English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Soil structure has a significant impact on sugarcane production. This research evaluated the effects of controlled traffic on soil physical quality (SPQ). The following four management systems (MS) were evaluated: rainfed sugarcane cultivation and the application of vinasse (RV); irrigated sugarcane cultivation (I); irrigated sugarcane cultivation and application of vinasse (IV), and native vegetation (no sugarcane or irrigation; NV) as a reference. Soil samples were collected within sugarcane rows (WR) and between rows (BR) (used exclusively for agricultural machinery traffic) from mini-trenches for visual evaluation of soil structure (VESS) based on a scale from 1 to 5. Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected for measuring indicators of SPQ.All SPQ variables differed ( p  &lt; 0.05) between WR and BR, demonstrating the efficiency of controlled machinery traffic for SPQ. None of the managements systems reached the critical limit of 2.0 MPa for soil resistance penetration. The average of saturated hydraulic conductivity for WR were 220.2 mm h −1 , 126.8 mm h −1 , and 49.4 mm h −1  to IV, I e RV, respectively. SPQ followed the order: NV &gt; IV &gt; I &gt; RV. The VESS was efficient for estimating SPQ and the scores were below 3.0 in all crop management systems.

Effect of controlled traffic on maintaining physical soil quality in sugarcane fields under different crop management systems