4.7 Article

Corn root and soil health indicator response to no-till production practices

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106607

关键词

Soil compaction; Root growth; Soil structure; Soil organic carbon; Soil quality

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2015/12934-3]
  2. Brazilian Research Council (CNPq)
  3. Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crop production guidelines in Brazil currently focus on soil fertility or chemical indicators (i.e., soil pH and nutrient availability) but often neglect physical and biological aspects of soil health. No-tillage (NT) practices have been widely adopted in Brazil primarily to mitigate erosion, but chemical-based guidelines associated with those practices may be contributing to nutrient stratification and a concentration of crop roots within the top few centimeters of the soil profile. Our objective was to quantify relationships between soil physical and chemical attributes and root growth in soils with a long-term NT history (> 10-yr). Crop root development and several soil health indicators were measured within the 0 to 7-, 7- to 17- and 20- to 30-cm depth increments of two long-term NT studies on Rhodic Hapludox soils in Brazil. Data from both experiments showed strong organic carbon (OC) stratification, significant differences in soil physical and chemical attributes, and root systems that were concentrated within the surface layer. Soil compaction below 7-cm appeared to be the dominant factor limiting root growth. Soil-test phosphorus (P) and OC were also correlated to root growth. Based on these analyses and other on-farm observations, we concluded that it is important to recognize that despite its benefits, NT practices can result in plant root stratification. Therefore, it is important to not only monitor soil fertility/chemical conditions, but also soil structure and biological indicators of soil health when developing NT guidelines for Brazil.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据