Abstract
A study was conducted during 1991-92 to 1993-94 at Sambalpur, Orissa for biological and economic potential of autumn planted 'Co 6304' sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) with treatment combinations of 5 cropping systems (sugarcane sole, wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Fiori & Paol.) sole, rapeseed (Brasica campestris L. var toria) sole, sugarcane + wheat, sugarcane + rapeseed) and 3 moisture regimes (0.8, 1.0, 1.2 IW:CPE ratio). Cane yield of the sole sugarcane was the maximum (107.25 tonnes/ha) which declined by 16.6 and 8.3%·due to intercropping of wheat and rapeseed, respectively. Frequently irrigated plots at 1.2 IW:CPE ratio (50 mm CPE) recorded the maximum cane yield (106.03 tonnes/ha). Its yield reduced by 7.9 and 13.9% due to sub optimal moisture regime of 1.0 (60 mm CPE) and moderate moisture regime of 0.8 (75 rom CPE) IW:CPE ratio, respectively. The maximum net monetary return of Rs 22 493/ha was obtained from sugarcane + rapeseed system at 1.2 IW:CPE ratio with greater biological efficiency as indicated by maximum LER(1.90), benefit: cost ratio (l.57) and water-use efficiency (Rs 1 28/ha-cm). Sole sugarcane was at par with sugarcane + rapeseed system in respect of net monetary returns.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Sole sugarcane had maximum cane yield of 107.25 tonnes/ha.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yield of the sole sugarcane was the maximum (107.25 tonnes/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat intercropping reduced cane yield by 16.6%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- intercropping of wheate0
- Interactor
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0other - Outcome
- Cane yielde0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 16.6e0
- Comparator
- sole sugarcanee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yield of the sole sugarcane was the maximum (107.25 tonnes/ha) which declined by 16.6 and 8.3%·due to intercropping of wheat and rapeseed, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Rapeseed intercropping reduced cane yield by 8.3%.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yield of the sole sugarcane was the maximum (107.25 tonnes/ha) which declined by 16.6 and 8.3%·due to intercropping of wheat and rapeseed, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1.2 IW:CPE irrigation ratio gave maximum cane yield of 106.03 tonnes/ha.
Verbatim
e0“Frequently irrigated plots at 1.2 IW:CPE ratio (50 mm CPE) recorded the maximum cane yield (106.03 tonnes/ha)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1.0 IW:CPE moisture regime reduced yield by 7.9%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- sub optimal moisture regime of 1.0 (60 mm CPE)e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 7.9e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Its yield reduced by 7.9 and 13.9% due to sub optimal moisture regime of 1.0 (60 mm CPE) and moderate moisture regime of 0.8 (75 rom CPE) IW:CPE ratio, respectively”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The 0.8 IW:CPE moisture regime reduced yield by 13.9%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- moderate moisture regime of 0.8 (75 rom CPE) IW:CPE ratioe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 13.9%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Its yield reduced by 7.9 and 13.9% due to sub optimal moisture regime of 1.0 (60 mm CPE) and moderate moisture regime of 0.8 (75 rom CPE) IW:CPE ratio, respectively”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane with rapeseed at 1.2 IW:CPE maximized net monetary return at Rs 22 493/ha.
Verbatim
e0“The maximum net monetary return of Rs 22 493/ha was obtained from sugarcane + rapeseed system at 1.2 IW:CPE ratio”
Claim · model-written summary
That system had maximum land equivalent ratio of 1.90.
Verbatim
e0“maximum LER(1.90)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
That system had benefit to cost ratio of 1.57.
Verbatim
e0“benefit: cost ratio (l.57)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
That system had water-use efficiency of Rs 1 28/ha-cm.
Verbatim
e0“water-use efficiency (Rs 1 28/ha-cm)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole sugarcane and sugarcane with rapeseed were at par for net monetary returns.
Verbatim
e0“Sole sugarcane was at par with sugarcane + rapeseed system in respect of net monetary returns”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →intercropping · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 67 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
84 papers more in this group
See all 88 papers →soil water · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.