Soil chemical attributes under combinations of organic fertilizing and water salinity

Freire, Márcio Henrique da Costa; Sousa, Geocleber Gomes de; Viana, Thales Vinicius de Araújo; Lessa, Carla Ingryd Nojosa; Costa, Francisco Hermeson Rodrigues

doi:10.1590/1983-40632023v5375156

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Special Supplement: Bioinputs in Agriculture • Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 53 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632023v5375156 copy

Soil chemical attributes under combinations of organic fertilizing and water salinity

Atributos químicos do solo sob combinações de adubação orgânica e salinidade da água

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The use of brackish water causes chemical changes in cultivated soils. It is therefore necessary to apply strategies that can minimize its negative impacts, such as the use of organic fertilizers. This study aimed to evaluate in the field the chemical attributes of a Red Yellow Argisol under irrigation with saline water and organic fertilizing in an area cultivated with corn. The design was randomized blocks, in a split-plot scheme, with the plots comprising salinity levels for the irrigation water (0.8 and 3.0 dS m^-1) and the subplots combinations of organic fertilizers (cattle manure + poultry biofertilizer + goat biofertilizer; cattle manure + goat biofertilizer; cattle manure + poultry biofertilizer; control), with four replications. The 3.0 dS m^-1 irrigation has a negative effect on the soil chemical attributes, particularly reducing the pH and increasing the sodium, exchangeable sodium percentage and electrical conductivity of the soil saturation extract. The combination of cattle manure + poultry biofertilizer + goat biofertilizer mitigates the salt stress by favouring the accumulation of nitrogen and organic matter, while the cattle manure + poultry biofertilizer favours the potassium accumulation in the soil. The combination of cattle manure + poultry biofertilizer + goat biofertilizer increases the contents of phosphorus and potassium when using the 0.8 dS m^-1 irrigation.

KEYWORDS:
Zea mays L.; organic fertilizers; salt stress

OM	N	P	K⁺	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Na⁺	H⁺ + Al³⁺	SB	ESP	pH	ECse
^_________ g kg^{-1 _________}		mg kg^-1	^{_______________________________} cmol_c kg^{-1 _______________________________}						%	H₂O	dS m^-1
15.62	0.98	15.00	1.60	6.00	1.90	0.23	2.31	8.30	2.00	6.60	0.31

Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	K⁺	Na⁺	Cl^-	HCO₃^-	pH	ECw	SAR	Classification
^{_________________________} mmol_c L^{-1 _________________________}				^________ mmol L^{-1 ________}		-	dS m^-1	-	-
0.6	1.4	0.2	0.4	2.5	0.1	6.9	0.8	0.3	C₃S₁

Source	N	P	K⁺	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺
Source	g L^-1
Cattle manure	0.96	0.47	0.59	1.10	0.25
Goat biofertilizer	0.26	0.26	4.20	4.00	0.90
Poultry biofertilizer	3.90	0.33	2.50	1.50	0.60

Combinations	Fertilizers	Amount	Phenological phase
C1	Cattle manure	3.0 kg plant^-1	Growth
	Poultry biofertilizer	1.5 g L^-1 plant^-1	Flowering
	Goat biofertilizer	3.0 g L^-1 plant^-1	Grain filling
C2	Cattle manure	3.0 kg plant^-1	Growth
	Goat biofertilizer	3.0 g L^-1 plant^-1	Flowering
	Goat biofertilizer	3.0 g L^-1 plant^-1	Grain filling
C3	Cattle manure	3.0 kg plant^-1	Growth
	Poultry biofertilizer	1.5 g L^-1 plant^-1	Flowering
	Poultry biofertilizer	1.5 g L^-1 plant^-1	Grain filling
C4	Without fertilization	-	-

Sources of variation	DF	Mean square
Sources of variation	DF	N	P	K	Na	pH	ECse	ESP	OM
Blocks	3	0.02^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	62.11^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.004^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.05^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.07^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.03^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	4.86^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	4.15^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).
Saline water (SW)	1	0.00^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	578.00^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.001^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	21.14^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	0.46^* * significant at 5 % of probability (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05);	14.27^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	1,266.72^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	0.07^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).
Residue (SW)	3	0.02	65.33	0.001	0.07	0.02	0.05	6.36	7.39
Fertilizer (COF)	3	0.17^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	493.77^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	0.007^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	0.11^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.008^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.37^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	14.57^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	40.69^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);
Residue (COF)	18	0.01	91.72	0.001	0.06	0.01	0.03	5.12	3.55
SW X COF	3	0.11^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	347.33^* * significant at 5 % of probability (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05);	0.007^ Significant at 1 % of probability (p < 0.01);	0.07^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	0.05^* * significant at 5 % of probability (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05);	0.16^* * significant at 5 % of probability (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05);	8.50^ns ns not significant (p ≥ 0.05).	15.74^* * significant at 5 % of probability (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05);
CV(%) - SW	-	11.43	43.30	21.72	4.12	2.26	14.68	24.12	14.04
CV(%) - COF	-	10.13	51.31	19.92	3.24	1.95	12.02	21.66	9.74

Escola de Agronomia/UFG Caixa Postal 131 - Campus II, 74001-970 Goiânia-GO / Brasil, 55 62 3521-1552 - Goiânia - GO - Brazil
E-mail: revistapat.agro@ufg.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS