324

Energia na Agricultura, Botucatu, v. 36, n. 3, p. 324-334, julho-setembro, 2021

ISSN 2359-6562 (ONLINE) 2359-6562 (CD-ROM)

SOYBEAN ESTABLISHMENT AND SOIL PENETRATION RESISTANCE UNDER SOIL

TILLAGE SYSTEMS AND SOWING SPEED IN TWO SEASONS

JORGE WILSON CORTEZ¹, MATHEUS DELABRIO BONATO2, MURILO SOARES

MARTINS3, JOSÉ LUCAS GONÇALVES GREITER4, MATHEUS ANGHINONI5

1 Eng. Agr., Prof. Dr. da Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados-Itahum, km 12, Cidade Universitária, 79804-970, Dourados, MS, Brasil, e-mail: jorgecortez@ufgd.edu.br .

2 Eng. Agr., Egresso da Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados-Itahum,

km

12,

Cidade

Universitária,

79804-970,

Dourados,

MS,

Brasil,

e-mail:

matheusbonato_@hotmail.com

3 Eng. Agr., Egresso da Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados-Itahum,

km

12,

Cidade

Universitária,

79804-970,

Dourados,

MS,

Brasil,

e-mail:

murilo_soares232@hotmail.com,.

4 Eng. Agr., Egresso da Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados-Itahum,

km

12,

Cidade

Universitária,

79804-970,

Dourados,

MS,

Brasil,

e-mail:

joselucas.greiter@gmail.com

5 Eng. Agr., Egresso da Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados-Itahum,

km

12,

Cidade

Universitária,

79804-970,

Dourados,

MS,

Brasil,

e-mail

matheus.anghinoni@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: The objective was to evaluate the influence of soil management systems and sowing speed on the soil physical attributes of the soil and agronomic components of the soybean crop in two consecutive harvests. The trial was conducted in a randomized block design in a split plot scheme with four replications. In the plots, six management systems were applied: plowing at 0.40

m with moldboard plow, followed by two swivel levelling harrows, without soil mobilization, one chiseling at 0.35 m, two crossed chiseling at 0,35 m, one harrow - leveling and one chiseling harrow at 0.35 m and swivel leveling harrow. The sowing seeds were performed to each subplot, adding up four speeds in the 2014/2015 crop season and three in the 2015/2016 crop season. To evaluate the trial were recorded the data about, the percentage of soil coverage, resistance to penetration, number of days to emergency, stand and longitudinal distribution. The data was subjected to analysis of variance and test of means. The results showed that non-soil mobilization did not show an increase in soil compaction. The soil cover decreased the resistance to penetration. A less soil mobilization, showed a rapid seedling emergency. An increased on sowing speed increased the percentage of failure spacing decreasing sowing quality.

Keywords: mechanization, no-tillage, soil compaction, Glycine max.

ESTABELECIMENTO DA SOJA E RESISTÊNCIA À PENETRAÇÃO DO SOLO EM

SISTEMAS DE MANEJO E VELOCIDADES DE SEMEADURA EM DUAS SAFRAS

RESUMO: Objetivou-se avaliar a influência dos sistemas de manejo do solo e da velocidade de semeadura nos atributos físicos do solo e componentes agronômicos da cultura da soja em duas safras consecutivas. O ensaio foi conduzido no delineamento em blocos ao acaso no esquema de parcela subdividida com quatro repetições. Nas parcelas, foram aplicados seis sistemas de manejo: aração a 0,40 m com arado de aivecas, seguido de duas gradagens destorroadora - niveladoras, gradagem destorroadora - niveladora, sem mobilização, escarificador a 0,35 m uma única vez, escarificador a 0,35 m duas vezes cruzado, mais uma gradagem destorroadora - niveladora e escarificado a 0,35 m mais gradagem destorroadora - niveladora. Em cada subparcela foram alocadas as velocidades de semeadura, quatro velocidades na safra 2014/2015 e três na safra 2015/2016. Foi avaliada a porcentagem de cobertura do solo, a resistência à penetração, número de dias para emergência, estande e distribuição longitudinal. Os dados foram submetidos a análise de variância e teste de médias. Quando não ocorre mobilização/preparo do solo tem-se aumento da compactação do solo. A cobertura do solo diminuiu a resistência a penetração. Quanto menor a Recebido em 18/08/2021 e aprovado para publicação em 19/09/2021

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17224/EnergAgric.2021v36n3p324-334

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) 325

mobilização/preparo do solo mais rápido é a emergência das plântulas. Increased travel speed increased the percentage of flawed spacing diminuindo a qualidade da semeadura.

Palavras-chaves: mecanização, plantio direto, compactação, Glycine max.

1 INTRODUCTION

stand. In cover crops, plant stand management

can be influenced by wheel-soil interactions, Brazil has been the second-largest

changing soil physical properties such as soil soybean producer worldwide, scoring the

penetration resistance (PR), water content,

production of 115 million tons in the 2018/19

bulk density and soil management system.

season. Its Midwest region showed a yield of Dalchiavon, Marcondes e Carvalho

3,950 kg ha-1 (CONAB, 2019).

(2020) point out that higher sowing speeds Tillage systems and sowing speed are

guarantee greater operational performance,

part of a set of farming technology that, if used which can result in time savings, however, rationally, increase yields and promote

higher speeds have increased losses around

farming system stability (ALONÇO et al.,

35%, as well as increasing double and failure 2015; JABRO et al., 2009).

The constant

spacings, in addition to the greater irregularity search for improved sowing efficiency has

of the sowing depth.

focused on achieving a seed longitudinal

Among the production technologies,

distribution above 90% (WEIRICH NETO et

sowing is one of the most important operations

al., 2015), thus, its match with a proper seed that influences crop agronomic attributes and deposition depth, allows the achievement of

soil resistance to penetration, once lower

suitable and uniform plant stands, with an

speeds create more much adherence of soil-

economic increasing return due to reduction of

wheel (ALONÇO et al., 2015).

failures.

It is assumed that soil tillage systems

Branquinho et al. (2004) studying the

will affect soil coverage, resistance to

performance of a fertilizer sowing machine

penetration and seed distribution. Moreover, under different sowing speed and type of soil associated with the sowing speed, its effects management in soybean, concluded that the

can be enhanced by decreasing the sowing

management did not influence the number of quality.

days for emergence, thus, between the speed Given this scenario, this study aimed to

of 4.8 to 7.3 km h-¹ the emergency speed index

evaluate the influence of tillage system and has remained constant. The sowing speeds of 5

sowing speed on soil penetration resistance to 7 km h-1 are considered ideal, as it is and soybean crop establishment in two

considered that the highest speed can open consecutive crop seasons.

larger furrows, revolving a wider strip of soil and, once, the compactor wheel does not

2 MATERIAL AND METHODS

compress the soil sufficiently over the seed

Cortez et al. (2011) pointed out that the

The study was carried out in the city of

tractor gears used in the sowing operation Dourados - MS, Brazil (22º14' S latitude,

provide forward speeds that can cause

54º59' W longitude, and 434 m altitude). The interference in the longitudinal distribution of area had been grown for more than 10 years plants, and, in cover crops, their management under a no-till system. After March 2013, it can be influenced by the different conditions started to be grown in a crop rotation, with of the wheel-soil relationship, thus changing soybeans in summer and corn in winter. Data the physical characteristics of the soil such as: were collected during the 2014/15 and 2015/16

resistance to penetration (RP) and soil bulk crop years.

density and water content.

The soil is classified as dystroferric

Tractor gears directly affect sowing

Red Latosol (Oxisol), with clayey texture

speed, which can interfere on longitudinal seed

(Table 1). The climate is Cwa type, according distribution (CORTEZ et al., 2018), and plant

326

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) to Köppen's classification, which is marked by

rainy summers (Figure 1).

Table 1. Grain size distribution of the Red Latosol from the Experimental Farm of the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), Dourados - MT, Brazil (2013).

Clay

Silt

Sand

Depth layer - m

-------------------------- g kg-¹--------------------------

0.00-0.10

597

217

185

0.10-0.20

593

222

185

0.20-0.30

623

198

179

0.30-0.40

628

202

169

0.40-0.50

643

189

168

0.50-0.60

649

197

154

Source: adapted from Rodrigues (2014)

Figure 1. Accumulated rainfall (Prec) and mean air temperature maximum and minimum (Tº) during the experiment (2014/2015 and 2015/2016).

400

40

350

35

300

30

)

)m 250

25

re (ºC

(mll 200

20

tu

fa

era

in 150

15

p

Ra

em

100

10

T

50

5

0

0

Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.

Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.

Rainfall (mm)

Tº max

Tº min

Source: Embrapa (2019).

The experimental design was in

and S3 - 6.4 km h-1 in the 2015/2016 crop

randomized blocks, in split plots, with four year.

replications. Treatments consisted of soil

Each experimental plot occupied an

tillage systems, namely: ploughing followed

area of 285 m² (15 x 19 m). A longitudinal 10-

by two harrowings (T1); harrowing with soil m-wide path between plots was used for

mobilization (T2); harrowing without soil

manoeuvres, traffic, and stabilization of sets.

mobilization (T3);

chiselling

(T4); cross

Soil tillage was performed using a slat

chiselling followed by one harrowing (T5);

mouldboard plough 0.40 m; drag crust-

and chiselling followed by one harrowing

breaking and levelling harrow, off-set type,

(T6). Soil turning-over procedures were made with 20 0.51 m disks (20”) each; five-shank only in the 2014/15 crop year, and the residual

chisel 0.35 m, with narrow 0.08 m wide tips, effect was considered for the following one with straw-cutting disk and cutting roll. The 2015/2016.

tractor used in 2014/2015 was a 4×2 FTA with

Sowing speed was tested in the sub-

67.71 kW (92 hp) nominal engine power and plots through tractor gear-shifting, resulting in 2400 rpm rotation, as well as front tires 7.50-the following average speeds: S1 - 3.8, S2 -

18 and rear 18.4-34, and a mass of 3400 kg.

5.2, S3 - 6.4, and S4 - 7.3 km h-1 in the

In the 2014/15 crop year, soybeans

2014/2015 crop year; and S1 - 3.3, S2 - 4.7,

were sown using a seeder-fertilizer machine, with pneumatic distribution head and furrow

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) 327

rod for a seven-row fertilizer. The seeder was 50 reading points, with the plot being

regulated to distribute 16 seeds per meter of evaluated twice, resulting in 100 points. The the cultivar BMX POTENCIA (RR), with 99%

results were presented the percentage of

purity and 80% germination, at a depth of 0.05

vegetation cover in the 2014/15 and 2015/16

m with 260 kg ha-1 of the formulated 8-20-20.

crop season.

In the 2015/16 crop season, a mechanical

After

sowing,

soil

penetration

seeder with nine rows and furrow for fertilizer

resistance (PR) was measured as in Stolf et al.

was used. The seed used was Coodetec 2620

(1991), using a manual penetrometer (4 kg), with the regulation of 22 seeds per meter that with a 0.40 m free-fall impact, a 0.0128 m received fertilizer formulated 8-20-20 at a dose diameter and 30° solid angle cone, and a 0.01

of 270 kg ha-1.

m diameter shank. During the PR measures,

Data of percentage of vegetation

random soil samples were collected at the

coverage were collected after tilling, according same depths for soil characterization. Soil to the method of Laflen et al. (1981). This moisture was determined by the gravimetric

methodology based on 7.5 m long capped yarn

method (EMBRAPA et al., 1997), as shown in

with 0.15 m equidistant markings resulting in Table 2.

Table 2. Soil moisture in the 2014/15 and 2015/16 crop years.

Soil moisture (kg kg-¹)

Depth layer

2014/15

2015/16

0.00 - 0.10

0.19

0.23

0.10 - 0.20

0.18

0.26

0.20 - 0.30

0.23

0.31

0.30 - 0.40

0.24

0.32

0.40 - 0.50

0.26

0.33

Source: Author (2016).

The following soybean traits were

compared using the Tukey test at 5%

assessed: days to emergence, (EDMOND;

probability.

DRAPALA, 1958); plant stand by counting

tagged plants along a two-meter stretch within

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

the central row of each sub-plot; longitudinal distribution of seedlings; and determining rates All tillage systems showed significant

of normal, flawed, and double spacing

effects (p <0.01) on vegetation cover rates.

(ABNT, 1984; KURACHI et al., 1989). We

The residual effect in the 2015/16 crop year considered spacing percentages based on a

had lower variation coefficient compared to referential value (X): if < 0.5 times the X, it the 2014/15 crop year when the soil was

was "double" (D); if between 0.5 and 1.5 times mobilized, as a result of straw accumulation the X, it was "normal" (A); and if > 1.5 times due to the lack of its incorporation into the the X, it was "flawed" (F).

soil.

Data were submitted to analysis of

variance with test F. If significant, means were

328

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) Table 3. Percentage of vegetation cover in the 2014/15 and 2015/16 crop years, in Dourados - MS, Brazil.

Vegetation cover (%)

Treatment

2014/15

2015/16

T1

0.00 c

0.00 f

T2

9.50 bc

74.83 a

T3

66.00 a

65.16 b

T4

15.75 b

57.83 c

T5

1.75 c

45.33 e

T6

8.75 bc

53.16 d

F-teste

114.27 **

1986.65 **

C.V. (%)

27.24

2.38

ns: non-significant (p> 0.05); *: significant (p> 0.05); **: significant (p> 0.01); C.V.: coefficient of variation. Same lowercase letters in the column do not differ from each other by the Tukey's test at 5% probability. Ploughing + 2

harrowings (T1); harrowing (T2); without mobilization (T3); chiselling (T4); cross chiselling + harrowing (T5); chiselling + harrowing (T6). Source: Author (2016).

In the 2014/2015 crop year, ploughing

within the sowing line, providing a minimum followed by two harrowings (T1) and cross

inversion of arable structure and reducing

chiselling + harrowing (T5) showed lower

incorporation of vegetation cover. Moreover, vegetation coverage percentages, being 0.00

the treatment that characterizes conventional and 1.75%, respectively. Whereas no soil

tillage (ploughing followed by harrowing - T1)

mobilization (T3) had a vegetation coverage promoted

inversion

of

windrow

and,

rate of 66%, due to the lack of straw

consequently, complete soil homogenization

incorporation. Ploughs are farm implements

until the established depth, which resulted in used to revolve the soil, inverting surface with full incorporation of the vegetation cover.

subsurface layers, increasing plant residue

Seki et al. (2015) assessed the effect of

incorporation (MONTEIRO et al., 2017), and

subsoiling, chiselling, and furrow shanks

hence reducing surface coverage.

during sowing on soil cover maintenance.

However, in the 2015/2016 crop year,

These authors found that subsoiling at 0.40 m

harrowing (T2) retained more vegetation cover

and chiselling at 0.30 m, in the summer,

(74.83%), followed by no soil mobilization

reduced vegetation cover due to deeper tillage,

(T3, 65.16%). According to Cortez et al.

increasing soil mobilization and plant cover (2011), compared to other implements, a light

incorporation.

harrow penetrates less into the soil due to its In 2014/15 for all tillage systems

smaller disk diameter and weight. The tillage showed significant PR for all depths except residual effect in 2015/16 increased plant

0.30-0.40 m and 0.40 - 0.50 m. The residual cover in all systems except T3 (Table 3).

tillage effect in 2015/16 no changed soil

Maintenance of crop cover on the soil

resistance to mechanical penetration (Table 4)

surface after tillage is directly related to for all tillage systems and sowing speeds.

mobilization by the active tools of machines Sowing speed effects results in significant PR

and implements. In the treatment without

for all depths except 0.40 - 0.50 m in 2014/15.

mobilization (T3), the soil was only turned

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) 329

Table 4. Summary of analysis of variance and test of means for soil penetration resistance (PR, in MPa) in the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 crop years, in Dourados - MS, Brazil Depth layer

Parameter

0.0 – 0.10

0.10 – 0.20

0.20 – 0.30

0.30 – 0.40

0.40 – 0.50

14/15 15/16

14/15

15/16 14/15 15/16

14/15

15/16

14/15

15/16

Tillage

(T)

T1

1.4 c

3.7

1.7 c

3.8

2.4 d

5.0

3.5

5.7

4.0

6.7

T2

2.3 b

3.5

3.7 a

3.6

3.9 ab

4.0

4.0

4.8

4.0

5.5

T3

3.3 a

3.4

3.8 a

3.8

4.0 a

4.3

4.0

4.6

4.3

6.0

T4

1.6 c

2.5

2.5 b

3.5

3.3 bc

4.7

4.1

5.2

4.8

6.2

T5

1.4 c

2.6

2.1 bc

3.3

3.1 cd

4.1

4.2

5.6

4.9

6.8

T6

1.4 c

3.3

2.0 c

3.5

2.7 cd

3.3

3.8

4.0

5.1

5.3

Speed (S)

S1

1.8 ab

3.7

2.7 b

3.5

3.3 a

3.9

4.1 a

5.0 a

4.8

6.0

S2

2.1 a

3.0

3.1 a

3.7

3.6 a

4.4

4.1 a

5.0 a

4.6

5.9

S3

1.9 ab

2.8

2.7 b

3.7

3.3 a

4.4

3.9 ab

4.9 a

4.4

6.4

S4

1.7 b

--

2.2 c

--

2.8 b

--

3.6 b

--

4.2

--

F-test

T

31.1**

0.5

69.8**

0.6

18.5**

0.7

1.53

0.4 ns 1.9 ns 0.3 ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

S

2.9 *

2.7

14.9**

0.4

7.3 **

1.6

3.8 *

0.1 *

2.6 ns 0.4 ns

ns

ns

ns

TxS

0.9 ns

0.6

2.4**

0.7

1.2 ns

1.0

1.0 ns 0.5 ns 1.1 ns 0.7 ns

ns

ns

ns

C.V. T

29.1

75.3

15.9

25.1

18.5

55.8

20.3

74.9

30.9

65.5

(%)

C.V. S

24.3

47.7

17.6

22.5

19.0

25.6

15.0

28.9

17.2

27.9

(%)

ns: non-significant (p> 0.05); *: significant (p> 0.05); **: significant (p> 0.01); C.V.: coefficient of variation. Same lowercase letters in the column do not differ from each other by the Tukey's test at 5% probability. Ploughing + 2

harrowings (T1); harrowing (T2); without mobilization (T3); chiselling (T4); cross chiselling + harrowing (T5); chiselling + harrowing (T6). Source: Author (2016).

The lack of soil mobilization (T3)

BAUER; FREDERICK, 2002). Besides, it

provided higher PR values than did the other does not always favour yield increases.

treatments until the 0.20–0.30 m layer in

Plough reduced soil resistance to

2014/15. This shows that not mobilizing soil penetration to 0.40 m deep. This is due to its for one crop year is insufficient to reduce soil ability to invert soil layers, improving soil resistance to penetration. In contrast, tillage turnover.

with plough and chisel (T1, T5, and T6)

Penetration resistance can be affected

resulted in lower PR values, mainly up to a by soil bulk density, soil moisture content and

0.30 m depth. In 2015/16, tillage effect was texture. The values considered limiting for not significant at any depth.

crops are between 1.5 and 4.0 MPa, with 2.0

Chiselling reduced PR in surface layers

MPa being a critical limit as it can prevent root (29% and 14%) and was efficient for soil

growth of most crops (RIBON; TAVARES

decompression. For Klein and Camara (2007),

FILHO, 2008).

decompression can improve soil physical

As tillage, sowing speed had a

properties. But these effects persist for a short significant effect during the 2014/15 crop year, time since soil reconsolidation increases with up to a depth of 0.30–0.40 m, with lower PR

cumulative rainfall volume (BUSSCHER;

for the highest speed (7.3 km h-1). Regarding tillage and sowing speed interaction (Table 5),

330

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) in 2014/15 and 0.10–0.20 m layer, RP values km h-1, conventional and chiselling tillage

were above the critical limit at speeds of 5.2

systems reduced PR down to values below the

and 6.4 km h-1 and absence of soil

critical limit.

mobilization. In turn, at speeds of 6.4 and 7.4

Table 5. Breakdown of the interaction between tillage and sowing speed for soil resistance to penetration (MPa) in the 0.10-0.20 m depth layer, during the 2014/2015 crop year, in Dourados - MS, Brazil.

Sowing speed (km h-¹)

Tillage

3.8

5.2

6.4

7.3

T1

1.52 dA

2.20 cA

1.75 dA

1.45 bA

T2

4.45 aA

3.70 abAB

3.48 abB

3.10 aB

T3

3.40 bB

4.08 aAB

4.38 aA

3.40 aB

T4

2.65 bcAB

2.88 bcA

2.73 bcAB

1.90 bB

T5

2.43 cdAB

2.80 bcA

1.67 dB

1.67 bB

T6

1.82 cdB

2.80 bcA

2.05 cdAB

1.52 bB

Means followed by the same lowercase letter in columns and uppercase letter in rows do not differ from each other by the Tukey' test. Ploughing + 2 harrowings (T1); harrowing (T2); without mobilization (T3); chiselling (T4); cross-chiselling + harrowing (T5); chiselling + harrowing (T6). Source: Author (2016).

Soil tillage systems affected the

significant effect on plant stand, but only in number of days until the emergence in both 2014/15. Therefore, tillage residual effect does crop years (Table 6). Of these, those with not affect the number of plants per meter.

minimal soil mobilization (T2 and T3) sped up

However, sowing speed did not influence

seedling emergence. They also had a

NDE nor plant stand.

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) 331

Table 6. Summary of analysis of variance and test of means for number of days until emergency (NDE) and plant stand in the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 crop years, in Dourados - MS, Brazil.

Plant stand

NDE

Parameter

(plants per metre)

2014/2015

2015/2016

2014/2015

2015/2016

Tillage (T)

T1

6.01 ab

7.46 a

11.97 a

16.79

T2

5.53 b

6.43 b

13.19 a

15.66

T3

5.53 b

6.47 b

13.81 a

16.87

T4

6.10 a

7.43 a

13.22 a

17.20

T5

5.81 ab

7.45 a

11.88 a

15.75

T6

5.85 ab

6.45 b

11.94 a

17.50

Sowing speed (S)

S1

5.97

6.92

12.35

16.83 a

S2

5.77

6.95

12.60

16.58 a

S3

5.68

6.97

12.96

16.47 a

S4

5.80

--

12.75

--

F-test

T

3.97*

56.53**

3.41*

1.49 ns

S

2.58 ns

0.38 ns

0.52 ns

0.18 ns

TxS

0.67 ns

1.21 ns

0.71 ns

0.74 ns

C.V. T (%)

8.28

3.61

14.39

12.94

C.V. S (%)

6.50

2.88

13.59

12.41

ns: non-significant (p> 0.05); *: significant (p> 0.05); **: significant (p> 0.01); C.V.: coefficient of variation. Same lowercase letters in the column do not differ from each other by the Tukey's test at 5% probability. Ploughing + 2

harrowings (T1); harrowing (T2); without mobilization (T3); chiselling (T4); cross chiselling + harrowing (T5); chiselling + harrowing (T6). Source: Author (2016).

Soybean stand decreased with the use

As for seed longitudinal distribution

of chisellers. This was also observed by Cortez

(Table 7), vegetation cover accumulation

et al. (2017), who reported a 16.67% reduction

reduced flawed spacing and increased double in plant stand when using chisellers. For these

spacing, jeopardizing sowing quality. Tillage authors, it may have occurred because soil systems had a significant effect on flawed inversion hindered seed deposition and cover, spacing in 2015/16 and on double spacing in and hence water absorption, as well as

2014/15.

promoted changes in soil temperature, seed

germination and seedling emergence.

332

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) Table 7. Summary of analysis of variance and test of means for seed longitudinal distribution in the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 crop years, in Dourados - MS, Brazil.

Seed longitudinal distribution

Parameter

Regular (%)

Flawed (%)

Double (%)

14/15

15/16

14/15

15/16

14/15

15/16

Tillage (T)

T1

55.85

56.74

22.42

5.78 ab

21.73 b

37.47

T2

45.30

48.34

24.05

4.41 b

30.65 a

47.24

T3

51.45

44.77

17.13

6.44 ab

31.42 a

48.77

T4

55.33

49.44

18.62

3.91 b

26.06 ab

46.63

T5

59.72

43.31

20.76

10.20 a

19.52 b

46.48

T6

54.30

45.87

19.46

5.37 ab

26.24 ab

48.74

Sowing speed (S)

S1

51.99

47.98 a

24.96

4.52 a

23.05

47.48

S2

58.57

48.24 a

17.63

6.62 a

23.80

45.12

S3

49.86

48.02 a

20.75

6.91 a

29.39

45.06

S4

54.21

--

18.28

--

27.51

--

F-test

T

2.22 ns

0.95 ns

0.71 ns

4.43 *

6.57 **

0.65 ns

S

1.79 ns

0.02 **

2.19 ns

3.31 *

1.28 ns

0.25 ns

TxS

1.35 ns

0.63 ns

0.56 ns

1.93 ns

0.85 ns

0.48 ns

C.V. M (%)

24.44

35.44

58.81

61.25

28.39

39.65

C.V. V (%)

25.42

28.90

53.82

58.28

50.32

29.00

ns: non-significant (p> 0.05); *: significant (p> 0.05); **: significant (p> 0.01); C.V.: coefficient of variation. Same lowercase letters in the column do not differ from each other by the Tukey's test at 5% probability. Ploughing + 2

harrowings (T1); harrowing (T2); without mobilization (T3); chiselling (T4); cross chiselling + harrowing (T5); chiselling + harrowing (T6). Source: Author (2016).

Seed

distribution

uniformity

was

An

increase

on

forward

speed

negatively affected by increasing travel speed,

increased the percentage of failaire spacings promoting high percentages of flawed spacing

reducing the swing operation quality

in 2015/2016. Tillage system and sowing

speed promoted lower percentages of normal

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

spacing than recommended by Drescher et al.

(2011) and Cortez et al. (2014). These authors

To the Federal University of Grande

indicate percentages of 90 and 60% for

Dourados (UFGD) for supporting this research

pneumatic

and

mechanical

seeders,

and

granting

the

scientific

initiation

respectively.

scholarships. To CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) for

4 CONCLUSIONS

granting the scientific initiation scholarships to the students participating in this research. To No soil mobilization promotes soil

CAPES for supporting with PROAP resources

compaction increase soil coverage reduce the and scholarships for undergraduate students

soil resistance to penetration.

involved in this research.

The less soil mobilization, promote a

We have no conflict of interest to

quick seedling emergency.

declare.

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) 333

6 REFERENCES

ABNT. Projeto de norma 04:015.06-004 - semeadoras de precisão: ensaio de laboratório -

método de ensaio. São Paulo: ABNT, 1984.

ALONÇO, A. S.; SILVEIRA, H. A. T.; CARDINAL, K. M.; RIST, G. R. Distribuição longitudinal de semente de algodão e girassol com diferentes velocidades e inclinações em dosadores pneumáticos. Scientia Agraria, Curitiba, v.16, n. 2, p. 63-70. 2015.

BRANQUINHO, K. B.; FURLANI, C. E. A.; LOPES, A.; SILVA, R. P.; GROTTA, D. C. C.; BORSATTO, E.A. Desempenho de uma semeadora-adubadora direta, em função da velocidade de deslocamento e do tipo de manejo da biomassa da cultura de cobertura do solo. Engenharia Agrícola, Jaboticabal, v.24, n.2, p.374-380, 2004.

BUSSCHER, W.J.; BAUER, P.J.; FREDERICK, J.R. Recompaction of a coastal loamy sand after deep tillage as a function of subsequent cumulative rainfall. Soil and Tillage Research, Amsterdam, v.68, n.2, p.49-57, 2002.

CONAB. Acompanhamento de safra brasileira grãos, Brasília, DF, v. 6, n. 12, p.1-126. Safra 2018/19. Décimo segundo levantamento. Disponível em: https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos/monitoramento-agricola. Acesso em: 02 dez. 2019.

CORTEZ, J.W.; ALVES, A.D.; MOURA, M.R.D.; OLSZEVSKI, N.; JESUS, H. Atributos físicos do argissolo amarelo do semiárido nordestino sob sistemas de preparo. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Viçosa, v.35, n.4, 1207-1216, 2011.

CORTEZ, J.W.; FURLANI, C.E.A.; SILVA, R.P.; ARCOVERDE, S.N.S. Performance of corn sowing in fertilization system and intercropping. Engenharia Agrícola, Jaboticabal, v.38, n. 2, p.225-231, 2018.

CORTEZ, J.W.; MAUAD, M.; SOUZA, L.C.F.; RUFINO, M.V; SOUZA, P.H.N. Agronomical attributes of soybeans and soil resistance to penetration in no-tillage and chiseled surfaces.

Engenharia Agrícola, Jaboticabal, v.37, n.1, p.98-105, 2017.

CORTEZ, J.W.; OLSZEVSKI, N.; PIMENTA, W. A.; PATROCÍNIO FILHO, A.P.; SOUZA, E.B.; NAGAHAMA, H. D. J. Avaliação da intensidade de tráfego de tratores em alguns atributos físicos de um Argissolo amarelo. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Viçosa, v.38, n.3, p.1000-1010, 2014.

DALCHIAVON, F C; MARCONDES, D. A. P.; CARVALHO, C. G. P. Seed distribution mechanisms and sowing speed on plantability and agronomic characteristics of sunflower. Journal of Agricultural Science, Richmond Hill, v.12, n.4, p.119-127, 2020.

DRESCHER, M. S.; ELTZ, F. L. F.; DENARDIN, J. E.; FAGANELLO, A. Persistência do efeito de intervenções mecânicas para a descompactação de solos sob plantio direto. Revista Brasileira de Ciência de Solo, Viçosa, v.35, n.5, p.1713-1722, 2011.

EDMOND, J. B.; DRAPALA, W. L. The effects of temperature, sand and soil acetone on germination of okra seed. Proceeding of American Society Horticulture Science, Alexandria, v.71, n.2, p.428-434, 1958.

334

Cortez et al./ Soybean establishment.../v36n3p324-334 (2021) EMBRAPA. Guia clima. Disponível em: < https://clima.cpao.embrapa.br/?lc=site%2Fbanco-dados%2Fbase_dados&fbclid=I AR0kGF3AY4kpdp3SSx-LZv8hPBqXhcVLMZ9scuRxWD5RwuvQ-w-H74O7y9M > Acesso em 02 de novembro de 2019.

EMBRAPA. Manual de métodos de análise do solo. 2. ed, Rio de Janeiro: EMBRAPA, 1997.

JABRO J.; STEVENS, W.B; EVANS, R.G.; IVERSEN, W.M. Tillage effects on physical properties in two soils of the northern Great Plains. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Raleigh,v. 25, n. 3, p.377 ‐ 382, 2009.

KLEIN, V.A.; CAMARA, R.K. Rendimento da soja e intervalo hídrico ótimo em latossolo vermelho sob plantio direto escarificado. Revista Brasileira de Ciência de Solo, Viçosa, v.31, n.1, 221-227. 2007.

KURACHI, S.A.H.; COSTA, J.A.S.; BERNARDI, J.A.; COELHO, J.L.D.; SILVEIRA, G.M.

Avaliação tecnológica de semeadoras e/ou adubadoras: tratamento e dados de ensaios e regularidade de distribuição longitudinal de sementes. Bragantia, Campinas, v. 48, n. 2, p. 249 –

262, 1989.

LAFLEN, J. M.; AMEMIYA, M.; HINTZ, E.A. Measuring crop residue cover. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Parsons, v.36, n.6, p. 341-343, 1981.

MONTEIRO, M.A.C.; ZOZ, A.; LIMEDE, A.C.; OLIVEIRA, C.E.S.; ZOZ, T. Efeito do preparo do solo com diferentes implementos sobre a resistência do solo à penetração. Revista de Agricultura Neotropical, Cassilândia, v. 4, n. 2, p. 63-68, 2017.

RIBON, A.A.; TAVARES FILHO, J. Estimativa da resistência mecânica à penetração de uma latossolo vermelho sob cultura perene no norte do estado do Paraná. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Viçosa, v.32, n.5, p.1817-1825, 2008.

RODRIGUES, F.S. Variabilidade espacial da resistência mecânica do solo à penetração em área sob sistema plantio direto. 2014. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Agrícola) -

Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Dourados, 2014.

SEKI, A.S.; SEKI, F.G.; JASPER, S.P.; SILVA, P.R.A.; BENEZ, S.H. Efeitos de práticas de descompactação do solo em área sob sistema plantio direto. Revista Ciência Agronômica, Fortaleza, v. 46, n. 3, p. 460-468, 2015.

STOLF, R. Teoria e teste experimental de fórmulas de transformação dos dados de penetrômetro de impacto em resistência do solo. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Viçosa, Campinas, v.15, n.

2, p. 229 – 235, 1991.

WEIRICH NETO, P.H.; FORNARI, A.J.; JUSTINO, A.; GARCIA, L.C. Qualidade na semeadura do milho. Engenharia Agrícola, Jaboticabal, v.35, n.1, p.171-179, 2015.