Soil erosion on the Brazilian sugarcane cropping system: An overview

Productivity and Quality Sugarcane Broth at Different Soil Management

“…Farias et al [13] show that conventional tillage areas increase greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to unsustainable sugarcane farming. Thomaz, Marcatto and Antoneli [18] verified erosion of sugarcane potential soils at different textures and show intensive soil preparation and bare soil could increase soil losses up to 7 Mg ha −1 Yr −1 . Therefore, increased SPR harms the infiltration water rate, contributing to the erosive process.…”

“…Luz et al [7] found similar results, indicating traditional soil management does not benefit to alleviate compaction when compared to a conservationist system. According to Souza et al [15], soil preparation is a high-cost operation in sugarcane renovation fields, and results from soil preparation are not maintained during the crop cycle; this occurs due to heavy machine traffic and rearrangement of soil particles in wheel interaction (Marques Filho et al) [16] and weathering agents such as rain and wind [18].…”

“…Soil compaction in Agronomy 2023, 13, 170 2 of 14 sugarcane fields has been mainly attributed to harvesting at inadequate soil moisture conditions [17]. Mechanized operations performed in sugarcane with wet soils degrade the physical soil structure (Farhate et al) [5], causing erosion due to intensive tillage [18]. Soil compaction levels can be inferred from penetration resistance methods.…”

The response of geographical processes to landscape restoration: China’s research progress

“…The geographical components (i.e., those that are manifestly spatial in their impacts) include both natural elements under global environmental change and socioeconomic elements associated with the characteristics of national and regional development. These components are affected by interactions between sets of processes, for example, physical processes such as warming and evaporation, economic processes such as traveling and consumption, or social-ecological processes such as strip mining and land degradation (Zhang et al, 2020a(Zhang et al, , 2020b(Zhang et al, , 2022dThomaz et al, 2022;Zhao et al, 2020a). These spatially explicit physical, ecological, and social processes tend to be generalized as geographical processes (Fu, 2020), and influenced by landscape restoration projects (Fu et al, 2021a;Liu, 2020;Tikadar et al, 2022;Fan et al, 2021;Liao et al, 2018).…”

“…These responses are experiential, which can be physically or measured, economically valued, subjectively scored, or even evaluated by manual designed indicators. Many physical responses from vegetation change are spatially explicit, for example: the increase in terrestrial carbon sink (Lu et al, 2022); the shrinkage of water yield (Wang et al, 2021b); the change in remote benefits from wind erosion prevention and water erosion prevention (Hu et al, 2022; Thomaz et al, 2022); the change in ecohydrological processes such as water use efficiency (Ding et al, 2021; Shao et al, 2022); the gain of nutrient removal by marsh vegetation near cultivated land (Liu et al, 2022a); and the promotion in microclimatic conditions by the hydrologic cycle from the surrounding landscape (Cheng et al, 2022; Peng et al, 2022a). The livelihood responses to landscape restoration are also spatiotemporally different.…”