Juciane Maria Santos Sousa Vieira, R. Romero, Raul Shiso Toma, Jaedson Claudio Anunciato Mota, M. Costa
{"title":"具有不同诊断层深的Planosols的潜力和局限性","authors":"Juciane Maria Santos Sousa Vieira, R. Romero, Raul Shiso Toma, Jaedson Claudio Anunciato Mota, M. Costa","doi":"10.22267/rcia.213802.163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a variation in the depth of subsurface horizon of Planosols in semi-arid region, which may influence the agricultural potential and affect food production. The general aim of this study was to identify potentialities and limitations of two Planosols as a function of subsurface horizon depth. The adjacent profiles P1 and P2 were studied in Pentecoste (Ceará, Brazil). Morphological, physical, and chemical analyses were done aiming at soil characterization. Soil bulk density (BD), porosity, and penetration resistance (PR) were analyzed in a completely randomized split-plot design with four replicates to compare P1 and P2 and the horizons Ap and Btf. Btf was found at 62cm depth in P1 and at 18 cm depth in P2. Indicatives of water saturation were more evident in P2. The profile P1 showed lower hardness and higher friability, as well as higher acidity in subsurface (pHH2O from 4.4 to 4.7) and higher aluminum content (1.2cmolc kg-1). Both profiles were eutrophic and showed low contents of organic carbon (1.5 to 8.5g kg-1) and phosphorus (0.9 to 3.9mg kg-1). The sodium percentage in CEC was 9.1% in P1 and 5.5% in P2. Water retention increases in Btf compared with Ap was 7.3% in P2 and 2.7% in P1. Both profiles showed increase in BD in Btf, reaching 1.7g cm-3, while PR was higher in P2 (1.5 MPa). There are potentialities and limitations common to both soil profiles, but P1 has more physical potentialities and more chemical limitations than P2.","PeriodicalId":211714,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas","volume":"251 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potentialities and limitations of Planosols with distinct depths of diagnostic horizon\",\"authors\":\"Juciane Maria Santos Sousa Vieira, R. Romero, Raul Shiso Toma, Jaedson Claudio Anunciato Mota, M. Costa\",\"doi\":\"10.22267/rcia.213802.163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a variation in the depth of subsurface horizon of Planosols in semi-arid region, which may influence the agricultural potential and affect food production. The general aim of this study was to identify potentialities and limitations of two Planosols as a function of subsurface horizon depth. The adjacent profiles P1 and P2 were studied in Pentecoste (Ceará, Brazil). Morphological, physical, and chemical analyses were done aiming at soil characterization. Soil bulk density (BD), porosity, and penetration resistance (PR) were analyzed in a completely randomized split-plot design with four replicates to compare P1 and P2 and the horizons Ap and Btf. Btf was found at 62cm depth in P1 and at 18 cm depth in P2. Indicatives of water saturation were more evident in P2. The profile P1 showed lower hardness and higher friability, as well as higher acidity in subsurface (pHH2O from 4.4 to 4.7) and higher aluminum content (1.2cmolc kg-1). Both profiles were eutrophic and showed low contents of organic carbon (1.5 to 8.5g kg-1) and phosphorus (0.9 to 3.9mg kg-1). The sodium percentage in CEC was 9.1% in P1 and 5.5% in P2. Water retention increases in Btf compared with Ap was 7.3% in P2 and 2.7% in P1. Both profiles showed increase in BD in Btf, reaching 1.7g cm-3, while PR was higher in P2 (1.5 MPa). There are potentialities and limitations common to both soil profiles, but P1 has more physical potentialities and more chemical limitations than P2.\",\"PeriodicalId\":211714,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas\",\"volume\":\"251 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22267/rcia.213802.163\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22267/rcia.213802.163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Potentialities and limitations of Planosols with distinct depths of diagnostic horizon
There is a variation in the depth of subsurface horizon of Planosols in semi-arid region, which may influence the agricultural potential and affect food production. The general aim of this study was to identify potentialities and limitations of two Planosols as a function of subsurface horizon depth. The adjacent profiles P1 and P2 were studied in Pentecoste (Ceará, Brazil). Morphological, physical, and chemical analyses were done aiming at soil characterization. Soil bulk density (BD), porosity, and penetration resistance (PR) were analyzed in a completely randomized split-plot design with four replicates to compare P1 and P2 and the horizons Ap and Btf. Btf was found at 62cm depth in P1 and at 18 cm depth in P2. Indicatives of water saturation were more evident in P2. The profile P1 showed lower hardness and higher friability, as well as higher acidity in subsurface (pHH2O from 4.4 to 4.7) and higher aluminum content (1.2cmolc kg-1). Both profiles were eutrophic and showed low contents of organic carbon (1.5 to 8.5g kg-1) and phosphorus (0.9 to 3.9mg kg-1). The sodium percentage in CEC was 9.1% in P1 and 5.5% in P2. Water retention increases in Btf compared with Ap was 7.3% in P2 and 2.7% in P1. Both profiles showed increase in BD in Btf, reaching 1.7g cm-3, while PR was higher in P2 (1.5 MPa). There are potentialities and limitations common to both soil profiles, but P1 has more physical potentialities and more chemical limitations than P2.