58 ff3 fs7 fc0 sc0 ls0 ws7">lyses to determine soil fertility with the following results:
pH(CaCl2): 4.7 and 4.7, Organic Matter: 30 and 26
g·dm–3, P (resin): 7 and 9 mg·dm–3, K: 1.5 and 0.9, Ca:
23 and 16, Mg: 16 and 11, H + Al: 42 and 42, Al: 3 and 4
mmolc·dm–3, and V: 49 and 40%, Cu: 3.6 and 3.1 Fe: 42
and 34, Mn: 13.3 and 9.5, Zn: 0.6 and 0.5, and B: 0.13
and 0.18 mg·dm–3, respectively.
The treatments were distributed in the field according
to a randomized complete block design, with 5 replicates.
The amount of lime to be applied was calculated to cause
saturation bases to reach 80%. The value taken in con-
sideration was that resulting from the soil sampling made
between rows at a depth of 0 - 20 cm, according to pro-
cedures described by Quaggio et al. [8]. Lime (CaO =
390 g·kg–1; MgO= 130 g·kg–1; reactivity of 89% and
Total Neutralization Real Power = 91%) was applied on
October 25, 2005, all over the area. After being spread all
over the orchard surface, the lime was incorporated at a
depth between 0 and 5 cm with the help of a light disk
harrow implement.
The treatments consisted of lime doses which were
values having as a referential the calculated lime dose to
raise V to 80% at the depth of 0 - 20 cm. The referential
dose was of 3.1 t·ha–1 and the treatments were as follows:
T1: no lime, T2: half the referential dose, T3: the referen-
tial dose, T4: 1.5 times the referential dose, T5: 2 times
the referential dose, or, in other words, the doses were of
0, 1.55, 3.10, 4.65, and 6.20 t of lime per hectare. The
experimental unit was formed by five 10 × 10 m spaced
plants. The three central plants of the experimental unit
were those used for measuring the effects of the applied
treatments.
The experiment started on april of 2005. Initially, the
plants were pruned viewing the elimination of apical do-
minance, according to recommendation by Kavati [9].
Pruning for cleaning effects was performed after harvest,
during the months of March of 2006 and 2007. Cultural
practices viewing the control of weeds, insects and dis-
eases were made.
During the cropping years of 2005/06 and 2006/07,
fertilization viewing to preserve N, P, and K levels in the
soil was made with basis on soil analysis, according to
procedures described by Quaggio et al. [8]. The follow-
ing amounts of fertilizers (in kg·ha–1) were applied: 30 of
N (in urea), 40 of P2O5 (in simple superphosphate), 39 of
K2O (in potassium chloride), 2 of B (in boric acid), and 1
of Zn (in zinc sulfate). Phosphorus and the micronutri-
ents were all applied in December of 2005 and repeated
in december of 2006. N and K had their doses divided by
3: the first part applied during december, the second dur-
ing march/april and the third in may. All nutrients were
manually spread on the soil surface in an area corre-
sponding to the plant aerial part projection.
Soil samples were taken 16 and 28 months after the
liming procedures at a mean distance of 2 m from the
tree trunk at a depth of 0 - 20 cm. In these samples, the
following chemical characteristics were measured: pH, K,
Ca, Mg, H + Al, according to methodology recom-
mended by Raij et al. [10]. The soil sum of bases (Ca2+ +
Mg2+ + K+) and bases saturation were calculated.
At flowering, 12 months after soil liming, plants nu-
trional status was evaluated in two central leaves from
the second terminal branch flux at the median part of the
plant on the four cardinal points, according to procedures
recommended by Silva et al. [11]. These leaves served
for determining Ca and Mg levels according to proce-
dures found in Bataglia et al. [12]. Number and weight of
fruits in two harvests (November and December) were
also determined. The fruits had their pH and soluble sol-
ids content (Brix) determined by a refractometer and
their titratable acidity (g of citric acid per 100 g of pulp)
by method proposed by Tressler & Loslyn [13].
The data resulting from the experiment were submitted
to the analysis of variance according to procedures found
in Ferreira [14]. The statistical model used was that of
split plots for the analysis of variance for soil and sam-
pling time. Following that, the effects of lime doses on
the studied variables were compared by means of poly-
nomial regression studies.
3. Results and Discussion
The results show that no significant interaction was
found between lime doses and sampling time (data not
shown). Soil liming improved soil reaction chemistry,
increasing pH (Figure 1(a)), decreasing H + Al (Figure
1(b)), increasing the bases Ca and Mg (Figure 1(c))
which resulted in an increased sum of bases (Figure
1(d)), and in bases saturation (Figure 1(e)). These results
are similar to those presented by several authors in which
lime was spread over the orchard surface such as Correa
[15], with guava, and Silva [16], with citrus.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. OJSS
Mango Tree Response to Lime Applied during the Production Phase
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. OJSS
157
y = -0.0357x
2
+ 0.337x + 4.60 R
2
= 0.95**
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
0 1.55 3.1 4.65 6.2
A
pplied limestone, t· ha
-1
pH in CaCl
2
(a)
y = 0.8473x
2
- 7.737x + 45.97 R
2
= 0.98**
25
30
35
40
45
50
01.553.1 4.65 6.
2
A
pplied limeston e, t·h a
-1
H+Al, mmol
c
dm
-3
(b)
y = -0.8622x
2
+ 9.539x + 20.56 R
2
= 0.97**
y = -0.6095x
2
+ 6.134x + 10.37 R
2
= 0.98**
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
1.55
3.1 4.65
6.2
A
pplied limestone, t·ha
-1
Ca
Mg
(c)
Ca, Mg mmol
c
dm
-
3
y = -1.4702x
2
+ 15.751x + 31.2 0 R
2
= 0.97**
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
01.55 3.14.65
6.2
Calcário aplicado, t·ha
-1
(d)
Sum of bases, mmol
c
dm
-
3
y = -1.2933x
2
+ 12.696x + 40.39 R
2
= 0.99**
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
0
1.55 3.1 4.65 6.2
A
pplied limestone, t·ha
-1
(e)
Bases satura tio n, %
Figure 1. Effects of lime on pH (CaCl2) (a), H + Al (b), Ca, Mg (c), sum of bases (d), and bases saturation (e) at depths be-
tween 0 and 20 cm of a soil being cultivated with mango plants (mean values of two sampling times). **significant by the F
test (p < 0.01).
It is possible to observe that the dose of 4.65 t·ha–1
(that is a dose 1.5 times larger than the referential dose)
resulted in the highest pH level (5.4) and bases saturation
(72%). Thus, none of the lime doses used in this experi-
ment was capable of raising bases saturation value to
80%, which was pointed by Quaggio et al. [8] as the
ideal one for mango trees. Oliveira et al. [17] also re-
ported that the liming procedure they made use of in their
experiment was not capable of raising bases saturation to
80%. Caires and Rosolem [18] have suggested that this
type of result may be ascribed to losses of Ca and Mg
caused by the soil buffering capacity, to the chemical
equilibrium between lime reactions, and to the coarse-
ness of lime granulometry—the coarser it is, the more
difficult its solubilization in the soil. It is also possible
that the time elapsed between lime application and soil
Mango Tree Response to Lime Applied during the Production Phase
158
sampling (22 months) was not sufficient for the complete
lime reaction to occur—according to Oliveira et al. [17],
the lime reaction with the soil may take 33 months to
complete.
The increment in soil bases (Figure 1(e)) by the lim-
ing procedure brought about an increment with quadratic
adjustment in the leaf contents of Ca and Mg (Figure 2).
The levels of these nutrients in the leaves in all treat-
ments are to be considered adequate in comparison with
those pointed by Quaggio et al. [8] as adequate, that is
Ca: 20 - 35 and Mg: 2.5 - 5.0 mg·kg–1.
The liming procedure did not affect fruit number (F:
0.37 ns) or production (F: 0.54 ns) in the first year of
study. In the second year though, soil liming promoted an
increment in fruit number with a quadratic adjustment
(Figure 3(a)) and also influenced fruit production (Fig-
ure 3(b)). Similar results were reported by Fidalski et al.
[19] who worked with orange of the “Pera” cultivar. Posi-
tive lime effects on fruit production were also reported by
Pavan [20], in apple, Prado [21], in starfruit, Natale et al.
[22], in guava, and Prado et al. [23], in passion fruit.
These effects of liming on mango production are to be
ascribed to the improvement of soil chemical attributes
(Figure 1) and of the plant nutritional status (Figure 2)
specially because liming provides the mango plant with
Ca and this is one of the most demanded nutrients by the
mango plant [11]. Ca is responsible for a larger devel-
opment of the root system of fruiting plants [24] and
these more voluminous root systems cause the plant to
absorb higher quantities of other mineral nutrients and
this permits larger productions of fruits.
The results show that the highest fruit yield was veri-
fied when the lime dose was of 4.6 t·ha–1 (Figure 3(b))
and that at that point soil saturation bases was of 72%
(Figure 1(e)). This value is a little below that indicated
by Quaggio et al. [8] as being the adequate one, that is,
80%, although these authors do not inform whether this
value is applicable for the moment the crop is implanted
or for when it reaches the production phase. The lime
dose that permitted the highest productivity was associ-
ated with Ca and Mg foliar levels of 31.9 and 8.2 g·kg–1,
respectively. These values are in accordance with those
indicated by Quaggio et al. [8], that is, Ca from 20 to 35
g·kg–1, Mg from 2.5 to 5.0 g·kg–1 and Malavolta et al.
[25], that is, Ca from 30 to 33 g·kg–1 and Mg from 5 to 6
g·kg–1.
y(Mg) = -0.0536x
2
+ 0.5464x + 6.8 R
2
= 0.95**
y (Ca)= 0.1921x
2
- 0.0599x + 28.13 R
2
= 0.98**
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
A
pplied limestone, t·ha
-1
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
01.55 4.653.1 6.2
Ca, g·kg
-
1
M
g,
g
·k
g
-
1
Figure 2. Soil liming effects on Ca and Mg leaf contents of mango plants of the “Haden” cultivar.
y = -7.1230x
2
+67.0510x+512.49 R
2
= 0.79**
500
550
600
650
700
750
0.00 1.553.104.656.20
Applied limestone, t·ha
-1
Fruit number per plan
(a)
y = -0.3954x
2
+ 3.6323x + 23.46 R
2
= 0.89**
20
24
28
32
36
0.00 1.55 3.10 4.65 6.20
Applied limestone t·ha
-1
Fruits yield, t·ha
-1
(b)
Figure 3. Soil liming effects on fruit number (a) and productivity (b) of mango plants of the “Haden” cultivar.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. OJSS
Mango Tree Response to Lime Applied during the Production Phase 159
Lime doses caused linearly adjusted increments in fruit
pH values during the two years of the experiment (Fig-
ure 4(a)) and, in the titratable acidity, quadratically ad-
justed reductions during the harvest of 2006 and linearly
adjusted reductions during the harvest of 2007 (Figure
4(b)). During the second year of harvest the titratable
acidity of fruits was lower and higher pH when in com-
parison with the first year and this is understood as an
indication of the liming effect. According to Manica [26],
the mango fruits adequate titratable acidity values should
be between 0.11 and 0.56%. It can thus be seen that the
results found in this work are in agreement with those
pointed by that author with the exception of those of the
check treatment and of the lime dose of 1.55 t·ha–1 (Fig-
ure 4(b)). This reduction in the titratable acidity of fruits
when lime is applied to the soil was also reported by Leal
et al. [27] in starfruit.
The results also show that the amount of soluble solids
was not affected (F = 0.53 ns) during the first year by the
liming procedures. In the second year though the amount
of soluble solids increased with a linear adjustment with
lime doses (Figure 4(c)). Rotondano & Melo [28], Leal
et al. [27], Paro et al. [29] report to have observed that
soil liming resulted in fruits with higher levels of soluble
solids and this resulted in the fruits reaching the harvest
point more precociously. The levels of soluble solids
found in this research work (Figure 4(c) 15.8 and 17.6)
are in accordance with those indicated as adequate for
mango fruits by Manica et al. [26], that is, between
11.9% and 28.2%.
4. Conclusions
Soil liming improved soil chemical attributes and this
resulted in improved plant nutritional status and in higher
fruits yield as well as fruits of better technological qual-
ity.
Soil liming effects on adult mango plants is slow and it
causes significant effects on fruit yield only in the second
year following liming.
The highest mango fruit production took place when
soil liming caused bases saturation to reach a value of
72% and Ca an Mg foliar levels of 32 and 8 g·kg–1, re-
spectively.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Empresa Baiana de Desen-
volvimento Agricola S.A. and to the São Paulo State
y = 0.0632x + 3.874 R
2
= 0.84**
2006
y = 0.029x + 4.002 R
2
= 0.93**
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
0.00 1.55 3.10 4.65 6.20
A
pplied limestone, t·ha
-1
2007
(a)
p
H
y = -0.0054x
2
- 0.0068x + 0.62 R
2
=0.98**
y = -0.0174x + 0.318 R
2
=0.92**
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.00 1.55 3.10
4.65
6.20
A
pplied limestone, t· h a
-1
Titratable acidity
g citric acid per 100g pulp
2006
2007
(b)
y = 0.2594x + 15.958 R2= 0.91**
15.50
16.00
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
0.00
1.55 3.10 4.65 6.20
A
pplied limestone, t·ha-1
(c)
Soluble solids, Brix
Figure 4. Soil liming effects on pH (a), titratable acidity (b), and solid solubles (c) of mango fruits of the “Haden” cultivar.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. OJSS
Mango Tree Response to Lime Applied during the Production Phase
160
University (UNESP), campus of Ilha Solteira.
REFERENCES
[1] Agrianual, “Anuário da Agricultura Brasileira,” FNP
Consultoria & Comércio, São Paulo, 2011, pp. 380-386
[2] J. Adámoli, J. Macêdo, L. G. Azevedo and J. Madeira
Netto, “Caracterização da Região dos Cerrados,” In: W. J.
Goedert, Ed., Solos dos Cerrados, EMBRAPA/Nobel,
São Paulo, 1987, pp. 33-74.
[3] P. A. Sanchez and J. G. Salinas, “Suelos Acidos: Estrate-
gias para su Manejo con Bajos Insumos en America
Tropical,” Bogotá, La Sociedad Colombiana de la Ciencia
del Suelo, 1983, p. 93
[4] S. Kumar and J. P. Nauriyal, “Nutritional Studies on
Mango: Tentative Leaf Analysis Standards,” Indian Jour-
nal of Horticulture, Vol. 34, 1977, pp. 100-106.
[5] A. Cracknell Torres, M. C. Cid, A. R. Socorro, D.
Fernández, P. Rosell and V. Galán, “Effects of Nitrogen
and Calcium Supply on the Incidence of Internal Fruit
Breakdown in ‘Tommy Atkins’ Mangoes (Mangifera in-
dica L.) Grown in a Soilless System,” Acta Horticulturae,
Vol. 645, 2004, 387-393.
[6] P. T. G. Guimarães, “Nutrição e Adubação da Manguei-
ra,” Informe Agropecuário, Vol. 8, No. 86, 1982, pp.
28-35.
[7] L. A. A. Rovira and C. R. Alvarez, “El Mango
(Mangifera indica L.),” Editoral America, Caracas, 1990,
401 p.
[8] J. A. Quaggio, B. Van Raij and C. T. Piza Junior,
“Frutíferas,” In: B. Van Raij, H. Cantarella, J. A. Quaggio
and A. M. C. Furlani, Eds., Recomendações de adubação
e Calagem para o Estado de São Paulo, Instituto Agronô-
mico/Fundação IAC, Campinas, 1997, pp. 121-153.
[9] R. Kavati, “Práticas Culturais em Mangueiras no Estado
de São Paulo,” In: Simpósio Sobre Mangicultura, FINEP,
Jaboticabal, 1989, pp. 99-108.
[10] B. Van Raij, J. C. Andrade, H. Cantarella, J. A. and
Quaggio (Eds.), “Análise Química para Avaliação da
Fertilidade de solos Tropicais,” Instituto Agronômico,
Campinas, 2001, 285 p.
[11] D. J. Silva, J. A. Quaggio, P. A. C. Pinto, A. C. Q. Pinto
and A. F. J. Magalhães, “Nutrição e Adubação,” In: P. J.
C. Genú and A. C. Q. Pinto, Eds., A Cultura da Manguei-
ra, Brasília, Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, 2002, pp.
192-221.
[12] O. C. Bataglia, A. M. C. Furlani, J. P. F. Teixeira, P. R.
Furlani and J. R. Gallo, “Métodos de Análise Química de
Plantas,” Instituto Agronômico de Campinas, Campinas,
1983, 48 p.
[13] D. K. Tressler and M. A. Loslyn, “Fruits and Vegetables
Juice Processing Technology,” The AVI Publications,
Westport, 1961, 1028 p.
[14] D. F. Ferreira, “Análises Estatísticas por Meio do Sisvar
para Windows Versão 4.1,” In: Reunião Anual da Região
Brasileira da Sociedade Internacional de Biometria,
UFSCar, São Carlos, 2000, pp. 255-258.
[15] M. C. M. Corrêa, “Calagem em Pomar de Goiabeiras em
Produção e em Colunas de Solo,” Tese (Doutorado em
Produção Vegetal)—Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e
Veterinárias, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal,
2004.
[16] M. A. C. Silva, W. Natale, R. M. Prado, M. C. M. Corrêa
and E. S. Sthuchi, “Aplicação de Calcário em Pomar de
Laranjeira pêra em Produção,” Revista Brasileira de
Fruticultura, Vol. 29, 2007, pp. 606-612.
doi:10.1590/S0100-29452007000300036
[17] E. L. Oliveira, M. S. Parra and A. Costa, “Resposta da
Cultura do Milho, em um Latossolo Vermelho-Escuro
álico, à Calagem,” Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo,
Vol. 21, n.1, 1997, pp. 65-70.
[18] E. F. Caires and C. A. Rosolem, “Calagem em Genótipos
de Amendoim,” Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo,
Campinas, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1993, pp. 193-202.
[19] J. Fidalski, M. A. Pavan, P. A. M. Auler and A. P.
Jacomino, “Produção de Frutos de Laranjeira Pêra e
teores de Nutrientes nas Folhas e no solo, em Latossolo
Vermelho-Escuro do Noroeste do Paraná,” Revista
Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1999, pp.
273-279.
[20] M. A. Pavan, “Manejo da Calagem em Pomares
Estabelecidos de Macieira,” Pesquisa Agropecuária
Brasileira, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1992, pp. 271-276.
[21] R. M. Prado, W. Natale and D. E. Rozane, “Soil Liming
Effects on the Development and the Nutritional Status of
the Carambola Tree and Its Fruit Yielding Capacity,”
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, Vol.
38, 2007, pp. 493-511.
doi:10.1080/00103620601174536
[22] W. Natale, R. M. Prado, D. R. Rozane and L. M.
Romualdo, “Efeitos da Calagem na Fertilidade do solo e
na Nutrição e Produtividade da Goiabeira,” Revista
Brasileira de Ciência do solo, Viçosa, Vol. 31, No. 6,
2007, pp. 1475-1485.
[23] R. M. Prado, W. Natale, M. C. M. Correa and L. F.
Braghirolli, “Efeitos da Aplicação de Calcário no
Desenvolvimento, no Estado Nutricional e na Produção
de Matéria seca de Mudas de Maracujazeiro,” Revista
Brasileira de Fruticultura, Vol. 26, 2004, pp. 145-149.
doi:10.1590/S0100-29452004000100039
[24] R. M. Prado and W. Natale, “Calagem na Nutrição de
Cálcio e no Desenvolvimento do Sistema Radical da
Goiabeira,” Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, Vol. 39,
No. 10, 2004, pp. 1007-1012.
doi:10.1590/S0100-204X2004001000008
[25] E. Malavolta, G. C. Vitti and S. A. Oliveira, “Avaliação
do estado Nutricional das Plantas: Princípios e Aplica-
ções,” 2nd Edition, POTAFÓS, Piracicaba, 1997, 319 p.
[26] I. Manica, “Colheita-Embalagem-Armazenamento,” In: I.
Manica, Ed., Manga: Tecnologia, Produção, Agroindú-
stria e Exportação, Cinco Continentes, Porto Alegre,
2001, pp. 436-444.
[27] R. M. Leal, R. M. Prado and W. Natale, “Calagem nas
Características Físicas e Tecnológicas de Frutos da
Caramboleira, (s.l.: s.n., 2005),” 2008.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. OJSS
Mango Tree Response to Lime Applied during the Production Phase 161
http://www.todafruta.com.br
[28] A. K. F. Rotondano and B. Melo, “Núcleo de Estudo em
Fertilidade no Cerrado. (s.l.: s.n.),” 2003.
http: /www.fruticultura.iciag.ufu.br/aduba5.html
[29] M. Paro, G. C. Vitti, L. C. Donadio and O. R. Sempionato,
“Influência da Utilização de Dois Corretivos Agrícolas,
Calcário e o Gesso na Qualidade do Fruto da Laranjeira
pêra,” In: Congresso Brasileiro de Fruticultura, Socie-
dade Brasileira de Fruticultura, Salvador, 1994, p. 511.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. OJSS