Soil organic carbon and fractions of a Rhodic Ferralsol under the influence of tillage and crop rotation systems in southern Brazil · Knowledge Library

BonaResKnowledge Library

Soil organic carbon and fractions of a Rhodic Ferralsol under the influence of tillage and crop rotation systems in southern Brazil · Knowledge Library

N storage

↑ 1= 24

decrease
cultivated soils vs. secondary sub-tropical forestsignificance not stated · 0–5 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · CT/NT, bothrotations; descriptivecomparison.
Numbers
- treatment 1.2 vs. control 1.5 Mg ha-1 (-20 %) · 0–5 cm · NTW/S
- treatment 1.1 vs. control 1.5 Mg ha-1 (-26.67 %) · 0–5 cm · NTW/S–V/M
- treatment 0.8 vs. control 1.5 Mg ha-1 (-46.67 %) · 0–5 cm · CTW/S
- treatment 0.8 vs. control 1.5 Mg ha-1 (-46.67 %) · 0–5 cm · CTW/S–V/M
Source · p. 4
“Compared to the forest soil at 0–5 cm, soil C and N storage in CT decreased approximately 47% while under NT the decrease was 20–30%.”
increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–5 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · Bothrotations; Table2.05letters.
Numbers
- treatment 1.2 vs. control 0.8 Mg ha-1 (+50 %) · 0–5 cm · W/S
- treatment 1.1 vs. control 0.8 Mg ha-1 (+37.5 %) · 0–5 cm · W/S–V/M
Source · p. 1
“Tillage had the greatest impact on soil C and N storage.”
Source · p. 5
“NT W/S | 26.9 (1.1) ac | 2.2 (0.1) a | 12.0 a | 14.1 (0.6) a | 1.2 (0.1) a”
Source · p. 5
“CT W/S | 17.7 (0.2) b | 1.4 (0.1) b | 12.2 a | 9.6 (0.1) b | 0.8 (0.1) b”
no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 5–30 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · Bothrotations;individualintervalstocks.
Numbers
- treatment 0.9 vs. control 0.9 Mg ha-1 (0 %) · 5–10 cm · W/S
- treatment 1 vs. control 1.1 Mg ha-1 (-9.091 %) · 5–10 cm · W/S–V/M
- treatment 1.9 vs. control 2 Mg ha-1 (-5 %) · 10–20 cm · W/S
- treatment 1.7 vs. control 2 Mg ha-1 (-15 %) · 10–20 cm · W/S–V/M
- treatment 1.6 vs. control 1.4 Mg ha-1 (+14.29 %) · 20–30 cm · W/S
- treatment 1.6 vs. control 1.6 Mg ha-1 (0 %) · 20–30 cm · W/S–V/M
Source · p. 1
“Soils under NT did not contain higher C and N storage than CT soils below 5 cm depth.”
Source · p. 5
“At lower depths tillage effect was less strong”
no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · Wholeprofilestock; bothrotations.
Numbers
- treatment 5.5 vs. control 5.1 Mg ha-1 (+7.843 %) · 0–30 cm · W/S
- treatment 5.3 vs. control 5.5 Mg ha-1 (-3.636 %) · 0–30 cm · W/S–V/M
Source · p. 5
“no significant difference of C and N storage at 0–30 cm depth was observed between NT and CT.”

organic carbon of FLF

↑ 1↓ 24

increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–5 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · Tillage maincontrastacrossrotations; Table3*=.10, significantinteraction; notclaimingrotation-specificpairtests.
Numbers
- treatment 3.9 vs. control 1.2 g C kg-1 soil (+225 %) · 0–5 cm · W/S;descriptivemeansunder maincontrast
- treatment 2.1 vs. control 0.7 g C kg-1 soil (+200 %) · 0–5 cm · W/S–V/M;descriptivemeansunder maincontrast
Source · p. 8
“This fraction showed significant changes at 0–5 cm depth, a soil horizon prone to accumulation of plant residues on NT soils”
Source · p. 7
“0–5 FLF 14.6 (0.3) 37.0 15.4 3.9 (0.3) 15.0 15.8 2.1 (0.2) 8.4 16.0 1.2 (0.1) 6.8 15.0 0.7 (0.1) 3.6 18.6”
decrease
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 10–20 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · Tillage maincontrastacrossrotations, Table3*=.10; Table4notpairtested.
Numbers
- treatment 0.2 vs. control 0.7 g C kg-1 soil (-71.43 %) · 10–20 cm · W/S
- treatment 0.2 vs. control 0.5 g C kg-1 soil (-60 %) · 10–20 cm · W/S–V/M
Source · p. 8
“significant differences were observed in the content of soil organic C of FLF (NT ¼ 0:2gCkg 1 soil and CT ¼ 0:5.0:7gCkg 1 soil)”
decrease
W/S–V/M vs. W/Ssignificant · 0–5 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · Rotationmaincontrastacrosstillage, Table3**=.05; interaction significant, individualpairs nottested.
Numbers
- treatment 2.1 vs. control 3.9 g C kg-1 soil (-46.15 %) · 0–5 cm · NT
- treatment 0.7 vs. control 1.2 g C kg-1 soil (-41.67 %) · 0–5 cm · CT
Source · p. 8
“The contents of organic carbon of FLF under W/S rotation in both tillage systems were generally higher than under W/S–V/ M rotations at all depths”
decrease
cultivated soils vs. secondary sub-tropical forestsignificance not stated · 0–5 cm · December1998 · Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo · CT/NTbothrotations; forestcomparisonuntested; headlineFLFsensitivity.
Numbers
- treatment 3.9 vs. control 14.6 g C kg-1 soil (-73.29 %) · 0–5 cm · NTW/S
- treatment 2.1 vs. control 14.6 g C kg-1 soil (-85.62 %) · 0–5 cm · NTW/S–V/M
- treatment 1.2 vs. control 14.6 g C kg-1 soil (-91.78 %) · 0–5 cm · CTW/S
- treatment 0.7 vs. control 14.6 g C kg-1 soil (-95.21 %) · 0–5 cm · CTW/S–V/M
Source · p. 8
“contents of organic carbon of FLF in the soil under NT decreased 73–86% and under CT between 92 and 95%”
Source · p. 6
“At 0–5 and 5–10 cm layers, the forest soil also showed higher values of organic carbon in the light fractions (FLF and ILF) than cultivated soils.”

Sites

Embrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo

Location: Passo Fundo, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil28.25° S, 52.40° W
Climate: Cfa19.4 °C mean annual temperature1,746 mm annual precipitation
Soil: Hapludox (Typic) · USDA
Land use: cultivatedArable land, secondary sub-tropical forestForests

Soil layers
Depth	Texture	Clay	pH	Organic C	Bulk density
0–5 cm	clayey	56–63 % (from g/kg)	–	–	–