4.0 Article

SOIL COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF APPLE AS AFFECTED BY LONG-TERM APPLICATION OF GYPSUM

Journal

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 215-222

Publisher

SOC BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-06832012000100022

Keywords

downward movement; cations; nutritional status; calcium

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gypsum does not affect the soil negative charges and maintains sulfate in the soil solution, making it one of the cheapest products to increase Ca activity in soil solution, especially in the deeper soil layers. Higher Ca levels in the soil solution can increase the uptake of this nutrient by apple trees, reducing the risk of physiological disorders caused by Ca deficiency. This study assessed the effect of long-term gypsum application on some soil properties and on the chemical composition of leaves and fruits of an apple cultivar susceptible to fruit disorders associated with low Ca. The experiment was conducted in Sao Joaquim, in the South of Brazil, from 2001 to 2009. Gypsum rates of 0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 t ha(-1) were annually broadcast over the soil surface, without incorporation, in an apple orchard with cultivar 'Catarina', planted in 1997. Gypsum application over eight consecutive years had no effect on soil exchangeable K and Al to a depth of 80 cm, but increased exchangeable Ca in the sampled layers (0-10, 10-20, 40-60 and 60-80 cm), while exchangeable Mg decreased only in the surface layer (0-20 cm). Gypsum did not affect the concentration of any nutrient in the fruits, including Ca. The same was verified in the leaves, except for Mg which decreased with increased gypsum rate. Despite increasing the availability of Ca in the soil profile to a depth of 80 cm, gypsum was not effective to increase the Ca content in leaves and fruits of an apple cultivar susceptible to Ca deficiency grown in an appropriately limed soil.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available