Edaphic properties in a eucalyptusforest ecotone in the Nova Baden State Park, Southeastern Brazil

Fonseca Júnior, Ariovaldo Machado; Pinto, Luiz Alberto Silva Rodrigues; Silva, Cristiane Figueira da; Ferreira, Robert; Morais, Igor de Sousa; Camara, Rodrigo; Delgado, Rafael Coll; Pereira, Marcos Gervasio

doi:10.36783/18069657rbcs20230074

Ariovaldo Machado Fonseca Júnior

Conceptualization (supporting)

Formal analysis (lead)

Investigation (supporting)

Methodology (supporting)

Project administration (equal)

Visualization (lead)

Writing – original draft (equal)

Writing – review & editing (equal)

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Floresta, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Ambientais e Florestais, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2319-0097

Luiz Alberto Silva Rodrigues Pinto

Formal analysis (supporting)

Writing – original draft (supporting)

Writing – review & editing (supporting)

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Agronomia, Departamento de Solos, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4369-4511

Cristiane Figueira da Silva

Formal analysis (supporting)

Writing – original draft (supporting)

Writing – review & editing (supporting)

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Agronomia, Departamento de Solos, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4606-3149

Robert Ferreira

Formal analysis (supporting)

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Agronomia, Departamento de Solos, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5251-4351

Igor de Sousa Morais

Formal analysis (supporting)

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Agronomia, Departamento de Solos, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7166-7625

Rodrigo Camara

Formal analysis (supporting)

Writing – original draft (supporting)

Writing – review & editing (supporting)

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Agronomia, Departamento de Solos, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8925-3260

Rafael Coll Delgado

Conceptualization (equal)

Funding acquisition (equal)

Investigation (equal)

Methodology (equal)

Resources (equal)

Writing – original draft (supporting)

Universidade Federal do Acre, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Natureza, Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3157-2277

Marcos Gervasio Pereira ^**Corresponding author: E-mail: mgervasiopereira01@gmail.com

Conceptualization (equal)

Funding acquisition (equal)

Investigation (equal)

Methodology (equal)

Project administration (lead)

Supervision (lead)

Resources (equal)

Visualization (supporting)

Writing – original draft (equal)

Writing – review & editing (equal)

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Agronomia, Departamento de Solos, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1402-3612

*Corresponding author: E-mail: mgervasiopereira01@gmail.com

Editors: José Miguel Reichert https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9943-2898 and Milton César Costa Campos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8183-7069.

Areas	pH(H₂O)	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	H+Al	SB	CEC	K	P	BS
		–––––––––– cmol_c dm^-3 ––––––––––					–––– mg dm^-3 ––––		%
Euc	5.3	2.4	1.9	16.5	4.7	21.2	55	04	22
Eco	4.9	2.1	1.1	12.5	3.6	16.0	47	02	23
For	5.4	4.7	0.8	12.0	7.3	19.3	78	03	38
	Sand	Silt	Clay	Texture class				Bd
	–––––––– g kg^-1 ––––––––							Mg m^-3
Euc	366	392	242	Loam				0.87
Eco	298	263	399	Clay loam				0.94
For	180	455	364	Silty clay loam				1.03

Areas	Stock_litter	TOC_soil	Stock_TOCsoil
	kg ha^-1	g kg^-1	Mg ha^-1
Euc	21.67 a	44.67 a	38.87 a
Eco	24.89 a	34.25 b	32.11 b
For	17.33 b	38.06 b	39.07 a
CV%	26.3	5.7	7.5

Areas	pH(H₂O)	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Al³⁺	H+Al	K⁺	Na⁺	P
		––––––––– cmol_c dm^-3 –––––––––						mg dm^-3
Euc	4.42 a	1.51 a	1.97 a	2.41 a	17.13 a	0.01 a	0.006 a	1.83 a
Eco	4.36 a	0.39 a	2.86 a	1.59 a	9.96 a	0.005 b	0.001 b	1.61 b
For	4.80 a	2.63 a	1.87 a	1.30 a	10.77 a	0.01 a	0.002 b	1.48 b
CV%	9.6	34.3	27.0	20.0	29.9	39.2	27.4	24.3

Areas	TOC_AG	GRSP-T	GRSP-EE	MWD_DW	MWD_WW
	g kg^-1	––––––––– mg g^-1 –––––––––		––––––––– mm –––––––––
Euc	39.00 a	11.53 a	3.31 a	4.83 a	4.35 a
Eco	32.06 b	4.25 c	2.81 a	4.62 b	4.38 a
For	34.17 ab	8.30 b	3.02 a	4.58 b	4.08 a
CV%	8.8	6.5	11.9	2.2	5.8

Areas	HAC		FAC		HUMC		HAC
Areas	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy
	–––––––––– g kg^-1––––––––––						–––– %^ () Percentage of the fraction evaluated in relation to TOC. ––––
Euc	10.11 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	8.24 a	8.23 a	7.66 a	31.38 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	27.05 a	21.19 ab	20.66 a
Eco	5.28 b	5,06 b	5.91 b	4.90 b	13.75 b	11.75 b	16.36 b	19.72 a
For	5.83 b	4.78 b	4.46 c	4.75 b	13.00 b	12.67 b	23.75 a	19.43 a
CV%	20.2		13.7		14.0		16.7
	%FAC		%HUMC		%HS		%HNC
	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy
	–––––––––––––––––––– %^ () Percentage of the fraction evaluated in relation to TOC. ––––––––––––––––––––
Euc	16.36 a	18.31 a	63,17 a	65.80 a	97.88 a	97.67 a	2.12 c	2.33 b
Eco	18.23 a	20.22 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	39.56 b	43.53 b	74.15 c	83.47 b^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	25.85 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	16.53 a
For	16.03 a	19.38 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	49.35 b	49.05 b	85.16 b	87.86 b	14.84 b	12.14 a
CV%	9.1		11.5		4.7		18.8

Areas	POC		MAOC		FLFC		ILFC
Areas	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy
	–––––––––––––––––––– g kg^-1 ––––––––––––––––––––
Euc	10.80 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	9.15 a	36.90 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	29.30 a	2.68 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	1.71 a	1.88 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	1.32 a
Eco	5.04 b^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	3.30 b	27.39 b^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	21.00 b	1.79 b	1.19 a	0.73 b	0.62 b
For	6.69 b^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	4.04 b	21.74 c	19.47 b	1.37 b	1.18 a	0.52 b	0.58 b
CV%	16.0		12.3		28.1		14.9
	%POC		%MAOC		%FLFC		%ILFC
	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy	bio	phy
	–––––––––––––––––––– %^ () Percentage of the fraction in relation to TOC. ––––––––––––––––––––
Euc	22.90 a	23.14 a	77.10 b	76.86 b	5.64 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	4.31 a	3.98 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	3.34 a
Eco	15.43 b	13.24 b	84.57 a	86.76 a	5.60 a	4.93 a	2.26 b	2.57 ab
For	24.38 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	16.59 b	75.72 b	83.39 a^* *()** Significant difference between biogenic and physicogenic aggregates by the Bonferroni’s t-test at 5 %.	5.60 a	4.75 a	1.93 b	2.38 b
CV%	18.3		4.3		16.7		17.0

[1] *Corresponding author: E-mail: mgervasiopereira01@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Edaphic properties in a eucalyptusforest ecotone in the Nova Baden State Park, Southeastern Brazil

ABSTRACT