Effect of sources and doses of sulfate on soybean crop1

Abstract

Crop demands for the macronutrient sulfur (S) are similar or greater than those for phosphorous. However, S is often overlooked in the management of crop fertilization. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sources and doses of S on soybean cultivation under field conditions. A randomized block design, with 4 replications, was used. The treatments were arranged in a factorial scheme with one additional treatment (3 x 5 + 1), totaling 64 experimental units. Sources (elemental sulfur, single superphosphate and agricultural gypsum) and doses (20 kg ha-1, 40 kg ha-1, 60 kg ha-1, 80 kg ha-1 and 100 kg ha-1) of S were used, in addition to one control (without fertilizer). The following parameters were assessed: plant height at flowering, 1,000-seed weight, yield and agronomic efficiency, which were affected by the doses and sources of S; number of pods per plant, only affected by the sources of S; and number of pods with 3 seeds, with no statistical difference for any of the treatments. The highest yield recorded was 1,927 kg ha-1, at the dose of 80 kg ha-1 of S for gypsum, and the greatest agronomic efficiency was observed for the single superphosphate, at the dose of 20 kg ha-1 of S.

Crop Yield Responses to Sulfur Fertilization in Brazilian No-Till Soils: a Systematic Review

“…However, the likelihood of a positive response of grain crops to S fertilization has increased in various ecosystems around the world (Rheinheimer et al, 2005;Ercoli et al, 2011;Blum et al, 2013;Divito et al, 2015;Salvagiotti et al, 2017) as a consequence of (a) higher crop yield potential increasing S plant requirements (Salvagiotti et al, 2017), (b) the repeated use of phosphate and nitrogen fertilizers containing little or no S (Rheinheimer et al, 2005;Osório Filho et al, 2007), (c) reduced S atmospheric deposition (Divito et al, 2015;Vieira-Filho et al, 2015), (d) increased use of monocultures or crop successions, resulting in low inputs of crop residues, and (e) chemical and/or physical constraints on deep-rooting under NT (Dalla Nora et al, 2017). Crop responses to S application in Brazilian NT soils are highly variable and range from substantial increases (Miranda and Miranda, 2008;Fiorini et al, 2016;Pereira et al, 2016;Lopes et al, 2017;Nascente et al, 2017) to slight reductions in grain yield (Barbosa Filho et al, 2005;Megda et al, 2009;Gelain et al, 2011;Rampim et al, 2011) depending on the particular crop, soil, and climate conditions. Therefore, further consideration of these key drivers (viz., climate, soil chemical properties, crop type, and grain yield potential) for crop yield is imperative if management of S fertilization in Brazil is to be more sustainable.…”

Comparing various sulfur sources for soybean grown on an acid Oxisol in Brazil

“…In Brazil, S deficiencies have become more common in sandy soils with low organic matter content than in clayey soils, and more studies have compared different S sources (Fiorini et al, 2016;Lopes et al, 2017;Pereira et al, 2016) applied to crops under different growing conditions (Dalla Nora et al, 2017). In a systematic review of S studies, Pias et al (2018) concluded that (a) S fertilization increased crop yield by 16% in 31% of the studies in no-till soils; (b) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.…”