Inoculação de bactérias solubilizadoras de fósforo e adubação fosfatada em canola

Abstract

Amongst the oilseeds crops canola stands out as the third largest production in the world. It’s a demanding plant in terms of fertility and the correct handling of phosphate fertilization is crucial for the development of the crops seen as its deficiency causes a drop in the production. The primary phosphate deposits are found abroad and are estimated to be in a process of depletion. In the alternatives for reducing the use of phosphate fertilizers is the use of microrganisms that are capable of dissolving the phosphorus, such as Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus megaterium, that already present good results when inoculated in wheat and soybean crops. Therefore, this article had as a goal the analysis of the use of inoculants based on phosphorus-solubilizing microrganisms, as an alternative to reducing the uses of phosphorus fertilizers in canola crops. The research was developed in the city of Guarani das Missões - RS, using Randomized Block Delineation (RBD), composed by five repetitions and four treatments, totaling in 20 plots. The treatments were named as T1 that didn’t receive neither the phosphate fertilizer nor the inoculant, T2 that didn’t receive the phosphate fertilizer but received the inoculant, T3 that received 100% of the recommended phosphate fertilizer and didn’t receive the inoculant and T4 that received 100% of the recommended phosphate fertilizer and received the inoculant. The evaluation of the different treatments was made through the crop yield components that are the number of siliques per plant, the number of grains per silique, the weight of a thousand grains and the productivity in kg ha-1, corrected to 13% of humidity. In the utilization of the phosphate fertilizer, the treatments that received it (T3 and T4) had higher averages in crop yields and productivity than the ones that didn’t receive it (T1 and T2). As for the utilization of the inoculant, even though it provided slightly higher averages in the treatments that were inoculated (T2 and T4), it didn’t result in significant differences in comparison to the treatments in which the inoculant wasn’t used (T1 and T3).