Abstract
Well-watered crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk) were grown in south-eastern Queensland. Treatments consisted of four sowing dates, two intra-row spacings and harvests taken at six physiological growth stages from the third ligule to 3 weeks after grain maturity. Plant density effects on the concentration of sugars and nitrogen were slight, and changes in yields of these components were a function of density effects on dry matter yields. At any growth stage, the concentration of sugars in both cultivars was decreased with delay in sowing date. The delay in sowing date led to an increased nitrogen concentration in cv. Wray, but in cv. Silk the nitrogen concentration was highest in early and late sowings. At maturity, the concentration of sugars in cv. Wray averaged 40'70, 10 times the level in cv. Silk. In both cultivars, accumulation was a near linear function of either time or radiation sum. The partitioning of carbohydrate differed little between cultivars but altered with their ontogeny. The efficiency of light use for sugars production was greater in cv. Wray and altered with ontogeny. In contrast, concentration of nitrogen was similar for both cultivars and decreased curvilinearly with time or degree days. The partitioning of nitrogen altered with ontogeny and the amount partitioned to leaf material was greater in cv. Silk pre-anthesis but was less post-anthesis. Yield of stem sugars in cv. Wray exceeded 10 t ha-1 when the crops were sown early in the season, but was only 3 t ha-1 with late-sown crops.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Plant density had only slight effects on sugar and nitrogen concentrations.
SorghumNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant density effects on the concentration of sugars and nitrogen were slight”
e1“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Density-related changes in sugar and nitrogen yield reflected dry matter yield effects.
- Treatment
- Plant densitye1
- Outcome
- yields of these componentse0
- Qualifier
- density effects on dry matter yieldse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“changes in yields of these components were a function of density effects on dry matter yields”
e1“Plant density effects on the concentration of sugars and nitrogen were slight”
e2“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Later sowing decreased sugar concentration in both sorghum cultivars at any growth stage.
- Material
- both cultivarse0
- Treatment
- delay in sowing datee0
- Outcome
- concentration of sugarse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- At any growth stagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At any growth stage, the concentration of sugars in both cultivars was decreased with delay in sowing date”
e1“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed sowing increased nitrogen concentration in cv. Wray.
- Taxon
- sweet sorghume1
- Material
- cv. Wraye0
- Treatment
- delay in sowing datee0
- Outcome
- nitrogen concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The delay in sowing date led to an increased nitrogen concentration in cv. Wray”
e1“sweet sorghum (cv. Wray)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen concentration in cv. Silk was highest in early and late sowings.
Verbatim
e0“in cv. Silk the nitrogen concentration was highest in early and late sowings”
e1“forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
At maturity, cv. Wray sugar concentration averaged 40'70, ten times cv. Silk.
Verbatim
e0“At maturity, the concentration of sugars in cv. Wray averaged 40'70, 10 times the level in cv. Silk”
e1“sweet sorghum (cv. Wray)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar accumulation in both cultivars was nearly linear with time or radiation sum.
Not reportedOrgan / stageSettingDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both cultivars, accumulation was a near linear function of either time or radiation sum”
e1“concentration of sugars in cv. Wray”
e2“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbohydrate partitioning differed little between cultivars.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The partitioning of carbohydrate differed little between cultivars”
e1“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbohydrate partitioning changed with ontogeny.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“partitioning of carbohydrate differed little between cultivars but altered with their ontogeny”
e1“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-use efficiency for sugar production was greater in cv. Wray.
Verbatim
e0“The efficiency of light use for sugars production was greater in cv. Wray”
e1“sweet sorghum (cv. Wray)”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-use efficiency for sugar production changed with ontogeny.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“efficiency of light use for sugars production was greater in cv. Wray and altered with ontogeny”
e1“sweet sorghum (cv. Wray)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen concentration was similar between cultivars.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“concentration of nitrogen was similar for both cultivars”
e1“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen concentration decreased curvilinearly with time or degree days.
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“concentration of nitrogen was similar for both cultivars and decreased curvilinearly with time or degree days”
e1“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen partitioning changed with ontogeny.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The partitioning of nitrogen altered with ontogeny”
e1“crops of sweet sorghum (cv. Wray) and forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
More nitrogen was partitioned to leaves in cv. Silk before anthesis.
Verbatim
e0“amount partitioned to leaf material was greater in cv. Silk pre-anthesis”
e1“forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Less nitrogen was partitioned to leaves in cv. Silk after anthesis.
Verbatim
e0“amount partitioned to leaf material was greater in cv. Silk pre-anthesis but was less post-anthesis”
e1“forage sorghum (cv. Silk)”
Claim · model-written summary
Early-sown cv. Wray crops yielded more than 10 t ha-1 stem sugars.
Verbatim
e0“Yield of stem sugars in cv. Wray exceeded 10 t ha-1 when the crops were sown early in the season”
e1“sweet sorghum (cv. Wray)”
Claim · model-written summary
Late-sown cv. Wray crops yielded only 3 t ha-1 stem sugars.
Verbatim
e0“Yield of stem sugars in cv. Wray exceeded 10 t ha-1 when the crops were sown early in the season, but was only 3 t ha-1 with late-sown crops”
e1“sweet sorghum (cv. Wray)”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · molecular: metabolites · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
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.