Abstract
Given the lack of studies on subsurface drip irrigation in sugarcane plantations, there has been a growing demand for such information, mainly regarding soil solution profile and availability to plants. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of soil-water solution distribution on qualitative and quantitative traits of sugarcane irrigated by subsurface drip irrigation at two flows (1.6 and 3.5 L h−1). For each application rate, four PVC containers (500 L) were used and filled with sandy soil, where a set of 36 TDR probes was installed. Drippers were placed at a depth of 0.30 m. Irrigation was managed based on TDR daily measurements, maintaining soil moisture within the root zone at field capacity. Sugarcane variety used was RB 845210, being fertigated according to soil chemical analysis. The results showed that the distribution of soil-water solution became stable at different depth layers during applications, highlighting a relationship between soil solution storage and wetted soil volume. Moreover, irrigation flow rates had no effect on the distribution of water and nutrients throughout the soil profile, neither crop yield, technological quality nor root density.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Soil-water solution distribution became stable at different depth layers during irrigation applications in sugarcane.
Verbatim
t0“IN SUGARCANE”
e0“the distribution of soil-water solution became stable at different depth layers during applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil solution storage was related to wetted soil volume in subsurface drip-irrigated sugarcane.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
t0“IN SUGARCANE”
e0“highlighting a relationship between soil solution storage and wetted soil volume”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation flow rates of 1.6 and 3.5 L h−1 had no effect on the distribution of water and nutrients in the soil profile of sugarcane.
Verbatim
t0“IN SUGARCANE”
e0“irrigation flow rates had no effect on the distribution of water and nutrients throughout the soil profile, neither crop yield, technological quality nor root density”
e1“at two flows (1.6 and 3.5 L h−1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation flow rates of 1.6 and 3.5 L h−1 had no effect on crop yield, technological quality or root density of sugarcane.
Verbatim
t0“IN SUGARCANE”
e0“irrigation flow rates had no effect on the distribution of water and nutrients throughout the soil profile, neither crop yield, technological quality nor root density”
e1“at two flows (1.6 and 3.5 L h−1)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →irrigation · quality: general · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.