Recommended fertilization and timing of nitrogen fertilization influences the morphogenesis, structural characteristics, and production efficiency of Mombaça grass

Paiva, Harry Sousa; Sousa, Sheila Vilarindo de; Conceição, Ellen Cristina de Araújo da; Santos, Antônio Clementino dos; Okumura, Ricardo Shigueru; Mezzomo, Rafael; Santos, Perlon Maia dos; Maciel, Raylon Pereira

doi:10.4025/actascianimsci.v45i1.60704

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

PASTURE AND FORAGE UTILIZATION • Acta Sci., Anim. Sci. 45 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v45i1.60704 copy

Recommended fertilization and timing of nitrogen fertilization influences the morphogenesis, structural characteristics, and production efficiency of Mombaça grass

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT.

This study aimed to evaluate whether different fertilization strategies influence the morphogenic, structural, and production characteristics of Megathyrsus maximus cv. Mombaça. The experimental design adopted was a randomized block design with a 4 × 3 factorial scheme having five replications. The treatments were as per the following fertilization recommendations: 5^th Approach Guide (5AP), Pará Guide (PG), Nutrient Replacement (RP), and the Michaelis and Menten adapted model (MM), applied for three days after application of the nitrogen (N) source following defoliation (days 0, 3, and 6). The interaction between factors affected the following variables: leaf appearance rate (LAR), leaf elongation rate (LER), and leaf senescence rate (LSR). The highest stem elongation rate (SER) was observed for the 5AP recommendation treatment with N application on day 0 (0.113 cm). The highest leaf area index (LAI; 5.33) and tiller population density (TPD; 421.5 tillers m^-2) were observed for the 5AP recommendation. The 5AP recommendation with N application on day 0 and on the sixth day after defoliation, and the MM recommendation with fertilization on day 0 showed the best LAR and LER, as well as a greater number of cycles and greater absolute values of leaf blade dry mass.

Keywords:
fertilization; pasture management; Megathyrsus maximus; urea

Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá - EDUEM Av. Colombo, 5790, bloco 40, CEP 87020-900 , Tel. (55 44) 3011-4253, Fax (55 44) 3011-1392 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: actaanim@uem.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Author for correspondence. E-mail: sheila_vilarindo@hotmail.com

pH	P(Melich)	K	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Al	H+Al	V%	CEC	OM	Clay	Silt	Sand
(CaCl₂)	mg dm^-3		----------------cmol_c dm^-3---------------						g dm^-3	dag.kg^-1
4.6	0.8	121.3	2.2	0.7	0.2	2.2	59.33	5.41	21.0	310	80	610

Recommendations		Fertilizer (kg ha^-¹ year^-¹)
Recommendations		N	P₂O₅	K₂O
5^th Approach Guide (5AP)	According to the recommendation for production system of medium technological level (Cantarutti et al., 1999Cantarutti, R. B., Alvarez, V. V. H., & Ribeiro, A. C. (1999). Pastagens. In A. C. Ribeiro, P. T. G. Guimarães, & V. V. H. Alvarez (Eds.), Recomendações para uso de corretivos e fertilizantes em Minas Gerais - 5ª aproximação (p. 332-341). Viçosa, MG: CFSEMG/UFV.).	300	70	-
Nutrient Replacement (RP)	According to the equation adapted from Brasil et al. (1999Brasil, E. C., Viégas, I. J. M., Silva, E. S. A., & Gato, R. (1999). Nutrição e adubação: conceitos e aplicações na formação de mudas de pimenta longa (p. 23). Belém, PA: EMBRAPA Amazônia Oriental.), where: “Fertilization = (Requirement + Factor) - supply”, with the requirement being calculated according to Castagnara et al. (2014Castagnara, D. D., Mesquita, E. E., Neres, M. A., Oliveira, P. S. R., Zoz, T., & Zoz, A. (2014). Morphogenesis and production of Tanzânia, Mombaça and Mulato grasses under nitrogen fertilization. Bioscience Journal, 30(3 Suppl. 1), 45-54.), Sousa et al. (2010Sousa, R. S., Pires, A. J. V., Carvalho, G. G. P., Silva, F. F., Magalhães, A. F., & Veloso, C. M. (2010). Composição química de capim-tanzânia adubado com nitrogênio e fósforo. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39(6), 1200-1205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010000600006 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/... ) and Freitas et al. (2011Freitas, K. R., Rosa, B., Nascimento, J. L., Borges, R. T., Barbosa, M. M., & Santos, D. D. C. (2011). Composição química do Capim-Mombaça (Panicum maximum Jacq.) submetido à adubação orgânica e mineral. Ciência Animal Brasileira, 12(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5216/cab.v12i3.3309 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5216/... ); the factor according to Oliveira, Favaretto, Roloff and Fernandes (2010Oliveira, M. F. M., Favaretto, N., Roloff, G., & Fernandes, C. V. S. (2010). Estimativa do potencial de perda de fósforo através da metodologia “P Index.” Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, 14(3), 267-273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1415-43662010000300005 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/... ); and the supply according to Braz et al. (2002Braz, S. P., Do Nascimento, D., Cantarutti, R. B., Regazzi, A. J., Martins, C. E., Da Fonseca, D. M., & Barbosa, R. A. (2002). Aspectos quantitativos do processo de reciclagem de nutrientes pelas fezes de bovinos sob pastejo em pastagem de Brachiaria decumbens na Zona da Mata de Minas Gerais. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 31(2 Suppl.), 858-865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-35982002000400008 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/... ).	150	16	60
Pará Guide (PG)	According to the recommendation for semi-intensive and intensive rotational grazing systems (Teixeira et al., 2007Teixeira, L. B., Oliveira, R. F., & Veiga, J. B. (2007). Recomendação de Adubação para Pastagens. In M. S. Cravo, I. J. M. Viégas, & E. C. Brasil (Orgs.), Recomendações de Adubação e Calagem para o Estado do Pará. Belém, PA: Embrapa - Amazônia Oriental.).	60	80	-
Michaelis - Menten Model (MM)	As described and adapted by Lana et al. (2015Lana, R. P., Goes, R. H. T. B., Mancio, A. B., Fonseca, D. M., Moreira, L. M., & Tedeschi, L. O. (2015). Uso do modelo de Lineweaver-Burk de transformação de dados para explicar a resposta animal e vegetal ao nível variável de nutrientes. In R. P. Lana (Org.), Respostas Animais e Plantas aos Nutrientes (p. 27-38). Viçosa, MG: Editora UFV.), in which, data from the literature (Mello et al., 2008Mello, S. Q. S., França, A. F. S., Lanna, A. C., Bergamachine, A. F., Klimann, H. J., Rios, L. C., & Soares, T. V. (2008). Adubação nitrogenada em capim-mombaça: produção, eficiência de conversão e recuperação aparente do nitrogênio. Ciência Animal Brasileira, 9(4), 935-947.) was used to apply to the enzyme kinetic saturation model of Michaelis and Menten (1913), using the linear equation of Lineweaver-Burk (1934), obtaining the kinetic constants Ks (amounts of N and P needed to reach half of the theoretical maximum growth rate, with no application of K₂O due to availability in the soil).	110	10	-

	Fertilization Recommendations (kg ha^-1)
	5AP	RP	PG	MM
	Day 0
kg ha^-1 of N, P₂O₅ and K₂O	214.3- 70- 0	85.7- 16- 60	25.7- 80- 0	78.6- 10 -0
Number of Cycles	5	4	3	5
Interval between cycles (days)	27	30	43	31
	Day 3
kg ha^-1 of N, P₂O₅ and K₂O	214.3- 70- 0	64.3- 16- 60	25.7- 80- 0	47.1- 10- 0
Number of Cycles	5	3	3	3
Interval between cycles (days)	31	42	35	44
	Day 6
kg ha^-1 of N, P₂O₅ and K₂O	214.3- 70- 0	64.3- 16- 60	25.7- 80- 0	47.1- 10- 0
Number of Cycles	5	3	3	3
Interval between cycles (days)	27	41	42	42

Variables	Recommendations				Day of N application			SEM	P Value
Variables	5AP	RP	PG	MM	0	3	6		Rec.	Days	R x D
LAR	0.08	0.06	0.05	0.06	0.07	0.05	0.07	0.001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
LER	4.79	3.38	2.71	3.50	3.97	3.03	3.78	0.10	<0.0001	0.0002	0.0020
SER	0.13a	0.09b	0.09b	0.08b	0.11A	0.10AB	0.08B	0.16	<0.0060	<0.003	0.0620
LSR	0.88	0.62	0.55	0.70	0.73	0.63	0.67	0.04	0.0020	0.1030	0.0010
LAI	5.33a	3.69b	3.23b	3.79b	4.06	4.13	3.84	0.02	0.0001	0.4340	0.1600
TPD	421.5a	249.1bc	212.0c	264.4b	292.5	279.4	288.4	0.16	0.0001	0.7780	0.1690

Variables	Recommendations				Day of N application			SEM	P Value
Variables	5AP	RP	PG	MM	0	3	6		Rec.	Days	R x D
TFDM	12,607.95	8,793.86	7,598.96	9,084.66	10,402.23	9,304.59	8,857.26	5.46	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001
LBDM	11,197.00	7,758.70	6,902.20	8,231.00	9,350.90	8,208.90	8,007.00	0.01	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001
DMDM	726.44	762.72	402.14	508.23	681.97	645.81	471.87	0.37	0.0001	0.0002	0.0001
SDM	587.3	496.89	294.59	345.41	537.71	378.38	377.06	2.22	0.0001	0.0042	0.0008

	Fertilizers cost (R$ t^-1 of LBDM ha^-1)
	Urea	S.S	KCl	NPK Cost	LBDM Yield	Efficiency
Treatments	45%	17%	60%	(R$)	(t ha^-1)	(R$/ t LBDM)
5AP0	476.22	411.76	0	R$2,559.77	10.48	R$244.25
5AP3	476.22	411.76	0	R$2,559.77	11.452	R$223.52
5AP6	476.22	411.76	0	R$2,559.77	11.15	R$229.58
RP0	190.44	94.12	100	R$1,174.35	9.784	R$120.03
RP3	142.89	94.12	100	R$1,017.42	6.5899	R$154.39
RP6	142.89	94.12	100	R$1,017.42	6.6422	R$153.17
PG0	57.11	470.59	0	R$1,317.88	6.8155	R$193.36
PG3	57.11	470.59	0	R$1,317.88	7.0036	R$188.17
PG6	57.11	470.59	0	R$1,317.88	6.8571	R$192.19
MM0	174.67	58.82	0	R$717.58	10.023	R$71.59
MM3	104.67	58.82	0	R$486.58	7.292	R$66.73
MM6	104.67	58.82	0	R$486.58	7.2705	R$66.92