Engenharia Agrícola · 2025
PHYSICAL SOIL QUALITY UNDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN SUGARCANE FIELD RENEWAL
Arcoverde, S. N. S., Kurihara, C. H., Silva, C. J. D., Oliveira, G. B. A. D.
Export
PHYSICAL SOIL QUALITY UNDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN SUGARCANE …
Abstract
Sugarcane field renewal is usually carried out using conventional soil tillage, followed by sugarcane planting or by soybean cultivation or cover cropping. However, efforts have often been made to reduce the intensive operations involved in conventional soil preparation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the physical quality of the soil under conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT) systems after a sugarcane harvest cycle, before soil preparation and after four months of cultivation of Crotalaria juncea intercropped with Urochloa ruzizienses cv. Xaraés. This study was conducted in the municipality of Juti, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, on a dystrophic psammitic Red Latosol. A randomized block design was used in a split-plot scheme with thirty replications. The main plots consisted of two soil management systems, and the subplots corresponded to evaluation periods (before and after soil preparation and cover crop cultivation). The assessed attributes were soil bulk density (BD), macroporosity (Ma), microporosity (Mi), and total porosity (TP), as well as soil penetration resistance (PR) and soil moisture (SM). The CT promoted greater reductions in soil bulk density and penetration resistance, as well as increases in total porosity and macroporosity in deeper soil layers, compared to NT, which showed improvements particularly in the surface layer. In areas with no chemical or biological limitations in the soil profile, the adoption of NT combined with the cultivation of Crotalaria juncea intercropped with Urochloa ruzizienses cv. Xaraés, is recommended to improve the physical quality of the soil for sugarcane cultivation.
Show all
Sugarcane field renewal is usually carried out using conventional soil tillage, followed by sugarcane planting or by soybean cultivation or cover cropping. However, efforts have often been made to reduce the intensive operations involved in conventional soil preparation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the physical quality of the soil under conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT) systems after a sugarcane harvest cycle, before soil preparation and after four months of cultivation of Crotalaria juncea intercropped with Urochloa ruzizienses cv. Xaraés. This study was conducted in the municipality of Juti, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, on a dystrophic psammitic Red Latosol. A randomized block design was used in a split-plot scheme with thirty replications. The main plots consisted of two soil management systems, and the subplots corresponded to evaluation periods (before and after soil preparation and cover crop cultivation). The assessed attributes were soil bulk density (BD), macroporosity (Ma), microporosity (Mi), and total porosity (TP), as well as soil penetration resistance (PR) and soil moisture (SM). The CT promoted greater reductions in soil bulk density and penetration resistance, as well as increases in total porosity and macroporosity in deeper soil layers, compared to NT, which showed improvements particularly in the surface layer. In areas with no chemical or biological limitations in the soil profile, the adoption of NT combined with the cultivation of Crotalaria juncea intercropped with Urochloa ruzizienses cv. Xaraés, is recommended to improve the physical quality of the soil for sugarcane cultivation.
Sugarcane field renewal is usually carried out using conventional soil tillage, followed by sugarcane planting or by soybean cultivation or cover cropping. However, efforts have often been made to reduce the intensive operations involved in conventional soil preparation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the physical quality of the soil under conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT) systems after a sugarcane harvest cycle, before soil preparation and after four months of cultivation of Crotalaria juncea intercropped with Urochloa ruzizienses cv. Xaraés. This study was conducted in the municipality of Juti, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, on a dystrophic psammitic Red Latosol. A randomized block design was used in a split-plot scheme with thirty replications. The main plots consisted of two soil management systems, and the subplots corresponded to evaluation periods (before and after soil preparation and cover crop cultivation). The assessed attributes were soil bulk density (BD), macroporosity (Ma), microporosity (Mi), and total porosity (TP), as well as soil penetration resistance (PR) and soil moisture (SM). The CT promoted greater reductions in soil bulk density and penetration resistance, as well as increases in total porosity and macroporosity in deeper soil layers, compared to NT, which showed improvements particularly in the surface layer. In areas with no chemical or biological limitations in the soil profile, the adoption of NT combined with the cultivation of Crotalaria juncea intercropped with Urochloa ruzizienses cv. Xaraés, is recommended to improve the physical quality of the soil for sugarcane cultivation.
Findings
What changed what, as the paper reports it. Grouped by the measured property. The largest groups are open; open the others as you need them.
soil bulk density
↑ 1= 12
- no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · December2023 before renewal · Soebe Farm · 0–10,10–20,20–30 cm; after five sugarcane cuts,70months
Numbers
- treatment 1.73 vs. control 1.75 Mg m-3 (-1.143 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 1.73 vs. control 1.76 Mg m-3 (-1.705 %) · 10–20 cm
- treatment 1.71 vs. control 1.72 Mg m-3 (-0.5814 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 5 “the soil management system did not influence density and macroporosity”
- increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–30 cm · April2024 after four months of cover crops · Soebe Farm · 0–10,10–20,20–30cm
Numbers
- treatment 1.66 vs. control 1.47 Mg m-3 (+12.93 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 1.69 vs. control 1.6 Mg m-3 (+5.625 %) · 10–20 cm
- treatment 1.68 vs. control 1.63 Mg m-3 (+3.067 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 6 “| CT | 1.75 Aa | 1.47 Bb | 1.61 B | 0.10 Ab | 0.22 Aa | 0.16 A |”
Source · p. 6 “| NT | 1.73 Aa | 1.66 Ab | 1.69 A | 0.12 Aa | 0.15 Ba | 0.13 B |”
macroporosity
↓ 1= 12
- no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · December2023 before renewal · Soebe Farm
Numbers
- treatment 0.12 vs. control 0.1 m3 m-3 (+20 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 0.13 vs. control 0.12 m3 m-3 (+8.333 %) · 10–20 cm
- treatment 0.13 vs. control 0.13 m3 m-3 (0 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 5 “the soil management system did not influence density and macroporosity”
- decrease
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–20 cm · April2024 after four months of cover crops · Soebe Farm
Numbers
- treatment 0.15 vs. control 0.22 m3 m-3 (-31.82 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 0.13 vs. control 0.17 m3 m-3 (-23.53 %) · 10–20 cm
Source · p. 6 “| CT | 1.76 Aa | 1.60 Bb | 1.68 A | 0.12 Ab | 0.17 Aa | 0.14 A |”
Source · p. 6 “| NT | 1.73 Aa | 1.69 Aa | 1.71 A | 0.13 Aa | 0.13 Ba | 0.13 A |”
total porosity
↓ 1= 12
- no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · December2023 before renewal · Soebe Farm
Numbers
- treatment 0.31 vs. control 0.31 m3 m-3 (0 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 0.32 vs. control 0.32 m3 m-3 (0 %) · 10–20 cm
- treatment 0.33 vs. control 0.32 m3 m-3 (+3.125 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 7 “Samples of the sandy soil analyses before planting cover crops did not demonstrate the influence of the soil management system on microporosity and total porosity (Table 3) in any of the assessed layers”
- decrease
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–30 cm · April2024 after four months of cover crops · Soebe Farm
Numbers
- treatment 0.34 vs. control 0.41 m3 m-3 (-17.07 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 0.32 vs. control 0.37 m3 m-3 (-13.51 %) · 10–20 cm
- treatment 0.33 vs. control 0.36 m3 m-3 (-8.333 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 7 “a significant effect of the management system was observed when analyzing total porosity in all layers evaluated, with an increase in the mean values in the conventional tillage area”
soil penetration resistance
↑ 1= 12
- no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · December2023 before renewal · Soebe Farm
Numbers
- treatment 1.78 vs. control 1.92 MPa (-7.292 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 2.72 vs. control 3 MPa (-9.333 %) · 10–20 cm
- treatment 3.13 vs. control 3.45 MPa (-9.275 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 7 “The assessments of soil resistance to penetration and soil moisture, before planting cover crops, do not demonstrate the influence of the management studied on these physical-hydric attributes (Table 4), in any of the assessed layers.”
- increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–20 cm · April2024 after four months of cover crops · Soebe Farm
Numbers
- treatment 1.32 vs. control 0.98 MPa (+34.69 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 3 vs. control 2.1 MPa (+42.86 %) · 10–20 cm
Source · p. 8 “a significant reduction was observed in the mean values obtained in the CT concerning the NT, in the 0.00 to 0.10 and 0.10 to 0.20 m layers”
microporosity
= 11
- no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · December2023 before renewal · Soebe Farm
Numbers
- treatment 0.19 vs. control 0.21 cm3 cm-3 (-9.524 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 0.2 vs. control 0.2 cm3 cm-3 (0 %) · 10–20 cm
- treatment 0.2 vs. control 0.19 cm3 cm-3 (+5.263 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 7 “Samples of the sandy soil analyses before planting cover crops did not demonstrate the influence of the soil management system on microporosity and total porosity (Table 3) in any of the assessed layers”
soil moisture
= 11
- no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · December2023 and April2024 · Soebe Farm · before renewal and after four months of cover crops
Numbers
- treatment 9.7 vs. control 9.3 % (+4.301 %) · 0–10 cm · before
- treatment 8.6 vs. control 9.1 % (-5.495 %) · 0–10 cm · after
- treatment 10 vs. control 9.6 % (+4.167 %) · 10–20 cm · before
- treatment 8.3 vs. control 8.5 % (-2.353 %) · 10–20 cm · after
- treatment 9.4 vs. control 9.5 % (-1.053 %) · 20–30 cm · before
- treatment 8.5 vs. control 8.1 % (+4.938 %) · 20–30 cm · after
Source · p. 7 “The assessments of soil resistance to penetration and soil moisture, before planting cover crops, do not demonstrate the influence of the management studied on these physical-hydric attributes (Table 4), in any of the assessed layers.”
Source · p. 8 “soil moisture was not influenced by the management systems (Table 4)”
Set-up
Treatments
- soil management systemsTillage system
- no-tillage (NT)Zero tillageconventional tillage (CT)Conventional tillage
Measured
- soil bulk densityBulk density
- Unit
- Mg m-3
- macroporosity
- Unit
- m3 m-3
- microporosity
- Unit
- cm3 cm-3
- total porosity
- Unit
- m3 m-3
- soil penetration resistancePenetration resistance
- Unit
- MPa
- Method
- PenetroLOG-PLG1020; five points per depth
- soil moistureGravimetric water content
- Unit
- %
- Method
- gravimetric
Sites
Soebe Farm
- Location
- Juti, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil22.69° S, 54.54° W
- Climate
- Cwa
- Land use
- sugarcaneArable land
- Management on the whole site
- Crotalaria juncea intercropped with Urochloa ruzizienses cv. XaraésCover crops
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–10 cm | – | 8.7 % (from g/kg) | – | – | – |
| 10–20 cm | – | 9.2 % (from g/kg) | – | – | – |
| 20–40 cm | – | 10.8 % (from g/kg) | – | – | – |
Similar papers
Structural quality of a no-tillage red latosol 50 months after gypsum aplication
Müller et al. · 2012 · Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo
8 shared concepts
16 findings1 site
Straw Deep Burial and Returning to Farmland: Mechanistic Study on Enhancing Albic Soil Fertility
Wang et al. · 2025 · Agronomy
7 shared concepts
21 findings1 site
Long-Term Trial of Tillage Systems for Sugarcane: Effect on Topsoil Hydrophysical Attributes
Martíni et al. · 2021 · Sustainability
9 shared concepts
9 findings1 site
Physical properties of a humic cambisol under tillage and cropping systems after twelve years
Andrade et al. · 2010 · Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo
9 shared concepts
15 findings1 site
No-Tillage System Can Improve Soybean Grain Production More Than Conventional Tillage System
Silva et al. · 2023 · Plants
9 shared concepts
15 findings1 site