Soil physico-hydraulic properties under organic conilon coffee intercropped with tree and fruit species

Souza, Gustavo Soares de; Alves, Danielle Inácio; Dan, Maurício Lima; Lima, Julião Soares de Souza; Fonseca, Abner Luiz Castelão Campos da; Araújo, João Batista Silva; Guimarães, Lorena Abdalla de Oliveira Prata

doi:10.1590/s0100-204x2017000700008

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By 1845, Brazil was already the world's largest coffee producer, a position it maintains to this day (USDA, 2019). Almost all Brazilian coffee production comes from plantations with full sunlight conditions (Aguiar‐Menezes et al., 2007; Jaramillo‐Botero, Santos, Martinez, Cecon, & Fardin, 2010; Mancuso, Soratto, & Perdoná, 2013; Souza et al., 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In high-altitude broadleaved forests, coffee flourishes under mild understory conditions (Wrigley, 1988). Coffee was brought to Brazil in 1727, and as early as 1731, there were reports of the first exports of coffee have been found with shade tree intercropping in coffee plantations, such as: increased air humidity (Araújo, Partelli, Oliosi, & Pezzopane, 2016;Partelli et al, 2014); increased soil organic matter (Melloni et al, 2018); lower soil density, penetration resistance, and higher total porosity, microporosity, and soil water content (Souza et al, 2017); decreased nutrient leaching, improved soil fertility, and reduced fertilizer requirements (Babbar & Zak, 1995;Cuenca, Aranguren, & Herrera, 1983;Fassbender, 1987;Jaramillo-Botero et al, 2010); reduced incidence of Cercospora coffeicola (Berkeley & Cooke;Salgado, Macedo, Carvalho, Salgado, & Venturin, 2007), Leucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Mèneville & Perrottet; Teodoro, Klein, Reis, & Tscharntke, 2009), several species of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritoidea; Aguiar-Menezes et al, 2007), and weeds (Concenço et al, 2014;Silva, Perdoná, Soratto, & Negrisoli, 2013); as well as improvement in the quality of the harvested coffee beans (Vaast, Bertrand, Perriot, Guyot, & Génard, 2006). On the other hand, the following disadvantages can be noted: lower soil moisture in the dry season (Coelho, Matsumoto, Lemos, & Souza, 2010;Neves, Martinez, Souza, & Cecon, 2007), higher incidence of Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari; Wrigley, 1988), need for pruning to regulate shading provided by trees to coffee plants, and, mainly, limitation of coffee production potential and mechanized cultural practices, especially mechanized coffee harvesting (Perdoná & Soratto, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arabica coffee–macadamia intercropping: Yield and profitability with mechanized coffee harvesting

Perdoná

Soratto

2020

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.)–macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche) intercropping presents benefits at the initial phase; however, coffee yields gradually decline because of shading, and mechanized coffee harvesting may be impeded by the growth of macadamia trees. An experiment was conducted under irrigated conditions in southeastern Brazil to evaluate whether coffee–macadamia intercropping and the use of pruning to allow mechanized coffee harvesting offers agronomic and economic advantages over continuously cropped coffee monoculture (monocropped coffee). In addition, we aimed to evaluate which macadamia cultivar (Hawaiian cultivars; HAES 344, HAES 660, and HAES 816; Brazilian cultivars: IAC 9–20, IAC 4–12B, and IAC 4–20) is most suitable for long‐term intercropping with mechanized coffee harvesting. Hawaiian macadamia cultivars have a narrower canopy, requiring less pruning of the lateral branches to allow the traffic of the mechanical coffee harvester. The macadamia cultivar IAC 4–12B had the highest kernel yield and IAC 4–20 had the lowest yield. Because intercropped treatments have 33.3% fewer coffee plants and their production per plant was reduced by shading, the coffee yield in these treatments was on average 38% lower than that in monocropped coffee. However, due to the sale of the macadamia kernel, coffee–macadamia intercropping was economically superior to coffee monoculture. Depending on the macadamia cultivar, the economic benefit of intercropping was from 9% (IAC 4–20) to 206% (HAES 816 and IAC 4–12B) higher than that achieved with monocrop coffee cultivation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arabica coffee–macadamia intercropping: Yield and profitability with mechanized coffee harvesting

Perdoná

Soratto

2020

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a coffee area intercropped with tree species and fruit trees, Souza et al (2017) found lower temperature and higher humidity, compared to the treatment in which this practice was not used (monoculture, under full sun), where the former conditions favored the plant development.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Early Growth of Coffee Plants and Soil Fertility Properties in Response to Coffee Husk Application

Mantovani

Paula

Rezende

et al. 2018

C.Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coffee processing generates large amounts of husk, which can be used as organic fertilizer if technical criteria are considered. This study investigated the effect of coffee husk, applied to or incorporated into the soil, on soil fertility properties, early crop growth and nutrient accumulation in coffee plants. The experiment analyzed coffee plants in a greenhouse in pots, in randomized blocks, in a 5x2 factorial arrangement plus a control treatment, with four replicates. The treatments consisted of the combination of five coffee husk rates (3.5; 7; 14; 28, and 56 t ha-1), applied in two forms: spread on the surface or incorporated into the soil, plus the control treatment, without husk application. Portions of 7 dm 3 soil were blended with lime, phosphate fertilizer, as well as coffee husk rates in the treatments with residue incorporation, and incubated for 30 days. Thereafter, one coffee seedling per plot was planted, the coffee husk rates were applied on the soil surface for the treatments without residue incorporation, and the plants were left to grow for 180 days. Coffee husk applied to or incorporated into the soil surface increases the K and organic matter contents of the soil, intensifies the early growth of coffee plants and accelerates N and K accumulation in the plant shoots. The application of coffee husk on the surface is more indicated than its incorporation into the soil, and the best rate at coffee planting is equivalent to 20 t ha-1 .

show abstract

“…Furthermore, roots in both AF systems were better distributed if compared to those in the OG profile, revealing their better soil structure. This is mainly due to presence of biopores and their connectivity and continuity that are greater than in structural pores (Souza et al, 2017), as well as by presence of roots.…”

Section: Soil Penetration Resistance (Pr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil morphostructural characterization and coffee root distribution under agroforestry system with Hevea Brasiliensis

Nunes

Cortez

Zaro

et al. 2021

Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land use and tillage practices may change soil structure and undermine sustainable agriculture; however, such changes are hardly identified in the short term. In this sense, agroforestry systems have been used to reduce soil degradation and promote sustainable production in coffee plantations. These areas are expected to have well-structured soils and hence improved root distribution. This study aimed to evaluate soil quality by the morphostructural and root distribution analyses comparing open-grown coffee and coffee in agroforestry systems with rubber trees for 19 years, in an Oxisol in northern Paraná State (Brazil). Treatments consisted of open-grown coffee (OG), coffee partially shaded by rubber trees (PSH), and coffee fully shaded by rubber trees (FSH). The mapping of morphostructural features and soil resistance to penetration in "cultural profile" walls identified changes in soil structure resulting from different tillage systems. Root distribution was better in coffee plants grown in PSH and FSH systems. At greater depths, cultural profiles of FSH and PSH showed a larger numbers of roots compared to OG. Among the three systems, PSH provided a better environment for root growth and distribution. This result could be attributed to the high biological activity and interaction between roots and aggregates in that profile. The FSH agroforestry system provided less compact morphological structures and more roots throughout the soil profile. The agroforestry systems presented fewer soil structural changes by tillage operations and lower values of soil penetration resistance. Coffee root distribution was an effective indicator of soil quality and consistent with the morphostructural characterization of cultural profile.

show abstract

Soil physico-hydraulic properties under organic conilon coffee intercropped with tree and fruit species

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

Arabica coffee–macadamia intercropping: Yield and profitability with mechanized coffee harvesting

Arabica coffee–macadamia intercropping: Yield and profitability with mechanized coffee harvesting

Early Growth of Coffee Plants and Soil Fertility Properties in Response to Coffee Husk Application

Soil morphostructural characterization and coffee root distribution under agroforestry system with Hevea Brasiliensis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About