4.1 Article

SEEDLINGS OF Acrocomia aculeata IN DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES AND PROTECTED ENVIRONMENTS

Journal

ENGENHARIA AGRICOLA
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages 395-404

Publisher

SOC BRASIL ENGENHARIA AGRICOLA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-69162014000300002

Keywords

bocaiuva; cattle manure; cassava branches; vermiculite; protected cultivation

Funding

  1. CAPES
  2. Dean of Research and Graduate Program (PROPP)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The seedling production stage is the key to achieve uniformity in tree breeding stage. This study evaluated bocaiuva (Acrocomia aculeata) seedling formation, with pre-germinated seeds in different substrates and protected environments, in the University of Mato Grosso do Sul State, Aquidauana, MS. As substrates, we used 100% cattle manure (M), 100% cassava branches (CB), 100% vermiculite (V), 50% cattle manure + 50% cassava branches, 50% cattle manure + 50% vermiculite, 50% cassava branches + 50% vermiculite and. cattle manure +. cassava branches +. vermiculite. These substrates were tested in a greenhouse covered with 150 mu m low density polyethylene (LDPE) film under thermo-reflective screen with 50% shading under film; black screen with 50% shading on the sides; black monofilament screen with 50% shading set on roof and sides; and aluminized thermo-reflective screen with 50% shading set on roof and sides. The completely randomized experimental design with 5 replications of 5 plants each was adopted. Initially, data were submitted to analysis of substrate individual variance in each growing environment, then performing the waste mean square evaluation and their environment joint analysis for comparison. The best growing environment is the thermo-reflective screen compared to LDPE greenhouse and black screen set. All substrates containing manure are recommended for bocaiuva seedlings formation. The pure cassava branch is not indicated for seedling, even using chemical fertilizer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available