Soil Classification and Carbon Storage in Cacao Agroforestry

24 Pages·2013·0.18 MB·English

This article was downloaded by: [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library]
On: 31 July 2013, At: 10:00
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 Sustainable Forestry
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsf20
Soil Classification and Carbon Storage in
Cacao Agroforestry Farming Systems of
Bahia, Brazil
Quintino R. Araujo a b , Guilherme A. H. A. Loureiro b , Sandoval O.
Santana b & Virupax C. Baligar c
a Ceplac/Cocoa Research Center , Itabuna , Bahia , Brazil
b State University of Santa Cruz (UESC) , Ilheus , Bahia , Brazil
c USDA-ARS Beltsville Agricultural Research Center , Beltsville ,
Maryland , USA
Published online: 29 Jul 2013.
To cite this article: Quintino R. Araujo , Guilherme A. H. A. Loureiro , Sandoval O. Santana & Virupax
C. Baligar (2013) Soil Classification and Carbon Storage in Cacao Agroforestry Farming Systems of
Bahia, Brazil, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 32:6, 625-647, DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2013.799037
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.799037
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
JournalofSustainableForestry,32:625–647,2013
Copyright©Taylor&FrancisGroup,LLC
ISSN:1054-9811print/1540-756Xonline
DOI:10.1080/10549811.2013.799037
Soil Classification and Carbon Storage in Cacao
Agroforestry Farming Systems of Bahia, Brazil
QUINTINO R. ARAUJO1,2, GUILHERME A. H. A. LOUREIRO2,
3 SANDOVAL O. SANTANA2, and VIRUPAX C. BALIGAR3
01 1Ceplac/CocoaResearchCenter,Itabuna,Bahia,Brazil
2
y 2StateUniversityofSantaCruz(UESC),Ilheus,Bahia,Brazil
Jul 3USDA-ARSBeltsvilleAgriculturalResearchCenter,Beltsville,Maryland,USA
1
3
0
0
0:
1 Information concerning the classification of soils and their prop-
at erties under cacao agroforestry systems of the Atlantic rain forest
]
y
r biomeregionintheSoutheastofBahia,Brazilislargelyunknown.
a
r
b Soil and climatic conditions in this region are favorable for high
Li
p soilcarbonstorage.Thisstudyisaimedtoclassifysoilsundercacao
o
kt agroforestryandfurther,toquantifycarbonstocksinthesesoilpro-
s
De files.Soilclassificationwasperformed,andtheamountofCstored
al was estimated, based on the thickness of the soil horizons, their
git bulk density, and total organic carbon stored. In the sites studied
Di
s under cacao, four general classes of soils were identified: Ultisols,
A'
Oxisols,Alfisols,andInceptisols.Carbonstocksinthesesoilprofiles
D
S showed wide variation, ranging from 719.24 to 2089.93 Mg ha−1.
U
- Carbon stocks in soil surface and subsurface layers in different
p
o agroforestry systems with cacao (cacao cabruca, cacao × rub-
T
gi ber tree, and cacao × erythrina) were comparable; however, total
Di
[ storage of organic C in these soils was higher than expected, com-
y
b pared to values reported for the International Soil Reference and
d
e Information Center (ISRIC), based on the FAO-UNESCO database,
d
a
o andwere alsohigherthanestimatedregionalsoildata.
nl
w
o
D KEYWORDS soil management, soil organic carbon, Theobroma
cacao L., cacao cabruca, shade cropping, pedology
The authors would like to thank Dr. Charles D. Foy for excellent peer review of this
article.
Address correspondence to Quintino R. Araujo, Ceplac/Cocoa Research Center, Jorge
AmadoRoad,Km22,45600-970Itabuna,Bahia,Brazil.E-mail:[email protected]
625
626 Q.R.Araujoetal.
INTRODUCTION
In the last 260 yr, the South of Bahia has been characterized as the main
cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) producing region of Brazil (Lobão, Setenta,
Lobão, Curvelo,& Valle, 2007), and a uniqueplace for rich natural resources,
including the diversity of soils (Santana et al., 2002; Santana, Faria Filho, &
Lisboa, 2010). The special hydrogeological conditions in a humid tropical
climate located between 41◦ 30’ W and 13◦ to 18◦ 15’ S of the Atlantic Ocean,
make this region favorable for sustainable cacao production and a link with
the conservation of the central corridor of the Atlantic Forest (Lobão, 2007).
3 Atlantic Forest biome climatic conditions and soil fertility are very favor-
1
0
2 able for cacao farming, and this led to development and establishment of
y
ul economic standards in rural and urban areas and further helped to establish
J
1 the particular style of farming in rural areas (Santana et al., 2002; Chepote
3
0 et al., 2012; Campos, 1981). Cacao farmers have faced many challenges due
0
0: to the crisis created by the occurrence of witches-broom disease caused by
1
at the fungus Moniliophthoraperniciosa. This disease has spread in the region
]
y causing serious losses to cacao production since 1989 (Oliveira & Luz, 2005).
r
a
r Socioeconomic issues of cocoa production should be discussed under the
b
Li context of anticipated global climatic changes and the responsibility that
p
o agriculture has to develop more sustainable patterns of farming systems
kt
es including rational use of soil and water for food and human health (Baiardi
D
al & Rocha, 1998; Aboim et al., 2010; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
git United Nations [FAO], 2009; Melo Filho, Souza, & Souza, 2007).
Di In the last decade, publications have characterized agricultural land-
s
A' scapesindifferentsituationsofconservationmanagementtoindicatespecific
D
S regions and to propose the implementation of crop-based agricultural sys-
U
- tems (Godoy & Lopes-Assad, 2002; Carvalho Júnior, Chagas, Pereira, &
op Strauch,2003).Potentialimpactsofannualcropssuchassoybeans,corn,and
T
gi rice on soil C sequestrations have been reported (Bordin et al., 2008; Rosa,
Di Castilhos, Dick, Pauletto, & Gomes, 2008; Carvalho, Avanzi, Silva, Mello &
[
y Cerri, 2010). The study of soil C storage, combined with pedological charac-
b
ed teristicsofagriculturalecosystems,isanimportanttooltoleaddiscussionson
d
a sustainability of crops in different soil conditions (Bortolon, 2008). Research
o
nl on this subject with cacao began with recent studies (Ofori-Frimpong, Afrifa,
w
Do & Acquaye, 2010; Gama-Rodrigues, Gama-Rodrigues, & Nair, 2011), high-
lighting the importance of agroforestry systems (AFS) for the socioeconomic
development of the Southeast of Bahia (Müller, Sena-Gomes, & Almeida,
2002; Lobão 2007).
Qualityanduseofarablelandsandconservationmanagementareissues
that have been discussed internationally, in predicting the emergence of
new global climate scenarios (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[IPCC], 2007), and many research findings have shown that agriculture can
also mitigate the adverse impacts of greenhouse gases (Urquiaga, Jantalia,
AgroforestryFarmingSystemsinBahia,Brazil 627
Alves, & Boddey, 2010). Such mitigation is mainly in the sequestration of
carbon dioxide (CO ) which is fixed by plants and incorporated into their
2
biomass (Reicosky & Forcella, 1998; Larcher, 2004), and finally by storing it
in the soil. Therefore, cacao agroforestry systems play an important role in
the conservation and maintenance of biodiversity of native tree species and
stabilization of soil by incorporation of plant residues (Araujo, Santana, &
Mendonça, 2004; Comerford, Cropper, Grierson, & Araujo, 2006; Sambuichi,
2009; Schroth, D’Angelo, Teixeira, Haag, & Lieberei, 2002; Zanatta, 2006;
Paiva & Araujo, 2012).
It has been suggested that substitution of forest by agroforestry-based
3 cacao cultivation leads to a reduction of soil organic C (Andreux & Cerri,
1
0
2 1989; Rosa, Olszevski, Mendonça, Costa, & Correia, 2003). Resende, Curi,
y
ul Rezende, and Corrêa (2007a) pointed out that the transformation of soil
J
1 organic matter (SOM) in forest is more intense (higher yield and greater
3
0 decomposition per unit time), compared to other systems of land use. The
0
0: C stock in soil comes from incorporation of C in the soil profile in excess
1
y] at (oCfaCr-vCaOlh2o,re2le0a0s6e)d. Sfurocmh bsoaillanbcyereosfpCiraitniosnooilf(pinlapnutts/oanudtpsuot)ildmeipceronodrsgalanrigsemlys
r
a
r on climatic conditions prevailing in the soil system that control biological
b
Li activities (Lal, 2008; Bayer & Mielniczuk, 2008).
p
o The global soil organic carbon (SOC) pool, stored primarily in SOM, is
kt
es estimated at 1,500 Pg (petagram = 1 × 1015 g = 1 billion metric tons) to
D
al 1-m depth and 2,400 Pg to 2-m depth (Lal, 2001). This represents approxi-
git mately60%ofthepedologicpool(Batjes,1996),equivalenttoapproximately
Di 3.2 times the atmospheric pool and 4.4 times the biotic pool (Sparks, 2003).
s
A' Agricultural systems vary in capacity to store C according to their ten-
D
S dency for increasing or decreasing the process of residue decomposition and
U
- synthesisanddecompositionofSOM(Bayer&Mielniczuk,2008).Ithasbeen
op estimated that the C sequestration potential of the world’s cropland soils is
giT approximately 0.73–0.87 Pg yr−1 (Lal & Bruce, 1999). This potential for C
Di storage in soil horizons is influenced by pedogenesis and its related factors
[
y (climate, organisms, parent material, relief, and time; Resende et al., 2007a).
b
ed The intensity of one or more of these factors during pedogenesis determines
d
a soil or horizonal richness in the input of organic residues (Oliveira, 2008a).
o
nl Because dominant vegetation is the principal factor responsible for
w
Do pedogenesis in addition of organic materials in the soil (Resende et al.,
2007b), it is important to establish and manage crops that contribute to the
natural storage of C, and further to increase its addition. Depending on the
plant species grown, roots (a component of the living part of the SOM) can
add a large amount of soil carbon (Silva & Mendonça, 2007). It is argued that
soils with high organic matter would be able to sustain higher productiv-
ity (Marin, 2002). Cultivated soil undergoes several changes in temperature,
moisture, aeration, uptake, and leaching (Sanchez, 1976). For that reason,
sudden changes in composition of natural vegetation can have large impacts
628 Q.R.Araujoetal.
on soil C. It is expected, for example, that the soil bulk density of a natural
ecosystem is altered with an imposed agricultural activity.
As a possible environmental service, carbon storage in soils (Havstad
et al., 2007) can be used to address the carbon credit market in Brazil and
worldwide, and further, this could be linked to sustainable development
(Pinho, 2008) because organic C is an indicator of soil and air quality (Larson
& Pirce, 1994; Lal, 2008). Thus, the conservation management of AFS can
potentially store between 12 and 228 t C ha−1 (Dixon 1995), increase storage
oforganicCinthesoil,andsequesteratmosphericCO ,themaingreenhouse
2
gas (Salton, 2005).
3 Our investigation provides a basis for the definition and establishment
1
0
2 of geographical areas for the agroforestry-based cacao planting system,
y
ul including edaphic aspects of soil C stocks, which will define future agro-
J
1 nomic recommendations. This report also looks beyond the pedoclimatic
3
0 scenario and seeks to explain the maintenance of organic C in soils under
0
0: cacaoindifferentagroforestry-basedcacaocroppingsystems(cacaocabruca,
1
at cacao × rubber tree, and cacao × erythrina). Such evaluations will increase
]
y understanding of cacao and its interactions with the soil studied, in order
r
a
r to promote the region for new scientific and market perspectives about
b
Li products and by-products of cacao.
p
o
kt
s
e
D
al MATERIALS AND METHODS
git
Di The study areas (Table 1) are located in Southeast Bahia, a region between
s
A' 41◦ 30’ W and 13◦ to 18◦ 15’ S along the Atlantic Ocean (Lobão, 2007).
D
S Fourteen study sites selected are distributed in the municipalities of Arataca,
U
- Gandu, Ilhéus, Itabuna, Ituberá, Piraí do Norte, Porto Seguro, Santa Luzia,
p
o and Uruçuca. The general description of these sites (geographical coordi-
T
gi nates,altitude,cacaofarmingsystem,andpredominantandnumberofshade
Di trees) are given in Table 1.
[
by Ateachsite,soilsampleswerecollectedfromdifferentsoilhorizonsand
d
e described in accordance with the methodology by the ManualofDescription
d
oa and Sampling of Soil in the Field (Santos, Lemos, Santos, Ker, & Anjos,
wnl 2005), and also characterized by the Munsell Color Company (2000) and
o
D the Brazilian System of Soil Classification (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária [Embrapa], 2006). Physical and chemical analyses were per-
formedaccordingtothemethodsofSerôdio,Leão,andMaiaSobrinho(1979)
and Santana, Pereira, and Morais (1977). Total organic carbon (TOC) was
obtained by the Walkley-Black method (1934), and soil bulk density (BD)
was determined based on undisturbed soil samples according to the method
of Embrapa (1997). For quantification of organic C (C stock) stored in each
horizon in the sampled profiles, the following equation (Amado, Bayer, Eltz,
& Brum, 2001) was used:
berof de−1ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 nued)
Num Sharees 40 35 15 6 6 40 3 3 3 Conti
d (t (
n
a
nt
DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library] at 10:00 31 July 2013 ographicalCoordinates,Altitude,NatureofCacaoFarmingSystems,andPredomina Cacaofarmingsystem ××Intercrop(AFS)cacaorubbertree(HeveabrasiliensisL.)—spacing7m3m. ××Intercrop(AFS)cacaorubbertree(H.brasiliensisL.)—spacing7m4m. ×Intercrop(AFS)cacaorubbertree(H.brasiliensisL.)—irregularspacing. (1)including:gameleira(FicusdoliariaMart.),vinháticoCabrucastrictusensu(Perseaindica[L.]Spreng.),cedro(CedrellafissilisVell.),cobi(Anadenatheracolubrina[Vell.]Brenan),louro(Cordiatrichotoma[Vell.]Arrab.exSteud.),eritrina(ErythrinaglaucaWilld),gliricidia(Gliricidiasepium[Jacq.]KunthexWalp.),bananeira(Musaspp.),jaqueira(ArtocarpusintegrifóliaL.),Citrusspp.×Intercropcacaoerithrina(ErythrinaglaucaWilld)including:bananeira(Musaspp.),jaqueira(ArtocarpusintegrifóliaL.),gliricídia(Gliricidiasepium[Jacq.]KunthexWalp.),(scattered).××Intercrop(AFS)cacaorubbertree(H.brasiliensisL.)—spacing7m3m. (1)including:cobi(Anadenatheracolubrina_[Vell.]Brenan),Cabrucaintermediateeritrina(ErythrinaglaucaWilld),bananeira(Musaspp.),gliricídia(Gliricidiasepium[Jacq.]KunthexWalp.),cajazeira(Spondiasmombin_L.).Withfertirrigation.(1)including:cobi(AnadenatheracolubrinaVell.),eritrinaCabrucaintermediate(ErythrinaglaucaWilld),bananeira(Musaspp.),jaqueira(ArtocarpusintegrifóliaL.),cajazeira(SpondiasmombinL.).(1)including:bananeira(Musaspp.),gliricídia(GliricidiaCabrucaintermediatesepium[Jacq.]KunthexWalp.),jaqueira(ArtocarpusintegrifoliaL.),cajazeira(SpondiasmombinL.),Sapucaia(LecythispisonisCambess.),araçá(Psidiumcattleianum_Sabine).
y [ Ge e
aded b cation, Altitud(m) 261 346 195 173 176 142 159 148 256
o o
nl L
Dow —Siteand coord. 08”S54”W07”S52”W30”S27”W21”S25”W 38”S10”W 02”S56”W15.1”S48.6”W 08”S04”W 04”S43”W
as eo. 51’17’46’17’40’14’45’20’ 44’30’ 29’23’23’25’ 23’26’ 17’28’
Are G ◦13◦39◦13◦39◦13◦39◦13◦39 ◦13◦39 ◦16◦39◦15◦39 ◦15◦39 ◦15◦39
y
d
u
TABLE1StShadeTrees Site 1Ituberá 2Ituberá 3Ituberá 4P.Norte 5Gandu 6P.Seguro 7Sta.Luzia 8Sta.Luzia 9Arataca
629
)
1
−
ea
dh 0 5 0 0 0
Shaees 5 3 2 7 5
r
(t
aa a
DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library] at 10:00 31 July 2013 Cacaofarmingsystem (1)Cabrucastrictusensuincluding:cedro(CedrellafissilisVell.),pinho(PinusradiataD.Don),putumuju(Centrolobiumrobustum[Vell.]Mart.),gameleira(FicusadhatodifoliaSchott),caroba(JacarandabrasilianaPers.).(1)including:cajazeira(Spondiasmombin_L.),louro(CordiCabrucaintermediatetrichotoma_[Vell.]Arrab.exSteud.),bananeira(Musaspp),gliricídia(Gliricidisepium[Jacq.]KunthexWalp.),jaqueira(ArtocarpusintegrifóliaL.).Organicfarming.(1)including:cajazeira(SpondiasmombinL.),jenipapo(GenipaCabrucaspreadamericanaL.),jequitibá(Carinianaestrellensis[Raddi]Kuntze)ecedro(CedrellafissilisVell.).Temporalyirrigated.(1)including:cajazeira(SpondiasmombinL.),cedroCabrucastrictusensu(CedrellafissilisVell.),bananeira(Musaspp.),gliricídia(Gliricidiasepium([acq.]KunthexWalp.),jaqueira(ArtocarpusintegrifóliaL.).(1)Cabrucastrictusensuincluding:eritrina(ErythrinaglaucaWilld),bananeira(Musaspp.),jaqueira(ArtocarpusintegrifóliaL.),gameleira(FicusadhatodifoliSchott),sapucaia(LecythispisonisCambess.),ingazeiro(IngaeduliMart.).Noinorganicchemicalsusedlast20yr. ≥≤sensu:50;Intermediate:21–49;andSparse:20.
aded by [ Altitude(m) 195 243 88 40 60 are)strictu
Downlo oord. 4”S5”W 6”S2”W 0.9”S3.2”W 7”S7”W 8”S6”W adebyhect
c 14 34 41 44 02 sh
ntinued) Geo. ◦1431’◦15’39 ◦51’14◦3914’ ◦42’14◦3920’ ◦51’14◦3906’ ◦46’14◦13’39 (treesof
1(Co çuca us una us us Cabruca
BLE e Uru Ilhé Itab Ilhé Ilhé (1)e.
TA Sit 10 11 12 13 14 Not
630
AgroforestryFarmingSystemsinBahia,Brazil 631
C stock = (TOC × BD × t)/10,
where C stock is the total of organic carbon in a given depth (Mg ha−1); TOC
is the total organic carbon content (g kg−1); BD is soil bulk density at each
depth (kg dm−3); t is the thickness of the horizon (cm).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Classes of Soil
3
1 The morphological characterization and physical-chemical properties of soils
0
2 were used as a basis for the description of the main soil properties (Table 2).
y
ul ThesesoilpropertiesprovidedthebasisforsoilclassificationbytheBrazilian
J
1 System of Soil Classification (Embrapa, 2006) and for grouping soils from
3
0 eachsiteintovariousSoilTaxonomicclasses(SoilSurveyStaff,2006).Table3
0
0: presents the classification of soils in the Brazilian system, with their respec-
1
at tive abbreviations, regional name (popular), and correspondence to Soil
]
y Taxonomy.
r
a
r
b
Li
op Classes of Soil, Agroforestry Systems, and C Stock
kt
s
e The cabrucas (shade-cropping systems in which cacao is planted in the
D
al understoryofresidualforesttrees)werecharacterizedintermsofthenumber
git of residual shade trees per hectare: Cabruca stricto sensu with 50 or more
s Di trees ha−1; Cabruca intermediate between 21–49 trees ha−1; and Cabruca
A' sparse with 20 or fewer trees ha−1 (Tables 1, 4, and 5 Carbon stocks in soil
D
S profiles and their possible interactions with changes in the cropping system
U
- (cacao cabruca, cacao × rubber tree, and cacao × erythrina), density of
p
o shade trees, and depth of the profile were verified.
T
gi The C stocks in soil profiles showed wide variation with values ranging
[Di from 719.24 to 2,089.927 Mg ha−1 (Table 4). The highest C stocks were
y
b observed in the profiles of Ultisols and Oxisols. The Oxisols in general have
d
e advanced weathering and structure and are well drained, allowing good root
d
a
o development of the cacao, shade, and intercropped trees (Toxopeus, 1986).
nl
w The input of organic residues by deep roots and a slight increase in clay in
o
D deep horizons increased the C stock in all four profiles of LVAd, LAd, LVAd
arg, and Lad cam (Table 4). Especially for the Oxisols, the SOM represents
great importance for maintenance of physical stability and cation exchange
capacity (Table 2). In the AFS-based cacao cultivated soils of Bahia Brazil,
Gama-Rodrigues et al. (2011) reported accumulation of about 302 Mg ha−1
of total C in the top 1-m depth of an Oxisol soil.
The Ultisols studied varied in profile thickness from 60 to 200 cm
(Table4).WiththeexceptionofSite8,allsoilprofileshadathicknessgreater
o
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library] at 10:00 31 July 2013 TABLE2SoilIdentification—Classification,BasicDescription,andPhysical-ChemicalAttributesofSoilsUnderVariousCacaoCultivationSystems CECcmolc−−−//133RocksLithologyProfilepHSOMgkg(1)dm(1)BS%(1)Clay%(1)BDgdmCNrati Site1.LatosolRed-YellowDystrophictipicAmoderatekaoliniticclayeyphasetropicalperennialrainforestwavyrelief.<Intermediates:Deep,permeable,and4.7–4.944.510.757–1035.7–58.60.91–111–17/ProterozoicArcheanporous/Site2.LatosolYellowDystrophictipicAmoderatekaoliniticepieutrophicclayeyphasetropicalperennialrainforeststrongwavymountainousrelief.<Intermediates:Deep,veryporous4.5–6.344.311.85–6642.3–58.21.02–1.210–13/ProterozoicArcheanAmoderatekaoliniticepieutrophicclayeyphasetropicalperennialrainforeststrongSite3.LatosolYellowDystrophiccambisolic/wavymountainous.<Intermediates:Deepandporous5.0–6.329.18.2815–1031.8–54.91.06–1.1711–15/ProterozoicArcheanAmoderateepieutrophicclayey-loamphasetropicalperennialrainforeststrongwavyrelief.Site4.ArgisolRed-YellowDystrophicabrupt<Deep,welldrained4.7–5.743.612.617–6333.5–55.91.07–1.198–30Gneissofintermediatecharacter.Proterozoic.-Site5.ArgisolRedYellowDystrophictipicAmoderateepieutrophicclayey-loamphasetropicalperennialrainforestwavyrelief.<Deep,welldrained4.7–5.725.28.31andGneissofintermediate6–6313.0–65.01.27–1.58–148.59(Bcharacter.Middle)t1Proterozoic./Amoderateloamphasetropicalperennialrainforestsmoothslightlywavyrelief.Site6.ArgisolRed-YellowDystrophicCohesiveabruptDeep,welldrained.5.0–6.113.3–16.24.9815–268.4–32.50.92–1.494–23Clay-sandysediments.Terciary.BarreirasGroup.Site7.ArgisolRed-YellowAlitictipicAmoderateepieutrophicsiltyphasetropicalperennialrainforestslightlywavyrelief.<MetassedimentaryDeep,welldrained4.4–6.049.321.342–7939.1–64.41.09–1.393–10rocks.
632
1 8 1 8 8 8 4
7 1 5 1 1 6 1
– – – – – – –
3 7 3 5 5 6 6
1.4–1.5 1.08–1.54 estwavyrelief.1.14–1.43 0.92–1.18 ghtlywavyrelief.1.24–1.6 ef.1.12–1.29 ef.1.05–1.25 Diagnostichorizon.
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library] at 10:00 31 July 2013 Site8.ArgisolRed-YellowDystrophicAmoderatesiltyphasetropicalperennialrainforestplanrelief.<MetassedimentaryLowlands,5.3–5.736.913.6428–7339.1–64.4rocks.imperfectlydrained.Site9.ArgisolYellowDystrophiclatosolicAmoderateclayey-loamphasetropicalperennialrainforeststrongwavyrelief.<Intermediates.Deep,markedly4.3–4.824.18.338–1831.5–52.1/ProterozoicArcheandrained-Site10.ArgisolRedYellowEutrophiccambisolicAmoderatehypereutrophicclayey-loamphasetropicalperennialrainfor63–9012.0–42.7GneissofintermediateModeratelydeep,well5.7–6.522.8–3011.44and)character.drained35.35(Bt3ProterozoicAmoderateclayeyphasetropicalperennialrainforestslightlywavyrelief.Site11.CambisolHaplicDystrophictipic<Intermediates.Deep,moderate4.8–5.728.38.5110–7620.2–54.6ProterozoicdrainageSite12.ArgisolRed-YellowDystrophicabruptAmoderateepieutrophicclayey-loamphasetropicalperennialrainforestsli<GneissofintermediateDeep,welldrained5.2–5.830.510.81–26–7613.4–58.1character28.78Site13.LatosolRed-YellowDystrophicargisolicAmoderatekaoliniticclayeyphasetropicalperennialrainforestwavyreli<Intermediates.Deep,markedly5.1–5.736.26.6210–2926.6–54.9/ProterozoicArcheandrained/Site14.NitosolHaplicEutrophictipicAmoderateclayeyveryclayeyphasetropicalperennialrainforestslightlywavyreli<RegolithofalkalineModeratelydeep,well5.3–6.22115.3430–7943.3–65.7rocksreferredtodrainedProterozoic Note.SOM:soilorganicmatter,superficialaverage;CEC:cationexchangecapacity,superficial;BS:basesaturation;BD:bulkdensity.(1)
633