Qualidade do solo em sistema agropastoril com aplicação de agromineral silicático
Data
2023-07-04
Autores
Juliano, Pedro Henrique Gatto [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Pesquisas sobre o uso de agromineral silicático (AS) como remineralizador de solos em sistema de produção agropastoril (SAP) ainda são incipientes. Objetivou-se, com este estudo, avaliar a aplicação do uso de um AS, associado ou não à utilização de insumos (I), monitorando a qualidade de um solo em SAP, e avaliar o desenvolvimento, componentes de produção e produtividade do milho e a produtividade de biomassa da capim-marandu. Para tal, um experimento foi realizado por dois anos em condições de campo. O delineamento experimental utilizado foi em blocos casualizados, com quatro repetições e esquema fatorial 3 x 2, sendo: três doses de AS (0; 5000 e 10000 kg ha-1) e dois modos de aplicação (com e sem I). Os tratamentos com aplicação de I foram T1 – adubação mineral convencional, calagem e gessagem (AM+C+G); T2 – AM+C+G+5000 kg ha-1 de AS; T3 – AM+C+G+10000 kg ha-1 de AS e sem I foram T4 – 0 kg ha-1 de AS; T5 – 5000 kg ha-1 de AS; e, T6 – 10000 kg ha-1 de AS. Os indicadores físicos do solo MA, MI e DS foram avaliados nas camadas de 0–0,1 m e 0,1–0,2 m. Os indicadores químicos pH, MO, CTC, H+Al, SB, V, Al, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, B, Cu, Fe, Mn e Zn foram avaliados nas camadas de 0–0,05; 0,05–0,1; 0,1–0,2 e 0,2–0,4 m e os indicadores biológicos (enzimas arilsulfatase e β-glicosidase) e IQSFertbio (BioAS) foram avaliados na camada de 0–0,1 m. Nas culturas foram avaliados: estado nutricional, componentes de produção, produtividade de grãos do milho e a produção e acúmulo de nutrientes da fitomassa seca do capim-marandu. Para os indicadores físicos do solo houve interação entre às doses de AS e I para PT e DS na camada 0,1–0,2 m, no ano de 2022, onde os tratamentos com I apresentaram os maiores valores de PT e menores de DS. Para os indicadores químicos houve interação entre as doses de AS e I na camada 0,0–0,05 m para MO, SB, CTC e S, no ano de 2021 e para Al, SB, S e Cu em 2022. Na camada de 0,05–0,1 m, houve interação para CTC no ano de 2021 e SB, V e Zn em 2022. Na camada 0,1–0,2 m, apenas a SB no ano de 2022 apresentou interação. De modo geral, os insumos proporcionaram maiores valores para os indicadores físicos e químicos, no qual o T3 apresentou os maiores teores de Ca, Mg, S e Zn. A atividade enzimática do solo não apresentou interação em ambos os anos avaliados, além disso o índice de qualidade do solo (BioAS) manteve-se na classe alto para todos os tratamentos avaliados. As avaliações da cultura do milho e do capim-marandu não apresentaram interação. Conclui-se que a aplicação de doses isoladas do AS não promoveu melhorias significativas nos indicadores físicos, químicos e biológicos do solo. As doses de AS não foram suficientes para incrementar o desenvolvimento e a produtividade de grãos de milho e a biomassa do capim-marandu de forma semelhante à utilização de I. A qualidade do solo não foi alterada pelos tratamentos. Destaca-se que o AS não deve ser usado em substituição aos fertilizantes minerais e materiais corretivos e condicionadores do solo. Porém, ressalta-se a necessidade de estudos a campo e de longa duração, para avaliar as melhores práticas de manejo do uso de AS como remineralizador do solo.
Research on the use of silicate agromineral (SA) as a soil remineralizer in agropastoral production systems is still in its early stages. The objective of this study was to evaluate the application of SA, either associated with or without the use of inputs (I), while monitoring soil quality in an agropastoral system, and to assess the development, production components, maize productivity, and biomass productivity of palisade (Urochloa brizantha syn. Brachiaria brizantha ‘Marandu’). For this purpose, a two-year experiment was conducted under field conditions. The experimental design used was randomized complete blocks with four replications and a 3 x 2 factorial scheme, including three doses of SA (0, 5000, and 10000 kg ha-1 ) and two application methods (with and without I). The treatments with input application were T1 – conventional mineral fertilization, liming, and gypsum (MF+L+G); T2 – MF+L+G+5000 kg ha -1 of SA; T3 – MF+L+G+10000 kg ha -1 of SA. The treatments without inputs were T4 – 0 kg ha -1 of SA; T5 – 5000 kg ha -1 of SA; and T6 – 10000 kg ha -1 of SA. Soil physical indicators MA, MI, and DS were evaluated in the 0–0.1 m and 0.1–0.2 m layers. Soil chemical indicators pH, OM, CEC, H+Al, SB, BS, Al, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, B, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn were evaluated in the 0–0.05; 0.05– 0.1; 0.1–0.2; and 0.2–0.4 m layers. Biological indicators (arylsulfatase and βglucosidase enzymes) and IQSFertbio (BioAS) were evaluated in the 0–0.1 m layer. Crop assessments included nutritional status, production components, maize grain productivity, and the production and accumulation of nutrients in the dry phytomass of marandu grass. For the soil's physical indicators, there was interaction between SA doses and inputs for TP and DS in the 0.1–0.2 m layer in 2022, where treatments with I had higher TP values and lower DS values. For the chemical indicators, there was interaction between SA doses and inputs in the 0.0–0.05 m layer for MO, SB, CTC, and S in 2021, and for Al, SB, S, and Cu in 2022. In the 0.05–0.1 m layer, there was interaction for CTC in 2021 and SB, V, and Zn in 2022. In the 0.1–0.2 m layer, only SB in 2022 showed interaction. Overall, inputs led to higher values for physical and chemical indicators, with T3 having the highest levels of Ca, Mg, S, and Zn. Enzymatic soil activity didn't show interaction in both evaluated years, and the soil quality index (BioAS) remained in the high class for all evaluated treatments. Evaluations of the maize and marandu grass crops didn't show interaction. In conclusion, the application of isolated SA doses didn't significantly improve the physical, chemical, and biological indicators of the soil. The SA doses weren't sufficient to enhance maize development and productivity or marandu grass biomass similarly to the use of inputs. Soil quality wasn't affected by the treatments. It's important to note that SA shouldn't replace mineral fertilizers and soil corrective and conditioning materials. However, the need for long-term field studies to assess the best management practices for using SA as soil remineralizers is emphasized.
Research on the use of silicate agromineral (SA) as a soil remineralizer in agropastoral production systems is still in its early stages. The objective of this study was to evaluate the application of SA, either associated with or without the use of inputs (I), while monitoring soil quality in an agropastoral system, and to assess the development, production components, maize productivity, and biomass productivity of palisade (Urochloa brizantha syn. Brachiaria brizantha ‘Marandu’). For this purpose, a two-year experiment was conducted under field conditions. The experimental design used was randomized complete blocks with four replications and a 3 x 2 factorial scheme, including three doses of SA (0, 5000, and 10000 kg ha-1 ) and two application methods (with and without I). The treatments with input application were T1 – conventional mineral fertilization, liming, and gypsum (MF+L+G); T2 – MF+L+G+5000 kg ha -1 of SA; T3 – MF+L+G+10000 kg ha -1 of SA. The treatments without inputs were T4 – 0 kg ha -1 of SA; T5 – 5000 kg ha -1 of SA; and T6 – 10000 kg ha -1 of SA. Soil physical indicators MA, MI, and DS were evaluated in the 0–0.1 m and 0.1–0.2 m layers. Soil chemical indicators pH, OM, CEC, H+Al, SB, BS, Al, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, B, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn were evaluated in the 0–0.05; 0.05– 0.1; 0.1–0.2; and 0.2–0.4 m layers. Biological indicators (arylsulfatase and βglucosidase enzymes) and IQSFertbio (BioAS) were evaluated in the 0–0.1 m layer. Crop assessments included nutritional status, production components, maize grain productivity, and the production and accumulation of nutrients in the dry phytomass of marandu grass. For the soil's physical indicators, there was interaction between SA doses and inputs for TP and DS in the 0.1–0.2 m layer in 2022, where treatments with I had higher TP values and lower DS values. For the chemical indicators, there was interaction between SA doses and inputs in the 0.0–0.05 m layer for MO, SB, CTC, and S in 2021, and for Al, SB, S, and Cu in 2022. In the 0.05–0.1 m layer, there was interaction for CTC in 2021 and SB, V, and Zn in 2022. In the 0.1–0.2 m layer, only SB in 2022 showed interaction. Overall, inputs led to higher values for physical and chemical indicators, with T3 having the highest levels of Ca, Mg, S, and Zn. Enzymatic soil activity didn't show interaction in both evaluated years, and the soil quality index (BioAS) remained in the high class for all evaluated treatments. Evaluations of the maize and marandu grass crops didn't show interaction. In conclusion, the application of isolated SA doses didn't significantly improve the physical, chemical, and biological indicators of the soil. The SA doses weren't sufficient to enhance maize development and productivity or marandu grass biomass similarly to the use of inputs. Soil quality wasn't affected by the treatments. It's important to note that SA shouldn't replace mineral fertilizers and soil corrective and conditioning materials. However, the need for long-term field studies to assess the best management practices for using SA as soil remineralizers is emphasized.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Agrominerais, Fertilizantes, Saúde do Solo, Urochloa brizantha, Zea mays L., Milho, Produtividade agrícola