Online Version ISSN: 1314-412XVolume 5, Number 2

June 2013

2013

Scope and policy of the journalAgricultural Science and Technology /AST/ – an International Scientific Journal of Agricultural and Technology Sciences is published in English in one volume of 4 issues per year, as a printed journal and in electronic form. The policy of the journal is to publish original papers, reviews and short communications covering the aspects of agriculture related with life sciences and modern technologies. It will offer opportunities to address the global needs relating to food and environment, health, exploit the technology to provide innovative products and sustainable development. Papers will be considered in aspects of both fundamental and applied science in the areas of Genetics and Breeding, Nutrition and Physiology, Production Systems, Agriculture and Environment and Product Quality and Safety. Other categories closely related to the above topics could be considered by the editors. The detailed information of the journal is available at the website. Proceedings of scientific meetings and conference reports will be considered for special issues.

Submission of Manuscripts

All manuscripts written in English should be submitted as MS-Word file attachments via e-mail to ascitech@uni-sz.bg. Manuscripts must be prepared strictly in accordance with the detailed instructions for authors at the website http://www.uni-sz.bg/ascitech/index.html and the instructions on the last page of the journal. For each manuscript the signatures of all authors are needed confirming their consent to publish it and to nominate on author for correspondence.They have to be presented by a submission letter signed by all authors. The form of the submission letter is available upon from request from the Technical Assistance or could be downloaded from the website of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to this journal are considered if they have submitted only to it, they have not been published already, nor are they under consideration for publication in press elsewhere. All manuscripts are subject to editorial review and the editors reserve the right to improve style and return the paper

for rewriting to the authors, if necessary. The editorial board reserves rights to reject manuscripts based on priorities and space availability in the journal.

The articles appearing in this journal are indexed and abstracted in: EBSCO Publishing, Inc. and AGRIS (FAO).The journal is accepted to be indexed with the support of a project № BG051PO001-3.3.05-0001 “Science and business” financed by Operational Programme “Human Resources Development” of EU. The title has been suggested to be included in SCOPUS (Elsevier) and Electronic Journals Submission Form (Thomson Reuters).

Internet AccessThis journal is included in the Trakia University Journals online Service which can be found at www.uni-sz.bg.

Address of Editorial office:Agricultural Science and Technology Faculty of Agriculture, Trakia University Student's campus, 6000 Stara Zagora BulgariaTelephone.: +359 42 699330 +359 42 699446http://www.uni-sz.bg/ascitech/index.html

Technical Assistance:Nely TsvetanovaTelephone.: +359 42 699446E-mail: ascitech@uni-sz.bg

Editor-in-Chief

Tsanko YablanskiFaculty of AgricultureTrakia University, Stara ZagoraBulgaria

Co-Editor-in- Chief

Radoslav SlavovFaculty of AgricultureTrakia University, Stara ZagoraBulgaria

Editors and Sections

Genetics and Breading

Atanas Atanasov (Bulgaria)Ihsan Soysal (Turkey)Max Rothschild (USA)Stoicho Metodiev (Bulgaria)

Nutrition and Physiology

Nikolai Todorov (Bulgaria)Peter Surai (UK)Zervas Georgios (Greece)Ivan Varlyakov (Bulgaria)

Production Systems

Dimitar Pavlov (Bulgaria)Dimitar Panaiotov (Bulgaria)Banko Banev (Bulgaria)Georgy Zhelyazkov (Bulgaria)

Agriculture and Environment

Georgi Petkov (Bulgaria)Ramesh Kanwar (USA)

Product Quality and Safety

Marin Kabakchiev (Bulgaria)Stefan Denev (Bulgaria)Vasil Atanasov (Bulgaria)

English Editor

Yanka Ivanova (Bulgaria)

2013

ISSN 1313 - 8820 Volume 5, Number 2June 2013

Stability of herbicides and herbicide tank-mixtures at winter oilseed canola by influence of different meteorological conditions

G. Delchev*

Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Thrakia University, 6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria

Abstract. During the period 2010 – 2012, on the experimental field of the Field Crops Institute - Chirpan was carried out a field experiment with conventional Maximus hybrid PR44D06 (Brassica napus). A total of 15 variants were investigated. Canola hybrid from Maximus product line which is included in the study eliminates the need for growth regulators. The efficacy of the herbicide Salsa when used separately without the other partner herbicide is higher when treated with adjuvant Trend compared to adjuvants Codacide and Silvet. At tank mixtures of Salsa and Butizan, herbicide efficacy and crop long action against weeds are higher when they are introduced with adjuvant Codacide. When herbicide tank mixture Salsa + Pantera is treated with adjuvant Codacide synergism is accounted. At tank mixtures of Salsa + Agil, higher efficiency is accounted in its joint use with adjuvant Trend. Technologically the most valuable are tank mixtures of herbicides Salsa and Butizan with adjuvant Codacide, followed by these with adjuvant Trend. From the viewpoint of technology for growing winter oilseed canola, high rating also have tank mixtures of Salsa with antigrass herbicides Pantera and Agil, followed by that of Salsa with Runway. Combinations of Salsa with adjuvants Trend, Codacide and Silvet, but without a partner herbicide, have low rating because they are inefficient against grassy weeds and absence of soil action.

Keywords: winter oilseed canola, weeds, herbicides, seed yield, stability

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 5, No 2, pp , 2013189 - 193

Introduction from Maximus product line which is included in the study eliminates the need for growth regulators. It allows us to investigate only the influence of herbicides, adjuvants and their tank mixtures.Many authors in their studies establish the efficacy of different

The selectivity of herbicides and herbicide tank mixtures has herbicides and herbicide combinations for weed control in canola been established through their influence on seed yield. The math crops and their positive effect on seed yield (Oliveira Junior, 2001; processing of the data was done according to the method of analysis Pérez Fernández et al., 2001; Bulavin et al., 2007; Luzhinskiy et al., of variance (Shanin, 1977; Barov, 1982; Lidanski, 1988). The 2011; Leonov et al., 2011). Combined use of herbicides with stability of herbicides for seed yield with relation to years was adjuvants considerably increases their efficacy against weeds in

2 2estimated using the stability variances σ and S of Shukla (1972), winter oilseed canola (Miklaszewska et al., 2000; Murawa and i i

the ecovalence Wi of Wricke (1962) and the stability criterion YS of Warminski, 2005). i

Cruciferous weeds are the most dangerous weeds in canola Kang (1993).due to their difficult control in its crops. Sinapis arvense and Raphanus raphanistum are the dominant species among them. Studies about herbicides providing secure control over them are still Results and discussionvery limited. Studies about the stability of herbicides in different years in terms of climate are very limited, too. The highest seed yield was obtained by treatment with the

The aim of this study was to investigate the use of new combination Salsa + Butizan + Codacide treated during 4 – 6 and 2 – vegetation herbicide Salsa 75 WG in combination with other partner 4 leaf stages, respectively, 21.1 % and 20.2 % above no treated products – herbicides and adjuvants to ensure long and steady check (Table 2). Good results are obtained also by tank mixtures herbicide effect over the different years. Salsa + Butizan + Trend treated during 4 – 6 and 2 – 4 leaf stage.

High yields of these variants are due to good herbicide efficacy of Salsa and the long action of Butizan for control and secondary

Material and methods growing weeds. Adding of adjuvant Codacide to herbicide tank mixture Salsa + Butizan led to higher seed yield compared with

During the period 2010 – 2012, on the experimental field of the adding of adjuvant Trend during the all experiment years.Field Crops Institute, Chirpan was carried out a field experiment with At herbicide tank mixture Salsa + Pantera + Codacide due to the conventional Maximus hybrid PR44D06 (Brassica napus). The synergism between preparations, seed yields are equal to those of experiment was carried out by the block method, in four replications, the combinations with Butizan. At herbicide tank mixture Salsa +

2 Pantera + Trend, Salsa + Agil + Codacide and Salsa + Agil + Trend, size of experiment plot 15 m , on leached vertisol soil type after seed yields are lower due to poorer control of secondary growing predecessor durum wheat. A total of 15 variants were investigated. weeds during wet and warm autumn. Seed yields are the lowest at Active substances, doses and treatment periods of investigated the use of herbicide Salsa without adjuvant – 10.5 % over weeded herbicides and herbicide tank-mixtures are shown in Table 1. All check. Adding adjuvants Trend, Codacide and Silvet or herbicide variants are treated with working solution of 200 l/ha. Canola hybrid

189

* e-mail: delchevgrd@dir.bg

190

Runwey to Salsa increases seed yields, but they remain lower than herbicides is well proven at p ≤ 1 %. There is an interaction of those of variants with Salsa + Butizan, Pantera or Agil due to poorer herbicides with the meteorological conditions of year (A x B) – 2.2 %. control of grassy weeds. It is proven at p ≤ 5 %.

Analysis of variance for seed yield (Table 3) shows that the Based on proven year x herbicide interaction, stability influence of the investigated variants is 90.7 % of the total variability parameters for each variant for seed yield of winter oilseed canola

2of the data. They are proven at p ≤ 0.1 %. Years have the highest was evaluated with relation to years (Table 4). Stability variances σ i2influence on seed yield – 83.0 % on the variants. It is determined by and S of Shukla, the ecovalence Wi of Wricke and the stability i

the unequal response of variants to change in environmental 2 2criterion YS of Kang were calculated. Stability variances (σ and S ) i i iconditions. The reason is the large differences in the meteorological of Shukla, who recorded respectively linear and non-linear

conditions during the three years of investigation. The strength of interactions, evaluate unidirectionally the stability of variants. These

influence of herbicides and herbicide combinations is 5.5 %. The variants which showed lower values are considered to be more

influence of the years is well proven at p ≤ 0.1 %. Influence of

Table 1. Investigated variants

№

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Check – weeded

Salsa 75 WG +Trend 90

Salsa 75 WG +Codacide

Salsa 75 WG +Silwet L-77

Salsa 75 WG

Salsa 75 WG +Butisan 400 SC +Trend 90

Salsa 75 WG +Butisan 400 SC +Codacide

Salsa 75 WG +Butisan 400 SC +Trend 90

Salsa 75 WG +Butisan 400 SC +Codacide

Salsa 75 WG +Pantera 40 EC +Trend 90

Salsa 75 WG +Pantera 40 EC +Codacide

Salsa 75 WG +Agil 100 EC +Trend 90

Salsa 75 WG +Agil 100 EC +Codacide

Runway

Salsa 75 WG +Runway +Trend 90

-

ethametsulfuron-methyl*

ethametsulfuron-methyl**

ethametsulfuron-methyl***

ethametsulfuron-methyl

ethametsulfuron-methylmetazachlor

*

ethametsulfuron-methylmetazachlor

**

ethametsulfuron-methylmetazachlor

*

ethametsulfuron-methylmetazachlor

**

ethametsulfuron-methylquizalofop-P-tefuryl

*

ethametsulfuron-methylquizalofop-P-tefuryl

**

ethametsulfuron-methylpropaquizafop

*

ethametsulfuron-methylpropaquizafop

**

clopyralid + picloram + aminopyralid

ethametsulfuron-methylclopyralid + picloram + aminopyralid

*

-

20 g/ha0.1 %

20 g/ha1.5 l/ha

20 g/ha100 ml/ha

20 g/ha

15 g/ha1.25 l/ha

0.1 %

15 g/ha1.25 l/ha1.5 l/ha

20 g/ha2 l/ha0.1 %

20 g/ha2 l/dh

1.5 l/ha

20 g/ha800 ml/ha

0.1 %

20 g/ha800 ml/ha1.5 l/ha

20 g/ha500 ml/ha

0.1 %

20 g/ha500 ml/ha1.5 l/ha

300 ml/ha

20 g/ha300 ml/ha

0.1 %

-

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

4-6 leaf

4-6 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

2-4 leaf

Variants Active substance Doses Treatment period

191

stable because they interact less with the environmental conditions. values of the index, the more unstable the variant.2 2 On this basis, using the first three parameters of stability, it is Negative values of the indicators σ and S are considered 0. At high i i

2 2 found that the most unstable is the untreated, weeded check, values of either of the two parameters – σ and S , the variant is i i

followed by variants with separate use of herbicides Salsa and regarded as unstable. At the ecovalence Wi of Wricke, the higher the

Table 2. Influence of some herbicides and herbicide tank-mixtures on seed yield of canola (2010 – 2012)

Factor А

Factor В

Check – weeded 3722

4373

4329

4329

4135

4492

4541

4519

4574

4429

4530

4429

4388

4169

4388

4365

100

117.5

116.3

116.3

111.1

120.7

122.0

121.4

122.9

119.0

121.7

119.0

117.9

112.0

117.9

-

3103

3541

3500

3506

3398

3662

3677

3662

3711

3596

3649

3593

3572

3388

3547

3540

100

114.1

112.8

113.0

109.5

118.0

118.5

118.0

119.6

115.9

117.6

115.8

115.1

109.2

114.3

-

2080

2392

2371

2375

2311

2471

2486

2479

2498

2434

2471

2429

2413

2288

2402

2393

100

115.0

114.0

114.2

111.1

118.8

119.5

119.2

120.1

117.0

118.8

116.8

116.0

110.0

115.5

- - -

2968

3435

3421

3424

3281

3542

3568

3553

3594

3486

3550

3484

3457

3283

3446

100

115.7

115.3

115.4

110.5

119.3

120.2

119.7

121.1

117.5

119.6

117.4

116.5

110.6

116.1

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Silwet L-77- 100 ml/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 15 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 1.25 l/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 15 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 1.25 l/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 2 l/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (4-6 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 2 l/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (4-6 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Pantera 40 EC - 800 ml/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Pantera 40 EC - 800 ml/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Agil 100 EC - 500 ml/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Agil 100 EC - 500 ml/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Runway - 300 ml/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Runway - 800 ml/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Mean(Factor А)

2010

kg/ha % kg/ha % kg/ha % kg/ha %

2011 2012 Mean (Factor В)

LSD, kg/ha:

F. A p≤5%=55 p≤1%=73 p 0.1%=94

F. B p≤5%=123 p≤1%=162 p≤0.1%=210

A x B p≤5%=212 p≤1%=281 p≤0.1%=364

≤

192

Table 3. Analysis of variance for seed yield

*p≤5% **p≤1% ***p≤0.1%

Source of variation

Total

Tract of land

Variants

Factor A -Years

Factor B Herbicides

А х В

Pooled error

-

134

2

44

2

14

28

88

1000000

67980

916958

882460

31714

2784

15062

-

32990.0***

20839.9***

441230.0***

2265.3**

99.4*

171.2

100

6.8

90.7

83.0

5.5

2.2

2.5

Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Influence of factor, % Mean square

Table 4. Stability parameters for the herbicides for seed yield with relation to years

Variants

Check – weeded 2968

3435

3421

3424

3281

3542

3568

3553

3594

3486

3550

3484

3457

3283

3446

951.9**

-6.8

34.5

27.5

283.2*

17.7

52.5

32.8

88.8

-2.8

60.2

-0.6

-6.0

263.5*

-4.9

103.6

-0.8

49.1

40.2

64.1

4.1

-0.6

-0.8

-0.5

-1.1

8.0

-1.1

1.5

60.6

1.4

1663.3

1.5

73.1

60.9

1330.8

43.9

104.3

70.1

167.0

8.4

117.7

12.2

2.9

923.4

4.8

-10

7

3

4

0

13+

16+

15+

17+

11+

14+

10+

9+

1

8+

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Silwet L-77- 100 ml/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 15 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 1.25 l/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 15 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 1.25 l/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 2 l/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (4-6 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Butisan 400 SC - 2 l/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (4-6 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Pantera 40 EC - 800 ml/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Pantera 40 EC - 800 ml/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Agil 100 EC - 500 ml/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Agil 100 EC - 500 ml/ha +Codacide - 1.5 l/ha (2-4 leaf)

Runway - 300 ml/ha (2-4 leaf)

Salsa 75 WG - 20 g/ha +Runway - 800 ml/ha +Trend 90 - 0.1 % (2-4 leaf)

_x

2σi

2Si Wi Ysi

193

2 At tank mixtures of Salsa + Agil, higher efficiency is accounted in Runway. In these three variants values of stability variance σ of i

its joint use with adjuvant Trend.Shukla and ecovalence Wi of Wricke are the highest and 2 Technologically the most valuable are tank mixtures of mathematically proven. Instability is a linear type – proven values σ . i

herbicides Salsa and Butizan with adjuvant Codacide, followed by The reason for this high instability is greater variation in seed yield these with adjuvant Trend. From the viewpoint of technology for during years of experience as a result of differences in the efficacy of growing winter oilseed canola, high rating also have tank mixtures of herbicides. Other variants exhibit high stability during the three years Salsa with antigrass herbicides Pantera and Agil, followed by that of of investigation.Salsa with Runway.To evaluate the complete efficacy of each variant the reaction of

Combinations of Salsa with adjuvants Trend, Codacide and canola to this variant during the years should be considered as its Silvet, but without a partner herbicide, have low rating because they effect on seed yield of winter oilseed canola and its stability. Valuable are ineffective against grassy weeds and absence of soil action.information about the value of technologic value of the variant gives

the stability criterion YS of Kang for simultaneous assessment of i

yield and stability based on the reliability of the differences in yield Referencesand variance of interaction with the environment. Synthesis stability

criterion YS of Kang, taking into account both the stability and value i

of yields, gives a negative assessment only of weeded, untreated Barov V, 1982. Analysis and schemes of the field experiment. Sofia control, characterizing it as the most unstable and low yields. (Bg).According to this criterion, the most valuable technology are tank Bulavin LA, Nebyshinets SS, Belanovsky MA, Gerdovich SV, mixtures of herbicides Salsa and Butizan with adjuvant Codacide, Kankevits VA and Apresyan OG, 2009. Aftereffect herbicide Laren followed by their tank mixtures with adjuvant Trend. These tank on spring oilseed rape. Farming and breeding in Belarus: mixtures combine high levels of seed yield and high stability of this Proceedings, 45, 63-73 (Ru).index during the years. Kang M, 1993. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability:

From the viewpoint of technology for growing winter oilseed Consequences for growers. Agronomy Journal, 85, 754-757.canola, high rating also have tank mixtures of Salsa with antigrass Leonov FN and Yurgel SI, 2002. Effect of ammonium sulphate and herbicides Pantera and Agil, followed by that of Salsa with Runway. CAS on pesticidal herbicide and insecticide Dual Gold Karate Zeon These tank mixtures combine relatively good yields of seed with high fields of spring rape. Plant protection – problems and prospects for stability during the years of the investigation. Despite the high development, pp. 126-128 (Ru).herbicide efficacy against grassy weeds, these variants have lower Lidanski T, 1988. Statistical methods in biology and agriculture, estimation in competition of variants featuring Salsa and Butizan Sofia (Bg).because of their poorer soil aftereffect in 2010 and 2011, when there Luzhinsky DV, Pilyuk JE and Bulavin LA, 2011. Fighting were conditions for secondary weeding in autumn. Tank mixture infestation of crops of fruit drop rape. Agriculture Plant Protection, Salsa + Runway gets lower ratings due to its inefficiency against Scientific journal, 4, 36-37 (Bru).grassy weeds. Combinations of Salsa with adjuvants Trend, Miklaszewska K, Adamczewski K and Stachecki S, 2000. Olbras Codacide and Silvet but without a partner herbicide get low ratings. 88 EC – new oil additive to herbicides. Monograph (Pl).They are ineffective against grassy weeds and they have no soil Murawa D and Warminski K, 2004. Yielding of spring rape exposed action. It leads to secondary weeding during the late autumn of 2010 to different plant protection agents. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. and 2011. Agricultura, 3, 2, 221-233 (Pl).

Oliveira Junior RS, 2001. Carryover of imazaquin and alachlor + atrazine to the successional canola crop. Ciencia Rural, 31, 2, 219-224 (Pg).ConclusionsPérez Fernández MA, Calvo Magro E and López Martín M, 2004. Biological control of Briza maxima L. and Raphanus raphanistrum L. The efficacy of the herbicide Salsa when used separately using rhizobacteria. 44-th Scientific Meeting of Spanish Society for without the other partner herbicide is higher when treated with the Study of Pastures, Salamanca (Spain), p. 151-156.adjuvant Trend compared to adjuvants Codacide and Silvet.Shanin J, 1977. Methodology of the field experiment. BAS (Bg).At tank mixtures of Salsa and Butizan, herbicide efficacy and Shukla G, 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype - crop long action against weeds are higher when introduced with environmental components of variability. Heredity, 29, 237-245.adjuvant Codacide.Wricke G, 1962. Über eine Methode zur Erfassung der When herbicide tank mixture Salsa + Pantera is treated with ekologischen Strekbreitein Feldersuchen. Pflanzenzucht, 47, 92-adjuvant Codacide synergism is accounted.96.

Review

Genetics and Breeding

Nutrition and Physiology

Production Systems

Trends in battery cage husbandry systems for laying hens. Enriched cages for housing laying hens H. Lukanov, D. Alexieva

Influence of environments on the amount and stability of grain yield in modern winter wheat cultivars I. Interaction and degree of variabilityN. Tsenov, D. Atanasova

Variation of yield components in coriander (Coriandrum Sativum L.)N. Dyulgerov, B. Dyulgerova

Plant cell walls fiber component analysis and digestibility of birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L) in the vegetationY. Naydenova, A. Kyuchukova, D. Pavlov

Functional properties of maltitolV. Dobreva, M. Hadjikinova, A. Slavov, D.Hadjikinov, G. Dobrev, B. Zhekova

Food spectrum of grey mullet (Mugil cephalus L.) along the Bulgarian Black Sea coastR. Bekova, G. Raikova-Petrova, D. Gerdzhikov, E. Petrova, V. Vachkova, D. Klisarova

Metabolic and enzymatic profile of sheep fed on forage treated with the synthetic pyrethroid Supersect 10 ECR. Ivanova

Cultivation of Scenedesmus dimorphus strain for biofuel productionK. Velichkova, I. Sirakov, G. Georgiev

Study of the effect of soil trampling on the structural elements of yield and productivity of soybeanV. Sabev, S. Raykov, V. Arnaudov

Stability of herbicides and herbicide tank-mixtures at winter oilseed canola by influence of different meteorological conditionsG. Delchev

Screening of plant protection products against downy mildew on cucumbers (Pseudoperonospora Cubensis (Berkeley & M. A. Curtis) Rostovzev) in cultivation facilitiesS. Masheva, N. Velkov, N. Valchev, V. Yankova

CONTENTS 1 / 2

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 5, No 2, 2013

143

153

160

164

168

173

179

181

186

189

194

Efficacy and selectivity of vegetation-applied herbicides and their mixtures with growth stimulator Amalgerol premium at oil-bearing sunflower grown by conventional, Clearfield and ExpressSun technologiesG. Delchev

V. Atanasov, E. Valkova, G. Kostadinova, G. Petkov, Ts. Yablanski, P. Valkova, D. Dermendjieva

Seasonal and vertical dynamics of the water temperature and oxygen content in Kardzhali reservoir, BulgariaI. Iliev, L. Hadjinikolova

Condition and changes in types of natural pasture swards in the Sakar mountain under the influence of climatic and geographic factorsV. Vateva, K Stoеva, D. Pavlov

Comparative studies on the gross composition of White brined cheese and its imitations, marketed in the town of Stara ZagoraN. Naydenova, T. Iliev, G. Mihaylova, S. Atanasova

Effect of the environment on the quality of flour from common winter wheat cultivarsI. Stoeva, E. Penchev

Agriculture and Environment

Product Quality and Safety

Manganese levels in water, sediment and algae from waterbodies with high anthropogenic impact

CONTENTS 2 / 2

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 5, No 2, 2013

200

206

212

216

221

230

Instruction for authors

Preparation of papersPapers shall be submitted at the editorial office typed on standard typing pages (A4, 30 lines per page, 62 characters per line). The editors recommend up to 15 pages for full research paper ( including abstract references, tables, figures and other appendices)

The manuscript should be structured as follows: Title, Names of authors and affiliation address, Abstract, List of keywords, Introduction, Material and methods,Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgements (if any), References, Tables, Figures.The title needs to be as concise and informative about the nature of research. It should be written with small letter /bold, 14/ without any abbreviations. Names and affiliation of authorsThe names of the authors should be presented from the initials of first names followed by the family names. The complete address and name of the institution should be stated next. The affiliation of authors are designated by different signs. For the author who is going to be corresponding by the editorial board and readers, an E-mail address and telephone number should be presented as footnote on the first page. Corresponding author is indicated with *. Abstract should be not more than 350 words. It should be clearly stated what new findings have been made in the course of research. Abbreviations and references to authors are inadmissible in the summary. It should be understandable without having read the paper and should be in one paragraph. Keywords: Up to maximum of 5 keywords should be selected not repeating the title but giving the essence of study. The introduction must answer the following questions: What is known and what is new on the studied issue? What necessitated the research problem, described in the paper? What is your hypothesis and goal ?Material and methods: The objects of research, organization of experiments, chemical analyses, statistical and other methods and conditions applied for the experiments should be described in detail. A criterion of sufficient information is to be

possible for others to repeat the experi-ment in order to verify results.Results are presented in understandable tables and figures, accompanied by the statistical parameters needed for the evaluation. Data from tables and figures should not be repeated in the text.Tables should be as simple and as few as possible. Each table should have its own explanatory title and to be typed on a separate page. They should be outside the main body of the text and an indication should be given where it should be inserted.Figures should be sharp with good contrast and rendition. Graphic materials should be preferred. Photographs to be appropriate for printing. Illustrations are supplied in colour as an exception after special agreement with the editorial board and possible payment of extra costs. The figures are to be each in a single file and their location should be given within the text. Discussion: The objective of this section is to indicate the scientific significance of the study. By comparing the results and conclusions of other scientists the contribution of the study for expanding or modifying existing knowledge is pointed out clearly and convincingly to the reader.Conclusion: The most important conse- quences for the science and practice resulting from the conducted research should be summarized in a few sentences. The conclusions shouldn't be numbered and no new paragraphs be used. Contributions are the core of conclusions. References:In the text, references should be cited as follows: single author: Sandberg (2002); two authors: Andersson and Georges (2004); more than two authors: Andersson et al.(2003). When several references are cited simultaneously, they should be ranked by chronological order e.g.: (Sandberg, 2002; Andersson et al., 2003; Andersson and Georges, 2004).References are arranged alphabetically by the name of the first author. If an author is cited more than once, first his individual publications are given ranked by year, then come publications with one co-author, two co-authors, etc. The names of authors, article and journal titles in the Cyrillic or alphabet different from Latin, should be transliterated into Latin and article titles should be translated into English. The original language of articles and books translated into English is indicated in

parenthesis after the bibliographic reference (Bulgarian = Bg, Russian = Ru, Serbian = Sr, if in the Cyrillic, Mongolian = Мо, Greek = Gr, Georgian = Geor., Japanese = Jа, Chinese = Ch, Arabic = Аr, etc.)The following order in the reference list is recommended:Journal articles: Author(s) surname and initials, year. Title. Full title of the journal, volume, pages. Example:Simm G, Lewis RM, Grundy B and Dingwall WS, 2002. Responses to selection for lean growth in sheep. Animal Science, 74, 39-50Books: Author(s) surname and initials, year. Title. Edition, name of publisher, place of publication. Example: Oldenbroek JK, 1999. Genebanks and the conservation of farm animal genetic resources, Second edition. DLO Institute for Animal Science and Heal th, Netherlands.Book chapter or conference proceedings: Author(s) surname and initials, year. Title. In: Title of the book or of the proceedings followed by the editor(s), volume, pages. Name of publisher, place of publication. Example: Mauff G, Pulverer G, Operkuch W, Hummel K and Hidden C, 1995. C3-variants and diverse phenotypes of unconverted and converted C3. In: Provides of the Biological Fluids (ed. H. Peters), vol. 22, 143-165, Pergamon Press. Oxford, UK.Todorov N and Mitev J, 1995. Effect of level of feeding during dry period, and body condition score on reproductive perfor-

thmance in dairy cows,IX International Conference on Production Diseases in Farm Animals, Sept.11 – 14, Berlin, Germany, p. 302 (Abstr.).Thesis:Penkov D, 2008. Estimation of metabolic energy and true digestibility of amino acids of some feeds in experiments with muscus duck (Carina moshata, L). Thesis for DSc. Agrarian University, Plovdiv, 314 pp.

The Editorial Board of the Journal is not responsible for incorrect quotes of reference sources and the relevant violations of copyrights.

Volume 5, Number 2June 2013