Growth of Araucaria angustifolia (Bert.) O. Ktze. in different soils in Passo Fundo, RS National Forest
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X25017Abstract
The growth of Araucaria angustifolia (Bert.) O. Ktze., in Passo Fundo, RS National Forest was studied, wich the objective to invesetigate differences in the productivity of planting implanted in different types of soil. Data were selected from 400 m2 area square plots selected by simple randomization method. Better growth and, therefore, greater wood productivity was found for Latosol Roxo, where Araucaria angustifolia obtained a mean annual increment equal to 16,67 m3/ha. This results differs greatly from the 6,26 m3/ha obtained for Lithosol Eutrophic Soil and from the scarce 3,51 m3/ha found for the Low-Humic Gley. The growth variation in these soils might be related to their characteristics.
Downloads
References
BLAKE, G.R. - Buk density. In: BLACK, C.A. Methods of Soil Analysis. Madison, American Society of Agronomy, 1965. Part 1, Capo 30, p. 374-91. (Agronomy, 9).
DE HOOG, R.J. Site-nutrition - growth relationships of Araucaria angustifolia (Bert.) O. Ktze. in Southern Brasil. Freiburg. 161 p. Tese Ph.D. 1981.
____________. & DIETRICH, A.B. Avaliação de sitio para Araucaria angustifolia (Bert.) O. Ktze. em povoamentos artificiais. Brasil Florestal, Brasília, (37):19-71, 1979.
EMBRAPA. Manual de métodos de análise de solo. Rio de Janeiro, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Ministério da Agricultura. Serviço Nacional de Levantamento e Conservação de solos. 1979.
GOLFARI, L. Coníferas aptas para repoblaciones forestales en el Estado de São Paulo. Silvicultura em São Paulo, (6):7-62, 1967.
KEMPER, W.D. & CHEPIL, W.S. Size distribuition of agregation. In: BLACK, C.A. Methods of Soil Analysis. Madison, American Society of Agronomy, 1965. Part 1, Capo 39. p. 499-510. (Agronomy,9).
LASSERE, S.R.; VAIRETTI, M. & LASSERE, E.N.E. - Crecimiento de Araucaria angustifolia (Berto1.) O. Kuntze, en distintos tipos de suelos de Puerto Piray, Misiones. IDIA, (7):36-45, 1972.Suplemento Florestal.
MOTA, F.S.; BEIRSDORF, M.I.C. & GARCEZ, J.R.B.- Zoneamento agroclimático do Rio Grande do Sul e Santa Catarina. Normais agroclimáticas. Pelotas, RS, v. I. Ministério da Agricultura. Departamento Nacional de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Instituto de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Sul. 1971. 80 p. + Anexos.
OLIVEIRA, L.B. - Determinação da macro e microporosidade pela mesa de tensão, em amostras de solo com estrutura indeformada. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, (3):197-200, 1968.
VAN GOOR, C.P. - Classificação da capacidade da terra em relação
ao reflorestamento com Pinus elliottii Eng. var. elliottii e Araucaria angustifolia (Bert.) O. Ktze., no Estado de São Paulo. Silvicultura em São Paulo, (4): 349-66, 1965/66.
VETTORI, L. - Métodos de análise de solo. Rio de Janeiro. Ministério da Agricultura. Divisão de Pedologia e Fertilidade do Solo. 1969. 24p. (Boletim técnico, 7).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
