Growth and yield responses of commercial sugarcane cultivars to mulching in the coastal rainfed region of South Africa

Nxumalo, Nkosinathi; Ramburan, S.; Steyn, J. M.

doi:10.1080/02571862.2016.1148787

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The last observed reductions were of 4 and 15% in the cycle of plant cane and ratoon, respectively. The presence of straw on the soil increased the juice purity, and the remaining other industrial indexes were not negatively affected by the straw (Table 1), as found by Ramburan and Nxumalo (2017), Nxumalo et al (2017), and Aquino et al (2018).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Straw management effects on sugarcane growth, nutrient cycling and water use in the Brazilian semiarid region

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was evaluated how straw management modifies the development, growth, nutrient cycling and crop water productivity of sugarcane in the semiarid region of Brazil. The experiment was carried out using two plots with 5 ha each, being one without straw on the soil surface and one with 26 Mg•ha −1 covering the soil. Sugarcane growth and development and straw decomposition coefficient were evaluated, whereas the industrial yield, juice quality, dry matter partitioning, and crop water productivity were determined at harvesting. The straw decomposition coefficient was 0.0049 Mg•ha −1 •day −1 , and the remaining dry mass was equal to 24%. The straw affected the sugarcane growth and development until the first 100 days. The individual internode volume can be adopted as an indicator of the effect of straw on sugarcane growth because the internode volumes up to the sixth position in the with-straw treatment crop were lower than in the no-straw treatment, which was not observed in other variables of the stalks. Keeping straw on the soil surface reduced the crop lodging. Yield and juice quality were not affected, but crop water productivity was increased by keeping sugarcane straw in the field.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Straw management effects on sugarcane growth, nutrient cycling and water use in the Brazilian semiarid region

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies, however, have shown variable plant tillering responses to straw cover. Nxumalo et al (2017) reported that delayed plant emergence and early crop establishment due to straw cover did not affect the final plant population compared with straw removal. In contrast, Campos et al (2010) concluded that raking improved plant tillering and final population compared with no raking (i.e., straw cover), particularly for cooler regions of southeastern Brazil.…”

Section: Plant Tillering Response To Straw Managementmentioning

confidence: 98%

Sugarcane Straw Blanket Management Effects on Plant Growth, Development, and Yield in Southeastern Brazil

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Brazilian sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) production systems, the practice of moving harvesting residue from row to inter‐row positions (i.e., raking) has increased in response to producer concerns over the potential negative effects of sugarcane straw on crop establishment and stalk yield. Despite increasing adoption among sugarcane farmers, the impacts of straw raking practices on plant growth and yield remain unclear. A 2‐yr experiment that included both dry and wet seasons was conducted at two sites in southeastern Brazil to evaluate straw management strategy effects on plant tillering, phytomass accumulation, plant nutritional status, and stalk yield. The experiments were established at the Bom Retiro mill and the Univalem mill. Experimental treatments included raking straw to inter‐rows (raked), total straw removal (bare soil), and no straw removal (straw cover). Raked and bare soil treatments improved plant tillering but did not influence final plant population. Straw management had a slight effect on phytomass accumulation. Reduction of phytomass yield was observed from the first to the second ratoon during both seasons at both sites. At Bom Retiro, phytomass yield decreased 37% for stands established during the dry season and 19% for stands established during the wet season. At Univalem, phytomass yield decreased 20% for stands established during the dry season and 30% for stands established during the wet season. Retaining straw in the field (regardless of treatment) increased leaf tissue P content but not stalk yield. Raking straw from row to inter‐row positions at these locations in southeastern Brazil had no benefit on sugarcane yield but may result in soil compaction and higher production costs over time.

show abstract

“…Intercropping can also help in improving soil microbial diversity (Li et al 2012;Solanki et al 2019) and its activity (Solanki et al 2019), increasing AMF (Zhang et al 2020), as well as providing extra economic benefits to sugarcane growers (Chagas et al 2015;Teshome et al 2015;Ullah et al 2017;Shukla et al 2019;Nadeem et al 2020). Green harvesting and trash blanket  Maintaining or improving soil organic carbon and the other nutrients (Singh et al 2012;Trivelin et al 2013;Shukla et al 2016;Sandhu et al 2017;Luca et al 2018;Castioni et al 2019)  Improving soil physical quality attributes, such as increasing soil waterstable aggregates (Surendran et al 2016) and preventing soil compaction (Castioni et al 2018)  Avoiding sudden fluctuations in soil temperature (Awe et al 2015)  Preserving soil moisture (Liao et al 2013;Nxumalo et al 2016 (Jiang et al 2012;Prado et al 2013;Dotaniya et al 2016;dos Santos et al 2020)  Increasing the abundance of soil biota, including soil microbes (Balota and Auler 2011;Nair and Ngouajio 2012;Neher et al 2013;van Horn et al 2013;Zaccardelli et al 2013;El-Sharouny 2014;Zhen et al 2014;Sun et al 2015;Francioli et al 2016;Spiegel et al 2018;Zhu et al 2020) and fungi (Miura et al 2013;…”

Section: Intercroppingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An increased number of earthworms can help in regulating soil structure Frazão et al 2019) and play a role in the soil nutrient cycling process through decomposition and mineralization (Lubbers et al 2010;Bernard et al 2012;Domínguez and Gómez-Brandón 2013;van Groenigen et al 2014;Wachendorf et al 2014;Waqar et al 2019); thus, it leads to reduced fertilizer requirements. Previous studies showed an increase in sugarcane yield due to the implementation of trash blanket (Surendran et al 2016;Singh et al 2012;Liao et al 2013;Ng Cheong and Teeluck 2015;Nxumalo et al 2016;de Aquino et al 2017;de Aquino et al 2018;Dhanapal et al 2018;Corrêa et al 2019). If the trash blanket method is implemented continuously in a sugarcane plantation, beneficial soil biota will create a positive feedback system with continuous soil fertility improvements.…”

Section: Green Harvesting and Trash Blanketmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short Communication: Investigating environmental impacts of long-term monoculture of sugarcane farming in Indonesia through DPSIR framework

Putra¹,

Ranomahera²,

Rizaludin³

et al. 2020

Biodiversitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Putra RP, Ranomahera MRR, Rizaludin MS, Supriyanto R, Dewi VAK. 2020. Short Communication: Investigating the environmental impacts of long-term monoculture of sugarcane farming in Indonesia through DPSIR framework. Biodiversitas 21: 4945-4958. An increasing trend of sugar demand in Indonesia due to the rising population has forced the government to boost its national sugarcane production through intensification program. Long-term monoculture system has long been practiced by sugarcane growers in Indonesia, particularly by large sugar companies for more than 30 years. This farming method bolsters the government’s program in scaling-up national sugar production. Through a literature study, the present study analyzed the impacts of long-term sugarcane monoculture in Indonesia on agroecosystem functions by using the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework. Results showed that long-term sugarcane monoculture leads to decreased soil quality, lowered hydrological functions, reduced agrobiodiversity, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Those conditions corresponded to reduced sugarcane yield and productivity, increased pests and diseases, decreased income gained by growers, higher dependencies on chemicals, and higher cultivation costs. In the end, we proposed several sustainable crop management to mitigate the detrimental effects of sugarcane monoculture practice in Indonesia. These include performing crop break or rotation with legume or the other cash crop, intercropping, green harvesting and trash blanket, precision agriculture methods, and soil amendment with organic matters. However, some constraints in implementing those sustainable crop management, such as inadequate knowledge and capital, should be considered. The information given in this study can be used by sugarcane growers or companies, policymakers, and sugarcane-related stakeholders as considerations to improve sugarcane productivity while at the same time minimizing its impact on the environment.

show abstract

Growth and yield responses of commercial sugarcane cultivars to mulching in the coastal rainfed region of South Africa

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

Straw management effects on sugarcane growth, nutrient cycling and water use in the Brazilian semiarid region

Straw management effects on sugarcane growth, nutrient cycling and water use in the Brazilian semiarid region

Sugarcane Straw Blanket Management Effects on Plant Growth, Development, and Yield in Southeastern Brazil

Short Communication: Investigating environmental impacts of long-term monoculture of sugarcane farming in Indonesia through DPSIR framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About