Production of commercial branches of roselle with organic and mineral fertilization and plant architecture pruning

Mendonça, Maria C. da S.; Araujo, José R. G.; Mesquita, Mário L. R.; Lemos, Raimunda N. S. de; Neves Junior, Augusto C. V.

doi:10.1590/1983-21252024v3711982rc

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific Article • Rev. Caatinga 37 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252024v3711982rc copy

Production of commercial branches of roselle with organic and mineral fertilization and plant architecture pruning

Produção de ramos comerciais de vinagreira com adubação orgânica e mineral e poda da arquitetura da planta

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) cultivation in tropical and subtropical regions is carried out by family farmers without the use of technology and with low yields. This study aimed to evaluate the use of organic and mineral fertilizers in roselle growth and nutrition in São Luís, State of Maranhão, northeastern Brazil. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design in a factorial scheme [(7x2)+1]. The treatments consisted of seven doses of poultry litter (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 L), six percentages of NPK (100.0, 83.3, 66.3, 49.9, 33.2, and 16.5%), and an additional treatment (poultry litter plus PK at maximum doses), with three replications. Split harvests were conducted at 75, 105, 135, and 165 days after transplanting. Fresh phytomass and the number of primary, secondary, and commercial branches were evaluated in each harvest. Fertilization with poultry litter increased fresh biomass production and the number of commercial branches per plant. Phytomass and the number of commercial branches decreased with an increase in the cutting interval in the split harvests. The poultry litter enhanced the efficiency of mineral fertilization in crop management, standing out the combination of 1.0 L poultry litter plant^-1 plus 66.3% of the recommended NPK dose.

Keywords:
Unconventional vegetables; Phytomass; Fresh matter accumulation

OM	pH	P	H +Al	K	Ca	Mg	SB	CEC	V
g dm^–3		mg dm^–3	cmol_c dm^–3						%
17	4.9	107	34	0.5	24	7	31.5	65.5	48

OM	pH	P	K	H +Al	Na	Al	Ca	Mg	SB	CEC	V
g kg^–1	Water	mg dm^–3		cmol_c dm^–3							%
527	8.1	1.821	7.738	1.57	18.15	0.0	5.90	2.20	46.04	47.61	96.7

Treatment	Specification	Dose
01	No poultry litter and no mineral fertilizer (Control)	0.0
02	Poultry litter	0.5
03	Poultry litter	1.0
04	Poultry litter	1.5
05	Poultry litter	2.0
06	Poultry litter	2.5
07	Poultry litter	3.0
08	Mineral fertilizer (NPK)	100%
09	Poultry litter + NPK	0.5 + 83.3%
10	Poultry litter + NPK	1.0 + 66.3%
11	Poultry litter + NPK	1.5 + 49.9%
12	Poultry litter + NPK	2.0 + 33.2%
13	Poultry litter + NPK	2.5 + 16.5%
14	Poultry litter + NPK	3.0 + 100%
15	Poultry litter + PK	Recommendation

Source of variation	DF	Mean square
		Number of commercial branches (NCB)
		75 DAT	105 DAT	135 DAT	165 DAT
Block	2	943.030**	3526.896**	669.119**	277.622**
Organic (Org.)	6	266.958**	465.571**	292.351**	91.482*
Mineral (Min.)	1	160.032^ns	1.657.531**	1194.794**	723.841**
Org. x Min.	6	104.735*	385.513*	257.368**	222.619**
ORG LINEAR	1	244.446*	38.335^ns	289.532*	8.643^ns
ORG QUADR	1	583.149**	960.333*	190.011^ns	44.024^ns
ORG CUBIC	1	225.148*	255.148^ns	10.704^ns	36.750^ns
Residual	28	41.161	154.358	72.533	38.630
CV (%)		18.46	42.92	41.05	44.11

Poultry litter dose (L)	Number of commercial branches (NCB)
	75 DAT		105 DAT		135 DAT		165 DAT
	Without	With	Without	With	Without	With	Without	With
0.0	26.00b	33.00a	36.33b	104.67a	6.22b	24.89a	4.33b	18.22a
0.5	30.56b	37.22a	85.33a	80.33a	15.11a	15.78a	11.56a	11.11a
1.0	30.89b	37.44a	84.33b	129.67a	17.00b	30.33a	9.11b	24.44a
1.5	35.22a	33.00a	99.00a	88.67a	22.89a	19.33a	12.89a	11.89a
2.0	40.11a	35.00a	60.33a	74.33a	13.11a	18.11a	10.78a	10.33a
2.5	39.22a	42.00a	86.67a	100.00a	23.44a	26.56a	12.33a	17.56a
3.0	30.33a	30.44a	55.67a	82.33a	16.00a	21.89a	11.67a	12.67a

Source of variation	DF	Mean squares
		Commercial branch phytomass
		75 DAT	105 DAT	135 DAT	165 DAT
Block	2	0.952**	0.284**	0.060**	0.015**
Organic (Org.)	6	0.360**	0.047**	0.028**	0.012**
Mineral (Min.)	1	0.245^ns	0.190**	0.176**	0.089**
Org. x Min.	6	0.190*	0.021^ns	0.027**	0.020**
ORG LINEAR	1	0.757**	0.004^ns	0.006^ns	0.001^ns
ORG QUADR	1	0.745**	0.083**	0.014^ns	0.013*
ORG CUBIC	1	0.163^ns	0.030^ns	0.020^ns	0.005^ns
Residual	28	0.067	0.012	0.007	0.003
CV (%)		19.10	34.64	36.53	32.63

Poultry litter dose (L)	Fresh phytomass of commercial branches (kg plant^–1)
	75 DAT		105 DAT		135 DAT		165 DAT
	Without	With	Without	With	Without	With	Without	With
0.0	0.97b	1.26a	0.17	0.31	0.11b	0.27a	0.07b	0.20a
0.5	1.22a	1.31a	0.29	0.30	0.18a	0.20a	0.13a	0.14a
1.0	1.18b	1.49a	0.28	0.48	0.19b	0.39a	0.13b	0.29a
1.5	1.48a	1.26a	0.31	0.33	0.22a	0.22a	0.16a	0.15a
2.0	1.39a	1.42a	0.24	0.28	0.15a	0.21a	0.14a	0.15a
2.5	1.45a	1.68a	0.31	0.39	0.23a	0.26a	0.15a	0.19a
3.0	1.31a	1.19a	0.24	0.30	0.19a	0.24a	0.14a	0.16a

Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido Avenida Francisco Mota, número 572, Bairro Presidente Costa e Silva, Cep: 5962-5900, Telefone: 55 (84) 3317-8297 - Mossoró - RN - Brazil
E-mail: caatinga@ufersa.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: <cmendonca98@yahoo.com.br>