4.7 Article

Long-term decomposition of sugarcane harvest residues in Sao Paulo state, Brazil

Journal

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
Volume 42, Issue -, Pages 189-198

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.011

Keywords

N-15; Straw; C:N ratio; Cellulose; Reduced tillage; Litter bags

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crop residues returned to the soil are important to preserve fertility and sustainability. This research addressed the long-term decomposition of sugarcane post-harvest residues (trash) under reduced tillage, therefore field renewal was performed with herbicide followed by subsoiling and ratoons were deprived of interrow scarification. The trial was conducted in the northern Sao Paulo State, Brazil during four consecutive crops (2005-2008) where litter bags containing N-15-labeled trash were disposed in the field attempting to simulate two distinct situations: the previous crop trash (PCT) or residues incorporated in the field after tillage, and post-harvest trash (PHT) or the remains of plant-cane harvest. Decomposition rates regarding dry matter (DM), carbon (C), root growth, plant nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S), lignin (LIG) cellulose (CEL) and hemicellulose (HCEL) contents were assessed for PCT (2005 ndash;2008) and for PHT (2006-2008). There were significant reductions on DM and C:N ratio due to C losses and root growth within the litter bags over time. The DM from PCT and PHT decreased 96% and 73% after four and three crops, respectively, and the higher nutrients release were found for K, Ca and N. The LIG, CEL and HCEL concentrations in PCT decreased 60%, 29%, 70% after four crops and 47%, 35%, 70% from PHT after three crops, respectively. Trash decomposition was driven mainly by residues biochemical composition, root growth within the trash blanket and the climatic conditions during the crop cycles. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available