Next Article in Journal
Modelling Soil Water Infiltration and Wetting Patterns in Variable Working-Head Moistube Irrigation
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Characterization of Glutaredoxin Family Genes in Common Wheat
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/agronomy13122986
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Management Practices Affect Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Soil Fertility in Cactus Orchards

by
Diego de Lima Coêlho
1,
José Carlos Batista Dubeux, Jr.
2,*,
Mércia Virginia Ferreira dos Santos
1,
Alexandre Carneiro Leão de Mello
1,
Márcio Vieira da Cunha
1,
Djalma Cordeiro dos Santos
3,
Erinaldo Viana de Freitas
4,
Erick Rodrigo da Silva Santos
5 and
Natália Viana da Silva
1
1
Department of Animal Science, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife 52171-900, Brazil
2
North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32446, USA
3
Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco, Arcoverde 56513-000, Brazil
4
Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco, Recife 50761-000, Brazil
5
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2P5, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(12), 2986; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122986
Submission received: 25 October 2023 / Revised: 18 November 2023 / Accepted: 28 November 2023 / Published: 4 December 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Management practices might alter soil chemical properties. This study evaluated soil chemical properties in a forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. (‘Orelha de Elefante Mexicana’) (OEM) production system in the Brazilian semiarid region. The experiment was established in June 2011, and the design was a split-split-plot in randomized complete blocks, in which the main plots were formed by distinct levels of organic fertilizer (cattle manure) (0, 10, 20, and 30 Mg ha−1 year−1), the subplots were formed by different levels of N inorganic fertilizer applied as urea (0, 120, 240, and 360 kg N ha−1 year−1), and the sub-subplots were distinguished by the distinct OEM harvesting frequency (annual or biennial). Soil samples were collected for chemical analysis, C and N contents analysis, and stocks analysis at 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 cm depths in August 2019. Organic fertilizer contributed to a linear increase in soil pH, Ca2+, Na+, sum of bases (SB), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and base saturation (V) at both depths (p < 0.05). With the application of 30 Mg ha−1 year−1 of cattle manure, there was storage of approximately 126 Mg C ha−1 and 13 Mg N ha−1 at 0 to 20 cm depths. Managing OEM with organic fertilizer and a biennial frequency of harvesting affects the soil’s chemical characteristics in cactus orchards, and it is a sustainable alternative for semiarid regions.

1. Introduction

The global surface temperature has been rapidly increasing in the last century. Anthropogenic activities are considered the main cause of global warming, including the increasing use of fossil fuels and land use. These activities result in the release of greenhouse gases (GHG), which are dominated by carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) [1]. According to FAO [2], 33% of the world’s soils are deteriorated, and about 95% could be degraded by 2050.
The soils of the Brazilian semiarid region are heterogeneous, and they vary in terms of soil classification and, consequently, physical and chemical properties; however, in general, they present phosphorus (P) deficiency and reduced levels of organic matter (OM) [3]. In this region, the cultivation of forage cactus is common, due to its characteristics of adaptation to water scarcity, high temperatures, and low quality soils [4,5], and its use as fodder for livestock [6].
Forage cactus (Opuntia stricta Haw.) Haw. (‘Orelha de Elefante Mexicana’) (OEM), which is from Mexico and was introduced to the region by the Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco (IPA) in 1996 [7], has been shown to be more tolerant to hydric stress; it also has greater biomass production in relation to other genotypes [8], and it is resistant to the carmine cochineal pest (Dactylopius sp.). Therefore, this cultivar is expanding in northeast Brazil [9].
Forage cactus is a crop that extracts large amounts of nutrients from the soil because it is typically used in cut-and-carry systems. Management strategies that improve soil fertility, such as irrigation [10], intercropping [11], management systems [12], inorganic nitrogen (N), fertilization [13], and organic amendments [14], are important, given the high nutrient requirements for growth and increased productivity [15]. Adding cattle manure is a common practice in cactus cropping systems in the Brazilian semiarid region. This increases the root mass of cactus at a 0 to 10 cm soil depth [16], and it also helps to replenish soil nutrients after nutrient removal by harvesting and expand the efficiency of forage production [17].
The harvesting frequency influences the morphological characteristics and the structure of the plant [18]. As for the harvesting intensity, the preservation of a larger residual cladode area provides greater durability of the cactus orchard [19]. In this process, the quantification of changes in soil attributes is a prominent factor that has been used to monitor soil quality [20].
The hypothesis of this study was that organic fertilizer (cattle manure), inorganic N fertilizer (urea) CO(NH2)2 (45% N), and biennial frequency of harvesting of the Orelha de Elefante Mexicana contribute to benefiting the soil’s chemical characteristics. In this context, the aim of this work was to analyze the effect of different management practices on the soil’s chemical properties with forage cactus cultivation in the semiarid region of Brazil.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and Establishment of the Experiment

The experiment was established at the IPA Experimental Station of Arcoverde (08°25′ S, 37°04′ W), Pernambuco, Brazil (Figure 1) in June 2011, and the soil sampling occurred in August 2019 [21]. The average maximum temperature is 29.5 ± 2.6 °C, and the average minimum is 18.5 ± 1.3 °C, with average annual rainfall of 650 mm [22]. The predominant soil is the Regolithic Neosol [23].
Prior to the installation of the experiment, a composite sample for the experimental area originating from eight subsamples taken from a 0 to 20 cm soil depth was examined at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (UFRPE) Soil Fertility Laboratory to obtain the soil chemical attributes (Table 1) [24].
The OEM was used in a split-split-plot in randomized complete blocks, and the main plots (16 × 10.8 m) were constituted by distinct levels of organic fertilizer (cattle manure) (0, 10, 20, and 30 Mg ha−1 year−1). The sub-plots (8 × 5.4 m) were constituted by distinct levels of inorganic N fertilizer (0, 120, 240, and 360 kg N ha−1 year−1), and the sub-subplots (5.4 × 4 m) were distinguished by OEM harvesting frequency (annual or biennial), with four blocks (Figure 1). These levels are suitable for nutrient removal by dense cactus cultivation in the Pernambuco semiarid region, as well as the manure decomposition rate [25].
In each sub-subplot, three rows of OEM were produced, following the spacing of 1.80 m between rows and 0.20 m between plants (Figure 1). The useful area of the plot corresponded to the central row, excluding 0.4 m from each of the two ends of this row (border). Thus, 3.2 m of the central row of each sub-subplot was evaluated.
The levels of organic fertilizer were applied based on the OM concentration of the cattle manure collected at the IPA Experimental Station. Manure was applied once a year and after harvesting, in the rainy season (April). The inorganic N fertilization was split into two annual applications during the rainy season, with one in February and another in May. The source of inorganic N used was urea. Such fertilizers (organic and inorganic) have been used since 2011, and the fertilizers were applied between the rows of OEM cultivation and on the soil surface. In addition to the treatments applied, P and K fertilization was carried out, as well as liming, according to the recommendation of the UFRPE Soil Fertility Laboratory. At harvesting, the primary cladodes were preserved, and after cactus planting, weed control was carried out by hoe weeding, whenever needed.

2.2. Soil Sample Collection and Processing

Two soil samples were collected between OEM rows and two were collected between the OEMs of the same row at 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 cm depths using ‘Dutch’ auger and organized composite samples from each soil depth. The samples (approx. 250 g) were air-dried, homogenized, and sieved at 2 mm to remove residues for soil fertility analysis. Subsamples were sieved at 250 μm for determination of soil C and N total contents.

2.3. Laboratory Analysis

Potential hydrogen (pH) was determined in water (H2O) in the ratio 1:2.5; potential acidity (H + Al) was extracted with 1.0 mol L−1 calcium acetate at pH 7.0 and determined through titration; exchangeable cations of calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), and aluminum (Al3+) were extracted with KCl 1.0 mol L−1 and determined through titration; potassium (K+), sodium (Na+), and phosphorus (P) were extracted with Mehlich-1 (HCl 0.05 mol L−1 and H2SO4 0.0125 mol L−1), and K+ and Na+ ions were determined through flame photometer and P through colorimetry in the presence of ascorbic acid [26]. The cation exchange capacity (CEC), sum of bases (SB), base saturation (V), and soil aluminum saturation were calculated by means of the potential acidity, exchangeable bases, and exchangeable Al3+ values.
Soil C and N total contents were determined through dry combustion in an elemental analyzer. Soil C and N stocks were obtained according to Bernoux et al. [27], and their values were corrected using the fixed mass method, according to Sisti et al. [28].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Soil chemical characteristics and soil C and N contents and stocks data were evaluated through the Proc GLIMMIX of SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA). Organic and inorganic N fertilizer and harvesting frequency were considered fixed effects. The block and its interactions with the fixed effects were random. Least Squares Means were statistically distinct at p < 0.05 according to the piecewise differentiable (PDIFF) procedure adjusted using Tukey’s test. Polynomial contrasts were tested at the 5% significance level to determine effects using the contrast command.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Chemical Characteristics

There was a significant effect (p < 0.05) of organic fertilizer on the values of pH, P, Ca2+, Na+, K+, Al3+, SB, CEC, V, and soil aluminum saturation (Figure 2), and an effect (p < 0.05) of organic fertilizer × inorganic N fertilizer for soil Mg2+ content (Table 2) at a 0 to 10 cm depth.
Significant effect of harvesting frequency on soil pH (p = 0.02, SE = 0.12) was verified, which corresponded to 5.07 and 4.96 based on an annual and biennial frequency, respectively, at a 0 to 10 cm depth. Soil Mg2+ was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.0247, SE = 0.3436), being 2.87 cmolc dm−3 at the annual frequency and 2.45 cmolc dm−3 at the biennial frequency at 0 to 10 cm. Soil Na+ was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.0238, SE = 0.05), being 0.34 cmolc dm−3 at the annual frequency and 0.40 cmolc dm−3 at the biennial frequency at 0 to 10 cm. Soil K+ was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.0195, SE = 0.03), with 0.47 and 0.39 cmolc dm−3 for the annual and biennial frequency, respectively, at 0 to 10 cm. Soil H+ was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.0005, EP = 0.47), which was 3.99 cmolc dm−3 at the annual frequency and 4.51 cmolc dm−3 at the biennial frequency at 0 to 10 cm. Soil V was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.0028, EP = 2.91), which was 64.37 and 61.11%, for the annual and biennial frequency, respectively, at 0 to 10 cm.
A significant effect (p < 0.05) of organic fertilizer was observed on the variables pH, P, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, Al3+, SB, CEC, V, and soil aluminum saturation (Figure 3), and there was a significant effect (p < 0.05) of organic fertilizer × harvesting frequency for soil K+ content (Table 3) and a significant effect (p < 0.05) of N fertilizer × harvesting frequency for soil Al3+ content at a 10 to 20 cm depth (Table 4).
A significant effect of harvesting frequency on soil pH (p = 0.0022, SE = 0.10) was verified, which corresponded to 5.09 and 4.90 for annual and biennial frequencies, respectively, at a 10 to 20 cm depth. Soil Ca2+ was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.02, SE = 0.56), which corresponded to 6.18 cmolc dm−3 at the annual frequency and 5.59 cmolc dm−3 at the biennial frequency at 10 to 20 cm. Soil K+ was also affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.003, SE = 0.04), which was 0.46 and 0.34 cmolc dm−3, based on annual and biennial frequency, respectively, at 10 to 20 cm. Soil H+ was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.004, SE = 0.45), which corresponded to 3.82 cmolc dm−3 at the annual frequency and 4.28 cmolc dm−3 at the biennial frequency at 10 to 20 cm. The soil SB was affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.01, SE = 0.86), for which the values were 9.54 cmolc dm−3 and 8.66 cmolc dm−3 for annual and biennial frequencies, respectively, at 10 to 20 cm. The soil V was also affected by harvesting frequency (p = 0.004, SE = 3.15), which was 63.28 and 59.73%, for the annual and biennial frequencies, respectively, at 10 to 20 cm.

3.2. Soil C and N Contents and Stocks

There was a positive linear effect (p < 0.05) of organic fertilizer at 0 to 10 (Figure 4) and 10 to 20 cm depths (Figure 5) on soil C and N contents and stocks.

4. Discussion

The incremental increase in soil pH according to manure application might be related to the release of ammonia during its decomposition or, possibly, the presence of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in this residue, which neutralizes and displaces elements responsible for acidity, such as H+ [29]. The average pH values were classified as low and medium, according to Sobral et al. [30].
The ability of soil organic matter (SOM) to release or receive H+ ions might affect the soil’s pH. These results corroborate the indicative data of acidic soil, considering a study proposed by Wei et al. [31]. Padilha Junior et al. [14] observed in the soil where Opuntia ficus-indica Mill cv. ‘Gigante’ was cultivated that the pH increased linearly with increasing doses of cattle manure, where the model estimated increments of 0.0042 pH units for each Mg ha−1 year−1 of cattle manure applied. Soil pH represents the aspect of soil productivity, ranging from acidic to alkaline. Organic fertilizer was found to be one of the factors with an important influence on soil pH changes, and it is commonly used to neutralize soil pH [32].
Management strategies that promote the addition of OM to the soil also contribute to the increase in more labile forms of P, with a decrease in adsorption and an increase in P availability for vegetables [33]. Manure applications at two-year intervals and at a rate of 20 Mg ha−1 promoted an increase in soil P contents compared with the soil under Caatinga vegetation in an area adjacent to the cactus orchard [34].
Organic fertilizer tends to increase the K+, Na+, and Mg2+ contents, as it is related to the increase in CEC; however, the rates of increase tend to vary between the different organic fertilizers that release different types and amounts of ions, like the example of cattle manure, which has lower Na+ and Mg2+ contents [35]. The average soil K+ values were ranked as medium (30–60 mg dm−3) and high (>60 mg dm−3) [30]. The average CEC values were classified as medium (5–15 cmolc dm−3) to high (>15 cmolc dm−3) [30], which were obtained with the highest dose of cattle manure, indicating a good productive potential of the soils. Adequate CEC values contribute to improving the soil’s effective cation exchange capacity, thus promoting an increase in the exchangeable base [36].
Cactus pear production needs soil nutrients in the decreasing order of K+, Ca2+, N, and Mg2+; in turn, organic fertilization contributes to greater availability of nutrients [37,38,39] and nutrient uptake by plants. Organic amendments affect soil pH and improve the soil’s physical properties by decreasing soil density and increasing soil porosity, thus reducing mineral leaching [40]. Hence, an increase in soil nutrient availability has the potential to modify morphometric traits and have a beneficial impact on cactus productivity [41].
Nitrogenous fertilizers lead to acidification through the oxidation of NH4+ to NO3−, thus, generating H+ ions and lowering the soil pH [42]. The increased soil acidification could lead to increased soluble Al3+ concentrations in the soil solution [43].
With an input of 10 Mg ha−1 year−1 of organic fertilizer, and regardless of the OEM harvesting frequency, the soils were classified as medium V (50–70%), and with the highest levels of organic fertilizer, the soils were classified as having high V (>70%) [30]. The soil V may be related to the soil Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+ contents, which increased when organic fertilization was used.
The possible explanation for the reduction in soil aluminum saturation with the addition of OM would be the incremental increase in soil pH due to the release of hydroxyls or the complexation of aluminum in the soil solution through the decomposition of organic residues [44]. This contributes to the reduction of soil acidification, as organic inputs effectively bind aluminum and iron [45]. Calcium ions act by maintaining the balance between nutrients, reducing the effect of acid cations as a result [46]. All soils were classified as having low aluminum saturation (<30%) [30]; thus, the exchangeable Al3+ present in the soil did not represent a risk factor for forage cactus productivity in this study.
Less frequent harvesting of forage cactus leads to greater biomass productivity [18], and, consequently, the extraction of nutrients from the soil tends to be higher. Greater biomass productivity with less frequent harvests contribute to the development of plants that are taller and wider, with greater quantity, length, width, and thickness of cladodes, characteristics that reflect higher yields and changes in the chemical composition of forage cactus [47]. Cactus typically has a higher cladode area index (CAI) with biennial frequency when compared to plants harvested annually, and that helps to improve primary productivity [48].
The joint use of organic and chemical fertilizers contributes to improving plant yield, considering that organic fertilizer improves N use efficiency, with an increase in SOC, total N, available P, available K, nitrate, and ammonium contents [49], and it also allows for the improvement of the soil’s physical and chemical attributes due to the slow availability of nutrients through organic fertilization [50] and the rapid increase in nutrient levels for plants due to the rapid availability of chemical fertilizer [51].
Donato et al. [52] observed that the levels of total N in cladode tissues of ‘gigante’ cactus increased with increasing levels of cattle manure applied to the soil, showing a positive linear behavior. Souto Filho [53] did not verify the effect of inorganic N fertilizer (p > 0.05) on forage cactus OEM’s morphological characteristics, such as cladode number, length, width, or thickness, or plant height or width in the same experimental area. The author reported that the results may have been due to the irregular distribution of rainfall in the period evaluated and due to the volatilization from urea [54]. The same author observed a positive effect (p < 0.05) of cattle manure on morphological characteristics of forage cactus (i.e., cladode length, width, number, and plant height), CAI, and dry matter (DM) production. They also observed the effect of harvesting frequency, with greater biomass productivity observed when cactus was harvested every other year (p < 0.05).
The use of organic fertilizers integrates organic compounds into the soil that are decomposed and transformed into essential nutrients available to plants [55,56], and it regulates C cycling and its stabilization. Thus, the addition of organic fertilizer affects the soil organic carbon (SOC) content and its labile fractions [57]. Our study identified that the application of 30 Mg ha−1 year−1 of cattle manure provided a storage of approximately 126 Mg C ha−1 and 13 Mg N ha−1 at 0 to 20 cm depths after eight years. In cultivated soils, SOC can be directly or indirectly affected by changes in land use; thus, due to anthropic disturbances, its storage pattern becomes complex [58], in addition to also promoting changes in soil N stock, which is closely linked to SOC stock [59].
Gross and Glaser [60] verified that the use of swine manure, cattle manure, and farmyard manure resulted in the most significant responses on SOC stocks, yielding 50% with 15.8 Mg ha−1, 32% with 15 Mg ha−1, and 41%, equivalent to 9.7 Mg ha−1, respectively.
Inorganic N fertilizer did not have a marked effect on the soil’s chemical properties in our study, and this information helps with reducing financial costs associated with inorganic industrial fertilizers. Reducing N inputs from industrial fertilizers results in lower C footprint of production systems and improves the resilience of agroecosystems [61]. Soil N inputs are directly associated with emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and other NOx gases that contribute to climate change [62]. Elevated N concentrations can result in detrimental effects, including the repercussions of eutrophication on ecosystems. This includes the collapse of fisheries, the release of toxic compounds from algae blooms, and health issues arising from air pollution due to ammonia-derived aerosol [63,64].
Any soil C stock modification has a significant impact on the atmospheric CO2 concentration, thus influencing the global climate [65]. Suitable SOC stock management plans are likely to be used faster if SOC is recognized as a collaborator in soil health, food security improvement, and other forms of sustainable development, in addition to its role as a means of climate change attenuation [66,67].

5. Conclusions

Managing Orelha de Elefante Mexicana with organic fertilizer and biennial harvesting frequency positively affected the soil’s chemical characteristics. Soil organic carbon stocks increased by at least six folds with the use of 30 Mg ha−1 year−1 of cattle manure. Inorganic N fertilizer application, however, did not affect soil organic C stocks. Therefore, application of organic amendments on cactus orchards is a sustainable practice for semiarid regions, considering not only the positive crop response, but also the increase in the soil’s organic C and N stocks.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the dryGrow Foundation.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the IPA for the field experiment and for the soil fertility analysis at Soil Fertility Laboratory, and the North Florida Research and Education Center, from the University of Florida, Marianna, FL, United States of America for the determination of soil C and N total contents at the Soil and Plant Laboratory.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change. 2023. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  2. FAO—Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO No Brasil. 2021. Available online: https://www.fao.org/brasil/noticias/detail-events/pt/c/1401429/ (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  3. Queiroz, M.G.; Silva, T.G.F.; Zolnier, S.; Jardim, A.M.R.F.; Souza, C.A.A.; Araújo Júnior, G.N.; Morais, J.E.F.; Souza, L.S.B. Spatial and temporal dynamics of soil moisture for surfaces with a change in land use in the semi-arid region of Brazil. Catena 2020, 188, 104457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Salehi, E.; Emam-Djomeh, Z.; Askari, G.; Fathi, M. Opuntia ficus indica fruit gum: Extraction, characterization, antioxidant activity and functional properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 206, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Krümpel, J.; George, T.; Gasston, B.; Francis, G.; Lemmer, A. Suitability of Opuntia ficus-indica (L) Mill. and Euphorbia tirucalli L. as energy crops for anaerobic digestion. J. Arid. Environ. 2020, 174, 104047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Oliveira, J.P.F.; Ferreira, M.A.; Alves, A.M.S.V.; Melo, A.C.C.; Andrade, I.B.; Urbano, S.A.; Suassuna, J.M.A.; Barros, L.J.A.; Melo, T.T.B. Carcass characteristics of lambs fed spineless cactus as a replacement for sugarcane. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Santos, D.C.; Silva, M.C.; Alves, F.A.L.; Freitas, E.V. Botany and cultivars. In Forage Cactus from Planting to Harvesting; Donato, S.L.R., Rodrigues, M.G.V., Eds.; EPAMIG: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2020; pp. 21–41. [Google Scholar]
  8. Silva, E.T.S.; Melo, A.A.S.; Ferreira, M.A.; Oliveira, J.C.V.; Santos, D.C.; Silva, R.C.; Inácio, J.G. Acceptability by Girolando heifers and nutritional value of erect prickly pear stored for different periods. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2017, 52, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bezerra, J.D.C.; Andrade, A.P.; Rêgo, M.M.; Silva, D.S.; Nascimento Júnior, J.R.S.; Araújo, F.S.; Valença, R.L.; Rêgo, E.R.; Pessoa, A.M.S.; Bruno, R.L.A.; et al. Genetic diversity and relationships among Nopalea sp. and Opuntia spp. accessions revealed by RAPD, ISSR and ITS molecular markers. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2022, 49, 6207–6213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Fonseca, V.A.; Santos, M.R.; Silva, J.A.; Donato, S.L.R.; Rodrigues, C.S.; Brito, C.F.B. Morpho-physiology, yield, and water-use efficiency of Opuntia ficus-indica irrigated with saline water. Acta Sci. Agron. 2019, 41, e42631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lima, L.R.; Silva, T.G.F.; Pereira, P.C.; Morais, J.E.F.; Assis, M.C.S. Productive-economic benefit of forage cactus-sorghum intercropping systems irrigated with saline water. Rev. Caatinga 2018, 31, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Amorim, D.M.; Silva, T.G.F.; Pereira, P.C.; Souza, L.S.B.; Minuzzi, R.B. Phenophases and cutting time of forage cactus under irrigation and cropping systems. Pesq. Agropec. Trop. 2017, 47, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Neto, J.D.; Matos, R.M.; Silva, P.F.; Lima, A.S.; Azevedo, C.A.V.; Saboya, L.M.F. Growth and yield of cactus pear under irrigation frequencies and nitrogen fertilization. R. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 2020, 24, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Padilha Junior, M.C.; Donato, S.L.R.; Donato, P.E.R.; Silva, J.A. Attributes of the soil with cactus pear under organic fertilization, different spacings and sampling times. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 2020, 24, 444–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Miranda, K.R.; Dubeux Junior, J.C.B.; Mello, A.C.L.; Silva, M.C.; Santos, M.V.F.; Santos, D.C. Forage production and mineral composition of cactus intercropped with legumes and fertilized with different sources of manure. Cienc. Rural. 2019, 49, e20180324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Coêlho, D.L.; Dubeux, J.C.B.; Santos, M.V.F.; Mello, A.C.L.; Cunha, M.V.; Almeida, B.G.; Santos, D.C.; Santos, E.R.S. Soil physical attributes and plant root mass in forage cactus production system. Acta Hortic. 2022, 1343, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dubeux Júnior, J.C.B.; Araújo Filho, J.T.; Santos, M.V.F.; Lira, M.A.; Santos, D.C.; Pessoa, R.A.S. Mineral fertilization effect on growth and chemical composition of cactus pear-clone IPA 20. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Agrar. 2010, 5, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rocha, R.S.; Voltolini, T.V.; Gava, C.A.T. Productive and structural characteristics of genotypes of irrigated spineless cactus in different cutting intervals. Arch. Zootec. 2017, 66, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Santos, M.V.F.; Lira, M.A.; Dubeux, J.C.B., Jr.; Ferreira, M.A.; Cunha, M.V. Forage cactus. In Forage Plants; Fonseca, D.M., Martuscello, J.A., Eds.; UFV Publisher: Viçosa, Brazil, 2020; pp. 518–550. [Google Scholar]
  20. Soto, R.L.; Padilla, M.C.; Vente, J. Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Coêlho, D.L. Soil and Root System Attributes in Different Forage Production Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  22. INMET—National Institute of Meteorology. Climatic Data from Arcoverde Station. 2017. Available online: https://www.inmet.gov.br/ (accessed on 5 August 2023).
  23. Santos, M.C. Semiarid Notebooks: Riches and Opportunities. Soils of the Semiarid Region of Brazil, 2nd ed.; EDUFRPE: Recife, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mello, A.C.L.; Silva, R.M.; Souza, T.C.; Dubeux, J.C.B., Jr.; Lira, M.A.; Santos, M.V.F.; Coêlho, J.J.; Santos, D.C.; Cunha, M.V. Nutrient concentration in spineless cactus under different planting densities and harvesting management. Acta Hortic. 2019, 1247, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dubeux Junior, J.C.B.; Santos, M.V.F. Nutritional requirements of forage cactus. In Cactus in Northeast Brazil: Current Knowledge and New Perspectives of Use; Menezes, R.S.C., Simões, D.A., Sampaio, E.V.S.B., Eds.; University Press of UFPE: Recife, Brazil, 2005; pp. 105–128. [Google Scholar]
  26. EMBRAPA—Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. Manual of Soil Analysis Methods, 3rd ed.; Revised and Expanded; EMBRAPA: Brasília, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bernoux, M.; Carvalho, M.C.S.; Volkoff, B.; Cerri, C.C. Brazil’s soil carbon stocks. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 888–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sisti, C.P.J.; Santos, H.P.; Kohhann, R.; Alves, B.J.R.; Urquiaga, S.; Boddey, R.M. Change in carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil under 13 years of conventional or zero tillage in southern Brazil. Soil. Tillage Res. 2004, 76, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Malta, A.O.; Pereira, W.E.; Torres, M.N.N.; Malta, A.O.; Silva, E.S.; Silva, S.I.A. Physical and chemical attributes of soil cultivated with soursop, under organic and mineral fertilization. Revista PesquisAgro 2019, 2, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sobral, L.F.; Barreto, M.C.V.; Silva, A.J.; Anjos, J.L. Practical Guide to Interpreting Soil Test Results. 2015. Available online: https://www.bdpa.cnptia.embrapa.br (accessed on 12 March 2023).
  31. Wei, M.; Hu, G.; Wang, H.; Bai, E.; Lou, Y.; Zhang, A.; Zhuge, Y. 35 years of manure and chemical fertilizer application alters soil microbial community composition in a Fluvo-aquic soil in Northern China. Eur. J. Soil. Biol. 2017, 82, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, X.; Xiang, D.Q.; Yang, C.; Wu, W.; Liu, H.B. The spatial variability of temporal changes in soil pH affected by topography and fertilization. Catena 2022, 218, 106586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Andrade, F.V.; Mendonça, E.S.; Alvarez, V.H.; Novais, R.F. Addition of organic and humic acids to Latosols and phosphate adsorption effects. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2003, 27, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alves, R.N.; Farias, I.; Menezes, R.S.C.; Lira, M.A.; Santos, D.C. Prickly pear (Opuntia fícus indica) fodder production after 19 years of cultivation under different planting densities and harvest intensities. Rev. Caatinga 2007, 20, 38–44. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sanya, D.R.A.; Amadji, L.G. Application of cow manure and inorganic fertilizer in one season and carryover of effects in sesame on tropical ferruginous soils. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 13, 2207–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ramos, F.T.; Dores, E.F.G.C.; Weber, O.L.S.; Beber, D.C.; Campelo, J.H., Jr.; Maia, J.C.S. Soil organic matter doubles the cation exchange capacity of tropical soil under no-till farming in Brazil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 3595–3602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Donato, P.E.R.; Donato, S.L.R.; Silva, J.A.; Pires, A.J.V.; Silva Junior, A.A. Extraction/exportation of macronutrients by cladodes of ‘Gigante’ cactus pear under different spacings and organic fertilization. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient. 2017, 21, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jardim, A.M.R.F.; Araújo Júnior, G.N.; Silva, M.J.; Morais, J.E.F.; Silva, T.G.F. Estimates of loss of soil by water erosion to the municipality of Serra Talhada, PE. J. Environ. Anal. Prog. 2017, 2, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alves, H.K.M.N.; Jardim, A.M.R.F.; Souza, L.S.B.; Silva, T.G.F. The application of agrometeorological techniques contributes to the agricultural resilience of forage cactus: A review. Amazon. J. Plant Res. 2018, 2, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shah, M.N.; Wright, D.L.; Hussain, S.; Koutroubas, S.D.; Seepaul, R.; George, S.; Ali, S.; Naveed, M.; Khan, M.; Altaf, M.T.; et al. Organic fertilizer sources improve the yield and quality attributes of maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids by improving soil properties and nutrient uptake under drought stress. J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2023, 35, 102570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Donato, P.E.R.; Pires, A.J.V.; Donato, S.L.R.; Bonomo, P.; Silva, J.A.; Aquino, A.A. Morphometry and yield of cactus pear ‘Gigante’ grown under different spacing and doses of organic fertilization. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Agrar. 2014, 9, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hao, T.; Zhu, Q.; Zeng, M.; Shen, J.; Shi, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, F.; Vries, W. Impacts of nitrogen fertilizer type and application rate on soil acidification rate under a wheat-maize double cropping system. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270, 110888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Behera, S.K.; Shukla, A.K. Spatial distribution of surface soil acidity, electrical conductivity, soil organic carbon content and exchangeable potassium, calcium and magnesium in some cropped acid soils of India. Land. Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Molokobate, M.S.; Haynes, R.J. A glasshouse evaluation of the comparative effects of organic amendments, lime and phosphate on alleviation of Al toxicity and P deficiency in an Oxisol. J. Agric. Sci. 2003, 140, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dai, P.; Cong, P.; Wang, P.; Dong, J.; Dong, Z.; Song, W. Alleviating soil acidification and increasing the organic carbon pool by long-term organic fertilizer on tobacco planting soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ahmed, W.; Jing, H.; Kaillou, L.; Qaswar, M.; Khan, M.N.; Jin, C.; Geng, S.; Qinghai, H.; Yiren, L.; Guangrong, L.; et al. Changes in phosphorus fractions associated with soil chemical properties under long-term organic and inorganic fertilization in paddy soils of southern China. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gomes, G.M.F.; Cândido, M.J.D.; Lopes, M.N.; Maranhão, T.D.; Andrade, D.R.; Costa, J.F.M.; Silveira, W.M.; Neiva, J.N.M. Chemical composition of cactus pear cladodes under different fertilization and harvesting managements. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2018, 53, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dubeux Júnior, J.C.B.; Ben Salem, H.; Nefzaoui, A. Producción y utilización de nopal forrajero en la nutrición animal. In Ecologia del Cultivo, Manejo y Usos del Nopal; Inglese, P., Jacobo, C.M., Nefzaoui, A., Sáenz, C., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; pp. 77–96. [Google Scholar]
  49. Han, J.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, M. Chemical fertilizer reduction with organic fertilizer effectively improve soil fertility and microbial community from newly cultivated land in the Loess Plateau of China. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 2021, 165, 103966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Saraiva, F.M.; Dubeux, J.C.B., Jr.; Cunha, M.V.; Menezes, R.S.C.; Santos, M.V.F.; Camelo, D.; Ferraz, I. Manure source and cropping system affect nutrient uptake by cactus (Nopalea cochenillifera Salm Dyck). Agronomy 2021, 11, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lima, G.F.C.; Rêgo, M.M.T.; Aguiar, E.M.; Silva, J.G.M.; Dantas, F.D.G.; Guedes, F.X.; Lobo, R.N.B. Effect of defferent cutting intensities on morphological characteristics and productivity of irrigated Nopalea forage cactus. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1067, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Donato, P.E.R.; Pires, A.J.V.; Donato, S.L.R.; Silva, J.A.; Aquino, A.A. Nutritional value of cactus pear ‘Gigante’ cultivated under different spacing and cattle manure. Rev. Caatinga 2014, 27, 163–172. [Google Scholar]
  53. Souto Filho, L.T. Morphology, Productivity and Chemical Composition of the Cactus Pear Orelha de Elefante Mexicana under Fertilization and Harvest Frequency. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rodrigues, J.O.; Partelli, F.L.; Pires, F.R.; Oliosi, G.; Espindula, M.C.; Monte, J.A. Ammonia volatilisation from coated urea in conilon coffee crop. Coffee Sci. 2016, 11, 530–537. [Google Scholar]
  55. Paolini, V.; Petracchini, F.; Segreto, M.; Tomassetti, L.; Naja, N.; Cecinato, A. Environmental impact of biogas: A short review of current knowledge. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 53, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jardim, A.M.R.F.; Silva, J.R.I.; Leite, M.L.M.V.; Teixeira, V.I.; Morato, R.P.; Júnior, G.N.A.; Silva, T.G.F. Symbiotic interaction in forage crop cultivations: A review. Amazon. J. Plant Res. 2018, 2, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Li, T.; Zhang, Y.; Bei, S.; Li, X.; Reinsch, S.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J. Contrasting impacts of manure and inorganic fertilizer applications for nine years on soil organic carbon and its labile fractions in bulk soil and soil aggregates. Catena 2020, 194, 104739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tu, C.; He, T.; Lu, X.; Luo, Y.; Smith, P. Extent to which pH and topographic factors control soil organic carbon level in dry farming cropland soils of the mountainous region of Southwest China. Catena 2018, 163, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Heyn, N.; Joergensen, R.G.; Wachendorf, C. Soil organic C and N stocks in the first rotation or poplar plantations in Germany. Geoderma Reg. 2019, 16, e00211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gross, A.; Glaser, B. Meta-analysis on how manure application changes soil organic carbon storage. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; Vries, W.; Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tian, H.; Xu, R.; Canadell, J.G.; Thompson, R.L.; Winiwarter, W.; Suntharalingam, P.; Davidson, E.A.; Ciais, P.; Jackson, R.B.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature 2020, 586, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gu, B.; Zhang, L.; Dingenen, R.V.; Vieno, M.; Grinsven, H.J.V.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Y.; Wang, S.; Ren, C.; et al. Abating ammonia is more cost-effective than nitrogen oxides for mitigating PM2.5 air pollution. Science 2021, 374, 758–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Schulte-Uebbing, L.F.; Beusen, A.H.W.; Bouwman, A.F.; Vries, W. From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution. Nature 2022, 610, 507–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Gao, L.; Becker, E.; Liang, G.; Houssou, A.A.; Wu, H.; Wu, X.; Cai, D.; Degré, A. Effect of different tillage systems on aggregate structure and inner distribution of organic carbon. Geoderma 2017, 288, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Paustian, K.; Lehmann, J.; Ogle, S.; Reay, D.; Robertson, G.P.; Smith, P. Climate-smart soils. Nature 2016, 532, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Chabbi, A.; Lehmann, J.; Ciais, P.; Loescher, H.W.; Cotrufo, M.F.; Don, A.; SanClements, M.; Schipper, L.; Six, J.; Smith, P.; et al. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 307–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 02986 g001
Figure 1. The experimental site and the Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw experimental plots layout, Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Figure 1. The experimental site and the Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw experimental plots layout, Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Agronomy 13 02986 g001
Agronomy 13 02986 g002aAgronomy 13 02986 g002b
Figure 2. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.0007) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.003; standard error [SE] = 0.20) on soil pH; (B) Quadratic effect (p = 0.03) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.02; SE = 43.94) on soil P content (mg dm−3); (C) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0005; SE = 1.14) on soil Ca2+ content (cmolc dm−3); (D) Linear effect (p = 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0008; SE = 0.06) on soil Na+ content (cmolc dm−3); (E) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 0.05) on soil K+ content (cmolc dm−3); (F) Kinetic saturation effect of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 0.07) on soil Al3+ content (cmolc dm−3); (G) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0002; SE = 1.58) on soil SB (cmolc dm−3); (H) Linear effect (p = 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0009; SE = 1.70) on soil CEC (cmolc dm−3); (I) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 4.17) on soil V (%); (J) Logistical effect of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 0.95) on soil aluminum saturation (%) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 0 to 10 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Figure 2. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.0007) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.003; standard error [SE] = 0.20) on soil pH; (B) Quadratic effect (p = 0.03) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.02; SE = 43.94) on soil P content (mg dm−3); (C) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0005; SE = 1.14) on soil Ca2+ content (cmolc dm−3); (D) Linear effect (p = 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0008; SE = 0.06) on soil Na+ content (cmolc dm−3); (E) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 0.05) on soil K+ content (cmolc dm−3); (F) Kinetic saturation effect of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 0.07) on soil Al3+ content (cmolc dm−3); (G) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0002; SE = 1.58) on soil SB (cmolc dm−3); (H) Linear effect (p = 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0009; SE = 1.70) on soil CEC (cmolc dm−3); (I) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 4.17) on soil V (%); (J) Logistical effect of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 0.95) on soil aluminum saturation (%) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 0 to 10 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Agronomy 13 02986 g002aAgronomy 13 02986 g002b
Agronomy 13 02986 g003aAgronomy 13 02986 g003b
Figure 3. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.0006) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.004; SE = 0.17) on soil pH; (B) Linear effect (p = 0.002) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.01; SE = 37.7) on soil P content (mg dm−3); (C) Linear effect (p = 0.0002) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.001; SE = 1.09) on soil Ca2+ content (cmolc dm−3); (D) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0004; SE = 0.44) on soil Mg2+ content (cmolc dm−3); (E) Linear effect (p = 0.0004) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0025; SE = 0.05) on soil Na+ content (cmolc dm−3); (F) Quadratic effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0001; SE = 0.09) on soil Al3+ content (cmolc dm−3); (G) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0007; SE = 1.56) on soil SB (cmolc dm−3); (H) Linear effect (p = 0.0003) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.002; SE = 1.67) on soil CEC (cmolc dm−3); (I) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 4.08) on soil V (%); (J) Logistical effect of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 1.37) on soil aluminum saturation (%) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Figure 3. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.0006) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.004; SE = 0.17) on soil pH; (B) Linear effect (p = 0.002) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.01; SE = 37.7) on soil P content (mg dm−3); (C) Linear effect (p = 0.0002) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.001; SE = 1.09) on soil Ca2+ content (cmolc dm−3); (D) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0004; SE = 0.44) on soil Mg2+ content (cmolc dm−3); (E) Linear effect (p = 0.0004) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0025; SE = 0.05) on soil Na+ content (cmolc dm−3); (F) Quadratic effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0001; SE = 0.09) on soil Al3+ content (cmolc dm−3); (G) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0007; SE = 1.56) on soil SB (cmolc dm−3); (H) Linear effect (p = 0.0003) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.002; SE = 1.67) on soil CEC (cmolc dm−3); (I) Linear effect (p < 0.0001) of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 4.08) on soil V (%); (J) Logistical effect of organic fertilizer (p < 0.0001; SE = 1.37) on soil aluminum saturation (%) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Agronomy 13 02986 g003aAgronomy 13 02986 g003b
Agronomy 13 02986 g004
Figure 4. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.009; SE = 8.52) on soil carbon content (g kg−1); (B) Linear effect (p = 0.0006) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0049; SE = 8.67) on soil carbon stock (Mg ha−1); (C) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.01; SE = 0.93) on soil nitrogen content (g kg−1); (D) Linear effect (p = 0.0007) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.005; SE = 0.92) on soil nitrogen stock (Mg ha−1) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 0 to 10 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Figure 4. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.009; SE = 8.52) on soil carbon content (g kg−1); (B) Linear effect (p = 0.0006) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.0049; SE = 8.67) on soil carbon stock (Mg ha−1); (C) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.01; SE = 0.93) on soil nitrogen content (g kg−1); (D) Linear effect (p = 0.0007) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.005; SE = 0.92) on soil nitrogen stock (Mg ha−1) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 0 to 10 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Agronomy 13 02986 g004
Agronomy 13 02986 g005
Figure 5. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.008; SE = 7.79) on soil carbon content (g kg−1); (B) Linear effect (p = 0.0008) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.005; SE = 8.18) on soil carbon stock (Mg ha−1); (C) Linear effect (p = 0.002) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.01; SE = 0.84) on soil nitrogen content (g kg−1); (D) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.007; SE = 0.87) on soil nitrogen stock (Mg ha−1) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Figure 5. (A) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.008; SE = 7.79) on soil carbon content (g kg−1); (B) Linear effect (p = 0.0008) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.005; SE = 8.18) on soil carbon stock (Mg ha−1); (C) Linear effect (p = 0.002) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.01; SE = 0.84) on soil nitrogen content (g kg−1); (D) Linear effect (p = 0.001) of organic fertilizer (p = 0.007; SE = 0.87) on soil nitrogen stock (Mg ha−1) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. Bars refer to the sample standard error [21].
Agronomy 13 02986 g005
Table 1. Soil chemical attributes before implementing the experiment at 0 to 20 cm depth, Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. P, determined as Mehlich-1; SB, sum of bases; CEC, cation exchange capacity; V, base saturation; OM, soil organic matter. P (mg dm−3); K+, Na+, Al3+, Ca2+, Mg2+, and CEC (cmolc dm−3); V and OM (g kg−1).
Table 1. Soil chemical attributes before implementing the experiment at 0 to 20 cm depth, Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil. P, determined as Mehlich-1; SB, sum of bases; CEC, cation exchange capacity; V, base saturation; OM, soil organic matter. P (mg dm−3); K+, Na+, Al3+, Ca2+, Mg2+, and CEC (cmolc dm−3); V and OM (g kg−1).
PpHCa2+Mg2+Na+K+Al3+SBCECVOM
mg dm−3 cmolc dm−3g kg−1
24.145.623.730.860.130.220.054.907.10690.0019.00
Table 2. Interaction of organic fertilizer × inorganic nitrogen fertilizer for soil Mg2+ content (cmolc dm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 0 to 10 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Table 2. Interaction of organic fertilizer × inorganic nitrogen fertilizer for soil Mg2+ content (cmolc dm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 0 to 10 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
FactorSoil Mg2+ Content
cmolc dm−3
Inorganic nitrogen fertilizer
Organic fertilizer0 kg N ha−1 year−1 120 kg N ha−1 year−1240 kg N ha−1 year−1360 kg N ha−1 year−1
0 Mg ha−1 year−11.00 Ba0.99 Aa0.71 Aa0.73 Ba
10 Mg ha−1 year−12.08 Ba1.71 Aa1.53 Aa1.71 Ba
20 Mg ha−1 year−12.04 Ba3.63 Aa3.19 Aa2.78 ABa
30 Mg ha−1 year−16.78 Aa3.94 Aa3.94 Aa5.78 Aa
p-value0.02
Standard error0.70
Different uppercase letters in the column and different lowercase letters in the row indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Interaction of organic fertilizer × harvesting frequency for soil K+ content (cmolc dm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Table 3. Interaction of organic fertilizer × harvesting frequency for soil K+ content (cmolc dm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
FactorSoil K+ Content
cmolc dm−3
Harvesting frequency
Organic fertilizerAnnualBiennial
0 Mg ha−1 year−10.10 Ca0.11 Ba
10 Mg ha−1 year−10.25 BCa0.22 Ba
20 Mg ha−1 year−10.52 Ba0.39 ABa
30 Mg ha−1 year−10.99 Aa0.66 Ab
p-value0.01
Standard error0.08
Different uppercase letters in the column and different lowercase letters in the row indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Interaction of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer × harvesting frequency for soil Al3+ content (cmolc dm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Table 4. Interaction of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer × harvesting frequency for soil Al3+ content (cmolc dm−3) cultivated with forage cactus Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. at 10 to 20 cm depth in Arcoverde, Pernambuco, Brazil.
FactorSoil Al3+ Content
cmolc dm−3
Harvesting frequency
Inorganic nitrogen fertilizerAnnualBiennial
0 kg N ha−1 year−10.33 Ba0.34 Aa
120 kg N ha−1 year−10.36 ABa0.45 Aa
240 kg N ha−1 year−10.44 ABa0.50 Aa
360 kg N ha−1 year−10.55 Aa0.39 Aa
p-value0.03
Standard error0.06
Different uppercase letters in the column and different lowercase letters in the row indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Coêlho, D.d.L.; Dubeux, J.C.B., Jr.; Santos, M.V.F.d.; Mello, A.C.L.d.; Cunha, M.V.d.; Santos, D.C.d.; Freitas, E.V.d.; Santos, E.R.d.S.; Silva, N.V.d. Management Practices Affect Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Soil Fertility in Cactus Orchards. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122986

AMA Style

Coêlho DdL, Dubeux JCB Jr., Santos MVFd, Mello ACLd, Cunha MVd, Santos DCd, Freitas EVd, Santos ERdS, Silva NVd. Management Practices Affect Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Soil Fertility in Cactus Orchards. Agronomy. 2023; 13(12):2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122986

Chicago/Turabian Style

Coêlho, Diego de Lima, José Carlos Batista Dubeux, Jr., Mércia Virginia Ferreira dos Santos, Alexandre Carneiro Leão de Mello, Márcio Vieira da Cunha, Djalma Cordeiro dos Santos, Erinaldo Viana de Freitas, Erick Rodrigo da Silva Santos, and Natália Viana da Silva. 2023. "Management Practices Affect Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Soil Fertility in Cactus Orchards" Agronomy 13, no. 12: 2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122986

APA Style

Coêlho, D. d. L., Dubeux, J. C. B., Jr., Santos, M. V. F. d., Mello, A. C. L. d., Cunha, M. V. d., Santos, D. C. d., Freitas, E. V. d., Santos, E. R. d. S., & Silva, N. V. d. (2023). Management Practices Affect Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Soil Fertility in Cactus Orchards. Agronomy, 13(12), 2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122986

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop