Is localized soil tillage in the planting row a sustainable alternative for sugarcane cultivation?

Mazaron, Bruno Henrique Silveira; Coelho, Anderson Prates; Fernandes, Carolina

doi:10.1590/1678-4499.20220115

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Bragantia 81 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20220115 copy

Is localized soil tillage in the planting row a sustainable alternative for sugarcane cultivation?

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the physical quality of the soils by evaluating the variation of soil penetration resistance, resulting from tillage with chiseling in the planting row and in total area, and the possible interferences of the managements in sugarcane yield. The study was carried out in southeastern Brazil, in areas under Oxisol and Ultisol, which are the two soils with the greatest representativeness of sugarcane cultivation in the country. The treatments consisted of soil tillage in total area and localized tillage in the sugarcane planting row, with 10 replicates. Undisturbed soil samples were collected in the 0-0.10, 0.10-0.20, and 0.20-0.40-m soil layers in sugarcane rows and interrows in both soil types for penetration resistance determination in laboratory. Samplings were carried out at three times, the first after soil tillage, the second after sugarcane planting, and the third six months after planting. Compared to the system with tillage in total area, localized tillage promoted higher values of soil penetration resistance in sugarcane interrows. However, this was not enough to reduce the crop yield. In the planting row, there are no differences between tillage types for soil penetration resistance. Localized soil tillage in sugarcane crop is a conservation and sustainable alternative that can replace soil tillage in total area, not interfering in the PR determined in the crop row and not altering the stem yield, regardless of the soil type.

Key words
Ultisol; soil compaction; Oxisol; conservation soil tillage; soil penetration resistance

Layer (m)	Clay	Sand	Silt	Clay	Sand	Silt
	-----------------------g·kg^-1-----------------------			----------------------g·kg^-1-----------------------
	Oxisol			Ultisol
0-0.10	548	321	131	136	794	70
0.10-0.20	572	321	107	163	799	38
0.20-0.40	619	328	53	187	763	50

Attributes	Oxisol		Ultisol
	Layer (m)
	0-0.10	0.10-0.20	0-0.10	0.10-0.20
pH (H₂O)	5.7	5.5	5.6	5.5
OC (g·kg^-1)	30	26	8	6
P (mg·dm^-3)	37	31	16	14
K (cmol_c·dm^-3)	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1
Ca (cmol_c·dm^-3)	3.9	3.5	2.3	2.1
Mg (cmol_c·dm^-3)	1.7	1.4	0.8	0.7
Al (cmol_c·dm^-3)	0	0	0	0
H + Al (cmol_c·dm^-3)	2.2	2.5	1.6	1.7
SB (cmol_c·dm^-3)	5.8	5	3.3	2.9
CEC (cmol_c·dm^-3)	8	7.5	4.9	4.6
V (%)	72	67	66	63

Treatment	Oxisol			Ultisol
Treatment	0-0.10	0.10-0.20	0.20-0.40	0-0.10	0.10-0.20	0.20-0.40
LT*TTA	0.20ns	0.002^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.17ns	0.01^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.10^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.0002^ differs statistically at 1%-probability level (p < 0.01);
IR-LT * IR-TTA – T1	0.003^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.008^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.07^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	< 0.0001^ differs statistically at 1%-probability level (p < 0.01);	< 0.0001^ differs statistically at 1%-probability level (p < 0.01);	< 0.0001^ differs statistically at 1%-probability level (p < 0.01);
IR-LT * IR-TTA – T2	0.54^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.19^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.99^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.006^ differs statistically at 1%-probability level (p < 0.01);	0.64^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.05^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);
IR-LT * IR-TTA – T3	0.39^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.033^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.027^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.018^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.18^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.02^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);
R-LT * R-TTA – T1	0.45^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.38^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.48^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.010^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);	0.12^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.072^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.
R-LT *R-TTA – T2	0.91^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.51^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.002^ differs statistically at 1%-probability level (p < 0.01);	0.35^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.27^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.99^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.
R-LT * R-TTA – T3	0.27^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.35^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.09^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.52^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.20^ns ns not significant at 5% probability level.	0.02^* * Differs statistically at 5%-probability level (p < 0.05);

Treatment	Oxisol	Ultisol
Treatment	Yield (t·ha^-1)
Localized tillage	103.97 a	109.40 a
Tillage in total area	101.09 a	111.22 a

Time	Site	Layer (m)	Equation	r	Point of maximum
T2	Row	0-0.10	y = -3.563*PR + 107.0	-0.25ns	-
		0.10-0.20	y = -2.196*PR + 106.0	-0.14ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = -2.032*PR + 106.9	-0.14ns	-
	Interrow	0-0.10	y = -2.764*PR + 108.9	-0.21ns	-
		0.10-0.20	y = -1.875*PR + 107.5	-0.11ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = -8.604*PR + 124.3	-0.58**	-
T3	Row	0-0.10	y = -2.51PR2 + 13.77PR + 87.6	0.48*	2.74 MPa
		0.10-0.20	y = 1.868*PR + 98.8	0.22ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = 2.392*PR + 98.3	0.09ns	-
	Interrow	0-0.10	y = -3.259*PR + 108.5	-0.17ns	-
		0.10-0.20	y = 1.501*PR + 99.1	0.14ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = 3.118*PR + 94.3	0.24ns	-

Time	Site	Layer (m)	Equation	r	Point of maximum
T2	Row	0-0.10	y = -21.168PR2 + 57.348PR + 72.6	0.49*	1.35 MPa
		0.10-0.20	y = 1.552*PR + 107.1	0.12ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = 4.981*PR + 100.4	0.39ns	-
	Interrow	0-0.10	y = -3.124*PR + 116.4	-0.22ns	-
		0.10-0.20	y = -6.037*PR + 125.1	-0.33ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = -6.421*PR + 126.7	-0.37ns	-
T3	Row	0-0.10	y = -0.013*PR + 109.8	-0.06ns	-
		0.10-0.20	y = 0.475*PR + 108.1	0.09ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = 0.051*PR + 109.6	0.02ns	-
	Interrow	0-0.10	y = -1.323*PR + 113.1	-0.08ns	-
		0.10-0.20	y = -0.624*PR + 112.3	-0.10ns	-
		0.20-0.40	y = 1.226*PR + 105.3	0.09ns	-

Instituto Agronômico de Campinas Avenida Barão de Itapura, 1481, 13020-902, Tel.: +55 19 2137-0653, Fax: +55 19 2137-0666 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: bragantia@iac.sp.gov.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: anderson_100ssp@hotmail.com