Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo · 2013
Effects of tillage systems on physical properties of a cohesive yellow argisol in the northern state of Espírito Santo, Brazil
Zuffo, V. J., Pires, F. R., Bonomo, R., Vitória, E. L. D., Celin Filho, A., Santos, E. O. D. J.
Export
Effects of tillage systems on physical properties of a cohes…
Abstract
Tillage systems are a key element of the technology of crop production, both with a view to crop yield and from the perspective of soil conservation and sustainability of the production system. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the effects of five tillage systems on the physical properties of a cohesive Yellow Argisol. The experiment was installed in the field on January 21, 2011 and lasted 260 days, in an area previously used as pasture with Brachiaria grass without liming or fertilization, but irrigated by a low pressure spray system. The treatments, in five replications and in a randomized block design, consisted of: 1) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + ridge-furrow tillage (raising a ridge along the planting row), 135 days after transplanting (DP + RID); 2) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow (DP no RID); 3) subsoiler (SB); 4) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + scarification with three shanks along the plant row (DP + SPR); and 5) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + scarification with three shanks in the total area (DP + STA). In all tillage systems, furrows were mechanically opened for the papaya plants. After the treatments, the mechanical resistance to penetration was determined, followed by soil moisture, mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), bulk density (BD), macroporosity (Ma), microporosity (Mi), and number of fruits per plant. There were differences in penetration resistance (PR) between treatments. The subsoiler was more effective to decrease RP to a distance of 0.35 m from the plants, perpendicular to the plant row. The scarifier resulted in a lower PR than DP or SB, even at the depth of 0.40 m, and it was more effective at greater distances perpendicular to the plant. All tillage systems induced a PR between 2.0 and 3.0 MPa at the depth with the highest concentration of papaya tree roots (0-0.25 m), improving the physical conditions to this depth. There was no statistical difference among the treatments for BD, Ma, Mi, MWD, and GMD at a depth of 0.20 m. The disk plow changed the physical properties of the soil most intensely to a depth of 0.20 m. The use of scarification, reduced tillage with a forest subsoiler, or ridge-furrow tillage did not improve the physical properties in the rhizosphere. Reduced tillage with a forest subsoiler resulted in a lower number of fruits per plant than all other treatments, which did not differ from each other.
Show all
Tillage systems are a key element of the technology of crop production, both with a view to crop yield and from the perspective of soil conservation and sustainability of the production system. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the effects of five tillage systems on the physical properties of a cohesive Yellow Argisol. The experiment was installed in the field on January 21, 2011 and lasted 260 days, in an area previously used as pasture with Brachiaria grass without liming or fertilization, but irrigated by a low pressure spray system. The treatments, in five replications and in a randomized block design, consisted of: 1) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + ridge-furrow tillage (raising a ridge along the planting row), 135 days after transplanting (DP + RID); 2) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow (DP no RID); 3) subsoiler (SB); 4) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + scarification with three shanks along the plant row (DP + SPR); and 5) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + scarification with three shanks in the total area (DP + STA). In all tillage systems, furrows were mechanically opened for the papaya plants. After the treatments, the mechanical resistance to penetration was determined, followed by soil moisture, mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), bulk density (BD), macroporosity (Ma), microporosity (Mi), and number of fruits per plant. There were differences in penetration resistance (PR) between treatments. The subsoiler was more effective to decrease RP to a distance of 0.35 m from the plants, perpendicular to the plant row. The scarifier resulted in a lower PR than DP or SB, even at the depth of 0.40 m, and it was more effective at greater distances perpendicular to the plant. All tillage systems induced a PR between 2.0 and 3.0 MPa at the depth with the highest concentration of papaya tree roots (0-0.25 m), improving the physical conditions to this depth. There was no statistical difference among the treatments for BD, Ma, Mi, MWD, and GMD at a depth of 0.20 m. The disk plow changed the physical properties of the soil most intensely to a depth of 0.20 m. The use of scarification, reduced tillage with a forest subsoiler, or ridge-furrow tillage did not improve the physical properties in the rhizosphere. Reduced tillage with a forest subsoiler resulted in a lower number of fruits per plant than all other treatments, which did not differ from each other.
Tillage systems are a key element of the technology of crop production, both with a view to crop yield and from the perspective of soil conservation and sustainability of the production system. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the effects of five tillage systems on the physical properties of a cohesive Yellow Argisol. The experiment was installed in the field on January 21, 2011 and lasted 260 days, in an area previously used as pasture with Brachiaria grass without liming or fertilization, but irrigated by a low pressure spray system. The treatments, in five replications and in a randomized block design, consisted of: 1) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + ridge-furrow tillage (raising a ridge along the planting row), 135 days after transplanting (DP + RID); 2) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow (DP no RID); 3) subsoiler (SB); 4) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + scarification with three shanks along the plant row (DP + SPR); and 5) disk plow (twice) + disk harrow + scarification with three shanks in the total area (DP + STA). In all tillage systems, furrows were mechanically opened for the papaya plants. After the treatments, the mechanical resistance to penetration was determined, followed by soil moisture, mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), bulk density (BD), macroporosity (Ma), microporosity (Mi), and number of fruits per plant. There were differences in penetration resistance (PR) between treatments. The subsoiler was more effective to decrease RP to a distance of 0.35 m from the plants, perpendicular to the plant row. The scarifier resulted in a lower PR than DP or SB, even at the depth of 0.40 m, and it was more effective at greater distances perpendicular to the plant. All tillage systems induced a PR between 2.0 and 3.0 MPa at the depth with the highest concentration of papaya tree roots (0-0.25 m), improving the physical conditions to this depth. There was no statistical difference among the treatments for BD, Ma, Mi, MWD, and GMD at a depth of 0.20 m. The disk plow changed the physical properties of the soil most intensely to a depth of 0.20 m. The use of scarification, reduced tillage with a forest subsoiler, or ridge-furrow tillage did not improve the physical properties in the rhizosphere. Reduced tillage with a forest subsoiler resulted in a lower number of fruits per plant than all other treatments, which did not differ from each other.
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.
bulk density
↓ 2= 35
- no effect
SB and DP + SPR, agreeing individually tested variants vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 20–40 cm · 86 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · Sampling depths 20 and 40 cm; perpendicular distances 20,40,60 cm. SB and SPR individually share a Tukey letter with DP in all six columns; merged agreeing variants, not pooled.
Numbers
- treatment 1.34 vs. control 1.28 g cm-3 (+4.688 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 1.39 vs. control 1.35 g cm-3 (+2.963 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 1.52 vs. control 1.47 g cm-3 (+3.401 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 1.43 vs. control 1.55 g cm-3 (-7.742 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 1.47 vs. control 1.57 g cm-3 (-6.369 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 1.54 vs. control 1.59 g cm-3 (-3.145 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 1.22 vs. control 1.28 g cm-3 (-4.688 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 1.25 vs. control 1.35 g cm-3 (-7.407 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 1.38 vs. control 1.47 g cm-3 (-6.122 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 1.52 vs. control 1.55 g cm-3 (-1.935 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 1.53 vs. control 1.57 g cm-3 (-2.548 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 1.58 vs. control 1.59 g cm-3 (-0.6289 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP, distance60cm
Source · p. 8 “| DP | 1.28 a | 1.35 a | | 1.47 a | 1.55 a | 1.57 a | 1.59 a |”
Source · p. 8 “| SB | 1.34 a | 1.39 a | | 1.52 a | 1.43 a | 1.47 a | 1.54 ab |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP + SPR | 1.22 a | 1.25 a | | 1.38 a | 1.52 a | 1.53 a | 1.58 ab |”
- no effect
DP + STA vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 20–20 cm · 86 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 20 cm sampling depth; perpendicular distances 20,40,60 cm.
Numbers
- treatment 1.36 vs. control 1.28 g cm-3 (+6.25 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 1.39 vs. control 1.35 g cm-3 (+2.963 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 1.41 vs. control 1.47 g cm-3 (-4.082 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP, distance60cm
Source · p. 8 “| DP + STA | 1.36 a | 1.39 a | | 1.41 a | 1.56 a | 1.48 a | 1.50 b |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP | 1.28 a | 1.35 a | | 1.47 a | 1.55 a | 1.57 a | 1.59 a |”
- no effect
DP + STA vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 40–40 cm · 86 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 40 cm sampling depth; perpendicular distances 20 and 40 cm, excluding 60 cm.
Numbers
- treatment 1.56 vs. control 1.55 g cm-3 (+0.6452 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 1.48 vs. control 1.57 g cm-3 (-5.732 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP, distance40cm
Source · p. 8 “| DP + STA | 1.36 a | 1.39 a | | 1.41 a | 1.56 a | 1.48 a | 1.50 b |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP | 1.28 a | 1.35 a | | 1.47 a | 1.55 a | 1.57 a | 1.59 a |”
- decrease
DP + STA vs. DP no RIDsignificant · 40–40 cm · 86 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 40 cm sampling depth; perpendicular distance 60 cm. Table5 STA b versus DP a overrides prose incorrectly naming SPR.
Numbers
- treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.59 g cm-3 (-5.66 %) · 40–40 cm · Distance60cm; STA versus DP
Source · p. 8 “| DP + STA | 1.36 a | 1.39 a | | 1.41 a | 1.56 a | 1.48 a | 1.50 b |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP | 1.28 a | 1.35 a | | 1.47 a | 1.55 a | 1.57 a | 1.59 a |”
- decrease
all tillage systems vs. pasture before installing the experimentsignificant · 0–40 cm · 86 days after treatment application versus pre-experiment pasture · Boa Esperança · 0–40 cm; all tillage systems versus own pre-application pasture baseline; uncontrolled before/after, papaya establishment and time confounded; alpha unspecified.
Source · p. 6 “They were also higher than those found after installing the experiment (Table 5), i.e. all tillage systems reduced BD significantly.”
resistance to penetration
3
- decrease
SB / FS vs. DP no RIDsignificance not stated · 25–40 cm · 80 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 25–40 cm; perpendicular distances 0.25–0.35 m from plant; longitudinal distances 0.25–0.75 m. SE bars only, not a significance test.
Source · p. 5 “In general, at distances of 0.25 and 0.35 m, the PR values in the FS treatment were lower, mainly at depths below 0.25 m.”
Source · p. 5 “The PR values in the treatment FS were around 0.2 - 0.5 MPa, differing from the other treatments”
- decrease
DP + SPR vs. DP no RIDsignificance not stated · 25–40 cm · 80 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 25–40 cm; perpendicular distances 0.25–0.35 m and longitudinal distances 0.25–0.75 m; figures show SE only.
Source · p. 5 “The treatment DP + SPR resulted in intermediate PR values between SB and DP or DP + STA, at depths below 0.25 m.”
Source · p. 5 “Until 0.25 and 0.35 m away the PR is lower, mainly at depths below 0.25 m, for the treatments SB and DP + SPR”
- decrease
DP + STA vs. DP and SB, agreeing reference variantssignificance not stated · 20–40 cm · 80 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 20–40 cm; perpendicular distances 0.65–0.75 m from plant. Separate descriptive comparisons with DP and SB; against SB not at 0.75 m and 35–40 cm, where STA is higher (Fig.1e). No pairwise tests.
Source · p. 5 “At distances of 0.65 and 0.75 m, the PR of treatment DP + STA were lower than of the other treatments”
Source · p. 1 “The scarifier resulted in a lower PR than DP or SB”
macroporosity
↑ 1= 12
- no effect
SB, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested variants vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 20–40 cm · 86 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · Sampling depths20 and40cm, perpendicular distances20,40,60cm; individual shared-letter tests, not pooled.
Numbers
- treatment 0.3019 vs. control 0.3268 m3 m-3 (-7.619 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 0.3075 vs. control 0.2871 m3 m-3 (+7.106 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 0.1932 vs. control 0.1934 m3 m-3 (-0.1034 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 0.2237 vs. control 0.1535 m3 m-3 (+45.73 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 0.2011 vs. control 0.1727 m3 m-3 (+16.44 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 0.1818 vs. control 0.1721 m3 m-3 (+5.636 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 0.3126 vs. control 0.3268 m3 m-3 (-4.345 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 0.3125 vs. control 0.2871 m3 m-3 (+8.847 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 0.2443 vs. control 0.1934 m3 m-3 (+26.32 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 0.188 vs. control 0.1535 m3 m-3 (+22.48 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 0.2119 vs. control 0.1727 m3 m-3 (+22.7 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 0.1515 vs. control 0.1721 m3 m-3 (-11.97 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 0.2882 vs. control 0.3268 m3 m-3 (-11.81 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 0.2693 vs. control 0.2871 m3 m-3 (-6.2 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 0.2469 vs. control 0.1934 m3 m-3 (+27.66 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP, distance60cm
- treatment 0.1772 vs. control 0.1535 m3 m-3 (+15.44 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP, distance20cm
- treatment 0.187 vs. control 0.1727 m3 m-3 (+8.28 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP, distance40cm
- treatment 0.1978 vs. control 0.1721 m3 m-3 (+14.93 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP, distance60cm
Source · p. 8 “| DP | 0.3268 a | 0.2871 a | 0.1934 a | | 0.1535 a | 0.1727 a | 0.1721 a |”
Source · p. 8 “| SB | 0.3019 a | 0.3075 a | 0.1932 a | | 0.2237 a | 0.2011 a | 0.1818 a |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP + SPR | 0.3126 a | 0.3125 a | 0.2443 a | | 0.1880 a | 0.2119 a | 0.1515 a |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP + STA | 0.2882 a | 0.2693 a | 0.2469 a | | 0.1772 a | 0.1870 a | 0.1978 a |”
- increase
all tillage systems vs. pasture before installing the experimentsignificant · 0–20 cm · 86 days after treatment application versus pre-experiment pasture · Boa Esperança · 0–20 cm; all tillage systems versus own pre-application pasture baseline; uncontrolled before/after, establishment/time confounded. Explicit significant increase, unspecified alpha; printed range not converted into group means.
Source · p. 7 “The macroporosity (Ma) values at a depth of 0.20 m ranged from 0.219 to 0.307 m3 m-3”
Source · p. 7 “When compared to the values prior to the treatments (Table 3), a significant increase -3 was observed in this property in the 0-0.20 m layer (from around 0.170 to a range of 0.220-0.310 m 3 m-3), -3 in reflecting the effect of preparations.”
mean weight diameter (MWD)
↑ 1= 12
- no effect
SB, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested variants vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 20–40 cm · 135 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 20 and40cm sampling depths; individual variants all share letters with DP (deep DP ab).
Numbers
- treatment 3.3 vs. control 3.32 mm (-0.6024 %) · 20–20 cm · SB versus DP
- treatment 2.9 vs. control 3.19 mm (-9.091 %) · 40–40 cm · SB versus DP
- treatment 3.22 vs. control 3.32 mm (-3.012 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR versus DP
- treatment 3.17 vs. control 3.19 mm (-0.627 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR versus DP
- treatment 3.32 vs. control 3.32 mm (0 %) · 20–20 cm · STA versus DP
- treatment 3.28 vs. control 3.19 mm (+2.821 %) · 40–40 cm · STA versus DP
Source · p. 9 “DP 3.32 a 3.19 ab 3.23 a 3.01 ab SB 3.30 a 2.90 b 3.22 a 2.57 b DP + SPR 3.22 a 3.17 ab 3.04 a 2.96 ab DP + STA 3.32 a 3.28 a 3.26 a 3.18 a”
- increase
DP + STA vs. SB / FSsignificant · 40–40 cm · 135 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 40 cm sampling depth (Results also calls this 0–0.40 m layer). STA versus SB; actual deeper Tukey exception to blanket conclusion.
Numbers
- treatment 3.28 vs. control 2.9 mm (+13.1 %) · 40–40 cm
Source · p. 9 “The MWD was lower in SB than DP + STA”
Source · p. 9 “SB 3.30 a 2.90 b 3.22 a 2.57 b DP + SPR 3.22 a 3.17 ab 3.04 a 2.96 ab DP + STA 3.32 a 3.28 a 3.26 a 3.18 a”
geometric mean diameter (GMD)
↑ 1= 12
- no effect
SB, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested variants vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 20–40 cm · 135 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 20 and40cm sampling depths; individual variants all share letters with DP (deep DP ab).
Numbers
- treatment 3.22 vs. control 3.23 mm (-0.3096 %) · 20–20 cm · SB versus DP
- treatment 2.57 vs. control 3.01 mm (-14.62 %) · 40–40 cm · SB versus DP
- treatment 3.04 vs. control 3.23 mm (-5.882 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR versus DP
- treatment 2.96 vs. control 3.01 mm (-1.661 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR versus DP
- treatment 3.26 vs. control 3.23 mm (+0.9288 %) · 20–20 cm · STA versus DP
- treatment 3.18 vs. control 3.01 mm (+5.648 %) · 40–40 cm · STA versus DP
Source · p. 9 “DP 3.32 a 3.19 ab 3.23 a 3.01 ab SB 3.30 a 2.90 b 3.22 a 2.57 b DP + SPR 3.22 a 3.17 ab 3.04 a 2.96 ab DP + STA 3.32 a 3.28 a 3.26 a 3.18 a”
- increase
DP + STA vs. SB / FSsignificant · 40–40 cm · 135 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · 40 cm sampling depth; STA versus SB; Table6 deeper GMD exception to blanket conclusion.
Numbers
- treatment 3.18 vs. control 2.57 mm (+23.74 %) · 40–40 cm
Source · p. 9 “SB 3.30 a 2.90 b 3.22 a 2.57 b DP + SPR 3.22 a 3.17 ab 3.04 a 2.96 ab DP + STA 3.32 a 3.28 a 3.26 a 3.18 a”
total number of fruits (TNF) per plant
↓ 1= 12
- decrease
SB / FS vs. DP + ridge, DP no ridge, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested reference variantssignificant · 260 days after transplanting · Boa Esperança · SB versus each of DP+ridge,DP no ridge,SPR,STA; agreeing individual Tukey comparisons, not pooled.
Numbers
- treatment 26.9 vs. control 44.8 fruits plant-1 (-39.96 %) · SB versus DP+ridge
- treatment 26.9 vs. control 46.4 fruits plant-1 (-42.03 %) · SB versus DP no ridge
- treatment 26.9 vs. control 44.2 fruits plant-1 (-39.14 %) · SB versus SPR
- treatment 26.9 vs. control 52.3 fruits plant-1 (-48.57 %) · SB versus STA
Source · p. 9 “DP + ridge 44.8 a DP no ridge 46.4 a SB 26.9 b DP + SPR 44.2 a DP + STA 52.3 a”
Source · p. 9 “The use of reduced tillage with a forest subsoiler results in the production of a lower number of fruits per plant compared to the other tillage forms.”
- no effect
DP + ridge, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested variants vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 260 days after transplanting · Boa Esperança · Ridge,SPR,STA individually versus DP no ridge; all share letter a.
Numbers
- treatment 44.8 vs. control 46.4 fruits plant-1 (-3.448 %) · DP+ridge versus DP
- treatment 44.2 vs. control 46.4 fruits plant-1 (-4.741 %) · SPR versus DP
- treatment 52.3 vs. control 46.4 fruits plant-1 (+12.72 %) · STA versus DP
Source · p. 9 “DP + ridge 44.8 a DP no ridge 46.4 a SB 26.9 b DP + SPR 44.2 a DP + STA 52.3 a”
microporosity
= 11
- no effect
SB, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested variants vs. DP no RIDnot significant · 20–40 cm · 86 days after treatment application · Boa Esperança · Sampling depths20 and40cm, perpendicular distances20,40,60cm; individual shared-letter tests, not pooled.
Numbers
- treatment 0.1363 vs. control 0.1497 m3 m-3 (-8.951 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP,distance20cm
- treatment 0.1249 vs. control 0.1519 m3 m-3 (-17.77 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP,distance40cm
- treatment 0.1894 vs. control 0.2101 m3 m-3 (-9.852 %) · 20–20 cm · SB vs DP,distance60cm
- treatment 0.1778 vs. control 0.2083 m3 m-3 (-14.64 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP,distance20cm
- treatment 0.1909 vs. control 0.2017 m3 m-3 (-5.354 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP,distance40cm
- treatment 0.1831 vs. control 0.1892 m3 m-3 (-3.224 %) · 40–40 cm · SB vs DP,distance60cm
- treatment 0.1585 vs. control 0.1497 m3 m-3 (+5.878 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP,distance20cm
- treatment 0.1602 vs. control 0.1519 m3 m-3 (+5.464 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP,distance40cm
- treatment 0.1888 vs. control 0.2101 m3 m-3 (-10.14 %) · 20–20 cm · SPR vs DP,distance60cm
- treatment 0.198 vs. control 0.2083 m3 m-3 (-4.945 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP,distance20cm
- treatment 0.1782 vs. control 0.2017 m3 m-3 (-11.65 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP,distance40cm
- treatment 0.2173 vs. control 0.1892 m3 m-3 (+14.85 %) · 40–40 cm · SPR vs DP,distance60cm
- treatment 0.1544 vs. control 0.1497 m3 m-3 (+3.14 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP,distance20cm
- treatment 0.169 vs. control 0.1519 m3 m-3 (+11.26 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP,distance40cm
- treatment 0.1898 vs. control 0.2101 m3 m-3 (-9.662 %) · 20–20 cm · STA vs DP,distance60cm
- treatment 0.195 vs. control 0.2083 m3 m-3 (-6.385 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP,distance20cm
- treatment 0.1999 vs. control 0.2017 m3 m-3 (-0.8924 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP,distance40cm
- treatment 0.1879 vs. control 0.1892 m3 m-3 (-0.6871 %) · 40–40 cm · STA vs DP,distance60cm
Source · p. 8 “| DP | 0.1497 a | 0.1519 a | 0.2101 a | | 0.2083 a | 0.2017 a | 0.1892 a |”
Source · p. 8 “| SB | 0.1363 a | 0.1249 a | 0.1894 a | | 0.1778 a | 0.1909 a | 0.1831 a |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP + SPR | 0.1585 a | 0.1602 a | 0.1888 a | | 0.1980 a | 0.1782 a | 0.2173 a |”
Source · p. 8 “| DP + STA | 0.1544 a | 0.1690 a | 0.1898 a | | 0.1950 a | 0.1999 a | 0.1879 a |”
Set-up
Treatments
- tillage systemsTillage system
- DP no RIDDiskingSB / FSSubsoilingDP + SPRScarificationDP + STAScarificationDP + ridgeRidge tillageSB, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested variantsTillage systemSB and DP + SPR, agreeing individually tested variantsTillage systemDP and SB, agreeing reference variantsTillage systemDP + ridge, DP no ridge, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested reference variantsTillage systemDP + ridge, DP + SPR and DP + STA, agreeing individually tested variantsTillage systemall tillage systemsTillage systempasture before installing the experimentPastures and managed grassland
Measured
- resistance to penetrationPenetration resistance
- Unit
- MPa
- Method
- Falker penetroLOG PLG1020; figures show SE, no pairwise statistical test.
- bulk density
- Unit
- g cm-3
- Method
- Ring sampling, 92.5 cm3 after treatment; 142.5 cm3 baseline.
- macroporosity
- Unit
- m3 m-3
- Method
- Embrapa (1997)
- microporosity
- Unit
- m3 m-3
- Method
- Embrapa (1997)
- mean weight diameter (MWD)Water-stable aggregate mean weight diameter (MWD)
- Unit
- mm
- Method
- Kemper & Chepil wet sieving; Kemper & Rosenau calculation.
- geometric mean diameter (GMD)Aggregate geometric mean diameter
- Unit
- mm
- Method
- Wet sieving; Kemper & Rosenau calculation.
- total number of fruits (TNF) per plantYield components
- Unit
- fruits plant-1
- Method
- Fruit count 260 days after transplanting.
Sites
Boa Esperança
- Location
- Boa Esperança, Espírito Santo; printed unsigned latitude 18°29′42.1″, longitude 40°23′55.4″
- Climate
- Aw22.6 °C mean annual temperature1,022 mm annual precipitation
- Land use
- papaya fieldFruit trees
- Management on the whole site
- Tainung 01 F1 papaya hybridPapaya/Carica papaya, low-pressure sprinklerSprinkler irrigation, FertilizationInorganic fertilizer
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–20 cm | sandy texture | 15.6 % (from g/kg) | 6.3 pH | – | 1.6 g cm-3 |
| 20–40 cm | – | 25.2 % (from g/kg) | 6.1 pH | – | 1.65 g cm-3 |
| 40–60 cm | – | – | – | – | 1.68 g cm-3 |
Similar papers
Soil Physical Quality After 21 Years of Cultivation in a Brazilian Cerrado Latosol
Ngolo et al. · 2019 · Journal of Agricultural Science
8 shared concepts
35 findings1 site
Soybean Yield, Soil Porosity and Soil Penetration Resistance under Mechanical Scarification in No-Tillage System
Seidel et al. · 2018 · Journal of Agricultural Science
6 shared concepts
18 findings1 site
Soil preparation systems and type of fertilization as affecting physical attributes of cohesive soil under eucalyptus in Northeastern Brazil
Nunes et al. · 2022 · Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy
8 shared concepts
21 findings1 site
Soil mixing with organic matter amendment improves Albic soil physicochemical properties and crop yield in Heilongjiang province, China
Meng et al. · 2020 · PLOS ONE
7 shared concepts
21 findings1 site
Root System and Its Relations with Soil Physical and Chemical Attributes in Orange Culture
Barbosa et al. · 2021 · Applied Sciences
7 shared concepts
5 findings2 sites