Sol & Tillage Research 187 2019) 110-318 ‘contents lists avallable at ScienceDirect Soil & Tillage Research ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.clsavier.com/locatelstill Tillage effects on soil physical condition and root growth associated with sugarcane water availability sas Fabio Vale Scarpare™”*, Quirijn de Jong van Lier’, Larissa de Camargo‘, R.CM. Pires’ Simone Toni Ruiz-Corréa", A.H.F. Bezerra’, G.J.C. Gava", C.T.S. Dias ‘cone de Bae Malena Aaa (CENA), Unease So Pak (USP), Ax Comm, 303, 1241600, Pres SP, Bra! acl e Enger Macc (FM, Ue ital de Campinas (UNICAMD), Cae noerting "ZefenoVar' 308386, Canpinay SP, ral Ins drone de Cains (AC). Ba dep, 19012970, Cag 5. ra “Uneridade de S50 Fal USP). aaa Supra de Ager “La de Que” (EAL), Pi Diy, 1, 19418 900, Paces SP, Bre “tt Agni de Cannas (AC), Espen Sto, Roa SP 90 304, 1720197, JP, ra Komi We hypothesized that n-row deep tllage (OT may improve crop resilience during dry sels through change in Iw dap Ue the sol physiealayraule properties, in too sjstem development and ved. The objecve ofthis study was Bal deity sl insight ico the infuetce ofthis management on sol physieal properties and root growth associated with water retention, bulk density, porosity, pressure head, temperature and plant resprse (yield and oot system) Sol eazbon stocks were also esessed Inte sol profi. The treatments compared of conventional silage (CP), ‘which consisted ofa 0.3 m ploughing followee by evo dishing graders with 20" dises and one light ising leveler grade, nd DT, a subsoiler rod (0.8m deep) with rotary hoe wih 16 krives to raise crop scedbed in rows, Our rescls reveal that DT rented in lower ule density and higher total porosy vals than CT in most, ‘aes forthe rte sol layers. Moreover, while the sil water relation dd not show signiiantdifernce for toca water avellabliy, de coll water presure head monitoring indisteé a tend of more negative values under (Cr management, a deer condition. Additionally, DT resulted in better rot system development eer too! density and rot length density, However, DT resulted in lower auparcane yield, The exprient was erred ‘tinder rainfed conditions, it rainfl ditbuon did nt limit sugarcane production. Therefore, under the ruld water stress conditions as observed inthis study, the observed root biomass increase didnot favor su sareane ye 1, Introduction ‘Sugarcane isa semi-perennial retoon crop harvested yearly. Under rainfed condition, erop fields need to be replanted after four or five ratooas because ‘of yield decline (Braunack and MeGarry, 2006; Scarpare ct a, 2016) eaused mainly due to rhizome damages during harvesting (van Antwezpen eta, 2000) and excessive haulage eausing soil compaction (Chopart eta. 2010). In Braz the traditional manval harvesting of burnt cane has been replaced by green (unburnt) cane management sing harvesting machines (Leal etal, 2013) Although changes in soil physical properties do not necessarily re sult in yield reduetion (van Antwerpen etal, 2000), sol compaction reduces macroporosity, an important parameter affecting root evelopment, gas exchange properties, nutrient availability and soil Ihydraulie properties (\aclay and sels, 2009). Therefore, altered ti lage practices could affect soil water infiltration and retention, de pending on the level of sil disturbance (Blanco-Cangui etal, 2017) When establishing new sugarcane fields, ullage is performed to create favorable physical conditions for plant emergence and root growth (Chopart etal, 2008) Tillage is an expensive operation, re: presenting about 25% of the total sugarcane production cost (Silva JJenior et al, 2013). Hence, successful crop establishment determines ‘economic return for several years, while failure requires significant farther cost in replanting (Baracat-Neto et al., 2017; Braunack and ‘MeGarry, 2005). Depending on soll characteristics like texture, organic smatter (OM) and water content, the depth of tllage/soil mobilization ~ arespandng autor at: Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultara (CENA), Universidade de So Paulo (USP), Av. Cenenrio, 308, 13416-000, Pirciaba, SP, eal. mal adres: abisearpare@hotnall.com (FM. Seapar) ups://do.ong/20.1016 til 2018.12.005, Received 1 Avgst 2018; Received in revised form 30 November 2016; Accepted December 2018 (0167-1987/ © 2018 Elsevier BN. All ght reserverv Sear erat and the type of implement use, tillage may be accompanied by un- wanted changes, For example, it may be associated with surface ero- sion, especially in combination with erosive precipitation events (Gparovek and Schnug, 2001). Moreover, the disturbance of soil ag sgregates and the subsequent exposure of organic material to decom- posing biota has been associated to the lose of OM from the topsoil, reducing soil earbon sequestration (Galdos et al, 20095 Bake et a, 2007), ‘The repeated plowing in conventional tillage commonly results in the formation of dense plough pans that may seriously affect root growth (Marasca et al, 2015; de Mara et al, 1999), Subsolling may alleviate the problem, increasing crop yield by increasing infltrabilty and water storage and by inereasing the root depth and subsequent ‘water and nutrient uptake (Lampurlaés et al, 2001). In this eontet, in-row deep tillage has been adopted in several commercial sugarcane fields in Brazil aiming to reduce bulk density and increase total por- sity, allowing an increase of the root system hence, plant available ‘water (PAW, mm) and, supposedly, yield. However, measured effets of deep Ullage management in sugarcane field ils on soil physical properties and the observed yield response show that the invalved ‘mechanisms are complex and sensitive fo many factors (K\insar ea, 2012; Marasca etal, 2015; van Antwerpen etal, 2000), Since each ge system has both advantages and drawbacks that may depend on soil and climate, feld trials addressing several quantitative and qual tative aspects of tillage management are necessary fo abroad overview of strategies for sustainability production. ‘We hypothesized that the in-row deep tillage Increases the exop resilionce to cope with dry spells by changing the soil physical/ay- 1.Serdeep) Axed in trench wall rot length assessment arrangement (fallow + soil tage x soil depth) with eight replicates ‘was used. All data were statistically analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System sofware, version 9.3. The homogeneity of variance ‘was checked and when necessary the data were transformed using the Box and Cox, (1968) optimal potential procedue, The Ftes of variance analysis was performed, and the comparison of means was done by the ‘Tukey test (at 586 of probability). Results for soil water pressure head and soil temperature were analyzed by the Mean Absolute deviation ‘QMAd), Root Mean Square deviation (RMS¢), determination couficient (°) and the bias. 3, Results and diseussion ‘Throughout the experiment, field analysis revealed that there were some differences between the soil environments due to Ullage man: agement. For some soil physical properties, the analysis of variance pointed significant ineraction between tillage management and crop ceyeles (Fable 2). Only bulk density and cotal porosity had significant interactions between both factors for the first two depths (0.2 and 0.4 m). Although not all differences were statistically significant, DT provided lower bulk Analysis of variance (estimates) and; B. Soil carbon stock OM, ha“) interaction analysis according eo sil ilage treetments (conventional tilage ~ CT and inzow deep tage ~ DD. ‘renmens Deus D) ae0 aig") bs") cc ©, and ™ indiats signiiennce at 1%, 59 and aot significant, respccvaly [Uppercase letters in eolumss represent the results ofthe Tukey test alpha field analysis revealed some differences between the soil physical properties asa result of tillage practices. No diference in total available ‘water could be shown between treatments, but inthe upper sol layers DT led to lower bul density and higher porosity than CT, as a result of cp soil mobilization performed by the DT management. As a con: sequence, root development was more abundant in DT, In our (0.05) comparing the soll depths experiment with only mild water stress, observed alterations in bulk. land rooting density did not result in an increase in aboveground yield. Increase in root biomass may have hampeced aboveground yield, while not leading toa significant reduction in drought stress. Therefore, the advantage of DT management, potentially improving soil physical properties fr rooting, didnot result in an inerease in sugarcane yield inFv, Sear eek ‘this rainfed agriculture scenario with moderate drought stress only. ‘Acknowledgements ‘This study was performed as part of three projets: FAPESP (2016/ (09133-1), CNPq (407258/2013.2) and CNPq (404245/2013-7) orthermore, support for the fieldwork was provided by the Jad Experimental Station ofthe Agronomic isttute of Campinas (AC) and ‘the laboratorial support was provided by the Centro de Energia Nuclear ‘na Agricultura (CENA-USP) - Laboratéro de Fisica de Solo (FISO). References: ‘Abe. LG, Pes, LS Rac, , Sith M, 1995, Crop Beapotaspatin Gide or npg Gt Ropeenns TA ont baa Per, Ink JM, ete, TE, Verte Ry Gifs, T2007 Age an sol nbn een wt do wey an? Ai Boy to ApS area Nt J. Scarpare FV, Arai, Ri, Searpze ib, JA, 2017. nal devel Foe nl yin apne on ae ropes Po AP NO #7, ‘el, hp, Nv, Gas, AL, Moody, PW, Sing GR, Robotham, 8, 2008, rain comin fio mate tn ie an gs pe iano Cane 8 Wink, By JV, Scher, MLR, Kobe, LC, 2907 Lang erm age tact on Rall opis, Sol Flag es. 170, 38-42. ‘ox, CE, Con DA, 1954 Asana of vans JR Sat See Sees B Stat ‘eoutre Can J lant So 72 5.86 ‘ranch ALY, MeGary. D296, Te sone and lage sates or harvesting nd plang of sgacane Secharuofaran Ie Atel, Sol Tloge Res. 8, Ccomage, AP, Alon RI, Chir 1876. Zaneament dap lists pars “tras comerns mrt de oad SIMPOSIO SOBRE O CERRADO, 41976 ‘Copa 3 odequs Si, Ancvedo, MC, Media, CC, 2008, Estimating ssrane ea gh est ough oa mapping ed reaon modeling Plan Sal S13, CGopart J Azevedo, MLC, Le Mens, Main. 2010, Fanta latosip Tetween supreans root iomas and engi for Coppinger apleatins. Sagat Ton 13073 dena C, Cave, OM, Sum Das, 19, Abts es do sl ees adc de scx nil rato eas metodo de prepare do wo, rar Slo 23, 700-708, wucnniey, , Bomeroe , 1970. La cane sre. Pace Maines Lares Cle cai eels poate) _ ‘of soil caro dynamics under sugieane withthe CENTURY Model. Sil ei. So. Am. aged! EA Deveie, M200, fet of lage ad eld oem oso hil Sud Tag Research 187 209) 110-118 pein ae adn verti of Ka at San Sl ‘Kuma 8, Sil, 5, Bhatnagar, A, 2012. fect of sabeoling and preparatory eillage on ‘sll, ee quay and economies a suareane Sacro species ys) I cin iy Lacey, JP, 2008, Cont oe we rot pe fr lat crop of sere al R, Kimble, 1M, Folle LF, Cle, CV, 1998.The fot of US. Copland 0 Sxqueter Carbo ad Mg the Grease Bec Aa Ao Ps, Anh Aber Lapua, Ang, Comer Manns, 201. Rol growth, ml wate onent andy of ley ue diferent lage senso to sls asennad coos Fa cops Res 63,270. el BURLY, alos, MLV, Serpe PX, Seba, EA, Ver, A, Ole, CO 3013 Sagan on atl, uy, nee ny es te ‘Marat Lemos $e Fly, Gana, SPS, Lange KP, 2015S smpacson| ‘ire oan Onl der setae pander now dep ge RB Slo ‘ebuton in sara cava eta by» ubnarie dip ym, raga 74 Quine Covi, JEM, fmm, LC, Tomieagy, TT, Cara, AM, Rech K, Bcc, ‘0.05. Dorado, Camar, GMS, 200. Sol wmperatue ih Sogareane {Gop as functor othe aagemet Sim Pa Sal 230, 61-66. Prtcar, 5.6, Rogen, HH, 2000, Spats! ad temporal deployment cop rot ‘COvearied environments Now Py (1, 37h Aspen erga, 207 row stealing 9 ee a opperons or rofoelog et of hs ansratin tinge operation. Appl Pag Age 28-41. [est D.C, 2005, Tilugeinced 00, enisens and carbon squat: le of “notary tage an samperton. a GarcTores Ls Beiter dy Marines, ‘A telat Caters (Ede), Conevation Agere, fuer dead Fab Scarpre, FV, Hered, TAD, Reon ST Kell, Oy Ga GG, Sst, TENS, wt, e201, Suareane water oti ude Ale azagement sn tne wate ssn, 3a ed Svs nr, CA, Cantho, LA, Camuan, 26 lve BCA, 2013 Camporamenta “incon dosgenr om dar ear easton da sl, wh eerener pes de repr Bw, 33 1aeh-100, ‘ith DAL, Iso Rober, NG, Thou, 2. 2015. Growth sed freon of be soaraoe root sen, Fd Cope Re 82, 18-183, sporone, G, Seg 2001 Sol lage and presi grr, hort exe ty 0° lero conn Brae gar eneposacton. Sl Tillage Re 1 a, Swan, van Vee, JA, Maca, X, 1994 Resphate cb es in lego Seng what ma aclasow bsed 09 14 prong ser peeling Sal ‘at ster. 26 (2), 171-02 ean DA ef alin os td fet rt eh ‘van Antwerpen, Meyer, Meyer; 2000. Soll compaction inthe South Atican ‘gar indus = tele Broe 8. Al Su, Teal As 10-108. vx Gomi 7, 100 a mean diigo Woon, RW 1989 elton brn oo rrpton Sd rn ety Pa al 2,