Abstract
Two studies were conducted to determine the effects of post-harvest residue management In conjunction with Incorporation on the growth of sugarcane on heavy-textured soils in the high rainfall climate of Louisiana. In the first experiment, Whole-plot treatments consisted of full retention of residues, complete removal by burning, or mechanical repositioning of the residue from the row-top to the wheel furrow using three different implements (modified street sweeper, Orthman Residue Remover®, Sunco Trash Tlger®). Split-plot treatments consisted of either Incorporation of residues In the wheel furrow with a bladed drum device (Lawson Canemaster®) or no incorporation. For the second experiment, treatments consisted of full residue retention, complete removal by burning, mechanical repositioning (as Experiment one) with a modified street sweeper, and removal of the residue from the central 1.0 m of the 1.8 m rows by baling. In Experiment one, burning increased sucrose and cane yields by 1.2 t/ha (18%) and 10.6 tlha (18%), respectively, relative to the average of all other treatments. Incorporation of the residue did not increase yields, as compared to no Incorporation, possibly due to inadequate soil-to-resldue contact resulting from this particular method of incorporation. In Experiment two, burning increased sucrose and cane yields by 1.3 t/ha (13%) and 12.0 tlha (12%) respectively, relative to the average of all other treatments. In both experiments, none of the mechanical removal options Increased sucrose or cane yield relative to full retention. Residues repositioned to the wheel furrow prevented adequate drainage causing yield reductions. Baling the residue may have eliminated some of the drainage issues, but yields were not Increased relative to full retention, possibly because of physical damage to the row-top by the baler.
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
In experiment one burning raised sucrose yield by 1.2 t/ha relative to other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“In Experiment one, burning increased sucrose and cane yields by 1.2 t/ha (18%) and 10.6 tlha (18%), respectively, relative to the average of all other treatments.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment one burning raised cane yield by 10.6 tlha relative to other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“In Experiment one, burning increased sucrose and cane yields by 1.2 t/ha (18%) and 10.6 tlha (18%), respectively, relative to the average of all other treatments.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue incorporation did not increase yields relative to no incorporation.
Verbatim
e0“Incorporation of the residue did not increase yields, as compared to no Incorporation”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment two burning raised sucrose yield by 1.3 t/ha relative to other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“In Experiment two, burning increased sucrose and cane yields by 1.3 t/ha (13%) and 12.0 tlha (12%) respectively, relative to the average of all other treatments.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment two burning raised cane yield by 12.0 tlha relative to other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“In Experiment two, burning increased sucrose and cane yields by 1.3 t/ha (13%) and 12.0 tlha (12%) respectively, relative to the average of all other treatments.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical removal did not increase sucrose or cane yield over full retention.
Verbatim
e0“In both experiments, none of the mechanical removal options Increased sucrose or cane yield relative to full retention.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue repositioning impeded drainage and reduced yield.
Verbatim
e0“Residues repositioned to the wheel furrow prevented adequate drainage causing yield reductions.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Baling did not increase yields over full retention.
Verbatim
e0“Baling the residue may have eliminated some of the drainage issues, but yields were not Increased relative to full retention”
t0“Effects of mechanical removal and incorporation of post-harvest residue on ratoon sugarcane yields.”
The same questions in other papers
fire · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →fire · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.