Sugarcane straw preservation results in limited immobilization and improves crop N-fertilizer recovery

Castro, Saulo Augusto Quassi de; Otto, Rafael; Sánchez, Camilo Ernesto Bohórquez; Tenelli, Sarah; Sermarini, Renata Alcarde

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105889

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Adjusting the timing of N‐fertilizer application (Lofton and Tubaña 2015; de Castro et al 2022) and employing appropriate application methods (Borges et al 2019) have been found to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve NUE in sugarcane. However, these actions alone are insufficient as a significant proportion of nitrogen becomes immobilized in the soil (Otto et al 2016; Quassi de Castro et al 2021; Sanches and Otto 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditional soil‐based N‐fertilization methods result in low N‐fertilizer recovery by sugarcane plants (NRP) at the end of the crop cycle (NRP is only 26% at harvest), with significant losses to the environment (27%) and substantial immobilization by the soil microbiota (32%; Otto et al 2016; Quassi de Castro et al 2021). On the other hand, N‐fertilizers applied to the soil have a great contribution during the early stages of sugarcane development, reaching up to 70% of total‐N in the plant (Franco et al 2011; Vieira‐Megda et al 2015; Quassi de Castro et al 2021). Differences in NRP can be observed throughout the growing season, primarily influenced by factors such as root development, nitrogen uptake from various sources, e.g., mineralization of soil organic matter or sugarcane straw (Dourado‐Neto et al 2010; Trivelin et al 2013), and by biological nitrogen fixation (Urquiaga et al 2012; da Silva et al 2017; Singh et al 2020; Pereira et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the early stages of sugarcane development, reaching up to 70% of total-N in the plant (Franco et al 2011;Vieira-Megda et al 2015; Quassi de Castro et al 2021). Differences in NRP can be observed throughout the growing season, primarily influenced by factors such as root development, nitrogen uptake from various sources, e.g., mineralization of soil organic matter or sugarcane straw (Dourado-Neto et al 2010;Trivelin et al 2013), and by biological nitrogen fixation (Urquiaga et al 2012;da Silva et al 2017;Singh et al 2020;Pereira et al 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimizing foliar N‐fertilization in sugarcane depends on plant genotype and nitrogen concentration

Quassi de Castro,

Sermarini,

Rossi

et al. 2023

Physiologia Plantarum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foliar N‐fertilization (FNf) has emerged as a promising approach to synchronize plant nitrogen (N) demands and application timing, reducing the N losses to the environment associated with traditional soil‐based fertilization methods. However, limited information exists regarding the effectiveness of FNf in sugarcane. This study aimed to optimize FNf in sugarcane by evaluating N‐fertilizer recovery by the plant (NRP) and assessing potential toxicity effects. Four sugarcane genotypes were subjected to FNf using 15N‐urea at five nitrogen concentrations. NRP was assessed at five time points for roots, stalk, old leaves, 15N‐urea‐fertilized leaves (15NL), and unexpanded leaves (UEL). Leaf scorching, indicating FNf toxicity, was analyzed using morpho‐anatomical and histochemical techniques. The results showed that FNf promoted high NRP, with an average recovery of 62.3%. Surprisingly, the redistribution of 15N‐urea did not follow the nitrogen uptake rate by sugarcane leaves, with an average of 41.3% of the total‐NRP. The stalk emerged as the primary sink for 15N‐urea, followed by the UEL. Genotypes differed in the leaf scorching intensity, which increased with higher concentration of 15N‐urea. Genotypes also differed in the 15N‐urea uptake rate, down‐regulated by the N content in the 15NL. These findings emphasize that by carefully choosing the appropriate genotype and nitrogen concentration, FNf can significantly enhance N‐fertilizer uptake, resulting in potential environmental and economic benefits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimizing foliar N‐fertilization in sugarcane depends on plant genotype and nitrogen concentration

Quassi de Castro,

Sermarini,

Rossi

et al. 2023

Physiologia Plantarum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Delayed application of N fertilizer significantly mitigated the soil N 2 O emission, compared to the simultaneous application of N fertilizer and straw (S-ND vs. S-NS) (Figures 1, 2b). In the ND treatment, the maize straw with a high C/N ratio caused significant immobilization of N, which constrained the N availability for N 2 O production processes (Quassi de Castro et al, 2021). The simultaneous application of straw and urea could boost the fast development of anoxic zones caused by the rapid degradation of straw together with ammonium nitrification.…”

Section: Coupling Effects Of N Application and Straw Returning Forms ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed nitrogen application after straw and charred straw addition altered the hot moment of soil N₂O emissions

Ran

Wang

et al. 2023

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The combination of nitrogen (N) fertilization and straw incorporation has complex influences on soil N transformations and derived nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. This study aimed to reveal the coupled effects of straw returning forms and N fertilizer management on soil N2O emissions. Here, carbon (C) sources with varied availabilities were supplied by different straw returning forms, including straw, charred straw, and combined application of straw and charred straw. The time gaps between additions of exogenous N and C sources were carried out by managing the timing of N fertilization, including N application simultaneous with or delayed after straw return. Soil N2O emissions under different straw returning forms and their response relationships to soil C, N, microbial biomass, as well as soil pH and oxygen (O2) were explored. Co‐application of straw and N fertilizer provided sufficient C and N sources, enhanced the microbial biomass, and consequently increased N2O emissions. Delayed N fertilization could decouple the response of N2O emissions to straw addition, because of constrained N availability and limited pH decline, which decreased the cumulative N2O emissions significantly. Possibly due to straw induced N immobilization coupled with charred straw induced pH elevation, the combined application of straw and charred straw constrained soil N2O emissions compared with straw only application, regardless of N fertilizer management. By shaping the microbial biomass and soil C, N, and O2 dynamics, delayed application of N fertilizer could further enhance the inhibition effect of the charred straw and straw combination on soil N2O emissions. Therefore, the varied straw returning forms and the timing of N fertilization could affect the supply of available C and N, influencing the hot moments of N2O emissions, and the joint addition of straw and charred straw with a few weeks delayed N application could possibly reduce the risk of soil N2O emissions from straw return systems. Such mitigation potential should be evaluated further under field conditions. Highlights Delayed N fertilization attenuated the magnitude of N2O emissions after straw additions. Combination of charred straw with straw mitigated N2O emissions, further enhanced by delayed N fertilization. Soil pH was the chief regulator for N2O emissions under different straw returning forms and N application.

show abstract

“…Ao longo do ciclo esse valor diminui, sendo a média da recuperação do N-fertitilizante pela cana-de-açúcar quando aplicado no solo de, aproximadamente, 26 % no final do ciclo da cultura (OTTO et al, 2016). A maior fração do N-fertilizante aplicado no solo permanece nesse, estando passível de ser perdido para o ambiente (QUASSI DE CASTRO et al, 2021;ZHANG et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Aproveitamento do N-fertilizante (N-ureia) pela cana-de-açúcar aplicado por via foliar no período de máximo crescimento da cultura em complemento à adubação de solo

Castro¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aproveitamento do N-fertilizante (N-ureia) pela cana-de-açúcar aplicado por via foliar no período de máximo crescimento da cultura em complemento à adubação de solo / Saulo Augusto Quassi de Castro. --Piracicaba, 2022. p.Tese (Doutorado) --USP / Escola Superior de Agricultura "Luiz de Queiroz".1. Anatomia foliar 2. Isótopo estável 3. Absorção foliar 4. Variedades de cana-de-açúcar 5. Redistribuição do nitrogênio 6. Produtividade I. Títtulo Ao professor, Francisco Scaglia Linhares, e a Mônica Lanzoni Rossi pela amizade, ensinamentos e parceria no projeto, possibilitando que as análises morfoanatômicas das folhas da cana-de-açúcar fossem realizadas.Aos estudantes de graduação, Régis R. L. Vieira e Eluisa R. Elias, por aceitarem a minha co-orientação durante os respectivos projetos de iniciação científica que desenvolveram junto ao LIE/CENA, que faziam parte do meu projeto de doutorado, me ajudando em diversas atividades realizadas em campo e no laboratório e também pelas conversas e momentos de distração.Ao meu irmão, Sérgio G. Q. de Castro, à minha esposa, Renata R. L. de Castro, ao colega, Bruno R. Toneto, aos estudantes de graduação, Lucas Z. de M. Silva e Caique Catani, e ao técnico do LIE/CENA, Hugo H. Batagello, pelo auxílio nas atividades realizadas em campo, momentos que se tornaram mais divertidos e menos cansativos com a ajuda de vocês.A amiga de pós-graduação, Nicole C. Cheng, pelo auxílio nas atividades realizadas em campo, pelas discussões dos resultados, pelos momentos de distração, pela amizade e por aceitar enfrentar os desafios da realização de experimentos com a cana-de-açúcar.

show abstract

Sugarcane straw preservation results in limited immobilization and improves crop N-fertilizer recovery

Cited by 12 publications

References 73 publications

Optimizing foliar N‐fertilization in sugarcane depends on plant genotype and nitrogen concentration

Optimizing foliar N‐fertilization in sugarcane depends on plant genotype and nitrogen concentration

Delayed nitrogen application after straw and charred straw addition altered the hot moment of soil N₂O emissions

Aproveitamento do N-fertilizante (N-ureia) pela cana-de-açúcar aplicado por via foliar no período de máximo crescimento da cultura em complemento à adubação de solo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Sugarcane straw preservation results in limited immobilization and improves crop N-fertilizer recovery

Cited by 12 publications

References 73 publications

Optimizing foliar N‐fertilization in sugarcane depends on plant genotype and nitrogen concentration

Optimizing foliar N‐fertilization in sugarcane depends on plant genotype and nitrogen concentration

Delayed nitrogen application after straw and charred straw addition altered the hot moment of soil N2O emissions

Aproveitamento do N-fertilizante (N-ureia) pela cana-de-açúcar aplicado por via foliar no período de máximo crescimento da cultura em complemento à adubação de solo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Delayed nitrogen application after straw and charred straw addition altered the hot moment of soil N₂O emissions