Abstract
A pot culture experiment was conducted to study the influence of salt stress on growth and yield component of four sugarcane varieties viz., C 92038, Co 85004, Si 94050 and Co 85036. The result of the study reveals that the growth parameter viz., LAI, LAD and CGR, RGR and SGR indicated that the derivation of LAI, CGR and SGR are the reliable growth parameters for assessing the genotypes for salt tolerance, as resistant genotypes Co 85004 and C 92038 performed better because of higher CGR, and SGR in present study. The important yield parameters viz., number of stalk per -1 , stalk length, number of inter nodes, inter nodal length, cane diameter and single cane weight were found to be affected under salt stress condition, which leads in overall yield reduction of 38.56 per cent in T 2 . However the extent of reduction was less in GA 3 treated plants (18.50 %). Under salinity condition, the reduction in yield was less in C 92038 and Co 85004 (29.81 and 28.00 %) and it was found to be maximum in Co 85036 and Si 94050 (47.82 and 47.36 %). Irrespective of the genotypes, supplementing GA 3 (150 ppm) as sett treatment and foliar application play role on imparting salt tolerance in terms of getting better growth and cane yield.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
LAI, CGR and SGR are the reliable growth parameters for assessing the genotypes for salt tolerance
Verbatim
e0“LAI, CGR and SGR are the reliable growth parameters for assessing the genotypes for salt tolerance”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
resistant genotypes Co 85004 and C 92038 performed better because of higher CGR, and SGR
Verbatim
e0“resistant genotypes Co 85004 and C 92038 performed better because of higher CGR, and SGR”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
resistant genotypes Co 85004 and C 92038 performed better because of higher CGR, and SGR
Verbatim
e0“resistant genotypes Co 85004 and C 92038 performed better because of higher CGR, and SGR”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
number of stalk per -1 , stalk length, number of inter nodes, inter nodal length, cane diameter and single cane weight were found to be affected under salt stress condition
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“number of stalk per -1 , stalk length, number of inter nodes, inter nodal length, cane diameter and single cane weight were found to be affected under salt stress condition”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
inter nodal length, cane diameter and single cane weight were found to be affected under salt stress condition
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“inter nodal length, cane diameter and single cane weight were found to be affected under salt stress condition”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
overall yield reduction of 38.56 per cent in T 2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“overall yield reduction of 38.56 per cent in T 2”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
extent of reduction was less in GA 3 treated plants (18.50 %)
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“extent of reduction was less in GA 3 treated plants (18.50 %)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
reduction in yield was less in C 92038 and Co 85004 (29.81 and 28.00 %)
Verbatim
e0“reduction in yield was less in C 92038 and Co 85004 (29.81 and 28.00 %)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
reduction in yield was less in C 92038 and Co 85004 (29.81 and 28.00 %)
Verbatim
e0“reduction in yield was less in C 92038 and Co 85004 (29.81 and 28.00 %)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
maximum in Co 85036 and Si 94050 (47.82 and 47.36 %)
Verbatim
e0“maximum in Co 85036 and Si 94050 (47.82 and 47.36 %)”
e1“reduction in yield was less in C 92038 and Co 85004 (29.81 and 28.00 %)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
maximum in Co 85036 and Si 94050 (47.82 and 47.36 %)
Verbatim
e0“maximum in Co 85036 and Si 94050 (47.82 and 47.36 %)”
e1“reduction in yield was less in C 92038 and Co 85004 (29.81 and 28.00 %)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
supplementing GA 3 (150 ppm) as sett treatment and foliar application play role on imparting salt tolerance in terms of getting better growth and cane yield
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“supplementing GA 3 (150 ppm) as sett treatment and foliar application play role on imparting salt tolerance in terms of getting better growth and cane yield”
t0“Sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
Gibberellic acid · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.