<b>Edaphic macrofauna and its interaction with the soil's chemical and physical properties under different management systems</b> - DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v29i1.60
Abstract
This work aimed to evaluate edaphic macrofauna under different soil use systems. Two systems were evaluated: conventional system, no-till, continuous grazing, crop-cattle integration, eucalyptus and native vegetation. Sampling was carried out in five points at one transect per system. Organisms were manually extracted and identified to the level of broad taxonomic groups. Native vegetation did show the highest variety of edaphic macrofauna groups when compared to monocultures and/or high intensity of soil tillage. Among cropped systems, the highest density of edaphic macrofauna organisms was observed in crop-cattle integration and continuous grazing systems. The total density of individuals and the macrofauna group richness were not influenced by soil physical attributes. Regarding to chemical attributes, only the group richness was correlated to some of such proprieties.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Published
2007-08-20
How to Cite
Lourente, E. R. P., Silva, R. F. da, Silva, D. A. da, Marchetti, M. E., & Mercante, F. M. (2007). <b>Edaphic macrofauna and its interaction with the soil’s chemical and physical properties under different management systems</b> - DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v29i1.60. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 29(1), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v29i1.60
Issue
Section
Soils
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY AND COPYRIGHTS
I Declare that current article is original and has not been submitted for publication, in part or in whole, to any other national or international journal.
The copyrights belong exclusively to the authors. Published content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) guidelines, which allows sharing (copy and distribution of the material in any medium or format) and adaptation (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the terms of attribution.
2.0
2019CiteScore
60th percentile
Powered by 
2.0
2019CiteScore
60th percentile
Powered by 







































