Next Article in Journal
‘Generation Rent’ in a Super Homeownership Environment: The Case of Budapest, Hungary
Previous Article in Journal
Latin American Cattle Ranching Sustainability Debate: An Approach to Social-Ecological Systems and Spatial-Temporal Scales
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/su14148926
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

New Methodologies for the Surface Application of Limestone and Gypsum in Different Crop Systems

by
Wander Luis Barbosa Borges
1,*,
Pedro Henrique Gatto Juliano
2,
Isabela Malaquias Dalto de Souza
3,
Letícia Nayara Fuzaro Rodrigues
3,
Jorge Luiz Hipólito
4 and
Marcelo Andreotti
3
1
Centro Avançado de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento de Seringueira e Sistemas Agroflorestais, Instituto Agronômico, Votuporanga 15505-970, SP, Brazil
2
Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal 14884-900, SP, Brazil
3
Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Ilha Solteira 15385-000, SP, Brazil
4
Departmento de Sementes, Mudas e Matrizes, Coordenadoria de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável, Araçatuba 16050-174, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(14), 8926; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148926
Submission received: 7 June 2022 / Revised: 1 July 2022 / Accepted: 18 July 2022 / Published: 21 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advanced Techniques for Assessing Soil Chemistry)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To address the problems of soil acidity (pH values below 4.4) in surface and subsurface soil layers and improve soil chemical fertility, this study evaluated three methodologies for surface application of limestone (LS) (ensuring that calcium (Ca)2+ occupied 70%, 60% or 50% of cation exchange capacity (CEC) at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m) and gypsum (GP, phosphogypsum) (ensuring that Ca2+ occupied 60%, 50% or 40% of effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC) at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m). LS and GP were applied in a conventional pasture system (CPS), no-till system (NTS), and agropastoral system (APS) in an Arenic Hapludult in Brazil. Surface application of LS and GP using these three methodologies corrected surface and subsurface acidity and improved soil chemical fertility. Specifically, Ca2+ content increased in the CPS, NTS, and APS at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m and in the CPS and APS at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m; sulfur (S)-SO42− content and Ca2+/ECEC increased in the CPS, NTS, and APS at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m; base saturation (BS) increased and aluminum (Al)3+ content decreased in the NTS and APS at depths of 0.0–0.2 m and 0.2–0.4 m; and pH, magnesium (Mg)2+ content, CEC, Ca2+/CEC, and Mg2+/CEC increased and total acidity decreased in the NTS and APS at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m.

1. Introduction

Conservation management systems aim to prevent soil erosion or degradation and are widely used in agriculture. No-till systems (NTSs) eliminate the practice of turning the soil and allow plant material to accumulate on the surface for the sowing or planting of the next crop [1]. Agropastoral systems (APSs) incorporate pasture, which takes advantage of the soil correction and residual fertilizer applied to the previous crop. In turn, the successive crop benefits from the physical conditioning of the soil and straw production by the pasture [2]. In these conservation management systems, soil acidity is typically corrected by applying limestone (LS) on the soil surface without incorporation. The low mobility of the dissolution products of surface-applied LS limits its efficiency in reducing acidity in subsurface layers of the soil, resulting in variable loads that depend on the leaching of organic and/or inorganic salts through the soil profile [3]. Surface liming (LS application) creates a soil acidity correction front in the soil that is proportional to dose and time [4,5]. Several studies have shown that the positive effects of superficial liming are most pronounced in the surface layers of the soil [5,6,7,8,9,10,11].
Subsoil acidity limits agricultural productivity by restricting root growth and the absorption of water and nutrients by crops [12,13,14]. Improving soil conditions below the surface layers can increase and/or stabilize crop yield, especially in regions with dry winters that are subject to dry spells. One such region is the Cerrado biome in Brazil, which is also characterized by Ca deficiency in the soil subsurface, frequently in association with Al toxicity [15]. An interesting option for improving the subsurface soil layers in NTSs is the application of gypsum (GP), which has been used in acidic soils as a complement to LS [16,17]. The high mobility of GP has been attributed to its greater solubility and the presence of a stable sulfate anion (SO42−) [18]. In Europe, the anticipated expansion of soil salinization due to climate change is expected to increase the demand for GP as a soil amendment [19,20].
Surface application of GP in NTSs reduces exchangeable Al3+ levels, increases Ca2+ and S-SO42− levels and, in some cases, indirectly raises pH values in subsurface soil layers [6,7,21,22,23,24,25]. Positive effects of GP application after 24 months have been reported [6], and these effects persisted at 36 months after application [7]. In another study, increased pH was observed at depths of 0.2–0.4 m at 8 months and 0.4–0.6 m at 20 and 32 months after surface application of GP [26]. GP has also been found to increase pH and Ca2+ and S-SO42− levels and reduce exchangeable Al3+ levels in the soil up to 18 months after application [20]. The authors attributed this effect to a ligand exchange reaction on the surface of soil particles that involved partial neutralization of acidity [27]. Other studies have observed increases in Ca2+ levels in the soil profile and Mg2+ lixiviation [24,26,28,29] and decreases in exchangeable Al3+ [22,23,30] due to surface application of GP.
There is a need to test new LS and GP dosing methodologies, as surface application of LS does not effectively correct subsurface acidity and the optimal dosage of GP remains unclear. To contribute to solving the problems of acidity in the surface and subsurface layers and improving soil chemical fertility in conventional pasture systems (CPSs), NTSs, and APSs, in this study we tested the following hypothesis: surface application of LS (ensuring that Ca2+ occupies 70%, 60%, or 50% of CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m) and surface application of GP (ensuring that Ca2+ occupies 60%, 50%, or 40% of ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m) can correct surface and subsurface acidity and improve soil chemical fertility.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site, Soil, Climate, and Treatments

The experiment was carried out at the Advanced Research Center and Development for Rubber and Agroforestry Systems of the Agronomic Institute (IAC) of the São Paulo Agency for Agribusiness Technology (APTA), which is located in the Cerrado biome in the municipality of Votuporanga, São Paulo State, Brazil (20°20′ S, 49°58′ W and 510 m altitude). The soil in the experimental area is classified as an Arenic Hapludult (USDA soil classification system) [31], hereafter referred to as Ultisol, with a sandy texture. Each plot was 5 m long and 5 m wide, with a total area of 25 m2. The climate in the region is tropical with dry winters (Aw-type according to Köppen’s classification). The average annual maximum, minimum, and mean temperatures are 31.2 °C, 17.4 °C, and 24 °C, respectively, and the annual average rainfall is 1328.6 mm. Monthly data on potential evapotranspiration (PET), rainfall (R), and average temperature (T) in Votuporanga from 1 November 2017 to 29 February 2020 are shown in Figure 1. Data on PET for January and February 2020 were not available from the data source used.
The experimental design was randomized complete blocks with four replications and four treatments involving LS and GP application. The details of the LS and GP applications in each treatment are provided in Table 1.
The LS contained 31% CaO and 21% MgO, and the GP contained 17% CaO and 14% S (S-SO4). To calculate the required amount of LS, the following equation was used according to the methodology of [33]:
LS amount (Mg ha−1) = Ca2+ saturation in CEC − exchangeable Ca2+ content in cmolc dm−3 at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m
CEC was calculated as the sum of the contents of exchangeable cations:
CEC = Ca2+ + Mg2+ + potassium (K)+ + total acidity (hydrogen (H)+ + Al3+) at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m
Ca2+ saturation (70%, 60%, and 50%) was calculated as:
100 × Ca2+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m
To calculate the required amount of GP, the following equation was used according to the methodology of [34]:
GP amount (Mg ha−1) = Ca2+ saturation in ECEC − exchangeable Ca2+ content in cmolc dm−3 at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m × 6.4
ECEC was calculated as the sum of the contents of exchangeable cations:
ECEC = Al3+ + Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+ at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m
Ca2+ saturation (60%, 50%, and 40%) was calculated as:
100 × Ca2+/ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m
Three crop systems were used: CPS, NTS, and APS. The total area of each system was approximately 1.0 ha. In the T1, T2 and T3 treatments, LS and GP were broadcast (manually) on the soil surface (superficial application) on 22 November 2017 (spring), 30 August 2018 (winter), and 12 September 2019 (winter), in all crop systems. The three crop systems are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.

2.2. Crop Systems

The CPS was implemented in an area of recovered pasture cultivated with millet (Pennisetum glaucum) (fall-winter season 2008/09), soybean (Glycine max L.) (spring-summer season 2009/10), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea) (fall-winter season 2009/10), and maize intercropped with palisade grass (Urochloa brizantha syn. Brachiaria brizantha cultivar Marandu) (spring-summer season 2010/11). Beginning in September 2011, newly weaned beef cattle were introduced into the area and remained until slaughter, and the pasture was not restructured thereafter. A continuous grazing system was used with a stocking rate of 1–2 animal units ha−1 (one animal unit is equal to a live weight of 450 kg) according to the forage offered. The animals were allowed to move freely about the pasture. The cattle were grazed to a certain weight and removed, and a new set of cattle were introduced and grazed to a certain weight. LS (29% CaO and 20% MgO) was surface applied at a dose of 1000 kg ha−1 on 29 January 2016, and GP (17% CaO and 14% S-SO4) was surface applied at a dose of 300 kg ha−1 on 3 February 2016.
The NTS was implemented in the 2009/10 season in an area that was previously used for grain production in a conventional soil tillage system. The crops used in the NTS were soybean, maize, sunn hemp, grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid (S. bicolor × S. sudanense) intercropped with palisade grass and Congo grass (U. ruziziensis syn. B. ruziziensis). In the 2016/17 season, soybean and sunn hemp were grown in the spring-summer and fall-winter seasons, respectively.
The APS was implemented in the 2010/11 season in an area that had been previously used for grain production in a conventional soil tillage system. The crop rotation used in this system was soybean (spring-summer season), sunn hemp (after soybean; fall-winter season), and maize intercropped with palisade grass (after sunn hemp; spring-summer season). In this system, newly weaned beef cattle were introduced sixty days after the harvest of maize intercropped with palisade grass. The cattle remained in the area for 14 months. The area was then closed for thirty days, and the grass was desiccated with glyphosate (a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide). Next, soybean was sown in an NTS on the palisade grass straw. The grazing system was continuous, and the stocking rate was 2–4 animal units ha−1 according to the forage offered. The animals were allowed to move freely about the pasture, and different generations of animals were pastured on the same area.

2.3. Crop Management

  • 2017/18 season
The treatment schedule in the 2017/18 season with details of soil and crop management is shown in Table 2.
In the NTS and APS, the maize hybrid Dow AgroSciences 2B587 Power Core™ was sown mechanically on a straw of sunn hemp under no-till, at a row spacing of 0.8 m and density of 6.0 seeds m−1 (0.0167 m plant spacing). Basic fertilization was performed, sowing at a dose of 315 kg ha−1 of 08-28-16 fertilizer (8% N, 28% P2O5, and 16% K2O), with 1.7% Ca and 3.6% S-SO4. The first topdressing fertilization of maize was carried out using 20-00-20 fertilizer (20% N and 20% K2O) at a dose of 270 kg ha−1. The second topdressing fertilization of maize was carried out using ammonium sulfate (20% N and 22% S-SO4) at a dose of 250 kg ha−1.
Palisade grass was sown mechanically in the NTS and APS using 10 kg ha−1 of forage seeds with a cultural value of 50% mixed with simple superphosphate fertilizer (18% P2O5, 16% Ca, and 8% S-SO4; common practice) at a dose of 60 kg ha−1. Two rows were sown between rows of the maize crop. The cultural value of seed indicates seed quality and is calculated according to the following formula: cultural value = (%germination × %purity)/100.
  • Sampling and analysis
Soil samples were collected at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m before the application of the treatments to determine the initial soil characteristics and fertility [35]. The samples were collected at 10 random points in each crop system at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m; thus, 10 subsamples were collected at each depth of the crop system. The 10 subsamples were homogenized and pooled to form a composite sample for each depth of each crop system. Soil was sampled with a metal probe and air-dried before analysis.
pH was evaluated in 0.01 M CaCl2 2H2O solution, and total acidity (H+ + Al3+) was determined by titration using 1 N calcium acetate (C₄H₆CaO₄) solution, pH 7.0. S-SO42− content was determined by the calcium phosphate (Ca3(PO4)2) method, and the levels of P, K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ in the soil were determined by extraction with ion-exchange resin [35]. These results were used to calculate the base saturation (BS) based on the relationship between the content of exchangeable bases in the soil (Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+) and the cation exchange capacity (CEC) in cmolc dm−3, as well as the percentage ratios of K+/CEC, Ca2+/CEC, and Mg2+/CEC.
On 16 April 2018, new soil samples were collected for chemical analysis, determination of fertility [35], and calculation of the doses of LS and GP to be reapplied according to the treatments. The samples were collected at five random points in each plot at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m; thus, five subsamples were collected from each depth of each plot. The five subsamples were homogenized and pooled to form a composite sample of each depth of each plot. Soil was sampled with a metal probe and air-dried before analysis.
  • 2018/19 season
The treatment schedule in the 2018/19 season with details of soil and crop management is shown in Table 3.
Soybean sowing was carried out mechanically under no-till on the palisade grass straw using the soybean cultivar 74HO112TP IPRO Paranaiba. Seeds were sown at a row spacing of 0.5 m and density of 14 seeds m−1 (0.0714 m plant spacing). Fertilization was applied at sowing at a dose of 300 kg ha−1 of 04-20-20 fertilizer (4% N, 20% P2O5, and 20% K2O) with 4.9% Ca, 3.6% S-SO4, 0.05% B, 0.06% Mn and 0.27% Zn.
Sunn hemp was sown on soybean straw in the NTS at a row spacing of 0.5 m and density of 25 seeds m−1 (0.04 m plant spacing) under no-till.
  • Sampling and analysis
On 24 April 2019, new soil samples were collected for chemical analysis, determination of fertility [35], and calculation of the doses of LS and GP to be reapplied according to the treatments following the same methodologies used in the previous year.
  • 2019/20 season
The treatment schedule in the 2019/20 season with details of soil and crop management is shown in Table 4.
In the NTS, on 12 November 2019, palisade grass was sown in a broadcast system (manually) at a density of 1000 points of cultural value ha−1.
In the APS, soybean was sown mechanically under no-till on the palisade grass straw using the soybean cultivar 74HO112TP IPRO Paranaiba. Seeds were sown at a row spacing of 0.5 m and density of 16.75 seeds m−1 (0.0597 m plant spacing). Fertilization was applied at sowing at a dose of 300 kg ha−1 of 04-20-20 fertilizer (4% N, 20% P2O5, and 20% K2O) with 4.9% Ca, 3.6% S-SO4, 0.05% B, 0.06% Mn, and 0.27% Zn.
In the NTS, the maize hybrid Forseed FS533 PWU was sown mechanically on sunn hemp straw under no-till at a row spacing of 0.5 m and density of 4 seeds m−1 (0.25 m plant spacing). Basic fertilization was performed, sowing at a dose of 250 kg ha−1 of 08-28-16 fertilizer (8% N, 28% P2O5, and 16% K2O), with 1.7% Ca and 3.6% S-SO4. The first topdressing fertilization of maize was carried out using 20-00-20 fertilizer (20% N and 20% K2O) at a dose of 250 kg ha−1. The second topdressing fertilization of maize was carried out using ammonium sulfate (20% N and 22% S-SO4) at a dose of 250 kg ha−1.
  • Sampling and Analysis
On 16 June 2020, new soil samples were collected for chemical analysis and determination of fertility [35] following the same methodologies used in the previous year.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data of soil chemical attributes at each soil depth (0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m) in each season (2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20) were submitted to ANOVA (F test), and the averages were compared by the Tukey test (p < 0.05) using the software Assistat Version 7.7, [36], Campina Grande, Brazil. The standard errors of the means of significant changes in soil chemical attributes were also analyzed in graphical format using the software Microsoft Excel (2016).

3. Results

In the 2017/18 season, there was 7920 kg ha−1 and 7070 kg ha−1 of straw dry matter on the soil in the NTS and APS, respectively. In the NTS, the palisade grass was mowed on 27 November 2018, to facilitate soybean sowing, as the average green matter was 18,840 kg ha−1. Table 5 presents the initial soil characteristics.
Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 show the values of the F test for the chemical attributes of the soil at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the CPS, NTS, and APS, respectively, in the 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 seasons.
The Al3+ content was 0.0 cmolc dm−3 in several samples collected at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons in the CPS and 0.0–0.2 m in the 2019/20 season in the NTS and APS. Consequently, no statistical analysis of Al3+ content was performed.
Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the changes in the chemical attributes of the soil at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the CPS, NTS, and APS in the three seasons (2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20).
  • 2017/18 season
In the CPS, there were no differences (p < 0.05) in soil chemical attributes at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m among the treatments, despite the significant values of F for Ca2+ content and Ca2+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m.
In the NTS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, P content increased by 8.5 mg dm−3 in T3 compared with T1, but S-SO42−, K+, K+/CEC, and Mg2+/CEC did not differ (p < 0.05) among the treatments in which LS and GP were applied (T1, T2, and T3). At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, P content increased by 5.25–6.25 mg dm−3 in T3 compared with T2 and T1; S-SO42− content increased by 12.5–20.25 mg dm−3 in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control (T4); and Ca2+/ECEC increased by 11.82–15.5 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. By contrast, compared with the control, K+ content decreased by 0.06–0.09 cmolc dm−3 in T1, T2, and T3. K+/CEC and Mg2+/CEC did not differ (p < 0.05) among T1, T2, and T3.
In the APS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, Ca2+/CEC increased by 12.34 percentage points in T1 compared with the control (T4). In addition, S-SO42− content increased by 10.5 mg dm−3 in T1 and by 4.0–4.5 mg dm−3 in T2 and T3 compared with the control; P content increased by 9.5 mg dm−3 in T3 compared with T2; and Ca2+ content increased by 0.53 cmolc dm−3 in T1 compared with the control. Mg2+ and K+ content and Mg2+/CEC did not differ (p < 0.05) among T1, T2, and T3. By contrast, compared with the control, K+/CEC decreased by 0.89–1.05 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, S-SO42− content increased by 26.25 mg dm−3 in T1 and by 5.5–7.5 mg dm−3 in T2 and T3 compared with the control; P content increased by 9.75–11.5 mg dm−3 in T1 and T3 compared with T2; Ca2+/CEC increased by 8.42 and 7.24 percentage points in T1 and T2, respectively, compared with the control; Mg2+/CEC increased by 2.65 percentage points in T2 compared with T3; and Ca2+/ECEC increased by 16.88 percentage points in T1 compared with the control.
  • 2018/19 season
In the CPS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, S-SO42− content increased by 10.67 mg dm−3 in T1 compared with T2 and T3; Mg2+ content increased by 0.78 cmolc dm−3 in T3 compared with T1; and Mg2+/CEC increased by 9.75 percentage points in T2 and 12.25 percentage points in T3 compared with T1. Despite a significant F value, total acidity did not differ (p < 0.05) among the treatments. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, S-SO42− content increased by 8.67 and 7.5 mg dm−3 in T3 compared with T1 and T2, respectively.
In the NTS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, pH increased by 0.4–0.58, Ca2+ content increased by 0.98–1.33 cmolc dm−3, BS increased by 14.83–21.33 percentage points, and Ca2+/CEC increased by 12.0–16.0 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. Mg2+ content increased by 0.51 cmolc dm−3 in T1 compared with T3, and Al3+ content and Mg2+/CEC did not differ (p < 0.05) among T1, T2, and T3. By contrast, K+ content decreased by 0.18–0.2 cmolc dm−3 in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. CEC increased by 1.27 cmolc dm−3 in T1 compared with the control, and K+/CEC decreased by 3.27–3.95 percentage points. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, S-SO42− content increased by 9.25 mg dm−3 in T1 compared with the control; P content increased by 8.0 mg dm−3 in T2 compared with T1; Al3+ decreased by 0.23–0.34 cmolc dm−3 in T1 and T3 compared with T2; and Mg2+/CEC increased by 0.4–0.45 cmolc dm−3 percentage points in T3 and T1 compared with T2. Despite a significant F value, BS did not differ (p < 0.05) among the treatments.
In the APS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, Ca2+ content increased by 1.16–1.46 cmolc dm−3, total acidity decreased by 0.65–0.85 cmolc dm−3, and Al3+ decreased by 0.18–0.25 cmolc dm−3 in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. In addition, P content was 17.0, 10.5, and 8.5 mg dm−3 higher in T2, T1, and T3, respectively, than in the control, and BS increased by 27.0, 22.5, and 13.0 percentage points, respectively. Ca2+/CEC increased by 25.75, 24.5, and 17.25 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3, respectively, compared with the control. Compared with the control, S-SO42− content increased by 1.92 and 3.25 mg dm−3 in T1 and T3, respectively; pH increased by 0.93, Mg2+ content increased by 0.73 cmolc dm−3, and CEC increased by 1.9 percentage points in T2. K+/CEC did not differ (p < 0.05) among T1, T2 and T3. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, S-SO42− content increased by 6.5–9.5 mg dm−3 in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control; Ca2+ content increased by 0.58–0.8 cmolc dm−3, Al3+ decreased by 0.3–0.38 cmolc dm−3, BS increased by 9.5–15.5 percentage points, Ca2+/CEC increased by 14.75, 19.25, and 15.25 percentage points, respectively, and Ca2+/ECEC increased by 23.96–26.18 percentage points.
  • 2019/20 season
In the CPS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, S-SO42− content increased by 2.67 mg dm−3 in T3 compared with the control; Ca2+ content increased by 0.67 cmolc dm−3 in T2 and by 0.27–0.3 cmolc dm−3 in T1 and T3 compared with the control; and Ca2+/CEC increased by 17.33 percentage points in T2 compared with the control. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, Ca2+ content increased by 0.3–0.43 cmolc dm−3 and Ca2+/ECEC increased by 10.75–20.54 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. In addition, S-SO42− content increased by 5.66 mg dm−3 in T3 and by 1.33 mg dm−3 in T1 and T2 compared with the control, and Mg2+ content increased by 0.3 cmolc dm−3 in T1 compared with T3. Ca2+/CEC and Mg2+/CEC did not differ (p < 0.05) among T1, T2, and T3.
In the NTS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, pH increased by 1.2–1.5 in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control; Ca2+ content increased by 1.65–2.05 cmolc dm−3, total acidity decreased by 0.1–1.3 cmolc dm−3, BS increased by 35.33–42.0 percentage points, CEC increased by 17.57–22.4 percentage points, and Ca2+/CEC increased by 19.0–26.67 percentage points. In addition, Mg2+ content increased by 0.15, 0.13, and 0.11 cmolc dm−3 in T1, T2, and T3, respectively, compared with the control, and Mg2+/CEC increased by 19.0–21.0 percentage points in T1 and T2 and 15.5 percentage points in T3. OM content increased by 6.5 g dm−3 in T2 compared with the control. Despite a significant F value, P content did not differ (p < 0.05) among the treatments. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, S-SO42− content increased by 3.67 and 9.17 mg dm−3 in T2 and T3, and Ca2+/CEC increased by 6.5–11.33 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. In addition, compared with the control, BS increased by 16.67 percentage points in T2 and 8.0–9.0 percentage points in T1 and T3; Mg2+/ECEC increased by 3.5–7.67 percentage points in T1 and T2; Ca2+ content increased by 0.6 cmolc dm−3, Mg2+ content increased by 0.4 cmolc dm−3, and Al3+ content decreased by 0.2 cmolc dm−3 in T2.
In the APS, at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, pH increased by 1.1–1.33, Ca2+ content increased by 1.58–1.9 cmolc dm−3, total acidity decreased by 1.13–1.33 cmolc dm−3, BS increased by 32.5–36.5 percentage points, and Ca2+/CEC increased by 27.75–28.5 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. In addition, compared with the control, P content increased by 4.75 mg dm−3 in T2; S-SO42− content increased by 2.33 and 4.58 mg dm−3 in T1 and T2, respectively; Mg2+ content increased by 0.9, 0.78, and 0.5 in T1, T3, and T2, respectively; CEC increased by 1.53 percentage points in T1; and Mg2+/CEC increased by 10.5 percentage points in T1 and T2. By contrast, compared with the control, K+ content decreased by 0.1–0.11 cmolc dm−3 and K+/CEC decreased by 2.72–2.81 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, Ca2+ content increased by 0.5–0.73 cmolc dm−3, Al3+ decreased by 0.25–0.35 cmolc dm−3, BS increased by 10.75–14.75 percentage points, Ca2+/CEC increased by 12.5, 12.75, and 15.0 percentage points, and Ca2+/ECEC increased by 18.1–23.42 percentage points in T1, T2, and T3 compared with the control. In addition, compared with the control, S-SO42− content increased by 9.0, 4.75, and 2.5 in T2, T1, and T3, respectively, and P content increased by 6.25 mg dm−3 in T2. Despite a significant F value, total acidity did not differ (p < 0.05) among the treatments.
  • Effects of the treatments on S-SO42− content
LS and GP application increased S-SO42− content at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (T1 and T2 in the NTS and T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2017/18 season; T1 in the CPS and T1 and T3 in the APS in the 2018/19 season; and T3 in the CPS and T1 and T2 in the APS in the 2019/20 season) and 0.2–0.4 m (T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons and T1, T2, and T3 in the CPS, NTS, and APS in the 2019/20 season).
  • Effects of the treatments on pH
The application of LS and GP increased pH at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and T2 in the APS in the 2018/19 season and T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2019/20 season).
  • Effects of the treatments on Ca2+ content
LS and GP application increased Ca2+ content at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (T1 in the APS in the 2017/18 season; T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2018/19 season; and T1, T2 and T3 in the CPS, NTS, and APS in the 2019/20 season) and 0.2–0.4 m (T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2018/19 season and T1, T2, and T3 in the CPS and APS and T2 in the NTS in the 2019/20 season).
  • Effects of the treatments on Mg2+ content
At a depth of 0.0–0.2 m, LS and GP application increased Mg2+ content in T1 in the NTS and T2 in the APS in the 2018/19 season and in T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2019/20 season. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, LS and GP application increased Mg2+ content in T2 in the NTS in the 2019/20 season.
  • Effects of the treatments on Al3+ content
LS and GP application decreased Al3+ content at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (T1 and T2 in the NTS and T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2018/19 season) and 0.2–0.4 m (T1 and T3 in the NTS and T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2018/19 season and T2 in the NTS and T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2019/20 season).
  • Effects of the treatments on K+ content
The application of LS and GP decreased K+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m in T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS in the 2018/19 season and the APS in the 2019/20 season. At a depth of 0.2–0.4 m, LS and GP decreased K+ content in T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS in the 2017/18 season.
  • Effects of the treatments on total acidity
LS and GP application decreased the total acidity at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m in T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2018/19 season and in T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2019/20 season.
  • Effects of the treatments on BS
LS and GP increased BS at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons) and 0.2–0.4 m (T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2018/19 season and T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2019/20 season).
  • Effects of the treatments on CEC
The application of LS and GP increased CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m in T1 in the NTS and T2 in the APS in the 2018/19 season and in T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and T1 in the APS in the 2019/20 season.
  • Effects of the treatments on Ca2+/CEC
The application of LS and GP increased Ca2+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons and T2 in the CPS in the 2019/20 season).
  • Effects of the treatments on Mg2+/CEC
LS and GP increased Mg2+/CEC at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (T1 in the NTS in the 2018/19 season and T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and T1 and T3 in the APS in the 2019/20 season) and 0.2–0.4 m (T1 and T2 in the NTS in the 2019/20 season).
  • Effects of the treatments on K+/CEC
The application of LS and GP decreased K+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m in T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS in the 2018/19 season and in the APS in the 2019/20 season.
  • Effects of the treatments on Ca2+/ECEC
The application of LS and GP increased Ca2+/ECEC content at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (T1, T2, and T3 in the NTS and APS in the 2017/18 season; T1, T2, and T3 in the APS in the 2019/20 season; and T1, T2, and T3 in the CPS and APS in the 2019/20 season).

4. Discussion

  • Effects of the treatments on S-SO42− content
The increases in S-SO42− content illustrate the importance of combining GP amendment with LS application to improve S-SO42− content at depths of a 0.0–0.4 m layer in CPSs, NTSs, and APSs. GP was previously reported to improve the availability of exchangeable SO42− in the entire soil profile [24,37,38]. In addition, several studies have found that the tandem application of LS and GP provides nutrients and is an alternative strategy for improving the root environment in the early years of cultivation, when the effects of LS have not yet reached the subsurface layers due to its poor solubility and mobility [26,39].
  • Effects of the treatments on pH
Combining LS and GP provided better conditions for LS to act on the soil solution and increase pH [40]. Liming is the most efficient methodology for increasing pH [29], particularly in the surface layer (depth of 0.0–0.1 m) [41,42]. GP indirectly corrects soil pH in deeper layers in the soil because it contains SO42−, which displaces OH− from soil colloids into solution [26].
  • Effects of the treatments on Ca2+ content, Ca2+/CEC, and Ca2+/ECEC
Increasing Ca2+ content at soil depths of 0.0–0.2 m and 0.2–0.4 m is important due to the role of Ca2+ in root growth [13], including cell division [43], and because plants absorb Ca2+ almost exclusively via the roots [44]. Ca2+ absorbed by superficial roots cannot meet the needs of deep roots located in environments with poor levels of this nutrient [45]. The continuity of channels in NTSs [46] promotes the descent of Ca2+ [47], and no soil turning was performed in the crop systems in the present study. LS application has previously been reported to increase Ca2+ content [45,48], as has GP application [24,29,47,49,50]. Moreover, previous studies have shown that combined application of LS and GP can increase Ca2+ content [40,51,52]. The combined application of LS and GP enhances the descent of Ca2+ and Mg2+, which are added by liming, in the soil profile [53,54] via the formation of ionic pairs with SO42− [55] dissociated from GP. This ion descends easily in the soil profile, carrying K+, Mg2+, and, mainly, Ca2+ along with it [47,56,57]. Increasing and redistributing Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+ at greater depths in NTSs is important for alleviating the chemical impairment of root development and for promoting water deficit resistance in maize and soybean crops [42]. In addition, the presence of grazing cattle in the CPS and APS increased the effects of surface application of LS at greater depths by promoting Ca2+ and Mg2+ leaching in the soil profile through the formation of low-molecular-weight organic acids. These organic acids are released during the decomposition of animal waste, mainly feces, or are exuded by pasture plants during grazing [58]. Grazing of palisade grass leads to a higher regrowth rate, as this grass is characterized by a voluminous fasciculated root system. The greater regrowth of tillers after grazing increases the volume of pores in the soil, allowing the movement of cations within the soil profile.
  • Effects of the treatments on Mg2+ content and Mg2+/CEC
Mg2+ and Ca2+ compete for negative charges in soil, and Ca2+ is preferred in exchange sites [59]. As LS contains a high percentage of Ca (31% CaO), it provides a high Ca2+ concentration in the soil, which promotes the displacement of Mg2+ from exchange sites. Mg2+ is less strongly retained due to its greater hydrated radius and lower electronegativity. This displacement allows greater movement of Mg2+ within the profile and formation of the MgSO40 ion pair [24,60]. Movement of Mg2+ within the soil profile is also promoted by water-soluble compounds originating from the residues of previous crops [61]. Compared with the initial content of Mg2+ in the soil, LS and GP increased Mg2+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m by 1.0 and 0.53 cmolc dm−3 in the NTS and APS, respectively. These results are consistent with previous studies that have found increases in Mg2+ content with the application of GP [42]. However, another study found that GP improved soil fertility in the soil profile but that Mg2+ migrated down over a period of three years, regardless of application [38]. GP application reduces Mg2+ in the surface layers, leading to accumulation in the subsurface layers [26]. Thus, the methodology used in this study to apply LP and GP promotes a more uniform distribution of Mg2+ along the soil profile.
  • Effects of the treatments on Al3+ content
Once in the soil solution, the ion Ca2+ can react in the soil exchange complex, shifting Al3+, K+, and Mg2+ to the soil solution. In turn, these ions can react with SO42− to form AlSO4+ (which is less toxic to plants) and the neutral pairs K2SO40, MgSO40, and CaSO40, which have great mobility in the soil profile [62]. The dissociation of GP releases Ca2+, which binds to organic carbon, making SO42− available in the soil solution to replace OH−. These chemical changes in the soil solution also interfere with the increase in pH and reduction of acidity by Al3+ [22].
  • Effects of the treatments on K+ content
The decreases in K+ content and K+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m in the NTS and APS due to LS and GP application are related to K+ lixiviation within the soil profile, which is promoted by GP [51]. By contrast, GP application did not promote K+ lixiviation in the CPS, corroborating previous findings [45,47,52,63]. The absence of an effect of GP application on K+ lixiviation can be explained by the low formation of the K2SO40 ionic pair (0.2% of total solubility) [64].
  • Effects of the treatments on total acidity
The reduction in total acidity in the NTS and APS may have been due to the movement of fine particles of LS through the continuous pores within the soil profile (which are the result of root system decomposition) [10] and the formation of ionic pairs between sulfate or nitrate and Ca2+ and Mg2+ from LS [65]. Decreasing total acidity is important to avoid restrictions on the expansion of the root system, which would impair access to water and nutrients found in the deepest layers of the soil [52]. The reduction in total acidity may also be related to the formation of complexes of Ca2+ and Mg2+ with soluble organic compounds released by the decomposition of plant biomass deposited on the soil surface (carboxylic and phenolic radicals) [66,67]. In the present study, all cultivations were carried out under no-till on the residues of the previous crops, as the NTS was established in the 2009/10 season and the APS was established in the 2011/12 season.
  • Effects of the treatments on BS
The increases in BS and CEC in the NTS and APS were promoted by the supply of Ca2+ and Mg2+ by LS, which contained 31% CaO and 21% MgO, and GP, which contained 17% CaO, and by the movement of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in the soil profile. Previous studies have reported that combining GP with LS enhances the vertical movement of Ca2+ in the soil profile [40,54,68,69]. GP application has also been shown to increase BS [45,49,50]. In addition, changes in BS are always greatest after the grazing season (winter) [70]. However, this improvement in BS is temporary because the decomposition of plant residues increases soil acidity, which was minimized in the present study by the use of three applications of LS [71].

5. Conclusions

In the present study, three methodologies for the surface application of LS and GP in CPSs, NTSs, and APSs were evaluated. Surface application of LS (ensuring that Ca2+ occupies 70%, 60%, or 50% of CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m) and GP (ensuring that Ca2+ occupies 60%, 50%, or 40% of ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m) corrected surface and subsurface acidity and improved soil chemical fertility. Ca2+ content increased in the CPS, NTS, and APS at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m and in the CPS and APS at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m; S-SO42− content and Ca2+/ECEC increased in the CPS, NTS, and APS at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m; BS increased and Al3+ content decreased in the NTS and APS at depths of 0.0–0.2 m and 0.2–0.4 m; and pH, Mg2+ content, CEC, Ca2+/CEC, and Mg2+/CEC increased and total acidity decreased in the NTS and APS at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.L.B.B., J.L.H. and M.A.; methodology, W.L.B.B., J.L.H. and M.A.; formal analysis, W.L.B.B., P.H.G.J., I.M.D.d.S. and M.A.; investigation, W.L.B.B., P.H.G.J., I.M.D.d.S., L.N.F.R. and J.L.H.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L.B.B., I.M.D.d.S. and M.A.; project administration, W.L.B.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES/AUXPE Award Number 88887.592666/2020-00|0242/2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bertin, E.G.; Andrioli, I.; Centurion, J.F. Plantas de cobertura em pré-safra ao milho em plantio direto. Acta Sci. Agron. 2005, 27, 379–386. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Vilela, L.; Macedo, M.C.M.; Martha Junior, G.B.; Kluthcouski, J. Benefícios da integração lavoura-pecuária. In Integração Lavoura-pecuária; Kluthcouski, J., Stone, L.F., Aidar, H., Eds.; Embrapa Arroz e Feijão: Santo Antônio de Goiás, Brazil, 2003; pp. 145–170. [Google Scholar]
  3. Caires, E.F.; Barth, G.; Garbuio, F.J. Lime application in the establishment of a no-till system for grain crop production in Southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 89, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Caires, E.F.; Banzatto, D.A.; Fonseca, A.F. Calagem na superfície em sistema plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2000, 24, 161–169. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Rheinheimer, D.S.; Santos, E.J.S.; Kaminski, J.; Bortoluzzi, E.C.; Gatiboni, L.C. Alterações de atributos do solo pela calagem superficial e incorporada a partir de pastagem natural. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2000, 24, 797–805. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Caires, E.F.; Chueiri, W.A.; Madruga, E.F.; Figueiredo, A. Alterações de características químicas do solo e resposta da soja ao calcário e gesso aplicados na superfície em sistema de cultivo sem preparo de solo. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 1998, 22, 27–34. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Caires, E.F.; Fonseca, A.F.; Mendes, J.; Chueiri, W.A.; Madruga, E.F. Produção de milho, trigo e soja em função das alterações das características químicas do solo pela aplicação de calcário e gesso na superfície, em sistema plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 1999, 23, 315–327. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pöttker, D.; Bem, J.R. Calagem para uma rotação de culturas no sistema plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 1998, 22, 675–684. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Moreira, S.G.; Kiehl, J.C.; Prochnow, L.I.; Pauletti, V. Calagem em sistema de semeadura direta e efeitos sobre a acidez do solo, disponibilidade de nutrientes e produtividade de milho e soja. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2001, 25, 71–81. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Petrere, C.; Anghinoni, I. Alterações de atributos químicos no perfil do solo pela calagem superficial em campo nativo. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2001, 25, 885–895. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ciotta, M.N.; Bayer, C.; Ernani, P.R.; Fontoura, S.M.V.; Albuquerque, J.A.; Wobeto, C. Acidificação de um Latossolo sob plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2002, 26, 1055–1064. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pavan, M.A.; Bingham, F.T.; Pratt, P.F. Toxicity of aluminum to coffee in Ultisols and Oxisols amended with CaCO3, MgCO3, and CaSO4·2H2O. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1982, 46, 1201–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ritchey, K.D.; Silva, S.E.; Costa, V.F. No Calcium deficiency in clayey B horizons of savannah Oxisols. Soil Sci. 1982, 133, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Quaggio, J.A. Acidez e Calagem em Solos Tropicais; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brazil, 2000.
  15. Costa, C.H.M. Calagem Superficial e Aplicação de Gesso em Sistema Plantio Direto de Longa Duração: Efeitos No Solo e na Sucessão Milho/Crambe/Feijão-Caupi. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, Brazil, 1 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  16. Braga, F.A.; Vale, F.R.; Muniz, J.A. Movimentação de nutrientes no solo, crescimento e nutrição mineral do eucalipto, em função de doses de gesso e níveis de irrigação. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 1995, 19, 69–77. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  17. Silva, A.A.; Vale, F.R.; Fernandes, L.A.; Furtini Neto, A.E.; Muniz, J.A. Efeitos de relações CaSO4/CaCO3 na mobilidade de nutrientes no solo e no crescimento do algodoeiro. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 1998, 22, 451–457. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Costa, C.H.M.; Castro, G.S.A.; Ferreira Neto, J.; Guimarães, T.M. Gessagem no sistema plantio direto. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 4, 201–215. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  19. Layr, K.; Hartlieb, P. Market analysis for urban mining of phosphogypsum. Berg-Hüttenmänn. Monatsh. 2019, 164, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Haneklaus, N.; Barbossa, S.; Basallote, M.D.; Bertau, M.; Bilal, E.; Chajduk, E.; Chernysh, Y.; Chubur, V.; Cruz, J.; Dziarczykowski, K.; et al. Closing the upcoming EU gypsum gap with phosphogypsum. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 182, 106328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Marques, R.R. Aplicação Superficial de Calcário e Gesso em Manejo Conservacionista de Solo Para Cultivo de Amendoim e Aveia Branca. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, Brazil, 17 January 2008. [Google Scholar]
  22. Soratto, R.P.; Crusciol, C.A.C. Atributos químicos do solo decorrentes da aplicação em superfície de calcário e gesso em sistema plantio direto recém-implantado. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2008, 32, 675–688. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Soratto, R.P.; Crusciol, C.A.C. Dolomite and phosphogypsum surface application effects on annual crops nutrition and yield. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Caires, E.F.; Joris, H.A.W.; Churka, S. Long-term effects of lime and gypsum additions on no-till corn and soybean yield and soil chemical properties in southern Brazil. Soil Use Manag. 2011, 27, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Costa, C.H.M. Efeito Residual da Aplicação Superficial de Calcário e Gesso nas Culturas de Soja, Aveia-Preta e Sorgo Granífero. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, Brazil, 22 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Caires, E.F.; Blum, J.; Barth, G.; Garbuio, F.J.; Kusman, M.T. Alterações químicas do solo e resposta da soja ao calcário e gesso aplicados na implantação do sistema plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2003, 27, 275–286. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Reeve, N.G.; Sumner, M.E. Amelioration of subsoil acidity in Natal Oxisols by leaching of surface-applied amendments. Agrochemophysica 1972, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  28. Caires, E.F.; Feldhaus, I.C.; Blum, J. Crescimento radicular e nutrição da cevada em função da calagem e aplicação de gesso. Bragantia 2001, 60, 213–223. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Caires, E.F.; Kusman, M.T.; Barth, G.; Garbuio, F.J.; Padilha, J.M. Alterações químicas do solo e resposta do milho à calagem e aplicação de gesso. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2004, 28, 125–136. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Caires, E.F.; Fonseca, A.F.; Feldhaus, I.C.; Blum, J. Crescimento radicular e nutrição da soja cultivada no sistema plantio direto em resposta ao calcário e gesso na superfície. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2001, 25, 1029–1040. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014.
  32. Centro Integrado de Informações Agrometeorológicas—CIIAGRO. Resenha: Votuporanga no Período de 01/11/2017 até 31/03/2020. Instituto Agronômico. Available online: http://www.ciiagro.sp.gov.br/ciiagroonline/Listagens/Resenha/LResenhaLocal.asp (accessed on 2 May 2022).
  33. Borges, W.L.B.; Hipólito, J.L.; Tokuda, F.S.; Gasparino, A.C.; Freitas, R.S.; Andreotti, M. Methodologies for the application of calcium compounds in agropastoral systems: Effects on crop yields. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 5527–5540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Caires, E.F.; Guimarães, A.M. A novel phosphogypsum application recommendation method under continuous no-till management in Brazil. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 1987–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. van Raij, B.; Andrade, J.C.; Cantarella, H.; Quaggio, J.A. (Eds.) Análise Química Para Avaliação da Fertilidade do Solo; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brazil, 2001.
  36. Silva, F.A.S.; Azevedo, C.A.V. The Assistat Software Version 7.7 and its use in the analysis of experimental data. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 3733–3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Neis, L.; Paulino, H.B.; Souza, E.D.; Reis, E.F.; Pinto, F.A. Gesso agrícola e rendimento de grãos de soja na região do sudoeste de Goiás. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2010, 34, 409–416. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Vicensi, M.; Müller, M.M.L.; Kawakami, J.; Nascimento, R.; Michalovicz, L.; Lopes, C. Do rates and splitting of phosphogypsum applications influence the soil and annual crops in a no-tillage system? Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2016, 40, e0150155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Pavan, M.A. Movimentação de calcário no solo através de técnicas de manejo da cobertura vegetal em pomares de macieira. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 1994, 16, 86–91. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  40. Ferreira, A.O.; Amado, T.J.C.; Nora, D.D.; Keller, C.; Bortolotto, R.P. Mudança no conteúdo de carbono e cálcio em Latossolo melhorado por gesso e calcário no Rio Grande do Sul. Cienc. Del Suelo 2013, 31, 1850–2067. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  41. Caires, E.F.; Garbuio, F.J.; Churka, S.; Barth, G.; Corrêa, J.C.L. Effects of soil acidity amelioration by surface liming on no-till corn, soybean, and wheat root growth and yield. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zandoná, R.R.; Beutler, A.N.; Burg, G.M.; Barreto, C.F.; Schmidt, M.R. Gesso e calcário aumentam a produtividade e amenizam o efeito do déficit hídrico em milho e soja. Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 2015, 45, 128–137. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Hawkesford, M.; Horst, W.; Kichey, T.; Lambers, H.; Schjoerring, J.; Moller, I.S.; White, P. Functions of macronutrients. In Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Marschner, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 135–189. [Google Scholar]
  44. Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E. Fisiologia Vegetal, 4th ed.; Artmed: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pauletti, V.; Pierri, L.; Ranzan, T.; Barth, G.; Motta, A.C.V. Efeitos em longo prazo da aplicação de gesso e calcário no sistema de plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2014, 38, 495–505. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Olibone, D.; Encide-Olibone, A.P.; Rosolem, C.A. Least limiting water range and crop yields as affected by crop rotation s and tillage. Soil Use Manag. 2010, 26, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dalla Nora, D.; Amado, T.J.C. Improvement in chemical attributes of Oxisol subsoil and crop yields under no-till. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1393–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vargas, G.; Marques, R. Crescimento e nutrição de angico e canafístula sob calagem e gessagem. Floresta E Ambient. 2017, 24, e20160102. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Rhoton, F.E.; Mcchesney, D.S. Influence of FGD gypsum on the properties of a highly erodible soil under conservation tillage. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 2012–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pivetta, L.A.; Castoldi, G.; Pivetta, L.G.; Maia, S.C.M.; Rosolem, C.A. Gypsum application, soil fertility and cotton root growth. Bragantia 2019, 78, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Rampim, L.; Lana, M.C.; Frandoloso, J.F.; Fontaniva, S. Atributos químicos de solo e resposta do trigo e da soja ao gesso em sistema semeadura direta. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2011, 35, 1687–1698. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Souza, F.R.; Rosa Junior, E.J.; Fietz, C.R.; Bergamin, A.C.; Rosa, Y.B.C.J.; Zeviani, W.M. Efeito do gesso nas propriedades químicas do solo sob dois sistemas de manejo. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2012, 33, 1717–1732. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. van Raij, B. Melhorando o ambiente radicular em subsuperficie. In Boas Práticas Para Uso Eficiente de Fertilizantes; Prochnow, L.I., Casarin, V., Stipp, S.R., Eds.; International Plant Nutrition Institute—Brasil (IPNI): Piracicaba, Brazil, 2010; pp. 349–382. [Google Scholar]
  54. Briedis, C.; Sá, J.C.M.; Caires, E.F.; Navarro, J.F.; Inagaki, T.M.; Boer, A.; Quadros Neto, C.; Ferreira, A.O.; Canalli, L.B.; Santos, J.B. Soil organic matter pools and carbon-protection mechanisms in aggregate classes influenced by surface liming in a no-till system. Geoderma 2012, 170, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Market, C.M.; Pavana, M.A.; Lantmann, A.F. Considerações Sobre o Uso do Gesso na Agricultura. Associação Brasileira para Pesquisa da Potassa e do Fosfato (POTAFOS): Piracicaba, Brazil, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sousa, D.M.G.; Miranda, L.N.; Oliveira, S.A. Acidez do solo e sua correção. In Fertilidade do Solo; Novais, R.F., Alvarez, V.V.H., Barros, N.F., Fontes, R.L.F., Cantarutti, R.B., Neves, J.C.L., Eds.; Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo: Viçosa, Brazil, 2007; pp. 205–274. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bilibio, W.D.; Corrêa, G.F.; Borges, E.N. Atributos físicos e químicos de um Latossolo, sob diferentes sistemas de cultivo. Ciênc. Agrotec. 2010, 34, 817–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Flores, J.P.C.; Cassol, L.C.; Anghinoni, I.; Carvalho, P.C.F. Atributos químicos do solo em função da aplicação superficial de calcário em sistema de integração lavoura-pecuária submetido a pressões de pastejo em plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2008, 32, 2385–2396. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Loyola Junior, E.; Pavan, M.A. Seletividade de troca de cátions em solos ácidos. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 1989, 13, 131–138. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  60. Zambrosi, F.C.B.; Alleoni, L.R.F.; Caires, E.F. Teores de alumínio trocável e não trocável após calagem e gessagem em Latossolo sob sistema plantio direto. Bragantia 2007, 66, 487–495. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Soratto, R.P.; Crusciol, C.A.C. Cátions hidrossolúveis na parte aérea de culturas anuais mediante aplicação de calcário e gesso em superfície. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2007, 31, 81–90. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Pavan, M.A.; Bingham, F.T.; Pratt, P.F. Redistribution of exchangeable calcium, magnesium and aluminum following lime and gypsum applications to a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1984, 48, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Serafim, M.E.; Lima, J.M.; Lima, V.M.P.; Zeviani, W.M.; Pessoni, P.T. Alterações físico-químicas e movimentação de íons em Latossolo gibbsítico sob doses de gesso. Bragantia 2012, 71, 75–81. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Zambrosi, F.C.B.; Alleoni, L.R.F.; Caires, E.F. Liming and ionic speciation of an Oxisol under no-till system. Sci. Agric. 2008, 65, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Foloni, J.S.S.; Rosolem, C.A. Efeito da calagem e sulfato de amônio no algodão. I—Transporte de cátions e ânions no solo. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2006, 30, 425–432. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Franchini, J.C.; Gonzalez-Villa, F.J.; Miyazawa, M.; Pavan, M.A. Rapid transformations of plant water soluble organic compounds in relation to cation mobilization in acid Oxisol. Plant Soil 2001, 231, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Franchini, J.C.; Hoffmann-Campo, C.B.; Torres, E.; Miyazawa, M.; Pavan, M.A. Organic composition of green manures during growth and its effect on cation mobilization in an acid Oxisol. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 2003, 34, 2045–2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Caires, E.F.; Feldhaus, I.C.; Barth, G.; Garbuio, F.J. Lime and gypsum application on the wheat crop. Sci. Agric. 2002, 59, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Vitti, C.G.; Luz, P.H.C.; Malavolta, E.; Dias, A.S.; Serrano, C.G.E. Uso Do Gesso em Sistemas de Produção Agrícola; ESALQ/GAPE: Piracicaba, Brazil, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  70. Martins, A.P.; Anghinoni, I.; Costa, S.E.V.G.A.; Carlos, F.S.; Nichel, G.H.; Silva, R.A.P.; Carvalho, P.C.F. Amelioration of soil acidity and soybean yield after surface lime reapplication to a long-term no-till integrated crop-livestock system under varying grazing intensities. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 144, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Butterly, C.R.; Baldock, J.A.; Tang, C. The contribution of crop residues to changes in soil pH under field conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 366, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 08926 g001 550
Figure 1. Data on PET, R, and T in Votuporanga, São Paulo State, Brazil, from November 2017 to February 2020. Source: [32].
Figure 1. Data on PET, R, and T in Votuporanga, São Paulo State, Brazil, from November 2017 to February 2020. Source: [32].
Sustainability 14 08926 g001
Sustainability 14 08926 g002 550
Figure 2. Conventional pasture system (CPS), 12 September 2019.
Figure 2. Conventional pasture system (CPS), 12 September 2019.
Sustainability 14 08926 g002
Sustainability 14 08926 g003 550
Figure 3. No-till system (NTS), 12 September 2019.
Figure 3. No-till system (NTS), 12 September 2019.
Sustainability 14 08926 g003
Sustainability 14 08926 g004 550
Figure 4. Agropastoral system (APS), 12 September 2019.
Figure 4. Agropastoral system (APS), 12 September 2019.
Sustainability 14 08926 g004
Sustainability 14 08926 g005 550
Figure 5. Averages and standard errors of soil characteristics in the CPS in the 2017/18 (blue), 2018/19 (red), and 2019/20 (green) seasons: (a,b) Ca2+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (a) or 0.2–0.4 m (b); S-SO42− at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (c).
Figure 5. Averages and standard errors of soil characteristics in the CPS in the 2017/18 (blue), 2018/19 (red), and 2019/20 (green) seasons: (a,b) Ca2+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (a) or 0.2–0.4 m (b); S-SO42− at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (c).
Sustainability 14 08926 g005
Sustainability 14 08926 g006a 550Sustainability 14 08926 g006b 550
Figure 6. Averages and standard errors of soil characteristics in the NTS in the 2017/18 (blue), 2018/19 (red), and 2019/20 (green) seasons: Ca2+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (a); S-SO42− content at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (b); pH at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (c); BS at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (d); Ca2+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (e).
Figure 6. Averages and standard errors of soil characteristics in the NTS in the 2017/18 (blue), 2018/19 (red), and 2019/20 (green) seasons: Ca2+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (a); S-SO42− content at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (b); pH at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (c); BS at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (d); Ca2+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (e).
Sustainability 14 08926 g006aSustainability 14 08926 g006b
Sustainability 14 08926 g007a 550Sustainability 14 08926 g007b 550Sustainability 14 08926 g007c 550Sustainability 14 08926 g007d 550
Figure 7. Averages and standard errors of soil characteristics in the APS in the 2017/18 (blue), 2018/19 (red), and 2019/20 (green) seasons: (a,b) Ca2+ content at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (a) and 0.2–0.4 m (b); Mg2+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (c); S-SO42− at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (d); H+ + Al3+ at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (e); Al3+ at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (f); (g,h) BS at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (g) and 0.2–0.4 m (h); Ca2+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m; (i) Ca2+/ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (j).
Figure 7. Averages and standard errors of soil characteristics in the APS in the 2017/18 (blue), 2018/19 (red), and 2019/20 (green) seasons: (a,b) Ca2+ content at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (a) and 0.2–0.4 m (b); Mg2+ content at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (c); S-SO42− at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (d); H+ + Al3+ at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m (e); Al3+ at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (f); (g,h) BS at depths of 0.0–0.2 m (g) and 0.2–0.4 m (h); Ca2+/CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 m; (i) Ca2+/ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m (j).
Sustainability 14 08926 g007aSustainability 14 08926 g007bSustainability 14 08926 g007cSustainability 14 08926 g007d
Table
Table 1. Treatment details.
Table 1. Treatment details.
TreatmentLSGP
T1surface applied to ensure that Ca2+ occupied 70% of CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 msurface applied to ensure that Ca2+ occupied 60% of ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m
T2surface applied to ensure that Ca2+ occupied 60% of CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 msurface applied to ensure that Ca2+ occupied 50% of ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m
T3surface applied to ensure that Ca2+ occupied 50% of CEC at a depth of 0.0–0.2 msurface applied to ensure that Ca2+ occupied 40% of ECEC at a depth of 0.2–0.4 m
T4not appliednot applied
Table
Table 2. Treatment schedule in the 2017/18 season.
Table 2. Treatment schedule in the 2017/18 season.
DateActivityCrop Systems
CPSNTSAPS
Treatments
T1T2T3T4T1T2T3T4T1T2T3T4
10/30/2017soil characterizationxxxxxxxxxxxx
11/03/2017straw sampling xxxxxxxx
11/22/2017surface application of LS and GPxxx xxx xxx
11/24/2017maize sowing xxxxxxxx
12/11/2017first topdressing † xxxxxxxx
12/14/2017palisade grass sowing xxxxxxxx
12/18/2017second topdressing ‡ xxxxxxxx
03/27/2018maize harvest xxxxxxxx
04/16/2018soil samplingxxxxxxxxxxxx
† first topdressing fertilization of maize. ‡ second topdressing fertilization of maize.
Table
Table 3. Treatment schedule in the 2018/19 season.
Table 3. Treatment schedule in the 2018/19 season.
DateActivityCrop Systems
CPSNTSAPS
Treatments
T1T2T3T4T1T2T3T4T1T2T3T4
08/30/2018surface application of LS and GPxxx xxx xxx
11/27/2018palisade grass mowing xxxx
12/03/2018soybean sowing xxxx
04/17/2019soybean harvest xxxx
04/24/2019soil samplingxxxxxxxxxxxx
04/29/2019sunn hemp sowing xxxx
Table
Table 4. Treatment schedule in the 2019/20 season.
Table 4. Treatment schedule in the 2019/20 season.
DateActivityCrop Systems
CPSNTSAPS
Treatments
T1T2T3T4T1T2T3T4T1T2T3T4
09/09/2019sunn hemp harvest † xxxx
09/10/2019sunn hemp mowing xxxx
09/12/2019surface application of LS and GPxxx xxx xxx
11/12/2019palisade grass sowing xxxx
11/12/2019soybean sowing xxxx
11/13/2019maize sowing xxxx
11/27/2019first topdressing ‡ xxxx
12/02/2019second topdressing § xxxx
03/09/2020maize harvest xxxx
03/11/2020soybean harvest xxxx
06/16/2020soil samplingxxxxxxxxxxxx
† sunn hemp harvest for seed production. ‡ first topdressing fertilization of maize. § second topdressing fertilization of maize.
Table
Table 5. Initial characteristics of the soil in 2017 at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m.
Table 5. Initial characteristics of the soil in 2017 at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m.
CharacteristicsCrop Systems
CPSNTSAPSCPSNTSAPS
Depth (m)
0.0–0.20.2–0.4
P (resin), mg dm−3434222915
S-SO42−, mg dm−3334445
Organic matter, g dm−35.24.34.55.34.14.1
pH (1:2.5 soil/0.01 Μ CaCl2 suspension)5.24.34.55.34.14.1
K+, cmolc dm−30.10.280.210.180.270.25
Ca2+, cmolc dm−31.41.00.71.30.80.5
Mg2+, cmolc dm−31.10.60.70.80.40.4
Al3+, cmolc dm−30.00.40.20.00.50.6
Total acidity pH 7.0 (H+ + Al3+), cmolc dm−31.63.12.51.62.82.8
Base saturation, % †623839593429
CEC pH 7.0, cmolc dm−3 ‡ 4.25.04.13.94.34.0
K+/CEC, %265566
Ca2+/CEC, %332017341813
Mg2+/CEC, %25121721910
† base saturation (BS) = 100(Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+/CEC pH 7.0). ‡ cation exchange capacity (CEC) pH 7.0 = Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+ + total acidity (H+ + Al3+).
Table
Table 6. Values of the F test for changes in soil chemical attributes in the CPS at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 seasons.
Table 6. Values of the F test for changes in soil chemical attributes in the CPS at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 seasons.
AttributeSeasons
2017/182018/192019/202017/182018/192019/20
Depths (m)
0.0–0.20.2–0.4
P1.32320.94653.12201.22950.85940.7805
S-SO42−1.073025.5578 **7.0000 *0.289821.4809 **131.8000 **
OM †0.23650.21041.25960.13250.13252.0833
pH1.01512.02221.21270.35551.22090.1648
K+1.94121.92821.49340.00701.25810.6129
Ca2+0.0497 *1.0157115.8571 **0.72411.668610.7692 **
Mg2+0.46888.4178 **0.85071.19313.295314.1818 **
H+ + Al3+0.36004.4043 *1.82990.37501.81820.5191
Al3+3.0000 3.0000
BS ‡0.31601.74842.05140.77000.54132.3932
CEC §0.31630.49710.32211.53530.22691.2589
K+/CEC1.12402.14043.80820.27851.14221.4007
Ca2+/CEC0.0406 *3.08266.0526 *0.35602.26044.8044 *
Mg2+/CEC2.272021.6231 **1.17400.86332.18605.8961 *
Ca2+/ECEC ¶ 0.39573.722416.1574 **
† organic matter. ‡ base saturation (BS) = 100(Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+/CEC pH 7.0). § cation exchange capacity (CEC) pH 7.0 = Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+ + total acidity (H+ + Al3+). ¶ effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC) = Al3+ + Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+. * Significant at the 0.05 probability level. ** Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
Table
Table 7. Values of the F test for changes in soil chemical attributes in the NTS at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 seasons.
Table 7. Values of the F test for changes in soil chemical attributes in the NTS at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 seasons.
AttributeSeasons
2017/182018/192019/202017/182018/192019/20
Depths (m)
0.0–0.20.2–0.4
P7.3658 **1.162131.6567 **8.7581 **7.5869 **1.4235
S-SO42−8.6522 **1.02380.835123.4000 **4,0958 **30.9710 **
OM †1.36071.421123.2909 **0.40910.50444.0000
pH1.65249.5647 **38.6000 **0.69600.83591.8201
K+4.9884 *5.9600 *0.82769.9106 **3.48613.0571
Ca2+1.754215.5659 **39.5879 **2.32762.37754.8889 *
Mg2+3.35297.4568 **124.3846 **3.59611.487614.4348 **
H+ + Al3+1.07222.33643.0000 **0.11420.00402.9091
Al3+1.90007.5455 ** 0.696712.3098 **5.0000 *
BS ‡1.184134.8448 **196.5373 **1.65763.9020 *47.8000 **
CEC §1.14393.9993 *44.3686 **0.26771.19441.1088
K+/CEC5.3352 *8.5639 **4.37926.5988 *2.72973.2166
Ca2+/CEC2.92478.0877 **32.2803 **1.43422.527718.4197 **
Mg2+/CEC4.2055 *4.9776 *207.3810 **5.3718 *7.0049 **35.3308 **
Ca2+/ECEC ¶ 7.6258 **0.62770.7716
† organic matter. ‡ base saturation (BS) = 100(Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+/CEC pH 7.0). § cation exchange capacity (CEC) pH 7.0 = Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+ + total acidity (H+ + Al3+). ¶ effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC) = Al3+ + Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+. * Significant at the 0.05 probability level. ** Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
Table
Table 8. Values of the F test for changes in soil chemical attributes in the APS at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 seasons.
Table 8. Values of the F test for changes in soil chemical attributes in the APS at depths of 0.0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m in the 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 seasons.
AttributeSeasons
2017/182018/192019/202017/182018/192019/20
Depths (m)
0.0–0.20.2–0.4
P6.1368 *15.0799 **8.0542 **22.5918 **33.0626 **16.7379 **
S-SO42−39.7059 **10.1264 **23.1998 **164.0284 **33.7664 **103.8148 **
OM †0.45000.46481.03220.34021.39021.1860
pH0.48534.9960 *16.4907 **0.29672.66143.2550
K+5.8170 *2.677021.2525 **1.00902.72550.3122
Ca2+5.3256 *19.3085 **17.6181 **3.243128.8480 **14.0110 **
Mg2+6.0750 *6.4847 *36.8554 **1.13330.78501.8595
H+ + Al3+1.510612.3541 **23.6917 **0.64181.33493.6882
Al3+1.411847.1176 ** 0.70549.4918 **30.0612 **
BS ‡1.618320.7994 **11.0210 **2.311310.0000 **14.8062 **
CEC §2.251414.9161 **4.8664 *1.34482.17380.2467
K+/CEC6.7761 *5.9755 *85.3023 **0.84273.76310.3788
Ca2+/CEC5.1432 *42.8508 **32.6592 **11.7964 **36.9013 **48.1899 **
Mg2+/CEC14.8537 **2.39886.3730 *20.5232 **1.28972.2952
Ca2+/ECEC ¶ 4.2804 *23.7431 **22.3599 **
† organic matter. ‡ base saturation (BS) = 100(Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+/CEC pH 7.0). § cation exchange capacity (CEC) pH 7.0 = Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+ + total acidity (H+ + Al3+). ¶ effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC) = Al3+ + Ca2+ + Mg2+ + K+. * Significant at the 0.05 probability level. ** Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Borges, W.L.B.; Gatto Juliano, P.H.; Dalto de Souza, I.M.; Fuzaro Rodrigues, L.N.; Hipólito, J.L.; Andreotti, M. New Methodologies for the Surface Application of Limestone and Gypsum in Different Crop Systems. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148926

AMA Style

Borges WLB, Gatto Juliano PH, Dalto de Souza IM, Fuzaro Rodrigues LN, Hipólito JL, Andreotti M. New Methodologies for the Surface Application of Limestone and Gypsum in Different Crop Systems. Sustainability. 2022; 14(14):8926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148926

Chicago/Turabian Style

Borges, Wander Luis Barbosa, Pedro Henrique Gatto Juliano, Isabela Malaquias Dalto de Souza, Letícia Nayara Fuzaro Rodrigues, Jorge Luiz Hipólito, and Marcelo Andreotti. 2022. "New Methodologies for the Surface Application of Limestone and Gypsum in Different Crop Systems" Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148926

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop