Microsoft Word - 7-Agra_29820.doc


346 
Original Article 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

EFFICACY OF A PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR IN THE CULTURE OF 
COFFEE 

 
EFICÁCIA DE BIORREGULADOR NA CULTURA DO CAFÉ 

 
Fernando Simoni BACILIERI¹; Luara Cristina DE LIMA²; Regina Maria Quintão LANA³; 

Dayane Salinas Nagib GUIMARÃES²; Marina Alves CLEMENTE¹ 
1. Doctor´s Degree in the Institute of Agricultural Sciences of the Federal University of Uberlandia, Brazil. 

ferbacilieiri@zipmail.com.br; 2. Master´s Degree in the Institute of Agricultural Sciences of the Federal University of Uberlandia, 
Brazil; 3. Professor, Doctor, In Institute of Agricultural Sciences of the Federal University of Uberlandia, Brazil, Brazil. 

 
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the efficacy of a plant growth regulator applied at 

different growth stages in coffee. The experiment was conducted in the years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 on the Docas 1 
farm, using Mundo Novo IAC 379-19 coffee cultivar, with spacing 4 meter between rows and 0.8 meter between plants 
and 10 plants per plot. The experimental design was in blocks at random, with two factors and three repetitions. The first 
factor was the dose of the product (0.25 and 0.5 liter per hectare per application) and second factor was the time of 
applications according to the phenological stages (pre-flowering, post-flowering and pinhead). The control treatment 
(control) consisted of the absence of the application of the plant growth regulator. Biometric aspects (number of internodes 
and length of reproductive branches in centimeters, number of fruits on the fourth and fifth node on reproductive branches) 
and productivity were evaluated. Collected data were analyzed using Tukey test at 0.05 of significance. The application of 
a plant growth regulator at different growth stages of development of coffee leads to increased biometric variables in 
coffee: the number of internodes, the average number of fruits on the fourth and fifth node and the length of reproductive 
branches. The productivity of coffee can be increased with the use of plant growth regulators, particularly at the dose of 
0.5 liter per hectare per application, regardless of the application period, promoting productivity up to 46.9%. It is not 
possible to state that the presence of substances similar to phytohormones in plant growth regulators is responsible for the 
increase in productivity without making isolate application of these substances. 

 
KEYWORDS: Coffea arabica L. Phytohormones. Fertilizer technologies. 
 
 

INTRODUCTION 
 
Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) is a major 

agricultural export from Brazil, thus the availability 
of technologies such as plant growth regulators are 
important, because may increase crop yield and 
improve the quality of the final drink. 

The bioregulators intensify and improve the 
absorption of nutrients by plants (BINSFELD et al., 
2014), making the use of these viable in the 
exploitation of the productive potential of crops 
(SILVA et al., 2012). These substances are natural 
or synthetic, from two or more plant growth 
regulators (cytokinins, gibberellins, auxins) mixed 
with other substances (amino acids, nutrients and 
vitamins) (SILVA et al, 2008), and act as activators 
of the metabolism of plant cells, strengthening the 
immune system and reactivating the physiological 
processes at different stages of development 
(SILVA et al., 2010). 

At low doses, bioregulators favor the 
performance of vital processes of the plants, 
enabling them to obtain satisfactory yields in 
adverse environmental conditions. With different 
levels of mineral fertilizers, these are not capable of 
providing all the essential nutrients to meet the 

needs of the plant, but it increases the absorption of 
mineral plant, thus improving the efficiency of use 
of the nutrient both at the root, as in leaves 
(MUGNAI et al., 2008). 

Albrecht et al. (2009) in cotton observed 
that the bioregulator increased the percentage of 
emergence of the seedlings and the speed of root 
growth, in addition to cause seedlings more 
vigorous. Avila et al. (2008), Fields et al. (2008), 
Klahold et al. (2006) showed that they affected 
germination and the biomass of dry weight of the 
seed and promoted the growth of plants in height. 

Other studies showed that plant growth 
regulators may not favor or even decrease the 
absorption of nutrients by plants, indicating that the 
response to the applications depend on other factors 
such as plant species and the composition of humic 
substances in the products used for that purpose. 
More information is needed about the real effect of 
these products on plant development (FERREIRA et 
al., 2007). 

There are few studies on the use of plant 
growth regulators in coffee; therefore, the aim of 
this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 
plant growth regulator applied at different growth 
stages in coffee. 

Received: 10/04/15 
Accepted: 20/01/16 



347 
Efficacy of a plant growth…  BACILIERI, F. S. et al. 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

MATERIAL AND METHODS 
 
The experiment was conducted in 

2010/2011 and 2011/2012 agricultural years on the 
Docas 1farm located by the MG-223 highway, in 
the city of Araguari-MG, latitude 18º38'56'' S, 
longitude 48º11'13'' W and altitude of 940 m. 

The maintenance of humidity of soil water 
was obtained by means of a system of irrigation by 
dripping self compensation. Before beginning of the 
treatments, evaluations of the uniformity of the drip 
irrigation system were conducted by calculating the 
statistical uniformity coefficient, the emission 
uniformity coefficient and uniformity coefficient of 
absolute emission. 

An automatic weather station located in the 
city of Araguari by Procafe, Integrated Program of 
Support for Coffee Technology, provided data used 
to control the irrigation, which helped to estimate 
the evapotranspiration of the crop by Penman-
Monteith FAO standard (PEREIRA et al., 2015). 
The climatic water balance evidenced an average 
annual water deficit of 200 mm in the region, 
concentrated between the months of June to 
October. When looking at the averages in 2011, 
2012, it was noted that the deficit in October got 
close to 180 mm in 2011 and 250 mm in 2012 
(Figure 1). 

 

 
Figure 1. Extract of normal water balance in the region of Araguari, MG. (MAPA-PROCAFÉ, 2015). 
 

Used coffee cultivate Mundo Novo variety 
IAC 379-19, established in 2002. Each plot 
consisted of 10 plants distributed in five lines with 
spacing of 4 m between the same and 0.8 m between 
plants. The useful area consisted of six central 
plants, totaling 19.2 m2 per plot. 

The experimental design was a randomized 
complete block design with two factors and three 
replications. The first factor was product dose (0.25 
L ha-1 and 0.5 L ha-1 per application) and the second 
factor was the period of applications according to 
the phenological stages (pre-flowering, post-
flowering and pinhead). The control treatment 
(control) did not undergo the application of the 
bioregulators (Table 1). 

The product used was the Biozyme TF®, 
which consists of a foliar fertilizer with action of 
growth regulator of plant, consisting of: total 
nitrogen (N) 1.73 % w/w, water-soluble potassium 
oxide (K2O) 5.00 % w/w, total organic carbon 3.50 
% w/w, water soluble boron content (B) 0.08 % 

w/w, water-soluble iron content (Fe) 0.49 % w/w, 
water soluble manganese content (Mn) 1.00 % w/w, 
water soluble zinc content (Zn) 2.43 % w/w, water 
soluble sulfur (S) 2.10 % w/w, phytohormones: 
gibberellin 32.2 mg dm-3, indole acetic acid (auxin) 
32.2 mg dm-3 and zeatin (cytokinin) 83.2 mg dm-3. 

The plant management, nutritional, and 
harvesting were carried out in accordance with 
recommendation of MAPA-Procafé (2015). The 
dressing was applied via fertirrigation with 100 kg 
of N, 175 kg of P and 400 kg of K of formulated 5-
20-20 (2 t ha-1) in four applications in the months of 
September, November, January and March of 
analyzed agricultural years. 

The plant growth regulator applications 
were performed at the time of pre-flowering in 
September 11, 2010, post-flowering on October 9, 
2010 and pinhead phase on October 29, 2010. In the 
second year, the applications were made at the same 
phases on September 2, 2011, October 1 and 
November 1 2011, respectively. 



348 
Efficacy of a plant growth…  BACILIERI, F. S. et al. 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

Table 1. Doses and plant growth regulator application period in drip irrigated coffee plantation 

Treatments 
Doses of bioregulators (L 
ha-1) 

Application time 

Control 0 -------------------- 
2 0.25 Pre-flowering, post-flowering and pinhead 
3 0.25 Pre-flowering and post-flowering 
4 0.25 Post-flowering and pinhead 
5 0.50 Pre-flowering 
6 0.50 Post-flowering 
7 0.50 Pinhead 
8 0.50 Pre-flowering and post-flowering 
9 0.50 Post-flowering and pinhead 
10 0.50 Pre-flowering, post-flowering and pinhead 

 
Four evaluations of biometric aspects were 

conducted (number of internodes and length of 
reproductive branches in centimeters) during two 
evaluated agricultural years. They were performed 
in the following periods: November 2010, May and 
September 2011, and April 2012, coinciding with 
the times of expansion of fruits, ripening of fruits, 
pre and post flowering and fruit maturation, 
respectively (MAPA-PROCAFÉ, 2015). 

The reproductive branches were randomly 
selected from the two sides of the plant. They were 
measured with the aid of a tape and the formed 
internodes were counted from the last productive 
node in the previous harvest. Later the data were 
noted in a field spreadsheet and the average for each 
repetition was calculated.  

In May 2011 and April 2012, during fruit 
maturation time, the fruits from the 4th and 5th node 
of reproductive branches were included and the 
average for each period was calculated.  

Biometric evaluations were performed in 
order to promote a comparison between the 
formation of the new internodes and the size of the 
reproductive branches in the plant, helping to 
estimate the application efficiency of bioregulators 
for the next harvest, and check if the use of plant 
growth regulator promoted any increase of 
production. 

Manual harvest and drying were performed 
in June 2011 and June 2012. The fruits were 
collected from the ground and plants. Later, the 
fruits were separated into bags, which were weighed 
and a sample of 1 kg was taken. The hulls and 
impurities were removed and the sample was 
weighed to calculate the yield. 

The results were analyzed using analysis of 
variance and Tukey test, at 0.05 of significance with 
the MSSA Agri software (CANTERI et al., 2001). 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
The growth evaluation, length of 

reproductive branches (LRB) and number of nodes 
(NN), are presented in Table 2. In November 2010, 
there was no difference among the treatments 
regarding the number of internodes comparing with 
the control. 

There was a decrease in length of 
reproductive branches in the treatments with the use 
of the plant growth regulator at 0.5 L ha-1 during 
pre-flowering and post-flowering, post-flowering 
and pinhead, and pre-flowering, post-flowering and 
pinhead comparing with the control only for the first 
year of application of the product, 2010.  (Table 2), 
as authors such as Silva et al. (2010) found that 
those treated with plant growth regulators function 
as activators of the metabolism of the cell, giving 
force to the immune system, reactivating 
physiological processes at different stages of 
development, stimulating root growth, inducing the 
formation of new shoots. 

In November 2010, the treatments with the 
use the growth regulator differ from one another in 
the length of reproductive branches at doses of 0.25 
L ha-1 and 0.05 L ha-1, with applications in two 
periods (pre-flowering and post-flowering and post-
flowering and pinhead) and three periods (pre-
flowering, post- flowering and pinhead, respectively 
(Table 2). 

In May 2011, the number of internodes in 
all treatments differed in relation to control (p > 
0,05), but the treatments did not differ between one 
another. There was a higher average growth in 
length of reproductive branches with plant growth 
regulator treatments at a dose of 0.25 L ha-1 when 
applied at one period (pre-flowering), two periods 
(post-flowering and pinhead) and three periods (pre-
flowering, post-flowering and pinhead); at a dose of 



349 
Efficacy of a plant growth…  BACILIERI, F. S. et al. 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

0.5 L ha-1 when applied at one period (pre-flowering 
and pinhead), two periods (pre-flowering and post-
flowering, post flowering and pinhead) and three 

periods (pre-flowering, post-flowering and pinhead) 
comparing to control (p> 0.05) (Table 2). 

 
Table 2. Number of nodes (N.N.) and length of reproductive branches (L.R.B.) in coffee submitted to the 

application of plant growth regulators in different doses and development times, after two years of 
applications. 

Treatments 
November 2010 May 2011 October 2011 April 2012 

N.N. 
L.R.B 
(cm) 

N.N. 
L.R.B 
(cm) 

N.N
. 

L.R.B 
(cm) 

N.N. 
L.R.B 
(cm) 

Control 6 a 14.2 a 8 b 13.0 b 4 b 6.6 c 7 bc 21.7a 
Bioregulator at 0.25 L ha-1 
(Pre and post-flowering, 
pinhead) 

6 a 13.7 a 11 a 20.5 a 6 a 18.7 ab 8 abc 24.2 a 

Bioregulator at 0.25 L ha-1 
(Pre and post-flowering) 

6 a 13.5 a 10 a 17.7 ab 6 a 17.7 ab 6 c 22.1 a 

Bioregulator at 0.25 L ha-1 
(Post-flowering and 
pinhead) 

6 a 13.3 a 10 a 18.9 a 6 a 15.6 b 7 bc 21.9 a 

Bioregulator at 0.5 L ha-1 
(Pre-flowering) 

6 a 12.6 ab 10 a 20.0 a 6 a 19.9 a 8 abc 21.9 a 

Bioregulator at 0.5 L ha-1 
(Post-flowering) 

6 a 12.4 ab 10 a 17.8 ab 6 a 17.3 ab 6 c 20.6 a 

Bioregulator at 0.5 L ha-1 
(Pinhead) 

6 a 12.3 ab 10 a 22.1 a 6 a 19.5 ab 8 abc 24.3 a 

Bioregulator at 0.5 L ha-1 
(Pre and post-flowering) 

6 a 11.2 b 10 a 20.1 a 6 a 17.9 ab 9 ab 27.7 a 

Bioregulator at 0.5 L ha-1 
(Post-flowering and 
pinhead) 

6 a 11.2 b 10 a 20.1 a 6 a 19.5 ab 10 a 22.6 a 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 
(Pre and post-flowering, 
pinhead) 

7 a 11.1 b 10 a 20.6 a 6 a 20.6 a 10 a 26.3 a 

C.V. (%) 7.60 5.40 5.27 9.36 4.63 7.94 7.52 10.46 
Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ by Tukey test at 5% error significance. 
 

In October 2011, the length of reproductive 
branches for treatments with the use of bioregulators 
grew more comparing with the control, producing a 
greater number of nodes. There was higher growth 
in reproductive branches for treatments that used the 
bioregulator in doses of 0.25 L ha-1 when applied in 
two periods (post-flowering and pinhead) and the 
dose of 0.5 L ha-1 when applied once (pre-flowering 
and in pinhead), twice (pre-flowering and post-
flowering, post-flowering and pinhead) and three 
times (pre-flowering and post-flowering, and 
pinhead) (Table 2). 

For the length of the branches 
plagiotrópicos noted that among the treatments with 
the use of bioregulator, in October 2011, only the 
dose of 0.25 L ha-1 applied in two seasons (post-
flowering and pinhead) differ from the best 
treatments with the dose of 0.5 L ha-1 applied at a 

time (pre-flowering) and in three periods (pre and 
post-flowering, and pinhead) (p > 0.05) (Table 2). 

In April 2012 (Table 2), using the dose of 
0.5 L ha-1 applied in two periods (post-flowering 
and pinhead) and three periods (pre-flowering, post-
flowering, and pinhead) there was an increase in the 
production of internodes comparing with the control 
(p > 0,05). Analyzing the treatments at the dose of 
0.25 L ha-1 applied twice a year (pre-flowering and 
post flowering, post-flowering and pinhead) and 0.5 
L ha-1 applied only in the period of pinhead, 
produced less internodes than two better treatments 
- dose of 0.5 L ha-1 applied in two periods (post-
flowering and pinhead) and three periods (pre-
flowering, post-flowering, and pinhead). The length 
of internodes did not differ between the treatments 
and control. 



350 
Efficacy of a plant growth…  BACILIERI, F. S. et al. 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

By analyzing the number of internodes and 
the length of reproductive branches, it was found 
that there was no relation between them, as shown 
in the April 2012 evaluation, where 0.5 L ha-1 dose 
applied twice a year (post-flowering and pinhead) 
averaged 10 nodes, and the average length of 
reproductive branches was 22.6 cm. Although the 
treatment using the same dose, but applied at three 
times (before and after flowering and pinhead) 
promoted the same average of 10 nodes and the 
average length of 26.3 cm. The increase observed in 
the evaluation times for the number of nodes is of 
great importance for agricultural production of 
coffee as it guarantees increased productivity in the 
following year (Table 2). 

The bioregulator used in the study has in its 
composition synthetic substance with action similar 
to that of major natural phytohormones, cytokinin, 
auxin and gibberellin. They activate genes 
responsible for the development of the plant length, 
and may well explain the increase in the number of 

internodes, in the length of branches and in 
productivity using a dose of 0.5 L ha-1 of 
bioregulators (Table 2). 

According Costa et al. (2010) the 
bioregulator promoted greater vegetative growth in 
the number of we developed in reproductive 
branches, primordial to ensure the productivity of 
the subsequent year, dependent on these us, in 
which are located the fruit, as well as the sheets 
considered source that fill the fruit. 

It was observed that for the first evaluated 
crop year (2010/2011) treatments with the dose of 
0.25 L ha-1 applied in two periods (pre-flowering 
and post-flowering, post-flowering and pinhead) and 
treatments with the dose of 0.5 L ha-1 applied at one 
period (pre-flowering; pinhead), two periods (pre- 
flowering and post-flowering, post-flowering and 
pinhead) and three periods (pre-flowering, post-
flowering, and pinhead) differed from the control in 
relation to average biometric variable of fruits from 
the fourth and fifth node (Table 3). 

 
Table 3. The average of fruits from the 4th and 5th node of reproductive branches of the coffee submitted to 

the application of plant growth regulators in different doses and application times, after two growing 
periods, Araguari-MG 

Treatments Crop 2010/2011 Crop 2011/2010 

Control 4 b 4 b 
Bioregulator to 0.25 L ha-1 (Pre and post-flowering, 
pinhead) 

10 ab 13 a 

Bioregulator to 0.25 L ha-1 (Pre and post-flowering) 13 a 13 a 

Bioregulator to 0.25 L ha-1 (Post-flowering and pinhead) 12 a 10 ab 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pre-flowering) 13 a 12 a 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Post-flowering) 11 ab 13 a 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pinhead) 13 a 14 a 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pre and post-flowering) 13 a 10 ab 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Post-flowering and pinhead) 15 a 13 a 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pre and post-flowering, pinhead) 14 a 15 a 

C.V. (%) 19.44 12.66 
Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ by Tukey test at 5% probability. 

 
In the second year (2011/2012), the use of 

bioregulator at a dose of 0.25 L ha-1 applied at two 
periods (pre-flowering and post-flowering) and 
three periods (pre-flowering, post-flowering, and 
pinhead) and the dose of 0.5 L ha-1 applied in one 
period (pre-flowering, post-flowering and pinhead) 
in two periods (post-flowering and pinhead) and 
three periods (pre-flowering, post flowering, and 
pinhead), differed from the control in the average 

number of fruits on the fourth and fifth node of 
reproductive branches (Table 3). 

Costa et al. (2010) evaluating the 
implementation of bioregulators at three different 
periods, pre-flowering, 30 days after flower anthesis 
(R7) and 30 days after R7, at concentrations of  0.1, 
0.2 and 0.4% in solution, regarding the average of 
fruit set between the 4th and the 5th node of 
productive branches, affirmed that the application 
was decisive for the fruit set in different application 



351 
Efficacy of a plant growth…  BACILIERI, F. S. et al. 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

times, demonstrating the effectiveness of the 
synergistic effect in reducing fruit abscission, by 
raising the concentration of phytohormone in these 
organs, thus promoting increased productivity. The 
bioregulators have synthetic substances similar to 
phytohormones, and this may be the most probable 
explanation for the increased number of fruits. 

In the 2010/2011 period the dose of 0.25 L 
ha-1 and 0.5 L ha-1 resulted in production equal to or 
greater than the control group, only the 0.5 L ha-1 
dose provided significant increment in productivity 
when applied pre-flowering and post-flowering. 
After the 2011/2012 harvest, there was no difference 
in any of the treatments when comparing with the 
control (Table 4). 

 
Table 4. Coffee Productivity (bags ha-1) at different doses and periods of application of bioregulator, Araguari-

MG, crops 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 
Treatments Crop 2010/2011 Crop 2011/2012 Average crops 

Control 38.5 b 46.1 a 42.3 b 
Bioregulator to 0.25 L ha-1 (Pre and 
post-flowering, pinhead) 

48.4 ab 42.0 a 45.2 ab 

Bioregulator to 0.25 L ha-1 (Pre and 
post-flowering) 

42.9 ab 39.7 a 41.3 b 

Bioregulator to 0.25 L ha-1 (Post-
flowering and pinhead) 

43.3 ab 43.5 a 43.4 ab 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pre-
flowering) 

39.0 b 46.2 a 42.6 b 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Post-
flowering) 

44.0 ab 54.0 a 49.0 ab 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pinhead) 45.6 ab 50.4 a 48.0 ab 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pre and post-
flowering) 

56.5 a 59.9 a 58.2 a 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Post-
flowering and pinhead) 

47.2 ab 62.5 a 54.8 ab 

Bioregulator to 0.5 L ha-1 (Pre and post-
flowering, pinhead) 

44.7 ab 55.8 a 50.3 ab 

C.V. (%) 11.33% 20.27% 16.95% 
Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ by Tukey test at 5% probability. 

 
Studies with other cultures demonstrated the 

importance of using plant growth regulator in 
agriculture in relation to productivity. Bertolin et al. 
(2010) found in soybean culture, that when using 
the bioregulator applied on the leaves or seeds there 
was an average increase of 37% in productivity 
comparing with the control. Other authors such as 
Vieira & Santos (2005) presented average 
increments of 24.3% in productivity of soybeans. 

In this experiment, it was noted that using a 
dose of 0.5 L ha-1 per application caused increments 
ranging from 0.5% to 46.9% over the control. The 
best increments were when the bioregulator was 
applied in two doses of 0.5 L ha-1 per application. 
The dose of 0.25 L ha-1 per application did not differ 
in relation to the control, with a productivity of 
almost 14% less than the control. 

Analysis showed that the total applied dose 
did not interfere in production, but the amount used 
in each application, even in treatments with 0.25 L 
ha-1 per application totaling 0.75 L ha-1, did not 

obtained results equal to or greater than the control. 
However, the 0.5 L ha-1 application produced higher 
results than the control but only in one application 
in the 2011/2012 crop. These differences in 
productivity indicate that in Brazil some agricultural 
crops have already reached high levels of 
technology, achieving high productivity, and are not 
constrained by limitations of nutrition or water, 
leading to the use of bioregulators that may be 
rewarding as well as economic (CASTRO et al., 
2009). 

Being a biennial crop, it was necessary to 
average yields from two harvests, however it did not 
provide differences in production comparing with 
the control. But, there were increments of up to 38% 
of the average yield at the dose of 0.5 L ha-1. 

By analyzing all variables together, the 
number of internódios, the length of reproductive 
branches, the average number of fruits on the 4th 
and 5th internode and productivity (Table 2, 3 and 
4), it was not possible to demonstrate that the 



352 
Efficacy of a plant growth…  BACILIERI, F. S. et al. 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

productivity this interconnected with the other 
variables, being necessary evaluate more 
agricultural years. Silva et al. (2008) found not be so 
simple to establish productivity comparisons 
between crops, as it depends on biennial changes, 
cultivar, plant density and climatic conditions which 
vary from year to year. 

 
CONCLUSIONS 

 
The application of plant growth regulator at 

different growth stages of development of coffee 
leads to increased biometric variables of coffee: the 

number of internodes, the average of fruits on the 
4th and 5th node and the length of reproductive 
branches. 

The use of bioregulators increases 
productivity of coffee plants, especially at a dose of 
0.5 L ha-1 per application regardless of the 
application period, promoting increments of up to 
46.9% in productivity. 

It cannot be said that the presence of 
substances similar to phytohormones in plant 
growth regulators is responsible for the increase in 
productivity without making the application of these 
in isolation. 

 
 
RESUMO: O objetivo do trabalho foi avaliar a eficácia do biorregulador aplicado em diferentes estádios 

fenológicos na cultura do café. O experimento foi conduzido nos anos agrícola de 2010/2011 e 2011/2012 na fazenda 
Docas 1, utilizando café cultivar Mundo Novo variedade IAC 379-19, com o espaçamento de 4 m entre linhas e 0,8 m 
entre plantas e 10 plantas por parcela. O delineamento experimental utilizado foi o de blocos casualizados, com dois 
fatores e três repetições, sendo o primeiro fator dose do produto (0,25 L ha-1 e 0,5 L ha-1 em cada aplicação) e o segundo a 
época de aplicações de acordo com os estádios fenológicos (pré-florada, pós-florada e chumbinho) e o tratamento controle 
(testemunha) que constou-se da ausência de aplicação do biorregulador. Realizou-se avaliações dos aspectos biométricos 
(número de internódios e comprimento de ramos plagiotrópicos em centímetro, contagem dos frutos do 4º e 5º nó dos 
ramos plagiotrópicos) e a produtividade, e realizou-se o teste de Tukey a 0,05 de significância. A aplicação do 
biorregulador em diferentes estádios fenológicos de desenvolvimento do cafeeiro promove um aumento nas variáveis 
biométricas do cafeeiro, número de internódios, a média de frutos do quarto e quinto nó e o comprimento dos ramos 
plagiotrópicos. A produtividade do cafeeiro pode ser incrementada com o uso de biorreguladores, principalmente na dose 
de 0,5 L ha-1 por aplicação independente da época de aplicação, promovendo incrementos de até 46,9% na produtividade. 
Não é possível afirmar que a presença de substâncias semelhantes aos fitohormônios nos biorreguladores é responsável 
pelo incremento na produtividade, sem realizar a aplicação dessas isoladamente. 

 
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Coffea arabica L. Fitohormônios. Tecnologia de fertilizantes. 

 
 
REFERENCES 
 
ALBRECHT, L. P.; BRACCINI, A. L.; ÁVILA, M. R.; BARBOSA, M. C.; RICCI, T. T.; ALBRECHT, A. J. 
P. Aplicação de biorregulador na produtividade do algodoeiro e qualidade de fibra. Scientia Agraria, Curitiba, 
v. 10, p. 191-198, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/rsa.v10i3.14474 
 
ÁVILA, M. R.; BRACCINI, A. L.; SCAPIM, C. A.; ALBRECHT, L. P.; TONIN, T. A.; STÜLP, M. 
Bioregulator application, agronomic efficiency, and quality of soybean seeds. Scientia Agricola, Piracicaba, v. 
65, p. 567- 691, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0103-90162008000600006 
 
BERTOLIN, D. C; SÁ, M. C.; ARF, O.; JUNIOR, E. F.; COLOBOM, A. S.; CARVALHO; F. L. B. M. 
Aumento da produtividade de soja com a aplicação de bioestimulantes. Bragantia, Campinas, v. 69, n. 2, p. 
339-347, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0006-87052010000200011 
 
BINSFELD, J. A.; BARBIERI, A. P. P.; HUTH, C.; CABRERA, I. C.; MERTZ, L. M. Uso de bioativador, 
bioestimulante e complexo de nutrientes em sementes de soja. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical, Goiânia. v. 
44, n. 1, 2014. 
CAMPOS, M. F.; ONO, E. O.; BOARO, C. S. F.; RODRIGUES, J. D. Análise de crescimento em plantas de 
soja tratadas com substâncias reguladoras. Revista Biotemas, Florianópolis, v. 21, p. 53-63, 2008. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-7925.2008v21n3p53 
 



353 
Efficacy of a plant growth…  BACILIERI, F. S. et al. 

Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 2, p. 346-353, Mar./Apr. 2016 

CANTERI, M. G., ALTHAUS, R. A., VIRGENS FILHO, J. S., GIGLIOTI, E. A., GODOY, C. V. SASM-Agri. 
Sistema para análise e separação de médias em experimentos agrícolas pelos métodos Scott-Knott, Tukey e 
Duncan. Revista Brasileira de Agrocomputação, v. 1, n. 2, p. 18-24, 2001. 
 
CASTRO, P. R. D. C.; PITELLI, A. M. D. C. M.; PERES, L. E. P.; ARAMAKI, P. H. Análise da atividade 
reguladora de crescimento vegetal de tiametoxam através de biotestes. Publicatio UEPG-Ciências Exatas e da 
Terra, Agrárias e Engenharias, v. 13, n. 03, 2009. 
 
COSTA, N. R.; DOMINGUES, M. C. S.; RODRIGUES, J. D. Desempenho do cafeeiro Icatu vermelho sob 
ação de biorregulador aplicado em fases reprodutivas da cultura. Agrarian, Dourados, v. 2, n. 5, p. 13-130, 
2010. 
 
FERREIRA, L. A.; OLIVEIRA, J. A.; VON PINHO, E. V. R.; QUEIROZ, D. L. Bioestimulante e fertilizante 
associados ao tratamento de sementes de milho. Revista Brasileira de Sementes, Brasília, v. 29, n. 2, p. 80-89, 
2007.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-31222007000200011 
 
KLAHOLD, C. A.; GUIMARÃES, V. F.; ECHER, M. M.; KLAHOLD, A.; CONTIERO, R. L.; BECKER, A. 
Resposta da soja (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) à ação de bioestimulante. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy, Maringá, 
v. 28, n. 2, p. 179-185, 2006.  
 
MAPA – PROCAFÉ, Estações de avisos fitossanitários boletim de avisos nº 028 – Alto Paranaíba/Triângulo 
Mineiro. Disponível em: 
http://fundacaoprocafe.com.br/sites/default/files/boletim/triangulo/Boletim%20Dezembro%202012.pdf. Acesso 
em: 10 de mar. 2015. 
 
MUGNAI, S.; AZZARELLO, E.; PANDOLFI,C.; SALAMAGNE, S.; BRIAND, X.; MANCUSO, S. 
Enhancement of ammonium and potassium root influxes by the application of marine bioactive substances 
positively affects Vitis vinifera plant growth. Journal of Applied Phycology, Firenze, v. 20, p. 177-182, 2008. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10811-007-9203-6 
 
PEREIRA, L. S.; ALLEN, R. G.; SMITH, M.; RAES, D. Crop evapotranspiration estimation with FAO56: Past 
and future. Agricultural Water Management, v. 147, p. 4-20, 2015. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.031 
 
SILVA, L. C. F; MANIERO, M. A.; CASAGRANDE, J. C.; STOLF; R.; PIEDADE, S. M. S. Agricultura 
bioestimulada. Cultivar Grandes Culturas, Pelotas, v. 14, p. 34-35, 2012.  
 
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.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782010005000057 
 
SILVA, C. A.; TEODORO, R. E. F.; MELO, B. Produtividade e rendimento do cafeeiro submetido a lâminas 
de irrigação. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, Brasília, v. 43, n. 3, p. 387-394, 2008. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2008000300014 
 
VIEIRA, E. L.; SANTOS, C. M. G. Efeito de bioestimulante no crescimento e desenvolvimento inicial de 
plantas de algodoeiro. Magistra, Cruz das Almas, v. 17, p. 1-8, 2005.