EE&AE’2002 – International Scientific Conference – 04.-06.04.2002, Rousse, Bulgaria

PAPRIKA WEED CONTROL IN UNFAVORABLE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Davor Šamota, Nada Parađiković, Zlata Milaković i Renata Brkić

Abstract: Industrial paprika production in the open air can be hazardous in the extreme climatic conditions, especially due to questioned herbicides effect. For the sake of both safety and herbicide doses reduction, weed control should be conducted by a combined herbicide strips application with interrow hoeing up.

Key words: paprika, chemical and mechanical weed control

INTRODUCTION

Paprika (Capsicum annuum L.), native to the tropical part of America, is grown as an annual plant in the Croatian climates. It is rich in nutrients (proteins, fats, carbo hydrates) , mineral matters and vitamins. As a vegetable crop it is used as food spice, salad and main course in fresh, frozen and processed form (Kuller, 1994).

A successful open -air paprika growing mostly depends on cultivar and seed choice as well as heat and soil moisture (Maceljski et al., 1985, Hermann et al., 1988). Cold springs and dry summers in the period 2000-2001 did not favour open-air paprika growing.

Especial attention should be paid to paprika weed control ,as to all vegetable crops, since herbicides application is obligatory followed by additional mechanical interrow cultivation and sometimes associated with hoeing up. The latter one completely prevents fruit- born weed plants and brings about soil seed supply reduction as well as decrease of their population number.A market demanding quality vegetables with or without allowed residual pesticides (Šovljanski, 1978, 1978a, Janjić and Jevtić 1983) can be obtained only by integrated pests, diseases and weeds protection. (Maceljski, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, Schonbeck et al., 1988, Milevoj and Oswald, 1991, Ciglar, 1992, Barčić, 1993, 1994).

Integrated protection effect on weed flora and vegetation in the open-air paprika crop has neither been investigated nor published in Croatia, although herbicides application was recommended (Ostojić 1979, Maceljski et al., 1996, Matotan, 1995). Thus this investigation aimed to the above mentioned.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Weed flora and vegetation investigation within the industrial paprika crop as well as changes occurred under the influence of the integrated protection (applied herbicides in various doses and combinations, application time, in strips and on the whole area, without and with interrow hoeing up compared to unhoed and twice hoed control) was conducted within the exact field trials in IPK Osijek area at OJ “Bare” location close to Čepin on hipogley soil type in arid 2000 and 2001 year.The experiments were set up in the croprotation after wheat on the optimal cultivated soil for seed paprika groowing at randomized block system with 8 treatments (Tables 1,2 and 4) in four replicates on the basic plot of 18 m size. Industrial paprika seed sowing was carried out on 20 April in both investigation years with the cultivar KM-622 (Koločaj-Moržaru) in the stand of 80 000 plants/ha at a space apart and row 50x25 cm.

Table 1. Herbicides in industrial red pepper trials (Bara, 2000. and 2001. )

Herbicides and a.i. (%) / Preparation / Formulation / Dose (lit./ha) / Application
napropamid (45%) / Devrinol 45 F / SC / 1,5 i 3,0 / pre emergence
paraquat (20%) / Gramoxone / SL / 2,0 / pre emergence
prometrin (50%) / Prohelan-T / SC / 3,0 / pre emergence
diquat (20%) / Reglone / SL / 1,5 / pre emergence
pendimetalin (33%) / Stomp 330 E / EC / 3,0 i 5,0 / pre emergence

Herbicides application after sowing but pre-emergence in paprika was carried out from 1 to 3 May 2000 and 4 May 2001 by TK-15 spraying machine with blue “Poliet” nozzle and water consumption of 300l/ha. The hoeing was done on 23 May 2000 , 25 May 2001 and 16 June 2000 and 2001 on the hoed control.

Plant species of industrial paprika weed flora were determined after Domac (1994) and life forms after Garcke (1972). Weed degree was determined on 16 June 2000 and 8 July 2001 with combined estimation of numerousness and cover by the Br.-Bl. method (1964). Syntaxonomic presence of weed associations was found out according Tuxen (1950), Topić (1984), Volenik and Knežević (1984), Rauš et al. (1985) and Đurkić (1995). Cover values (table 2) were computed on the basis of 4 replicates whereas presence degrees (table 3) on the basis of 8 replicates during the 2 year investigation period. Weed coefficients of herbicides and hoeing effects were calculated on the basis of the cover values by the Abbota method (1925) being evaluated by the 1-9 scale by EWRC.Fruits harvesting on 10 plants in each basic plot of the experiment treatment was performed on 5 September 2000 and 10 September 2001. Statistical process of paprika fruit yield was done by analysis of variance, F and LSD test (Snedecor et Cochran, 1987).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Climatic conditions monitored at Hydrometeorological station Osijek in the both investigation years were recorded on climate diagrams. They affected adversely weed herbicides efficiency (tables 2 and 3), crop stand and paprika yield (table 3). Sowing , germination and emergence periods in both investigation years were characterized by above average precipitations (May and June 2000, total of 202 mm; April and May 2000, total of 159 mm) followed by a warm period without precipitations (July 2000, with 26 mm; June 2001 with 29 mm) with tough crust formation.Cold and moist period slowed down paprika germination and emergence followed by considerable stand reduction (sporadically clearing) provoked by the crust.

Table 2. Climatic conditions in Osijek at Hidrometeorological station in 2000. and 2001.year

month / rainfall / temperature
mm / mm / mm / TºC / TºC / TºC
average / 2001 / 2000 / averagel / 2001 / 2000
January / 42,44 / 72,90 / 17,50 / -0,50 / 2,70 / -1,70
February / 35,30 / 21,50 / 14,80 / 1,50 / 4,20 / 4,20
March / 40,50 / 82,50 / 41,00 / 6,10 / 9,90 / 7,00
April / 51,00 / 71,50 / 27,40 / 10,90 / 10,80 / 14,90
May / 59,20 / 59,50 / 26,10 / 16,40 / 18,40 / 18,40
June / 82,00 / 238,90 / 9,60 / 19,40 / 18,10 / 22,50
July / 65,40 / 77,10 / 62,30 / 21,00 / 21,60 / 21,70
August / 61,90 / 7,10 / 5,30 / 20,50 / 22,70 / 23,70
September / 51,00 / 195,20 / 22,70 / 16,20 / 14,90 / 16,70
October / 52,90 / 5,10 / 10,00 / 10,80 / 13,90 / 14,10
November / 61,30 / 74,00 / 42,40 / 4,70 / 3,50 / 10,00
December / 50,10 / 33,90 / 36,60 / 1,00 / -3,80 / 3,00
648,80 / 939,20 / 315,70 / 10,80 / 11,40 / 12,90

Less efficient herbicides occurred a month later after application (leaching, partly decomposition), high soil moisture, increased temperature and widely paprika stand were favourable for late spring annual weeds emergence and expansion (terophyties, heliophyties) that overgrew and shaded paprika crop.

Final yield was considerably affected by inconvenient conditions of emergence and weed prevalence resulting in slow growth and development, weak leaf mass, flowering and paprika fruit anthesis.

Larger number of came- into- bearing fruits (1-3cm) being unable to mature even in September (temp. 15ºC and 13ºC, precipitations 132 and 156 mm) were left on the plants in the harvest time (5 and 10 September).

As for the above mentioned climatic conditions, the experiment members with soil herbicides (napropamid, prometrin and pendimetalin) could not be satisfactory efficient (weed control, satisfactory yield) due to fast decomposition and leaching unlike the members where weeds were destroyed in post emergence period (hoeing, dikvat, parakvat).

Also, in June and July adjacent paprika plots had to be hoed due to expansion of latespring weeds amd overshading flowering crops. It was done in the regular production where weed control was conducted with full soil herbicide doses on the whole area (trifluralin, napropamid).

Weed flora containing 45 wild species (table 1) with only 3 monocotyledons (Echinochloa crus galli, Setaria glauca, Sorghum bicolor) was determined in all members of the field trials on weed control by the industrial paprika crop integrated protection .In 2000 year 32 species were present, in 2001 year 35 weed species whereas 22 species were common at the trial in both years. There were 10 individual species in 2000 and 13 such species in 2001 (table 1). Plant species of paprika weed flora belong to 23 families whereas family Asteraceae was the most abundant in the species (8).Annual teraphyte species (73.73%) prevailed within spectrum of life weed flora forms as well as per investigation years (78.18% and 74.79%).

Cover values of weed species (table 1) indicate their dominance and changes affected by the investigated members of the experiment. In 2000 dicotyledon Polygonum lapathifolium (2750) being , such as subdominant species (Anagallis arvensis, Helianthus annuus) , the least controlled by the herbicide treatments and one hoeing up was dominant in the unhoed control.The aforesaid mostly brought about low (54.08%) to complete inificcient (-31.11%) coefficients, except the control treatment with two hoeings being very good (99.76%). In 2001 dicotyledons Matricaria chamomilla (3375), Amaranthus hybridus (3065) and Polygonumlapathifolium (2752) were dominant with high cover values. This year they have been incompletely controlled in most experiment treatments and accomplished very low (25.85%) to satisfactory (Prohelan T-94.80%) efficiency coefficients except in the control one with two hoeings and achieved very good coefficient (99.68%).

Low dominant degrees (I,II,III) of few present species, being by syntaxonomic disposition only fragments of associations Panico-Galinsogetum parviflorae Tx.et Becker 1942, belong to fragmentarry occurred correlation of Polygono-Chenopodionpolyspermi Koch 1926. Emend. Sisingh. 1946. and as. Hibisco-Eragrostietummegastachyae (Felfoldy 1942) Tx. 1950.The last one belongs to fragmentarry occurred subrelation (correlation) Eragrostidion Tx. Apud Slavnić 1944 (Eragrostion Tx. 1950). Both fragments of associations and correlation belong to order Chenopodietalia albi Tx. Et Lohm. 1950 and genus Stellarietea mediae (Br.-Bl. 1932) Tx., Lohm., Prsg. 1950 (table 2). Only 8 characteristic species with presence degrees V (Polygonum lapathifolium, Sinapis arvensis) and IV (Amaranthus hybridus,Chenopodium album, Sonchus oleraceus, Anagallis arvensis, Lactuca serrolla, Helianthus annuus) were present in the total flora (45 species) in both fragments of associations and correlations, order, genus and followers .

The presence degrees of weed species being present in all investigated experiment treatments, except in the control with two hoeings, are lower in a smaller number of treatments whereas they remained same or increased in numerous ones compared to unhoed control (Echinochloa crus galli, Amaranthus hybridus, Polygonum lapathifolium, Chenopodium album, Sonchus oleraceus., Solanum nigrum, Amaranthus retroflexus, Sinapis arvensis, Helianthus annuus, Matricaria chamomilla,Convolvulus arvensis, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Sorghum bicolor) thus represent an aggressive weed species complex in industrial paprika and in other row crops.These results show resistance of the above mentioned weed species on all investigated herbicides even in the combination with one weeding .Thus, they indicate weeding requirement in order to prevent fruitbearing and supply increase of the soil weed seeds.

Although as. Panico-Galinsogetum parviflorae is spreading on the largest areas of the continental Croatian part and as.Hibisco-Eragrostietum megastachyae occures only in its most eastern part (Topić, 1984) it was not syntaxonomically clearly expressed in the area of these investigations due to influence of the numerous agrotechnical measures of the intensive growing of the main arable crops and vegetables.

The highest paprika yields (table 3) were obtained in the experiment members with two hoeings (1, 115 kg in 2000 and 1, 743 kg in 2001 per 10 plants) and with contact herbicides in strips (prior sowing i.e.paprika emergence) in a combination with two interrow weeding (paraqat 1,500 kg and diqat 1,093 kg per 10 plants).

EE&AE’2002 – International Scientific Conference – 04.-06.04.2002, Rousse, Bulgaria

Table 2. Variations of density valuesand efficacy coefficient under influence of agrotehnical measures

Year / 2000. / 2001.
Variant / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8
Liliatae:
Echinochloa crus galli / 250 / 3 / 5 / - / 3 / 3 / 250 / 5 / 128 / 2 / 2 / 128 / 250 / 130 / 2 / -
Setaria glauca / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 440 / 2 / - / - / 2 / 2 / 5 / 5
Sorghum bicolor / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2 / - / 940 / 128 / 8 / 5 / 130 / 8
Magnoliatae:
Abutilon theophrasti / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2 / - / 2 / 2 / - / 2 / - / -
Amaranthus hybridus / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / 3 / 3 / 3065 / - / 568 / 2125 / 1938 / 10 / 568 / 690
Amaranthus retroflexus / 3 / - / 5 / 3 / 5 / - / - / 3 / 5 / 2 / 8 / 255 / 252 / 130 / 128 / 252
Ambrosia artemisiifolia / 419 / - / 5 / 125 / - / 3 / 5 / 3 / 2 / - / 250 / 2 / - / - / 125 / -
Anagallis arvensis / - / - / 875 / 562 / 942 / 8 / 2252 / 255 / 5 / - / 8 / 2 / 2 / - / - / -
Artemisia vulgaris / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / - / -
Beta vulgaris / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 5 / - / - / - / 5 / -
Calystegia sepium / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2 / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / -
Capsella bursa pastoris / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 8 / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / 2
Carduus aconthoides / - / - / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2- / - / - / -
Chenopodium album / 3 / - / - / - / - / 3 / 5 / 5 / 132 / 8 / 132 / 10 / 5 / 2 / 2 / -
Chenopodium polyspermum / 3 / - / - / 3 / 3 / - / 3 / 3 / - / - / - / - / 2 / - / - / -
Convolvulus arvensis / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / 10 / 8 / 132 / 8 / 8 / 10 / 255 / 130
Conyza canadensis / - / - / - / - / - / - / 3 / 3 / - / - / 2 / - / 2 / 2 / - / -
Daucus sativa (+ D.carota) / - / - / 3 / 3 / 3 / - / 6 / - / 2 / - / 5 / - / - / - / 2 / -
Epilobium adnatum / 3 / - / 3 / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Fallopia convolvulus / - / - / - / - / 3 / - / 3 / - / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / - / -
Galium aparine / 128 / - / 3 / 5 / 3 / 0 / 128 / 3 / 5 / - / - / 5 / - / - / 2 / 2
Heliathus anuus / 250 / - / 1815 / 942 / 130 / 1570 / 688 / 375 / 568 / - / 812 / 8 / 5 / 2 / 442 / 2
Hibiscus trionum / 5 / - / - / 3 / - / 3 / 5 / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Kickxia elatinae / 255 / - / 5 / 128 / 8 / 8 / 130 / 8 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Lactuca serriola / 130 / - / 5 / - / - / 3 / 8 / - / 128 / - / 5 / - / - / - / 2 / -
Lythrum hysopifolia / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Matricaria chamomilla / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 3375 / 8 / 1625 / 568 / 500 / 255 / 2125 / 378
Papaver rhoeas / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Plantago major / 5 / - / - / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Polygonumaviculare / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 5 / 2 / - / - / - / -
Polygonum lapathifolium / 2750 / 5 / 2002 / 875 / 1065 / 443 / 2125 / 1315 / 2752 / 2 / 1502 / 562 / 568 / 2 / 2 / 5
Portulaca oleracea / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / - / - / -
Sinapis arvensis / 132 / - / 130 / 440 / 440 / 5 / 255 / 1190 / 8 / - / 1625 / 440 / 2 / 2 / 128 / -
Solanum nigrum / 8 / - / 3 / 5 / 3 / 3 / 3 / - / 2 / - / 8 / 10 / 5 / - / - / 2
Sonchus oleraceus / 10 / - / - / 5 / 3 / 3 / 5 / 128 / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / - / -
Sonchus paluster / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / 5 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Stachys annua / 5 / - / 8 / 3 / - / 5 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Stellaria media / - / - / - / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Trifolium arvense / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Trifolium repens / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / -
Tripleurospermum inodorum / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 5 / - / - / - / - / - / 2 / -
Veronica persica / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / -
Viola arvensis / - / - / - / 3 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Xanthium strumarum / 125 / - / - / 3 / 125 / - / - / - / - / - / 252 / 5 / - / - / 10 / -
Total / 4493 / 11 / 4873 / 2063 / 2736 / 2063 / 5891 / 3311 / 10646 / 34 / 7894 / 4268 / 3551 / 554 / 3937 / 1476
Efficacy coefficient in % / - / 99,7 / -8,4 / 54,1 / 39,1 / 54,1 / -31,1 / 26,3 / - / 99,7 / 25,8 / 59,6 / 66,6 / 94,8 / 63,0 / 86,1

Legend: Variant 1 = control non hoed; 2 = control hoed; 3 = Devrinol F45, 3,0 lit./ha pre em.; 4 = Devrinol 45F, 1,5 lit./ha pre em. in band + 1 hoed; 5 = Gramoxone, 2,0 lit./ha pre em. in band + 1 hoed (in 2000.) or Regline, 1,5 lit./ha pre em. in band + 1 hoed (in 2001.); 6 = Prohelan-T, 3,0 lit/ha pre em.; 7 = Stomp 330-E, 5,0 lit./ha pre em.; 8 = Stomp 330-E, 2,5 lit./ha pre em. in band + 1 hoed.

Table 4. Average yeald of red pepper, in kg on 10 plants, per variant in trials with herbicides at Bara.

Year / 2000. / 2001.
1. control non hoed / - / 0,271
2. control hoed / 1,115 / 1,743
3. Devrinol F45, 3,0 lit./ha pre em. / - / 0,774
4.Devrinol 45F, 1,5 lit./ha pre em. in band + 1 hoed / - / 0,871
5. Gramoxone, 2,0 lit./ha pre em. in band + 1 hoed (in 2000.) or
Regline, 1,5 lit./ha pre em. in band + 1 hoed (in 2001.) / 1,500
- / -
1,093
6 = Prohelan-T, 3,0 lit/ha pre em. / 1,000 / 0,739
7 = Stomp 330-E, 5,0 lit./ha pre em. / 1,066 / 0,304
8 = Stomp 330E, 2,5 lit./ha preem. in band + 1 hoed / 0,800 / 0,771

LSD 0,05 = 0,620; 0,01 = 0,840

EE&AE’2002 – International Scientific Conference – 04.-06.04.2002, Rousse, Bulgaria

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

On the basis of these two –year investigation conducted in the conditions of abundant (and long-term) spring precipitations and dry summer, application of approved paprika land herbicides are to be recommended, but in strips (e.g. with sowing, in terms of costs reduction) combined with interrow hoeing or postemergence herbicides (diqat, paraqat – post weed emergence period but prior to paprika emergence, with graminicides). Other application of these herbicides refers to all this area or in strips with interrow hoeing.

These experiments also showed that field paprika growing by direct sowing is questioned depending on climatic conditions.

REFERENCES

[1]. Abbot, W.S., 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide.Journal Econom. Ent., 265-267.

[2]. Barčić J., 1993. Mehaničko uništavanje korova. Glasnik zašite bilj, 5-6, 173-179.

[3]. Barčić J., 1994. Suvremena ratila za uništavanje korova. Glasnik zaštite bilja, 1, 17-20.

[4]. Braun-Blanquet, J., 1964. Pflanzensozilogie. Dritte Auflage. Springer, Wien-New York.

[5]. Ciglar I., 1992. Integralna zaštita bilja i mogućnosti proizvodnje bez pesticida. Glasnik zaštite bilja, 5-6, 157-160.

[6]. Hermann, W. et al., 1988. Korisne biljke - Vrtlarski priručnik s prikazom voćarskih i povrtlarskih vrsta i rječju i slikom (Prijevod). Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana.

[7]. Janjić, V., Jevtić, S., 1983. Uloga i značaj povtća u ishrani.Problem higijenske ispravnosti i ostataka pesticida u povrću. Fragmenta herbologica jugoslavica, Vol. 12, 1, 1-29.

[8]. Knežević, M., Đurkić M., 1995. Sezonske promjene u korovnoj vegetaciji kukuruza pod utjecajem agrotehničkih mjera. Poljoprivreda, 1 (95) 1, 33-42.

[9]. Kuller, I., 1994. Ilestrirani hrvatsko-engleski prehrambeni rječnik. Hrvatski farmer, Zagreb.

[10]. Maceljski, M., et al. 1985. Poljoprivredni savjetnik. nakladni zavod ZNANJE, Zagreb.

[11]. Maceljski, M., 1988. Nekoliko prijedloga u cilju racionalnije primjene pesticida. Glasnik zaštite bilja, 10-11, 389-390.

[12]. Maceljski, M., 1990. Ekološki prihvatljiva poljoprivredna proizvodnja. Glasnik zaštite bilja, 11, 405-408.

[13]. Maceljski, M., 1992. Inegralna zaštita od korova. Glasnik zaštite bilja, 7-8, 205-209.

[14]. Maceljski, M., 1993. Novi termin “prag korisnosti”. Glasnik zaštite bilja 7-8, 239.

[15]. Maceljski, M., Hrlec, G., Ostojić, Z., Cvjetković, B., 1996. Pregled sredstava za zaštitu bilja u Republici Hrvatskoj. glasnik zaštite bilja, 2-3.

[16]. Matotan, Z., 1994. Proizvodnja povrća. Nakladni zavod Globus, Zagreb.

[17]. Milevoj, L., Oswald, J., 1991. Uvođenje integralne zaštite povrća u Republici Sloveniji. Glasnik zaštite bilja, 7-8, 254-257.

[18]. Ostojić, Z., 1979. Primjena herbicida u povrtnim kulturama (rajčica, paprika, luk crveni i kupusnjače). Nauka u proizvodnji, 30-31, 109-114.

[19]. Rauš, Đ., Šegulja, N., Topić, J., 1985. Vegetacija sjeveroistočne Hrvatske. annales pro experimentis foresticis, Vol. XXIII, 223-335.

[20]. Schonbeck, F., Klingauf, F., Kraus, P., (prijevod Kišpatić, J.) 1988. Situacija, zadaće i perspekrive biološke zaštite bilja. Glasnik zaštite bilja, 10-11, 391-405.

[21]. Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W., 1987. Statistical methods. The Iowa State University, Ames.

[22]. Šovljanski, R., Živanović, B., 1978. Ostaci hemijskih sredstava za zaštitu bilja i teških metala u tržišnim uzorcima povrća. Glasnik zaštite bilja , 10/11, 368.

[23]. Šovljanski, R., 1978. Rezidue pesticida u povrću. Glasnik zaštite bilja 10/11, 368.

[24]. Topić, J., 1984. Fitocenološke i fitogeografske značajke vegetacije okopavinskih korova u kontinentalnom području Hrvatske. Acta Bot. Croatica, 43, 273-284.

[25]. Tuxen, R., 1950. Grundriss einer Systematik die nitrophilen Unkrautgesellschaften in der Eurosibirischen Region Europas. Mitt. Florist.

ABOUT THE AUTORS

Davor Šamota, Prof.PhD., Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek, Departm. of Plant

Protection , Trg Svetog Trojstva 3, 31000 Osijek, Croatia, Tel.:++385(0)31-224-243, E-mail:

Nada Parađiković, Docent PhD., Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek, Departm.of

Agroecology; Vegetables, Trg Svetog Trojstva 3, 31000 Osijek, Croatia, Tel:

++385(0)31-224-288, E-mail:

Zlata Milaković, Prof.PhD., Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek, Department of

Agroecology; Microbiology, Trg Svetog Trojstva 3, 31000 Osijek, Croatia,

Tel:++385(0)31-224-215, E-mail:

Renata Brkić, dipl.ing., asist., Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek, Departm. of

Plant protection, Trg Svetog Trojstva 3, 31000 Osijek, Croatia,

Tel.:++385(0)31-224-243, E-mail: