Paper · 2024 · International Journal of Environment and Climate Change

Growth and Yield of Sugarcane (Saccharam officinarum) as Influenced by Planting Materials and Plant Geometry

K. Sathiya; A. Thirumurugan; T. Ragavan; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Sugarcane Research Station, Melalathur, from 2010 to 2012, aiming to investigate the impact of plant geometry (5 x 2 ft single row, 5 x 1 ft double row) and various planting materials (single budded setts, double budded setts, and transplanting of sprouted seedlings). The results indicated that transplanting cane using chip bud seedlings exhibited significant establishment and vigor compared to direct planting of setts. In terms of planting geometry, the crop planted in a 5 x 1 ft double row configuration demonstrated a higher number of tillers and millable cane. However, when considering single cane weight, commercial cane sugar percentage, and benefit-cost ratio, the 5 x 2 ft planted crop outperformed, showcasing higher cane yield in comparison to other treatments.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Transplanted chip bud seedlings showed greater establishment and vigor than directly planted setts.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
transplanting cane using chip bud seedlingse0
Outcome
establishment and vigore0
Comparator
direct planting of settse0

Not reportedSettingDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane (Saccharam officinarum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–53 · show in text ↑
e0

“transplanting cane using chip bud seedlings exhibited significant establishment and vigor compared to direct planting of setts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–458 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 5 x 1 ft double row configuration produced more tillers and millable cane.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
5 x 1 ft double row configuratione0
Outcome
number of tillers and millable canee0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane (Saccharam officinarum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–53 · show in text ↑
e0

“the crop planted in a 5 x 1 ft double row configuration demonstrated a higher number of tillers and millable cane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–604 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 5 x 2 ft planting geometry yielded higher single cane weight, commercial cane sugar percentage and benefit-cost ratio.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
5 x 2 ft planted crope0
Outcome
single cane weight, commercial cane sugar percentage, and benefit-cost ratioe0
Direction
outperformede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane (Saccharam officinarum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–53 · show in text ↑
e0

“when considering single cane weight, commercial cane sugar percentage, and benefit-cost ratio, the 5 x 2 ft planted crop outperformed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 615–748 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 5 x 2 ft planting geometry produced higher cane yield than other treatments.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

Not reportedTreatment

Verbatim

t0

“Sugarcane (Saccharam officinarum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–53 · show in text ↑
e0

“showcasing higher cane yield in comparison to other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 750–812 · show in text ↑

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

7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.