Abstract
Through the field experiment,has researched the influence to soil moisture,yield and qulity components of sugarcane by the water shortage and irrigation in maturing stage, using the sugarcane variety of CYZ03- 194 for the experimentmaterial with drought resistant, early mature and high sugar content.The results shown that the soil moisture in 0~ 20 and 20~ 40 cmwas higherthan 1.05~ 1.40 and 1.45~ 1.58 times respectively, compared the irrigated treatmentwith non-irrigation.The plantheightwas kept increasing total in the earth experiment stage,but after40 days, the plant height continue to increase only by the irrigated treatment.The number of green leaveswas declined inwhole maturing stage by the non-irrigation, butfor the irrigated treatment it started to declining after 20 days of irrigation andwas higher than 1.6 times to the non-irrigated treatment. The juice ratio was higher than 2%~ 5% by the irrigated treatment. There was no significantdifference between two treatments forthe suger content.The fiber contentwas higherthan6% compared the irrigated treatmentwith the non-irrigation during 0~ 20 days,butno significantdifferencewasfound at the harvest. The sugar contentin cane-juice was keptincreasing trend during 0~ 20 days,butitwas starded to decrease after 20 daysby the irrigated treatmentwhichwas still higherthan 1.75 times to the non-irrigated treatment,however,no significant difference was found between two treatments at harvest.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation raised soil moisture at 0~ 20 cm by 1.05~ 1.40 times relative to non-irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“the soil moisture in 0~ 20 and 20~ 40 cmwas higherthan 1.05~ 1.40 and 1.45~ 1.58 times respectively, compared the irrigated treatmentwith non-irrigation”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation raised soil moisture at 20~ 40 cm by 1.45~ 1.58 times relative to non-irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“the soil moisture in 0~ 20 and 20~ 40 cmwas higherthan 1.05~ 1.40 and 1.45~ 1.58 times respectively, compared the irrigated treatmentwith non-irrigation”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant height continued increasing after 40 days only under irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- irrigated treatmente0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- after40 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“after40 days, the plant height continue to increase only by the irrigated treatment”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Green leaf number declined throughout maturation without irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“The number of green leaveswas declined inwhole maturing stage by the non-irrigation”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under irrigation, green leaf number began declining after 20 days and was more than 1.6 times the non-irrigated treatment.
Verbatim
e0“for the irrigated treatment it started to declining after 20 days of irrigation andwas higher than 1.6 times to the non-irrigated treatment”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The number of green leaveswas declined inwhole maturing stage by the non-irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation raised juice ratio by 2%~ 5%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The juice ratio was higher than 2%~ 5% by the irrigated treatment”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar content showed no significant difference between treatments.
Verbatim
e0“There was no significantdifference between two treatments forthe suger content”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased fiber content by more than 6% during days 0~ 20 relative to non-irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“The fiber contentwas higherthan6% compared the irrigated treatmentwith the non-irrigation during 0~ 20 days”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
At harvest, fiber content did not differ significantly between treatments.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“butno significantdifferencewasfound at the harvest”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The fiber contentwas higherthan6% compared the irrigated treatmentwith the non-irrigation during 0~ 20 days”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane juice sugar content increased during days 0~ 20.
Verbatim
e0“The sugar contentin cane-juice was keptincreasing trend during 0~ 20 days”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
After 20 days, cane juice sugar content decreased under irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“itwas starded to decrease after 20 daysby the irrigated treatment”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The sugar contentin cane-juice was keptincreasing trend during 0~ 20 days”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated cane juice sugar content remained over 1.75 times that without irrigation before harvest.
Verbatim
e0“whichwas still higherthan 1.75 times to the non-irrigated treatment”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The sugar contentin cane-juice was keptincreasing trend during 0~ 20 days”
Claim · model-written summary
At harvest, cane juice sugar content showed no significant treatment difference.
Verbatim
e0“no significant difference was found between two treatments at harvest”
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The sugar contentin cane-juice was keptincreasing trend during 0~ 20 days”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.