Revista Caatinga · 2023
Soil quality index of an ultisol under long-term plots in the coastal tablelands in northeastern Brazil
Assunção, S. J. R., Pedrotti, A., Gonzaga, M. I. S., Nobrega, J. C. A., Holanda, F. S. R.
Export
Soil quality index of an ultisol under long-term plots in th…
Abstract
Soil quality, measured through its chemical, physical and microbiological attributes, changes as a result of anthropic sensations and becomes an important tool to assess environmental quality. The objective of this study was to determine and evaluate the Quality Index of an Ultisol in a long-term (17-yr) plots under different management systems in the Coastal Tablelands of Sergipe State, in Northeastern, Brazil. Main effects were conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT), and minimum tillage (MT) distributed cultivated strips with corn as the main crop. Split-range treatments were randomly distributed and cultivated with cowpea beans (Vigna unguiculata), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), and millet (Pennisetum glaucum). A forest soil was used as reference, compared to the soil samples of the cultivated area. The Soil Quality Index (SQI) for the 0-0.10 m layer was calculated by the additive method. There were changes in soil properties between the different management systems, and between the experimental soil and the reference area. The highest SQI was obtained from the forest area (67.1) followed by the NT treatment (65.5), MT (65.1) and CT treatment (61.0). The lowest SQI was observed in the CT treatment previously cultivated with pigeon pea (56.5). Among the evaluated soil functions, maintenance of homeostasis had the greatest influence on the SQI. The higher acidity of the forest soil helps to explain the origin of the limitations of the soil in the cultivated area that occupies the same type of soil, tolerated by the adoption of conservationist managements.
Show all
Soil quality, measured through its chemical, physical and microbiological attributes, changes as a result of anthropic sensations and becomes an important tool to assess environmental quality. The objective of this study was to determine and evaluate the Quality Index of an Ultisol in a long-term (17-yr) plots under different management systems in the Coastal Tablelands of Sergipe State, in Northeastern, Brazil. Main effects were conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT), and minimum tillage (MT) distributed cultivated strips with corn as the main crop. Split-range treatments were randomly distributed and cultivated with cowpea beans (Vigna unguiculata), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), and millet (Pennisetum glaucum). A forest soil was used as reference, compared to the soil samples of the cultivated area. The Soil Quality Index (SQI) for the 0-0.10 m layer was calculated by the additive method. There were changes in soil properties between the different management systems, and between the experimental soil and the reference area. The highest SQI was obtained from the forest area (67.1) followed by the NT treatment (65.5), MT (65.1) and CT treatment (61.0). The lowest SQI was observed in the CT treatment previously cultivated with pigeon pea (56.5). Among the evaluated soil functions, maintenance of homeostasis had the greatest influence on the SQI. The higher acidity of the forest soil helps to explain the origin of the limitations of the soil in the cultivated area that occupies the same type of soil, tolerated by the adoption of conservationist managements.
Soil quality, measured through its chemical, physical and microbiological attributes, changes as a result of anthropic sensations and becomes an important tool to assess environmental quality. The objective of this study was to determine and evaluate the Quality Index of an Ultisol in a long-term (17-yr) plots under different management systems in the Coastal Tablelands of Sergipe State, in Northeastern, Brazil. Main effects were conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT), and minimum tillage (MT) distributed cultivated strips with corn as the main crop. Split-range treatments were randomly distributed and cultivated with cowpea beans (Vigna unguiculata), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), and millet (Pennisetum glaucum). A forest soil was used as reference, compared to the soil samples of the cultivated area. The Soil Quality Index (SQI) for the 0-0.10 m layer was calculated by the additive method. There were changes in soil properties between the different management systems, and between the experimental soil and the reference area. The highest SQI was obtained from the forest area (67.1) followed by the NT treatment (65.5), MT (65.1) and CT treatment (61.0). The lowest SQI was observed in the CT treatment previously cultivated with pigeon pea (56.5). Among the evaluated soil functions, maintenance of homeostasis had the greatest influence on the SQI. The higher acidity of the forest soil helps to explain the origin of the limitations of the soil in the cultivated area that occupies the same type of soil, tolerated by the adoption of conservationist managements.
Findings
What changed what, as the paper reports it. Grouped by the measured property. The largest groups are open; open the others as you need them.
Soil Quality Index (SQI)
↑ 1↓ 2= 25
- increase
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0–10 cm; main tillage effect across cover crops
Numbers
- treatment 65.5 vs. control 61 SQI score (+7.377 %)
Source · p. 7 “There was no significant difference between NT and MT systems; however, the NT system was significantly superior to the CT.”
- no effect
NT vs. MTnot significant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0–10 cm; main tillage effect across cover crops
Numbers
- treatment 65.5 vs. control 65.1 SQI score (+0.6144 %)
Source · p. 7 “There was no significant difference between NT and MT systems; however, the NT system was significantly superior to the CT.”
- decrease
CT vs. native forest referencesignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0–10 cm; CT previously cultivated with pigeon pea versus native forest reference
Numbers
- treatment 56.5 vs. control 67.1 SQI score (-15.8 %)
Source · p. 8 “a comparison using the Dunnett's test at 5% showed that, when pigeon pea was the cover crop in the conventional tillage system, the SQI was the lowest (56.5) (Table 2)”
- no effect
MT-sunn hemp, MT-pigeon pea and NT-millet vs. native forest referencenot significant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0–10 cm; MT-sunn hemp, MT-pigeon pea, NT-millet; each versus native forest; rounded Table 2 means
Numbers
- treatment 69.3 vs. control 67.1 SQI score (+3.279 %) · MT-sunn hemp
- treatment 70.7 vs. control 67.1 SQI score (+5.365 %) · MT-pigeon pea
- treatment 71.8 vs. control 67.1 SQI score (+7.004 %) · NT-millet
Source · p. 10 “Even though the SQI values of MT-sunn hemp (69.32), MT-pigeon pea (70.65) and NT-millet (71.80) were high, they did not differ from that of the forest soil (67.09).”
- decrease
pigeon pea vs. cowpeasignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0–10 cm; conventional tillage
Numbers
- treatment 56.5 vs. control 66.6 SQI score (-15.17 %)
Source · p. 10 “In CT system, the SQI of the pigeon pea treatment (56.50) was significantly different from that of the cowpea treatment (66.60).”
Al
↑ 1↓ 12
- increase
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0-10 cm; NT versus CT marginal means across cover crops; exchangeable Al, not Al saturation or potential acidity.
Numbers
- treatment 0.08 vs. control 0.05 cmolc dm-3 (+60 %) · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Table 3 Al marginal means
Source · p. 7 “| Management system | | Cover Crop | K | Mg | Al | H+Al | m | SOM | N stock |”
Source · p. 7 “| | | Mean | 30.7 ab | 0.90 a | 0.08 a | 1.77 a | 4.10 a | 13.3 b | 803 b |”
Source · p. 7 “| | | Mean | 33.7 a | 0.71 b | 0.05 b | 1.51 ab | 2.57 b | 11.9 c | 743 b |”
- decrease
MT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0-10 cm; MT versus CT marginal means across cover crops; opposite Al response to NT, so variants are separate.
Numbers
- treatment 0.04 vs. control 0.05 cmolc dm-3 (-20 %) · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Table 3 Al marginal means
Source · p. 7 “| Management system | | Cover Crop | K | Mg | Al | H+Al | m | SOM | N stock |”
Source · p. 7 “| | | Mean | 24.9 b | 0.65 b | 0.04 c | 1.43 b | 1.78 c | 14.8 a | 914 a |”
Source · p. 7 “| | | Mean | 33.7 a | 0.71 b | 0.05 b | 1.51 ab | 2.57 b | 11.9 c | 743 b |”
microbial quotient (qMIC)
↑ 1↓ 12
- increase
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0-10 cm; NT versus CT marginal means across cover crops; raw microbial quotient in Table 4, not its weighted contribution to SQI.
Numbers
- treatment 29.7 vs. control 16.3 (+82.21 %) · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Table 4 qMIC marginal means; unit printed as a dash
Source · p. 9 “| Management system | | Cover crop | MBC ug g -1 | qMIC - | qCO 2 - | MA % | MGD mm | WIR mm.h-1 | RP KPa |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 165 a | 29.7 a | 4.25 b | 19.3 a | 1.35 b | 152 a | 0.70 b |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 69.1 b | 16.3 b | 9.08 a | 13.0 b | 2.05 a | 10.6 b | 1.05 a |”
- decrease
MT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0-10 cm; MT versus CT marginal means across cover crops; raw microbial quotient, opposite response to NT, not the function-5 score.
Numbers
- treatment 12 vs. control 16.3 (-26.38 %) · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Table 4 qMIC marginal means; unit printed as a dash
Source · p. 9 “| Management system | | Cover crop | MBC ug g -1 | qMIC - | qCO 2 - | MA % | MGD mm | WIR mm.h-1 | RP KPa |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 72.7 b | 12.0 c | 11.2 a | 13.5 b | 1.30 b | 59.5 b | 0.77 b |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 69.1 b | 16.3 b | 9.08 a | 13.0 b | 2.05 a | 10.6 b | 1.05 a |”
SOM
↑ 11
- increase
conservation systems (NT and MT) vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0–10 cm; NT and MT agreeing variants individually compared to CT across cover crops
Numbers
- treatment 13.3 vs. control 11.9 g kg-1 (+11.76 %) · NT versus CT
- treatment 14.8 vs. control 11.9 g kg-1 (+24.37 %) · MT versus CT
Source · p. 7 “| | | Mean | 30.7 ab | 0.90 a | 0.08 a | 1.77 a | 4.10 a | 13.3 b | 803 b |”
Source · p. 7 “| | | Mean | 24.9 b | 0.65 b | 0.04 c | 1.43 b | 1.78 c | 14.8 a | 914 a |”
Source · p. 7 “| | | Mean | 33.7 a | 0.71 b | 0.05 b | 1.51 ab | 2.57 b | 11.9 c | 743 b |”
soil resistance to penetration (RP)
↓ 11
- decrease
conservation systems (NT and MT) vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0-10 cm; NT and MT each versus CT, marginal means across cover crops; individually significant agreeing variants, not a pooled contrast. Resistance units retained as kPa exactly as Table 4 prints.
Numbers
- treatment 0.7 vs. control 1.05 kPa (-33.33 %) · 0–10 cm · 2017 · NT versus CT; Table 4 RP marginal means
- treatment 0.77 vs. control 1.05 kPa (-26.67 %) · 0–10 cm · 2017 · MT versus CT; Table 4 RP marginal means
Source · p. 9 “| Management system | | Cover crop | MBC ug g -1 | qMIC - | qCO 2 - | MA % | MGD mm | WIR mm.h-1 | RP KPa |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 165 a | 29.7 a | 4.25 b | 19.3 a | 1.35 b | 152 a | 0.70 b |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 72.7 b | 12.0 c | 11.2 a | 13.5 b | 1.30 b | 59.5 b | 0.77 b |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 69.1 b | 16.3 b | 9.08 a | 13.0 b | 2.05 a | 10.6 b | 1.05 a |”
metabolic quotient (qCO2)
↓ 11
- decrease
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural · 0-10 cm; NT versus CT marginal means across cover crops; raw metabolic quotient, not its standardized SQI score. MT/CT table-only nonsignificance is not entered.
Numbers
- treatment 4.25 vs. control 9.08 (-53.19 %) · 0–10 cm · 2017 · Table 4 qCO2 marginal means; unit printed as a dash
Source · p. 9 “| Management system | | Cover crop | MBC ug g -1 | qMIC - | qCO 2 - | MA % | MGD mm | WIR mm.h-1 | RP KPa |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 165 a | 29.7 a | 4.25 b | 19.3 a | 1.35 b | 152 a | 0.70 b |”
Source · p. 9 “| | | Mean | 69.1 b | 16.3 b | 9.08 a | 13.0 b | 2.05 a | 10.6 b | 1.05 a |”
Set-up
Treatments
- soil management systemTillage system
- NTZero tillageCTConventional tillageMTReduced tillagenative forest referenceForestsconservation systems (NT and MT)Conservation tillageMT-sunn hemp, MT-pigeon pea and NT-milletConservation tillage
- cover cropCover crops
- pigeon peaPigeon pea/Cajanus cajancowpeaCowpea/Vigna unguiculata
Measured
- Soil Quality Index (SQI)Soil quality index
- Unit
- 0–100 score
- Method
- Karlen and Stott additive method; five equally weighted soil functions
- SOMSoil organic matter
- Unit
- g kg-1
- soil resistance to penetration (RP)Penetration resistance
- Unit
- kPa
- AlAl3+
- Unit
- cmolc dm-3
- microbial quotient (qMIC)
- metabolic quotient (qCO2)Metabolic quotient (= specific respiration = qCO2)
Sites
Universidade Federal de Sergipe experimental farm – Campus Rural
- Location
- São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Northeastern Brazil10.92° S, 37.20° W
- Climate
- As'1,200 mm annual precipitation
- Soil
- ACRISOLS · WRB; ULTISOLS · USDA
- Land use
- corn cultivated areaArable land, native forestForests
- Management on the whole site
- cornMaize/Corn/Zea mays, limestoneLiming material
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–27 cm | loamy sand | 10.7 % | 5.6 | – | – |
| 28–77 cm | clay loam | 64.3 % | 4.8 | – | – |
Similar papers
<scp>Impacts of the tillage systems on the production of green corn</scp> ( <i>Zea mays</i> L.) <scp>in long‐term plots in Northeastern Brazil</scp>
Santos et al. · 2024 · Soil Use and Management
10 shared concepts
6 findings1 site
Soil organic matter and production of ears of green corn after four years under tillage systems and previous crops in costal tablelands
Pedrotti et al. · 2019 · Bioscience Journal
9 shared concepts
22 findings1 site
Tillage, &lt;i&gt;Desmodium intortum&lt;/i&gt;, Fertilizer Rates for Carbon Stock, Soil Quality and Grain Yield in Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria
Chidowe et al. · 2019 · American Journal of Climate Change
9 shared concepts
58 findings1 site
Microbial soil quality indicators under different crop rotations and tillage management
Ferreira et al. · 2010 · Revista Ciência Agronômica
7 shared concepts
16 findings1 site
Benefits of winter cover crops and no-tillage for microbial parameters in a Brazilian Oxisol: A long-term study
Balota et al. · 2014 · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
8 shared concepts
33 findings1 site