Abstract
AN industry-wide survey of the nutrient status of sugarcane crops in 2000–01 showed leaf potassium (K) levels in most samples from New South Wales were well below the critical value. There were no data to indicate the significance of this information for crop yield and future K management. In 2002, rates of K fertiliser experiments were established at two sites in the Broadwater Mill area on clay soils where exchangeable K was 0.13–0.14 cmol(+)/kg and nitric K was 0.78–1.04 cmol(+)/kg. Calcium (Ca) + magnesium (Mg) saturation was 91–95% of total bases. The lowest rates of applied K were the growers’ strategy of 39 and 42 kg K/ha. Treatments of 0 to an additional 300 kg K/ha were applied in 50 kg increments as row dressings. Five crops were harvested between 2003 and 2005. Leaf K% was always below the critical value in the standard treatment, and above the critical value for some of the higher rates of K in 2003 and 2005. There was no yield response to K fertiliser above the basal rate indicating supply of K from non-exchangeable soil reserves was adequate. Biomass K increased with rate of applied K, but the K balance was negative when less than 192 kg K/ha was applied. Leaf data suggested high levels of (Ca+Mg) in soil may be interfering with K uptake. The ratio of (Ca+Mg)/K >0.55 can be used to identify leaf samples from base saturated soils that may require interpretation using a reduced critical value in the range 0.75–0.9% K. Absence of yield responses showed that the crop does not need more K than is currently applied, but soil K status should be monitored to indicate when potential for yield response should be re-evaluated.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Most surveyed New South Wales sugarcane samples had leaf K below the critical value.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“leaf potassium (K) levels in most samples from New South Wales were well below the critical value”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf K was below the critical value under the standard treatment and above it at some higher rates in 2003 and 2005.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“Leaf K% was always below the critical value in the standard treatment, and above the critical value for some of the higher rates of K in 2003 and 2005.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane yield did not respond to potassium fertiliser above the basal rate.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“There was no yield response to K fertiliser above the basal rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Biomass K increased with increasing applied K rate.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“Biomass K increased with rate of applied K”
Claim · model-written summary
The potassium balance was negative below 192 kg K/ha applied.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“the K balance was negative when less than 192 kg K/ha was applied”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf data suggested high soil calcium and magnesium may interfere with potassium uptake.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“Leaf data suggested high levels of (Ca+Mg) in soil may be interfering with K uptake.”
Claim · model-written summary
A (Ca+Mg)/K ratio above 0.55 can identify leaves needing a reduced critical K value of 0.75–0.9%.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“The ratio of (Ca+Mg)/K >0.55 can be used to identify leaf samples from base saturated soils that may require interpretation using a reduced critical value in the range 0.75–0.9% K.”
Claim · model-written summary
Current potassium application is sufficient for crop yield, but soil K status should be monitored.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e0“the crop does not need more K than is currently applied, but soil K status should be monitored to indicate when potential for yield response should be re-evaluated”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 312 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.