| |
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Semiárido. |
|
Data corrente: |
05/10/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
13/01/2023 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
|
Autoria: |
ALVES, C. P.; JARDIM, A. M. da Ro F.; ARAÚJO JÚNIOR, C. do N.; SOUZA, L. S. B. de; ARAUJO, G. G. L. de; SOUZA, C. A. A. de; SALVADOR, K. R. da S.; LEITE, R. M. C.; PINHEIRO, A. G.; SILVA, T. G. F. da. |
|
Afiliação: |
CLEBER PEREIRA ALVES, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada, PE; ALEXANDRE MANIÇOBA DA ROSA FERRAZ JARDIM, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife; GEORGE DO NASCIMENTO ARAÚJO JÚNIOR, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife; LUCIANA SANDRA BASTOS DE SOUZA, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada; GHERMAN GARCIA LEAL DE ARAUJO, CPATSA; CARLOS ANDRÉ ALVES DE SOUZA, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife; KAIQUE RENAN DA SILVA SALVADOR, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada; RENAN MATHEUS CORDEIRO LEITE, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada; ANTONIO GEBSON PINHEIRO, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife; THIERES GEORGE FREIRE DA SILVA, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada. |
|
Título: |
How to enhance the agronomic performance of cactus-sorghum intercropped system: planting configurations, density and orientation. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Industrial Crops and Products, v. 184, 115059, 2022. |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115059 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Clarifying cultivation techniques and making production systems more efficient are practices that have been much sought after in agricultural systems in recent decades. In this context, the forage yield, biological efficiency, and competitive ability, of different cultivation strategies for intercropping forage cactus and sorghum were determined in biosaline production systems from 2018 to 2020 in Brazil. Four experiments were carried out, comprising: 1) cropping configurations for the forage cactus-sorghum intercropping system; 2 and 3) planting densities for the forage cactus intercropped with sorghum with an east-west and north-south row orientation, respectively; and 4) planting densities for the forage cactus and sorghum. Each experiment used a randomised block design with four replications. The intercropped forage cactus and sorghum showed higher productivity than the monocropped systems. The indices of biological efficiency (LER, ATER, LEC and SPI with mean values equal to 1.6, 1.8, 0.6 and 29.0, respectively) and competitive ability (ALGY in average 870.6) show better performance under the intercropped system compared to the single crops. The increased planting density resulted in an increase in productivity under the intercropped forage cactus-sorghum system (on average an increase of 69.4% dry matter). In turn, the orientation had no influence on the productivity of the intercropping system but offered better conditions for the forage cactus when cultivation was in an east-west direction (21.7 Mg ha 1 of dry matter) compared to north-south (17.5 Mg ha 1 of dry matter). Intercropping forage cactus and sorghum using biosaline agriculture is an excellent alternative for a production system in semi-arid environments, especially at higher planting densities (50,000 and 100,000 plants ha 1). MenosClarifying cultivation techniques and making production systems more efficient are practices that have been much sought after in agricultural systems in recent decades. In this context, the forage yield, biological efficiency, and competitive ability, of different cultivation strategies for intercropping forage cactus and sorghum were determined in biosaline production systems from 2018 to 2020 in Brazil. Four experiments were carried out, comprising: 1) cropping configurations for the forage cactus-sorghum intercropping system; 2 and 3) planting densities for the forage cactus intercropped with sorghum with an east-west and north-south row orientation, respectively; and 4) planting densities for the forage cactus and sorghum. Each experiment used a randomised block design with four replications. The intercropped forage cactus and sorghum showed higher productivity than the monocropped systems. The indices of biological efficiency (LER, ATER, LEC and SPI with mean values equal to 1.6, 1.8, 0.6 and 29.0, respectively) and competitive ability (ALGY in average 870.6) show better performance under the intercropped system compared to the single crops. The increased planting density resulted in an increase in productivity under the intercropped forage cactus-sorghum system (on average an increase of 69.4% dry matter). In turn, the orientation had no influence on the productivity of the intercropping system but offered better conditions for the forage cactus when cultivation was in... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Rendimento da colheita; Resiliência agrícola. |
|
Thesagro: |
Nopalea Cochenillifera; Palma Forrageira; Pastagem; Pastagem Consorciada; Sorgo. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Crop yield; Opuntia stricta; Sorghum bicolor subsp. bicolor. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
L Ciência Animal e Produtos de Origem Animal |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/doc/1147124/1/How-to-enhance-the-agronomic-performance-of-cactus-sorghum-2022.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 03014naa a2200361 a 4500
001 2147124
005 2023-01-13
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115059$2DOI
100 1 $aALVES, C. P.
245 $aHow to enhance the agronomic performance of cactus-sorghum intercropped system$bplanting configurations, density and orientation.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
520 $aClarifying cultivation techniques and making production systems more efficient are practices that have been much sought after in agricultural systems in recent decades. In this context, the forage yield, biological efficiency, and competitive ability, of different cultivation strategies for intercropping forage cactus and sorghum were determined in biosaline production systems from 2018 to 2020 in Brazil. Four experiments were carried out, comprising: 1) cropping configurations for the forage cactus-sorghum intercropping system; 2 and 3) planting densities for the forage cactus intercropped with sorghum with an east-west and north-south row orientation, respectively; and 4) planting densities for the forage cactus and sorghum. Each experiment used a randomised block design with four replications. The intercropped forage cactus and sorghum showed higher productivity than the monocropped systems. The indices of biological efficiency (LER, ATER, LEC and SPI with mean values equal to 1.6, 1.8, 0.6 and 29.0, respectively) and competitive ability (ALGY in average 870.6) show better performance under the intercropped system compared to the single crops. The increased planting density resulted in an increase in productivity under the intercropped forage cactus-sorghum system (on average an increase of 69.4% dry matter). In turn, the orientation had no influence on the productivity of the intercropping system but offered better conditions for the forage cactus when cultivation was in an east-west direction (21.7 Mg ha 1 of dry matter) compared to north-south (17.5 Mg ha 1 of dry matter). Intercropping forage cactus and sorghum using biosaline agriculture is an excellent alternative for a production system in semi-arid environments, especially at higher planting densities (50,000 and 100,000 plants ha 1).
650 $aCrop yield
650 $aOpuntia stricta
650 $aSorghum bicolor subsp. bicolor
650 $aNopalea Cochenillifera
650 $aPalma Forrageira
650 $aPastagem
650 $aPastagem Consorciada
650 $aSorgo
653 $aRendimento da colheita
653 $aResiliência agrícola
700 1 $aJARDIM, A. M. da Ro F.
700 1 $aARAÚJO JÚNIOR, C. do N.
700 1 $aSOUZA, L. S. B. de
700 1 $aARAUJO, G. G. L. de
700 1 $aSOUZA, C. A. A. de
700 1 $aSALVADOR, K. R. da S.
700 1 $aLEITE, R. M. C.
700 1 $aPINHEIRO, A. G.
700 1 $aSILVA, T. G. F. da
773 $tIndustrial Crops and Products$gv. 184, 115059, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Semiárido (CPATSA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Catálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Acre; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Florestas; Embrapa Gado de Corte; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Pantanal; Embrapa Solos. MenosCatálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Acre; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Florestas; Embrapa Gado de Corte; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Pantanal... Mostrar Todas |
|
Identificador: |
65 |
|
Data corrente: |
09/05/2002 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
30/04/2015 |
|
Código do título: |
0900418 |
|
ISSN: |
0100-1329 |
|
Código CCN: |
000644-0 |
|
Título e Subtítulo: |
ACTA AMAZONICA. SUPLEMENTO |
|
Entidade: |
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia |
|
Local de publicação: |
Manaus, AM |
|
Periodicidade: |
Trimestral |
|
Inicio de publicação: |
1971 |
|
Coleções da unidade: |
Embrapa Acre
1976 6 (1-4); 1977 7 (1-3); 1978 8 (1 supl 1-3), (2 supl 1-3); 1979 9 (2); 1981 11 ( 3); 1985 (3/4); 1986/87 16/17; 1993 23 (1)
Classificação: 581.05
Embrapa Amapá
1976 6 (1-4); 1977 7 (1-3); 1978 8 (2-3); 1982 12 (3); 1985 15 (1-4); 1986-1987 16-17 (único) ; 1993 23 (1/4)
Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental
1971 1(1-2); 1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1(sup.1-2), 2(supl.1-2), 3(supl. 1-2), 4); 1979 9(1-3); 1980 10(1, 4); 1981 11(1,3); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1-2); 1985 15(1-4); 1986-1987 16-17; 1988 18 (1-2); 1993 23 (1-4).
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental
1971 1(1-2); 1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1 pt 1-2, 2 pt 1-2, 3 pt 1-2, 4); 1979 9(1-4); 1980 10(1,4); 1981 11(1,3); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1985 15(1-4); 1986 16; 1988 18(1/2); 1993 23(1/4)
Classificação: 581.05A181
Embrapa Cerrados
1971 1(1-2); 1977 7(1,4); 1979 9(1-3); 1980 10(4); 1981 11(3); 1986/87 16/17; 1993 23(1/4)
Classificação: 581.05
Embrapa Florestas
1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1-4); 1979 9(4); 1980 10(1); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1985 15(1/2); 1986/87 16/17; 1988 18(1/2); 1993 23 (2/3)
Embrapa Gado de Corte
1976 6(SUPL 4); 1978 8(SUPL 3); 1984 [14] SUPL 1/2; 1985 15(SUPL 3/4); 1986/87 16/17 SUPL; 1988 18(SUPL 1-2); 1993 23 SUPL;
Classificação: 505
Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura
1971 1(1-3); 1972 2(1-3); 1973 3(1-3); 1974 4(1-3); 1985 5(1-3); 1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1-4); 1979 9(1-4); 1980 10(1-4-Index); 1981 11(1-4); 1982 12(1-3); 1983 13(1-6); 1984 14(1-4); 1985 15(1-4-Index); 1986/87 16/17(1); 1988 18(1-4); 1989 19(Unico); 1990 20(Unico); 1991 21(Unico); 1992 22(1-4); 1993 23(1-4-Index); 1994 24(1-4); 1995 25(1-4); 1996 26(1-4); 1997 27(1-4); 1998 28(1-4); 1999 29(1-4); 2000 30(1-4); 2001 31(1-4); 2002 32(3); 2003 33(2-4); 2004 34(1-4); 2005 35(1-4); 2006 36(1-4); 2007 37(1-3); 2008 38(2-4 ); 2009 39(1-4); 2010 40(1-4); 2011 41(1-2-3-4); 2012 42 (1-4); 2013 43(1-2-3-4); 2014 44 (1-4); 2015 45(1-2-3-4); 2016 46 (2,3,4); 2017 47(1); 2017 47(1-4); 2018 48(1-2-3); 2019 49 (1-2-3-4) 2020 50 (1-2-3)
Embrapa Pantanal
1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1(Supl1-2), 2(Supl1-2), 3(Supl1-2), 4); 1979 9(1-4); 1980 10(1,4); 1981 11(1,3); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1985 15(3/4); 1986/87 16/17(único); 1993 23(1/4)
Classificação: 1F/2A
Embrapa Solos
1971 1(1); 1976 6(1-3); 1977 7(2,4); 1978 8(1 supl 1,3 supl 1,3 supl 2); 1980 10(4); 1981 11(1); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1986/87 16/17; 1988 18(1/2); 1993 23
Classificação: 581.05 |
|
Fechar
|
|
|
