sugarcane yield and plant nutrient response to sulfur amended everglades histosols

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpla20

Download by: [University of Arkansas Libraries - Fayetteville] Date: 28 August 2016, At: 16:06

Journal of Plant Nutrition

ISSN: 0190-4167 (Print) 1532-4087 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpla20

Sugarcane Yield and Plant Nutrient Response toSulfur-Amended Everglades Histosols

Avjinder S. Kaler, J. Mabry McCray, Alan L. Wright & John E. Erickson

To cite this article: Avjinder S. Kaler, J. Mabry McCray, Alan L. Wright & John E. Erickson (2016):Sugarcane Yield and Plant Nutrient Response to Sulfur-Amended Everglades Histosols, Journalof Plant Nutrition, DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024

Accepted author version posted online: 23Aug 2016.Published online: 23 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpla20

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpla20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=lpla20&show=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=lpla20&show=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-23

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/01904167.2016.1218024&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Sugarcane Yield and Plant Nutrient Response to Sulfur-Amended Everglades Histosols

Avjinder S. Kaler1, J. Mabry McCray

2, Alan L. Wright

2 and John E. Erickson

3

1Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR

72701

2Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL 33430

3Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Address Correspondence to Avjinder S Kaler and J Mabry McCray:([email protected] and

[email protected] )

ABSTRACT

High soil pH causes leaf nutrient deficiencies and reduces sugarcane yield. Soil pH in Florida

Histosols has been increasing as these soils subside and depth to limestone is decreased. A

factorial experiment of 4 sulfur (S) rates and 3 added calcium carbonate (CaCO3) levels in soil

was designed to determine S-amendment effectiveness in reducing pH and increasing nutrient

availability in sugarcane as calcium (Ca) carbonate levels were increased. Sulfur-amendment and

increased CaCO3 level had limited effects on yield and leaf nutrient concentrations during the

growing season. Most leaf nutrients were within optimum range except nitrogen (N), phosphorus

(P), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn). Unexpected increases in Mn concentrations with added

CaCO3 were associated with reducing conditions due to increased soil bulk density. High soil

pH caused Mn deficiencies in the plants. Soil pH, P and Mn concentrations were important

factors in predicting sugarcane yield.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Keywords and Abbreviations

EAA, Everglades Agricultural Area; S, Elemental Sulfur; CaCO3, Calcium Carbonate; Leaf

Nutrition Concentration; Yield.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) is the predominant row crop in south Florida with an approximate

cultivation of 162,000 ha per year. About 80% of this sugarcane is grown on the muck soil of

Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) (Morgan et al., 2009). The EAA soils are Histosols and

typically contain 80% organic matter. These soils are high in nitrogen (N) content, but have low

available phosphorus (P) and micronutrient concentrations in their natural state. Nutrients of

particular concern for adequate nutrition of sugarcane in Florida soils are N, P, potassium (K),

magnesium (Mg), boron (B), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), silicon (Si), and zinc (Zn)

(Rice et al., 2010). Each nutrient has their own specific role in crop growth and production. Plant

nutrient availabilities are highly influenced by the deficiency or overabundance of any of these

nutrients and overabundance of one nutrient may limit the uptake of others. For example, Zn

availability can be limited due to high application of P fertilizers (Li et al., 2007). As observed in

alkaline soils, poor nutrient availability rather than low total nutrient content in the soil is one of

the major factors causing plant nutrient deficiency. High soil pH, which causes nutrient

deficiencies, can limit sugarcane yield (McCray and Rice, 2013). Sensible use of fertilizers

and/or amendments can improve nutrient balance in soil, resulting in increased crop yield and

enhanced fertilizer use efficiency. High pH of organic soils in the EAA reduces nutrient

availability to crops, especially P and micronutrients, and consequently affects the growth and

yield of the plants. Increased pH in these shallow soils is mostly due to the incorporation of

calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from underlying limestone bedrock because of tillage operations for

bed preparation and agricultural drainage (Snyder, 2005). Drainage and cultivation practices

increase soil organic matter (SOM) decomposition, which results in soil subsidence and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


decreased soil depth; thus, increasing the influence from underlying limestone (CaCO3) bedrock.

Calcium carbonate, being the source of agricultural lime, increases soil pH. The current soil

subsidence rate is estimated at 1.5 cm per year (Wright and Snyder, 2009). Snyder, in 2005,

predicted that in 2050 nearly half of EAA soil would have soils less than 20 cm in depth, which

will not be suitable for sugarcane production. There are five main soil series in EAA depending

upon the depth to underlying limestone bedrocks and mineral contents; Dania, Lauderhill,

Pahokee, Terra Ceia, and Torry. Differences in soil depth results in variable amounts of mixed

CaCO3 and variable soil pH (Daroub et al., 2011).

Soil pH adjustment is one of the strategies that has been used to increase availability of

pH-sensitive nutrients. Application of soluble micronutrient fertilizers to a soil high in CaCO3 is

ineffective because they are quickly bound in unavailable forms (Wiedenfeld, 2011). Elemental

S application has been recommended to reduce soil pH and consequently increases nutrient

availability to crops (Schueneman, 2001). Oxidation of elemental S reduces soil pH in the

presence of Thiobacillus spp. and aerobic heterotrophic bacteria (Yang et al., 2010). An earlier

recommendation of elemental sulfur (S) application was 560 kg S ha-1

at pH ≥ 6.6 to reduce soil

pH (Anderson, 1985); however, an actual nutritional requirement of S for sugarcane is satisfied

through oxidation of organic soils in the EAA. Beverly and Anderson (1986) determined that soil

pH reduction with an elemental S application was only for a short term due to strong buffering

capacity of EAA soils, which counteracts the acidification of S oxidation. Although S

amendment reduces soil pH and increases nutrient availability in alkaline soils, this response

depends on the amount of calcium carbonate present in the soil, which buffers the acidification

effects of elemental S (Lindemann et al., 1991). At one location of a field study with sugarcane,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


448 kg S ha-1

failed to enhance nutrient availability and yield (Ye et al., 2010). However,

McCray and Rice (2013) determined sugarcane yield response to elemental S when pH was >7.2

in previous field studies. Variable soil depths to limestone bedrock due to subsidence have

resulted in more micronutrient deficiencies related to high pH and increased Ca carbonate in the

root zone. (McCray et al., 2010). This emphasizes the need for revised recommendations of S

application for sugarcane in the EAA. However, expanded elemental sulfur application to the

calcareous soils of EAA could potentially cause environmental problems to the Everglades

wetland ecosystem (Childers et al., 2003; Orem et al., 2011). Therefore, there is a strong need to

determine the level of S application producing favorable responses in terms leaf nutrient

concentrations and yield while minimizing adverse environmental impacts under soil conditions

varying in CaCO3 contents. Leaf nutrient analysis, a complement to soil testing, has been widely

used as a diagnostic tool in sugarcane production (Anderson and Bowen 1990). The hypothesis

of this study was that increased S application rate would reduce the soil pH depending upon

varying CaCO3 levels and as a result, would affect the leaf nutrient concentrations and sugarcane

yield. Leaf nutrient analysis aids the soil test in EAA in decision making regarding the fertilizer

recommendations for optimum growth and yield of sugarcane. The objective was to determine

elemental S effects on yield and leaf nutrient concentrations on organic soil having variable

amounts of calcium carbonate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Site and Design

A single outdoor pot study was conducted at the University of Florida’s Everglades Research and

Education Center (EREC) in Belle Glade, Florida. The experiment was a factorial experiment

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


with two factors; three levels of added CaCO3 (0%, 12.5%, and 50% by volume) and four

elemental S rates (0, 90, 224, 448 kg S ha-1

), which were arranged using a randomized complete

block design with four replications (48 experimental units). Shell rock was used for the CaCO3

additions, which was thoroughly mixed in appropriate volumes with the entire soil for each pot

(95L or 25 gallon pots). Organic soil for the experiment was obtained from a field (N 26° 39′, W

80° 37′) at EREC. A single sugarcane accession, ‘CP 89-2143’, was planted as single-eye seed

pieces in flats of the same organic soil used for the pots in December 2011 and then six seedlings

were transplanted from the nursery to each pot in January 2012. A single furrow, approximately

15 cm deep, was formed in each pot in which all fertilizers were applied and then the seedlings

were transplanted and the furrow was covered. Four rates of granular elemental S (90% S) were

applied in a band in the furrow along with the other fertilizer. Other fertilizers were applied

according to recommendations and guidelines for this region and soil type (Gilbert et al., 2012).

All the fertilizers and elemental S were applied prior to planting and all pots received 29 kg P ha-

1 as monoammonium phosphate, 139 kg K ha

-1 as muriate of potash, and 39 kg micromix ha

-1

(containing Mn, Zn, Cu, and B). All calculations for fertilizer and S applications were based on

the surface area of the pot. No nitrogen was applied because sugarcane on muck soils does not

require N fertilization (Rice et al., 2010). Water was applied two times a day through an

automatic microjet irrigation system using well water. There were drainages holes on the sides at

the bottom. Weeds were removed by hand, as necessary, during the growing season. A support

structure of cables was built outside each row of pots in August 2012 to prevent sugarcane

lodging.

Biomass Sampling and Tissue Nutrient Analysis

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


To evaluate the leaf nutrient concentrations, ten top visible dewlap leaves were collected from

each pot in May and August 2012, corresponding to approximately 4 and 8 months after

planting, respectively. Leaf blades, after removing midribs, were rinsed in DI water to remove

soil and dust particles that may contaminate the samples, and then dried in the oven at 60°C in

paper bags. Dried leaf samples were ground in a Wiley mill to pass through a 2-mm mesh screen

and stored in plastic bags to analyze the nutrient concentrations. Subsamples were used to

determine the Ca, Mg, K, Mn, P, Fe, Zn, Cu, and S concentrations in leaf tissue using a nitric

acid digestion and analysis with inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP)

(Perkin-Elmer Optima 5300, Shelton, CT). Plant N concentration was determined using a Total

Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) digestion followed by Lachat instrument analysis (QuikChem 8500;

Lachat, St. Joseph, MI). Silicon digestion was carried out to determine the silicon (Si)

concentration in leaf tissue followed by probe colorimeter analysis (Brinkmann Model 950,

Metrohm, Riverview, FL).

Harvest data was taken by cutting and weighing the sugarcane from each pot. Millable stalks

were counted from the harvested sugarcane. After weighing the sugarcane, the stalks were milled

and the crusher juice was analyzed for Brix and Pol values. Brix was measured using a

temperature-correcting refractometer, and Pol measured using a saccharimeter. Brix and Pol

values were used to calculate the kg sucrose per ton cane (KST) according to the theoretical

recoverable sugar method (Legendre, 1992). Tons cane ha-1

(TCH) was calculated from each pot

by using pot diameter (0.6 m) as the row length and assumed row width as 1.5 m to allow for

shading as in field conditions. Calculation of tons sucrose ha-1

(TSH) was computed as the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


product of tons cane ha-1

(TCH) and KST (divided by 1000 to convert kg sucrose to metric tons)

(McCray and Rice, 2013).

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 and JMP 10. A mixed model was

fitted using restricted maximum likelihood in the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (SAS Institute,

Cary, NC, USA). The fixed effects were S application rate, CaCO3 levels, time, and their

interaction, with block as a random effect. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using

PROC GLIMMIX and treatment differences were determined using Tukey’s test with

significance at P < 0.05. Degree of freedom was adjusted using the Kenward-Roger adjustment.

Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess relationships between variables using

PROC CORR. Stepwise multiple regressions were used to evaluate the relative importance of

soil pH and plant nutrients in predicting sugarcane yield.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Nitrogen

There were no significant differences in leaf N concentration with elemental S application in

organic soils varying in CaCO3 content during the sugarcane growing season (Table 1).

Significantly greater leaf N concentration was observed in soils with no added CaCO3 compared

to soils with added CaCO3 (Table 1). In EAA’s soils, sufficient N for sugarcane crop requirement

comes from the oxidation of organic soils (Rice et al., 2010). Low N tissue concentration with

added CaCO3 was likely due to a decrease in the volume of organic matter for oxidation, as well

as increased soil pH and increased Ca concentration, which decreased N availability in soils.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Nitrogen concentration in leaves was negatively correlated with soil pH (r2 = -0.62) and soil Ca

concentration (r2 = -0.45). Averaged across treatments, leaf N concentration was lower in May

(16.95 g kg-1

) and August (13.93 g kg-1

) than the critical N value (18.0 g kg-1

) for sugarcane

(Table 5). Leaf N concentration was highest for soil with no added CaCO3 in May and then

significantly reduced in August for all treatments (Figure. 1). The reduced N concentration was

likely due to leaching losses of N from the soil and also N demand may have increased in August

because the plants were larger, which were observed in the soil N test (data not shown) (Ye et

al., 2011).

Phosphorus

There were no significant differences in leaf P concentration as influenced by S amendment at

any level of CaCO3 during the growing season (Table 1). This was likely due to limited soil pH

reduction by the S treatments at any soil depths, 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm (Table 4) (Ye et al.,

2011). There were also no significant differences in leaf P concentration with added CaCO3 in

organic soils (Table 1). Leaf P concentration was below the critical P value (1.9 g kg-1

) for

sugarcane in May (1.60 g kg-1

) and then significantly increased in August (2.27 g kg-1

) (Figure

2)(Table 5). Low leaf P concentrations in the spring may be associated with drought stress in the

spring with less rainfall as compared to summer (McCray et al., 2009).

Sulfur, Calcium, Potassium, and Magnesium

Other leaf nutrients, S, Ca, K, and Mg were not affected by different rates of elemental S

application in organic soils during the growing season (Table 1). Leaf K concentration

significantly decreased with added CaCO3 (Table 1). There was a significant difference for leaf S

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


between no added CaCO3 soil and 12.5% CaCO3 soil (Table 1). However, Ca and Mg did not

show any significant effects of added CaCO3 in soils. Leaf K concentration significantly

increased as the growing season progressed and was highest in soil with no added CaCO3

(Figure. 3). Increased volume of CaCO3 increased the pH and Ca concentration in soil and

decreased the volume of organic matter, which reduced the soil K concentration (data not shown)

and resulted in less K uptake. Significant negative correlation of leaf K with soil pH (r2

= -0.73)

and soil Ca concentration (r2

= -0.56) indicate that increased soil pH and Ca concentration were

associated with lower leaf K concentration. The concentrations of all these nutrients were at or

above the critical values for sugarcane at both sampling times (Table 5).

Manganese

Sulfur amendment did not significantly enhance leaf Mn concentration in all organic soil

conditions during the growing season (Table 2). This may be due to the limited effects of

elemental S application on soil pH reduction at both depths (Table 4); hence, Mn availability was

similar across S treatments (Table 2). Unexpected results of leaf Mn concentration were

observed with CaCO3 treatments. Increased CaCO3 level in organic soil significantly increased

the leaf Mn (Table 2) and soil Mn concentrations. This was likely due to the change in physical

characteristics of the soil with added CaCO3. Added CaCO3 increased bulk density of the soil by

decreasing the volume of organic soil and consequently decreased the infiltration rates of water.

Low infiltration led to periodic flooding and poor drainage, which consequently increased

reducing anaerobic conditions. These conditions resulted in increased leaf Mn concentration as

has been observed with increased soil moisture in the summer rainy season in Florida (McCray

et al., 2009). As the growing season progressed, leaf Mn concentration significantly increased

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


from spring to summer (Figure. 4), but it was still within the deficient category for both sampling

times, May (6.02 mg kg-1

) and August (13.40 mg kg-1

) (Table 5). Similar results of increased leaf

tissue Mn were also found in one previous study (Weil et al., 1997).

Iron, Copper, Zinc, and Silicon

Sulfur amendment did not show any significant effect on leaf tissue Fe, Cu, Zn, and Si

concentrations under different organic soil conditions during the growing season (Table 2).

Increased levels of CaCO3 did not significantly influence leaf Fe, Cu, and Zn concentrations

(Table 2). This was likely due to limited soil pH reduction by the S treatments at soil depths, 0-

15 cm and 15-30 cm (Table 4). Leaf Si concentration was significantly increased with added

CaCO3 content (Table 2) which follows the increased solubility of soil silicate species with

increasing pH (Lindsay, 1979). Leaf Cu, Zn, and Si concentrations were within or above the

optimum range for sugarcane (Table 5). Averaged across treatments, leaf Fe concentration was

below the critical Fe value for sugarcane in May, but leaf Fe concentration was within the

optimum range for sugarcane in August leaf sampling (Table 5). Leaf Fe and Cu concentrations

significantly increased from May to August (Table 5). Increased leaf Fe and Cu concentrations

in August were likely due to the rainy season, which increased the soil moisture and reducing

conditions and consequently increased Fe and Cu availability in soil (McCray et al., 2009).

However, leaf Zn concentration did not show any significant difference across the growing

season (Table 5).

Sugarcane Yield

There were no significant differences among the treatments for millable stalks. Sulfur application

in organic soils did not affect the millable stalk numbers and variation in CaCO3 rates did not

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


influence the millable stalks number (Table 3). This lack of an effect on millable stalks might be

due to the limited effects of S application on soil pH reduction and also that most nutrients were

within optimum ranges. Sulfur application did not significantly affect the yield parameters kg

sucrose t-1

cane (KST), t cane ha-1

(TCH), or t sucrose ha-1

(TSH) in organic soils varying in

added CaCO3 (Table 3). This can be explained by the lack of pH change in soils with S

application. There were also no significant differences in TCH or TSH among CaCO3 treatments.

Similar results were found in one previous study, where a current recommendation rate 448 kg S

ha-1

failed to enhance nutrient availability and yield (Ye et al., 2010).

Yield Predictor

Multiple regression models were developed to determine the important factors in soil and plants

that could be used to predict the yield of TSH and TCH (Table 6 and Table 7). Soil pH before

planting and fertilization and phosphorus in august sampling were the important factors in soil,

which negatively influenced the yield of TSH and TCH (Table 6). This indicates that high soil

pH and reduced P availability in soil would decrease the sugar yield. In plants, positive

correlated Cu and negative correlated K concentrations with yield in May tissue sampling were

important factors which influenced the yield (Table 7). Negative relation of K concentration with

yield might not indicate a direct effect on yield reduction. This could be due to the influence of K

on other nutrients like Mn or covariance with other factors. In our study, soil K and Mn

concentrations showed a negative correlation (r2 = -0.46), which indicates that increased uptake

of K was negatively related to factors that decreased leaf Mn concentration (r2 = -0.76). Also,

leaf Mn concentration was below the critical value of Mn for sugarcane in all treatments (Table

5). Thus, Mn concentration may be one of the predictors which indirectly influences the yield.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


There were low coefficient of determinations (R2) for TSH and TCH for both soil and plant

(Tables 6 and 7), indicating that factors which influence the yields were not quantified

(Anderson et al., 1999). These linear models gave only rough approximations of the relationships

between the factors and yield (Anderson et al., 1999; Ye et al., 2011).

CONCLUSIONS

Sulfur amendment at different rates had limited effects on plant nutrient concentrations under

different organic soil conditions varying in CaCO3 levels. High buffering capacities of these soils

limited the soil pH reduction with elemental S application and therefore, failed to enhance

nutrient availability to sugarcane. Variable CaCO3 levels in these organic soils had significant

effects on leaf N, K, S, Si, and Mn concentrations; added CaCO3 in soil reduced the leaf N, K,

and S concentrations, but increased the Si and Mn concentrations. An unexpected increase of leaf

Mn concentrations is associated with increased soil Mn availability with increased CaCO3 levels.

Increased CaCO3 levels enhanced the soil reducing conditions, which were due to the changes in

the physical properties of the soil with added CaCO3. Added CaCO3 in organic soils increased

bulk density and decreased water infiltration rates in soils, which led to an increase in water

retention, soil moisture which led to development of anaerobic reducing conditions. The

reducing conditions solubilized Mn and increased Mn availability; thus, leaf Mn concentrations

increased. Correspondingly, S amendment at different rates for variable CaCO3 levels did not

influence sugarcane yield parameters; KST, TSH or TCH, due to limited changes in nutrient

concentrations. All the plant nutrients were within optimum range except P, Fe, and Mn for

sugarcane, which indicates that high soil pH reduces P, Fe and Mn availability to crops.

Subsequently, soil pH, P and Mn were the most important predictors of sugarcane yield. This

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


study demonstrated that not only soil chemical properties but also soil physical properties are

changed as Histosols become shallower with subsidence and that all these changes should be

considered in the evaluation of agronomic practices on these soils.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are thankful to Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District for funding

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


REFERENCES

Anderson, D.L. 1985. Crop soil fertility recommendations of the Everglades soil testing

laboratory. EREC-Belle Glade Report EV-1985-10. Belle Glade, FL: University of

Florida.

Anderson, D. L. and J. E. Bowen. 1990. Sugarcane Nutrition. Potash and Phosphate Institute,

Atlanta, GA.

Anderson, D.L., K.N. Portier, T.A. Obreza, M.E. Collins, and D.J. Pitts. 1999. Tree regression

analysis to determine effects of soil variability on sugarcane yields. Soil Science Society

of America Journal 63:592-600.

Beverly, R.B., and D.L. Anderson. 1986. Effects of acid source on soil pH. Soil Science143:301-

303.

Childers, D.L., R.F. Doren, R. Jones, G.B. Noe, M. Rugge, and L.J. Scinto 2003. Decadal change

in vegetation and soil phosphorus patterns across the Everglades landscape. Journal of

Environmental Quality 32:344-362.

Daroub S.H., S.V. Horn, T. A. Lang and O.A. Diaz 2011, Best management practices and long-

term water quality trends in the Everglades Agricultural Area. Critical Reviews in

Environmental Science and Technology 41:S1, 608-632.

Gilbert R.A., R.W. Rice, and D.C. Odero. 2012. Nutrient requirements for sugarcane production

on Florida muck soils. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet SS-AGR-228.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Legendre, B.L. 1992. The core/press method for predicting the sugar yield from cane for use in

cane payment. Journal American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 54:2-7.

Li, B.Y., D.M. Zhou, L. Cang, H.L. Zhang, X.H. Fan, and S.W. Qin. 2007. Soil micronutrient

availability to crops as affected by long-term inorganic and organic fertilizer applications.

Soil and Tillage Research 96: 166–173.

Lindemann, W.C., J.J. Aburto, W.M. Haffner, and A.A. Bono. 1991. Effect of sulfur source on

sulfur oxidation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 55:85-90.

Lindsay, W. L. 1979. Chemical equilibria in soils. John Wiley & Sons. New York.

McCray, J.M., S. Ji, G. Powell, G. Montes, R. Perdomo, and Y. Luo. 2009. Seasonal

concentrations of leaf nutrients in Florida sugarcane. Sugar Cane International 27(1):17-

24.

McCray, J. M., S. Ji, G. Powell, G. Montes, R. Perdomo, and Y. Luo. 2010. Boundary lines used

to determine sugarcane production limits at leaf nutrient concentrations less than

optimum. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 41:606-622.

McCray, J.M., and R.W. Rice. 2013. Sugarcane yield response to elemental sulfur on high pH

organic soils. Proc. International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 28:280-287.

Morgan, K.T., J.M. McCray, R.W. Rice, R.A. Gilbert, and L.E. Baucum. 2009. Review of

current sugarcane fertilizer recommendations: A report from the UF/IFAS sugarcane

fertilizer standards task force. UF EDIS SL 295, Gainesville, FL.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Orem, W., Gilmour, Cynthia, Axelrad, Donald, Krabbenhoft, David, Scheidt, Daniel, Kalla,

Peter, McCormick, Paul, Gabriel, Mark, and George. 2011. Sulfur in the South Florida

ecosystem: distribution, sources, biogeochemistry, impacts, and management for

restoration'. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 41:6, 249-288

Rice, R.W., R.A. Gilbert, and J.M. McCray. 2010. Nutrient requirements for Florida sugarcane.

UF-IFAS SS-AGR-228, Gainesville, FL.

Schueneman, T.J. 2001. Characterization of sulfur sources in the EAA. Soil and Crop Science

Society of Florida Proceedings 60:49-52.

Snyder, G.H. 2005. Everglades Agricultural Area soil subsidence and land use projections. Soil

and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings 64:44-51.

Weil R.R., C.D. Foy, and C.A. Coradetti. 1997. Influence of soil moisture regimes on subsequent

soil manganese availability and toxicity in two cotton genotypes. Agronomy Journal Vol.

89:1-8.

Wiedenfeld, B. 2011. Sulfur application effects on soil properties in a calcareous soil and on

sugarcane growth and yield. Journal of Plant Nutrition 34:7, 1003-1013.

Wright, A.L., and G.H. Snyder. 2009. Soil subsidence in the Everglades Agricultural Area. SL

311, Soil and Water Science Dept., Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS,

University of Florida.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Yang Z.H., K. Stoven, S. Haneklaus, B.R. Singh, and E. Schnug. 2010. Elemental sulfur

oxidation by Thiobacillus spp. and aerobic Heterotrophic Sulfur-Oxidizing bacteria.

Pedosphere 20(1):71–79,

Ye, R., A.L. Wright, W.H. Orem, and J.M. McCray, 2010. Sulfur distribution and

transformations in Everglades Agricultural Area soil as influenced by sulfur amendment.

Soil Science 175:263-26

Ye, R., A.L. Wright, J.M. McCray, K.R. Reddy, and L. Young. 2010. Sulfur-induced changes in

phosphorus distribution in Everglades Agricultural Area soils. Nutrient Cycling in

Agroecosystems 87:127–135.

Ye, R., A.L. Wright, and J.M. McCray. 2011. Seasonal changes in nutrient availability for sulfur-

amended Everglades’s soils under sugarcane. Journal of Plant Nutrition 34:2095–2113.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 1. Plant macronutrient concentrations determined across two sampling times, May and

August, in a study of sugarcane production in organic soil using two digestion methods†.

N P S K Ca Mg

S Rate (kg S ha-1

) g kg-1

0 15.52A‡ 1.92A 1.51A 13.08A 3.46A 1.94A

90 15.85A 1.95A 1.58A 13.50A 3.46A 1.95A

224 15.63A 1.93A 1.52A 13.30A 3.48A 1.94A

448 14.74A 1.88A 1.51A 13.37A 3.46A 1.89A

P > F 0.39 0.70 0.59 0.85 0.99 0.77

S Rate X Time (P > F) 0.98 0.17 0.57 0.72 0.89 0.89

CaCO3 Added (%)

0 17.28A 2.00 A 1.61A 14.57A 3.36A 1.99A

12.5 14.44B 1.89B 1.47B 12.82B 3.53A 1.92A

50 14.63B 1.92AB 1.51AB 12.54B 3.50A 1.88A

P > F <0.001 0.07 0.05 <0.001 0.24 0.29

Time (P > F) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

CaCO3 X Time (P > F) <0.001 0.12 0.31 0.001 0.55 0.68

S Rate X CaCO3 (P > F) 0.72 0.36 0.71 0.39 0.59 0.86

S Rate X CaCO3 X Time (P > F) 0.81 0.12 0.26 0.51 0.56 0.69

†Digestion with Nitric acid (P, K, S, Ca, and Mg), and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (N).

‡Within columns, means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at α = 0.05.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 2. Plant micronutrients and silicon (Si) determined across two sampling dates, May and

August, in a study of sugarcane production in organic soil using two digestion methods†.

Si Fe Mn Zn Cu

S Rate (kg S ha-1

) g kg-1

mg kg-1

0 8.76A‡ 60.89A 9.79A 16.23A 5.98A

90 11.47A 59.55A 8.85A 20.33A 5.93A

224 12.33A 61.49A 10.30A 20.91A 6.13A

448 11.67A 63.27A 9.89A 21.00A 5.78A

P > F 0.45 0.82 0.55 0.34 0.45

S Rate X Time (P > F) 0.98 0.87 0.09 0.89 0.69

CaCO3 Added (%)

0 9.16B 61.55AB 7.15B 20.90A 6.06A

12.5 11.99A 63.84A 10.82A 18.28A 5.95A

50 12.03A 58.51B 11.16A 19.68A 5.85A

P > F <0.001 0.11 <0.001 0.51 0.28

Time (P > F) 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 0.6 <0.001

CaCO3 X Time (P > F) 0.41 0.57 0.006 0.92 0.002

S Rate X CaCO3 (P > F) 0.47 0.31 0.53 0.53 0.11

S Rate X CaCO3 X Time (P > F) 0.15 0.25 0.38 0.92 0.049

†Digestion with Nitric acid (Mn, Fe, Cu and Zn), and Silicon (Si).


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 3. Millable stalks, KST†, TSH† and TCH† response to elemental sulfur application in a

study of sugarcane production in organic soil varying in Ca carbonate levels.

Millable stalks KST TSH TCH

S Rate (kg S ha-1

)

0 10A‡

129.8A 17.2A 118.9A

90 10A 131.2A 15.6A 106.7A

224 10A 130.1A 15.7A 108.7A

448 10A 129.4A 15.5A 107.6A

P > F 0.92 0.6 0.83 0.8

CaCO3 Added (%)

0 9A 128.5B 14.4B 100.8A

12.5 11A 131.5A 18.2B 124.2A

50 10A 130.3AB 15.5AB 106.8A

P > F 0.29 0.045 0.11 0.14

S Rate X CaCO3 (P > F) 0.56 0.39 0.45 0.45

† KST (kg sucrose t-1

cane), TSH (tones sucrose ha-1

), and TCH (tones cane ha-1

).


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 4. Soil pH determined across four sampling dates† in a study of sugarcane production in

organic soil at soil depths, 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm.

0-15 cm 15-30 cm

S Rate (kg S ha-1)

0 7.55A‡

7.50A

90 7.56A 7.51A

224 7.54A 7.50A

448 7.54A 7.49A

P > F 0.94 0.82

S Rate X Time (P > F) 0.74 0.5

CaCO3 Added (%)

0 7.44C 7.34C

12.5 7.54B 7.51B

50 7.66A 7.62A

P > F <0.001 <0.001

Time (P > F) <0.001 <0.001

CaCO3 X Time (P > F) <0.001 <0.001

S Rate X CaCO3 (P > F) 0.62 0.16

S Rate X CaCO3 X Time (P > F) 0.85 0.71

†Before planting January-2012, early May-2012, late August-2012, and early January-2013.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 5. Sugarcane leaf nutrient concentrations for two sampling times, May and August, and

leaf nutrient critical values and optimum range†.

Nutrient May August Critical Value Optimum Range

g kg-1

Nitrogen (N) 16.95A‡ 13.93B 18.0 20.0-26.0

Phosphorus (P) 1.60B 2.27A 1.9 2.2-3.0

Potassium (K) 9.93B 16.71A 9.0 10.0-16.0

Calcium (Ca) 2.24B 4.69A 2.0 2.0-4.5

Magnesium (Mg) 1.34B 2.52A 1.2 1.5-3.2

Sulfur (S) 1.28B 1.77A 1.3 1.3-1.8

Silicon (Si) 11.70A 10.42B 5.0 >7.0

mg kg-1

Iron (Fe) 44.49B 77.72A ---- 50-105

Manganese (Mn) 6.02.6B 13.40A ---- 20-100

Zinc (Zn) 19.80A 19.44A 15 16-32

Copper (Cu) 4.37B 7.54A 3 4.0-8.0

†From Anderson and Bowen (1990), except for Si, McCray et al. (2010). All values are from

Florida except S, which is from Louisiana.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 6. Multiple regression models relating to soil pH and nutrient concentrations† (mg dm-3

)

with TSH‡, and TCH‡ at different times§ during the growing season.

Yield (Y) Equation R2

TSH Y = 294.2 – 15*pH (T0) + 0.0002*A-Ca (T5) 0.31

TCH Y = 1087.8 – 50*pH (T0) -1.1*M-P (T8) 0.28

†Nutrient concentrations – A-Ca (Acetic acid extracted soil calcium (mg dm-3

)) and P (Mehlich-3

extracted soil phosphorus (mg dm-3

)).

‡TSH (tones sucrose ha-1


).

§Soil sampling time T0 (before planting), T5 (early May) and T8 (late August).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


Table 7. Multiple regression models relating to plant nutrient concentrations† (% and mg kg-1

)

with TSH‡, and TCH‡ at different times§ during the growing season.

Yield (Y) Equation R2

TSH Y= 5.43 – 8.5*K (May) + 2.9*Cu (May) 0.56

TCH Y= 33.4 – 55.3*K (May) + 19.7*Cu (May) 0.57

†Plant nutrient concentrations - K (potassium g kg-1

) and Cu (copper mg kg-1

).

‡TSH (tones sucrose ha-1


).

§Time - May sampling.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
