Weed management and fertilization limit the potential of cassava productivity in subtropical environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5965/223811712132022274Keywords:
Manihot esculenta Crantz, fertility, weed, s-metolachlor, simanihotAbstract
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the response to fertilization and different weed control periods in the accumulation of dry matter of cassava leaves, stems, roots, and fresh mass roots yield. Two experiments were carried out on commercial fields in Ibarama, and Santa Maria municipalities located at the Rio Grande do Sul State, South Brazil, during the 2018/2019 growing season. Five treatments, varying chemical fertilizer applications and herbicides were used to represent management practices commonly used by farmers in Southern Brazil. The Simanihot process-based model simulated cassava growth, development, and productivity under potential conditions. Results show that the recommended dose of fertilizers and liming combined with pre-emergent herbicide and three mechanical weed clear management showed a 72% increase in root productivity compared to the management used by the average yield of smallholder farmers. Therefore, it is possible to reach 80% of the potential productivity by keeping the cassava crop free from weed interference and applying fertilizers. The presence of weeds during the first 100 days after planting reduced about 50% of the plant dry matter production in Ibarama and Santa Maria. Interestingly, it also affects 79.2% of fresh roots productivity in Ibarama.
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the response to fertilization and different weed control periods in the accumulation of dry matter of cassava leaves, stems, roots, and fresh mass roots yield. Two experiments were carried out on commercial fields in Ibarama, and Santa Maria municipalities located at the Rio Grande do Sul State, South Brazil, during the 2018/2019 growing season. Five treatments, varying chemical fertilizer applications and herbicides were used to represent management practices commonly used by farmers in Southern Brazil. The Simanihot process-based model simulated cassava growth, development, and productivity under potential conditions. Results show that the recommended dose of fertilizers and liming combined with pre-emergent herbicide and three mechanical weed clear management showed a 72% increase in root productivity compared to the management used by the average yield of smallholder farmers. Therefore, it is possible to reach 80% of the potential productivity by keeping the cassava crop free from weed interference and applying fertilizers. The presence of weeds during the first 100 days after planting reduced about 50% of the plant dry matter production in Ibarama and Santa Maria. Interestingly, it also affects 79.2% of fresh roots productivity in Ibarama.
Downloads
References
ALBUQUERQUE JA et al. 2014. Occurrence of weeds in cassava savanna plantations in Roraima. Planta Daninha 2: 91-98.
ALVES FILHO P et al. 2015. Resposta da cultivar de mandioca roxinha à adubação NPK. Revista Raízes e Amidos Tropicais 11: 1-7.
AYE TM. 2011. Cassava Agronomy: Land Preparation, Time and method of planting and harvest, Plant spacing and Weed control. In: CIAT. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (org.). The Cassava Handbook. A Reference Manual based on the Asian Regional Cassava Training Course, held in Thailand. p.588-612.
BIFFE D et al. 2010. Período de interferência de plantas daninhas em mandioca (Manihot esculenta) no noroeste do Paraná. Planta Daninha 28: 471-478.
BORGES J et al. 2020. Potencial de produtividade da mandioca em função da época de plantio em ambiente subtropical. Revista de Ciências Agroveterinárias 19: 263-269.
CQFS RS/SC 2016. Comissão de Química e Fertilidade do Solo e Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo - Núcleo Regional Sul. Manual de adubação e de calagem para os Estados de Rio Grande do Sul e de Santa Catarina. Porto Alegre: CQFS RS/SC.
FAO. 2019. FAOSTAT database. FAO, Home. Available in: http://www.fao.org/news/archive/news-by-date/2019/pt/ . access in: 20 dez. 2019.
FIDALSKI J. 1999. Respostas da mandioca à adubação npk e calagem em solos arenosos do noroeste do Paraná. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 34: 1353-1359.
GABRIEL L et al. 2014 Simulating cassava growth and yield under potential conditions in Southern Brazil. Agronomy Journal 106: 1119-1137.
HOFFMAN R. 2014. A agricultura familiar produz 70% dos alimentos no Brasil? Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional 21: 417-421.
HOWELER R et al. 2013. Save and grow: cassava. A guide to sustainable production intensification. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
IBGE. 2022. Levantamento sistemático da produção agrícola. Disponível em: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/Tabela/ 6588#resultado. Acesso em: 15 maio 2022.
KINTCHÉ K et al. 2017. Cassava yield loss in farmer fields was mainly caused by low soil fertility and suboptimal management practices in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. European Journal of Agronomy 89: 107-123.
MATTOS P et al. 2003. Cultivo da mandioca para o Estado do Pará. Cruz das Almas: Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura. (Sistemas de produção 13).
MUNYAHALI W et al. 2017. Responses of cassava growth and yield to leaf harvesting frequency and NPK fertilizer in South Kivu, Democratic Republico f Congo. Field Crops Reserarch 214: 194-201.
PAULA G et al. 2010. Influência do fenômeno El Niño na erosividade das chuvas na região de Santa Maria, RS. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 34: 1315-1323.
PERESSIN VA et al. 2013. Manejo integrado de plantas daninhas na cultura da mandioca. Campinas: Instituto Agronômico, Editora IAC. 54p.
SCHONS A et al. 2007. Emissão de folhas e início de acumulação de amido em raízes de uma variedade de mandioca em função da época de plantio. Ciência Rural 37: 1586-1592.
STRECK N et al. 2014. Efeito do espaçamento de plantio no crescimento, desenvolvimento e produtividade da mandioca em ambiente subtropical. Bragantia 73: 407-415.
STRECK V et al. 2018. Solos do Rio Grande do Sul. 3.ed. Porto Alegre: UFRGS.
RÓS A et al. 2013. Produção de raízes de mandioca e propriedades química e física do solo em função de adubação com esterco de galinha. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical 43: 247-254.
TAGLIAPIETRA B et al. 2019. Mandioca para alimentação humana e animal. 1.ed. Santa Maria: EMATER. 104p.
THOMÁS P et al. 2016. Exigências Nutricionais da Mandioca (Manihot esculenta Crantz). XI Semana Universitária, Ciência Alimentando o Brasil. Mineiros: UNIFIMES. 7p.
TIRONI L et al. 2015. Desempenho de cultivares de mandioca em ambiente subtropical. Bragantia 74: 58-66.
TIRONI L et al. 2017. Simanihot: A process-based model for simulating growth, development and productivity of cassava. Engenharia Agrícola 37: 471-483.
TIRONI L et al. 2019. Ecofisiologia da mandioca visando altas produtividades. 1.ed. Santa Maria: Editora GR. 136p.
TRACHTA M et al. 2020. Leaf area estimation with nondestructive method in cassava. Bragantia 79: 347-359.
VISSES FA et al. 2019. Yield gap of cassava crop as a measure of food security - an example for the main Brazilian producing regions. Springer Nature 10: 1191-1202.
WERLE IS et al. 2021. Technology Levels in Cassava Cultivation Alter Phytosociology of Weeds. Hortscience 56: 787-794.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Authors & Revista de Ciências Agroveterinárias
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in this journal are in agreement with the following terms:
a) Authors maintain the copyrights and concede to the journal the copyright for the first publication, according to Creative Commons Attribution Licence.
b) Authors have the authority to assume additional contracts with the content of the manuscript.
c) Authors may supply and distribute the manuscript published by this journal.
