Sugar Tech

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-018-0692-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fertilization Alternatives for Sugarcane Crop in Pujiltic

Sugarcane Mill, Chiapas, Mexico
Eleazar Adoney Pérez Bautista1 • Ignacio Gordillo López1 • Sergio Salgado-Garcia2 • Silvia Islas Rivera1 •

Samuel Córdova Sánchez3

Received: 5 May 2018 / Accepted: 14 December 2018

Ó Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2019

Abstract With an aim to evaluate alternative sources of furrow. Intercropping with P. vulgaris, along with appli-
fertilizers for sugarcane crop in Pujiltic, Chiapas, Mexico, cation of vermicompost, was found to be one of the best
two species of nitrogen-fixing plants, canavalia (Canavalia options for sugarcane crop fertilization with the yield levels
ensiformis (L.) DC.) and sesentano bean (Phaseolus vul- similar to that in chemical fertilizer application.
garis L.), were evaluated along with organic fertilizers
vermicompost (10 t ha-1) and two biofertilizers [Mycor- Keywords Green manures
Vermicompost

rhizae (AMF) and Azospirillum brasilense] in a Pachic Biofertilizers
Intercropping
Sugarcane
Leptic Phaeozem soil. The treatments were compared with
chemical fertilization (120–60–60) and control treatment
(00–00–00) in two sugarcane cultivars: CP 72-2086 and Introduction
Mex 79-431. The best plant growth was observed in the
cultivar Mex 79-431, with a total biomass of 21.0 t ha-1. A The fertilization of sugarcane crop worldwide involves
yield of 18.5 t ha-1 was recorded for the cultivar CP providing the primary nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus and
72-2086. The Fabaceae species C. ensiformis competed potassium (NPK). These nutrients are mostly applied to the
more with the sugarcane crop; however, emergence of new soil in the form of inorganic fertilizers at the recommended
shoots was observed in this treatment. The highest yield doses. The nutrients get extracted from the soil after each
was obtained in the cultivar Mex 79-431 with chemical crop, and the canes transported to the sugar mill, without any
fertilizers, at 92.01 t ha-1, and in the cultivar CP 72-2086 a recycling of the nutrients to the soil, except that contributed
yield of 78.35 t ha-1 was recorded. The quality of sugar- by the root system. In addition, the harvesting process, which
cane juice was not affected by the fertilization treatments. consists of burning of the standing crop and further burning
The distribution of the root system was similar in both of sugarcane trash which remains after the harvest, prevents
cultivars, with a greater number of roots in the first horizon the nutrient recycling. In the sugarcane growing region of
(0–30 cm) and at a depth of 32.5 cm from the sugarcane Pujiltic sugar factory, Chiapas, Mexico, this system is
practiced, which leads to an increase in production cost due
& Sergio Salgado-Garcia
to the rising price of chemical fertilizers (Salgado et al.
salgados@colpos.mx 2014b). Therefore, it is essential to resort to sustainable
agriculture with viable alternatives, which consists of the use
1
Instituto Tecnológico de Comitán, Ignacio Manuel of biofertilizers, composts, crop rotations or intercropping
Altamirano S/N, CP 30000 Comitán, Chiapas, Mexico
with Fabaceae species, to provide the necessary nutrients for
2
Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Tabasco, Grupo sugarcane growth. However, in sugarcane, very few studies
MASCAÑA, Km. 3.5 Periférico Carlos A. Molina S/N. H,
have been carried out with respect to the use of biofertilizers,
CP 86500 Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico
3
composts and rotations or intercropping with Fabaceae
División Académica de Ciencias Básicas e Ingenierı́a,
species as fertilization options, even though sugarcane is
Cuerpo Académico de Quı́mica Verde y Desarrollo
Sostenible (CA-QVyDS), Universidad Popular de la grown in 115 countries worldwide (Serna et al. 2011;
Chontalpa, CP 86500 Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico Archana et al. 2013). In the local market, many products

123
 Sugar Tech

designated as biofertilizers recommended for sugarcane crop of 932 mm was recorded. In the command area of Pujiltic
are available, which are formulated based on Azospirillum sugarcane mill, irrigation is carried out in dry season.
brasilensis, a free nitrogen-fixing bacteria and mycorrhizal
fungi of the genus Glomus, as a source of phosphorus, water Experimental Design and Treatments
and other nutrients, but their suitability and extent of benefit
in this crop are unknown. A split-plot design was used for the experiment, where the
Fabaceae species (Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC. and main plot was the sugarcane cultivar and the subplots were
Phaseolus vulgaris L.) are highly beneficial, in increasing the seven fertilization treatments (Table 1). The treatments
soil organic matter, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, maintaining were distributed randomly with four replicates (Martı́nez
soil moisture levels for a longer time and loosening the soil, 1988). The experimental plot consisted of six rows with a
thereby allowing air and water to penetrate and circulate width of 1.3 m and 9 m length. All the observations were
more easily (Polo and Medina 2008). These are inexpensive, recorded from the middle four rows of 7 m length. The
making them more accessible to many farmers (Gonzales blocks tracing was found to the slope. To facilitate access
et al. 2008). Crops like common bean can also be an addi- for sampling, a spacing of 1.5 m between adjacent repli-
tional source of nutrition to the farmer (Salgado et al. 2012). cates and 1.0 m between adjacent plots was provided.
The use of compost provides organic matter, nutrients
and hormones in natural form, and improves the moisture Experimental Layout
retention capacity of soils, and the aeration and cohesion of
soil particles, thereby improving soil structure (making it The experiment was laid out in a sugarcane cultivation
more permeable to water and air). It also promotes bio- system. After the harvest, a subsoil pass was carried out to
logical activity, protects plants from harmful fungi and loosen the soil compaction followed by fallow to reverse
bacteria and neutralizes the presence of contaminants (in- the soil layer. After two dredge passes to break the lumps,
secticides and herbicides) due to their absorption capacity furrows were opened at a spacing of 1.3 m (Salgado et al.
(Salgado and Núñez 2013). The aim of this research was to 2012).
evaluate the effect of practices like intercropping with The early maturing sugarcane varieties CP 72-2086 and
Fabaceae crops, application of biofertilizers and incorpo- Mex 79-431 were used in this study (Méndez et al. 2012).
ration of vermicompost in two cultivars of sugarcane in the The seed was harvested from 8- to 9-month-old plant crop.
sugarcane growing region of Pujiltic, Chiapas, Mexico. The planting was done manually using the double-row
seeding system, to ensure a density of 9 to 12 buds per
meter of furrow.

Materials and Methods Crop Management

Experimental Site Irrigation

The experiment was conducted at the Santa Rosa property, Irrigation was carried out using a sprinkler system during
municipality of Las Rosas, Chiapas, Mexico, located the dry season, at an interval of 20–30 days. Four irriga-
14 km from the Pujiltic sugarcane mill (X = 0,559,975 and tions were scheduled as follows: the first one on May 20 for
Y = 1,808,847). The soil is classified as Pachic Leptic sugarcane germination, the next irrigation at the end of
Phaeozem (PHphl), with neutral pH, very rich in SOM and December 2015 and the two remaining irrigations during
tN, with a C/N ratio of 11, medium P-Olsen phosphorus January and February 2016, with 8 h of irrigation, with a
content (9.9 ppm) and a medium K concentration of 0.48 rigorous control of the applied water sheet. Each small plot
cmol (?) kg-1, high CEC with 51.6 cmol (?) kg-1 The was irrigated independently to avoid cross-contamination.
soil texture is clay loam (Salgado et al. 2008).
The climate is warm subhumid, with rains in summer. Weed and Pest Control
The average annual maximum temperature is 28.6 °C and
average minimum temperature is 15.7 °C, with a mean of Weed control was carried out manually with the help of
22.2 °C. The average annual rainfall in this region is machete, three times during the period. For pest control,
1010.5 mm (CONAGUA 2015). During the months of biological control with Metarhizium anisopliae and Tri-
November to April, a rainfall of 72 mm was recorded, chogramma was adopted. The application was carried out
favoring the maturation of sugarcane, thereby facilitating a by brigades of CNPR and delegation of sugarcane farmer
timely harvest. In contrast, from May to October a rainfall organizations, who have an agreement with the Pujiltic

123
Sugar Tech

Table 1 Treatments applied in the study

Id Treatment

1 Canavalia ensiformis. Two rows were sown between the rows of sugarcane crop, at a distance of 45 cm from the cane and 40 cm between
the plants. One seed was planted per hole. C. ensiformis was sown after irrigation for sugarcane germination. No fertilizer was applied in
this treatment
2 C. ensiformis?GlumixÒ, at a concentration of 2 9 104 CFU, at 3 kg ha-1, was used. The product was mixed in water and applied to the soil
with the aid of a backpack sprinkler model JactoÒ of 20 L, 2 months after sugarcane planting
3 C. ensiformis?AzoFerÒ (a.i. Azospirillum brasilense), at a concentration of 5 9 108 CFU, at 1.52 kg ha-1, was used. The product was
mixed in water and applied to the soil at the basal region of the cane with the aid of a backpack sprinkler model JactoÒ of 20 L, 2 months
after sugarcane planting
4 C. ensiformis?GlumixÒ?AzoFerÒ
5 Sesentano bean (Phaseoulus vulgaris L.) (SB) ?vermicompost (VC). The pinto cultivar and the sowing system was the same for that for C.
ensiformis with two seeds per hole. VC was incorporated at the time of planting at a dose of 10 t ha-1 (Salgado et al. 2014a)
6 Chemical fertilization (CF) 120–60–60, application of the fertilizer in sugarcane 2 months after planting, in the form of triple 16 and urea
sources, prior to irrigation (Salgado et al. 2008)
7 Control treatment (0–0–0)

sugarcane mill for the application and release of these 140 9 120 9 60 cm trenches were made to observe root
products. distribution in the soil profile where monoliths of
32.5 9 30 9 20 cm were subsequently extracted up to a
Harvest soil depth of 60 cm. The soil and roots were separated with
a sieve, the roots were washed, the fresh weight was
The crop was harvested 11 months after planting, under the recorded, and then they were transferred to the laboratory
system of burned sugarcane, manual cutting, mechanical and were dried in an oven at 70 °C for 72 h, to determine
lifting and transport harvested canes in trucks. their dry weight (g) per monolith (Otto et al. 2009).

Study Variables Growth of Sugarcane Crop

Number of Nodules of C. ensiformis Three months after planting, a monthly sampling of total
biomass was carried out in the treatments T4, T6 and T7,
Data were recorded from the crop 3 months after sowing. up to 11 months of age (harvest), these being the most
The roots from three randomly selected plants were used contrasting (Table 1). Canes from one meter of each
from each plot, at a distance of 50 cm from the main stem experimental plot were harvested. The total biomass was
of each plant and at depth of 20 cm. The roots with nodules recorded (kg m-1), the plant material was separated into
were separated from the root system, and the excess soil leaves and stems components, and the weights were
was removed. The whole plant was weighed, the root was recorded separately. Samples were grounded in a Chetu-
removed, and then the plant weight was recorded sepa- mal-type chopper, a subsample of 400 g was taken from
rately. The samples from the three plants were mixed to this and was transferred to the laboratory of the sugar mill,
make a subsample of 400 g biomass; the plant weight was dried on a forced air stove at 70 °C for 72 h, to determine
recorded with a digital balance (Model OHAUSÒ). Sub- the dry weight and moisture percentage (Cordova et al.
sequently, nodule count per plant was recorded and nodules 2016).
were separated from the roots. Both nodules and the bio-
mass were then packed in No. 10 paper bags and were Juice Quality of Sugarcane
transferred to the field laboratory of the Pujiltic sugarcane
mill for drying in a RIOSSAÒ forced ventilation oven for Prior to harvest, six canes were randomly taken from each
72 h at 70 °C, to determine its dry weight. plot and the juice quality analysis of the cane was carried
out. The observations for °Brix, sucrose percentage in
Root Distribution of Sugarcane Crop juice, purity [(sucrose % in juice/ Brix)*100] and reducing
sugars (%) were recorded. The analyses were performed as
Root distribution sampling was performed in the crop at per the Molino Cubano method (Golcher et al. 1984).
10 months of age after planting using the trench method.

123
 Sugar Tech

Yield of Sugarcane Crop (Table 2), which indicates that C. ensiformis alone or in
combination with biofertilizers (Azospirillum and AMF)
For the yield measurement, seven meters from each row, did not differ significantly with respect to dry matter pro-
from the middle four rows of each plot, were considered, duction. C. ensiformis showed good growth in these cli-
leaving a meter at each end of the row, to eliminate the matic conditions; the average value of dry matter was 8.42
border effect. The number of millable canes in each row t ha-1, which was greater than that observed by Puertas
was counted, five complete stalks were cut, and the top and et al. (2008) (4.59 t ha-1). The result was comparable to a
the dry leaves were removed and then weighed with a dry matter yield of 7.23 t ha-1 for C. ensiformis, obtained
digital field balance. Finally, the yield (t ha-1) was in the village C-31, in the supply area of the Presidente
calculated. Benito Juarez sugarcane factory (Cordova et al. 2016). This
reinforces the suitability of the soil for the growth of C.
Statistical Analysis ensiformis.

For all the variables, the analysis of variance for split-plot Number of Nodules of C. ensiformis
design was carried out using SAS software version 9.1.
Tukey’s multiple range test was used to compare the mean Significant differences were observed for fertilization (F),
values of treatments. and in the interaction C*F, but not in cultivar (C) (Table 2).
The nodules showed a reddish coloration, which demon-
strates the nitrogen fixation activity under these conditions.
Results and Discussion The treatment C. ensiformis?AMF?Azospirillum was the
one with the highest nodulation, with an average of 54.72
Weather nodules per plant, and the treatment with the least nodu-
lation was that of C. ensiformis alone, with 22.45 nodules
During the first 3 months of growth, sugarcane crop per plant. These results exceed the 7.7 nodules per plant
received 265.7 mm of rainfall (Fig. 1), and another reported in the C. ensiformis in association with coffee crop
458.4 mm during the rest of the period, with a total rainfall in Cubano biofertilizer (Bustamante et al. 1996). It is
of 724.1 mm. The crop was irrigated as per requirement. observed that biofertilizers tend to stimulate the nodulation
The annual average temperature was 14.05 °C with mini- of the C ensiformis.
mum temperatures being recorded in the months of
November, December and January. The average minimum Dry Matter in Nodules of C. ensiformis
temperature was 11.9 °C. The low temperatures delayed
the crop growth and development (Salgado et al. 2012). A significant difference was observed among the cultivar
(C), but not among the fertilization treatments (F) and in
Dry Matter of C. ensiformis the interaction C*F (Table 2). The cultivar CP 72-2086 had
a greater accumulation of dry matter of nodules with
There were no significant differences between cultivar (C), 3.85 g.plant-1, may be, due to low growth rate of this
fertilization treatments (F) and their interaction C*F cultivar in the first 3 months, which has allowed a better
growth of C. ensiformis. The dry matter of nodules was
higher than reported by Bustamante et al. (1996) (2.1 g.-
plant-1). The biofertilizers increased the dry matter of the
nodules of C. ensiformis, but this increase was not statis-
tically significant from that where no biofertilizers were
applied.

Root Distribution

The root distribution of cultivars Mex 79-431 and CP

72-2086 was greater in the first soil horizon (0–30 cm), and
it was observed that the highest root concentration is close
to the furrow at a distance of 32.5 cm from the furrow
center to the furrow (Table 3). This is the findings by
Fig. 1 Climograph from Pujiltic sugarcane growing region at Chi- Vasconcelos et al. (2003), who reported that 72% of total
apas, Mexico (2015–2016) roots were in the first 40 cm of soil depth. In addition,

123
Sugar Tech

Table 2 Dry matter of C. ensiformis, number of nodules and dry matter of nodules
Fertilization treatments (F) Dry matter of C. ensiformis (t ha-1) Number of nodules Dry matter of nodules

C. ensiformis 8.18a 22.45a 2.05a

C. ensiformis ? AMF 8.61a 39.39a 2.85a
C. ensiformis ? Azospirillum 8.97a 26.17a 2.38a
C. ensiformis ? AMF ? Azospirillum 7.90a 54.72a 4.48a
Cultivar (C) Méx79-431 8.01a 29.91a 2.03b
CP-72-2086 8.83a 41.44a 3.85a
C.V. (%) 39.00 53.73 55.60
F test
Cultivar (C) 0.55NS 0.16NS 0.01**
Fertilization (F) 0.94NS 0.04* 0.09NS
Interaction C*F 0.77NS 0.74NS 0.20NS
DSM (C) 2.87 16.78 1.43
DSM (F) 5.50 32.17 2.74
NS Nonsignificant effect
Averages with the same letter inside the column or row are statistically equal Tukey (P B 0.05)
*Significant effect, **highly significant effect

Table 3 Dry matter of sugarcane roots with different fertilization treatments (g.monolite-1)
Distance from furrow center (cm)

Soil depth (cm) 65 32.5 32.5 65

Mex 79-431
0–30 1.31 ± 0.55 7.58 ± 5.24 10.53 ± 10.01 1.74 ± 0.68
30–60 0.88 ± 0.61 1.45 ± 0.67 0.84 ± 0.37 0.75 ± 0.41
CP 72-2086
0–30 0.92 ± 0.49 3.56 ± 2.72 4.15 ± 1.74 0.71 ± 0.32
30–60 0.74 ± 0.47 1.86 ± 1.28 1.24 ± 0.71 0.91 ± 0.54

Sampaio et al. (1987) indicated that 75% of the roots are significant differences in concentration of roots in the soil
found at 20 cm soil depth and Ball-Coeho et al. (1992) among eleven cultivars. Proper soil preparation favors a
observed that 69.7% of the root system was distributed at greater root growth in the subsoil.
50 cm soil depth. The highest concentration of roots in the
center of the furrow is due to the appearance of new buds Juice Quality of Sugarcane
and because they produce their roots (Fig. 2).
In the treatments C. ensiformis?AMF?Azospirillum, No significant difference was observed for cultivar, fertil-
chemical fertilization and control treatment, the root dis- ization treatments and their interaction C*F for sucrose,
tribution was similar (Fig. 1), contrary to what was °Brix, purity and reducing sugars (Table 4). The average
reported by Otto et al. (2009), who observed that the values conform to the acceptable standards, viz., [ 12.5%
absence of nitrogen has allowed a better root distribution sucrose, 79–89% purity, less than 1% reducing sugars, with
and with nitrogen fertilization, the roots were concentrated the cane being delivered to the mill within 24 h of harvest
in the superficial soil layer. In accordance with Tukey (Salgado et al. 2003). The treatment with C. ensi-
(PB0.05) test, cultivar Mex 79-431 had a greater concen- formis?Azospirillum showed a better juice quality.
tration of roots with 3.14 g monolite-1 in comparison with Similar results were reported by Salgado et al. (2014a),
cultivar CP-72-2086, which might be due to a better plant in their study for evaluating chemical and organic fertil-
growth in the cultivar Mex 79-431. The finding was similar ization; Hernández et al. (2008), in a study carried out in
to that observed by Rodrı́guez et al. (2011), who found Pujiltic, Chiapas, Mexico, with different fertilization

123
 Sugar Tech

Fig. 2 Root system of

sugarcane cultivars. a Mex
79-431 chemical fertilization,
b Mex 79-431 without
fertilizers, c CP 72-2086
chemical fertilization and
d Mex 79-431 fertilization with
biofertilizers

Table 4 Juice quality of sugarcane with different fertilization treatments

Fertilization treatment (F) Sucrose (%) °Brix Purity (%) Reducing sugars (%)

1. C. ensiformis 13.51a 15.48a 87.48a 0.32a

2. C. ensiformis ? AMF 13.41a 15.20a 88.49a 0.28a
3. C. ensiformis ? Azospirillum 14.55a 16.05a 91.24a 0.29a
4.C. ensiformis ? AMF ? Azospirillum 14.00a 15.69a 89.39a 0.31a
5. SB?VC 10 t ha-1 13.93a 15.73a 88.64a 0.43a
6. CF (120–60–60) 14.12a 16.16a 87.47a 0.26a
7. Control (0–0–0) 14.48a 16.54a 87.65a 0.31a
Cultivars (C) 14.09a 16.08a 87.93a 0.29a
Mex 79-431 13.91a 15.58a 89.32a 0.34a
CP 72-2086
Average V 14.00 15.83 88.61 0.31
C.V. (%) 7.4 7.8 5.80 47.14
F probability
Cultivar (C) 0.58NS 0.20NS 0.39NS 0.34NS
Fertilization (F) 0.43NS 0.58NS 0.85NS 0.59NS
Interaction C*F 0.59NS 0.33NS 0.53NS 0.32NS
DMS (V) 0.68 0.81 3.40 0.09
DMS (F) 2.05 2.43 10.14 0.29
NS Nonsignificant effect
Averages with the same letter inside the column or row are statistically equal Tukey (P B 0.05)

treatments in a Gleysol Molic soil, did not find significant Pujiltic sugarcane mill, restricting the duration for sugar
differences on the juice quality of sugarcane due to the accumulation in cane.
effect of fertilization. The °Brix values were comparatively
lower and ranged from 18 to 22 (Table 4). This might be
since the cane was harvested at 11 months due to closure of

123
Sugar Tech

Total Dry Matter Production accordance with that reported by Rengel et al. (2011), in
the cultivar RB 85-5035.
The biomass production of the cultivar Mex 79-431, at the
initial stages, was similar in the three fertilization treat- Yield
ments; after 3 months of age, the biomass accumulation
was lesser in T4: C. ensiformis?AMF?Azospirillum. A Highly significant differences were observed with respect
decrease in temperature during November and December to both cultivar and fertilization, but not in the C*F inter-
resulted in slower growth. The period from January to action (Table 5); the cultivar Mex 79-431 and the control
March showed a decrease in plant growth, due to water fertilization treatment showed the highest yield, 92.01 and
deficit (Fig. 3). 76.79 t ha-1, respectively, with chemical fertilization. The
The highest dry matter production was recorded in T7 cultivar CP 72-2086 exhibited a medium yield of 64.69
and T6 (Fig. 3), contrary to that reported by Cordova et al. t ha-1 and 59.23 t ha-1 with the treatments chemical fer-
(2016). In their study, a decrease in biomass production tilization and vermicompost, respectively.
was observed at the later stages, due to water deficit. The It was observed that treatments with C. ensiformis were
dry matter production of cultivar CP 72-2086 was lower the ones that presented the lowest yields in both the cul-
than that for the cultivar Mex 79-431 in the three fertil- tivars due to competition between sugarcane and C. ensi-
ization treatments, which indicates that the cultivar CP-72- formis; these results are similar that observed by Cordova
2086 does not adapt to cold conditions and less availability et al. (2016). The interval between the sowing date of C.
of water, at Villa las Rosas region. During the end of the ensiformis and that of the sugarcane crop was very short
growth period, there was an increase in dry matter yield of (15 days). The plant growth in the sugarcane in these plots
CP 72-2086 in all the three treatments (Fig. 2), which is in was adversely affected for 2 months due to low tempera-
tures between June and December. In fact, due to the good
45 soil fertility, the growth of C. ensiformis was profuse,
T4
Dry maer of cv. MEX 79-431 (t.ha¯¹)

40 which reduced the number of millable canes and plant

T6 growth in the sugarcane crop. In addition, at 6 months of
35
T7 age of sugarcane crop, new shoots emerged in treatments
30 with C. ensiformis. The yield from the control treatment
25 was at par with the rest of the fertilized treatments, which
points toward the high level of soil fertility.
20
The yield of cultivar Mex 79-431 was higher than that in
15 the cultivar CP-72-2086, owing to its slow plant growth.
10 This cultivar is not recommended for planting in this farm
5 since it is harvested at the end of the harvest season (April
to May), and this is a precocious cultivar recommended for
0
the beginning of the harvest (November, December or
90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
January).
Plant growth period (days)

45 Sesentano Bean
Dry maer of cv. CP 72-2086 (t.ha¯¹)

40 T4
Bean grain yield was similar in both sugarcane cultivars
35 T6
with 0.62± 0.11 and 0.65 ± 0.12 t ha-1 for Mex 79-431
30 T7 and CP-72-2086, respectively. This grain yield is an
25 additional advantage from the crop, with the straw incor-
20
poration as source of soil organic matter (1.14 t ha-1). No
competition of the bean with sugarcane crop was observed
15
in this case. This is in accordance with the reports for
10 chicharo bean (Vigna radiata L.) and adsuki bean (Vigna
5 mungo L.), when intercropped with sugarcane (Singh and
Lal 2007).
0
90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Plant growth period (days)

Fig. 3 Dry matter production of two sugarcane cultivars

123
 Sugar Tech

Table 5 Sugarcane yield with different fertilization treatments

Cultivar (C)
Fertilization treatment (F) Mex 79-431 CP 72-2086 Average of fertilization

1. C. ensiformis 58.02 27.77 42.89c

2. C. ensiformis ? AMF 42.29 28.21 35.25c
3. C. ensiformis ? Azospirillum 48.94 31.14 40.02c
4. C. ensiformis ? AMF ? Azospirillum 49.97 23.94 36.95c
5. SB?VC 10 t ha-1 70.10 59.23 64.66a
6. CF (120–60–60) 92.01 64.69 78.35a
7. Control (0–0–0) 76.79 57.32 67.06a
Average V 62.59a 41.76b 52.17
C.V. (%) 22.90

F probability
Cultivar (C) 0.01**
Fertilization (F) 0.01**
Interaction C*F 0.76NS
DMS (V) 7.90
DMS (F) 23.55
NS Nonsignificant effect
Averages with the same letter inside the column or row are statistically equal Tukey (P B 0.05)
*Significant effect, **highly significant effect

Conclusions References

The findings from the study indicate that intercropping in Archana, D.S., M.S. Nandish, V.P. Savalagi, and A.R. Alagawadi.
2013. Characterization of potassium solubilizing bacteria (KSB)
sugarcane with Fabaceae species, along with application of from rhizosphere soil. Bioinfolet 10(1b): 248–257.
vermicompost, can be a good alternative source of nutrition Ball-Coelho, B., E.V.S.B. Sampaio, H. Tiessen, and J.W.B. Stewart.
for sugarcane. Phaseolus vulgaris L., when intercropped 1992. Root dynamic in plant ratoon crops of sugar cane. Plant
with sugarcane, did not show any competitive effect, and Soil 142(2): 97–305.
Bustamante, C., M. Ochoa, M. Rodrı́guez, and M. Martı́nez. 1996.
whereas C. ensiformis was found to compete with sugar- Crecimiento y producción de biomasa por Canavalia ensiformis
cane crop when used as an intercrop. Thus, Phaseolus intercalada con cafetos cultivados bajo sombra en suelos pardos
vulgaris L. (sesentano bean) as an intercrop, along with sin carbonatos, 69–70. La Habana Cuba: Instituto Nacional de
vermicompost application, is a beneficial option for sug- Ciencias Agrı́colas.
Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA). 2015. Servicio meteo-
arcane crop. Apart from the good grain yield, it also pro- rológico nacional-comisión nacional del agua.
vides an extra source of income and nutrition, in addition to http://smn.cna.gob.mx/.
incorporation of organic matter. The cultivar Mex 79-431 Córdova, G.G., S. Salgado, M. Castelán, D.J. Palma, E. Garcı́a, L.C.
performed better in terms of plant growth and yield and, Lagunes, and S. Córdova. 2016. Opciones de fertilización para el
cultivo de caña de azúcar (Saccharum spp.) en Tabasco, México.
hence, is recommended for planting in the mill area. Agroproductividad 9(3): 27–34.
Among all the options, chemical fertilization gave a higher Golcher A.A., R.F. Hasbach, and M.J.J. Infante. 1984. Manual para
yield. But the sustainability and environmental concerns analistas de laboratório azucarero. AZUCAR, S.A. de C.V-
for the use of inorganic fertilizers and use of natural soil GEPLACEA-PNUD. México, D.F.
González, P.J., J. Arzola, O. Morgan, R. Rivera, R. Plana, and F.
enrich strategies like intercropping with Fabaceae crops, in Fernández. 2008. Manejo de las asociaciones micorrı́zicas en
maintaining the soil fertility and soil health in the sugar- pastos del género Brachiaria cultivados en suelos Ferralı́tico
cane cropping systems. Rojo y Pardo Mullido. Congreso Cientı́fico del Instituto
Nacional de Ciencias Agrı́colas. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias
Compliance with Ethical Standards Agrı́colas (INCA). La Habana. CD- ROM.
Hernández, G.I., S. Salgado, D.J. Palma, L.C. Lagunes, M. Castelán,
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of and O. Ruı́z. 2008. Vinaza y composta de cachaza como Fuente
interest. de nutrientes en caña de azúcar en un suelo Gleysol mólico de
Chiapas, México. Interciencia 33(11): 845–859.

123
Sugar Tech

Martı́nez, G.A. 1988. Diseños experimentales: Métodos y Elementos cultivados con caña de azúcar en la región de la Chontalpa,
de Teorı́a, 246. México: Trillas. Tabasco. Revista Mexicana de Micologia. 40: 7–16.
Méndez, A.J.M., L.C. Lagunes, S. Salgado, J.R.H. Mendoza, and M. Salgado, G.S., M. Castelán, E.M. Aranda, C.F. Ortiz, H. Ortiz, L.C.
Castelán. 2012. Respuesta fisiológica de caña de azúcar sometida Lagunes, J.R.H. Mendoza, and S. Córdova. 2014b. Validación de
a suspensión de riego previo a la cosecha en Pujiltic, Chiapas. In dosis generadas por el sistema de fertilización SIRDF para caña
Simposio Internacional en producción agroalimentaria tropical de azúcar (Sacharum officinarun L). Agroproductividad 7(2):
y XXIV Reunión Cientı́fica-Tecnológica, Forestal y Agrope- 47–54.
cuaria 2012. 18 y 19 de octubre, 570–576. Cárdenas, Tabasco. Salgado, G.S., L.C. Lagunes, E.M. Aranda, M. Castelán, C.F. Ortiz,
Otto, R., P.C.O. Trivilin, C.J. Franco, C.E. Faroni, and A.C. Vitti. H. Ortiz, J.R.H. Mendoza, and S. Córdova. 2012. Producción
2009. Distribución del sistema radicular de la caña de azúcar, en sustentable de caña de azúcar: Ingenio Pujiltic. Grupo MAS-
función de la fertilización nitrogenada, por dos métodos de CAÑA-LPI-2: AESS. Colegio de Postgraduados-Campus
evaluación: monolito y barreno. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Tabasco. Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas.
Avı́cola 33(3): 601–611. Salgado, G.S., R. Núñez, J.J. Peña, J.D. Etchevers, J.D. Palma, and
Polo, A. E., and L. T. Medina. 2008. Canavalia (Canavalia M.R. Soto. 2003. Manejo de la fertilización en el rendimiento,
ensiformis). Instituto Pro Mejoramiento de la Ganaderı́a calidad del jugo y actividad de invertasas en caña de azúcar.
(PROMEGA), 1–2. Panamá. Interciencia 28(10): 476–480.
Puertas, F., E. Arévalo, L. Zúñiga, J. Alegre, O. Loli, H. Soplin, and Sampaio, E.V.S.B., I. Salcedo, and F.J. Cavalcanti. 1987. Dinâmica
V. Baligar. 2008. Establecimiento de cultivos de cobertura y de nutrientes em cana-deaçúcar: III. Conteúdo de nutrientes e
extracción total de nutrientes en un suelo de trópico húmedo en distribuição do sistema radicular no solo. Pesquisa Agropecuária
la amazonı́a peruana. Ecologı́a Aplicada. 7(1,2): 23-28. Brasileira 22(4): 425–431.
Rengel, M., F. Gil, and J. Montaño. 2011. Crecimiento y dinámica de Serna, L., C. Arias, and L.J. Valencia. 2011. Biofertilización, una
acumulación de nutrientes en caña de azúcar. II. Macronutri- alternativa al uso de fertilizantes quı́micos en caña de azúcar.
entes. Bioagro 23(2): 43–50. Revista Alimentos Hoy 20(24): 69–82.
Rodrı́guez, G.R., Y. Puchades, N. Bernal, H. Jorge, and H. Garcı́a. Singh, A.K., and M. Lal. 2007. Assessment of system productivity,
2011. Estudio del sistema radicular en 11 genotipos de caña de cane physiology and economic viability of sugarcane (Saccha-
azúcar en diferentes tipos de suelos. Ciencia en su PC 4: 58–70. rum complex hybrid) based crop diversification options through
Salgado, G.S., J.D. Palma, J. Zavala, L.C. Lagunes, M. Castelán, C.F. on station and on-farm trials. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Ortiz, J.F. Juárez, J.A. Rincón, and E. Hernández. 2008. Sciences 77: 866–869.
Programa sustentable de fertilización para el ingenio Pujiltic, Vasconcelos, A.C.M., A.A. Casagrande, D. Perecin, L.A.C. Jorge,
Chiapas, México. Terra Latinoamericana. 26(4): 361–373. and M.G.A. Landell. 2003. Avaliação do sistema radicular de
Salgado, G.S., and R. Núñez. 2013. Manejo de fertilizantes quı́micos cana-de-açúcar por diferentes métodos. Revista Brasileira de
y orgánicos, 524. Colegio de Postgraduados-Mundi Prensa, D.F.: Ciência do Solo. 27(5): 849–858.
BBA.
Salgado, G.S., M. Castelán, R. Jiménez, J.F. Gómez, and M. Osorio.
2014a. Diversidad de hongos micorrı́cicos arbusculares en suelos

123