Paper · 2001 · Australian Journal of Agricultural Research

A methodology for analysis of sugarcane productivity trends. I. Analysis across districts

R. N. Ellis; K. E. Basford; M. Cooper; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
13
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Historically, few articles have addressed the use of district level mill production data for analysing the effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends. This appears to be due to lack of compiled district data sets and appropriate methods by which to analyse these data. Recently, varietal data on tonnes of sugarcane per hectare (TCH), sugar content (CCS), and their product, tonnes of sugar content per hectare (TSH) on a district basis, have been compiled. This study was conducted to develop a methodology for regular analysis of such data from mill districts to assess productivity trends over time, accounting for variety and variety environment interaction effects for 3 mill districts (Mulgrave, Babinda, and Tully) from 1958 to 1995. Restricted maximum likelihood methodology was used to analyse the district level data and best linear unbiased predictors for random effects, and best linear unbiased estimates for fixed effects were computed in a mixed model analysis. In the combined analysis over districts, Q124 was the top ranking variety for TCH, and Q120 was top ranking for both CCS and TSH. Overall production for TCH increased over the 38-year period investigated. Some of this increase can be attributed to varietal improvement, although the predictors for TCH have shown little progress since the introduction of Q99 in 1976. Although smaller gains have been made in varietal improvement for CCS, overall production for CCS decreased over the 38 years due to non-varietal factors. Varietal improvement in TSH appears to have peaked in the mid-1980s. Overall production for TSH remained stable over time due to the varietal increase in TCH and the nonvarietal decrease in CCS.

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 9

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Q124 was the top ranking sugarcane variety for TCH.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Material
Q124e1
Outcome
TCHe1
Direction
top rankinge1

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e1

“Q124 was the top ranking variety for TCH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1034–1074 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Q120 was the top ranking variety for both CCS and TSH.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Material
Q120e2
Outcome
CCS and TSHe2
Direction
top rankinge2

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e2

“Q120 was top ranking for both CCS and TSH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1080–1121 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Overall TCH production increased over the 38-year period.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
Overall production for TCHe3
Direction
increasede3
Qualifier
over the 38-year period investigatede3

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e3

“Overall production for TCH increased over the 38-year period investigated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1123–1196 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Some of the TCH increase is attributed to varietal improvement.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
increasee4
Qualifier
varietal improvemente4

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e4

“Some of this increase can be attributed to varietal improvement”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1198–1261 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predictors for TCH have shown little progress since the introduction of Q99 in 1976.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
predictors for TCHe5
Direction
little progresse5
Qualifier
since the introduction of Q99 in 1976e5

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e5

“the predictors for TCH have shown little progress since the introduction of Q99 in 1976”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1359 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Varietal improvement for CCS made smaller gains.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
varietal improvement for CCSe6
Direction
smaller gainse6

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e6

“Although smaller gains have been made in varietal improvement for CCS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1361–1430 · show in text ↑
Mechanismobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Overall CCS production decreased over the 38 years due to non-varietal factors.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
overall production for CCSe7
Direction
decreasede7
Qualifier
non-varietal factorse7

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e7

“overall production for CCS decreased over the 38 years due to non-varietal factors”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1432–1514 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Varietal improvement in TSH appears to have peaked in the mid-1980s.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
Varietal improvement in TSHe1
Direction
peakede1
Qualifier
mid-1980se1

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e1

“Varietal improvement in TSH appears to have peaked in the mid-1980s”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1516–1583 · show in text ↑
Mechanismobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Overall TSH production remained stable due to the varietal increase in TCH and the non-varietal decrease in CCS.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
Overall production for TSHe1
Direction
remained stablee1
Qualifier
the varietal increase in TCH and the nonvarietal decrease in CCSe1

Verbatim

e0

“effect of varietal change on sugarcane productivity trends”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 107–165 · show in text ↑
e1

“Overall production for TSH remained stable over time due to the varietal increase in TCH and the nonvarietal decrease in CCS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1585–1709 · show in text ↑