Soil physical quality in response to intensification of grain production systems

• Autor(a) principal: Mota,Paula K.
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Silva,Bruno M., Borghi,Emerson, Viana,João H. M., Resende,Álvaro V. de, Moura,Maíse S. de
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-43662020001000647
• topic: Urochloa ruziziensis; soil management; soil water properties; crop rotations; principal component analysis

ABSTRACT The Brazilian Cerrado stands out in relation to grain production, however, in this region the occurrence of summer and irregular rainfall, drastically harm the non-irrigated production. Conservationist managements favor the soil physical quality and, consequently, the efficiency of soil water consumption. The objective of this study was to evaluate the soil physical quality, as a function of the conservation managements adopted, by using physical soil quality indicators, and to verify its relation with the soil organic carbon stocks and the grain yield in the Cerrado of Minas Gerais state, Brazil. For that, six treatments were evaluated: soybean (1) and maize (2) monocultures crop systems at medium level of investment in soil fertilization, soybean-maize crop succession at medium (3) and high (6) level of investment in soil fertilization, and crop succession of soybean-maize and intercropped with Urochloa ruziziensis at medium (4) and high (5) level of investment in soil fertilization, during the initial stage of no-tillage system. The treatments 3, 4, 5 and 6 showed improvement in the soil physical quality in relation to the monoculture. Pore distribution ​​and soil organic carbon content were the main responsible for discriminating the intensified crop systems. Attributes related to water availability were important for plant growth in the 0-0.05 m layer, while for the 0.15-0.20 m layer, the highest soil aeration stood out. Productivity did not correlate with the evaluated attributes.