The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2020
DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2020.1750643
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DRIS and geostatistics indices for nutritional diagnosis and enhanced yield of fertirrigated acai palm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our study suggests that interpretations of spatial distribution maps of NBIm with each nutrient DRIS index may be effective to indicate the areas where the nutrient application will get potential positive or no responses for cowpea cultivation. These findings are consistent with Ribeiro et al 25 who revealed that in the spatial variability of nutrient indexes, it is possible to see very restricted points of deficiency and excess in the sampling area of plant tissue. However, in this single interpretation of spatial variability of the nutrient index, it is important to highlight that the regions with suitable nutritional status show values of nutrient index near zero 12 , 13 , 25 , 48 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our study suggests that interpretations of spatial distribution maps of NBIm with each nutrient DRIS index may be effective to indicate the areas where the nutrient application will get potential positive or no responses for cowpea cultivation. These findings are consistent with Ribeiro et al 25 who revealed that in the spatial variability of nutrient indexes, it is possible to see very restricted points of deficiency and excess in the sampling area of plant tissue. However, in this single interpretation of spatial variability of the nutrient index, it is important to highlight that the regions with suitable nutritional status show values of nutrient index near zero 12 , 13 , 25 , 48 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The integration of geostatistical tools into DRIS will enable to assess the continuous spatial variability of nutrient status. Ribeiro et al 25 observed that spatial variability of the DRIS Index efficiently indicated the points at which fittings in the fertilization doses are required. In addition, da Silva et al 11 reported that the use of a geostatistics tool resulted in a better understanding of the relationship between nutritional and non-nutritional variables on the Conilon coffee yield.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The combination of GIS with DRIS provides a better understanding of the interrelation of nutritional and non-nutritional variables on crop yield. In Brazil, these tools have identified the relationship of the incidence of rust (Hemileia vastatrix) and CBB (Hypothenemus hampei) with the NBI in terms of yield for Conilon coffee (Da Silva et al, 2020), along with the zoning of areas with a nutritional imbalance and low yield in adult Açaí palm plants (Oliveira et al, 2020). Meanwhile, in Colombia, the spatial distribution of NBI in the soil and leaf tissue of plants has led to the validation of Critical Levels and Sufficiency Ranges in oil palm (Herrera, 2015).…”
Section: F Spatial Variability and Drismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and comparing them with a reference population, aiming to classify the nutrients, regarding the order of limitation to plant growth (Ribeiro et al, 2020). It starts from the premise that the dual relationships between nutrients are more constant compared to their concentration in the plant.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Orange tree (Dias et al, 2017), Eucalyptus cuttings (Morais et al, 2019), sugarcane (Calheiros et al, 2018;Silva et al, 2020) soybean and cotton (Kurihara et al, 2015) oil palm (Matos et al, 2018), acai palm (Ribeiro et al, 2020), 'Thompson' atemoya Rozane, 2017), mango (Pinto et al, 2010), coffee (Wadt, 2005) and Eucalyptus ssp. (Silva et al, 2005;Wadt, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%