Abstract
The results of the field experiment entitled "Effect of various priming techniques of single eye bud setts and fertilizer levels on growth, yield attributes and yield of sugarcane" conducted at College Farm, N. M. College of Agriculture, NAU, Navsari (Gujarat) during the rabi seasons of 2022-2023, and 2023-24.The soil of the experimental field was clay in texture, with normal electrical conductivity.The soil was low in organic carbon and available nitrogen, medium in available P2O5, high in available K2O and slightly alkaline in reaction during both the year, respectively.Initial and final plant population did not exert any significant influence by different priming techniques.Significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plant, number of millable canes per hectare and cane yield were recorded by treatment P4 (priming of cane setts in a mixture of cattle dung, cattle urine and water (1:2:5 ratio) along with Acetobacter, PSB and KMB (1:1:1 ratio, each at 10 ml/litre) for 30 minutes) but it was found statistically at par with treatment P3 during both the year and in pooled analysis.The highest gross return, net return and B:C ratio were obtained with the treatment P4 followed by treatment P3 on pooled basis.Initial and final plant population was not influenced by the different fertilizer levels.Fertilizing the sugarcane with 125% RDF + soil treatment of biofertilizer (Acetobactor + PSB + KMB each @ 1 lit/ha) at 1 month after planting (F6) recorded significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plant, number of millable canes per hectare and cane yield which was statistically at par with the treatment F5 during both the year and in pooled analysis.Treatment F6 gave the highest gross return, net return and B:C ratio followed by treatment F5 on pooled basis.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Different bud-sett priming techniques did not significantly affect initial and final plant population.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- different priming techniquese1
- Outcome
- Initial and final plant populatione1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“Initial and final plant population did not exert any significant influence by different priming techniques”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment P4 gave significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, tillers per plant at 120 DATP and internodes per plant.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- P4e1
- Outcome
- plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plante1
- Direction
- highere1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“Significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plant, number of millable canes per hectare and cane yield were recorded by treatment P4”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment P4 gave significantly higher numbers of millable canes per hectare and cane yield.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- P4e1
- Outcome
- number of millable canes per hectare and cane yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“Significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plant, number of millable canes per hectare and cane yield were recorded by treatment P4”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment P4 was statistically at par with treatment P3.
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“but it was found statistically at par with treatment P3 during both the year and in pooled analysis”
e2“recorded by treatment P4”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment P4 gave the highest gross return, net return and B:C ratio.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- treatment P4e1
- Outcome
- gross return, net return and B:C ratioe1
- Direction
- higheste1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“The highest gross return, net return and B:C ratio were obtained with the treatment P4”
Claim · model-written summary
Different fertilizer levels did not influence initial and final plant population.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- different fertilizer levelse1
- Outcome
- Initial and final plant populatione1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“Initial and final plant population was not influenced by the different fertilizer levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment F6 (125% RDF with soil biofertilizer) gave significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, tillers per plant at 120 DATP and internodes per plant.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee1
- Treatment
- 125% RDF + soil treatment of biofertilizere1
- Outcome
- plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plante1
- Direction
- highere1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Fertilizing the sugarcane with 125% RDF + soil treatment of biofertilizer (Acetobactor + PSB + KMB each @ 1 lit/ha) at 1 month after planting (F6) recorded significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment F6 gave significantly higher numbers of millable canes per hectare and cane yield.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee2
- Treatment
- 125% RDF + soil treatment of biofertilizere2
- Outcome
- number of millable canes per hectare and cane yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“recorded significantly higher plant height at different growth stages, number of tillers per plant at 120 DATP, number of internodes per plant, number of millable canes per hectare and cane yield”
e2“Fertilizing the sugarcane with 125% RDF + soil treatment of biofertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment F6 was statistically at par with treatment F5.
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“which was statistically at par with the treatment F5 during both the year and in pooled analysis”
e2“at 1 month after planting (F6)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment F6 gave the highest gross return, net return and B:C ratio, followed by F5 on a pooled basis.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Treatment F6e1
- Outcome
- gross return, net return and B:C ratioe1
- Direction
- higheste1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“yield of sugarcane”
e1“Treatment F6 gave the highest gross return, net return and B:C ratio followed by treatment F5 on pooled basis”
The same questions in other papers
seed treatment · pest · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
fertilization · pest · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →inoculation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
311 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 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.