercropping is commonly implemented as a way of promoting sustainable agriculture. Some of the benefits of intercropping include improving resource-use efficiency and soil quality as well as promoting pest control. As for pest control, intercropping can often engender pest repellency/confusion and promote natural biological control. Nevertheless, intercropping is not always a win?win strategy for pest management, with chances of sometimes either favoring or hampering pests and their natural enemies. Brazilian farmers commonly row-intercrop maize with brachiaria with the intent of forming a grass pasture for the feeding of livestock after maize harvest. However, very little is known about whether this intercropping can influence key pests and natural enemies in the maize agroecosystem. The overall aim of this study was to investigate how multiple groups of maize pests and natural enemies respond in terms of temporal abundance to this intercropping. RESULTS: Defoliation caused by caterpillars was higher in the intercropping treatment. Intercropping appeared to promote Dalbulus maidis while hampering aphids and Diabrotica speciosa. In general, the abundance of natural enemies was favored by intercropping. There was a reduction in maize productivity (i.e. fresh weight) in the intercropping treatment. Most results were season dependent. CONCLUSION: We believe that by considering together the pros and cons of intercropping maize and brachiaria in terms of pest management and soil conservation/fertility, the benefits of implementing this intercropping shall still outweigh its potential challenges. Nevertheless, the results and ensuing recommendations should be considered under the context of time and arthropod species.
650 $aDalbulus maidis
650 $aControle Biológico
650 $aMilho
650 $aPraga de Planta
700 1 $aMACHADO, C. F. M.
700 1 $aSILVA, J. H. C.
700 1 $aRONCHI, C. P.
700 1 $aPIMENTEL, M. A. G.
700 1 $aGONTIJO, L. M.
773 $tPest Management Science$gv. 78, p. 5243-5250, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Milho e Sorgo (CNPMS) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
