HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Crusciol, C. A. C. Articles by Soratto, R. P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Crusciol, C. A. C. Articles by Soratto, R. P. Agricola Articles by Crusciol, C. A. C. Articles by Soratto, R. P. Related Collections Crop Rotation Systems Nitrogen Cover Crops Other Oil Crops

Nitrogen Supply for Cover Crops and Effects on Peanut Grown in Succession under a No-Till System

São Paulo State Univ. (UNESP), College of Agricultural Science, Dep. of Crop Sci., Lageado Experimental Farm, P.O. Box 237, 18610-307, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil

^* Corresponding author (crusciol{at}fca.unesp.br).

	ABSTRACT

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
In Brazil, as no-till (NT) crop management expands, there is an increased interest in growing peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) with this system. However, it is not known if the preceding cover crop species, the amount of straw on the soil surface, or the N supplied to the cover crop will affect peanut grown in a NT system. An experiment was conducted on a Typic Haplorthox in Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazil, during two agricultural years, to evaluate the cover crop dry matter (DM) and nutrient accumulation as affected by N fertilization and peanut nutrition and yield when grown in succession, under a NT system. Treatments included three cover crops {palisadegrass [Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich) Stapf], pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Brown], and guineagrass [Panicum maximum Jacq.]} and two N rates (0 and 60 kg ha^–1) supplied to the cover crops 50 d after emergence (DAE). Pearl millet showed lower nutrient concentrations in aboveground biomass compared with palisadegrass and guineagrass, but accumulated the largest quantities of DM (14.8 Mg ha^–1) and macronutrients. Nitrogen application increased N and P concentration in all cover crops, as well as the accumulation of N, Ca, and Mg in pearl millet. Nitrogen-fertilized pearl millet resulted in higher P, Ca, Mg, and S concentrations in peanut leaves grown after. Previous cover crops, even with large straw mulch production (6.0–14.8 Mg ha^–1 of DM), did not influence peanut pod yield (mean 2.3 Mg ha^–1) in the NT system, nor did N fertilization of the cover crop.

Abbreviations: NT, no-till • DAE, days after emergence • DM, dry matter • OM, organic matter

Received for publication February 14, 2008.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
PEANUT OCCUPIES approximately 129,500 ha in Brazil, with a production of 301.6 Gg (Conselho Nacional de Abastecimento, 2007). São Paulo State (southeastern Brazil) produces 75% of Brazilian peanut. A major part of this production comes from sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) renovation areas, in which peanut is the most important crop used in rotation, or from pasture renovation areas where peanut is used in a crop-livestock integration process, aimed at recovering the productive potential of forages. In these areas, most peanut is grown with conventional cultivation and great soil loss occurs due to intense soil turning when the crop is planted and harvested and to the small amount of crop residues left on the soil surface (Bloodworth and Lane, 1994).

In addition to the already-known technical advantages resulting from adopting NT systems, with emphasis on erosion control (Hernani et al., 1999), and Silva et al. (2006) noted increase soil organic matter (OM) and improved physical and chemical soil conditions. Bolonhezi et al. (2004) also reported that NT reduces production costs, especially fuel, which may help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

At present, research centers are placing great emphasis on the adaptation of crops to the NT system, to increase options in establishing rotation systems. This is one of the pillars for success of this soil management system (Calegari et al., 1998). However, in Brazil, studies on the implementation of peanut in NT or conservation tillage after grain crops, forages, or in unburned-sugarcane harvesting areas, are almost nonexistent.

In the United States, researchers also indicate inconsistent effects of NT systems on peanut production. Reduced pod yield with NT, as compared to the conventional and reduced tillage, was noted in several studies (Naderman, 1998; Jordan et al., 2001; Siri-Prieto et al., 2003). But Siri-Prieto et al. (2003) noted that within NT systems, peanut yields were greater with in-row subsoiling, probably because reduced soil strength and increased plant stand. However, 3 yr of research in Florida found no difference in yield between NT and conventional tillage systems (Wright and Cobb, 1984). In another experiment, Wright and Teare (1993) observed higher peanut yield in NT when grown for 1 yr, but a lack of effect when grown for 2 yr. Cheshire Junior et al. (1985) compared NT and conventional systems for peanut production in Georgia and observed higher yield under the NT system in all locations studied.

In southeastern Brazil, Tasso Júnior (2000) noted a reduction in kernel yield with peanut NT into unburned sugarcane straw mulch as compared to a conventional tillage, although an analysis of production costs demonstrated a higher net income in the NT system. Bolonhezi et al. (2005) reported savings of 71% on diesel and 62% on labor from decreased tillage operations, in addition to increased tractor useful life. Seed yield was also 30% higher in NT into sugarcane straw residue than in a conventional system (Bolonhezi et al., 2005), despite a reduction in the final plant population, probably due to an attenuation of water deficit effects because of residue kept on the soil surface.

Few studies have studied the impact of cover crops on NT peanut production. Bloodworth and Lane (1994) reported that peanut can be successfully produced in a NT system with straw mulch from cover crops. Siri-Prieto et al. (2003) noted higher peanut yields following oat (Avena sativa L.) when compared with ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.), in NT system. One reason could be that ryegrass produced more root biomass that limited the following crop.

According to Bolonhezi et al. (2005), results indicated the viability of NT for peanut in succession to pearl millet and palisadegrass. The DM yield of these grasses can be increased with adequate N supply (Jornada et al., 2005; Bonfim-Silva et al., 2007), increasing the amount of crop residues on soil surface to favor the success of NT system. But N application can produce residues with lower C/N ratio, which increases the decomposition and decreases permanence of residues in soil surface (Mary et al., 1996). However, more studies about residue from these crops effects in peanut nutrition and yield in the NT system are necessary.

The development of NT technology in peanut will allow it to be grown in rotation with grain and cover crops, which reduces erosion and provides greater peanut-production sustainability in Brazil. The objectives of this work were to evaluate DM yield and nutrient accumulation by cover crops (palisadegrass, pearl millet, and guineagrass) as affected by N fertilization, as well as peanut nutrition and yield grown in a NT system in succession with these cover crops.

	MATERIAL AND METHODS

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
The experiment was performed in Botucatu, São Paulo State, in southeastern Brazil (48° 23' W; 22° 51' S; 765 m above sea level), during the 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 growing seasons. Soil (a sandy clay loam, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Haplorthox), managed for 2 yr under NT management [2001–2002, corn (Zea mays L.)/sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.); 2002–2003, pearl millet/black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.)]. Before initiating the experiment, soil chemical characteristics were determined (0–20 cm) according to van Raij et al. (2001), with the following results: pH (1:2.5 soil/CaCl₂ suspension 0.01 mol L^–1) of 5.0; total OM of 33.3 g dm^–3; P (resin) of 12.0 mg dm^–3; exchangeable K, Ca, Mg, and total acidity pH 7.0 (H+Al) of 1.4, 31.0, 12.6, and 51.3 mmol_c dm^–3, respectively; SO₄–S of 8.9 mg dm^–3; and base saturation of 46.7%. Sand, silt, and clay contents were 462, 99.5, and 438.5 g kg^–1, respectively. Rainfall and mean maximum and minimum temperatures recorded during the experimental period are shown in Table 1 .

Before sowing cover crops, the area was sprayed with 1.9 kg a.i. ha^–1 of glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine]. Cover crops were sown on 7 Nov. 2003 and 9 Nov. 2004, at a spacing of 0.17 m between rows, using 20, 15, and 18 kg ha^–1 of palisadegrass, pearl millet, or guineagrass seeds, respectively. Plants emerged on 19 Nov. 2003 and 20 Nov. 2004.

On 29 Jan. 2004 and 31 Jan. 2005, aboveground biomass was collected to determine DM yield and nutrient accumulation. To accomplish that, two 0.25 m² subsamples were collected per subplot to form a single compound sample. The collected material was dried in an oven at 65°C, weighed; and ground to determine macronutrient concentration (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and S) according to Malavolta et al. (1997). Cover crops were terminated on the sample collection date, with glyphosate (3.6 kg a.i. ha^–1). Peanut was sown on 18 Feb. 2004 and 21 Feb. 2005, using cultivar IAC Tatu Vermelho (Valencia type), at a row spacing of 0.45 m and 18 seeds m^–1 row. Basic fertilization in the sowing furrows consisted of 16, 24.5, and 26.5 kg ha^–1 of N, P, and K, respectively. Plant emergence occurred on 25 Feb. 2004 and 28 Feb. 2005. Peanut flowering occurred on 19 Mar. 2004 and 24 Mar. 2005. In the winter-spring season of 2004, black oat cultivar Comum was grown in the whole experimental area.

Weeds were controlled using 70 g a.i. ha^–1 of fluazifop-p-butyl {butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate} and 890 g a.i. ha^–1 of bentazon [3-(1-methylethyl)-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide]. Insecticide sprays of 300 g a.i. ha^–1 methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothiate), and 400 g a.i. ha^–1 chlorpyrifos [O,O-diethyl-O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl) phosphorothioate] were made to control pests, especially thrips [Enneothrips flavens (Moulton) and Caliothrips brasiliensis (Morgan)]. To control diseases, especially cercospora spots {black spot [Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & M. A. Curtis] and leaf spot [Cercospora arachidicola (Hori)]}, four sprays were made with 150 g a.i. ha^–1 of tebuconazole (-[2-(4-chlorophenyl) ethyl]--(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol). Peanut was harvested (inverted) on 22 June 2004 and 23 June 2005.

When the peanut was at full bloom stage, 40 plants were sampled per subplot (apical cluster of the main branch), according to Ambrosano et al. (1996). The material was dried in an oven at 65°C until constant weight and then ground for macronutrient analyses. Concentrations of P, K, Ca, Mg, and S were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (Malavolta et al., 1997). Nitrogen was analyzed by the semi-micro-Kjeldahl method (Malavolta et al., 1997).

Pod and kernel yield and grade components were determined at peanut harvest (final population of plants, number of filled pods per plant, number of kernels per pod, and 100-kernel weight). Pod yield was determined by manually harvesting the plants contained in three 6-m-long rows. After manually threshing and cleaning the material, the pods were weighed and yield was calculated at moisture of 90 g kg^–1. Kernel yield was determined for each subplot, by the kernel weight/pod weight ratio. Data were subjected to ANOVA using SAS (SAS Institute, 1997), and means were separated using Fisher's protected LSD test at the 0.05 probability level.

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Significant interactions of years were not detected for any variable; therefore, data were combined across the 2 yr. Pearl millet produced more than twice as much DM as palisadegrass or guineagrass (Table 2 ). Oliveira et al. (2002), Braz et al. (2004), Carvalho et al. (2004), and Torres et al. (2008) obtained pearl millet DM production greater than other cover crops. Nunes et al. (2006), in the northern part of Minas Gerais State (Brazil), obtained guineagrass and palisadegrass DM yields similar to those obtained in our work, but in a much longer growth period (7 mo). Nitrogen fertilization did not significantly affect DM yield of the cover crops. All cover crops examined produced more then 6 Mg ha^–1 which is suggested as the minimum amount of DM required in a cropping system in a tropical region to maintain adequate soil cover for sustainability (Denardin and Kochhann, 1993; Darolt, 1998). The high DM yield of the cover crops resulted from favorable growing seasons, since rainfall was adequate and occurred during the periods in which the covers were grown, in both growing seasons (Table 1).

A significant effect (P 0.05) of N application and an interaction between cover crop species and N application were observed in N accumulation in aboveground biomass of cover crops (Table 2). The evaluation of the interaction (Table 3 ) shows that pearl millet had greater N accumulation than the other species, either with or without N application. However, N fertilization only increased N uptake in pearl millet and not in the other cover crops. There was an interaction effect (P 0.05) on Ca and Mg accumulation too (Table 2). Nitrogen application increased the amounts of these nutrients in pearl millet only; however, millet showed greater accumulation in general, regardless of N application (Table 3). Although according to Kirkby and Knight (1977) no differences in nutrient concentrations were detected in the aboveground part, N supplied in the form of NO₃ promotes greater absorption of this nutrient form and, consequently, of cationic nutrients. This mechanism occurs because of the necessity to maintain a balance of charges within the plant cells, which could explain the higher quantity of Ca and Mg accumulated by pearl millet in the presence of N fertilization. Besides, N fertilization may have increased pearl millet root growth and, consequently, root exploration and mining of water and nutrients, especially in the case of nutrients taken into the plant mainly by mass flow like the Ca and Mg (Malavolta et al., 1997; Ruiz et al., 1999).

When N-fertilized, pearl millet provided higher P and Ca concentration in aboveground biomass of peanut grown in succession (Table 5), which can be explained by the greater accumulation of these nutrients by pearl millet (Table 2), and a consequent larger release of Ca and Mg to the succeeding crop. However, when N-fertilized, guineagrass resulted in lower Ca concentration in peanut leaves, compared to guineagrass without N. Palisadegrass, either with or without N application, and guineagrass with N fertilization provided Ca concentration in peanut leaves below that considered adequate (12–20 g kg^–1) by Gascho and Davis (1995) and Ambrosano et al. (1996). An appropriate Ca concentration in soil at the pegging stage of peanut is important for adequate kernel development (Gascho and Davis, 1995), but in our work lower Ca concentration in leaves did not result in deficiency symptoms or lower pod yields, probably, because Ca concentration in soil was high (van Raij et al., 1996).

Potassium concentration in peanut leaves was not influenced by treatments (Table 4). However, K concentration in all treatments was below the range considered adequate (Gascho and Davis, 1995; Ambrosano et al., 1996). This result is likely due to the fact that soil K (1.4 mmol_c dm^–3) was low at the site (van Raij et al., 1996).

Nitrogen application provided greater Mg accumulation by pearl millet, and probably a higher Mg release rate (Table 2). Consequently, the N-fertilized pearl millet treatment provided higher Mg concentration in peanut leaves (Table 4). Sulfur concentration in peanut leaves was only influenced by cover crop species in the presence of N fertilization (Table 5). Pearl millet promoted higher S concentration in peanut leaves than palisadegrass and guineagrass when fertilized with N, resulting from the greater recycling ability shown by that species (Table 2). In all treatments, S concentrations were above the range (2.0–3.5 g kg^–1) considered adequate (Gascho and Davis, 1995; Ambrosano et al., 1996).

Peanut yield components, pod yield, and hulled-kernel yield were not affected by any treatments (Table 6 ). Likewise, Bloodworth and Lane (1994), in Mississippi, did not observe effects of the preceding crop on peanut yield under a NT system. However, Siri-Prieto et al. (2003) verified lower peanut yields following ryegrass than oat, especially in strict NT system (<52%). The authors indicated higher ryegrass root biomass production as limiting factor to peanut growth.

Quaggio and Godoy (1996) considered three peanut yield classes under conventional tillage for São Paulo State: (i) low, <1.5 Mg ha^–1; (ii) medium, between 1.5 and 3.0 Mg ha^–1; and (iii) high, more than 3.0 Mg ha^–1. It is important to point out that, regardless of treatment, an acceptable peanut pod yield was obtained (mean 2.3 Mg ha^–1), taking into account that the crop was grown in the summer-autumn season under dry conditions. Tasso Júnior (2000) worked with the same cultivar in the NT system over unburned sugarcane straw mulch and obtained 2.0 Mg ha^–1 pods under climatic conditions more favorable for the crop with an earlier sowing date. In the summer-autumn season, Bolonhezi et al. (2005) reported a mean pod yield of 1.8 Mg ha^–1, regardless of soil management adopted.

Peanut pod yield results obtained in the present work agree with those obtained by Crusciol et al. (2000), Lazarini and Crusciol (2000), and Crusciol et al. (2003) in the summer-autumn season (low water availability). In the Brazilian cerrado region (State of Mato Grosso do Sul), those authors obtained pod yields varying from 1.6 to 2.2 Mg ha^–1, in a sowing season similar to the one in our study. Due to unfavorable climatic conditions, especially low temperatures and water deficit (Table 1), the values of some yield components were lower than values obtained by the abovementioned authors, which limited yield. In our study we obtained, on average, 1.8 kernels per pod and a 100-kernel weight of 35.3 g, which resulted in a hulled-kernel yield in the order of 58 to 62%. These values are lower than observed by those authors (2.3 kernels pod^–1, 100-kernel weight of 39–40 g, and a 71–75% hulled-kernel yield).

It is important to emphasize the possibility of sowing peanut under the NT system in succession to pearl millet, palisadegrass, or guineagrass crops, even if a great amount of straw mulch is present on the soil surface (>14.0 Mg ha^–1), without detrimental effects on crop establishment and yield during the summer-autumn season. In addition, the fact that in Brazil peanut plants are pulled and overturned in a completely mechanized manner, and threshing machines are equipped with a mulch distributor, makes peanut another alternative for rotation with sugarcane or with grain crops in the NT system, or in pasture reformation areas that do not require soil tillage.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Pearl millet showed lower nutrient concentrations than palisadegrass and guineagrass for Ca and Mg, but accumulated the largest quantities of DM and macronutrients. The application of N increased N and P concentration in all cover crops, and also increased accumulated amounts of N, Ca, and Mg, mainly in pearl millet. The application of N to cover crops provided higher N concentration in peanut leaves than no N for all crops. Nitrogen-fertilized pearl millet resulted higher P, Ca, Mg, and S concentrations in peanut leaves grown following this cover crop. Previous cover crop species did not influence peanut yield in the NT system. Likewise, N fertilization of cover crops did not impact peanut yield. We conclude that peanut can be successfully grown under the NT system in soils and climates like these of São Paulo State, Brazil.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
To FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo), for supporting this research, and to CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), for providing scholarships to first author.

	NOTES

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

	REFERENCES

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 

• Ambrosano, E.J., R.T. Tanaka, H.A.A. Mascarenhas, B. van Raij, J.A. Quaggio, and H. Cantarella. 1996. Leguminosas e oleaginosas. p. 187–202. In B. van Raij et al (ed.) Recomendações de adubação e calagem para o Estado de São Paulo. 2nd ed. Bol. Tec. 100. Inst. Agronômico (IAC) Campinas, SP, Brazil.
• Bloodworth, H., and M. Lane. 1994. Peanut response to cover crops and tillage. Tech. Note. 10:5. (Project Report). Available at http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/mspmctn9405.pdf (accessed 22 Oct. 2007; verified 19 Sept. 2008). USDA-NRCS Jamie L. Whitten Plant Materials Center, Coffeeville, MS.
• Bolonhezi, D., I.J. Godoy, and R.C. Santos. 2005. Manejo da cultura do amendoim. p. 193–244. In R.C. Santos (ed.) O agronegócio do amendoim no Brasil. Embrapa Algodão, Campina Grande, PB, Brazil.
• Bolonhezi, D., E.A. Silva, O. Brunini, M.A. Mutton, N. La Scala Júnior, A.L.M. Martins, and C.L. Justo. 2004. Potencial de seqüestro de carbono do sistema plantio direto na renovação de cana crua e pastagem. O Agronômico. 56:4–16.
• Bonfim-Silva, E.M., F.A. Monteiro, and T.J.A. Silva. 2007. Nitrogênio e enxofre na produção e no uso de água pelo capim-braquiária em degradação. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 31:309–317.
• Braz, A.J.B.P., P.M. Silveira, H.J. Kliemann, and F.P. Zimmermann. 2004. Acumulação de nutrientes em folhas de milheto e dos capins braquiária e mombaça. Pesqui. Agropecu. Tropic. 34:83–87.
• Calegari, A., J.C. Heckler, H.P. Santos, C. Pitol, F.M. Fernades, L.C. Hernani, and C.A. Gaudêncio. 1998. Culturas, sucessões e rotações. p. 59–80. In J.C. Salton et al. (org.) Sistema plantio direto: O produtor pergunta a Embrapa responde. Embrapa-SPI, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
• Carvalho, M.A.C., M.L.F. Athayde, R.P. Soratto, M.C. Alves, and O. Arf. 2004. Soja em sucessão a adubos verdes no sistema de plantio direto e convencional em solo de Cerrado. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 39:1141–1148.
• Cheshire Junior, J.M., W.L. Hargrove, C.S. Rothrock, and M.E. Walker. 1985. Comparisons of conventional and no-tillage peanut production practices in central Georgia. p. 82–86. In W.L. Hargrove et al. (ed.) The rising hope of our land. Proc. Southern Region No-till Conf., Griffin, GA. 16–17 July 1985. Georgia Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Georgia, Athens.
• Conselho Nacional de Abastecimento. 2007. Safras 1976/77 a 2006/07: Série histórica Available at http://www.conab.gov.br/safras.asp (accessed 18 Oct. 2007; verified 19 Sept. 2008). CONAB, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
• Crusciol, C.A.C., E. Lazarini, A.R. Golfeto, and M.E. Sá. 2000. Produtividade e componentes da produção do amendoim da seca em razão da época de semeadura e da aplicação de cálcio. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 35:1549–1558.
• Crusciol, C.A.C., E. Lazarini, and R.P. Soratto. 2003. Efeito da aplicação de calcário no sulco de semeadura sobre a nutrição e produtividade de amendoim semeado em diferentes épocas no cultivo da seca. Cientifica 31:201–209.
• Darolt, M.R. 1998. Princípios para implantação e manutenção do sistema. p. 16–45 In M.R. Darolt (ed.) Plantio direto: Pequena propriedade sustentável. Circ. 101. IAPAR, Londrina, PR, Brazil.
• Denardin, J.E., and R.A. Kochhann. 1993. Requisitos para a implantação e a manutenção do sistema plantio direto. p. 19–27. In EMBRAPA. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Trigo (Passo Fundo, RS). Plantio direto no Brasil. Embrapa-CNPT/Fecotrigo/Fundação ABC/Aldeia Norte, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil.
• Gascho, G., and J.G. Davis. 1995. Soil fertility and plant nutrition. p. 383–419. In H.E. Patee and H.T. Stalker (ed.) Advances in peanut science. American Peanut Res. and Education Soc., Stillwater, OK.
• Hernani, L.C., C.H. Kurihara, and W.M. Silva. 1999. Sistema de manejo do solo e perdas de nutrientes e matéria orgânica por erosão. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 23:145–154.
• Jordan, D.L., J.S. Barnes, C.R. Bogle, G.C. Naderman, G.T. Roberson, and P.D. Johnson. 2001. Peanut response to tillage and fertilization. Agron. J. 93:1125–1130.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Jornada, J.B.J., R.B. Medeiros, C.E.S. Pedroso, J.C. Saibro, and M.A. Silva. 2005. Efeito da irrigação, épocas de corte da forragem e doses de nitrogênio sobre o rendimento de sementes de milheto. Rev. Bras. Sementes 27:50–58.
• Kirkby, E.A., and A.H. Knight. 1977. Influence of the level of nitrate nutrition on ion uptake and assimilation, organic acid accumulation, and cation-anion balance in whole tomato plants. Plant Physiol. 60:349–353.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Lazarini, E., and C.A.C. Crusciol. 2000. Produtividade do amendoim "da seca" em função do sistema de produção e da época de semeadura. Rev. Agric. 75:287–301.
• Malavolta, E., G.C. Vitti, and S.A. Oliveira. 1997. Avaliação do estado nutricional de plantas: Princípios e aplicações. 2nd ed. Potafos, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
• Mary, B., S. Recous, D. Darwis, and D. Robin. 1996. Interactions between decomposition of plant residues and nitrogen cycling in soil. Plant Soil 181:71–82.
• Naderman, G.C. 1998. Comparison of peanut yields under no-tillage, strip tillage, and several forms of conventional tillage. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 30:48.
• Nunes, U.R., V.C. Andrade Júnior, E.B. Silva, N.F. Santos, H.A.O. Costa, and C.A. Ferreira. 2006. Produção de palhada de plantas de cobertura e rendimento do feijão em plantio direto. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 41:943–948.
• Oliveira, T.K., G.J. Carvalho, and R.N.S. Moraes. 2002. Plantas de cobertura e seus efeitos sobre o feijoeiro em plantio direto. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 37:1079–1087.
• Pitol, C.O. 1999. O milheto em sistemas de plantio direto. p. 69–71. In A.L. Farias Neto et al. (ed.) Worskhop Int. de Milheto. Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, DF, Brazil.
• Quaggio, J.A., and I.J. Godoy. 1996. Amendoim. p. 192 In B. van Raij et al. (ed.) Recomendações de adubação e calagem para o Estado de São Paulo. 2nd ed. Bol. Tec. 100. Inst. Agronômico (IAC) Campinas, SP, Brasil.
• Ruiz, H.A., J. Miranda, and J.C.S. Conceição. 1999. Contribuição dos mecanismos de fluxo de massa e de difusão para o suprimento de K, Ca e Mg a plantas de arroz. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 23:1015–1018.
• SAS Institute. 1997. SAS user's guide: Statistics. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
• Silva, M.A.S., A.L. Mafra, J.A. Albuquerque, J.D. Rosa, C. Bayer, and J. Mielniczuk. 2006. Propriedades físicas e teor de carbono orgânico de um Latossolo Vermelho sob distintos sistemas de uso e manejo. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 30:329–337.
• Siri-Prieto, G., D.W. Reeves, R.L. Raper, D. Bransby, and B.E. Gamble. 2003. Integrating winter annual grazing in a cotton-peanut rotation: Forage and tillage system selection. p. 104–115. In Proc. of Sod Based Cropping Systems Conf., Quincy, FL. 20–21 Feb. 2003. Available at http://nfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/sodrotation/Conf%20PDF%20files/PDF%20FILES/guillermosiri%20Siri-prietro (accessed 10 Mar. 2008; verified 19 Sept. 2008). North Florida Res. and Educ. Ctr., Univ. of Florida, Quincy.
• Tasso Júnior, L.C. 2000. Comportamento das culturas de amendoim, milho e soja implantadas no sistema de plantio direto na palha residual da colheita mecanizada da cana crua. Univ. Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil.
• Torres, J.L.R., M.G. Pereira, and A.J. Fabian. 2008. Produção de fitomassa por plantas de cobertura e mineralização de seus resíduos em plantio direto. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 43:421–428.
• van Raij, B., J.C. Andrade, H. Cantarella, and J.A. Quaggio. 2001. Análise química para avaliação da fertilidade de solos tropicais. Inst. Agronômico, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
• van Raij, B., H. Cantarella, J.A. Quaggio, and A.M.C. Furlani. 1996. Recomendações de adubação e calagem para o Estado de São Paulo. 2nd ed. Bol. Tec. 100. Inst. Agronômico (IAC) Campinas, SP, Brazil.
• Wright, D.L., and L.C. Cobb. 1984. No-till peanut research in Florida. p. 82–85. In J.T. Touchton, and R.E. Stevenson (ed.) Proc. of the 7th Annual Southeast No-Tillage Systems Conf., Headland, AL. 10 July 1984. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.
• Wright, D.L., and I.D. Teare. 1993. No-till vs. conventional tillage for peanut vs. row spacing and irrigation. p. 49–53. In P.K. Bollich (ed.) Proc. Southern Conserv. Tillage Conf. for Sustainable Agriculture, 16th, Monroe, LA. 15–17 July 1993. Louisiana Agric. Exp. Stn., LSU Agric. Ctr., Baton Rouge.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Crusciol, C. A. C. Articles by Soratto, R. P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Crusciol, C. A. C. Articles by Soratto, R. P. Agricola Articles by Crusciol, C. A. C. Articles by Soratto, R. P. Related Collections Crop Rotation Systems Nitrogen Cover Crops Other Oil Crops