Discussions of the economic and environmental impacts of sugarcane cultivation and harvesting methods need to be contextualized and important within the context of sugarcane as a globally important crop. Sugarcane is not only the world's largest source of sugar, but also a key raw material for the production of biofuels such as ethanol. As oil prices rise, the market for biofuels, especially ethanol produced from sugar cane, is growing.

Economically, sugarcane makes a significant contribution to the national economy of producing countries. For example, Brazil, as the world's largest sugarcane producer, produced more than 654 million tons of sugarcane in the 2020/2021 harvest season (Da Cruz and Machado, 2023). The sugarcane industry not only provides livelihoods to farmers, but also creates numerous employment opportunities and demonstrates potential value in energy and environmental sustainability through the development of sugarcane by-products such as bagasse and molasses.

However, the environmental impact of sugarcane growing and processing is also significant. As one of the most water-intensive crops in the world, sugarcane cultivation has significant impacts on many environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Mekong Delta and Atlantic Forest regions. Historical sugarcane cultivation has resulted in significant biodiversity loss. In addition, problems such as soil erosion, chemical fertilizer use and industrial waste emissions during sugarcane production put huge pressure on the environment.

These environmental problems are not limited to ecological impacts, but also include impacts on local socioeconomic structures, such as changes in the labor market and the quality of life of farming communities. In the face of these challenges, there are already global actions to reduce the negative impacts of the sugarcane industry. International organizations and companies strive to reduce the environmental and social impacts of sugarcane production by establishing sustainable production standards and certification systems such as Bonsucro (Esteban et al., 2020).

This background and data provide the necessary information base to compare the economic and environmental impacts of mechanized versus manual harvesting. This information is particularly important in developing policies and practices to promote sustainable development of the sugarcane industry. Understanding these complex impacts and finding alternatives to mitigate them is key to ensuring that the sugarcane industry can be economically sustainable while minimizing its negative impact on the environment.

By deeply exploring the specific economic and environmental costs and benefits of mechanized versus manual harvesting, this article aims to provide policymakers and industry with scientific data support to promote more equitable and environmentally friendly production practices. This is not only a question of agricultural technological progress, but also a socio-economic issue that must be considered when the world faces environmental challenges and population growth pressure.

1 Overview of Sugarcane Harvesting Methods

1.1 Traditional manual harvesting

Traditional manual sugarcane harvesting is a labor-intensive method rooted in agricultural history and is still practiced today in many areas dominated by small-scale farming. The manual method of harvesting sugar cane involves using machetes or similar tools to cut the cane, which requires a lot of physical effort. Although the initial investment is low and no expensive machinery is required, hand harvesting often involves burning the field to remove weeds and pests before cutting, a practice that can have adverse effects on the environment.

During the 17th and 18th centuries, sugarcane cultivation and harvesting had spread across the globe, especially in the Caribbean colonies. The sugar cane plantations at that time were huge and required a considerable amount of labor. Harvesting tools are basically hand tools, and the use and maintenance of these tools require certain skills and training. These early sugarcane cultivations had profound impacts on the environment and local socioeconomics (Yadav et al., 2020).

Although traditional manual sugarcane harvesting has a greater direct impact on the environment, this method remains a viable option in some areas due to its low cost and contribution to local employment. With the development of modern technology, traditional harvesting methods are facing competition with mechanized harvesting methods, which also prompts the need for continuous adjustments in relevant policies and practices to seek sustainable development of agricultural production.

1.2 Mechanized harvesting

In the mechanized field of sugarcane harvesting, common machinery types include whole plant harvesters and chip harvesters. The basic operations of these harvesters include bottom cutting of sugar cane, cleaning, and cutting the sugar cane stems into small segments of 15 to 40 cm, which are then loaded onto transfer equipment and transported to processing centers (Doriguel et al., 2017).

With the advancement of technology, the mechanization of sugarcane harvesting has been widely used and researched around the world, especially in countries such as Brazil and Australia. In these countries, mechanized harvesting has become feasible and widespread, helping to increase production efficiency and solve labor and environmental issues. However, in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, and Indonesia, the development of mechanized harvesting is relatively slow, and manual harvesting is still retained in some areas (Thomas et al., 2021).

A major trend in mechanized harvesting is the use of raw, unburned cane, which is more favorable both environmentally and in terms of productivity. In contrast, the traditional practice of burning sugar cane before harvesting it cleans the cane and makes manual operations safer and easier, but this practice has been gradually criticized and is in decline due to its negative impact on the environment.

In addition, with the continuous research and development of mechanized sugarcane harvesting technology, modern sugarcane harvesters have become more efficient and environmentally friendly. Mechanized harvesting not only improves sugarcane harvesting efficiency, with each harvester capable of cutting approximately 80 tons of sugarcane per hour, but also helps reduce environmental impact and improve the overall sustainability of the sugarcane industry.

2 Economic Impact of Sugar Cane Harvesting

2.1 Productivity differences between manual and mechanized methods

Labor cost is a key factor when comparing manual versus mechanized methods in sugarcane harvesting. Although mechanized harvesting requires higher initial investment, due to its high efficiency, it can reduce labor costs in the long term, especially in large-scale planting. In contrast, manual harvesting has low initial investment but high labor costs because it requires a large number of manpower to perform heavy manual labor. Equipment maintenance is another cost of mechanized harvesting. Although modern sugarcane harvesting is highly mechanized, regular maintenance and occasional overhauls still require a considerable expenditure, which has a significant impact on the total cost (Elwakeel et al., 2022).

Mechanized methods generally outperform manual methods in terms of yield and productivity. Mechanized harvesting can be carried out continuously, greatly increasing the processing area and total output per unit time. However, this efficiency may come at the expense of crop selectivity, which may sometimes result in a mixed harvest of mature and immature sugarcane, affecting the quality of the final product. The choice between hand harvesting or mechanized harvesting is not only a technical choice but an economic and social decision that involves cost-benefit analysis and long-term sustainability considerations for agricultural practices.

2.2 Impact on sugar recovery rate

When considering the socio-economic impacts of sugarcane cultivation, focus is on sugar recovery, socio-economic effects, employment opportunities, and impacts on small-scale farmers and rural economies. Sugar recovery is a key indicator of sugarcane processing efficiency. Research has shown that mechanized harvesting can improve sugar recovery because it reduces losses during sugarcane harvesting and transportation (Calderan-Rodrigues et al., 2021). However, if the harvesting process is not properly controlled, mechanized harvesting may also reduce sugar recovery due to improper technical operations.

Socioeconomic effects cover many aspects, from labor costs to production efficiency. Mechanized harvesting reduces the direct need for manpower, but increases the need for specialized skills and equipment maintenance. The impact of this shift on the labor market is complex, especially in areas that have traditionally relied on manual labor. The changes in employment opportunities are particularly significant. Mechanized harvesting may result in initial employment losses as machines replace some manual labor. However, it also creates new employment opportunities, such as machinery operations and maintenance positions. This requires new skills and training for workers to adapt to modern agricultural needs.

For small-scale farmers, the high cost of mechanized harvesting may pose a barrier to entry. Small-scale farms may struggle to afford expensive machinery and maintenance, which limits their ability to increase production efficiency (Zan et al., 2020). This may therefore exacerbate inequalities in agricultural production, affecting the economic stability and growth of small-scale farmers. The impact on the rural economy is also multifaceted. Mechanization can increase sugarcane yields and efficiency, increasing overall economic output in rural areas. However, without appropriate policies and support measures, mechanization processes may cause economic pressure on communities that rely on traditional agricultural methods.

3 Environmental Impact of Sugarcane Analysis

3.1 Impact of sugarcane cultivation on ecosystems

When analyzing the impact of sugarcane cultivation on ecosystems, aspects such as biodiversity, soil health and water resources management are mainly considered. The impact of sugarcane cultivation on biodiversity is significant. Large-scale sugar cane cultivation has led to massive loss of natural habitats, particularly in areas rich in biodiversity, such as Brazil's Atlantic Forest and the coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. These areas have experienced extensive deforestation to meet the needs of sugarcane cultivation, thus severely affecting local biodiversity (Beatriz et al., 2024).

The impact of sugarcane cultivation on soil health cannot be ignored. Large-area monoculture cultivation, especially when mechanized harvesting is used, often leads to soil structural damage and soil compaction, thereby affecting soil water permeability and microbial activity. This soil degradation not only reduces farmland productivity but also affects the long-term sustainability of the soil. Water management is another important environmental factor affected by sugarcane cultivation. Sugarcane is an extremely water-intensive crop. In some arid or semi-arid areas, large amounts of water are diverted to irrigate sugarcane fields, which puts tremendous pressure on local water resources. In addition, pesticides and fertilizers commonly used in sugarcane fields will flow into nearby water bodies during the rainy season, causing water quality to deteriorate and threatening the health of aquatic life.

The impact of sugarcane cultivation on the environment is complex and far-reaching. Although sugarcane has important economic value globally as a cash crop, its environmental costs cannot be ignored. Future sugarcane production will need to focus more on sustainable management and growing practices to mitigate negative impacts on ecosystems.

3.2 Comparison of carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions

The introduction of mechanized harvesting is often associated with reduced field burning (pre-harvest burning), a change that has a significant reducing effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Mechanized harvesting allows sugarcane straw to remain in the field instead of being burned, thereby reducing emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. In addition, mechanized harvesting also improves the efficiency of sugarcane processing and reduces carbon emissions during transportation and processing (de Figueiredo et al., 2010).

However, mechanized harvesting requires the use of large machinery, which is often powered by fossil fuels, itself a source of carbon emissions. Therefore, when considering the carbon footprint of mechanized harvesting, direct greenhouse gas emissions from mechanical operations must be weighed against the environmental benefits of reduced field burning. In addition, studies in Brazil and other places have shown that the use of sugar cane to produce ethanol can significantly reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. Brazil is the world's largest sugarcane producer. Sugarcane production has a significant impact on the environment, but it also provides opportunities for environmental protection, especially in the production of biofuels. According to research, 5.6% of current global carbon emissions can be reduced by increasing the sugarcane planting area for ethanol production (Castioni et al., 2021).

Mechanized harvesting of sugarcane has potential advantages in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially when combined with biofuel production. However, the key to ensuring that these benefits are maximized is to adopt reasonable management and technical measures, such as optimizing harvesting routes and reducing the idling operation of machinery, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of mechanized operations themselves.

3.3 Energy consumption and efficiency in mechanized harvesting

In the sugarcane farming industry, energy consumption and efficiency of mechanized harvesting are key factors that determine its sustainability. Although mechanized harvesting has obvious advantages in operational efficiency, its energy consumption is also a link that cannot be ignored. Mechanized harvesting of sugar cane is primarily accomplished through the use of large harvesters, which are capable of quickly cutting the sugar cane and processing it into a form suitable for transportation. However, the energy efficiency of this process is affected by multiple factors. For example, studies have shown that the speed at which a harvester travels significantly affects its operating performance and is positively correlated with fuel consumption. Higher speeds, while increasing throughput per unit time, also increase fuel flow and thus energy requirements.

In addition, the handling of sugarcane straw during harvesting is also an important part of energy consumption, and the straw is usually chopped by harvesters in the field, or collected and used to produce energy, such as fuel or power generation (Budeguer et al., 2021). However, these processes also require large amounts of energy, especially when straw transfer and handling facilities are involved, and the energy efficiency of mechanized harvesting is also affected by the machine's operating mode. Optimizing a machine's operating parameters, such as adjusting cutting depth and speed, can reduce energy consumption without sacrificing throughput. In fact, by precisely controlling the working parameters of the harvester, the efficiency of energy use can be significantly improved.

While mechanized harvesting improves the efficiency of sugarcane production, it also creates higher energy demands. Future research and technology development need to find a balance between improving energy efficiency and reducing environmental impact to achieve sustainable development of the sugarcane farming industry (Filho et al., 2020). In addition, with the development and application of renewable energy technologies, it will be possible to further reduce the carbon footprint and environmental impact of mechanized sugarcane harvesting by using cleaner energy in the future.

4 Social Impact Analysis

4.1 Impact on employment and labor market

When analyzing the impact of mechanized sugarcane harvesting on employment and the labor market, the broad socioeconomic effects of this change must be taken into account. The spread of mechanized harvesting has significantly reduced the need for traditional manual labor, which has led to a reduction in employment opportunities in rural areas. While this can help reduce the physical burden on the workforce and increase productivity, it can also put workers who fail to transition in time at risk of losing their jobs.

In Brazil, mechanization of the sugar cane industry has had profound effects on the labor market. On the one hand, mechanized harvesting reduces reliance on seasonal agricultural workers, who typically perform strenuous manual labor during the harvest season. Mechanization has changed the nature of this labor-intensive operation by reducing the amount of labor required for harvesting. On the other hand, the promotion of mechanized harvesting has also spawned new technology and maintenance-related employment opportunities. These positions require higher skills and technical training, thus promoting the skills upgrade of the local labor market (Cherubin et al., 2021).

In addition, the impact of mechanized harvesting on small-scale farmers also deserves attention. In many developing countries, small-scale farmers may not be able to afford expensive mechanized equipment, limiting their ability to increase productivity. Therefore, while mechanized harvesting brings economic benefits to large-scale cropping enterprises, for small-scale farmers it may exacerbate inequalities in agricultural production.

Mechanization of sugarcane harvesting is a double-edged sword. It can not only improve production efficiency and crop quality, but may also lead to a reduction in employment opportunities for traditional agricultural workers, which will have a significant impact on the labor market structure. Therefore, policymakers should take these socioeconomic factors into consideration when promoting mechanization technologies and find balanced strategies to promote sustainable development for all agricultural practitioners.

4.2 Technology acceptance and educational needs

In the process of mechanization of sugarcane harvesting, technology acceptance and educational needs are key factors in driving the success of this change. As sugarcane agriculture transitions from traditional manual harvesting to highly mechanized operations, there is a need for extensive technical training and educational support.

Technology acceptance measures the ability and willingness of farmers and agricultural workers to adapt to new technologies. In many developing countries, especially those that have traditionally relied on manual harvesting, although mechanization has brought significant improvements in efficiency, technology acceptance has been limited due to factors including distrust of new technologies, persistence in old habits, and Concerns about future employment opportunities. Therefore, improving technology acceptance is not just about providing machinery, but more importantly, enhancing farmers' confidence and understanding of technology through education and training (Shaheb et al., 2021).

Educational needs played a central role in the mechanization process. As harvesting technology increases in complexity, operating mechanized equipment properly requires appropriate skills and knowledge. This includes routine maintenance of machinery, troubleshooting and repair skills, as well as the ability to optimize harvesting operations to maximize yield and efficiency. In addition, education should also cover the safe use of machinery to ensure that operator safety is not compromised.

As mechanization increases, knowledge of the use of data management and decision support systems becomes increasingly important. Modern agriculture is not only about the management of land and machinery, but also involves data analysis and real-time information processing, which can help farmers better understand crop growth patterns and optimize decisions such as fertilization and irrigation. Promoting the success of sugarcane harvesting mechanization requires not only advanced technology and equipment, but also efforts at technology acceptance and education. By improving farmers' technical capabilities and acceptance of new technologies, we can ensure that the benefits of mechanization can be fully utilized, while also promoting the sustainable development of agricultural production.

5 Case Studies

Mexico is the sixth largest sugarcane producer in the world, with sugarcane planting areas spread across 15 states, of which San Luis Potosi is part of the northeastern sugarcane region. During the 2021-2022 harvest, San Luis Potosi produced 5 million 620 thousand tons of sugar cane on 103 thousand hectares of land. The state ranks fourth in the country in sugarcane production in terms of harvested area and second in terms of value. These data not only highlight the importance of the sugarcane industry in Mexico's economy and society, but also highlight its impact on Mexico's GDP (Bherwani et al., 2020).

Based on CONADESUCA's production statistics, sugarcane production costs were estimated for San Luis Potosí and the state's four sugar mills during the last sugarcane harvest (2021-2022). It is estimated that, taking into account the price of $646.50 per ton of sugarcane, the environmental costs for San Luis Potosi are approximately $642,000, accounting for more than 16% of producers' income. The mill with the highest cost is San Miguel del Naranjo (27%), although the difference between it and the mill with the lowest cost, Alianza Pop, is no more than 4% (Figure 1) (Medina et al., 2023).

But the sugarcane industry is a long chain of activities, many of which have a great impact on the environment. These activities include land clearing, use of machinery and equipment in farming, pesticide use, and unfair payment and treatment of labor. Due to ongoing discussions about the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the sugarcane sector, competition between sugarcane and food crops for land use threatens global food production, coupled with the negative impacts of land-use change on biodiversity and endemic species. Negative environmental externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient losses due to changes in soil physical, chemical and biological properties, acidification and eutrophication potential are among the multiple impacts of sugarcane cultivation.

The goal of this study is to determine the impact of the sugarcane industry on ecosystem services and develop two focuses to quantify this impact in an economic manner, using the sugarcane region of San Luis Potosí state in Mexico as an example (El Chami et al., 2020 ). The study aims to uncover the potential environmental impacts of sugarcane growing and processing, and how these impact the health and sustainability of local communities and ecosystems.

Using economic quantification methods, researchers will assess the impact of the sugarcane industry on ecosystem services such as water resources, soil quality, biodiversity and climate change. In addition, they will analyze the social impact of the industry on local communities, including in terms of employment opportunities, quality of life and social balance. Through these analyses, researchers will provide policymakers and decision-makers with the information they need to develop sustainable management policies for the sugarcane industry that minimize its negative impacts while promoting its positive impacts.

Brazil's sugarcane industry is rapidly expanding the area of ​​farmed land, leading to changes in land use patterns. In terms of sugarcane harvesting, there are two main different methods: one is the original mechanized harvesting system, which uses mechanical equipment to harvest, avoiding the process of burning the sugarcane fields before harvesting; the other is the manual burning harvesting system, which The sugarcane is first burned, then cut by hand and finally collected using a conventional loader. It is estimated that mechanized harvesting accounts for 89.7% of the country's harvest, while manual harvesting by burning accounts for 10.3% (Silva Araújo et al., 2023).

This study collected samples near a native forest area (about 500 m away from sugarcane fields) to study the impact of land use changes on soil physical and mechanical properties. Soil samples from sugarcane fields were collected at different depth layers (0.000.10 m, 0.100.20 m, 0.20~0.30 m), and the sampling location was about 0.20 m away from the vegetation rows. A total of 120 sampling points were collected in the burnt harvesting area (1.20 ha) and 121 sampling points in the mechanized harvesting area (1.21 ha), with sampling grids every 10 m used in all areas. Within each geographical reference point, its elevation was measured using a total station (Silva Araújo et al., 2023) (Figure 2).

The increasing use of machinery, tools, management and transportation in sugarcane production, including vehicles with greater load capacity, has also led to adverse soil impacts, particularly problems with soil compaction. Research shows that as primary forest areas are converted into sugarcane fields, agricultural areas are increasingly affected by compaction problems, which has attracted great concern (Toledo et al., 2021). This is because mechanized operations often ignore changes in soil moisture content during the process from land preparation to harvesting, and the problem of soil compaction is becoming increasingly serious as humidity conditions increase.

Soil compaction negatively affects sugarcane productivity by changing the physical properties and structure of the soil, creating an unfavorable environment for sugarcane root development. Currently, one of the main problems faced by mechanized harvesting of sugarcane is additional soil compaction (Cavalcanti et al., 2020). But unlike burning cane, mechanized harvesting leaves residues on the soil surface, which can mitigate the effects of soil compaction.

Measurement of preconsolidation pressure can be used to assess the sustainability of the soil structure and estimate the soil's historical stresses and thus its load-bearing capacity. Understanding the carrying capacity of different soil types and assessment of traffic impacts may be key to reducing impacts on soil structure. The study of soil compaction models and knowledge of the load-bearing capacity of different soil classes are critical to minimizing the impact on soil structure.

6 Discussions

During the sugarcane harvesting process, mechanization presents both key challenges and opportunities, as well as potential technological innovations and policy recommendations. Challenges of mechanized harvesting primarily include potential impacts on the environment, such as soil compaction and reduced biodiversity. Additionally, mechanization may lead to a loss of employment opportunities in traditional farming communities as machines replace large amounts of manual labor. This change requires new labor skills and places new demands on education and training systems to help the workforce adapt to the new work environment.

However, mechanized harvesting also presents significant opportunities. For example, it greatly improves the efficiency and yield of sugarcane production, reduces losses during harvesting, and helps to better control production costs. Mechanization can also reduce the physical labor intensity of workers and improve their working conditions. In addition, reducing field burning can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to environmental protection (Dumont et al., 2021).

In terms of technological innovation, future directions may include the development of more efficient harvesting machinery that can reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. For example, harvesting machinery that utilizes electric or hybrid systems could further reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reduce environmental impact. In addition, digital technologies, such as precision agriculture tools and data analysis, can optimize the sugarcane planting and harvesting process and improve the overall sustainability of agricultural production (Shabbir et al., 2021).

In terms of policy and management strategies, it is recommended to develop supportive policies to promote the acceptance and widespread application of the technology. This could include financial incentives such as subsidies and tax incentives to reduce the financial burden on farmers to adopt new technologies. At the same time, policies should also support agricultural education and training programs to help the workforce transform and acquire new skills. In addition, establishing sustainable agricultural practice standards and encouraging environmentally friendly agricultural technologies and methods are also key strategies to ensure the positive impact of mechanized harvesting.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the two anonymous peer reviewers for their critical assessment and constructive suggestions on our manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded by the Hainan Institute of Tropical Agricultural Resources under the contract for the research project "Screening and Breeding of Sugarcane Resources" (Grant No. H20230101).

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors affirm that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Beatriz S.V., de Andrade N., Lucas P.C., André L.C.F., Arthur P.A.P., and Maurício R.C., 2024, Edaphic mesofauna responses to land use change for sugarcane cultivation: insights from contrasting soil textures, Front. Ecol. Evol., 11: 1305115.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1305115

Bherwani H., Nair M., Musugu K., Gautam S., Gupta A., Kapley A., Kumar R., 2020, Valuation of air pollution externalities: Comparative assessment of economic damage and emission reduction under COVID-19 lockdown. Air Qual. Atmos, Health, 13, 683-694.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-020-00845-3

Budeguer F., Enrique R., Perera M., Racedo J., Castagnaro A., Noguera A., and Welin B., 2021, Genetic transformation of sugarcane, current status and future prospects, Frontiers in Plant Science, 12: 24.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.768609

Calderan-Rodrigues M., Dantas L., Gianotto A., and Caldana C., 2021, Applying molecular phenotyping tools to explore sugarcane carbon potential, Frontiers in Plant Science, 12: 23.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.637166

Castioni G.A.F., Lima R.P., Cherubin M.R., Bordonal R.O., Rolim M.R., and Carvalho J.L.N., 2021, Machinery traffic in sugarcane straw removal operation: Stress transmitted and soil compaction, Soil Tillage Res., 213: E105122.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105122

Cavalcanti R.Q., Rolim M.M., Lima R.P., Tavares U.E., Pedrosa E.M.R., and Cherubin M.R., 2020, Soil physical changes induced by sugarcane cultivation in the Atlantic Forest biome, northeastern Brazil, Geoderma, 370: e114353.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114353

Cherubin M.R., Franchi M.R.A., Lima R.P., Moraes M.T., and Luz F.B., 2021, Sugarcane straw effects on soil compaction susceptibility. Soil Tillage Res., 212: E105066.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105066

Da Cruz T.V., and Machado R.L., 2023, Measuring climate change's impact on diferent sugarcane varieties production in the South of Goiás, Nature, 13: 11637.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36582-7

de Figueiredo E.B., Panosso A.R., and Romão R., 2010, Greenhouse gas emission associated with sugar production in southern Brazil, Carbon Balance Manage, 3: 21.

https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-5-3

Dumont T., Barau L., Thong-Chane A., Dijoux J., Mellin M., Daugrois J., and Hoarau J., 2021, Sugarcane breeding in reunion: challenges, achievements and future prospects, Sugar Tech., 24: 181-192.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-00998-0

Doriguel F., Crusciol C.A.C., and de Oliveira Florentino H., 2017, Mathematical optimization models in the sugarcane harvesting process, Sugarcane-Technology and Research, 71530.

El Chami D., Daccache A., and El Moujabber M., 2020, What are the impacts of sugarcane production on ecosystem services and human well-being? A review. Ann. Agric. Sci., 65: 188-199.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2020.10.001

Elwakeel A., Ahmed S., Eldin A., and Hanafy W., 2022, A review on sugarcane harvesting technology, Al-Azhar Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 22: 31.

https://doi.org/10.21608/azeng.2022.240434

Esteban D.A., Souza Z.M., Silva R.B., Lim E.S., Lovera L.H., and Oliveira I.N., 2020, Impact of permanent traffic lanes on the soil physical and mechanical properties in mechanized sugarcane fields with the use of automatic steering, Geoderma, 363: E114097.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114097

Filho W.L., Setti A.F.F., Azeiteiro U.M., Lokupitiya E., Donkor F.K., Etim N.N., Matandirotya N., Olooto F.M., Sharifi A., and Nagy G.J., 2022, An overview of the interactions between food production and climate change, Sci. Total Environ., 838: 156438.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156438

Medina P.P., Galindo Mendoza M.G., Álvarez Fuentes G., Martínez L.D.T., and Barrera López V.A., 2023, Economic assessment of the impact of the sugarcane industry: an empirical approach with two focuses for San Luis Potosí, México. J., 6: 342-360.

https://doi.org/10.3390/j602002

Shabbir R., Javed T., Afzal I., Sabagh A., Ali A., Vicente Ó., and Chen P., 2021, Modern biotechnologies: innovative and sustainable approaches for the improvement of sugarcane tolerance to environmental stresses, Agronomy, 11: 1042.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061042

Shaheb M.R., Venkatesh R., and Shearer S.A., 2021, A review on the effect of soil compaction and its management for sustainable crop production, Biosyst. Eng., 46: 417-439.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-021-00117-7

Silva Araújo F., Menezes de Souza Z., Soares Souza G., Barboza da Silva R., Aguilera Esteban D.A., and Moraes Tavares R.L., 2023, Load-bearing capacity of an oxisol under burned and mechanized harvest sugarcane crops, Sustainability, 15: 15185.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115185

Thomas D., Laurent B., Audrey T.C., Jordan D., Mathilde M., Jean D., and Hoarau J.Y., 2021, Sugarcane breeding in reunion: challenges, achievements and future prospects, Sugar Tech., 24: 181-192.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-00998-0

Toledo M.S., Rolim M.M., Lima R.P., Cavalcanti R.Q., Ortiz F.S., and Cherubin M.R., 2021, Strength, swelling and compressibility of unsaturated sugarcane soils, Soil Tillage Res., 212: E105072.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105072

Yadav S., Jackson P., Wei X., Ross E., Aitken K., Deomano E., Atkin F., Hayes B., and Voss-Fels K., 2020, Accelerating Genetic Gain in Sugarcane Breeding Using Genomic Selection, Agronomy, 10: 585.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040585

Zan F., Zhang Y., Wu Z., Zhao J., Wu C., Zhao Y., Chen X., Zhao L., Qin W., Yao L., Xia H., Zhao P., Yang K., Liu J., and Yang X., 2020, Genetic analysis of agronomic traits in elite sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) germplasm, PLoS One, 15.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233752