Is cassava yield affected by inverting tillage, chiseling or additional compaction of no-till sandy-loam soil?

Reichert, José Miguel; Fontanela, Eracilda; Awe, Gabriel Oladele; Fasinmirin, Johnson Toyin

doi:10.36783/18069657rbcs20200134

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Division – Soil Use and Management, Commission – Soil and Water Management and Conservation • Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 45 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20200134 copy

Is cassava yield affected by inverting tillage, chiseling or additional compaction of no-till sandy-loam soil?

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Defining a suitable soil tillage option that provides adequate soil physical conditions for optimum cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) productivity has not been adequately researched in southern Brazil. This study aimed to evaluate, in an Argissolo Vermelho-Amarelo Distrófico (Acrisol or Hapludalf), three tillage methods - conventional (inverting) tillage, chiseling, and long-term no-tillage (without and with, additional soil compaction), as affecting soil hydro-physical properties and cassava yield, in southern Brazil. Undisturbed and disturbed soil samples were collected from row and interrow positions, from the soil surface down to 0.40 m depth to determine soil bulk density, degree of compaction, porosity, water retention, plant available water, air and water permeability, mechanical properties (compressibility and elasticity), and chemical properties. The yield of cassava storage roots was obtained at crop physiological maturity. Conventional (inverting) and chisel tillage of soil previously under long-term no-tillage increased soil macroporosity - a composition or capacity physical property – of the surface soil, but did not improve the functioning/intensity properties air and water permeability. Soil reconsolidation over a short-time significantly affects soil structural condition, and thus soil tillage is not needed to improve soil structure. Additional compaction on the no-till soil causes detrimental consequences on composition/capacity and functioning/intensity physical properties. Nonetheless, neither improvement of soil structure by tillage nor further compaction affects cassava storage root yield in the sandy loam soil. Therefore, no-tillage is the best management system, in which soil loosening is done only during furrowing for cassava-stem planting.

soil tillage methods; soil management; soil structure and functioning; sandy soil; soil reconsolidation

Soil layer	Sand		Silt	Clay
Soil layer	Coarse	Fine	Silt	Clay
m	g kg^-1
0.00–0.05	233	436	233	98
0.05–0.10	218	446	237	99
0.10–0.20	212	442	244	102
0.20–0.40	186	439	271	104

Soil layer	pH(H₂O)	P	K	MO	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Al³⁺	H+Al	K⁺	CECe	CECp	Sum of bases	Saturation
Soil layer	pH(H₂O)	P	K	MO	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Al³⁺	H+Al	K⁺	CECe	CECp	Sum of bases	Al	Bases
m		mg dm^-3		%	cmol_c dm^-3								%
0.00-0.05	5.10	19.9	52.0	1.3	1.8	0.5	0.4	3.5	0.14	2.84	5.94	2.44	14.1	41.0
0.05-0.10	5.00	22.8	68.0	1.3	1.3	0.4	0.6	3.5	0.18	2.48	5.38	1.88	24.2	34.9
0.10-0.20	4.90	20.8	68.0	1.4	1.1	0.3	0.8	3.9	0.18	2.38	5.48	1.58	33.7	28.8
0.20-0.40	4.80	23.8	68.0	1.3	1.0	0.3	0.8	3.9	0.18	2.28	5.38	1.48	35.1	27.47

Position	Bulk density					Macroporosity					Microporosity					Total Porosity
	Mg m^-3					m³ m^-3
	Chi	CT	NT	NT_C	Mean	Chi	CT	NT	NT_C	Mean	Chi	CT	NT	NT_C	Mean	Chi	CT	NT	NT_C	Mean
0.00-0.05 m
Interrow	1.45	1.42	1.46	1.55	1.47A	0.20	0.23	0.18	0.12	0.18B	0.27	0.26	0.26	0.30	0.27A	0.47	0.49	0.43	0.42	0.45B
Row	1.37	1.35	1.26	1.33	1.33B	0.23	0.25	0.26	0.23	0.25A	0.25	0.26	0.23	0.27	0.26A	0.48	0.51	0.49	0.51	0.50A
Mean	1.41a	1.39a	1.36a	1.44a		0.22a	0.24a	0.22a	0.18a		0.26a	0.26a	0.24a	0.29a		0.47a	0.50a	0.46a	0.46a
0.05-0.10 m
Interrow	1.64	1.50	1.55	1.61	1.58A	0.11	0.17	0.13	0.10	0.13B	0.28	0.27	0.28	0.29	0.28A	0.39	0.44	0.41	0.39	0.41A
Row	1.50	1.34	1.46	1.61	1.48A	0.18	0.24	0.20	0.13	0.19A	0.26	0.25	0.24	0.27	0.25B	0.44	0.49	0.44	0.40	0.44A
Mean	1.57a	1.42b	1.51ab	1.61a		0.15ab	0.20a	0.16ab	0.12b		0.27a	0.26a	0.26a	0.28a		0.41ab	0.46a	0.43ab	0.39b
0.10-0.20 m
Interrow	1.78	1.64	1.68	1.72	1.71A	0.09	0.11	0.10	0.08	0.10B	0.27	0.27	0.25	0.28	0.27A	0.36	0.39	0.35	0.36	0.36A
Row	1.58	1.47	1.63	1.69	1.59B	0.16	0.19	0.13	0.11	0.14A	0.26	0.26	0.24	0.26	0.25B	0.42	0.45	0.37	0.37	0.40A
Mean	1.68a	1.56a	1.66a	1.70a		0.13a	0.15a	0.12a	0.09a		0.26a	0.27a	0.25a	0.27a		0.39a	0.42a	0.36a	0.36a
0.20-0.40 m
Interrow	1.72	1.77	1.72	1.77	1.74A	0.09	0.09	0.11	0.09	0.10A	0.26	0.27	0.27	0.26	0.27A	0.36	0.36	0.38	0.35	0.36A
Row	1.74	1.76	1.66	1.73	1.72A	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10A	0.27	0.27	0.26	0.26	0.26A	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.36	0.37A
Mean	1.73a	1.76a	1.69a	1.75a		0.10a	0.10a	0.11a	0.10a		0.27a	0.27a	0.27a	0.26a		0.36a	0.37a	0.37a	0.36a

Layer	Treatment					CV
Layer	Chi	CT	NT	NTc	Mean	CV
m						%
	Preconsolidation stress (kPa)
0.00-0.10	107.38a	85.06a	104.12a	120.94a	104.37	48.45
0.10-0.20	162.70a	95.65a	101.93a	151.12a	127.85	7.16
0.20-0.40	197.80a	156.14a	133.58a	167.84a	162.87	48.94
	Compressibility coefficient
0.00-0.10	0.21a	0.21a	0.17a	0.15a	0.19	19.50
0.10-0.20	0.14ab	0.23a	0.15ab	0.11b	0.16	21.52
0.20-0.40	0.13a	0.11a	0.14a	0.11a	0.12	9.57

Layer	Treatment				Mean	CV
Layer	Chi	CT	NT	NTc	Mean	CV
m	Bulk density (Mg m^-3)					%
0.00-0.10	1.56a	1.56a	1.58a	1.59a	1.57	3.17
0.10-0.20	1.63a	1.53a	1.56a	1.58a	1.57	4.14
0.20-0.40	1.59a	1.58a	1.59a	1.62a	1.60	4.90
	Macroporosity (m³ m^-3)
0.00-0.10	0.17ab	0.20a	0.14b	0.18ab	0.17	13.71
0.10-0.20	0.15a	0.14a	0.13a	0.12a	0.14	21.90
0.20-0.40	0.12a	0.11a	0.12a	0.12a	0.11	25.37
	Microporosity (m³ m^-3)
0.00-0.10	0.29ab	0.27b	0.30a	0.28ab	0.28	5.29
0.10-0.20	0.27a	0.28a	0.29a	0.27a	0.28	8.66
0.20-0.40	0.29a	0.29a	0.27a	0.28a	0.28	8.19
	Total porosity (m³ m^-3)
0.00-0.10	0.46a	0.46a	0.44a	0.46a	0.46	3.74
0.10-0.20	0.42a	0.42a	0.42a	0.39a	0.41	9.74
0.20-0.40	0.41a	0.40a	0.39a	0.40a	0.40	7.31

Layers	Treatments				Mean	CV
Layers	Chi	CT	NT	NT_C	Mean	CV
m						%
	Maximum bulk density (Mg m^-3)
0.00-0.10	1.84a	1.87a	1.88a	1.86a	1.86	3.28
0.10-0.20	1.92a	1.90a	1.92a	1.95a	1.92	4.69
0.20-0.40	1.77a	1.98a	1.96a	2.01a	1.93	13.99
	Degree of compaction (%)
0.00-0.10	78.22a	79.36a	80.42a	84.07a	80.59	3.14
0.10-0.20	84.12a	81.20a	88.09a	86.50a	84.99	2.22
0.20-0.40	86.93a	84.41a	88.88a	88.88a	87.23	3.08

	Bd	Mac	Mic	PT	Ksat
Bd	1	-0.82^**	0.13^ns	-0.82^**	-0.75^**
Mac	-	1	-0.03^ns	0.83^**	0.67^**
Mic	-	-	1	0.54^**	-0.15^ns
PT	-	-	-	1	0.65^**
Ksat	-	-	-	-	1

Layer	Treatment				Mean	C
Layer	Chi	CT	NT	NT_C	Mean	C
m	mm h^-1					%
0.00-0.10	66.07ab	100.81a	23.33b	103.74a	73.70	46.84
0.10-0.20	52.00b	117.19a	43.51b	8.75c	55.70	95.77
0.20-0.40	7.01a	10.22a	6.09a	14.21a	9.45	97.43

Layers	Treatment				Mean	CV
Layers	Chi	CT	NT	NTc	Mean	CV
m						%
	Preconsolidation stress, σp (kPa)
0.00-0.10	81.59a	85.49a	100.51a	94.13a	90.72	45.16
0.10-0.20	95.31a	80.20a	98.03a	100.38a	93.74	30.79
0.20-0.40	195.13a	103.47a	128.89a	124.81a	138.34	48.82
	Compressibility coefficient (Cc)
0.00-0.10	0.25a	0.22a	0.23a	0.17a	0.22	87.87
0.10-0.20	0.18a	0.20a	0.12a	0.14a	0.16	56.08
0.20-0.40	0.20a	0.16a	0.11a	0.12a	0.15	46.61
	Recovery index (Ri) (%)
0.00-0.10	10.87a	4.47a	5.19a	6.11a	6.79	117.86
0.10-0.20	5.97a	4.52a	9.95a	7.67a	7.01	39.59
0.20-0.40	7.94a	5.28a	7.80a	11.36a	8.10	50.72
	Decompression coefficient (Dc)
0.00-0.10	0.06a	0.05a	0.05a	0.04a	0.05	342.44
0.10-0.20	0.04a	0.05a	0.04a	0.04a	0.04	40.35
0.20-0.40	0.05a	0.04a	0.03a	0.03a	0.04	43.86

Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo Secretaria Executiva , Caixa Postal 231, 36570-000 Viçosa MG Brasil, Tel.: (55 31) 3899 2471 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: sbcs@ufv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: E-mail: reichert@ufsm.br