Next Article in Journal
Potassium Application Increases Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Fiber Length by Improving K+/Na+ Homeostasis and Potassium Transport Capacity in the Boll-Leaf System under Moderate Salinity
Previous Article in Journal
Seed Germination and Early Seedling Growth Responses to Drought Stress in Annual Medicago L. and Trifolium L. Forages
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Long-Term Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry Systems Recover the Structural Quality of Ultisol Soil

by
Aline Marchetti Silva Matos
1,*,
Carolina dos Santos Batista Bonini
1,*,
Bruno Rafael de Almeida Moreira
2,
Marcelo Andreotti
3,
Reges Heinrichs
1,
Diogo Tiago da Silva
4,
José Augusto Liberato de Souza
3,
Melissa Alexandre Santos
3,
Cristiana Andrighetto
1,
Gustavo Mateus Pavan
5,
Vitor Corrêa de Mattos Barretto
1 and
Alfredo Bonini Neto
6
1
Department of Plant Production, School of Agronomic and Technological Sciences, State of São Paulo University (Unesp), Dracena, São Paulo 17900-000, Brazil
2
Department of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, School of Veterinarian and Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
3
Department of Plant Health, Rural Engineering and Soils, College of Engineering, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Ilha Solteira, São Paulo 15385-000, Brazil
4
Andradina Educational Foundation, Andradina, São Paulo 16901-900, Brazil
5
Agência Paulista de Tecnologia dos Agronegócios (APTA), Andradina, São Paulo 16900-001, Brazil
6
Department of Biosystems Engineering, School of Sciences and Engineering, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Tupã, São Paulo 17602-496, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(12), 2961; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122961
Submission received: 2 October 2022 / Revised: 17 October 2022 / Accepted: 7 November 2022 / Published: 25 November 2022

Abstract

:
Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry Systems (ICLFS) offer stakeholders sustainable options to produce goods and services. Those additionally manifest as enablers of environmental conservation of soil functioning. We, therefore, analyzed the quality of Ultisol for physical and chemical properties under restorative or regenerative models of long-term (nine years) ICLFS. The arrangements comprised integrated Crop–Livestock; integrated Crop-Livestock-Forestry, integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry with a single or triplicate rows of Eucalyptus; and Eucalyptus plantation, natural vegetation, and bare soil with resurgence of grasses (reference). We collected samples of soil at 0.05, 0.05–0.1, and 0.1–0.2 m depths throughout the areas to quantify standard properties, including water infiltration, hydraulic conductivity, degree of flocculation, mechanical resistance to penetration, stability of aggregates, physical fractioning of organic matter, and fertility. We applied principal component analysis to analytical data to calculate accurate discriminant variables to distinguish systems by structural quality. We obtained evidence for the crop–livestock framework improving physical and chemical properties; hence, this intervention outperformed others in developing environmental restoration. Additionally, as the reference consisted of comparable properties to those in integrative systems and native vegetation, it supported the ability of the soil to gradually recover itself over time. Therefore, our study provides knowledge to advance the field’s prominence in implementing ICLFS for the environmental reclamation of the condition or process degrading the soil and its functions for sustainable agricultural production.

1. Introduction

Brazil is the top country for meat exports worldwide. As of 2020, its contribution to the global beef market was 2.2 million tons. Brazil’s herd encompasses 217 million cattle. Pastures occur in 30.9% of the Brazilian territory, allowing stakeholders in its climate-positive livestock sector to produce beef cattle extensively, semi-intensively, or intensively [1]. However, as commercially active grasslands eventually manifest as unsustainable to producers and consumers, they drive the need to develop and implement alternatives [2], such as integrative crop–livestock–forestry systems (ICLFS), to address pressing social and environmental issues while promoting economic symmetry. Domestically, the area supporting models of ICLFS was 17,431.5 ha in 2020/21, representing a significant growth of 52% relative to 2015/16 [3].In Brazil, pastures are the most important basis of ruminant production; nonetheless, degradation of these areas through extensive livestock farming has made sustainable production impossible [4], promoting the degradation of water and soil [5]. The recovery of pastures and soil quality is carried out by reversing the degradation process with integrated systems [6].
As global demands for goods and services from agriculture increase intensively, they force full-scale farmers to expand their systems over natural landscapes to produce food, energy, and fiber cost-effectively [7]. Intensifying agricultural supply chains can provide a quantitatively sufficient output to secure the world population [7]; however, conditions or processes depleting natural resources, such as deforestation and topsoil running out, can occur when an economic framework is irrational, exceeding the ecological balance [7].
Experts in livestock from the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) stressed at the Conference of the Parties (COP26), which brought countries for global climate summits, the significance of ICLFS in capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Those can store up to 2.05 Mg ha−1 yr−1 of the target greenhouse gas (GHG) at a 1 m depth in tropical soils [8,9,10,11,12]. Additionally, they can act as a sink to methane (CH4); hence, they can be enablers of sustainable development by mitigating global warming and its effects on climate change [13].
Complementarily, ICLFS can offer possibilities to conserve biodiversity, reduce the anthropogenic depletion of natural resources and ecosystem services, and improve the soil’s quality for sustainable agricultural development [14,15]. Therefore, researchers emphasize analyzing them edaphically and climatically for standard physical and chemical indicators of stability and scalable functionality [16,17,18], such as hydraulic conductivity, organic matter fractioning, and fertility [19]. However, they often focus on conducting short-term studies and trials, making it challenging to determine the role of ICLFS in promoting or recovering soil’s properties and functions temporally and spatially.
Perhaps, we need a couple of years or even decades to provide accurate and reliable insights into the conceptual and technical ramifications of a stable arrangement within a realistic design. We, therefore, implemented models of ICLFS on an Ultisol under severe anthropogenic degradation for environmental restoration or regeneration in the long term. Nine years later, we analyzed them for their effectiveness in developing the soil’s structural quality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Edaphoclimatic Conditions of the Study Area

We conducted our study in the division of agricultural production of APTA (São Paulo’s Agency for Agribusiness Technology), Andradina, northwest São Paulo, Brazil, near 20°55′ south and 51°23′ west. The regional climate is tropical; hence, it consists of a rainy summer and dry winter, with annual precipitation and temperature of 1150 mm and 23 °C, respectively. Precipitation distribution and mean temperatures in the experimental area from 2012 to 2022 were monitored and were as typically described for the region (Figure 1). Additionally, the soil throughout the experimental area is a dystrophic Ultisol [20]; its degree of slope is 6%, making it undulating.

2.2. Implementation of Integrative Crop–Livestock–Forestry Systems

2.2.1. A Brief History of On-Site Anthropogenic Degradation

The unsuitable and unsustainable exploitation of the area for extensive grazing caused the soil to severe physical and chemical degradation over time and spatially, driving the need for environmental restoration. Therefore, such a medium initially consisted of 4.8 pH, 15 g dm−3 organic matter (OM), 3 mg dm−3 phosphorus (P), and 1.8, 7, 5, and 19 mmolc dm−3 of K, Ca, Mg, and potential acidity, respectively; also, it texturally comprised 10.7, 11.3, and 78% of clay, silt, and sand, respectively [21]. Importantly, we selected a permanent protection area (27 ha) occurring underneath an on-site rainforest to refer to the native vegetation of Cerrado, which stands as a vast tropical savanna ecoregion of Brazil (Figure 2).

2.2.2. Conventional Tillage

We characterized the soil to establish a baseline for amendment and spatio-temporal comparative analysis. Therefore, we plowed and harrowed it mechanically for decompaction, thereby decreasing impedance for roots. We then applied 1200 kg ha−1 limestone (80% neutralization power) to increase basis saturation from 42% to 70% while incorporating gypsum at 600 kg ha−1 to provide sulfur (S) for crops. We ground our conventional preparation to the technical specifications of the strictest Brazilian institute for plant nutrition and fertilization [22].

2.2.3. Planting of Eucalyptus

We planted E. urograndis (E. grandis × E. urophylla) in October 2012 for integrated crop–livestock–forestry (Table 1). We, therefore, established such a commercially available hybrid clone in arrangements of 200 and 500 ind. ha−1 to analyze whether the density of the forestry component can determine the ability of an integrative system to restore soil’s properties. We applied a suite of macro and micro minerals for fertilization on specific spots (and per hole) once at planting (8.4 g N, 63 g P2O5, and 33.6 g K2O) and then twice after 4 (40 g urea, 9 g zinc sulfate, and 1.2 g boron) and 12 (160 g urea) months of the cultivation. Other practices included watering, weeding, and replanting.

2.2.4. Sowing of Soybean

We introduced soybean (Glycine max cv. BMX Potencia) into systems with and without Eucalyptus in December 2012 to boost integrated crop–livestock–forestry or crop–livestock. We, therefore, sowed it mechanically by operating a plantographic sower machine (SAM200, Semeato®, São Cristovao, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil) coupled to a tractor (TL 75 4 × 4, New Holland®, Piracicaba, Brazil). The equipment precisely dropped 20 seeds per meter onto an arrangement of 4 lines 0.5 m apart; hence, the population density of such a starting agricultural component was 400,000 pl ha−1. The quantities of N, P2O5, and K2O for fertilization during seeding were 12, 90, and 48 kg ha−1, respectively. We added 40 kg ha−1 of P2O5 and K2O to the field after 40 days of cultivation to allow the crop to overcome the poor fertility of the soil under degradation. After harvesting it, we sprayed glyphosate (Roundup WG) at 250 L ha−1 on the area via a sprayer mounted on a tractor for desiccation. Importantly, we controlled weeds chemically by spraying 1240 g ha−1 of a potassium salt of glyphosate (Zapp QI 620) at pre-emergence to avoid interspecific competition over resources available from the medium. We applied cobalt (0.22 g ha−1) and molybdenum (2.25 g ha−1) together with the pesticide to improve the biological fixation of N2 by the legume, allowing it to produce and accumulate a significant quantity of straw on the field to implement a no-tillage successive crop–pasture system.

2.2.5. Intercropping Maize with Pasture

As of December 2013, we seeded maize (Zea mays cv. BG 7049) on legume straw from soybean for integrated crop–livestock within a non-tillage fashion. We, therefore, set the precision sowing equipment to distribute 8 kg ha−1 of seeds on rows 0.8 m apart, yielding a population density of 62,500 ind. ha−1. Its fertilization included 24.8, 86.8, and 49.6 kg ha−1 of N, P2O5, and K2O during seeding and 200 kg ha−1 of urea after 20 days of growing. We then seeded palisade grass (Urochloa brizantha cv. Marandu) on narrower lines (0.2 m apart) within rows of maize for intercropping. After harvesting corn for silage in March 2014, we split the area into plots for mob grazing (i.e., short-duration, high-density grazing with an extended grass recovery period). Importantly, we treated maize by thoroughly mixing seeds with thiamethoxam (Cruiser 350) at 105 g of the active compound per 100 kg of the material to protect it against early-stage herbivore attacks.

2.3. Technical Assessment

In the years 2020 and 2022, we determined the long-term recuperative potential of integrative systems for standard physical and chemical properties (Table 2). We, therefore, randomly sampled the soil at layers of 0–0.05, 0.05–0.1, and 0.1–0.2 m depth throughout experimental areas (Figure 1) for routine laboratory analyses. We conducted them in triplicate.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

We compared integrative systems by post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. We, additionally, applied a correlational analysis (Equation (1)) and principal component analysis (PCA) to datasets to calculate explanatory relationships between indicators of recuperative performance for a deeper understanding. We ran analyses in R software (R x64.4.1.0) for statistical computing and graphs [29].
r = N x y x y N x 2 x 2 N y 2 y 2 ´
where r is the correlation coefficient, n is the number of pairs of scores, ∑xy is the sum of the products of paired scores, ∑x is the sum of x scores, ∑y is the sum of y scores, ∑x2 is the sum of squared x scores, and ∑y2 is the sum of squared y scores.

3. Results

3.1. The Impact of Integrative Systems on Ultisol’s Properties

By analyzing the outcome of Tukey’s test (Figure 3), we recognized a significant influence of integrative systems on Ultisol’s quality. We, therefore, determined their impact on chemical and physical properties as positive, irrespective of the sampling layer (Tables S1 and S2, Supplementary Material). The crop–livestock system brought the highest estimates of organic matter, Mg, gravimetric humidity, and infiltration into a spatio-temporal comparative analysis; hence, it outperformed integrated crop–livestock–forestry in replenishing fertility and restructuration. Such a combination of maize and palisade grass could develop a suite of variables–these above and implicit others (e.g., P-resin, potential acidity, and cation exchange capacity) as effectively as a native forest.
Therefore, comparatively, it can offer stakeholders the most reliable integrative solution to mitigate anthropogenic degradation in the long term. A crop–livestock–forestry association can also be an eco-friendly alternative for environmental reclamation since it developed comparable organic matter and gravimetric humidity to those of native vegetation underneath a typical rainforest of Cerrado without degradation.
The density of Eucalyptus cannot determine its recuperative potential. We introduced limestone into plots to improve acidity; however, we could not separate treatments upon either pH or Ca. Generally, our practical models for the long-term environmental recovery of degradation delivered a synergistic effect on Ultisol’s quality.
We, therefore, obtained better measures of its properties over time (Tables S1 and S2, Supplementary material). In integrated crop–livestock, for instance, organic matter increased from 14.7–21.3 to 16.7–24.7 g dm−3 (Table S1, Supplementary Materials), while the quantity of dispersive clay in water decreased from 19.11–45.92 to 12.56–39.75 g kg−1 (Table S2, Supplementary Materials) between 2020 and 2022.

3.2. Correlational Analysis of Indicators of Recuperative Performance

We established functional relationships between chemical and physical properties (Figure 4). For instance, we calculated a significant Pearson’s r of 0.75 (p > 0.05) between organic matter and average aggregate diameter. Therefore, particles developed a higher diameter as the quantity of organic matter increased, supporting its positive contribution to binding functionality and, consequently, structuration. In contrast, average aggregate diameter and K brought a negative correlation (r = 0.95; p < 0.05) into the correlational modeling. Therefore, as the availability of K from the system increased either by fertilization or mineralization of leguminous straw, it produced particulates of lower dimension.
Potassium also established negative correlations with the degree of flocculation, gravimetric humidity, and organic matter, further supporting the conversion of vegetable cover to minerals and, more importantly, its antagonistic role in the structuration and dynamics of solutes, such as air and water. The degree of flocculation developed positive and negative correlations with aggregate stability and water-dispersing clay, respectively. Therefore, the lower the dispersive activity of clay, the less it flocculates, which is significant to infiltration and aeration since air and water move between and within aggregates. Additionally, plant roots grow better in a matrix where clayey clusters do not plug pores, thereby decreasing hydraulic flows, such as drainage. A negative correlation (r = 0.95; p < 0.05) between water-dispersing clay and infiltration of water supported the statement.

3.3. Insights into the Environmental Recovery of Ultisol’s Properties

We divided the high-dimensionality original datasets into insightful subsets, namely PCI and PCII (primary principal component (PCI); secondary principal component (PCII)) by orthogonalization. Therefore, such latent hits spanned 46.1 and 24.3% of the variance in information about 2020. As of 2022, they allowed for the explanation of 32.7 and 22.15% of the spatio-temporal variability, respectively (Table S3, Supplementary Materials).
By analyzing the outcome of PCA for 2020’s data (Figure 5), we assigned PCI and PCII for neutralization and rearrangement of particles, respectively. For instance, while the pH and basis saturation moved forward, potential acidity and saturation of Al moved backward in the analytical space of PCI. Additionally, while the degree of flocculation, average aggregate diameter, and gravimetric humidity moved upward, the water-dispersive clay moved downward in the second dimension of the bi-plot map. These significant relationships between eigenvectors and eigenvalues supported the ability of integrative systems to recover Ultisol’s quality, especially the crop–livestock framework. Such a combination moved the farthest from the graphic origin in the first dimension of the factorial chart; hence, it provided the most reliable insight into the recovery of chemical properties by neutralization and, subsequently, alkalinization. It also provided a meaningful prospect for the rearrangement of structuring particles since its correlations with infiltration of water (r = 0.7, p < 0.05), hydraulic conductivity (r = 0.95, p < 0.05), and aggregate stability (0.85, p < 0.05) were positive.
An integrated crop–livestock–forestry with Eucalyptus within an arrangement of single lines could not contribute to significantly improving the chemical and physical properties of the soil as an integrated crop–livestock. By introducing such a forestry component at a higher density into an integrative system, we could develop its benefits to cation exchange capacity (r = 0.95, p < 0.05) and degree of flocculation (r = 0.9, p < 0.05). However, increasing litter near trees can intensify the occurrence of acid compounds by organic matter breakdown. As organic carbon and magnesium moved closer from the graphic origin of the bi-plot chart, we could not precisely and accurately map systems to either structuration or replenishment of nutrients until 2020. We achieved it only in 2022 (Figure 3).
By analyzing the outcome of PCA for 2022’s data (Figure 5), we could identify a restructuration of eigenvectors and eigenvalues. Therefore, conditions or processes of environmental recovery of Ultisol’s properties by integrative systems changed over time and spatially; hence, we reinterpreted PCI and PCII as structuration and replenishment of nutrients, respectively. For instance, integrated crop–livestock moved upward in the second dimension of the bi-plot map, establishing significant positive correlations with P-resin (r = 0.9, p < 0.05), Mg (r = 0.85, p < 0.05), and basis saturation (r = 0.7, p < 0.05). Therefore, its position and closer spatial synergistic connections with such discriminant eigenvectors in the northeast quadrant of the multivariate chart provided the most reliable insight into a series of improvements by structuration and replenishment of nutrients.

4. Discussion

We obtained evidence for integrative systems recovering the Ultisol’s quality. They significantly improved soil’s chemical and physical properties over time and spatially; hence, they allowed the growth of vegetable components while yielding valuable and scalable outcomes, such as edible grains (e.g., soybean and corn) for human nutrition, fodder (e.g., maize’s green foliage), and forage (e.g., palisade grass) for animal husbandry (cattle grazing). Although farm soil severely degraded the site during its implementation, our practical models for environmental restoration or recuperation reestablished its compositions and functions in the long term, making it capable of agricultural, livestock, or forestry production. Therefore, they could be at least comparable (integrated crop–livestock–forestry, irrespective of the density of Eucalyptus) to or even outperform (integrated crop–livestock) native vegetation (without anthropogenic intervention) in structure and fertility.
We emphasize that the soil under study has a sandy texture; thus, the discussion about a few studies carried out on integrated systems in sandy soil becomes relevant. The low organic carbon content is related to the high sand content in the soil [30], lower nutrient retention [31], and greater soil erosion [32]. However, integrated systems, when used properly, becomes efficient to recover degraded sandy soil [33]. Thus, integrated systems help water retention in sandy soil so that the fine roots of the tree component contribute to the increase in microporosity in the subsoil without interfering with macroporosity [34]. Studies in the regions of Northeast Paraná (Brazil), sandy soil that has a high erodibility rate and low water storage rate, producers are using integrated systems to increase crop productivity and provide ecosystem services [35].
Such a permanent protective spot under a typical rainforest of Cerrado generated and accumulated vegetable litter on topsoil, releasing significant quantities of organic (e.g., carbon) and inorganic (i.e., K, Ca, and Mg) compounds for autochthonous flora consisting of grasses, shrubs, and trees [36]. While integrative systems without a forestry component could not improve the soil’s quality by littering, they could produce similar properties to those under native vegetation by generating straw. Species of Urochloa spp. can add organic matter and N to the soil, making it an alternative to develop high-throughput integrative systems in tropical zones [37,38].
In addition, root branching can develop porosity for infiltration, drainage, and aeration; hence, it either balances or enhances the masses of water and gases [39], as evidenced by higher gravimetric humidity in an association of maize and palisade grass. Lower gravimetric humidity in 2020, compared to 2022, supported a period of precipitation lower than usual during summer. However, integrative systems may not require irrigation to maintain performance, which is significant to streamline farming activities, reduce expensive practices, and ultimately level up the cost-effectiveness of a project for stakeholders from crop to livestock producers [40]. Additionally, as the reference developed comparable properties to those in integrative systems and native vegetation, it supported the ability of the soil to recover itself over time.

5. Conclusions

We elaborated on integrative crop–livestock–forestry systems to mitigate anthropogenic degradation in tropical soil. We, therefore, established them by associating maize, palisade grass, and Eucalyptus in arrangements of single lines and triplicate rows. Then we monitored and assessed them for standard chemical and physical properties in the long term (nine years). Such interventions, especially a crop–livestock association, significantly recovered the Ultisol’s compositions and functions. Therefore, our study represents progress in developing and implementing eco-friendly solutions for environmental reclamation and sustainable production. Our practical models can offer stakeholders possibilities to overcome degrading conditions or processes while producing edible grains (i.e., corn and soybean), fodder (i.e., maize’s green foliage), and forage for human and animal consumption in harsher environments, such as marginal lands. Further larger-scale research must focus on conducting their techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment to complete characterization and commercial operation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12122961/s1, Table S1: Chemical properties of Ultisol under integrative systems in 2020, Table S2: Physical properties of Ultisol under integrative systems in 2020, Table S3: Insights into the recovery of Ultisol’s properties by crop-livestock-forestry integration.

Author Contributions

C.d.S.B.B. conceived and designed the experiments; D.T.d.S. performed the experiments; C.d.S.B.B., B.R.d.A.M. and A.M.S.M. analyzed the data; R.H., M.A. and C.d.S.B.B., contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; A.M.S.M. wrote the paper; J.A.L.d.S., M.A.S. and D.T.d.S., methodology; C.A., V.C.d.M.B. and G.M.P., writing-review and editing; A.B.N., visualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the Fapesp 2015/21525-0 and CAPES 88887.640423/2021-00. We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the many student workers, technicians, and support scientists who were instrumental in maintaining this experiment, collecting data, and providing analytical laboratory support. A special thanks to CAPES for financial support to the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

APTASão Paulo’s Agency for Agribusiness Technology
COP2626th Conference of the Parties
EmbrapaBrazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
GHGgreenhouse gas
HSDhonestly significant difference
ICLFSintegrative crop–livestock–forestry systems
PCAprincipal component analysis
PCIprimary principal component
PCIIsecondary principal component

References

  1. Projeto Mapbiomas. Mapeamento Anual de Cobertura e Uso da Terra do Brasil. Available online: https://mapbiomas.org/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  2. Embrapa. O Agro no Brasil e no Mundo: Uma Síntese do Período de 2000 a 2020. 2021. Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/documents/10180/62618376/O+AGRO+NO+BRASIL+E+NO+MUNDO.pdf/41e20155-5cd9-f4ad-7119-945e147396cb (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  3. Polidoro, J.C.; Freitas, P.L.; Hernani, L.C.; Anjos, L.H.C.; Rodrigues, R.A.R.R.; Cesário, F.V.; Andrade, A.G.; Ribeiro, J.L. The impact of plans, policies, practices and technologies based on the principles of conservation agriculture in the control of soil erosion in Brazil. Authorea 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Silva, R.O.; Barioni, L.G.; Hall, J.A.J.; Moretti, A.C.; Veloso, R.F.; Alexander, P.; Crespolini, M.; Moran, D. Sustainable intensification of Brazilian livestock production through optimized pasture restoration. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 201–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moraes, A.; Carvalho, P.C.F.; Anghinoni, I.; Lustosa, S.B.C.; Costa, S.E.V.G.A.; Kunrath, T.R. Integrated crop-livestock systems in the Brazilian subtropics. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 57, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Neto, J.F.; Severiano, E.C.; Costa, K.A.P.; Guimarães Junnyor, W.S.; Gonçalves, W.G.; Andrade, R. Biological soil loosening by grasses from genus Brachiaria in crop-livestock integration. Acta Sci. Agron. 2015, 37, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Vilela, L.; Martha, G.B., Jr.; Macedo, M.C.M.; Marchão, R.L.; Guimarães, J.R.; Pulrolnik, K.; Maciel, G.A. Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems in the Cerrado region. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2011, 46, 1127–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sá, J.C.M.; Séguy, L.; Gozé, E.; Bouzinac, S.; Husson, O.; Boulakia, S.; Tivet, F.; Forest, F.; Santos, J.B. Carbon sequestration rates in no-tillage soils under intensive cropping systems in tropical agro-ecozones. Edafologia 2006, 13, 139–150. [Google Scholar]
  9. Blanchart, E.; Bernoux, M.; Sarda, X.; Neto, M.S.; Cerri, C.C.; Piccolo, M.; Douzet, J.M.; Scopel, E.; Feller, C. Effect of direct seeding mulch-based systems on soil carbono storage and macrofauna in central brazil. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2007, 72, 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sá, J.C.M.; Séguy, L.; Tivet, F.; Lal, R.; Bouzinac, S.; Borszowskei, P.R.; Briedis, I.; Santos, J.B.; Hartman, D.C.; Bertoloni, C.G.; et al. Carbon Depletion by Plowing and its Restoration by No-Till Cropping Systems in Oxisols of Subtropical and Tropical Agro-Ecoregions in Brazil. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 531–543. [Google Scholar]
  11. Corbeels, M.; Marchão, R.L.; Neto, M.S.; Ferreira, E.G.; Madari, B.E.; Scopel, E.; Brito, O.R. Evidence of limited carbon sequestration in soils under no-tillage systems in the Cerrado of Brazil. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Miranda, E.; Carmo, J.; Couto, E.; Camargo, P. Long-term changes in soil carbono stocks in the Brazilian cerrado under comercial soybean. Land. Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 1586–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Souza, D.C. Sistema Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta e a Neutralização dos Gases de Efeito Estufa. Bachelor’s Thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás Escola de Ciências Médicas e da Vida Curso de Zootecnia, Goiânia, Brazil, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  14. Balbino, L.C.; Barcellos, A.D.O.; Stone, L.F. Marco Referencial Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta (Reference Document Crop-Livestock-Forestry Integration), 1st ed.; Embrapa: Brasília, DF, Brazil, 2011; p. 127. [Google Scholar]
  15. Assis, P.C.R.; Stone, L.F.; Medeiros, J.C.; Madari, B.E.; De Oliveira, J.M.; Wruck, F.J. Physical attributes of soil in integrated crop-livestock-forest systems. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Amb. 2015, 19, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Yang, T.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Liu, K. Cropping systems in agriculture and their impact on soil health—A review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rabot, E.; Wiesmeier, M.; Schlüter, S.; Vogel, H.J. Soil structure as na indicator of soil functions: A review. Geoderma 2018, 314, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Regelink, I.C.; Stoof, C.R.; Rousseva, S.; Weng, L.; Lair, G.J.; Kram, P.; Nikolaidis, N.P.; Kercheva, M.; Banwart, S.; Comans, R.N.J. Linkages between aggregate formation, porosity and soil chemical properties. Geoderma 2015, 247, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Reis, A.D.S. Atributos Físicos e Químicos do solo sob Diferentes Sistemas de Manejo em Áreas de Ecótono Cerrado—Amazônia. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Federal Do Tocantins Campus Universitário De Gurupi Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Produção Vegetal, Gurupi, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Santos, H.G.; Jocomine, P.K.T.; Anjos, L.H.C.; Oliveira, V.A.; Lumbrearas, J.F.; Coelho, M.R.; Almeida, J.Á.; Filho, J.C.A.; Oliveira, J.B.; Cunha, T.J.F. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos, 5th ed.; Embrapa: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 2018; p. 286. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bonini, C.S.B.; Lupatini, G.C.; Andriguetto, C.; Mateus, G.P.; Heinrichs, R.; Aranha, A.S.; Santana, E.A.R.; Meirelles, G.C. Produção de forragem e atributos químicos e físicos do solo em sistemas integrados de produção agropecuária. Pesq. Agrop. Bras. 2016, 51, 1695–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Raij, V.B.; Cantarella, H.; Quaggio, J.A.; Furlani, A.M.C. Recomendação de Adubação e Calagem Para o Estado de São Paulo, Boletim Técnico, 100, 2nd ed.; Instituto Agrônomico: São Paulo, Brazil, 1997; p. 154. [Google Scholar]
  23. Teixeira, P.C.; Donagemma, G.K.; Fontana, A.; Teixeira, W.G. Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solo, 3rd ed.; Embrapa: Brasilia, DF, Brazil, 2017; p. 557. [Google Scholar]
  24. Yeomans, J.C.; Bremner, J.M.A. Rapid and precise method for routine determination of organic carbon in soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 1988, 19, 1467–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, R. Determination of soil sorptivity and hydraulic conductivity from the disk infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 1024–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Naik, A.P.; Ghosh, B.; Pekkat, S. Estimating soil hydraulic properties using mini disk infiltrometer. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 2018, 25, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Falker. PenetroLOG—Medidor Eletrônico de Compactação do Solo. Available online: https://www.falker.com.br/produto-penetrolog-medidor-compactacao.php (accessed on 18 February 2022).
  28. Raij, B.V.; Andrade, J.C.; Cantarella, H.; Quaggio, J.A. Análise Química Para Avaliação da Fertilidade de Solos Tropicais, 1st ed.; Instituto Agronômico: São Paulo, Brazil, 2001; p. 285. [Google Scholar]
  29. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; Version 4.1.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  30. Batista, I.; Pereira, M.G.; Correia, M.E.F.; Bieluczyk, W.; Schiavo, J.A.; Rows, J.R.C. Content and carbon stocks in labile and recalcitrant organic matter of the soil under crop-livestock integration in Cerrado. Semina: Ciênc. Agrar. 2013, 34, 3377–3388. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rocha, P.R., Jr.; Andrade, F.V.; Mendonça, E.S.; Donagemma, G.K.; Fernandes, R.B.A.; Bhattharai, R.; Kalita, P.K. Soil, water, and nutrient losses from management alternatives for degraded pasture in Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest biome. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2017, 583, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rakkar, M.K.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; Rasby, R.J.; Ulmer, K.; Cox-O’Neill, J.; Drewnoski, M.E.; Drijber, R.A.; Jenkins, K.; MacDonald, J.C. Grazing crop residues has less impact in the short-term on soil properties than baling in the central great plains. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Carvalho, R.P.; Daniel, O.; Davide, A.C.; Souza, F.R. Influence of different systems of use and management in the attributes of a physical and chemical of a Typic Quartzipsamment. Rev. Caat. 2015, 28, 148–159. [Google Scholar]
  34. Borges, W.L.B.; Calonego, J.C.; Rosolem, C.A. Impact of crop-livestock-forest integration on soil quality. Agrof. Syst. 2019, 93, 2111–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Franchini, J.C.; Balbinot, A.A.; Debiasi, H.; Sichieri, F. Integrated Cropping-Livestock and Forestry as a Strategy to Increase Productivity and Deliver Ecosystem Services in Northeastern Paraná. In Serviços Ambientais em Sistemas Agrícolas e Florestais do Bioma Mata Atlântica; Parron, L.M., Garcia, J.R., de Oliveira, E.B., Brown, G.G., Prado, R.B., Eds.; Embrapa: Brasília, DF, Brazil, 2015; p. 370. [Google Scholar]
  36. Toscan, M.A.G.; Guimarães, A.T.B.; Temponi, T.E. Caracterização da produção de serrapilheira e da chuva de sementes em uma reserva de floresta estacional semidecidual. Ciênc. Florest. 2017, 27, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Salton, J.C.; Mercante, F.M.; Tomazi, M.; Zanatta, J.Á.; Concenço, G.; Silva, W.M.; Retore, M. Integrated crop-livestock system in tropical Brazil: Toward a sustainable production system. Agric. Ecos. Environ. 2014, 190, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sulc, R.M.; Franzluebbers, A.J. Exploring integrated crop–livestock systems in different ecoregions of the United States. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 57, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Holanda, A.C.; Feliciano, A.L.P.; Marangon, L.L.; Freire, F.J.; Holanda, E.M. Decomposição da serrapilheira foliar e respiração edáfica em um remanescente de caatinga na Paraíba. Rev. Árv. 2015, 39, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Assis, R.L.; Lazarini, G.D.; Lanças, K.P.; Filho, A.C. Evaluation of soil resistance to penetration in different soils with varying moisture contentes. Eng. Agríc. 2009, 29, 558–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Rainfall distribution (mm) and mean temperatures (°C) during the experimental period in the study area.
Figure 1. Rainfall distribution (mm) and mean temperatures (°C) during the experimental period in the study area.
Agronomy 12 02961 g001
Figure 2. Conditions of research: Integrated Crop–livestock (A), bare soil (B), integrated crop–livestock with Eucalyptus within triplicate rows, (C) and integrated crop–livestock with Eucalyptus within single lines (D).
Figure 2. Conditions of research: Integrated Crop–livestock (A), bare soil (B), integrated crop–livestock with Eucalyptus within triplicate rows, (C) and integrated crop–livestock with Eucalyptus within single lines (D).
Agronomy 12 02961 g002
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of integrative systems; cells with the same are not statistically different by post hoc Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05. * Cells with the same letter cannot manifest a significant difference by post-hoc Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of integrative systems; cells with the same are not statistically different by post hoc Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05. * Cells with the same letter cannot manifest a significant difference by post-hoc Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05.
Agronomy 12 02961 g003
Figure 4. Correlogram for indicators of recuperative performance.
Figure 4. Correlogram for indicators of recuperative performance.
Agronomy 12 02961 g004
Figure 5. Factorial mapping of indicators of environmental reclamation to integrative systems; saturation of aluminum, m; cation exchange capacity, CEC; water-dispersing clay, WDP; resistance to penetration, RP.
Figure 5. Factorial mapping of indicators of environmental reclamation to integrative systems; saturation of aluminum, m; cation exchange capacity, CEC; water-dispersing clay, WDP; resistance to penetration, RP.
Agronomy 12 02961 g005
Table 1. Conditions of integrative systems for the environmental restoration of Ultisol’s properties.
Table 1. Conditions of integrative systems for the environmental restoration of Ultisol’s properties.
Integrated SystemDescriptionLegume
Crop–livestock–forestryCorn, grass, and Eucalyptus (200 ind. ha−1; single lines × 17 m window)Yes
Corn, grass, and Eucalyptus (500 ind. ha−1; triplicate lines × 21 m window)
Crop–livestockCorn and grass
PlantationArtificial forest of EucalyptusNo crop
Native vegetationPermanent protection spot under a typical rainforest of Cerrado
ReferenceBare soil with natural resurgence of grasses and shrubs
Table 2. Physical and chemical indicators of the recuperative potential of integrative systems.
Table 2. Physical and chemical indicators of the recuperative potential of integrative systems.
VariableUnitInstrument/Reference
Aggregate stability%Teixeira et al. [23]
Average aggregate diametermmTeixeira et al. [23]
Water-dispersing clayg kg−1Teixeira et al. [23]
Gravimetric humidityg g−1Teixeira et al. [23]
Degree of flocculation%Teixeira et al. [23]
Fractioning of organic matterKg kg−1Yeomans et al. [24]
Infiltration of watermm h−1Zang, R. [25]
Hydraulic conductivitycm h−1Naik et al. [26]
Resistance to penetrationMPaAutomatic digital penetrometer (TE096, Falker®, Porto Alegre, Brazil) [27]
Organic carbong kg−1Yeomans et al. [24]
Clay(%)Teixeira et al. [23]
Silt(%)Teixeira et al. [23]
Sand(%)Teixeira et al. [23]
Phosphorus (P-resin)mg dm−3Raij et al. [28]
Potassium (K)mmolc dm−3 Raij et al. [28]
Magnesium (Mg)mmolc dm−3 Raij et al. [28]
Calcium (Ca)mmolc dm−3 Raij et al. [28]
Organic matter (OM)g dm−3Raij et al. [28]
Aluminum (Al)mmolc dm−3 Raij et al. [28]
Potential of hydrogen (pH)Dimension lessRaij et al. [28]
Potential acidity (H + Al)mmolc dm−3Raij et al. [28]
Sum of bases (K + Ca + Mg) mmolc dm−3Raij et al. [28]
Cation exchange capacitymmolc dm−3Raij et al. [28]
Basis saturation%Raij et al. [28]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matos, A.M.S.; Bonini, C.d.S.B.; Moreira, B.R.d.A.; Andreotti, M.; Heinrichs, R.; Silva, D.T.d.; Souza, J.A.L.d.; Santos, M.A.; Andrighetto, C.; Pavan, G.M.; et al. Long-Term Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry Systems Recover the Structural Quality of Ultisol Soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122961

AMA Style

Matos AMS, Bonini CdSB, Moreira BRdA, Andreotti M, Heinrichs R, Silva DTd, Souza JALd, Santos MA, Andrighetto C, Pavan GM, et al. Long-Term Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry Systems Recover the Structural Quality of Ultisol Soil. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122961

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matos, Aline Marchetti Silva, Carolina dos Santos Batista Bonini, Bruno Rafael de Almeida Moreira, Marcelo Andreotti, Reges Heinrichs, Diogo Tiago da Silva, José Augusto Liberato de Souza, Melissa Alexandre Santos, Cristiana Andrighetto, Gustavo Mateus Pavan, and et al. 2022. "Long-Term Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry Systems Recover the Structural Quality of Ultisol Soil" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122961

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop