Research Article

Sugarcane Yield Response to Furrow-Applied Organic Amendments on Sand Soils

Table 9

Predicted least squares means, , and significant contrasts for pH and soil-extractable nutrients (in row, 0–15 cm depth) after the plant cane crop at Site 1.

TreatmentapHPKCaMgSi
g m−3

(1) Control7.143.94773111280
(2) MM (226 m3 ha−1)6.8912.371133315859
(3) CP (226 m3 ha−1)7.863.966231721999
(4) MM (14 m3 ha−1)7.074.447825143109
(5) MM (28 m3 ha−1)7.124.84699113492
(6) MM (56 m3 ha−1)6.935.15597810897
(7) CP (14 m3 ha−1)7.294.438122715981
(8) CP (28 m3 ha−1)7.363.3491343162105
(9) CP (56 m3 ha−1)7.482.946167819170

0.002<0.0010.022<0.0010.0200.238
Contrastsb
 T1 versus T2NS******NSNS
 T1 versus T3**NS*******NS
 T1 versus T7,
  T8, and T9
NSNSNS****NS
 T8 versus T9NSNSNSNS

Significant differences between specified treatments at , 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively.
NS: no significant difference at for the specified contrast.
aMM: mill mud; CP: yard waste compost. Treatments 2 and 3 were broadcast prior to planting and treatments 4–9 were applied in the furrow prior to planting.
bOther contrasts tested in analysis of variance were treatments 1 versus 4, 5, and 6; 4 versus 5; 5 versus 6; and 7 versus 8. Only contrasts with significant differences were listed in the table.