The Impact of Pesticides - Academy Publish

(a.i)/ha] State of Paraná, evaluated South in the Brazil, control 2010/11 of stink crop bugs season.the soybean crop. Municipality of Arapongas,State of Paraná, South Brazil, 2010/11 crop season.Figure 7. Mean population (±SE) of stink bugs along the soybean cropdevelopmental stages after different treatments (indicated by the arrows) for pestcontrol. Figure 7. Municipality Mean population of Arapongas, (±SE) of Sate stink of bugs Paraná, along South the soybean Brazil, 2010/2011 crop cropseason.Figure developmental 7. Mean stages population after different (±SE) of treatments stink bugs (indicated along the soybean by the arrows) crop for pestdevelopmental control. Municipality stages of after Arapongas, different treatments Sate of Paraná, (indicated South by Brazil, the arrows) 2010/2011 for pest cropcontrol. season. Municipality of Arapongas, Sate of Paraná, South Brazil, 2010/2011 cropseason.Table 2. Soybean yield and seed quality after the adoption of different managementpractices for the control of stink bugs. Municipality of Arapongas, State PF Paraná,South Table Brazil, 2. Soybean 2010/2011 yield and crop seed season. quality after the adoption of different managementTable practices 2. Soybean for the control yield and of stink seed bugs. quality Municipality after the adoption of Arapongas, of different State management PF Paraná,practices South Brazil, for the 2010/2011 control of crop stink season. bugs. Municipality Production of Arapongas, Tetrazolium State PF Test Paraná, (%) 2South Brazil, Treatment 2010/2011 crop season. (kg/ha) Stink Bugs Injury (scaleTetrazolium 6 to 8) Test (%) 2ProductionEconomic Treatment threshold (ET) (kg/ha) Stink Bugs Injury (scale13812.5 ± 96.5 a 1 Tetrazolium Test4.5 ± 2.6 b6 to 8)1 (%) 2ProductionTreatment for stink bugs(kg/ha) Stink Bugs Injury (scaleEconomic ¼ of the threshold ET for stink (ET) 3992.9 ± 116.56 to 8)213812.5 96.5 a 1 4.5 1.0 ± 2.6 0.4 b1Economic for stink bugs threshold bugs (ET) a13812.5 ± 96.5 a 1 4.5 ± 2.6 b 1Insecticide ¼ of for the stink ET mixed bugs for stink with 3992.9 116.5323678.9 76.6 a 4.8 1.0 ± 2.3 0.4 bherbicide ¼ of the and bugs ET fungicides for stink 3992.9 a ± 116.521.0 ± 0.4 bInsecticide bugs4 mixed with a3Control 3267.2 3678.9 ± 39,9 76.6 b a 13.7 4.8 ± 2.3 2.2 b aherbicide Insecticide and mixed fungicides with3 CV (%) 3678.9 4.78 ± 76.6 a 4.830.00± 2.3 b4herbicideControland fungicides3267.2 ± 39,9 b 13.7 ± 2.2 a1 Means 4 followed CV by (%) Control the same letter in the 3267.2 column 4.78 ± 39,9 are b not statistically 13.730.00different ± 2.2 abetween eachCVother(%)by the Tukey test (P>0.05);4.78 2 Original results followed30.00by thestatistics performed on data transformed by X (this data indicated the percentage ofseeds with dead embryo due to stink bug injury).Currently in Brazil, the infestations with stink bugs have increased significantly onthe soybean crop and this is especially true with the species Euschistus heros(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) (BUENO et al., 2007). This has occurred due to acombination of factors such as: 1) selection of resistant populations of stink bugs tothe main insecticides used; 2) Low number of insecticides with differentmechanisms of action; 3) deficiencies in the application technology of theseproducts; and 4) ecological imbalance caused by the abusive and disordered use ofbroad spectrum insecticides, early in the development of the culture (BUENO et al.,AcademyPublish.org 2011; CORRÊA-FERREIRA - The Impact et al., of Pesticides 2010). Therefore, the increased use175ofinsecticides on the soybean fields will only contribute to aggravate the problemscited. Thus, similarly to the previously mentioned for defoliators, also for the stink