Abstract
Louisiana sugarcane ( Saccharum spp.) is produced mainly on heavy‐textured soils that offer less than ideal conditions for growth and function of the root system. Cultural practices that improve the soil environment could benefit sugarcane production by increasing root growth and reducing the incidence of ratoon decline. The objective of our research was to determine the effect of gypsum and composted, municipal‐biosolids application on root growth, crop yields, and leaf nutrient concentrations of sugarcane grown on a silty clay loam soil. Gypsum mixed into the rows at 2.24, 4.48, and 8.96 Mg ha −1 did not affect ( P > 0.05) root growth or cane and sugar yields. Likewise, both subsoil‐ and within‐row applied compost at a rate of 44.8 Mg ha −1 did not affect cane or sugar yields compared with the control. Gypsum increased Ca, S, Mn, and Zn leaf concentrations, but had no effect on N, P, K, Mg, Cu, and Fe concentrations. Subsoil and within‐row compost increased leaf S concentration; within‐row compost increased leaf K; and subsoil compost increased leaf Zn, but reduced leaf Mn compared with the control. Compost application did not increase Mn, Cu, Fe, or Zn concentrations in sugarcane leaf tissue beyond acceptable limits. Within‐row applied compost reduced ( P < 0.05) root surface area compared with the control, and reduced sugar yields compared with the subsoil compost treatment. This suggests that, at the compost rate used in our study, subsoil rather than within‐row application of compost, is the preferred practice for sugarcane grown on this soil.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum did not significantly affect sugarcane root growth or cane and sugar yield.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Gypsum mixed into the rows at 2.24, 4.48, and 8.96 Mg ha −1e0
- Outcome
- root growth or cane and sugar yieldse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“Gypsum mixed into the rows at 2.24, 4.48, and 8.96 Mg ha −1 did not affect ( P > 0.05) root growth or cane and sugar yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil and within-row compost did not affect cane or sugar yield versus control.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“both subsoil‐ and within‐row applied compost at a rate of 44.8 Mg ha −1 did not affect cane or sugar yields compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum increased leaf Ca, S, Mn and Zn concentrations.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“Gypsum increased Ca, S, Mn, and Zn leaf concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum did not affect leaf N, P, K, Mg, Cu or Fe concentrations.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Gypsume0
- Outcome
- N, P, K, Mg, Cu, and Fe concentrationse0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“Gypsum increased Ca, S, Mn, and Zn leaf concentrations, but had no effect on N, P, K, Mg, Cu, and Fe concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil compost increased leaf S concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“Subsoil and within‐row compost increased leaf S concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Within-row compost increased leaf S and K concentrations.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“within‐row compost increased leaf K”
e1“Subsoil and within‐row compost increased leaf S concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil compost increased leaf Zn concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“subsoil compost increased leaf Zn”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil compost reduced leaf Mn concentration versus control.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“subsoil compost increased leaf Zn, but reduced leaf Mn compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost did not increase leaf trace metal concentrations beyond acceptable limits.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- Compost applicatione0
- Outcome
- Mn, Cu, Fe, or Zn concentrations in sugarcane leaf tissuee0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
- Qualifier
- beyond acceptable limitse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“Compost application did not increase Mn, Cu, Fe, or Zn concentrations in sugarcane leaf tissue beyond acceptable limits”
Claim · model-written summary
Within-row compost significantly reduced root surface area versus control.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“Within‐row applied compost reduced ( P < 0.05) root surface area compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Within-row compost reduced sugar yield versus subsoil compost.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“Within‐row applied compost reduced ( P < 0.05) root surface area compared with the control, and reduced sugar yields compared with the subsoil compost treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors prefer subsoil to within-row compost application at the study rate.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane”
e0“subsoil rather than within‐row application of compost, is the preferred practice for sugarcane grown on this soil”
The same questions in other papers
lime · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →lime · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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 →fertilization · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →fertilization · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 129 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 papers →fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 312 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 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.