Risk of water surplus in soybean crop on haplic planosol soil in the Central Depression of Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil/Risco de excesso hidrico para a cultura da soja em planossolo haplico na Depressao Central do Rio Grande do Sul.
In the State of Rio Grande do Sul, the cultivation of soybean crops on fields designated for rice cultivation has increased in recent years because of economic feasibility, intercropping, and red rice crop control. The 2014/2015 soybean crop covered approximately 300,000ha (IRGA, 2016). The Central Depression of the State of RS has mainly Haplic Planosol soil, which is hydromorphic due to a reduced infiltration capacity and high compaction rates (SARTORI et al., 2016). It has frequent water surplus periods when rainfall occurs (LINKEMER et al., 1998).
The harmful effects of water surplus are severe during some developmental stages and depend on the total number of days in which the plants are subjected to water surplus. Water surplus inhibits germination by causing rapid seed imbibition, embryonic cell membrane rupture, reduction of aerobic respiration, and production of toxic substances (WUEBKER et al., 2001; TIAN et al., 2005; KIRKPATRICK et al., 2006).
During the vegetative phase, the greatest losses due to water surplus occur at early development stages, when water surplus causes reductions in plant stand (LINKEMER et al., 1998; KIRKPATRICK et al., 2006) and in nitrogen fixation (BACANAMWO & PURCELL, 1999). Water surplus between flowering and early grain filling reduces the number of pods per plant, seeds per pod, and grain productivity (GRIFFIN & SAXTON, 1988; SCHOFFEL et al., 2001; RHINE et al., 2010). Therefore, crops should be sown on dates with a low water surplus risk.
Crop development models associated with water balance and the numerical risk have been used (SILVA et al., 2008; LUCAS et al., 2015). Nevertheless, as yet, no studies have shown water surplus event risks for different soybean developmental stages. Agricultural zoning does not factor in this variable when planning sowing calendars (BRASIL, 2015). The identification of the relative risk of water surplus in different soybean sowing seasons and critical subperiods is extremely important, particularly in areas traditionally cultivated with irrigated rice and pasture (grasses, forbs).
The objective of this study was to identify the dates at which there was the lowest risk of water surplus to three critical developmental stages and the total cycle of soybean cultivated on Haplic Planosol soils in the Central Depression of the State of Rio Grande do Sul.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Daily data for air relative humidity and temperature (9:00am, 3:00pm, and 9:00pm), maximum and minimum air temperature, insulation, wind speed, precipitation, and evaporation data (using a Piche evaporimeter [EvP]) were obtained from the main climatological station of Santa Maria, Brazil (ECPSM). Data archives from August 1968 to July 2012 were used. According to the Koppen classification, the regional climate is Cfa type, characterized as humid and subtropical, with warm summers and an undefined dry season (HELDWEIN et al., 2009).
Plant development was simulated according to TRENTIN et al. (2013) using only cultivars with a determined growth habit. Varieties were grouped by cycle based on their relative maturity group (RMG). For RMG 7.4-8.0, the sowing dates (SD) of the 1st, 11th, and 21st days of October, November, and December were selected. For RMG 5.9-6.8 and 6.9-7.3, SD between October 11 and December 21, and between October 21 and December 21 were chosen, respectively. For each year, cycle and subperiod were obtained the sowing dates (SD), emergence (EM), first trifoliate leaf (V2), flowering initiation (R1), grain filling initiation (R5), maturation initiation (R7), and full maturity (R8).
Daily sequential water balance (DSB) was determined according to methods proposed by THORNTHWAITE & MATHER (1955). The calculation script was similar to the one used by SILVA et al. (2008) and LUCAS et al. (2015). Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) estimation was performed using the Penman-Monteith method, in accordance to ALLEN et al. (1998). ETo was included in the calculation of crop evapotranspiration using the crop coefficients (Kc) recommended by the FAO for soybean cultivation (ALLEN et al., 1998). During the subperiod V2-R1, Kc varied in response to the relative development rate. During the subperiod R5-R7, Kc varied in response to the thermal time (TRENTIN et al., 2013).
The available water capacity (AWC) was calculated based on the root depth throughout the cycle in a Haplic Planosol soil, which belongs to the Vacacai, Brazil mapping unit. An initial AWC of 23mm was used until sub-period V2 and the root depth was 0.10m. For the V2-R1 subperiod, a sigmoidal growth curve was used for the root system and depended on the relative development rate (TRENTIN et al., 2013). The final AWC (92mm) was applied after the R1 stage and the root depth was of 0.40m. Soils with frequent water surplus are not expected to accommodate further deepening of the root system (FIETZ & RANGEL, 2008).
Since some of the rainwater is lost mainly to surface runoff, the effective rainfall was calculated, according to LUCAS et al. (2015). Water surplus was analyzed using the number of days under water surplus (that is, soil water content>AWC). Two days were added after the end of rain event to account for the time required to drain the free water in soybean cultivation on Haplic Planosol soil (BORTOLUZZI, 2015).
Data of water surplus days for the crop cycle in each RMG were subjected to BoxPlot exploratory analysis, ANOVA, and mean comparison using the Scott-Knott's test at a 5% error probability level. Distribution and probability analyses were performed for the total number of water surplus days in the S-EM, EM-V2, and R1-R5 subperiods, and for the entire cycle, using the exponential, gamma, lognormal, normal, and Weibull functions of probability distribution. Functions were adjusted and tested using only data from years when water surplus occurred. Chi-square and Kolmogorov-Smirnov adherence tests were performed at a 10% significance level. The highest indicated that chi-square significance function was chosen when adjustments of two or more functions were present.
After function adjustment, the probability values were calculated. The maximum number of days of probable water surplus during the crop cycle was calculated using 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, and 95% probabilities. For the subperiods, occurrences of at least 2, 4, 8, and 12 d of water surplus were considered. Percentage of years were also calculated wherein water surplus was reported for the different sowing dates for the soybean developmental subperiods.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Considering the 25 sowing dates of the total crop cycle, the gamma probability distribution function performed best. Water surplus data adjustments were provided for nine sowing dates. There was no function adjustment for the November 1 sowing simulation of RMG 6.9-7.3; and therefore, in this case, the empirical frequency distribution was used.
Among the seventy-five combinations of sowing dates and the subperiods S-EM, EM-V2, and R1-R5, at least one function was significantly adjusted in fifty-five cases. The Weibull function was best adjusted for the subperiod frequency distribution (32.8%), followed by the gamma (22.4%), normal (19.2%), lognormal (16.8%), and exponential (8.8%) functions. The gamma and Weibull functions gave higher adjustments than that by the others for rainfall frequency in Santa Maria, Brazil (SILVA et al., 2007). An elevated dispersion of water surplus days was observed around the median. There was also a significant number of atypical values (Figures 1A, 1C, and 1E), which indicated high interannual variability in meteorological conditions and water surplus. Despite nonsignificant differences, the average number of water surplus days tended to decrease at the start and end of the sowing calendar (Figures 1A, 1C, and 1E).
At the 90% probability level, the estimated number of days with water surplus varied from 35-44 (Figure 1B), 38-48 (Figure 1D), and 42-52 (Figure 1F) for RMG 5.9-6.8, 6.9-7.3, and 7.4-8.0 respectively. As an example, it was observed that in 90% of the cases or agricultural years, the RMG 5.9-6.8 cultivars will encounter a maximum of 44 days of water surplus during their development cycle when they are sown between October 21 and November 11, and 38 days after November 21 (Figure 1B). This analysis can be extrapolated to the remaining probability levels, relative maturity groups, and sowing dates.
For RMG 6.9-7.3 and 7.4-8.0, the early sowing dates had the highest number of days with probable occurrence of water surplus, mainly because of longer cycle duration (TRENTIN et al., 2013) and lower evapotranspiration rates in October (HELDWEIN et al., 2009). Probabilities were 90% and 95% (Figures 1D, 1F).
Whereas water surplus was observed on almost all the sowing dates of the years studied, this was not the case for subperiods, mainly because of their shorter duration. The number of years for which water surplus was reported varied between sowing dates and RMG (Table 1). On average, water surplus occurred in about 73% of the years during the subperiods S-EM and EM-V2. In other words, only in a quarter of the years were there no water surplus issues during these subperiods.
For the R1-R5 subperiod, water surplus damage was highly significant (SCHOFFEL et al., 2001; RHINE et al., 2010), yet water surplus occurred in only 38% of the years during that subperiod (Table 1). This is explained by the higher daily water requirement by the plants during this phase (ALLEN et al., 1998), which, for most sowing dates, coincides with the period of highest atmospheric demand, namely, the months between December and February (HELDWEIN et al., 2009).
For all RMG and sowing dates in the S-EM period, the probability of two or more water surplus days is >0.6%. This value was obtained by the adjusted functions (Figures 2 A, 2D, and 2G). For the soybean sowing dates up to and including November 1, at least four water surplus days occurred in greater than half of the trial years. This level of water surplus is detrimental to seed germination (WUEBKER et al., 2001). Because of the short duration of this subperiod, the probability of greater than eight water surplus days is very low (TRENTIN et al., 2013).
For the EM-V2 subperiod, the risk of water surplus decreased from the first to the last sowing dates (Figures 2B, 2E, and 2H). Stress during the plant's initial development stages might impede normal, healthy root system development in soybean plants as well as root nodulation, which results from symbiosis between the host plant and Bradyrhizobium spp. bacteria. These bacteria have an elevated oxygen demand, and nitrogen fixation is reduced in hypoxic conditions (BACANAMWO & PURCELL, 1999), which in turn lowers crop productivity (BOARD, 2008).
There was a probability >0.5 that at least four water surplus days occurred for RMG 5.9-6.8 during the R1-R5 subperiod on all sowing dates (Figure 2C). This condition poses a significant risk (GRIFFIN & SAXTON, 1988). Starting from the December 11 SD, the risk of water surplus increased during the R1-R5 subperiod despite the decreased duration of this subperiod as the sowing calendar approached month end (TRENTIN et al., 2013). The SD with the lowest water surplus risk during this subperiod were November 11 and December 1.
For RMG 6.9-7.3 (Figure 2F) and RMG 7.4-8.0 (Figure 2I), the water surplus probabilities in the R1-R5 subperiod varied much between sowing dates. It was; therefore, impossible to determine sowing dates or RMG with clearly lower water surplus risks. Nevertheless, the SD of December 1 and November 21 had slightly lower water surplus risks for RMG 6.9-7.3 and RMG 7.4-8.0, respectively.
In Haplic Planosol soils from the Central Depression of the State of RS, water surplus occurred in about 75% of the years during the S-EM and EM-V2 subperiod, and in about 40% of the years during the R1-R5 subperiod.
The risk of water surplus throughout the crop cycle of soybeans raised on Haplic Planosol soil in the Central Depression of the State of RS, which decreased from the beginning to the end of the sowing calendar.
The risk of water surplus during the subperiod between soybean sowing and emergence on Haplic Planosol soil in the Central Depression of the State of RS was lowest for sowings after November 1.
Received 02.18.16 Approved 09.08.16
We thank the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (Capes) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) for granting us the master's degree scholarship and research assistance respectively.
ALLEN, R.G. et al. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Rome: FAO, 1998. 297p. (FAO. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 56).
BACANAMWO, M.; PURCELL, L.C. Soybean dry matter and N accumulation responses to flooding stress, N sources, and hypoxia. Journal of Experimental Botany, v.50, p.789-796, 1999. Available from: <http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/334/689>. Accessed: Feb. 03, 2016. doi: 10.1093/jxb/50.334.689.
BOARD, J.E. Waterlogging effects on plant nutrient concentrations in soybean. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.31, p.828-838, 2008. Available from: <http://www.tandfonline. com/doi/abs/10.1080/01904160802043122>. Accessed: Feb. 03, 2016. doi: 10.1080/01904160802043122.
BORTOLUZZI, M.P. Probabilidade de ocorrencia de excesso hidrico para a cultura da soja em planos solos da regiao central do Rio Grande do Sul. 2015. 87f. Dissertacao (Mestrado em Agronomia)--Programa de Pos-graduacao em Agronomia, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, RS.
BRASIL. Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria e Abastecimento. Secretaria de Politica Agricola. Portaria n. 179, de 04 de agosto de 2015. Zoneamento Agricola de Risco Climatico para a cultura de soja no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, ano-safra 2015/2016. Diario Oficial da Republica Federativa do Brasil, Brasilia, DF, 2015.
FIETZ, C.R.; RANGEL, M.A.S. Soybean sowing time for the region of Dourados, MS, Brazil based on water deficit and photoperiod. Engenharia Agricola, v.28, n.4, p.666-672, 2008. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid =S010069162008000400006&lng=en&nrm=iso>. Accessed: June 14, 2016. doi: 10.1590/S0100-69162008000400006.
GRIFFIN, J.L.; SAXTON, A.M. Response of solid-seeded soybean to flood irrigation. II. Flood duration. Agronomy Journal, v.80, p.885-888, 1988. Available from: <http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search. do?recordID=US8924566>. Accessed: Feb. 03, 2016. doi: 10.2134/ag ronj1988.00021962008000060009x.
HELDWEIN, A.B. et al. O clima de Santa Maria. Revista Ciencia e Ambiente, v.38, p.43-58, 2009.
IRGA. Safras: Soja em rotacao com arroz. 2016. Accessed: June 03, 2016. Online. Available from: <http://www.irga.rs.gov.br/ conteudo/4215/safras>.
KIRKPATRICK, M.T. et al. Soybean response to flooded soil conditions and the association with soilborne plant pathogenic genera. Plant Disease, v.90, p.592-596, 2006. Available from: <http://apsjournals. apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PD-90-0592>. Accessed: Feb. 03, 2016. doi: 10.1094/PD-90-0592.
LINKEMER, G. et al. Waterlogging effect on growth and yield components of late-planted soybean. Crop Science, v.38, p.1576-1584, 1998. Available from: <https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cs/ pdfs/38/6/CS0380061576>. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2016. doi:10.2135/cro psci1998.0011183X003800060028x.
LUCAS, D.D.P. et al. Water excess in different soils and sowing times for sunflower in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v.50, p.431-440, 2015. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pab/v50n6/0100-204X -pab-50-06-00431.pdf>. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2016. doi: 10.1590/ S0100-204X2015000600001.
RHINE, M.D. et al. Yield and nutritional responses to waterlogging of soybean cultivars. Irrigation Science, v.28, p. 135-142, 2010. Available from: <http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s00271-009-0168-x>. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00271-009-0168-x.
SARTORI, G.M.S. et al. Soil tillage systems and seeding on grain yield of soybean in lowland area. Ciencia Rural, v.46, p.492-498, 2016. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo. php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-84782016000300492&lng =pt&nrm=iso>. Accessed: June 02, 2016. doi: 10.1590/01038478cr20150676.
SCHOFFEL, E.R. et al. Hidrical excess on yield components in soybeans. Ciencia Rural, v.31, p.7-12, 2001. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/cr/v31n1/a02v31n1.pdf>. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2016. doi: 10.1590/S0103-84782001000100002.
SILVA, J.C. et al. Analysis of rainfall distribution for Santa Maria, RS, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e Ambiental, v.11, p.67-72, 2007. Available from: <http://www. scielo.br/pdf/rbeaa/v11n1/v11n1a09.pdf>. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2016. doi: 10.1590/S1415-43662007000100009.
SILVA, J.C. et al. Probability distribution function ten-day and monthly for soil water deficit. Ciencia Rural, v.38, p.1893-1899, 2008. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/cr/v38n7/a14v38n7.pdf>. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2016. doi: 10.1590/S010384782008000700014.
TIAN, X-H. et al. The role of seed structure and oxygen responsiveness in pre-germination flooding tolerance of soybean cultivars. Plant Production Science, v.8, p. 157-65, 2005. Available from: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1626/ pps.8.157>. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2016. doi: 10.1626/pps.8.157.
THORNTHWAITE, C.W.; MATHER, J.R. The water balance. Publications in Climatology, v.3, n.10, 104p., 1955.
TRENTIN, R. et al. Phenological periods and soybean cycle according to maturity groups and sowing dates. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v.48, p.703-713, 2013. Available from: <http://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/ view/16151/12254>. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2016. doi: 10.1590/ S0100-204X2013000700002.
WUEBKER, E.F. et al. Flooding and temperature effects on soybean germination. Crop Science, v.41, p.1857-1861, 2001. Available from: <https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cs/abstracts/41/6/1857>. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2016. doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.1857.
Mateus Possebon Bortoluzzi (1) Arno Bernardo Heldwein (2) Roberto Trentin (3) Dioneia Daiane Pitol Lucas (4) Evandro Zanini Righi (2) Mateus Leonardi (1)
(1) Programa de Pos-graduacao em Agronomia (PPGA), Centro de Ciencias Rurais (CCR), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), 97105-900, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil. E-mail: email@example.com. Corresponding author.
(2) Departamento de Fitotecnia, Centro de Ciencias Rurais (CCR), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
(3) Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Faculdade de Agronomia Eliseu Maciel, Capao do Leao, RS, Brasil.
(4) Secretaria da Agricultura e Pecuaria do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Palmeira das Missoes, RS, Brasil.
Caption: Figure 1--Occurrence and average number of days of water surplus (A, C, E), and maximum number of days of water surplus during the soybean crop development cycle (B, D, F) in the relative maturity groups (RMG) 5.9-6.8, 6.9-7.3, and 7.4-8.0 on Haplic Planosol soil for the simulated sowing dates of October 1 and December 31 in each period from 1968-2012. ns, Non-significant.
Caption: Figure 2--Probability of occurrence of a water surplus for at least 2, 4, 8, and 12 days, accumulated during the S-EM (sowing-emergence), EM-V2 (emergence-first trifoliate leaf), and R1-R5 (flowering initiation-grain filling initiation) subperiods of soybean plants development for relative maturity groups (RMG) 5.9-6.8 (A, B, C), 6.9-7.3 (D, E, F), and 7.4-8.0 (G, H, I) on Haplic Planosol soil on ten simulated sowing dates between 1968 and 2012.
Table 1--Percentage of years with water surplus reported for subperiods S-EM (sowing-emergence), EM-V2 (emergence--first trifoliate leaf), and R1-R5 (flowering initiation-beginning of grain filling) on Haplic Planosol soil. Three relative maturity groups (RMG) were considered, and the sowing dates (SD) were in the period from October 1 to December 31 and were simulated in each year of the period between 1968 and 2012. RMG SD Subperiod S-EM EM-V2 R1-R5 5.9-68 Oct 1 -- -- -- Oct 11 -- -- -- Oct 21 86 84 41 Nov 1 84 75 38 Nov 11 65 59 43 Nov 21 65 70 36 Dec 1 79 72 36 Dec 11 72 68 48 Dec 21 68 61 41 Dec 31 -- -- -- 6.9-7.3 Oct 1 -- -- -- Oct 11 82 84 41 Oct 21 86 84 36 Nov 1 84 75 38 Nov 11 66 61 36 Nov 21 66 70 41 Dec 1 79 72 50 Dec 11 73 68 43 Dec 21 68 64 45 Dec 31 -- -- -- 7.4-8.0 Oct 1 82 86 32 Oct 11 82 84 34 Oct 21 86 84 36 Nov 1 84 75 32 Nov 11 66 64 32 Nov 21 66 70 41 Dec 1 79 73 36 Dec 11 73 73 43 Dec 21 68 66 48 Dec 31 68 73 59 (--) Sowing dates not recommended on the basis of technical indications for soybean cultivation in the states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||texto en ingles|
|Author:||Bortoluzzi, Mateus Possebon; Heldwein, Arno Bernardo; Trentin, Roberto; Lucas, Dioneia Daiane Pitol;|
|Date:||Feb 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Vase life and rehydration capacity of dry-stored gladiolus flowers at low temperature/Vida de vaso e capacidade de reidratacao de flores de gladiolo...|
|Next Article:||Commercial cuts of Pantanal caiman meat according to sex/Caracterizacao dos cortes comerciais da carne de jacare-do-Pantanal em funcao do sexo.|