Abstract
The study aimed to study the selectivity of the herbicide fomesafen, sprayed at different growth stages of the conventional and RR soybean cultivars, under different soil water managements. Two soybean cultivars were used: MG/BR 46 Conquista (conventional) and BRS Valiosa (RR), submitted to the spraying of fomesafen at two phenological stages (V2-first open trefoil; V4-third open trefoil), under three soil water conditions (-0.03, -0.07, and -0.5 MPa). Under water scarcity conditions, soybean plants have lower visual phytotoxicity when subjected to the spraying of the herbicide fomesafen. There were anatomical differences between the leaf blades of the conventional (MG/BR 46 Conquista) and transgenic (BRS Valiosa - RR) cultivars, and the water scarcity changed the anatomy of the soybean plants. The condition of moderate water shortage (-0.07 MPa) led the conventional cultivar to present a lower development than the transgenic cultivar. The transgenic cultivar had a greater ability to sustain the biological nitrogen fixation under moderate water shortage conditions (-0.07 MPa) than the conventional cultivar.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
Water scarcity lowered visual phytotoxicity after fomesafen spraying.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- spraying of the herbicide fomesafene0
- Outcome
- visual phytotoxicitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under water scarcity conditions, soybean plants have lower visual phytotoxicity when subjected to the spraying of the herbicide fomesafen.”
Claim · model-written summary
The conventional and transgenic cultivars differed in leaf blade anatomy.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- MG/BR 46 Conquistae0
- Outcome
- anatomical differencese0
- Comparator
- BRS Valiosa - RRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were anatomical differences between the leaf blades of the conventional (MG/BR 46 Conquista) and transgenic (BRS Valiosa - RR) cultivars”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Water scarcity changed soybean anatomy.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- water scarcitye0
- Outcome
- anatomye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the water scarcity changed the anatomy of the soybean plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate water shortage led the conventional cultivar to develop less than the transgenic cultivar.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- conventional cultivare0
- Treatment
- moderate water shortage (-0.07 MPa)e0
- Outcome
- developmente0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- transgenic cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The condition of moderate water shortage (-0.07 MPa) led the conventional cultivar to present a lower development than the transgenic cultivar.”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
The transgenic cultivar sustained biological nitrogen fixation better than the conventional cultivar under moderate water shortage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- transgenic cultivare0
- Treatment
- moderate water shortage conditions (-0.07 MPa)e0
- Outcome
- biological nitrogen fixatione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- conventional cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The transgenic cultivar had a greater ability to sustain the biological nitrogen fixation under moderate water shortage conditions (-0.07 MPa) than the conventional cultivar.”
t0“soybean”
The same questions in other papers
fomesafen · crop injury · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →herbicide · crop injury · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
68 papers more in this group
See all 72 papers →application · crop injury · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.