Paper · 2015 · Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo

SWEET SORGHUM PERFORMANCE AFFECTED BY SOIL COMPACTION AND SOWING TIME AS A SECOND CROP IN THE BRAZILIAN CERRADO

Wellingthon da Silva Guimarães Júnnyor; Eduardo da Costa Severiano; Alessandro Guerra da Silva; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

ABSTRACT Increasing attention has recently been given to sweet sorghum as a renewable raw material for ethanol production, mainly because its cultivation can be fully mechanized. However, the intensive use of agricultural machinery causes soil structural degradation, especially when performed under inadequate conditions of soil moisture. The aims of this study were to evaluate the physical quality of aLatossolo Vermelho Distroférrico (Oxisol) under compaction and its components on sweet sorghum yield forsecond cropsowing in the Brazilian Cerrado (Brazilian tropical savanna). The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design, in a split plot arrangement, with four replications. Five levels of soil compaction were tested from the passing of a tractor at the following traffic intensities: 0 (absence of additional compaction), 1, 2, 7, and 15 passes over the same spot. The subplots consisted of three different sowing times of sweet sorghum during the off-season of 2013 (20/01, 17/02, and 16/03). Soil physical quality was measured through the least limiting water range (LLWR) and soil water limitation; crop yield and technological parameters were also measured. Monitoring of soil water contents indicated a reduction in the frequency of water content in the soil within the limits of the LLWR (Fwithin) as agricultural traffic increased (T0 = T1 = T2>T7>T15), and crop yield is directly associated with soil water content. The crop sown in January had higher industrial quality; however, there was stalk yield reduction when bulk density was greater than 1.26 Mg m-3, with a maximum yield of 50 Mg ha-1 in this sowing time. Cultivation of sweet sorghum as a second crop is a promising alternative, but care should be taken in cultivation under conditions of pronounced climatic risks, due to low stalk yield.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sweet sorghum sown in January had higher industrial quality.

Taxon
sweet sorghumt0
Treatment
sown in Januarye0
Outcome
industrial qualitye0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“SWEET SORGHUM PERFORMANCE AFFECTED BY SOIL COMPACTION”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–53 · show in text ↑
e0

“The crop sown in January had higher industrial quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1445–1499 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stalk yield was reduced when bulk density was greater than 1.26 Mg m-3.

Taxon
sweet sorghumt0
Treatment
bulk densitye1
Outcome
stalk yielde1
Direction
reductione1
Value
1.26 Mg m-3e1

Verbatim

t0

“SWEET SORGHUM PERFORMANCE AFFECTED BY SOIL COMPACTION”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–53 · show in text ↑
e1

“there was stalk yield reduction when bulk density was greater than 1.26 Mg m-3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1510–1588 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sweet sorghum reached a maximum yield of 50 Mg ha-1 in the January sowing time.

Taxon
sweet sorghumt0
Outcome
maximum yielde2
Direction
maximume2
Value
50 Mg ha-1e2
Qualifier
in this sowing timee2

Verbatim

t0

“SWEET SORGHUM PERFORMANCE AFFECTED BY SOIL COMPACTION”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–53 · show in text ↑
e2

“with a maximum yield of 50 Mg ha-1 in this sowing time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1590–1644 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crop yield was directly associated with soil water content.

Taxon
sweet sorghumt0
Treatment
soil water contente3
Outcome
crop yielde3
Direction
increaseinferrede3

Verbatim

t0

“SWEET SORGHUM PERFORMANCE AFFECTED BY SOIL COMPACTION”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–53 · show in text ↑
e3

“crop yield is directly associated with soil water content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1386–1443 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Frequency of soil water content within the LLWR decreased as agricultural traffic increased.

Taxon
sweet sorghumt0
Treatment
agricultural traffice4
Outcome
frequency of water content in the soil within the limits of the LLWR (Fwithin)e4
Direction
reductione4
Qualifier
T0 = T1 = T2>T7>T15e4

Verbatim

t0

“SWEET SORGHUM PERFORMANCE AFFECTED BY SOIL COMPACTION”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–53 · show in text ↑
e4

“a reduction in the frequency of water content in the soil within the limits of the LLWR (Fwithin) as agricultural traffic increased (T0 = T1 = T2>T7>T15)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1227–1380 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivation of sweet sorghum as a second crop is a promising alternative, with care under pronounced climatic risks.

Taxon
sweet sorghumt0
Outcome
Cultivation of sweet sorghum as a second crope5

Verbatim

t0

“SWEET SORGHUM PERFORMANCE AFFECTED BY SOIL COMPACTION”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–53 · show in text ↑
e5

“Cultivation of sweet sorghum as a second crop is a promising alternative”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1646–1718 · show in text ↑

sowing time · quality: general · SorghumPositive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.