Abstract
Two new functional microbial fertilizers(A and B) were applied in sugarcane to study their effects in improving the yields of sugarcane.Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 7.8% and 5.1%,and 8.4% and 6.6% higher than those of the CK1(common organic fertilizer),respectively.Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 10.3% and 9.0%,11.3% and 9.4% higher than those of the CK2(without organic fertilizer),respectively.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased sugarcane growth.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased germination rate.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased plant height.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased fresh weight.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased dry weight.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased millable canes.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased stalk diameter.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fertilizers increased stalk length.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the microbial fertilizers can considerably promote sugarcane growth,through enhancing germination rate,increasing plant height,fresh weight,dry weight,millable canes,stalk diameter,and stalk length.”
Claim · model-written summary
Type A increased Cane yields by 7.8% versus CK1.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 7.8% and 5.1%,and 8.4% and 6.6% higher than those of the CK1(common organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Type A increased sugar yields by 5.1% versus CK1.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 7.8% and 5.1%,and 8.4% and 6.6% higher than those of the CK1(common organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Type B increased Cane yields by 8.4% versus CK1.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 7.8% and 5.1%,and 8.4% and 6.6% higher than those of the CK1(common organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Type B increased sugar yields by 6.6% versus CK1.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 7.8% and 5.1%,and 8.4% and 6.6% higher than those of the CK1(common organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Type A increased Cane yields by 10.3% versus CK2.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 10.3% and 9.0%,11.3% and 9.4% higher than those of the CK2(without organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Type A increased sugar yields by 9.0% versus CK2.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 10.3% and 9.0%,11.3% and 9.4% higher than those of the CK2(without organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Type B increased Cane yields by 11.3% versus CK2.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 10.3% and 9.0%,11.3% and 9.4% higher than those of the CK2(without organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Type B increased sugar yields by 9.4% versus CK2.
Verbatim
e0“Cane yields and sugar yields for type A and B were 10.3% and 9.0%,11.3% and 9.4% higher than those of the CK2(without organic fertilizer),respectively.”
t0“Sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
boron atom · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →fertilization · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 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.