poster - International Conference of Agricultural Engineering

poster - International Conference of Agricultural Engineering poster - International Conference of Agricultural Engineering

cigr.ageng2012.org
from cigr.ageng2012.org More from this publisher
10.11.2014 Views

In the cycle 2009/2010 the treatment E1 had the highest yield of processed coffee (4,631 kg ha-1), differing from the yield obtained by the treatments E4, E5 and E6. The productivity of E1 was approximately two times higher than that obtained in E6. The treatments E6 showed small yield of processed coffee (2,268 Kg ha-1), and was not statistically different only from treatment E5. Moreira et al. (2004) found significant effects of the spacing between planting rows on Mundo Novo coffee tree productivity; the authors observed that the treatments with smaller spacing showed the highest productivity of processed coffee. In the irrigated crop, in the cycle 2008/2009 an average productivity of 3775 kg ha-1 was observed, representing an increase of 77% when compared to non-irrigated treatment. This value in productivity of processed coffee represented an increment of 49 bags ha-1 in the irrigated plants. In the cycle 2009/2010 the irrigated coffee showed higher production of processed coffee (4162 kg ha-1) in relation to rainfed cultivation (2985 kg ha-1), with an increase of approximately 19 bags ha-1 for irrigated crops. Increases in coffee yield by the use of irrigation have been reported by several authors in recent years as Silva et al. (2005) and Rezende et al. (2006). Soil water deficit decreases yield due to the reduction in steam flow and transpiration, and consequently the absorption of water and nutrients by the root system and CO 2 by leaves, thus affecting photosynthesis (DaMatta & Ramalho, 2006). The result of interaction between population arrangement and irrigation, in the cycle 2008/2009, revealed that the irrigated coffee trees, cultivated at spacing of 1.6 m between planting rows, had higher productivity (47%) of processed coffee when compared with those cultivated at spacing of 3.2 m between rows (p 0.01). A 74-82% increase in productivity was observed with the irrigated plants when compared with the nonirrigated coffee trees. These findings highlight the benefit of irrigation in coffee plantation, improving productivity irrespective of the adopted spacing. Table 2 – Yield of processed coffee according to the adoption of irrigation in different population arrangement as well as of every population arrangement according to the adoption of irrigation in the 2008/2009 harvest, in Mococa - SP. Productivity of processed coffee Population (kg ha -1 ) arrangement Irrigation F test (m) With Without F test 33.4** 1,8 ns E1 - 1.60 x 0.50 4995 a A 963 a B 164** E2 -1.60 x 0.75 5109 a A 1238 a B 151** E3 - 1.60 x 1.00 4675 a A 1113 a B 128** E4 - 3.20 x 0.50 2577 b A 678 a B 36** E5 - 3.20 x 0.75 2965 b A 706 a B 52** E6 - 3.20 x 1.00 2326 b A 421 a B 37** * Significant at 5% of probability; ** Significant at 1% of probability; ns – non significant. Lower cases represent average values in the column and upper cases represent average values in the row. The values of average sieve were not altered significantly (p> 0.05) by population arrangements in the crop cycles. The irrigation provided significant effect in grain size (p> 0.05) in the crop cycle 2008/2009. The grains of irrigated group were higher than those of non-irrigated cultivation (Table 3). Rezende et al. (2006) and Silva et al. (2009) reported that there was increase in the size of the coffee beans through the use of irrigation. In the crop cycle 2009/2010, there was no effect of irrigation on average sieve of grains.

Table 3 – Analysis of variance for average sieve and type of Catuaí coffee bean (flat or peaberry), cultivated in different population arrangements (PA), with or without irrigation, in 2008/2009 harvest, in Mococa – SP. Cycles 2008/2009 2009/2010 Average Type of bean Average Type of bean Population arrangements (m) sieve Flat Peaberry sieve Flat Peaberry E1 18.4 66.6 ab 16.5 16.9 77.9 abc 8.5 ab E2 18.2 63.4 b 18.9 16.8 74.5 bc 11.0 a E3 18.1 63.8 ab 17.7 16.7 73.9 c 11.0 a E4 18.1 68.7 ab 16.9 16.8 80.0 a 7.2 b E5 18.2 69.8 a 15.6 16.8 79.9 ab 7.7 ab E6 17.6 67.4 ab 16.9 16.7 76.9 abc 8.9 ab F test – PA 2.47 ns 2.98* 0.78 0.19 ns 4.2* 4.4* Irrigation With 18.8 a 67.6 12.3 b 16.8 76.0 b 9.3 Without 17.4 b 65.7 21.8 a 16.8 78.3 a 8.7 F test – I 99.7* 2.57 ns 83.5* 0.19 ns 5.2* 0.92 ns Teste F - I x AP 0.65 ns 0.62 ns 1.21 ns 1.08 ns 0.40 ns 0.79 ns CV % 2.72 6.28 21.1 1.47 4.66 24.2 General mean 18.1 66.6 17 16.8 77.2 9.0 ** Significant at 1% of probability by Tukey test. * Significant at 5% of probability by Tukey test.. SAD = Significant average deviation; CV = Coefficient of variation. The amount of water available by precipitation, in the phase of grain formation, was higher during cycle 2009/2010, with a rainfall of 886 mm, while in the previous cycle it rained 461 mm. The largest volume of water made available by the rains, certainly promoted a grain filling of plants cultivated without irrigation similar to irrigated plants. To DaMatta & Ramalho (2006) water deficit in the pellet-like berries (October-December) delays fruit growth, resulting in smaller sieve. The good water supply provides better conditions for plant growth, reflecting a greater capacity for grain filling, obtaining a higher grain formation, because the water is directly involved in cell expansion and also the transport of assimilates from leaves to fruits, causing an increase of the grains. There was no effect of the interaction between irrigation and population arrangement in the average sieve in both years. The type of flat bean was significantly altered by the arrangement of population (p> 0.05) in both crop cycles. In general, the plants cultivated in a 1.60 m between the rows had lower values than the flat bean plants cultivated in a 3.20 m (Table 3). The use of drip irrigation in 2008/2009 cycle was not significant for flat bean, in contrast to the cycle 2009/2010, when there was a significant effect (p> 0.05) of the use of irrigation on flat type grain. There was no effect of irrigation, or the interaction of irrigation and population arrangement on the formation of flat bean. Peaberry bean was not influenced by the population arrangement in the cycle 2008/2009 (Table 3). The percentage of peaberry beans in the population arrangements is above the acceptable values for exports (12%), and may be related to the adverse environmental effects, such as the high temperature during flowering. Pezzopane et al. (2007) verified that an average air temperature close to 24ºC provided high productivity of peaberry beans, which affected the quality of beans. In the experiment, flowering occurred at 25º C during September/October, as illustrated in Figure 1. In the cycle 2009/2010 the population arrangement provided effect significantly in the peaberry bean, with less percentage in treatment E4 when compared with treatment E2 and E3. In the cycle 2008/2009 the coffee irrigated showed the production of peaberry beans was very close to the accepted values for exports (Table 3), and differed significantly (p> 0.01) from the non-irrigated group, which presented great amounts of peaberry beans (21.8%). As previously stated, the production of peaberries is partially related to adverse environmental factors, mainly in the flowering and fruiting. In the cycle 2009/2010 the irrigation and the interaction of irrigation and population arrangement did not provide significant effect in the

Table 3 – Analysis <strong>of</strong> variance for average sieve and type <strong>of</strong> Catuaí c<strong>of</strong>fee bean (flat or peaberry),<br />

cultivated in different population arrangements (PA), with or without irrigation, in 2008/2009 harvest, in<br />

Mococa – SP.<br />

Cycles<br />

2008/2009 2009/2010<br />

Average Type <strong>of</strong> bean Average Type <strong>of</strong> bean<br />

Population<br />

arrangements (m)<br />

sieve Flat Peaberry sieve Flat Peaberry<br />

E1 18.4 66.6 ab 16.5 16.9 77.9 abc 8.5 ab<br />

E2 18.2 63.4 b 18.9 16.8 74.5 bc 11.0 a<br />

E3 18.1 63.8 ab 17.7 16.7 73.9 c 11.0 a<br />

E4 18.1 68.7 ab 16.9 16.8 80.0 a 7.2 b<br />

E5 18.2 69.8 a 15.6 16.8 79.9 ab 7.7 ab<br />

E6 17.6 67.4 ab 16.9 16.7 76.9 abc 8.9 ab<br />

F test – PA 2.47 ns 2.98* 0.78 0.19 ns 4.2* 4.4*<br />

Irrigation With 18.8 a 67.6 12.3 b 16.8 76.0 b 9.3<br />

Without 17.4 b 65.7 21.8 a 16.8 78.3 a 8.7<br />

F test – I 99.7* 2.57 ns 83.5* 0.19 ns 5.2* 0.92 ns<br />

Teste F - I x AP 0.65 ns 0.62 ns 1.21 ns 1.08 ns 0.40 ns 0.79 ns<br />

CV % 2.72 6.28 21.1 1.47 4.66 24.2<br />

General mean 18.1 66.6 17 16.8 77.2 9.0<br />

** Significant at 1% <strong>of</strong> probability by Tukey test. * Significant at 5% <strong>of</strong> probability by Tukey test.. SAD = Significant<br />

average deviation; CV = Coefficient <strong>of</strong> variation.<br />

The amount <strong>of</strong> water available by precipitation, in the phase <strong>of</strong> grain formation, was higher<br />

during cycle 2009/2010, with a rainfall <strong>of</strong> 886 mm, while in the previous cycle it rained 461<br />

mm. The largest volume <strong>of</strong> water made available by the rains, certainly promoted a grain<br />

filling <strong>of</strong> plants cultivated without irrigation similar to irrigated plants. To DaMatta & Ramalho<br />

(2006) water deficit in the pellet-like berries (October-December) delays fruit growth,<br />

resulting in smaller sieve. The good water supply provides better conditions for plant growth,<br />

reflecting a greater capacity for grain filling, obtaining a higher grain formation, because the<br />

water is directly involved in cell expansion and also the transport <strong>of</strong> assimilates from leaves<br />

to fruits, causing an increase <strong>of</strong> the grains. There was no effect <strong>of</strong> the interaction between<br />

irrigation and population arrangement in the average sieve in both years.<br />

The type <strong>of</strong> flat bean was significantly altered by the arrangement <strong>of</strong> population (p> 0.05) in<br />

both crop cycles. In general, the plants cultivated in a 1.60 m between the rows had lower<br />

values than the flat bean plants cultivated in a 3.20 m (Table 3). The use <strong>of</strong> drip irrigation in<br />

2008/2009 cycle was not significant for flat bean, in contrast to the cycle 2009/2010, when<br />

there was a significant effect (p> 0.05) <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> irrigation on flat type grain. There was no<br />

effect <strong>of</strong> irrigation, or the interaction <strong>of</strong> irrigation and population arrangement on the formation<br />

<strong>of</strong> flat bean.<br />

Peaberry bean was not influenced by the population arrangement in the cycle 2008/2009<br />

(Table 3). The percentage <strong>of</strong> peaberry beans in the population arrangements is above the<br />

acceptable values for exports (12%), and may be related to the adverse environmental<br />

effects, such as the high temperature during flowering. Pezzopane et al. (2007) verified that<br />

an average air temperature close to 24ºC provided high productivity <strong>of</strong> peaberry beans,<br />

which affected the quality <strong>of</strong> beans. In the experiment, flowering occurred at 25º C during<br />

September/October, as illustrated in Figure 1. In the cycle 2009/2010 the population<br />

arrangement provided effect significantly in the peaberry bean, with less percentage in<br />

treatment E4 when compared with treatment E2 and E3.<br />

In the cycle 2008/2009 the c<strong>of</strong>fee irrigated showed the production <strong>of</strong> peaberry beans was<br />

very close to the accepted values for exports (Table 3), and differed significantly (p> 0.01)<br />

from the non-irrigated group, which presented great amounts <strong>of</strong> peaberry beans (21.8%). As<br />

previously stated, the production <strong>of</strong> peaberries is partially related to adverse environmental<br />

factors, mainly in the flowering and fruiting. In the cycle 2009/2010 the irrigation and the<br />

interaction <strong>of</strong> irrigation and population arrangement did not provide significant effect in the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!