flooding · Yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)
13 claims from these papers; 6 citations between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Sugarcane Response to Water Table, Periodic Flood, and Foliar Nitrogen on Organic Soil (2006)
increasePeriodic flooding increased plant-crop cane and sucrose yield.
Flooding tolerance of sugarcane genotypes under recurring floods in plant and ratoon crops (2024)decreaseFlooding reduced commercial cane sugar yield.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
6 citations between these papers: 2 on the same side, 4 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 4
Sugarcane Response to Water Table, Periodic Flood, and Foliar Nitrogen on Organic Soil · 2006
- positive
- positive
Sugarcane Response to Month and Duration of Preharvest Flood · 2007
- positive
Morpho-physiological responses of sugarcane crop under waterlogging condition · 2016
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 4
Periodic Flooding and Water Table Effects on Two Sugarcane Genotypes · 2004
- negative
- no effect
- negative
Sugarcane Response to High Water Tables and Intermittent Flooding · 2009
- no effect
Does the tolerance of sugarcane to excess water in the soil depend on the stage of development? · 2019
- no effect
Flooding tolerance of sugarcane genotypes under recurring floods in plant and ratoon crops · 2024
- negative
- negative
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.