Sugarcane Trash Management

Sugarcane Trash Management: Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen
Final Report to the CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production of the project Nutrient Cycling in Relation to Trash Management
(CRC Activity 2.2.1)
By Fiona Robertson
BSES & CRC Sugar PO Box 86, (50 Meiers Rd), Indooroopilly, Qld 4068. Phone: +61 07 3331 3333 Email: frobertson@bses.org.au
A CRC Sugar Technical Publication July 2003 CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production, Townsville. 39pp. ISBN - 1876679271
CRC SUGAR
C R C S U G A R Te c h n i c a l P u b l i c a t i o n
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Acknowledgements SUMMARY INTRODUCTION METHODS Field Experiments Climatic Conditions at Experimental Sites Analytical Methods Calculations and Statistical Analyses RESULTS Trash Return from GCTB Trash Decomposition Free Trash Incorporated Trash Soil Organic C and Total N Soil Inorganic N Soil Microbial Biomass C Soil C Mineralisation Soil Net N Mineralisation Soil C:N Mineralisation Ratio Soil Bulk Density Soil Water Soil pH Soil Electrical Conductivity DISCUSSION Trash returned after harvest C and N in Trash returned after harvest Trash decomposition Mineralisation and Immobilisation of N from Trash Soil C and N Cycling Long-term Soil C and N Status under GCTB Implications for Fertiliser Management under GCTB Water Retention Soil pH Stratification Other Effects of GCTB Other Nutrients Organic Matter Accumulation CONCLUSIONS References Publications Based on this Work iv 1 3 4 4 6 7 8 10 10 11 11 15 17 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 25 27 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 33 34 38
Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen
iii
Acknowledgements
My thanks are due to the people who contributed to and facilitated this work: Graham Kingston, Alan Hurney, and Les Chapman allowed this study to be superimposed on their field experiments and provided supporting crop and soil data. The McSwan family provided the fields for the Harwood experiments. Kaylene Harris, Ruth Mitchell, Kylee Sankowsky and Patricia Nelson were at different times invaluable Research Technicians on the project. Peter Larsen, John Jackson, Jody Biggs, and Holly Ainslie helped with field work. Merv Probert made helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report. In particular, I thank Peter Thorburn for his valuable input and for a positive experience of collaborative research.
iv
Summary
The Australian sugar industry is progressively moving away from the practice of burning the crop before harvest to the system of green cane trash blanketing (GCTB). Since the residues that would have been lost in the fire are returned to the soil, nutrients and organic matter may be accumulating under trash blanketing. There is a need to know if this is the case, to better manage fertiliser inputs and maintain soil fertility. The objective of this project was to determine whether conversion from a burning to a GCTB trash management system is likely to affect the ability to maintain the soil organic matter and nitrogen (N) status of sugarcane soils. To this effect, five field experiments were conducted in different climatic zones (Tully, Mackay, and Harwood) to compare the carbon (C) and N cycling in sugarcane soils where the crops were managed under either a (i) burnt or (ii) GCTB system. In the experiments, 7-12 t/ha of trash dry matter (DM) was returned to the field under GCTB (approximately 10 t/ha for every 100 t/ha fresh cane yield). This trash contained 3-5 t C and 28-54 kg N /ha, and had a high C:N ratio (80-120). During one year, 82-98% of the trash was decomposed. The decomposition rate was influenced by rainfall and temperature and other factors not identified, and could be described approximately by a relationship with thermal time. Net N loss from trash was variable among experiments until about 40% of trash DM had disappeared, and thereafter averaged 110 g N/ha/day (3 kg/month). Its contribution to the soil mineral N pool is likely to have been insignificant. In the older experiments (Mackay and Tully, 3-6 years old), soil organic C and total N were greater under trash blanketing than under burning, to 10 or 25 cm depth (most of this effect being in the top 5 cm). The younger experiments (Harwood, 1-2 years old) showed no significant trash management effects. As a consequence of the improved C availability under GCTB, soil microbial activity (CO2 production) and soil microbial biomass were increased under GCTB. Most of the trash C was respired by the microbial biomass and lost from the system as CO2. The stimulation of microbial activity in these relatively short-term GCTB systems (all were in the first crop cycle) was not accompanied by increased net mineralisation of soil N because of greatly increased microbial immobilisation of N. It was calculated that, with standard fertiliser applications, the entire trash blanket could be decomposed without compromising the supply of N to the crop. Calculations of possible long-term effects of converting from a burnt to GCTB production system suggested that, at the sites studied, soil C and N could increase by 3-23%, depending on soil and climatic factors, and that it could take 10-35 years for the soils to approach this new equilibrium. Plant-available inorganic soil N would be expected to increase under medium-long term GCTB, due to mineralisation of N from trash-derived organic matter, to an amount approaching the annual N return in trash. Small reductions in N fertiliser application will probably be possible in the medium-long term after adoption of GCTB, and the appropriate time scale for reducing N application will vary from site to site. Practical recommendations for fertilising under GCTB are made. Conversion from a burning to a GCTB management system is likely to improve the soil organic matter and N status of sugarcane soils.
Introduction
In the Australian sugar industry, there is a trend away from conventional cultivation and burning crop residues before harvest to the system of green cane trash blanketing (GCTB), where residues are retained on the soil surface and cultivation is greatly reduced. Currently, around 70% of the Australian sugar crop is grown under trash blanketing (Kingston and Norris, 2000), and this figure is still rising. When sugarcane trash is burnt, most of the organic matter and nutrients in the trash are lost. Mitchell et al. (2000) measured losses of 70-95% of dry matter, nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and sulfur. Conversely, with retention of trash, nutrients and organic matter may be accumulating. There is a need to know if this is indeed the case, to be able to manage fertiliser inputs appropriately to maintain soil fertility and minimise environmental contamination. Chapman et al. (1992) suggested that trash retention may increase total soil N and that cane crops may benefit from this in the long term. Wood (1991) reported increases in total soil N and C under a GCTB system in the Herbert region. Sutton et al. (1996) later reported increased N mineralisation in the same experiment. Retention of crop residues has been shown to increase soil organic matter and nutrient content in several cropping systems (Larson et al., 1972; Barber, 1979), but the effect of trash conservation on the fertility of canelands is not well known. Nitrogen (N) is the nutrient most likely to limit production in cane farming systems and is applied as a fertiliser in considerably greater quantities than any other nutrient. This, together with the high solubility of N, makes the risk of nutrient contamination in the offfarm environment greatest with N. The dynamics of N in natural and agricultural systems are closely linked to carbon (C) dynamics, and the availability of N from crop residues is controlled to a large extent by the availability of C (Paul and Juma, 1981). The objective of the work presented here was to determine whether conversion from a burning to a GCTB trash management system is likely to affect the soil organic matter and N status of sugarcane soils. This objective was achieved by conducting field experiments in different climatic zones (Tully, Mackay, and Harwood) to compare the carbon (C) and N cycling in sugarcane soils where the crops were managed under either a (i) burnt or (ii) GCTB system. The work was done in close collaboration with Peter Thorburn of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, who has contributed to the development of many of the ideas expressed here. We have already presented the main findings of this work through various industry extension activities, and the publications listed at the end of the report.
Methods
Field Experiments
This research was conducted on 3 existing field experiments in different climatic zones spread over the main sugarcane-growing areas of eastern Australia: Harwood (southern region), Mackay (central region) and Tully (northern region) (Fig. 1, Table 1). The experiments had been set up by other researchers to investigate the effects of trash management on sugarcane productivity and ratooning, and included several trash management, cultivar, and cultivation treatments. In this study (conducted between October 1996 and August 1998), 2 trash management treatments were compared: (1) Burnt: trash burnt before or after harvest and (2) Trash blanketed: sugarcane harvested without burning and trash retained on the soil surface. In the Mackay and Tully experiments, the burnt treatments were cultivated and the trash blanketed treatments were not (according Table 1. Summary of the field experiments Harwood Location Grid reference Trash management treatments Crop harvest treatments Replicates Planting date Crop class during this study Years of trash return (GCTB) Irrigation northern New South Wales, McSwan family farm 29.50 S, 153.20 E Trash blanket Burnt (post-harvest) Late (December 1996) Early (August 1997) 4 July 1994 1st ratoon (late) 2nd ratoon (early) 1 (late) 2 (early) no Mackay central Queensland, BSES Experiment Station 21.10 S, 149.07 E 1668 Trash blanket Burnt (post-harvest) Late (November 1996) Early (July 1997) 4 July 1992 4th ratoon (late) 5th ratoon (early) 4 (late) 5 (early) supplementary Sandy loam (54, 26, 20) Tully northern Queensland, BSES Experiment Station 17.56 S, 145.56 E 4067 Trash blanket Burnt (pre- and post-harvest) Late (October 1996) 3 July 1990 6th ratoon 6 (late) no Clay (27, 34, 39)
N
Figure 1. Location of the experimental sites to usual grower practice). In Harwood, neither of the treatments was cultivated. In Harwood and Mackay, the trash management treatments were compared in separate experiments at 2 times of harvest (early and late in the season). The Tully experiment was harvested late in the season. All experiments were designed as
Annual rainfall (mm) 1021
Soil texture Clay loam (26, 34, 40) (%sand, %silt, %clay) Reps 1 & 2 Clay (18, 28, 54) Reps 3 & 4 Previous cropping
vegetables, sugarcane (burnt) sugarcane (burnt)
sugarcane (burnt)
randomised complete blocks. The Harwood and Mackay experiments had 4 replicates. The Tully experiment had 3 replicates, but on most occasions, only 2 replicates were sampled in the burnt treatments, due to the inadvertent cultivation of one of the plots before postharvest burning. Table 1 shows further site and experimental information. The sugarcane variety in each case was Q124, planted at a row spacing of 1.5 m. The crops were fertilised within 6 weeks of harvest (160200 kg N (as urea), 14-20 kg P, 90-125 kg K, and 16-25 kg S). The fertiliser was applied differently at each site: on the surface on either side of the row in Harwood; in the centre of the row using a stool-splitter in Mackay; and on either side of the row in Tully (below the surface in the burnt treatments, and on the surface of the trash treatments). The Mackay experiments each received 70 mm of irrigation; the Harwood and Tully experiments were not irrigated. All crops were mechanically Table 2. Sampling schedule for trash and soil Sampling Date Harwood Days after harvest
harvested. In the GCTB treatments, the trash was left as a blanket on the soil surface. In the burnt treatments at Harwood and Mackay, the trash was burnt on the ground after harvest. In the burnt treatments at Tully, the cane was burnt before harvest and residual trash burnt on the ground after harvest. At each site, the mass of trash deposited on the trash blanketed plots after harvest was measured by weighing the trash in 10 randomly placed quadrats per replicate (1.50 x 0.75 m). The average was used as the standard mass of trash for that site. At Harwood and Mackay, the contents of the quadrats was divided into cut trash and whole tops, and a standard mass was calculated for each. To measure trash decomposition, a standard mass of trash was placed within multiple quadrats (7 per replicate at Harwood, 8 per replicate at Tully, 7 per replicate in Mackay (Early) and 9 per replicate in Mackay (Late)), after first raking off underlying trash. The quadrats were
Mackay Date Late-harvest Days after harvest Date
Tully Days after harvest
1st Trash 1st Soil 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
11 Dec. 1996 13 Dec. 11 Feb. 1997 31 Mar. 15 May 23 June 6 Aug. 25 Sept. 27 Nov.
10 12 72 120 165 204 248 298 361
25 Nov. 1996 29 Nov. 15 Jan. 1997 17 Mar. 1 May 4 June 14 July 16 Aug. 19 Sept. 21 Oct. 4 Nov. Early-harvest
12 16 63 124 169 203 243 276 310 342 356
31 Oct. 1996 31 Oct. 27 Dec. 6 Mar. 1997 17 Apr. 28 May 23 July 4 Sept. 8 Oct. 30 Oct.
1 1 58 127 169 210 266 309 343 365
1st Trash 1st Soil 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
23 Aug 1997 24 Aug 26 Sept 26 Nov 12 Jan 1998 13 March 30 Apr 29 June 3 Aug
9 10 43 104 151 211 259 319 354
16 July 1997 18 July 18 Aug 17 Sept 12 Nov 27 Jan 1998 30 March 18 May 6 July
12 14 45 75 131 207 269 318 367
Table 3. Rainfall (mm) during the experimental period compared with the long-term average. Experimental Period
1996 (Aug.-Dec.) 1997 (Jan.-Dec.) 1998 (Jan.-Aug.) (Aug.-Dec.)
Long-Term Average
(Jan.-Dec.) (Jan.-Aug.)
Harwood Mackay Tully
292 404 692
951 1753 3267
503 1083
327 397 773
1021 1668 4067
736 1296 3428
held in place by tent pegs, and covered with bird netting (2 cm mesh). On 7 to 9 occasions over the following year, one quadrat was destructively sampled per replicate (Table 2). First, all trash that had not become incorporated with the soil (free trash) was removed from the quadrat and retained. The soil was then sampled within the quadrat by taking 12 cores (3.0-3.4 cm internal diameter) in two regular transects from the top of one row, across the inter-row, to the top of the next row (Fig. 2). The cores were cut into depth layers (0-2, 2-5, 5-10, and 10-25 cm) and samples pooled from each depth. Trash that had become incorporated with the soil (incorporated trash) was then sampled by removing soil and trash from a strip (17.5 cm wide x 150 cm long x about 2 cm deep) between the holes left by the soil sampler (Fig. 2). After sampling, trash from adjacent guard rows was placed over the disturbed area. Soil in the burnt plots was sampled in exactly the same way, from an area of approximately 1.50 x 0.75 m. In the Mackay (Early) experiment on 20 April 1998, soil was sampled for bulk density
estimation by taking undisturbed cores (70 mm diameter x 50 mm deep) in the 0-5, 5-10 and1020 cm depth layers, in the row, shoulder, and inter-row positions.
Climatic Conditions at Experimental Sites

Monthly rainfall and temperatures during the experimental period are shown in Figs 3 and 4. Long-term mean annual rainfall was 4060 mm at Tully, 1670 mm at Mackay and 1020 mm at Harwood. Rainfall was generally within 25% of the long-term average (Table 3), except in February 1997 at Mackay, when it was twice the average. Temperatures decreased in the order Tully > Mackay > Harwood, with the greatest difference being in winter minimum temperature (Fig. 4, Table 4). The number of
Figure 2. Plan of the position of trash quadrats, and soil and incorporated trash samples.
Figure 3. Air temperature during the experimental period.

Data are maximum and minimum monthly means.
Meteorology data for summer and winter.
Analytical Methods
Soils were sieved (7 mm) and any large pieces of organic material other than trash were removed. Small pieces of trash retained on the sieve were reincorporated with the soil. Soils were stored at 4C for 1-10 days before analysis. The water contents of trash and soil were determined by drying for 24 hours at 70 and 105C, respectively. Soil inorganic N (ammonium + nitrate) was determined by extracting 15 g portions of fieldmoist soil in 45 ml of 2 M potassium chloride, filtering the extract through Whatman 42 filter paper, and measuring ammonium and nitrate by automated colorimetric analysis (Rayment and Higginson, 1992, method 7C2). Soil microbial biomass C (a measure of the total size of the microbial population, including bacteria, fungi, protozoa etc.) was determined by the chloroform fumigation-extraction method of Vance et al. (1987), which uses 0.5 M potassium sulfate as an extractant. Organic C in the extracts was measured by dichromate oxidation (Heanes 1984) and spectrophotometry. The determinations were done on 15 g portions of field-moist soil, made up to a standard gravimetric water content, approximately 80% of water holding capacity (30% for Mackay soils, 35% for Harwood soils, and 40% for Tully soils). This method yielded some negative values if C from the
Figure 4. Monthly rainfall during the experimental period. rainy days decreased in the order Tully > Harwood > Mackay. Cumulative temperature was greater in early- than in late-harvested crops, but cumulative rainfall was greater in late-harvested crops (Table 4). Climate data for the Mackay and Tully experiments were recorded on site (both Bureau of Meteorology recording stations). Climate data for the Harwood experiments were measured on site (Graham Kingston, unpublished data), but contained some long gaps due to failure of the equipment. These gaps were filled by data from the nearest Bureau of Meteorology site (Bushgrove for rainfall, Grafton for temperature), modified according to the equation obtained by linear regression of site data and Bureau of
Table 4. Cumulative days, temperature, rainfall, rainy days, and (rainfall evaporation) at the experimental sites. Harwood Days TemperatureA RainfallB Rainy daysC (Rainfall evaporation)E Days TemperatureA RainfallB Rainy daysC (Rainfall evaporation)E
A Cumulative mean daily temperature (C). B Cumulative daily rainfall (mm).
353 6776 969 112 -618 347 7094 814 101 -789
Mackay Late harvest 344 7582 1502D 96 -371 Early harvest 355 8129 1261D 89 -708
Tully 364 8565 3694 163 1910
C Cumulative number of days where rainfall > zero. D Includes irrigation (70 mm).
E Cumulative daily (mm)
Table 5. Correlations between Cfum and (Cfum Cunfum) in the soil microbial biomass assay.
Negative values of (Cfum Cunfum) omitted. Pooled data from each experiment.
N/g/day. This was done to provide a semiquantitative measure of gross mineralisation and net immobilisation, but had the effect of reducing the treatment differences. Incorporated trash was separated from the soil by soaking and agitating the sample in 7 L of water for 2 minutes, then removing floating organic matter by hand and suspended organic matter on a 2 mm sieve. This procedure was performed 4 times per sample. The trash was then dried at 70C. Any obvious non-trash material was removed manually from the dried sample. Total C and N analyses were done on dried subsamples of soil ground to <250 m and trash ground to <500 m. Total N in soil was determined by Kjeldahl digestion followed by automated colorimetric analysis (Rayment and Higginson 1992, method 7A2). Organic C in soil was determined by the Heanes dichromate oxidation method, which measures total organic C but not carbonate (Heanes 1984; Rayment and Higginson 1992, method 6B1). Total N and C in trash were determined using a Leco induction furnace. Soil pH and electrical conductivity were measured in 1:5 soil-water extracts (Rayment and Higginson 1992, method 3A1). The pH of some soils was also measured in 1:5 soilcalcium chloride extracts (Rayment and Higginson 1992, method 4B2).
Experiment Harwood (Late) Mackay (Late) Tully Harwood (Early) Mackay (Early)
Correlation coefficient 0.89 0.94 0.88 0.92 0.91
P 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
n 167 278 138 245 221
unfumigated soil (Cunfum) was subtracted from C from the fumigated soil (Cfum), as is the usual procedure. However, Cfum was well correlated with Cfum Cunfum (Table 5). Therefore Cfum is presented as an index of microbial biomass C (e.g. Fig. 17). Where microbial biomass is shown as kg/ha (e.g. Fig. 15), this has been calculated from positive values of (Cfum Cunfum ) only, using a Kc factor of 0.38 (Vance et al.,1987). The ability of the soils to mineralise N and C was measured in laboratory incubations. Soil N and C mineralisations were measured as the change in inorganic N (ammonium + nitrate) and the release of carbon dioxide, respectively, during a 7-day aerobic incubation at 25C. Again, 15 g portions of field-moist soil were used, made up to the standard water contents above. Carbon dioxide was trapped in 1 M sodium hydroxide and determined by titration against dilute hydrochloric acid (Zibilske 1994). In soils from several samplings (Mackay late harvest days 124 and 169, and Tully days 1, 210 and 266), some mineralisation of inorganic N occurred during storage. In those soils, the starting inorganic N content for the incubation was taken as that determined soon after sampling instead of that determined on the day the incubations were set up. This increased the N mineralisation value, but had no effect on treatment differences or time trends. The C:N mineralisation ratio of the incubated soils was calculated as the ratio of C mineralisation: N mineralisation. Where net N mineralisation was negative (i.e. net immobilisation of N occurred), and where net mineralisation was <0.2 g N/g/day, the value of the N mineralisation was set to 0.2 g
Calculations and Statistical Analyses

The effects of trash management, soil depth, and sampling time were tested separately for each experiment by analysis of variance for a randomised complete block design using the Systat program (SPSS Inc.). Allowance was made for the unequal number of replicates in the Tully experiment. Relationships between selected variables were investigated using Pearson correlation and linear regression. Unless stated otherwise, effects were taken as significant where Bonferroni probabilities were P 0.05. Cumulative trash returns since the establishment of the original field experiments were estimated using the average relationship between trash DM and fresh cane yield
measured in the current experiments: Trash DM returned = (Cane fresh weight) x 0.1 Cumulative returns of C and N in trash were estimated by assuming concentrations of C = 44% and N = 0.54% (means from the 5 experiments). Accumulated thermal time (temperature) was calculated from mean daily air temperature, without subtraction of a base temperature.
Results
Trash Return from GCTB
After harvest, about 7-12 t of trash dry matter (DM) was returned per ha (means for individual experiments, Fig. 5 (c), (d)). Approximately 10 t of trash DM was returned for every 100 t fresh cane yield (r2=0.54). For individual experiments, however, this figure ranged between 8 and 12 t DM/ha. Trash DM estimates were variable within plots (CV 23-26% at Harwood, 33-60% at Mackay,
Figure 5. Dry matter (DM) decomposition in free trash during one year.
Bars indicate LSD (P= 0.05) within experiments.
10
Figure 6. Carbon in free trash during one year.

Proportion of original mass remaining (a, b), and mass remaining (c, d). Bars indicate LSD (P= 0.05) within experiments.
and 45% at Tully). Trash water content was 1930% (fresh weight basis) after harvest (senesced trash 8-47%, green tops 21-72%). During the experiments, trash water content was 5-86% at the time of sampling. The trash returned after harvest contained 3-5 t C/ha and 28-54 kg N/ha (Figs 6 and 7). The return of N in trash was not significantly related to cane yield. The concentration of C was very consistent (44.1-45.0%), but the concentration of N was more variable (0.380.67%) among experiments (Fig. 8). The trash C:N ratio was 70-117 (Fig. 8).
Trash Decomposition
Free Trash
During one year, 82-98% of the free trash (surface trash, not incorporated with the soil) was decomposed (Fig. 5 (a), (b)). The rate of DM decomposition between sampling occasions varied between zero and 0.78%/day (54 kg/ha/day, Fig. 5 (e), (f)). In the lateharvested crops, decomposition rate was significantly (P<0.05) related to mean air temperature (r2=0.36), and mean daily rainfall (r2=0.36) in the previous decomposition period
11
Figure 7. Nitrogen in free trash during one year.

Proportion of original mass remaining (a, b), and mass remaining (c, d). Bars indicate LSD (P= 0.05) within experiments.
(combined data from 3 experiments). These relationships were generally stronger for the individual sites (Fig. 9). The proportion of rainy days in the decomposition period had a significant effect on decomposition rate in Mackay (Late) only (Fig. 9). The influence of rainfall on decomposition (as seen by the slope of the regression line, Fig. 9) increased in the order T < M < H, in line with decreasing rainfall at the site. The influence of temperature on decomposition (slope) was not markedly different among sites. In early-harvested crops, decomposition rate was not correlated with any climatic variables.
Cumulative trash DM decomposition in the 5 experiments was more closely related to accumulated thermal time, (temperature), than to accumulated time (Fig. 10). Trash DM loss could be approximated from the equation LDM = 0.012 * (temperature) where LDM is percentage loss of DM from trash since harvest (day 0). Decomposition could not be described by a single relationship with accumulated rainfall ((rainfall), data not shown). During the year, the concentration of C in free trash declined and that of N increased, the C:N
12
Figure 8. C and N concentration, and C:N ratio of free and incorporated trash during one year.
Bars indicate LSD (P= 0.05) within experiments. Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen
13
Figure 9. Effect of climatic variables on decomposition of free trash DM.

(a) Air temperature, (b) rainfall, and (c) proportion of rainy days, in late-harvested crops. Data are means of the periods between sampling dates.
ratio falling to around 40 in late-harvested crops and 23-29 in early-harvested crops (Fig. 8). At the end of the year, 84-98% of the original C and 67-95% of the original N were lost from free trash. In other words, 50-800 kg C/ha and 1-20 kg N/ha remained in free trash at the end of the year (Figs 6 and 7). The rate of C loss from free trash was almost identical to the rate of DM loss (r2=0.99, P<0.001). Unlike DM decomposition, net loss of N from free trash could not be predicted adequately across all sites by one relationship with either accumulated time or (temperature). At Harwood and Mackay, net N loss from free trash was linearly related to(temperature) throughout the year. At Tully, however, there was no net N loss from free trash until after day 126 ((temperature) 3400), when around
40% of the DM had disappeared, and the C:N ratio had fallen to around 55. Thereafter, the N loss conformed to the relationship with (temperature) shown at Harwood and Mackay (Fig. 11 (b)): LN = 0.0085 * ((temperature) where LN is percentage loss of N from trash since harvest. Likewise, the relationship between DM loss and N loss from free trash was similar in the Harwood and Mackay experiments, and the Tully experiment did not follow this trend until about 40% DM loss had occurred. Thereafter, N and DM were lost from free trash at a consistent rate in all experiments, and N loss from free trash could be described by the equation: LN = 1.36 [LDM] - 49
14
Table 6. Dry matter (DM), C and N in free and incorporated trash during one year in late- and early-harvested crops. Days after harvest DM (t/ha) 360 276 310 342 356 309 343 365 8 43 104 152 211 260 319 354 12 45 75 131 207 269 318 367 1.49 1.90 2.13 2.23 1.95 2.03 1.74 2.57 2.32 1.48 0.99 2.27 1.97 1.33 1.51 1.80 1.64 1.08 1.12 2.16 1.57 1.50 1.39 Incorporated trash C (kg/ha) 472 731 842 746 752 692 545 861 826 540 372 651 505 368 469 637 627 421 456 740 507 490 467 N (kg/ha) 21.1 21.6 24.1 23.6 23.8 Tully Late harvest 19.9 17.9 26.8 24.7 16.7 12.7 26.2 22.2 16.6 20.9 24.2 15.6 11.5 12.9 21.6 17.5 18.0 19.9 2.94 2.50 2.71 10.55 9.47 5.81 6.48 5.59 4.47 4.13 3.29 9.66 8.09 6.37 4.88 3.49 2.66 2.70 1025 801 911 4530 4102 2437 2374 1906 1557 1498 1030 4272 3594 2749 1851 1240 921 918 28.0 25.1 28.1 79.1 73.6 53.3 71.6 59.9 56.1 53.5 44.3 64.1 51.5 48.2 42.7 36.4 30.2 35.4 Free + incorporated trash DM (t/ha) 2.31 4.77 4.87 4.94 3.86 C (kg/ha) 816 1957 2015 1860 1543 N (kg/ha) 29.7 50.2 51.0 52.2 43.6
Harwood Late harvest Mackay Late harvest
Harwood Early harvest
Mackay Early harvest
where LN and LDM are percentage loss of N and DM, respectively, from free trash since harvest (Fig. 11 (c)). The rate of N loss from trash during this period ranged between 100 and 130 g N/ha/day, and averaged 110 g N/ha/day ( standard error of 6 g N/ha/day) across all experiments.
Table 7. Average soil organic C and total N concentrations at the experimental sites (0-10 cm depth). Site Harwood Mackay Tully Organic C (%) 2.4 1.4 1.4 Total N (%) 0.20 0.08 0.10
Incorporated Trash
Incorporated trash (trash incorporated into the top 2 cm of soil) contained 1.0-2.6 t DM/ha, 370-860 kg C/ha, and 12-27 kg N/ha, with no
apparent time trends (Table 6). The C concentration was also variable (26-41%) with no trends in time. The N concentration (0.91.4%) tended to rise during the year (Fig. 8).
15
Figure 10. Relationships between free trash DM loss and accumulated (a) time and (b) thermal time ((Temperature)).
Data from all experiments. Broken line on figure (b) is 95% confidence interval for mean value of Y at any given value of X.
Tully data excluded from figure (b). All data shown in figures (a) and (c), but regression in (c) refers to DM Loss 40%. Broken lines are 95% confidence interval for mean value of Y at any given value of X.
Figure 11. Relationships between N loss from free trash and (a) days after harvest, (b) thermal time ((temperature)) and (c) DM loss from free trash.
16
Figure 12. Soil total organic C in the 0-5 cm depth.

Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05).
Figure 13. Soil total N in the 0-5 cm depth.

The C:N ratio of incorporated trash remained within a fairly narrow range, declining from around 30-40 at the start of the year to around 20-30 at the end. By the end of the year, the incorporated trash contained as much or more C and N than the free trash. At this time, the C:N ratio of incorporated trash was generally slightly lower than that of free trash (Table 6, Fig. 8).
but rather an effect of the growth of algae and moss on the soil surface, and the presence of broadleaf weed plants and seeds, which occurred in the burnt plots but not in the GCTB plots. Soil organic C and total N were greater at Harwood than at Mackay and Tully (Table 7). Stratification of soil C and N by depth was more pronounced under GCTB at Tully and Mackay (Tully data shown in Fig. 14 (c, d)). The trash effect on soil organic C and total N increased with cumulative C and N returns from trash (Fig. 15 (c, d). The slope of the regression lines suggested that soil organic C increased by 126 kg/ha for every t C returned, and soil N increased by 0.79 kg/ha for every kg N returned.
Soil Organic C and Total N

Soil organic C and total N were greater under trash blanketing than under burning, in the 0-2 and 2-5 cm depth layers of the older (Mackay and Tully) experiments (Figs 12 and 13). This trash effect was generally significant when averaged to 10 cm at Mackay and to 25 cm at Tully (data not shown). At Harwood, soil organic C and total N were generally not significantly affected by trash management. In the late-harvested experiment at Harwood, however, there was a trend for greater soil C and N in burnt plots than in GCTB plots. This is not considered to be a true treatment effect,
Soil Inorganic N
Soil inorganic N concentration was initially high following fertiliser application, and declined to a low level within about 2-3 months
17
(Fig. 16). Variation among replicates was extremely large after fertilisation due to the presence of undissolved fertiliser granules. There were no consistent differences between trash management treatments in inorganic N concentration (some statistically significant differences were observed, but they can not be considered true treatment effects).
Soil Microbial Biomass C

The soil microbial biomass C index was increased by trash blanketing at Mackay and Tully in the 0-2 and 2-5 cm layers (Fig. 17 shows means for 0-5 cm). The effect was generally still significant when averaged over the top 10 cm of soil (data not shown). The microbial biomass index was not significantly affected by trash management at Harwood. Figure 14. Soil C and N measurements to 25 cm depth.
Data from Tully experiment. Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05).
The Tully soils had more microbial C than the Harwood and Mackay soils. There was considerable temporal variation in microbial biomass (except Harwood (Early). Microbial C in burnt and GCTB treatments was generally well correlated (overall r=0.81, P<0.05). Like total organic C, the microbial biomass C index decreased more markedly with depth in GCTB than in burnt soils (Tully data shown in Fig. 14). The magnitude of the trash response was directly proportional to cumulative C returns in trash, with microbial biomass C increasing by about 5 kg C/ha for every t trash-C returned. (Fig. 15).
Soil C Mineralisation
Figure 15. Relationships between cumulative trash C and N inputs and trash effect on soil C and N (0-10 cm). At most sampling dates, C mineralisation (Fig. 18) was
18
Figure 16. Soil inorganic N in the 0-25 cm depth.

Note different scales on the Y-axis. Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05). Bars are LSD (P=0.05).
increased by trash blanketing in the 0-2 cm depth, and the effect was generally significant when averaged over the top 5 cm. As with total organic C, stratification of C mineralisation activity was greater under trash (Tully data shown in Fig. 14 (a)). The size of the trash effect increased with increasing cumulative C returned in trash (Fig. 15 (a)).
Soil Net N Mineralisation

Soil net N mineralisation generally did not differ significantly between trash management treatments in any depth layer or at any sampling time, though it tended to be lower in GCTB soils than burnt soils from 0-2 cm at Mackay and Tully (Table 8). Net N mineralisation did not change significantly with depth, but the GCTB and burnt treatments
19
Table 8. Soil net N mineralisation during incubation, 0-2 cm depth. Site Net N Mineralisation (g/g/day) Burnt Harwood Mackay Tully Harwood Mackay 0.38 0.32 0.20 0.31 0.37 GCTB Late harvest 0.32 -0.12 0.03 Early harvest 0.38 0.12 n.s. n.s. n.s. ** n.s. SignificanceA
Figure 17. Soil microbial biomass C index in 0-5 cm depth.

Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05). Bars are LSD (P=0.05) for comparing sampling times.
were more similar in the 10-25 cm depth than in the shallower depths. Variability among replicates was large, and there were no trends with time and no differences between sites.
Soil C:N Mineralisation Ratio

The C:N mineralisation ratio of the surface 10 cm of soil was greater in GCTB than in burnt treatments, particularly in the 0-2 cm depth and in the Mackay and Tully experiments. Means for the 0-5 cm depth are shown in Fig. 19. The C:N mineralisation ratio showed no consistent
A Significance of trash management effect as determined by independent t-test: **, P<0.01, n.s., P>0.05. Data from all sampling dates included (except data from the two sampling dates after fertiliser application)
20
difference below 10 cm. There were no regular time trends.
Table 9. Soil bulk density in Mackay (Early), 20 April 1998.

LSD (P=0.05) for management x depth x position interaction = 0.05 g/cm3.
Depth (cm)
Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) BURNT Row Shoulder Interrow 1.20 1.35 1.36 1.38 1.44 1.46 1.43 1.43 1.50 1.45 GCTB Row Shoulder Interrow 1.29 1.31 1.42 1.42 1.44 1.40 1.49 1.49 1.44 1.58 1.57 1.54
0-5 5-10
10-20 1.39 0-20 1.34
Soil Bulk Density

In the Mackay (Early) experiment, soil bulk density was very slightly greater under GCTB than burnt management (overall mean 1.46 and 1.40 g/cm3, respectively, P<0.05). Most of the effect was due to differences in the inter-row position and below 5 cm depth (Table 9).
Figure 18. Soil C mineralisation potential in 0-5 cm depth.

Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05). Bars are LSD (P=0.05) for comparing sampling times.
Figure 19. Soil C:N mineralisation ratio during 7-day incubation.

Data are means 0-5 cm depth and all sampling times. Experiments: HE, Harwood Early; HL, Harwood Late; ME, Mackay Early; ML, Mackay Late; TL, Tully Late. Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05).
Figure 20. Soil water content in the 0-5 cm depth.

21
Soil Water
The water content of the surface soil was considerably greater under a trash blanket than under burnt management until canopy closure (Fig. 20). In Tully, this difference remained all year. Most of the difference was in the top 5 cm, but was usually still significant when averaged over the top 25 cm (data not shown). For calculation of volumetric water, bulk density for Mackay soils was assumed to be the same as measured in the Early experiment, bulk density in the Tully soils was taken as 1.12, 1.21, and 1.22 g/cm3 for 0-5, 5-10, and 1025 cm, respectively (Mike Braunack, unpublished data). Bulk density at Harwood was assumed to be the same as Mackay. Volumetric water content gave identical treatment trends, and on the day of soil sampling, there was 0-30 mm more water in the top 25 cm of trash blanketed soil than burnt soil.
Soil pH
Figure 21. Soil pH (water) and electrical conductivity (EC) to 25 cm depth.
Data are means of all sampling dates. Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05).
At Tully, trash blanketing lowered soil pH (water) to 25 cm depth (significant for the first 6 sampling dates). Trash management had no significant effect on pH at Harwood or Mackay (Fig. 21). Soil pH in the experiments fell within the range 4.5-5.5. The pH (calcium chloride) of Tully soils from the 2-5 and 5-10 cm depths showed the same trends as pH (water) (Fig. 22).
Soil Electrical Conductivity

There was no consistent effect of trash management on soil electrical conductivity except in the 0-2 cm depth at Tully, where electrical conductivity in GCTB soil was greater than that in burnt soil for most of the year (Fig. 21). Some individual sampling dates showed significant trash management effects (data not shown), where increased electrical conductivity under either GCTB or burning coincided with high inorganic soil N content. Figure 22. Soil pH (calcium chloride) in the 2-10 cm depth at Tully.
22
Discussion
Trash returned after harvest
The quantity of trash DM returned under GCTB was fairly variable among experiments, but could be predicted approximately from the fresh cane yield. The average trash return in this study of 10 t DM / 100 t fresh cane was lower than the 13 t DM / 100 t fresh cane reported by Paul Nelson (unpublished data) in commercial canefields in the Burdekin region. His study spanned a wider range of crop yields than the present study, so his estimate may be more appropriate for generalising to other situations. The variability in trash DM was due to several factors: the gappy nature of the crops and irregular plant size (Mackay and Tully); the frequent stopping and starting of the harvester at experimental plots; irregular feeding of cane through the harvester (Mackay-Late); and differences in harvester set-up and operation. Because a repeatable estimate of trash mass is difficult to obtain under field conditions, the starting mass of trash needs to be controlled in any attempt to measure its decomposition. Trash water content is so variable that fresh mass is clearly not a useful indication of trash load. kg C/ha per 100 t/ha fresh cane yield. Most of the trash DM, C and N would have been lost under the burning system. Depending on the severity of the fire, 77-97% of the DM and N may be lost by burning sugarcane trash (Mitchell et al., 2000). The losses were probably greater at Tully, where the standing crop and residual trash were burnt, than at Harwood and Mackay, where the trash was burnt on the ground only. The quantity of trash returned under GCTB (up to 12 t DM/ha in this study, 25 t/ha in the Burdekin region (Fiona Robertson, unpublished data), and up 15 t DM/ha measured by Spain and Hodgen (1994)) and Jessica Klock (unpublished data), is large in comparison with the harvesting residues from most agricultural crops, e.g. 2-8 t DM/ha from wheat and barley (Buyanovsky and Wagner, 1986; Bolinder et al., 1997). Corn (Zea mays) can also return large amounts of residue (e.g. 14 t DM/ha, Buyanovsky and Wagner, 1986). The C:N ratio of fresh trash was high - up to 117 - therefore quality in terms of decomposition was low. Sugarcane trash C:N ratio can be greater than this, eg. 170 (Spain and Hodgen, 1994) The residues of other crops with similarly high C:N ratios (eg. wheat (73) Amato et al., 1987; barley (94) Christensen, 1985) result in net immobilisation of N during decomposition, so N immobilisation could be expected to predominate during the decomposition of sugarcane trash. The C concentration was almost identical in the different experiments, but the N concentration was variable, which resulted in some variation in trash quality (trash returned in Tully having the lowest quality).
C and N in Trash returned after harvest

The trash from newly harvested cane contained significant quantities of N (48-55 kg/ha in Harwood and Mackay, 27 kg/ha in Tully). The small N return in Tully reflected the small yield (79 t/ha in the year of this study, compared with an average of 111 t/ha in previous years, Alan Hurney, unpublished data). The N in trash represents around 60% of the total aboveground plant N (Chapman et al., 1994), so that N loss from the system is considerably reduced by trash retention. The return of N in trash, however, could not be predicted adequately from the cane yield. The return of C in trash could be estimated as 4400
Trash decomposition
It took a year for essentially all (82-98%) of the trash blankets to decompose. This is in agreement with the 81% decomposition of a 15 t DM/ha trash blanket in the Herbert region in a little less than a year recorded by Spain and
23
Hodgen (1994). At several sites in the Wet Tropics, Jessica Klock (unpublished data) measured 95% DM loss from trash during one year. Rainfall and temperature had a significant influence on the rate of free trash decomposition in the late-harvested crops, with their effect increasing in the order Tully < Mackay < Harwood, in line with decreasing temperature and rainfall (Fig. 9). This observation concurs with the established notion that water availability and temperature are major controlling factors for organic matter decomposition (Stott et al., 1986). The extent to which wheat residues decompose during one year was found to be positively related to rainfall, over 12 locations in southern Australia (Amato et al., 1987). The more complete decomposition of trash at Tully than at the other sites was probably an effect of the greater temperature and rainfall. The distribution of rainfall during the decomposition period (the proportion of rainy days in a decomposition period) was apparently a significant control on decomposition in the late-harvested crop at Mackay only, probably because this was the most water-limited experiment. Such an effect of rainfall frequency has also been observed by Vanlauwe et al. (1995) in dry tropical conditions. However, the relationships between free trash decomposition rate and temperature and rainfall varied among harvest seasons and sites, indicating that other factors (soil, trash, or management) also influenced decomposition rate, and were sometimes more important than climate. Climate and soil interact in the proportion of soil pore space habitable by microorganisms, a factor shown to be an important control of microbial activity and decomposition (Young and Ritz, 2000). The relative influence of all factors is likely to have varied throughout the year. Notwithstanding the fact that it was influenced by factors other than climate, trash decomposition could be estimated approximately from the relationship with thermal time found in this study (Fig. 10 (c)). The climatic range represented by Tully, Mackay and Harwood encompasses a large part of the sugar industry, therefore it is likely
that this relationship would hold at other sites. Fully irrigated conditions, however, may be different.
Mineralisation and Immobilisation of N from Trash

The N measured in free trash included not only the remaining trash-N, but any soil or fertiliser N (including that immobilised by microorganisms) associated with the trash. The change in free trash N through time therefore could have represented N movement from any of these sources. At the start of the year, a delay in apparent N release from free trash occurred in all experiments except Mackay (Early), lasting about 6 weeks in Harwood and Mackay and 16 weeks in Tully (Fig. 7). This is most likely to have resulted from retention of fertiliser and soil N within the trash through microbial immobilisation (because there was DM loss during this period, indicating active decomposition). This immobilisation may initially have been greater in Harwood and Tully because the fertiliser was applied on top of the trash (at Mackay, the fertiliser was applied below the soil surface). Such an effect of fertiliser placement would not have endured beyond day 100-150, by which time localised high concentrations of soil inorganic N had disappeared (data not shown). After the initial period of decomposition where N retention and loss were variable among experiments (until about 40% of trash DM had disappeared), the trash C:N ratios almost converged. Thereafter, N loss from free trash was more easily predicted, from (temperature) or from DM loss (Fig. 11). The average N loss from free trash during this period (110 g N/ha/day) was remarkably similar among experiments. N loss from free trash probably occurred through a combination of two processes: Firstly, movement of N from free trash to soil as a result of the growth of hyphae of (soil-based) fungi through the trash layer, a process which has been demonstrated to be important during decomposition of wheat straw (Frey et al.,
24
2000). The declining C:N ratio of free trash with time indicated decomposition of free trash even though most of it was not in direct contact with the soil. The second process is transfer of N from the free to the incorporated trash pool through the consolidating effect of rainfall, the mixing effect of earthworms and other soil fauna, or partial decomposition by microorganisms (mostly fungi). Transition from incorporated trash to soil would have occurred through further decomposition by fauna and microorganisms. For most of the year, incorporated trash was in a more advanced stage of decomposition than free trash, as seen by its lower C:N ratio and smaller fragment size. At the end of the year, the C:N ratios of free and incorporated trash were similar (23-42 for free and 23-32 for incorporated trash), and low enough that some net mineralisation of N could be expected from their decomposition (Parr and Papendick, 1978). The size of the incorporated trash pool remained fairly stable during the year (Table 6), suggesting that either the rate of addition and decomposition of incorporated trash were similar, or that little decomposition occurred. The N loss from free trash of 110 g N/ha/day (<3 kg N/ha/month) is a maximum for N mineralisation from free trash (assuming N loss = N mineralisation). A significant portion of this mineralised N would be immobilised by soil organisms, so that trash would have contributed very little N to the mineral N already in the soil (5-32 kg N/ha in the top 25 cm, 3-14 kg N/ha in the top 5 cm, after the effect of fertiliser had diminished). Thus, N mineralisation from trash is likely to have been of little significance for plant growth. This agrees with the finding of Ng Kee Kwong (1987) and Chapman et al. (1992) that less than 10% of the N in isotopically labelled trash was taken up by the plant. Soil N dynamics in sugarcane systems will undoubtedly be affected by release of C from plant roots through rhizodeposition (exudation of soluble organic compounds, sloughing of old cells, and death of roots). Rhizodeposition contributes large quantities of C to the soil (e.g. 15-30% of photosynthetically fixed C, or 10003000 kg C/ha) in crops such as wheat and maize, and grasses (Keith et al., 1986; Jensen,
1994; Qian et al., 1997; Kuzyakov et al., 2001), with important consequences for microbial activity and N transformations (Qian et al., 1997; Kisselle et al., 2001). Large root masses have been measured in sugarcane (Ball-Coelho et al., 1992), but almost nothing is known about rhizodeposition, and until this knowledge gap is corrected any assessment of the importance of trash as a C source in sugarcane systems will be incomplete.
Soil C and N Cycling

The GCTB system caused total soil C and N to increase in the oldest experiments (Mackay and Tully) but not in the youngest experiments (Harwood). The response at Mackay and Tully would have been due both to input of C and N as trash and to the protective effect of reduced cultivation on soil organic matter. The lack of response at Harwood may have been because the experiments were only 1 or 2 years old, because the burnt treatments were not cultivated, or because the soil at this site had relatively large contents of C and N. Increased total C and N in the surface soil after several years of GCTB suggests that these sugarcane systems are responding in a similar way to residue retention as has been found with crops such as cereals and maize in many parts of the world (e.g. Franzluebbers et al., 1995; Chan et al., 1992; Ortega et al., 2002). This increase in total C and N in the Mackay and Tully experiments could not be explained by the presence of incorporated trash in the surface soil. Incorporated trash accounted for 17-27% of the C and 6-14% of the N accumulated under GCTB (0-5 cm). Similarly, growth of the microbial biomass could only account for 4-5% of the extra C in the GCTB soils. In other words, at least 80% of the trashderived C and N under GCTB was in an advanced state of decomposition (<2 mm in size and not visually recognisable as trash). The soil microbial biomass showed similar temporal variation in burnt and GCTB systems. Large seasonal variations such as the peak around the middle of the year in the lateharvested experiments have been reported in other cropping systems and may have been
25
associated with microbial substrate availability or grazing by soil fauna (Buchanan and King, 1992; Beare, 1997). As a consequence of the improved C availability under GCTB, soil microbial activity (C mineralisation) and, to a lesser extent, soil microbial growth (microbial biomass) were increased. Most of the trash C was in fact respired by the microbial biomass and lost from the system as CO2 during the following year. The stimulation of microbial activity was not, however, accompanied by increased production of soil mineral N (soil N mineralisation). This did not mean that N was not mineralised from decomposing trash: although the N mineralisation measurement was little different in GCTB and burnt soils, the ratio of C mineralisation: N mineralisation showed that N immobilisation by the soil microorganisms was much greater in the GCTB soils (i.e. gross N mineralisation was increased by GCTB, but net N mineralisation was not). This difference in microbial immobilisation between the GCTB and burnt systems would have been even greater under field conditions, where surface trash (which was excluded from the laboratory incubations) would have contributed additional C to the soil, thereby increasing the ratio in GCTB soils. The amount of N required for the microbial biomass to decompose a trash blanket can be roughly calculated (Fig. 24). Say the trash contains 9 t DM, 4000 kg C/ha and 55 kg N/ha (typical figures from this study). If the microbial biomass has a C:N ratio of 8 (Allison and Killham, 1988), and the microbial biomass respires 65% and assimilates 35% of C used during decomposition (Alexander, 1977), then the microbial biomass will need 175 kg N. Around 55 kg of this microbial N demand could be supplied from the trash, leaving 120 kg N to be supplied from fertiliser and soil organic matter. If 180 kg N is applied as fertiliser to a 100 t/ha crop with a N requirement of 180 kg N (Calcino, 1994, with allowance made for roots), and if the crop receives 30% of its N from fertiliser and 70% from soil organic matter (Vallis et al., 1996), then a minimum of 126 kg N must be mineralised from the soil organic matter. So total N demand (crop + microorganisms) would be 355 kg N, and total N supply (trash +
fertiliser + soil) would be 361 kg N. Thus, the entire trash blanket could be decomposed without compromising the supply of N to the crop. In reality, the total N demand in GCTB systems is probably easily satisfied by the N supply (the estimated N from soil organic matter in the above example was a minimum). This agrees with the finding that equally good crops can be grown under the burnt and GCTB systems using the same N fertiliser application rates (Chapman, 1990). These calculations do, however, also suggest that very large reductions in N fertiliser application would not be possible under GCTB. The results here showing greater immobilisation of N under GCTB are consistent with findings of increased N immobilisation with residue retention in other crops (Christensen, 1986; Jensen et al., 1997). In some systems (eg. cereal production in the Darling Downs of Queensland), residue retention can stimulate immobilisation to the detriment of the crop, necessitating larger N fertiliser applications where residues are conserved (Thompson, 1992). Sugarcane crops do not suffer N stress because of trash conservation, perhaps because of the relatively large fertiliser inputs, or because the sugar soils have larger reserves of mineral or mineralisable soil N, or because the trash blanket is decomposed gradually over a whole year. The proportion of free trash-C remaining on the soil surface in the GCTB treatments after one year (2-18%) was about the same as the proportion that remains after trash is burnt (220%, Mitchell et al., 2000). However, some of the C lost from free trash became incorporated trash, microbial biomass, and soil organic matter, thereby effecting the increase in soil C. Also, in contrast to the biologically labile nature of the C returned under GCTB, the C remaining after a fire may have contained a significant quantity of charcoal-like material that was biologically inert (Skjemstadt et al., 1999). Thus, the apparently similar surface retention of trash in the GCTB and burnt systems belied the important contribution of the GCTB system to soil organic matter status. A greater proportion of the trash-N was retained on the soil surface (5-37%) at the end of the year, due to the relative N-enrichment of trash during decomposition.
26
i.e. old trash was biologically active, or else altered the soil environment in ways promoting microbial activity. In most residue conservation systems with minimum tillage, including GCTB, some of the increase in soil C (relative to burnt and conventionally cultivated sites) will be due to preservation of soil organic matter from reduced cultivation. At the Mackay site, Blair (2000) measured a reduction in soil organic C after the burnt and GCTB plots were cultivated for 4 years. In a wheat cropping system Chan et al. (2002) found that cultivation had a Figure 24. Representation of N demand and supply under GCTB. greater effect in reducing See section Soil C and N Cycling for explanation. total soil C than stubble The magnitude of the trash effect on soil C and burning, though Dalal et al. (1991) found that N depended on the cumulative amount of trash cultivation had little effect. returned to the soil. The regression of cumulative trash returns against measured increases in soil total C and N suggested that about 13% of cumulative C inputs and 79% of Long-term Soil C and N Status under cumulative N inputs were retained in the soil GCTB (Fig. 15). Most of the remaining C would have been lost through microbial respiration, and a The rates of accumulation and mineralisation of small proportion may have been leached below C and N under GCTB measured in these 25 cm. The remaining N could have been lost experiments can only be considered indicative by denitrification, leaching or crop uptake. of the first crop cycle (4-6 years) after However, this apparent retention of trash C conversion from a burnt to a GCTB system. At and N was quite variable (10-20% for C and 40the end of a crop cycle, sugarcane soils are 100% for N), with no allowance made for normally cultivated several times to 150-250 fertiliser N inputs. Similar rates of retention of mm depth, the effect of which may be to reduce residue C (11-18% of inputs) have been differences in soil C and N between burnt and reported during the first 10 years of residue GCTB treatments (e.g. Pankhurst et al., 2002). conservation in cereal cropping systems in Since the sampling for this study was temperate regions (Barber, 1979; Srensen, 1987; completed, the Mackay (Early) experiment has Duiker and Lal, 1999). In the semiarid United been ploughed out and re-planted, and the States, Rasmussen et al. (1980) reported 18% trash management effects on soil total C and N retention of C and 75% retention of N from are still evident (Table 10). Rates of C and N wheat straw returns. accumulation in GCTB systems must be expected to decrease with time and reach an The GCTB effect on soil microbial biomass C equilibrium level, as is known to happen in and C mineralisation also increased with other crop and pasture systems (Russell, 1980; increasing cumulative trash returns. This Jenkinson, 1991). Accumulation rates decrease suggests that part of the GCTB effect on these because mineralisation and loss of C and N properties was due to old trash (>1 year old). from the soil (through respiration, leaching,
27
Table 10. Soil total C and N in Mackay (Early) before and after ploughout-replant (0-25 cm).
Before-ploughout data is from the final sampling in this study (6 July 1998). After-plough-out is one year after cultivation and replanting of all treatments (soil sampled 1 July 1999), data of Ross Mitchell (unpublished). Asterisk indicates trash management treatments are significantly different (P<0.05).
Measurement Burnt
Treatment GCTB 1.14 (*) 0.069 (*) 1.14 (*) 0.071 (*) Before plough-out
(relatively rapid decomposition and/or loss of decomposition products), where 100% of trashN and 10% of trash-C from each crop is retained in the soil in the year following harvest, and 80% of this trash-N and 80% of this trash-C is retained in subsequent years. The effects on soil C and N were calculated (no allowance made for fallow effects) until the systems had reached equilibrium. It was also assumed that the trash-induced increase in soil microbial biomass N was 3% of the trash-induced increase in total soil N at equilibrium. Trash-derived N potentially available for plant uptake was calculated as trash N returned minus trash-derived N retained in the soil minus trash-derived N immobilised by the microbial biomass. At equilibrium under the retentive scheme, total soil C would have increased by 22% at Mackay and Tully and by 12% at Harwood. Total soil N would have increased by 23% at Mackay and Tully and by 8% at Harwood. Under the non-retentive scheme, at equilibrium soil C would have increased by 5% at Mackay and Tully and by 3% at Harwood. Soil N would have increased by 11% at Mackay and Tully and by 4% at Harwood. The retentive system approached equilibrium after 20-35 years, and the non-retentive system after 7-12 years (Fig. 23 (a) and (b)). Thus, using these scenarios the expectations for increased soil total C and N under long-term GCTB at these sites varies from negligible to small. During the first 2-5 years under GCTB, the amount of N potentially available for plant uptake (if not lost from the system by leaching or denitrification) was negative. i.e. mineralisation of trash-derived N did not compensate for microbial immobilisation of trash-derived N. Net mineralisation of trashderived N gradually increased to 38 kg N/ha under the retentive scenario and to 47 kg N/ha under the non-retentive scenario (Fig. 23 (c)). When equilibrium is attained, accumulation of trash N in the soil ceases, because inputs from new trash are balanced by mineralisation and loss from old trash. This maximum rate of net N mineralisation also represents the maximum amount by which N fertiliser rates could possibly be reduced in GCTB systems (with
Organic C (%) Total N (%) Organic C (%) Total N (%)
1.09 0.064 After plough-out 1.01 0.067
denitrification, plant uptake) increase. The importance of trash as a N source lies in the old trash which has accumulated over the years. In order to explore a range of possible longterm responses of soil C and N to trash blanketing, measured rates of decomposition and accumulation were combined with assumptions about the mineralisation of C and N from trash left from previous years, and equilibrium C and N balances were calculated for the top 25 cm of soil at each site (assumptions were supported by measured retention of isotopically labelled residues in other cropping systems: Jenkinson, 1965; Jenkinson, 1971; Broadbent and Nakashima, 1974; Jenkinson and Ayanaba, 1977). At the start, the Mackay and Tully soils contained 40,000 kg C /ha and 2,400 kg N /ha, and the Harwood soils contained 76,000 kg C /ha and 6,500 kg N /ha. Annual trash returns of 10 t DM, 4500 kg C, and 55 kg N/ha were assumed. It was assumed that the systems were already in steady state conditions under the burnt system (i.e. that total soil C and N remained constant through time). Two decomposition scenarios were compared: (1) a retentive system (slow decomposition and/or loss of decomposition products), where for each crop, 100% of trash-N and 20% of trash-C is retained in the soil in the year following harvest, and 90% of the remaining trash-N and 90% of the remaining trash-C is retained in subsequent years and (2) a non-retentive system
28
Figure 23. Calculated cumulative increase in (a) total soil C, (b) total soil N, and (c) inorganic (plantavailable) N under long-term GCTB.
See text (Discussion, Long-term soil C and N status under GCTB) for more explanation.
The concept of soil retentivity is useful as used in the above what-if scenarios because it encompasses the effects a wide range of soil and environmental factors which do not need to be explicitly known. Identifying the retentivity of individual soils, however, is more difficult, as retentivity cannot be measured as a single quantity. Furthermore, it may change from year to year in response to climatic and management factors. The rate of trash decomposition and the rate of loss of decomposition products are what control retentivity. Retention of trash C and N in the soil would be promoted by slow trash decomposition (eg. due to adverse temperature or water conditions; or a limiting nutrient supply) and, perhaps more importantly, by slow loss (eg. due to protection of C and N in soils of high clay and silt content (Hassink, 1996; Saggar et al., 1996); immobilisation in a large soil microbial biomass; minimum cultivation; and minimal losses from leaching, denitrification, erosion, and runoff). The measured increases in total soil N due to GCTB suggest that the Tully and Mackay soils were fairly retentive (130-350 kg N after 3-6 years). However, accumulation of total soil N is similar under the retentive and non-retentive scenarios for about the first 4 years. It should be noted that the scenarios described above are based on the assumption that total soil C and N was not changing under the burnt system. The scenarios describe only the extra (trash derived) N in the GCTB system - the total soil N may increase, remain unchanged, or decrease through time depending on nontrash-related factors. In other words, trash retention will not necessarily increase total soil C and N, but it will reduce any decline in C and N. Such a case was reported after 20 years of wheat cropping in Queensland, where total soil N declined under both stubble retention plus minimum cultivation and stubble burning plus conventional cultivation, though the decline was less in the former (Dalal, 1992). The factors influencing retention and mineralisation of trash C and N are clearly interrelated, and very complex. Whilst the above scenarios are useful in exploring possible responses to trash retention, the system interactions are likely to be better understood
respect to the recommended N fertiliser rate, based on the burnt system). In the above scenarios, this point would be achieved after 12-35 years, though smaller reductions in fertiliser application could be made before this time. However, it is possible that fertiliser applications may not be able to be reduced to this extent if, for example, N loss is greater in GCTB than in burnt systems. It has been suggested that leaching (Vallis et al., 1996) and denitrification (Chapman and Haysom, 1991; Weier et al., 1998) may be promoted under GCTB due to the increased C and water contents. The decomposition scenarios used above are, of course, a simplification of the real systems. e.g. trash would not decompose as 2 separate pools (new and old trash) with individual retention rates, but as a continuum of new to very old trash with a corresponding continuum of retention rates. The above scenarios were also calculated assuming 3 trash pools (new, 1-yearold, and old trash) with the same retention rates for new and old trash and an intermediate retention rate for 1-year-old trash. This resulted in slightly greater retention of C and N, but otherwise very similar results (not shown).
29
with the aid of simulation models such as APSIM (Keating et al., 1999; Thorburn et al., 2000; Thorburn et al., 2001). Modelling investigations supported by this and other field studies are in progress (Peter Thorburn, Elizabeth Meier, and others, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems) and will not be discussed in this report. The effects of crop residue management on soil C and N have been little studied in sugarcane production systems. One exception is a field experiment in South Africa which has been running for 60 years (Graham et al., 2000; Graham et al., 2002), which compared the GCTB and trash burning systems compared in the present study. After 59 years, the GCTB treatments showed a 4% increase in organic C, 30% increase in total N, and over 100% increase in net N mineralisation and microbial biomass C and N, to 30 cm soil depth, when compared with the burnt treatments (Graham et al., 2000; Graham et al., 2002). These increases in total N and microbial biomass are larger than found in this study, as could be expected from the difference in age between the experiments. The increased N mineralisation under GCTB differed from this study, but agreed with the predictions from the long-term scenarios, and indicated that the South African GCTB system was at or approaching equilibrium. That trash retention will result in a small increase in total soil C and N and a somewhat greater increase in mineralisable soil N in the long term, as suggested in this study and measured in the South African experiment, also accords with findings in other cropping systems, e.g. Powlson et al. (1987) measured an increase of 5% in organic C, 10% in total N, and over 40% in net N mineralisation and microbial biomass N after 18 years of barley straw incorporation in Denmark. In barley cropping systems in Queensland, Thompson (1992) reported increases of 5% in organic C, 11% in total N, and 34% in net N mineralisation after 8 years of residue return and zero tillage. The effects of GCTB on soil N suggested by this study are broadly similar to the conclusions reached by Vallis et al. (1996) from simulations of burnt and trash blanketed sugarcane systems using the CENTURY model.
Table 11. Suggested best bet scheme for N fertiliser application under GCTB. Time since adoption Reduction from BSES of GCTB recommended N application for ratoon crops 1-2 crop cycles (5-10 years) 2-3 crop cycles (10-15 years) 4 crop cycles ( 20 years) None 10-15% 20-25%
Implications for Fertiliser Management under GCTB

One of the hopes held for the GCTB system was/is that the return of nutrients in trash would increase soil nutrient availability to an extent that would allow fertiliser applications to be reduced (Chapman et al., 1992; Vallis et al., 1996). This study suggests that, for the same crop yield, small reductions in N fertiliser application will be possible in the medium-long term, and that the appropriate time scale for reducing N application will vary from site to site. A suggested best bet scheme for N fertiliser application under GCTB is shown in Table 11. These recommendations have been developed in conjunction with Peter Thorburn, CSIRO, and are supported by his work using the APSIM-Sugarcane systems simulation model.
Water Retention
The greater soil water content under GCTB than burnt management in these experiments confirms numerous such observations elsewhere (Wood, 1991; Ball-Coelho et al., 1993; Chapman et al., 2001). The reduction in evaporation from the soil surface due to the trash blanket was important for the first half of the year, until the canopy of the crop closed over. In the Tully experiment, soil water was greater under GCTB throughout the year, probably because of the large number of gaps in the crop. The extra water under GCTB would be of practical significance for crop growth in drier regions. In the Mackay
30
experiments, Chapman et al. (2001) measured a mean increase of 14 t cane/ha in the GCTB plots (relative to the burnt plots), and suggested that the extra water under GCTB was equivalent to 2 ML of irrigation.
Soil pH
Long-term application of crop residues (including residues with high C:N ratio) can cause soil acidification, due to accumulation of organic matter and acid production during its decomposition (Williams, 1980). The finding that soil pH was not affected by trash management in Mackay but significantly reduced under GCTB in Tully was probably due to a combination of soil and environmental factors. A reason sometimes given for soil acidification is the removal of basic cations in the harvested crop (Bolan et al., 1991; Noble et al. 1997), but this can not explain the results in the Tully experiment because crop yields were similar in both trash management treatments (Alan Hurney, unpublished data). If more nitrate was leached in the GCTB than in the burnt treatments (the greater water content of the GCTB soils makes this possible), acidification may have been greater also (Noble et al.. 1997). The main reason for soil acidification under GCTB, however, is likely to be the production of hydrogen ions during decomposition of the trash blanket. This is a process that would have occurred in Mackay also, but the soil had a greater pH buffering capacity than the Tully soil. Application of large quantities of wheat residue has been reported to result in less acidification in soils subjected to frequent wet-dry cycles (such as the Mackay soil) than in continuously moist soils (such as the Tully soil) (Paul et al., 2001). Thus, the response of soil pH to GCTB may vary with climate. The acidification of the soil in the Tully experiment is an alert that soil pH should be monitored under GCTB, and corrective action taken if necessary.
study were concentrated in the surface soil: a consequence of the undisturbed trash blanket. This is a phenomenon reported in other cropping systems where minimum tillage and residue retention are used (Granatstein et al., 1987; Doran et al., 1998). The effects of sugarcane trash can be expected to become measurable deeper in the soil as GCTB is continued for longer periods, due to organic matter accumulation and cultivation of the soil between crop cycles. This depth gradient of organic matter, nutrients and water under GCTB may have consequences for crop growth. For example, it may promote more shallow rooting, as has been observed in other crops in response to water availability (Proffitt et al., 1985). In the present experiments, growth of roots in and immediately below the trash blanket were clearly visible, whereas no such superficial rooting occurred under burnt management. The surface nature of the GCTB effect means that the choice of sampling depth is important when attempting to measure the effects of GCTB on soil properties. Sampling the soils as one 0-25 cm depth layer, as has traditionally been done in the sugar industry, would have masked much of the GCTB effect in these experiments. Some studies in the Herbert and Mackay regions have found no significant increase in organic C in the 0-25 cm depth after many years of GCTB (Andrew Wood, personal communication; Les Chapman, personal communication). This may have been because of the choice of sampling depth, or because the soil was non-retentive.
Other Effects of GCTB

Other Nutrients
Not all nutrients in trash will follow the patterns shown in this study for N. For example, potassium is very soluble and easily leached from trash, so its availability to the crop and persistence in the soil is likely to be very different from that of N (Christensen, 1985; Spain and Hodgen, 1994; Ross Mitchell and Peter Larsen, unpublished data). On the other hand, phosphorus and sulfur in trash are likely to behave as N does, being similarly dependent on decomposition and C cycling for
Stratification
Most of the effects of GCTB observed in this
31
release to the soil (Russell and Williams, 1982).
Organic Matter Accumulation

Accumulation of organic matter in the soil under GCTB will have many consequences besides those dealt with in this study. The finding of increased microbial growth under GCTB is consistent with the increase in earthworms and other soil fauna measured by other researchers (Wood, 1991; Robertson et al. 1994), and demonstrates improved biological conditions in the soil (Weigand et al. 1995). This in turn may eventually lead to a more resilient soil system, less susceptible to outbreaks of pests and diseases and other stresses (Swift, 1994; Degens et al., 2001). Long-term sugarcane monoculture under a burning system can result in soil degradation by organic matter depletion (Holt and Mayer, 1998). This study suggests that adoption of the GCTB system may help to alleviate the problem. Soil faunal (particularly earthworm) activity has been shown to increase residue decomposition and N mineralisation in residues from other crops (Tian et al., 1995; Brown et al., 1998; Whalen et al., 1999), and it seems reasonable to speculate that the rate of decomposition and N release from trash may increase as faunal populations increase under medium- or long-term trash blanketing. Similarly, repeated return of trash to the soil may result in more rapid trash decomposition due to acclimatisation of the soil microbial biomass, a phenomenon which has been demonstrated in cereal cropping (Killham et al., 1988). The GCTB system can be difficult to manage in some situations e.g. with very large crops, problems may be encountered during harvesting (Norris and Davies, 2001); in furrow irrigated systems, parts of the crop may be watered inadequately because of slow water movement down the drills; and in cooler climates such as northern New South Wales, the productivity of early-harvested crop may be reduced (Kingston and Norris, 2000; Graham Kingston, unpublished data). Until these obstacles are overcome, removal of trash from canefields will be the preferred option for some growers. There is currently a lot of interest in reducing
global CO2 emissions in order to reduce the severity of the Greenhouse Effect, including by promoting storage of C in the soil in agricultural production systems (C sequestration) (Lal, 1997). This study suggests a small positive effect in this regard from adopting GCTB.
32
Conclusions
Under the GCTB system, a large quantity of trash of high C:N ratio was returned to the field, most of which was decomposed during one year. The rate of decomposition was influenced by temperature, rainfall, and other factors not identified here. Most of the trash C was lost as CO2. Nitrogen release from the current years trash was variable and insignificant until about 40% of trash DM had disappeared. During the rest of the year, N was released at a slow rate, though its contribution to the soil mineral N pool was likely to remain unimportant. Soil organic C and total N in the surface soil was increased by trash blanketing rather than burning, in the older experiments. As a consequence of the improved C availability under GCTB, soil microbial growth and activity were stimulated. Net mineralisation of N was not increased under GCTB due to greatly increased microbial immobilisation of N. The entire trash blanket could be decomposed without compromising the supply of N to the crop. Calculations of possible long-term effects of converting from a burnt to GCTB production system suggested that, at the sites studied, soil C could increase by 2-18% and soil N could increase by 4-23%, depending on soil and climatic factors, and that it could take 10-35 years for the soils to approach this new equilibrium. Inorganic soil N would be expected to increase under medium-long term GCTB, due to mineralisation of N from trash-derived organic matter, to an amount approaching the annual N return in trash. Small reductions in N fertiliser application will probably be possible in the medium-long term after adoption of GCTB, and the appropriate time scale for reducing N application will vary from site to site. Conversion from a burning to a GCTB trash management system is likely to improve the soil organic matter and N status of sugarcane soils.
33
References
Alexander M (1977) Introduction to Soil Microbiology. (John Wiley & Sons: New York) Allison MF, Killham K (1988) Response of soil microbial biomass to straw incorporation. Journal of Soil Science 39, 237-242. Amato M, Ladd JN, Ellington A, Ford G, Mahoney JE, Taylor AC, Walsgott D (1987) Decomposition of plant material in Australian soils. IV. Decomposition in situ of 14C- and 15N-labelled legume and wheat materials in a range of southern Australian soils. Australian Journal of Soil Research 25, 95-105. Ball-Coelho B, Sampaio EVSB, Tiessen H, Stewart JWB (1992) Root dynamics in plant and ratoon crops of sugar cane. Plant and Soil 142, 297-305. Ball-Coelho B, Tiessen H, Stewart JWB, Salcedo IH, Sampaio EVSB (1993) Residue management effects on sugarcane yield and soil properties in northeastern Brazil. Agronomy Journal 85, 1004-1008. Barber SA (1979) Corn residue management and soil organic matter. Agronomy Journal 71, 625-627. Blair N (2000) Impact of cultivation and sugar-cane green trash management on carbon fractions and aggregate stability for a Chromic Luvisol in Queensland, Australia. Soil and Tillage Research 55, 183-191. Beare MH (1997) Fungal and bacterial pathways of organic matter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in arable soils. In Soil Ecology in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. (Eds Brussaard L and Ferrera-Cerrato R) pp. 37-70. (CRC Press / Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, USA) Bolan NS, Hedley MJ, White RE (1991) Processes of soil acidification during nitrogen cycling with emphasis on legume-based pastures. Plant and Soil 134, 53-63. Bolinder MA, Angers DA, Dubuc JP (1997) Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63, 61-66. Broadbent FE, Nakashima T (1974) Mineralization of carbon and nitrogen in soil amended with carbon-13 and nitrogen-15 labelled plant material. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 38, 313-315. Brown GG, Hendrix PF, Beare MH (1998) Earthworms (Lumbricus rubellus) and the fate of 15N in surface-applied sorghum residues. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30, 1701-1705. Buchanan M, King LD (1992) Seasonal fluctuations in soil microbial biomass carbon, phosphorus, and activity in no-till and reduced-chemical-input maize agroecosystems. Biology and Fertility of Soils 13, 211-217. Buyanovsky GA, Wagner GH (1986) Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93, 57-65. Calcino DV (1994) Australian Sugarcane Nutrition Manual. (BSES: Brisbane) Chan KY, Heenan DP, Oates A (2002) Soil carbon fractions and relationship to soil quality under different tillage and stubble management. Soil and Tillage Research 63, 133-139. Chan KY, Roberts WP, Heenan DP (1992) Organic carbon and associated properties of a Red Earth after 10 years of rotation under different stubble and tillage practices. Australian Journal of Soil Research 30, 71-83. Chapman LS (1990) Nitrogen fertilisation for trash conservation farming at Mackay. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 12, 85-89. Chapman LS, Haysom MBC (1991) Nitrogen fertilisation for fields with sugar cane crop residues. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 13, 53-58. Chapman LS, Haysom MBC, Saffigna PG (1992) N cycling in cane fields from 15N labelled trash and residual fertiliser. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 14, 84-89. Chapman LS, Haysom MBC, Saffigna PG (1994) The recovery of 15N from labelled urea fertilizer in crop components of sugarcane. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45, 1577-1585. Chapman LS, Larsen PL, Jackson J (2001) Trash conservation increases cane yield in the Mackay district. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 23, 176-184. Christensen BT (1985) Wheat and barley straw decomposition under field conditions: effect of soil
34
type and plant cover on weight loss, nitrogen and potassium content. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 17, 691-697. Christensen BT (1986) Barley straw decomposition under field conditions: effects of placement and initial nitrogen content on weight loss and nitrogen dynamics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 18, 523-529. Dalal RC (1992) Long term trends in total nitrogen of a vertisol subjected to zero tillage, nitrogen application and stubble retention. Australian Journal of Soil Research 30, 223-231. Dalal RC, Henderson PA, Glasby JM (1991) Organic matter and microbial biomass in a vertisol after 20 yr of zero-tillage. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 23, 435-441. Degens BP, Schipper LA, Sparling GP, Duncan LC (2001) Is the microbial community in a soil with reduced catabolic diversity less resistant to stress or disturbance? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33, 1143-1153. Doran JW, Elliot ET, Paustian K (1998) Soil microbial activity, nitrogen cycling, and long-term changes in organic carbon pools as related to fallow tillage management. Soil and Tillage Research 49, 3-18. Duiker SW, Lal R (1999) Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon sequestration in a Luvisol in central Ohio. Soil and Tillage Research 52, 73-81. Franzluebbers AJ, Hons FM, Zuberer DA (1995) Soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and mineralizable carbon and nitrogen in sorghum. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59, 460-466. Frey SD, Elliott ET, Paustian K, Peterson GA (2000) Fungal translocation as a mechanism for soil nitrogen inputs to surface residue decomposition in a no-tillage agroecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32, 689-698. Graham MH, Haynes RJ , Meyer JH (2000) Changes in soil fertility induced by trash retention and fertiliser applications on the long-term trash management trial at Mount Edgecombe. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 74, 109-113. Graham MH, Haynes RJ, Meyer JH (2002) Soil organic matter content and quality: effects of fertilizer applications, burning and trash retention on a long-term sugarcane experiment in South Africa. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34, 93-102. Granatstein DM, Bezdicek DF, Cochran VL, Elliott
LF, Hammel J (1987) Long-term tillage and rotation effects on soil microbial biomass, carbon and nitrogen. Biology and Fertility of Soils 5, 265-270. Hassink J (1996) Preservation of plant residues in soils differing in unsaturated protective capacity. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60, 487-491. Heanes DL (1984) Determination of total organic-C in soils by an improved chromic acid digestion and spectrophotometric procedure. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 15, 1191-1213. Holt JA, Mayer RJ (1998) Changes in microbial biomass and protease activities of soil associated with long-term sugar cane monoculture. Biology and Fertility of Soils 27, 127-131. Jenkinson DS (1965) Studies on the decomposition of plant material in soil. I. Losses of carbon from 14C labelled ryegrass incubated with soil in the field. Journal of Soil Science 16, 104-115. Jenkinson DS (1971) Studies on the decomposition of labelled organic matter in soil. Soil Science 111, 64-70.
14C
Jenkinson DS (1991) The Rothamsted long-term experiments: are they still of use? Agronomy Journal 83, 2-10. Jenkinson DS, Ayanaba A (1977) Decomposition of carbon-14 labelled plant material under tropical conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 41, 912-915. Jensen B (1994) Rhizodeposition by field-grown winter barley exposed to 14CO2 pulse-labelling. Applied Soil Ecology 1, 65-74. Jensen LS, Mueller T, Magid J, Nielsen NE (1997) Temporal variation of C and N mineralization, microbial biomass and extractable organic pools in soil after oilseed rape straw incorporation in the field. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29, 1043-1055. Keating BA, Robertson MJ, Muchow RC, Huth NI (1999) Modelling sugarcane production systems I. Development and performance of the sugarcane module. Field Crops Research 61, 253-271. Keith H, Oades JM, Martin JK (1986) Input of carbon to soil from wheat plants. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 18, 445-449. Killham K, Sinclair AH, Allison MF (1988) Effect of straw addition on composition and activity of soil microbial biomass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 94B, 135-143.
35
Kingston G, Norris C (2001) The green cane harvesting system - an Australian perspective. In Innovative approaches to sugarcane productivity in the new millennium. Agronomy workshop abstracts. Miami, Florida. p. 9. (American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists: Miami, Florida, USA) Kisselle KW, Garrett CJ, Fu S, Hendrix PF, Crossley DA Jr., Coleman DC, Potter RL (2001) Budgets for root-derived C and litter-derived C: comparison between conventional tillage and no tillage soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33, 1067-1075. Kuzyakov Y, Ehrensberger H, Stahr K (2001) Carbon partitioning and below-ground translocation by Lolium perenne. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33, 61-74. Lal R (1997) Residue management, conservation tillage and soil restoration for mitigating greenhouse effect by CO2-enrichment. Soil and Tillage Research 43, 81-107. Larson WE, Clapp CE, Pierre WH, Morachan YB (1972) Effects of increasing amounts of organic residues on continuous corn. II. Organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur. Agronomy Journal 64, 204-208. Mitchell RDJ, Thorburn PJ, Larsen P (2000) Quantifying the loss of nutrients from the immediate area when sugarcane residues are burnt. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 206-211. Ng Kee Kwong KF, Deville J, Cavalot PC, Riviere V (1987) Value of cane trash in nitrogen nutrition of sugarcane. Plant and Soil 102, 79-83. Noble AD, Bramley RGV, Wood AW, Hurney AP (1997) Sugarcane and soil acidity - why should we be worried? Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 19, 87-99. Norris CP, Davis RJ (2001) Developments in the feeding performance of sugarcane harvesters in large green crops. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24, 269-275. Ortega RA, Peterson GA, Westfall DG (2002) Residue accumulation and changes in soil organic matter as affected by cropping intensity in no-till dryland agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 94, 944-954. Pankhurst CE, Kirkby CA, Hawke BG, Harch BD (2002) Impact of a change in tillage and crop residue management practice on soil chemical and microbiological properties in a cereal-producing red
duplex soil in NSW, Australia. Biology and Fertility of Soils 35, 189-196. Parr JF, Papendick RI (1978) Factors affecting the decomposition of crop residues by microorganisms. In Crop Residue Management Systems. pp. 101129. (American Society of Agronomy: Madison, USA) Paul DK, Black APS, Conyers DM (2001) Development of nitrogen mineralisation gradients through surface soil depth and their influence on surface soil pH. Plant and Soil 234, 239-246. Paul EA, Juma NG (1981) Mineralization and immobilization of soil nitrogen by microorganisms. In Terrestrial Nitrogen Cycles. (Eds Clark FE and Rosswall T) pp. 179-195. Powlson DS, Brookes PC, Christensen BT (1987) Measurement of soil microbial biomass provides an early indication of changes in total soil organic matter due to straw incorporation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19, 159-164. Proffitt APB, Berliner PR, Oosterhuis DM (1985) A comparative study of root distribution and water extraction efficiency by wheat grown under highand low-frequency irrigation. Agronomy Journal 77, 655-662. Qian JH, Doran JW, Walters DT (1997) Maize plant contributions to root zone available carbon and microbial transformations of nitrogen. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29, 1451-1462. Rasmussen PE, Allmaras RR, Rohde CR, Roager NC (1980) Crop residue influences on soil carbon and nitrogen in a wheat-fallow system. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44, 596-600. Rayment GE, Higginson FR (1992) Australian Laboratory Handbook of Soil and Water Chemical Methods. (Inkata Press: Melbourne) Robertson LN, Radford BJ, Bridge B, McGarry D, Blakemore RJ, Sabag M (1994) Tropical earthworms under cropping in Queensland. In Soil Biota. Management in Sustainable Farming Systems. Poster Papers. (Ed. Pankhurst CE) pp. 33-34. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne) Russell JS (1980) Crop sequences, crop pasture rotations and soil fertility. Proceedings of the 1st Australian Agronomy Conference, Lawes, Queensland 15-29. Russell JS, Williams CH (1982) Biogeochemical interactions of carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and
36
phosphorus in Australian agroecosystems. In Cycling of Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulphur and Phosphorus in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. (Eds Freney JR and Gallabally IE) pp. 61-75. (Springer: New York) Saggar S, Parshotam A, Sparling GP, Feltham CW, Hart PBS (1996) 14C-labelled ryegrass turnover and residence times in soils varying in clay content and mineralogy. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 28, 1677-1686. Skjemstad JO, Taylor JA, Janik LJ, Marvanek SP (1999) Soil organic carbon dynamics under longterm sugarcane monoculture. Australian Journal of Soil Research 37, 151-164. Srensen LH (1987) Organic matter and microbial biomass in a soil incubated in the field for 20 years with 14C-labelled barley straw. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19, 39-42. Spain AV, Hodgen MJ (1994) Changes in the composition of sugarcane harvest residues during decomposition as a surface mulch. Biology and Fertility of Soils 17, 225-231. Stott DE, Elliot LF, Papendick RI, Campbell GS (1986) Low temperature or low water potential effects on the microbial decomposition of wheat residue. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 18, 577-582. Sutton MR, Wood AW, Saffigna PG (1996) Long term effects of green cane trash retention on Herbert River soils. In Sugarcane: Research Towards Efficient and Sustainable Production. (Eds Wilson JR, Hogarth DM, Campbell JA, and Garside AL) pp. 178-180. (CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures: Brisbane) Swift MJ (1994) Maintaining the biological status of soil: a key to sustainable land management? In Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use. (Eds Greenland DJ and Szabolcs I) pp. 235-247. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK) Thompson JP (1992) Soil biotic and biochemical factors in a long-term tillage and stubble management experiment on a vertisol. 2. Nitrogen deficiency with zero tillage and stubble retention. Soil and Tillage Research 22, 339-361. Thorburn PJ, Keating BA, Robertson FA, Wood AW (2000) Long-term changes in soil carbon and nitrogen under trash blanketing. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 217-224. Thorburn PJ, Probert ME, Robertson FA (2001)
Modelling decomposition of sugar cane surface residues with APSIM-Residue. Field Crops Research 70, 223-232. Tian G, Brussaard L, Kang BT (1995) Breakdown of plant residues with contrasting chemical compositions under humid tropical conditions: effects of earthworms and millipedes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 27, 277-280. Vallis I, Catchpoole VR, Hughes RM, Myers RJK, Ridge DR, Weier KL (1996) Recovery in plants and soils of 15N applied as subsurface bands of urea to sugarcane. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 355-370. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19, 703-707. Vanlauwe B, Vanlangenhove G, Merckx R, Vlassak K (1995) Impact of rainfall regime on the decomposition of leaf litter with contrasting quality under subhumid tropical conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils 20, 8-16. Weier KL, Rolston DE, Thorburn PJ (1998) The potential for N losses via denitrification beneath a green cane trash blanket. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 20, 169-175. Weigand S, Auerswald K, Beck T (1995) Microbial biomass in agricultural topsoils after 6 years of bare fallow. Biology and Fertility of Soils 19, 129-134. Whalen JK, Parmelee RW, McCartney DA, Vanarsdale JL (1999) Movement of N from decomposing earthworm tissue to soil, microbial and plant N pools. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31, 487-492. Williams CH (1980) Soil acidification under clover pasture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 20, 561-567. Wood AW (1991) Management of crop residues following green harvesting of sugarcane in north Queensland. Soil and Tillage Research 20, 69-85. Young IM, Ritz K (2000) Tillage, habitat space and function of soil microbes. Soil and Tillage Research 53, 201-213. Zibilske LM (1994) Carbon mineralisation. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. (Eds Weaver RW, Angle S, Bottomley P, Bezdicek D, Smith S, Tabatabai A, and Wollum A) pp. 835-863. (Soil Science Society of America Inc: Madison, USA)
37
Publications Based on this Work

Robertson FA (1998) Trash and burn - a question of soil fertility. Australian Sugarcane. 3, 3-5. Robertson FA, Thorburn PJ (2000) Trash management - consequences for soil carbon and nitrogen. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 22, 225-229. Robertson FA, Thorburn PJ (2001) Crop residue effects on soil C and N cycling under sugarcane. In: Sustainable Management of Soil Organic Matter, pp. 112-119. (Eds Rees RM, Ball BC, Campbell CD, Watson CA ). (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK). Thorburn PJ, Robertson FA, Lisson SN, Biggs JS (2001) Modelling decomposition of sugarcane surface residues and the impact on simulated yields. In: Sustainable Management of Soil Organic Matter, pp. 74-82. (Eds Rees RM, Ball BC, Campbell CD, Watson CA). (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK) Thorburn PJ, Probert ME, Robertson FA (2001) Modelling decomposition of sugar cane surface residues with APSIM-Residue. Field Crops Research 70, 223-232.
38

Sugarcane Trash Management

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sugarcane Trash Management

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sugarcane Trash Management: Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Annual rainfall (mm) 1021

vegetables, sugarcane (burnt) sugarcane (burnt)

Mackay Date Late-harvest Days after harvest Date

Tully Days after harvest

10 12 72 120 165 204 248 298 361

12 16 63 124 169 203 243 276 310 342 356

1 1 58 127 169 210 266 309 343 365

9 10 43 104 151 211 259 319 354

12 14 45 75 131 207 269 318 367

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Harwood Mackay Tully

292 404 692

951 1753 3267

327 397 773

1021 1668 4067

736 1296 3428

Climatic Conditions at Experimental Sites

Figure 3. Air temperature during the experimental period.

Meteorology data for summer and winter.

Tully 364 8565 3694 163 1910

E Cumulative daily (mm)

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Correlation coefficient 0.89 0.94 0.88 0.92 0.91

P 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

n 167 278 138 245 221

Calculations and Statistical Analyses

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Figure 6. Carbon in free trash during one year.

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Figure 7. Nitrogen in free trash during one year.

Figure 9. Effect of climatic variables on decomposition of free trash DM.

Harwood Late harvest Mackay Late harvest

Harwood Early harvest

Mackay Early harvest

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Figure 12. Soil total organic C in the 0-5 cm depth.

Figure 13. Soil total N in the 0-5 cm depth.

Soil Organic C and Total N

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Soil Microbial Biomass C

Figure 16. Soil inorganic N in the 0-25 cm depth.

Soil Net N Mineralisation

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Figure 17. Soil microbial biomass C index in 0-5 cm depth.

Soil C:N Mineralisation Ratio

difference below 10 cm. There were no regular time trends.

Table 9. Soil bulk density in Mackay (Early), 20 April 1998.

10-20 1.39 0-20 1.34

Soil Bulk Density

Figure 18. Soil C mineralisation potential in 0-5 cm depth.

Figure 19. Soil C:N mineralisation ratio during 7-day incubation.

Figure 20. Soil water content in the 0-5 cm depth.

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Soil Electrical Conductivity

C and N in Trash returned after harvest

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Mineralisation and Immobilisation of N from Trash

Soil C and N Cycling

Sugarcane Trash Management Consequences for Soil Carbon and Nitrogen