Paper · 2021 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Subsoiling Affecting Soil Quality Parameters and Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India

S. K. Shukla; V. P. Jaiswal; Lalan Sharma; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
11
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Soil compaction in the plow layer of soils is becoming a serious concern because of conventional tillage practices adopted by sugarcane growers utilizing a rotavator, particularly in medium to heavy textured soils. Continuous use of machinery causes compaction in the plow layer; thus strategic tillage practices have become an essential component in intensive agriculture. Keeping these points in view, a field experiment was conducted in split plot design considering four pre-plant tillage treatments, i.e., (i) one subsoiling (SS) followed by two harrowings (H) (ii) subsoiling alone and direct planting through Sugarcane Cutter Planter (SS) (iii) one plowing through moldboard (MB) plow and two harrowings (MB+H) (iv) and conventional practice (CP) in main plots and three ratoon management treatments viz., (i) HW:Three hand weedings (HW) (ii) integrated weed management (IWM), trash mulching at the time of ratoon initiation and application of microbial consortia (TM +MC) in subplots. Results on bulk density in surface and subsurface layers indicated a significant reduction due to subsoiling. Higher availability of N (252 to 310.2 kg ha−1) was analyzed with adoption of subsoiling as compared to conventional practice (218.4 to 224 kg N ha−1). Subsoiling improved soil microbial biomass carbon (SMBC) by 39% to 73% and 32.20% to 46% as compared to conventional practice in 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depth, respectively. Among all the primary tillage treatments, sub soiling enhanced SMBC at the highest level (1574 mg C/kg soil/day in 0–15 cm soil depth). Sugarcane (97.26 t ha−1) and sugar (11.87 t ha−1) yields also improved significantly under subsoiling as compared to other pre-plant tillage treatments. Subsoiling before planting also increased mean ratoon cane (117.6 t ha−1) and sugar yields (14.48 t/ha). In addition to trash mulching and application of microbial consortia in ratoon crop proved effective for sustaining higher ratoon yields in sugarcane.Short title: Minimum tillage affecting soil quality parameters and sugarcane yield

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling significantly reduced bulk density in surface and subsurface soil layers.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
subsoilinge0
Outcome
bulk density in surface and subsurface layerse0
Direction
reductione0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e0

“Results on bulk density in surface and subsurface layers indicated a significant reduction due to subsoiling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1101 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling gave higher N availability (252 to 310.2 kg/ha) than conventional practice.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
subsoilinge1
Outcome
availability of Ne1
Direction
Highere1
Value
252 to 310.2 kg ha−1e1
Comparator
conventional practicee1

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“Higher availability of N (252 to 310.2 kg ha−1) was analyzed with adoption of subsoiling as compared to conventional practice (218.4 to 224 kg N ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1253 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling improved soil microbial biomass carbon by 39% to 73% in the 0–15 cm layer compared with conventional practice.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
Subsoilinge2
Outcome
soil microbial biomass carbon (SMBC)e2
Direction
improvede2
Value
39% to 73%e2
Comparator
conventional practicee2
Setting
0–15 cme2

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e2

“Subsoiling improved soil microbial biomass carbon (SMBC) by 39% to 73% and 32.20% to 46% as compared to conventional practice in 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depth, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling improved soil microbial biomass carbon by 32.20% to 46% in the 15–30 cm layer compared with conventional practice.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
Subsoilinge2
Outcome
soil microbial biomass carbon (SMBC)e2
Direction
improvede2
Value
32.20% to 46%e2
Comparator
conventional practicee2
Setting
15–30 cm depthe2

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e2

“Subsoiling improved soil microbial biomass carbon (SMBC) by 39% to 73% and 32.20% to 46% as compared to conventional practice in 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depth, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Among the primary tillage treatments, subsoiling gave the highest SMBC (1574 mg C/kg soil/day) in the 0–15 cm layer.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
sub soilinge3
Outcome
SMBCe3
Direction
enhancede3
Value
1574 mg C/kg soil/daye3
Comparator
Among all the primary tillage treatmentse3
Setting
0–15 cm soil depthe3

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e3

“Among all the primary tillage treatments, sub soiling enhanced SMBC at the highest level (1574 mg C/kg soil/day in 0–15 cm soil depth)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1426–1560 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling significantly improved sugarcane yield (97.26 t/ha) compared with other pre-plant tillage treatments.

Taxon
Sugarcanee4
Treatment
subsoilinge4
Outcome
Sugarcanee4
Direction
improvede4
Value
97.26 t ha−1e4
Comparator
other pre-plant tillage treatmentse4

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e4

“Sugarcane (97.26 t ha−1) and sugar (11.87 t ha−1) yields also improved significantly under subsoiling as compared to other pre-plant tillage treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1562–1713 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling significantly improved sugar yield (11.87 t/ha) compared with other pre-plant tillage treatments.

Taxon
Sugarcanee4
Treatment
subsoilinge4
Outcome
sugare4
Direction
improvede4
Value
11.87 t ha−1e4
Comparator
other pre-plant tillage treatmentse4

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e4

“Sugarcane (97.26 t ha−1) and sugar (11.87 t ha−1) yields also improved significantly under subsoiling as compared to other pre-plant tillage treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1562–1713 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling before planting increased mean ratoon cane yield to 117.6 t/ha.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
Subsoiling before plantinge5
Outcome
mean ratoon canee5
Direction
increasede5
Value
117.6 t ha−1e5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e5

“Subsoiling before planting also increased mean ratoon cane (117.6 t ha−1) and sugar yields (14.48 t/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1715–1818 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling before planting increased mean ratoon sugar yield to 14.48 t/ha.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
Subsoiling before plantinge5
Outcome
sugar yieldse5
Direction
increasede5
Value
14.48 t/hae5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e5

“Subsoiling before planting also increased mean ratoon cane (117.6 t ha−1) and sugar yields (14.48 t/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1715–1818 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trash mulching and microbial consortia application in the ratoon crop sustained higher ratoon yields of sugarcane.

Taxon
sugarcanee6
Treatment
trash mulching and application of microbial consortiae6
Outcome
ratoon yieldse6
Direction
highere6

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane Yield in Multiratooning System in Subtropical India”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–110 · show in text ↑
e6

“In addition to trash mulching and application of microbial consortia in ratoon crop proved effective for sustaining higher ratoon yields in sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1820–1969 · show in text ↑

tillage · soil: physics · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 9 positive, 2 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

mulching · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 33 positive, 3 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

tillage · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

48 papers: 35 positive, 13 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

44 papers more in this group

See all 48 papers →

inoculation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

50 papers: 47 positive, 3 negative or no effect

46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

46 papers more in this group

See all 50 papers →

tillage · soil: biology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.