Sol & Tillage Research 187 2019) 110-118 Contents lists avallable at ScienceDirect Soil & Tillage Research ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.clsevier.com/locatelstill Tillage effects on soil physical condition and root growth associated with |) sugarcane water availability sats 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 * conode Bae Male Aaa (CENA), Unease So Pak (USP), Av Cements, 303, 13416000, Praabs SP, Br! Farad de ngenhra Mecca (HD), Universe a de Carpe (UNICAMD), Clade Une Zefa Var, 12083 a6, Canis, SP, Brat Inne Aaoniece de Cains (IAC). A. Bark de pra 13012970, Cangas SP ra “Universe de S50 Fal (USP), aaa Supra de Ager “i de Qua” (EAL), Pi Dig, 1, 19418 900, Packet SP, ros “ttt Agonimie de Cannas (AC), Esperia Satin, Roara SP 904 04, 1720197, Ja SP, ra mode We hypothesized that n-row deep tlage (OT) may improve crop resilience during dry sels through change in Iw dep tage the sol physiealaydraule properties, in oo stem development and ved. The objective ofthis study was Bal dey sl insight ito the inuence ofthis management on sol physieal properties and root growth associated with water retention, bulk density, porosity, pressure head, temperature and plant response (yield and root syste) Sol eazbon stocks were also assessed Inthe sol profil. The weauments compared of convetional tage (CM), ‘which consisted ofa 0.3 m ploughing followed by two dishing graders with 20" dises and one light dishing leteler grade, and DT, a subscle rd (08m deep) with rotary hoe wih 16 krives to raise crop seeded in rows. Our ress reveal that DT rested in lower bull density and higher otal porosy vals than CTin most ‘es forthe nzfee sol lnyers. Moreover, while the si water relation dd nt show sigiieantdiernce for ‘oral water avellabliy, ce coll water presure head monitoring ndiested a tend of more negative values under (Ct management, ea deer condition. Addltionally, DT resulted in better rot system development eeerig oot denaty and rot length density. owever, DT resulted in lower sugarcane yield, The exprient was erred ‘ot under rainfed conditions, it rainfall ditrbton did nt limit sugarcane production. Therefore, under the sid water stress condition as observed inthis study, the observed root biomass inrease didnot favor su satcan ye 1, Introduction ‘Sugarcane is a semi-perennil ratoon crop harvested yearly. Under tainfed condition, erop fields need to be replanted after four or five ratoons because of yield decline (Braunack and MeGary, 2006; Scarpare ct a, 2016) eaused mainly due to rhizome damages during Iharvestng (van Antwerpen eta, 2000) and excessive haulage eausing sol compaction (Chopart eta, 2010). In Braz the traditional manval harvesting of burnt cane has been replaced by green (unburnt) cane management using harvesting machines (Leal etal, 201°) Although changes in soil physical properties do not necessarily re sult in yield reduetion (van Antwerpen et sl., 2000), sol compaction reduces macroporosity, an important parameter affecting root evelopment, gas exchange properties, nutrient availability and soil Ihydraulle properties (Laclau and Lael, 2009. Therefore, altered ti lage practices could affect soil water infiltration and retention, de pending on the level of sil disturbance (Slanco-Cangui etal, 2017) When establishing new sugarcane fields, tillage 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 JJonior 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; Brausack and ‘MeCarry, 2006). Depending on soll characteristics like texture, organic (OM) and water content, the depth of tillage/soil mobilization ~ Corespondng author a Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura (CENA), Universidade de So Paulo (USP), AV. Cecenrio, 308, 13416-000, Piraciaba, SP, eal mal adres: sbisearpre@hounal cn (EN. Searpare) Received 1 Avgust 2018; Received in revised form 30 November 2018; Accepted December 2018 (0167-1967/ © 2018 Elsevier BY. All ght reserveev Sear a 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 (Sparovek and Schnug, 2001). Moreover, the disturbance of sol ag agregates and the subsequent exposure of organic material to decom- posing biota has been associated to the lose of OM from the topsoil, reducing sol carbon sequestration (Galdos et al, 20095 Baker et al. 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 Maria 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 (Lampurlanés 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- osity, allowing an increase of the root system hence, plant available ‘water (PAW, mm) and, supposedly, yield. However, measured effets of deep tillage management in sugarcane field trials on soll physieal properties and the observed yield response show that the invalved ‘mechanisms are complex and sensitive fo many factors (Kumar eal, 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 quali tative aspects of tillage management are necessary for @ broad overview of strategies for sustainability production ‘We hypothesized that the in-row deep tillage inereases the ezop resilince to cope with dey spells by changing the soil physical/ay- ) management and I: dispersion graph, production system, A more complete assessment would have to take {nto account the fossil fuel emissions from both management systems, ‘as DT consumes approximately 25% more diesel when compared to CT (Raper and Bergtol, 2007) In this Held study, DT did not increase the aboveground biomass production, hence, it didnot result in increased feld income. However, DT improved the top layer (0-20em) soll quality lower bulk density and higher total porosity) allowing better root system development (Wig. 8B and 6C), which seems tobe directly related to the rotary hoe effect In this sense, the use ofa subsoiling rod inthis tillage system may ‘be more appropriate to be performed in fields with serious soil com- paction problems, sinee it requires a powerful machine to perform this ‘management. ‘The hypothesis that DT increases the crop resilience to cape with ry spells could not be verified, due to the climatic conditions prevailing during the study period. Therefore, for @ more conclusive statement further studies would be needed in drier yeas, also including other soil types and different sugarcane varieties. In this context, the soil;plant-atmosphere system modeling assessment may bea useful tool to provide further insights related to the partitioning of belowground ‘organs in photoassimilates distribution and to root biomass main tenance. These important aspects should be addressed in future re search, sine sugareane crops are expanding in environments where the water balance may be less favorable for cane production, as isthe ease for the expansion areas inthe Cerrado biome in Brazil 4, Conclusions This study focused on the comparison of two sugarcane tillage systems and their influence on crop water availability and yield. Theev Sear a 4 Tage Remarc 17 2019) 110-118 ‘able 6 Sugarcane yield asessment: A. Analysis of variance (F estinates) and: B:Sugareane fresh illble stalks mas, Mg ha") and itsnteractionanalsis according to sol tillage treatments (eonvetinal tage C an in (Glan cane an at oo, ‘geo Tee bao) sae S60 ie 2 nt ane) 1 nae OG) or masa ab ince , + and ™ isa sglfcance at 1%, 58 and not sgafieant, respectively ‘Uppercase letersi columns represent the results ofthe Tukey test alpha = 0.05) comparing the tillage treatments while lowereave letter in rows ae the resis of te Tukey tes comparing the sugarcane cycles Root density (na ear") 11 )005 (gu uo) wonoqustp: Fig. 6. Sugarcane root system ascessment by the trench profile method at 174 days afer second harvest under coneetional (CT and in-cow deep tage (7) ‘management. A) Average 2D root length density (nm em"), B) and ©) 2D root length density (em em) maps under CT and DT management respectively able? Sil carbon stock assessment: A Analysis of variance (F estimates) and B. Soil cabon stock (Mg ha") interaction analysis according eo soil lage treatments (onventional tillage ~ CT and inzow deep tage ~ DD. Tennent) Des) ae fig") tgs" +, and indieats signiiance at 1%, 59 and aot significant, respectively Uppercase letters in colums represent the results ofthe Tukey test field analysis revealed some differences between the soil physical properties asa result of tillage practices, No difference in total available ‘water could be shown between treatments, but inthe upper sol layers DT led to lower bulk density and higher porosity than CT, as a result of deep soil mobilization performed by the DT management. As a con: sequence, root development was more abundant in DT. In our pha ~ 0.05) comparing the sll depths experiment with only mild water stress, observed alterations in bulk ‘ane rooting density didnot result in an increase in aboveground yield Increase in root biomass may have hampered aboveground yield, while not leading toa significant reduction in drought stress. Therefore, the advantage of DT management, potentially improving soil physical properties for rooting, didnot result in an inerease in sugareane yield inFv Searpare cab ‘this rainfed agriculture scenario with moderate drought stress only. ‘Acknowledgements ‘This study was performed as part of three projects: FAPESP (2016/ (09133-1), CNPq (407258/2013.2) and CNPq (404245/2013-7). Furthermore, support for the fieldwork was provided by the Jai Experimental Station ofthe Agronomic institute of Campinas (LAC) and ‘the aboratorial support was provided by the Centro de Energia Nuclear nna Agricultura (CENA-USP) - Laborato de Fisica de Solo (PISO). References, ‘Aen. LG, Persea, LS, Rac, Sith M, 1988, Crop Hespotanspiatin Gdns For Comping Gop Wer Rouzemens FAO ington tn Drasage Per AO, Kame 3805), Dosto. Boker J, Dee, TE, Vetce, RT, Gifs T, 207. Tage and sol eon Sequaseaon what do we ely kaw? Age Beosyt Envi, App Sal ea arc Net J. Scapare, FV, Aral, RL, Sarre ib, JA 2017. nal evel pment ae yld i sapecne fa diferent ropagos. Po. Apope:Top. #7, share. ‘elt, pn NX, Gas, AL, Moody, PN Siig. GR, Robotham, 3, 2008, alt eombinasors of falow manatees ont Wale at ige tons ann Cans When, B,J, VL, Scher, MLR, Kobe, LC, 2917. tang erm age nc on shale ropes, Sl lage es, 17, 38-42 ‘ox, Ge, con Di, 1954 Asana of uals JR Slat See Sees B Stat ‘eostre Can J Pant So 72 79-86 Besuml Mv, tay, D, 2008 Trae concoland lage staf harvesting ar pling siarcne(Sechare furan) Atta So Tiage Res 89, cam AP. Alo RR Chitin 1, 1976 Zoe pli cia ee ‘hop, Je, Rodriques, SR, Azevedo, MC, Medina, CC, 2008, Estimating sgarcane ea length est ough ot ping od resaon modeling Plat Sa S13, ‘Ghopact, JL, Azevedo, MC, Le Meno, L, Marin, D., 2010. Funetional relationship Tevecs agua ot bias dln for coping tem splcatons Sc ook 12 317-8, demain LC, Case, ©, Sum Das, 19, Abts eas do sl ees rads des om atone oro sb drentes mtn de prepare dono, re Slo 23, 70-708, aac, Rare, 1970. La cane re. Pare Mba Lar, (Gale cies eels potatos ope) . oid ni art, Ce, amt, CRP, Pai, Ke Yan Awe, R, 2009 silaon ‘ofan dams unde sara Wi ihe CENTURY Mode SoS Soe Aa. Hammad EA, Doe, ML, 200, fet of lage abd eld oedton ons piel Sud Tag Research 187 209) 110-118 eins aed in vein of Ka mp ate SaaS ‘mar, 8, Sail, 5, hatnagar, A, 2012. tfc of sbsoling and preparatory cllage on ‘sll, ue quly and economics a suarane Sacro species ys) Styureane Platoon Copang Syste. Sug Tech. 14, 396-04 scan 720% Ch he ie oan re oo al, R, Kimble, 396, Foe, RA, Gol, C¥, 1998, The Potential of U.S Copasds co Sequete Cibo sd Mtg the Grease Ect Ann A ros, Ro Abe Lampuans ly Angi, Cntr Marines, 201. Rot gromty sl wae content nd l of sly under dierent lage stn o0 two ssn seman conan. Feld rope Res. 6927-40. al BURL, alos, MV, Serpe, F, Stabe, JEL, Vale, A, Ole, CO: 2013 Sagan on Sally, uy ey enya ae Marat Lemos, $3 is ly, Gana, SPS, Langae KP, 2015. Sl spaces ‘are ofan Onsale sagan aed ar low dep lige RBs Sl0 ‘elton a arcane ales eta byob ip yt raga 4 Quinta vei, JEM, fmm, 1.C, Tominagh, 17, Camara FAM, Reichard Beh, ‘O08, Donde, 5, Care, GMS, 201 Sal epee arabe ecard 8 Rages, 00 tl a pe ap ‘Oncaea tones New Py 7 95-71 saps Ry erg J 2007 tnrow sng evr and spent fr ecg sof cnsrvaon age operation APR. Pag Age: 28 462-471, ‘eck, iG, 200 igen Gy emis and eaten seus: fet of eroay ge an npc, be Case Trre, Bene J, Mares Vie Rigo Ger A Gat, Comevnon Agee, wer Aad ube Denton the Neher 29100 sear Fv, Herands, TA, RCo, Hall O, Gara, Cy Sats TENS, Vict Rin 201 Spnrcane water oto unde ire nage stead 4, Carve LA, Cation, Olive, REA, 2012. Conporamets Sci rom Si auc ri orn iar Sere ‘Smith, DAL, Inman Bamber, NG, Thorburn, PJ, 2018. Growth and function ofthe ‘aacane rot sen: Pe Cops Re 9, 16-183. Spe Gr Sch 0. So age snd precio pire a hares cate Try fr sl ero onan bran ar cae poston Sol age Re, Swen, an Vee, A, Mees, 1954 Rbgspere bon aes in elon Sheng wheat ot crcstons bed o 146 yorkonng fer pueblo Siitinten a @) Icio Tea 3 9951001 ‘van Antwerpen Ra Meer, fy Meyer, 200. Sl empacon the South Atean ‘aa nus view oe Al Sug. esl A. 1-108, en Conch, M7, 1580, A del fora etn fr peilg te hye ot oct of waited se SoS SA. 4 892-0 ween 18 Relation Between ot epatin sn tse aS 6,