Effect of biostimulants on tilling, yield and quality component of sugarcane / Efeito de bioestimulantes no perfilhamento, produtividade e qualidade tecnológica de cana-de-açúcar

(1)

Braz. J. of Develop.,Curitiba, v. 6, n. 5, p. 29907-29918 may. 2020. ISSN 2525-8761

Effect of biostimulants on tilling, yield and quality component of sugarcane

Efeito de bioestimulantes no perfilhamento, produtividade e qualidade

tecnológica de cana-de-açúcar

DOI:10.34117/ bjdv6n5-445

Recebimento dos originais: 20/04/2020 Aceitação para publicação: 21/05/2020

Gustavo Alves Santos

Doutor em Agronomia pela Universidade Federal de Uberlândia

Grupo de Pesquisa “Silício na Agricultura” (GPSi), Programa de Pós-Graduação em Agronomia (PPGA), Instituto de Ciências Agrárias (ICIAG), Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)

Endereço: Rodovia BR 050, KM 78. 38410-337

Campus Glória - Bloco CCG - Sala 1C 206. Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil E-mail: asgustavo@yahoo.com

Bruno Nicchio

Pós-Doutorado em Agronomia pela Universidade Federal de Uberlândia

Campus Glória - Bloco CCG - Sala 1C 206. Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil E-mail: bruno_nicchio@hotmail.com

Mariana Alves Borges

Graduação em Agronomia pela Universidade Federal de Uberlândia

Campus Glória - Bloco CCG - Sala 1C 206. Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil E-mail: mariana.agroo@yahoo.com

Camila de Andrade Carvalho Gualberto

Doutorado em Agronomia pela Universidade Federal de Uberlândia

Campus Glória - Bloco CCG - Sala 1C 206. Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil E-mail: camila_carvalho03@hotmail.com

Hamilton Seron Pereira

Professor Titular em Agronomia pela Universidade Federal de Uberlândia

Campus Glória - Bloco CCG - Sala 1C 206. Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil E-mail: hspereira@ufu.br

(2)

Gaspar Henrique Korndörfer

Professor Titular em Agronomia pela Universidade Federal de Uberlândia

Campus Glória - Bloco CCG - Sala 1C 206. Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil E-mail: ghk@uber.br

ABSTRACT

The use of biostimulants in sugarcane crop can increase yield and quality component. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of application of different bioestimulants on development of tillers, cane tonnage, sugar yield and quality component. The experimental design was in randomized block, with five treatments and four repetitions, consisting of: control (without biostimulant), Bio1, Bio2, Bio3 and Bio4. Four experiments were installed with different sugarcane varieties (CTC 2, RB867515, RB92579 and CTC 4). Were evaluated the number of tillers, cane tonnage, sugar yield and quality component (TRS, Sucrose and Purity). The Bio3 at 3.0 L ha-1 was more efficient in increase cane tonnage, sugar yield and sucrose of variety RB867515. The application of Bio1 (0.5 L ha-1_{) was more efficient in increase TRS of variety CTC 2 and Bio4 (1.0}

L ha-1) on purity component of variety RB-92579.

Keywords: cane tonnage, sugar yield, plant regulator RESUMO

O uso de bioestimulantes em cana-de-açúcar pode incrementar produção e qualidade tecnológica. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o efeito da aplicação de diferentes bioestimulantes no desenvolvimento de perfilhos, produção de colmos e açúcar, e qualidade tecnológica. O delineamento experimental foi de blocos ao acaso com cinco tratamentos e quarto repetições que consistiram em: testemunha (sem bioestimulante), Bio1, Bio2, Bio3 e Bio4. Quatro experimentos foram instalados com diferentes variedades de cana-de-açúcar (CTC 2, RB867515, RB92579 e CTC 4). Foram avaliados o número de perfilhos, produção de colmos e açúcar, e qualidade tecnológica (ATR, Pol e pureza). O Bio3 na dose de 3,0 L ha-1_{foi mais eficiente no aumento de produção de}

colmos, açúcar e pol da cana da variedade RB867515. A aplicação de Bio1 (0,5 L ha-1_{) foi mais}

eficiente no aumento de ATR da variedade CTC 2 e Bio4 (1,0 L ha-1) na pureza da cana na variedade RB-92579.

Palavras-chave: produção de colmos, produção de açúcar, regulador vegetal

1 INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane culture plays a role indisputable in the Brazilian economy and, in order to remain competitive in terms of production, it is necessary to continue the search for higher productivity. New discoveries have stimulated the use of different substances as biostimulants and biofertilizers with physiologic effects and with an opportunity to increase crop productivity, in order to develop agricultural crops as sugarcane (BINSFELD et al., 2014). The biostimulants used correctly, can help in the growth and development of plants. In this sense, several researchers have tried to elucidate the benefits of these substances for crops (CIVIERO et al., 2016; SOUZA et al., 2020).

(3)

There are many factors (endogenous and exogenous) that affect the initial development of the sugarcane culture, both in emergence and in tillering, which can justifying the use of chemical treatments through products such as plant regulators and biostimulants (MENDES et al., 2009). The term biostimulant refers more to the effect than to a class of products (MÓGOR et al., 2008), since it is not covered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply of Brasil (MAPA).

Conceptually, biostimulants are defined as a mixture of two or more plant regulators, or plant regulators with other substances of a biochemical nature such as amino acids, vitamins and nutrients (VIEIRA, 2001). In addition, these substances act as activators of cellular metabolism, reactivating physiological processes linked to different stages of development, stimulating root growth, inducing the formation of new shoots, and improving the quality and quantity of the product, among other beneficial processes (SILVA et al., 2010).

On the other hand, in order to obtain the maximum biostimulant efficiency, it is important to know the process regulated by the hormone or group of hormones, the time of application, the dose required to handle the process and the plant tissue where reactions may occur. The application of biostimulants in sugarcane is a management practice that can potentially promoting structural plant processes, enabling increases in sucrose contents, as well as promoting precocity of maturation and higher sugarcane yields (MARTINS & CASTRO, 1999; CAPUTO et al., 2007; COSTA, 2010).

Thus, biostimulants can be used as complements to mineral fertilizers in sugarcane production (MAGALHÃES et al. 2016). Silva et al. (2010) testing a biostimulant in sugarcane, observed sugarcane yield improvements, irrespective of genotype, with or without supplementation of liquid fertilizer, which indicated the possibility of increasing longevity of sugarcane plantations. Therefore, it is assumed that the use of biostimulants in sugarcane can provide better development resulting in increases in higher productivity. Hence, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of application of different bioestimulants on development of tillers, cane tonnage, sugar yield and quality component.

2 MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four experiments were installed from 2012 to 2013 using a completely randomized experimental design with five treatments and four repetitions. The varieties used in this study were CTC 2, CTC 4, RB867515 and RB92579 planted in different commercial areas of sugarcane mills in São Paulo and Minas Gerais. The treatments consisted of control (without biostimulant), Bio1, Bio2, Bio3 and Bio4 with the following characteristics:

(4)

- Bio1, plant growth regulator containing kinetin (0.09 g L-1), gibberellic acid (GA3 -0.05 g L-1_{), 4 acid-indole-3-ilbutírico (0.05 g L}-1_{), and 999.8 g L}-1_{of inert ingredients;}

- Bio2, product obtained from natural extracts with similar action to the cytokinins, auxins and gibberellins, containing 1.73% of N; 5% of K2O, 2.1% of S; 0.49% of Fe; 2.43% of Zn; 1% of

Mn; 0.08% of B, and 3.5% of organic carbon;

- Bio3, foliar fertilizer liquid containing 75 g L-1 of total-N (ammoniacal nitrogen); 260 g L-1 of P2O5; 68 g L-1 of K2O; 0.65 g L-1 of total Fe; 0.13 g L-1 of total Mn, and 0.66 g L-1 of total Zn;

- Bio4, land plant extracts-based, containing 30% of vegetable origin extracts, 3% of fulvic

acid, 5% of Zn; 2% of amino acid, and 0.42% of inositol.

The doses of biostimulants used followed the manufacturer’s recommendation, resulting in 0.5 L ha-1 of Bio1 and Bio2; 1.0 and 3.0 L ha-1 of Bio3; and 1.0 and 1.5 L ha-1 of Bio4, respectively. The treatments were applied at the planting operation on cane stalks in a total volume of 267 L ha-1 followed by their distribution in the furrow at planting.

The experimental plots were composed by five 10 m long sugarcane rows, spaced by 1.5 m. It was also adopted a 3 m spacing in the headwaters and on the sides in order to avoid problems with drift in the application of the products. The evaluations were started 100 days after planting (DAP) for tillering analysis counting the number of tillers per meter in the three central rows of each plot. Plant cane harvesting was performed at 360, 545, 400, and 365 DAP for experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, by manual cutting of six linear meters of the three central rows of each plot. After each cut, the cane was cleared (removal of leaves), stripped and weighed. The weight of stalks obtained was extrapolated to t ha-1_{resulting on canne tonnage per hectare. During the harvest, two}

stalks per line among the cut ones were randomly sampled for quality componente analysis. According to methodology described by Consecana (2006) the results of sucrose (%), theoretical recoverable sugar (TRS) and purity (%) were obtained. Using the results of cane tonnage and sucrose, sugar yield was calculated. Using the results of tons of cane per hectare and sucrose (%), values of tons of sugar per hectare were calculated. The accumulative cane yield was based on summation of three consecutive sugarcane cycles.

Data was submitted to analysis of variance followed by Duncan’s test (p < 0.05), using Assistat software (SILVA; AZEVEDO, 2016).

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

(5)

Table 1. Number of tillers per meter of different varieties by application of biostimulants.

Product Dose Number of tillers per meter

1 L ha-1 _{CTC 2} _RB867515 _RB92579 _{CTC 4} Control 33.8 a 18.8 a 21.2 a 12.5 a Bio1 0.5 32.7 a 18.1 a 22.3 a 12.0 a Bio2 0.5 33.7 a 18.0 a 20.6 a 11.1 a Bio3 1.0 33.7 a 17.9 a 19.6 a 11.9 a Bio3 3.0 33.5 a 18.8 a 23.0 a 11.8 a Bio4 1.0 34.4 a 18.5 a 22.4 a 12.3 a Bio4 1.5 33.4 a 17.0 a 21.5 a 11.5 a Average 33.6 18.2 21.5 11.9 CV(%) = CTC 2: 7.0; RB867515: 8.3; RB92579: 13.1; CTC 4: 11.1.

1_{Means followed by equal letters in the column do not differ by Duncan's test at 0.05 significance.}

These results resemble those of Kimura and Beauclair (2009) when evaluating the use of biostimulants in the furrow at planting did not found effects on the tillering of sugarcane. Ferreira et al. (2020) when evaluating the use of organomineral and sewage sludge with or without biostimulants in the production of sugarcane, did not find any increase in cane tillering. In order to obtain the maximum biostimulant efficiency, it is important to know the process regulated by the hormone or group of hormones, the time of application, the dose required to handle the process and the plant tissue where reactions may occur (MARTINS & CASTRO, 1999; CAPUTO et al., 2007; COSTA, 2010).

However, several studies show positive results among the biostimulants application and tilling of the sugarcane culture, including Silva et al. (2007) evaluated the effects of growth regulators as the tilling and productivity enhancers in ratoon cane and observed effect on emergence of sprouting and tillering until six months after cutting. Oliveira et al. (2013) also observed positive effect of using biostimulants with increased tillering of sugarcane resulting in increase of 13% in production. Acoording to Celestrino et al. (2019) its use in the root development and tillering of sugarcane has been an agricultural practice.

For cane tonnage and sugar yield different responses were obtained among the varieties studied (Table 2). The applications of Bio1 and Bio2 at dose of 0.5 L ha-1 and Bio4 (1.5 L ha-1) presented higher cane tonnage and sugar yield compared to the control treatment.

Table 2. Effect of cane tonnage and sugar yield (t ha-1_{) of different varieties by application of biostimulants.}

Product Dose

Cane Tonnage1 _{Sugar Yield}1

CTC 2 RB 867515 RB 92579 CTC 4 CTC 2 RB 867515 RB 92579 CTC 4 L ha-1 _{--- t ha}-1_--- Control 143 b 247 ab 202 a 157 a 24.1 b 34.2 c 25.3 a 21.7 a Bio1 0.5 155 a 257 ab 210 a 158 a 27.7 a 39.3 ab 27.2 a 20.3 a Bio2 0.5 158 a 250 ab 203 a 144 a 27.1 a 37.7 ab 26.3 a 19.3 a Bio3 1.0 154 ab 231 c 198 a 148 a 26.5 ab 38.4 ab 26.1 a 20.6 a Bio3 3.0 156 a 259 a 209 a 137 a 26.7 a 42.9 a 28.1 a 19.1 a

(6)

Bio4 1.0 152 ab 244 ab 219 a 142 a 26.6 a 39.8 ab 30.3 a 20.0 a Bio4 1.5 155 a 236 bc 210 a 133 a 27.4 a 36.5 bc 26.8 a 19.0 a

Average 153 246 207 146 26.6 38.4 27.1 20.0

Cane Tonnage – CV (%) = CTC 2: 4.6; RB867515: 4.5; RB92579: 9.9; CTC 4: 12.0. Sugar Yield – CV(%) = CTC 2: 5.9; RB867515: 5.9; RB92579: 13.3; CTC 4: 14.2.

The results observed with the CTC 2 variety can be justified by the composition of the treatments with the best prominence, since they have plant hormones in their composition that can improve the root development of plants due to the greater cell division and consequently better use of water and nutrients (VIEIRA, 2001).

But for the variety RB867515, was observed increase of cane tonnage (259 t ha-1_{) and sugar}

yield (42.9 t ha-1) with the application of Bio3 at dose of 3.0 L ha-1 when compared to the control and Bio4 at dose of 1.5 L ha-1_{(Table 2). Intermediate results were observed with the other}

biostimulants. The biostimulant that presented the highest numerical production is basically composed of essential mineral nutrients, which may justify its best effect.The effects of sugarcane biostimulants may vary depending on the genetic variety and environmental conditions that may or may not favor the effect of the product applied (DIAS et al., 2015). With varieties RB92579 and CTC 4 the treatments of biostimulants does not have effect on cane tonnage and sugar yield.

Those results can be justified because of the effect of biostimulants application in sugarcane. The yield increase is result of biostimulants potentially promoting structural plant processes that enable increases in sucrose contents, as well as promoting precocity of maturation (MARTINS & CASTRO, 1999; CAPUTO et al., 2007; COSTA, 2010). In general, these substances act as activators of cellular metabolism, reactivating physiological processes linked to different stages of development, stimulating root growth, inducing the formation of new shoots, and improving the quality and quantity of the product, among other beneficial processes (SILVA et al., 2010).

Silva et al. (2010) tested the application of a biostimulant associated or not with liquid fertilizers in five varieties (IAC87-3396, IAC91-2218, IAC91-4216, IAC91-5155 and IACSP93-6006), verified an increase not only in stalks production, but also of sugar with or without complementation of liquid fertilizer. Dias et al. (2015) also observed positive responses in the first and second ratoon with use of biostimulant.

On the other hand, Ferreira et al. (2020) assessing the use of organomineral and sewage sludge with or without biostimulants in the production of sugarcane, they found that the use of biostimulants did not promote production gain. Sousa and Korndörfer (2010) also did not detect significant effects of biostimulants on cane tonnage and sugar yield of variety RB925345 as the same results as Oliveira et al. (2013) observed.

(7)

The theoretical recoverable sugar (TRS) showed no statistical difference for varieties RB-867515, RB-92579 and CTC 4 (Table 3). Although no significant differences were observed for TRS, the average production varied between 120 and 142 kg per cane tonnage-1_{, which is considered}

above the ideal value, as mentioned by Marques et al. (2001).

Table 3. Theoretical recoverable sugar (TRS) of different varieties by application of biostimulants.

Product Dose TRS

1

CTC 2 RB-867515 RB-92579 CTC 4

L ha-1 _{--- kg per cane tonnage}-1 _---

Control 144 c 120 a 126 a 139 a Bio1 0.5 153 a 130 a 130 a 131 a Bio2 0.5 147 ab 128 a 130 a 135 a Bio3 1.0 148 ab 141 a 132 a 140 a Bio3 3.0 147 abc 141 a 135 a 140 a Bio4 1.0 148 ab 141 a 136 a 141 a Bio4 1.5 152 ab 132 a 128 a 142 a Average 148,5 133 131 138 CV(%) = CTC 2: 2.4; RB867515: 8.2; RB92579: 5.1; CTC 4: 4.9.

But, with variety CTC 2 better response was observed with treatment Bio1 at dose of 0.5 L ha-1_{. On the other hand Oliveira et al. (2013) did not found statistical difference for TRS with}

application of different biostimulants. Several factors can influence the response of sugarcane to biostimulants, such as climate, varieties and soil management that influence the technological characteristics of cane, making it difficult to assess the effect of fertilizers on these parameters (PEREIRA et al., 1995).

The treatments Bio3 (1.0 and 3.0 L ha-1) and Bio4 (1.0 and 1.5 L ha-1) presented increase of sucrose when compared to control for variety RB-867515 (Table 4).

Table 4. Sucrose of different varieties by application of biostimulants.

Product Dose Sucrose

1 CTC 2 RB-867515 RB-92579 CTC 4 L ha-1 _{--- %}_--- Control 16.62 a 13.52 b 12.57 a 13.78 a Bio1 0.5 17.87 a 15.27 ab 12.92 a 12.86 a Bio2 0.5 17.20 a 14.85 ab 12.98 a 13.35 a Bio3 1.0 17.22 a 16.50 a 13.15 a 13.92 a Bio3 3.0 17.12 a 16.40 a 13.43 a 13.98 a Bio4 1.0 17.47 a 16.55 a 13.64 a 14.08 a Bio4 1.5 17.62 a 15.60 a 12.75 a 14.15 a Average 17.30 15.52 13.06 13.73 CV(%) = CTC 2: 3.5; RB867515: 7.3; RB92579: 5.3; CTC 4: 5.4.

(8)

The biostimulants does not have effect on sucrose of varieties CTC2, RB-92579 and CTC 4 (Table 4). The results are similar with those observed by Oliveira et al. (2013). However, the average of sucrose between the experiments ranged from 12.57 to 17.87%, which is above the minimum value required by the industry. From an economic perspective and within agronomic practice, cane is considered mature, or in a condition to be industrialized, when it has minimum sucrose content above 12.275% of the stem weight, which represents the apparent percentage of sucrose contained in a sugar solution (FERNANDES, 2000).

The Bio4 (1.0 L ha-1) showed better results for purity of cane for varieties RB-867515 and RB-92579 (Table 5). Also, the treatments Bio3 at doses of 1.0 and 3.0 L ha-1 presented difference to the control with variety RB-867515.

Table 5. Purity component of different varieties by application of biostimulants.

Product Dose Purity

1 CTC 2 RB-867515 RB-92579 CTC 4 L ha-1 _{--- %}_--- Control 87.02 a 83.07 c 84.92 b 82.57 a Bio1 0.5 89.17 a 85.95 abc 86.00 b 80.22 a Bio2 0.5 87.85 a 84.97 bc 85.72 b 81.35 a Bio3 1.0 87.85 a 88.62 a 86.15 b 83.15 a Bio3 3.0 88.12 a 88.90 a 86.40 b 84.35 a Bio4 1.0 88.35 a 88.22 a 89.07 a 84.70 a Bio4 1.5 88.27 a 86.97 ab 85.62 b 84.72 a Average 88.06 86.66 86.26 83.43 CV(%): CTC 2: 1.32; RB867515: 2.4; RB92579: 1.42; CTC 4: 2.9.

But, the biostimulants does not have effect on purity for varieties CTC2 and CTC 4 (Table 5). The results are similar with those observed by Oliveira et al. (2013). The average purity of sugarcane stalks between treatments was above 80.2%. It is ideal to have purity above 75%, because according to the quality rules of the raw material written by CONSECANA (2006), it is possible to refuse the receipt by the industrial units.

The lack of response to the use of stimulants on the quality component of sugarcane is also reported by authors such as Silva et al. (2007) and Oliveira et al. (2013) that tested different biostimulants whether or not associated with fertilizers, they did not observe effect quality component. On the other hand, some authors, such as Rossetto et al. (2007), Miguel et al. (2009), Rosato et al. (2010) and Silva et al. (2010), report significant quality component (TRS, sucrose, purity and etc) of sugarcane by the application of biostimulants.

(9)

4 CONCLUSION

The Bio3 at 3.0 L ha-1_{was more efficient in increase cane tonnage, sugar yield and sucrose}

of variety RB867515. The application of Bio1 (0.5 L ha-1_{) was more efficient in increase TRS of}

variety CTC 2 and Bio4 (1.0 L ha-1_{) on purity component of variety RB-92579.}

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful for the material, professional and technical support of the Usina Açucareira Guaíra, Companhia Mineira de Açúcar e Álcool and Usina Jalles Machado, offered for implementation, conduction and evaluation of experiences and also in FAPEMIG, CNPq and CAPES for financial support.

REFERENCES

BINSFELD, J. A.; BARBIERI, A. P. P.; HUTH, C.; CABRERA, I. C.; HENNING, L. M. M. Uso de bioativador, bioestimulante e complexo de nutrientes em sementes de soja. Pesquisa

Agropecuária Tropical, Goiânia, v.44, n.1, p.88-94, 2014. DOI: 10.1590/S1983-40632014000100010

CAPUTO, M. M.; SILVA, M. A.; BEAUCLAIR, E. G. F.; GAVA, G. J. C. Acúmulo de sacarose, produtividade e florescimento de cana-de-açúcar sob reguladores vegetais. Interciencia, Caracas, v.32, n.12, p.834-840, 2007.

CASSILLAS, V. J. C.; LONDOÑO, J. I.; GUERREIRO, H. A.; BUITRAGO, L A. G. Análisis cuantitativo de la aplicación de cuatro bioestimulantes en el cultivo del rabano (Raphanus sativus L.). Acta Agronômica, Palmira, v. 36, n. 32, p. 185-195, 1986.

CASTRO, P. R. C.; VIEIRA, E. L. Aplicações de reguladores vegetais na agricultura tropical. Guaíba: Agropecuária - Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste, 2001. p.19-30.

CELESTRINO, R. B; de ALMEIDA, J. A; de ALMEIDA, L. A; de OLIVEIRA, V. A. B; VIEIRA, S. C. Indutores hormonais no desenvolvimento radicular e perfilhamento da cana-de-açúcar.

Pesquisa Aplicada & Agrotecnologia, Guarapuava-PR, v.12, n.01, p.107-112, 2019. DOI:

(10)

CIVIERO, J. C.; FIORI-TUTIDA, A. C.; DAROS, E.; ALVES, M. J.; FIGUEIREDO, G. G. Crescimento inicial da cana-de-açucar em função do tamanho do mini-rebolo e aplicação de bioestimulantes. Brazilian Journal of Applied Technology for Agricultural Science, Guarapuava-PR, v.9, n.1, p.07-15, 2016. DOI: 10.5935/PAeT.V9.N1.01

COSTA, N. L. Bioestimulante como fator de produtividade de cana-de-açúcar. Embrapa Roraima - Artigo de divulgação na mídia (INFOTECA-E). 2010. 15p. Disponível em: <http://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/878849>. Acesso em: 06 fev. 2014

DIAS, F. L. F; TAVARES, S; ROSSETTO, R; SERCILOTO, C. M.; BACILIERI, F. S. Efeito residual de Bioestimulantes em soqueira de cana-de-açúcar após aplicação em sulco de plantio.

Revista Stab, Piracicaba, v.33, n.3, p.45-48, jan/fev. 2015.

FERREIRA, S. R.; FERREIRA, M.; TEIXEIRA, A. O.; PEREIRA, I. A.; SOUZA, M. T.; MORAES, M. D.; LANA, R. M. Q.; MORAES, E. M.Produtividade de cana-de-açúcar de segundo corte fertilizada com organomineral de lodo de esgoto e bioestimulante. Brazilian Journal of

Development, Curitiba, v.6, n.1, p.4594-4600, 2020.DOI:10.34117/bjdv6n1-329

FERNANDES, A. C. Cálculos na agroindústria da cana-de-açúcar. Stab: Açúcar, Álcool e

Subprodutos, v.11, p.55‑65, 2000.

GULLO, M.J.M. Uso de condicionadores de solo a base de ácido húmico na cultura de

cana-de-açúcar (Saccharum spp.). 2007. 59p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Agronomia – Àrea de

concentração: Fitotecnia) – Curso de Pós-Graduação em Agronomia, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, 2007.

KIMURA, W. J.; BEAUCLAIR, E. G. F. Resposta da brotação a diferentes bioestimulantes na

cultura da cana-de-açúcar. Piracicaba: ESALQ-USP, 2009. 2p.

MAGALHÃES, J. E. S.; FERREIRA, E. A.; OLIVEIRA, M. C.; PEREIRA, G. A. M. SILVA, D. V.; SANTOS, J. B. Effect of plant-biostimulant on cassava initial growth. Revista Ceres, Viçosa, v.63, n.2, p.208-213, 2016. DOI:10.1590/0034-737X201663020012

(11)

MARQUES, M. O.; MARQUES, T. A.; TASSO JÚNIOR, L. C. Tecnologia do açúcar: produção

e industrialização da cana-de-açúcar. Jaboticabal: FUNEP, 2001. 166p.

MARTINS, M. B. G.; CASTRO, P. R. C. Efeito de giberelina e ethephon na anatomia de plantas de cana-de-açúcar. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, Brasília, v.34, n.10, p.1855-1863, 1999. DOI: 10.1590/S0100-204X1999001000012

MIGUEL, F. B.; SILVA, J. A. A.; BÁRBARO, I. M.; ESPERANCINI, M. S. T.; TICELLI, M.; COSTA, A. G. F. Viabilidade econômica na utilização de um regulador vegetal em cana-planta.

Informações Econômicas, São Paulo, v.39, n.1, 2009.

MÓGOR, Á. F.; ONO, E. O.; RODRIGUES, J. D.; MÓGOR, G. Aplicação foliar de extrato de alga, ácido L-glutâmico e cálcio em feijoeiro. Scientia Agraria, Curitiba, v.9, n.4, p.431-437, 2008. DOI: 10.5380/rsa.v9i4.11710

OLIVEIRA, C. P.; ALVAREZ, R. C. F.; LIMA, S. F.; CONTARDI, L. M. Produtividade e qualidade tecnológica da cana-de-açúcar com o uso de condicionador de solo e bioestimulantes.

Agrarian, Dourados, v.6, n.21, p.245-251, 2013.

ROSATO, M.M.; BOLONHEZI, A.C.; FERREIRA, L.H.Z. Substâncias húmicas sobre qualidade tecnológica de variedades de cana-de-açúcar. Scientia Agraria, Curitiba, v.11, n.1, p.43-48, 2010. DOI: 10.5380/rsa.v11i1.16076

ROSSETTO, R.; ARÉVALO, R. A.; JÚNIOR, J. P. M; CATO S. C, COSTA, A. G. F. Efeito de biorregulador e de fertilizantes aplicados no plantio da cana-de-açúcar. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE FISIOLOGIA VEGETAL, 11., 2007, Gramado, RS. Anais... Gramado: Sociedade Brasileira de Fisiologia Vegetal, 2007.

RUIZ, V. S. Fitorreguladores. In: Los parasitos de la vid: estratégias de proteccion razonada. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa, 1998. p.303-306.

(12)

PEREIRA, J. R.; FARIA, C. M. B.; MORGADO, L. B. Efeito de níveis e do resíduo de fósforo sobre a produtividade da cana-de-açúcar em vertissolo. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, Brasília, v.30, v.1, p.43-48, 1995.

SILVA, F. A. S.; AZEVEDO, C. A.V. The Assistat Software Version 7.7 and its use in the analysis of experimental data. African Journal of Agricultural Ressearch, Joanesburgo, v.11, n.39, p.3733-3740, 2016. DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2016.11522

SILVA, M. A.; CATO, S. C.; COSTA, A. G. F. Produtividade e qualidade tecnológica da soqueira de cana-de-açúcar submetida à aplicação de biorregulador e fertilizantes líquidos. Ciência Rural, Santa Maria, v.40, n.4, p.774-780, 2010. DOI: DOI: 10.1590/S0103-84782010005000057

SILVA, M. A.; GAVA, G. J.; CAPUTO, M. M. et al. Uso de reguladores de crescimento como potencializadores do perfilhamento e da produtividade em cana-soca. Bragantia, v.66, n.4, p.545-552, 2007.

SOUSA, R.T.X.; KORNDÖRFER, G.H. Uso de micronutrientes e estimulantes de crescimento na produtividade e parâmetros tecnológicos da cana-de-açúcar. In: FERTBIO 2010, Guarapari, 2010.

Anais... Guarapari: SBCS, 2010, 4p.

SOUZA, M. T.; FERREIRA, S. R.; MENEZES, F. G.; RIBEIRO, L. S.; SOUSA, I. M.; PEIXOTO, J. V. M.; SILVA, R. V.; MORAES, E. R. Altura de planta e diâmetro de colmo em cana-de-açúcar de segundo corte fertilizada com organomineral de lodo de esgoto e bioestimulante. Brazilian

Journal of Development, Curitiba, v.6, n.1, p. 1988-1994, 2020. DOI:10.34117/bjdv6n1-141

VIEIRA, E. L. Ação de bioestimulante na germinação de sementes, vigor de plântulas,

crescimento radicular e produtividade de soja (Glycine max L.). 2001. 122p. Tese (Doutorado

em Agronomia) – Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiróz”, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, 2001.