Resposta de cultivares de trigo (Triticum aestivum L.) a teores de alum赤nio no solo = Response from wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars to aluminum content for the soil

作者：Cindia Sordi; Lucia Helena Pereira Nobrega; Adriana Smanhotto

来源：Acta Scientiarum - Agronomy, 2007.

• desenvolvimento de plantas
• fertilidade do solo
• rendimento
• development of plants
• soil fertility
• productivity

Nove cultivares de trigo, sob condi es de fertilidade do solo - sem alum赤nio troc芍vel e sem adubo (I), com alum赤nio troc芍vel e sem adubo (II), sem alum赤nio troc芍vel e aduba o (III) com 250 kg ha-1 da f車rmula 4-20-20 foram avaliadas na safra 2001/2002 emrela o 角 estatura de plantas, peso do hectolitro e rendimento. Os resultados foram comparados pelo teste de Tukey a 5% de significancia, concluindo-se que os tratamentos interferiram nos parametros avaliados. No tratamento I, apresentou desempenho melhor acultivar BRS 49. No tratamento II, apresentou melhor desempenho a cultivar IAPAR 53 e no tratamento III, apresentou melhor desempenho a cultivar CD 105. A cultivar OR 1, por谷m, n o apresentou desempenho satisfat車rio, apresentando menor rendimento em todos os tratamentos. O tratamento II apresentou maior rendimento que o I, justificado,possivelmente, pelo alto teor de mat谷ria organica que, em determinadas situa es, consegue complexar o alum赤nio. O rendimento m谷dio foi mais elevado no tratamento III. Nine wheat cultivars were carried out under three different soilfertility conditions, without exchangeable aluminum nor fertilizer (I), with exchangeable aluminum but without fertilizer (II), and without exchangeable aluminum plus 250 kg ha-1 of 4-20-20 fertilizer formula (III) for 2001/2002 harvest. Plants%26apos; height, hectolitric weight and productivity were recorded. Significant differences were observed at 5% using the Tukey test, concluding that fertility treatments interfered on the evaluated parameters. For the first treatment, BRS 49 cultivar was recommended. For treatment II, IAPAR 53 cultivar presented better performance. As for the third treatment, CD 105 cultivar was recommended. OR 1 cultivar, on the other hand, was not recommended, since it presented the lowest productivity. Finally, results showed that treatment II presented betterproductivity than treatment I, probably because of its great percentage of organic matter, which, sometimes, can inhibit aluminum. Average productivity was recorded as the highest in treatment III.