Abstract
SUMMARY A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane, studied in a pot experiment, showed that although the tillering, the leaf N concentration and cane yield were increased by adding fertilizer N there were no significant differences between N sources. However, AS and AS + N-Serve depressed the soil pH, especially that of acidic soils, much more than SCU. In a field experiment where AS, urea and SCU were compared on a calcareous soil, it was observed that urea gave significantly lower cane and sucrose yields than AS and SCU when N was applied on the surface, possibly due to greater volatiliization losses from urea. Subsurface application increased the efficiency of urea, although the method of placement had no significant effect on the N efficiency of AS and SCU. AS was as effective as SCU. Thus the coating of urea by sulphur increased its efficiency for sugarcane only when applied on the surface of a calcareous soil.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Adding fertilizer N increased tillering, leaf N concentration and cane yield in a pot experiment.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee1
- Treatment
- adding fertilizer Ne0
- Outcome
- tillering, the leaf N concentration and cane yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Setting
- pot experimente0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“studied in a pot experiment, showed that although the tillering, the leaf N concentration and cane yield were increased by adding fertilizer N there were no significant differences between N sources”
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammonium sulphate with or without N-Serve did not differ significantly from sulphur-coated urea in tillering, leaf N concentration and cane yield.
Verbatim
e0“studied in a pot experiment, showed that although the tillering, the leaf N concentration and cane yield were increased by adding fertilizer N there were no significant differences between N sources”
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammonium sulphate with and without N-Serve depressed soil pH, especially in acidic soils, more than sulphur-coated urea.
Verbatim
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
e2“AS and AS + N-Serve depressed the soil pH, especially that of acidic soils, much more than SCU”
Claim · model-written summary
Urea applied on the surface gave significantly lower cane and sucrose yields than ammonium sulphate and sulphur-coated urea on a calcareous soil.
Verbatim
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
e3“In a field experiment where AS, urea and SCU were compared on a calcareous soil, it was observed that urea gave significantly lower cane and sucrose yields than AS and SCU when N was applied on the surface”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater volatilization losses from urea possibly explain its lower sugarcane yields.
Verbatim
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
e3“In a field experiment where AS, urea and SCU were compared on a calcareous soil, it was observed that urea gave significantly lower cane and sucrose yields than AS and SCU when N was applied on the surface”
e4“possibly due to greater volatiliization losses from urea”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface application increased the efficiency of urea compared with surface application.
Verbatim
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
e2“when N was applied on the surface”
e5“Subsurface application increased the efficiency of urea”
Claim · model-written summary
The method of placement had no significant effect on the N efficiency of ammonium sulphate and sulphur-coated urea.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee1
- Treatment
- method of placemente6
- Outcome
- N efficiency of AS and SCUe6
- Direction
- no significant effecte6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
e6“the method of placement had no significant effect on the N efficiency of AS and SCU”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammonium sulphate was as effective as sulphur-coated urea for sugarcane.
Verbatim
e1“A comparison of ammonium sulphate (AS) with and without N-Serve and sulphurcoated urea (SCU) as N sources for sugarcane”
e7“AS was as effective as SCU”
Claim · model-written summary
Coating urea with sulphur increased its efficiency for sugarcane only when applied on the surface of a calcareous soil.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee1
- Treatment
- coating of urea by sulphure1
- Outcome
- efficiencye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- only when applied on the surface of a calcareous soile1
- Setting
- calcareous soile1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Thus the coating of urea by sulphur increased its efficiency for sugarcane only when applied on the surface of a calcareous soil”
The same questions in other papers
ammonium sulfate · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
nitrogen · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 118 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
133 papers more in this group
See all 137 papers →fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
311 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 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.