Paper · 2008 · Guangdong nongye kexue

Primary research of drip fertigation on sugarcane

Zang Xiao-ping

3
claims
3
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The yield and TSS content of sugarcane were studied by applying drip fertigation on sugarcane.The results showed that compared to traditional irrigation and soil application,drip fertigation could increase the sugarcane yield 39.1%~41.1% significantly,and farmer incomes also increased by 434~703 RMB,but TSS content decreased.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip fertigation increased sugarcane yield by 39.1-41.1% significantly compared with traditional irrigation and soil application.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
drip fertigatione0
Outcome
sugarcane yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
39.1%~41.1%e0
Comparator
traditional irrigation and soil applicatione0

Verbatim

e0

“compared to traditional irrigation and soil application,drip fertigation could increase the sugarcane yield 39.1%~41.1% significantly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 118–251 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Farmer incomes increased by 434-703 RMB with drip fertigation.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
drip fertigatione0
Outcome
farmer incomese0
Direction
increasede0
Value
434~703 RMBe0
Comparator
traditional irrigation and soil applicatione0

Verbatim

e0

“compared to traditional irrigation and soil application,drip fertigation could increase the sugarcane yield 39.1%~41.1% significantly,and farmer incomes also increased by 434~703 RMB”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 118–300 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

TSS content of sugarcane decreased with drip fertigation.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
drip fertigatione0
Outcome
TSS contente0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
traditional irrigation and soil applicatione0

Verbatim

e0

“compared to traditional irrigation and soil application,drip fertigation could increase the sugarcane yield 39.1%~41.1% significantly,and farmer incomes also increased by 434~703 RMB,but TSS content decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 118–326 · show in text ↑

fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ

104 papers: 91 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 91 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

100 papers more in this group

See all 104 papers →

irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

41 papers: 24 positive, 17 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

irrigation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

142 papers: 129 positive, 13 negative or no effect

128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

138 papers more in this group

See all 142 papers →

fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

346 papers: 312 positive, 34 negative or no effect

311 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. 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.