Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T13:55:01.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Selected rock powders as sources of nutrients for soil fertilization and maize-wheat grain production in southern Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2023

A. L. Bamberg*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, Embrapa Clima Temperado - BR 392, Km 78, 9° Distrito, Monte Bonito, Caixa Postal 403, CEP: 796010-971 - Pelotas, RS State, Brazil
R. Martinazzo
Affiliation:
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, Embrapa Clima Temperado - BR 392, Km 78, 9° Distrito, Monte Bonito, Caixa Postal 403, CEP: 796010-971 - Pelotas, RS State, Brazil
C. A. P. Silveira
Affiliation:
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, Embrapa Clima Temperado - BR 392, Km 78, 9° Distrito, Monte Bonito, Caixa Postal 403, CEP: 796010-971 - Pelotas, RS State, Brazil
C. N. Pillon
Affiliation:
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, Embrapa Clima Temperado - BR 392, Km 78, 9° Distrito, Monte Bonito, Caixa Postal 403, CEP: 796010-971 - Pelotas, RS State, Brazil
L. Stumpf
Affiliation:
Soil Science, Department of Soils, Federal University of Pelotas - Campus Universitário, S/N – CEP: 96010-610 - Capão do Leão, RS State, Brazil
M. Bergmann
Affiliation:
Geological Survey of Brazil, Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais (CPRM) - Rua Banco da Província, 105 CEP: 90840-030 - Porto Alegre, RS State, Brazil
P. van Straaten
Affiliation:
Agrogeology, Environmental Geology, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
E. S. Martins
Affiliation:
Management and Conservation of Natural Resources, Embrapa Cerrados - BR 020, Km 18, Caixa Postal 08223, CEP: 73310-970 - Planaltina, DF State, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: A. L. Bamberg; Email: adilson.bamberg@embrapa.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study evaluated alternative sources of nutrients to improve the soil fertility status and yield of maize-wheat succession in Southern Brazil. The treatments were: T1: no fertilization; T2: liming with dolomitic marble; T3: alternative liming (AL) with limestone interbedded with shale; T4: AL + 50% P - with Arad natural phosphate (P-ANP) + 50% P – triple superphosphate (P-TSP); T5: AL + 100% P-ANP; T6: AL + 100% P-ANP + 100% K-rich monzogranite; T7: AL + 100% P-ANP + 100% N (50% N from tung pressed cake (N-TPC) + 50% N-urea); T8: AL + 100% P-ANP + 100% K-rich monzogranite + 100% N (50% N-TPC + 50% N-Urea) + 100% S; T9: AL + regional average rate of NPK (5-20-20) formulation. Except for T7 and T8, all treatments received the full recommended rate of N through Urea. Immediate and residual effects were evaluated over 2.5 years (90, 360 and 900 days) on soil fertility and maize - wheat yield. The limestone interbedded with shale released Ca, Mg and corrected soil acidity similarly to dolomitic marble. The fertilization strategies used in T4, T7 and T8 presented the highest cumulative productivities while T3 (U$ = 1223), T9 (U$ = 1174) and T4 (U$ = 1122) resulted in higher profits than the other evaluated fertilization strategies. The limestone interbedded with shale (T3), alone or combined with 50% of P-ANP + 50% of P – TSP (T4) provided the best economical and technical results, highlighting the potential of selected alternative regional sources for soil fertility improvement and plant-nutrients supply.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Soil chemical attributes at 0.0 to 0.2 m of a Planosol before the implementation of the experiment (Embrapa Clima Temperado, Pelotas/RS)

Figure 1

Table 2. Mineralogy description of the agrominerals used as nutrient alternative sources

Figure 2

Figure 1. Location of the regional sources of nutrients in Southern Brazil.

Figure 3

Table 3. Total concentrations of N, P2O5, K2O, CaO, MgO and S of mineral and organic sources

Figure 4

Table 4. Type, doses at implementation and total loads of mineral and organic sources of macro and micronutrients applied in each treatment along the maize plus wheat cultivation seasons

Figure 5

Table 5. Analysis of variance of the experimental treatment factors: (a) fertilization (T1 to T9); (b) sampling season of soil chemical attributes (90 × 360 × 900 d after fertilization)

Figure 6

Figure 2. Effect of different fertilization strategies (T1–T9) on soil pH, base saturation and aluminium saturation of the arable soil (0.0–0.2 m): independently of the sampling time ((a), (c) and (e)); and independently of the fertilization strategy at 90, 360 and 900 d after application of treatments ((b), (d) and (f)).Boxes with the same low case letter are not significantly different by the Tukey test (P < 0.05). ns: not significant. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation of each treatment mean (n = 12) and days after application (n = 36).

Figure 7

Figure 3. Effect of different fertilization strategies (T1–T9) on extractable phosphorus and potassium (Mehlich-1), and available sulphur of the arable soil (0.0-0.2 m): interaction between fertilization strategies (T1–T9) and sampling time for phosphorus (a) and sulphur (d); independently of the sampling time for potassium (b); and independently of the fertilization strategy for potassium (c) at 90, 360 and 900 d after fertilization.For P and S, treatments with the same low case letters are not significantly different by the Tukey test (P < 0.05). Within each fertilization strategy (T1–T9), means with the same upper-case letters do not differ significantly by the Tukey test (P < 0.05). The vertical bars represent the standard deviation. For P and S: each treatment mean (n = 4). For K: each treatment mean (n = 12), for days after application (n = 36).

Figure 8

Figure 4. Effect of different fertilization strategies (T1–T9) on available calcium, magnesium and manganese of the arable soil (0.0–0.2 m): independently of the sampling time ((a), (c) and (e)); and independently of the fertilization strategy at 90, 360 and 900 d after application of treatments ((b), (d) and (f)).Boxes with the same low case letter are not significantly different by the Tukey test (P < 0.05). ns: not significant. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation of each treatment mean (n = 12) and days after application (n = 36).

Figure 9

Table 6. Mean yield and standard errors of maize (main effect) and wheat (residual effect) grown in Planosol under different mineral and organic sources, differences in relation to mean yield of crops in Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil (Δref) and the profit (P) of the fertilization strategies

Figure 10

Figure 5. Influence of different fertilization strategies (T1–T9) on available zinc, copper and boron of the topsoil (0.0–0.2 m): independently of the sampling time ((a), (c) and (e)); and independently of the fertilization strategy at 90, 360 and 900 d after application of treatments ((b), (d) and (f)).Boxes with the same low case letter are not significantly different by the Tukey test (P < 0.05). ns: not significant. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation of each treatment mean (n = 12) and days after application (n = 36).

Supplementary material: File

Bamberg et al. supplementary material

Bamberg et al. supplementary material
Download Bamberg et al. supplementary material(File)
File 11.3 KB