Abstract
Results from an experiment consisting of 4 planting methods and 8 varieties of sugarcane revealed that cane yield under small pit method of planting (120cm x60cm spacing with 3 settlings per pit) was significantly the highest (149.5 t ha1) and registered an increase to the tune of 5.7, 9.9, and 16.2% over those of Mega pit (150cm x 150cm 15 settlings per pit), Trench method (30cm width x 30cm depth with 12 settlings per pit) and conventional method (15cm width 15cm depth with 12 settlings per pit) of planting. The corresponding per cent increase with respect to number of milliable cane was 11.6, 16.0 and 22.7%. Among the varieties, variety 87A298 recorded significantly the highest cane yield of 147.67 t ha−1 while variety CO 86V96 recorded highest number of millable canes (105.3). The growth parameters under small pit method were also higher as compared to other methods. It also registered maximum net return (Rs.178430ha−1) and per day productivity (443.6 kg ha−1). However, the B-C ratio was the highest (2.30) under conventional method of planting.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit planting produced the highest cane yield, 149.5 t ha1.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- small pit method of planting (120cm x60cm spacing with 3 settlings per pit)e0
- Outcome
- cane yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 149.5 t ha1e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“cane yield under small pit method of planting (120cm x60cm spacing with 3 settlings per pit) was significantly the highest (149.5 t ha1)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit yield exceeded Mega pit yield by 5.7%.
Verbatim
e0“increase to the tune of 5.7, 9.9, and 16.2% over those of Mega pit (150cm x 150cm 15 settlings per pit), Trench method (30cm width x 30cm depth with 12 settlings per pit) and conventional method (15cm width 15cm depth with 12 settlings per pit)”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“cane yield under small pit method of planting (120cm x60cm spacing with 3 settlings per pit) was significantly the highest (149.5 t ha1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit yield exceeded trench yield by 9.9%.
Not reportedTreatmentOutcome
Verbatim
e0“increase to the tune of 5.7, 9.9, and 16.2% over those of Mega pit (150cm x 150cm 15 settlings per pit), Trench method (30cm width x 30cm depth with 12 settlings per pit) and conventional method (15cm width 15cm depth with 12 settlings per pit)”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“cane yield under small pit method of planting (120cm x60cm spacing with 3 settlings per pit) was significantly the highest (149.5 t ha1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit yield exceeded conventional yield by 16.2%.
Not reportedTreatmentOutcome
Verbatim
e0“increase to the tune of 5.7, 9.9, and 16.2% over those of Mega pit (150cm x 150cm 15 settlings per pit), Trench method (30cm width x 30cm depth with 12 settlings per pit) and conventional method (15cm width 15cm depth with 12 settlings per pit)”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“cane yield under small pit method of planting (120cm x60cm spacing with 3 settlings per pit) was significantly the highest (149.5 t ha1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit planting raised millable cane number by 11.6% versus Mega pit.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“The corresponding per cent increase with respect to number of milliable cane was 11.6, 16.0 and 22.7%”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit planting raised millable cane number by 16.0% versus trench planting.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“The corresponding per cent increase with respect to number of milliable cane was 11.6, 16.0 and 22.7%”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit planting raised millable cane number by 22.7% versus conventional planting.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“The corresponding per cent increase with respect to number of milliable cane was 11.6, 16.0 and 22.7%”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Variety 87A298 had the highest cane yield, 147.67 t ha−1.
Verbatim
e0“variety 87A298 recorded significantly the highest cane yield of 147.67 t ha−1”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Variety CO 86V96 had the highest millable cane count, 105.3.
Verbatim
e0“variety CO 86V96 recorded highest number of millable canes (105.3)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth parameters were higher under small pit planting.
Verbatim
e0“The growth parameters under small pit method were also higher as compared to other methods”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit planting gave maximum net return of Rs.178430ha−1.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“It also registered maximum net return (Rs.178430ha−1)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Small pit planting gave per-day productivity of 443.6 kg ha−1.
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“per day productivity (443.6 kg ha−1)”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional planting had the highest benefit-cost ratio, 2.30.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- conventional method of plantinge0
- Outcome
- B-C ratioe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 2.30e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the B-C ratio was the highest (2.30) under conventional method of planting”
t0“sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 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.