| Literature DB >> 34910729 |
Carlos André Gonçalves1, Reginaldo de Camargo2, Robson Thiago Xavier de Sousa3, Narcisa Silva Soares1, Roberta Camargos de Oliveira2, Mayara Cristina Stanger2, Regina Maria Quintão Lana2, Ernane Miranda Lemes2.
Abstract
Sugarcane is one of the main alternative sources of biomass for the biofuel sector, and its large-scale production has considerable environmental impact. Organomineral fertilizers formulated with potential environmental contaminants, such as filter cake and sewage sludge, positively influence plant growth and development. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the chemical and physical characteristics of sugarcane fertilized with pelletized organomineral fertilizers based on filter cake or sewage sludge. Eight field treatments were applied, based on three organomineral fertilizer compositions (50%, 100%, and 150%) associated with two organic matter (OM) sources (filter cake or sewage sludge), in addition to a control with 100% mineral fertilizer application, and a no-fertilization control (0%). Sugarcane attributes were evaluated during two consecutive harvests. The weights of stalks per hectare (ton ha-1), sugarcane productivity (ton ha-1), quantity of sugar per hectare (TSH, ton ha-1), and physicochemical properties of sugarcane juice (pol [%], Brix [%], purity [%], and fiber [%]) were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the attributes between OM sources or organomineral fertilization treatments and the exclusive mineral fertilization. The organomineral fertilizer application rate recommended for maximum quantitative and qualitative sugarcane in the first sugarcane harvest was between 2 and 9% above the regular recommendation for mineral fertilizer, regardless of the OM source. In the second harvest, the sewage sludge source increased total sugar and sugarcane per hectare by 4.68 and 4.19%, respectively, compared to the sugarcane filter cake source. Sewage sludge and sugarcane filter cake are viable alternatives for organomineral composition and could improve economic returns and minimize negative environmental impacts in sugarcane cultivation systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34910729 PMCID: PMC8673670 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Soil physicochemical properties in the experimental area at 0–0.2 and 0.2–0.4 m depths.
| Depth (m) | pH (H2O) | Ca | Mg | Al | P | K | H+Al | CEC | V | m | O.M. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| --cmol | --mg dm-3-- | -cmol | -----%----- | ---g kg-1--- | |||||||
| 0–0.2 | 5.7 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0 | 6.7 | 88 | 1.2 | 3.03 | 60 | 0 | 2.0 |
| 0.2–0.4 | 4.7 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 2.3 | 70 | 1.6 | 3.08 | 48 | 9.0 | 1.4 |
Depth (m) = soil depth; pH in water (1:2, 5); Ca, Mg, Al = KCl 1 mol L-1; Available P = Mehlich-1; K = HCl 0.05 mol L-1 + H2SO4 0.0125 mol L-1; H + Al = SMP buffer solution at pH 7.5; CEC = cation exchange capacity at pH 7; V = base saturation; m = aluminum saturation, O.M. = soil organic matter, colorimetric method. Methodologies were based on [38].
Fig 1Process of sewage sludge treatment.
A. solid residue after centrifugation; B. treatment with hydrated lime; C. exposure to sunlight; D. drying in the sun.
Chemical characteristics of sewage sludge and sugarcane filter cake used to establish the organomineral fertilizer.
| Attribute | Unity | Sewage sludge | Filter cake | Attribute | Unity | Sewage sludge | Filter cake |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH CaCl2 | pH | 8.1 | 5.9 | Total mineral | % | 51 | 32 |
| Density | g cm-3 | 0.66 | 0.65 | Boron | mg kg-1 | 10 | < LQ |
| Total N | % | 0.99 | 1.79 | Sodium | mg kg-1 | 201 | - |
| O.M. Total | % | 50 | 35 | Manganese | mg kg-1 | 209 | 460 |
| Total carbon | % | 28 | 10 | Copper | mg kg-1 | 135 | < LQ |
| C/N relation | 28/1 | 20/1 | Zinc | mg kg-1 | 1042 | < LQ | |
| Phosphorus | % | 2.80 | 2.25 | Iron | mg kg-1 | 27,236 | 11,980 |
| Potassium | % | 0.30 | 0.30 | Cadmium | mg kg-1 | 1.4 | 2.1 |
| Calcium | % | 8.25 | 2.43 | Mercury | mg kg-1 | 0.7 | < LQ |
| Magnesium | % | 2.48 | 0.26 | Chrome | mg kg-1 | 931 | 94.2 |
| Sulfur | % | 1.31 | 0.39 | Nickel | mg kg-1 | 250 | - |
N—[Total N] = sulfuric digestion; P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn = nitro perchloric digestion; B = colorimetric azomethine H; O.M. = organic matter; < LQ: lower than limit of quantification. Methodologies were based on [40].
Soil fertilizer treatments applied to sugarcane crop.
| Treatment | Application Rate (kg ha-1) |
|---|---|
| Organomineral Fertilizer–sewage sludge base 50% | 285 |
| Organomineral Fertilizer–sewage sludge base 100% | 570 |
| Organomineral Fertilizer–sewage sludge base 150% | 855 |
| Organomineral Fertilizer–filter cake base 50% | 285 |
| Organomineral Fertilizer–filter cake base 100% | 570 |
| Organomineral Fertilizer–filter cake base 150% | 855 |
| Exclusive Mineral fertilizer–positive control | 570 |
| No fertilizer application–negative control | 0 |
Fig 2A) Overview of the experimental area after the establishment of the planting grooves; B) planting grooves in detail; C) Experimental set at four months after planting; D) Experimental set up at 12 months after planting.
Average chemical, physical, and biometric properties of the RB 92579 sugarcane cultivar (366 days after planting—first cut; 376 days after first harvest—second cut) under fertilization treatments, including organominerals, based on treated sewage sludge (SS) and sugarcane filter cake (Fk).
| Treat. | Pol (%) | Brix (%) | Purity (%) | Fiber (%) | StH (ton ha-1) | TSH (ton ha-1) | Prod (ton ha-1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | |
| SS50 | 15.35 | 14.39 | 20.68 | 19.19 | 89.50 | 89.70 | 13.45 | 12.79 | 74.11 | 65.59 | 23.65 | 21.41 | 157.34 | 139.23 |
| SS100 | 15.72 | 14.08 | 20.82 | 19.43 | 89.50 | 90.22 | 13.59 | 13.02 | 100.3 | 90.76 | 24.37 | 22.61 | 159.12 | 139.79 |
| SS150 | 15.33 | 14.21 | 20.81 | 18.92 | 88.69 | 90.35 | 13.14 | 13.06 | 83.34 | 81.70 | 23.45 | 22.26 | 152.99 | 140.93 |
| FC50 | 14.87 | 14.44 | 20.48 | 19.19 | 88.61 | 89.81 | 13.90 | 12.64 | 79.15 | 80.36 | 24.21 | 21.19 | 162.80 | 143.36 |
| FC100 | 15.22 | 13.63 | 20.61 | 18.40 | 89.02 | 88.79 | 13.19 | 12.90 | 83.05 | 78.08 | 23.41 | 20.48 | 153.87 | 135.78 |
| FC150 | 15.04 | 14.10 | 20.59 | 18.69 | 88.77 | 90.14 | 13.63 | 12.71 | 81.65 | 75.86 | 23.97 | 20.84 | 159.36 | 139.96 |
| NC | 13.88 | 12.91 | 19.15 | 17.76 | 87.70 | 87.12 | 13.05 | 12.89 | 72.65 | 53.86 | 20.97 | 17.95 | 151.12 | 124.28 |
| Control | 15.03 | 14.16 | 20.51 | 18.94 | 88.98 | 90.54 | 13.59 | 13.44 | 76.29 | 74.61 | 23.90 | 21.55 | 158.91 | 140.41 |
| LSD | 0.77 | 1.27 | 0.86 | 1.43 | 2.04 | 3.09 | 0.63 | 1.52 | 18.53 | 21.78 | 1.87 | 9.82 | 7.75 | 2.32 |
| CV (%) | 2.55 | 4.58 | 2.40 | 3.82 | 1.14 | 1.73 | 2.33 | 5.86 | 11.49 | 14.92 | 4.01 | 3.59 | 2.47 | 5.58 |
| S.W. | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.15 |
| L. | 0.56 | 0.26 | 2.24 | 0.54 | 1.47 | 0.52 | 1.40 | 2.10 | 1.38 | 0.70 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 1.42 | 2.25 |
Treat: fertilization treatments applied to sugarcane crops. SS: organomineral fertilizer based on treated sewage sludge. FC: organomineral fertilizer based on sugarcane filter cake. NC: negative control. Pol: apparent sucrose percentage in sugarcane syrup; Brix: soluble solid percentage in sugarcane syrup; Purity: Pol/Brix×100 (%); Fiber: water-insoluble biomass percentage. StH: sugarcane stalk per hectare (ton ha-1); TSH: total sugar produced per hectare (ton ha-1); Prod: Sugarcane biomass productivity (ton ha-1).
*: average differs from that of the control treatment (mineral fertilization) based the Dunnett’s test (p < 0.05). LSD: least significant difference. S.W.: Shapiro-Wilk test for normality (p > 0.01: normal distribution). L.: Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance (p > 0.01: all are homogenous).
Fig 3Sugarcane biomass productivity (ton ha-1) under organomineral fertilizer amendment based on sewage sludge in the first (A) and second cut (B).
Fig 4Stalk productivity (ton ha-1) under organomineral fertilization at the first (A) and second cut (B).
Average sucrose content (pol), sugarcane productivity, and total sugar obtained following fertilization with organomineral fertilizer associated with treated sewage sludge and filter cake.
| Source | Pol (%) | TSH (ton ha-1) | Prod (ton ha-1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| -----First cut----- | -----------Second cut----------- | ||
| Filter cake | 14.75 b | 20.11 b | 146.04 b |
| Sewage sludge | 15.07 a | 21.05 a | 152.15 a |
| LSD | 0.28 | 0.76 | 4.06 |
| CV (%) | 2.62 | 5.07 | 3.73 |
| S.W. | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.15 |
| L. | 0.56 | 0.64 | 2.25 |
1Averages followed by distinct letters in a row are significantly different according to Tukey’s test at a 0.05 significance level. S.W. Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. L.: Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance. Pol: sucrose content in sugarcane syrup. TSH: total sugar produced per hectare (ton ha-1) Prod: sugarcane biomass productivity (ton ha-1).
Fig 5Sugarcane sucrose content (pol, %) under different organomineral fertilizer application rates at the first (A) and second cut (B).
Fig 6Percentages of soluble solids (Brix, %) under organomineral fertilizer treatments at the first (A) and second cut (B).
Fig 7Sugarcane juice purity (%) under organomineral fertilizer application at the first (A) and second cut (B).
Fig 8Sugarcane fiber content (%) under fertilizations with organomineral fertilizer based on sewage sludge at the first cut.
Fig 9Total sugar per hectare (TSH, ton ha-1) under organomineral fertilizer application based on sewage sludge at the first (A) and second cut (B).
Joint analyses of sugarcane sucrose contents, soluble solid contents, purity, and fiber content between the first (366 days after planting) and second (376 days after the first harvest) sugarcane harvests.
| Treat. | Pol | Brix | Purity | Fiber | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | |
| NC | 13.88 A | 12.91 B | 19.15 A | 17.76 B | 87.70 A | 87.12 A | 13.05 A | 12.89 A |
| SS50 | 15.35 A | 14.39 B | 20.68 A | 19.19 B | 89.50 A | 89.70 A | 13.19 A | 12.79 A |
| SS100 | 15.33 A | 14.60 A | 20.79 A | 19.43 B | 89.50 A | 90.22 A | 13.59 A | 13.02 A |
| SS150 | 15.33 A | 14.21 B | 20.81 A | 18.92 B | 88.69 A | 90.35 A | 13.14 A | 13.06 A |
| NC | 13.88 A | 12.91 B | 19.15 A | 17.76 B | 87.70 A | 87.12 A | 13.05 A | 12.89 A |
| FC50 | 14.87 A | 14.44 A | 20.48 A | 19.19 B | 88.61 A | 89.81 A | 13.90 A | 12.64 B |
| FC100 | 15.22 A | 13.63 B | 20.61 A | 18.40 B | 89.02 A | 88.79 A | 13.19 A | 12.90 A |
| FC150 | 15.04 A | 14.10 B | 20.59 A | 18.69 B | 88.77 A | 90.14 A | 13.63 A | 12.71 B |
| Control | 15.03 A | 14.16 B | 20.51 A | 18.94 B | 88.98 A | 90.54 A | 13.59 A | 13.44 A |
| LSD | 0.73 | 0.84 | 1.73 | 0.78 | ||||
| CV (%) | 3.54 | 3.01 | 1.36 | 4.18 | ||||
| S.W. | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.09 |
| L. | 0.56 | 0.26 | 2.24 | 0.54 | 1.47 | 0.52 | 1.41 | 2.10 |
Treat.: fertilization treatments applied to sugarcane crops. SS: organomineral fertilizer based on sewage sludge; FC: organomineral fertilizer based on sugarcane filter cake; NC: negative control; Pol: sucrose content in sugarcane syrup; Brix: soluble solid contents in sugarcane syrup; Purity: Pol/Brix×100 (%); Fiber: water-insoluble biomass content.
1Averages followed by the same capital letter in a row indicate similar results between the sugarcane cuts based on Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). LSD: least significant difference. S.W.: Shapiro-Wilk test for normality (p > 0.01: normal distribution). L.: Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance (p > 0.01: all are homogeneous).
Joint-analyses of sugarcane crop yield variables between the first (366 days after planting) and second (376 days after the first harvest) sugarcane harvest.
| Treat. | StH | TSH | Prod | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | Second | First | Second | First | Second | |
| NC | 72.66 A | 53.86 B | 20.97 A | 17.95 B | 151.12 A | 139.06 A |
| SS50 | 74.11 A | 65.59 A | 23.65 A | 21.41 B | 154.05 A | 148.86 A |
| SS100 | 100.30 A | 90.75 A | 24.37 A | 24.00 A | 159.12 A | 163.98 A |
| SS150 | 83.34 A | 81.70 A | 23.45 A | 22.26 A | 152.99 A | 156.71 A |
| NC | 72.66 A | 53.86 B | 20.97 A | 17.95 B | 151.12 A | 139.06 A |
| FC50 | 79.15 A | 80.36 A | 24.21 A | 21.19 B | 162.80 A | 146.98 B |
| FC100 | 83.05 A | 78.08 A | 23.41 A | 20.48 B | 153.87 A | 150.26 A |
| FC150 | 81.65 A | 75.86 A | 23.97 A | 20.84 B | 159.36 A | 147.85 B |
| Control | 76.29 A | 74.61 A | 23.90 A | 21.55 B | 158.91 A | 152.01 A |
| LSD | 14.40 | 1.49 | 7.32 | |||
| CV (%) | 13.22 | 4.77 | 3.36 | |||
| S.W. | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.15 |
| L. | 1.38 | 0.69 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 1.42 | 2.25 |
Treat.: fertilization treatments applied to sugarcane crops. SS: organomineral fertilizer based on sewage sludge. FC: organomineral fertilizer based on sugarcane filter cake. NC: negative control. StH: estimated stalk per hectare (ton ha-1). TSH: total sugar produced per hectare (ton ha-1) Prod: Sugarcane biomass productivity (ton ha-1) TRS: total recovered sugar (kg ton-1).
1Averages followed by the same capital letter in a row indicate similar results between the sugarcane cuts based on Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). LSD: least significant difference. S.W.: Shapiro-Wilk test for normality (p > 0.01: normal distribution). L.: Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance (p > 0.01: all are homogeneous).