Abstract
Sequestration of carbon (C) in arable cropping systems is considered one of the potential climate change mitigation strategies. In this context, assessing the potential of sugarcane cropping systems should be a priority, as it leaves substantial amounts of recyclable residues essential for maintaining soil organic carbon (SOC), improving soil health, and strengthening overall resources. We evaluated the impacts of residue retention and nutrient management practices on SOC and its pools, storage, soil biology, and yield in a multi-ratooning sugarcane system. A field experiment was conducted in the split-plot design with residue burning (RB) and residue retention (RR) as the main plot treatments and three nutrient management practices, that is, 25% of the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF, i.e., 300:150:150 kg of N, P 2 O 5 , and K 2 O kg ha −1 , respectively) as basal + 75% through fertigation (N1); 50% of RDF as basal + 50% through fertigation (N2); and 75% of RDF as basal + 25% through fertigation (N3) as subplot treatments in ratoon sugarcane. Soil samples were collected initially and after 6 years of multi-ratooning (one plant and four ratoon crops) from a soil depth of 0–30 cm. The results indicated that RR plots had 21% higher total SOC with 42, 47, 17, and 13% higher very labile, labile, less labile, and non-labile C pools, respectively, than RB plots ( P < 0.05). RR also had a higher lability and recalcitrant index than RB. Of the total SOC stock, the contribution of passive pools was higher (72–75%) than active pools. Significantly higher dehydrogenase activity (DHA) (86%), alkaline phosphatase activity (APA) (16%), and ß-glucosidase activity (BGA) (22%) were observed in RR plots as compared to RB plots, whereas for nutrient management practices, it followed the order of N2 > N3> N1. Microbial counts also followed the same trend as that of enzyme activities. Residue retention practices reported higher C sequestration (0.68 Mg C ha −1 yr −1 ), carbon retention efficiency (37%), and yield (38%) with a potential to reduce GHG emissions by 2.72 Mg CO 2 ha −1 yr −1 as compared to traditional practices. Residue retention and 50–75% RDF as basal is recommended for higher soil C retention and soil biology for sustained sugarcane productivity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention raised total soil organic carbon by 21% against burning.
Verbatim
e0“RR plots had 21% higher total SOC with 42, 47, 17, and 13% higher very labile, labile, less labile, and non-labile C pools, respectively, than RB plots ( P < 0.05)”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention raised the very labile carbon pool by 42% against burning.
Verbatim
e0“RR plots had 21% higher total SOC with 42, 47, 17, and 13% higher very labile, labile, less labile, and non-labile C pools, respectively, than RB plots ( P < 0.05)”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention raised the labile carbon pool by 47% against burning.
Verbatim
e0“RR plots had 21% higher total SOC with 42, 47, 17, and 13% higher very labile, labile, less labile, and non-labile C pools, respectively, than RB plots ( P < 0.05)”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention raised the less labile carbon pool by 17% against burning.
Verbatim
e0“RR plots had 21% higher total SOC with 42, 47, 17, and 13% higher very labile, labile, less labile, and non-labile C pools, respectively, than RB plots ( P < 0.05)”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention raised the non-labile carbon pool by 13% against burning.
Verbatim
e0“RR plots had 21% higher total SOC with 42, 47, 17, and 13% higher very labile, labile, less labile, and non-labile C pools, respectively, than RB plots ( P < 0.05)”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention increased lability and recalcitrant indices over burning.
Verbatim
e0“RR also had a higher lability and recalcitrant index than RB.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Passive pools contributed 72–75% of total SOC stock, more than active pools.
Verbatim
e0“Of the total SOC stock, the contribution of passive pools was higher (72–75%) than active pools.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention increased dehydrogenase activity by 86% over burning.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly higher dehydrogenase activity (DHA) (86%), alkaline phosphatase activity (APA) (16%), and ß-glucosidase activity (BGA) (22%) were observed in RR plots as compared to RB plots”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention increased alkaline phosphatase activity by 16% over burning.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly higher dehydrogenase activity (DHA) (86%), alkaline phosphatase activity (APA) (16%), and ß-glucosidase activity (BGA) (22%) were observed in RR plots as compared to RB plots”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention increased ß-glucosidase activity by 22% over burning.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly higher dehydrogenase activity (DHA) (86%), alkaline phosphatase activity (APA) (16%), and ß-glucosidase activity (BGA) (22%) were observed in RR plots as compared to RB plots”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil enzyme activities and microbial counts ranked N2 above N3 above N1.
Verbatim
e0“for nutrient management practices, it followed the order of N2 > N3> N1. Microbial counts also followed the same trend as that of enzyme activities.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention produced carbon sequestration of 0.68 Mg C ha −1 yr −1.
Verbatim
e0“Residue retention practices reported higher C sequestration (0.68 Mg C ha −1 yr −1 ), carbon retention efficiency (37%), and yield (38%) with a potential to reduce GHG emissions by 2.72 Mg CO 2 ha −1 yr −1 as compared to traditional practices.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention produced carbon retention efficiency of 37%.
Verbatim
e0“Residue retention practices reported higher C sequestration (0.68 Mg C ha −1 yr −1 ), carbon retention efficiency (37%), and yield (38%) with a potential to reduce GHG emissions by 2.72 Mg CO 2 ha −1 yr −1 as compared to traditional practices.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention raised yield by 38% versus traditional practices.
Verbatim
e0“Residue retention practices reported higher C sequestration (0.68 Mg C ha −1 yr −1 ), carbon retention efficiency (37%), and yield (38%) with a potential to reduce GHG emissions by 2.72 Mg CO 2 ha −1 yr −1 as compared to traditional practices.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention could reduce GHG emissions by 2.72 Mg CO 2 ha −1 yr −1.
Verbatim
e0“with a potential to reduce GHG emissions by 2.72 Mg CO 2 ha −1 yr −1 as compared to traditional practices.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend residue retention with 50–75% RDF as basal for soil carbon, biology and sustained sugarcane productivity.
Verbatim
e0“Residue retention and 50–75% RDF as basal is recommended for higher soil C retention and soil biology for sustained sugarcane productivity.”
t0“Impact of residue retention and nutrient management on carbon sequestration, soil biological properties, and yield in multi-ratoon sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
organic · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
organic · soil: biology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
organic · soil: chemistry · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →organic · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
16 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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.