Paper · 2002 · Journal of Experimental Botany

Effects of treatments potentially influencing the supply of assimilate on its partitioning in sugarcane

N.W. Pammenter; J.C.S. Allison

12
claims
27
verbatim quotes
2
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Two pot experiments and one field experiment were conducted on sugarcane to assess the effects of treatments expected to change total carbon assimilation on the partitioning of assimilate.In the first experiment pots of cultivars CP and N14 were arranged to simulate normal field spacing.At 5 months, plants were partially defoliated or left intact.In the subsequent four months, defoliation resulted in a small (not significant) decrease in total dry mass increment; it increased the proportional partitioning of assimilates to leaves in N14, whilst in CP it increased the proportional partitioning to stems.In both cultivars defoliation increased proportional allocation to non-structural dry matter, and thus sucrose, in the stem.In the second experiment pots of cv.CP were grown at normal spacing for 4 months, then left untreated, shaded, or placed further apart.During the subsequent four months shading decreased total dry matter increment, but increased proportional partitioning to the stems, and within stems to non-structural dry matter, and so sucrose.Widened spacing increased total assimilation, but decreased proportional allocation to stems; partitioning within the stems was not affected.In the field experiment plants of both cultivars were partially defoliated at 6 months, or left intact.Defoliation resulted in only a very small decrease in stem dry mass increment during the subsequent four months (leaves were not measured).Within the stem partial defoliation caused proportionally increased partitioning to non-structural dry matter, hence to sucrose.The results suggest that sucrose storage receives priority in the allocation of assimilate, rather than representing the accumulation of assimilate not required for vegetative growth.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Defoliation caused a small, nonsignificant decrease in total dry mass increment.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
defoliatione0
Outcome
total dry mass incremente0
Direction
decreasee0
Qualifier
smalle0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“defoliation resulted in a small (not significant) decrease in total dry mass increment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–466 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Defoliation increased proportional assimilate partitioning to leaves in N14.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Material
N14e0
Treatment
defoliatione1
Outcome
proportional partitioning of assimilates to leavese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“it increased the proportional partitioning of assimilates to leaves in N14”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 468–542 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
e1

“defoliation resulted in a small (not significant) decrease in total dry mass increment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–466 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Defoliation increased proportional assimilate partitioning to stems in CP.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Material
CPe0
Treatment
defoliatione1
Outcome
proportional partitioning to stemse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“whilst in CP it increased the proportional partitioning to stems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 544–608 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
e1

“defoliation resulted in a small (not significant) decrease in total dry mass increment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–466 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Defoliation increased proportional allocation to nonstructural dry matter and sucrose in the stem in both cultivars.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
defoliatione0
Outcome
proportional allocation to non-structural dry matter, and thus sucrose, in the steme0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“In both cultivars defoliation increased proportional allocation to non-structural dry matter, and thus sucrose, in the stem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–732 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shading decreased total dry matter increment.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
shadinge0
Outcome
total dry matter incremente0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“shading decreased total dry matter increment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–946 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shading increased proportional allocation to stems and their nonstructural dry matter and sucrose.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
shadinge0
Outcome
proportional partitioning to the stems, and within stems to non-structural dry matter, and so sucrosee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“shading decreased total dry matter increment, but increased proportional partitioning to the stems, and within stems to non-structural dry matter, and so sucrose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–1063 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Widened spacing increased total assimilation.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Widened spacinge0
Outcome
total assimilatione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Widened spacing increased total assimilation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1108 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Widened spacing decreased proportional allocation to stems.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Widened spacinge0
Outcome
proportional allocation to stemse0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Widened spacing increased total assimilation, but decreased proportional allocation to stems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1156 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Widened spacing did not affect partitioning within stems.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Widened spacinge1
Outcome
partitioning within the stemse0
Direction
not affectede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“partitioning within the stems was not affected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1158–1204 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
e1

“Widened spacing increased total assimilation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1108 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field defoliation caused only a very small decrease in stem dry mass increment.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Defoliatione0
Outcome
stem dry mass incremente0
Direction
decreasee0
Qualifier
only a very smalle0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Defoliation resulted in only a very small decrease in stem dry mass increment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1308–1385 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field defoliation increased stem allocation to nonstructural dry matter and sucrose.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
partial defoliatione0
Outcome
partitioning to non-structural dry matter, hence to sucrosee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Within the stem partial defoliation caused proportionally increased partitioning to non-structural dry matter, hence to sucrose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1447–1574 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Authors infer that sucrose storage has priority in assimilate allocation.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Outcome
sucrose storage receives prioritye0
Qualifier
allocation of assimilatee0

Verbatim

e0

“The results suggest that sucrose storage receives priority in the allocation of assimilate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1575–1665 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–103 · show in text ↑

pruning · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 5 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 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.