Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of planting systems on sugarcane yield. The conventional (1 m row spacing), paired row (0.75 by I .5 m spacing) and wider space (1.5 m spacing) planting systems produced statistically similar cane yields of 107.5, 110.2, and 105.9 tlha, respectively. Total production costs incurred for the different cultural practices in each planting system were lowest in the paired row planting system (R 30121) followed by the wider space planting (R 33571) and conventional planting systems (R 38105). Based on these results, it would appear that the paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional planting yielded 107.5 tlha and yields were statistically similar across systems.
Verbatim
e0“The conventional (1 m row spacing), paired row (0.75 by I .5 m spacing) and wider space (1.5 m spacing) planting systems produced statistically similar cane yields of 107.5, 110.2, and 105.9 tlha, respectively”
e2“paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India”
Claim · model-written summary
Paired row planting yielded 110.2 tlha with statistically similar yield to other systems.
Verbatim
e0“The conventional (1 m row spacing), paired row (0.75 by I .5 m spacing) and wider space (1.5 m spacing) planting systems produced statistically similar cane yields of 107.5, 110.2, and 105.9 tlha, respectively”
e2“paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India”
Claim · model-written summary
Wider spacing yielded 105.9 tlha with statistically similar yield to other systems.
Verbatim
e0“The conventional (1 m row spacing), paired row (0.75 by I .5 m spacing) and wider space (1.5 m spacing) planting systems produced statistically similar cane yields of 107.5, 110.2, and 105.9 tlha, respectively”
e2“paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India”
Claim · model-written summary
Paired row planting had the lowest production cost, R 30121.
Verbatim
e0“Total production costs incurred for the different cultural practices in each planting system were lowest in the paired row planting system (R 30121)”
e2“paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India”
Claim · model-written summary
Wider spacing had production costs of R 33571.
Verbatim
e0“followed by the wider space planting (R 33571)”
e2“paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India”
e1“Total production costs incurred for the different cultural practices in each planting system were lowest in the paired row planting system (R 30121) followed by the wider space planting (R 33571) and conventional planting systems (R 38105).”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional planting had production costs of R 38105.
Verbatim
e0“conventional planting systems (R 38105)”
e2“paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India”
e1“Total production costs incurred for the different cultural practices in each planting system were lowest in the paired row planting system (R 30121) followed by the wider space planting (R 33571) and conventional planting systems (R 38105).”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors judged paired rows easiest to manage and most profitable in India.
Verbatim
e0“paired row planting system would be the easiest to manage and most profitable for sugarcane production in India”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 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.