1. Introduction
The annual sugarcane planted area in Brazil is 9.19 million hectares [1]. Conservationist managements emerged, such as no-till and minimum tillage, trying to reduce machine traffic in the areas and, consequently, to provide a solution for compaction [2].
No-till and minimum tillage were initially meant for areas of soybean and corn cultivation, which are annual crops, and not for sugarcane, a semi-perennial crop with its cycle lasting for five years and its areas undergoing intense machine traffic, especially self-propelled cane harvesters [3]. Since it is a semi-perennial crop, there is a compaction accumulated throughout the cycle; this led to the demand of new soil tillage techniques, more efficient and adapted to the sugarcane, to improve the soil structure.
The challenge to improve soil tillage goes by the development of new tools adapted to the Brazilian climate and soil conditions, considering that local producers are still resistant to the implementation of no tillage, with this, the need for a localized management methods (strip tillage) emerge, that could be more adapted to the local market, but still conservationist. We should emphasize that most implements used in Brazilian crops are developed for other regions of the world and brought to the tropical climate, which causes several soil problems for most producing regions in the country.
Two examples of promising tools are the Fenlong Machine [4] and the Rotary Ripper [5], which demonstrate the use of power transmission via the tractor’s power take-off (PTO). This is due to the higher efficiency in transferring energy from the tractor to the soil, following the same concept as the rotary paraplow.
Minimal cultivation emerged as an intermediate phase between no tillage (NT) and conventional tillage. It is characterized by revolving only in the planting line with subsoilers or chisel plow, in addition to the planting furrow. It can even be considered an alternative to the continuous use of NT to reduce some difficulties that may be imposed, such as increased soil bulk density and penetration resistance, as it obtains better results than conventional tillage, although often worse than no tillage [6].
Many studies are underway to develop new tools of real effectiveness in soil tillage, without excessive changes in structure that could lead to erosion [7], as well as tillage not of the total area, but rather only the part in which the crop will develop. Paraplow was one of the tools that emerged in the 1980s in the United States to take place deep turning without affecting the soil surface, reducing erosion risks. It lifts the soil at an 45° and then drops it back down, due to an “L” shaped rod, which cracks and loosens the soil, but without the inversion occurring, as for the moldboard plow. Is has an effective depth 0.40 m, shallower than a traditional subsoiler (0.40 m) [8]. This implement obtained good results when compared to conventional tillage, increasing grain yield by 12% and increasing the root system [9]. But, despite having as one of its functions to facilitate the transition to no tillage, it demanded tractors with high power, increasing its implementation cost [10], especially for primary soil preparation, which demands more power than secondary tillage [11].
An adaptation of the Paraplow was idealized, keeping the idea of revolving only in depth, but requiring less tractor power, one of the Paraplow’s defects, and that it was adapted to Brazilian soils and climate. The Rotary Paraplow is tool with this purpose and was developed and patented at the University of Campinas—UNICAMP by [12], focusing on a conservationist tillage in strips, keeping the residues on the surface and decompacting the soil. Among the important adaptations were the lower acquisition cost for producers, as it is a product developed by the University and focused on improving the lives of producers, it can be managed over sugarcane straw and is easy to handle and attach to a tractor.
Another problem with sugarcane in Brazil is the difficulty in using implements developed for other crops to be used over its straw, which can reach 20 Mg ha−1 [13]. The soil management over straw is an important feature for the producer to be able to implement the cultivation or tillage in their areas. The Rotary Paraplow was also adapted to be used in areas with sugarcane straw, another important innovation and adaptation to the Brazilian market.
The idea was to join the concepts of a vertical milling cutter with the paraplow. The rotary paraplow moves the soil in the subsurface, while keeping the sugarcane straw, which favors moisture retention. In terms of energy, it uses the tractor’s power take-off (PTO) as a source and transmits it to the ground by cardan shaft, increasing efficiency when compared to drag implements, such as plow, subsoiler and grid, which transmit the energy by the contact of the tire with the ground, leading to energy losses of up to 40% depending on the soil conditions [14].
Thus, we can see there is a lack of tillage implements regarded as conservationists, both for sugarcane crop and for the tropical climate. These conditions make this study pioneering in nature, by proposing an equipment developed to address these issues as an innovation in the agricultural machinery market. We sought to evaluate soil tillage using rotary paraplow and compare it with conventional tillage, regarding soil physical attributes and yield.
Since the work focuses on soil preparation for planting, the equipment is used to improve the physical conditions of the soil. The basic tests for evaluating this mobilization are those that measure these conditions. Therefore, soil density, porosity, and penetration resistance were quantified as a way to compare the two soil preparation methods [11].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Features of Rotary PARAPLOW
The paraplow (Figure 1) is equipment initially tested in the United States in the 1980s, initially studied and described by [15]. It loosens the soil but does not invert it, as with the plow moldboard, as it maintains the soil surface without destroying it. Its shape is similar to a subsoiler, but with a side, forming an “L” shape with an attack angle of 45 degrees and an effective depth of 35 cm, with slanting legs the cracking occurring along natural planes of weakness. But it requires a high tractor power [10] and in clayey soils or with high humidity, it can cause a mirroring in the soil, especially on its side (perpendicular to the surface), causing a physical limitation for the root system equivalent to the “harrow foot”, one of the main problems in Brazilian sugarcane areas. With this problem in mind, a way to solve it was thought of, one of them being an adaptation of a vertical frontal milling cutter used in mechanical industries (Figure 2). The adaptation that joins three rotating paraplow blades, avoiding mirroring, but with deep soil turning, adapted to its management in sugarcane straw areas, which have much larger amounts of straw than the grains, which initially paraplow was developed, the Rotary Paraplow was created.
When compared to the rotary hoe, the rotary paraplow offers a distinct advantage in terms of energy efficiency. The rotary hoe requires significant force to penetrate the soil because its active component has the shape of a hoe—a sharp blade that cuts into the soil through impact. In contrast, due to the geometric design of the rotary paraplow, it penetrates the soil through the rotation of its tool, reducing the penetration effort. In [11], it was observed that the working depth of the rotary hoe reaches 0.2 m, whereas the rotary paraplow can achieve a depth of 0.3 m.
When compared to the Fenlong system [4], it is evident that the Fenlong does not effectively propagate lateral soil loosening. However, due to its unique geometry, the rotary paraplow creates lateral microfractures, increasing its efficiency in soil preparation while maintaining vegetation cover and preparing only the seedbed.
The rotary paraplow (Figure 3) used in the experiment had a height of 0.30 m, by a diameter at the base of the blades of 0.34 m and a diameter of the lateral blades of 0.22 m, coupled to a machine tool designed and developed at the university, with two tools that till two soil bands simultaneously, for the planting [16]. The tractor used was a Case, model Farmall 95, with rated power of 74.5 kW, with auxiliary front-wheel drive, working at a speed of 0.39 m/s, with rotation at the PTO of 510 min−1, providing a rotation for each rotary paraplow of 340 min−1.
2.2. Experiment Area and Execution
The area used for field testing was in the municipality of Jaguariúna-SP, at the coordinates 22°39′50″ S and 47°03′08″ W, and an altitude of 561 m above sea level (Figure 4). The soil was classified as Latossolo Amarelo Franco Arenoso with predominance of the sandy-loam texture, according to the Brazilian Soil Classification System [17] and Oxisol according to Soil Taxonomy [18], and smooth wavy relief. Table 1 and Table 2 show the grain size and physical characterization of the soil.
The experiment consisted in entirely randomized plots with four replicates. The areas had a length of 33.10 m by 25.50 m, totaling 878.52. The spacing between lines was 1.50 m, with 18 planting lines. The installation of the experiment started at the end of February 2018, with a mechanical mowing; at the beginning of March, bush desiccation was conducted with herbicides throughout the area, and then soil sampling for physical characterization was conducted (Figure 5).
The characterization was conducted in four points distributed evenly throughout the entire area and undeformed soil samples were collected at five depth ranges. The grain-size analysis was conducted by the pipette method with sodium hydroxide solution 0.1 (NaOH), with a dispersing agent [19].
The conventional crop was carried out with a Farmall 95 tractor with 74.5 kW (Farmall 95, Case IH Brasil, Sorocaba, SP, Brasil). A subsoiler (Figure 6a) (AST 9/7, Marchesan S.A., Matão, SP, Brasil) was used at a depth of 0.4 m, followed by a harrow (Figure 6b) (GAI, Marchesan S.A., Matão, SP, Brasil) at a depth of 0.20 m, working the entire area. The Rotary Paraplow (Figure 6c) was passed only once, at an effective depth of 0.35 m, and prepared the planting line using the Farmall 95 tractor.
In March 2018, the pre-sprouted seedlings (PSS) were planted, variety CTC 9005, with a 0.65 m spacing between seedlings, totaling 918 seedlings in each area. The planting was carried out with a transplanting machine pre-sprouted seedlings, after the soil tillage for each treatment. Sugarcane was harvested in early July 2019 with manual harvesting. Soil collections were carried out in early April 2018, shortly after the planting of the sugarcane and in August 2019, one month after the harvest. Biometrics and productivity were performed at the end of March 2019.
2.3. Soil Physical Attributes
The soil samples were collected in two sampling sites: planting line (PL) and inter-row line (IRL), in the layers: 0–0.10 m, 0.10–0.20 m, 0.20–0.40 m and 0.40–0.60 m The soil bulk density was calculated by the relation between the dry soil mass kiln dried at 105 °C and the sample volume. The porosity was calculated from the tension table, applying a water column with a height of 0.6 m in the saturated samples to determine macroporosity. After that, the samples were taken to the kiln dried (105 °C) and then weighed for the determination of microporosity. Total porosity was obtained by the sum of macro and microporosity [20].
The measurements were conducted on the same day for all treatments of one given repetition, seeking to eliminate the effect of the variation of water content in the soil, which was determined by the gravimetric method in deformed samples [20]. The determination of soil penetration resistance was made using an impact penetrometer, model IAA/Planalsucar [21].
2.4. Yield
The yield of the area was estimated by an evaluation carried out in each plot, in five bands of 5 m length of the planting line, randomly distributed, analyzing the plant population by counting existing stems in the range of the 5 m measured, knowing that the spacing between lines was 1.5 m. The sugarcane of the evaluated area was manually cut, forming a sample to be weighed on a digital scale with a precision of 0.1 kg.
2.5. Statistical Analyses
The statistics were performed using R Studio statistical software (1.1.463, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, in Vienna, Austria), by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the F-test at 5% significance level by factor analysis with additional treatment, and later using analysis by strip to compare the treatments, in which Tukey’s test was applied at the 5% probability level.
3. Results and Discussions
When observing the soil density (Sd) in the 0.00–0.10 m layer, that is, the surface layer, we can see there were no significant differences between the sampling sites for both evaluated periods (Table 3). On the other hand, when evaluating the soil tillage employed after planting, there were significant differences in Sd, when using the paraplow (1.60 kg dm−3), was higher than that found for conventional tillage (CT) (1.40 kg dm−3). After harvest, however, the Sd values did not show significant differences between treatments.
CT revolves the soil in the surface and depeest layer, while the revolving by rotary paraplow only occurs in depth. This initially results in a lower value of Sd for CT due to high soil destructuring. Throughout the cycle, this effect is minimized; in addition, the harvest was conducted manually, applying a lower pressure to soil (non-use of harvesting machines). According to [3], the mass applied to the soil by the harvester is 18.3 Mg, which does not occur in manual harvesting; thus, mechanized harvesting causes a decrease in macropores. However, the Sd values were equaled after harvest. Therefore, the authors believe that, had the harvest been mechanized, the use of the rotary paraplow could obtain, over more cycles, even lower Sd values than that of CT.
In the layer of 0.10–0.20 m, there was an increase in Sd for the rotary paraplow (1.75 kg dm−3), causing a significant difference when compared to the CT (1.64 kg dm−3) after harvest. This is a consequence of the revolving made by the rotary paraplow, which is more intense in the subsurface layer, leaving it more destructured and, as the cycle passed, more prone to densification.
The distinction of the rotary paraplow is that it revolves the soil at a deeper layer (0.10–0.30 m). With this, although a compaction is observed due to the destructuring at 0.10–0.20 m, the soil surface remains protected, mainly against erosion. In addition, the deep vertical revolving, mainly in the planting line, favors root development in depth. As sugarcane has 80% of its roots up to 0.40 m [22], it is expected that with the rotary paraplow the root system can develop more deeply.
For the 0.20–0.40 m layer, there were no significant differences. However, for the 0.40–0.60 m layer, although there was no interference from the equipment, the CT (1.58 kg dm−3) presented a lower Sd after planting compared to the paraplow (1.74 kg dm−3). After manual harvesting, there were no significant differences.
The macroporosity (Table 2), after planting, obtained significantly lower values for the rotary paraplow (0.08 m3 m−3), when compared to the CT (0.15 m3 m−3) at the 0.00–0.10 m layer. This effect occurs, as observed for Sd, due to the surface revolving of the soil carried out by the grid, causing a momentary superior macroporosity. As with Sd, the macroporosity after harvest was statistically equal.
In addition, we observe that, (Table 4) in this layer, there was a reduction in the CT values, from 0.15 to 0.13 m3 m−3, while for the paraplow there was an increase, from 0.08 to 0.11 m3 m−3. These values are due to the increased macroporosity for the rotary paraplow, both in the line and in the in between space; while the CT presented a reduction in both sampling sites, in the line there was a reduction of 23%, from 0.18 to 0.14 m3 m−3.
When evaluating the 0.10–0.20 m layer, both soil tillages increased the macroposity values almost evenly, with no significant difference between treatments at any time. In the 0.20–0.40 m layer, despite being no significant differences in both samplings, we can observe that the macroporosity values for the rotary paraplow increased, as occurred in the upper layers, while for the CT they remained the same.
The effect of tilling with the rotary paraplow shows that, over time, from tillage to harvest, there was a soil structuring. With this, root growth is facilitated by the greater soil destructuring in depth, increasing macroporosity, while conventional tillage does the reverse, since macroporosity has decreased. Macroporosity is limiting for root growth, since it limits soil oxygenation, as the pores are responsible for air circulation.
The improvement in deep soil quality is a distinctive feature for this treatment, as compaction in the subsurface layers is the most damaging to the soil, since it is the most difficult to recover [23,24]. Conventional tillage mechanically breaks the compaction, but destructures the surface, and over time the effect of compaction is increased, when compared to conservationist techniques [25].
In the 0.20–0.40 m layer, the increase in macroporosity in the line was expressive due to the geometric design of the rotary paraplow, which has in this region a setting that promotes a greater movement of the soil. In the 0.40–0.60 m layer, we observed the same effect of the layer with 0.20–0.40 m. This is because, even with the revolving occurring up to 0.40 m, its positive effects can be perceived up to this layer.
The macroporosity is directly affected by time and traffic, being an important factor for the structural quality of the soil, since it is responsible for gas exchange and water circulation, favoring root growth. From these results, we can perceive the advantage of the rotary paraplow in relation to CT. Although the surface layer initially presents a lower value of macropores, over time this treatment is more advantageous, including increases in macroporosity. The structural improvement of the soil in the 0.10–0.40 m layer brings as benefit a greater retention of water in depth [25] and a facilitation of root growth [26], while its reduction in the surface layer also reduces the water loss by evaporation, since the water is stored in depth, contrary to what occurs with CT.
The increase in macroporosity for the rotary paraplow occurred due to manual harvesting since there was no machine traffic. It is worth mentioning that the harvester and the infield wagon are the major causes of compaction in sugarcane areas [2]. The authors believe that, in the case of heavy traffic, macroporosity would have decreased for both treatments, but less intensely for the rotary paraplow, since this equipment showed benefits for the structural soil quality.
The micropores (Table 5), in the 0–0.10 m layer, present equal results for both treatments, and from 0.10 m the conventional tillage starts to present more micropores; this is in accordance with the result obtained for the distribution of macropores. The increase of micropores is expected in compacted areas of sugarcane and occurs mainly between the cycles the very first harvesting until the second harvest [27]; this is because this is the period in which the soil is still under the effects of the tillages, and in the case of CT, of surface revolving.
With this, we can observe a rebound effect for the CT, which initially revolves and decompacts the soil, mainly on the surface, but is followed by a greater compaction. This effect was found by [25], who observed that over time no-tillage showed better structural quality when compared to conventional tillage.
The revolving in the subsurface layers with the rotary paraplow was positive for the macropores, while for the micropores it had almost no effect. Since the CT presents more micropores, we can state that under this type of tillage the area is more subject to compaction when compared to the tillage carried out with the rotary paraplow. In a soil tillage, the objective is to increase the macropores, so the environment favors plant germination.
The rotary paraplow increased macropores, showing to be beneficial to the soil, as well as the strip tillage. While CT revolves the entire area, the use of strip tillage, a technique that revolves only the ground of the line and keeps the rest of the area intact, brings benefits to the soil, such as increased productivity, as it facilitates root growth [28]. The rotary paraplow can be used in areas intended to strip tillage, as another way of using the equipment.
The Rp values had practically no difference between the treatments, showing the validity of the tillage with the rotary paraplow. For the CT, the inter-row line, at the 0.20–0.60 m layers, presented a high Rp value, indicating a higher compaction where the soil was tilled and not used for planting.
The Rp data show an important physical attribute of the soil, mainly for root growth. We can see that the soil was already initially compacted (Table 2), and after the passing of the machines there was a reduction in the Rp; however, after the harvest, even with manual technique, the ground was compacted again (Table 6), with high Rp values, especially considering that it is a sandy soil (Table 1).
The initial compaction situation was possibly a factor that contributed for the little difference between the tillages, especially when evaluating the Rp. This factor is important for root development, which is compromised by very high values, since they cause physical limitations for growth, such as little water and air [29], and stiffness [30] to penetrate the soil, among others. According to [26] the critical value for root growth in sandy soils is 1.5 MPa; that is, virtually all values found in this study, including its characterization (Table 2) are higher, leading us to believe that this physical limitation contributed to the absence of significant differences between the tillages.
The study focused only on the first crop cycle because this is the main stage where changes in soil structure are most pronounced. In other words, if at this stage the comparison between the two preparation methods is already nearly equal, then over multiple cycles, the conditions will remain proportional. This is due to the fact that with each cycle, there is a deterioration in soil structure, meaning that from the initial cycle (first cycle), where the paraplow shows better results, this trend will continue in all subsequent cycles [13,31].
The surveyed yield (Table 7) data show that in the plot where conventional tillage was applied an average value of 109.05 Mg ha−1 was obtained, while in the plot where the tillage with the paraplow was conducted, the average was 115.34 Mg ha−1. From these results, it is possible to perceive that the use of rotary paraplow in place of the conventional soil tillage is feasible, since it obtains the same yield, but with improvement in physical attributes, which can increase the future productivity of the crop. What matters most to the producer is the profit. Considering that there was no significant difference in productivity, there should be no impediments, for the industry, to the use of the rotary paraplow.
In addition, it should be remembered that, by not revolving the surface layer of the soil, the rotary paraplow bring advantages such as reducing erosion and maintenance of the water content. Thus, it brings benefits to the environment, which is a factor to be increasingly considered. There is also the difference in tractor traffic over the crop because the rotary paraplow showed a reduction when compared to the conventional method, since it conducts the tillage in a single pass with the machine. With this, in addition to reducing traffic, it can reduce fuel consumption and, consequently, increase the profitability.
The paraplow, as equipment from the 1980s [8,32], is old and adapted to the characteristics of the time, such as lower tractor power [10], in addition to being made for the temperate climate of North America, which is distinct from the tropical climate. Brazilian. With this, the adaptations made to design the rotary paraplow considered the lesser soil surface revolving but with deep revolving, as sugarcane is a crop that causes great soil compaction [31], causing damage to the root system [33]. In addition, to adapt to the climate and culture, rotary paraplow is used on top of sugarcane straw, which is one of the difficulties in implementing the tillage and minimum cultivation in this crop, as they generate high amounts of straw 15 Mg ha−1 [34].
It is already known in the world literature that no tillage improves the structural quality of the soil and reduces compaction, especially in the 0.00–0.10 m layer, but most of their studies only evaluate it in relation to conventional management and there are few studies evaluating the minimum tillage [6]. Among these studies comparing different soil tillage for sugarcane [35] found that minimum tillage with deep subsoiling was different from no-tillage and conventional tillage in the soil structure, affecting the calibration of the moisture sensor. With this, there is the importance of evaluating the minimum tillage and comparing them with the conventional and no tillage.
In a study conducted by [5], comparing conventional soil preparation machines with the Rotoripper, it was demonstrated that this tool is promising but requires a second implement to prepare the soil for planting. This was not necessary with the use of the rotary paraplow, where a single pass of the tool left the soil ready for planting.
Paraplow showed favorable results for soil conservation [9], such as a 12% increase in grain yield, an increase in the root system and a reduction in penetration resistance. In this study, the values found for rotary were the same as those found for conventional planting in relation to productivity and penetration resistance. Therefore, the authors suggest studies evaluating the root system of the plant using rotary paraplow, in addition to long-term studies in clayey soils.
It is possible to find a new conservationist way of soil management, causing small revolving and obtaining the same results as conventional management, which could then be replaced. Thus, we suggest further research with the equipment, in a long-term span and in other types of soil, in addition to monitoring the water content and root system of sugarcane. With this research, we expect to open new horizons for the Brazilian implement industry and encourage more researchers to develop equipment in Brazil.
4. Conclusions
The rotary paraplow presented a good performance. Based on the physical attributes of the soil, it managed to break the compacted layer and obtain the same productivity from the conventionally tilled area. This tool is promising and can be adjusted in size, but it is important to emphasize that the principles used in its development had a strong focus on energy conservation and sustainable agriculture.
Conceptualization, C.B.G.; Data Curation, A.P.G.; Data Curation, I.N.d.O.; Investigation, E.S.d.L.; Investigartion, L.H.L.; Writing, A.V.A.S.; Investigation, Z.M.d.S.; Supervision, D.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The dataset is available in:
To the company Agricef® for the loan of pre-sprouted seedling planting equipment and to the Filipini family who let us use the area for planting and provided all the infrastructure of labor, tractors and implements for the crop.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. (a) subsoiler (AST 9/7, Marchesan S.A., Matão, SP, Brasil), (b) followed by a harrow (GAI, Marchesan S.A., Matão, SP, Brasil), (c) Rotary Paraplow.
Grain-size characterization of the experimental area.
| Layers (m) | CS | FS | TS | Silt | Clay | Texture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gKg−1 | ||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 415 | 287 | 702 | 161 | 137 | Sandy loam |
| 0.1–0.2 | 348 | 326 | 674 | 190 | 136 | Sandy loam |
| 0.2–0.3 | 296 | 336 | 631 | 208 | 160 | Sandy loam |
| 0.3–0.6 | 303 | 295 | 598 | 223 | 179 | Sandy loam |
| 0.6–1.0 | 311 | 276 | 587 | 194 | 219 | Sandy clay loam |
CS = Coarse Sand; FS = Fine Sand; TS = Total Sand.
Physical characterization of the soil.
| Depth | Bd | Ma | Mi | RP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| m | Kg dm−3 | m3 m−3 | m3 m−3 | Mpa |
| 0–0.10 | 1.44 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 2.77 |
| 0.10–0.20 | 1.67 | 0.10 | 0.24 | 4.17 |
| 0.20–0.40 | 1.74 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 3.85 |
| 0.40–0.60 | 1.71 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 4.57 |
| 0.60–1.00 | 1.68 | 0.08 | 0.25 | 5.28 |
Bd = Soil Density; Ma = Macroporosity; Mi = Microporosity; RP = Penetration Resistanc.
Soil density (kg dm−3).
| Treat | IRL | PL | Means | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depth (m) | CT | RotPar | Means | CT | RotPar | Means | CT | RotPar |
| After Plantting | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 1.47 Aa | 1.65 Aa | 1.56 a | 1.34 Ba | 1.54 Aa | 1.44 a | 1.40 B | 1.60 A |
| 0.1–0.2 | 1.66 | 1.71 | 1.69 a | 1.62 | 1.68 | 1.65 a | 1.64 A | 1.70 A |
| 0.2–0.4 | 1.65 | 1.73 | 1.68 a | 1.66 | 1.73 | 1.70 a | 1.65 A | 1.73 A |
| 0.4–0.6 | 1.62 Ba | 1.73 Aa | 1.67 a | 1.54 Bb | 1.75 Aa | 1.64 a | 1.58 B | 1.74 A |
| After Harvest | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 1.64 Aa | 1.64 Aa | 1.64 a | 1.53 Ba | 1.71 Aa | 1.62 a | 1.58 A | 1.67 A |
| 0.1–0.2 | 1.69 Aa | 1.75 Aa | 1.72 a | 1.60 Ba | 1.75 Aa | 1.67 a | 1.64 B | 1.75 A |
| 0.2–0.4 | 1.68 | 1.75 | 1.72 a | 1.76 | 1.67 | 1.72 a | 1.72 A | 1.71 A |
| 0.4–0.6 | 1.68 Aa | 1.70 Aa | 1.70 a | 1.64 Ab | 1.65 Aa | 1.63 b | 1.64 A | 1.68 A |
CT = convention tillage; RotPar = planting using rotary paraplow; IRL = inter-row line; PL = planting line. In the Mean columns, the uppercase letters compare the treatments (CT and Paraplow), while the lowercase letters compare the sampling sites (IRL and PL): if equal, they do not differ from each other (p < 0.05), by Tukey’s test at 5% probability.
Soil macroporosity (m3 m−3).
| Treat | IRL | PL | Means | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depth (m) | CT | Paraplow | Means | CT | Paraplow | Means | CT | Paraplow |
| After Plantting | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 0.13 Aa | 0.07 Ba | 0.10 a | 0.18 Aa | 0.09 Ba | 0.13 a | 0.15 A | 0.08 B |
| 0.1–0.2 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 a | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.08 a | 0.09 A | 0.07 A |
| 0.2–0.4 | 0.06 | 0.05 Aa | 0.06 a | 0.07 | 0.05 Ba | 0.06 a | 0.07 A | 0.05 A |
| 0.4–0.6 | 0.07 Aa | 0.06 Aa | 0.06 a | 0.08 Aa | 0.05 Ba | 0.06 a | 0.07 A | 0.05 B |
| After Harvest | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.12 a | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.12 a | 0.13 A | 0.011 A |
| 0.1–0.2 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 a | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.12 a | 0.12 A | 0.10 A |
| 0.2–0.4 | 0.07 | 0.08 Ab | 0.08 a | 0.06 | 0.14 Aa | 0.10 a | 0.07 A | 0.11 A |
| 0.4–0.6 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 a | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.10 a | 0.07 A | 0.10 A |
CT = convention tillage; Paraplow = planting using rotary paraplow; IRL = inter-row line; PL = planting line. In the Mean columns, the uppercase letters compare the treatments (CT and Paraplow), while the lowercase letters compare the sampling sites (IRL and PL): if equal, they do not differ from each other (p < 0.05), by Tukey’s test at 5% probability.
Soil microporosity (m3 m−3).
| Treat | IRL | PL | Means | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depth (m) | CT | Paraplow | Means | CT | Paraplow | Means | CT | Paraplow |
| After Plantting | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.30 a | 0.30 A | 0.30 A | 0.31 A |
| 0.1–0.2 | 0.30 Aa | 0.27 Ba | 0.29 a | 0.30 Aa | 0.28 Aa | 0.29 a | 0.30 A | 0.28 B |
| 0.2–0.4 | 0.32 Aa | 0.27 Ba | 0.30 a | 0.34 Aa | 0.27 Ba | 0.31 a | 0.33 A | 0.27 B |
| 0.4–0.6 | 0.35 Ab | 0.28 Ba | 0.31 a | 0.38 Aa | 0.27 Ba | 0.33 a | 0.36 A | 0.27 B |
| After Harvest | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.26 a | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.26 a | 0.26 A | 0.25 A |
| 0.1–0.2 | 0.25 Aa | 0.25 Ba | 0.25 a | 0.25 Aa | 0.22 Ba | 0.24 a | 0.26 A | 0.22 B |
| 0.2–0.4 | 0.28 Aa | 0.25 Ba | 0.26 a | 0.27 Aa | 0.21 Ba | 0.24 a | 0.28 A | 0.22 B |
| 0.4–0.6 | 0.30 Aa | 0.25 Aa | 0.27 a | 0.31 Aa | 0.25 Ba | 0.27 a | 0.30 A | 0.24 B |
CT = convention tillage; Paraplow = planting using rotary paraplow; IRL = inter-row line; PL = planting line. In the Mean columns, the uppercase letters compare the treatments (CT and Paraplow), while the lowercase letters compare the sampling sites (IRL and PL): if equal, they do not differ from each other (p < 0.05), by Tukey’s test at 5% probability.
Soil resistance to penetration (MPa).
| Treat | IRL | PL | Means | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depth (m) | CT | Paraplow | Means | CT | Paraplow | Means | CT | Paraplow |
| After Plantting | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 2.40 Aa | 2.41 Aa | 2.53 a | 0.65 Ab | 0.83 Ab | 0.74 b | 1.64 A | 1.62 A |
| 0.1–0.2 | 2.64 Aa | 2.67 Aa | 2.66 a | 1.70 Aa | 1.36 Aa | 1.53 b | 2.17 A | 2.02 A |
| 0.2–0.4 | 2.54 | 2.66 | 2.60 a | 3.00 | 2.42 | 2.71 a | 2.77 A | 2.54 A |
| 0.4–0.6 | 4.79 Aa | 2.27 Ba | 3.53 a | 5.41 Aa | 1.89 Ba | 3.65 a | 5.10 A | 2.08 B |
| After Harvest | ||||||||
| 0.0–0.1 | 4.41 Aa | 4.51 Aa | 4.46 a | 2.27 Ab | 2.61 Ab | 2.44 b | 3.34 A | 3.56 A |
| 0.1–0.2 | 8.14 Aa | 9.78 Aa | 8.96 a | 4.31 Ab | 4.50 Ab | 4.40 b | 6.23 A | 7.14 A |
| 0.2–0.4 | 10.61 Aa | 8.12 Ba | 9.36 a | 6.16 Ab | 6.14 Ab | 6.15 b | 8.38 A | 7.13 B |
| 0.4–0.6 | 10.13 Aa | 7.59 Ba | 8.86 a | 7.63 Ab | 7.56 Aa | 7.60 a | 8.88 A | 7.58 A |
CT = convention tillage; Paraplow = planting using rotary paraplow; IRL = inter-row line; PL = planting line. In the Mean columns, the uppercase letters compare the treatments (CT and Paraplow), while the lowercase letters compare the sampling sites (IRL and PL): if equal, they do not differ from each other (p < 0.05), by Tukey’s test at 5% probability.
Sugarcane yield (Mg ha−1).
| Yield (Mg ha−1) | |
|---|---|
| Conventional | Rotary Paraplow |
| 109.05 A | 115.34 A |
Uppercase letters compare the treatments: if equal, they do not differ from each other (p < 0.05), by Tukey’s test at 5% probability.
References
1. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). Sidra Spreadsheet; Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2024.
2. Guimarães Júnnyor, W.d.S.; Diserens, E.; De Maria, I.C.; Araujo-Junior, C.F.; Farhate, C.V.V.; de Souza, Z.M. Prediction of soil stresses and compaction due to agricultural machines in sugarcane cultivation systems with and without crop rotation. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 681, pp. 424-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.009]
3. Filho, O.J.V.; de Souza, Z.M.; da Silva, R.B.; de Lima, C.C.; Pereira, D.d.M.G.; de Lima, M.E.; de Sousa, A.C.M.; de Souza, G.S. Capacidade de suporte de carga de Latossolo Vermelho cultivado com cana-de-açúcar e efeitos da mecanização no solo. Pesqui. Agropec. Bras.; 2015; 50, pp. 322-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2015000400008]
4. Xiao, J.; Zhu, S.; Han, S.; Wei, B.; He, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, R.; Wang, L.; Chen, L.; Li, S. Fenlong-Ridging Deep Tillage Integrated with Biochar and Fertilization to Improve Sugarcane Growth and Yield. Agronomy; 2023; 13, 2395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092395]
5. Varani, M.; Mattetti, M. Rotary Ripper: A Possible Solution to Increase the Efficiency of Tillage Operations. Agronomy; 2023; 13, 365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020365]
6. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Ruis, S.J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma; 2018; 326, pp. 164-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.03.011]
7. Albiero, D.; Maciel, A.J.d.S.; Monteiro, L.A.; Lanças, K.P.; Gamero, C.A.; Melo, R.P.; Araujo, M.C. Effects in mechanical properties and structure of the soil after tillage with rotary paraplow. Afr. J. Agric. Res.; 2014; 9, pp. 1855-1866.
8. Mukhtar, S.; Baker, J.L.; Horton, R.; Erbach, D.C. Soil Water Infiltration As Affected By the Use of the Paraplow. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.; 1985; 28, pp. 1811-1816. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.32524]
9. Braim, M.A.; Chaney, K.; Hodgson, D.R. Preliminary investigation on the response of spring barley (hordeum sativum) to soil cultivation with the ‘paraplow’. Soil Tillage Res.; 1987; 4, pp. 277-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(84)90026-6]
10. Franzluebbers, A.J.; Schomberg, H.H.; Endale, D.M. Surface-soil responses to paraplowing of long-term no-tillage cropland in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Tillage Res.; 2007; 96, pp. 303-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.07.001]
11. Kim, Y.-S.; Bae, B.-M.; Kim, W.-S.; Kim, Y.-J.; Lee, S.-D.; Kim, T.-J. Working Load Analysis of a 42 kW Class Agricultural Tractor According to Tillage Type and Gear Selection during Rotary Tillage Operation. Agriculture; 2023; 13, 1556. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081556]
12. Chang, C.S. Intellectual Property—PI 0204930-9; Dispositivo Arador Rotativo com Contador de Ervas para Cultio Conservacionista, National Institute of Industrial Property—INPI: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2002.
13. Cherubin, M.R.; Franchi, M.R.A.; de Lima, R.P.; de Moraes, M.T.; da Luz, F.B. Sugarcane straw effects on soil compaction susceptibility. Soil Tillage Res.; 2021; 212, 105066. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105066]
14.
15. Pidgeon, J.D. “Paraplow”—A rational approach to soil management. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization; Osijek, Yugoslavia, 21–25 June 1982; Volume 50, pp. 633-638.
16. Okuno, M.T. Máquina Conceito de Preparo do Solo em Faixas. Proceedings of the XLVI Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Agrícola—CONBEA 2017; Maceió, AL, Brazil, 30 July–3 August 2017.
17. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (Embrapa). Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos; Embrapa: Brasilia, DF, Brazil, 2013.
18. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy; U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
19. Camargo, O.A.; Moniz, A.C.; Jorge, J.A.; Valadares, J.M. Métodos de Análise Química, Mineralógica e Física de Solos do Instituto Agronômico de Campinas; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, SP, Brazil, 1986.
20. Embrapa Solos. Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solos; Embrapa Solos: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2011.
21. Stolf, R.; Murakami, J.H.; Brugnaro, C.; Silva, L.G.; Silva, L.C.F.; Margarido, L.A.C. Penetrômetro de impacto Stolf—Programa computacional de dados em EXCEL-VBA. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo; 2014; 38, pp. 774-782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832014000300009]
22. Rossi Neto, J.; de Souza, Z.M.; Kölln, O.T.; Carvalho, J.L.N.; Ferreira, D.A.; Castioni, G.A.F.; Barbosa, L.C.; de Castro, S.G.Q.; Braunbeck, O.A.; Garside, A.L. et al. The Arrangement and Spacing of Sugarcane Planting Influence Root Distribution and Crop Yield. Bioenergy Res.; 2018; 11, pp. 291-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12155-018-9896-1]
23. Tim Chamen, W.C.; Moxey, A.P.; Towers, W.; Balana, B.; Hallett, P.D. Mitigating arable soil compaction: A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data. Soil Tillage Res.; 2015; 146, pp. 10-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.09.011]
24. Tullberg, J.N.; Yule, D.F.; McGarry, D. Controlled traffic farming—From research to adoption in Australia. Soil Tillage Res.; 2007; 97, pp. 272-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.09.007]
25. Barbosa, L.C.; Magalhães, P.S.G.; Bordonal, R.O.; Cherubin, M.R.; Castioni, G.A.F.; Tenelli, S.; Franco, H.C.J.; Carvalho, J.L.N. Soil physical quality associated with tillage practices during sugarcane planting in south-central Brazil. Soil Tillage Res.; 2019; 195, 104383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104383]
26. Barbosa, L.C.; Souza, Z.M.d.; Franco, H.C.J.; Otto, R.; Rossi Neto, J.; Garside, A.L.; Carvalho, J.L.N. Soil texture affects root penetration in Oxisols under sugarcane in Brazil. Geoderma Reg.; 2018; 13, pp. 15-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.03.002]
27. Awe, G.O.; Reichert, J.M.; Fontanela, E. Sugarcane production in the subtropics: Seasonal changes in soil properties and crop yield in no-tillage, inverting and minimum tillage. Soil Tillage Res.; 2020; 196, 104447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104447]
28. Mitchell, J.P.; Carter, L.M.; Reicosky, D.C.; Shrestha, A.; Pettygrove, G.S.; Klonsky, K.M.; Marcum, D.B.; Chessman, D.; Roy, R.; Hogan, P. et al. A history of tillage in California’s Central Valley. Soil Tillage Res.; 2016; 157, pp. 52-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.10.015]
29. Rossetti, K.d.V.; Centurion, J.F. Tillage systems and hydro-physical attributes of an Oxisol cultivated with maize. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient.; 2013; 17, pp. 472-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662013000500002]
30. Oliveira, V.S.; Rolim, M.M.; Costa, Y.D.J.; Pedrosa, E.M.R.; de Silva, Ê.F. Compressibility of an Ultisol submitted to different managements. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient.; 2011; 15, pp. 435-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662011000500001]
31. Esteban, D.A.A.; de Souza, Z.M.; da Silva, R.B.; de Souza Lima, E.; Lovera, L.H.; de Oliveira, I.N. Impact of permanent traffic lanes on the soil physical and mechanical properties in mechanized sugarcane fields with the use of automatic steering. Geoderma; 2020; 362, 114097. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114097]
32. Erbach, D.C.; Benjamin, J.G.; Cruse, R.M.; Elamin, M.A.; Mukhtar, S.; Choi, C.H. Soil and corn response to tillage with Paraplow. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.; 1992; 35, pp. 1347-1354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.28739]
33. Lovera, L.H.; de Souza, Z.M.; Esteban, D.A.A.; de Oliveira, I.N.; Farhate, C.V.V.; Lima, E.d.S.; Panosso, A.R. Sugarcane root system: Variation over three cycles under different soil tillage systems and cover crops. Soil Tillage Res.; 2021; 208, 104866. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104866]
34. Castioni, G.A.F.; Cherubin, M.R.; Bordonal, R.d.O.; Barbosa, L.C.; Menandro, L.M.S.; Carvalho, J.L.N. Straw Removal Affects Soil Physical Quality and Sugarcane Yield in Brazil. Bioenergy Res.; 2019; 184, pp. 301-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10000-1]
35. Oliveira, I.N.; de Souza, Z.M.; Lovera, L.H.; Farhate, C.V.V.; Lima, E.d.S.; Esteban, D.A.A.; Totti, M.C.V. Capacitance probe calibration for an Ultisol Udult cultivated with sugarcane by soil tillages. Agric. Water Manag.; 2020; 241, 106341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106341]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Garcia, Angel P 2
; de Oliveira, Ingrid N 1 ; de Lima, Elizeu S 1 ; Lovera, Lenon H 1 ; Santos, Artur V A 1 ; de Souza, Zigomar M 3 ; Albiero, Daniel 2
1 Graduate Program in School of Agricultural Engineering (FEAGRI), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Av. Cândido Rondon, 508, Campinas 13083-875, SP, Brazil;
2 Department of Agricultural Machinery, School of Agricultural Engineering (FEAGRI), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Av. Cândido Rondon, 508, Campinas 13083-875, SP, Brazil;
3 Department of Water and Soils, School of Agricultural Engineering (FEAGRI), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Av. Cândido Rondon, 508, Campinas 13083-875, SP, Brazil;