<b>Contrasts between two methodologies used to determine the agricultural potential of land in rural villages located in Rio Negro, Paraná State, Brazil</b> - DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v30i5.5969

  • Gilmar Pinto da Costa EMATER
  • Jorge Luiz Moretti de Souza UFPR
  • Márcia Regina Gomes de Jesus UTP
Keywords: rural villages, soils, small farm, agricultural planning

Abstract

The objective of this work was to analyze the agricultural potential of land in two rural villages, located in Rio Negro, Paraná State, Brazil, using two methodologies denominated Land Use Capability (SCU) and Land Agricultural Aptitude (SAA). The rural villages were chosen for their distinct characteristics of soil and slope conditions. The contrast between the methodologies was based on the land limiting factors as well as on the social factors involved in the family settlement in small farms. The results showed that: (a) the SAA was more appropriate than SCU for determining the agricultural potential of the lands; (b) the SAA and SCU indicate that the lands of the two villages do not feature the agricultural potential for annual cultivations; (c) the SCU was more restrictive on the agricultural potential of the land than the SAA.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Jorge Luiz Moretti de Souza, UFPR
Tem experiência na área de Engenharia Agrícola, com ênfase em Engenharia de Água e Solo, atuando principalmente nos seguintes temas: planejamento e modelagem matemática voltados ao desenvolvimento sustentável do meio rural e urbano, principalmente uso racional da água e energia elétrica para irrigação. Currículo Lattes
Published
2008-12-10
How to Cite
Costa, G. P. da, Souza, J. L. M. de, & Jesus, M. R. G. de. (2008). <b>Contrasts between two methodologies used to determine the agricultural potential of land in rural villages located in Rio Negro, Paraná State, Brazil</b&gt; - DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v30i5.5969. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 30(5), 687-695. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v30i5.5969
Section
Crop Production

 

2.0
2019CiteScore
 
 
60th percentile
Powered by  Scopus

 

2.0
2019CiteScore
 
 
60th percentile
Powered by  Scopus