Artigo Journal

8/8/2019 Artigo Journal

1/10

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Sousa, Robson Thiago]

On: 13 May 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 922227468]

Publisher Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Plant NutritionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597277

SLAG EFFICACY AS A LIME AND SILICON SOURCE FOR RICE CROPSTHROUGH THE BIOLOGICAL METHODRobson Thiago Xavier de Sousa a;Gaspar Henrique Korndrfer ba Department of Agricultural Engineering, Universidade Federal de Uberlndia, Uberlndia, Brazil b

Soil Science Department, Universidade Federal de Uberlndia, Uberlndia, Brazil

Online publication date: 13 May 2010

To cite this Article de Sousa, Robson Thiago Xavier andKorndrfer, Gaspar Henrique(2010) 'SLAG EFFICACY AS A LIMEAND SILICON SOURCE FOR RICE CROPS THROUGH THE BIOLOGICAL METHOD', Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33: 8,1103 1111

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01904161003763716URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904161003763716

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly

or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597277http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904161003763716http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904161003763716http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597277


2/10

Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33:11031111, 2010Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0190-4167 print / 1532-4087 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01904161003763716

SLAG EFFICACY AS A LIME AND SILICON SOURCE FOR RICE CROPSTHROUGH THE BIOLOGICAL METHOD

Robson Thiago Xavier de Sousa1 and Gaspar Henrique Korndorfer2

1Department of Agricultural Engineering, Universidade Federal de Uberl andia, Uberl andia,Brazil2

Soil Science Department, Universidade Federal de Uberl andia, Uberl andia, Brazil

2 There is little information about the best silicon (Si) sources for agricultural use, and yet someproducts have already been marketed as sources of this element. One of these products is slag, whichis used as a source for Si and lime. This study evaluated the silicon supply availability and efficacyof different silicate slag types for rice crops. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse, usedEntisol Quatzipsamment soil and was set up in randomized blocks with three replications. Si sourcereactivity was evaluated using five metallurgic slag types and Wollastonite, which is considered astandard in Si studies. Doses of each Si source were 1000 and 2000 mg dm3 of Si and a control(additional treatment). Soil data [soluble Si, calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+) and pH] and

rice growth and yield were recorded. Data were evaluated by analysis of variance and contrastswere made for comparisons between each slag type and the additional treatment. Averages werecompared by the Scott Knott test at 5% with the statistics program SISVAR. The efficacy of theslag types in supplying Si for the plants (ESSi) and in increasing Si availability in the soil (ESiA)was determined from the values of contrast estimates. Slag E3 and Wollastonite were effective inincreasing soil silicon availability and, consequently, the efficacy of supplying silicon for the plants,while the other slag types had low efficacy.

Keywords: slag, silicon, rice

INTRODUCTION

The necessity of Silicon (Si) as a nutrient for plants is not completely clear yet (Epstein and Bloom, 2006). However, absorption of this nutrient canbring innumerable benefits, especially for Si accumulating plants such as rice(Mengel and Kirkby, 2001; Epstein and Bloom, 2006). Recent studies havedemonstrated the mechanism by which Si, in the form of monosilicic acid

Received 18 February 2008; accepted 16 February 2010.Address correspondence to Gaspar Henrique Korndorfer, Soil Science Department, Universidade

Federal de Uberlandia, Av. Amazonas s/n, P.O Box 593, CEP: 38.400-902, Uberlandia, MG, Brazil. E-mail:[email protected]

1103


3/10

1104 R. T. X. de Sousa and G. H. Kornd orfer

[Si(OH)4 or H4SiO4], is actively transported through the membranes of riceroot tissues (Ma et al., 2002). However, Si absorption from the soil is not onlydependent on the plant, but also on the availability of this nutrient in the soil.

Silicon oxide (SiO2) is the most abundant mineral in the soil, constitutingthe structural base of most clay minerals. In tropical soils, however, due tothe advanced stage of weathering, Si is found mostly in the form of quartz,opals (SiO2 nH2O) and other non-available forms for plants.

Applying silicate as a fertilizer and source of lime to weathered soils withlow Si availability, as are most tropical soils, can significantly increase its avail-ability in the soil and for plants. This leads to increased yield as a result ofseveral indirect effects, such as more erect leaves, reduced self-shading, morerigid structural tissues (resulting in reduced plant lodging), decreased dis-ease incidence, diminished pest attack and increased plant tolerance to abi-

otic stress such as reducing toxicity to iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), aluminum(Al), and sodium (Na) (Epstein and Bloom, 2006; Marschner, 1995). Sili-cons importance for rice has been demonstrated in several studies (Pereiraet al., 2004; Carvalho-Pupatto, 2003; Berni and Prabhu, 2003).

Even though some products, such as metallurgic aggregates (slag), arebeing sold as silicon sources for agricultural use, there is scant informationabout which source is best. Slag is abundant and cheap and comes fromhigh temperature (usually above 1400C) iron and steel processing wherelime (calcitic or dolomitic) reacts with silicon (SiO2) present in the iron ore.High concentrations of calcium oxide (CaO) and magnesium oxide (MgO)

silicates in slag allow its use as a soil acidity corrective and as a source ofcalcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) for plants. Using slag as a Si source andsoil corrective has the additional benefit of reducing what would otherwisebe considered industrial waste (Prado and Fernandes, 2000).

Criteria for choosing the best silicon sources include: high soluble Silevels, high reactivity, high levels of CaO and MgO, low levels of heavymetals and low cost. Silicon sources vary around the world. For example,in Japan, steel mill waste is the most important, while in the United States,

waste from elementary phosphorus manufacturing is used, and in Brazil thesource with the greatest potential for increased crop quality and yield has yetto be identified. More research is needed to stimulate the use of metallurgicslag in Brazilian agriculture.

The reason for this study arose from a search for more information aboutthe use of silicon in agriculture and the performance of different types ofsilicate slag in regard to their silicon availability, efficacy, and effect on ricegrowth and yield.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rice plants were greenhouse grown in 10 dm3

pots. The substrate usedwas collected at a depth of 10 to 20 cm from an Entisol Quatzipsamment


4/10

Slag Efficacy as a Lime and Silicon Source 1105

TABLE 1 Chemical and physical characteristics of Entisol Quatzipsamment (RQo) from a depth of 10to 20 cm

pH P meh1 Si Al3+ Ca2+ Mg2+ BS t T V m Sand Silt Clay M.O.

mg dm3 mmolc dm3 % g kg1 g kg1

5.0 5.3 2.2 6 3 1 5 11 43 11 57 17 880 0 120

P-Mehlich-I and K-Extractor Mehlich-I (HCl 0.05 N+H2SO4 0.025 N); Si: extractor CaCl2 (Korndorfer2004); Ca, Mg and Al: extractor KCl 1 mol L-1; t: effective CEC; T: potential CEC (at pH 7.0); BS: basesaturation; m: aluminum saturation (EMBRAPA, 1999).

Texture analysis: pipette method (EMBRAPA, 1999).

soil in Santa Vitoria County, MG, Brazil. The soil was air dried and sievedthrough a 2 mm screen and then its chemical and physical characteristics

were determined (Table 1).The experiment was set up in randomized blocks with three replications

as a 2 6 + 1 factorial [two Si doses (1000 or 2000 mg dm3) for six sources(Wollastonite and five slag types, coded as E1, E2, E3, E4, and E5) anda control treatment without silicon application]. The blocks were definedas a function of the position of the pots in the greenhouse bench. Thechemical characteristics of the slag types are presented in Table 2. Beforechemical analysis and application, slag was sieved through a 0.3-mm screen.

Appropriate amounts of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) p.a. and magnesiumcarbonate (MgCO3) p.a. were added to each of the slag treatments in order

to achieve the same total quantity of Ca and Mg in each and consequentlyisolate total Si as the only variable. After slag was added to the pots, the soilwas incubated for 20 days and soil moisture was maintained with distilledwater at 70% of the total pore volume. The water volume was replenished asrequired.

After incubation, a base fertilization was done with 200 mg dm3 nitro-gen (N), 87 mg dm3 phosphorus (P), 249 mg dm3 potassium (K), and100 mg dm3 FTE-BR12 [micronutrient fertilizer containing 9% zinc (Zn),1.8% boron (B), 2% manganese (Mn), 0.8% copper (Cu), 0.1% molybde-num (Mo), and 3% iron (Fe)]. The commercial sources for N, P, and K were

TABLE 2 Chemical characteristics of slag: total and soluble silicon, CaO, and MgO content

Total1 Si Soluble1 Si CaO2 MgO2

Slags Material type %

E1 Powder 14.3 0.58 6.61 5.10

E2 Powder 18.4 0.69 39.25 5.47E3 Powder 17.9 0.70 42.06 28.93E4 Powder 30.3 0.42 33.64 10.69E5 Powder 20.7 0.36 25.23 7.4

1Determined according to the methods described by Korndorfer et al. (2004).2Determined according to the methods described by EMBRAPA (1999).


5/10


ammonium sulfate, single superphosphate, and potassium chloride, respec-tively. Twenty seeds of rice (cv. Fanny) were sown per pot, and thinning

was done after the third leaf had expanded, leaving eight plants per pot.

Afterwards, the pots were flooded to 4 cm above the soil surface.The plants were harvested at the end of the growth cycle and the panicleswere separated from the rest of the plant. The green matter was dried ina forced air oven at 6570C until it reached a constant weight and then

weighed to determine the dry matter. The panicles were weighed and thegrains separated and weighed. The biomass was evaluated for green matter,dry matter, grain yield per pot and panicle weight per pot.

The dry leaves were ground in a Wiley mill type and sieved through a 20mesh screen and chemically analyzed to determine Si content, as describedby Korndorfer et al. (2004). Silicon accumulated in the aboveground matter

was determined from the total dry matter yield and Si content in these tissues.Soil from the pots was sampled and analyzed for soluble Si (Korndorferet al., 2004), calcium chloride (CaCl2) pH, and exchangeable Ca

2+ andMg2+ according to the methods described by EMBRAPA (EMBRAPA, 1999).

Data were tested by an analysis of variance. Contrasts were made betweeneach slag source and the additional treatment and averages were comparedusing the Scott Knott test at 5%, with the statistics program SISVAR (Ferreira,2000).

Based on the contrast estimates, the efficacy value of each slag type insupplying Si for the plants (ESSi %) and its efficacy in increasing soil Si

availability (ESiA %), were determined by the following equations:

ESSi = [( ASiEi..j ASiC)/ ASiW ASiC] 100 (1)

Where: ESSiEfficacy in supplying Si for the plants; ASiEi..jAverage Si accumulation in aboveground matter for treatments

with the given slag doses (i to j);ASiCAverage Si accumulation in aboveground matter for the control treat-

ment;

ASiWAverage Si accumulation in aboveground matter for the treatmentwith Wollastonite doses.

ESiA= [(ESiEi..j ESiC)/ESiW ESiC] 100 (2)

Where: ESiAEfficacy in increasing soil Si availability;ESiEi..jAverage Si content in the soil for treatments with the given slag

doses (i to j);ESiTAverage Si content in the soil for the control treatment;

ESiWAverage Si content in the soil for the treatment with Wollastonitedoses.


6/10


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Source variation, silicon dose, slag source and the interactions betweenthem did not significantly affect aboveground fresh matter (AGFM), above-

ground dry matter (AGDM), yield, grain, and panicle weights (Table 3).However, the doses and sources significantly affected leaf Si content andaccumulation in aboveground matter (Table 3). Wollastonite produced the

TABLE 3 Effect of different slag types and Wollastonite on plant growth, yield, and silicon absorption

and accumulation of rice

SlagDose(mg dm3) E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Wollastonite Average

Aboveground Fresh Matter AGFM (g pot1)

1000 191.01 188.5 217.5 214.8 205.0 226.5 207.22000 192.9 223.9 188.5 199.9 188.8 221.6 202.6 Average 192.0 206.2 203.0 207.4 196.9 223.8CV2 (%) = 11.9 FSOURCE(S) =

1.212nsFDOSE(D) = 0.314

ns FSD = 1.246ns FBLOCK= 0.727

ns

Aboveground Dry MatterAGDM (g pot1)1000 49.94 47.12 52.22 49.26 50.61 54.20 50.552000 52.15 53.21 55.68 51.80 51.25 57.70 53.63

Average 51.04 50.16 53.95 50.52 50.92 55.95CV (%) = 11.7 FSOURCE(S) =

1.348ns

FDOSE(D) = 1.244ns FSD = 0.243

ns FBLOCK= 0.727ns

Grain MassGM (g pot1)

1000 36.70 31.44 41.34 32.21 44.78 39.96 37.742000 35.90 39.72 39.35 36.73 36.73 56.83 40.88 Average 36.29 35.59 40.34 34.47 40.76 43.40CV (%) = 25.7 FSOURCE(S) =

1.546nsFDOSE(D) = 0.863

ns FSD = 1.1240ns FBLOCK= 11.99

Panicle MassPM (g pot1)1000 56.31 49.12 62.89 48.61 67.47 61.43 57.652000 54.78 62.60 58.43 57.93 57.47 83.05 62.39 Average 55.54 55.86 60.66 53.30 62.50 72.24CV (%) = 22.0 FSOURCE(S) =

1.643ns

FDOSE(D) = 1.161ns FSD = 1.2420

ns FBLOCK= 7.63

Leaf Si ContentSiC (g kg1)1000 18 20 19 14 18 21 18 b2000 22 27 27 15 22 28 24 a Average 20 B 24 A 23 A 14 C 20 B 24 A

CV (%) = 12.1 FSOURCE(S) = 13.5 FDOSE(D) = 39.47 FSD = 1.577ns FBLOCK= 5.930

Si AccumulationASi (g pot1)1000 0.90 0.96 1.09 0.67 0.90 1.13 0.94 b2000 1.15 1.43 1.51 0.76 1.12 1.62 1.26 a Average 1.02 B 1.20 A 1.30 A 0.71 C 1.00 C 1.37 A

CV (%) = 11.8 FSOURCE(S) = 20.4 FDOSE(D) = 55.09

FSD = 2.433ns

1

Averages followed by the same letter, lowercase in the column and capital in the line, are not signifi-cantly different by the Scott Knott test at 5%. 2 CV: coefficient of variance.


7/10


TABLE 4 Contrast estimates for production indices, growth, Si content in aboveground matter and Siaccumulation for the differences between Si sources and the treatment without Si application (Control)

Contrast AGFM AGDM PM GM SiC ASi

Si Sources vs. Control 24.70ns 7.8ns 10.37ns 7.29ns 0.08 0.54

Wollastonite vs. Control 43.64 11.21 22.58 16.37 0.12 0.81

E1 vs. Control 11.78ns 6.31ns 5.90ns 4.28ns 0.08 0.46


E3 vs. Control 22.83ns 11.90 11.01ns 8.32ns 0.10 0.74

E4 vs. Control 27.20ns 5.80ns 3.64ns 2.45ns 0.02ns 0.15ns


, nsSignificant at 5% and non-significant, respectively.

greatest values for Si content and aboveground matter accumulation, al-though these values were not significantly different from E2 and E3 slag.

The correlation between silicon sources and the control treatment in-dicated that only the Wollastonite application significantly increased plantgrowth and yield (Table 4). These results are in agreement with those re-ported by Liang et al. (1994), who found no statistical differences in slagstudies. Such results could be attributed to a possible low efficacy of slag inreleasing Si to the soil and supplying it to the plants. However, only plantstreated with the E4 slag showed lower content values and silicon amounts in

shoots (Table 4).The lack of plant growth in response to Si applications is explained bythe fact that these experiments were done in greenhouses, where the plantsunderwent little or no stress. It has been suggested that silicon is responsiblefor increased plant resistance to abiotic stress like water deficit and heavymetal toxicity, and to biotic stress, such as plant pathogens (Epstein andBloom, 2006).

There was no significant increase in grain mass for the Fanny cultivar,counter to the results found by Korndorfer et al. (1999), Deren et al. (1994)and Liang et al. (1994). However, similar results were found by Mauad

et al. (2003), who analyzed the cultivar IAC-202, thus indicating the greatvariability of rice genotypes in their ability to take up Si. It is also important tonote that rice genotypes have different capacities of silicon uptake (Winslow,1992).

TABLE 5 Slag efficacy in supplying Si to the plants (EESi)

Source Wollastonite E1 E2 E3 E4 E5

EFSi (%) 100 a1 55.5 c 18.5 d 91.4 a 79.0 b 56.8 c

1Averages followed by the same letter are not significantly different by the Scott Knott test at 5%.


8/10


TABLE 6 Effect of different slag types and Wollastonite on exchangeable Si, Ca and Mg levels and soilpH

SlagDose

(mg dm3) E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Wollastonite Average

Si in the soil (mg kg1)1000 1.031 1.06 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.27 1.07 b2000 1.03 1.23 1.70 1.10 1.23 1.50 1.30 a

Average 1.03 B 1.15 B 1.40 A 1.05 B 1.12 B 1.38 ACV2 (%) = 16.3 FSOURCE(S) =

4.22FDOSE(D) =

11.78FSD = 1.6704

ns FBLOCK= 0.1400ns

Ca in the soil (cmolc dm3)

1000 3.81 3.70 3.45 3.80 3.60 3.91 3.712000 4.07 3.53 3.15 3.58 3.50 3.47 3.55 Average 3.94 3.61 3.30 3.70 3.55 3.70

CV (%) = 10.8 FSOURCE(S) =1.674ns FDOSE(D) =1.494ns F

S

D = 0.549ns

FBLOCK= 2.090ns

Mg in the soil (cmolc dm3)

1000 0.53 0.55 0.24 0.60 0.56 0.59 0.512000 0.57 0.65 0.07 0.52 0.57 0.53 0.48 Average 0.55 A 0.60 A 0.16 B 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.56 ACV (%) = 23.9 FSOURCE(S) =

11.8FDOSE(D) =

0.527nsFSD = 0.974

ns FBLOCK= 0.741ns

pH1000 6.16 5.51 5.51 5.30 5.37 5.70 5.582000 6.45 5.36 5.54 5.23 5.39 5.45 5.56

Average 6.30 A 5.43 B 5.52 B 5.26 C 5.37 C 5.56 B

CV (%) = 2.9 FSOURCE(S) =32.3 FDOSE(D) =0.7495ns F

S

D = 0.1311ns

1Averages followed by the same letter, lower case in the column and capital in the line, are notsignificantly different by the Scott Knott test at 5%. 2 CV: coefficient of variance.

Slag 3 was more effective in supplying Si for the plants (Table 5), andwas not statistically different from Wollastonite. In contrast, slag E2 was theworst at supplying this element.

Regarding soil chemical characteristics, significant changes were foundin pH and exchangeable Mg among the sources, but not for the doses

TABLE 7 Contrast estimates of exchangeable content of Si, Ca and Mg in the soil and soil pH for eachSi source and the treatment without Si application (Control)

Contrasts Ca Mg Si pH

Si Sources vs. Control 0.54 0.21 0.28 0.26

Wollastonite vs. Control 0.48ns 0.15ns 0.48 0.28

E5 vs. Control 0.62 0.15ns 0.22ns 0.46

E4 vs. Control 0.48ns 0.16ns 0.15ns 0.58

E3 vs. Control 0.88 0.55 0.50 0.31

E2 vs. Control 0.56 0.11ns 0.25ns 0.41

E1 vs. Control

0.24

ns 0.16

ns

0.13

ns

0.46

, NS: Significant at 5% and non-significant, respectively.


9/10


TABLE 8 Slag efficacy in supplying Si to the soil (EASi)

Source Wollastonite E1 E2 E3 E4 E5

EASi (%) 100 a1 45.8 b 33.3 c 104.2 a 52.1 b 27.1 c

1Averages followed by the same letter are not significantly different by the Scott Knott test at 5%.

applied, because of the calcium and magnesium balancing treatments. Eventhough Mg doses were balanced for all treatments, the soil treated withslag E3, had the lowest amount of exchangeable Mg after rice cultivation(Table 6). This result could be attributed to the low Mg solubility of thisslag and consequent low availability for plants. Exchangeable Si levels in thesoil were affected by slag sources and doses; irrespective of the source, the2000 mg dm3 dose produced the highest quantities. Regardless of the dose,slag E3, and Wollastonite, which were not statistically different from eachother, supplied more exchangeable Si than any other slag type (Table 6).Exchangeable Ca levels in the soil did not differ significantly with dose orsource.

Slag E1 was highly effective as a soil corrective (Table 6), however, as aSi source, its efficacy (ESSi) was only half that of Wollastonite (Table 5).

In general, there was an increase in Si availability and a simultaneousdecrease in soil pH and levels of exchangeable Ca and Mg after rice culti-

vation (Table 7). Soils treated with the E2, E3, and E5 slag types resultedin reduced levels of exchangeable Ca, while the treatment with slag E3 re-duced exchangeable Mg levels compared to the control. After cultivation, alltreatments except slag E1 had lower pH values (Table 7). This effect couldbe attributed to rhizosphere acidification caused by rice. Furthermore, acid-ification was intensified because the rice was grown in pots and their rootsgrew sufficiently to occupy most of the soil volume.

Only Wollastonite and slag E3 significantly increased exchangeable Silevels in the soil relative to the control treatment (Table 7). This resultconfirms that the efficacy of slag E3 was high in supplying Si for the plants,

since its performance was similar to that of Wollastonite.Like Wollastonite, which is considered the standard (100%), slag E3

effectively supplied Si to the soil (Table 8), as well as to the plants(Table 5).

CONCLUSION

Like Wollastonite, Slag E3 effectively increased Si availability to the soiland, consequently, to the plants, while all other slag types had low efficacy.None of the slag types affected rice growth or yield in this experiment.


10/10


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to express gratitude for the support of FAPEMIGand CNPq as well as to the HOLCIM cement company for their financial

support and for supplying the material (slag) used in this study.

REFERENCES

Berni, F. R., and S. A. Prabhu. 2003. Eficiencia relativa de fontes de silcio no controle de brusone nasfolhas de arroz [Relative efficiency of silicon sources in controlling brusone on rice leaves]. PesquisaAgropecu aria Brasileira38: 195201.

Carvalho-Pupatto, J. G., L. T. Bull, C. A. C. Crusciol, M. Mauad, and R. H. Silva. 2003. Efeito de esc oriade alto forno no crescimento radicular e na produtividade de arroz [Effect of blast furnace slag onrice yield and root growth]. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira38: 13231328.

Deren, C. W., L. E. Datnoff, G. H. Snyder, and F. G. Martin. 1994. Silicon concentration, disease response,

and yield components of rice genotypes grown on flooded organic histosols. Crop Science34: 733737.EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria). 1999. Manual de M etodos de An alise de Solo.

[Manual of soil analysis method]. Rio de Janeiro: Ministerio da Agricultura Press.Epstein, E., and A. J. Bloom. 2006. Nutric ao Mineral de Plantas: Princpios e Perspectivas. [Plant Mineral

Nutrition: Principles and Perspectives], 2nd.ed. Londrina, Brazil: Planta Press.Ferreira, D. F. 2000. Analises estatsticas por meio do Sisvar para Windows versao 4.0. [Statistical analysis

using Sisvar, version 4.0 for Windows]. In: Reuni ao Anual da Regi ao Brasileira da Sociedade Internacional

de Biometria, 45. 2000, S ao Paulo. Proceedings. Sao Paulo: UFSCar Press.Korndorfer, G. H., V. A. Arantes, G. F. Correa, and G. H. Snyder. 1999. Efeito do silicato de calcio no

teor de silcio e na producao de graos de arroz de sequeiro [Effect of calcium silicate on siliconcontent and grain yield of upland rice]. Revista Brasileira de Ciencias do Solo 23: 635641.

Korndorfer, G. H., H. S. Pereira, and A. Nolla. 2004. Analise de Silcio: Solo, Planta e Fertilizante[SiliconAnalysis: Soil, Plant and Fertilizer]. Uberlandia, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Uberlandia Press.

Liang, Y. C., T. S. Ma, F. J. Li, and Y. J. Feng. 1994. Silicon availability and response of rice and wheat tosilicon in calcareous soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 25: 22852297.

Ma, J. F., and E. Takahashi. 2002. Soil, Fertilizer, and Plant Silicon Research in Japan. Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science Press.Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. London: Academic Press.Mauad, M., H. G. Filho, C. A. C. Crusciol, and J. C. Correa. 2003. Teores de silcio no solo e na planta

de arroz de terras altas com diferentes doses de adubacao silicatada e nitrogenada. [Silicon contentin soil and upland Rice plants with different doses of silicon and nitrogen fertilization]. Revista

Brasileira de Ci encia do Solo27: 867873.

Mengel, K., and E. A. Kirkby. 2001. Principles of Plant Nutrition. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Pereira, H. S., G. H. Kondorfer, A. A. Vidal, and M. S. Camargo. 2004. Fontes de silco para a cultura do

arroz [Silicon sources for rice cultivation]. Scientia Agrcola16: 522528.Prado, R. de M., and F. M. Fernades. 2000. Escoria de siderurgia e calcario na correcao da acidez do

solo cultivado com cana-de-acucar em vaso [Slag and lime on the correction of soil acidity withsugarcane cultivated in containers]. Scientia Agr cola57: 739744.

Winslow, M. D. 1992. Silicon, disease resistance, and yield of rice genotypes under upland culturalconditions. Crop Science32: 12081213.

Artigo Journal

Documents

Transcript of Artigo Journal