4.5 Article

Biomass and Nutrient Content by Sugarcane as Affected by Fertilizer Nitrogen Sources

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 1234-1244

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2015.06.0349

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2009/04691-2, 2009/12537-3, 2009/10192-9]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [574982/2008-6]
  3. Yara International ASA (FEALQ) [4925-5]
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [09/12537-3] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowing the right fertilizer N source is a key management practice for improving nutrient use and productivity for sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). Therefore, this study evaluated the effect of fertilizer N sources on aboveground biomass (BM) and nutrient (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and S) content for sugarcane ratoon. Two field trials under highly weathered tropical soils (Site 1, Typic Hapludox; Site 2, Typic Eutrustox) were conducted in the southeast region of Brazil. Five fertilizer N sources (organomineral fertilizer [OMF], ammonium chloride [AC], ammonium nitrate [AN], calcium ammonium nitrate [CAN], and urea) were applied on sugarcane at a rate of 100 kg N ha(-1). A control treatment was also included in the randomized complete block design. At harvest, total BM varied from 24.4 Mg ha(-1) (control and AC) at Site 1 to 44.2 Mg ha(-1) (CAN) at Site 2, total K content varied from 185 kg ha(-1) (AC) at Site 2 to 747 kg ha(-1) (OMF) at Site 1, and total N content ranged from 92 kg ha(-1) (AC) at Site 2 to 165 kg ha(-1) (AN) at Site 1. Use of CAN and OMF resulted in comparable or superior BM and nutrient content relative to the other N fertilizers. In contrast, AC did not increase BM and nutrient content (except for N and Mg at Site 1), but also decreased by 33% total N content than control at Site 2. Use of more efficient fertilizer N sources (e.g., CAN and OMF) could increase productivity and nutrient use for sugarcane ratoon systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据