Efficiency of Glyphosate to Control Crabgrass in Different Phenological Stages and Soil Water Potentials
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Experimental Area
2.2. Experimental Design and Treatment
2.3. Measurements and Sampling
- LA = leaf area of each experimental unit;
- LDM = leaf dry matter of the unit.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
- μ = repetition average;
- t = tabulated t value;
- s = standard deviation;
- n = number of samples.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Silva, W.C.; Feijó, F.M.; Tironi, S.P.; Sou, R.C. Effects of water and nutrient on the growth of Digitaria nuda obtained from areas without reported herbicide resistance. Acta Physiol. Plant 2024, 46, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, T.; Xu, N.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Debognies, A.; Zhou, Z.; Sun, L.; Qian, H. Understanding the influence of glyphosate on the structure and function of freshwater microbial community in a microcosm. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 260, 114012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahuja, M.; Kumar, L.; Kumar, K.; Shingatgeri, V.M.; Kumar, S. Glyphosate: A review on its widespread prevalence and occurrence across various systems. Environ. Sci. Adv. 2024, 3, 1030–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parvati, P.K.; Teli, K.G. Climate Change impact on Weeds and Herbicide Efficacy. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2024, 7, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohod, A.A.; Ma, S.; Bayskar, A.; Chirde, P. The climate change-weeds-herbicide efficacy nexus: A review of the complex interactions and emerging challenges. Int. J. Res. Agron. 2025, 8, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, F.; Bano, A.; Fazal, A. Recent methods of drought stress tolerance in plants. Plant Growth Regul. 2017, 82, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, M.; Martins, D.; Silva, J.; Rodrigues-Costa, A.; Klar, A. Efeito de herbicidas sobre plantas de Brachiaria plantaginea submetidas a estresse hídrico. Planta Daninha 2010, 28, 1047–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, R.F.; de Marchi, S.R.; Martins, D. Development of lawns in response to applications of imazapic alone or combined with imazapyr. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2021, 25, 727–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, J.C.; Maldonado, W., Jr. Experimentação Agronômica & AgroEstat: Sistema para Análises Estatísticas de Ensaios Agronômicos; Gráfica Multipress: Jaboticabal, Brazil, 2015; 396p. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, M.; Martins, A.; Martins, D.; Sasso, G.; Silva, A.S., Jr. Effect of sethoxydim herbicide in the leaf anatomy and physiology of brachiaria grass under water stress. Planta Daninha 2017, 35, e017162268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zhao, N.; Zhou, Z.; Cui, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, S.; Wang, Y.; Zenda, T.; Wenjing, L. Advanced imaging-enabled understanding of cell wall remodeling mechanisms mediating plant drought stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1635078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha-Pereira, M.R.; Klar, A.E.; Martins, D.; Souza, G.S.D.; Villalba, J. Effect of water stress on herbicide efficiency applied to Urochloa decumbens. Cienc. E Investig. Agrar. 2012, 39, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, C.G.; Marques, R.F.; de Marchi, S.R.; Martins, D. Effect of different soil water managements on the selectivity of fomesafen in conventional and RR soybean. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2022, 57, 786–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Guan, T.; Fan, M.; Guo, J.; Wang, M.; Shang, Z.; Jia, L. Leaf–air temperature difference as a reliable indicator for potato water status. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1609350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Péres, M.Z.; Pezzopane, J.E.M.; da Silva, G.F.; Gádoros, P.; Toledo, J.V.; Barócsi, A.; Gibson, E.L.; Lenk, S. Impact of different levels of water deficit on physiological and fluorescence responses in Eucalyptus urophylla × Eucalyptus grandis. Can. J. For. Res. 2025, 55, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E.; Moller, I.M.; Murphy, A. Fisiologia e Desenvolvimento Vegetal, 6th ed.; Artmed: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2017; 858p. [Google Scholar]
- Barl, L.; Benato, B.D.; Genze, N.; Grimm, D.G.; Gigl, M.; Dawid, C.; Schön, C.-C.; Avramova, V. The combined effect of decreased stomatal density and aperture increases water use efficiency in maize. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 13804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, C.G.; Silva, A.C.d., Jr.; Scarano, M.; Pereira, M.R.R.; Martins, D. Chlorimuron-ethyl in conventional and transgenic soybean cultivars under water deficit stress. Rev. Caatinga 2018, 31, 832–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, C.; Silva, A.C.d., Jr.; Scarano, M.; Pereira, M.; Martins, D. Action of Imazethapyr and Lactofen on the nodulation of conventional and transgenic soybean under drought stress conditions. Planta Daninha 2018, 36, e018176280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torra, J.; la Cruz, R.A.; de Figueiredo, M.R.A.; Gaines, T.A.; Jugulam, M.; Merotto, A.; Palma-Bautista, C.; Rojano-Delgado, A.M.; Riechers, D.E. Metabolism of 2, 4-D in plants: Comparative analysis of metabolic detoxification pathways in tolerant crops and resistant weeds. Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 6041–6052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marques, R.F.; Pinheiro, G.H.R.; Araújo, P.P.d.S.; Souza, R.M.d.; Marchi, S.R.d. Efeito de subdoses de 2,4-D sal colina na eficiência quântica do fotossistema II do algodoeiro. Colloq. Agrar. 2020, 16, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, R.F.; Araújo, P.P.S.; Pinheiro, G.H.R.; Souza, R.M.; Martins, D.; Marchi, S.R. Hormesis of 2,4-D choline salt in productive aspects of cotton. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2021, 56, 977–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinheiro, G.H.; Marques, R.F.; Araújo, P.P.; Martins, D.; Marchi, S.R. Hormesis effect of 2,4-D choline salt on soybean biometric variables. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 81, 536–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Geng, Z.; Huang, X.; Huang, S.; Song, L.; Chen, R.; Chen, Z.; Du, L.; Xu, C. Review of Differential Plant Responses to Drought, Heat, and Combined Drought + Heat Stress. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2025, 47, 975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sato, H.; Mizoi, J.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Complex plant responses to drought and heat stress under climate change. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2024, 117, 1873–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oliveira, S.S.C.D.; Cruz, S.J.S.; Martins, C.C. Estresse hídrico e salino na germinação de sementes e crescimento de plântulas de nabo forrageiro. Rev. Magistra 2019, 30, 435–444. [Google Scholar]
- Collin, A.; Matkowski, H.; Sybilska, E.; Biantari, A.; Król, O.; Daszkowska-Golec, A. ABA-induced alternative splicing drives transcriptomic reprogramming for drought tolerance in barley. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

| Retained Water (dm3 dm−3) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tension (MPa) | ||||||
| Saturated | −0.01 | −0.03 | −0.05 | −0.07 | −0.5 | −1.5 |
| 39% | 14% | 13% | 11% | 10% | 9% | 8% |
| Variation Factor | Days After Application | |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | 14 | |
| Development stage (S) | 755.9 ** | 71.30 ** |
| Water management (M) | 45.5 ** | 4.79 * |
| Glyphosate doses (D) | 2600.1 ** | 65,051.2 ** |
| S × M | 5.55 ** | 1.51 ns |
| S × D | 190.8 ** | 18.70 ** |
| M × D | 17.8 ** | 3.16 * |
| S × M × D | 11.2 ** | 0.76 ns |
| CV% | 8.3 | 1.7 |
| Water Management (MPa) | Development Stage | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4–6 Leaves | 1–3 Tillers | FStage | ||
| −0.03 | 56.8 aA | 37.8 aB | 173.4 ** | |
| −0.07 | 50.2 bA | 25.1 cB | 304.8 ** | |
| −1.5 | 52.0 bA | 29.6 bB | 288.8 ** | |
| FManagement | 10.6 ** | 40.5 ** | ||
| Doses (g ha−1) | Development Stage | |||
| 4–6 Leaves | 1–3 Tillers | FStage | ||
| 0 | 0.0 bA | 0.0 cA | - | |
| 270 | 79.5 aA | 43.3 bB | 633.7 ** | |
| 540 | 81.4 aA | 49.1 aB | 503.9 ** | |
| FDose | 2091.8 ** | 699.1 ** | ||
| Doses (g ha−1) | Water Management (MPa) | |||
| −0.03 | −0.07 | −1.5 | FManagement | |
| 0 | 0.0 bA | 0.0 bA | 0.0 cA | - |
| 270 | 69.9 aA | 57.1 aB | 57.3 bB | 34.6 ** |
| 540 | 72.0 aA | 55.8 aC | 68.1 aB | 46.5 ** |
| FDose | 1084.3 ** | 686.2 ** | 865.3 ** | |
| Doses (g ha−1) | Water Management (MPa) | |||
| −0.03 | −0.07 | −1.5 | FManagement | |
| 0 | 0.0 cA | 0.0 bA | 0.0 bA | - |
| 270 | 96.4 bB | 98.9 aA | 98.0 aA | 10.9 ** |
| 540 | 98.4 aA | 98.8 aA | 98.6 aA | 0.3 ns |
| FDose | 21,341.0 ** | 21,968.8 ** | 21,747.7 ** | |
| Doses (g ha−1) | Development Stage | |||
| 4–6 Leaves | 1–3 Tillers | FStage | ||
| 0 | 0.0 bA | 0.0 cA | - | |
| 270 | 99.5 aA | 95.9 bB | 68.1 ** | |
| 540 | 100.0 aA | 97.2 aB | 40.6 ** | |
| FDose | 33,610.0 ** | 31,460.0 ** | ||
| Variation Factor | Dry Matter | |
|---|---|---|
| Shoot | Root | |
| Development Stage (S) | 3.43 ns | 13.59 ** |
| Water Management (M) | 98.18 ** | 95.13 ** |
| Glyphosate Dose (D) | 142.34 ** | 254.52 ** |
| S × M | 1.08 ns | 5.27 ** |
| S × D | 2.17 ns | 29.97 ** |
| M × D | 37.78 ** | 86.59 ** |
| S × M × D | 1.8 ns | 4.78 ** |
| CV% | 33.42 | 32.68 |
| Doses (g ha−1) | Water Management (MPa) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.03 | −0.07 | −1.5 | FManagement | |
| 0 | 0.79 aA | 0.34 aB | 0.14 aC | 163.34 ** |
| 270 | 0.17 bA | 0.09 bB | 0.08 abB | 3.2 * |
| 540 | 0.19 bA | 0.07 bB | 0.06 bB | 7.19 ** |
| FDose | 182.94 ** | 32.76 ** | 2.02 ns | |
| Development Stage | Doses (g ha−1) | |||
| 0 | 270 | 540 | FDose | |
| 4–6 leaves | 0.39 bA | 0.11 aB | 0.1 aB | 55.47 ** |
| 1–3 tillers | 0.65 aA | 0.05 aB | 0.09 aB | 229.01 ** |
| FStage | 70.46 ** | 2.98 ns | 0.08 ns | |
| Development Stage | Water Management (MPa) | |||
| −0.03 | −0.07 | −1.5 | FManagement | |
| 4–6 leaves | 0.37 bA | 0.12 bB | 0.11 aB | 44.01 ** |
| 1–3 tillers | 0.44 aA | 0.26 aB | 0.10 aC | 56.39 ** |
| FStage | 4.66 * | 19.44 ** | 0.03 ns | |
| Doses (g ha−1) | Water Management (MPa) | |||
| −0.03 | −0.07 | −1.5 | FManagement | |
| 0 | 1.01 aA | 0.41 aB | 0.14 aC | 266.94 ** |
| 270 | 0.07 bA | 0.09 bA | 0.09 aA | 0.12 ns |
| 540 | 0.12 bA | 0.06 bA | 0.09 aA | 1.25 ns |
| FDose | 376.25 ** | 50.01 ** | 1.43 ns | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Marques, R.F.; Silva Junior, A.C.; Gomes, F.R.; Martins, C.C.; Martins, D. Efficiency of Glyphosate to Control Crabgrass in Different Phenological Stages and Soil Water Potentials. Plants 2026, 15, 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15010111
Marques RF, Silva Junior AC, Gomes FR, Martins CC, Martins D. Efficiency of Glyphosate to Control Crabgrass in Different Phenological Stages and Soil Water Potentials. Plants. 2026; 15(1):111. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15010111
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarques, Ricardo Fagundes, Antonio Carlos Silva Junior, Francielly Rodrigues Gomes, Cibele Chalita Martins, and Dagoberto Martins. 2026. "Efficiency of Glyphosate to Control Crabgrass in Different Phenological Stages and Soil Water Potentials" Plants 15, no. 1: 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15010111
APA StyleMarques, R. F., Silva Junior, A. C., Gomes, F. R., Martins, C. C., & Martins, D. (2026). Efficiency of Glyphosate to Control Crabgrass in Different Phenological Stages and Soil Water Potentials. Plants, 15(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15010111

