Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Watanabe,Rafaela
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Tormena,Cássio Antonio, Guimarães,Maria de Fátima, Tavares Filho,João, Ralisch,Ricardo, Franchini,Julio, Debiasi,Henrique
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-06832018000100510
Resumo: ABSTRACT Soil and crop management systems change the soil structure, thereby affecting soil quality. The “profil cultural” method (PCM) has been used to identify the effects of management systems on soil structure; however, few studies relate the structures identified by the PCM to quantitative indicators of soil structural quality. This study aimed to quantify soil structures using the PCM and relate these structures to bulk density (Bd), critical bulk density (Bdc), soil aeration capacity (εa), least limiting water range (LLWR), and soil air permeability (Ka) under different soil and crop management systems. The study was developed in a long-term experiment (24 years) involving two systems of soil management (no-tillage and conventional tillage) and two systems of crop management (rotation and succession), resulting in four treatments: no-tillage with crop rotation (NTr), no-tillage with crop succession (NTs), conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop rotation (CTr) and conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop succession (CTs). The PCM was used to identify the different homogeneous morphological units (HMUs) in the soil profile. Undisturbed soil samples were collected for the HMUs that were most represented in the profiles to determine Ka, LLWR, Bd, and εa. There was agreement between the HMUs and the quantitative indicators. The LLWR showed greater values for Bdc under no-tillage (NTr = 1.36 Mg m-3 and NTs = 1.37 Mg m-3) than under conventional tillage (CTs = 1.31 Mg m-3 and CTr = 1.33 mg m-3). The proportion of samples where Bd > Bdc was 23 % under CTs, 77 % under CTr, 32 % under NTs, and 39 % under NTr. The structures that were most restrictive to root development (CΔ, CΔμ, FmtΔμ, and FmtμΔ) show a lower Ka and greater soil penetration resistance as the soil dries. Pores are more continuous and the structure is less restrictive to plant development in no-tillage than in conventional tillage.
id SBCS-1_fa9a0b2a46720f0ce72f3e6fb75555cd
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-06832018000100510
network_acronym_str SBCS-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?least limiting water rangeair permeabilityno-tillageconventional tillageABSTRACT Soil and crop management systems change the soil structure, thereby affecting soil quality. The “profil cultural” method (PCM) has been used to identify the effects of management systems on soil structure; however, few studies relate the structures identified by the PCM to quantitative indicators of soil structural quality. This study aimed to quantify soil structures using the PCM and relate these structures to bulk density (Bd), critical bulk density (Bdc), soil aeration capacity (εa), least limiting water range (LLWR), and soil air permeability (Ka) under different soil and crop management systems. The study was developed in a long-term experiment (24 years) involving two systems of soil management (no-tillage and conventional tillage) and two systems of crop management (rotation and succession), resulting in four treatments: no-tillage with crop rotation (NTr), no-tillage with crop succession (NTs), conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop rotation (CTr) and conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop succession (CTs). The PCM was used to identify the different homogeneous morphological units (HMUs) in the soil profile. Undisturbed soil samples were collected for the HMUs that were most represented in the profiles to determine Ka, LLWR, Bd, and εa. There was agreement between the HMUs and the quantitative indicators. The LLWR showed greater values for Bdc under no-tillage (NTr = 1.36 Mg m-3 and NTs = 1.37 Mg m-3) than under conventional tillage (CTs = 1.31 Mg m-3 and CTr = 1.33 mg m-3). The proportion of samples where Bd > Bdc was 23 % under CTs, 77 % under CTr, 32 % under NTs, and 39 % under NTr. The structures that were most restrictive to root development (CΔ, CΔμ, FmtΔμ, and FmtμΔ) show a lower Ka and greater soil penetration resistance as the soil dries. Pores are more continuous and the structure is less restrictive to plant development in no-tillage than in conventional tillage.Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-06832018000100510Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo v.42 2018reponame:Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (SBCS)instacron:SBCS10.1590/18069657rbcs20160393info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessWatanabe,RafaelaTormena,Cássio AntonioGuimarães,Maria de FátimaTavares Filho,JoãoRalisch,RicardoFranchini,JulioDebiasi,Henriqueeng2018-02-20T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-06832018000100510Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0100-0683&lng=es&nrm=isohttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sbcs@ufv.br1806-96570100-0683opendoar:2018-02-20T00:00Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (SBCS)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
title Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
spellingShingle Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
Watanabe,Rafaela
least limiting water range
air permeability
no-tillage
conventional tillage
title_short Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
title_full Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
title_fullStr Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
title_full_unstemmed Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
title_sort Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?
author Watanabe,Rafaela
author_facet Watanabe,Rafaela
Tormena,Cássio Antonio
Guimarães,Maria de Fátima
Tavares Filho,João
Ralisch,Ricardo
Franchini,Julio
Debiasi,Henrique
author_role author
author2 Tormena,Cássio Antonio
Guimarães,Maria de Fátima
Tavares Filho,João
Ralisch,Ricardo
Franchini,Julio
Debiasi,Henrique
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Watanabe,Rafaela
Tormena,Cássio Antonio
Guimarães,Maria de Fátima
Tavares Filho,João
Ralisch,Ricardo
Franchini,Julio
Debiasi,Henrique
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv least limiting water range
air permeability
no-tillage
conventional tillage
topic least limiting water range
air permeability
no-tillage
conventional tillage
description ABSTRACT Soil and crop management systems change the soil structure, thereby affecting soil quality. The “profil cultural” method (PCM) has been used to identify the effects of management systems on soil structure; however, few studies relate the structures identified by the PCM to quantitative indicators of soil structural quality. This study aimed to quantify soil structures using the PCM and relate these structures to bulk density (Bd), critical bulk density (Bdc), soil aeration capacity (εa), least limiting water range (LLWR), and soil air permeability (Ka) under different soil and crop management systems. The study was developed in a long-term experiment (24 years) involving two systems of soil management (no-tillage and conventional tillage) and two systems of crop management (rotation and succession), resulting in four treatments: no-tillage with crop rotation (NTr), no-tillage with crop succession (NTs), conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop rotation (CTr) and conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop succession (CTs). The PCM was used to identify the different homogeneous morphological units (HMUs) in the soil profile. Undisturbed soil samples were collected for the HMUs that were most represented in the profiles to determine Ka, LLWR, Bd, and εa. There was agreement between the HMUs and the quantitative indicators. The LLWR showed greater values for Bdc under no-tillage (NTr = 1.36 Mg m-3 and NTs = 1.37 Mg m-3) than under conventional tillage (CTs = 1.31 Mg m-3 and CTr = 1.33 mg m-3). The proportion of samples where Bd > Bdc was 23 % under CTs, 77 % under CTr, 32 % under NTs, and 39 % under NTr. The structures that were most restrictive to root development (CΔ, CΔμ, FmtΔμ, and FmtμΔ) show a lower Ka and greater soil penetration resistance as the soil dries. Pores are more continuous and the structure is less restrictive to plant development in no-tillage than in conventional tillage.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-06832018000100510
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-06832018000100510
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/18069657rbcs20160393
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo v.42 2018
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (SBCS)
instacron:SBCS
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (SBCS)
instacron_str SBCS
institution SBCS
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo (SBCS)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sbcs@ufv.br
_version_ 1752126521837879296