Abstract
Context Soil management in forest sites is crucial for ensuring an adequate physical environment for forest growth and development. Aims This study aimed to test if chiselling improves soil physical conditions, fine root growth, and height and stem diameter growth of Pinus taeda L. in southern Brazil. Methods The experimental design used randomised blocks with three tillage methods: no-tillage/control, handmade pit, and mechanical subsoiling. Parameters evaluated included tree height, stem diameter, and estimated volume at 12 and 24 months after planting. Soil physical and chemical properties, along with root traits such as root length density (RLD) and fine root density (FRD), were analysed when the trees were 24 months old. Key results Soil chemical properties were unaffected by tillage method, but significant differences in soil physical properties were observed. Subsoiling provided the best physical environment, with lower bulk density and penetration resistance. Roots were concentrated in the surface layer (0.00–0.05 m), with an average of 41% RLD and 37% FRD across all treatments. Conclusions Subsoiling provided the greatest tree height, stem diameter, and estimated volume. Therefore, subsoiling was the most effective tillage method for P. taeda growth and development on a clayey Oxisol under subtropical environment. Implications Our results can guide the best strategies for soil tillage in Pinus plantations, helping to minimize the environmental impact through proper soil management and understanding of the dynamics of the roots, maximizing the production of Pinus.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not change soil chemistry.
- Taxon
- Pinus taeda
Pinus taedat0 - Treatment
- tillage methode0
- Outcome
- Soil chemical propertiese0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil chemical properties were unaffected by tillage method”
t0“Pinus taeda”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling lowered bulk density and penetration resistance.
- Taxon
- Pinus taedaPinus taedat0
- Treatment
- Subsoilinge0
- Outcome
- bulk density and penetration resistancee0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Subsoiling provided the best physical environment, with lower bulk density and penetration resistance”
t0“Pinus taeda”
Claim · model-written summary
Fine roots were concentrated in the surface layer.
- Taxon
- Pinus taedaPinus taedat0
- Organ / stage
- surface layer (0.00–0.05 m)e0
- Outcome
- Rootse0
- Value
- 41% RLD and 37% FRDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Roots were concentrated in the surface layer (0.00–0.05 m), with an average of 41% RLD and 37% FRD across all treatments”
t0“Pinus taeda”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling gave the greatest tree height, stem diameter and estimated volume.
- Taxon
- Pinus taedaPinus taedat0
- Treatment
- Subsoilinge0
- Outcome
- tree height, stem diameter, and estimated volumee0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Subsoiling provided the greatest tree height, stem diameter, and estimated volume”
t0“Pinus taeda”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Pinus taeda (loblolly pine)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
tillage · disease · Pinus taeda (loblolly pine)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
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.