Abstract
In rotation experiments conducted in Australia over the past decade, it has been demonstrated that breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop due largely to improvement in soil health. However, to break the sugarcane monoculture, it is necessary to forego at least one cane harvest and many growers are concerned that will jeopardise economic viability. To test this, several of the rotation experiments were carried through to second and third ratoons and the cumulative cane and sugar yields were measured over the crop cycle. The response to breaks in the ratoons was similar to those measured in the plant crop and there were clear indications that over a crop cycle the inclusion of a short-term (6–9 month) legume break would be economically viable. In general, the persistence of yield benefits into the ratoons resulted in cumulative sugar yields over a plant and four ratoons covering the loss of the one cane harvest when the break was included. In two other experiments, sugarcane that had been planted after breaks was removed, following a plant crop in one instance and a plant and two ratoons in the other, and plots were immediately replanted to sugarcane. The yields of the subsequent plant crop were no better than those with long-term sugarcane monoculture, indicating that the break effect per se was short-lived. Thus the longevity of the yield response into later ratoons appears to be largely associated with very positive effects of the break on the immediate plant crop. These findings strongly support the regular inclusion of rotation breaks in the sugarcane cropping system, a strategy that is especially attractive when there are suitable break species like soybeans and peanuts that can be harvested as cash crops. Harvesting these break crops does not detract from the break effect while further improving overall grower profitability.
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
Breaking sugarcane monoculture with another species improved sugarcane yields by 20 to 30% in the plant crop.
Verbatim
e0“breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield benefits of the break persisted into ratoons, giving cumulative sugar yields over a plant and four ratoons that covered the loss of one cane harvest.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- when the break was includede1
- Outcome
- cumulative sugar yieldse1
- Qualifier
- covering the loss of the one cane harveste1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop”
e1“resulted in cumulative sugar yields over a plant and four ratoons covering the loss of the one cane harvest when the break was included”
Claim · model-written summary
A short-term 6 to 9 month legume break is indicated to be economically viable over a crop cycle.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- inclusion of a short-term (6–9 month) legume breake2
- Outcome
- economically viablee2
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop”
e2“there were clear indications that over a crop cycle the inclusion of a short-term (6–9 month) legume break would be economically viable”
Claim · model-written summary
The response to breaks in sugarcane ratoons was similar to that in the plant crop.
Verbatim
e0“breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop”
e3“The response to breaks in the ratoons was similar to those measured in the plant crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsequent plant crop yields after sugarcane was removed and replanted were no better than long-term sugarcane monoculture.
Verbatim
e0“breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop”
e4“The yields of the subsequent plant crop were no better than those with long-term sugarcane monoculture”
e5“sugarcane that had been planted after breaks was removed”
Claim · model-written summary
The longevity of the yield response into later ratoons is largely associated with very positive effects of the break on the immediate plant crop.
Verbatim
e0“breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop”
e6“the longevity of the yield response into later ratoons appears to be largely associated with very positive effects of the break on the immediate plant crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend regular inclusion of rotation breaks in the sugarcane cropping system.
Verbatim
e7“These findings strongly support the regular inclusion of rotation breaks in the sugarcane cropping system”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvesting break crops does not detract from the break effect and improves overall grower profitability.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- Harvesting these break cropse1
- Outcome
- overall grower profitabilitye1
- Direction
- improvinge1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“breaking the sugarcane monoculture between cycles with another species improves sugarcane yields by 20–30% in the plant crop”
e1“Harvesting these break crops does not detract from the break effect while further improving overall grower profitability”
The same questions in other papers
rotation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 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.