2022 Ortiz

Prévia do material em texto

RESEARCH ARTICLE
A Soil Physical Assessment Over Three Successive Burned
and Unburned Sugarcane Annual Harvests
Pedro. F. S. Ortiz1 • Mário M. Rolim1 • Renato P. de Lima2 • Cássio A. Tormena3 • Roberta Q. Cavalcanti1 •
Elvira M. R. Pedrosa1
Received: 9 November 2021 / Accepted: 13 March 2022
� The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2022
Abstract A field experiment was carried out to evaluate
changes in soil physical properties over three successive
years of sugarcane cultivation under burned (BH) and
unburned (UH) cultivation systems. Soil samplings were
collected after sugarcane planting, after the plant-cane
harvest (H1) and after the first ratoon harvest (H2) in areas
subjected to BH and UH. The degree of compactness (DC),
macroporosity (MaP), soil penetration resistance (SPR),
total organic carbon, field water content (h) and water
content at field capacity (hFC) were measured. Moreover,
the amount of surface straw was measured after H1 and H2.
Soil physical quality was considerably reduced after H1
regardless of the harvest systems. Annual successive har-
vests increased DC by 10%, reducing MaP by about 50%
and increasing SPR. The negative effects of the successive
harvests were slightly greater at BH because of the lowest
amount of sugarcane straw on the soil surface, which
considerably reduced h. It can be concluded that successive
harvests reduce the soil physical quality in burned and
unburned harvest systems after the first harvest, but the
negative effect is more prominent in areas with
straw burning.
Keywords Soil compaction � Soil water content �
Straw mulching
Introduction
Sugarcane is an intensely mechanised agricultural crop,
cultivated in large areas around the world (Júnnyor et al.
2019; Cherubin et al. 2021). Brazil is a major sugarcane
crop producer, where it is cultivated predominantly in
central southeastern and in the northeastern coastal region
of Brazil (Lisboa et al. 2018; Cavalcanti et al. 2020;
Cherubin et al. 2021). Due to topographical and environ-
mental issues, as well as the evolution of agricultural
mechanisation, two sugarcane harvest systems still pre-
dominate in Brazil: burned (e.g. Lozano et al. 2013;
Cavalcanti et al. 2019, 2020) and unburned (Lisboa et al.
2018; Castioni et al. 2019; Júnnyor et al. 2019; Cherubin
et al. 2021).
The northeastern region is the second largest sugarcane-
producing in Brazil (849 thousand ha and 48.5 million
tons) and is responsible for 8% of national production
(Cavalcanti et al. 2020; Conab 2021), for which 76.8% of
the fields are harvested under the burned-manual system.
The burned harvest system consists of manual cutting and
mechanised collection and transportation (Lozano et al.
2013). To facilitate manual stalk cutting, the sugarcane is
burned for the elimination of straw. In contrast, flat
topography allowed the implementation of a fully
unburned mechanised harvesting system (green sugarcane
harvest) (Carvalho et al. 2019; Cherubin et al. 2021), which
allows substantial agronomic and environmental gains due
to the maintenance of the straw on the soil surface
(Cherubin et al. 2021). In some areas favourable to
mechanised sugarcane cutting in northeastern Brazil,
& Renato P. de Lima
renato_agro_@hotmail.com
1 Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Rua Dom Manoel
de Medeiros, Dois Irmãos, Recife, Pernambuco 52171-900,
Brazil
2 University of São Paulo, ‘‘Luiz de Queiroz’’ College of
Agriculture, 11 Pádua Dias Ave., Piracicaba, São Paulo
13418-900, Brazil
3 Department of Agronomy, State University of Maringá, Av.
Colombo, 5790, Maringá, Paraná 87020-900, Brazil
123
Sugar Tech
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-022-01136-0
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0524-439X
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12355-022-01136-0&domain=pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-022-01136-0
implementation of the unburned harvesting system has
been recorded.
Sugarcane cultivation commonly begins with soil til-
lage, furrowing and planting (Lisboa et al. 2018; Barbosa
et al. 2021). Sugarcane grows during an entire agricultural
year, and it is then harvested. The plants re-grow under a
ratoon sugarcane stage and are, therefore, harvested
annually during an average of 5–6 years when the crop
yield declines. Studies have shown that successive harvests
using heavy machinery can cause compaction, and the lack
of tillage may make compaction persist until the next
replanting (5–6 years), with negative impacts on the soil
physical quality (Cavalcanti et al. 2019, 2020; Jimenez
et al. 2021a; Barbosa et al. 2021) for current sugarcane
crops. Furthermore, straw removal by burning in the
burned harvesting system could aggravate the impact of
compaction on the soil physical quality, since studies have
shown that maintaining straw at the soil surface in
unburned harvesting systems have promoted improvements
in soil physical quality (Castioni et al. 2018, 2019;
Cherubin et al. 2021).
Compaction caused by heavy machinery traffic can
decrease the soil physical quality (de Lima et al. 2021a),
which promotes negative effects on the development of the
root system (Otto et al. 2011; Pandey et al. 2021) and
sugarcane yield (Otto et al. 2011), since compaction
reduces soil total porosity, increasing bulk density and
penetration resistance, as well as reducing the volume of
large pores (Horn et al. 2019; Keller et al. 2019). Results
from Lovera et al. 2021) indicate that most sugarcane roots
grow in the early months after planting; therefore, satis-
factory soil physical quality must be necessary for the
sugarcane root system to perform optimally.
Severe soil physical damage occurs when limiting
thresholds for plant development are exceeded. Studies
suggest that minimum values of air-filled porosity and soil
penetration resistance should not be lower than 10% or
greater than 2.0 MPa, respectively; otherwise, gas
exchange limitations between soil and atmosphere, as well
as root penetration resistance restrictions occur (Silva et al.
1994; Otto et al. 2011; Asgarzadeh et al. 2010; de Lima
et al. 2016). Thus, the establishment of soil physical
quality, among other factors, involves the adoption of
management systems to avoid reaching critical limits of
soil physical indicators (e.g. de Lima et al. 2021a). Fur-
thermore, although studies have evaluated the impact of the
unburned (e.g. Castinoni et al. 2018, 2019) and burned
(Cavalcanti et al. 2019, 2020) harvest systems separately
(different regions), a study on the same soil conditions is
still necessary to assess the differences associated with
harvesting machines and straw on soil surface induced by
the two systems.
In this context, we hypothesise that soil physical quality
declines with successive sugarcane harvests after the
planting, and these impacts are different between the
burned and unburned harvest systems. To test this
hypothesis, a field experiment was installed to evaluate
changes in soil physical indicators submitted to three suc-
cessive crop years of sugarcane cultivation under burned
and unburned sugarcane harvest systems.
Material and Methods
Experimental Site Characterisation
The study was carried out at a commercial production
farm, located in Igarassu (7�5105500 S, 35�10200 W, 180 m of
altitude), Pernambuco State, northeastern Brazil (Fig. 1).
Igarassu has an annual mean rainfall of approximately
1487 ± 63 mm and an annual mean temperature of 25 �C.
The soil was classified as a sandy-loam Ultisol (Soil Sur-
vey Staff 2014). The particle density, maximum bulk
density and particle size distribution are presented in
Table 1. The experimental site has been cultivated with
sugarcane for the past 50 years and is located in the
Atlantic Forest biome region (see Cavalcanti et al. 2020).
Within 18 ha sites with flat relief, two experimental
areas with dimensions of 100 9 100 m were delimited.
Both experimentalareas were similarly subjected to con-
ventional soil tillage with a sub-soiler up to 0.4 m, a disk
harrow at 0.20 m depth and one pass with a levelling disc
harrow. Soon after tilling, the soil was furrowed to a depth
of 0.20 m and supplied with organic fertilization using
20 Mg ha-1 of residual sugarcane filter cake (e.g. see
Yadav and Solomon 2006) for the sugarcane planting,
which is the usual fertilization practice for sugarcane fields.
The crop planting spacing arrangement is shown in Fig. 2.
Experimental Scenarios, Soil Sampling
and Measurements
The two experimental areas were arranged to receive
burned (BH) and unburned (UH) harvests. The BH is
typically used in northeastern Brazil and consists of har-
vesting the sugarcane from the field by sequentially burn-
ing, manually cutting and mechanically collecting and
transporting. Typical vehicles (tractors, trailers and trucks)
used for collection and transportation are described in
Lozano et al. (2013) and Jimenez et al. (2021b). The UH is
predominantly used in central-southern Brazil, where
sugarcane is harvested without straw burning (i.e. green
harvest), consisting of mechanized cutting, collecting and
transport (see Lisboa et al. 2018) (i.e. totally mechanized
operation). The machinery parameters of typical green-
Sugar Tech
123
sugarcane harvesting (cutting and collecting harvesting
operations) used in the UH are described in Júnnyor et al.
(2019).
For each harvesting system, soil samplings were per-
formed after sugarcane planting (SP), after the plant-cane
harvest (H1) and after the first ratoon harvest (H2) in areas
subjected to BH and UH, as described in Fig. 3. At H1,
stalks are typically used as seeds and regardless of the
harvesting system, they are harvested without burning.
Therefore, at H1, both BH and UH sites were harvested
without burning, whereas the BH and UH experimental
sites were harvested burned and unburned at H2, respec-
tively (Fig. 3).
Fig. 1 Location of the
experimental areas in Igarassu,
state of Pernambuco,
Northeastern Brazil. UH:
unburned harvest; BH: burned
harvesting
Table 1 Basic soil physical characterization of the experimental site cultivated with sugarcane
Characterization Sugarcane areas
Soil class Ultisol
Cultivation years 50 years (1969 Registration)
Cultivation phase Plant-cane
Layer (m) 0.00–0.20 0.20–0.40
Soil Texture Loamy sand Sandy loam
Particle density (Mg m-3) 2.63
Sand (g kg-1) 830 790
Silt (g kg-1) 90 90
Clay (g kg-1) 80 120
Organic carbon (g kg-1) 24 12
Reference bulk density (Mg m-3)a 1.90 1.85
aObtained by Proctor test
Sugar Tech
123
The sugarcane planting (SP) stage consisted of the first
year of sugarcane cultivation after planting or re-planting
and included recent soil tillage practice and recent planting
of sugarcane, whereas H1 and H2 corresponded to the
beginning of the second and third year of cultivation,
respectively (Fig. 3). Soil sampling, in all sugarcane cul-
tivation stages, was performed after approximately 90 days
of sugarcane planting and harvest. For each treatment,
sampling points were marked with 20 m spacing, totalling
36 sampling points across the 100 9 100 m dimensioned
site. Sampling points were placed considering sugarcane
row and inter-row position as specified in Fig. 2.
After the plant-cane harvest (H1) and after the first
ratoon harvest (H2), the straw amount on the soil surface
was measured at both BH and UH. A rectangular mould,
with 38 9 25 cm dimensions (Bezerra and Cantalice
2006), was placed on the marked sampling points, and the
amount of straw within the mould was collected. Then, the
straw was weighed (at field moisture). Straw sampling
photographs of the rectangular area were used for the
determination of the straw-covered area and used for the
calculation of straw in Mg ha-1. Sugarcane surface straw
levels were quite similar to the UH (* 10 Mg ha-1) and
BH (* 8 Mg ha-1) after the plant-cane harvest (H1) due
to the absence of straw burning in both harvesting systems
(Fig. 4). However, after H2, sugarcane surface straw level
was considerably reduced in the BH system
Fig. 2 Representation of crop
planting positions and sampling
protocol. a Crop planting
spacing arrangement. b Spatial
distribution of sampling points
across the experimental area
Fig. 3 Temporal soil sampling
over three annual sugarcane
cultivation stages in areas
subjected to burned (BH) and
unburned (UH) harvest systems
Sugar Tech
123
(\ 2 Mg ha-1), whereas straw remained at around
11 Mg ha-1 at UH.
Soil penetration resistance (SRP) was measured in situ
around the defined sampling point positions to a depth of
0.4 m using a manual penetrometer with a cone diameter of
14.5 mm according to Stolf et al. (1998). All penetrometer
measurements were carried out on the same day at field
water content near to field capacity. The data were exam-
ined, and the SPR values were computed at the centres of
the 0.0–0.20 and 0.20–0.40 m depth.
Undisturbed soil cores were carefully collected at a
depth of 0.0–0.20 and 0.20–0.40 m using steel cylinders
0.05 m in diameter and height. In the laboratory, the cores
were slowly saturated by capillarity for 24 h and then
subjected to matric potentials of - 60 hPa and - 100 hPa
using a tension table. At equilibrium for each matric
potential, the soil cores were weighed and then the cores
were oven-dried at 105 �C for 24 h. Bulk density (BD) was
calculated as the ratio between oven-dried soil mass and
the volume of the cores. Gravimetric water contents at each
matric potential were calculated as the ratio between water
mass and soil mass after oven-drying the soil cores, and the
volumetric water content (h) was calculated from the BD
and gravimetric water content.
Soil macroporosity (MaP) following Kotlar et al. (2020)
and volumetric soil water content at the field capacity (hFC)
(Silva et al. 1994) were calculated following the
relationships:
/ ¼ 1� BD=PDð Þ½ � ð1Þ
MaP ¼ /�h60hPa ð2Þ
hFC ¼ h100hPa ð3Þ
where h60hPa and h100hPa are the volumetric water contents
at the matric potentials of - 60 and - 100 hPa, respec-
tively, whereas / is the soil total porosity, and PD is the
soil particle density.
Finally, disturbed soil samples were collected at each
soil sampling point and depths for the determination of soil
particle-size distribution (sand, silt and clay), which was
performed using the hydrometer method (Gee and Or
2002). Soil organic carbon was measured using the
Walkley–Black method, while particle density was deter-
mined using the volumetric-flask method, both following
the methodologies suggested by Teixeira et al. (2017) for
Brazilian soils. Furthermore, Proctor tests were performed
following the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards
(ABNT) methodology (ABNT 1990). The soil was suc-
cessively wetted and weighed to determine the soil bulk
density as a function of gravimetric water content. The
maximum value of bulk density provided by the Proctor
test was taken as reference bulk density (Table 1). It was
estimated at the maximum curvature point of the quadratic
relationship between bulk density and water content.
Statistical Analysis
The data were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis,
as well as canonical discriminant analysis. Biplot graphs
were used to examine the dispersion of the canonical scores
associated with original variables, as well as the impact of
these variables on the discrimination of the treatments. The
mean values of the canonical variables for each treatment
were compared by 95% confidence spheres. Significant
differences were considered as when the confidence
spheres did not overlap. All multivariate analyses were
performed through the candisc package, using R Software
(R Core Team 2020). Additional t-test to independent
samples were applied to verify differences for soil surface
straw levels.
Results
The distribution pattern of the soil physical propertieswas
quite similar at the row and inter-row sampling positions
for both soil layers. The canonical analysis, given in Fig. 5,
explained more than 80% of the data variability by two
canonical variables (i.e. CAN1 and CAN2) for both soil
layers. These results indicate that the dispersion of the
canonical scores associated with original soil physical
variables had practically the same pattern for the row and
inter-row positions. Note that, the dispersion of the
canonical average (spheres) and arrows (original vari-
ables), which discriminate the sugarcane planting stage and
the harvesting systems, have the same pattern. This means
that multivariate analysis does not point to the temporal
difference of soil physical properties between row and
inter-row positions in both BH and UH. Thus, the subse-
quent statistical analyses were treated considering row and
Fig. 4 Sugarcane straw amount after the plant-cane harvest (H1) and
after the first ratoon harvest (H2) in areas subjected to burned (BH)
and unburned (UH) harvest systems. Vertical bars indicate the
standard deviation (n = 36). * indicate significant difference between
UH and BH within H1 or H2 by the t-test (p\ 0.05)
Sugar Tech
123
inter-row sampling positions as a single data set, consisting
of the 36 sampling points.
The soil physical properties measured over the three
years of cultivation in UH and BH are presented in Table 2
and Fig. 6. At the 0.0–0.20-m-depth layer, the DC values
increased from around 80% to more than 90%, whereas the
SPR increased from around 1.5 MPa to more than 2.5 MPa
from SP to H2. The SPR values were notably larger for BH
(* 3.6 MPa) than for UH (* 2.7 MPa) at H2. The MaP
was strongly reduced from around 0.08 m3 m-3 to around
0.04 m3 m-3 after the first harvest, indicating a reduction
of 50% in the large soil pore volume in both harvesting
systems. For hFC, the reductions from SP to the harvested
scenarios seem to have been less affected (* 0.01
m3 m-3), whereas OC decreased from 23 to 15 g kg-1
from the SP to H2. Field water content (h) was lower at BH
after the first harvest, mainly at H2, which was reduced by
about 50%. For the deepest layer (0.2–0.4 m), DC was
slightly higher than in the surface layer, with values up to
around 90% at the SP stage, which was little changed over
the years of cultivation (Table 2; Fig. 6). The SPR values
increased by more than 2.0 MPa from SP to H2, reaching
more than 4.0 MPa at H2 in both the UH and BH systems.
Decreases in the MaP were also slightly observed in both
harvesting systems (0.07–0.05 m3 m-3), while OC
decreased at around 50% (from * 14 to * 7 g kg-1;
Fig. 6, Table 2) from SP to H2 at BH systems. For h, a
slight reduction is observed at H2 for the BH, from 0.24 to
0.21 m3 m-3.
Figure 7 shows the distribution of the canonical scores
of the soil physical indicators considering row and inter-
row position. Notably, at the 0.0–0.2 m, MaP, hFC and OC
started higher at SP, were reduced at H1 and further
reduced at H2, whereas DC and SPR increased from SP to
H2. Only for H2, there was a significant difference between
BH and UH (non-overlapping of confidence spheres),
where the canonical means were slightly higher for BH
with increased values of DC and SPR. For the 0.20–0.40 m
layer, there was no significant difference for the sugarcane
harvest systems (BH and UH) and successive annual cul-
tivations (i.e. SP, H1 and H2), except for H2, which
showed slightly higher DC and SPR values, with BH
Fig. 5 Dispersion of the
canonical scores associated with
variations of the original
variables for row (a, c) and
interrow (b, d) positions after
sugarcane planting (SP), after
the plant-cane harvest (H1) and
after the first ratoon harvest
(H2) in areas subjected to
burned (BH) and unburned
(UH) harvest systems at depths
of 0.0–0.2 m (a, b) and
0.2–0.4 m (c, d). Spheres
represent 95% confidence for
the average of the CAN1 and
CAN2 (canonical variables 1
and 2, respectively). DC: degree
of compactness; MaP:
macroporosity; SPR: soil
penetration resistance; OC: total
organic carbon; hFC: volumetric
water content at field capacity
(- 100 hPa). h: field volumetric
water content
Sugar Tech
123
presenting higher values of SPR (Fig. 7). Overall, the
results indicate that compaction increased and macrop-
orosity and organic carbon decreased at the superficial
layer following SP regardless of the harvesting system;
however, SPR increased at H2 for BH. For the 0.20–0.40 m
layer, changes in soil physical properties appear to have
been less pronounced, but BH showed a significant dif-
ference at H2 due to high SPR values (Fig. 7).
Discussion
Decreased Soil Physical Quality After Successive
Sugarcane Harvest
Sugarcane harvest machinery are annually used on the
same field during the sugarcane cycle (Lisboa et al. 2018;
Cavalcanti et al. 2019; Esteban et al. 2019). Studies report
that these machines transmit high stress levels to the soil
(e.g. Lozano et al. 2013; Jimenez et al. 2021b), with which,
when they are greater than the load-bearing capacity, soil
compaction is achieved (Keller et al. 2011). Conventional
soil tillage is a common practice in sugarcane fields to
alleviate compaction as these areas need to be re-planted.
However, soil tillage makes the soil loose and therefore
susceptible to new compaction due to reduced load-bearing
capacity (Saffih-Hdadi et al. 2009; Mendes et al. 2019; de
Lima et al. 2021a). In our trial, tillage effects likely
influenced the soil physical quality at the plant-cane stage
(SP treatment), providing better physical conditions for
root development, but reducing soil load-bearing capacity.
Our results show that as the first harvest occurs, the
machines seem to transmit compressive stress, and soil
compaction occurs mainly at the superficial layer, reducing
soil macroporosity and increasing the degree of compact-
ness and soil penetration resistance regardless of the har-
vesting system.
Our results reveal that the progressive compaction dur-
ing sugarcane annual cultivation reported by Cavalcanti
et al. (2020) and Jimenez et al. (2021a) (i.e. after 5–6 years
of sugarcane cultivation) occurs as a function of successive
harvests and may be a potential factor for the crop yield
losses over annual ratoon sugarcane (Otto et al. 2011).
However, the detrimental effects on the soil’s physical
properties could be more damaging for the plants in the
early years of cultivation. For example, Lovera et al.
(2021) assessed the sugarcane root system over three
agricultural years and showed that the highest volume of
roots occurs at the first ratoon (i.e. second year). This
indicates that the soil physical condition at the first year of
sugarcane cultivation is essential for the establishment of
the root system, and strategies to avoid soil compaction due
to the impact of harvesting machines in subsequent ratoons
should be adopted.
The soil physical quality losses were notably greater in
the 0.0–0.20-m-depth layer, where the soil achieved loose
conditions due to soil structure breakdown (Dexter et al.
1988) by tillage while little changes occurred in the deepest
layer (0.20–0.40 m). This means that the superficial layer
seems to be quite susceptible to soil physical changes after
Table 2 Mean values and standard deviation of measured soil physical indicators at sugarcane planting stage (SC), after the first harvest (H1)
and after the second harvest (H2) in areas subjected to burned (BH) and unburned (UH) harvest systems
Cultivation stages Harvest system DC (%) SPR (MPa) MaP (m3 m-3) hFC (m
3 m-3) h (m3 m-3) OC (g kg-1)
0.0–0.2 m
SP UH 78 ± 2.2 1.61 ± 0.08 0.08 ± 0.012 0.313 ± 0.006 0.172 ± 0.045 21.25 ± 2.98
BH 80 ± 2.1 1.70 ± 0.06 0.08 ± 0.010 0.315 ± 0.004 0.198 ± 0.024 23.33 ± 3.64
H1 UH 89 ± 6.0 1.99 ± 0.20 0.04 ± 0.018 0.292 ± 0.020 0.204 ± 0.069 14.57 ± 3.36
BH 90 ± 4.2 2.00 ± 0.14 0.03 ± 0.012 0.293 ± 0.014 0.159 ± 0.060 13.71 ± 3.13
H2 UH91 ± 4.0 2.77 ± 0.40 0.03 ± 0.010 0.290 ± 0.016 0.171 ± 0.043 14.35 ± 4.21
BH 90 ± 4.0 3.64 ± 0.60 0.03 ± 0.010 0.294 ± 0.014 0.094 ± 0.028 16.09 ± 6.57
0.2–0.4 m
SP UH 89 ± 4.0 2.87 ± 0.50 0.07 ± 0.020 0.301 ± 0.008 0.226 ± 0.034 14.26 ± 4.69
BH 93 ± 2.0 3.34 ± 0.28 0.07 ± 0.006 0.294 ± 0.008 0.274 ± 0.019 14.16 ± 3.83
H1 UH 92 ± 2.0 3.14 ± 0.24 0.05 ± 0.008 0.296 ± 0.006 0.220 ± 0.070 10.10 ± 2.83
BH 94 ± 2.0 3.44 ± 0.60 0.05 ± 0.016 0.291 ± 0.013 0.214 ± 0.038 12.01 ± 3.10
H2 UH 93 ± 2.0 4.00 ± 0.88 0.05 ± 0.010 0.291 ± 0.011 0.243 ± 0.053 13.69 ± 7.85
BH 92 ± 6.0 4.30 ± 1.08 0.05 ± 0.022 0.291 ± 0.012 0.211 ± 0.032 7.32 ± 2.12
DC degree of compactness, MaP macroporosity, SPR soil penetration resistance, OC total organic carbon, hFC volumetric water content at field
capacity (- 100 hPa), h field volumetric water content
Sugar Tech
123
the first sugarcane harvest, as reported by Cavalcanti et al.
(2020), whereas the layer immediately below tillage depth
seems to have a greater load-bearing capacity, making it
more resistant to further soil physical changes. Our results
show that even with subsoiling operations, the degree of
compactness started higher in the deepest layer, indicating
that this operation was not as effective for reducing com-
paction as observed in the superficial layer.
According to Cavalcanti et al. (2019), de Lima et al.
(2021a) and Jimenez et al. (2021a), a residual plough pan is
often observed in conventional sugarcane fields, and it
severely reduces the soil physical quality due to hardened
layer formation (Brus and Van Den Akker 2018). Recently,
de Lima et al. (2021a) showed that these layers are highly
resistant to penetration and deformation, while Brus and
Van Den Akker (2018) report that plough pans are a pre-
eminent subsoil compaction problem in intensely mecha-
nized fields.
Fig. 6 Changes in soil physical
properties after sugarcane
planting (SP), after the plant-
cane harvest (H1) and after the
first ratoon harvest (H2) in areas
subjected to burned (BH) and
unburned (UH) harvest systems
at depths of 0.0–0.2 m and
0.2–0.4 m. Bars indicate the
standard deviation. DC: degree
of compactness; MaP: soil
macroporosity; SPR: soil
penetration resistance; OC: total
organic carbon; hFC: soil
volumetric water content at field
capacity (- 100 hPa); h: soil
field volumetric water content
Sugar Tech
123
Which Harvesting System Promotes More Soil
Physical Quality Damage?
Our results revealed that the changes in the soil physical
properties occurred during the SP stages in both harvesting
systems, but the increases in soil penetration resistance
were noticeably greater at H2 in the BH than in the UH,
which was enough to cause differences between harvesting
systems. On the other hand, the burned harvesting, adopted
in northeastern Brazil, seems to be more harmful to root
development than the unburned system, since higher values
of penetration resistance were observed. The greatest val-
ues of soil penetration resistance in the burned harvesting
system are likely associated with the decreased soil water
content at H2, caused by evaporation due to the significant
reduction of straw on the soil surface (Satiro et al. 2017;
Gmach et al. 2019; Santos et al., 2021). Figure 8 shows the
changes in the measured field water content as a function of
the amount of straw at the 0.0–0.2 m layer (which was
most affected) and the associated SPR values. It is possible
to note that at H2 the amount of straw was substantially
reduced in the BH, considerably increasing the SPR.
Both harvesting systems received soil tillage and were
harvested without burning at H1, but only the BH received
burning at H2, and this considerably reduced the amount of
straw on the soil surface (Figs. 4, 8). When the field
measurements of soil penetration were performed, water
content was considerably lower at the BH site, and this
probably increased the soil resistance penetration. Signifi-
cant reductions in the water storage due to sugarcane straw
removal were also observed by Gmach et al. (2019). Fig-
ure 9 shows the SPR measurements as a function of water
content. It is possible to note that water content values were
lower in the BH, for which the SPR values reached up to
around 5.0 MPa at water content\ 0.10 m3 m-3. Various
studies report the increase in soil penetration resistance
with the reduction of water content (e.g. Busscher 1990;
Vaz et al. 2011; de Lima et al. 2021a).
The impact of sugarcane surface straw removal on soil
penetration resistance was measured by Castioni et al.
(2018, 2019). Castioni et al. (2019) observed a continuous
increase in the soil penetration resistance with straw
removal rates and argued that surface straw contributes to
preventing water loss, reducing soil resistance for root
development. Chen et al. (2007) report that the straw cover
preserves soil water content in sites under higher water
deficit, acting as a physical barrier that reduces water losses
by evaporation, enhances soil water storage capacity
(Castinoni et al. 2018) and reduces soil strength (Vaz et al.
2011). Castioni et al. (2019) verified that the adverse
impacts of straw removal on soil physical properties were
intensified for straw removal rates lower than 10 Mg ha-1.
In our study, the largest differences between the green-
mechanized and burned harvesting systems were observed
after the second harvest, for which straw was burned in the
BH.
The lower values of soil penetration resistance found in
this study after the second harvest at the UH show that the
maintenance of surface straw may have been the key to
reducing the high soil strength values as compared to the
Fig. 7 Dispersion of the canonical scores associated with variations
of the original variables for the overall sampled points (i.e. from row
and interrow crop positions) at sugarcane planting stage (SP), after the
first harvest (H1) and after the second harvest (H2) in areas subjected
to burned (BH) and unburned (UH) harvest systems at depths of
0.0–0.2 m (a) and 0.2–0.4 m (b). Spheres represent 95% confidence
for the average of the CAN1 and CAN2 (canonical variables 1 and 2,
respectively). DC: degree of compactness; MaP: macroporosity; SPR:
soil penetration resistance; OC: total organic carbon; hFC: volumetric
water content at field capacity (- 100 hPa). h: field volumetric water
content
Sugar Tech
123
BH. This practice seems to be a relevant strategy (Castioni
et al. 2018; Cherubin et al. 2018, 2021) to promote ade-
quate physical conditions for the growth of roots at the
beginning of the cultivation years, where roots should have
their maximum growth potential (Lovera et al. 2021).
Status of Soil Physical Quality Damage Induced
by Sugarcane Harvest System
Our measurements showed that soil macroporosity was
reduced from 0.08 to 0.04 m3 m-3 as sugarcane harvest
progressed after the sugarcane planting stage, whereas the
degree of compactness increased at around 10% and soil
penetration resistance for more than 2 MPa. This indicates
that there were better physical conditions for plant growth
just after the soil was tilled for planting, and soil physical
quality was negatively affected by machinery traffic in
successive harvests, corroborating Cavalcanti et al.
(2019, 2020) and Jimenez et al. (2021a). Soil macrop-
orosity is responsible for governing much of the gas
exchange process between the soil and the atmosphere, and
well-aired soils can limit the negative effects of soil
compaction. Pandey et al. (2021) reported that the lower
diffusion of the volatile plant hormone ethylene in limited-
aeration soils results in cellular signalling triggered by too
much-concentrated ethylene, which stops root growth.
According to the authors, ethylene acts as an early warning
signal for roots to avoid compacted soils. In our measure-
ments, the reduction of macroporosity with the successive
sugarcane harvests could apparentlybe a serious limiting
factor for root development. Silva et al. (1994), de Lima
et al. (2016) and Tormena et al. (2017) suggest that soils
should present at least 0.10 m3 m-3 air-filled porosity,
which was close to the initial status of soil macroporosity at
the sugarcane planting stage.
The increased degree of compactness due to harvest
reduced to critical levels not only for macroporosity but
also considerably increased the soil penetration resistance.
Soil penetration resistance was still substantially increased
due to the decrease in field water content at H2. Soil
mechanical resistance is often reported to cause negative
effects on root growth to values higher than 2.0 MPa (Silva
et al. 1994; Otto et al. 2011). Soil penetration resistance
Fig. 8 Volumetric water
content (h) as a function of the
amount of sugarcane surface
straw and associated values of
soil penetration resistance
(SPR) after the first ratoon
harvest (H2) in areas subjected
to burned (BH) and unburned
(UH) harvest systems at a depth
of 0.0–0.2 m
Fig. 9 Soil penetration resistance (SPR) as a function of the soil
volumetric water content (h) after the first ratoon harvest (H2) in areas
subjected to burned (BH) and unburned (UH) harvest systems at a
depth of 0.0–0.2 m
Sugar Tech
123
average values of approximately 3.5 MPa were observed in
BH, becoming a potential limiting factor of root elongation
rate. Bengough et al. (2011) and Moraes et al. (2018)
showed that root elongation rate decreases continually as a
function of soil penetration resistance so that with each soil
penetration resistance gain, the root elongation potential is
decreased. Otto et al. (2011) found that sugarcane root
growth decreased significantly between 0.75 and 2.0 MPa
and was severely restricted when for soil penetration
resistance[ 2.0 MPa. Our measurements show that the
burned harvesting system would have a greater potential to
cause damage to the root elongation (SPR * 3.5 MPa).
Furthermore, we highlight that the 2.0 MPa threshold
found by Otto et al. (2011) as limiting for sugarcane root
growth suggests that the compaction induced by the suc-
cessive harvests in the unburned site could also cause
damage to the root development.
Organic carbon also decreased with successive harvests,
but unlike soil physical indicators, the reason is likely the
availability of organic matter due to initial filter cake
organic fertilization, high temperature and better initial
aeration conditions, rather than the field traffic effect. The
levels of decrease in organic carbon were similar in the two
harvesting systems, showing that burning to facilitate
harvesting had little effect on the organic carbon level
between the two sugarcane harvest systems. The reduction
of organic carbon can be a worrying factor for soil physical
quality along ratoon sugarcane stages since organic matter
is a key factor for the development of soil structure (Rabot
et al. 2018).
Implication of the Results for Management Practice
Strategies
Our results point to progressive soil compaction due to the
use of machines in the systems at BH and UH. However,
even with the degree of compaction increasing over ratoon
harvests, straw maintenance seems to be a promising
strategy to alleviate the effects of compaction, since the
conservation of soil moisture by straw indicated a strong
reduction in the levels of soil penetration resistance.
Gmach et al. (2019) showed that residue maintenance, up
to 6 Mg ha-1 of straw, seems to be sufficient to prevent
excessive water losses and daily variations of soil water
content. However, the study of Gmach et al. (2019) was
conducted in southeastern Brazil, where the UH is con-
solidated. In northeastern Brazil, the use of burning still
predominates in the BH due to topographical issues.
However, burning has proved to be a non-sustainable
practice (Galdos et al. 2009), and alternatives to main-
taining crop residues during the initial growth stages of
sugarcane should be considered, even in areas with burning
practices used at harvesting. The inclusion of crop
mulching could even bring other soil benefits besides
properly regulating water storage. Studies have reported
that excessive straw removal depletes soil organic matter
pools (Morais et al. 2020) and reduces stalk yield (Lisboa
et al. 2018).
Traffic over successive harvests is still a challenge to
reduce compaction, and as in our investigation, other
studies (Cavalcanti et al. 2019; Jimenez et al. 2021a) have
shown the same trend; much because of the harvests that
occur over the ratoon sugarcane. In UH, Esteban et al.
(2019) observed that controlled traffic provided lower bulk
density and higher soil macroporosity, minimizing com-
paction and preserving soil physical conditions for roots as
well as increases sugarcane yield. In contrast, Jimenez
et al. (2021b) estimated that the machines used in BH
applied stresses on the soil surface that reached around
800 kPa in a system with a totally disordered traffic sys-
tem. The estimates of soil stress performed by Jimenez
et al. (2021b) were performed using the soil compaction
modells, such as those described by Keller et al. (2007),
Stettler et al. (2014) and de Lima et al. (2021b). Via soil
compaction modells, Jimenez et al. (2021b) identified that
tyre inflation pressure was considerably high (* 650 kPa),
which is known to cause compaction mainly at superficial
layers (Stettler et al. 2014). However, tyre inflation pres-
sure is a controllable tyre parameter, whose impacts on soil
compaction could be previously recognized using simula-
tions (e.g. de Lima et al. 2021b). Thus, a set of actions to
reduce compaction are needed in sugarcane crops, where
traffic control and the use of soil compaction modells are
strategies to monitor/predict the effects of compaction on
soil physical properties.
Conclusions
The physical properties of tilled soil for sugarcane planting
can be negatively affected after the first harvest regardless
of the harvesting systems (burned or unburned). Annual
successive harvests can increase the degree of compactness
at around 10%, considerably reducing soil macroporosity
by about 50% and increasing soil penetration resistance
above the critical threshold for root development in both
harvesting systems. However, the negative effects of the
successive harvests may be greater in sites under the
burned system mainly because of increases in the pene-
tration resistance caused by the reduction soil water content
due to the reduced amount of surface straw, which is
considerably reduced because of sugarcane burning prac-
tice. Urgent compaction mitigation strategies (e.g. traffic
control) in the early harvest years need to be adopted to
reduce soil pore-space decreases, while straw mulching
Sugar Tech
123
practices could be a relevant strategy to reduce water loss
and hence soil penetration resistance at the field scale.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nı́vel Superior (CAPES, Brazil) and
the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico
(CNPq, Brazil) for granting scholarships and financial support.
Renato P. de Lima thanks the São Paulo Research Foundation –
FAPESP (Process #2020/15783-4) and Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil; Process
#316751/2021-9).
References
ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. 1990. NBR
12007: Ensaio de adensamento unidimensional, 13p. Rio de
Janeiro: ABNT.
Asgarzadeh, H., M.R. Mosaddeghi, A.A. Mahboubi, A. Nosrati, and
A.R. Dexter. 2010. Soil water availability for plants as quantified
by conventional available water, least limiting water range and
integral water capacity. Plant and Soil 335: 229–244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0410-6.
Barbosa, L.C., P.S.G. Magalhães, R.O. Bordonal, M.R. Cherubin,
G.A. Castioni, J. Rossi Neto, and J.L.N. Carvalho.2021.
Untrafficked furrowed seedbed sustains soil physical quality in
sugarcane mechanized fields. European Journal of Soil Science
72: 2150–2164. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13107.
Bengough, A.G., B.M. McKenzie, P.D. Hallett, and T.A. Valentine.
2011. Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance:
A review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits.
Journal of Experimental Botany 62: 59–68. https://doi.org/
10.1093/jxb/erq350.
Bezerra, S.A., and J.R.B. Cantalice. 2006. Erosão entre sulcos em
diferentes condições de cobertura do solo, sob cultivo da cana-
de-açúcar. Revista Brasileira De Ciência Do Solo 30: 565–573.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832006000300016.
Brus, D.J., and J.J. Van Den Akker. 2018. How serious a problem is
subsoil compaction in the Netherlands? A survey based on
probability sampling. The Soil 4: 37–45. https://doi.org/10.5194/
soil-4-37-2018.
Busscher, W.J. 1990. Adjustment of flat-tipped penetrometer resis-
tance data to a common water content. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 33: 519–524.
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.31360.
Carvalho, J.L.N., L.M.S. Menandro, S.G.Q. de Castro, M.R. Cheru-
bin, R.O. Bordonal, L.C. Barbosa, L.C. Gonzaga, S. Tenelli,
H.C.J. Franco, O.T. Kolln, and G.A. Castioni. 2019. Multiloca-
tion straw removal effects on sugarcane yield in south-central
Brazil. BioEnergy Research 12: 813–829. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12155-019-10007-8.
Castioni, G.A.F., M.R. Cherubin, R.O. Bordonal, L.C. Barbosa,
L.M.S. Menandro, and E.J.L.N. Carvalho. 2019. Straw removal
affects soil physical quality and sugarcane yield in Brazil.
BioEnergy Research 12: 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12155-019-10000-1.
Castioni, G.A., M.R. Cherubin, L.M.S. Menandro, G.M. Sanches,
R.O. Bordonal, L.C. Barbosa, and J.L.N.E. Carvalho. 2018. Soil
physical quality response to sugarcane straw removal in Brazil:
A multi-approach assessment. Soil & Tillage Research 184:
301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.08.007.
Cavalcanti, R.Q., M.M. Rolim, R.P. de Lima, U.E. Tavares, E.M.
Pedrosa, and Cherubin. 2020. Soil physical changes induced by
sugarcane cultivation in the Atlantic Forest biome, northeastern
Brazil. Geoderma 370: 114353. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geoderma.2020.114353.
Cavalcanti, R.Q., M.M. Rolim, R.P. de Lima, U.E. Tavares, E.M.
Pedrosa, and I.F. Gomes. 2019. Soil physical and mechanical
attributes in response to successive harvests under sugarcane
cultivation in Northeastern Brazil. Soil & Tillage Research 189:
140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.01.006.
Chen, S.Y., X.Y. Zhang, D. Pei, H.Y. Sun, and S.L. Chen. 2007.
Effects of straw mulching on soil temperature, evaporation and
yield of winter wheat: Field experiments on the North China
Plain. Annals of Applied Biology 150: 261–268.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00144.x.
Cherubin, M.R., R.O. Bordonal, G.A. Castioni, E.M. Guimarães, I.P.
Lisboa, L.A. Moraes, and J.L. Carvalho. 2021. Soil health
response to sugarcane straw removal in Brazil. Industrial Crops
and Products 163: 113315. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.indcrop.2021.113315.
Cherubin, M.R., D.M.S. Oliveira, B.J. Feigl, L.G. Pimentel, I.P.
Lisboa, M.R. Gmach, and C.C. Cerri. 2018. Crop residue harvest
for bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning
and plant growth: A review. Scientia Agricola 75: 255–272.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-2016-0459.
Conab – Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. 2021. Acompan-
hamento da safra brasileira de cana-de-açúcar. v. 7-Safra
2020/21, n.4, Quarto Levantamento, Brası́lia. https://www.
conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/cana (accessed 17.01.2022).
de Lima, R.P., A.R. da Silva, A.P. da Silva, T.P. Leão, and M.R.
Mosaddeghi. 2016. soilphysics: An R package for calculating
soil water availability to plants by different soil physical indices.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 120: 63–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.11.003.
de Lima, R.P., M.M. Rolim, D.D. Dantas, A.R. da Silva, and E.A.
Mendonça. 2020. Compressive properties and least limiting
water range of plough layer and plough pan in sugarcane fields.
Soil Use and Management 23: 533–544. https://doi.org/
10.1111/sum.12601.
de Lima, R.P., A.R. da Silva, and Á.P. da Silva. 2021. soilphysics: An
R package for simulation of soil compaction induced by
agricultural field traffic. Soil & Tillage Research 206: 104824.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104824.
Dexter, A.R., R. Horn, and W.D. Kemper. 1988. Two mechanisms for
age-hardening of soil. European Journal of Soil Science 39:
163–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1988.tb01203.x.
Esteban, D.A.A., Z.M. de Souza, C.A. Tormena, L.H. Lovera, E.L. de
Souza, I.N. de Oliveira, and N.R. de Paula. 2019. Soil
compaction, root system and productivity of sugarcane under
different row spacing and controlled traffic at harvest. Soil &
Tillage Research 187: 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.still.2018.11.015.
Galdos, M.V., C.C. Cerri, and C.E.P. Cerri. 2009. Soil carbon stocks
under burned and unburned sugarcane in Brazil. Geoderma 153:
347–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.08.025.
Gee, G.W., and D. Or. 2002. Particle size analysis. In Methods of soil
analysis. Physical methods. Soil science, ed. J.H. Dane and G.C.
Topp, 255–293. Madison: Society of America. https://doi.org/
10.2136/sssabookser5.4.c12.
Gmach, M.R., F.V. Scarpare, M.R. Cherubin, I.P. Lisboa, A.B. dos
Santos, C.P. Cerri, and C.C. Cerri. 2019. Sugarcane straw
removal effects on soil water storage and drainage in southeast-
ern Brazil. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 745:
466–476. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.466.
Horn, R., D. Holthusen, J. Dörner, A. Mordhorst, and H. Fleige. 2019.
Scale-dependent soil strengthening processes-what do we need
to know and where to head for a sustainable environment? Soil &
Tillage Research 195: 104388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2019.104388.
Sugar Tech
123
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0410-6
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13107
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq350
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq350
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832006000300016
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-37-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-37-2018
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.31360
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10007-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10007-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10000-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10000-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.08.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114353
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114353
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.01.006
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00144.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113315
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113315
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-2016-0459
https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/cana
https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/cana
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.11.003
https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12601
https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12601
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104824
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1988.tb01203.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.11.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.11.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.08.025
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.4.c12
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.4.c12
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.466
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104388
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104388
Jimenez, K.J., M.M. Rolim, R.P. de Lima, R.C. Cavalcanti, Ê.F.
Silva, and E.P. Pedrosa. 2021a. Soil physical indicators of a
sugarcane field subjected to successive mechanised harvests.
Sugar Tech 23: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-
020-00916-w.
Jimenez, K.J., M.M. Rolim, I.F. Gomes, R.P. de Lima, L.L. Berrı́o,
and P.F. Ortiz. 2021b. Numerical analysis applied to the study of
soil stress and compaction due to mechanised sugarcane harvest.
Soil & Tillage Research 206: 104847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104847.
Júnnyor, W.D.S.G., E. Diserens, I.C. de Maria, C.F. Araujo-Junior,
C.V.V. Farhate, and Z.M. de Souza. 2019. Prediction of soil
stresses and compaction due to agricultural machines in sugar-
cane cultivation systems with and without crop rotation. Science
of the Total Environment 681: 424–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.05.009.
Keller, T., P. Défossez, P. Weisskopf, J. Arvidsson, and G. Richard.
2007. SoilFlex: A model for prediction of soil stresses and soil
compaction due to agricultural field traffic including a synthesis
of analytical approaches. Soil & Tillage Research 93: 391–411.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.05.012.
Keller, T., M. Lamandé, P. Schjønning, and A.R. Dexte. 2011.
Analysis of soil compression curves from uniaxial confined
compression tests. Geoderma 163: 13–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.02.006.
Keller, T., M. Sandin, T. Colombi, R. Horn, and D. Or. 2019.
Historical increase in agricultural machinery weights enhanced
soil stress levels and adversely affected soil functioning. Soil &
Tillage Research 194: 104293. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.still.2019.104293.
Kotlar, A.M., Q.D. van Lier, H.E. Andersen, T. Nørgaard, and B.V.
Iversen. 2020. Quantification of macropore flow in Danish soils
using near-saturated hydraulic properties. Geoderma 375:
114479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114479.
Lisboa, I.P., M.R. Cherubin, R.P. de Lima, C.C. Cerri, L.S. Satiro,
B.J. Wienhold, and C.E. Cerri. 2018. Sugarcane straw removal
effects on plant growth and stalk yield. Industrial Crops and
Products 111: 794–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.
2017.11.049.
Lovera, L.H., Z.M. de Souza, D.A.A. Esteban, I.N. de Oliveira,
C.V.V. Farhate, E.L.S. Lima, and A.R. Panosso. 2021. Sugar-
cane root system: Variation over three cycles under different soil
tillage systems and cover crops. Soil & Tillage Research 208:
104866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104866.
Lozano, N., M.M. Rolim, V.S. Oliveira, U.E. Tavares, and E.M.R.
Pedrosa. 2013. Evaluation of soil compaction by modeling field
vehicle traffic with SoilFlex during sugarcane harvest. Soil &
Tillage Research 129: 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.still.2013.01.010.
Mendes, P., M.M. Rolim, R.P. de Lima, E.M. Pedrosa, U.E. Tavares,
and D.E. Simões Neto. 2019. Estimation of precompression
stress in an Ultisol cultivated with sugarcane. Revista Brasileira
De Engenharia Agrı́cola e Ambiental 23: 336–340.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n5p336-340.
Moraes, M.T., A.G. Bengough, H. Debiasi, J.C. Franchini, R. Levien,
A. Schnepf, and D. Leitner. 2018. Mechanistic framework to link
root growth models with weather and soil physical properties,
including example applications to soybean growth in Brazil.
Plant and Soil 428: 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-
018-3656-z.
Morais, M.C., M. Siqueira-Neto, H.P. Guerra, L.S. Satiro, A.
Soltangheisi, C.E. Cerri, and M.R. Cherubin. 2020. Trade-offs
between sugarcane straw removal and soil organic matter in
Brazil. Sustainability 12: 9363. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12229363.
Otto, R., A.D. Silva, H.C. Franco, E.D. Oliveira, and P.C. Trivelin.
2011. High soil penetration resistance reduces sugarcane root
system development. Soil & Tillage Research 117: 201–210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.005.
Pandey, B.K., G. Huang, R. Bhosale, S. Hartman, C.J. Sturrock, L.
Jose, and M.J. Bennett. 2021. Plant roots sense soil compaction
through restricted ethylene diffusion. Science 371: 276–280.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf3013.
R Core Team, 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing 605 [internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. Available at: 606 http://www.Rproject.
org. Accessed 12.09.20.
Rabot, E., M. Wiesmeier, S. Schlüter, and H.J. Vogel. 2018. Soil
structure as an indicator of soil functions: A review. Geoderma
314: 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.009.
Saffih-Hdadi, K., P. Défossez, G. Richard, Y.J. Cui, A. Tang, and V.
Chaplain. 2009. A method for predicting soil susceptibility to the
compaction of surface layers as a function of water content and
bulk density. Soil & Tillage Research 105: 96–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.05.012.
Santos, A.K.B.D., G.V. Popin, M.R. Gmach, M.R. Cherubin, M.
Siqueira Neto, and C.E. Cerri. 2021. Changes in soil temperature
and moisture due to sugarcane straw removal in central-southern
Brazil. Scientia Agricola 79: e20200309. https://doi.org/10.1590/
1678-992x-2020-0309.
Satiro, L.S., M.R. Cherubin, J.L. Safanelli, I.P. Lisboa, P.R. da Rocha
Junior, C.E. Cerri, and C.C. Cerri. 2017. Sugarcane straw
removal effects on Ultisols and Oxisols in south-central Brazil.
Geoderma Regional 11: 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geodrs.2017.10.005.
Silva, A.P., B.D. Kay, and E. Perfect. 1994. Characterization of the
least limiting water range. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 58: 1775–1781. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.
03615995005800060028x.
Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Twelth. Washington,
DC: NRCS.
Stettler, M., T. Keller, P. Weisskopf, M. Lamandé, P. Lassen, and P.
Schjønning. 2014. Terranimo�-a web-based tool for evaluating
soil compaction. Landtechnik 69: 132–138.
Stolf, R., D.K. Cassel, L.D. King, and K. Reichardt. 1998. Measuring
mechanical impedance in clayey gravelly soils. Revista Brasi-
leira De Ciência Do Solo 22: 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0100-06831998000200003.
Teixeira, P.C., G.K. Donagemma, A. Fontana, and W.G. Teixeira.
2017. Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solo. Embrapa,
Brası́lia, pp. 573p.
Tormena, C.A., D.L. Karlen, S. Logsdon, and M.R. Cherubin. 2017.
Corn stover harvest and tillage impacts on near-surface soil
physical quality. Soil & Tillage Research 166: 122–130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.09.015.
Vaz, C.M., J.M. Manieri, I.C. De Maria, and M. Tuller. 2011.
Modeling and correction of soil penetration resistance for
varying soil water content. Geoderma 166: 92–101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.016.
Yadav, R.L., and S. Solomon. 2006. Potential of developing
sugarcane by-product-based industries in India. Sugar Tech 8:
104–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943642.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sugar Tech
123
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-020-00916-w
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-020-00916-w
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104847
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104847
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.05.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.02.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.02.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104293
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104293
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114479
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.11.049
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.11.049
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104866
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.01.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.01.010
https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n5p336-340
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3656-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3656-z
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229363
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229363
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.005
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf3013
http://www.Rproject.org
http://www.Rproject.org
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.05.012
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-2020-0309
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-2020-0309
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2017.10.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2017.10.005
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800060028x
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800060028x
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06831998000200003
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06831998000200003https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.09.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.016
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943642
	A Soil Physical Assessment Over Three Successive Burned and Unburned Sugarcane Annual Harvests
	Abstract
	Introduction
	Material and Methods
	Experimental Site Characterisation
	Experimental Scenarios, Soil Sampling and Measurements
	Statistical Analysis
	Results
	Discussion
	Decreased Soil Physical Quality After Successive Sugarcane Harvest
	Which Harvesting System Promotes More Soil Physical Quality Damage?
	Status of Soil Physical Quality Damage Induced by Sugarcane Harvest System
	Implication of the Results for Management Practice Strategies
	Conclusions
	Acknowledgements
	References