Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during 2004-2005 crop season with seven promising midlate sugarcane varieties along with the resistant standard (Co 86032) in a strip plot design and evaluated for drought tolerance. The impact of moisture stress on various morphological characters such as plant height, leaf number, leaf area and shoot population was recorded at the termination of water stress in both normal and stressed plants. Drought treatment caused an average reduction of 27.89, 22.91, 27.43 and 17.46% in shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI, respectively. Co 99004 and Co 99008 transpired less water and showed relatively higher photosynthetic rate with significant improvement in growth attributes, viz. shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI. Yield and its parameters showed remarkable changes due to inadequate water availability during the formative phase. Water stress led to an average reduction in cane and sugar yield to the tune of 36.36% and 40.36% respectively. However, the reduction was comparatively less in Co 99004 and Co 99012 than the resistant standard (Co 86032).
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
Drought reduced shoot population by 27.89%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Drought treatmente0
- Outcome
- shoot populatione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 27.89e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Drought treatment caused an average reduction of 27.89, 22.91, 27.43 and 17.46% in shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced plant height by 22.91%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Drought treatment caused an average reduction of 27.89, 22.91, 27.43 and 17.46% in shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced leaf production by 27.43%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Drought treatmente0
- Outcome
- leaf productione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 27.43e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Drought treatment caused an average reduction of 27.89, 22.91, 27.43 and 17.46% in shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced LAI by 17.46%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Drought treatment caused an average reduction of 27.89, 22.91, 27.43 and 17.46% in shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Co 99004 transpired less water under drought.
Verbatim
e0“Co 99004 and Co 99008 transpired less water and showed relatively higher photosynthetic rate with significant improvement in growth attributes, viz. shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Co 99008 transpired less water under drought.
Verbatim
e0“Co 99004 and Co 99008 transpired less water and showed relatively higher photosynthetic rate with significant improvement in growth attributes, viz. shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Co 99004 had relatively higher photosynthetic rate and improved growth traits.
Verbatim
e0“Co 99004 and Co 99008 transpired less water and showed relatively higher photosynthetic rate with significant improvement in growth attributes, viz. shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Co 99008 had relatively higher photosynthetic rate and improved growth traits.
Verbatim
e0“Co 99004 and Co 99008 transpired less water and showed relatively higher photosynthetic rate with significant improvement in growth attributes, viz. shoot population, plant height, leaf production and LAI.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress reduced cane yield by 36.36%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Water stress led to an average reduction in cane and sugar yield to the tune of 36.36% and 40.36% respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress reduced sugar yield by 40.36%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Water stress led to an average reduction in cane and sugar yield to the tune of 36.36% and 40.36% respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Co 99004 had less yield reduction than Co 86032 under water stress.
Verbatim
e0“However, the reduction was comparatively less in Co 99004 and Co 99012 than the resistant standard (Co 86032).”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Co 99012 had less yield reduction than Co 86032 under water stress.
Verbatim
e0“However, the reduction was comparatively less in Co 99004 and Co 99012 than the resistant standard (Co 86032).”
t0“sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →drought · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →drought · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →drought · pest · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- 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.