Abstract
Sugarcane flower control studies were conducted with Paraquat, gibberellic acid (GA) and sodium meta-silicate (Si) applied as foliar sprays just prior to the period of floral initiation. The test clone, C.P. 52-43, blooms heavily in southern Puerto Rico and initiates flower primordia about September 10. The primary objective was to determine whether flowering could be prevented by physiologically removing the apical meristem, with a growth stimulant such as GA, rather than by destruction of the green top, as by treatment with a desiccant such as Paraquat. Secondary objectives included comparisons of growth and sugar responses to GA and Paraquat, and to determine whether Si, believed to act as a buffer against physiological extremes, possessed anti-flowering activity. Two experiments were conducted simultaneously in a field of 7-months old, first-ratoon cane at Central Mercedita, Ponce. Each experiment was given identical spray applications of GA and Si; in addition, one experiment received Paraquat superimposed over all plots shortly after the GA and Si applications were complete. Aqueous GA, 0.01 percent active material, was applied with knapsack sprayers to 1/1000-acre plots in volumes equal to 300 gallons per acre. Si was similarly applied at the level of 500 p.p.m. Treatments also included GA and Si combined in one solution. Paraquat was applied by aircraft at the rate of 0.5 pint per acre in 8 gallons of water per acre. GA and Si treatments were given on August 22 and repeated on August 29. Paraquat was applied once on September 1. The following results were obtained: 1. Flower counts taken on December 27 showed that GA given alone was the most effective treatment, reducing flowering rates to 0.02 percent. Paraquat reduced flowering to about one-third of control levels. Si had no effect by itself, but reduced the effectiveness of GA when the two agents were combined. 2. Total green weights, stalk weights, and internode lengths were increased by GA. Each parameter was decreased by Paraquat. Si given alone appeared to increase total green weight and stalk weight but the responses were not statistically significant. The primary effect of Si in combination with GA and Paraquat was to reduce the degree of growth stimulation by the hormone, and to lessen the growth suppression by the desiccant. 3. Sugar production was increased by GA and decreased by Paraquat. Paraquat also lessened the degree and duration of positive GA effects. Si had little effect on sugar as a lone entity but produced a buffering effect against relative sugar extremes as it did for growth extremes. 4. Early Paraquat injury to leaves, and hence to sugar-forming mechanisms, appeared to be more than compensated after about 2 months. Tonnage losses due to the foliar injury appeared to be permanent. 5. GA growth stimulation was followed by a reversion to less than normal growth. This growth reversion detracted from the total growth increases that otherwise might have been achieved. It was proposed that growth decline could be lessened with Si given as a delayed or follow-up treatment after GA. 6. Present evidence is consistent with the view that sugarcane flowering can be prevented more effectively by stimulating the apical meristem, at the critical period of flower initiation, than by destroying foliate essential for maximum growth and sugar production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
GA alone reduced sugarcane flowering rates to 0.02 percent.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“GA given alone was the most effective treatment, reducing flowering rates to 0.02 percent”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Paraquat reduced flowering to about one-third of control levels.
Verbatim
e0“Paraquat reduced flowering to about one-third of control levels”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Si alone had no effect on flowering.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Si had no effect by itself”
e1“GA given alone was the most effective treatment, reducing flowering rates to 0.02 percent”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Si reduced the flowering-control effectiveness of GA when combined.
Verbatim
e0“reduced the effectiveness of GA when the two agents were combined”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
GA increased total green weight, stalk weight, and internode length.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- GAe0
- Outcome
- Total green weights, stalk weights, and internode lengthse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Total green weights, stalk weights, and internode lengths were increased by GA”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Paraquat decreased total green weight, stalk weight, and internode length.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Paraquate0
- Outcome
- Total green weights, stalk weights, and internode lengthse1
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Each parameter was decreased by Paraquat”
e1“Total green weights, stalk weights, and internode lengths were increased by GA”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Si alone appeared to increase green and stalk weights, without statistical significance.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Si given alone appeared to increase total green weight and stalk weight but the responses were not statistically significant”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Si reduced GA growth stimulation.
Verbatim
e0“reduce the degree of growth stimulation by the hormone”
e1“Si in combination with GA and Paraquat”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Si lessened Paraquat growth suppression.
Verbatim
e0“lessen the growth suppression by the desiccant”
e1“Si in combination with GA and Paraquat”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
GA increased sugar production.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sugar production was increased by GA”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Paraquat decreased sugar production.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sugar production was increased by GA and decreased by Paraquat”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Paraquat lessened the degree and duration of positive GA effects.
Verbatim
e0“Paraquat also lessened the degree and duration of positive GA effects”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Si alone had little effect on sugar production.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Si had little effect on sugar as a lone entity”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Si buffered extremes in sugar production.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“produced a buffering effect against relative sugar extremes”
e1“Si had little effect on sugar as a lone entity”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Early Paraquat leaf injury appeared more than compensated after about two months.
Verbatim
e0“Early Paraquat injury to leaves, and hence to sugar-forming mechanisms, appeared to be more than compensated after about 2 months”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Tonnage losses from Paraquat foliar injury appeared permanent.
Verbatim
e0“Tonnage losses due to the foliar injury appeared to be permanent”
e1“Early Paraquat injury to leaves”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
GA growth stimulation was followed by below-normal growth.
Verbatim
e0“GA growth stimulation was followed by a reversion to less than normal growth”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The later growth decline reduced the total growth increase achievable with GA.
Verbatim
e0“This growth reversion detracted from the total growth increases that otherwise might have been achieved”
e1“GA growth stimulation was followed by a reversion to less than normal growth”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors proposed delayed Si application after GA to lessen growth decline.
Verbatim
e0“It was proposed that growth decline could be lessened with Si given as a delayed or follow-up treatment after GA”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that stimulating the apical meristem may prevent flowering more effectively than destroying foliage.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane flowering can be prevented more effectively by stimulating the apical meristem, at the critical period of flower initiation, than by destroying foliate essential for maximum growth and sugar production”
The same questions in other papers
Gibberellic acid · control · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
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 →Gibberellic acid · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →silicon atom · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →paraquat · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
paraquat · phenology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
paraquat · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.