Abstract
Abstract The impacts of sugarcane ( Saccharum spp.) production include an extensive area of cultivation, high use of technology, and the generation of by‐products that must be utilized. Achieving higher productivity while reducing the expansion of cultivation is challenging. A potential strategy for increasing sugarcane yields and productivity is the foliar application of nutrients and biostimulants at different stages of sugarcane growth. The present study assessed the impact of the foliar application of nutrients (N, B, Cu, and Zn) and a growth regulator as biostimulant (indole butyric acid, gibberellic acid, and kinetin) on sugarcane metabolism, stalk and sugar production, and quality. Field experiments were performed at 17 sites during four growing seasons (2017–2018, 2018–2019, 2019–2020, and 2020–2021) using sugarcane with three harvest times (early, mid‐late, and late harvests). The treatments were as follows: (i) no foliar application of the biostimulant and nutrients (control), (ii) foliar application of the biostimulant and nutrients at the vegetative stage (VS) of sugarcane, (iii) foliar application of the biostimulant and nutrients at the maturation stage (MS) of sugarcane, and (iv) foliar application of the biostimulant and nutrients at both the vegetative and maturation stages (VMS). Foliar application did not increase ribulose 1,5‐bisphosphate carboxylase activity but increased phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity and the activities of the antioxidant enzymes. Peroxidase and catalase activities were higher, >100% and 45%, respectively, in VMS, whereas superoxide dismutase activity increased by 54% in MS compared with control. Consistent with these results, sugarcane had low hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde contents in VMS. In addition, the plant biometric parameters were highest in VMS, which sugarcane produced 105, 92, and 86 Mg stalk h −1 in early, mid‐late, and late harvest seasons, respectively. In summary, the foliar application of the biostimulant and nutrients efficiently promoted the growth, productivity, and quality of early, mid‐late, and late harvest seasons. The positive effects of foliar application on the enzymatic and physiological responses of sugarcane can be achieved when applications are performed in both the VMS in all harvest seasons.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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
Foliar treatment did not raise Rubisco activity.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Foliar applicatione0
- Outcome
- ribulose 1,5‐bisphosphate carboxylase activitye0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Foliar application did not increase ribulose 1,5‐bisphosphate carboxylase activity”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar treatment raised phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- foliar applicationt0
- Outcome
- phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“increased phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity”
t0“foliar application of nutrients and biostimulant can increase sugarcane yield”
Claim · model-written summary
VMS raised peroxidase activity by more than 100%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Peroxidase and catalase activities were higher, >100% and 45%, respectively, in VMS”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
VMS raised catalase activity by 45%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Peroxidase and catalase activities were higher, >100% and 45%, respectively, in VMS”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
MS raised superoxide dismutase activity by 54% versus control.
Verbatim
e0“superoxide dismutase activity increased by 54% in MS compared with control”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
VMS had low hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde contents.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane had low hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde contents in VMS”
Claim · model-written summary
Biometric parameters were highest under VMS.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the plant biometric parameters were highest in VMS”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Early harvest VMS stalk production was 105 Mg stalk h −1.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane produced 105, 92, and 86 Mg stalk h −1 in early, mid‐late, and late harvest seasons, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mid-late harvest VMS stalk production was 92 Mg stalk h −1.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane produced 105, 92, and 86 Mg stalk h −1 in early, mid‐late, and late harvest seasons, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Late harvest VMS stalk production was 86 Mg stalk h −1.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane produced 105, 92, and 86 Mg stalk h −1 in early, mid‐late, and late harvest seasons, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar inputs promoted growth, productivity, and quality across harvest seasons.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- foliar application of the biostimulant and nutrientse0
- Outcome
- growth, productivity, and qualitye0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the foliar application of the biostimulant and nutrients efficiently promoted the growth, productivity, and quality of early, mid‐late, and late harvest seasons”
t0“sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
application · quality: general · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →other · quality: general · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
stage · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
application · physiology: enzyme activity · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.