Non-nutritional biostimulant improves maize cultivation economic parameters / Bioestimulante não nutricional melhora os parâmetros econômicos do cultivo de milho
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv5n10-062.Keywords:
Zea mays L., Adverse conditions, Second season cultivation, Hydric deficit, Grain production, Plant protection.Abstract
Maize cultivation in the second season has a significant risk of reducing economic profitability due to the common water scarcity for this period in the Brazilian Cerrado. It was considered the hypothesis that the application of biostimulant can act positively on the financial return obtained with the production of second period maize. Therefore, the objective was to obtain the economic indicators related to the crop under application of biostimulant. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with four replications, being 2x5x2: Two sowing periods for second-season maize in two years (February-March); five doses of biostimulant in the treatment of seeds (0, 6.25, 12.50, 18.75, 25.00 ml kg-1); presence and absence of foliar application of biostimulant (500 ml ha-1). Seed treatments with 6.25 ml kg-1 and 12.50 ml kg-1 resulted in better economic results for the sowing of February and March, respectively, when combined with foliar application. The highest profitability indexes were obtained when maize was cultivated in February. However, despite the lower monetary return, maize grown in the second season results in positive economic returns.
References
Bastos A L, Costa J P V, Silva I F, Raposo R W C, Oliveira F A and Albuquerque, A W. 2010. Resposta do milho a doses de fósforo. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e Ambiental 14(5): 485-491.
Bontempo A F, Alves F M, Carneiro G D O P, Machado L G, Silva L O D and Aquino, L A. 2016. Influência de bioestimulantes e nutrientes na emergência e no crescimento inicial de feijão, soja e milho. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 15(1): 86-93.
Cunha F F, Magalhães F F and Castro M A. 2013. Métodos para estimativa da evapotranspiração de referência para Chapadão do Sul-MS. Revista Engenharia na Agricultura 21(2): 159-172.
Jesus A A, Lima S F, Vendruscolo E P, Alvarez R C F and Contardi, L M. 2016. Análise econômica da produção do milho doce cultivado com aplicação de bioestimulante via semente. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía 115(1): 119-127.
Kappes C, Gitti D C, Arf O, Andrade, J A D C and Tarsitano, M A A. 2015. Análise econômica do milho em sucessão a diferentes adubos verdes, manejos do solo e doses de nitrogênio. Bioscience Journal 31(1): 55-64.
Melo A V, Santos V M, Varanda M A F, Cardoso D P and Dias M A R. 2018. Desempenho agronômico de genótipos de milho submetidos ao estresse hídrico no sul do estado do Tocantins. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo, v.17, n.2): 177-189.
Meng Q, Chen X, Lobell D B, Cui Z, Zhang Y, Yang H and Zhang F. 2016. Growing sensitivity of maize to water scarcity under climate change. Scientific reports 6: 19605.
Mwangi M and Kariuki S. 2015. Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and sustainable development 6(5): 208-216.
Nelson G C, Valin H, Sands R D, Havlík P, Ahammad H, Deryng D, ... and Kyle P. 2014. Climate change effects on agriculture: Economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(9): 3274-3279.
Omoyo N N, Wakhungu J and Oteng’i S. 2015. Effects of climate variability on maize yield in the arid and semi arid lands of lower eastern Kenya. Agriculture & Food Security 4(1): 1-13.
Rurinda J, Van Wijk M T, Mapfumo P, Descheemaeker K, Supit I and Giller K E. 2015. Climate change and maize yield in southern Africa: what can farm management do?. Global change biology 21(12): 4588-4601.
Santos H G, Jacomine P K T, Anjos L H C, Oliveira V A, Lumbreras J F, Coelho M R, Almeida J A, Cunha T J F and Oliveira J B. 2013. Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos. 3rd ed. Embrapa, Brasília.
Simão E D P, Resende A V, Gontijo Neto M M, Borghi E, Martins D C and Vanin A. 2017. Demanda de nutrientes pelo milho safrinha em função da época de semeadura e adubação. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 16(3): 481-494.
Souza J A, Buzetti S, Tarsitano M A A and Valderrama M. 2012. Lucratividade do milho em razão das fontes, doses e épocas de aplicação de nitrogênio. Ceres 59(3): 321-329.
Taiz L, Zeiger E, Moller I M and Murphy A. 2017. Plant Physiology and Development, 6th ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
Tejada M, Rodríguez-Morgado B, Paneque P and Parrado J. 2018. Effects of foliar fertilization of a biostimulant obtained from chicken feathers on maize yield. European Journal of Agronomy 96: 54-59.
T?mová L, Tarkowská D, ?eho?ová K, Marková H, Ko?ová M, Rothová O, ... and Holá D. 2018. Drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive genotypes of maize (Zea mays L.) differ in contents of endogenous brassinosteroids and their drought-induced changes. PloS one 13(5): e0197870.
Van Oosten M J, Pepe O, Pascale S, Silletti S and Maggio A. 2017. The role of biostimulants and bioeffectors as alleviators of abiotic stress in crop plants. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 4(1): 1-12.
Vendruscolo E P, Siqueira A P S, Rodrigues A H A, Oliveira P R, Correia S R and Seleguini, A. 2018. Viabilidade econômica do cultivo de milho doce submetido à inoculação com Azospirillum brasilense e soluções de tiamina. Amazonian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences 61(1): 1-7.
