Soil physical changes induced by sugarcane cultivation in the Atlantic Forest biome, northeastern Brazil

Linking Soil Water Changes to Soil Physical Quality in Sugarcane Expansion Areas in Brazil

“…In that case, soil macropores were reduced to lower than 0.10 m 3 m −3 (Figure 2c); consequently, PAW decreased from 0.23 to 0.17 m 3 m −3 (Figure 5b). Similar results were observed by Cavalcanti et al [8] when soil tillage at the sugarcane replanting degraded soil structure and altered soil porosity. Despite the critical value of macroporosity (<0.10 m 3 m −3 ) [37] being reached in SCplant, no limitation was observed for available water content [20], as shown in Figure 5b.…”

“…The transition from PA to sugarcane cultivation did not negatively impact water dynamics in both soils, refuting our initial hypothesis. Conventional tillage by plowing and disking (Table 2) break up soil structure [8], which sometimes reduces bulk density and increases soil porosity as compared to the previous use [43]. Therefore, in the Sandy soil, where bulk density was considered critical in PA, the conversion to SCplant alleviated soil compaction mainly on the soil surface making the soil structure in SCplant similar to the one observed in NV.…”

“…Plant-available water (PAW) was then calculated using the water content available between the θ FC and that measured at −15,000 hPa. Pore-size distribution was determined using the soil pore volume fractions for the h values <30 hPa, 30-100 hPa, and >100 hPa, which were used as thresholds for calculation of the macro-, meso-, and micropores, following Cavalcanti et al [8]. The soil pore volume correspondent to the macro-, meso-, and microporosity were extracted from the fitted water retention curve (applying Equation (1)) for each land use.…”

Alluvial Soil Quality Indicators As Affected By Different Land-Uses. مؤشرات جودة التربة الطمييه تحت تأثير الاستخدامات المختلفة للأراضي.

“…Comparable findings were detected by Cherubin et al (2016), who confirmed reductions in soil porosity as a result of sugarcane cultivation compared to native forest soils. Cavalcanti et al (2020) and Jimenez et al, (2020) disclosed that continuous sugarcane plantation enlarged the soil bulk densities and reduced water contents at the field capacity. These results indicated that soil texture is affected by the degree of agriculture intensification owing to the significant large differences in particle size distribution between soil shallow horizons of sugarcane monoculture soils, crop rotation soils and uncultivated reference soil.…”

“…It is expected that in the long term, consecutive mechanized harvests and tillage for sugarcane replanting will lead to induce the formation of plough pans, with significant reductions in soil pore spaces and water availability leading to deterioration of soil physical functions for plant growth (Cavalcanti et al 2019(Cavalcanti et al , 2020de Lima et al 2020;Jimenez et al, 2020). Cherubin et al (2016), observed that physical quality of the soil reduced by 90-56% of its full capacity from native vegetation soils to sugarcane as the consecutive monoculture of sugarcane deteriorated the soil physical quality for plant growth.…”