Malcolm E. Sumner: Regents' Professor University of Georgia

Malcolm E.
Sumner
Regents Professor University of Georgia
Based on data from:
van Raij, B. 2008. Gesso na Agricultura. Instituto Agronmico, Campinas, SP, Brazil
THE CERRADOS IN BRAZIL
2 million km2 50% arable 900-2000 mm rainfall 200-1000 m elevation Highly infertile soil
High Al Low bases Low P
Cerrado
Source:: IBGE, 2000.
Work in Brazil began after reading

Sumner, M.E. 1970. Aluminum toxicity - growth limiting factor in some Natal sands. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Tech. Assoc. 44:1-6. Reeve, N.G., and M.E. Sumner. 1972. Amelioration of subsoil acidity in Natal Oxisols by leaching of surface applied amendments. Agrochemophysica 4:106. Led to opening of Campo Cerrado
First Phase Re-evaluation of long-term experiments with superphosphate
Single Super - Ca(H2PO4)2 + CaSO4.2H2O 50% Gypsum Triple Super - Ca(H2PO4)2 0% Gypsum
BRASILIA 15 YEARS
pH
3.5 0 0 4 4.5 5 5.5 0 10 20 30
Ca + Mg (mmolc/dm3)
20
20
40
40
Depth (cm)
60
80
100
Triple super Single super
Depth (cm)
60
80
100
120
120
Single super increased subsoil pH, Ca+Mg

Ritchey et al. (1980)
BRASILIA 15 YEARS
Al (mmolc/dm3)
0 0 2 4 6 8
20
40
Depth (cm)
60
80

100
120
Single super decreased subsoil Al

Ritchey et al. (1980)
GUAIRA 17 YEARS
pH CaCl2
4 0 4.5 5 5.5 0 0
Ca (mmolc/dm3)
10 20
20
20
40
40
Depth (cm)
60
Depth (cm)
60
Triple super
80
Triple super
80
Single super
Single super
100
100
120
120
Single super Increased subsoil pH, Ca

Silva & van Raij (1992)
GUAIRA 17 YEARS
Mg (mmolc/dm3)
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 0.5
K (mmolc/dm3)
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
20
20
40
Depth (cm)
60
Depth (cm)
40
60
80
80
100
100
120
120
Single super Increased subsoil Mg, K

Silva & van Raij (1992)
EFFECT OF TSP & SSP ON WATER EXTRACTION DURING 15 DAYS WITHOUT RAIN
Soil moisture (%) Depth (cm) 0 - 15 15 0 30 30 - 45 45 - 60 60 - 75 TSP 180 kg P/ha SSP 350 kg P/ha No roots 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
75 - 90
90 - 105 105 - 120
Lobato & Ritchey, 1980
EFFECT OF GYPSUM ON CORN ROOTING (A) AND SOIL NITRATE DISTRIBUTION (B)
DRY SEASON 1983 CERRADO OXISOL
(A)
cm 0 15
(B) N-NO- (cmol /100g) 3 c
0 0 t/ha 53% 27 6 t/ha 34%
0.1
0.2
25
12 19 2
30 10 45 8
60
75
10
Source: Sousa & Ritdhey, 1986

Sousa and Ritchey (1986)
Improvements In Yield Due To Gypsum:

72%
for corn 59% for wheat 14% for soybeans 30% for coffee 80% for Leucine Significant responses: mango, orange, sugarcane
Sousa et al. (1995)
Second Phase
Pot experiment Comparison of subsoils treated with lime and gypsum Leached with water Corn planted
Control CaSO4
5.5
Phospogypsum CaCO3
pH in CaCl2
4.5
3.5
3 1 2 3 4 5
Soil
Gypsum increases pHCaCl2

Carvalho & van Raij (1997)
14
90 Control CaSO4 CaSO4 70 Phospogypsum Phospogypsum
12
Control
80
Al3+ (mmolc/dm3)
10
Aluminum saturation (%)
CaCO3
60
CaCO3
50
40
30
20 2
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Soil
Soil
Gypsum decreases Exchangeable Al3+ Al saturation

12 16 Control 14 CaSO4 Phospogypsum 12 CaCO3 8 Ca2+ (mmolc/dm3) 10 10 Control CaSO4 Phospogypsum CaCO3
SO42- (mmolc/dm3)
1 2 3 4 5
4
4 2 2
0 1 2 3 4 5
Soil
Gypsum increases Exchangeable Ca Extractable SO4
Soil
Control CaSO4 2 Phospogypsum CaCO3
80
Control CaSO4 Phosphogypsum CaCO3
75 1.8
Water uptake (ml/pot)
N uptake (mg/pot)
1 2 3 4 5
70
1.6
1.4
65
1.2
60
55
Soil
Soil1
soil 2
soil 3
soil 4
soil 5
Gypsum increases Water & N uptake by corn
800
700
Control CaSO4 Phospogypsum CaCO3
Control CaSO4 Phospogypsum CaCO3
600
Dry material yield (g/pot) Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 4 Soil 5
Root Length (cm/dm3)
500
400
300
200
100
Soil 1
Soil 2
Soil 3
Soil 4
Soil 5
Gypsum increases Corn root length Dry matter yield

1.6
1.4 Control 1.2 CaSO4 Phosphogypsum CaCO3 1
5.5
Ca content (g/kg) soil 4 soil 5
S content (g/kg)
4.5
0.8 3.5
0.6
0.4
2.5
Soil1
soil 2
soil 3
Soil1
soil 2
soil 3
soil 4
soil 5
Gypsum increases Corn leaf S & Ca contents
2.9
70
2.7
65
60 2.5
Mg content (g/kg)
K uptake (mg/pot)
55
2.3
50
2.1
45
1.9
40
1.7
35
1.5
30
Soil1
soil 2
soil 3
soil 4
soil 5
Soil1
soil 2
soil 3
soil 4
soil 5
Gypsum Decreases Mg content Increases K content
Third Phase
Field experiment Al Sensitive and Al tolerant corn varieties Total yield increase over 4 years
Tolerant variety
8 7 8 7
Sensitive variety
Increase in corn yield (T/ha)
Increase in corn yield (T/ha)
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 4 Gypsum (T/ha) 8 6 12
5 4
3 2 1 0 0 0 4 6 12
Gypsum (T/ha)
van Raij et al. (1998)
1983
7 7 6
1984
Corn Yeild (t/h)
Corn Yield (t/h)
5
4 3 2 1 0 0 2 Gypsum (T/ha) 4
5
4 3 2 1
Irrigation No irrigation
6
0 0 2 4
Irrigation No irrigation
Gypsum (T/ha)
Gypsum response present in both years more pronounced in 1984

Carvalho et al. (1986)
Ca2+ (mmolc/dm3)
0 0 5 10 15 20 0
Mg2+ (mmolc/dm3)
0 2 4 6 8
20
20
40
40
Depth (cm)
No gypsum No lime 60 Gypsum No lime No gypsum Lime 80 Gypsum Lime
Depth (cm)
60 No gypsum No lime 80 Gypsum No lime No gypsum Lime
100
Gypsum Lime 100
120
120
Subsoil Ca Increased by gypsum gypsum + Lime
Subsoil Mg Increased by gypsum gypsum + lime Morelli et al. (19925)
SO42- (mmolc/dm3)
0 0 No gypsum No lime 20 Gypsum No lime No gypsum Lime Gypsum Lime 40 40 20 2 4 6 0
Al3+ (mmolc/dm3)
4 6
10
Depth (cm)
60
Depth (cm)
60
No gypsum No lime
Gypsum No lime 80 No gypsum Lime Gypsum Lime
80
100
100
120
120
Subsoil SO4 Increased by gypsum gypsum + lime
Subsoil Al Decreased by gypsum gypsum + lime
Morelli et al. (19925)
Usina Barre Grande Fazenda Augusta

130
120
125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90
Cane yield (T/ha)
110
100
90
80
70
4 60 0 2 0 4 6 2
Cane yield (T/ha)
85
5 80 0 1.5 0 3 6 2.5
10
Gypsum (T/ha)
Gypsum + lime promote yield the most
Gypsum (T/ha)
Penatti & Forti (1993)
Fazenda Prata Fazenda Pouso Alegre

95 90 85
125
Cane yield (T/ha)
80 75 70 120
60 55 50 0 1.2 0 2.4 4.8 1.35
Gypsum (T/ha)
Cane yield (T/ha)
65
115
110
105
100 10
Gypsum + lime promote yield the most
5 95 0 2.5 0 5 10 2.5
Gypsum (T/ha)
Penatti & Forti (1993)
1985/86
1986/87
3.0
2.5
Soyabean yield (T/ha)
2.0
2.5

9 6 3 0 2 Gypsum (T/ha) 0 4 6
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5 6 0 0 2 Gypsum (T/ha) 0 4 6 3
0.0
Lime more effective than gypsum
Quaggio et al. (1993) Van Raij et al. (1994)
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50 4.9 2.5 0.4 3.6 Gypsum (T/ha) 1.6 0.9 6.4 10
12.1 8.1
0.00
Lime more effective than gypsum

Quaggio et al. (1993) Van Raij et al. (1994)
3.5 3.3 3.1
4.3 4.1 3.9
Cotton yield (T/ha)
2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 0 2 Gypsum (T/ha) 0.6 4 6 1.8
Cotton yield (T/ha)
3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 0 2 Gypsum (T/ha) 0.6 4 6
3 1.8
Some response to gypsum
Silva et al. (1997)
Control
Gypsum
Cotton
Brazil
Souza (2008)
Control
Gypsum
Root weight (g/plant)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Control Lime on surface Lime 0-30 cm Lime 0-60 cm Lime 30-60 cm MgCO3 30-60 cm Gypsum on surface
On surface gypsum almost as 10 effective as lime incorporated

Top growth (g/plant)
15 20 25 30 35
Control Lime on surface Lime 0-30 cm Lime 0-60 cm Lime 30-60 cm MgCO3 30-60 cm Gypsum on surface
Chaves et al. (1987)
Volume of roots (cm3/plant)

10 15 20 25 35 40 45 50
30
On surface gypsum almost as effective as lime incorporated

Lime on surface Lime 0-30 cm Lime 0-60 cm Lime 30-60 cm
Gypsum on surface
Area of foliage (cm2/plant)

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Control
MgCO3 30-60 cm
Control Lime on surface Lime 0-30 cm Lime 0-60 cm Lime 30-60 cm MgCO3 Gypsum on surface
500
So Sebastio do Paraiso
50 45 40
Coffee Yield (bags/ha)
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 750 0 1500 3000 2580 1290
Lime (kg/ha)
Lime + gypsum most effective
Year 0
Year 1
Year 2
Final result
Root density (cm/g)

0 0 5 10 15 Control CaCO3 Gypsum 15 16 50 100 150
Depth (cm)
20 25
Calcium in leaves (g/kg)
30 35 40 45
14
12
Gypsum much more effective than lime
11
10
Control
Lime
Gypsum
13
Production (kg/tree)
10 4 5 6 7 8 9
Control
Lime
Gypsum much more effective than lime

Gypsum
Calcium in fruit (g/kg)
0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35
Control
Lime
Gyp[sum
Leucena Brachiaria
Leucena
6 6
Leucena yield (T/ha)
Leucena yield (T/ha)
3 T Gypsum/ha
3 T Gypsum/ha
4
Control
Control
Gypsum increases yield root distribution in subsoil
Sousa et al. (2001)
Brachiaria decumbens
Sousa et al. (2001)
Brachiaria brizantha
10 9
Brachiaria yield (T/ha)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0
Gypsum increased yield More when fertilizer applied More in second year
Second year First Year

200
1500
Gypsum (kg/ha)
Sousa et al. (2001)
Gypsum
Increases subsoil Ca Reduces subsoil Al Promotes root growth into subsoil Results in yield increases
Corn Coffee Sugarcane Apples Soybeans

Malcolm E. Sumner: Regents' Professor University of Georgia

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Malcolm E. Sumner: Regents' Professor University of Georgia

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Malcolm E.

Based on data from:

THE CERRADOS IN BRAZIL

Source:: IBGE, 2000.

Work in Brazil began after reading

First Phase Re-evaluation of long-term experiments with superphosphate

Triple super Single super

Triple super Single super

Single super increased subsoil pH, Ca+Mg

Triple super Single super

Single super decreased subsoil Al

Single super Increased subsoil pH, Ca

Triple super Single super

Triple super Single super

Single super Increased subsoil Mg, K

Lobato & Ritchey, 1980

(B) N-NO- (cmol /100g) 3 c

0 0 t/ha 53% 27 6 t/ha 34%

Source: Sousa & Ritdhey, 1986

Improvements In Yield Due To Gypsum:

Gypsum increases pHCaCl2

90 Control CaSO4 CaSO4 70 Phospogypsum Phospogypsum

Aluminum saturation (%)

Gypsum decreases Exchangeable Al3+ Al saturation

Gypsum increases Exchangeable Ca Extractable SO4

Carvalho & van Raij (1997)

Control CaSO4 2 Phospogypsum CaCO3

Control CaSO4 Phosphogypsum CaCO3

Water uptake (ml/pot)

Gypsum increases Water & N uptake by corn

Carvalho & van Raij (1997)

Control CaSO4 Phospogypsum CaCO3

Control CaSO4 Phospogypsum CaCO3

Dry material yield (g/pot) Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 4 Soil 5

Root Length (cm/dm3)

Gypsum increases Corn root length Dry matter yield

1.4 Control 1.2 CaSO4 Phosphogypsum CaCO3 1

Ca content (g/kg) soil 4 soil 5

Gypsum increases Corn leaf S & Ca contents

Gypsum Decreases Mg content Increases K content

Increase in corn yield (T/ha)

Increase in corn yield (T/ha)

van Raij et al. (1998)

Corn Yeild (t/h)

Corn Yield (t/h)

Gypsum response present in both years more pronounced in 1984

No gypsum No lime 60 Gypsum No lime No gypsum Lime 80 Gypsum Lime

60 No gypsum No lime 80 Gypsum No lime No gypsum Lime

Gypsum Lime 100

Subsoil Ca Increased by gypsum gypsum + Lime

Subsoil Mg Increased by gypsum gypsum + lime Morelli et al. (19925)

Subsoil SO4 Increased by gypsum gypsum + lime

Subsoil Al Decreased by gypsum gypsum + lime

Morelli et al. (19925)

Usina Barre Grande Fazenda Augusta

125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90

Cane yield (T/ha)

Cane yield (T/ha)

Gypsum + lime promote yield the most

Penatti & Forti (1993)

Fazenda Prata Fazenda Pouso Alegre

Cane yield (T/ha)

60 55 50 0 1.2 0 2.4 4.8 1.35