% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Pereira:894711,
author = {Pereira, Lucas Felisberto and Ribeiro Junior, Walter
Quadros and Ramos, Maria Lucrécia Gerosa and Santos,
Nicolas Zendonadi dos and Soares, Guilherme Filgueiras and
Casari, Raphael Augusto das Chagas Noqueli and Muller, Onno
and Tavares, Cássio Jardim and Martins, Éder de Souza and
Rascher, Uwe and Guimarães, Cristiane Andréa de Lima and
Pereira, André Ferreira and Mertz-Henning, Liliane Márcia
and Sousa, Carlos Antonio Ferreira de},
title = {{P}hysiological changes in soybean cultivated with soil
remineralizer in the {C}errado under variable water regimes},
journal = {Pesquisa agropecuária brasileira},
volume = {56},
issn = {1678-3921},
address = {Brasília},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-03363},
pages = {e01455},
year = {2021},
abstract = {The objective of this work was to evaluate the influence of
the soil remineralizer fine-graded mica schist (FMS) on
soybean (Glycine max) physiology, yield, and grain quality
under different water regimes (WRs) in the Brazilian
Cerrado. The experiment was conducted under field conditions
for two years, using four WRs and three treatments: mica
schist, conventional fertilization, and control. In 2017 and
2018, the following WRs were evaluated: WR1, WR2, WR3, and
WR4, corresponding to a mean value of 100, 65, 44, and
$28\%$ of crop evapotranspiration replacement, respectively.
Photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, transpiration,
internal CO2 concentration, effective quantum yield of
photosystem II (PSII) (Fv’/Fm’), quantum yield (PSII)
(ᶲFSII), and electron transport rate reduced as a function
of the advanced phenological stage of soybean and the
reduction in WR. Grain quality was only affected by the WR.
The mica schist was statistically similar to conventional
fertilization and the control in 2017 and 2018. Yield
decreased due to the anticipation of soybean phenological
age and WR, but there were no differences between the three
treatments in 2017 and 2018. The reduction in soybean yield
is attributed to stomatal closure, loss of photoprotective
capacity, and damage to the photosynthetic machinery caused
by drought.},
cin = {IBG-2},
ddc = {640},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
pnm = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
(POF4-217)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000691766300001},
doi = {10.1590/s1678-3921.pab2021.v56.01455},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/894711},
}