Paper · 2001 · International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists. Proceedings of the XXIV Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 17-21 September 2001. Volume 2.

MINIMUM TILLAGE OF SUGARCANE IN THAILAND: ITS EFFECT ON YIELDS, SOIL PROPERTIES AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

P. Prammanee; Ian Grange; P. Prasertsak; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Many sugarcane soils in Thailand are undergoing structural degradation after being planted to sugarcane for long periods of time. Five different soil tillage systems were tested. These were assessed by measuring changes in soil physical properties and cane yields over time. Cost benefit analyses were also performed. There was a relationship between the more compacted soil of the notillage system having lower yields (8 1.6 tlha) and the less compacted soil of the conventional system having higher yields (91.8 tlha). The minimum-tillage systems had the lowest amount of soil compaction that gave the best yield returns and the best profit margins.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage gave lower cane yield (81.6 t/ha) than the conventional system (91.8 t/ha), with more compacted soil under no-tillage.

Taxon
SUGARCANEt0
Treatment
notillage systeme0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
8 1.6 tlhae0
Qualifier
91.8 tlhae0
Comparator
conventional systeme0
Setting
THAILANDt0

Verbatim

e0

“the more compacted soil of the notillage system having lower yields (8 1.6 tlha) and the less compacted soil of the conventional system having higher yields (91.8 tlha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 351–519 · show in text ↑
t0

“MINIMUM TILLAGE OF SUGARCANE IN THAILAND”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Minimum-tillage systems had the lowest soil compaction.

Taxon
SUGARCANEt0
Treatment
minimum-tillage systemse0
Outcome
soil compactione0
Direction
loweste0
Setting
THAILANDt0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The minimum-tillage systems had the lowest amount of soil compaction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–589 · show in text ↑
t0

“MINIMUM TILLAGE OF SUGARCANE IN THAILAND”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Minimum-tillage systems gave the best yield returns.

Taxon
SUGARCANEt0
Treatment
minimum-tillage systemse0
Outcome
yield returnse0
Direction
beste0
Setting
THAILANDt0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The minimum-tillage systems had the lowest amount of soil compaction that gave the best yield returns”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–622 · show in text ↑
t0

“MINIMUM TILLAGE OF SUGARCANE IN THAILAND”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Minimum-tillage systems gave the best profit margins.

Taxon
SUGARCANEt0
Treatment
minimum-tillage systemse0
Outcome
profit marginse0
Direction
beste0
Setting
THAILANDt0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The minimum-tillage systems had the lowest amount of soil compaction that gave the best yield returns and the best profit margins”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–650 · show in text ↑
t0

“MINIMUM TILLAGE OF SUGARCANE IN THAILAND”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑

tillage · soil: physics · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 9 positive, 2 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

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

48 papers: 35 positive, 13 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

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

44 papers more in this group

See all 48 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.