Use of exchangeable and nonexchangeable forms of calcium, magnesium, and potassium in soils without fertilization after successive cultivations with Pinus taeda in southern Brazil

  • Luciano Colpo Gatiboni
  • Walquiria Chaves da SilvaEmail author
  • Gilmar Luiz Mumbach
  • Djalma Eugênio Schmitt
  • Daniel Alexandre Iochims
  • James Stahl
  • Cristiane Ottes Vargas
Soils, Sec 1 • Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Nutrient Cycling • Research Article



The aim of this study was to quantify the contents and stocks of exchangeable and nonexchangeable fractions of potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) after one and three successive Pinus taeda crops without fertilization and to predict the soil supply for further cultivations.

Materials and methods

The soil was analyzed in layers up to 80 cm in two Pinus forests, one at the end of the first cultivation and other at the end of the third successive crop, in a subtropical region in southern Brazil. Stocks of exchangeable and semi-total fractions of K, Ca, and Mg in the soil were calculated, and the potential number of crop rotations of Pinus without fertilization was estimated.

Results and discussion

After three Pinus crops, there was an average reduction of 46.9, 90.8, and 45.5% of exchangeable K, Ca, and Mg fractions respectively. Semi-total Ca content reduced in all depths, and semi-total K contents, in turn, only decreased until 20 cm of depth. The semi-total Mg contents have not been modified over the cultivations. Considering crop management with the export of plant twigs and needles and relying just on the availability of exchangeable Ca, the stocks of these nutrients in the soil would be sufficient for only one more Pinus cultivation, even when considering the absorption of nutrients on an 80-cm soil depth profile.


The management adopted in the region must be modified, replacing the nutrients exported via harvesting, especially Ca. Thus, the establishment of new cultivation of Pinus without fertilization may have its yield impaired, especially by the Ca availability.


Exchangeable and semi-total fractions Forest fertilization Successive crops Stocks of nutrient in soil 



  1. Abrão SM, Rosa SF, Reinert DJ, Reichert JM, Secco D, Ebling AA (2015) Alterações químicas de um Cambissolo Húmico causadas por florestamento com Pinus taeda em área de campo natural. Floresta 45:455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Fox TR (2008) Nutrient use and uptake in Pinus taeda. Tree Physiol 28:1083–1098. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Stape JL, Fox TR, Rubilar RA, Price JW (2012) Intra-annual nutrient flux in Pinus taeda. Tree Physiol 32:1237–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, de Moraes Gonçalves JL, Sparovek G (2013) Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Z 22:711–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alves MJF, Melo VF, Reissmann CB, Kaseker JF (2013) Reserva mineral de potássio em Latossolo cultivado com Pinus taeda L. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 37:1599–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batista AH, Motta ACV, Reissmann CB, Schneider T, Martins IL, Hashimoto M (2015) Liming and fertilisation in Pinus taeda plantations with severe nutrient deficiency in savanna soils. Acta Sci-Agron 37:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bracho R, Vogel JG, Will RE, Noormets A, Samuelson LJ, Jokela EJ, Gonzalez-Benecke CA, Gezan SA, Markewitz D, Seiler JR, Strahm BD, Teskey RO, Fox TR, Kane MB, Laviner MA, McElligot KM, Yang J, Lin W, Meek CR, Cucinella J, Akers MK, Martin TA (2018) Carbon accumulation in loblolly pine plantations is increased by fertilization across a soil moisture availability gradient. Forest Ecol Manag 424:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen CR, Condron LM, Turner BL, Mahieu N, Davis MR, Xu ZH, Sherlock RR (2004) Mineralisation of soil orthophosphate monoesters under pine seedlings and ryegrass. Soil Res 42:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CQFS/RS-SC – Comissão de Química e Fertilidade do Solo/RS-SC (2016) Manual de Calagem e Adubação para os Estados do Rio Grande do Sul e de Santa Catarina. Soc Bras Ciênc Solo, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
  10. Das D, Nayak AK, Thilagam VK, Chatterjee D, Shahid M, Tripathi R, Mohanty S, Kumar A, Lal B, Gautam P, Panda BB, Biswas SS (2018) Measuring potassium fractions is not sufficient to assess the long-term impact of fertilization and manuring on soil’s potassium supplying capacity. J Soils Sediments 18:1806–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EMBRAPA – Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (2017) Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solo. EMBRAPA, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO, ISRIC, ISSS (1998) World reference base of soil resources. World Soil Resources Reports 84. FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  13. Faustino LI, Bulfe NML, Pinazo MA, Monteoliva SE, Graciano C (2013) Dry weight partitioning and hydraulic traits in young Pinus taeda trees fertilized with nitrogen and phosphorus in a subtropical area. Tree Physiol 33:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gatiboni LC, Vargas CO, Albuquerque JA, Almeida JA, Stahl J, Chaves DM, Brunetto G, Dall’Orsoletta DJ, Rauber LP (2017) Phosphorus fractions in soil after successive crops of Pinus taeda L. without fertilization. Cienc Rural 47:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopmans P, Elms SR (2009) Changes in total carbon and nutrients in soil profiles and accumulation in biomass after a 30-year rotation of Pinus radiate on podzolized sands: impacts of intensive harvesting on soil resources. Forest Ecol Manag 258:2183–2193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li J, Niu L, Zhang Q, Di H, Hao J (2017) Impacts of long-term lack of potassium fertilization on different forms of soil potassium and crop yields on the North China Plains. J Soils Sediments 17:1607–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maggard AO, Will RE, Wilson DS, Meek CR, Vogel JG (2017) Fertilization can compensate for decreased water availability by increasing the efficiency of stem volume production perunit of leaf area for loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands. Can J For Res 47:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Melo VF, Novais RF, Fontes MPF, Schaefer CEGR (2000) Potássio e magnésio em minerais das frações areia e silte de diferentes solos. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 24:269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mengel K (1994) Exploitation of potassium by various crop species from primary minerals in soils rich in micas. Biol Fertil Soils 17:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Novais RF, Barros NF, Neves JCL (1986) Interpretação de análise química do solo para o crescimento e desenvolvimento de Eucalyptus spp.: níveis críticos de implantação e de manutenção. Rev Arvore 10:105–111Google Scholar
  21. Portela E, Monteiro F, Fonseca M, Abreu MM (2019) Effect of soil mineralogy on potassium fixation in soils developed on different parent material. Geoderma 343:226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Senthurpandian VK, Venkatesan S, Jayaganesh S (2009) Calcium and magnesium releasing capacity of Alfisols under tea in south India. Geoderma 152:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simms JE, McKay SK, McComas RW, Fischenich JC (2017) In situ root volume estimation using ground penetrating radar. J Environ Eng Geophys 22:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sharpley AN, Tiessen H, Cole CV (1987) Soil phosphorus forms extracted by soil tests as a function of pedogenesis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:362–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sixel RMDM, Junior A, Carlos J, Gonçalves JLDM, Alvares CA, Andrade GRP, Moreira AM (2015) Sustainability of wood productivity of Pinus taeda based on nutrient export and stocks in the biomass and in the soil. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 39:1416–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smethurst PJ (2010) Forest fertilization: trends in knowledge and practice compared to agriculture. Plant Soil 335:83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Turner J, Lambert M (2011) Analysis of nutrient depletion in a radiate pine plantation. Forest Ecol Manag 262:1327–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turner J, Lambert M (2013) Analysing inter-rotational productivity and nutrition in a New South Wales radiata pine plantation. New Forest 44:785–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner J, Lambert M, Turner S (2017) Long term carbon and nutrient dynamics within two small radiate pinus catchments. Forest Ecol Manag 389:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Method 3050 B. Accessed 26 September 2017
  31. Vieira M, Schumacher MV, Trüby P, Araújo EF (2015) Implicações nutricionais com base em diferentes intensidades de colheita da biomassa de Eucalyptus urophylla x Eucalyptus globulus. Cienc Rural 45:432–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vogel JG, He D, Jokela E, Hockaday W, Schuur EAG (2015) The effect of fertilization levels and genetic deployment on the isotopic signature, constituents, and chemistry of soil organic carbon in managed loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) forests. Forest Ecol Manag 355:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yan T, Zhu J, Yang K, Yu L, Zhang J (2017) Nutrient removal under different harvesting scenarios for larch plantations in northeast China: implications for nutrient conservation and management. Forest Ecol Manag 389:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano Colpo Gatiboni
    • 1
  • Walquiria Chaves da Silva
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gilmar Luiz Mumbach
    • 2
  • Djalma Eugênio Schmitt
    • 3
  • Daniel Alexandre Iochims
    • 2
  • James Stahl
    • 4
  • Cristiane Ottes Vargas
    • 2
  1. 1.North Carolina State University (NCSU)RaleighUSA
  2. 2.Santa Catarina State University (UDESC)LagesBrazil
  3. 3.Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC)CuritibanosBrazil
  4. 4.Klabin Inc.Telêmaco BorbaBrazil

Personalised recommendations