Paper · 2026 · Applied Water Science

Optimizing irrigation and planting techniques for improved water productivity and sucrose content in sugarcane under arid conditions of upper Egypt

Mohamed A. Ashour; Yasser M. Ali; Ahmed E. Hasan; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates the impact of transitioning from flood to drip irrigation on sugarcane cultivation in Upper Egypt. It evaluates how planting methods—cane stalks and plantlets—affect sugar quality under both systems. A selected set of crop samples was analyzed for sucrose content in the official laboratory of the Ministry of Irrigation. The results offer insights into the economic benefits of drip irrigation, highlighting its role in enhancing sugar quality and returns. Drip irrigation, particularly with plantlets, achieves a maximum sucrose content of 14.3%, a 21.2% improvement over the 11.8% under flood irrigation. This sugar quality enhancement is accompanied by a substantial yield increase: up to 9,895.6 kg/acre with drip irrigation vs. 5,351.9 kg/acre with flood irrigation—an 84.9% increase. Drip systems also show higher water-use efficiency, generating 1.45 kg of sugar per cubic meter of water, compared to 0.46 kg/m³ for flood. Application efficiencies range from 85% to 90% for drip, versus 45%–50% for flood. The study highlights the potential of drip irrigation in arid regions like Upper Egypt, where water scarcity is a major concern. Integrating modern irrigation with local conditions enhances both production and sustainability. These findings emphasize the dual benefits of higher yield and water savings, maximizing returns and reinforcing agricultural resilience under climate and water stress.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip irrigation with plantlets achieved 14.3% sucrose, a 21.2% improvement over flood irrigation.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Drip irrigation, particularly with plantletse0
Outcome
sucrose contente0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
14.3%e0
Comparator
flood irrigatione0

Verbatim

e0

“Drip irrigation, particularly with plantlets, achieves a maximum sucrose content of 14.3%, a 21.2% improvement over the 11.8% under flood irrigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–639 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 101–110 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip irrigation increased yield to 9,895.6 kg/acre compared with 5,351.9 kg/acre under flood irrigation.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
drip irrigatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
9,895.6 kg/acree0
Comparator
flood irrigatione0

Verbatim

e0

“yield increase: up to 9,895.6 kg/acre with drip irrigation vs. 5,351.9 kg/acre with flood irrigation—an 84.9% increase”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–822 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 101–110 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip irrigation produced 1.45 kg sugar per cubic meter of water versus 0.46 for flood irrigation.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Drip systemse0
Outcome
water-use efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Value
1.45 kg of sugar per cubic meter of watere0
Comparator
floode0

Verbatim

e0

“Drip systems also show higher water-use efficiency, generating 1.45 kg of sugar per cubic meter of water, compared to 0.46 kg/m³ for flood”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–962 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 101–110 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip application efficiency was 85% to 90%, exceeding flood at 45%–50%.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
dripe0
Outcome
Application efficienciese0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
85% to 90%e0
Comparator
floode0

Verbatim

e0

“Application efficiencies range from 85% to 90% for drip, versus 45%–50% for flood”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 964–1045 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 101–110 · show in text ↑

irrigation · physiology: water · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 31 positive, 5 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. negative

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

41 papers: 24 positive, 17 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

irrigation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

142 papers: 129 positive, 13 negative or no effect

128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
    Full irrigation produced higher cane yield than the two deficit regimes.

    Irrigation Water Use Efficiency and Water Productivity of Commercial Sugarcane Hybrids under Water-Limited Conditions · 2020 · compared with deficit irrigation at recommended intervals with 50% crop ET replacement (I 1 ) and skipping alternate irrigations with 50% crop ET replacement (I 2 )

    Same directionCited by this paper

  2. positive
  3. positive

138 papers more in this group

See all 142 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.