Abstract
Core Ideas Tillering was better in conventional than no‐tillage in plant cane but it was opposite in second ratoon. Minimum or no‐tillage produced higher sugarcane ratoon yields than conventional tillage in Florida Histosols. Overall, in a 3‐yr crop cycle, the yields were similar in all three tillage levels. Tillage effect on yield did not vary with the varieties. ABSTRACT Minimum or no‐tillage reduces soil carbon oxidation in Histosols, however tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield are not well understood. To determine the effects of tillage on sugarcane growth and yield, a 3‐yr (plant cane, first ratoon, and second ratoon) field trial was conducted in 2013–2015 with three tillage levels and three varieties (CP 88–1762, CP 89–2143, and CP 00–1101). Tillage levels were conventional tillage, CT (three pre‐planting disc passes and two post‐planting inter‐row cultivations); minimum tillage, MT (two pre‐planting disc passes and one post‐planting inter‐row cultivation); and no‐tillage, NT (no cultivation). Data were collected on Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD), stomatal conductance, tillering, and yield parameters. Our results showed that tillage did not affect SPAD and stomatal conductance. Tillering was better in CT than NT in plant cane but it was opposite in second ratoon. Sugarcane yield (tons of cane per hectare, TCH) and sugar yield (tons of sugar per hectare, TSH) were not significantly different in plant cane, but NT had greater TCH than CT and MT in first ratoon, and both NT and MT had greater TCH and TSH than CT in second ratoon. Tillage effects on yield did not vary with the varieties. Our results showed that NT and MT improved yields in ratoon crops with no significant effect on overall sugarcane yields in a 3‐yr crop cycle in a Florida Histosol. Therefore, tillage may be minimized or eliminated in fallow planting to improve soil sustainability without any sugarcane yield penalty in a Florida Histosol.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect SPAD and stomatal conductance.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e1“tillage did not affect SPAD and stomatal conductance”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillering was better with conventional tillage than no-tillage in plant cane.
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e2“Tillering was better in CT than NT in plant cane”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillering was opposite in second ratoon, with no-tillage tillering better than conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e3“Tillering was better in CT than NT in plant cane but it was opposite in second ratoon”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane yield and sugar yield were not significantly different among tillage treatments in plant cane.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- tillagee0
- Outcome
- Sugarcane yielde4
- Direction
- not significantly differente4
- Qualifier
- plant canee4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e4“Sugarcane yield (tons of cane per hectare, TCH) and sugar yield (tons of sugar per hectare, TSH) were not significantly different in plant cane”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage had greater cane yield (TCH) than conventional and minimum tillage in the first ratoon.
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e5“NT had greater TCH than CT and MT in first ratoon”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage and minimum tillage had greater TCH and TSH than conventional tillage in the second ratoon.
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e6“both NT and MT had greater TCH and TSH than CT in second ratoon”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage effects on yield did not vary with sugarcane variety.
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e7“Tillage effects on yield did not vary with the varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage and minimum tillage had no significant effect on overall sugarcane yields.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- NT and MTe1
- Outcome
- overall sugarcane yieldse1
- Direction
- no significant effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“tillage effect on sugarcane ( Saccharum spp. ) growth and yield”
e1“Our results showed that NT and MT improved yields in ratoon crops with no significant effect on overall sugarcane yields”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend minimizing or eliminating tillage in fallow planting to improve soil sustainability without a sugarcane yield penalty.
Verbatim
e1“tillage may be minimized or eliminated in fallow planting to improve soil sustainability without any sugarcane yield penalty”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →tillage · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 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.