Microclimate, development and productivity of robusta coffee shaded by rubber trees and at full sun

Abstract

RESUMO-A importância econômica do mogno ressalta a relevância da análise do vigor de suas sementes visando à formação de mudas com qualidade. O objetivo foi avaliar a influência de diferentes temperaturas e períodos de exposição do teste de envelhecimento acelerado em sementes de mogno. As variáveis analisadas foram: teor de água, emergência de plântulas, índice de velocidade de emergência, freqüência relativa e tempo médio de emergência após o envelhecimento acelerado [(39; 41; 43 e 45 C, durante zero (testemunha), 24; 48; 72 e 96 horas]. O vigor de sementes de mogno pode ser avaliado por meio do teste de envelhecimento acelerado nas temperaturas de 39 o C/96 horas e 43 o C por 48 ou 96 horas. A combinação 43 o C/48 horas permite reduzir o tempo de execução das avaliações de sementes de mogno. O índice de velocidade de emergência é uma variável adequada para avaliar a influência do envelhecimento acelerado sobre sementes de mogno.

Vegetative growth and yield of robusta coffee genotypes cultivated under different shading levels

“…Leaf area is considered one of the main plant response variables to the amount of solar radiation. In the present study, leaf area was higher under shade for the three studied genotypes, which agrees with previous reports for robusta coffee (PARTELLI et al, 2014;ARAÚJO et al, 2016;OLIOSI et al, 2016). Normally, plants respond to changing light conditions by adjusting a suite of morphological and physiological traits (LIU et al, 2016), mainly the leaf area.…”

“…Haggar et al (2011), studied shading of arabica coffee in Central America in both conventional and organic management systems and observed that the cumulative yield for the first six years was significantly higher for coffee grown under full sunlight than under shade under conventional management in Costa Rica but that the cumulative coffee yield over five years under full sunlight in Nicaragua was only significantly higher than two of the four shade levels tested. In robusta coffee, Araújo et al (2016) verified the reduction of yield, but, only in the treatment with dense shading. This higher coffee productivity under full sunlight may be explained by the higher degree of floral initiation under these conditions and the inability to remove fruits naturally, which, combined with the sink strength of the seed endosperm, promotes the depletion of plant reserves.…”

“…Regarding to effects of shade on vegetative growth and yield of coffee plants, studies have reported that shade causes an increased leaf area (RODRÍGUEZ-LÓPEZ et al, 2013), decreases in branch emission (MORAIS et al, 2006), increases in the internode distance (ANIM-KWAPONG et al, 2010), and etiolation of the plagiotropic and orthotropic branches (ARAÚJO et al, 2016). About the production of Coffea canephora under shading, few studies were performed in field conditions, even that exist a demand for this information, leaving a gap of uncertainties to the coffee producer that pretends to have a coffee plantation shaded.…”

Arabica coffee–macadamia intercropping: Yield and profitability with mechanized coffee harvesting

“…In high-altitude broadleaved forests, coffee flourishes under mild understory conditions (Wrigley, 1988). Coffee was brought to Brazil in 1727, and as early as 1731, there were reports of the first exports of coffee have been found with shade tree intercropping in coffee plantations, such as: increased air humidity (Araújo, Partelli, Oliosi, & Pezzopane, 2016;Partelli et al, 2014); increased soil organic matter (Melloni et al, 2018); lower soil density, penetration resistance, and higher total porosity, microporosity, and soil water content (Souza et al, 2017); decreased nutrient leaching, improved soil fertility, and reduced fertilizer requirements (Babbar & Zak, 1995;Cuenca, Aranguren, & Herrera, 1983;Fassbender, 1987;Jaramillo-Botero et al, 2010); reduced incidence of Cercospora coffeicola (Berkeley & Cooke;Salgado, Macedo, Carvalho, Salgado, & Venturin, 2007), Leucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Mèneville & Perrottet; Teodoro, Klein, Reis, & Tscharntke, 2009), several species of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritoidea; Aguiar-Menezes et al, 2007), and weeds (Concenço et al, 2014;Silva, Perdoná, Soratto, & Negrisoli, 2013); as well as improvement in the quality of the harvested coffee beans (Vaast, Bertrand, Perriot, Guyot, & Génard, 2006). On the other hand, the following disadvantages can be noted: lower soil moisture in the dry season (Coelho, Matsumoto, Lemos, & Souza, 2010;Neves, Martinez, Souza, & Cecon, 2007), higher incidence of Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari; Wrigley, 1988), need for pruning to regulate shading provided by trees to coffee plants, and, mainly, limitation of coffee production potential and mechanized cultural practices, especially mechanized coffee harvesting (Perdoná & Soratto, 2016).…”

Effect of pigeon pea intercropping or shading with leucaena plants on the occurrence of the coffee leaf miner and on its predation by wasps in organic coffee plantings

“…Although, weather conditions (at the regional level) were the same for the two areas, the occurrence of CLM was markedly different (Figure 1 and 2), probably due to the microclimatic effects that the intercropped plants (MORAIS et al, 2006) or shaded trees (ARAÚJO et al, 2016) caused in each coffee planting.…”