Recovery of a dystrophic Red Latosol (Oxisol) and pasture as a function of gypsum in the Cerrado biome

Backes, Clarice; Santos, Alessandro José Marques; Rodrigues, Lucas Matheus; Teodoro, Arthur Gabriel; Ribon, Adriana Aparecida; Villas Bôas, Roberto Lyra; Pereira, Lorena Marques; Franco, Yago Magalhães

doi:10.1590/S1806-92902017000400003

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Forage Crops • R. Bras. Zootec. 46 (4) • Apr 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902017000400003 copy

Recovery of a dystrophic Red Latosol (Oxisol) and pasture as a function of gypsum in the Cerrado biome

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to evaluate the chemical effects of gypsum on the soil and on the recovery of a pasture established with palisade grass (Urochloa brizantha) in a Cerrado biome region. A randomized block experimental design with six treatments and four replications was adopted. Treatments consisted of five levels of gypsum (0, 450, 900, 1800, and 3600 kg ha⁻¹) plus an unmanaged control treatment (without gypsum or additional chemical fertilizers). The gypsum treatments received addition of fertilizer (200 and 40 kg ha⁻¹ of N and P respectively). The soil treatment started in October 2012. The application of gypsum provided an increase in plant height, number of tillers, and dry matter of the shoots of palisade grass. Gypsum combined with chemical fertilizers provided an increase in productivity compared with chemical fertilizers alone. The use of gypsum improved the chemical characteristics of the soil, increasing calcium and sulfur in the deeper layers, consequently, providing greater development of the palisade grass root system. High gypsum levels impaired the development of the root system, especially in the 0.20–0.40 m layer. Gypsum provides recovery of soil and degraded pastures.

Key Words:
degraded pasture; palisade grass; soil conditioner; Urochloa brizantha

Treatment¹ 1 Gypsum rates in kg ha−1.	First cycle				Second cycle
	Rainy			Dry	Rainy			Dry
	Growth stage				Growth stage
	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
			cm
0	103.4	40.8	30.4	14.9	30.5	42.7	32.2	7.9
450	119.0	43.6	29.9	15.2	30.0	40.0	33.5	9.8
900	125.9	43.6	31.5	17.2	32.5	47.7	35.7	10.0
1800	129.8	44.0	37.5	16.7	32.2	52.2	35.7	9.9
3600	112.9	44.0	27.4	15.7	31.7	49.7	31.0	9.3
CF	71.3	30.0	18.9	12.2	21.2	27.0	15.7	7.7
CV (%)	8.84	3.23	6.87	7.65	6.40	11.62	8.82	7.21
Significance of regression analysis	Q<0.001	Q<0.05	Q<0.001	Q<0.05	ns	Q<0.05	Q<0.05	Q<0.001
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Treatment¹ 1 Gypsum rates in kg ha−1.	First cycle				Second cycle
	Rainy			Dry	Rainy			Dry
	Growth stage				Growth stage
	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
			kg ha⁻¹
0	4220	1639	5746	1804	2923	3618	5065	2552
450	5224	1963	5242	2039	3291	3535	5355	2498
900	5513	1892	6107	2060	3178	3733	5367	2647
1800	5356	1992	8185	2042	3877	4803	6908	3044
3600	4816	1837	7472	1902	2863	3988	5500	2931
Unmanaged	2089	1111	3704	1585	1645	1747	1896	1427
CV (%)	10.62	12.68	11.64	4.24	12.79	9.67	11.16	5.75
Significance of regression analysis	Q<0.001	Q<0.05	Q<0.05	Q<0.001	Q<0.05	Q<0.001	Q<0.001	Q<0.05
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Treatment¹ 1 Gypsum rates in kg ha−1.	First cycle				Second cycle
	Rainy			Dry	Rainy			Dry
	Growth stage				Growth stage
	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
			tillers m⁻²
0	576	570	544	555	633	647	704	716
450	589	605	664	678	677	694	792	792
900	589	639	694	680	700	714	746	761
1800	476	682	706	706	720	722	830	847
3600	484	607	682	695	679	676	706	720
Unmanaged	335	431	432	440	445	472	574	581
CV (%)	36.51	12.93	9.52	9.48	8.64	10.92	5.91	6.20
Significance of regression analysis	ns	Q<0.05	Q<0.001	Q<0.05	Q<0.05	Q<0.001	Q<0.001	Q<0.001
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	0.058	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Treatment¹ 1 Gypsum rates in kg ha−1.	First cycle		Second cycle
	Layer
	0.00–0.20 m	0.20–0.40 m	0.00–0.20 m	0.20–0.40 m
		kg ha⁻¹
0	8320	1985	13703	2247
450	11750	3680	12305	3707
900	11360	3475	12623	3538
1800	9770	2080	13163	3459
3600	8915	1580	12438	2229
Unmanaged	8085	1955	9430	2008
CV (%)	10.76	32.02	11.40	8.56
Significance of regression analysis	Q<0.05	Q<0.05	ns	Q<0.001
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	<0.001	0.181	<0.001	<0.001

Treatment¹ 1 Gypsum rates in kg ha−1.	pH	OM	P_resin	H+Al	K	Ca	Mg	CEC	S
Treatment¹ 1 Gypsum rates in kg ha−1.		g dm⁻³	mg dm⁻³		------------------mmol_c dm⁻³------------------				mg dm⁻³
			First cycle
			0.00–0.20 m layer
0	4.9	30	4.2	33	0.67	12	6.2	52	5.5
450	4.9	31	5.2	30	0.62	15	6.0	52	8.7
900	5.1	32	5.2	28	0.95	19	7.2	55	12.2
1800	5.0	32	5.2	30	0.90	17	6.0	54	11.2
3600	4.8	32	5.5	33	0.62	13	4.5	52	12.0
Unmanaged	5.0	32	2.5	29	0.75	15	7.0	53	4.5
CV (%)	1.82	12.74	29.79	7.63	13.31	10.17	19.71	14.83	14.12
Significance of regression analysis	ns	ns	Q<0.05	ns	Q<0.001	Q<0.001	L<0.05	ns	Q<0.001
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	0.176	0.789	0.004	0.276	0.929	0.773	0.154	0.626	0.001
			0.20–0.40 m layer
0	4.9	23	1.7	28	0.42	10	4.2	42	4.5
450	5.1	22	2.7	26	0.57	13	5.0	44	15.5
900	5.1	23	1.7	25	0.65	14	6.0	46	22.0
1800	5.1	25	2.7	25	0.72	14	5.5	46	26.0
3600	5.0	24	2.0	25	0.47	13	3.7	42	26.2
Unmanaged	5.0	23	1.0	24	0.40	11	4.0	40	4.7
CV (%)	1.77	14.91	34.96	6.21	25.45	17.61	24.51	8.79	25.38
Significance of regression analysis	ns	ns	ns	ns	Q<0.05	Q<0.001	Q<0.05	ns	Q<0.001
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	0.763	0.740	0.007	0.156	0.002	0.228	0.179	0.08	<0.001
			Second cycle
			0.00–0.20 m layer
0	4.9	26	6.5	37	1.4	15	3.5	57	8.7
450	4.7	28	7.7	39	1.5	15	3.5	59	10.2
900	4.8	27	6.5	39	1.3	13	3.0	56	10.7
1800	4.8	25	6.5	35	1.2	16	3.2	55	13.2
3600	5.0	23	6.7	33	1.2	14	3.5	52	12.7
Unmanaged	4.8	29	6.5	38	1.4	15	4.0	58	10.0
CV (%)	3.92	18.02	20.72	17.28	18.51	23.17	28.27	12.70	14.13
Significance of regression analysis	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	Q<0.001
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	1.000	0.291	0.700	0.605	0.394	0.736	0.206	0.369	0.195
			0.20–0.40 m layer
0	4.9	25	5.7	35	1.30	14	4.2	58	8.2
450	4.8	26	6.2	39	2.12	16	4.5	62	7.5
900	4.9	25	5.5	33	1.22	16	3.2	54	10.2
1800	4.9	22	6.0	32	1.22	16	3.0	52	9.7
3600	5.0	20	5.2	31	1.02	17	3.5	51	12.7
Unmanaged	4.8	25	6.2	40	1.35	13	4.2	62	7.5
CV (%)	3.91	18.45	29.69	21.20	33.93	9.35	20.57	15.61	17.42
Significance of regression analysis	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	Q<0.05	ns	ns	Q<0.05
Unmanaged vs. others² 2 Significance of the contrast between the unmanaged treatment with the other treatments. These contrasts indicate the effect of additional fertilizer application with N, P, and K.	0.137	0.110	0.472	0.255	0.121	0.048	0.425	0.195	0.003

Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia Universidade Federal de Viçosa / Departamento de Zootecnia, 36570-900 Viçosa MG Brazil, Tel.: +55 31 3612-4602, +55 31 3612-4612 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rbz@sbz.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: clarice.backes@ueg.br