Parâmetros Rusle para modelar a perda de um solo submetido à aplicação de dejeto suíno

O objetivo deste trabalho foi determinar parâmetros de ajuste para a equação universal de perda de solo revisada (Rusle) de um solo submetido à aplicação de dejeto líquido de suínos. Os tratamentos consistiram de 0, 50, 100 e 200 m³ ha^-1 de dejeto líquido de suínos (DLS), após o cultivo de aveia-preta (Avena strigosa), além da aplicação de 50 m³ ha^-1 de DLS por seis vezes à superfície do solo, em uma sequência temporal, e de um controle com solo sem cultivo e sem dejeto. As avaliações foram feitas quanto à massa de matéria seca da parte aérea da aveia-preta, à massa de raízes e aos resíduos da cultura semi-incorporados ao solo, às perdas de solo por meio de chuva simulada e aos parâmetros para modelagem de erosão hídrica. A aplicação de dejeto líquido de suínos à superfície do solo causou a diminuição dos valores de consolidação do solo (C_f), o aumento da massa de raízes vivas e mortas e dos resíduos culturais incorporados à camada superficial (0.0-0.1 m) do solo (B_u), e a redução dos valores de uso anterior da terra (PLU) na Rusle.

Termos para indexação:
Avena strigosa; fator resíduo cultural; modelo matemático; chuva simulada; fator consolidação do solo; erosão hídrica

Autoria

Maria Aparecida do Nascimento dos Santos

Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Centro de Ciências Agroveterinárias, Avenida Luiz de Camões, no 2.090, Conta Dinheiro, CEP 88520-000 Lages, SC, Brazil. E-mail: mariaagronomia@gmail.com, ildegardis.bertol@udesc.br, danielischneiders@gmail.com, barbarabagio@yahoo.com.brUniversidade do Estado de Santa CatarinaBrazilLages, SC, BrazilUniversidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Centro de Ciências Agroveterinárias, Avenida Luiz de Camões, no 2.090, Conta Dinheiro, CEP 88520-000 Lages, SC, Brazil. E-mail: mariaagronomia@gmail.com, ildegardis.bertol@udesc.br, danielischneiders@gmail.com, barbarabagio@yahoo.com.br

Ildegardis Bertol

Danieli Schneiders Kaufmann

José Mecabô Júnior

Instituto Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Lages, Rua Heitor Villa Lobos, no 222, São Francisco, CEP 88506-400 Lages, SC, Brazil. E-mail: josemecabo@yahoo.com.brInstituto Federal de Santa CatarinaBrazilLages, SC, BrazilInstituto Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Lages, Rua Heitor Villa Lobos, no 222, São Francisco, CEP 88506-400 Lages, SC, Brazil. E-mail: josemecabo@yahoo.com.br

Bárbara Bagio

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figuras | Tabelas

Figuras (5)
Tabelas (1)

Thumbnail

Figure 1.
The area ratio of dry mass of residues (DM), root mass and residuals incorporated in the 0-0.1 m soil depth (RMR), and the incorporated root mass and residues (B_u) over time (t) for black oat (Avena strigosa), in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and CD0, with crop and without PS treatments.

Thumbnail

Figure 2.
The ratio of soil loss (SL) over time, in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD0, with crop and without PS; WCD50, without crop and with 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and WCD0, without crop and without PS treatments.

Thumbnail

Figure 3.
The ratio between consolidation factor (C_f) and time (t), in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD0, with crop and without PS; WCD50, without crop and with 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and WCD0, without crop and without PS treatments.

Thumbnail

Figure 4.
The ratio between C_f (y) and B_u (x) variables, in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: (a) CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; (b) CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; (c) CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and (d) CD0, with crop and without PS treatments.

Thumbnail

Figure 5.
The ratio between the subfactor PLU of the RUSLE and time, in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and CD0, with crop and without PS treatments.

Thumbnail

Table 1.
Inceptisol soil properties after the application of pig slurry (PS) treatments.

Figure 1. The area ratio of dry mass of residues (DM), root mass and residuals incorporated in the 0-0.1 m soil depth (RMR), and the incorporated root mass and residues (B_u) over time (t) for black oat (Avena strigosa), in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and CD0, with crop and without PS treatments.

Figure 2. The ratio of soil loss (SL) over time, in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD0, with crop and without PS; WCD50, without crop and with 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and WCD0, without crop and without PS treatments.

Figure 3. The ratio between consolidation factor (C_f) and time (t), in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD0, with crop and without PS; WCD50, without crop and with 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and WCD0, without crop and without PS treatments.

Figure 4. The ratio between C_f (y) and B_u (x) variables, in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) application and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: (a) CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; (b) CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; (c) CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and (d) CD0, with crop and without PS treatments.

Figure 5. The ratio between the subfactor PLU of the RUSLE and time, in an Inceptisol subjected to pig slurry (PS) and simulated rainfall, in the following treatments: CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS; CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS; and CD0, with crop and without PS treatments.

Table 1. Inceptisol soil properties after the application of pig slurry (PS) treatments.

Layer (cm)	Soil properties
	pH water	P (mg dm^-3)	Ca	Mg	Al	H+Al	K	CEC	WAD (mm)	TP (%)	BD (g cm^-3)
	pH water	P (mg dm^-3)	--------------------------------- (cmol_c dm^-3) ---------------------------------						WAD (mm)	TP (%)	BD (g cm^-3)
	CD200, with crop and 200 m³ ha^-1 PS
0-2.5	5.3	24.5	9.4	1.6	1.0	6.8	0.5	18.3	5.5	69	1.13
2.5-5	5.4	13.1	12.0	0.9	1.0	6.5	0.3	19.7	5.7	63	1.15
5-10	5.1	9.2	8.7	3.2	0.9	6.3	0.2	18.3	5.6	57	1.19
10-20	5.0	11.9	7.2	1.9	1.5	9.2	0.3	18.5	5.5	59	1.18
	CD100, with crop and 100 m³ ha^-1 PS
0-2.5	5.5	13.4	9.3	0.9	0.7	5.8	0.4	16.4	6.0	62	1.38
2.5-5	5.3	6.9	9.4	1.7	0.7	6.6	0.2	17.9	6.1	63	1.23
5-10	5.2	7.8	7.9	2.0	1.4	9.6	0.2	19.7	6.1	55	1.15
10-20	5.1	4.6	6.8	0.9	1.6	10.0	0.3	18.0	6.0	57	1.21
	CD50, with crop and 50 m³ ha^-1 PS
0-2.5	5.9	6.2	8.9	1.5	0.0	3.5	0.5	14.3	6.2	61	1.25
2.5-5	5.6	5.1	8.5	3.7	0.3	4.8	0.3	17.3	6.4	63	1.14
5-10	5.8	8.2	8.3	1.6	0.5	6.1	0.3	16.3	6.3	58	1.14
10-20	5.7	7.3	7.6	1.9	0.8	7.2	0.3	17.0	6.5	61	1.11
	CD0, with crop, without PS
0-2.5	5.5	5.3	10.3	1.9	0.3	5.3	0.4	17.8	6.6	59	1.25
2.5-5	5.7	4.9	10.5	2.6	0.1	5.3	0.2	18.6	6.4	60	1.28
5-10	5.8	3.5	10.5	3.0	0.1	4.6	0.2	18.2	6.5	56	1.21
10-20	5.5	6.1	8.6	1.5	0.7	6.1	0.3	16.5	6.6	55	1.22
	WCD50, without crop, with 50 m³ ha^-1 PS
0-2.5	5.6	4.5	10.7	1.1	0.1	4.0	0.4	16.2	4.8	65	1.09
2.5-5	5.7	5.2	9.7	2.0	0.1	5.6	0.5	17.8	6.2	60	1.31
5-10	5.6	11.2	9.8	1.5	0.1	4.5	0.5	16.2	6.1	57	1.38
10-20	5.4	12.6	8.7	2.8	0.5	6.5	0.5	18.5	6.2	55	1.41
	WCD0, without crop, without PS
0-2.5	4.9	3.9	6.6	1.5	2.7	13.0	0.3	21.3	6.5	63	1.24
2.5-5	4.9	4.1	6.9	4.6	2.5	12.3	0.2	24.0	7.0	60	1.22
5-10	5.2	3.6	6.7	2.7	2.5	11.6	0.2	21.1	6.9	55	1.24
10-20	5.2	6.2	8.9	2.9	1.3	8.3	0.5	20.5	7.3	55	1.28

CEC, cation exchange capacity, at pH 7.0; pH in water (2:1); and P, Mehlich. TP, total porosity; BD, soil bulk density.

Como citar

copiar

Embrapa Secretaria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento; Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira Caixa Postal 040315, 70770-901 Brasília DF Brazil, Tel. +55 61 3448-1813, Fax +55 61 3340-5483 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: pab@embrapa.br

Stay informed of issues for this journal through your RSS reader

PDF version for download

PDF

English

Google
Google Scholar

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Read our Open Access Statement

Metrics

Parâmetros Rusle para modelar a perda de um solo submetido à aplicação de dejeto suíno

PlumX

Mensagem

[TFN1] CEC, cation exchange capacity, at pH 7.0; pH in water (2:1); and P, Mehlich. TP, total porosity; BD, soil bulk density.