Efeitos da cobertura do solo com ramos de espécies arbóreas no crescimento das plantas daninhas e rendimento do milho

Silva, Paulo Sérgio Lima e; Oliveira, Vianney Reinaldo de; Silva, Paulo Igor Barbosa e; Chicas, Larissa da Silva; Tomaz, Francisco Linco de Souza

doi:10.5935/1806-6690.20150069

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Ciência Agronômica

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Crop Science • Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 46 (4) • Oct-Dec 2015 • https://doi.org/10.5935/1806-6690.20150069 copiar

Efeitos da cobertura do solo com ramos de espécies arbóreas no crescimento das plantas daninhas e rendimento do milho

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

O cultivo do milho em sistema de aléias resulta em melhoria do solo, redução das plantas daninhas e aumento do rendimento. Os trabalhos com a cobertura do solo com a parte aérea de árvores produz resultados semelhantes. O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar os efeitos da cobertura do solo com 30 t ha^-1(matéria fresca) de ramos das espécies arbóreas nim (Azadirachta indica A. Juss), gliricídia [Gliricidia sepium(Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp.], leucena [Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit.] e sabiá (Mimosa caesalpiniifolia Benth.) sobre o crescimento das plantas daninhas e sobre o rendimento do milho. Dois grupos de tratamentos (cultivares e controle de plantas daninhas) foram avaliados. As cultivares AG 1041 e AL Bandeirantes foram submetidas aos seguintes tratamentos: sem capinas, duas capinas e cobertura do solo, por ocasião da semeadura do milho, com ramos das espécies referidas. Utilizou-se o delineamento de blocos casualizados com parcelas subdivididas (cultivares nas parcelas) e dez repetições. As cultivares não diferiram quantos aos rendimentos de espigas verdes e de grãos. A realização de duas capinas foi mais eficiente na redução do crescimento das plantas daninhas do que a cobertura do solo. Entretanto, as capinas e a cobertura do solo propiciaram rendimentos semelhantes de espigas verdes e de grãos, que foram superiores aos obtidos no milho não capinado.

Palavras-chave:
Zea mays ; Azadirachta indica ; Gliricidia sepium ; Leucaena leucocephala ; Mimosa caesalpiniifolia ; Capina; Milho verde

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Weed biomass (g m^-2)		Corn height (cm)
		Fresh	Dry	Plant	Ear
		----------------------------Mean squares¹ 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ----------------------------
Blocks	9	1,485,606.1	26,834.0	225.3	150.2
Cultivars	1	366,528.5^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	76.8^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	3,774.4^* 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	5.6^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 1	9	104,760.0	9,554.0	141.4	100.8
MWC	5	13,280,354.2^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	473,015.9^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	4,274.4^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	2,651.1^** 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	415,466.4^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	11,621.3^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	100.9^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	77.8^ns 1 ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	331,659.5	150,36.8	242.8	158.1

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Azadirachta indica or Mimosa caesalpiniifolia	Mass of weed shoots (g m^-2)		Corn height (cm)
	Fresh	Dry	Plant	Ear
No hoeing	2,719 a	529 a	163 c	81 c
Two hoeings	432 c	73 d	181 b	94 b
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	1,333 b	220 b	203 a	113 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	2,324 a	338 c	197 a	108 a
Ground cover of Neem branches	1,310 b	210 b	193 ab	102 ab
Ground cover of sabia branches	1,443 b	231 bc	195 ab	107 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	1,538 A	268 A	183 B	101 A
AL Bandeirantes	1,649 A	266 A	194 A	101 A
CV_plots (%)	20.3	36.6	6.3	10.0
CV_sublots (%)	36.1	46.0	8.3	12.5

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Number of ears per ha
		Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
		--------------------------Mean squares¹ 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ----------------------------
Blocks	9	33,468,647.4	72,784,700.8	133,878,658.7
Cultivars	1	10,691,673.0^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	25,920,037.0^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	20,291,075.2^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 1	9	10,782,819.5	57,793,432.8	70,763,262.0
MWC	5	50,966,784.5^* 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	1,083,260,530.0^* 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	1,189,037,050.0^* 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	27,691,714.2^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	71,315,896.1^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	60,045,349.5^ns 1ns, *Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	14,181,409.2	48,431,881.7	52,081,472.3

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Azadirachta indica or Mimosa caesalpiniifolia	Number of ears per ha
	Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
No hoeings	47,635 b	25,915 b	18,832 b
Two hoeings	51,603 a	43,884 a	35,670 a
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	50,293 ab	43,662 a	38,956 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	50,361 ab	43,846 a	38,411 a
Ground cover of Neem branches	52,256 a	45,000 a	37,978 a
Ground cover of sabia branches	49,947 ab	42,956 a	36,307 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	50,648 A	41,342 A	34,770 A
Al Bandeirantes	50,051 A	40,412 A	33,948 A
CV_plots (%)	6.5	18.6	24.5
CV_sublots (%)	7.5	17.0	21.0

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Weight of ears (kg ha^-1)
		Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
		-----------------------------Mean squares¹ 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ---------------------------
Blocks	9	9,553,079.2	9,038,113.6	4,193,623.5
Cultivars	1	1,894,550.7^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	1,236,473.0^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	3,579,380.2”^s
Error 1	9	6,714,083.1	6,200,830.3	4,365,788.5
MWC	5	168,877,916.8^* 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	245,601,940.3^* 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	99,542,828.5^* 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	5,563,690.9^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	7,720,803.0^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	4,301,614.4^ns 1ns, * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	5,410,565.9	6,537,228.1	2,970,437.8

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Azadirachta indica or Mimosa caesalpiniifolia	Weight of ears (kg ha^-1)
	Total	Marketable unhusked	Marketable husked
No hoeing	7,205 b	5,008 b	2,288 b
Two hoeings	13,343 a	12,774 a	6,810 a
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	14,697 a	14,096 a	8,169 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	14,550 a	13,808 a	8,094 a
Ground cover of neem branches	14,488 a	13,656 a	7,496 a
Ground cover of sabia branches	14,017 a	13,252 a	7,523 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	12,924 A	11,997 A	6,903 A
Al Bandeirantes	13,175 A	12,200 A	6,557 A
CV_plots (%)	19.9	20.6	31.0
CV_sublots (%)	17.8	21.1	25.6

Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	Kernels (No ear^-1)	100-kernel weight (g)	Grain yield (kg ha^-1)
Source of variation	Degrees of freedom	-------------------------------Mean squares¹ 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test ----------------------------
Blocks	9	3,975.4	13.6	1,692,049.5
Cultivars	1	38,449.2^* 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	46.1^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	4,110,700.8^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 1	9	4,003.9	27.4	2,924,141.9
MWC	5	92,773.8^* 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	146.0^* 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	50,363,068.0^** 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
C x MWC	5	1,255.5^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	6.3^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test	728,070.1^ns 1ns, , * Corresponding to a non-significant or significant effect at 5% or at 1% probability, respectively, by F-test
Error 2	90	1,895.6	7.0	1,415,771.1

Method of weed control² 2 Ground cover consisted of 30 t ha-1 (fresh weight) of Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala or Azadirachta indica	Kernels (No ear^-1)	100-kernel weight (g)	Grain yield (kg ha^-1)
No hoeing	285 b	25.4 b	2,731 b
Two hoeings	428 a	30.6 a	6,351 a
Ground cover of gliricidia branches	468 a	31.8 a	6,534 a
Ground cover of leucaena branches	455 a	32.7 a	6,692 a
Ground cover of neem branches	451 a	31.8 a	6,956 a
Ground cover of sabia branches	443 a	32.1 a	6,352 a
Cultivar
AG 1051	440 A	30.1 A	6,264 A
Al Bandeirantes	404 B	31.4 A	5,826 A
CV_plots (%)	15.0	17.0	28.8
CV_sublots (%)	10.0	8.6	20.0

Universidade Federal do Ceará Av. Mister Hull, 2977 - Bloco 487, Campus do Pici, 60356-000 - Fortaleza - CE - Brasil, Tel.: (55 85) 3366-9702 / 3366-9732, Fax: (55 85) 3366-9417 - Fortaleza - CE - Brazil
E-mail: ccarev@ufc.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Autor para correspondência