Quantification of the least limiting water range in an oxisol using two methodological strategies

The least limiting water range (LLWR) has been used as an indicator of soil physical quality as it represents, in a single parameter, the soil physical properties directly linked to plant growth, with the exception of temperature. The usual procedure for obtaining the LLWR involves determination of the water retention curve (WRC) and the soil resistance to penetration curve (SRC) in soil samples with undisturbed structure in the laboratory. Determination of the WRC and SRC using field measurements (in situ ) is preferable, but requires appropriate instrumentation. The objective of this study was to determine the LLWR from the data collected for determination of WRC and SRC in situ using portable electronic instruments, and to compare those determinations with the ones made in the laboratory. Samples were taken from the 0.0-0.1 m layer of a Latossolo Vermelho distrófico (Oxisol). Two methods were used for quantification of the LLWR: the traditional, with measurements made in soil samples with undisturbed structure; and in situ , with measurements of water content (θ), soil water potential (Ψ), and soil resistance to penetration (SR) through the use of sensors. The in situ measurements of θ, Ψ and SR were taken over a period of four days of soil drying. At the same time, samples with undisturbed structure were collected for determination of bulk density (BD). Due to the limitations of measurement of Ψ by tensiometer, additional determinations of θ were made with a psychrometer (in the laboratory) at the Ψ of -1500 kPa. The results show that it is possible to determine the LLWR by the θ, Ψ and SR measurements using the suggested approach and instrumentation. The quality of fit of the SRC was similar in both strategies. In contrast, the θ and Ψ in situ measurements, associated with those measured with a psychrometer, produced a better WRC description. The estimates of the LLWR were similar in both methodological strategies. The quantification of LLWR in situ can be achieved in 10 % of the time required for the traditional method.

Soil water erosion under different cultivation systems and different fertilization rates and forms over 10 years

The action of rain and surface runoff together are the active agents of water erosion, and further influences are the soil type, terrain, soil cover, soil management, and conservation practices. Soil water erosion is low in the no-tillage management system, being influenced by the amount and form of lime and fertilizer application to the soil, among other factors. The aim was to evaluate the effect of the form of liming, the quantity and management of fertilizer application on the soil and water losses by erosion under natural rainfall. The study was carried out between 2003 and 2013 on a Humic Dystrupept soil, with the following treatments: T1 - cultivation with liming and corrective fertilizer incorporated into the soil in the first year, and with 100 % annual maintenance fertilization of P and K; T2 - surface liming and corrective fertilization distributed over five years, and with 75 % annual maintenance fertilization of P and K; T3 - surface liming and corrective fertilization distributed over three years, and with 50 % annual maintenance fertilization of P and K; T4 - surface liming and corrective fertilization distributed over two years, and with 25 % annual maintenance fertilization of P and K; T5 - fallow soil, without liming or fertilization. In the rotation the crops black oat (Avena strigosa ), soybean (Glycine max ), common vetch (Vicia sativa ), maize (Zea mays ), fodder radish (Raphanus sativus ), and black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris ). The split application of lime and mineral fertilizer to the soil surface in a no-tillage system over three and five years, results in better control of soil losses than when split in two years. The increase in the amount of fertilizer applied to the soil surface under no-tillage cultivation increases phytomass production and reduces soil loss by water erosion. Water losses in treatments under no-tillage cultivation were low in all crop cycles, with a similar behavior as soil losses.