Next Article in Journal
Improving Plant Growth, Seed Yield, and Quality of Faba Bean by Integration of Bio-Fertilizers with Biogas Digestate
Previous Article in Journal
Plant Architecture Influences the Population Transpiration and Canopy Temperature in Winter Wheat Genotypes
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Soil and Root System Attributes of Forage Cactus under Different Management Practices in the Brazilian Semiarid

by
Diego de Lima Coêlho
1,
José Carlos Batista Dubeux, Jr.
2,*,
Mércia Virginia Ferreira dos Santos
1,
Alexandre Carneiro Leão de Mello
1,
Márcio Vieira da Cunha
1,
Djalma Cordeiro dos Santos
3,
Erinaldo Viana de Freitas
4 and
Erick Rodrigo da Silva Santos
5
1
Department of Animal Science, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife 52171-900, Brazil
2
North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32446, USA
3
Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco, Arcoverde 56513-000, Brazil
4
Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco, Recife 50761-000, Brazil
5
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(3), 743; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030743
Submission received: 14 February 2023 / Revised: 24 February 2023 / Accepted: 27 February 2023 / Published: 2 March 2023

Abstract

:
Drylands cover 40% of the global surface and house more than 2 billion people. Drought-tolerant crops are becoming more important in these regions, not only to provide food, fodder, and energy, but also to sequester soil organic carbon. This study evaluated soil and root system attributes of forage cactus ‘Orelha de Elefante Mexicana’ (Opuntia stricta Haw.) managed using different agronomic practices in the Brazilian Semiarid. The experiment was established in June 2011 and the design was split-plot in a randomized complete blocks, where the main plot was the different planting density, and the subplots were the factorial arrangement between harvest frequency and harvest intensity. Soil samples were collected at 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 cm depths and response variables included root biomass, soil bulk density (BD), and soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) contents and stocks. Sampling occurred in August 2019, but for root biomass and soil BD analysis it also occurred in September 2021. There were no significant effects from management practices on root biomass at 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 cm depth (p > 0.05), with respective averages of 12.45 Mg ha−1 and 6.06 Mg ha−1. Soil BD was similar at 10 to 20 cm depth (p > 0.05) averaging 1.28 g cm−3. Soil organic carbon (SOC) stock varied with management and reached almost 100 Mg C ha−1 in the 0 to 20 cm layer, indicating the potential of cactus to store carbon. Plants with a more developed root system are more likely to survive the drought climatic condition; therefore, less dense plantings could result in more resilient plants for drier regions, but could potentially negatively affect biomass productivity per area.

1. Introduction

The world’s cultivated soils have lost between 25 and 75% of their original stock of carbon (C) [1,2] that was released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), mainly due to unsustainable management practices resulting in soil degradation and increased climate change and its impacts. Root systems are important contributors of soil organic matter (SOM) formation, by depositing recalcitrant compounds. Root system development, however, is affected by management practices, and little is known about this in relation to cactus.
Thus, good management practices can increase soil organic matter (SOM) content and contribute positively to soil C and nitrogen (N) stocks [3]. In drylands, forage cactus can contribute to enhancing soil organic C, considering its growth potential and high water use efficiency [4]. These practices include frequency and harvest intensity [5], planting spacing/density [4], cultivated species/cultivar [6], edaphic and climatic conditions for cultivation [7], and resistance to attack by pests and diseases [8].
From the agronomic point of view, the ‘Orelha de Elefante Mexicana’ (Opuntia stricta Haw.), as this cactus cultivar is named in Brazil, is originally from Mexico and was introduced by the Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco (IPA) in 1996, provided by the University of Chapingo, Mexico [9]. It has been shown to be less demanding for nutrients, more tolerant to water stress conditions, and has also shown greater production of dry matter (DM) per unit area compared to other genotypes [10]. The IPA Sertânia [Opuntia cochenillifera (L.) Mill.], Miúda, and Orelha de Elefante Mexicana clones are resistant to the carmine cochineal (Dactylopius sp.), and their cultivation areas are expanding in the Brazilian northeast [11].
Santos et al. [12] assessed cactus (O. stricta) productivity at low (6945 plants ha−1), medium (13,889 plants ha−1), and high population density (55,556 plants ha−1). They reported that the productivity of a cactus population equivalent to 13,889 plants ha−1 (medium density) was similar to the productivity using greater populations. They associated this result with the fact that less dense populations need lesser number of cladodes to establish the cactus orchard, reducing costs and facilitating cropping practices. The harvest frequency is also an important management aspect, as it affects the morphological characteristics of cladodes and plant structure [13]. As for harvest intensity, the preservation of a larger residual cladode area promotes more vigorous regrowth and greater longevity of the cactus orchard [14].
However, aspects of the soil and root system of the forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana need to be further evaluated to assess the potential of cactus to sequester carbon in belowground tissues and SOM formation. We hypothesized that frequent and intensive harvests would affect soil organic carbon, and these harvesting management would interact with planting density. Therefore, the objective of this research was to evaluate soil and root system attributes of forage cactus (Opuntia stricta Haw. Cv. ‘Orelha de Elefante Mexicana’) managed at different planting density, frequency, and harvest intensity in the Brazilian Semiarid.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and Establishment of the Experiment

The field experiment was carried out at the Arcoverde Experimental Station of Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco (IPA) (08°25′ S, 37°04′ W, 681 m altitude) in the semiarid region of Pernambuco, Brazil, with an average maximum temperature of 29.5 ± 2.6 °C and average minimum of 18.5 ± 1.3 °C, and average annual rainfall of 650 mm [15]. The predominant soil is classified as Regolithic Neosol [16]. The cultivar evaluated was ‘Orelha de Elefante Mexicana’ (Opuntia stricta Haw.) and the experiment was established in June (rainy season) 2011.
Plots were laid out as split-plot in a randomized complete block design, with four blocks. The main plot was formed by different planting densities (1.80 × 0.10 m; 1.80 × 0.20 m; 1.80 × 0.40 m; 1.80 × 0.80 m, corresponding to approx. 55,555; 27,777; 13,888; and 6944 plants ha−1, respectively), and the subplots, by the factorial arrangement between harvest frequency (annual and biennial harvest), and harvest intensity (preservation of mother or primary cladodes after harvest). Mother cladodes are the cladodes with a portion inserted into the ground during the establishment, and primary cladodes are the first sprout coming out of the mother cladodes. Second-order cladodes are sprouts coming from the primary cladodes, and so on.
Each main plot measured 10.8 × 8.0 m, each subplot 5.4 × 4 m. In each subplot, three rows of cactus were established with a spacing of 1.8 m between rows. For plots with planting density of 1.8 × 0.8 m, the useful area of sampling corresponded to 4.32 m2 and for the other planting densities, it corresponded to 5.76 m2.
Annual fertilization of 20 Mg OM ha−1 of cattle manure (OM = organic matter basis) was carried out at planting and harvesting, from the IPA Experimental Station and 200 kg N split into two equal applications, the first at the beginning of the rainy season and the second in the middle of the same period. The source of mineral nitrogen used was urea CO(NH2)2, (45% N). Although the N fertilization level applied is apparently high for a semiarid region, it is compatible with the extraction of nutrients by dense cactus cultivation in the semiarid region of Pernambuco [17]. Manure application occurred between rows of the cultivation of the forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana and on the soil surface. After planting the cactus, weeds were controlled by hand hoe, when necessary.

2.2. Sample Collection and Processing

Samples were collected in each experimental unit, two between cactus rows and two between cacti of the same row at 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 cm depths. Soil physical analyses included bulk density, particle density texture, and flocculation degree. Samples were collected using a “Dutch” auger and composite samples were made from each soil layer and block of the experimental area, and from each layer and each of four representative locations of the native vegetation to characterize the experimental area and native vegetation. In the native vegetation area, there were tree/shrub species as reference.
For determination of soil C and N content and stocks, samples were also collected using a “Dutch” auger. After collection, soil samples were properly stored, identified, air-dried, crushed, homogenized, and processed in sieves with a sieve mesh of 2 mm to obtain air-dried fine earth (ADFE). The samples intended for soil physical analyses (characterization of the experimental area and the native vegetation) were sent to the laboratory of soil physics at IPA, Recife, and those used for soil C and N content and stocks analyses were transported to the Soil and Plant Laboratory of the North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL, United States of America.
For root biomass and soil bulk density (BD) analyses, samples were collected with the use of a sampler with volumetric cylinder coupled, placed in containers, identified, and sent to the IPA laboratory, Arcoverde. Sample collections for experimental analyses were carried out in August 2019, but for root biomass and soil BD analyses, they were repeated in September 2021.

2.3. Laboratory Analysis

2.3.1. Plant Root Analysis

From the mass of soil with roots and the density of the soil at different depths, the volume of soil collected was calculated, thus allowing the calculation of proportional amounts of mass of dry roots extracted per volume of soil sampled. The roots were separated from the soil by washing with a water jet, in sieves, according to Böhm [18], and taken to drying in an oven with forced air circulation at 70 °C until the samples reached constant mass. Then, the roots were separated from the soil with use of tweezers and weighed on an analytical balance, determining the dry root mass. Values were converted into hectares (Mg of dry matter [DM] ha−1) using the soil BD and the soil mass.

2.3.2. Soil Analysis

The granulometric composition and flocculation degree, as well as the soil BD, determined by the beaker method (characterization of the experimental area) and through the volumetric cylinder method, were determined according to the EMBRAPA methodologies [19].
Soil total C and N contents were obtained through dry combustion (CHNS) in an elemental analyzer. Additionally, soil C and N stocks were determined according to Bernoux et al. [20] and their values corrected by the fixed mass method, according to Sisti et al. [21].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Physical characterization data of the experimental area and native vegetation were analyzed by comparing sample means and standard deviations.
Root data, soil BD, and soil C and N contents and stocks were analyzed using Proc GLIMMIX of SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA). For roots and soil BD data, planting density, harvest frequency and harvest intensity, and year were considered fixed effects. The block and its interactions with the fixed effects were considered random. Years were considered repeated measures. As for soil C and N contents and stocks, the planting density, harvest frequency and harvest intensity were considered fixed effects. The block and its interactions with the fixed effects were random. Least squares means (LS means) were considered statistically different at the level of p < 0.05 according to the piecewise differentiable (PDIFF) procedure adjusted by the Tukey test.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Root Biomass

Cactus root biomass per area (kg ha−1) was not affected by significant effects of planting density, harvest frequency, and harvest intensity at 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 cm depths (p > 0.05). However, root dry mass per plant (kg plant−1) was significantly affected by plant population in both soil layers (p < 0.05). Thus, stands with greater plant density resulted in individual plants with less root mass. A dense population can lead to greater plant competition, decreasing the growth rate of individual plants [22]. This is relevant given the periods of severe droughts that occur cyclically in the semiarid region. Possibly, plants with more developed root systems are more likely to survive that climatic condition. Larger root systems will also enhance the ability of cactus to use water. Even small rainfall can be efficiently utilized by forage cactus [23]. This is due to the superficiality of the cactus root system, with horizontal distribution in the soil [24], which has the role of absorbing water from light rains and even dew, associated with the high hydraulic conductivity of its roots and the existence of water storage parenchyma tissue in forage cactus [25]. These characteristics of the cactus root system are an advantage for semiarid regions [26], since in addition to this forage being a forage with great use in ruminant feed supplementation, it can be a unique source of water in animal feed during the dry season in these regions [27].

3.2. Soil Responses

Soil texture was predominantly sandy in the experimental area and in the native vegetation at both soil layers (Table 1). From that perspective, the fractions with the greatest potential for erosion are the silt and sand fractions, especially fine sand, as they do not have a high aggregation capacity, the opposite with clay, which is the most difficult fraction to remove, as it has a greater capacity to aggregation. However, the flocculation degree (FD) averages were ≥70%, values above the optimum of 50% recommended by Goedert [28], a value that suggests reduced susceptibility to soil erosion.
The textural class observed in the soils of the experimental area and native vegetation was sandy loam (Table 1), that is, a loam soil in which sand particles predominate. Loose textured soils, also known as medium textured soils, are defined as soils with similar proportions of sand, silt, and clay particles, which results in good drainage and water retention capacity and an average erodibility index (depending on the degree of flocculation). Sandy loam soils tend to be deficient in both OM and phosphorus, and typically that type of soil needs less care during its management when compared to sandy textured soils [29].
The average soil bulk density for sandy loam soils is 1.51 g cm−3 based on the database for Brazilian soils (HYBRAS) and the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) [30,31]. There were lower soil BD in the cactus cultivation area managed with the preservation of primary cladode in 2019, but in the year 2021, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between harvest intensities in the cactus orchard nor in each harvest intensity between the years of evaluation (p > 0.05), and at 0 to 10 cm depth (Table 2).
Santos et al. [32] found that cactus cultivar Orelha de Elefante Mexicana was one of the most productive cultivars (55 Mg DM ha−1 year−1), being harvested every other year, conserving the primary cladodes, and under rainfed conditions. This management is important to help plants survive climatic adversities.
There were no significant effects in relation to soil BD at 10 to 20 cm depth (p > 0.05). The soil BD obtained both from the volumetric cylinder method and via the beaker method (characterization of the experimental area, Table 1) were below the critical limit in all treatments and depths evaluated. According to Reichert et al. [33], this critical limit for sandy loam soils (Table 1) is 1.70 to 1.80 g cm−3. This upper limit indicates the range of soil bulk density naturally occurring in this soil type, and our values are within this range.
In the 0 to 10 cm soil layer, there was little effect of the management practices on both soil C and N concentrations and stocks (Table 3). The only exception was at the highest plant population density and more lenient harvest, both soil C content and stock, and N content, were greater. In the 10 to 20 cm soil layer, more differences occurred, with a trend for a greater plant population and more lenient harvest, resulting in greater concentrations and stock of C and N (Table 4). According to Alves et al. [5], maintaining a greater amount of forage cactus cladodes at harvest allows for a greater cladode area index (CAI) remaining after harvesting, which allows for greater photosynthetic efficiency of plants and helps to store C in the soil, since one of the key processes for adding carbon to soil is photosynthesis, in which CO2 is combined with water, using solar energy to form carbohydrates.
Pereira et al. [34] showed the effect of harvest intensity on the structural development of the forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana, in which less intense harvest, preserving second-order cladodes, provided greater plant height and width, as well as a greater total number of plants cladodes. Preservation of cladode area allows for greater assimilation of CO2, increasing the production of new cladodes. These authors found that the management with preservation of primary cladodes contributed to higher forage yield and forage accumulation rate. The effect of plant density likely occurred because at high planting density, the plants are closer together in the crop rows, allowing less solar radiation to reach the lower portion of the canopy [35].

4. Conclusions

Management practices (i.e., planting density, frequency, and harvest intensity) did not affect root biomass per area of forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana at 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 cm depths. However, greater planting density resulted in lesser dry mass of roots per plant.. Densely cultivated cactus might result in plants with less roots, individually, and that might decrease the ability of these plants to survive during extreme droughts. Cactus stored approximately 100 Mg C ha−1 in the 0 to 20 cm soil layer, indicating the potential of this crop to help mitigate climate change by storing soil organic carbon in drylands.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.d.L.C., J.C.B.D.J., M.V.F.d.S. and A.C.L.d.M.; methodology, J.C.B.D.J., M.V.F.d.S., A.C.L.d.M., M.V.d.C., D.C.d.S. and E.V.d.F.; validation, J.C.B.D.J. and D.C.d.S.; formal analysis, D.d.L.C., J.C.B.D.J., M.V.F.d.S., A.C.L.d.M. and M.V.d.C.; investigation, D.d.L.C.; resources, J.C.B.D.J., D.C.d.S. and E.V.d.F.; software, J.C.B.D.J. and E.R.d.S.S.; data curation, D.d.L.C. and J.C.B.D.J.; writing—original draft preparation, D.d.L.C. and J.C.B.D.J.; writing—review and editing, D.d.L.C. and J.C.B.D.J.; visualization, J.C.B.D.J., M.V.F.d.S., A.C.L.d.M. and M.V.d.C.; supervision, J.C.B.D.J., D.C.d.S. and E.V.d.F.; project administration, J.C.B.D.J.; funding acquisition, J.C.B.D.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Support for this work was provided by the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the dryGrow Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We thank the IPA for the field experiment and for the laboratories of experimental analysis, and the North Florida Educational and Research Center, from the University of Florida, for the laboratory of experimental analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lal, R. Digging deeper: A holistic perspective of factors affecting soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 3285–3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Ecosystems; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wells, T.; Hancock, G.R.; Martinez, C.; Dever, C.; Kunkel, V.; Gibson, A. Differences in soil organic carbon and soil erosion for native pasture and minimum till agricultural management systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 666, 618–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Souza, T.C.; Santos, M.V.F.; Júnior, J.C.B.D.; Lira, M.A.; Santos, D.C.; Cunha, M.V.; Lima, L.E.; Silva, R.R. Productivity and nutrient concentration in spineless cactus under different fertilizations and plant densities. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Agrar. 2017, 12, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Alves, R.N.; Farias, I.; Menezes, R.S.C.; Lira, M.A.; Santos, D.C. Prickly pear (Opuntia fícus indica) fodder production after 19 years of cultivation under different planting densities and harvest intensities. Rev. Caatinga 2007, 20, 38–44. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cavalcante, L.A.D.; Santos, G.R.A.; Silva, L.M.; Fagundes, J.L.; Silva, M.A. Response of cactus pear genotypes to different crop densities. Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 2014, 44, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nobel, P.; Russell, C.E.; Felker, P.; Medina, J.G. Nutrient relations and productivity of prickly pear cacti. Agron. J. 1987, 79, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Silva, L.M.; Fagundes, J.L.; Viegas, P.A.A.; Muniz, E.N.; Rangel, J.H.A.; Moreira, A.L.; Backes, A.A. Cactus pear forage production under different plant densities. Ciência Rural 2014, 44, 2064–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Santos, D.C.; Silva, M.C.; Alves, F.A.L.; Freitas, E.V. Botany and cultivars. In Forage Cactus from Planting to Harvesting; Donato, S.L.R., Rodrigues, M.G.V., Eds.; EPAMIG: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2020; pp. 21–41. [Google Scholar]
  10. Silva, E.T.S.; Melo, A.A.S.; Ferreira, M.A.; Oliveira, J.C.V.; Santos, D.C.; Silva, R.C.; Inácio, J.G. Acceptability by Girolando heifers and nutritional value of erect prickly pear stored for different periods. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2017, 52, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Silva, T.G.F.; Primo, J.T.A.; Morais, J.E.F.; Diniz, W.J.S.; Souza, C.A.A.; Silva, M.C. Growth and productivity of cactus forage clones in semiarid and relationship with meteorological variables. Rev. Caatinga 2015, 28, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
  12. Santos, D.C.; Silva, M.C.; Dubeux Júnior, J.C.B.; Lira, M.A.; Silva, R.M. Strategies for using semiarid zones in cactaceous: New variety and sustainable use of native species. Rev. Cient. Prod. Anim. 2013, 15, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rocha, R.S.; Voltolini, T.V.; Gava, C.A.T. Productive and structural characteristics of genotypes of irrigated forage cactus in different cutting intervals. Arch. Zootec. 2017, 66, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Santos, M.V.F.; Lira, M.d.A.; Dubeux, J.C.B., Jr.; Ferreira, M.d.A.; Cunha, M.V.d. Forage cactus. In Forage Plants; Fonseca, D.M., Martuscello, J.A., Eds.; UFV Publisher: Viçosa, Brazil, 2020; pp. 518–550. [Google Scholar]
  15. INMET—National Institute of Meteorology. Climatic Data from Arcoverde Station. 2017. Available online: https://www.inmet.gov.br/ (accessed on 5 March 2021).
  16. Santos, M.C. Semiarid Notebooks: Riches and Opportunities. Soils of the Semiarid Region of Brazil, 2nd ed.; EDUFRPE: Recife, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dubeux Junior, J.C.B.; Santos, M.V.F. Nutritional requirements of forage cactus. In Palm in Northeast Brazil: Current Knowledge and New Perspectives of Use; Menezes, R.S.C., Simões, D.A., Sampaio, E.V.S.B., Eds.; University Press of UFPE: Recife, Brazil, 2005; pp. 105–128. [Google Scholar]
  18. Böhm, W. In situ estimation of root length at natural soil profiles. J. Agric. Sci. 1976, 87, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. EMBRAPA—Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. Manual of Soil Analysis Methods, 3rd ed.; Revised and Expanded; EMBRAPA: Brasília, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bernoux, M.; Carvalho, M.C.S.; Volkoff, B.; Cerri, C.C. Brazil’s soil carbon stocks. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 888–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sisti, C.P.J.; Santos, H.P.; Kohhann, R.; Alves, B.J.R.; Urquiaga, S.; Boddey, R.M. Change in carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil under 13 years of conventional or zero tillage in southern Brazil. Soil Till. Res. 2004, 76, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mello, A.C.L.; Silva, R.M.; Souza, T.C.; Dubeux Júnior, J.C.B.; Lira, M.A.; Santos, M.V.F.; Coelho, J.J.; Santos, D.C.; Cunha, M.V. Nutrient concentration in spineless cactus under different planting densities and harvesting management. Acta Hortic. 2019, 1247, 91–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Snyman, H.A. Root distribuition with changes in distance and depth of two-yers-old cactus pears Opuntia fícus-indica and O. robusta plants. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2006, 72, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Edvan, R.L.; Fernandes, P.D.; Carneiro, M.S.S.; Neder, D.G.; Araujo, J.S.; Andrade, A.P.; Souto Filho, L.T. Biomass accumulation and root growth of cactus pear in different harvest periods. Rev. Acad. Ciênc. Agrár. Ambient. 2013, 11, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Borland, A.M.; Wullschleger, S.D.; Weston, D.J.; Hartwell, J.; Tuskan, G.A.; Yang, X.; Cushman, J.C. Climate-resilient agroforestry: Physiological responses to climate change and engineering of crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) as a mitigation strategy. Plant Cell Environ. 2014, 38, 1833–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Marques, O.F.C.; Gomes, L.S.P.; Mourthé, M.H.F.; Braz, T.G.S.; Neto, O.S.P. Spineless cactus: Cultivation and use in cattle feed. Cad. Ciênc. Agra. 2017, 9, 75–93. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cordova-Torres, A.V.; Costa, R.G.; Medeiros, A.N.; Araújo Filho, J.T.; Ramos, A.O.; Alves, N.L. Performance of sheep fed forage cactus with total water restriction. Rev. Bras. Saúde Prod. Anim. 2017, 18, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Goedert, W.J. Soil quality in agricultural production systems. In Brazilian Congress of Soil Science; BSSS: Recife, Brazil, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  29. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. Elements of Nature and Properties of Soils, 3rd ed.; Bookman: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ottoni, M.V.; Ottoni Filho, T.B.; Schaap, M.G.; Lopes-Assad, M.L.R.C.; Rotunno Filho, O.C. HYBRAS: Hydrophysical Database for Brazilian Soils—Hydrophysical Database in Soils in Brazil for the Development of Pedotransfer Functions of Hydraulic Properties: Partial Report of the Project Studies for the Hydrologic Characterization of Soils; CPRM: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. WRB—World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, World Soil Resources Reports; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Santos, D.C.; Lira, M.A.; Silva, M.C.; Freitas, E.V.; Cavalcante, H.M.B.; Santos, M.V.F.; Vaz, A.A.; Pereira, V.L.A. Forage cactus genotypes for areas attacked by carmine cochineal in Sertão region of Pernambuco. In Brazilian Congress of Plant Breeding; SBMP: Búzios, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Reichert, J.M.; Reinert, D.J.; Braida, J.A. Soil quality and sustainability of agricultural systems. Ciência Ambiente 2003, 27, 29–48. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pereira, J.S.; Cavalcante, A.B.; Nogueira, G.H.M.S.M.F.; Campos, F.S.; Araújo, G.G.L.; Simões, W.L.; Voltolini, T.V. Morphological and yield responses of spineless cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana under different cutting intensities. Rev. Bras. Saúde Prod. Anim. 2020, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gardner, F.P.; Pearce, R.B.; Mitchell, R.L. Physiology of Crop Plants; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Mean ± sampling standard deviation of physical characteristics of soil samples, according to soil layers (cm) of the experimental area and native forest (NF), Arcoverde-PE.
Table 1. Mean ± sampling standard deviation of physical characteristics of soil samples, according to soil layers (cm) of the experimental area and native forest (NF), Arcoverde-PE.
LocalSoil BD (g cm−3)Soil Texture (%)
ApparentRealCoarse SandFine SandSiltClayFD (%)TC
Exp. (0–10 cm)1.2 ± 0.12.5 ± 0.134.7 ± 2.728 ± 2.425.7 ± 1.311.5 ± 196.2 ± 7.5SL
Exp. (10–20 cm)1.3 ± 0.12.5 ± 0.136.5 ± 1.328.5 ± 122 ± 2.413 ± 1.685.7 ± 11.1SL
NF (0–10 cm)1.3 ± 0.12.5 ± 047.2 ± 2.920.5 ± 1.314.2 ± 318 ± 274.7 ± 2.5SL
NF (10–20 cm)1.3 ± 0.12.5 ± 0.0149.7 ± 4.618 ± 0.813.7 ± 3.418.5 ± 170 ± 4SL
Exp. = experiment; NF = native forest; BD = bulk density; FD = flocculation degree; TC = texture class; SL = sandy loam.
Table 2. Interaction of harvest intensity x sampling year for soil bulk density (BD, g cm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana at 0 to 10 cm depth, Arcoverde-PE.
Table 2. Interaction of harvest intensity x sampling year for soil bulk density (BD, g cm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana at 0 to 10 cm depth, Arcoverde-PE.
FactorBD
g cm−3
Sampling year
Harvest intensity20192021
Preservation of mother cladode1.19 Aa1.12 Aa
Preservation of primary cladode1.08 Ba1.11 Aa
p-value0.03
Standard error0.02
Different uppercase letters in the column and different lowercase letters in the row indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Interaction of planting density x harvest intensity for soil C and N contents (g kg−1) cultivated with forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana at 0 to 10 cm depth, Arcoverde-PE.
Table 3. Interaction of planting density x harvest intensity for soil C and N contents (g kg−1) cultivated with forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana at 0 to 10 cm depth, Arcoverde-PE.
FactorSoil C Content
g kg−1
Harvest Intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
694442.52 Aa46.44 Aa
13,88838.28 Aa57.47 Aa
27,77745.88 Aa42.24 Aa
55,55530.1 Ab54.7 Aa
p-value0.01
Standard error4.52
FactorSoil C stock
Mg ha−1
Harvest intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
694451.4 Aa50.6 Aa
13,88846.5 Aa61.3 Aa
27,77753.8 Aa46.6 Aa
55,55535.5 Aa56.7 Aa
p-value0.03
Standard error5.25
FactorSoil N content
g kg−1
Harvest intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
69443.95 Aa4.28 Aa
13,8883.69 Aa5.45 Aa
27,7774.35 Aa3.98 Aa
55,5552.8 Ab5.12 Aa
p-value0.01
Standard error0.44
FactorSoil N stock
Mg ha−1
Harvest intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
69444.8 Aa4.7 Aa
13,8884.5 Aa5.8 Aa
27,7775.1 Aa4.4 Aa
55,5553.3 Aa5.3 Aa
p-value0.03
Standard error0.53
Different uppercase letters in the column and different lowercase letters in the row indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Interaction of planting density x harvest intensity for soil C and N contents (g kg−1) and stocks (Mg ha−1) cultivated with forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana at 10 to 20 cm depth, Arcoverde-PE.
Table 4. Interaction of planting density x harvest intensity for soil C and N contents (g kg−1) and stocks (Mg ha−1) cultivated with forage cactus Orelha de Elefante Mexicana at 10 to 20 cm depth, Arcoverde-PE.
FactorSoil C Content
g kg−1
Harvest intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
694422.07 ABa21 Aa
13,88819.25 ABa29.38 Aa
27,77732.86 Aa21.19 Aa
55,55518.54 Ba24.15 Aa
p-value0.001
Standard error2.96
FactorSoil C stock
Mg ha−1
Harvest intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
694428.1 ABa25.4 Aa
13,88826.1 ABa36.9 Aa
27,77742.5 Aa26.3 Ab
55,55523.3 Ba28.6 Aa
p-value0.003
Standard error3.81
FactorSoil N content
g kg−1
Harvest Intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
69441.96 ABa1.85 Aa
13,8881.79 Ba2.62 Aa
27,7773.04 Aa1.92 Ab
55,5551.61 Ba2.24 Aa
p-Value0.0008
Standard error0.26
FactorSoil N stock
Mg ha−1
Harvest intensity
Planting densityPreservation of mother cladodePreservation of primary cladode
(plants ha−1)
69442.5 ABa2.2 Aa
13,8882.4 ABa3.3 Aa
27,7773.9 Aa2.4 Ab
55,5552.0 Ba2.7 Aa
p-value0.002
Standard error0.34
Different uppercase letters in the column and different lowercase letters in the row indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Coêlho, D.d.L.; Dubeux, J.C.B., Jr.; Santos, M.V.F.d.; Mello, A.C.L.d.; Cunha, M.V.d.; Santos, D.C.d.; Freitas, E.V.d.; Santos, E.R.d.S. Soil and Root System Attributes of Forage Cactus under Different Management Practices in the Brazilian Semiarid. Agronomy 2023, 13, 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030743

AMA Style

Coêlho DdL, Dubeux JCB Jr., Santos MVFd, Mello ACLd, Cunha MVd, Santos DCd, Freitas EVd, Santos ERdS. Soil and Root System Attributes of Forage Cactus under Different Management Practices in the Brazilian Semiarid. Agronomy. 2023; 13(3):743. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030743

Chicago/Turabian Style

Coêlho, Diego de Lima, José Carlos Batista Dubeux, Jr., Mércia Virginia Ferreira dos Santos, Alexandre Carneiro Leão de Mello, Márcio Vieira da Cunha, Djalma Cordeiro dos Santos, Erinaldo Viana de Freitas, and Erick Rodrigo da Silva Santos. 2023. "Soil and Root System Attributes of Forage Cactus under Different Management Practices in the Brazilian Semiarid" Agronomy 13, no. 3: 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030743

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