Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 8:14:1099589.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1099589. eCollection 2023.

Fertilizer source and application method influence sugarcane production and nutritional status

Sérgio Gustavo Quassi de Castro  1 , Anderson Prates Coelho  2 , Saulo Augusto Quassi de Castro  3 , Thais Regina de Souza Chiachia  4 , Rosilaine Araldi de Castro  1 , Leandro Borges Lemos  2
Affiliations

Fertilizer source and application method influence sugarcane production and nutritional status

Sérgio Gustavo Quassi de Castro et al. Front Plant Sci. .

Abstract

Introduction: The contrasting weather conditions throughout the sugarcane harvest period in south-central Brazil (April to November) influence fertilization management in sugarcane ratoon.

Methods: Through field studies carried out over two cropping seasons, we aimed to compare the performance of sugarcane at sites harvested in the early and late periods of the harvest season as a function of fertilizer sources associated with application methods. The design used in each site was a randomized block in a 2 x 3 factorial scheme; the first factor consisted of fertilizer sources (solid and liquid), and the second factor consisted of application methods (above the straw, under the straw, and incorporated into the middle of the sugarcane row).

Results: The fertilizer source and application method interacted at the site harvested in the early period of the sugarcane harvest season. Overall, the highest sugarcane stalk and sugar yields at this site were obtained with the incorporated application applying liquid fertilizer and under straw applying solid fertilizer, with increments of up to 33%. For the site harvested in the late period of the sugarcane harvest season, the liquid fertilizer promoted a 25% higher sugarcane stalk yield compared to the solid fertilizer in the crop season with low rainfall in the spring, while in the crop season with normal rainfall, there were no differences between treatments.

Discussion: This demonstrates the importance of defining fertilization management in sugarcane as a function of harvest time, thereby promoting greater sustainability in the production system.

Keywords: liquid fertilizer; nitrogen; phosphorus; potassium; straw.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors SGQC and RAC are employed by AgroQuatro-S Experimentation and Applied Agronomic Consultancy and TRSC is employed by Yara Brazil Fertilizers. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Fertilizer application methods evaluated in the experiment. Fertilizer sources, i.e., solid and liquid, are shown by the black circle and blue drop, respectively.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Water balance over the experimental period. Arrows indicate the fertilization time in the site 1 (early-harvest site [red]) and in the site 2 (late-harvest site [green]) in sugarcane experimental fields.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of means for plant population (A, B), sugarcane yield (C, D) and sugar yield (E, F) in the site 1 (early-harvest site) as a function of fertilizer source and application method. Lowercase letters compare the fertilizer source for each application method and uppercase letters compare the application method for each fertilizer source. Liq, Liquid fertilizer; Sol, Solid fertilizer; ASt, Application above straw; USt, Application under straw; SI, Application incorporated into the soil.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of means for Brix (A, B), Fiber content (C, D), Pol of cane - PC (E, F) and total recoverable sugar – TRS (G, H) of sugarcane in the site 1 (early-harvest site) as a function of the fertilizer source and application method. Liq, Liquid fertilizer; Sol, Solid fertilizer; ASt, Application above straw; USt, Application under straw; SI, Application incorporated into the soil.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of means for the total accumulation of N (A, B), P (C, D) and K (E, F) of sugarcane in the site 1 (early-harvest site) as a function of the fertilizer source and application method. Liq, Liquid fertilizer; Sol, Solid fertilizer; ASt, Application above straw; USt, Application under straw; SI, Application incorporated into the soil. Lowercase letters compare fertilizer application methods.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of means for plant population (A, B), sugarcane yield (C, D) and sugar yield (E, F) in the site 2 (late-harvest site) as a function of the fertilizer source and application method. Liq, Liquid fertilizer; Sol, Solid fertilizer; ASt, Application above straw; USt, Application under straw; SI, Application incorporated into the soil. Lowercase letters compare fertilizer sources.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Decomposition of the interaction between treatments and crop seasons (2019/2020 and 2020/2021) for sugarcane yield (A) and sugar yield (B) in the site 2 (late-harvest site) as a function of the fertilizer source and application method. Lowercase letters compare treatments for each crop season and uppercase letters compare crop seasons for each treatment. L, Liquid fertilizer; S, Solid fertilizer; ASt, Application above straw; USt, Application under straw; SI, Application incorporated into the soil.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Comparison of means for Brix (A, B), Fiber content (C, D), Pol cane – PC (E, F) and total recoverable sugar (TRS, G, H) of sugarcane in the site 2 (late-harvest site) as a function of the fertilizer source and application method. Liq, Liquid fertilizer; Sol, Solid fertilizer; ASt, Application above straw; USt, Application under straw; SI, Application incorporated into the soil.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Comparison of means for the total accumulation of N (A, B), P (C, D) and K (E, F) of sugarcane in the site 2 (late-harvest site) as a function of the fertilizer source and application method. Liq, Liquid fertilizer; Sol, Solid fertilizer; ASt, Application above straw; USt, Application under straw; SI, Application incorporated into the soil. Lowercase letters compare fertilizer application methods.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Almeida H. J., Cruz F. J. R., Pancelli M. A., Flores R. A., Vasconcelos R. D. L., Prado R. M. (2015). Decreased potassium fertilization in sugarcane ratoons grown under straw in different soils. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 9, 596–604.
    1. Alvares C. A., Stape J. L., Sentelhas P. C., Gonçalves J. L. M., Sparovek G. (2013). Koppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 22, 711–728. doi: 10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507 - DOI
    1. Andreoli R. V., Kayano M. T., Viegas J., Oliveira S. S., Souza R. A. F., Garcia S. R., et al. . (2019). Effects of two different la niña types on the south American rainfall. Int. J. Climatol. 39, 1415–1428. doi: 10.1002/joc.5891 - DOI
    1. Aquino G. S. D., Medina C. D. C., Silvestre D. A., Gomes E. C., Cunha A. C. B., Kussaba D. A. O., et al. . (2018). Straw removal of sugarcane from soil and its impacts on yield and industrial quality ratoons. Sci. Agric. 75, 526–529. doi: 10.1590/1678-992X-2017-0093 - DOI
    1. Banzatto D. A., Kronka S. (2006). Experimentação agrícola. 4. ed (Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil: aboticabal: FUNEP; ), 237.