Soil correction for planting bermudagrass using steel slag or limestone

Oliveira, Mauricio Roberto de; Fernandes, Dirceu Maximino; Villas Bôas, Roberto Lyra; Backes, Clarice; Godoy, Leandro José Grava de; Santos, Alessandro José Marques do

doi:10.1590/2447-536X.v26i3.2203

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific Article • Ornam. Hortic. 26 (3) • Jul-Sep 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2447-536X.v26i3.2203 copy

Soil correction for planting bermudagrass using steel slag or limestone

Correção do solo para plantio de grama bermuda utilizando escória de aciaria ou calcário

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Limestone is the most commonly used acidity-correction agent in tropical soils. However, steel slag can be an alternative for turfgrass production areas because it contains silicon, which can increase turfgrass tolerance to biotic and/or abiotic stresses. This study was developed to evaluate the effect of the application of steel slag, as compared with limestone, on a bermudagrass sod production system. The experiment was carried out in Botucatu-SP, Brazil, in a randomized block design arranged in a factorial scheme 2 × 5 with 4 replications. Treatments consisted of two correctives (steel slag and limestone) and their rates, which were calculated to raise the soil base saturation to 12% (current), 30%, 50%, 70% and 90%. The application of lime and steel slag rates had positive effects on soil chemical attributes related to acidity correction, such as pH, Ca, Mg, H + Al, Al, CEC, SB, and base saturation (%). The slag provided higher levels of P, Ca, and Si, whereas limestone increased the Mg soil content. Steel slag provided a higher ground cover rate for bermudagrass than limestone at 114 and 161 days after transplanting (DAT), with maximum cover rate achieved with 60% base saturation at 161 DAT. The turfgrasses treated with slag showed a higher amount of roots, rhizomes, and stolons when compared with those treated with limestone. It is suggested the use of steel slag and, in calculating the need for corrective, 90% soil base saturation.

Keywords:
Cynodon sp.; lawn; liming; silicon

Layer	pH	OM	P_resin	H + Al	K	Ca	Mg	SB	CEC	BS%	Si
m	CaCl₂	g dm^-3	mg dm^-3	--------------------------mg dm^-3------------------------							mg dm^-3
0.0-0.10	4.1	20	2	91	1.3	8.5	3.5	13	104	12	0.8
0.10-0.20	4.1	18	2	87	0.9	7	2	10	98	10	0.7
	B			Cu		Fe		Mn		Zn
m	-----------------------------------------------------mg dm^-3---------------------------------------------------
0.0-0.10	0.32			6.6		46		15.5		0.6
0.10-0.20	0.35			6.4		27		9.9		0.7

Factor⁽¹⁾	pH	OM			P_resin		Al			H+Al			K	Ca	Mg			CEC		BS%			Si
	----------------------------------------------- Significance by the F test -------------------------------------
C	**	ns			**		ns			ns			ns	**	**			**		ns			**
BS, %	**	ns			**		**			**			ns	**	**			**		**			**
C × BS	*	ns			**		ns			ns			ns	**	**			*		*			**
CV, %	5	10			37		45			20			36	19	27			12		11			11
BS	pH					P_resin						Al				H+Al					Ca
BS	LS		SS			LS			SS			LS		SS		LS			SS		LS			SS
%						----- mg dm^-3 -----						------------------------ mmolc dm^-3 ------------------------
12	4.1 a		4.1 a			4 a			4 a			12		12		72			72		9 a			9 a
30	4.7 a		4.7 a			5 a			7 a			3		2		50			50		25 a			34 a
50	5.4 a		4.8 b			5 b			13 a			1		4		31			39		33 a			47 a
70	5.8 a		5.8 a			5 b			28 a			0		0		22			23		43 b			96 a
90	6.2 a		5.7 b			6 b			26 a			0		0		26			22		52 b			96 a
Mean	5.2		5.0			5			15			3		3		40			41		32			56
Regression	L**		L**			ns			L**			Q**		Q**		Q**			L**		L**			L**
BS	Mg							CEC						BS					Si
BS	LS			SS				LS			SS			LS			SS		LS			SS
%	-------------------------------- mmolc dm^-3 -------------------------------																		----- mg dm^-3 -----
12	4 a			4 a				88 a			88 a			19			19		3.1 a			3.1 a
30	14 a			6 b				92 a			93 a			46			47		3.0 b			4.1 a
50	21 a			8 b				88 a			97 a			65			60		3.2 b			4.6 a
70	30 a			13 b				97 b			134 a			77			83		3.1 b			5.1 a
90	34 a			12 b				115 a			133 a			77			83		3.2 b			5.4 a
Mean	21			9				96			109			56			58		3.1 b			4.5 a
Regression	L**			L**				L**			L**			Q**			Q*		ns			L**

Factor⁽¹⁾	pH		MO		P_resin		Al		H+Al		K		Ca		Mg	CEC	BS		Si
	----------------------------------------------- Significance by the F test -------------------------------------
C	ns		ns		**		*		ns		ns		**		**	*	ns		*
BS	**		ns		*		**		**		*		**		**	ns	**		**
C × BS	ns		ns		*		ns		ns		ns		ns		**	ns	ns		**
CV, %	6		8		54		45		21		35		39		29	12	27		20
BS		pH		P_resin				Al				H+Al				K
				LS		SS		LS		SS		LS		SS		LS		SS
%				----- mg dm^-3 ----				------------------------ mmolc dm^-3 ------------------------
12		4,1		3 a		3 a		11				81				1.6
30		4,4		3 a		6 a		8				58				1.6
50		4,7		3 b		9 a		4				50				1.5
70		4,8		3 b		12 a		4				49				1.0
90		4,8		4 b		13 a		3				53				1.2
Mean				3		9
Regression		Q**		ns		L**		Q**				Q**				L*
BS	Ca		Mg				CEC						V		Si
BS	Ca		LS		SS		LS				SS		V		LS		SS
%	----------------------- mmolc dm^-3 -----------------------												%		-------- mg dm-3 --------
12	9		3a		3 a		95				95		14		3.5 a		3.5 a
30	20		8a		6 a		80				90		33		3.2 a		3.5 a
50	31		11a		7 b		83				100		45		2.7 b		3.8 a
70	31		16a		6 b		82				100		47		2.6 b		4.1 a
90	37		17a		7 b		59				106		50		2.6 b		4.8 a
Mean	26		11		6		88 b				98 a		38		2.9 b		3.9 a
Regression	L**		L**		ns		-				-		L**		L**		L**

Soil base saturation	Ground cover rate (CGR)
	71 DAT		114 DAT		161 DAT		208 DAT
	Corrective
	LS	SS	LS	SS	LS	SS	LS	SS
%
12	14.8	14.8	48.3 a	48.3 a	90.8 a	90.8 a	98.7	98.7
30	19.5	16.5	56.5 a	65.0 a	95.5 b	97.5 a	99.0	99.2
50	19.3	21.3	50.8 b	73.3 a	95.3 b	97.3 a	99.5	99.0
70	14.3	20.8	53.5 b	73.5 a	94.0 b	96.8 a	99.5	99.0
90	20.2	20.5	63.5 b	80.0 a	93.0 b	97.3 a	99.0	99.0
Mean	17.4	18.8	54.5	68.0	93.7	95.9	99.0	99.2
Regression	ns	ns	L*	L**	Q**	Q**	ns	ns
CV	48.12		21.46		2.12		0.47

Soil base saturation	Leaf + Stem (L + S)		Rhizome + Stolon (R + S)		Root (R)
Soil base saturation	LS	SS	LS	SS	LS	SS
%	---------------------------------------------- g m^-2 ----------------------------------------------
12	611 a	611 a	625 a	625 a	82 a	82 a
30	884 a	950 a	650 a	677 a	90 a	90 a
50	721 a	1055 a	628 b	983 a	77 b	143 a
70	848 a	1027 a	675 b	923 a	93 b	148 a
90	939 a	1107 a	705 b	1228 a	96 b	220 a
Mean	834	914	655	887	88	135
Regr.	L**	Q**	ns	L**	ns	L**
CV	17		16		30

Factor	Concentration of nutrients and Si in the leaf blade
Factor	N	P	K		Ca		Mg		S	B	Cu		Fe		Mn		Zn	Si
	-------------------------------- Significance by F test -----------------------------
C	ns	ns	ns		ns		**		ns	ns	ns		ns		ns		ns	**
BS	**	ns	ns		**		ns		ns	*	ns		ns		**		ns	**
C × BS	*	ns	ns		ns		*		ns	*	ns		ns		ns		ns	**
CV, %	12	11	13		13		15		5	32	19		58		25		32	9
BS	N			Ca		Mg				B				Mn		Si
BS	LS	SS		Mean		LS		SS		LS		SS		Mean		LS		SS
%	------------------- g kg^-1 ------------------									------------------ mg kg^-1 -----------------
12	13	16		2		0.8 a		0.8 a		8		8		91		12.5		10.9 a
30	14	12		3		0.8 a		0.7 a		6		5		60		11.8		20.1 b
50	14	13		3		0.8 a		0.7 a		6		7		54		16.5		22.5 b
70	14	12		3		0.9 a		0.6 b		6		6		43		17.2		23.2 b
90	14	12		4		0.9 a		0.6 b		7		5		47		16.2		33.9 b
Mean	14	13		3		0.8		0.7		6		6		59		14.7		22.2
Regression	ns	L*		L**		L*		L*		Q*		ns		Q**		L**		L**

Sociedade Brasileira de Floricultura e Plantas Ornamentais Av. Av. Peter Henry Rolfs, s/n, 36570-000 - Viçosa, Minas Gerais - Brasil, (32) 3379-4983, Tel: (32) 3379-4983 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: editor.ornamentalhorticulture@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: leandro.godoy@unesp.br