Abstract
ABSTRACT Among the many factors that limit sugarcane crop yield, the precise supply of nutrients and water under drip irrigation systems can be the shortcut to higher yields in the field. This research aimed to evaluate the nutritional efficiency of fertigated sugarcane varieties under deficit irrigation strategies. The experiment was conducted in a rain‐out shelter with the soil type Oxisol Typic Ustox. The experimental design adopted was randomized blocks, with three complete blocks. The treatments were distributed in a factorial scheme (4 × 8), totalling 32 treatments and 96 experimental plots. Four irrigation strategies and eight commercial sugarcane varieties (CTC15, CTC17, RB867515, RB92579, RB931011, RB966928, IAC5000 and NCo376) were studied. Leaf, sheath, pointer and stalk samples were ground for determination of macronutrient and micronutrient contents. All the nutrients had greater quantities allocated to the stalk. The CTC15 variety accumulated a greater quantity of nutrients and was more efficient in terms of gross sugar yield, whereas RB966928 was more efficient in terms of the production of total recoverable sugars and the production of apparent sucrose. The 100% irrigation level provided greater accumulation of nutrients in the aboveground parts, whereas the 50% irrigation level resulted in higher values of nutrient use efficiency.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
All nutrients were allocated in greater quantities to the stalk.
Verbatim
e0“All the nutrients had greater quantities allocated to the stalk.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
CTC15 accumulated more nutrients.
Verbatim
e0“The CTC15 variety accumulated a greater quantity of nutrients and was more efficient in terms of gross sugar yield, whereas RB966928 was more efficient in terms of the production of total recoverable sugars and the production of apparent sucrose.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
CTC15 was more efficient in gross sugar yield.
Verbatim
e0“The CTC15 variety accumulated a greater quantity of nutrients and was more efficient in terms of gross sugar yield, whereas RB966928 was more efficient in terms of the production of total recoverable sugars and the production of apparent sucrose.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
RB966928 was more efficient for total recoverable sugars.
Verbatim
e0“The CTC15 variety accumulated a greater quantity of nutrients and was more efficient in terms of gross sugar yield, whereas RB966928 was more efficient in terms of the production of total recoverable sugars and the production of apparent sucrose.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
RB966928 was more efficient for apparent sucrose production.
Verbatim
e0“The CTC15 variety accumulated a greater quantity of nutrients and was more efficient in terms of gross sugar yield, whereas RB966928 was more efficient in terms of the production of total recoverable sugars and the production of apparent sucrose.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation increased aboveground nutrient accumulation.
Verbatim
e0“The 100% irrigation level provided greater accumulation of nutrients in the aboveground parts, whereas the 50% irrigation level resulted in higher values of nutrient use efficiency.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Half irrigation produced higher nutrient use efficiency.
Verbatim
e0“The 100% irrigation level provided greater accumulation of nutrients in the aboveground parts, whereas the 50% irrigation level resulted in higher values of nutrient use efficiency.”
t0“Sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.