| Literature DB >> 24578645 |
Daniela de Melo Aguiar1, Alexander Machado Auad1, Marcy das Graças Fonseca1, Melissa Vieira Leite1.
Abstract
Cropping practices are necessary in order to help reduce the population of pest insect, such as the induction of resistance through fertilization. Therefore, this study aimed to assess alterations on the production and quality of Brachiaria ruziziensis when receiving the fertilization composed by the macronutrients NPK and/or exposed to the attack of Mahanarva spectabilis nymphs and adults. B. ruziziensis plants were fertilized according to the recommendation (R), half of the recommended fertilization (H), or non-fertilization (C). They were also exposed to different M. spectabilis nymph and adult densities. The damage, regrowth, and bromatological components were evaluated. The fertilization treatment promoted a higher M. spectabilis nymph survival on B. ruziziensis; however, it reduced the damage caused by the forage exposed to nymphs and adults of pest insect, and it did not alter the quality of the signal grass. Moreover, the fertilization treatment enabled forage recovery, even when exposed to 5 nymphs or 10 spittlebug adults.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24578645 PMCID: PMC3919098 DOI: 10.1155/2014/543813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Mahanarva spectabilis nymph survival (%) kept in B. ruziziensis cultivated under recommended (R), half of recommended (H), and control (C) fertilization. Means values followed by the same letter did not differ among them by the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Leaf damage (a) (damage score) and regrowth (%) (b) of Brachiaria ruziziensis cultivated under recommended (R), half of recommended (H), and control (C) fertilization and exposed to different Mahanarva spectabilis nymphs densities.
Leaf damage (damage score) and regrowth (%) of Brachiaria ruziziensis cultivated under recommended (R), half of recommended (H), and control (C) fertilization and exposed to different Mahanarva spectabilis nymphs and adults densities.
| Fertilization doses | Nymphs density | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 5 | 15 | 30 | |
| Leaf damage | ||||
| C | 1.0 ± 0.0 A | 2.8 ± 0.3 A | 4.1 ± 0.3 A | 4.5 ± 0.2 A |
| H | 1.0 ± 0.0 A | 1.6 ± 0.1 B | 2.6 ± 0.2 B | 3.6 ± 0.3 B |
| R | 1.0 ± 0.0 A | 1.9 ± 0.2 B | 3.1 ± 0.2 B | 3.4 ± 0.1 B |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Regrowth (%) | ||||
| C | 90.0 ± 10.0 A | 40.0 ± 16.3 B | 10.0 ± 10.0 A | 0 ± 0.0 A |
| H | 100.0 ± 0.0 A | 80.0 ± 13.3 A | 10.0 ± 10.0 A | 20 ± 13.3 A |
| R | 80.0 ± 13.3 A | 90.0 ± 10.0 A | 0.0 ± 0.0 A | 0 ± 0.0 A |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Fertilization doses | Adults density | |||
| 0 | 10 |
|
| |
|
| ||||
| Leaf damage | ||||
| C | 0 ± 0.0 Ab | 3.9 ± 0.14 Aa |
| 333.333 |
| H | 0 ± 0.0 Ab | 3.1 ± 0.14 Ba |
| 187.500 |
| R | 0 ± 0.0 Ab | 2.7 ± 0.18 Ca |
| 120.000 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||||
| Regrowth (%) | ||||
| C | 100.0 ± 0.0 Aa | 0.0 ± 0.0 Bb |
| 52.500 |
| H | 100.0 ± 0.0 Aa | 71.4 ± 18.4 Ab | 0.047 | 4.286 |
| R | 100.0 ± 0.0 Aa | 86.7 ± 14.3 Aa | 0.309 | 1.071 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
Means values followed by the same small letter in the row and by the same capital letter in the column are not significant (ANOVA followed by a Tukey test (P ≤ 0.05)).
P and F are values of variance analysis.
Cellulose, lignin, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), and crude protein (CP) contents in Brachiaria ruziziensis plants, cultivated under recommended (R), half of recommended (H), and control (C) fertilization and exposed to different Mahanarva spectabilis densities.
| Fertilization doses | Nymphs density |
|
| Adults density |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 30 | 0 | 10 | |||||
| Cellulose (%) | ||||||||
| C | 40.0 ± 2.2 | 49.6 ± 2.3 |
|
| 43.4 ± 3.1 | 47.7 ± 1.2 |
|
|
| H | 45.5 ± 3.4 | 49.3 ± 3.5 |
|
| 44.1 ± 2.6 | 44.7 ± 1.3 |
|
|
| R | 45.6 ± 1.8 | 46.4 ± 1.6 |
|
| 47.6 ± 2.6 | 41.9 ± 2.7 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Lignin (%) | ||||||||
| C | 5.7 ± 0.3 | 5.5 ± 0.2 |
|
| 6.3 ± 0.3 | 6.1 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| H | 5.8 ± 0.2 | 5.7 ± 0.3 |
|
| 6.3 ± 0.1 | 6.0 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| R | 6.1 ± 0.3 | 6.3 ± 0.2 |
|
| 6.5 ± 0.3 | 6.5 ± 0.3 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||||
| DNF (%) | ||||||||
| C | 71.2 ± 0.9 | 73.6 ± 0.9 |
|
| 77.0 ± 0.7 | 75.9 ± 0.4 |
|
|
| H | 73.7 ± 0.9 | 75.8 ± 1.1 |
|
| 75.9 ± 0.5 | 75.0 ± 0.4 |
|
|
| R | 72.4 ± 1.0 | 75.8 ± 0.9 |
|
| 76.2 ± 1.0 | 75.9 ± 0.5 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||||
| DAF (%) | ||||||||
| C | 42.1 ± 0.9 | 43.8 ± 0.9 |
|
| 45.9 ± 0.9 | 44.9 ± 0.6 |
|
|
| H | 44.7 ± 0.7 | 45.4 ± 0.6 |
|
| 45.2 ± 0.5 | 44.1 ± 0.3 |
|
|
| R | 43.7 ± 0.9 | 45.6 ± 0.8 |
|
| 45.9 ± 1.2 | 45.0 ± 0.9 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||||
| IVDMD | ||||||||
| C | 55.8 ± 1.3 | 52.1 ± 1.2 |
|
| 50.8 ± 1.0 | 51.1 ± 0.7 |
|
|
| H | 54.7 ± 1.4 | 51.8 ± 1.1 |
|
| 51.2 ± 1.0 | 52.2 ± 0.5 |
|
|
| R | 57.4 ± 1.5 | 52.3 ± 1.3 |
|
| 59.8 ± 1.3 | 50.0 ± 1.0 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||||
| CP (%) | ||||||||
| C | 5.6 ± 0.3 | 4.9 ± 0.2 |
|
| 4.1 ± 0.1 | 3.8 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| H | 5.5 ± 0.2 | 4.7 ± 0.5 |
|
| 4.0 ± 0.2 | 3.9 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| R | 6.6 ± 0.7 | 4.4 ± 0.3 |
|
| 3.6 ± 0.2 | 3.7 ± 0.2 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
P and F are values of variance analysis followed by a Tukey test.