Abstract
L.). In this experiment, we evaluated the impact of potassium (K) and micronutrients [viz. Zinc (Zn), Iron (Fe), and Boron (B)] application and irrigation water from two sources, viz. canal, and tube well water on sugarcane growth, yield, and cane quality under field trails. Water samples from Mardan (canal water) and Rahim Yar Khan (tube well water) were analyzed for chemical and nutritional attributes. The results revealed that tube well water's electrical conductivity (EC) was three-fold that of canal water. Based on the EC and total dissolved salts (TDS), 83.33% of the samples were suitable for irrigation, while the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) indicated only a 4.76% fit and a 35.71% marginal fit compared with canal water. Furthermore, the application of K along with B, Fe, and Zn had led to a significant increase in cane height (12.8%, 9.8%, and 10.6%), cane girth (15.8%, 15.6%, and 11.6%), cane yield (13.7%, 12.3%, and 11.5%), brix contents (14%, 12.2%, and 13%), polarity (15.4%, 1.4%, and 14%), and sugar recovery (7.3%, 5.9%, and 6%) in the tube well irrigation system. For the canal water system, B, Fe, and Zn increased cane height by 15.3%, 13.42%, and 11.6%, cane girth by 13.9%, 9.9%, and 6.5%, cane yield by 42.9%, 43.5%, and 42%, brix content by 10.9%, 7.7%, and 8%, polarity by 33.4%, 28%, and 30%, and sugar recovery by 4.0%, 3.9%, and 2.0%, respectively, compared with sole NPK application. In conclusion, the utilization of tube well water in combination with canal water has shown better results in terms of yield and quality compared with the sole application of canal water. In addition, the combined application of K and B significantly improved sugarcane yields compared with Zn and Fe, even with marginally suitable irrigation water.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Tube well water had triple the conductivity of canal water.
Verbatim
e0“tube well water's electrical conductivity (EC) was three-fold that of canal water”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
EC and TDS criteria deemed 83.33% of water samples irrigation suitable.
Verbatim
e0“Based on the EC and total dissolved salts (TDS), 83.33% of the samples were suitable for irrigation”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
SAR deemed 4.76% fit and 35.71% marginally fit.
Verbatim
e0“the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) indicated only a 4.76% fit and a 35.71% marginal fit compared with canal water”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
SAR deemed 35.71% marginally fit.
Verbatim
e0“a 35.71% marginal fit compared with canal water”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under tube well irrigation, K plus B, Fe and Zn increased cane height by 12.8%, 9.8% and 10.6%, respectively.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- K along with B, Fe, and Zne0
- Outcome
- cane heighte0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 12.8%, 9.8%, and 10.6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“application of K along with B, Fe, and Zn had led to a significant increase in cane height (12.8%, 9.8%, and 10.6%)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under tube well irrigation, the micronutrient treatments increased cane girth.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“cane girth (15.8%, 15.6%, and 11.6%)”
e1“significant increase in cane height”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under tube well irrigation, the micronutrient treatments increased cane yield.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“cane yield (13.7%, 12.3%, and 11.5%)”
e1“significant increase in cane height”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under tube well irrigation, the micronutrient treatments increased brix.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“brix contents (14%, 12.2%, and 13%)”
e1“significant increase in cane height”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under tube well irrigation, the micronutrient treatments increased polarity.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“polarity (15.4%, 1.4%, and 14%)”
e1“significant increase in cane height”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under tube well irrigation, the micronutrient treatments increased sugar recovery.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“sugar recovery (7.3%, 5.9%, and 6%)”
e1“significant increase in cane height”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
With canal water, B, Fe and Zn increased cane height by 15.3%, 13.42% and 11.6%.
Verbatim
e0“For the canal water system, B, Fe, and Zn increased cane height by 15.3%, 13.42%, and 11.6%”
e1“compared with sole NPK application”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
With canal water, B, Fe and Zn increased cane girth by 13.9%, 9.9% and 6.5%.
Verbatim
e0“cane girth by 13.9%, 9.9%, and 6.5%”
e1“B, Fe, and Zn increased”
e2“compared with sole NPK application”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
With canal water, B, Fe and Zn increased cane yield by 42.9%, 43.5% and 42%.
Verbatim
e0“cane yield by 42.9%, 43.5%, and 42%”
e1“B, Fe, and Zn increased”
e2“compared with sole NPK application”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
With canal water, B, Fe and Zn increased brix by 10.9%, 7.7% and 8%.
Verbatim
e0“brix content by 10.9%, 7.7%, and 8%”
e1“B, Fe, and Zn increased”
e2“compared with sole NPK application”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
With canal water, B, Fe and Zn increased polarity by 33.4%, 28% and 30%.
Verbatim
e0“polarity by 33.4%, 28%, and 30%”
e1“B, Fe, and Zn increased”
e2“compared with sole NPK application”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
With canal water, B, Fe and Zn increased sugar recovery by 4.0%, 3.9% and 2.0%.
Verbatim
e0“sugar recovery by 4.0%, 3.9%, and 2.0%”
e1“B, Fe, and Zn increased”
e2“compared with sole NPK application”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining tube well and canal water improved yield and quality over canal water alone.
Verbatim
e0“utilization of tube well water in combination with canal water has shown better results in terms of yield and quality compared with the sole application of canal water”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
K and B improved sugarcane yields relative to Zn and Fe.
Verbatim
e0“combined application of K and B significantly improved sugarcane yields compared with Zn and Fe, even with marginally suitable irrigation water”
The same questions in other papers
iron atom · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →zinc atom · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →zinc atom · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →iron atom · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
iron atom · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
zinc atom · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
10 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.