|
|
| Acceso al texto completo restringido a Biblioteca INIA Treinta y Tres. Por información adicional contacte bibliott@inia.org.uy. |
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Treinta y Tres. |
Fecha : |
21/02/2014 |
Actualizado : |
11/10/2019 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
Autor : |
TERRA, J.A.; SHAW, J.; REEVES, D. W.; RAPER, R.L.; VAN SANTEN, E.; SCHWAB, E.B.; MASK, P.L. |
Afiliación : |
JOSÉ ALFREDO TERRA FERNÁNDEZ, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay. |
Título : |
Soil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2006 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2006, v.70 (1), p. 98-107. |
ISSN : |
0361-5995 |
DOI : |
10.2136/sssaj2005.0179 |
Idioma : |
Inglés |
Notas : |
Artilce history: Received 8 June 2005 // Published Jan. 2006. |
Contenido : |
A better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama field (Typic and Aquic Paleudults) during 2001–2003. We hypothesize that landscapes have major effects on cotton productivity, but these effects vary based on management and climate. Treatments were established in replicated strips traversing the landscape in a corn (Zea mays L.)–cotton rotation.
Treatments included a conventional system with or without 10 Mg ha21 yr21 dairy manure (CTmanure or CT), and a conservation system with and without manure (NTmanure or NT). Conventional systems consisted of chisel plowing/disking 1 in-row subsoiling without cover crops. Conservation systems combined no surface tillage with in-row subsoiling and winter cover crops. A soil survey, topographic survey, and interpolated surfaces of soil electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), and surface soil texture were used to delineate five zones using fuzzy k-means clustering. Overall (2001–2003), conservation systems improved cotton yield compared with conventional systems (2710 vs. 2380 kg ha21 ); neither manure nor treatment 3 year interactions were significant. The conservation system was more
productive than the conventional system in 87% of the cluster 3 year combinations. Slope, EC, SOC, and clay content were correlated with yield in all treatments. Soil and terrain attributes explained 16 to 64% of yield variation, however, their significance fluctuated between years and treatments. In dry years, factor analyses suggested variables related with soil quality and field-scale water dynamics had greater impacts on CT yields than NT yields. Our results indicate that management zones developed using relatively static soil-landscape data are relatively more suitable for conservation systems, and these zones are affected by soil management. In addition, the impact of NT on yields is most apparent on degraded soils in dry years. MenosA better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama field (Typic and Aquic Paleudults) during 2001–2003. We hypothesize that landscapes have major effects on cotton productivity, but these effects vary based on management and climate. Treatments were established in replicated strips traversing the landscape in a corn (Zea mays L.)–cotton rotation.
Treatments included a conventional system with or without 10 Mg ha21 yr21 dairy manure (CTmanure or CT), and a conservation system with and without manure (NTmanure or NT). Conventional systems consisted of chisel plowing/disking 1 in-row subsoiling without cover crops. Conservation systems combined no surface tillage with in-row subsoiling and winter cover crops. A soil survey, topographic survey, and interpolated surfaces of soil electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), and surface soil texture were used to delineate five zones using fuzzy k-means clustering. Overall (2001–2003), conservation systems improved cotton yield compared with conventional systems (2710 vs. 2380 kg ha21 ); neither manure nor treatment 3 year interactions were significant. The conservation system was more
productive than the conventional system in 87% of the cluster 3 year combinations. Slope, EC, S... Presentar Todo |
Thesagro : |
ALGODON; SUELOS. |
Asunto categoría : |
P36 Erosión conservación y recuperación del suelo |
Marc : |
LEADER 02913naa a2200253 a 4500 001 1032797 005 2019-10-11 008 2006 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 022 $a0361-5995 024 7 $a10.2136/sssaj2005.0179$2DOI 100 1 $aTERRA, J.A. 245 $aSoil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity.$h[electronic resource] 260 $c2006 500 $aArtilce history: Received 8 June 2005 // Published Jan. 2006. 520 $aA better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama field (Typic and Aquic Paleudults) during 2001–2003. We hypothesize that landscapes have major effects on cotton productivity, but these effects vary based on management and climate. Treatments were established in replicated strips traversing the landscape in a corn (Zea mays L.)–cotton rotation. Treatments included a conventional system with or without 10 Mg ha21 yr21 dairy manure (CTmanure or CT), and a conservation system with and without manure (NTmanure or NT). Conventional systems consisted of chisel plowing/disking 1 in-row subsoiling without cover crops. Conservation systems combined no surface tillage with in-row subsoiling and winter cover crops. A soil survey, topographic survey, and interpolated surfaces of soil electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), and surface soil texture were used to delineate five zones using fuzzy k-means clustering. Overall (2001–2003), conservation systems improved cotton yield compared with conventional systems (2710 vs. 2380 kg ha21 ); neither manure nor treatment 3 year interactions were significant. The conservation system was more productive than the conventional system in 87% of the cluster 3 year combinations. Slope, EC, SOC, and clay content were correlated with yield in all treatments. Soil and terrain attributes explained 16 to 64% of yield variation, however, their significance fluctuated between years and treatments. In dry years, factor analyses suggested variables related with soil quality and field-scale water dynamics had greater impacts on CT yields than NT yields. Our results indicate that management zones developed using relatively static soil-landscape data are relatively more suitable for conservation systems, and these zones are affected by soil management. In addition, the impact of NT on yields is most apparent on degraded soils in dry years. 650 $aALGODON 650 $aSUELOS 700 1 $aSHAW, J. 700 1 $aREEVES, D. W. 700 1 $aRAPER, R.L. 700 1 $aVAN SANTEN, E. 700 1 $aSCHWAB, E.B. 700 1 $aMASK, P.L. 773 $tSoil Science Society of America Journal, 2006$gv.70 (1), p. 98-107.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
Registro original : |
INIA Treinta y Tres (TT) |
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
|
| Acceso al texto completo restringido a Biblioteca INIA La Estanzuela. Por información adicional contacte bib_le@inia.org.uy. |
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA La Estanzuela. |
Fecha actual : |
19/07/2022 |
Actualizado : |
20/07/2022 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
Circulación / Nivel : |
Internacional - -- |
Autor : |
LEADLEY, P.; GONZALEZ, A.; OBURA, D.; KRUG, C.B.; LONDOÑO-MURCIA, M.C.; MILLETTE, K.L.; RADULOVICI, A.; RANKOVIC, A.; SHANNON, L.J.; ARCHER, E.; ATO ARMAH, F.; NIC BAX, N,; CHAUDHARI, K.; COSTELLO, M.J.; DÁVALOS, L.M.; ROQUE, F DE O; DECLERCK, F.; DEE, L.E.; ESSL, F.; FERRIER, S.; GENOVESI, P.; GUARIGUATA, M.R.; HASHIMOTO, S.; IFEJIKA SPERANZA, CH.; ISBELL, F.; KOK, M.; LAVERY, S.D.; LECLÈRE, D.; LOYOLA, R.; LWASA, S.; MCGEOCH, M.; MORI, A.S.; NICHOLSON, E.; OCHOA, J.M.; ÖLLERER, K.; POLASKY, S.; RONDININI, C.; SCHROER, S.; SELOMANE, O.; SHEN, X.; STRASSBURG, B.; RASHID SUMAILA, U.; TITTENSOR, D.P.; TURAK, E.; URBINA, L.; VALLEJOS, M.; VÁZQUEZ-DOMÍNGUEZ, E.; VERBURG, P.H.; VISCONTI, P.; WOODLEY, S.; XU, J. |
Afiliación : |
PAUL LEADLEY, Laboratoire d’Ecologie Syste´ matique Evolution, Universite´ Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Paris, France.; ANDREW GONZALEZ, Department of Biology, Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.; DAVID OBURA, Coastal Oceans Research and Development (CORDIO) East Africa, Mombasa, Kenya.; CORNELIA B. KRUG, Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.; MARIA CECILIA LONDOÑO-MURCIA, Scopus Research Institute of Biological Resources Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, Colombia.; KATIE L. MILLETTE, Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.; ADRIANA RADULOVICI, Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.; ALEKSANDAR RANKOVIC, Paris Institute of Political Studies, Paris, France.; LYNNE J. SHANNON, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.; EMMA ARCHER, Department of Geography, Geoinformatics, and Meteorology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.; FREDERICK ATO ARMAH, Scopus Department of Environmental Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.; NIC BAX, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, NSW, Australia.; KALPANA CHAUDHARI, Institute for Sustainable Development and Research (ISDR), Mumbai, India.; MARK JOHN COSTELLO, Faculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, Nord University, Bodø, Norway.; LILIANA M. DÁVALO, Department of Ecology and Evolution, Consortium for Inter-disciplinary Environmental Research, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.; FABIO DE OLIVEIRA ROQUE, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Pioneiros, MS, Brazil.; FABRICE DECLERCK, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Montpellier, France.; LAURA E. DEE, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.; FRANZ ESSL, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.; SIMON FERRIER, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, NSW, Australia.; PIERO GENOVESI, Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Rome, Italy.; MANUEL R. GUARIGUATA, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Lima, Peru,; SHIZUKA HASHIMOTO, Scopus Graduate School of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.; CHINWE IFEJIKA SPERANZA, Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.; FOREST ISBELL, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.; MARCEL KOK, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Hague, the Netherlands.; SHANE D. LAVERY, School of Biological Sciences and Institute of Marine Science University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.; DAVID LECLÈRE, Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.; RAFAEL LOYOLA, International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.; SHUAIB LWASA, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.; MELODIE MCGEOCH, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environment, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.; AKIRA S. MORI, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.; EMILY NICHOLSON, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Science, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.; JOSE M. OCHOA, Coral Reef Ecosystems Lab, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.; KINGA ÖLLERER, Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary.; STEPHEN POLASKY, Department of Applied Economics and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.; CARLO RONDININI, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.; SIBYLLE SCHROER, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, German.; ODIRILWE SELOMANE, Centre for Sustainability Transitions, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.; XIAOLI SHEN, State key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.; BERNARDO STRASSBURG, International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazi.; USSIF RASHID SUMAILA, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.; DEREK P. TITTENSOR, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.; EREN TURAK, New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment, Parramatta, NSW, Australia.; LUIS URBINA, Coral Reef Ecosystems Lab, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.; MARÍA VALLEJOS, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay./Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.; ELLA VÁZQUEZ-DOMÍNGUEZ, Scopus Departamento de Ecología de la Biodiversidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.; PETER H. VERBURG, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.; PIERO VISCONTI, Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.; STEPHEN WOODLEY, International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA), Chelsea, QC, Canada.; JIANCHU XU, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China. |
Título : |
Achieving global biodiversity goals by 2050 requires urgent and integrated actions. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2022 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
One Earth, 2022, Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 597-603. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.05.009 |
DOI : |
10.1016/j.oneear.2022.05.009 |
Idioma : |
Inglés |
Notas : |
Artticle history: Available online 17 June 2022, Version of Record 17 June 2022. |
Contenido : |
Human impacts on the Earth's biosphere are driving the global biodiversity crisis. Governments are preparing to agree on a set of actions intended to halt the loss of biodiversity and put it on a path to recovery by 2050. We provide evidence that the proposed actions can bend the curve for biodiversity, but only if these actions are implemented urgently and in an integrated manner |
Palabras claves : |
Earth's biosphere; Global biodiversity crisis; Global biodiversity framework; Human impacts; PLATAFORMA DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN SALUD ANIMAL; PLATAFORMA SALUD ANINMAL. |
Thesagro : |
BIODIVERSIDAD. |
Asunto categoría : |
L01 Ganadería |
Marc : |
LEADER 02703naa a2200829 a 4500 001 1063438 005 2022-07-20 008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 024 7 $a10.1016/j.oneear.2022.05.009$2DOI 100 1 $aLEADLEY, P. 245 $aAchieving global biodiversity goals by 2050 requires urgent and integrated actions.$h[electronic resource] 260 $c2022 500 $aArtticle history: Available online 17 June 2022, Version of Record 17 June 2022. 520 $aHuman impacts on the Earth's biosphere are driving the global biodiversity crisis. Governments are preparing to agree on a set of actions intended to halt the loss of biodiversity and put it on a path to recovery by 2050. We provide evidence that the proposed actions can bend the curve for biodiversity, but only if these actions are implemented urgently and in an integrated manner 650 $aBIODIVERSIDAD 653 $aEarth's biosphere 653 $aGlobal biodiversity crisis 653 $aGlobal biodiversity framework 653 $aHuman impacts 653 $aPLATAFORMA DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN SALUD ANIMAL 653 $aPLATAFORMA SALUD ANINMAL 700 1 $aGONZALEZ, A. 700 1 $aOBURA, D. 700 1 $aKRUG, C.B. 700 1 $aLONDOÑO-MURCIA, M.C. 700 1 $aMILLETTE, K.L. 700 1 $aRADULOVICI, A. 700 1 $aRANKOVIC, A. 700 1 $aSHANNON, L.J. 700 1 $aARCHER, E. 700 1 $aATO ARMAH, F. 700 1 $aNIC BAX, N, 700 1 $aCHAUDHARI, K. 700 1 $aCOSTELLO, M.J. 700 1 $aDÁVALOS, L.M. 700 1 $aROQUE, F DE O 700 1 $aDECLERCK, F. 700 1 $aDEE, L.E. 700 1 $aESSL, F. 700 1 $aFERRIER, S. 700 1 $aGENOVESI, P. 700 1 $aGUARIGUATA, M.R. 700 1 $aHASHIMOTO, S. 700 1 $aIFEJIKA SPERANZA, CH. 700 1 $aISBELL, F. 700 1 $aKOK, M. 700 1 $aLAVERY, S.D. 700 1 $aLECLÈRE, D. 700 1 $aLOYOLA, R. 700 1 $aLWASA, S. 700 1 $aMCGEOCH, M. 700 1 $aMORI, A.S. 700 1 $aNICHOLSON, E. 700 1 $aOCHOA, J.M. 700 1 $aÖLLERER, K. 700 1 $aPOLASKY, S. 700 1 $aRONDININI, C. 700 1 $aSCHROER, S. 700 1 $aSELOMANE, O. 700 1 $aSHEN, X. 700 1 $aSTRASSBURG, B. 700 1 $aRASHID SUMAILA, U. 700 1 $aTITTENSOR, D.P. 700 1 $aTURAK, E. 700 1 $aURBINA, L. 700 1 $aVALLEJOS, M. 700 1 $aVÁZQUEZ-DOMÍNGUEZ, E. 700 1 $aVERBURG, P.H. 700 1 $aVISCONTI, P. 700 1 $aWOODLEY, S. 700 1 $aXU, J. 773 $tOne Earth, 2022, Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 597-603. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.05.009
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
Registro original : |
INIA La Estanzuela (LE) |
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
Expresión de búsqueda válido. Check! |
|
|