Abstract
Abstract The impact of deficit irrigation (DI) on sugarcane ( Saccharum officinarum L.) growth, yield and quality was investigated in field experiments during 2015–2017. The treatments included applying water deficit at three levels (0%, 30% and 60%) during three growth stages (development, mid‐season and end) in order to investigate the impact of a specific water deficit during each growth stage separately. The experiment included 27 treatments replicated twice in a randomized block design. Irrigation scheduling was based on the field soil water balance in the root zone and the water deficit that needed to be provided in the respective treatments. The study found that as the water deficit increased, the growth, yield characteristics and sugarcane yield decreased. Deficit‐free irrigation throughout the season registered maximum cane yield (174 t ha −1 ). Water deficits of 30% and 60% throughout the season reduced sugarcane yield by 14% and 40.7%, respectively, compared with the condition without water deficit. Based on the statistical comparison of yields, the mid‐season stage was identified as the most sensitive stage, followed by the development and end stages according to DI criteria. A water deficit applied at the end of the season had only a minor impact on yield. Without significant yield loss, an irrigation strategy for deficit conditions of 0% water deficit in the development stage, 30% in mid‐season and 60% at the end stage was found to be sufficient. Sugarcane quality parameters did not change substantially when there was a water deficit.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing water deficit decreased sugarcane growth and yield characteristics.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“as the water deficit increased, the growth, yield characteristics and sugarcane yield decreased”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing water deficit decreased sugarcane yield.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“as the water deficit increased, the growth, yield characteristics and sugarcane yield decreased”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit-free irrigation produced maximum cane yield of 174 t ha −1.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit‐free irrigation throughout the season registered maximum cane yield (174 t ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
A 30% season-long deficit reduced sugarcane yield by 14% versus no deficit.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficits of 30% and 60% throughout the season reduced sugarcane yield by 14% and 40.7%, respectively, compared with the condition without water deficit”
Claim · model-written summary
A 60% season-long deficit reduced sugarcane yield by 40.7% versus no deficit.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficits of 30% and 60% throughout the season reduced sugarcane yield by 14% and 40.7%, respectively, compared with the condition without water deficit”
Claim · model-written summary
The mid-season stage was most sensitive to deficit irrigation.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“the mid‐season stage was identified as the most sensitive stage, followed by the development and end stages according to DI criteria”
Claim · model-written summary
End-of-season water deficit had only a minor yield impact.
Not reportedTaxonComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“A water deficit applied at the end of the season had only a minor impact on yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The 0%, 30%, 60% sequence across development, mid-season and end stages avoided significant yield loss.
- Treatment
- 0% water deficit in the development stage, 30% in mid‐season and 60% at the end stagee0
- Outcome
- yield losse0
- Qualifier
- sufficiente0
Not reportedTaxonComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Without significant yield loss, an irrigation strategy for deficit conditions of 0% water deficit in the development stage, 30% in mid‐season and 60% at the end stage was found to be sufficient”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane quality parameters changed little under deficit irrigation.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- quality parameterse0
- Direction
- did not change substantiallye0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane quality parameters did not change substantially when there was a water deficit”
The same questions in other 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
- negative
- negative
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →drought · quality: general · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.