Paper · 2010

Pursuing higher efficacy for managed photoperiodic initiation of sugarcane flowering in the tropics.

N. Berding; R. S. Pendrigh; V. Dunne

20
claims
41
verbatim quotes
9
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

THE EFFICACY of managed regimes used in high-cost, photoperiod facilities (PFs) is all important. Various photoperiod regimes were trialled to improve flowering from ≈ 90% treated clones and ≈ 70% treated stalks by reducing the proportion of meristems initiated but not emerged (IBNE). Two experiments in 2007 compared a 60 s/d declination from three commencing day lengths, 12 h 55 min, 13 h 10 min, and 13 h 25 min. Two experiments in 2008 compared declinations of 30, 45, and 60 s/d for the panicle development phase following an initiation declination of 60 s/d. In 2009, three experiments compared initiation and developmental declinations of 60 and 40 s/d, and an initiation and developmental declination of 60 and 20 s/d, respectively, with a drop of 30 min in day length after 28 day’s initiation. There were no differences among treatments in 2007. For clones, 87.9 and 84.4% flowered, while 62.3 and 56.7% of treated stalks produced usable panicles. However, 20.0 and 19.4% of stalks were IBNE. In PF(A) in 2008, flowering from 30 (70.6% treated stalks) vs 60 s/d (65.9%) and 30 vs 45 s/d (77.1%) developmental declinations were not significantly different but was for the 45 vs 60 s/d declinations. Meristems IBNE averaged 23.8%. On average 90.1% of clones flowered. In PF(B), the control (60 s/d) produced an anomalous result. The 45 and 30 s/d declinations did not differ, with 85.5 and 78.1% of treated stalks and 92.5% of clones flowering. In 2009, the 60/20 s/d declinations, separated by a 30 min day length decrease disappointed, with 52.8% stalks and 74.4% clones flowered. The 60/60 s/d (control) and 40/40 declinations did not differ significantly, producing 78.5% flowered stalks from 93.5% flowered clones, on average. Results for the 40 s/d regime, 81.6% flowered stalks and 14.7% IBNE, are the best results yet achieved. Significant differences were obtained among regimes for pollen fertility, but pollen fertility was not a limitation for cross pollination. Comparison of in-field vs managed PF flowering showed the superiority of the latter at 188 and 669%, in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Mean fuzz weight of PF crosses was lower than that of core crosses, but mean seed germination of non-germination tested PF crosses was equal to or better than germinated-tested core crosses.

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 20

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2007 there were no differences among photoperiod treatments in flowering.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
60 s/d declination from three commencing day lengthse1
Outcome
flowerede0
Direction
no_changeinferrede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“There were no differences among treatments in 2007. For clones, 87.9 and 84.4% flowered, while 62.3 and 56.7% of treated stalks produced usable panicles. However, 20.0 and 19.4% of stalks were IBNE.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 806–1004 · show in text ↑
e1

“Two experiments in 2007 compared a 60 s/d declination from three commencing day lengths, 12 h 55 min, 13 h 10 min, and 13 h 25 min”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 286–416 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2007 clones flowered at 87.9% and 84.4% across the two experiments.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Material
clonese0
Outcome
flowerede0
Value
87.9e0
Qualifier
84.4%e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“There were no differences among treatments in 2007. For clones, 87.9 and 84.4% flowered, while 62.3 and 56.7% of treated stalks produced usable panicles. However, 20.0 and 19.4% of stalks were IBNE.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 806–1004 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2007 treated stalks produced usable panicles at 62.3% and 56.7% across the two experiments.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Material
treated stalkse0
Outcome
produced usable paniclese0
Value
62.3e0
Qualifier
56.7%e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“There were no differences among treatments in 2007. For clones, 87.9 and 84.4% flowered, while 62.3 and 56.7% of treated stalks produced usable panicles. However, 20.0 and 19.4% of stalks were IBNE.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 806–1004 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2007 stalks were IBNE at 20.0% and 19.4% across the two experiments.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Material
stalkse0
Outcome
IBNEe0
Value
20.0e0
Qualifier
19.4%e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“There were no differences among treatments in 2007. For clones, 87.9 and 84.4% flowered, while 62.3 and 56.7% of treated stalks produced usable panicles. However, 20.0 and 19.4% of stalks were IBNE.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 806–1004 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In PF(A) in 2008, the 30 s/d developmental declination did not differ from 60 s/d in flowering (70.6% vs 65.9%).

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
developmental declinationse0
Outcome
floweringe0
Direction
no_changeinferrede0
Value
70.6%e0
Qualifier
65.9%e0
Comparator
60 s/de0
Setting
PF(A)e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“In PF(A) in 2008, flowering from 30 (70.6% treated stalks) vs 60 s/d (65.9%) and 30 vs 45 s/d (77.1%) developmental declinations were not significantly different but was for the 45 vs 60 s/d declinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1209 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In PF(A) in 2008, the 30 s/d developmental declination did not differ from 45 s/d in flowering (77.1%).

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
developmental declinationse0
Outcome
floweringe0
Direction
no_changeinferrede0
Value
77.1%e0
Comparator
45 s/de0
Setting
PF(A)e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“In PF(A) in 2008, flowering from 30 (70.6% treated stalks) vs 60 s/d (65.9%) and 30 vs 45 s/d (77.1%) developmental declinations were not significantly different but was for the 45 vs 60 s/d declinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1209 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In PF(A) in 2008, the 45 s/d developmental declination differed significantly in flowering from 60 s/d.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
45 vs 60 s/d declinationse0
Outcome
floweringe0
Setting
PF(A)e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“In PF(A) in 2008, flowering from 30 (70.6% treated stalks) vs 60 s/d (65.9%) and 30 vs 45 s/d (77.1%) developmental declinations were not significantly different but was for the 45 vs 60 s/d declinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1209 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In PF(A) in 2008, meristems initiated but not emerged averaged 23.8%.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Outcome
Meristems IBNEe0
Value
23.8%e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Meristems IBNE averaged 23.8%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1210–1239 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In PF(A) in 2008, on average 90.1% of clones flowered.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Material
clonese0
Outcome
clones flowerede0
Value
90.1%e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“On average 90.1% of clones flowered”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1241–1276 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In PF(B), the 45 and 30 s/d declinations did not differ in flowering, with 85.5% of treated stalks flowering at 45 and 30 s/d and 92.5% of clones flowering.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
45 and 30 s/d declinationse0
Outcome
floweringe0
Direction
no_changeinferrede0
Value
85.5e0
Qualifier
78.1% of treated stalks and 92.5% of clonese0
Setting
PF(B)e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“In PF(B), the control (60 s/d) produced an anomalous result. The 45 and 30 s/d declinations did not differ, with 85.5 and 78.1% of treated stalks and 92.5% of clones flowering”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1278–1453 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In PF(B) the control (60 s/d) produced an anomalous flowering result.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Outcome
anomalous resulte0
Setting
PF(B)e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“In PF(B), the control (60 s/d) produced an anomalous result. The 45 and 30 s/d declinations did not differ, with 85.5 and 78.1% of treated stalks and 92.5% of clones flowering”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1278–1453 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2009 the 60/20 s/d declinations disappointed, with 52.8% of stalks and 74.4% of clones flowering.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
60/20 s/d declinationse0
Outcome
flowerede0
Value
52.8%e0
Qualifier
74.4% clonese0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“In 2009, the 60/20 s/d declinations, separated by a 30 min day length decrease disappointed, with 52.8% stalks and 74.4% clones flowered”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1455–1591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2009 the 60/60 s/d control and 40/40 declinations did not differ significantly, with 78.5% of stalks flowering.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
40/40 declinationse0
Outcome
flowered stalkse0
Direction
no_changeinferrede0
Value
78.5%e0
Qualifier
93.5%e0
Comparator
60/60 s/d (control)e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“The 60/60 s/d (control) and 40/40 declinations did not differ significantly, producing 78.5% flowered stalks from 93.5% flowered clones, on average”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1593–1740 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 40 s/d regime gave 81.6% flowered stalks, the best flowering result yet achieved.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
40 s/d regimee0
Outcome
flowered stalkse0
Direction
beste0
Value
81.6%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Results for the 40 s/d regime, 81.6% flowered stalks and 14.7% IBNE, are the best results yet achieved”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1742–1844 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 40 s/d regime gave 14.7% meristems initiated but not emerged.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
40 s/d regimee0
Outcome
IBNEe0
Value
14.7%e0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Results for the 40 s/d regime, 81.6% flowered stalks and 14.7% IBNE, are the best results yet achieved”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1742–1844 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pollen fertility differed significantly among photoperiod regimes.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
regimese0
Outcome
pollen fertilitye0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Significant differences were obtained among regimes for pollen fertility, but pollen fertility was not a limitation for cross pollination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1846–1983 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pollen fertility was not a limitation for cross pollination.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Outcome
pollen fertilitye0
Qualifier
not a limitation for cross pollinatione0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Significant differences were obtained among regimes for pollen fertility, but pollen fertility was not a limitation for cross pollination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1846–1983 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Managed photoperiod flowering was superior to in-field flowering, by 188% in 2008 and 669% in 2009.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
managed PF floweringe0
Outcome
floweringe0
Direction
superioritye0
Value
188e0
Qualifier
669%e0
Comparator
in-fielde0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Comparison of in-field vs managed PF flowering showed the superiority of the latter at 188 and 669%, in 2008 and 2009”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1985–2102 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean fuzz weight of PF crosses was lower than that of core crosses.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
PF crossese0
Outcome
fuzz weighte0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
core crossese0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Mean fuzz weight of PF crosses was lower than that of core crosses, but mean seed germination of non-germination tested PF crosses was equal to or better than germinated-tested core crosses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2118–2307 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed germination of non-germination-tested PF crosses was equal to or better than that of germination-tested core crosses.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
non-germination tested PF crossese0
Outcome
seed germinatione0
Direction
equal to or bettere0
Comparator
germinated-tested core crossese0

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–74 · show in text ↑
e0

“Mean fuzz weight of PF crosses was lower than that of core crosses, but mean seed germination of non-germination tested PF crosses was equal to or better than germinated-tested core crosses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2118–2307 · show in text ↑

stage · phenology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.