Cited by 246Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSugarcane Cultivation and ProcessingAgricultural Science and Fertilization

Infield greenhouse gas emissions from sugarcane soils in Brazil: effects from synthetic and organic fertilizer application and crop trash accumulation

Open access
Carmo, Janaina Braga do, Filoso, Solange, Zotelli, Luciana C., de Sousa Neto, Eraclito R., Pitombo, Leonardo M., Duarte‐Neto, Paulo J., Vargas, Vitor P., Andrade, Cristiano A. +5 more·2013·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Bioethanol from sugarcane is becoming an increasingly important alternative energy source worldwide as it is considered to be both economically and environmentally sustainable. Besides being produced from a tropical perennial grass with high photosynthetic efficiency, sugarcane ethanol is commonly associated with low N fertilizer use because sugarcane from B razil, the world's largest sugarcane producer, has a low N demand. In recent years, several models have predicted that the use of sugarcane ethanol in replacement to fossil fuel could lead to high greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emission savings. However, empirical data that can be used to validate model predictions and estimates from indirect methodologies are scarce, especially with regard to emissions associated with different fertilization methods and agricultural management practices commonly used in sugarcane agriculture in B razil. In this study, we provide in situ data on emissions of three GHG ( CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH 4 ) from sugarcane soils in B razil and assess how they vary with fertilization methods and management practices. We measured emissions during the two main phases of the sugarcane crop cycle (plant and ratoon cane), which include different fertilization methods and field conditions. Our results show that N 2 O and CO 2 emissions in plant cane varied significantly depending on the fertilization method and that waste products from ethanol production used as organic fertilizers with mineral fertilizer, as it is the common practice in B razil, increase emission rates significantly. Cumulatively, the highest emissions were observed for ratoon cane treated with vinasse (liquid waste from ethanol production) especially as the amount of crop trash on the soil surface increased. Emissions of CO 2 and N 2 O were 6.9 kg ha −1 yr −1 and 7.5 kg ha −1 yr −1 , respectively, totaling about 3000 kg in CO 2 equivalent ha −1 yr −1 .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01199.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carmo, J. B. D., Filoso, S., Zotelli, L. C., de Sousa Neto, E. R., Pitombo, L. M., Duarte‐Neto, P. J., Vargas, V. P., Andrade, C. A., Gava, G. J. C., Rossetto, R., Cantarella, H., Neto, A. E., & Martinelli, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Departamento de Ciências Ambientais Universidade Federal de São Carlos campus Sorocaba, Rod. João Leme dos Santos km 110 CEP 18052‐780 Sorocaba Brazil
  • University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (US)
  • Divisão de Sustentabilidade Instituto Agronômico de Campinas Av. Barão de Itapura 1481 CEP 13020‐902 Campinas Brazil
  • Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura Universidade de São Paulo Av. Centenário 303 CEP 13400‐970 Piracicaba Brazil
  • Universidade Federal de São Carlos (BR)
  • Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (BR)
  • Agronomical Institute of Campinas (BR)
  • Embrapa (BR)
  • Agência Paulista de Tecnologia Polo Jau Rodovia Deputado Leônidas Pacheco Ferreiro km 304 CEP 17201‐970 Jau Brazil
  • Agência Paulista de Tecnologia Polo Piracicaba Rodovia SP 127 km 30 CEP 13400‐970 Piracicaba Brazil
  • Sugarcane Research Center (Brazil) (BR)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-07-27
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
267-280
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2165667973
Cited by
246
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
22.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Physical Therapy Association
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (08/56147-1, 08/55989-9)
  • Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Sugarcane Cultivation and Processing
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
Keywords
sugarcane, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, vinasse, organic fertilizer, mineral fertilizers, crop residues, ratoon cane, plant cane, bioethanol, soil emissions, Brazil

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review