Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a specified water deficit during a specified growth stage by replenishing root zone soil water. A field experiment was conducted with 27 treatments in randomized block design comprising groupings of different root zone soil water replenishment levels (100%, 70%, and 40%) during different growth stages (tillering, grand growth, and maturity) over three full‐year seasons of 2015–2017 in clay soils of semi‐arid western India. The full‐season 100% soil water replenishment produced higher yield (174 t ha −1 ), net monetary returns, and benefit‐cost (B:C) ratio that decreased linearly with linear decrease in water use. Full‐season 40% soil water replenishment caused a reduction in yield of about 40.7%, whereas a 70% replenishment caused a reduction in yield by 14%. The quality parameters of sugarcane improved non‐significantly in high‐water‐deficit conditions compared with full irrigation. The smaller range of water productivity in all seasons indicated a linear decrease when irrigation water increased and yields decreased under the different treatments. The net income and B:C ratio related to marketable cane yield was highest in 100% soil water replenishment (INR 274,000 ha −1 and 1.58, respectively) and then declined with the decrease in water use depth. The water deficit imposed during the long‐duration grand growth stage had adverse effects on cane yield, followed by tillering and maturity stages. Deficit irrigation scheduling at 100%, 70%, and 40% soil water replenishment at tillering, grand growth, and maturity stages, respectively, was appropriate. The water requirement of seasonal sugarcane under full irrigation and water deficit conditions was 1,320 and 1,150 mm, 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Full-season 100% soil water replenishment produced higher sugarcane yield, 174 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- 100% soil water replenishmente1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 174 t ha −1e1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e1“100% soil water replenishment produced higher yield (174 t ha −1 ), net monetary returns, and benefit‐cost (B:C) ratio that decreased linearly with linear decrease in water use”
Claim · model-written summary
Net monetary returns and the B:C ratio decreased linearly with decreasing water use in sugarcane.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e1“100% soil water replenishment produced higher yield (174 t ha −1 ), net monetary returns, and benefit‐cost (B:C) ratio that decreased linearly with linear decrease in water use”
Claim · model-written summary
Full-season 40% soil water replenishment reduced sugarcane yield by about 40.7%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- 40% soil water replenishmente2
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- reductione2
- Value
- 40.7%e2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e2“40% soil water replenishment caused a reduction in yield of about 40.7%”
Claim · model-written summary
A 70% soil water replenishment reduced sugarcane yield by 14%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e3“a 70% replenishment caused a reduction in yield by 14%”
Claim · model-written summary
Quality parameters of sugarcane improved non-significantly under high-water-deficit conditions compared with full irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e4“The quality parameters of sugarcane improved non‐significantly in high‐water‐deficit conditions compared with full irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Water productivity showed a linear decrease as irrigation water increased in sugarcane.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e5“The smaller range of water productivity in all seasons indicated a linear decrease when irrigation water increased and yields decreased under the different treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Net income related to marketable cane yield was highest under 100% soil water replenishment, INR 274,000 ha −1.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- 100% soil water replenishmente6
- Outcome
- net incomee6
- Direction
- higheste6
- Value
- INR 274,000 ha −1e6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e6“The net income and B:C ratio related to marketable cane yield was highest in 100% soil water replenishment (INR 274,000 ha −1 and 1.58, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
The B:C ratio related to marketable cane yield was highest under 100% soil water replenishment, at 1.58.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- 100% soil water replenishmente6
- Outcome
- B:C ratioe6
- Direction
- higheste6
- Value
- 1.58e6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e6“The net income and B:C ratio related to marketable cane yield was highest in 100% soil water replenishment (INR 274,000 ha −1 and 1.58, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit imposed during the grand growth stage had adverse effects on cane yield, more than during tillering and maturity stages.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e7“The water deficit imposed during the long‐duration grand growth stage had adverse effects on cane yield, followed by tillering and maturity stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation scheduling at 100%, 70% and 40% replenishment at tillering, grand growth and maturity stages is appropriate for sugarcane.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e0“Deficit irrigation scheduling at 100%, 70%, and 40% soil water replenishment at tillering, grand growth, and maturity stages, respectively, was appropriate”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal sugarcane water requirement was 1,320 mm under full irrigation and 1,150 mm under water deficit.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarcane response”
e0“The water requirement of seasonal sugarcane under full irrigation and water deficit conditions was 1,320 and 1,150 mm, respectively”
The same questions in other papers
soil water · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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 →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.