Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Sugarcane production in the subtropics: Seasonal changes in soil properties T

and crop yield in no-tillage, inverting and minimum tillage
G.O. Awea,⁎, J.M. Reichertb, E. Fontanelac
a
Soil Resources and Environmental Management Department, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ekiti State University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria
b
Soils Department, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria-RS, Brazil
c
Agricultural Engineering Department, Universidade do Pampa (UNIPAMPA), Alegrete-RS, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sugarcane is one of the important energy crops grown globally. Despite the increased sugarcane productivity,
Soil the mechanization of sugarcane production has caused the modification of soil structure in different scales. A
Tillage field study was therefore conducted for three growing seasons (2010 - 2013) to evaluate seasonal changes of soil
Soil properties physico-chemical and mechanical properties and crop yield under different soil management practices for su-
Sugarcane productivity
garcane (Saccharum Oficinarum) production in southern Brazil. In 2010/2011, the experiment was laid out in a
randomized complete block design in three replications, consisting of no-tillage (NT), no-tillage + compaction
(NTC), inverting conventional tillage (CT), and minimum tillage of chiseling (Chi) treatments. Disturbed and
undisturbed soil samples were collected from soil layers 0–10, 10–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm for the determination
of soil properties, and sugarcane yield was evaluated. Shortly after land preparation, soil tillage significantly
reduced the BD and AWmax but increased the macropore volume. Three years after land preparation and
continuous no-tillage, there was a significant reduction in soil BD, Ma, FC, PWP, AWmax, TN, Ks, and Ic while
SOM and σp increased in the 0–10 cm surface layer. For the 10–20 and 20–40 cm layers, BD and σp increased
while Ma, FC, PWP, AWmax, and Ks decreased. Tillage had no significant (p < 0.05) on the soil properties
beyond the 40 cm depth. Although sugarcane yield was not influenced by the different land preparation
methods, however, NT, Chi or CT treatment could be preferred when considering soil management options for
sugarcane production in this region.

1. Introduction as well as increased soil resistance to root penetration, especially in

Sugarcane is one of the important energy crops widely grown
globally. It is a high biomass energy crop, with the sugar stored in its
stalk and the lingo-cellulosic residue remaining after the extraction of
sugar used for the production of biofuel or other bio-products. Its im-
portance has promoted its mechanization in all crop stages, from land
preparation to harvesting. Despite the increased sugarcane productivity
due to mechanization, it has resulted in the modification of soil struc-
ture in different scales. Intensity at which soil physical properties under
sugarcane are degraded, depending on inherent soil characteristics
(Cardoso et al., 2014; Cherubim et al., 2016; Amolo et al., 2017), soil
tillage methods (Scarpare et al., 2019), and condition of the soil when
farming operations are conducted (Hammad and Dawelbeit, 2001) have
been reported. From these studies, the main changes observed in the
soil consist of drop in organic matter (OM), soil structural degradation
by increase in soil bulk density, decrease in the volume of macropores,
soils under long-term sugarcane monoculture (Baquero et al., 2012; Chi
et al., 2016).
Although soil structure is not considered a property directly related
to crop production, structure plays a significant role in the supply of
water and air to roots, influences root elongation, nutrient availability,
and macrofauna activity (Veiga da et al., 2009). Soil and crop man-
agement are among the principal agents influencing soil structure, on
which various soil properties and processes are dependent, and coupled
with varying climatic conditions, the modification of soil structure is
manifested differently at different time scales (Aletto and Coquet,
2009).
Soil tillage influences various soil properties that are important for
crop performance (Aikins et al., 2012), with positive contributions on
the volume of soil explored by roots (Moraes de et al., 2019), infiltra-
tion (Khorami et al., 2018) and soil moisture retention (Pena-Sancho
et al., 2017), weed control (Weber et al., 2017), and nutrients supply

⁎
Correspondence author.
E-mail addresses: gabrielolaawe@yahoo.com (G.O. Awe), reichert@ufsm.br (J.M. Reichert), eracilda@gmail.com (E. Fontanela).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104447
Received 4 June 2019; Received in revised form 3 October 2019; Accepted 8 October 2019
0167-1987/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G.O. Awe, et al.
and cycling from decay and decomposition of organic matter (Issaka
et al., 2019). Conventional tillage produces a suitable tilth for crop
growth however, it temporarily decreases bulk density and increase the
volume of macropores, with modification in soil structure that affect
associated soil physical as well as mechanical properties (Reichert et al.,
2016). In contrast, conservation tillage methods, such as reduced til-
lage, chisel tillage, minimum or no-tillage, are now advocated to restore
degraded soil structure, control erosion and returning organic matter
loss occasioned by conventional tillage (Carter, 2005; Singh et al.,
2018). Conservation tillage practices are essentially important for im-
proving water conservation through reduce runoff and evaporation and
increased soil water storage (Ingrid et al., 2011; Salem et al., 2014). In a
review on tillage effect on soil hydraulic properties, Strudley et al.
(2008) reported that bulk density, porosity, hydraulic conductivity,
infiltration rates amongst others are influenced in various degrees by
contrasting tillage methods. This allows the continuous research on soil
structure under different tillage methods in every region, particularly in
the tropics and subtropics with expanding agricultural frontiers and
lack of research.
Agricultural management practices applied as events have their
effects manifested over different time scales. The temporal or seasonal
changes of soil physical, mechanical and biological properties have
been investigated to evaluate the effects of different management
practices within a given season, cropping systems and between years
(Karuma et al., 2014; Reichert et al., 2015; Scarpare et al., 2019). De-
spite this quantum of studies, little is known about the seasonal changes
of soil properties and crop yield of sugarcane in subtropical regions (e.g.
Awe et al., 2014, 2015) under different management systems, since
most studies are concentrated in warmer climatic conditions (Marasca
et al., 2015; Pereira et al., 2015; Garbiate et al., 2016; Tavares et al.,
2016).
During growing seasons in which the sugarcane field is undisturbed,
we do not know if the soil condition has become degraded, agraded or
sustainable. Therefore, research on soil structure under the undisturbed
condition and crop performance are needed, such information would be
useful in taking decision when planning sustainable soil and crop
management systems.
Thus, the objective of the study was to evaluate seasonal changes in
composition and functional soil properties and yield of sugarcane
(Saccharum Oficinarum) under different soil management practices in
the subtropical region of southern Brazil.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the study site
The experiment was conducted at the experimental station of the
Department of Soils, Federal University of Santa Maria, Rio Grande do
Sul State, Brazil, located on latitude 29° 42′ S, longitude 53° 49′ W,
95 m above mean sea level. The climate of the region, according to
Köppen classification, is "Cfa", known as humid subtropical (Moreno,
1961). The mean daily temperature of the warm months (September -
April) is above 22 °C, while the daily temperature during the cold
months (June - August) ranges between −3 °C and 18 °C. The total
annual rainfall ranges from 1300 to 1800 mm yr−1. The main soil type
of the study area is Dystrophic Paleudalf, with the surface layer of sandy
loam texture (SOIL SURVEY STAFF, 2006). The soil has been cultivated
for arable crops such as maize, soybean, and cassava before it was left
fallow for four years. Some physico-chemical properties of the study
site, evaluated following the procedures of EMBRAPA (2011), are
presented in Table 1.
2.2. Experimental design, treatments, and field procedure
The experiment was established in October 2010 using a rando-
mized complete block design (RCBD) in three replications with four
2
Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447
treatments consisting of no-tillage (NT), no-tillage + compaction
(NTC), conventional inverting tillage (CT), and chiseling (Chi). The
conventional tillage (CT) plot was prepared by ploughing and har-
rowing to a depth of 20 cm. The disc plough and harrow (Model:
Baldan) were attached to a tractor (Massey Ferguson, Model: MF 275).
Soil chiseling (Chi) was accomplished with the aid of a chisel plough
(Model: Baldan), with three ripper shanks, spaced 0.80 m apart, with an
average working depth of 0.30 m. The compacted no-tillage (NTC) was
made by two superimposed, parallel passes of a payloader tractor of the
total weight of 8 Mg. The compaction procedure in the NTC treatment
was made when the soil was at a moisture content of 0.16 kg kg−1.
Finally, no-tillage (NT) plot was made by the spraying of weeds with
glyphosate (3.0 a.i. kg ha−1) two weeks before planting.
There were twelve plots, each plot measuring 10 m x 5.6 m.
Sugarcane culms, about 10 cm long, were planted at a spacing of 1 m
inside furrows. Before planting, NPK fertilizer comprising 44 kg ha−1 N,
100 kg ha−1 P (P2O5) and 80 kg ha−1 K (K2O) was applied. All agro-
nomic and management practices, such as weeding, fertilizer applica-
tion, and crop protection remained the same during each growing
season.
2.3. Soil sampling
Both disturbed and undisturbed soil samples, in three replicates,
were collected from soil layers 0–10, 10–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm,
shortly after land preparation in October 2010, and at harvest
(September) of 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 growing sea-
sons, for the evaluation of soil properties. The undisturbed samples for
soil physical properties were collected using soil cores 57 mm in dia-
meter and 40 mm high while samples for soil mechanical properties
were collected using core samplers 57 mm diameter and 30 mm high.
Soil sampling was made between plant rows, at about 10 cm from su-
garcane stand. In each soil layer, three (3) sets of samples were col-
lected: one set for bulk density and soil water retention parameters, for
saturated hydraulic conductivity test and for soil mechanical properties.
Thus, at each sampling, a total of one hundred and forty-four (144)
samples were collected and taken to the laboratory for analysis.
2.4. Soil and crop data
2.4.1. Soil granulometry
The granulometric analysis of the sugarcane field was determined
using the pipette method (EMBRAPA, 2011). The textural class for each
soil layer was obtained using the textural triangle of the USDA.
2.4.2. Soil bulk density and porosity
To determine soil macroporosity and microporosity, the soil samples
were saturated by capillary action in a water bath for 48 h. The volu-
metric water content at saturation (0 kPa) is taken as the total pore
volume. The soil samples were thereafter subjected to water tension of
6 kPa in a sand column (Reinert and Reichert, 2006) to determine the
microporosity (Mi). Soil macroporosity (Ma) was determined as the
difference between total pore volume and microporosity. Thereafter,
the soil samples were oven-dried at 105 °C for 48 h to determine the
bulk density (BD) as the ratio of the mass of dry soil and volume of the
cylinder (Blake and Hartge, 1986).
2.4.3. Soil field capacity, permanent wilting point, and maximum available
water
The same set of undisturbed soil samples used for bulk density and
porosity were used to quantify the field capacity, permanent wilting
point, and maximum available water.
Because the study site has a sandy texture, the soil volumetric water
content at 10 kPa water tension was used to estimate field capacity (FC)
(Reinert and Reichert, 2006) while the volumetric moisture content at
1500 kPa corresponds to the permanent wilting point. Disturbed soil
G.O. Awe, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447

Table 1
Some soil chemical properties of the sugarcane field.
Chemical properties

pH P K Ca Mg Al H+Al ECEC CECpH7.0 Sum of Saturation,

bases %

Soil layer, – —mg kg−1– ————————————————Cmolc – – Al Base

cm kg−1————————————————

0-10 5.1 20 52 1.8 0.5 0.4 3.5 2.84 5.94 2.44 14 41

10-20 5.0 23 68 1.3 0.4 0.6 3.5 2.48 5.38 1.88 24 35
20-40 4.9 21 68 1.1 0.3 0.8 3.9 2.38 5.48 1.58 34 29
40-60 4.8 24 68 1.0 0.3 0.8 3.9 2.28 5.38 1.48 35 28
Physical properties
Sand Silt Clay Tex.
———————————%—————————
0-10 67.2 23.1 9.7 SL
10-20 66.8 22.8 10.4 SL
20-40 62.0 25.7 12.3 SL
40-60 62.2 27.9 9.9 SL

pH: pH in water; P: phosphorus; K: potassium; Ca: calcium; Al: Aluminum; H + AL: acidity; ECEC: Effective cation exchange capacity; CECpH7.0: buffered cation
exchanged capacity; Al: aluminum.
Tex.: texture; SL: sandy loam.

samples were used to quantify water retained at 1500 kPa water tension 2.4.5. Soil compressibility
using Water Potentiometer (WP4) (Klein et al., 2006). The maximum Soil samples collected for soil mechanical properties were saturated
available water for root extraction was computed as the difference in a water bath for 48 h and drained at 10 kPa water tension (field
between the soil water content at FC and PWP. capacity) in a tension table (Reinert and Reichert, 2006).
Uniaxial compression test was applied on each sample using se-
quential loads of 12.5, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600 kPa in an
2.4.4. Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity and water infiltration
Oedometer device (Model: S-450 Terraload, Durham Geo-Enterprise)
Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) was determined using a
for 5 min, during which 90% of the soil sample was considered to have
constant-head permeameter (Klute and Dirksen, 1986) on another set of
been deformed. After the test, the samples were oven-dried at 105 °C for
undisturbed soil samples collected from the same soil layers and during
48 h.
same sampling periods as stated in 2.3 above. The test was performed
Soil precompression stress (σp), defined as the value of the stress at
after saturation by capillary action in a water bath for 48 h.
the intersection of reloading curve and the virgin compression line, and
Water infiltration tests were conducted in-situ using double ring
compressibility coefficient (Ic), defined as the modulus of the slope of
infiltrometers (Bouwer, 1986), 20 and 40 cm diameter for the inner and
the tangent line at the point of inflection, were obtained mathemati-
outer rings, respectively and each ring 50 cm high. The infiltrometers
cally from the stress-strain curve following Casagrande (1936), and
were installed to about 15 cm depth at the center of each plot, giving a
using the parameters of the van Genuchten equation originally devel-
total of twelve (12) tests. Water was allowed to infiltrate and the
oped for the soil water retention curve and later modified by Baumgartl
amount of water that infiltrated was determined at time intervals of
and Kock (2004).
every one (1) minute for the first five minutes, then every 2 min (five
repetitions), every 5 min (three repetitions), every 7 min (three repeti-
tions), every 10 min (three repetitions), again every 5 min until steady
2.4.6. Soil organic matter and total nitrogen
state was achieved. The initial infiltration rate was obtained from the
Soil organic carbon (SOC) and total nitrogen (TN) were quantified
first reading while the final infiltration rate was obtained from the final
in soil from the 0–10, 10–20 and 20–40 cm soil layers, using an auto-
reading (at steady-state). The cumulative infiltration (I) is the total
analyzer (Model: Flash EA 1112, Thermo Finnigan, Milan, Italy) by the
volume of water that has infiltrated through a unit of horizontal area of
dry combustion method (Nelson and Sommers, 1996). SOM was esti-
soil surface (area of the inner ring) over the test period. The initial
mated using the conversion coefficient of 1.724.
sorptivity was estimated from the equations developed by Amer (2011)
who combined the Kostiakov (1932) equation:

I = αt m (1) 2.4.7. Sugarcane yield

An area, 2 m x 2 m, was demarcated in the sugarcane field to de-
and Philip (1957) equation for water infiltration into an initially dry
termine sugarcane yield at harvest, and the yield was converted to ton
soil:
ha−1.
I = Si t 0.5 (2)

yielding: 2.5. Weather data and evaporative demand of the atmosphere

0.5
Si = αm (3) Weather data of average daily maximum and minimum tempera-
ture, solar radiation, relative humidity, and wind speed were collected
where Si is the initial sorptivity; m and α are empirical coefficients,
from an automatic weather station located about 2 km from the field. A
respectively for a given soil and a given moisture content, t is the time
rain gauge was installed at the center of the field to measure the rainfall
of infiltration, I is the cumulative infiltration.
amount. The evaporative demand of the atmosphere or potential eva-
Also, soil volumetric water content of the 0–10 cm surface layer in
potranspiration (ETp) was determined using the Penman-Montieth
three representative points in each plot was determined before the in-
equation in FAO-ETo Calculator (Raes, 2009).
filtration test.

3
G.O. Awe, et al.
Fig. 1. Temporal variability of rainfall, mm/d and evaporative demand (re-
ference evapotranspiration, ETo), mm/d during the (a) 2010/2011, (b) 2011/
2012, and (c) 2012/2013 sugarcane growing seasons.
2.6. Statistical analysis
Data were tested for normality using homogeneity of variances of
Shapiro-Wilk (p < 0.05). Only the Ks data was not normally dis-
tributed and was transformed to 1 + Log (Ks ) before further analysis.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the soil properties was carried out and
where F values were significant, means were separated using Tukey test
at 5% level of probability. All statistics were performed using SAS
software (SAS, version 8.0).
3. Results
3.1. Rainfall pattern and potential evapotranspiration
The temporal distribution of the daily rainfall and evaporative de-
mand of the atmospheric (potential evapotranspiration, ETp) during the
three sugarcane growing seasons is shown in Fig. 1. Rainfall was well
distributed during the growing seasons, except in December 2011 when
rainfall was very low (13 mm), while the daily potential evapo-
transpiration followed the course of daily weather conditions.
The total monthly rainfall ranged between 49 and 166 mm (total
annual =1204 mm) for the 2010/2011 growing season. For 2011/2012
growing season, the total monthly rainfall was between 13 and 184 mm
(total annual =1001 mm) while for 2012/2013 growing season,
monthly rainfall ranged between 72 and 293 mm (total annual
=1639 mm).
3.2. Soil bulk density and porosity
The seasonal distribution of soil BD is shown in Fig. 2. Generally,
average BD values increased until 40 cm soil depth. Shortly after land
preparation (2010), the BD of the 0–10 cm surface layer was
4
Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447
significantly highest (about 1.66 g cm−3) in no-till (NT and NTC)
treatments compared with tilled treatments (CT and Chi). At the harvest
of each growing season, tillage significantly influenced the average BD
of the surface layer (Fig. 2ai). At the end of the third growing season
(2012/2013), the BD of the 0–10 cm surface layer had decreased by
about 9, 3, 13 and 9% in NT, NTC, Chi, and CT, respectively.
In the 10–20 cm layer, the effect of tillage was significant at the end
of both the second (2011/2012) and third (2012/2013) growing sea-
sons (Fig. 2aii), while in the 20–40 cm layer, the effect of tillage was
significant in all growing seasons (Fig. 2aiii). For the 40–60 cm deeper
layer, tillage had no significant effect on soil BD (Table 2).
Tillage significantly affected soil macroporosity (Ma) of the 0–10 cm
surface layer (Fig. 2b). Initially, tilled plots (Chi and CT) had a higher
Ma compared with no-till plots (NT and NTC). Soil Ma reduced at the
end of the first growing season (2010/2011), but it increased in sub-
sequent growing seasons. Except for the 2010/2011 growing season,
NTC treatment had the lowest value of Ma in the surface layer
(Fig. 2bi).
For the 10–20 cm subsurface layer, the Ma significantly differed
shortly after preparation and at the end of all growing seasons. At the
end of the third growing season, NTC treatment had the lowest Ma
value (Fig. 2bii). For the 20–40 cm layer, the effect of tillage was sig-
nificant on Ma at the initial and end of all growing seasons. In this layer,
the average Ma values were as low as 0.05 cm3 cm−3 and < 0.10
cm3 cm−3 (Fig. 2biii). For the 40–60 cm layer, low average values of
Ma (< 0.10 cm3 cm−3) were obtained (Table 2).
Tillage influenced soil microporosity (Mi) of the 0–10 cm surface
layer only at the harvest of the first and third growing seasons (Fig. 2ci).
For the 10–20 and 20–40 cm subsurface layers, Mi did not differ
(Fig. 2cii and 2ciii). For the 40–60 cm layer, soil Mi averaged for the
four tillage methods was almost the same for all seasons (Table 2).
3.3. Soil water retention
At the beginning of study (2010), soil water content at field capacity
(FC) of the 0–10 cm layer was the same for all tillage methods (Fig. 3ai).
However, at the end of the first growing season (2010/2011), the FC of
the surface layer was significantly influenced by tillage (p < 0.05),
with NTC treatment having the highest value (0.258 cm3 cm−3). At
harvest of the 2011/2012 growing season, there were no tillage effects
on the FC. For the third growing season (2012/2013), FC differed sig-
nificantly among the different tillage methods, with Chi treatment
having the highest value (0.232 cm3 cm−3). By this time, the FC of CT
treatment had decreased by about 13% compared with the initial value
(Fig. 3ai). For the 10–20 cm layer, FC differed significantly among til-
lage methods in all seasons, with NTC having the highest values at the
initial and end of the first two growing seasons while CT had highest FC
at the end of the third season (Fig. 3aii). For deeper layers (20–40 and
40–60 cm), FC did not differ significantly (Fig. 3aiii and Table 2).
Tillage significantly influenced (p < 0.05) soil water content at
permanent wilting point (PWP) of the 0–10 cm surface layer at harvest
of second and third growing seasons, with NTC treatment having the
highest values (0.085 and 0.073 cm3 cm−3, respectively) (Fig. 3bi). For
the 10–20 cm layer, tillage influenced PWP only at harvest of the third
growing season (2012/2013), NTC treatment also has the highest value
(0.077 cm3 cm−3) (Fig. 3bii). For the 20–40 cm layer, tillage sig-
nificantly affected PWP at harvest of second and third growing seasons,
with NTC treatment having the highest values (0.089 and 0.082
cm3 cm−3, respectively) (Fig. 3biii). For the 40–60 cm layer, the PWP
averaged for the four tillage methods were similar (Table 2).
Soil maximum available water (AWmax) of the 0–10 and 10–20 cm
layers significantly differed (p < 0.05) due to tillage shortly after land
preparation (2010) and at harvest of all growing seasons (Fig. 3ci and
3cii). However, there was no discernible trend among the different
tillage methods as to which maintain the highest AWmax. For the
20–40 and 40–60 cm layers, the average values of AWmax did not differ
G.O. Awe, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447

Fig. 2. Seasonal variability/distribution of (a) soil bulk density, (b) macroporosity and (c) microporosity of (i) 0–10 cm, (ii) 10–20 cm, and (iii) 20–40 cm layers of
the sugarcane field under different soil management.
NT: no-tillage; NTC: compacted no-tillage; Chi: chiseling; CT: conventional tillage
Means with the different letters differed significantly at 5% level of probability by Tukey test.

Table 2
Seasonal variability/distribution of soil physical properties of the 40–60 cm subsurface layers of the sugarcane field.
Soil Property Sept/2010 Sept/2011 Sept/2012 Sept/2013

BD 1.68 ± 0.028 1.63 ± 0.033 1.64 ± 0.033 1.63 ± 0.028

Pt 0.370 ± 0.012 0.337 ± 0.017 0.317 ± 0.009 0.332 ± 0.013
Ma 0.132 ± 0.010 0.08 ± 0.008 0.095 ± 0.013 0.107 ± 0.017
Mi 0.235 ± 0.010 0.255 ± 0.006 0.222 ± 0.005 0.225 ± 0.006
FC 0.223 ± 0.005 0.240 ± 0.009 0.200 ± 0.011 0.205 ± 0.007
PWP 0.070 ± 0.000 0.071 ± 0.000 0.072 ± 0.001 0.068 ± 0.004
AWmax 0.148 ± 0.005 0.170 ± 0.009 0.127 ± 0.010 0.137 ± 0.008

BD: bulk density, g cm−3; Pt: total porosity, cm3 cm−3; Ma: macroporosity, cm3 cm−3; Mi: microporosity, cm3 cm−3;
FC: field capacity, cm3 cm−3; PWP: permanent wilting point, cm3 cm−3; AWmax: maximum available water, cm3 cm−3.
The values after the ± sign are the standard deviations from the mean.

significantly due to tillage for all growing seasons (Fig. 3ciii and
Table 2).
3.4. Soil permeability
The average values of transformed soil saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity (1+LnKs) of the 0–10 cm soil surface layer differed sig-
nificantly with tillage at harvest of each growing season, with Chi
treatment having the highest value (41.11 mm h−1) at harvest of the
first growing season. For the second growing season, both Chi
(249.6 mm h−1) and CT (194.9 mm h−1) had higher values but did not
differ while CT treatment had the highest values at harvest of the third
growing season. Treatment NTC had the lowest Ks values in this surface
layer for all growing seasons (Fig. 4a). For the 10–20 and 20–40 cm
layer, average Ks values were lower than those of the surface layer and
differed among the different tillage methods (Fig. 4b and c). Similarly,

5
G.O. Awe, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447

Fig. 3. Seasonal variability/distribution of soil water content at (a) field capacity (FC), (b) permanent wilting point (PWP) and (c) maximum available water of (i)
0–10 cm, (ii) 10–20 cm, and (iii) 20–40 cm layers of the sugarcane field under different soil management.
NT: no-tillage; NTC: compacted no-tillage; Chi: chiseling; CT: conventional tillage
Means with the different letters differed significantly at 5% level of probability by Tukey test.

Fig. 4. Seasonal variability/distribution of soil saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ksat, of the (a) 0–10 cm, (b) 10–20 cm, and (c) 20–40 cm layers of the sugarcane
field under different soil management.
NT: no-tillage; NTC: compacted no-tillage; Chi: chiseling; CT: conventional tillage
Means with the different letters differed significantly at 5% level of probability by Tukey test.

6
G.O. Awe, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447

Table 3 (188.7 kPa) at the end of the second and third growing seasons, in-
Measured and estimated initial moisture content and infiltration characteristics dicating no discernible trends in the average values of σp among the
of the sugarcane field. different tillage systems.
θi Si I i0 if For the 10–20 cm layer, the average values of σp differed sig-
nificantly (p < 0.05) at initial and harvest in all growing seasons.
Treatments % cm min−0.5 mm —cm h−1—— Initially, σp was highest (118.5 kPa) in untilled plots (NT and NTC); at
NT 23.9 0.15 35.4 18.28 0.18
harvest of the first sugarcane harvest, σp was highest in CT (124.2 kPa)
NTC 23.4 0.37 42.2 21.01 1.08
Chi 21.4 0.51 94.4 25.75 3.56 while at harvest of first and second sugarcane ratoons, σp was highest in
CT 21.0 0.59 88.9 23.01 2.89 NT (221.6 and 251.9 kPa, respectively) (Fig. 5aii). For the 20–40 cm
deeper layer, σp differed due to tillage, however, there was no ob-
NTC: no tillage + compaction; Chi: chisel tillage; CT: conventional tillage; NT: servable trends among the different land preparation methods
0.5
no tillage; θi: initial moisture content; Si: initial sorptivity Si = α m (Amer, (Fig. 5aiii).
2011); I: cumulative infiltration, after 2 h; i0: initial infiltration rate; if: final Tillage significantly affected (p < 0.05) soil compressibility coef-
infiltration rate.
ficient (Ic) of the 0–10 cm surface layer, except at the harvest of the
2011/2012. Shortly after imposing tillage treatments in 2010, Ic was
no discernible trend was observed among the tillage methods. significantly highest in NT (0.29) compared to other treatments. For
At the beginning of infiltration test, soil initial sorptivity (Si) ranged subsequent growing seasons, average values of Ic differed (except in
from 0.15 to 0.59 cm min−0.5 for the different tillage treatments, with 2011/2012), with average values ranging between 0.13 and 0.23
the highest value being obtained from CT treatment (0.59 cm min-0.5) (Fig. 5bi). For the 10–20 cm layer, average values (between 0.10 and
(Table 3). At the onset of infiltration, the initial infiltration rate was 0.17) of Ic significantly differed (p < 0.05) among the tillage methods
highest from Chi treatment (25.75 cm h-1) while the lowest value was for all growing seasons, with Chi treatment having the highest values
obtained from NT treatment (18.28 cm h-1). At the end of infiltration, (Fig. 5bii). For the 20–40 cm deeper layer, average values of Ic differed
the accumulated infiltration (I) was highest in Chi treatment (94.4 mm) significantly (p < 0.05) shortly after land preparation and at harvest of
and lowest in NT treatment (35.4 mm) while the final infiltration rate all growing seasons. In this layer, there was no notable trend as to
was also highest (3.56 cm h-1) in Chi and lowest (0.18 cm h-1) in NT which tillage method had the highest value of Ic (Fig. 5biii).
treatments (Table 3). Irrespective of the tillage method, the Ic decreased with soil depth.

3.5. Soil compressibility

Tillage significantly affected soil precompression stress (σp) of the
0–10 cm surface layer shortly after land preparation (2010) and at the
end of all growing seasons (Fig. 5ai). Initially (2010), the average value
of σp was highest in Chi treatment (108.03 kPa) and lowest in NT
treatment (88.2 kPa). At the end of the first growing season (2010/
2011), the average value of σp was also highest in Chi treatment
(117.3 kPa) and lowest in NT treatment (92.8 kPa) while the highest
values were obtained from treatments NT (243.4 kPa) and NTc
3.6. Soil organic matter and total nitrogen
The statistical results of soil organic matter (SOM) and total ni-
trogen (TN) are shown in Figs. 6. For the 0–10 cm surface layer, the
effect of tillage was significant on both TN and SOM at harvest of all the
growing seasons. Initially, the average values of SOM and TN were
about 1.3% and 0.67 g kg−1, respectively for all the tillage treatments.
At harvest of all growing seasons, untilled plots had higher SOM
(NT = 1.49% for 2011/2012 and NTC = 1.46 and 1.49% for 2010/

Fig. 5. Seasonal variability/distribution of (a) pre-compression stress and (b) compression index of the (i) 0–10 cm, (ii) 10–20 cm, and (iii) 20–40 cm layers of the
sugarcane field under different soil management.
NT: no-tillage; NTC: compacted no-tillage; Chi: chiseling; CT: conventional tillage
Means with the different letters differed significantly at 5% level of probability by Tukey test.

7
G.O. Awe, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447

Fig. 6. Seasonal variability/distribution of (a) soil organic matter and (b) total nitrogen of the (i) 0–10 cm, (ii) 10–20 cm, and (iii) 20–40 cm layers of the sugarcane
field under different soil management.
NT: no-tillage; NTC: compacted no-tillage; Chi: chiseling; CT: conventional tillage
Means with the different letters differed significantly at 5% level of probability by Tukey test.

2011 and 2012/2013, respectively) compared to tilled plots whereas, Table 4

for TN, NT treatment had the highest value (0.643, 0.675, and 0.583 g Average yield of sugarcane, and statistical comparison among the different
kg−1 for 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, respectively) management practices, during 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 growing seasons.
(Fig. 6ai and 6bi). Average sugarcane yield, ton ha−1
For the 10–20 cm layer, SOM differed only at harvest of 2011/2012
growing season and the values were lower than those of the surface Treatments 2010/2011 growing 2011/2012 growing Total
season season
layer (Fig. 6aii). The average values of TN differed at harvest of 2010/
2011 and 2011/2012 growing seasons with an exception of NT treat- NT 113 103 216
ment. The average values of TN of this 10–20 cm layer were lower than NTC 100 92 192
that of the surface layer (Fig. 6bii). For the 20–40 cm subsurface layer, Chi 102 110 212
tillage did not influence SOM (Fig. 6aiii) while TN differed significantly CT 94 120 214
F-value (p < 0.05) 1.65ns 1.43ns
only at harvest of the 2011/2012 growing season, with the highest and
lowest values from NT and Chi treatments, respectively (Fig. 6biii). NT: no-tillage; NTC: compacted no-tillage; Chi: chiseling tillage; CT: conven-
tional tillage; T: tillage effect.
3.7. Sugarcane yield ns: significant at 5% level of probability by Tukey test.

Soil tillage did not significantly (p < 0.05) influence sugarcane
yield. At harvest of the 2010/2011 growing season, the average values
of sugarcane yield varied between 94 and 113 ton ha−1 with a total
yield of 409 ton ha−1. At harvest of the first ratoon in 2011/2012
growing season, average yield decreased in no-till plots, NT and NTC by
9 and 8%, respectively whereas there was an increase in tilled plots, Chi
and CT by 8 and 27%, respectively. Irrespective of tillage treatment, the
average ratoon yield increased by about 4% in 2011/2012 growing
season compared to the previous growing season (2010/2011)
(Table 4).
4. Discussion
4.1. Soil mechanical properties
The different tillage practices showed contrasting influence on the
BD. The increased BD from the surface layer of tilled plots (CT and Chi)
at the harvesting of the first season compared to initial values is at-
tributed to the reversible effect of tillage. The soil property that is al-
ways altered by tillage operations is bulk density (BD) (Cassel, 1982),
and most alterations in soil physical environment caused by soil
mobilization are mediated through the effect on BD. Tillage at the be-
ginning of the growing season temporarily lowers soil bulk density
(Husnjak et al., 2002); but after some time soil reconsolidation takes
place (Reichert et al., 2015, 2017) and the soil tends to revert to pre-
tillage condition as a result of some phenomena including alternate
wetting and drying cycles, raindrop impact and soil compaction by
machine traffic.
Apart from natural phenomena of alternate wetting and drying cy-
cles and raindrop impact causing an increase in BD, the highest BD
obtained from NTC treatment in the three soil layers is attributed to the
initial compaction by machine traffic imposed on the soil. This result is
in line with the findings of Khan et al. (2010) who found higher soil BD
in NT treatment compared with CT and MT treatments. A significant
greater BD in NT than CT in a long-term study was also reported by
McVay et al. (2006) who studied management effects on soil physical
properties in long-term tillage studies in Kansas, USA. The relatively
high BD, about 1.79 g cm−3 obtained below the surface layer falls
within 1.75–1.85 g cm−3 in this study is considered as restrictive soil
condition which could impair root morphology and impede crop de-
velopment (Reinert et al., 2008).
The volume of macropores in the soil influences infiltration of

8
G.O. Awe, et al.
water, gaseous exchange, and root proliferation. The reduction (about
0.5 times) in Ma of the 0–10 cm surface layer at harvest of the first
growing season (2010/2011) compared to the results shortly after land
preparation (2010) is attributed to soil reconsolidation, because during
soil wetting by rainfall the effective stress in the soil approaches zero,
causing the soil to collapse and thus decreasing the size and number of
macropores. Furthermore, the dynamic forces of water moving through
the pores tend to drag soil aggregates together thereby reducing the
macropores (Ahuja et al., 1998). At the end of this growing season, the
Ma values in the surface layer in all the tillage treatments were below
0.10 cm3 cm−3, considered optimum water movement and gaseous
exchange (Drewry et al., 2008).
The increased Ma of the surface layer at the end of 2011/2012 and
2012/2013 growing seasons may be attributed to biological activity by
biopores created by decayed sugarcane roots and soil fauna. Soil sig-
nificant Ma values obtained in the surface layer of the different tillage
methods are comparable to the results of Dalmago et al. (2009) working
on retention and availability of water to plants in soils under no-tillage
and conventional tillage in Brazil, who found significant differences in
Ma between NT and CT systems. The less than 0.10 cm3 cm−3 soil Ma in
the 10–20 and 20–40 cm subsurface layers showed a significant re-
duction in large inter-aggregate pores responsible for water movement
and gaseous exchange. Thus, in these layers, there could be a negative
effect on soil processes such as water dynamics and gaseous exchange
especially during periods of excess rainfall. During excess rainfall, air
and water-conducting pores are inadequate, and therefore water in-
filtration is inhibited, causing surface runoff and erosion.
The significant difference in Mi by tillage in the surface layer at the
end of the first (2010/2011) growing season is attributed to the varying
degree of soil mobilization by the different tillage methods. On the
other hand, the non-significant effect of tillage on Mi in the second
growing season (2011/2012) agrees with the findings of Secco et al.
(2005) working on soil physical attributes and crop productivity in a
red Oxisol under different management systems in Brazil, who stated
that Mi is not expected to change in subsequent seasons. In addition, an
increase in BD causes reduction of large inter-aggregate pores due to
intense rearrangement of soil particles during repeated swelling/
shrinking and biological processes (Addiscott, 1995), thus increasing
the microporosity.
Soil precompression stress (σp) is an indicator of the soil's ability to
withstand applied loads (Keller et al., 2011) without undergoing irre-
versible deformation, and varies with the state of compaction, struc-
tural strength, soil water content (Braga et al., 2015; Reichert et al.,
2018) and mechanical properties of small aggregates (Pertile et al.,
2016). The highest σp obtained from the surface layer of NTC compared
to other treatments shows that soil aggregates are more compact and
high external force would be required to cause deformation, indicating
high soil strength. The increase in precompression stress at harvest of
the first and second growing seasons in the 0–10 cm surface layer in NT,
CT, and Chi treatments and for all seasons in the 10–20 cm subsurface
layer in all treatments is an indication of soil consolidation and re-
consolidation. When the soil is undisturbed, soil consolidation (Reichert
et al., 2009) takes place due to certain natural phenomena while after
soil disturbance (tillage), the soil reconsolidates until the establishment
of a new structural equilibrium (Leij et al., 2002) which increases the
soil internal strength (Horn and Baumgartl, 2002).
Conversely, the reduced σp in the surface layer at harvest of the
third growing season (except for NTC) indicates susceptibility to com-
paction, nevertheless, the low σp translates to better soil environment
for root growth (Rosa et al., 2008) and soil aeration (Mordhorst et al.,
2012). This reduction follows the trend of decreased BD observed.
Soil compressibility coefficient is an indicator of soil susceptibility
to deformation (Keller et al., 2011) and is the opposite of pre-
compression stress. In other words, it is a measure of the the intensity of
soil deformation after exceeding the σp value, and usually a function of
soil state of compaction and structural strength (Vogelmann et al.,
9
Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447
2012). The low compressibility coefficient (0.23 versus 0.29) of the
0–10 cm surface layer in NTC compared to NT shows that the NTC soil
is less susceptible to further deformation while more susceptibility was
observed for Chi soil with NTC. According to Suzuki et al. (2015), when
the soil is at an increased state of compaction, deformation tends to
reduce when an external force is applied. This is so because the soil may
have been in its state of maximum density and it will not be susceptible
to compaction.
The decreasing tendency of Ic in the subsurface layers is possible an
indication that the weight of the overlying soil mass and increased
particle to particle contact may result in reduced soil susceptibility to
compaction and therefore less deformation under applied high loads
(Chen and Weil, 2011). Another reason for the low σp and high Ic in the
surface layer is that subsurface soil had higher cohesion than surface
soil, resulting in higher load-bearing capacity for the subsurface layer
(Iori et al., 2014).
4.2. Soil hydraulic properties
Soil FC differing significantly (p < 0.05) by tillage in both 0–10
and 10–20 cm soil layers in all growing seasons is in line with the
findings of Dalmago et al. (2009) working in Brazil. Conversely, the
insignificant difference recorded for soil PWP showed that PWP is un-
affected by management as also reported by Reynolds et al. (2002)
working on indicators of good soil physical quality in Canada. Soil
maximum available water (AWmax) for root extraction and plant use
under field conditions is controlled by soil structure and texture and the
variation with time is determined by climatic conditions, type of crop,
soil surface condition, and management (Aletto and Coquet, 2009).
Thus, any measure that either increase or decrease soil water retained
at FC as well as differences in soil texture will markedly influence the
AWmax. The significant difference in AWmax in the 0–10 cm surface
layer of the different tillage methods in all the growing seasons is at-
tributed to soil management and the complex relationship between the
climatic condition and other soil processes. The significantly highest
AWmax from NTC treatment at the end of the first growing season may
be due to soil compaction which increased micropore volume at the
expense of macropore, indicating that the soil structure has changed to
a more packed configuration. The lowest AWmax value obtained from
NT treatment corroborates the findings of Alam et al. (2014) in Ban-
gladesh who reported that after the first cropping cycle, AWmax was
lowest in the surface layer of NT compared with other conventional
systems. Dalmago et al. (2009) also reported lower AWmax in NT
compared to NT. The significant differences in AWmax observed in the
10–20 cm subsurface layer in all the growing seasons was due to the
fact that the effect of tillage manifested in this layer.
Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is a dynamic soil property
and its behavior is correlated to the degree-of-compactness of the soil
(Reichert et al., 2009), and highly dependent on the shape, arrange-
ment, quantity, and continuity of pores in the soil (Mesquita and
Moraes, 2004). The lowest Ks of the soil surface layer obtained from
NTC treatment during the first two growing seasons compared with
tilled plots (Chi and CT) is associated with low Ma observed, in ac-
cordance with Vieira and Klein (2007) who also reported higher Ks in
Chi soils than those of NT soil. Haruna et al. (2018) working on the
effect of tillage and cover crops on soil hydraulic properties in USA also
reported conventional tillage increased Ks by 87% compared to no-til-
lage. The observed that tillage increase the soil mesopore and hence
increased water flow.
The low Ks from the surface layer of NTC soil was a direct effect of
the compaction process on soil pore geometry which distorts the pore
space with transmission pores becoming storage pores. For the
10–20 cm layer, the unexpected significantly high Ks in NTC may be a
consequence of the localized presence of biopores created by sugarcane
roots or other soil microbes within the sampling region. In deeper
layers, the low Ks in all tillage treatments is attributed to high bulk
G.O. Awe, et al.
density (BD) and low Ma. Previous studies have shown that high BD and
low Ma have a negative influence on Ks [e.g. Bhattacharyya et al.,
2006) working in India]. Ks normally exhibit a high degree of spatial
variability even within a small area. Therefore, the inconsistent results
in Ks due to the different tillage treatments may be attributed to the
transitory nature of soil structure after tillage, time of soil sampling,
presence of localized biopores, and the degree of soil disturbance.
The higher soil water infiltration observed in tilled plots are con-
sistent with the lower BD and higher total porosity and hydraulic
conductivity, especially in the surface layer. Soil loosening in CT re-
duces BD and increases macropore volume (Netto and Fernandes
(2005) and increases cumulative infiltration (Lipiec et al., 2006). Ac-
cording to Goddard et al. (2008), CT may present greater infiltration
rate than NT due to increased macropore flow and reduced surface
sealing in this conventional tillage.
4.3. Soil chemical properties
Organic matter is central to the functioning of many soil physical,
chemical, and biological processes in the soil, such as nutrient storage
and exchange capacity, soil structural stability and porosity, water
availability, degradation of pollutants, among others (Bayer and
Mielniczuk, 1999). The significantly highest SOM content of the surface
layer of NT and NTC treatments compared with CT and Chi treatments
at harvest of the three growing seasons is attributed to decay and de-
composition of surface residue in a no-till system. Huang et al. (2015)
reported that the SOC concentration and stocks in the 0–5 cm surface
layer were significantly greater in NT compared to CT. The significant
lower value of SOM in the surface layer of CT is attributed to carbon
loss via carbon dioxide (CO2) emission as also reported by Al-Kaisi and
Yin (2005). Tillage promotes soil aggregate breakdown, allowing for
oxygen inflow and thereby stimulating microbial decomposition and
loss of carbon as CO2 (Campbell et al., 2001).
Soil initial TN content was generally low compared to the minimum
threshold of 0.5% (Yao et al., 2013). Although NT treatment had the
significantly highest TN at harvest of the second growing season in the
surface layer, TN generally decreased with time. Wright et al. (2007)
working in Central Texas, USA reported that TN was about 33% higher
in NT than CT treatment on soil organic C and N distribution for wheat
cropping systems after 20 years of conservation tillage.. The seasonal
reduction in TN in this surface layer may result from extensive use of
soil nitrogen by sugarcane (AUSTRALIA, 2008) as a result of its high
biomass production.
4.4. Sugarcane yield
There was no significant effect (p < 0.05) of tillage on sugarcane
yield. However, the average sugarcane ratoon yield values obtained in
this study were similar to yields reported elsewhere. Benett et al. (2012)
in a study on the quality and productivity of sugarcane crop and ratoon
in Brazil found higher ratoon yield (90–105 ton ha−1) than crop yield
(87–99 ton ha−1). Carvalho et al. (2013) also in Brazil reported similar
ratoon yield in the range of 93–104 ton ha−1. Singh et al. (2008) in
South Africa working on the effect of agro-technological manipulations
in improving the productivity of cane under multi ratooning system,
observed a maximum cane yield of 81 ton ha−1 after three consecutive
harvests. During this study, the total annual rainfall for the first ratoon
growing season (2011/2012) was lesser than that of the main crop
season (2010/2011), 1001 mm versus 1204 mm, however, rainfall was
evenly distributed during the growing cycle which maintained soil
moisture conditions between field capacity and critical moisture for
crop water demand. Therefore, the overall increase in the first ratoon
yield compared to the crop yield may be attributed to better soil con-
ditions occasioned by reduced BD and increased Ma observed.
10
Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447
5. Conclusions
Changes of soil hydro-physical, chemical and mechanical properties
and crop yield under different soil management practices for sugarcane
(Saccharum Oficinarum) production was studied for three consecutive
growing seasons.
Shortly after land preparation, soil tillage significantly affected soil
properties by reducing the BD and increasing the macropore volume
but a decrease in the maximum available water.
Three years after land preparation, soil reconsolidation caused a
significant reduction in soil bulk density, macroporosity, field capacity,
permanent wilting point, maximum available water, total nitrogen,
saturated hydraulic conductivity and compression index while soil or-
ganic matter and precompression stress significantly increased in the
0–10 cm surface layer. In the 10–20 cm layer, there was an increase in
soil bulk density and precompression stress while macroporosity, field
capacity, permanent wilting point, maximum available water and sa-
turated hydraulic conductivity decreased.
The effect of tillage on soil properties did not manifest beyond the
40 cm layer while sugarcane yield was not influenced by the different
tillage methods.
Compacted no-tillage treatment showed high impedance which
could be detrimental to water and gaseous exchange and thus impair
root growth and development. Thus, no-tillage, chiseling tillage or
conventional tillage could be advocated when considering soil man-
agement options for sugarcane production in this region.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank CAPES (Finance Code 001), Brazil as well as
TETFund (TETFund/EKSU/2010), Nigeria) for the financial support
towards this study.
References
Addiscott, T.M., 1995. Entropy and sustainability. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 46, 161–168. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1995.tb01823.x.
Aikins, S.M.H., Afuakwa, J.J., Owusu-Akuoko, O., 2012. Effect of four different tillage
practices on maize performance under rainfed conditions. Agric. Biol. J. North Am. 3
(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2012.3.1.25.30.
Ahuja, L.R., Fiedler, F., Dunn, G.H., Benjamin, J.G., Garrison, A., 1998. Changes in soil
water retention curves due to tillage and natural reconsolidation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
62, 1228–1233. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1998.03615995006200050011x.
Alam, M.K., Islam, M.M., Salahin, N., Hasanuzzaman, M., 2014. Effect of tillage practices
on soil properties and crop productivity in wheat-mungbean-rice cropping system
under subtropical climatic conditions. Transfus. Apher. Sci. 2014https://doi.org/10.
1155/2014/437283. Article ID 437283, 15 pages.
Aletto, L., Coquet, Y., 2009. Temporal and spatial variability of soil bulk density and near-
saturated hydraulic conductivity under two contrasting tillage management systems.
Geoderma 152, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.05.023.
Al-Kaisi, M., Yin, X., 2005. Tillage and crop residue effects on soil carbon and carbon
dioxide emission in corn-soybean rotations. J. Environ. Qual. 34, 437–445. https://
doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0437.
Amer, A.M., 2011. Prediction of hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity in soils at steady-
state infiltration. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 58, 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03650340.2011.572877.
Amolo, R.A., Sigunga, D.O., Owuor, P.O., 2017. Evaluation of soil properties of sugarcane
zone and cropping systems for improved productivity in western Kenya. International
Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research 11 (3), 1–16.
AUSTRALIA, 2008. The Biology of Saccharum spp. (Sugarcane): an Overview. Office of
the Gene Technology Regulator, Department of Health & Ageing, Australia. Version
2008, 36pp.
Awe, G.O., Reichert, J.M., Timm, L.C., Wendroth, O.O., 2014. Temporal processes of soil
water status in a sugarcane field under residue management. Plant Soil 387, 395–411.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2304-5.
Awe, G.O., Reichert, J.M., Wendroth, O.O., 2015. Temporal variability and covariance
structures of soil temperature in a sugarcane field under different management
practices in southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 150, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.still.2015.01.013.
Baumgartl, T., Kock, B., 2004. Modeling volume change and mechanical properties with
hydraulic models. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.2136/
sssaj2004.570.
Baquero, J.E., Ralisch, R., Conti Medina de, C., Tavares Filho, J., Guimares, Fatima, de,
M., 2012. Soil physical properties and sugarcane root growth in a red Oxisol. Rev.
Bras. Cienc. Solo 36 (1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-
G.O. Awe, et al.
06832012000100007.
Bayer, C., Mielniczuk, J., 1999. Dinâmica e função da matéria orgânica. In: Santos, G.A.,
Camargo, F.A.O. (Eds.), Matéria Orgânica Do Solo: Fundamentos E Caracterização,
pp. 9–26 Porto Alegre.
Benett, C.G.S., Buzetti, S., Silva, K.S., Teixeira Filho, M.C.M., Paris, C.M., Maeda, A.S.,
2012. Qualidade e produtividade da cana planta e cana soca em função de doses e
fontes de manganês. Biosci. J. 28 (2), 198–205 (Abstract in English).
Bhattacharyya, R., Prakash, V., Kundu, S., Gupta, H.S., 2006. Effect of tillage and crop
rotation on pore size distribution and soil hydraulic conductivity in sandy clay loam
soil of the Indian Himalayas. Soil Tillage Res. 86, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.still.2005.02.018.
Blake, G.R., Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis:
Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd edn. AS. SSSA, Madison. USA, pp.
363–375.
Bouwer, H., 1986. Intake rate: cylinder infiltrometer. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Properties. Monograph 9. American
Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, United States, pp.
825–843.
Braga, F.V.A., Reichert, J.M., Mentges, M.I., Vogelmann, E.S., Padron, R.A.R., 2015.
Propriedades mecânicas e permeabilidade ao ar em topossequência Argissolo-
Gleissolo: variação no perfil e efeito de compressão. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 39,
1025–1035. https://doi.org/10.1590/010000683rcs20140724. (Abstract in English).
Campbell, C.A., Selles, E., Lafond, G.P., Zentner, R.P., 2001. Adopting zero tillage man-
agement on soil C and N under long-term crop rotations in a thin black Chernozem.
Can. J. Soil Sci. 81, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.4141/S00-035.
Cardoso, J.A., Lacerda, M.P.C., Rein, T.A., Santos Junior dos, J., Figueiredo de, C.C.,
2014. Variability of soil fertility properties in areas planted to sugarcane in the State
of Goias, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 38 (2), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0100-0683214000200015.
Carter, M.R., 2005. Conservation tillage. Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment 2005.
pp. 306–311.
Carvalho, J.M., Andreotti, M., Buzetti, S., de Passos e Carvalho, M., 2013. Produtividade
de cana soca sem queima em função do uso de gesso e vinhaça. Pesq. Agropec. Trop.
43 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-40632013000100001. (Abstract in
English).
Casagrande, A., 1936. The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical
significance. In: Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, 22-26 June, 1936 at Havard University, Cambridge,
MA, USA 3. pp. 60–64.
Cassel, D.K., 1982. Tillage effects on soil bulk density and mechanical impedance. In:
Predicting Tillage Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Processes. ASA Spl. Publ.
No. 44: Madison, WI, USA.
Chen, C., Weil, R.R., 2011. Root growth and yield of maize as affected by soil compaction
and cover crops. Soil Tillage Res. 117, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.
08.001.
Cherubim, M.R., Karlen, D.L., Cerri, C.E.P., Franco, A.L.C., Tormena, C.A., Davies, C.A.,
Cerri, C.C., 2016. Soil quality indexing strategies for evaluating sugarcane expansion
in Brazil. PloSONE 11 (3), e0150860. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0150860.
Chi, L., Mendoza-Vega, J., Huerta, E., Alvare-Solis, J.D., 2016. Effect of long-term su-
garcane (Saccharum spp.) cultivation on chemical and physical properties of soils in
Belize. Communications in Soil and Plant Analysis 48 (7), 741–755. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00103624.2016.1254794.
Dalmago, G.A., Bergamaschi, H., Bergonci, J.I., Kruger, C.A.M.B., Comiran, F., Heckler,
B.M.M., 2009. Retenção e disponibilidade de água às plantas, em solo sob plantio
direto e preparo convencional. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Amb. 13, 855–864. https://doi.
org/10.1590/S1415-43662009000700007. (Abstract in English).
Drewry, J.J., Cameron, K.C., Buchan, G.D., 2008. Pasture yield and soil physical property
responses to soil compaction from treading and grazing - a review. Austr. J. Soil Res.
46 (237-), 256. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR07125.
EMBRAPA, 2011. Centro Nacional De Pesquisa De Solos (Rio De Janeiro, RJ). Manual De
Métodos De Análise De Solo. 2. Ed. Reviewed. Rio De Janeiro, 230pp.
Garbiate, M.V., Vitorino, A.C.T., Prado, E.A.Fdo, Mauad, M., Pellin, D.M.P., 2016. Hydro-
physical quality of an Oxisol and sugarcane yield in chisel plow-based sugarcane
ratoon management. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 40, e0150411. https://doi.org/10.1590/
18069657rbcs20150411.
Goddard, T., Zoebisch, M., Gan, Y., Ellis, W., Watson, A., Sombatpanit, S., 2008. No-till
Farming Systems. World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWC)
Special Publication No 3.
Hammad, E.A., Dawelbeit, M.I., 2001. Effect of tillage and field condition on soil physical
properties, cane and sugar yields in Vertisols of Kenana Sugar Estate. Sudan. Soil &
Tillage Research 62 (3-4), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(01)
00221-5.
Haruna, S.I., Anderson, S.H., Nkongolo, N.V., Zaibon, S., 2018. Soil hydraulic properties:
influence of tillage and cover crops. Pedosphere 28 (3), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1002-0160(17)60387-4.
Horn, R., Baumgartl, T., 2002. Dynamics properties of soils. In: Warrick, A.W. (Ed.), Soil
Physics Companion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Huang, M., Liang, T., Wang, L., Zhou, C., 2015. Effects of no-tillage systems on soil
physical properties and carbon sequestration under long-term wheat-maize double
cropping system. Catena 128, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.02.
010.
Husnjak, S., Filipovic, D., Kosutic, S., 2002. Influence of different tillage systems on soil
physical properties and crop yield. Rostlinna Vyroba 48 (6), 249–254.
Ingrid, M.G., Ovalle, C., Del Pozo, A., Uribe, H., Natalia, V.V., Prat, C., Sandoval, M.,
ernandez, F., Zagal, E., 2011. Influence of conservation tillage and soil water content
11
Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447
on crop yield in dryland compacted Alfisol of Central Chile. Chilean J. Agric. Res. 71
(4), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392011000400018.
Iori, P., Dias Junior, M., Ajayi, A.E., Guimarães, P.T.G., Souza, Z.R., Figueiredo, V.C.,
2014. Seasonal change of soil precompression stress in coffee plantation under sub-
humid tropical condition. Coffee Sci. 9 (2), 145–154.
Issaka, F., Zhang, Z., Zhao, Z., Asenso, E., Li, J.H., Li, Y.T., Wang, J.J., 2019. Sustainable
conservation tillage improves soil nutrients and reduces nitrogen and phosphorus
losses in maize farmland in southern China. Sustainaility 11 (2397), 13. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su11082397.
Karuma, A., Mtakwa, P., Amuri, N., Gachene, C.K., Gicheru, P., 2014. Tillage effects on
selected soil physical properties in a maize-bean intercropping system in Mwala
District, Kenya. Int. Sch. Res. Notices 2014https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/497205.
Article ID 497205, 12 pages.
Keller, T., Lamande, M., Schjonning, P., Dexter, A.R., 2011. Analysis of soil compression
curves from uniaxial confined compression tests. Geoderma 163 (2-3), 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.02.006.
Khan, N.I., Malik, A.U., Umer, F., Bodla, M.I., 2010. Effect of tillage and farmyard manure
on physical properties of soil. Inter. Res. J. Plant Sci. 1 (4), 75–82.
Khorami, S.S., Kazemeini, S.A., Afzalinia, S., Gathala, M.K., 2018. Changes in soil prop-
erties and productivity under different tillage practices and wheat genotypes: a short-
term study in Iran. Sustainability 10 (3273), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10093273.
Klein, V.A., Reichert, J.M., Reinert, D.J., 2006. Água disponível em um Latossolo
Vermelho argiloso e murcha fisiológica de culturas. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Amb. 10
(3), 646–650. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662006000300016. (Abstract in
English).
Klute, A., Dirksen, C., 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory methods.
In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical
Methods, 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 687–734.
Kostiakov, A.N., 1932. On the dynamics of coefficient of water-percolation in soils and on
necessity for studying it from a dynamic point of view for purposes of amelioration.
Transactions of the 6th Comm. Intern Soil Sci. Russia, Part A. pp. 17–21.
Leij, F.J., Ghezzehei, T.A., Or, D., 2002. Analytical models for soil pore-size distribution
after tillage. Soil Sic. Soc. Am. J. 66, 1104–1114. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.
1104.
Lipiec, J., Kus, J., Slowinska-Jurkiewicz, A., Nosalewicz, A., 2006. Soil porosity and water
infiltration as influenced by tillage methods. Soil Tillage Res. 89, 210–220. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.07.012.
Marasca, I., Lemos, S.V., Silva, R.B., Guerra, S.P.S., Lanças, K.P., 2015. Soil compaction
curve of an Oxisol under sugarcane planted after in-row deep tillage. Rev. Bras.
Cienc. Solo 39 (5), 1490–1497. https://doi.org/10.1590/01000683rbcs20140559.
McVay, K.A., Budde, J.A., Fabrizzi, K., Mikha, M.M., Rice, C.W., Schlegel, A.J., 2006.
Management effects on soil physical properties in long-term tillage studies in Kansas.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70 (2), 434–438. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0249.
Mesquita, M.G.B.F., Moraes, S.O., 2004. A dependência entre a condutividade hidráulica
saturada e atributos físicos do solo. Cienc. Rural 34, 963–969. https://doi.org/10.
1590/S0103-84782004000300052. (Abstract in English).
Moraes de, E.R., Mageste, J.G., Lana, R.M.Q., Torres, J.L.R., Silva Domingues da, L.A.,
Lemes, E.M., Lima de, L.C., 2019. Sugarcane root development and yield under dif-
ferent soil tillage practices. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 43, e0180090.
Mordhorst, A., Zimmermann, L., Peth, S., Horn, R., 2012. Effect of hydraulic and me-
chanical stresses on cyclic deformation processes of a structured and homogenized
silty Luvic Chernozem. Soil Tillage Res. 125, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2012.06.008.
Moreno, J.A., 1961. Clima De Rio Grande Do Sul. Porto Alegre, Secretária Da Agricultura.
pp. 42.
Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E., 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In:
Black, C.A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods, Madison, Soil
Science of America/American Society of Agronomy, pp. 961–1010.
Netto, A.A., Fernandes, E.J., 2005. Avaliação da taxa de infiltração de água em um
Latossolo vermelho submetido a dois sistemas de manejo. Irriga. 10 (2), 107–115
(Abstract in English).
Pena-Sancho, C., Lopez, M.V., Gracia, R., Moret-Fernandes, D., 2017. Effects of tillage on
the soil water retention curve during na fallow period of a semi-arid dry land. Soil
Res. 55 (2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR15305.
Pereira, A.H.F., Vitorino, A.C.T., Prado, E.A.Fdo, Bergamin, A.C., Mauad, M., Arantes,
H.P., 2015. Least limiting water range and load bearing capacity of soil under types of
tractor-trailers for mechanical harvesting of green sugarcane. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo
39 (6), 1603–1610. https://doi.org/10.1590/01000683rbcs20140561.
Pertile, P., Reichert, J.M., Gubiani, P.I., Holthusen, D., Da Costa, A., 2016. Rheological
parameters as affected by water tension in subtropical soils. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 40,
e0150286. https://doi.org/10.1590/18069657rbcs20150286.
Philip, J.R., 1957. The theory of infiltration: 1. The infiltration equation and its solution.
Soil Sci. 83, 345–357.
Raes, D., 2009. The ETo Calculator. Evapotranspiration From a Reference Surface –
Reference Manual, Version 3.1, FAO, Via Delle Terme Di Caracalla, 00153, Rome,
Italy. pp. 38.
Reichert, J.M., Suzuki, L.E.A.S., Reinert, D.J., Horn, R., Håkansson, I., 2009. Reference
bulk density and critical degree-of-compactness for no-till crop production in sub-
tropical highly weathered soils. Soil Tillage Res. 102, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.still.2008.07.002.
Reichert, J.M., Bervald, C.M.P., Rodrigues, M.F., Kato, O.R., 2015. Fire-free fallow
management by mechanized chopping of biomass for sustainable agriculture in
Eastern Amazon: effects on soil compactness, porosity, and water retention and
availability. Land Degrad. Dev. 27, 1403–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2395.
Reichert, J.M., Rosa da, V.T., Vogelmann, E.S., Rosada, D.P., Horn, R., Reinert, D.J.,
G.O. Awe, et al.
Sattler, A., 2016. Conceptual framework for capacity and intensity physical soil
properties affected by short- and lond-term (14 years) continuous no-tillage and
controlled traffic. Soil Tillage Res. 158, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2015.11.010.
Reichert, J.M., Brandt, A.A., Rodrigues, M.F., Veiga, Mda, Reinert, D.J., 2017. Is chiseling
or inverting tillage required to improve the mechanical and hydraulic properties of
sandy clay loam soil under long-term no-tillage? Geoderma 301, 72–79. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.04.012.
Reichert, J.M., Mentges, M.I., Rodrigues, M.F., Cavalli, J.P., Awe, G.O., Mentges, L.R.,
2018. Compressibility and elasticity of subtropical no-till soils varying in granulo-
metry organic matter, bulk density and moisture. Catena 165, 345–357. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.02.014.
Reinert, D.J., Reichert, J.M., 2006. Coluna de areia para medir a retenção de água no solo
– protótipos e teste. Ciênc. Rural 36 (6), 1931–1935. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-
84782006000600044. (Abstract in English).
Reinert, D.J., Albuquerque, J.A., Reichert, J.M., Aita, C., Andrada, M.M.C., 2008. Limites
críticos de densidade do solo para o crescimento de raízes de plantas de cobertura em
Argissolo vermelho. Rev. Bras. Ci. Solo 32, 1805–1816. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0100-06832008000500002. (Abstract in English).
Reynolds, W.D., Bowman, B.T., Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., Lu, X., 2002. Indicators of good soil
quality: density and storage parameters. Geoderma 110, 131–146. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00228-8.
Rosa, D.P., Reichert, J.M., Sattler, A., Reinert, D.J., Mentges, M.I., Vieira, D.A., 2008.
Relação entre solo e haste sulcadora de semeadora em Latossolo escarificado em
diferentes épocas. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 43, 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0100-204X2008000300015. (Abstract in English).
Salem, M.G., Valero, C., Munoz, M.A., Gil-Rodriguez, M., Barreiro, P., 2014. Effect of
reservoir tillage on rainwater harvesting and soil erosion control under a developed
rainfall simulator. Catena 113, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2013.08.
018.
Scarpare, F.V., Jong van Lier, Q., Camargo, L., Pires, R.C.M., Ruiz-Correa, S.T., Bezerra,
A.H., Gava, G.J.C., Dias, C.T.S., 2019. Tillage effects on soil physical condition and
root growth associated with sugarcane water availability. Soil Tillage Res. 187,
110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.12.005.
Secco, D., da Ros, C.O., Secco, J.K., Fiorin, J.E., 2005. Atributos físicos e produtividade de
culturas em um Latossolo Vermelho argisolo sob diferentes sistemas de manejo. Rev.
Bras. Cienc. Solo 29 (3), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-
6832005000300011. (Abstract in English).
Singh, B.P., Setia, R., Wiesmeier, M., Kunhikrishnan, A., 2018. Agricultural management
12
Soil & Tillage Research 196 (2020) 104447
practices and soil organic carbon storage. In: Singh, B.K. (Ed.), Soil Carbon Storage:
Modulators, Mechanisms and Modeling. Academic Press, 125, London Wall, Londo
EC2Y 5AS, UK, pp. 207–214.
Singh, S.N., Singh, S.C., Kumar, R., Shukla, S.K., Sharma, M.L., 2008. Effect of agro-
technological manipulations in improving the productivity of cane under multi-ra-
tooning system. American-Eurasian J. Sci. Res. 3 (1), 29–32.
SOIL SURVEY STAFF (SSS), 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th ed. Washington, USDA-
SCS, 332 pp.
Strudley, W.M., Green, T.R., Ascough II, J.C., 2008. Tillage effects on soil physical
properties in space and time: state of the science. Soil Tillage Res. 99, 4–48. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.01.007.
Suzuki, L.E.A.S., Reichert, J.M., Albuquerque, J.A., Reinert, D.J., Kaiser, D.R., 2015.
Dispersion and flocculation of vertisol, alfisols and oxisols in southern Brazil.
Geoderma Reg. 5, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2015.03.005.
Tavares, R.L.M., Souza, Z.Mde, Scala Jr, N., Castioni, G.A.F., Souza, G.Sde, Torres, J.L.R.,
2016. Spatial and temporal variability of soil CO2 flux in sugarcane green harvest
systems. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 40, e0150252. https://doi.org/10.1590/
18069657rbcs20150252.
Veiga, Mda, Reinert, D.J., Reichert, J.M., 2009. Aggregate stability as affected by short
and long-term tillage systems and nutrient sources of a Hapludox in southern Brazil.
Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 33, 767–777. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-
06832009000400003.
Vieira, M.L., Klein, V.A., 2007. Propriedades físico-hídricas de um Latossolo vermelho
submetido a diferentes sistemas de manejo. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 31, 1271–1280.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832007000600006. (Abstract in English).
Vogelmann, E.S., Mentges, M.I., Reichert, J.M., da Rosa, D.P., de Barros, C.A.P., Reinert,
D.J., 2012. Compressibilidade de um Argissolo Vermelho-Amarelo trafegado e es-
carificado. Cienc. Rural 42, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-
84782012005000004. (Abstract in English).
Weber, J.F., Kun, C., Peteinatos, G.G., Zikeli, S., Gerhards, R., 2017. Weed control using
conventional tillage, reduced tillage, no-tillage, and cover crops in organic soybean.
Agriculture 7 (43), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7050043.
Wright, A.L., Dou, F., Hons, F.M., 2007. Soil organic C and N distribution for wheat
cropping systems after 20 years of conservation tillage in central Texas. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 121, 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.11.011.
Yao, R.J., Yang, J.S., Zhang, T.J., Gao, P., Yu, S.P., Wang, X.P., 2013. Short-term effect of
cultivation and crop rotation systems on soil quality indicators in a coastal newly
reclaimed farming area. J. Soils Sed. 13 (8), 1335–1350. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11368-013-0739-6.