Available sulphur by different extractants in soils of the state of Ceará, Brazil<sup/>

Uchôa, Sandra Catia Pereira; Hernández, Fernando Felipe Ferreyra; Melo, Valdinar Ferreira; Silva, Deyse Cristina Oliveira da; Silva, Armando José da; Carvalho, Laís de Brito

doi:10.5935/1806-6690.20210071

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Ciência Agronômica

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific Article • Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 52 (4) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.5935/1806-6690.20210071 copy

Available sulphur by different extractants in soils of the state of Ceará, Brazil¹ 1 Parte da tese do primeiro autor apresentada ao Curso de Pós-Graduação em Ciência do Solo, Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)

Enxofre disponível por diferentes extratores em solos do estado do Ceará, Brasil

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Despite the relevance of sulphur (S) to plant development, studies in Brazil on its availability in the soil are restricted to a few crops and regions. The aim of this study was to compare extractants for assessing the availability of S, and establish critical levels for soils in the state of Ceará. In the laboratory, available S was extracted from 23 soils (0 - 0.20 m), using two extractants: a solution of Ca(H₂PO₄)₂, 500 mg L^-1 P in H₂O (MCP) and NH₄OAc in HOAc (AMA). In an experiment set up in a greenhouse, forage sorghum ‘EA116’ (Sorghum vulgari Pers.) was used as an indicator plant in two successive crops. A completely randomised experimental design was employed, in a 23 x 2 factorial scheme with three replications, where the factors corresponded to the soils and to the doses of S (0 and 80 mg per experimental unit). The MCP was more efficient in extracting available S than was the AMA, although the S content obtained by both did show a significant correlation (r = 0.96). The available S using MCP showed a better correlation, with an increase in production and in absorbed S, suggesting MCP to be the most suitable extractant. The critical levels for S were 3.90 and 3.40 mg dm^-3 for MCP and AMA, respectively.

Keywords:
Extraction methods; Critical level; Leaf S content

^1/ 1/ 1 and 2 - CXbe - Eutrophic Tb Haplic Cambisol; 3 and 8 - RRe - Eutrophic Regolithic Neosol; 4, 6, 13, 17 and 18 - PVAd - Dystrophic Red-Yellow Ultisol; 5 - RLd - Eutrophic Litholic Neosol; 7 and 12- SXe - Haplic Planosol; 10, 11 and 14 - PVAe - Eutrophic Red-Yellow Argisol; 15, 16 and 21 - RQo - Dystrophic Quartzarenic Neosol; 19, 20 and 23 - LVAd - Dystrophic Red-Yellow Latosol; 9 and 22 - RL - Litholic Neosol. Soil	^2/ 2/ pH in H2O (1:2.5); pH	^3/ 3/ EC - Electrical conductivity in dS m-1- determined in the saturation extract and measured with a soilbridge salt bridge; EC	^4/ 4/ KCl 1 mol L Ca⁺Mg	^5/ 5/ Mehlich-1 extractant, with Na and K determined by flame photometry, and P determined by colorimetry; Na	^5/ 5/ Mehlich-1 extractant, with Na and K determined by flame photometry, and P determined by colorimetry; K	^6/ 6/ 0.5 mol L-1 Ca(OAc)2 extractant, pH 7.0; H⁺Al	^7/ 7/ Ex - Cation exchange capacity; Ex	^8/ 8/ V - Base saturation (%); V	^9/ 9/ Total nitrogen, Kjedahl method; N	^10/ 10/ OM - Organic matter, Walkley-Black method; OM	^11/ 11/ Sand and Clay - pipette method; Snd	Slt	Ds	P
		dS m^-1 -1 extractant in cmolc dm-3;	^{______________} (cmol_c dm^-3)^{__________________}					^{__________________} (%)^{__________________}					g cm^-3	mg dm^-3
1	6.0	0.32	6.7	0.14	0.69	2.3	9.8	76	0.08	1.4	33	42	1.14	1.0
2	6.3	0.35	5.2	0.14	0.39	1.8	7.5	76	0.12	1.5	53	27	1.26	1.0
3	6.5	0.34	11.2	0.22	0.16	1.8	13.4	86	0.05	0.7	46	13	1.40	73.0
4	5.3	0.30	---	0.13	0.16	1.7	2.0	14	0.04	0.8	63	2	1.66	3.0
5	5.7	0.69	7.0	0.43	0.26	3.9	11.6	66	0.17	3.1	43	12	1.13	24.0
6	4.7	0.35	---	0.11	0.05	1.5	1.7	9	0.02	0.4	87	2	1.74	1.0
7	5.3	0.32	3.2	0.21	0.37	1.8	5.8	68	0.04	0.7	72	11	1.49	1.0
8	5.0	0.31	8.5	0.43	0.15	4.0	13.1	69	0.04	0.8	21	28	1.21	2.0
9	5.7	0.37	3.7	0.15	0.30	3.0	7.2	58	0.09	1.7	71	11	1.31	25.0
10	5.0	0.33	3.3	0.18	0.22	3.8	7.5	50	0.07	1.5	68	9	1.41	8.0
11	5.2	0.24	---	0.12	0.15	2.0	2.3	11	0.03	0.7	87	3	1.53	5.0
12	5.4	0.92	4.3	0.30	0.57	3.5	8.7	60	0.14	2.5	58	17	1.23	14.0
13	4.5	0.47	1.0	0.16	0.26	5.8	7.4	21	0.12	2.8	59	17	1.23	7.0
14	5.5	0.74	5.9	0.16	0.40	4.0	9.9	60	0.19	3.5	63	15	1.17	6.0
15	5.5	0.16	---	0.12	0.14	1.3	1.6	16	0.02	0.3	81	6	1.63	2.0
16	4.7	0.19	---	0.10	0.05	1.7	1.9	8	0.01	0.4	93	1	1.47	2.0
17	5.0	0.18	---	0.12	0.04	2.2	2.4	6	0.01	0.5	91	1	1.61	2.0
18	5.6	0.23	---	0.12	0.10	2.3	2.5	8	0.04	0.8	82	2	1.58	5.0
19	3.8	0.20	---	0.04	0.04	4.5	4.6	1	0.06	1.2	76	12	1.32	5.0
20	5.0	0.16	---	0.04	0.11	2.3	2.5	6	0.06	0.8	78	10	1.43	9.0
21	3.8	0.28	---	0.03	0.04	3.8	3.9	2	0.04	5.0	79	7	1.33	10.0
22	5.8	0.20	---	0.10	0.43	2.4	7.0	67	0.12	0.3	79	5	1.37	17.0
23	5.0	0.16	---	0.10	0.06	5.9	7.5	22	0.14	2.4	75	11	1.30	20.0
Amplitude	3.8- 6.5	0.16 - 0.90	-- - 9.0	0.03 - 0.43	0.04 - 0.69	1.3 - 5.9	1.6 - 13.4	1 - 86	0.01 - 0.19	0.3 - 5.0	21 - 93	1 - 42	1.13 - 1.74	1.0 - 73
Mean	5.2	0.34	5.45	0.16	0.22	2.9	6.2	37	0.07	1.5	68	11	1.39

Extractant	Soil^1/ 1/ 1,2 - CXbe - Eutrophic Haplic Cambisol; 3, 8 - RRe - Eutrophic Regolithic Neosol; 4,6,13,17,18 - PVAd - Dystrophic Red-Yellow Ultisol; 5 - RLd - Eutrophic Litholic Neosol; 7,12- SXe - Haplic Planosol; 10,11,14 - PVAe - Eutrophic Red-Yellow Ultisol; 15,16,21 - RQo - Dystrophic Quartzarenic Neosol; 19,20,23 - LVAd - Dystrophic Red-Yellow Latosol; 9,22 - RL - Litholic Neosol.
Extractant	1CXbe	2CXbe	3RRe	4PVAd	5RLd	6PVAd	7SXe	8RRe
	^{_________________________________________________} mg dm^{-3_____________________________________________}
MCP	5.2	2.9	4.3	2.0	4.5	2.3	5.2	5.6
AMA	4.1	2.4	2.7	1.6	4.1	1.8	3.4	4.9
	9RL	10PVAe	11PVAe	12SXe	13PVAd	14PVAe	15RQo	16RQo
	^{_____________________________________________} mg dm^{-3_________________________________________________}
MCP	3.2	2.9	1.7	5.9	7.1	6.0	2.3	1.4
AMA	2.5	2.7	1.2	4.1	5.9	5.9	1.9	1.1
	17PVAd	18PVAd	19LVAd	20LVAd	21RQo	22RL	23LVAd
	^{_____________________________________________} mg dm^{-3_________________________________________________}
MCP	2.0	2.1	8.6	4.0	4.8	4.9	5.8
AMA	1.7	2.2	6.9	2.6	4.2	3.1	4.8
Amplitude: 7.2 (MCP) and 5.7 (AMA)
Mean: 4.1 (MCP) and 3.3 (AMA)

Property	Equation	R
% clay	$\hat{Y} = 2.17 + 0.09 X (MCP)$ $\hat{Y} = 1.36 + 0.11 X (AMA)$	0.51^ - significant at level of 1%. 0.54^ - significant at level of 1%.
% organic matter	$\hat{Y} = 3.26 + 0.07 X (MCP)$ $\hat{Y} = 2.30 + 0.16 X (AMA)$	0.24^ns ns - not significant; 0.38^ns ns - not significant;
pH	$\hat{Y} = 8.95 - 0.99 X (MCP)$ $\hat{Y} = 7.89 - 0.85 X (AMA)$	-0.27^ns ns - not significant; -0.31^ns ns - not significant;
Sum of bases	$\hat{Y} = 3.55 + 0.07 X (MCP)$ $\hat{Y} = 3.01 + 0.17 X (AMA)$	0.25^ns ns - not significant; 0.34^ns ns - not significant;
Non-exchangeable H	$\hat{Y} = 0.12 + 0.57 X (MCP)$ $\hat{Y} = 0.17 + 1.39 X (AMA)$	0.85^ - significant at level of 1%. 0.89^ - significant at level of 1%.
Al³⁺	$\hat{Y} = 0.39 + 0.04 X (MCP)$ $\hat{Y} = 2.57 + 1.45 X (AMA)$	0.30^ns ns - not significant; 0.30^ns ns - not significant;
V%	$\hat{Y} = 31.86 + 1.02 X (MCP)$ $\hat{Y} = 3.28 + 0.004 X (AMA)$	0.10^ns ns - not significant; 0.07^ns ns - not significant;

Soil	DMW						RP		IP
	1st cut				2nd cut		1st cut	2nd cut	1st cut	2nd cut
	S₀		S₁		S₀	S₁	1st cut	2nd cut	1st cut	2nd cut
	^__________ g per experimental unit^{______________}						^{________________________} (%)^{_______________________}
1 CXbe		10.73ª		11.27a	8.50b	17.17a	95	50	5	51
2 CXbe		9.70ª		10.80a	9.73b	18.57a	90	52	10	48
3 RRe		10.43ª		11.87a	6.40b	14.50a	88	44	12	56
4 PVAd		3.38b		9.22a	5.63b	11.57a	37	49	63	51
5 RLd		11.76ª		9.25b	16.56a	18.04a	127	92	--	8
6 PVAd		6.64b		8.11a	5.20b	16.24a	82	32	18	68
7 SXe		10.48b		11.19a	7.75b	15.65a	94	50	6	51
8 RRe		9.28ª		10.16a	13.60b	19.52a	91	70	9	30
9 RL		10.61ª		11.55a	12.10b	21.11a	92	57	8	43
10 PVAe		12.04ª		12.14a	12.98b	20.92a	99	62	1	38
11 PVAe		8.53b		12.00a	6.36b	22.05a	71	29	29	71
12 SXe		12.19ª		10.09b	16.81b	23.98a	121	70	--	30
13 PVAd		13.64ª		13.67a	16.70b	22.72a	100	74	--	27
14 PVAe		13.56ª		13.91a	12.38b	23.04a	97	54	3	46
15 RQo		7.09b		9.94a	4.41b	17.53a	71	25	29	75
16 RQo		7.57b		10.07a	4.18b	16.11a	75	26	25	74
17 PVAd		9.74ª		10.28a	5.03b	17.81a	95	28	5	72
18 PVAd		7.56b		11.19a	7.11b	20.92a	68	34	32	66
19 LVAd		7.50ª		7.02a	15.96a	18.68a	107	85	--	15
20 LVAd		10.61ª		8.73b	15.14b	21.92a	122	69	--	31
21 RQo		9.27ª		10.03a	11.91b	22.26a	92	54	8	47
22 RL		13.27ª		12.62a	14.54b	21.13a	105	69	--	32
23 LVAd		9.97ª		9.78a	12.08b	27.62a	102	44	--	56
Mean		9.80		10.64	10.48	19.50	-	-	-	-

Variable	Correlation coefficient
Variable	1st cut	2nd cut
S-abs x S - MCP	0.89^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.	0.74^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.
S-abs x S - AMA	0.63^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.	0.69^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.
IP x S - MCP	-0.64^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.	-0.71^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.
IP x S - AMA	-0.60^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.	-0.54^** * Significant at a level of 5%;**Significant at a level of 1%.

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] *Author for correspondence

Brasil

Brasil

Available sulphur by different extractants in soils of the state of Ceará, Brazil1 1 Parte da tese do primeiro autor apresentada ao Curso de Pós-Graduação em Ciência do Solo, Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)

Enxofre disponível por diferentes extratores em solos do estado do Ceará, Brasil

ABSTRACT

Available sulphur by different extractants in soils of the state of Ceará, Brazil¹ 1 Parte da tese do primeiro autor apresentada ao Curso de Pós-Graduação em Ciência do Solo, Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)