See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319108467

ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF SUGARCANE STRAW

ON TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT AND TEMPERATURE

Conference Paper · June 2017

DOI: 10.5071/25thEUBCE2017-4AV.2.6

CITATIONS READS

0 120

6 authors, including:

Simone Toni Ruiz Correa João Luís Nunes Carvalho

Laboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol Laboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol
34 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   660 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thayse A. Dourado Hernandes Leandro Barbosa

Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais University of Campinas
19 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SUCRE Project View project

LACAf Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thayse A. Dourado Hernandes on 14 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF SUGARCANE STRAW ON TEMPORAL

VARIABILITY OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT AND TEMPERATURE

S. T. R. Corrêa – CTBE/CNPEM, Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 6170, CEP 13083-
970, Campinas-SP, Brazil. Phone: + 55 (19) 3518-3130, simone.correa@bioetanol.org.br
J. L. N. Carvalho – CTBE/CNPEM, Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology
Laboratory,joao.carvalho@bioetanol.org.br
T. A. D. Hernandes – CTBE/CNPEM, Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology
Laboratory,thayse.hernandes@bioetanol.org.br
L. C. Barbosa – CTBE/CNPEM, Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory,
leandro.barbosa@bioetanol.org.br
L. M. S. Menandro – CTBE/CNPEM, Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology
Laboratory,lauren.menandro@bioetanol.org.br
M. R. L.V. Leal – CTBE/CNPEM, Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory, regis.leal@bioetanol.org.br

ABSTRACT: Since the Brazilian Sugarcane Mills have adopted the practice of mechanized harvesting, the large
amounts of straw mulching on the soil surface have become an important issue to be investigated. This residue
represents a valuable feedstock for 2nd generation ethanol production and bioelectricity cogeneration while could be
left in the field for agronomic purposes. In the present study, we assess the temporal variability of moisture content,
soil temperature and sugarcane yield in response to different amounts of straw mulching (SM), along two seasons
(2014/2015 and 2015/2016) in three important locations of sugarcane expansion areas in Brazil. The treatments were
bare soil, 50% and 100% straw mulch(SM) and dielectric sensors MPS-2 measured soil water potential and temperature
every 6 hours at a depth of 0.20 m.SM suppressed soil temperature during the initial crop development (regrowth);
water storage was improved by SM and enhanced the soil moisture maintenance, which in dry periods (early harvest)
is essential to the crop establishment; sugarcane yield increased in response to 100 SM in clayey soils, with amounts
above 14.9 Mg ha-1of SM; no increase in sugarcane yield was observed in sandy soil with amounts below 9.2 Mg ha -
1of SM.

Keywords: agricultural residues, biomass, sugar crops, straw mulching, soil management

1 INTRODUCTION In terms of environmental issues, straw mulching is

Brazil is the largest global producer of sugarcane and
has one of the cleanest and diversified energy matrix in the
world, with renewable energy which grew from 39.4% in
2014 to 41.24% in 2015 [1]. Ethanol and bioelectricity
(from sugarcane bagasse) comprised the largest share of
renewable sources of energy, reaching 16.9%, followed by
energy produced by hydroelectric power (11.3%), wood
and charcoal (8.2%), biodiesel and others (4.7%) [1].
Since 2008, ethanol consumption has surpassed
gasoline representing over 50% by volume of the liquid
fuel used by light commercial vehicles in Brazil [2] while
bagasse, i.e., the principal sugarcane residue for bioenergy
production, is practically all consumed in the mill boilers
to provide all the mill energy demand. On the other hand,
the sugarcane straw (also called trash), which represents
about one third of the total primary energy of sugarcane in
the field, has shown an incipient usage [3].
Due to environmental and economic reasons, the
Brazilian sugarcane areas have recently adopted the
practice of mechanized harvesting (green cane
management without previous burning). Federal Law No.
2661 of July 8, 1998 and São Paulo State Law No. 11241
of September 19, 2002 have established a time schedule to
cane burning phase out [4], resulting in a deposition of
large amounts of sugarcane straw on the fields, creating a
mulching on the soil surface. Thus, while sugarcane straw
represents a valuable feedstock for 2nd generation ethanol
production and bioelectricity cogeneration, enabling new
opportunities for the Brazilian sugarcane industry, this
residue could be left on the field for agronomic purposes,
such as weed control, protection against soil erosion,
increasing soil biodiversity, favoring water infiltration,
soil moisture content and temperature maintenance [5, 6].
essential to sugarcane crop development since it affects the
radiation balance due to modifications in thermal
conductivities and reflection coefficient interfering with
all energy balance components [7]. Thus, straw mulching
results in higher fraction of the incident sunlight that the
surface reflects and lower thermal conductivity than the
bare soil, which reduces the solar radiation reaching the
soil and, therefore, the increasing soil temperature [8, 9].
Soil temperature is one of the most important factors
that influence soil properties processes involved in plant
growth. It controls the rate of evaporation and aeration
[10,11], the soil physical, chemical and biological
processes [12], the rate of organic matter decomposition
and the mineralization of different organic materials [13],
as well as the soil nutrient availability and recycling [14].
Soil moisture content is one of the most sensitive
parameters to crops residues maintenance, thus, one of the
most important factors affecting plant growth and
development [15]. Crop residues improves soil water
storage by increasing infiltration rate and decreasing
runoff losses, reducing evaporation and abrupt
fluctuations in soil surface temperature as well as
increasing soil organic matter, which increases the soil
water retention capacity [8,16]. In the climatic conditions
of the south-central region of Brazil, characterized by
rainy summers and dry winters, the straw mulching is an
important practice for conserving soil moisture and,
consequently, result in better water conservation and
increased water-use efficiency [6].
The effects of straw mulching on sugarcane
productivity are very complex once it can increase,
decrease, or have no net effect on sugarcane yields and
factors such as annual weather and soil conditions, crop
variety and harvest period are more important to determine
yield [4]. Despite the effects of crops residues maintenance

1691
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

on soil temperature [17,18,19,20,21] and on soil moisture Table I: Experiments description

[22,23,24] have been widely documented, there are only
few researches for sugarcane in Brazil [7, 9, 25,26]. Description Locations
Hence, there is an increasing need for understanding
the response of sugarcane straw mulching on soil moisture Chapadão
Location Quatá Quirinópolis
do Céu
content and temperature dynamic. In the present study we
aimed to analyze the temporal variability of soil water State São Paulo Goiás Goiás
content and water storage, the variation in soil temperature Soil texture sand clay clay
and sugarcane yield in response to different amounts of
Limestone1 2 2 2
straw mulching, along two crop seasons in three important
locations of sugarcane expansion areas in Brazil. Gypsum 1
1 1 1
Plant cane harvest June 2014 June 2014 June 2014
1, 4
2 METHODOLOGY Straw mulching 9.2 14.9 16.5
2,3 120 N 120 N 120 N
Fertilizing
2.1 Study locations and field experimental design 120 K 120 K 120 K
The experiments were conducted in representative 1st ratoon harvest June 2015 July 2015 July 2015
sugarcane growing locationS and were chosen to provide 1, 4
different edaphoclimatic conditions. (Figure 1). Straw mulching 12.6 15.9 17.2
2,3 120 N 120 N 120 N
Fertilizing
120 K 120 K 120 K
2nd ratoon harvest June 2016 July 2016 May 2016
1Limestone, gypsum and straw mulching in Mg ha-1;
2Ferilizing inkg ha-1,3N (ammonium nitrate) and
K(potassium chloride),4dry matter base.

Before the establishment of the field experiments in

2013, soil samples were collected for chemical and
physical properties analysis according to Raij et al., (2001)
and EMBRAPA (2011) [29,30] (Table 2).

2.2Soil water content, storage and temperature

measurements
Two basic parameters describe the state of water in soil:
soil water content (WC) and soil water potential (WP).
WC is useful when trying to describe the water balance of
a soil while water potential determines how water moves
in a soil profile or from the soil to the plant.
In order to obtain the soil water retention curve
(SWRC), i.e., the relationship between the WP(ψ, kpa),
and the corresponding values of soil WC (θ, m3m-
3)undisturbed samples were collected using volumetric

rings from four center trenches at depths of

Figure 1: Coordinates, altitude, soil and climate
characteristics for Chapadão do Céu-GO, Quirinópolis-
GO and Quatá-SP locations.(1Brazilian classification [27];
2USDA Soil Taxonomy [28]; 3According to Köppen´s
classification).
The experiments with straw mulching (SM)were
established in June 2014 after plant cane harvesting, The
plots were composed by ten- sugarcane rows spaced 1.5m
and with 9 m in long. In all locations, the established
treatments were: i. bare soil
(0SM); ii. 50% of straw mulch (50SM) and; iii. 100% of
straw mulch (100SM). The adjustment of these quantities
was performed manually after harvesting. More
information about location description are presented in
Table 1.
0-0.10, 0.10-0.20, and 0.20-0.40 m.
The soil samples were saturated and then subjected to
tensions of 2, 6, 10, 33 (tension tables)300, 500, 700 and
1500 kpa (in Richards extraction chambers). After the
equilibrium of the samples at the respective tensions, they
were dried in an oven at 105oC for 48h to constant dry
mass.
The soil bulk density (Mg m-3) and gravimetric
moisture (g g-1) were calculated [30] and, subsequently, it
was calculated the volumetric WC (θ, cm3 cm-3)
corresponding to each potential.
Dielectric sensors MPS-2 (Matrix Potential Sensor)
calibrated and connected to an Em50 data logger (both
from Decagon Dev. Inc. Pullman, WA), were used to
record and store soil WP and temperature every 6 hours at
a depth of 0.20m, representing the soil layer 0-0.40m,
since most of the roots are found at this depth. The sensor
present a surface-mounted thermistor to take temperature
readings.

1692
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

Table II: Chemical and physical properties of the soil at the sugarcane fields

Layer pH SOM P K Ca Mg H+Al CEC BS Sand Silt Clay BD Macro Micro

m g dm³ mg dm-³ mmol dm-³ % g kg-1 Mg m-3 m3 m-3
Quatá
0-0.10 5.1 12 24 1 16 6 13 36 23 853 60 87 1.7 0.09 0.27
0.11-0.20 4.7 11 16 0 10 3 17 31 13 832 60 108 1.84 0.11 0.22
0.21-0.40 4.6 10 8 0 10 3 16 30 13 801 57 142 1.76 0.08 0.24
0.41-0.60 4.5 12 7 0 8 2 18 28 10 783 73 144 1.68 0.10 0.24
0.61-1.00 4.5 7 6 0 7 2 18 28 10 763 78 159 1.67 0.12 0.25
Chapadão do Céu
0-0.10 5.1 33 15 3 33 12 27 76 49 218 161 621 1.15 0.17 0.37
0.11-0.20 5.2 24 12 2 28 9 28 67 39 208 150 642 1.15 0.16 0.37
0.21-0.40 4.8 24 6 1 16 5 37 58 22 200 145 655 1.15 0.15 0.36
0.41-0.60 4.8 20 5 1 13 3 31 47 17 181 138 681 1.14 0.16 0.35
0.61-1.00 4.8 17 5 1 12 3 27 42 16 177 104 719 1.14 0.15 0.3
Quirinópolis
0-0.10 5.5 32 10 6 44 16 23 89 66 267 186 547 1.37 0.13 0.45
0.11-0.20 5.5 27 8 4 43 12 23 82 59 249 190 561 1.29 0.15 0.46
0.21-0.40 5.5 22 7 3 34 8 21 66 45 225 195 580 1.23 0.20 0.43
0.41-0.60 5.6 18 7 1 28 6 20 55 35 226 175 599 1.2 0.18 0.45
0.61-1.00 5.7 30 6 1 22 7 18 48 30 234 171 595 1.19 0.20 0.44
* SOM = soil organic matter; CEC = cation exchange capacity; BS =base saturation; BD = bulk density; Macro = Macropores
and Micro = Micropores.

Thus, aiming to adjust the WC at any WP, the van
Genuchten (1980)[31] parameters, provided from RETEC
[32] program, was used.
Water storage (hz) during both crop seasons in the soil
profile at the 0-0.40 m depth was calculated by the
integral:
L comparison (p < 0.05). Both analysis was performed using
hz    ( Z )dz (1)
0 STATISTICA software (Dell Inc.) [34].
Where θ is the WCand Z is the soil depth. This integral
was based on the trapezoid rule of numerical integration
[33].
An average h was calculated for the entire sugarcane
development cycle, separated in 4 stages with 3-months
each, starting after harvest. A daily variation in water
storage∆h was also estimated during the initial crop
estabilishment, acording to equation 2:
h  Z ( i  i 1 ) (2)
A two-sample t-test was carried out to indicate
whether two treatments (bare soil vs. SM) are different.
2.3 Sugarcane yield
At the end of each cycle, the plots were mechanically
harvested to determine sugarcane yield in tons of stalk per
hectare (TSH). The total stalk biomass of four central rows
of each plot was automatically transferred upon cutting to
an instrumented truck containing a load cell specifically
designed for weighing biomass. The TSH was calculated
by the equation:
TSH = ((SW/ 9) * (10000/ 1.5))/1000
TSH is tons of stalk per hectare; SW is the stalk
weights average obtained in the four rows of each plot, in
Mg, and 9 and 1.5 representing long and row spacing,
respectively.
Sugarcane yield data was submitted to the variance
analysis (F- test) and a Tukey test was used for mean
2.4Climate description
In general,annual rainfall annual distribution is quite
uneven with a marked wet period during the summer
months (December - March) and a dry period from May to
late September. December and January are the wettest
months representing respectively 33%, 36% and 31% of
the total rainfall in the year, for Chapadão do Céu,
Quirinópolis and Quatá. July is the driest month in
Quirinópolis and Chapadão do Céu with an average of 8
and 13 mm respectively, while in Quatá the driest month
is August (38 mm). The minimum monthly temperature is
recorded in May, on average 15-16°C for all locations,
while the maximum monthly temperature occurs in
September-October, ranging from 32°C in Quatá
(October), 33°C in Chapadão do Céu and 34°C in
Quirinópolis.
Figure 2 presents the water balance and temperature
(maximum and minimum) pattern based on Thornthwaite
and Mather (1955) [35]for plant cane and the analyzed
crop seasons (1st and 2ndratoon) in Quatá, Chapadão do
Céu and Quirinópolis locations.
(3)

1693
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

Figure 2: Water Balance (surplus and deficiency, mm) and temperature (maximum and minimum, °C) pattern for
QuatáChapadão do Céu and Quirinópolislocations during the plant cane (2013/2014), first (2014/2015) and second ratoon
(2015/2016) seasons (Tmean is the mean temperature along crop cycle; ETP and ETR the potential and real evapotranspiration).

1694
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The effects of SM on the temporal variability of soil
moisture content, soil temperature dynamic and sugarcane
yield are presented in the following topics, separated by
location.
3.1 Quatá
The results for Quatá (sandy soil) indicates a clear
difference in the temporal variability of WC in response to
straw maintenance in 2014/2015, highlighting a lower
pattern on bare soil treatment (0 SM) compared to the
others. The next season (2015/2016) presented less-
marked variation in WC pattern (Fig 3).
In the 2014/2015 season, 50 SM and 100 SM stored
respectively 7.3% and 8.7% more water than the bare soils
(average for the full cycle) (Table 3). Considering the
period from 18 September to 17 December2014, denoted
here as stage 2corresponding to a 3-6 months’ sugarcane
in maximum growth rates, the greatest difference in water
storage were reported in the mulched treatments (50 SM
and 100 SM), respectively, 15.4% and 12.2%.
As sandy soils are more prone to drought and deplete
of their available water capacity when evaporation and
evapotranspiration rates are high, SM seems to act as a
barrier to prevent oscillation in daily water storage
avoiding abrupt fluctuations in soil moisture content. This
can be observed in the Fig 4, mainly during the stage 2 in
the 2014/2015 season. This period was marked by the
delayed onset of the rainy season, which commonly occurs
in mid-September, in addition to the high temperatures,
typical of the spring months in the Southern hemisphere
(see Fig 2). Thus, the great oscillation in daily water
storage in the bare sand soil is evident when compared to
the mulched treatments, i.e., high losses of water due to the
evaporation from soil and fast infiltration rates deplete of
the available water supply to the plants.
The year of 2015/2016 was extremely rainy at this
region, and sugarcane experienced water surplus
throughout the full crop cycle, thus the oscillation among
treatments were less pronounced than 2014/2015 season.

Figure 3: Temporal variability of water content (θ, m3 m-3) for Quatá under different management of straw mulch (SM) during
the first (2014/2015) and second ratoon (2015/2016), and the corresponding rain (mm) distribution

1695
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

Table III: Average water storage, h (mm) for the layer 0-0.40 m and the percentage of variation (0SMvs.50SM; 0SMvs.100SM;
50SMvs.100SM) separated by stages (3-months each) in Quatá.

Average h Percentage of variation

Stages 2014/2015 0SM 50SM 100SM 0vs.50 0vs.100 50vs.100
1 19 June -17 Sept 43.0 46.1 46.7 7.3% 8.7% 1.3%
2 18 Sept - 17 Dec 39.0 45.0 43.8 15.4% 12.2% -2.8%
3 18 Dec - 17 March 44.4 48.2 47.6 8.6% 7.3% -1.3%
4 18 March - 17 June 49.1 50.2 50.4 2.3% 2.5% 0.2%
Average 43.9 47.4 47.1 8.0% 7.4% -0.6%
2015/2016
1 28 July* - 15 Sept 45.3 45.9 46.8 1.2% 3.2% 1.9%
ns
2 16 Sept - 15Dec 47.1 47.1 49.7 -0.1% 5.6% 5.7%
ns
3 16 Dec - 15 March 47.5 48.6 48.2 2.3% 1.5% -0.8%
4 16 March - 8 June 48.5 50.1 47.8 3.2% -1.5% -4.6%
Average 47.1 47.9 48.1 1.7% 2.2% 1.1%
*Missing data; ns not significant difference within 2-sample t-test, p<0.05

Figure 4: Daily variation in water storage (∆h, mm) and rain distribution (mm) during the initial sugarcane development
(stages 1 and 2) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons in Quatá.

Regarding the temporal variability of soil temperature
as a function of the SM, the highest temperatures were
observed in the bare soils; 50SM presented an intermediate
pattern and the 100SM the milder temperatures during the
first 3-4 months of crop regrowth (Fig 5). This period
corresponds to germination, sprouting and tillering phases
(initial development) when canopy is not yet closed and
only a portion of incident radiation is intercepted. After
this period, when canopy is closed, the pattern is almost
the same for all treatments.
In the 2014/2015 season the difference between
maximum and minimum soil temperature (i.e., the

1696
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

amplitude) recorded in Quatá was 10.7, 9.8 and 7.2 oC,
respectively for bare soil, 50SM and 100SM (Table 4). The
100 SM suppressed the average and maximum soil
temperatures by 2.7oC and 4.4oC (2014/2015) and by 3.1
oC and 5.3 oC (2015/2016) at 18hr (Table 4).
In the 2015/2016 season, both temperatures, minimum
and average, were higher than the observed in the previous
season, considering the period from July to September;
however, the maximum temperature and amplitude of
variation were lower.
During the day, the mulch reflects radiation due to its
albedo (higher fraction of the incident sunlight reflected);
a bare soil absorbs more solar radiation than a mulch-
covered soil and warms up more readily. This fact was
observed in Table 4, where soil temperatures in all
analyzed time were higher in the bare soil compared to the
mulched treatments (average and maximum). The
maximum soil temperature was achieved in the late
afternoon (18hr).
Due to the lack of insulation at night, bare soils in the
top surface losses more heat than the mulched soils;
however, as the sensor was located at 0.20 m depth, this
pattern was not observed and soil temperature did not
show large oscillations within the same treatment in
different time measurements. Indeed 100 SM recorded the
lowest –minimum soil temperature at 18hr and 0hr.

Figure 5: Temporal variability of soil temperature (oC) under different management of straw mulch (SM) in 2014/2015 and
2015/2016 seasons in Quatá.

Table IV: Average, minimum, maximum and amplitude of soil temperature (oC) in response to SM maintenance in different
time measurements (0; 6; 12; 18 hr and average) at 0.20 m depth during the initial phase of sugarcane development (first three-
months – stage 1) in Quatá.

0hr 06hr 12hr 18hr Average

SM 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100
2014/2015 (19 June -17 Sept)
Average 22.9 22.0 20.7 21.6 20.7 20.0 21.1 20.3 19.7 23.8 22.8 21.1 22.3 21.4 20.4
Minimum 17.4 17.2 17.1 16.2 16.2 16.5 16.4 16.3 16.4 18.4 18.0 17.7 17.1 16.9 16.9
Maximum 28.3 27.3 24.4 27.0 25.7 23.6 26.6 25.2 23.4 29.3 28.8 24.9 27.8 26.7 24.1
Amplitude 10.9 10.1 7.3 10.8 9.5 7.1 10.1 8.9 7.0 10.9 10.8 7.3 10.7 9.8 7.2
2015/2016 (28 July* - 15 Sept)
Average 24.3 22.7 21.6 22.0 20.9 20.3 21.4 20.4 20.0 25.5 23.5 22.4 23.3 21.9 21.1
Minimum 19.9 18.7 19.0 17.7 17.5 18.1 17.3 17.0 17.8 21.2 20.9 20.4 19.0 18.5 18.8
Maximum 28.3 25.9 23.9 25.4 23.6 22.2 24.9 23.1 22.0 30.1 26.6 24.8 27.2 24.8 23.2
Amplitude 8.4 7.2 4.9 7.7 6.1 4.1 7.7 6.1 4.2 8.9 5.7 4.4 8.1 6.3 4.4
*Missing data

The association of soil moisture content and soil
thermal properties has a significant effect on related
chemical, hydrological and biological triggers, including
germination, emergence, evaporation rates, nutrient
availability and cycling, soil water storage as well as yield
response [10,11,12,13,14], among many others.
The proper average soil surface temperature for
sugarcane development ranges from 20 ºC to 30 ºC [36]
and even considering a sensor installed at 0.20 m depth, all
treatments in Quatá presented no restriction for sugarcane
regrowth (initial development). On the other hand, despite
of the increase in the soil WC and storage (moisture) in
response to straw maintenance, it was not enough, in terms
of volume, to increase sugarcane yields (Fig 6).
The dynamics of soil water, infiltration rate, runoff,
drainage and evaporation determine how much moisture is
available and at what rate the moisture is released. Sandy
soils have fast infiltration rates, low organic matter
contents, total porosity lower than clayey soils, once sandy
soils have a large number of macropores but a few
micropores (Table 2); thus, they are generally well aerated
but they have low water retention capacity.
Despite of the 1st ratoon harvest has occurred in June
17, 2015, there were problems with the sensors that started
to record daily data from July 28 onward. Therefore, the
WC and water storage in the stage 1 does not reflect the
reality in its entirety, since June and July were atypically
rainy in the region (158 mm) and this initial moisture
favored the initial regrowth establishment.
Another important aspect to be considered is the
difference in the amount of straw mulching in both
seasons. In the 2014/2015 season, 100 SM treatment
corresponded to 9.2 Mg ha-1 of SM, which means only 4.6
Mg ha-1 of 50 SM. In the next season, the amount of straw
on the soil surface was slightly higher than 2014/2015
(12.6 Mg ha-1 of 100 SM), which may have contributed to

1697
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden
an increase in sugarcane yield in mulched-covered
treatments, although statistically insignificant when
compared to the bare soil treatment. It happened due to the
criteria adopted in this study, i.e., percentage of straw
instead fixed amounts.
Figure 6: Sugarcane yield in tons of stalk per hectare
(TSH) for first (2014/2015) and second (2015/2016)
ratoon, in response to straw management in Quatá (mean
values followed by the same letter do not differ at 95%
significant level by Tukey).
3.2 Chapadão do Céu
Although the plant cane harvest has occurred in June
Figure 7: Temporal variability of water content (θ, m3 m-3) for Chapadão do Céu under different management of straw mulch
(SM) during the first (2014/2015) and second ratoon (2015/2016), and the corresponding rain (mm) distribution
1698
2014 and the 1st ratoon harvest in July 2015, due to
operational issues the dielectric sensors were installed in
August of both years, which detracted from the analysis of
the stage 1, corresponding to the first 3-months after
harvest. However, as the comparison period is the same for
all treatments, the analyzes were also performed
considering the full crop cycle and the stage 2, also very
sensitive to the maintenance of the SM on the soil surface,
as shown in the temporal variability of water content in
response to SM (Fig 7).
Thus, considering the last 15 days of the stage 1
(available data), which corresponds to a period from 21
August to 5 September 2014, mulching treatments 50 SM
and 100 SM stored, 14.3% and 25.6% more water than the
bare soil, respectively (Table 5). It is important to highlight
that only scattered rains (24 mm in total) were reported in
that area since the plant cane harvest, in June 9, 2014.
The stage 2, from September 6 to December 5, also
recorded a positive response on mulching treatments,
respectively, 3.3% and 6% more water stored in average
for 50 SM and 100 SM, respectively, compared to the bare
soil.
In the 2015/2016 season, a similar pattern was
observed, however, with a tenue difference (not
significant) between 50 SM and 100 SM during the stage
1 (Table 5).
Clayey soils generally retain more water due to its high
available water capacity, but they also have low infiltration
rates (Fig 8). Thus, a less pronounced oscillation in daily
water storage in the mulching treatments was observed
compared to bare soil.
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

Table V: Average water storage, h (mm) for the layer 0-0.40 m and the percentage of variation (0SMvs.50SM; 0SMvs.100SM;
50SMvs.100SM) separated by stages (3-months each) in Chapadão do Céu.

Average h Percentage of variation

Stages 2014/2015 0SM 50SM 100SM 0vs.50 0vs.100 50vs.100
1 21 Aug* - 5 Sept 139.7 159.7 175.4 14.3% 25.6% 9.9%
2 6 Sept - 5 Dec 175.8 181.6 186.4 3.3% 6.0% 2.6%
3 6 Dec - 6 March 181.3 184.1 182.9 1.5% 0.9% -0.6%
ns
4 7 March - 20 June 180.2 186.5 186.3 3.5% 3.4% -0.1%
Average 169.3 178.0 182.8 5.2% 8.0% 2.7%
2015/2016
ns
1 20 Aug* - 19 Sept 154.8 167.8 167.4 8.4% 8.1% -0.3%
2 20 Sept - 19 Dec 175.0 180.8 178.4 3.3% 1.9% -1.4%
3 20 Dec - 19 March 188.3 190.2 186.9 1.0% -0.7% -1.7%
ns ns
4 20 March - 4 July 172.4 171.7 171.1 -0.4% -0.8% -0.3%
Average 172.6 177.6 175.9 2.9% 1.9% -1.0%
*Missing data; ns not significant difference within 2-sample t-test, p<0.05

Figure 8: Daily variation in water storage (∆h, mm) and rain (mm) distribution during the initial sugarcane development (stages
1 and 2) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons in Chapadão do Céu.

1699
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

Temporal variability of soil temperature in Chapadão
do Céu presented the same pattern observed in Quatá, i.e.,
the differences among treatments occurred during the
initial sugarcane development, while canopy is not closed
(Fig 9).
Chapadão do Céu recorded lower amplitude in soil
temperature in 2014/2015 than 2015/2016 season (Table
6) due to the high-maximum soil temperature in the last
season. The mean air temperature (Tmean), directly
correlated with the soil temperature in many studies, was
almost 1 oC higher in 2015/2016 than in the previous
season (Fig 2), and high-maximum air temperatures were
recorded mainly in the beginning of the growing period,
after 1st ratoon harvest. High temperatures lead to greater
losses of water from the bare soil by evaporation and by
greater crop evapotranspiration as well.
The treatments 50 SM and 100 SM suppressed the
mean and maximum soil temperature, respectively, in until
4.3oC and 4.5oC in 2014/2015 and by 4.4 oC and 6.4 oC in
2015/2016 at 18hr (Table 6).

Figure 9: Temporal variability of soil temperature (◦C) under different management of straw mulch (SM) in 2014/2015 and
2015/2016 seasons in Chapadão do Céu.

Table VI: Average, minimum, maximum and amplitude of soil temperature (◦C) in response to SM maintenance in different
time measurements (0; 6; 12; 18 hr and average) at 0.20 m depth during the initial phase of sugarcane development in Chapadão
do Céu.

0hr 06hr 12hr 18hr Average

SM 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100
2014/2015 (21 Aug* - 5 Sept)
Average 25.9 22.6 21.1 23.8 21.3 20.5 22.4 20.4 19.9 25.1 22.2 20.7 24.3 21.6 20.6
Minimum 23.7 21.3 19.9 22.6 20.1 19.4 21.3 19.1 18.8 23.7 20.6 19.4 22.8 20.3 19.4
Maximum 27.4 24.1 22.4 25.6 22.8 21.8 24.3 22.1 21.3 26.4 23.6 21.9 25.9 23.1 21.8
Amplitude 3.7 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.1 2.8 2.5
2015/2016 (20 Aug* - 19 Sept)
Average 24.5 22.6 22.1 22.3 21.2 21.2 22.8 21.7 20.7 26.5 24.0 22.1 24.0 22.4 21.5
Minimum 22.1 21.1 20.5 19.8 19.4 19.6 20.1 19.9 19.0 23.3 22.3 20.6 21.3 20.7 19.9
Maximum 27.6 24.9 23.9 24.9 23.3 22.8 25.9 23.8 22.4 30.5 26.6 24.1 27.3 24.7 23.3
Amplitude 5.6 3.8 3.4 5.2 3.8 3.2 5.9 3.9 3.4 7.2 4.3 3.5 6.0 4.0 3.4
*Missing data

In Chapadão do Céu, for both crop seasons, SM

maintenance contributed to increase sugarcane yields (Fig
10). Clayey soils retain more water, and tend to retain it
longer, than sandy soils. Hence, the finer the texture is, the
higher is the apparent field capacity, and the slower is its
attainment and the less distinct its value.

1700
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

Figure 10: Sugarcane yield in tons of stalk per hectare

(TSH) for first (2014/2015) and second (2015/2016)
ratoon, in response to straw management in Chapadão do
Céu (Mean values followed by the same letter do not differ
at 95% significant level by Tukey).
In the 2014/2015 season, a significant increase in WC
and storage as a function mulched-covered were reported
for both treatments, 50 SM and 100 SM, mainly in the
initial crop development (stages 1 and 2). It reflected in an
increase by 14 and 16 TSH, respectively, compared to the
bare soil treatment. For a crop ratoon cycle, the maximum
stalk growth rate is generally achieved around 120 and 270
days after harvest and during this active growth period
adequate levels of soil WC encourages rapid cane growth,
cane elongation and internode formation [37].
In the 2015/2016 season, cumulative water deficiency
was even higher than the previous season in the harvest
period (Fig 3), and 50 SM, which corresponds to 7.9 Mg
ha-1 of SM, may have been not sufficient to maintain water
available for plants uptake. On the other hand,
15.9 Mg ha-1 of straw mulching (100 SM) increased
sugarcane yield by 12 TSH.
3.3 Quirinópolis
The results for Quirinópolis indicates a difference in
the temporal variability of WC in response to straw
maintenance in both seasons, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016,
highlighting a lower pattern on bare soil compared to the
mulched treatments during the initial sugarcane
development (stages 1 and 2) (Fig 11).
In the 2014/2015 season, the average water storage in
50 SM and 100 SM were3.1 mm and 4.5 mm higher than
the bare soil in the stage 1, while in the 2015/2016 season
this difference was even higher, respectively 6.5 mm and
8.5 mm more water stored in mulched treatments
compared to bare soil (Table 7).
The soil in this location has a large amount of
micropores (Table 2), which proportion tends to increase
with soil depth, resulting in greater retention of water
(Table 7) and slower flow of water with depth, once the
water occupying the capillary micropores is held tightly to
clay particles by tension forces, contributing to slow
movement of water (Fig 12).

Figure 11. Temporal variability of water content (θ, m3 m-3) for Quirinópolis under different management of straw mulch
(SM) during the first (2014/2015) and second ratoon (2015/2016), and the corresponding rain (mm) distribution

Table VII Average water storage, h (mm) for the layer 0-0.40 m and the percentage of variation (0SMvs.50SM; 0SMvs.100SM;
50SMvs.100SM) separated by stages (3-months each) in Quirinópolis.
Average h Percentage of variation
Stages 2014/2015 0SM 50SM 100SM 0vs.50 0vs.100 50vs.100
1 7 June - 5 Sept 127.7 130.8 132.2 2.4% 3.5% 1.1%
2 6 Sept - 5 Dec 132.6 135.4 135.5 2.1% 2.2% 0.1% ns
ns
3 6 Dec - 6 March 141.7 142.4 141.5 0.5% -0.2% -0.6%

1701
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

4 7 March - 22 June 145.5 144.7 145.8 -0.5% 0.2% 0.8%

Average 136.9 138.3 138.8 1.1% 1.4% 0.3%
2015/2016
1 25 June - 23 Sept 130.4 136.9 138.9 5.0% 6.5% 1.5%
ns
2 24 Sept - 23 Dec 133.6 133.5 136.8 -0.1% 2.4% 2.5%
ns
3 24 Dec - 25 March 146.3 143.2 143.4 -2.1% -2.0% 0.1%
4 26 March - 13 May 130.0 130.5 129.5 0.4% -0.4% -0.7%
Average 135.1 136.0 137.2 0.7% 1.5% 0.8%
**Missing data; ns not significant difference within 2-sample t-test, p<0.05

Figure 12. Daily variation in water storage (∆h, mm) and rain (mm) distribution during the initial sugarcane development
(stages 1 and 2) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons in Quirinópolis.

Maximum air temperatures during the period August-
October 2014 stand out as the warmest months in history
in Quirinópolis. This can be seen in the Figure 2and in the
temporal variability of soil temperature (Fig 13).
The highest differences in soil temperatures among
treatments was recorded and the amplitude between
100SM and bare soil achieved 6.6oC at 18hr.
In average, 50 SM and 100 SM decreased the
amplitude in soil temperatures by 4.2 oC and 5.6 oC,
respectively, compared to the bare treatment (Table 8).
In the 2015/2016 season the difference in the soil
temperature among treatments were more tenuous and 100
SM suppressed the average and maximum temperatures by
2.5 oC and 2.1 oC (average) (Table 8).

1702
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

Figure 13: Temporal variability of soil temperature (◦C) under different management of straw mulch (SM) in 2014/2015 and
2015/2016 seasons in Quirinópolis.

Table VIII Average, minimum, maximum and amplitude of soil temperature (◦C) in response to SM maintenance in different
time measurements (0; 6; 12; 18 hr and average) at 0.20 m depth during the initial phase of sugarcane development (first three-
months) in Quirinópolis.

0hr 06hr 12hr 18hr Average

SM 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100
2014/2015 (7 June - 5 Sept)
Average 23.8 21.9 21.3 22.6 21.1 20.8 24.1 20.7 20.6 25.3 22.1 21.4 23.9 21.5 21.0
Minimum 19.4 19.8 19.9 19.1 19.4 19.6 19.4 19.2 19.2 19.8 19.7 19.8 19.4 19.5 19.6
Maximum 28.7 25.1 23.8 27.1 24.3 23.2 28.9 23.7 22.8 30.4 25.3 23.8 28.8 24.6 23.4
Amplitude 9.2 5.4 3.9 8.1 4.9 3.6 9.5 4.5 3.6 10.5 5.6 4.0 9.3 5.1 3.7
2015/2016 (25 June - 23 Sept)
Average 24.8 22.9 22.8 23.4 22.1 21.9 24.4 21.7 21.3 25.8 22.8 22.4 24.6 22.4 22.1
Minimum 19.6 20.3 20.4 19.0 19.8 19.8 20.4 19.2 19.2 20.3 20.3 20.1 19.8 19.9 19.9
Maximum 27.7 26.3 26.4 26.4 25.4 25.2 27.4 24.9 24.5 28.8 25.9 25.9 27.6 25.6 25.5
Amplitude 8.1 6.0 6.0 7.4 5.7 5.4 7.0 5.7 5.3 8.6 5.6 5.8 7.8 5.8 5.6

SM on the soil surface seems to have helped to reduce

high temperatures reported in Quirinópolis in the
2014/2015 season, mainly in the beginning of the
sugarcane regrowth. High-air temperatures above 35 ºC
were recorded from late august onward and values above
40 ºC were reported during the first half of October. The
50 SM treatment, which corresponded to 8.2 Mg ha-1 of
SM, was not sufficient to retain an adequate amount of
water available for plants uptake. Thus, bare soil treatment
and 50 SM recorded sugarcane yields 40 TSH lower than
the 100 SM (Fig 14).
In the 2015/2016 season, high-air temperatures were
also recorded, but much less intensely than the previous
season. The increase in soil moisture, mainly during the
initial 3-months after harvesting, contributed to an
increase in sugarcane yield by 23 TSH reported in the 100
SM treatment, corresponding to a 17.2 Mg ha-1 of straw
mulching on the soil surface (Fig 14). Figure 14: Sugarcane yield in tons of stalk per hectare
(TSH) for first (2014/2015) and second (2015/2016)
ratoon, in response to straw management in Quirinópolis
(Mean values followed by the same letter do not differ at
95% significant level by Tukey).

3.4 Overall discussion

Straw mulching effects on soil moisture content,
temperature dynamics and sugarcane yield indeed can be
larger in some soils and small in others, depending on soil
texture and drainage, annual weather pattern and
sugarcane growing period. However, it is important to
remark these effects are very complex, once many other

1703
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden
factors such as erosion, weed control and pest infestation,
as well as their interaction, should be further investigated.
The availability of soil moisture content to plants is
undoubtedly the most important aspect of the soil-plant-
relationship. Although, not all water held in the soil is
readily available to plants, once some water is bound to the
soil matrix and is more difficult to extract. Soil texture
determines the geometry of the pores of the soil and, in
general, most plant available water is held in the finer
pores. Thus, the drier the soil, the more water needs to be
added to bring the soil back to field capacity.
Sandy soils, such as in Quatá, have fast infiltration
rates, low total porosity and low organic matter contents,
which contribute to a low water retention capacity. As
observed in this study, mulched-covered treatments
increased soil moisture content and seems to act as a
barrier to prevent great oscillation in daily water storage.
However, these positive factors were not reflected in
sugarcane yield in Quatá, which may have been caused by
an insufficient amount of SM on the soil surface
interacting with soil texture and climate pattern as well.
In the driest season of 2014/2015, 100 SM in Quatá
corresponded to 9.2 Mg ha-1 of SM on the soil surface and
no significant difference was reported among treatments.
In the next season (2015/2016), 100 SM corresponded to
an amount of straw 37% higher than the previous one (12.6
Mg ha-1), which may have contributed to an increase in
sugarcane yield in mulched-covered treatments, although
statistically insignificant when compared to the bare soil
treatment. On the other hand, Chapadão do Céu and
Quirinópolis, clayey soils, reported positive sugarcane
yield response mostly in the 100 SM, which in both cases
corresponds to amounts of straw above 14.9 Mg ha-1.
Despite the effects of crops residues maintenance on
soil temperature and on soil moisture have been
extensively documented, there are only few researches for
sugarcane in Brazil.Peres et al. (2010) [25] in a study
conducted from June to July 2006 in Araras (south-central
region of Brazil) in a clay soil, quantified the water losses
(in percentage) in the soil layers 0-0.2 m and 0.2-0.4 m.
The authors verified a 53% of reduction in water loss in
the first layer as a function of the SM (15 Mg ha-1). For the
second layer the same pattern was observed, however,
with a lower amplitude (37%). Tominagua et al. (2002)
[26] used a neutron probe to monitor spatial and temporal
variability of soil moisture and density and, through
autocorrelations and semivariograms, indicated a greater
spatial dependence of soil water content, which were
higher in soils covered with straw mulching. The average
difference between treatments was about of 15%,
indicating that straw mulch was beneficial in terms of soil
water retention.
Annual weather pattern also presented an effect on soil
moisture content and soil temperature dynamic pattern as
a function of SM, once as temperature increases so does
the process of evaporation, which depends on availability
of moisture content as well.
As previously mentioned, the mean air temperature
pattern, which is directly correlated with the soil
temperature, in all analyzed locations presented no
restriction for sugarcane development.However, problems
such as high-recorded maximum temperatures in
Quirinópolis in early 2014/2015 crop season have
impaired the sugarcane development in the bare soil and
50 SM treatments.
The results presented here have shown that SM, which
acts as a thermal insulator, has its effects clearly noted in
1704
the initial stage of development, when canopy is not yet
closed. In that period, the mean and maximum soil
temperature at a 0.20 m depth were clearly suppressed by
SM in until 4.4 and 6.4oC recorded in Chapadão do Céu in
2015/2016 season.
Similar results were also found by Awe et al. (2015)
[9], conducting an experiment in the Southern Brazil
verified, during the critical summer period, that SM
suppressed the maximum soil surface temperature and the
average daily temperature by 10.6 and 4.1 oC, respectively.
On the other hand, during the critical winter season, the
maximum soil surface temperature and the average daily
temperature increased, respectively, by 4.3 and 3.2 oC by
SM, showing its mitigation effects of supra-optimal
temperature while protects the soil from sub-zero thermal
conditions. Oliveira et al. (2001) [7] in a comparative
study of three management practices (bare soil; straw
mulch and residues from prior burning crop) applied to the
1st ratoon of a sugarcane established on a Rhodic
Kandiudox soil in Brazil. The researchers also found
significant differences between mulched and non-mulched
treatments, reaching values as high as 7°C for the average
of the three depths (3, 6, and 9 cm) avoiding peak surface
temperatures during the initial period of the crop
establishment.
In this study and for all locations harvesting date
occurred in the same period, i.e., middle June, which
corresponds to the beginning of winter season in the south-
central Brazil. In addition, the criteria adopted regarding
the amount of straw applied in each treatment was fixed
percentages (50% and 100%) of the total of straw obtained
(highly variable in each location and crop season) instead
fixed amounts, which would enhance the assessment of the
effects of different amounts of straw in each location.
Therefore, different harvest periods and fixed amounts of
straw mulching can lead to quite different conclusions
regarding the maintenance of straw mulching in the soil
surface. More field experiments are in progress covering
different conditions (soil, climate, variety and harvest
periods) aiming to complement these results.
4 CONCLUSIONS
- Straw mulching suppressed soil temperature at
0.20 m depth during the initial crop development
(regrowth), which corresponds to the beginning of
winter season in the south-central Brazil
- Water storage was improved by straw mulching and
enhanced the soil moisture maintenance, which in dry
periods is essential to the crop establishment
- Sugarcane yield increased in response to 100 SM in
clayey soils, with amounts above 14.9 Mg ha-1of
straw mulching
- No increase in sugarcane yield was observed in sandy
soil with amounts below 9.2 Mg ha-1of straw
mulching.
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by Sugarcane Renewable
Electricity project - SUCRE/UNDP (grant number
BRA/10/G31). The authors would like to thank the
technical team of CTBE as well as team of the mills Quatá
(Zilor Group), Cerradinho Bio and Boa Vista (São
Martinho group) for their help in conducting the
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden
experiments.
6 REFERENCES
[1] MME – Ministério de Minas e Energia. Resenha
Energética Brasileira – Exercício de 2015. Available
at www.mme.gov.br
[2] UNICA – União da Indústria de Cana-de-açúcar.
Sugarcane Industry in Brazil. Available at
http://sugarcane.org
[3] Leal MRLV, Galdos MV, Scarpare FV, Seabra JEA,
Walter A, Oliveira COF (2013) Sugarcane straw
availability, quality, recovery and energy use: A
literature Review. Biomass and Bioenergy, 53: 11–
19.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.03.007
[4] Hassuani SJ, Leal MRLV, Macedo IC (2005)
Biomass Power Generation: Sugar Cane, Bagasse
and Trash. Programa das Nações Unidas para o
Desenvolvimento (PNUD) e Centro de Tecnologia
Canavieira (CTC), Piracicaba, SP, Brasil.
[5] Carvalho JLN, Nogueirol RC, Menandro LMS,
Bordonal RO, Borges CD, Cantarella H, Franco HCJ
(2016) Agronomic and environmental implications
of sugarcane straw removal: a major review. GCB
Bioenergy,1–15. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12410
[6] Manechini CE, Júnior AR, Donzelli, JL (2005)
Benefits and problems of trash left in the field. In:
Biomass Power Generation: Sugar Cane, Bagasse
and Trash (eds Hassuani SJ, Leal MRLV, Macedo
IC), pp. 27–35. Programa das Nações Unidas para o
Desenvolvimento (PNUD) e Centro de Tecnologia
Canavieira (CTC), Piracicaba, SP, Brasil.
[7] Oliveira JCM, Timm LC, Tominagua TT, C´assaro
FAM, Reichardt K, Bacchi OOS, Dourado-Neto D,
Câmara GMS (2001) Soil temperature in a sugar-
cane crop as a function of the management system.
Plant and Soil, 230: 61–66.doi:
10.1023/A:1004820119399
[8] Liu Y, Wang J, Liu D, Li Z, Zhang G, Tao Y, Xie J,
Pan J, Chen F (2014) Straw mulching reduces the
harmful effects of extreme hydrological and
temperature conditions in citrus orchards. PLOS
One, 9 (1), e87094.
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087094
[9] Awe GO, Reichert JM, Wendroth OO (2015)
Temporal variability and covariance structures of
soil temperature in a sugarcane field under different
management practices in southern Brazil. Soil &
Tillage Research, 150: 93–106.
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.01.013
[10] Lehnert M. (2013) The soil temperature regime in
the urban and sub- urnab landscapes of olomoric,
Czech Republic. Morarian geographical reports,
21(3): 27-36.
[11] Allison D, Wallenstein MD, Bradford MA (2010)
Soil carbonresponse to warming dependent on
microbial physiology. Nature Geosci., 3:336-
340.doi:10.1038/ngeo846
[12] Buchan GD (2001) Soil temperature regime. In
Smith K. A., Mullins C. E. eds. Soil and
Environmental Analysis: Physical Methods. Marcel
Dekker, New York, 539-594.
[13] Davidson EA, Janssens IA (2006) Temperature
sensitivity of soil carbondecomposition and
feedbacks to climate change. Nature, 440, 165-173.
doi:10.1038/nature04514
1705
[14] Probert R.J (2000) The role of temperature in the
regulation of seed dormancy and germination. In
Fenner, M.ed. Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in
plant communities, CABI publishing, Wallingford,
261- 292.
[15] Liu Y, Li SQ, Chen F, Yang SJ, Chen XP (2010) Soil
water dynamics and water use efficiency in spring
maize (Zea mays L.) fields subjected to different
water management practices on the Loess Plateau,
China.
[16] Blanco-Canqui H, Lal R (2009) Crop Residue
Removal Impacts on Soil Productivity and
Environmental Quality. Critical Reviews in Plant
Sciences, 28(3),140-160.
doi.org/10.1080/07352680902776507
[17] Andrade JA, Alexandre CA, Basch G (2010) Effect
of soil tillage and mulching on thermal performance
of a Luvisol topsoil layer. Folia Oecol, 37(1), 1–7.
[18] Odjugo PAO (2008) The effect of tillage systems
and mulching on soil microclimate, growth and yield
of yello yam (Dioscorea cayenesis) in Midwestern
Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 7(24), 4500–4507.
[19] Agele SO, Olaore JB, Akinbode FA (2010) Effect of
some mulch materials on soil physical properties,
growth and yield of sunflower (Helianthus Annuus,
L). Adv. Environ. Biol. 4 (3), 368–375.
[20] Eruola AO, Bello NJ, Ufoegbune GC, Makinde AA
(2012) Effect of mulching on soil temperature and
moisture regime on emergence, growth and yield of
white yam in a tropical wet- and dry-climate. Int. J.
Agric For. 2 (1), 93–100.
[21] Chen SY, Zhang XY, Pei D, Sun HY, Chen SL
(2007) Effects of straw mulching on soil
temperature, evaporation and yield of winter wheat:
field experiments on the North China Plain. Annals
of Applied Biology, 150: 261–
268.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00144.x
[22] Blanco-Canqui H, Leal R (2007) Soil and crop
response to harvesting corn residues for biofuel
production. Geoderma, 141,355–
362.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.06.012
[23] Sarkar S, Singh SR (2007) Interactive effect of
tillage depth and mulch on soil temperature,
productivity and water use pattern of rainfed barley
(Hordium vulgare L.). Soil & Tillage Research, 92,
79–86.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.01.014
[24] Cook HF, Valdes GSB, Lee HC (2006) Mulch
effects on rainfall interception, soil physical
characteristics and temperature under Zea mays L.
Soil & Tillage Research 91, 227–
235.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.12.007
[25] Peres JG, Souza CF, Lavorenti NA (2010)
Evaluation of the effects of sugarcane straw
coverage in moisture and water loss of soil.
Engenharia Agrícola, 30: 875–886.
doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162010000500010
[26] Tominaga TT, Cássaro FAM, Bacchi OOS,
Reichardt K, Oliveira JCM, Timm LC (2002)
Variability of soil water content and bulk density in
a sugarcane field. Aus.J.Soil
[27] EMBRAPA - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária. Sistema brasileiro de classificação de
solos. 3.ed. Brasília, 2013. 353p.
[28] Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic
system of soil classification for making and
interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural
Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department
 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

of Agriculture Handbook 436.

[29] Raij B van, Andrade JC, Cantarella H, Quaggio JA
(Ed.). Análise química para avaliação da fertilidade
de solos tropicais. Campinas: Instituto Agronômico,
2001. 285p.
[30] EMBRAPA - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária. Manual de Métodos de Análise de
Solo. In: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária. 2o. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Embrapa
Solos, 2011. p. 230.
[31] Van Genuchten, MT van (1980) A closed form
equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, Madison, 44, 892–898.
[32] Van Genuchten MT van, Leij FJ, Yates SR (1991)
The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic
functions of unsaturated soils, USEPA Report
600/2-91/065. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
[33] Reichardt K. Processos de transferência no sistema
solo-planta-atmosfera. Campinas, Fundação Cargill,
1985. 485p.
[34] STATISTICA (Data analysis software system).
StatSoft, I.N.C., Tulsa, USA (2001).
[35] Thornthwaite CW, Mather Jr. (1955) The Water
Balance. Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, NJ,
USA.
[36] Marin FR, Pellegrino GQ, Assad ED, Pinto HS,
Zullo Junior F (2009)Cana-de-açúcar. In: Monteiro,
JEBA (ed) agrometeorologia dos cultivos: o fator
meteorológico na produção agrícola. Brasília:
INMET, p.111-130.
[37] Humbert RP (2013) The growing of sugar cane. New
York:Elsevier.

1706

View publication stats