Soil & Tillage Research 165 (2017) 279–285

Liquid fertilizer application to ratoon cane using a soil punchingmethod

Marcelo José da Silvaa, Henrique C. Junqueira Francob, Paulo S. Graziano Magalhãesa,b,*aCollege of Agriculture Engineering, Campinas State University – UNICAMP, Av. Candido Rondon, 501, Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz, 13083-875 Campinas,SP, BrazilbBrazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory – CTBE/Brazilian Center of Research in Energy and Materials, CNPEM, Rua Giuseppe MáximoScolfaro, n� 10.000, Barão Geraldo, PO Box 6170, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:Received 12 April 2016Accepted 28 August 2016Available online 15 September 2016

Keywords:Precision agricultureSugarcaneFertilizer applicationDeep placementPrototype design

A B S T R A C T

Sugarcane is a semi-perennial crop that is cultivated for five or six harvest cycles before replanting.Following annual mechanized harvest, nitrogen (N) fertilizer is commonly applied during the ratoon canesprouting phase through furrows along the side of plant rows (subsurface application) or banded on thesurface. With subsurface application, mechanical operations are hampered by the trash coverage thatremains after harvest; furthermore, opening furrows can partially damage roots. However, with soilsurface application, nutrient uptake efficiency is decreased as a result of microbial immobilization andlosses through ammonia volatilization and runoff. Thus, to achieve subsurface application for ratoon canewith minimal mobilization of the system (soil, straw and roots), this work aimed to (i) develop andevaluate a mechanical prototype that enables a soil punching process in ratoon cane and (ii) evaluate thecane yield using the soil punching method for liquid N fertilizer injection compared to liquid N fertilizerapplied alongside of plant rows on the surface and subsurface (through furrows). To evaluate thepunching mechanism, we performed a kinematic simulation (puncher tip displacement and injectiontime interval), tests in a soil bin and ratoon cane field. Based on prototype operations, the averagedistance between applications was 300 mm, with an average depth up to 90 mm, which was similar to thedesign requirements. Regarding results of liquid N fertilization methods in a ratoon cane field, we foundthat the incorporation treatments (soil punching and subsurface application through furrows) achievedslightly better cane yield (98–96 Mg ha�1) when compared to the surface application (91 Mg ha�1) andcontrol treatment (75 Mg ha�1). In general, the soil punching was considered as a promising alternativemethod for supplying liquid fertilizer at the subsurface using low-energy power (approximately 745 W)with minimal environmental impact.

ã 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /st i l l

1. Introduction

Sugarcane is the most promising source for ethanol and sugarproduction. Currently, Brazil is the largest sugarcane producer,with 688 million Mg cultivated on 9.8 million hectares (IBGE,2015). Recently, the harvesting model of burning (to facilitatemechanical or manual harvest) has been replaced by mechanicalgreen cane harvesting due to several environmental advantages,

* Corresponding author at: College of Agriculture Engineering, Campinas StateUniversity – UNICAMP, Av. Candido Rondon, 501, Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz,13083-875 Campinas, SP, Brazil.

E-mail addresses: marcelo.jose@feagri.unicamp.br (M.J. da Silva),henrique.franco@bioetanol.org.br (H.C. J. Franco), graziano@agr.unicamp.br(P.S. G. Magalhães).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.08.0200167-1987/ã 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

such as soil moisture maintenance, nutrient recycling, weedreduction (Marchi et al., 2005), legal issues (GESP, 2007) and lowerlabour intensive. However, fertilizer incorporation into the soil ishampered by the significant amount of trash coverage (mainly, dryleaves and tops) left on the soil surface after harvest (Cantarellaet al., 2008; Vieira-Megda et al., 2015). In São Paulo (the largestcane-producing state in Brazil), studies performed after caneharvest have reported trash amounts ranging from 10 up to20 Mg ha�1 (Fortes et al., 2012; Vitti et al., 2007a)

During sprouting and growth, which occurs after the annualcane harvest, nitrogen (N) is required in greater amount. In general,N is the most difficult nutrient to manage in sugarcane fertilizationbecause of interactions with soil organic matter (SOM) andpotential losses in the soil-plant system (Cantarella and Rossetto,2010; Franco et al., 2010; Thorburn et al., 2011). In Brazil, the most

280 M.J. da Silva et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 165 (2017) 279–285

common methods for N fertilization in ratoon cane utilize granularsources applied along the side of plant rows through furrows(subsurface application) or banded on the surface. However, Nfertilizer applied on the surface without incorporation mayincrease N loss due to ammonia (NH3) volatilization (Rodriguesand Kiehl, 1986; Cabezas et al., 2000; Prasertsak et al., 2002),especially when urea, uran, aqua ammonia or anhydrous ammoniais used (losses can be up to �40%, Costa et al., 2003). This process ismainly caused by an enzyme present in the sugarcane straw(urease activity). The fertilizer incorporation into the subsurfacecan reduce volatilization (especially when urea is used), thoughfertilizer incorporation by means of furrows may have lowefficiency and high costs (Mariano et al., 2012).

In general, surface application has advantages such as effectivecapacity for the field operation (hectares per hour); however,losses to the environment are more likely, contributing to lesseffective fertilizer uptake by the crop. On the other hand, site-specific management and incorporation of fertilizer into thesubsurface can contribute to reducing the environmental impact,and supplying fertilizer near the roots to facilitate uptake. Withinthis context, liquid fertilizer injection into the subsurfacerepresents an alternative strategy due to some favourableadvantages for site-specific management, such as better controlof application uniformity and the required dose, lower nutrientsegregation (Boaretto et al., 1991; Korndörfer et al., 1995; Pio et al.,2008).

Liquid injection can be achieved by means of a punchingprocess through the straw layer and soil subsurface using a probe,with minimal mobilization (soil and straw) without damage to theratoon cane roots. Some mechanical equipment with a similarapproach for liquid fertilizer injection can be found in Baker et al.(1989), Womac and Tompkins (1990), Chen (2002), Johann et al.(2006), Nyord et al. (2008), Lang et al. (2011), Liu et al. (2011),Wang et al. (2011) and Niemoeller et al. (2011). However, suchequipment was developed to assist liquid fertilizer injection byconsidering the intrinsic characteristics of the crops in thosestudies (maize and rice).

In recent years, studies aimed at improving ratoon canefertilization have mainly focused on evaluations of N fertilizerrates (Vitti et al., 2007a; Cantarella et al., 2008; Franco et al., 2010,2011; Mariano et al., 2012; Otto et al., 2014) and N sources (Costaet al., 2003; Vitti et al., 2007b; Cantarella et al., 2008; Nascimentoet al., 2013; Vieira-Megda et al., 2015). In contrast, studies about Nfertilizer application methods are less common (Prasertsak et al.,2002; Vitti et al., 2007b), even though decisions about theapplication method are crucial to fertilizer uptake efficiency.Fertilization improvements can be reasoned with with regard toreducing loss to the environment in combination with greateruptake. Thus, application method can contribute to site-specificmanagement when combined with other techniques, such asvariable rate application, timing (application during the appropri-ate plant growth stage, i.e., when the fertilizer is most crucial) andsplitting application (more applications throughout the cropcycle).

Liquid fertilizer application at the subsurface by means ofminimal mobilization (soil, straw layer, roots) can be an alternativeto supply fertilizer near the cane roots, contributing to lossreductions and fertilizer uptake increases. In an effort to achievesubsurface application with minimal mobilization, this workaimed to (i) develop and evaluate a mechanical prototype thatenables a soil punching process in ratoon cane and (ii) evaluate thecane yield using the soil punching method for liquid N fertilizerinjection compared to liquid N fertilizer applied alongside of plantrows on the surface and subsurface (through furrows).

2. Material and methods

2.1. Working principle

For prototype design, the requirements were subsurfaceapplication without tillage, through vertical soil punching(100 mm deep) with equidistant points of application (300 mmapart). The major components of the proposed mechanical systemfor vertical soil punching included a rotating drum cam, carriage,spline shaft, and slider-crank mechanism with a puncher (Fig. 1).The rotating drum cam was designed to drive the carriage alongalternative movements in a longitudinal direction at the sameforward speed. The slider-crank mechanism, which drives thepunching mechanism for soil penetration was assembled on thecarriage. The traction wheels were used to provide mechanicalpower, with synchronism conducted by a power transmission(sprockets, gears and spline shaft). Essentially, the workingprinciple consists of punching mechanism synchronism relatedto the forward speed.

During soil punching, the longitudinal movement of thecarriage cancels out the relative velocity opposing the forwardspeed, and the slider-crank drives the puncher tip vertically intothe soil. In summary, the main kinematic characteristics for apunching cycle are as follows: (i) zero linear displacement duringvertical soil punching; (ii) twofold linear velocity when thepuncher tip is driven above the ground to the next soil punch. Theperiod of cycle (T [s]) was determined according to the distancebetween equidistant soil punching points (s [m]) relative to theforward speed ( _x [m s�1]), enabling calculation of the mechanism’sangular velocity ( _v [rad s�1]). To assist in the design, constructionand comprehension of the soil punching mechanism, weperformed a kinematic analysis by means of the Newton-Eulermethod. The characteristics verified in this analysis were thedisplacement of puncher tip and the injection time. For this, wecarried out the simulation analysis using Matlab R2010a (TheMathworks, Inc. Natick, MA). Following construction and evalua-tions, we registered the product (Patent BR 102013018213 –

Magalhães and Silva, 2013).

2.2. Evaluation methodology

2.2.1. Mechanical process of soil punchingFirst tests were conducted in a soil bin, where soil is free of

organic material and stones, providing homogeneous soil con-ditions. This soil was originated from an arable Oxisol soil layerlocated in southern Brazil. According to the USDA textural triangle,

Fig. 1. Layout of the soil punching prototype. The machine was powered by tractionwheels with the power transmitted using sprockets, gears and spline shaft.

Fig. 2. Prototype constructed to perform the mechanical process proposed for usein sugarcane ratoon areas.

M.J. da Silva et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 165 (2017) 279–285 281

it was classified as sandy clay loam (Table 1). Currently,approximately 60% of sugarcane in the South-Central Region ofBrazil is planted in this soil type (Magalhães et al., 2012). Insummary, the soil bin is 12 m long, 2 m wide and 1 m deep, beingcomposed of a common carriage to support prototypes, soilprocessing equipment, a hydrostatic power transmission unit andinstrumentation access. The soil processing equipment consistedof a frame to carry the levelling blade, roller for soil compactionand a water sprayer for manipulating the soil moisture, which washeld constant at 13% to within 1% during the tests. The soil layerprepared for tests were approximately 200 mm (methodologydescribed in Magalhães et al., 2007).

Three tests were performed at the soil bin with a forward speedof 0.7 m s�1 (mechanism angular velocity 14 rad s�1). Based onthese tests, we estimated the power required for the soil punchingmechanism as a function of reaction force measured using a loadcell (Vincere do Brasil, model ST 2500N, Campinas, Brazil) attachedin the puncher axis. Data acquisition was performed using “SpiderModule” (HBM Inc., Spider81, Darmstadt, Germany) at a samplingfrequency of 100 Hz. The computer interface with the dataacquisition system (DAQ) was performed with Catman Easy(HBM Inc., version 3.3.5 1, Darmstadt, Germany). The penetrationresistance was measured using an electronic penetrometer(PLG5200-SoloTrack, Falkerã, São Geraldo, Brazil) according tothe recommendations of ASABE (2009). After each test, theminimal soil disturbance of the soil punching was evaluated bymeasuring depths and distances using a calliper and a tapemeasure, respectively.

In addition, the soil punching operation was tested in a ratooncane field (Fig. 2) located at College of Agriculture Engineering ofthe University of Campinas (22� 480 570 0 S, 47� 30 330 0 W). Accordingto Embrapa (2006), the local soil is classified as a Red Latosol(Hapludox). For evaluation, two tests were performed using aforward speed of 0.8 m s�1 (16 rad s�1mechanism angular velocity)along 20 m. After each test, we measured depths and distancesusing a calliper and a tape measure. For both evaluations, theresults were analysed using descriptive statistics (e.g., averages,standard deviation, maximum and minimal values).

2.2.2. Liquid nitrogen applied in the ratoon cane field: the soilpunching method

To evaluate the effect of the soil punching method on the sugarcane yield, an experiment was performed at the first ratoon canecycle (RB855156 variety),10 days after mechanical green harvest in acommercial field (Iracema mill: 22.75� S and 47.43� W –

Iracemapolis-São Paulo, Brazil). The soil was classified as RhodicEutrudox according to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2010) with aclay texture (52% of clay, 37.25% of sand and 10.72% of silt) accordingto the USDA texture triangle. Liquid fertilizer was applied in the fallseason (May 2014), which is characterized by lower temperaturesandrainfall. Nfertilizationwassuppliedbyammoniumnitratemixedwith water (concentration of 0.21 kg L�1N) at a rate of 100 kg ha�1 ofN, an average agronomic recommendation applied to ratoon cane inSao Paulo State (Raij et al., 1997; Prado and Pancelli, 2006). This N

Table 1Physical properties of soil used in the soil bin.

Soil type OxisolsSoil texture Sandy clay loanMaximum dry bulk density (kg m�3) @ 14.5 � 0.12% (w/w) 1720Clay <0.002 mm (g kg�1) 332.5 � 2.4Sand 2–0.2 mm (g kg�1) 377.0 � 1.6Sand 0.2–0.053 mm (g kg�1) 180.0 � 2.9Silt 0.053–0.002 mm (g kg�1) 110.5 � 2.1Cohesion (kPa) 216.2 � 0.7Internal frictional angle (degree) 54.7 � 1.1

source exibits low losses with regart to ammonia volatilization (lessthan 3% according to Vitti et al. (2007b) and Nascimento et al. (2013),a characteristic favourable for comparing the real effect of theapplication method on the stalk yield.

The experiment was conducted with six treatments randomlydistributed among four blocks (24 plots). The treatments were asfollows: surface application (1-SA); continuous incorporatedapplication (2-CA); control (without fertilizer, 3-Ct); and soilpunching applications distanced every 150 mm (4-PA150),300 mm (5-PA300), and 450 mm (6-PA450). Each plot was 10 mwide (seven cane rows with an inter-row spacing of 1.5 m) and15 m long.

To carry out the continuous application method (2-CA), anarrow furrow was dug (�100 mm deep) approximately 200 mmaway from a row, and liquid fertilizer was uniformly sprinkled inthe furrow; next, the furrow was filled and covered using soil andtrash. For surface application (1-SA), liquid fertilizer was applied ina �50 mm-wide band along the cane row. For soil punchingtreatments (PA), the drillings were performed parallel to the canerow (�200 mm away), at 100 mm deep, and liquid fertilizer wasthen injected into the holes (15 mm diameter), which were filledwith soil. The liquid volume (D [mL injection�1]) was determinedaccording to the agronomic recommendation (Tx [kg ha�1 of N])converted to a volumetric application rate (V [L ha�1]). Thisconversion was also performed in accordance with the nutrientconcentration (C [kg L�1]), distance between applications (s [m])and inter-row spacing (e [m]), as follows:

V ¼ Tx

C! D ¼ eð Þ: sð Þ: Vð Þ

104 � 103 ð1Þ

To measure the stalk cane yield, at approximately one year afterN fertilization (May 2015), the sugarcane was harvested using amechanical green harvester accompanied with a cane truck-loading instrument with load cells. We measured the cane mass inthe three centre rows of plots. The results were analysed by Matlabusing multi-comparison of means with Tukey’s test at 5%significance. Also, the results were analysed using descriptivestatistics.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Kinematic characteristics of soil punching

Kinematic simulation analysis was essential for designing andpredicting operational characteristics. This analysis examined thedisplacement of the puncher tip during soil punching (Fig. 3). First,

Fig. 4. Simulation of the injection time according to the distance between soilpunching applications.

Table 2Evaluation of the punching mechanism operation.

Soil bin Field cane area

Distance (mm) 302 310 306 330 312S(mm) 0.7 1.2 0.9 4.3 9c.v. (%) 2.2 3.8 2.9 4.3 9

Depth (mm) 92 95 96 63 54S(mm) 6.1 6.4 5.5 11 14c.v. (%) 6.7 6.7 5.8 17 25

S; Standard deviation; c.v.; coefficient of variation.

282 M.J. da Silva et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 165 (2017) 279–285

the puncher tip movement was represented above the ground,when drum cam drives the carriage in the same direction offorward speed. This interval reflects the distance betweenapplications (300 mm), an average distance between ratoons. Inthe next phase, the drum cam drives the carriage in the directionopposite to the forward speed; during this stage, the relativelongitudinal movement related to soil is cancelled to perform thevertical soil punching (up to 100 mm). The vertical movementhelps protect against dragging and consequently permanentdeformation of the puncher.

Regarding the soil punching process, knowledge about injectiontime is essential for determining the flow and pressure in thehydraulic system. Injection time was defined as an interval wherethe soil is perforated between 50 and 100 mm. This range depthwas considered sufficient to decrease losses due to ammoniavolatilization (Rodrigues and Kiehl, 1986; Prasertsak et al., 2002).In addition, sugarcane active roots are more concentrated close tothe surface at a depth of �100 mm (Azevedo et al., 2011; Sousaet al., 2013; Otto et al., 2014) and near the cane row (Otto et al.,2009).

Based on simulation, it was observed that available injectiontime is influenced by the distance between applications andforward speed. Also, the simulation indicated that availableinjection time decreases on a logarithmic scale according to theincrease in forward speed, requiring a greater capacity of thehydraulic-mechanical system for liquid fertilizer injection (Fig. 4).However, the average liquid fertilizer flow as a function of theforward speed was considered low (3–12 L min�1) due to the smalldose applied per cycle (5–20 mL) of soil punching.

3.2. Evaluation of the mechanical process of soil punching performedby the prototype

For evaluation performed in the sugarcane field, averagedistance between applications was 320 mm, with an averagedepth of 60 mm (Table 2). This distance was greater than thatspecified (300 mm), largely due to a loss of traction on wheels,which led to a reduction in synchronization. Furthermore, theshallower depth with respect to the specification (100 mm) wasattributed to irregularities on the surface caused by previous

Fig. 3. Simulation of puncher tip displacement during the soil punching, where, _x a

mechanization and the straw layer (average thickness 46 mm).Regarding the soil bin evaluation, the results were similar to thosespecified; particularly due to better control the soil conditions,including the soil surface uniformity and penetration resistance.Overall, the process caused minimal soil mobilization, only at the

nd _S represent the forward speed of equipment and carriage, respectively.

Fig. 6. Annual water balance during the experimental period (2014–2015).Source: Ciiagro, 2015.

M.J. da Silva et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 165 (2017) 279–285 283

points of application, whereby perforations were performedaccording to the puncher format (soil structure deformation).

During the soil punching, penetration soil resistance representsthe principal load. For the soil bin tests, the maximum compressiveforce was 350 N (Fig. 5). The compressive reaction force wasproportional to the soil punching depth; it was also influenced bythe variations in penetration resistance. In addition, a normaltraction force (maximum load of 75 N) was caused by the relativemovement into the soil (Fig. 5). In general, reaction force wasprimarily influenced by the physical properties, including soilcompaction, which can be evaluated via penetration resistance.The average soil resistance in soil bin tests were approximately1.5 MPa. However, penetration resistance in the ratoon cane fieldsgenerally achieve higher values. At depth range established forliquid fertilizer injection (50–100 mm deep), Roque et al. (2010)reported an average resistance of 1.9 MPa (17% moisture) andBraunack et al. (2006) reported 1.2–2.0 MPa. Further, penetrationresistance in ratoon cane fields can be much higher due tomachinery traffic, soil moisture, and soil physical characteristics.This approach can be confirmed by the results of Souza et al.(2014), who observed a penetration resistance of 5 MPa (17% soilmoisture) in the topsoil of a ratoon cane field.

In the soil punching process, reaction force can be used as areference for sizing and specifications of the mechanical system,such as the probe injector (inner and outer diameter). Consideringthe interactions between the soil and probe, a smaller outerdiameter facilitates the soil punching process (smaller resistanceto penetration); however, it also increases the slenderness ratio,which increases the rod's susceptibility to permanent deformationcaused by the bending moment generated on axial compression. Inaddition, the measured strength was used to estimate the powerrequired for soil punching. Thus, considering the forward velocity(0.7 m s�1) and angular velocity of the punching mechanism(13.6 rad s�1), the maximum power required for soil punching wasestimated at 743 W; this demand was considered low, becauseagricultural tractors generally provide greater power in thedrawbar, hydraulic oil system, and power take off (PTO).

3.3. N fertilization in a ratoon cane field: the soil punching method

After harvest, ratoon canes require approximately one year tocomplete the crop cycle (sprouting, growth, and maturation), andduring this period, weather-related conditions have an influenceon growth and consequently on the stalk cane yield. Optimalsugarcane growth occurs at a temperature range of 22–30 �C and awater demand of �1400 mm per year (Embrapa, 2015). During theN fertilization experiment (2014/2015 season, Fig. 6), the localrainfall totalled 941 mm (52% concentrated in summer); this

Fig. 5. Soil reaction force during soil punching.

precipitation was considered insufficient because it was less thanthe total required by sugarcane (30% lower). Furthermore, a criticalsituation occurred after N fertilization during sprouting andgrowth, producing a soil water deficit and low evapotranspiration(near to zero). In general, these conditions were not favourable forsugarcane.

The cane harvesting was performed at one year after Nfertilization (May 2015). The results revealing that strategies for Nfertilizer application can modify the sugarcane yield. In general, bestresults were obtained with fertilizer-incorporation treatments(Table 3). Furthermore, when N fertilizer was drilled into the soil(PA300, PA150 and CA), an increase in yield (96–98 Mg ha�1) wasobserved relative to surface application (91 Mg ha�1) and controltreatment (75 Mg ha�1). This effectiveness of subsurface applicationcompared to surface application was also observed in researchconductedby Prasertsaketal. (2002) ina1stratooncanefieldlocatedin Queensland (AUS) using 15N-labelled urea under favourablerainfall conditions (50 mm accumulated up to 12 days afterfertilization and 3770 mm accumulated over the cycle). Towardsthe end of the cane cycle (334 days after fertilization), the authorsmeasured the total N-fertilizer in the trash-soil-plant system andfound that N recovery was higher to incorporated application (54.4%of the applied N) when compared to surface application (40.9% of theapplied N). This difference was attributed to losses (ammoniavolatilization, runoff, leaching and denitrification).

Table 3Evaluation of sugarcane stalk yield after N-fertilization.

Cane stalk yield (Mg ha�1)

Treatments Average max min S cv (%)PA300 98 a 124 71 14 14PA150 96 a 124 67 19 20CA 96 a 120 71 15 15SA 91 ab 111 67 14 16PA450 87 ab 102 62 12 13Ct 75 b 93 44 12 16

Values followed by the same letter within a column (treatments) do not differaccording to the Tukey test at p < 0.05; least significant difference (LSD) equals21 Mg ha�1; and the F value was 2.97.

284 M.J. da Silva et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 165 (2017) 279–285

In our study, the PA450 treatment (distanced each 450 mm)achieved a lower cane yield (87 Mg ha�1) when compared toPA300 and PA150 treatment. The greater distance betweenapplications was attributed as a limiting factor for supplyingnutrient. Considering this, applications at 150 mm intervals(PA150) was favour for fertilizer distribution; nonetheless,applications distanced at 300 mm (PA300) resulted in an equiva-lent cane yield. A similar approach to the fertilizer application in arice paddy field was evaluated by Liu et al. (2015) using a semi-automatic device to “the point deep placement of N fertilizer” (soilpunching). Based on results, the authors also confirmed someadvantages to the application method (NH3 volatilization de-creased by 20–45%, mean floodwater pH decreased by 2–4%, meanfloodwater NH4

+-N concentration decreased by 29–98% and grainyield increased by 5–11%) when compared to the application onsurface (broadcasting). In addition, authors highlighted an impor-tance of developing fertilizer application machines to overcomethis difficulty of incorporated fertilizers using “the point deepplacement method”.

4. Conclusions

The mechanical system described here for soil punchingfertilizer application is a promising alternative for supplyingliquid fertilizer in the subsurface, with minimal mobilization of thesoil-plant system (soil, roots and straw). In general, the results ofsoil punching tests were considered satisfactory because of depthsand distances of applications were comprised in requirements ofthe operation (vertical soil punching with subsurface applicationdistanced each 300 mm). However, the depths achieved in soil bintests (average of 92–96 mm) were greater than those achieved inthe cane field tests (average of 54–63 mm) due to micro-reliefvariations at the soil surface and straw layer thickness (approxi-mately 46 mm). Based on evaluation analysis, we conclude that thekey parameters for soil punching are as follows: soil penetrationresistance, injection time according to the forward speed,application depth influenced by soil micro-relief and distancebetween applications influenced by synchronism of the mecha-nism velocity related to the forward speed.

Overall, fertilizer application improvement can be based onreducing losses to the environment combined with greaterfertilizer uptake. Considering this, we confirm that soil punchapplication or continuous incorporated application attained betterresults with regard to stalk cane yield (96–98 Mg ha�1) whencompared to surface application (91 Mg ha�1) or control treatment(75 Mg ha�1). In addition, about the cane yield results, it waspossible to observe that small distances between applications(represented by treatments PA150 and PA300) were morefavourable for N fertilizer uptake when compared to a largedistance (PA450).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the National Research Council of Brazil(CNPq) for sponsorship (Processes 475855/2011-6) and scholar-ship to the first author (Processes 160123/2013-5). Also, we thankthe Iracema Mill (São Martinho Group) that supplied the studiedarea and logistical support for performing the field work.

References

ASABE, 2009. Standard – Procedures for Using and Reporting Data Obtained withthe Soil Cone Penetrometer. ASAE EP542 FEB1999 (R2009), Test. St. Joseph,Mich.

Azevedo, M.C.B.D., Chopart, J.L., Medina, C.D.C., 2011. Sugarcane root length densityand distribution from root intersection counting on a trench-profile. Sci Agric.68, 94–101. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162011000100014.

Baker, J., Colvin, T., Marley, S., Dawelbeit, M., 1989. A point-injector applicator toimprove fertilizer management. Appl. Eng. Agric. 5, 334–338.

Boaretto, A.E., Cruz, A.P., Luz, P.H., 1991. Adubo líquido: produção e uso no Brasil, 1sted. Fundação Cargil, Campinas.

Braunack, M.V., Arvidsson, J., Håkansson, I., 2006. Effect of harvest traffic position onsoil conditions and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) response toenvironmental conditions in Queensland, Australia. Soil Tillage Res. 89, 103–121. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.07.004.

Cabezas, W.A.R.L., Trivelin, P.C.O., Pereira, S., 2000. Balanço da adubação nitrogenadasólida e fluida de cobertura na cultura de milho, em sistema plantio direto notriângulo mineiro (MG). Rev. Bras. Ciência do Solo 24, 363–376.

Cantarella, H., Rossetto, R., 2010. Fertilizers for sugarcane. In: Cortez, L.A.B. (Ed.),Sugarcane Bioethanol R&D for Productivity and Sustainability. Blucher &Fapesp, São Paulo, pp. 405–422.

Cantarella, H., Trivelin, P.C.O., Contin, T.L.M., Dias, F.L.F., Rossetto, R., Marcelino, R.,Coimbra, R.B., Quaggio, J.A., 2008. Ammonia volatilization from ureaseinhibitor-treated urea applied to sugarcane trash blankets. Sci. Agric. 65, 397–401. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162008000400011.

Chen, Y., 2002. Liquid manure injection tool adapted to different soil conditions.Trans. ASAE 45, 1729–1736.

Ciiagro, 2015. Centro integrado de informações agrometeorológicas: Balançohídrico. [WWW Document].

Costa, M.C.G., Vitti, G.C., Cantarella, H., 2003. N-NH3 losses from nitrogen sourcesapplied over unburned sugarcane straw. Rev. Bras. Ciência do Solo 27, 631–637.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832003000400007.

Embrapa, 2006. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2nd ed. CentroNacional de Pesquisa de Solos Sistema Brasileiro de classificação de solos, Rio deJaneiro.

Embrapa, 2015. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – Agência Embrapa deinformação e tecnologia: Relação entre a cultura e clima. [WWW Document].

Fortes, C., Trivelin, P.C.O., Vitti, A.C.A.C., 2012. Long-term decomposition ofsugarcane harvest residues in Sao Paulo state. Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 42, 1–10. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.011.

Franco, H.C.J., Trivelin, P.C.O., Faroni, C.E., Vitti, A.C., Otto, R., 2010. Stalk yield andtechnological attributes of planted cane as related to nitrogen fertilization. Sci.Agric. 67, 579–590.

Franco, H.C.J., Otto, R., Faroni, C.E., Vitti, A.C., Almeida de Oliveira, E.C., Trivelin, P.C.O., 2011. Nitrogen in sugarcane derived from fertilizer under Brazilian fieldconditions. Field Crops Res. 121, 29–41. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.11.011.

GESP, 2007. Secretaria do Estado do Meio Ambiente. Protocolo Agroambiental, SãoPaulo.

IBGE, 2015. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – Levantamentosistemático da produção agrícola. Confronto das Safras de 2014 e dasEstimativas para 2015. Brasil [WWW Document].

Johann, A.L., Russo, E., Cappelli, N.L., Umezu, C.K., 2006. Development andevaluation of a low cost servo-valve for liquid inputs application. Eng. Agrícola142–150.

Korndörfer, G.H., Anderson, D.L., Mundim, V.C., Simões, M.S., 1995. Produção deadubos fluidos para cana-de-açúcar. STAB 14, 25–29.

Lang, C., Wang, J., Shi, Y., Xi, X., 2011. Design and development control system fordeep-fertilization variable liquid fertilizer applicator. Second Int. Conf. Digit.Manuf. Autom. 369–372. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICDMA.2011.97.

Liu, Y., Wang, J.J., Wang, J.J., Ge, Y., 2011. Optimal design and analysis on pricking holemechanism with planetary elliptic gears for deep-fertilization liquid fertilizerapplicator. Second Int. Conf. Digit. Manuf. Autom. 809–812. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICDMA.2011.199.

Liu, T.Q., Fan, D.J., Zhang, X.X., Chen, J., Li, C.F., Cao, C.G., 2015. Deep placement ofnitrogen fertilizers reduces ammonia volatilization and increases nitrogenutilization efficiency in no-tillage paddy fields in central China. Field Crops Res.184, 80–90. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.011.

Magalhães, P.S.G., Silva, M.J., 2013. Equipamento com princípio de puncionamentopara aplicação localizada de adubo líquido em profundidade. Patent BR1020130182133.

Magalhães, P.S.G., Bianchini, A., Braunbeck, O.A., 2007. Simulated and experimentalanalyses of a toothed rolling coulter for cutting crop residues. Biosyst. Eng. 96,193–200. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.10.014.

Magalhães, P.S.G., Nogueira, L.A.H., Cantarella, H., Rossetto, R., Franco, H.C.J.,Braunbeck, O.A., 2012. Agro-industrial technological paths. In: Poppe, M.K.,Cortez, L.A.B. (Eds.), Sustainability of Sugarcane Bioenergy. Center of StrategicStudies and Management (CGEE), Brasilia, DF, pp. 27–69.

Marchi, A.S., Rocha, A.A.S.P.D.E., da Silva, J.E.A.R., 2005. Unburned cane harvestingwith trash recovery routes. In: Hassuani, S.J., Verde Leal, M.R.L., de Macedo, I.C.I.C. (Eds.), Biomass Power Generation, Sugar Cane Bagasse and Trash. PNUD,Brasil, Piracicaba, SP, pp. 65–69.

Mariano, E., Trivelin, P.C.O., Vieira, M.X., Leite, J.M., Otto, R., Franco, H.C.J., 2012.Ammonia losses estimated by an open collector from urea applied to sugarcanestraw. Rev. Bras. Ciência do Solo 36, 411–419. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832012000200010.

Nascimento, C.A.C., Do Vitti, G.C., Faria, L.D.A., Luz, P.H.D.C., Mendes, F.L., 2013.Ammonia volatilization from coated urea forms. Rev. Bras. Ciência do Solo 37,1057–1063.

Niemoeller, B., Harms, H.H., Lang, T., 2011. Injection of liquids into the soil with ahigh-pressure jet. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 13, 1–15.

Nyord, T., Søgaard, H.T., Hansen, M.N., Jensen, L.S., 2008. Injection methods toreduce ammonia emission from volatile liquid fertilisers applied to growing

M.J. da Silva et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 165 (2017) 279–285 285

crops. Biosyst. Eng. 100, 235–244. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.01.013.

Otto, R., Franco, H.C.J., Faroni, C., Vitti, A.C., Trivelin, P.C.O., 2009. Fitomassa de raízese da parte aérea da cana-de-açúcar relacionada à adubação nitrogenada deplantio. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 44, 398–405. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2009000400010.

Otto, R., Coutinho, H., Franco, J., Faroni, C.E., Vitti, A.C., Cantidio, E., Oliveira, A., De,Sermarini, R.A., Cesar, P., Trivelin, O., 2014. The Role of Nitrogen Fertilizers inSugarcane Root Biomass under Field Conditions. 1527–1538.

Pio, L.C., Abdalla, S.R.S., Prochnow, L., 2008. Panorama atual do setor de fertilizantesfluidos e foliares: equipamentos e tecnologia de aplicação para fertilizantesfluidos. Int. Plant Nutr. Inst. 123, 15–16.

Prado, R.M., Pancelli, M., 2006. Nutrição nitrogenada em soqueiras e a qualidadetecnológica da cana-de-açúcar. STAB 25, 60–63.

Prasertsak, P., Freney, J.R., Denmead, O.T., Saffigna, P.G., Prove, B.G., Reghenzani, J.R.,2002. Effect of fertilizer placement on nitrogen loss from sugarcane in tropicalQueensland. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 62, 229–239. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021279309222.

Raij, B. van, Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J.A., Furlani, A.M.C., 1997. Recomendações deadubação e calagem para o Estado de São Paulo. Campinas. InstitutoAgronômico; Fundação IAC, Campinas.

Rodrigues, M.B., Kiehl, J.C., 1986. Volatilização de amônia após emprego da ureia emdiferentes doses e modos de aplicação. Rev. Bras. Ciência do Solo 10, 37–43.

Roque, A.A.O., Souza, Z.M., Barbosa, R.S., Souza, G.S., 2010. Controle de tráfegoagrícola e atributos físicos do solo em área cultivada com cana � de � açúcar.Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 45, 744–750.

Soil Survey Staff, 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy.Sousa, A.C.M., Matsura, E.E., Elaiuy, M.L.C., Santos, L.N.S., Montes, C.R., Pires, R.C.M.,

2013. Root system distribution of sugarcane irrigated with domestic. Eng.

Agrícola 33, 647–657. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162013000400006.

Souza, G.S., de Souza, Z.M., De Silva, R.B., Barbosa, R.S., Araújo, F.S., 2014. Effects oftraffic control on the soil physical quality and the cultivation of sugarcane. Rev.Bras. Ciência do Solo 38, 135–146.

Thorburn, P.J.J., Biggs, J.S.S., Webster, A.J.J., Biggs, I.M.M., 2011. An improved way todetermine nitrogen fertiliser requirements of sugarcane crops to meet globalenvironmental challenges. Plant Soil 339, 51–67. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0406-2.

Vieira-Megda, M.X., Mariano, E., Leite, J.M., Franco, H.C.J., Vitti, A.C., Megda, M.M.,Khan, S.A., Mulvaney, R.L., Trivelin, P.C.O., 2015. Contribution of fertilizernitrogen to the total nitrogen extracted by sugarcane under Brazilian fieldconditions. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 101, 241–257. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9676-7.

Vitti, A.C., Trivelin, P.C.O., Gava, G.J.C., Franco, H.C.J., Bologna, I.R., Faroni, C., 2007a.Produtividade da cana-de-açúcar relacionada à localização de adubosnitrogenados aplicados sobre os resíduos culturais em canavial sem queima.Rev. Bras. Ciência do Solo 26, 491–498.

Vitti, A.C., Trivelin, P.C.O., Gava, G.J.C., Penatti, C.P., Bologna, I.R., Faroni, C.E., Franco,H.C.J., 2007b. Produtividade da cana-de-açúcar relacionada ao nitrogênioresidual da adubação e do sistema radicular. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 42, 249–256. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2007000200014.

Wang, J., Ju, J., Wang, J., 2011. Experimental study on pricking hole performances ofdeep application liquid fertilizer device. Fourth Int. Conf. Intell. Comput.Technol. Autom. 71–76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICTA.2011.310.

Womac, A.R., Tompkins, F.D.,1990. Probe-type injector for fluid fertilizers. Appl. Eng.Agric. 6, 149–154.