Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

ISSN: 0010-3624 (Print) 1532-2416 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Effect of Long-Term Sugarcane (Saccharum Spp.)

Cultivation on Chemical and Physical Properties of
Soils in Belize

Luciano Chi, Jorge Mendoza-Vega, Esperanza Huerta & José David Álvarez-
Solís

To cite this article: Luciano Chi, Jorge Mendoza-Vega, Esperanza Huerta & José David Álvarez-
Solís (2017) Effect of Long-Term Sugarcane (Saccharum Spp.) Cultivation on Chemical and
Physical Properties of Soils in Belize, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 48:7,
741-755, DOI: 10.1080/00103624.2016.1254794

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2016.1254794

Accepted author version posted online: 20

Mar 2017.
Published online: 20 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 113

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lcss20
COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS
2017, VOL. 48, NO. 7, 741–755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2016.1254794

Effect of Long-Term Sugarcane (Saccharum Spp.) Cultivation on

Chemical and Physical Properties of Soils in Belize
a a a
Luciano Chi , Jorge Mendoza-Vega , Esperanza Huerta , and José David Álvarez-Solísb
a
Department of Agriculture, Society and Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Lerma, Campeche, Mexico;
b
Department of Agriculture, Society and Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas,
Chiapas, México

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The sugarcane industry in Belize is one of the main economic drivers in the Received 17 June 2016
country and is therefore of crucial social and environmental importance. Accepted 21 September 2016
This study evaluated the degree of sustainability of commercial sugarcane
KEYWORDS
production in Northern Belize by determining soil parameters (physical and Belize; soil fertility;
chemical) in three soil layers (0–15, 15–30 and 30–50 cm) and crop profit- sugarcane monoculture;
ability relative to years of sugarcane cultivation (4–25 years since land sustainability
conversion). The parameters evaluated were organic matter (OM), total
nitrogen (TN), cation exchange capacity (CEC), available phosphorus (P),
potassium (K), pH, dry bulk density (DBD), porosity (ƒ), and water-filled
pore space (WFPS). Field interviews were conducted to document manage-
ment practices, agricultural inputs, production costs, and yield. The results
showed that OM and TN in all soil layers studied and CEC in the 30–50 cm
layer decreased, and were negatively correlated, with years of sugarcane
cultivation. This indicates that prolonged sugarcane cropping has detrimen-
tal effects on soil fertility. There was no clear pattern with years under
sugarcane cultivation for P, pH, DBD, and K. Yield levels were maintained
by intensification of cultivation, e.g. high inputs and regular replanting,
providing short-term benefits at the expense of deterioration of soil fertility.
The benefit to cost (B:C) ratio of sugarcane production in Northern Belize
was marginal for American Sugar Refinery/Belize Sugar Industries (ASR/BSI),
representative of intensive agriculture; and not profitable for small-scale
farmers, 1.0 and 0.63 for plantation establishment and 1.2 and 1.0 average
for the following six years of ratoon, respectively.

Introduction
Soil degradation and poor sustainability in mono-cropping systems have increased interest in
assessing soil quality (Gregorich et al. 1994), its assessment through chemical, physical, and biolo-
gical properties can provide valuable information for evaluating the sustainability of land manage-
ment practices (Doran and Parkin 1994), such as sugarcane cultivation, which can have long-term
negative effects on soil fertility (Hartemink 1998).
The sugarcane industry in Northern Belize is one of the main economic drivers in the country
and therefore of vital social and environmental importance. It supports the livelihood and wellbeing
of about 15% of the Belizean population (368,310 people) and provides 7.8% of gross domestic
product (GDP), 10% of jobs and 6% of foreign exchange earnings (Statistical Institute of Belize
2015). In addition, the sugarcane industry is an important asset in the Central American economy
(Subiros 1995), since it provides substantial support for many small industries in the region.

CONTACT Luciano Chi lchi@ecosur.edu.mx Department of Agriculture, Society and Environment, El Colegio de la
Frontera Sur, Avenida Rancho Polígono 2-A, Col. Ciudad Industrial, Lerma, Campeche 24500, Mexico.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lcss.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
742 L. CHI ET AL.

Approximately 5,442 farmers in Belize grow sugarcane (Sugarcane Production Committee

(SCPC) 2015). The current area amounts to 27,518.6 ha or about 30% of the total agricultural area
in the country, of which around 1,440 ha belong to American Sugar Refinery/Belize Sugar Industries
(ASR/BSI), with 90% corresponding to several-year sugarcane ratoon. The current total production
of the industry is about 1.35–1.45 M tons of cane and 115,000–125,000 tons of sugar (SCPC 2015). It
is important to note that 77% of producers are classified as small-scale, delivering volumes of less
than 200 tons of cane per cycle and with an estimated average productivity of 44 t ha−1 (De León and
González 2011). This is much lower than the regional average (74.2 t ha−1) and also the world
average (70.9 t ha−1) (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division
(FAOSTAT) 2015). This low productivity is a high-priority issue that must be addressed in order to
make sugarcane production sustainable.
The sugarcane industry in Belize is currently using low scientific precision and inappropriate
technologies (De León and González 2011), e.g. inefficient fertilizer and herbicide application
and inappropriate cultivation and harvesting practices, including burning of fields and crop
residues. These practices lead to soil degradation, environmental deterioration, and nutritional
imbalances, further compromising the sustainability of the industry. Therefore, it is necessary to
carry out research in farmers’ fields to identify best farming practices for increasing soil fertility
to improve yields and for minimizing negative impacts on the environment (De León and
González 2011).
In addition to this, the current European Union (EU) sugar agreement will soon end and with it,
the preferential prices that Belize has enjoyed, leaving it facing stiff competition within a tough world
market. Belize sugar is currently not competitive in a global context. In order for it to be so, it is
estimated that the overall management and production costs would need to be reduced to around
one-third of the current level, representing an enormous challenge (ASR/BSI 2015). Against this
background, ASR/BSI is attempting to improve yields by applying more intensive cultivation and use
of agricultural inputs than small-scale farmers, with the goal of increasing profits and altering the
sugarcane production system in the region. However, special attention to management practices is
required with this new regime in order to prevent serious impacts for the environment and soil
degradation problems in the longer term.
Despite the importance of the sugarcane industry for Belize, little information about the long-
term effect of sugarcane monoculture on the chemical and physical properties of soils is available or
published under local conditions. The present study sought to rectify this shortcoming by collecting
data that could act as a valuable reference and baseline for future studies on sugarcane soil fertility in
Belize.
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the sustainability of commercial (intensive and
small-scale) sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) production in Northern Belize by analyzing the state of soil
parameters (some physical and chemical properties) and crop profitability with years of sugarcane
cultivation (from land conversion and replanting).

Materials and methods

The study area lies within the districts of Orange Walk and Corozal, Northern Belize (17°30ʹ-18°
15ʹN, 88°10ʹ-88°20ʹW), and comprises 6,495.7 km2 (Figure 1). The prevailing climate in the area
according to the Koppen classification system as modified by García (2004) is warm sub-humid
(Aw), with rains in summer and a dry season in winter. Specifically, the area falls within the Ax’
(W1) climate subtype, intermediate between the wettest and the driest of the sub-humid classes
(García 2004).
Mean annual long-term temperature (49-year period 1965–2015) is 26 °C and mean annual long-
term rainfall 1,053.33 mm, according to data from weather stations in both Corozal and Orange
Walk. The rainy season runs from June to November and the low rainfall period from December
to May.
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 743

Figure 1. Study area in Belize and distribution of sampling plots on sugarcane fields within the area.

The topography of the land in the study area is relatively flat, with some low-lying parts and with
little or no regional drainage infrastructure to remove excess water during the rainy season. Soils are
of calcareous origin (World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) 2014) and vary from very
heavy with slow drainage and gleization processes (Vertisols and Gleysols) to superficial red young
soils (Cambisols). The two dominant soil units in the sugarcane area of Belize are Cambisols and
Vertisols (De León and González 2011).

Establishment of study plots

Study plots were selected in the two districts based on the year of conversion from secondary
forest (undisturbed for more than 15 years) to sugarcane production. Sugarcane plots with
similar conditions in terms of soil, slope and cane variety but with differing dates of conversion
were chosen, in order to establish a gradient in time over a 25-year period. A final total of 24
plots, under 4 (n = 3), 9 (n = 2), 10 (n = 3), 13 (n = 4), 15 (n = 3), and 25 (n = 9) years of
744 L. CHI ET AL.

Table 1. Selection, identification, and distribution of treatments (years under sugarcane) and years since replanting fields.
Land clearing and preparation Renovation or replanting
Producer/Owner Year Treatment Year Renovation
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2014 1
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2014 1
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2014 1
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2014 1
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2007 8
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2007 8
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2007 8
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2011 4
ASR/BSI 1990 25 2007 8
FARMER 2000 15 2002 13
FARMER 2000 15 2002 13
ASR/BSI 2000 15 2007 8
FARMER 2002 13 2002 13
FARMER 2002 13 2002 13
FARMER 2002 13 2002 13
FARMER 2002 13 2002 13
ASR/BSI 2005 10 2014 1
ASR/BSI 2005 10 2014 1
ASR/BSI 2005 10 2007 8
ASR/BSI 2006 9 2011 4
ASR/BSI 2006 9 2011 4
ASR/BSI 2011 4 2011 4
ASR/BSI 2011 4 2011 4
ASR/BSI 2011 4 2011 4

constant sugarcane cultivation (treatments), were included in the study (Table 1). The number
of years from the most recent replanting was also determined (Table 1), in order to test the
possible effect of new planting on soil parameters and yield. In addition, two plots (n = 2) of
secondary forest (undisturbed for more than 15 years, hereafter “forest”) under natural vegeta-
tion were selected to act as controls in the study, resulting in a total of 26 plots. The plots with
13 and 15 years of constant management belonged to small-scale farmers, while the other plots
belonged to ASR/BSI. During the sustainability assessment, it was found that the small-scale
farmers practice less intensive agriculture than ASR/BSI, e.g. by keeping the sugarcane ratoon
for longer between replanting’s and using less inputs and machinery. Although it was not an
objective of the present work to make a comparison between ARS/BSI and small-scale farming
systems, it was necessary to analyze differences between these two systems to explain some
results.

Soil sampling methodology

Within each sugarcane field selected for the study, an experimental plot with dimensions 25 m × 25 m
(625 m2) was established using a measuring tape to outline the perimeter of the square and subdivided
into a grid by making 10 divisions per side with 2.5 m between lines (Figure 2).
Soil sampling was performed systematically at defined points forming three sub-squares in the
experimental grid, as shown in Figure 2. Loose samples were taken using spade, soil auger and
bucket from three different soil layers (0–15, 15–30, and 30–50 cm or down to the soil effective
depth) at the corners of each subsquare. Composite samples were created from the four samples for
each layer per subsquare, giving nine samples (3 subsquares × 3 layers) per plot.
Cylinder samples for soil dry bulk density determination were taken from each of the designated
three soil layers at a point in the center of each subsquare (Figure 2), giving nine samples (3
subsquares × 3 layers) per plot. They were obtained by introducing a drive-type sampler with metal
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 745

Figure 2. Regime used for soil sampling within each 25 m × 25 m experimental plot. Three soil layers were sampled at each point:
0–15, 15–30, and 30–50 cm depth. x = loose samples, * = cylinder samples.

core-sample retaining cylinder where the soil (90.4 cm3 volume) was collected. They were placed in
plastic bags and weighed in fresh condition and then again after drying.
The loose samples were dried in the shade and those from the cylinders in an industrial-type
oven, at 105 °C for 24 h. In addition, the owner of each of the sugarcane plots was interviewed in
order to obtain information about management practices, type and amount of agricultural inputs,
production costs and sugarcane yield.
In total, 234 loose samples (26 plots × 9 samples/plot) and 234 cylinder samples (26 plots × 9
samples/plot) were collected and processed.
The soil chemical and physical properties investigated in this study were: pH in 2:1 water; cation
exchange capacity (CEC) by ammonium acetate (1 N, pH 7); organic matter (OM) content by the
method of Walkley and Black (Walkley and Black 1934); total nitrogen (TN) by micro-Kjeldahl; K by
extraction with ammonium acetate at pH 7; P by the Olsen method (Olsen and Sommers 1982);
texture (clay, silt, sand) by the Bouyoucos method according to NOM-021-RECNAT-2000 (Norma
Official Mexicana (NOM) 2002); dry bulk density (DBD) by core sampling (Arshad, Lowery, and
Grossman 1996); soil porosity (ƒ), computed from the relationship: ƒ = (1—DBD/ℓs) × 100, where
DBD = dry bulk density and ℓs = particle density (here 2.65 g cm−3) (Rogers et al. 2015); and water-
746 L. CHI ET AL.

filled pore space (WFPS; m3 m−3), calculated using the equation: WFPS = [(GSM x DBD)/ƒ], where ƒ
is the soil porosity calculated as above and GSM = gravimetric soil moisture (Linn and Doran 1984).
The yield for each study plot was obtained based on annual records (for the period 2002–2014)
provided by ASR/BSI and the SCPC database system, which handles information for the entire
industry. In the case of farmers’ plots, direct interviews where held with each farmer at field level to
validate the yield information for each plot.

Statistical analysis of data

Analysis of variance was performed to test differences between treatments (years of sugarcane
cultivation) on soil properties and yield. Regression analyses between treatments and soil para-
meter values were carried out to test the effect of treatments on soil fertility. Principal component
analysis including soil parameters and sugarcane yield was performed on treatments and also on
the time since replanting. In addition, to support the principal component analysis, correlation
analysis between yield and soil parameter values was performed (Minitab© statistical software
release 12).
Finally, an economic analysis was performed considering establishment and maintenance costs
from planting to harvest, along with the revenues obtained from selling the sugarcane to the mill
during the first year of field establishment and up to the sixth harvest, using cost and prices
determined by the mill for the 2014–2015 crop cycle. For purposes of comparison, the economic
analysis per hectare was performed separately for ASR/BSI’s and small-scale farmers’ plots.

Results and discussion

Effect of long-term cultivation
Long-term sugarcane production had negative effects on OM, TN and CEC, with a step-wise decline
in these parameters with increasing number of years under sugarcane cultivation (drop for 0–4 years,
steady for 4–15 years, drop for 15–25 years). The soil under natural vegetation (control plots) had a
significantly higher content of OM and TN than the plots under sugarcane cultivation at all depths,
and significantly higher content of CEC at the 30–50 cm layer (Table 2). There was a negative
correlation between these parameters and time under sugarcane cropping, indicating a progressive
decrease over time. This effect was more obvious in fields belonging to ASR/BSI than in small-scale
farmers’ fields. It was probably due to the further intensification by ASR/BSI of all agronomic
practices for sugarcane cultivation, especially inorganic fertilization, excessive tillage and shorter
periods between replanting, with the objective of increasing yields (Rice, Gilbert, and Lentini 2006;
Ye, Wright, and McCray 2011). No clear tendency was found for P, pH, BD and K.
In general, plots under cultivation had low to very low (4.7–1.24%) OM and (0.36–0.06%) TN
content that decreased with depth in the soil profile (Table 2). Areas under forest (Treatment 0) had
the highest OM and TN content at all depths (Table 2). In the same way, plots with forest had
significantly higher CEC (33.97 cmol kg−1) than plots with 25 years since conversion to sugarcane
cultivation (15.68 cmol kg−1) (Table 2).
OM is one of the most important parameters in the soil due to its role in maintaining integral soil
fertility (Gregorich et al. 1994) and yield (Rossetto et al. 2008). The reduction in soil OM during
successive sugarcane cycles can thus be considered to be the most important aspect of soil degrada-
tion under this crop (Dominy, Haynes, and Van Antwerpen 2001; Qongqo and Van Antwerpen
2000; Wood 1985). Soil CEC and TN content are closely related to OM content, since organic
material has a high capacity for retaining cations, preventing them from leaching (Haynes 1997), and
is the main source of nitrogen in soils.
CEC was significantly positively correlated with OM content in all years and at all depths (0–
15 cm: r = 0.43, p < 0.001; 15–30 cm: r = 0.73, p < 0.001; 30–50 cm: r = 0.89, p < 0.001), but not with
Table 2. Values of soil properties (mean ± standard deviation) in different treatments (years of conversion from secondary forest to sugarcane field) and in three soil layers (0–15, 15–30,
30–50 cm depth).
Treatment CEC (cmol(+) K (cmol(+)
(Years) OM (%) TN (%) kg⁻1) P (mg kg⁻1) kg⁻1) pH (H₂O) DBD (Mg kg⁻1) Clay (%) ƒ (%) WFPS (%)
0–15 cm
0 7.05 ± 0.83A 0.36 ± 0.05A 38.61 ± 4.51BCD 4.88 ± 0.27AB 0.32 ± 0.13AB 6.65 ± 0.05B 0.85 ± 0.05 C 49.00 ± 6.03AB 67 ± 0.02A 63.42 ± 3.12AB
4 3.65 ± 0.54BC 0.18 ± 0.02BCD 50.98 ± 7.93ABCD 9.38 ± 6.58AB 0.30 ± 0.13AB 7.04 ± 0.71B 1.32 ± 0.08A 42.04 ± 4.06B 50 ± 0.03 C 53.54 ± 9.42AB
9 4.01 ± 1.27BC 0.20 ± 0.06BCD 56.15 ± 18.61ABC 30.14 ± 33.12A 0.39 ± 0.11A 7.50 ± 0.71AB 1.20 ± 0.20AB 47.15 ± 6.02AB 54 ± 0.07BC 69.37 ± 9.54AB
10 2.53 ± 0.78 C 0.12 ± 0.03D 34.44 ± 11.47D 9.06 ± 6.88AB 0.35 ± 0.08A 6.67 ± 0.65B 1.26 ± 0.12A 44.49 ± 4.46AB 52 ± 0.04 C 71.77 ± 10.20A
13 4.74 ± 1.68B 0.23 ± 0.08B 66.81 ± 24.61A 3.60 ± 1.28B 0.43 ± 0.14A 8.10 ± 0.26A 1.02 ± 0.14BC 34.00 ± 16.07B 61 ± 0.05AB 48.19 ± 9.19B
15 4.04 ± 0.86B 0.20 ± 0.04BC 56.49 ± 12.56AB 25.53 ± 34.38AB 0.32 ± 0.14A 7.90 ± 0.58A 1.03 ± 0.21BC 46.36 ± 6.03AB 61 ± 0.07AB 64.67 ± 19.15AB
25 2.87 ± 0.52 C 0.14 ± 0.02CD 39.79 ± 8.09CD 14.01 ± 13.35AB 0.18 ± 0.08BC 7.11 ± 0.64B 1.17 ± 0.12AB 54.75 ± 11.36A 55 ± 0.04BC 67.69 ± 24.77AB
15–30 cm
0 4.55 ± 0.75A 0.23 ± 0.03A 36.78 ± 5.07AB 3.16 ± 0.36AB 0.19 ± 0.05BC 6.72 ± 0.11D 0.97 ± 0.05 C 54.67 ± 6.53A 63 ± 0.02A 75.04 ± 5.15A
4 2.59 ± 0.48BC 0.12 ± 0.02BC 35.34 ± 7.17AB 2.16 ± 1.50B 0.17 ± 0.03 C 7.12 ± 0.57BCD 1.33 ± 0.07A 45.47 ± 3.31A 49 ± 0.02 C 71.56 ± 7.53A
9 3.05 ± 0.65BC 0.15 ± 0.03BC 41.71 ± 10.02AB 17.76 ± 19.80A 0.18 ± 0.02BC 7.70 ± 0.20ABC 1.28 ± 0.17A 51.15 ± 9.26A 51 ± 0.06 C 81.16 ± 7.38A
10 2.34 ± 0.44BC 0.11 ± 0.12 C 31.63 ± 6.59B 1.83 ± 2.12B 0.17 ± 0.06 C 7.00 ± 0.77CD 1.22 ± 0.12AB 39.83 ± 14.80A 53 ± 0.04BC 80.99 ± 10.21A
13 3.31 ± 1.15B 0.16 ± 0.05B 46.15 ± 16.76A 2.69 ± 1.78B 0.39 ± 0.07A 8.23 ± 0.27A 1.16 ± 0.07ABC 46.67 ± 16.39A 56 ± 0.02ABC 69.51 ± 12.80A
15 2.59 ± 0.93BC 0.13 ± 0.04BC 35.38 ± 13.63AB 7.77 ± 10.48AB 0.29 ± 0.16AB 7.87 ± 0.73AB 1.05 ± 0.19BC 57.52 ± 9.24A 60 ± 0.07AB 77.77 ± 5.67A
25 2.18 ± 0.63 C 0.10 ± 0.03 C 29.32 ± 9.27B 9.61 ± 8.93AB 0.13 ± 0.05 C 7.13 ± 0.54CD 1.20 ± 0.13AB 53.53 ± 14.88A 54 ± 0.05BC 77.65 ± 27.86A
30–50 cm
0 3.33 ± 0.61A 0.17 ± 0.02A 33.97 ± 4.26A 2.61 ± 0.31AB 0.15 ± 0.03B 6.97 ± 0.08B 1.00 ± 0.03 C 54.33 ± 6.50AB 62 ± 0.01A 73.83 ± 10.99A
4 1.79 ± 0.31BC 0.08 ± 0.01BC 23.60 ± 4.67AB 3.98 ± 1.01AB 0.13 ± 0.01B 7.06 ± 0.41B 1.22 ± 0.14A 55.85 ± 5.98AB 51 ± 0.02 C 73.95 ± 4.97A
9 1.97 ± 0.60BC 0.09 ± 0.03BC 26.32 ± 8.87AB 4.44 ± 5.16AB 0.15 ± 0.02B 7.66 ± 0.31AB 1.32 ± 0.12A 53.82 ± 5.71AB 50 ± 0.04 C 82.49 ± 3.77A
10 1.56 ± 0.54BC 0.07 ± 0.02 C 20.19 ± 8.06B 0.17 ± 0.20B 0.16 ± 0.03B 6.90 ± 0.87B 1.25 ± 0.11AB 36.23 ± 21.70B 52 ± 0.04BC 81.07 ± 8.69A
13 2.33 ± 0.86B 0.11 ± 0.04B 31.59 ± 12.69A 2.83 ± 2.44AB 0.32 ± 0.06A 8.47 ± 0.18A 1.22 ± 0.10AB 55.33 ± 11.92AB 53 ± 0.04BC 66.21 ± 14.33A
15 1.66 ± 0.46BC 0.08 ± 0.02BC 21.89 ± 6.96AB 3.67 ± 4.16AB 0.28 ± 0.15A 7.67 ± 1.27AB 1.09 ± 0.11BC 63.89 ± 12.23A 58 ± 0.04AB 75.88 ± 6.40A
25 1.24 ± 0.53 C 0.06 ± 0.02 C 15.68 ± 7.73B 6.38 ± 6.56A 0.13 ± 0.05B 7.31 ± 0.64B 1.21 ± 0.17AB 53.29 ± 19.23AB 54 ± 0.06BC 79.08 ± 31.24A
± = Standard Deviation.
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey test at p < 0.05.
*OM – Organic Matter, TN – Total Nitrogen, CEC – Cation Exchange Capacity, P – Phosphorous, K – Potassium, DBD – Dry Bulk Density, ƒ – Porosity, WFPS – Waterfilled Pore Space.
COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS
747
748 L. CHI ET AL.

clay content, indicating that the CEC in these soils depends mainly on OM (Figure 3). In the present
study, loss of OM resulted in the gradual reduction in CEC and TN.
The loss of OM in sugarcane plantations is caused by intensive tillage, which increases soil aeration,
favoring microbial activity and thus accelerating the rate of OM mineralization (Haynes 1997).
Furthermore, the practice of burning sugarcane fields before and after harvesting destroys plant
residues (Meyer, Van Antwerpen, and Meyer 1996). A study by Van Antwerpen and Meyer (1996)
examining systems where sugarcane was burnt prior to harvesting in dryland and irrigated conditions
showed a marked reduction in soil OM under sugarcane cultivation compared with virgin soil.
Similarly, in a 27-year study in Cuba, Cabrera and Zuaznabar (2010) found that when a sugarcane
agroecosystem was created after removal of forest from soil with an initial OM content ranging
between 6 and 10%, the OM content subsequently began to decline due to sugarcane cultivation.
Proper management of crop residues and application of OM could possibly alleviate this problem
in the long-term. It could also be reversed by retention of crop residues from green cane harvesting
(Van Antwerpen and Meyer 1998) or by adding e.g. compost, vinasse, and bio-fertilizers (Quiroz
et al. 2011).
Plots under forest had a low phosphorus (P) content in all three layers (4.88, 3.16, and 2.61 mg kg−1),
indicating natural deficiency of this element in soils of the study area. The analysis of variance
indicated a significant difference in P content between treatments (p < 0.020), but no clear pattern
could be identified (Table 2). In general, potassium (K) content varied from low to medium (0.13–
0.43 cmol(+) kg−1 soil) in most treatments. However, the treatment with 13 years of sugarcane
cropping had the highest content, while plots with 25 years of cropping had the lowest in all layers
(Table 2).
P and K are often limiting elements in agroecosystems and there is usually a strong response to
addition of these nutrients (e.g. Chaves and Araya 2007). However, calcareous soils, such as those in

Figure 3. Relationship between OM content (%) and (CEC, cmol kg−1) for the (a) 0–15 cm, (b) 15–30 cm, and (c) 30–50 cm soil
layers.
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 749

Northern Belize examined in the present study, inhibit the efficiency of P-fertilizer application due to
rapid fixation of P by calcium. This results in production of calcium phosphates, thus preventing P
from being available to plants (Avila et al. 2008; Mc Beath et al. 2006). However, high P and K
concentrations were found in some sugarcane plots in the present study, probably as a consequence
of long-term application of high doses of inorganic fertilizers in every crop cycle to maintain
production.
Sugarcane can take up K in quantities exceeding its needs, especially when this nutrient is
supplied in excess (luxury consumption) (Flores et al. 2014a). However, this has the drawback of
depressing sucrose recovery during milling (Kwong 2002). Therefore, the rate of addition of P and K
fertilizer to the soil to supply a sugarcane crop needs to be carefully calculated.
Soil pH ranged from slightly acidic (forest plots and 10 years treatment) to slightly alkaline (most
sites) at all depths. No significant correlation was observed between pH and years under sugarcane
cultivation (r2 = 0.073, p < 0.527) (Table 2). Thus, soil pH was generally not affected by years of
sugarcane cultivation due to the calcareous origin of the soil at the study site (WRB 2014). Soils with
high concentrations of carbonates and bicarbonates are highly buffered against acidification
(Rogovska, Blackmer, and Mallarino 2007) and can be extremely productive in agriculture when
they are managed properly (Avila et al. 2008; Leytem and Mikkelsen 2005).
Dry bulk density of the soil did not increase with years of cultivation and, although the control
plots (natural vegetation) had the lowest DBD (0.85, 0.97, and 1.00 Mg kg−1 in the 0–15, 15–30, and
30–50 cm soil layers, respectively), those under cultivation did not show a clear pattern of soil
compaction. The DBD values in the sugarcane fields varied from 1.0 to 1.3 Mg kg−1, which according
to Landon (1991) is not representative of compacted soils (Table 2). This was an unexpected finding,
since harvesting and cane extraction with heavy machinery during wet conditions is unavoidable in
the study area (Meyer, Van Antwerpen, and Meyer 1996), and is likely to cause soil compaction
(Barzegar et al. 2005). The expanding and shrinking nature of the soils at the site due to their high
clay content appears to have mitigated any compaction damage.
Porosity displayed a significant difference at all depths and years, but no clear pattern could be
identified. The values obtained are adequate for agricultural soils according to ranges stated by
Rogers et al. (2014) (Table 2). No significant differences or clear patterns between water-filled pore
space and treatment were observed for any soil layer (Table 2).

Effects of replanting on soil parameters and sugarcane yield

Replanting of sugarcane fields and the general intensification of farming practices in the ASR/BSI
plots maintained yield levels over time (Figure 4). However, replanting did not have a positive
impact on OM, TN, and CEC, as the values of these soil parameters were more influenced
(negatively) by years under sugarcane cultivation. In contrast, the farmers’ plots showed a tendency
for decreasing yield in the same period (Figure 4).
The effect of farming intensification was also evident in the principal component graphs (Figures
5–7), where soil OM and TN content at all depths and CEC in the 30–50 cm layer were located
opposite to yield. This clustering was corroborated by the correlation analyses between yield and
these soil parameters, which showed significant negative correlations. When results for natural
vegetation (treatment 0), and farmers’ plots (treatments 13 and 15) were superimposed, they were
correlated more strongly among themselves and were closer to OM, TN, and CEC than the ASR/BSI
plots. The variations in annual yield observed between fields (Figure 4) were due to variations in
mean annual precipitation and to crop replanting.
The heavy doses of fertilizers applied and the intensification of agricultural practices, including
regular replanting of sugarcane, on plots belonging to ASR/BSI seem to maintain and improve yield
(Figure 4). However, this occurs at the expense of soil fertility (Figures 5–7). The consequence of
farming intensification confirms previous findings that soils in sugarcane fields under intensive
management progressively lose fertility and eventually the system becomes unsustainable. For
750 L. CHI ET AL.

Figure 4. Sugarcane yield (t ha−1) in ASR/BSI’s fields and farmers’ fields and yearly mean precipitation (mm) over the period from
2002 (yr 1) to 2014 (yr 12).

Figure 5. Principal component (PC) graph for soil parameters (0–15 cm soil layer) and sugarcane yield, including treatments and
years from replanting of sugarcane fields. (Note: Yr. Con = Year conversion from forest to sugarcane; Yr. Rep = year field
replanted).
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 751

Figure 6. Principal component (PC) graph for soil parameters (15–30 cm soil layer) and sugarcane yield, including treatments and
years from replanting of sugarcane fields for 15–30 cm depth. (Note: Yr. Con—Year conversion from forest to sugarcane; Yr. Rep—
year field replanted).

Figure 7. Principal component (PC) graph for soil parameters (30–50 cm soil layer) and sugarcane yield, including treatments and
years from replanting of sugarcane fields. (Note: Yr. Con = Year conversion from forest to sugarcane; Yr. Rep = year field
replanted).
752 L. CHI ET AL.

example, in a long-term rotation experiment, Garside, Bell, and Magarey (2000) clearly demon-
strated that sugarcane monoculture had an adverse effect on sugarcane productivity
Sustainable management of sugarcane monoculture, i.e. in systems that can maintain soil quality
and yield, requires a good understanding of how soils respond to agricultural use and practices over
time. With increasing demands on the soil environment, the key to future sustainability will be the
extent to which cane producers adopt preventative management practices based on organic
principles.

Economic analysis
The economic analysis considered the establishment and maintenance costs, along with cultural
practices from planting to harvest, for both ASR/BSI’s and farmers’ fields, as well as revenue
obtained from selling the sugarcane to the mill during the first year of field establishment and the
next six years of ratoon maintenance (Tables 3 and 4).
The results indicated variations in the overall management practices, but more clearly with
respect to inorganic fertilization and weed control (Tables 3 and 4). ASR/BSI pursues a more
intensive type of production, hence the better results obtained in terms of yield.
The establishment costs for ASR/BSI’s and farmers’ fields were US$2298.87 and US$1732.23
per hectare, respectively. The returns on both establishment and ratoon maintenance exceeded
the costs for ASR/BSI. It can be noted that ASR/BSI, with a more intensive type of production,
obtained a B:C ratio of 1.0 for the first year of sugarcane establishment and an average of 1.2 for
the following six years of ratoon. In contrast, small-scale farmers obtained a lower B:C ratio of

Table 3. Projection of revenue and of expenditure for establishment and the following six years of ratoon maintenance for ASR/BSI
per hectare (Treatments 4, 9, 10, and 25).
Establishment Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
Activity year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 7
Establishment Cost (US$) 1228.75
Maintenance Cost (US$) 719.20 719.20 719.20 719.20 719.20 719.20
Interest (12%) 147.45 86.31 86.31 86.31 86.31 86.31 86.31
Harvest Cost (US$) 922.67 922.67 922.67 922.67 922.67 922.67 922.67
Total Cost (US$) 2298.87 1728.18 1728.18 1728.18 1728.18 1728.18 1728.18
Yield (t ha−1) 69 48 72 53 63 70 64
Price $/ton* (US$) 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76
Gross Benefit (US$) 2329.44 1627.23 2430.72 1785.90 2116.75 2356.45 2150.51
Net Benefit (US$) 30.57 −100.94 702.54 57.73 388.58 628.27 422.34
Benefit-Cost (US$) 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.2
*Final price for crop cycle 2014–2015 (SCPC 2015).

Table 4. Projection of revenue and of expenditure for establishment and the following six years of ratoon maintenance for small-
scale farmers per hectare (Treatments 13 and 15).
Establishment Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
Activity year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 7
Establishment Cost (US$) 1027.65
Maintenance Cost (US$) 234.09 234.09 234.09 234.09 234.09 234.09
Interest (12%) 123.32 28.09 28.09 28.09 28.09 28.09 28.09
Harvest Cost (US$) 581.26 581.26 581.26 581.26 581.26 581.26 581.26
Total Cost (US$) 1732.23 843.44 843.44 843.44 843.44 843.44 843.44
Yield (t ha−1) 33 29 28 26 23 20 21
Price $/ton* (US$) 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76 33.76
Gross Benefit (US$) 1097.20 979.04 952.03 884.51 766.35 658.32 719.09
Net Benefit (US$) −635.03 135.60 108.59 41.07 −77.09 −185.12 −124.35
Benefit-Cost (US$) 0.63 1.16 1.13 1.05 0.91 0.78 0.85
*Final price for crop cycle 2014–2015 (SCPC 2015).
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 753

0.63 for the first year and 1.0 for the same years of ratoon, which did not compensate for the
effort or the investment made. In this respect, small-scale farmers’ continuity in sugarcane
production amid the economic adversity in their returns (Tables 3 and 4) is due to externalities
inherent to the sugar industry in Belize, such as loans availability and subsidies, for example
incomes for Fair Trade and land tenant.

Conclusions
The decline in important plant nutrients such as OM, TN, and CEC over time in Belizean soils under
sugarcane cultivation indicates that the current management system is unsustainable. Loss of OM in
sugarcane fields is mainly due to intense tillage, burning the cane fields before and after harvesting,
and lack of addition of organic amendments to soils. Yield levels, irrespective of years under
sugarcane cultivation, can be maintained with intensive tillage, high use of inputs, and frequent
replanting, but to the detriment of soil fertility. The B:C ratio for low input, small-scale agriculture is
not profitable and for intensive sugarcane cultivation is marginal, even without considering the
ecological costs of crop production, confirming the non-sustainability of current sugarcane agroe-
cosystems in Belize.

Funding
Our thanks to the National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt) of Mexico and the Inter-American Institute
for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) for granting the doctoral fellowship and financial support for conducting this
study.

ORCID
Luciano Chi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3648-0929
Jorge Mendoza-Vega http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3105-8726
Esperanza Huerta http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4552-5703

References
American Sugar Refinery (ASR) /Belize Sugar Industries (BSI). 2015. Transforming sugar production in belize into a
modern, sustainable, green model, contributing to jobs, growth and energy security. Industry Report, Belize, 56.
Arshad, M., B. Lowery, and B. Grossman. 1996. Physical tests for monitoring soil quality. In Methods for assessing soil
quality. Soil Science Society of America. Special Publication 49, eds. J. W. Doran, and A. J. Jones, 123–42. Madison,
WI: SSSA.
Avila, E., J. Espinosa, J. Magaña, J. Olan, and E. Navarro. 2008. Como aumentar el rendimiento de la caña en
Campeche. Fondo mixto Conacyt-Gobierno del estado de Campeche. Colegio de Posgraduado, Campeche, Mexico.
Folleto técnico 101.
Barzegar, A. R., S. Mahmoodi, F. Hamedi, and F. Abdolvahabi. 2005. Long term sugarcane cultivation effects on
physical properties of fine textured soils. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 7:59–68.
Cabrera, J., and R. Zuaznabar. 2010. Impacto sobre el ambiente del monocultivo de la caña de azúcar con el uso de la
quema para la cosecha y la fertilización nitrogenada. Balance de Carbono. La Habana Cuba. Cultivos Tropicales
31 (1):5–13.
Chaves, M., and A. Araya. 2007. Caracterización de suelos cultivados con caña de azúcar en la zona norte de Costa
Rica: Cantones de San Carlos y los Chiles. V Congreso Nacional de Suelos, Heredia, Costa Rica, 40.
De León, M., and R. González. 2011. Informe del estudio de suelo para recomendaciones de fertilizantes en el área
cañera de la BSCFA en Belice. Tecnoazúcar, La Habana, Cuba.
Dominy, C. S., R. J. Haynes, and R. Van Antwerpen. 2001. Long-term effect of sugarcane production on soil quality in
the south coast and the midlands areas of Kwazulu-natal. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’
Association 75:222–27.
Doran, J. W., and T. B. Parkin. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In Defining soil quality for a sustainable
environment, eds. J. W. Doran, D. C. Coleman, D. F. Bezdicek, and B. A. Stewart. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science
Society of America.
754 L. CHI ET AL.

FAOSTAT. 2015. Datos agrícolas: Disponible en. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E (accessed September 16,
2015).
Flores, R. A., R. M. Prado, M. A. Pancelli, H. J. Almeida, L. R. Moda, B. M. N. Borges, and J. P. Souza Júnior. 2014a.
Potassium nutrition in the first and second ratoon sugarcane grown in an oxisol by a conservationist system.
Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 74:83–88. doi:10.4067/S0718-58392014000100013.
García, E. 2004. Modificaciones al Sistema de clasificación climática de Koppen. Serie de libro No. 4. Quinta edicion,
Instituto de Geografía, Mexico, 98.
Garside, A., M. Bell, and R. Magarey. 2000. Effects of breaks from sugarcane monoculture on growth and yield of
subsequent sugarcane crops. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 74:12–18.
Gregorich, E. G., M. R. Carter, D. A. Angers, C. M. Monreal, and B. H. Ellert. 1994. Towards a minimum data set to
assess soil organic matter quality in agricultural soils. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Science 74:367–85.
Hartemink, A. 1998. Changes in soil fertility and leaf nutrient concentration at a sugar plantation in Papua New
Guinea. University of Technology, Department of Agriculture, Papua New Guinea, 16.
Haynes, R. J. 1997. The concept of soil quality and its applicability to sugarcane production. Proceedings of the South
African Sugar Technologists’ Association 71:9–14.
Kwong, K. F. 2002. The effects of potassium on growth, development, yield and quality of sugarcane. In Potassium for
sustainable crop production. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the role of potassium in nutrient
management for sustainable crop production in India, eds. Pasricha, and Bansal, 430–44. Horgen, Switzerland:
Potash Research Institute of India (PRII) and International Potash Institute (IPI).
Landon, J. 1991. A handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics, 465. Essex,
UK:Longman Scientific and Technical.
Leytem, A., and R. Mikkelsen. 2005. The nature of phosphorus in calcareous soils. Better Crops. 89(2):11–13.
Linn, D., and J. Doran. 1984. Effect of water-filled pore space on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide production in tilled
and non-tilled soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48:1267–72. doi:10.2136/
sssaj1984.03615995004800060013x.
Mc Beath, P., R. Smernik, E. Lombi, and M. MacLaughlin. 2006. Hydrolysis of pyrophosphate in a highly calcareous
soil: A solid-state phosphorous-31 NMR Study. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:856–62. doi:10.2136/
sssaj2005.0184.
Meyer, J., R. Van Antwerpen, and E. A. Meyer. 1996. Review of soil degradation and management research under
intensive sugarcane cropping. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 70:22–28.
Norma Oficial Mexicana. 2002. NOM-021-RECNAT. Establishes the specifications of fertility, salinity and soil
classification. Study, sampling and analysis. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Mexico: Diario
Official de la Federacion.
Olsen, S. R., and L. E. Sommers. 1982. Phosphorus. In Methods of soil analysis, part 2, eds. A. L. Page, et al., 403–30.
2nd ed. Madison, WI: Agron Monogr 9. ASA and ASSA.
Qongqo, L., and R. Van Antwerpen. 2000. Effect of long-term sugarcane production on physical and chemical
properties of soils in Kwazulu-Natal. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 74:114–21.
Quiroz, G., A. Pérez, C. Landeros, S. Moralez, and L. Zetina. 2011. Percepción y actitud de productores cañeros sobre
la composta de cachaza y vinaza. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 14:847–56.
Rice, R. W., R. A. Gilbert, and R. S. Lentini. 2006. Nutrient requirements for Florida sugarcane. UF-IFAS SS-AGR-228.
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Rogers, D., J. Aguilar, I. Kisekka, P. Barnes, and F. Lamm. 2014. Soil water plant relationships – An overview.
Irrigation Management Series, L904 rev, Kansas State University Research and Extension, 4.
Rogers, D., J. Aguilar, I. Kisekka, P. Barnes, and F. Lamm. 2015. Important agricultural soil properties. Irrigation
Management Series, L-935 rev, Kansas State University Research and Extension, 8.
Rogovska, N. P., A. M. Blackmer, and A. P. Mallarino. 2007. Relationships between soybean yield, soil pH, and soil
carbonate concentration. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:1251–56. doi:10.2136/sssaj2006.0235.
Rossetto, R., H. Cantarella, L. F. Dias, M. G. A. Landell, and G. C. Vitti. 2008. Manejo conservacionista e reciclagem de
nutrientes em cana-de-acucar tendo em vista a colheita mecânica. Informações Agronômicas 124,:8-13.
Statistical Institute of Belize. 2015. Estimated mid-year population 2015 and merchandize trade, population and
household. Book Green, London: Halcrow Group Limited.
Subiros, F. 1995. El cultivo de la caña de azúcar, 1st ed., 448 p. San José, Costa Rica: EUNED.
Sugar Cane Production Committee (SCPC). 2015. Sugar Industry Control Board. Report of crop cycle 2014–2015,
Orange Walk, Belize: Sugar News.
Van Antwerpen, R., and J. H. Meyer. 1996. Soil degradation under cultivation in Northern KwaZulu-Natal.
Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 70:29–33.
Van Antwerpen, R., and J. H. Meyer. 1998. Soil degradation II: Effect of trash and inorganic fertilizer application on
soil strength. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 72:152–58.
Walkley, A., and I. A. Black. 1934. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a
proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37:29–38. doi:10.1097/00010694-
193401000-00003.
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 755

Wood, A. W. 1985. Soil degradation and management under intensive sugarcane cultivation in North Queensland. Soil
Use and Management 1:120–24. doi:10.1111/sum.1985.1.issue-4.
Word Reference Base (WRB). 2014. International Soil Classification System for naming soils and creating legends for
soil map. World Soil Resources Report 106. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Ye, R., A. Wright, and M. McCray. 2011. Seasonal changes in nutrient availability for sulfur-amended everglades soils
under sugarcane. Journal of Plant Nutrition 34:2095–2113. 19p. doi:10.1080/01904167.2011.618571.