Soil quality index of an ultisol under long-term plots in the coastal tablelands in northeastern Brazil

Assunção, Sara J. R.; Pedrotti, Alceu; Gonzaga, Maria I. S.; Nobrega, Júlio C. A.; Holanda, Francisco S. R.

doi:10.1590/1983-21252023v36n220rc

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Agronomy • Rev. Caatinga 36 (2) • Apr-Jun 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252023v36n220rc copy

Soil quality index of an ultisol under long-term plots in the coastal tablelands in northeastern Brazil

Índice de qualidade do solo de um argissolo sob parcelas de longa duração no tabuleiro costeiro nordestino, Brasil

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Soil quality, measured through its chemical, physical and microbiological attributes, changes as a result of anthropic sensations and becomes an important tool to assess environmental quality. The objective of this study was to determine and evaluate the Quality Index of an Ultisol in a long-term (17-yr) plots under different management systems in the Coastal Tablelands of Sergipe State, in Northeastern, Brazil. Main effects were conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT), and minimum tillage (MT) distributed cultivated strips with corn as the main crop. Split-range treatments were randomly distributed and cultivated with cowpea beans (Vigna unguiculata), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), and millet (Pennisetum glaucum). A forest soil was used as reference, compared to the soil samples of the cultivated area. The Soil Quality Index (SQI) for the 0-0.10 m layer was calculated by the additive method. There were changes in soil properties between the different management systems, and between the experimental soil and the reference area. The highest SQI was obtained from the forest area (67.1) followed by the NT treatment (65.5), MT (65.1) and CT treatment (61.0). The lowest SQI was observed in the CT treatment previously cultivated with pigeon pea (56.5). Among the evaluated soil functions, maintenance of homeostasis had the greatest influence on the SQI. The higher acidity of the forest soil helps to explain the origin of the limitations of the soil in the cultivated area that occupies the same type of soil, tolerated by the adoption of conservationist managements.

Keywords:
Conservation systems; No-tillage; Conventional tillage; Minimum tillage; Cover crops

Soil Function	Function weight (Wf)	Indicator	Indicator weight (WI)
Receive, store and supply water	0.2	MGD	0.1
		Bulk density	0.2
		Macroporosity	0.15
		Microporosity	0.15
		WIR	0.1
		SOM	0.1
		Available water/TP	0.2
Promote root growth	0.2	MGD	0.1
		Bulk density	0.1
		Soil resistance	0.1
		Macroporosity	0.1
		SOM	0.1
		pH	0.034
		Al	0.033
		H + Al	0.033
		N stock	0.1
		CEC	0.1
		Base saturation (v)	0.075
		Al saturation (m)	0.075
		Sum of bases (SB)	0.05
Store, supply and cycle nutrients	0.2	pH	0.05
		Al	0.05
		H + Al	0.05
		N stock	0.1
		CEC	0.15
		Base saturation (v)	0.1
		Al saturation (m)	0.1
		Sum of bases (SB)	0.1
		SOM	0.15
		Microbial activity	0.15
Promote biological activity	0.2	Available water/TP	0.15
		Microporosity	0.075
		Macroporosity	0.075
		pH	0.1
		SOM	0.15
		K	0.02
		Ca	0.02
		Mg	0.02
		Available P	0.02
		N stock	0.02
		Microbial activity	0.15
		Biomass carbon	0.1
		Biomass nitrogen	0.1
Maintain homeostasis	0.2	Microbial activity	0.25
		qCO₂	0.25
		qMIC	0.5

Management system	Cover crop	Soil function (%)					SQI
Management system	Cover crop	1	2	3	4	5
Conventional tillage	Cowpea	19.2	17.4	14.8	20.2	28.3	66.6 ABC
	Sunn hemp	20.8	19.8	16.1	18.1	25.1	59.7 BCD
	Pigeon pea	20.6	19.4	20.6	20.8	18.5	56.5 D
	Millet	19.5	18.4	18.3	22.7	21.1	61.7ABCD
	Mean	20.0	18.7	17.4	20.4	23.4	61.0 b
Minimum tillage	Cowpea	22.5	20.1	21.5	25.1	10.8	58.9 CD
	Sunn hemp	20.1	18.2	19.2	20.7	21.8	69.3 ABC
	Pigeon pea	18.8	18.2	19.4	23.7	19.9	70.7 AB
	Millet	21.9	21.9	21.9	20.4	13.9	61.5 ABCD
	Mean	20.7	19.5	20.4	22.4	16.9	65.1 ab
No-tillage	Cowpea	18.3	18.8	16.8	19.8	26.2	61.1 ABCD
	Sunn hemp	20.8	17.6	17.0	21.1	23.5	65.5 ABCD
	Pigeon pea	22.5	19.4	15.5	20.5	22.1	63.5 ABCD
	Millet	18.9	16.3	14.6	22.3	27.8	71.8 A
	Mean	20.1	18.0	16.0	21.0	25.0	65.5 a
Native forest	NF	25.6	18.0	11.9	20.8	23.6	67,1 ABC

Management system	Cover Crop	K	Mg	Al	H+Al	m	SOM	N stock
Management system	Cover Crop	mg kg^-1	cmol_c.dm^-3			%	g kg^-1	kg ha^-1
CT	Cowpea	31.3 AB	0.54 D	0.05 CE	1.73 ABC	3.17 BE	10.6 C	712 BCD
	S. hemp	28.9 B	0.83 ABC	0.04 DE	1.39 BC	1.94 CF	12.0 BC	658 D
	Pigeon pea	31.9 AB	0.81 ABC	0.06 BCE	1.30 BC	2.44 EF	11.9 BC	798 ABCD
	Millet	42.9 A	0.66 CD	0.05 BCE	1.64 ABC	2.73 E	12.9 ABC	803 ABCD
	Mean	33.7 a	0.71 b	0.05 b	1.51 ab	2.57 b	11.9 c	743 b
MT	Cowpea	21.9 B	0.74 ABCD	0.04 DE	1.48 BC	1.89 CF	14.1 AB	888 AB
	S. hemp	26.4 B	0.94 AB	0.05 CE	1.50 BC	2.36 EF	15.7 A	968 A
	Pigeon pea	24.4 B	0.94 AB	0.04 D	1.37 BC	1.46 D	14.5 AB	902 AB
	Millet	26.9 B	0.99 A	0.04 D	1.39 BC	1.44 D	14.8 AB	898 AB
	Mean	24.9 b	0.65 b	0.04 c	1.43 b	1.78 c	14.8 a	914 a
NT	Cowpea	25.9 B	0.69 BCD	0.04 DE	1.43 BC	1.61 CD	12.7 ABC	668 CD
	S. hemp	32.4 AB	0.67 CD	0.08 ABC	1.91 AB	4.14 AB	13.9 ABC	854 ABCD
	Pigeon pea	33.2 AB	0.55 D	0.11 A	2.08 A	5.92 A	13.5 ABC	8661 ABC
	Millet	29.9 AB	0.69 BCD	0.09 AB	1.64 ABC	4.74 AB	13.1 ABC	823 ABCD
	Mean	30.7 ab	0.90 a	0.08 a	1.77 a	4.10 a	13.3 b	803 b
Reference value
Native forest		21.6	0.36	0.43	3.59	28.7	21.1	943

Management system	Cover crop	MBC	qMIC	qCO₂	MA	MGD	WIR	RP
		ug g^-1	-	-	%	mm	mm.h^-1	KPa
CT	Cowpea	93.8 BCD	22.3 BC	4.78 DGF	15.5 ABC	2.02 B	12.0 D	1.31 A
	S. hemp	48.5 FG	12.0 EF	16.3 AB	11.8 DE	1.89 B	11.0 D	0.88 BCE
	Pigeon pea	59.7 DEF	15.4 CDF	5.20 EGF	12.2 CDE	2.48 A	13.5 D	0.92 BCE
	Millet	5 CDE	15.6 CDF	10.1 BC	12.4 CDE	1.85 B	6.00 F	1.09 AB
	Mean	69.1 b	16.3 b	9.08 a	13.0 b	2.05 a	10.6 b	1.05 a
MT	Cowpea	36.4 G	8.00 G	20.8 A	11.2 E	0.85 D	55.0 E	0.64 DE
	S. hemp	106 BC	12.0 EF	5.46 EGF	15.1 ABCD	1.61 BC	93.0 C	0.69 DE
	Pigeon pea	90.7 BCD	13.3 CEF	5.88 EF	13.4 BCDE	0.91 CD	36.0 ED	0.72 DE
	Millet	57.7 EF	11.4 E	12.7 ABC	14.2 BCDE	1.85 B	54.0 E	1.02 BCE
	Mean	72.7 b	12.0 c	11.2 a	13.5 b	1.30 b	59.5 b	0.77 b
NT	Cowpea	100 BC	16.7 CD	3.49 DF	20.4 A	1.33 BC	321 A	0.69 DE
	S. hemp	97.1 BC	15.2 DF	3.14 DH	17.7 AB	1.42 BC	57.0 E	0.76 CDE
	Pigeon pea	139 B	25.8 B	8.34 CE	17.8 AB	1.38 BC	72.0 EC	1.05 ABC
	Millet	325 A	60.8 A	2.02 H	21.3 A	1.27 BD	159 B	0.53 D
	Mean	165 a	29.7 a	4.25 b	19.3 a	1.35 b	152 a	0.70 b
Native forest		175	25.1	1.45	18.7	2.24	182	0.31

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: <julliassuncao@yahoo.com.br>