Effect of Compost and Urea Fertilizers on Sugarcane Quality at the Kenana Sugar Scheme, Sudan

Authors: Anwar Abuelgasim Mahmoud; Elsary Mohamed Elshaikh; Ali Salih Gangi; Osama Mohammed Ahmed; Elsadig Mohammed Hassan; Mohammed Ahmed Elzaki
DOI
10.25125/ijoear-mar-2026-18
DIN
IJOEAR-MAR-2026-18
Abstract

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is recognized as one of the world's most important cash crops. The climatic conditions and soil types in Sudan, particularly within the central clay plains, are highly suitable for its cultivation. Organic fertilizer (compost) is a vital resource for improving soil fertility by increasing organic matter content, enhancing soil structure, and stimulating microbial activity, which collectively improve nutrient uptake and crop productivity. In contrast, urea is a synthetic nitrogen fertilizer that provides a highly concentrated and readily available source of nitrogen, a macronutrient essential for vigorous vegetative growth, tillering, and the synthesis of proteins and chlorophyll in plants. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of compost and urea fertilizer on quality of sugarcane (var. Co6806). A field experiment was conducted over two consecutive seasons (2023/24 and 2024/25) at the Research and Development Farm of the Kenana Sugar Scheme, Sudan. The treatments were arranged in a 4×4 factorial in split-plot design with four replications. Urea was assigned to the main plots at four levels (0, 119, 238, and 357 kg/ha), while compost was applied to the sub-plots at four rates (0, 12, 24, and 36 ton/ha). Data were collected on juice quality parameters (Pol%, Brix%, Fiber%, Purity%, Moisture%, and Estimated Recoverable Sucrose Content (ERSC%). The results showed that the main effects of compost and urea, both individually and in combination, on sugarcane quality parameters were non-significant across both seasons. Seasonal variation was the dominant factor influencing juice quality, indicating that environmental conditions played a greater role than fertilization in determining sucrose accumulation. Based on the results of this study, it could be recommended that to obtain high cane yield with maintained quality under similar soil and climatic conditions, the crop should be fertilized with compost at the rate of 36 tons/ha in combination with urea at the rate of 357 kg/ha.

Keywords
Sugarcane Compost Urea Juice quality Pol% Brix% Purity% ERSC% Kenana Sugar Scheme Sudan.
Download Options
Download Full PDF
Share Article
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is a globally vital crop, primarily cultivated for sugar production (accounting for ~80% of world sugar) and increasingly as a renewable source for bioethanol (40% of global bioethanol) (Nair & Sachan, 2022; Voora et al., 2023). As a C4 plant, it possesses high photosynthetic efficiency, enabling rapid growth and substantial biomass accumulation (Tew & Cobill, 2008). Originating in New Guinea, it is now grown extensively in tropical and subtropical regions, including Sudan, and adapts to various soil types from sandy loams to heavy clays (Moore et al., 2013; Mwasinga, 2018). The crop's economic value lies in its ability to store high concentrations of sucrose in its stalk internodes (James, 2008).

Intensive monoculture and continuous ratooning deplete soil nutrients, necessitating regular inorganic fertilizer application (Kusumawati & Noviyanto, 2025). However, soil degradation under sugarcane monoculture is severe, with documented losses of 30-40% of original soil organic carbon after 20 years of continuous cultivation (Bottinelli et al., 2020). This degradation directly reduces yield potential by up to 35% in degraded soils (Obour et al., 2017) and negatively impacts sucrose accumulation, with reductions of 2-4% absolute sucrose content (Verma et al., 2024). Additionally, heavy machinery use causes soil compaction, restricting root penetration, water movement, and ultimately reducing yields (Shaheb et al., 2021).

Sugarcane has a high nitrogen demand (200–300 kg N/ha), but nitrogen use efficiency in current systems is only 30–50% (Otto et al., 2016; Thorburn et al., 2017). This inefficiency results in significant nitrogen losses through leaching, volatilization, and denitrification, causing environmental and economic consequences, including groundwater nitrate contamination often exceeding WHO limits (Canton, 2021; Chen et al., 2022), significant N₂O emissions estimated at 1.5–5.0 kg N₂O-N/ha/year—a potent greenhouse gas (Van Beneden et al., 2010)—and annual economic losses of approximately $1.2 billion in wasted fertilizer globally (De Luca & Müller, 2023).

Sugarcane cultivation and processing generate substantial organic wastes, including bagasse, filter mud, molasses, trash, and vinasse (Singh et al., 2021; Salman et al., 2023). For each ton of sugarcane processed, approximately 250 kg of bagasse, 36 kg of filter mud, and 100 kg of tops are generated (Mena et al., 1985). Recycling these by-products into compost offers a sustainable strategy to enhance soil fertility, improve soil physical properties, and reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers (Iqbal, 2018). Compost application has been shown to improve soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and potassium (Teshome et al., 2014), increase soil water holding capacity by 15–25% (Diacono & Montemurro, 2011), enhance microbial biomass carbon by 30–50% (Sá et al., 2001), and improve cane growth parameters such as height and stalk weight, as well as sugar quality traits including Brix and sucrose content, particularly when combined with nitrogen fertilizer (Bekheet et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2020).

In Sudan, sugarcane yields are considerably lower (about 60 t/ha) compared to other irrigated cane production areas worldwide (Ibrahim, 2020). The Kenana Sugar Scheme, located on the eastern bank of the White Nile, is characterized by Vertisol soils with high clay content, low nitrogen, and low organic matter (Emam & Musa, 2011; Ganawa & Kheiralla, 2011). Currently, the scheme relies exclusively on chemical fertilizers such as urea, ammonium sulphate, and di-ammonium phosphate (Hamid & Dagash, 2014). However, in response to sustainability challenges, the Kenana Scheme has begun recycling sugarcane by-products and animal waste into compost for field application.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the two-year trial, the study arrived at the following conclusions:

  1. Despite significant yield improvements (reported elsewhere), all juice quality parameters (Pol%, Brix%, Purity%, and ERSC%) remained statistically unaffected by compost or urea application. Higher productivity was achieved without any dilution of sucrose content or reduction in juice purity.
  2. Season was the most dominant factor affecting quality parameters, with highly significant effects on Pol%, Brix%, and Purity%. Climatic conditions play a greater role in sucrose accumulation than moderate variations in fertilizer inputs.
  3. The progressive improvement in sugarcane response from the first to the second season suggests that compost application enhances soil health over time through increased organic matter, improved nutrient cycling, and enhanced soil physical properties.
  4. Composting sugar industry by-products, specifically filter mud, bagasse, and vinasse, offers a strategic approach to recycling agricultural wastes, which enhances soil health and supports sustainable intensification while mitigating the negative impacts of soil degradation.
  5. The findings suggest that a fundamental combination of "nitrogen-centric" and "organic matter-centric" sugarcane nutrition strategies may be warranted. Therefore, a transformation to compound fertilizer recommendations is needed and opens new possibilities for sustainable production intensification.

Agriculture Journal IJOEAR Call for Papers

References
  1. Ahmed, A., Osman, M., & Ahmed, A. (2008). Effect of excessive nitrogen application on yield and quality of three sugar cane varieties. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of IS (pp. 34–39). Sinai University.
  2. Ahmed, N. S. E., & others. (2016). Economic analysis of the competitiveness and cropping pattern of small-scale farms in the rain-fed sector of Gadarif State-Sudan [Doctoral dissertation, Sudan University of Science and Technology].
  3. Antille, D. L., Bennett, J. M., & Jensen, T. A. (2016). Soil compaction and controlled traffic considerations in Australian cotton-farming systems. Crop and Pasture Science, 67(1), 1–28.
  4. Aouass, K., & Kenny, L. (2024). Effect of compost and synthetic fertilizer on soil fertility, yield and nitrogen use efficiency of broccoli crop in arid region of Morocco. Agricultural Science Digest, 44(2), 250–254.
  5. Aslam, M. T., & others. (2024). Sustainable nitrogen management in sugarcane production [Manuscript in preparation].
  6. Bakker, H. (2012). Sugar cane cultivation and management. Springer Science & Business Media.
  7. Balaganesh, P., Vasudevan, M., Natarajan, N., & Suneeth Kumar, S. M. (2020). Evaluation of sugarcane and soil quality amended by sewage sludge derived compost and chemical fertilizer. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 19(4), 1737–1741.
  8. Bekheet, M. A., Gadallah, A. F., & Khalifa, Y. A. (2018). Enhancement of yield and quality of sugarcane by applied nitrogen, phosphorus and filter cake. Egyptian Journal of Agronomy, 40(3), 207–221.
  9. Van Beneden, S., Carrotte, J., & De Vleesschauwer, D. (2010). Microbial populations involved in the suppression of Rhizoctonia solani AG1-1B by lignin incorporation in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(8), 1268–1274.
  10. Bokhtiar, S. M., Roksana, S., & Moslehuddin, A. Z. M. (2015). Soil fertility and productivity of sugarcane influenced by enriched pressmud compost with chemical fertilizers. SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 13(2), 183–197.
  11. Bonnett, G. D., Hewitt, M. L., & Glassop, D. (2006). Effects of high temperature on the growth and composition of sugarcane internodes. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 57(10), 1087–1095.
  12. Bottinelli, N., Hedde, M., Jouquet, P., & Capowiez, Y. (2020). An explicit definition of earthworm ecological categories—Marcel Bouché's triangle revisited. Geoderma, 372, Article 114361.
  13. Caetano, J. M., da Silva, A. F., & de Oliveira, R. A. (2023). Environmental effects on sugarcane growth from on-farm data in the Brazilian Midwest. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 19(9), 825–838.
  14. Canton, H. (2021). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—UNESCO. In The Europa directory of international organizations 2021 (pp. 359–365). Routledge.
  15. Chen, S.-K., Lee, Y.-Y., & Liao, T.-L. (2022). Assessment of ammonium–N and nitrate–N contamination of shallow groundwater in a complex agricultural region, central western Taiwan. Water, 14(13), Article 2130.
  16. Desalegn, B., Gebremedhin, W., & Hailu, D. (2023). Sugarcane productivity and sugar yield improvement: Selecting variety, nitrogen fertilizer rate, and bioregulator as a first-line treatment. Heliyon, 9(4), Article e15234.
  17. Devi, L., Sharma, P., & Singh, R. (2022). Role of biofertilizers in organic agriculture. A Monthly Peer Reviewed Magazine for Agriculture and Allied Sciences, 1(1), 42–45.
  18. Diacono, M., & Montemurro, F. (2011). Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. In E. Lichtfouse (Ed.), Sustainable agriculture volume 2 (pp. 761–786). Springer.
  19. Dotaniya, M. L., Datta, S. C., Biswas, D. R., Dotaniya, C. K., Meena, B. L., & Rajendiran, S. (2016). Use of sugarcane industrial by-products for improving sugarcane productivity and soil health. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 5(3), 185–194.
  20. Emam, A. A., & Musa, O. M. (2011). The competitiveness of sugar cane production: A study of Kenana Sugar Company, Sudan. Journal of Agricultural Science, 3(3), 202–213.
  21. Fortes, C., Vitti, A. C., & Otto, R. (2013). Contribution of nitrogen from sugarcane harvest residues and urea for crop nutrition. Scientia Agricola, 70(5), 313–320.
  22. Ganawa, E., & Kheiralla, A. (2011). Adoption of GIS, GPS and RS techniques in the Sudanese sugarcane industry: Part 1—Kenana base map establishment. Khartoum University Engineering Journal, 1(1), 45–52.
  23. Gebeyehu, S. A., Belay, B., & Abate, M. (2025). Impact of blended NPSB fertilizer rates on sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) varieties: Seed cane yield and quality insights from North Western Ethiopia. PLOS ONE, 20(2), Article e0308900.
  24. Ghallab, M., Ahmed, S., & Ibrahim, M. (2024). Influence of Spirulina extract on physiological, qualitative, and productive traits of four sugarcane genotypes. Agronomy, 14(7), Article 1594.
  25. Gomez, K. A., & Gomez, A. A. (1976). Statistical procedures for agricultural research with emphasis on rice. International Rice Research Institute.
  26. Gopalasundaram, P., Bhaskaran, A., & Rakkiyappan, P. (2012). Integrated nutrient management in sugarcane. Sugar Tech, 14(1), 3–20.
  27. Grivet, L., Daniels, C., Glaszmann, J. C., & D'Hont, A. (2004). A review of recent molecular genetics evidence for sugarcane evolution and domestication [Manuscript submitted for publication].
  28. Hamid, A., & Dagash, Y. (2014). Effects of sulfur on sugarcane yield and quality at the heavy clay soil vertisols of Sudan. Universal Journal of Applied Science, 2(3), 68–71.
  29. Haug, R. (2018). The practical handbook of compost engineering. Routledge.
  30. Huang, J., Khan, M. T., Perecin, D., Coelho, S. T., & Zhang, M. (2020). Sugarcane for bioethanol production: Potential of bagasse in Chinese perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133, Article 110296.
  31. Hussien, O. A. K., Gadallah, A. F., & Ibrahim, M. E. (2023). Enhancement of production and quality of sugarcane using nitrogen and vinasses. Egyptian Sugar Journal, 20, 63–76.
  32. Ibrahim, T. S. T. (2020). Assessment of the Sudanese sugar industry life cycle and technical factors influencing the productivity [Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal].
  33. Ibrahim, T. S. T., & Workneh, T. S. (2023). The environmental impact of the sugar industry waste in Sudan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(7), Article 870.
  34. Impollonia, G., Croci, M., & Amaducci, S. (2024). Upscaling and downscaling approaches for early season rice yield prediction using Sentinel-2 and machine learning for precision nitrogen fertilisation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 227, Article 109603.
  35. Iqbal, I. (2018). Effect of sugarcane litter compost on soil compaction. International Journal of Agriculture System, 6(1), 35–44.
  36. James, G. (2008). Sugarcane (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  37. Khan, Q., Chen, J., & Wang, L. (2023). A review of the diverse genes and molecules involved in sucrose metabolism and innovative approaches to improve sucrose content in sugarcane. Agronomy, 13(12), Article 2957.
  38. Kumara, A., & Bandara, D. (2002). Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on yield and quality parameters of three sugarcane varieties [Research report]. Sugarcane Research Institute.
  39. Kusumawati, A., & Noviyanto, A. (2025). Long-term effects of sugarcane monoculture on soil pedomorphology and physicochemical properties in tropical agroecosystems. Plant, Soil and Environment, 71(3), 145–158.
  40. Kwong, K. F., & Pasricha, B. (2002). The effects of potassium on growth, development, yield and quality of sugarcane. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Role of Potassium in Nutrient Management for Sustainable Crop Production in India (pp. 430–444). Potash Research Institute.
  41. Lee, H., Kim, J., & Park, S. (2023). Sugarcane wastes as microbial feedstocks: A review of the biorefinery framework from resource recovery to production of value-added products. Bioresource Technology, 376, Article 128879.
  42. Lopes, C. M., Silva, A. P., & Santos, R. S. (2021). Improving the fertilizer value of sugarcane wastes through phosphate rock amendment and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria inoculation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 298, Article 126821.
  43. De Luca, K., & Müller, A. (2023). Less, better and circular use – how to get rid of surplus nitrogen without endangering food security [Policy brief]. Institute for Sustainable Development.
  44. de M. Sá, J. C., Cerri, C. C., Dick, W. A., Lal, R., Venske Filho, S. P., Piccolo, M. C., & Feigl, B. E. (2001). Organic matter dynamics and carbon sequestration rates for a tillage chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65(5), 1486–1499.
  45. Mehdi, F., Galal, A., & Hassan, M. (2024). Factors affecting the production of sugarcane yield and sucrose accumulation: Suggested potential biological solutions. Frontiers in Plant Science, 15, Article 1374228.
  46. Mena, A., & others. (1985). The utilization of sugar cane by-products as substitutes for cereal in animal feed [Technical report]. Food and Agriculture Organization.
  47. Miháliková, M., Brtnický, M., & Kynický, J. (2025). Effect of surface-applied compost on soil properties. Soil and Water Research, 20(1), 45–56.
  48. Mohamed, E. A. G. A. (2018). Determination of crop water requirements and irrigation scheduling of aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.), Gezira State, Sudan [Doctoral dissertation, University of Gezira].
  49. Mohammed, R. A. A. A. (2006). Socio-economic effects of rehabilitated desertified agricultural tenancies of north western parts of the Gezira Scheme [Doctoral dissertation, University of Khartoum].
  50. Mohan, C. (Ed.). (2017). Sugarcane biotechnology: Challenges and prospects. Springer.
  51. Moore, P. H., Paterson, A. H., & Tew, T. (2013). Sugarcane: The crop, the plant, and domestication. In P. H. Moore & F. C. Botha (Eds.), Sugarcane: Physiology, biochemistry, and functional biology (pp. 1–17). John Wiley & Sons.
  52. Muchow, R. C., Robertson, M. J., & Wood, A. W. (1996). Effect of nitrogen on the time-course of sucrose accumulation in sugarcane. Field Crops Research, 47(2-3), 143–153.
  53. Mwasinga, G. (2018). Effects of nitrogen fertilizer on yield and quality of introduced sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) varieties in commercial fields at Kilombero, Morogoro Region [Master's thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture].
  54. Nair, P. N., & Sachan, H. (2022). The improvement of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for sugar, ethanol and biofuel production through innovative biotechnology: A perspective view on its scope, importance & challenges. In R. Kumar & S. Singh (Eds.), Omics approaches for sugarcane crop improvement (pp. 233–249). CRC Press.
  55. Nawaz, M., Ahmad, W., & Khan, M. A. (2017). Assessment of compost as nutrient supplement for spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 27(1), 123–130.
  56. Noor, R. S., Hussain, A., & Abbas, M. (2023). Effect of compost and chemical fertilizer application on soil physical properties and productivity of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 13(2), 905–915.
  57. Obour, A. K., Mikha, M. M., & Holman, J. D. (2017). Changes in soil surface chemistry after fifty years of tillage and nitrogen fertilization. Geoderma, 308, 46–53.
  58. Otto, R., Castro, S. A. Q., & Mariano, E. (2016). Nitrogen use efficiency for sugarcane-biofuel production: What is next? Bioenergy Research, 9(4), 1272–1289.
  59. Poultney, D. M., Thuriès, L., & Versini, A. (2024). Importance of overlooked crop biomass components in sugarcane nitrogen nutrition studies. Nitrogen, 5(1), 62–78.
  60. Priya, E., Sarkar, S., & Maji, P. K. (2024). A review on slow-release fertilizer: Nutrient release mechanism and agricultural sustainability. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 12(4), Article 113211.
  61. Raviv, M. (2013). Can the use of composts and other organic amendments in horticulture help to mitigate climate change? In II International Symposium on Organic Matter Management and Compost Use in Horticulture (Vol. 1076, pp. 19–28). ISHS.
  62. Raza, Q.-U.-A., Bashir, M. A., & Rehim, A. (2021). Sugarcane industrial byproducts as challenges to environmental safety and their remedies: A review. Water, 13(24), Article 3495.
  63. Reimer, M., Hartmann, T. E., & Oelbermann, M. (2023). Assessing long term effects of compost fertilization on soil fertility and nitrogen mineralization rate. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 186(2), 217–233.
  64. Sage, R. F., Peixoto, M. M., & Sage, T. L. (2013). Photosynthesis in sugarcane. In P. H. Moore & F. C. Botha (Eds.), Sugarcane: Physiology, biochemistry, and functional biology (pp. 121–154). John Wiley & Sons.
  65. Salman, M., Inamullah, & Khan, M. J. (2023). Composting sugarcane filter mud with different sources differently benefits sweet maize. Agronomy, 13(3), Article 748.
  66. Sánchez-Ken, J. G. (2019). Riqueza de especies, clasificación y listado de las gramíneas (Poaceae) de México. Acta Botanica Mexicana, (126), 1–74.
  67. Sathiyapriya, S., Kumar, S., & Singh, R. (2024). Nutrient recycling through composting: Harnessing agricultural wastes for sustainable crop production. Plant Science Today, 11(sp1), Article 5627.
  68. Shaheb, M. R., Venkatesh, R., & Shearer, S. A. (2021). A review on the effect of soil compaction and its management for sustainable crop production. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 46(4), 1–23.
  69. Showler, A. T. (2016). Selected abiotic and biotic environmental stress factors affecting two economically important sugarcane stalk boring pests in the United States. Agronomy, 6(1), Article 10.
  70. Singh, S. P., Rathore, S. S., & Singh, R. (2021). Sugarcane wastes into commercial products: Processing methods, production optimization and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 328, Article 129453.
  71. Skocaj, D. M., Everingham, Y. L., & Schroeder, B. L. (2013). Nitrogen management guidelines for sugarcane production in Australia: Can these be modified for wet tropical conditions using seasonal climate forecasting? Springer Science Reviews, 1(1), 51–71.
  72. Solomon, S. (2016). Sugarcane production and development of sugar industry in India. Sugar Tech, 18(6), 588–602.
  73. Stephen, G. S., & others. (2024). Harnessing the potential of sugarcane-based liquid byproducts—molasses and spentwash (vinasse) for enhanced soil health and environmental quality: A systematic review. Frontiers in Agronomy, 6, Article 1358076.
  74. Tajmirriahi, M., Momayez, F., & Karimi, K. (2021). The critical impact of rice straw extractives on biogas and bioethanol production. Bioresource Technology, 319, Article 124167.
  75. Tang, Q., Ti, C., & Xia, L. (2022). How does partial substitution of chemical fertiliser with organic forms increase sustainability of agricultural production? Science of the Total Environment, 803, Article 149933.
  76. Teama, E., Gadallah, A. F., & Khalifa, Y. A. (2017). Chemical properties and juice quality of three sugarcane varieties as affected by gypsum, filter mud cake and inorganic fertilization. Assiut Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 48(4), 112–124.
  77. Terefe, G., Sunil, T., & Tolera, B. (2017). In vivo propagation responses of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) genotypes at Metahara Sugar Estate of Ethiopia. Journal of Applied Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2(5), 175–178.
  78. Teshome, Z., Abejehu, G., & Hagos, H. (2014). Effect of nitrogen and compost on sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) at Metahara sugarcane plantation. Advances in Crop Science and Technology, 2(5), 153–156.
  79. Tew, T. L., & Cobill, R. M. (2008). Genetic improvement of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) as an energy crop. In W. Vermerris (Ed.), Genetic improvement of bioenergy crops (pp. 273–294). Springer.
  80. Thorburn, P. J., Biggs, J. S., & Webster, A. J. (2017). Prioritizing crop management to increase nitrogen use efficiency in Australian sugarcane crops. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, Article 1504.
  81. Verma, K. K., Song, X. P., & Li, Y. R. (Eds.). (2024). Sugarcane cultivation and management: Challenges and opportunities. Springer.
  82. Voora, V., Bermúdez, S., & Larrea, C. (2023). Sugar cane prices and sustainability. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  83. Wright, J., Kenner, S., & Lingwall, B. (2022). Utilization of compost as a soil amendment to increase soil health and to improve crop yields. Open Journal of Soil Science, 12(6), 216–224.
  84. Xu, J.-W., Martin, R. V., & Evans, G. J. (2021). Predicting spatial variations in multiple measures of oxidative burden for outdoor fine particulate air pollution across Canada. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(14), 9750–9760.
  85. Yahaya, M., Falaki, A., & Busari, E. (2010). Sugarcane yield and quality as influenced by nitrogen rates and irrigation frequency. Nigerian Journal of Research, 17(2), 145–152.
  86. Yang, Y., Gao, S., & Jiang, Y. (2019). The physiological and agronomic responses to nitrogen dosage in different sugarcane varieties. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, Article 406.
  87. Yousif, E., Wafaa, E. G., & EL-Bakry, A. (2021). Impact of nitrogen fertilization on yield and quality for plant cane, ratoon crop and correlation analyses of some sugarcane varieties. Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, 9(5), 121–136.
  88. Zeng, X.-P., Zhao, Y., & Li, Y. (2020). Long-term effects of different nitrogen levels on growth, yield, and quality in sugarcane. Agronomy, 10(3), Article 353. 
Article Preview
Quick Actions
Download PDF View References
Article Info
Pages
105-117