Abstract
Fifty one On-farm demonstrations on subsurface drip fertigation (SSDF) were carried out in 51.62 hectares of farmers’ fields in fifteen villages of Sivagangai district, Tamil Nadu from 2009- 10 to 2010-11 under Tamil Nadu-Irrigated Agriculture Modernization and Water Bodies Restoration and Management (TN – IAMWARM) Project. Two methods of sugarcane cultivation viz., SSDF and conventional method were compared by using the varieties Co 86032, Co91017. Co 96125, Co 99012 and Co 92102. The results revealed that adoption of SSDF recorded significantly higher number of internodes per cane and individual cane weight than that of conventional method. Subsurface drip fertigation registered a mean cane yield of 113.9 t ha-1 which was significantly higher than surface irrigation with conventional fertilizer application ( 86.8 t ha-1) . The average yield increment under SSDF was 30.8 per cent compared to conventional method of cultivation during the period of study. The total water requirement under SSDF was lesser (1730 mm) than conventional method (2499 mm) and thus a substantial quantity of water saving by 30.7 percent due to SSDF was observed. The higher cane yield coupled with enormous quantity of water saving under SSDF resulted in higher water use efficiency of 65.8 kg ha-1mm-1 but it was only 34.8 kg ha-1 mm-1 in conventional method of sugarcane cultivation. In addition, higher economic benefits like total income, net income and benefit cost ratio were also associated with SSDF during study than surface irrigation with band application of fertilizers. Adoption of SSDF also gained an additional mean net income of Rs 51,036 ha-1 than normal method of cultivation.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip fertigation gave significantly more internodes per cane and higher individual cane weight than the conventional method of sugarcane cultivation.
Verbatim
e0“adoption of SSDF recorded significantly higher number of internodes per cane and individual cane weight than that of conventional method”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip fertigation gave a mean cane yield of 113.9 t ha-1, significantly higher than surface irrigation with conventional fertilizer application (86.8 t ha-1).
Verbatim
e0“Subsurface drip fertigation registered a mean cane yield of 113.9 t ha-1 which was significantly higher than surface irrigation with conventional fertilizer application ( 86.8 t ha-1)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The average yield increment under subsurface drip fertigation was 30.8 per cent compared with the conventional method of cultivation.
Verbatim
e0“The average yield increment under SSDF was 30.8 per cent compared to conventional method of cultivation”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Total water requirement under subsurface drip fertigation was lower (1730 mm) than under the conventional method (2499 mm).
Verbatim
e0“The total water requirement under SSDF was lesser (1730 mm) than conventional method (2499 mm)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip fertigation saved a substantial quantity of water, by 30.7 percent.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“a substantial quantity of water saving by 30.7 percent due to SSDF was observed”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Under subsurface drip fertigation water use efficiency was higher (65.8 kg ha-1 mm-1) than only 34.8 kg ha-1 mm-1 in the conventional method of sugarcane cultivation.
Verbatim
e0“under SSDF resulted in higher water use efficiency of 65.8 kg ha-1mm-1 but it was only 34.8 kg ha-1 mm-1 in conventional method of sugarcane cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Total income, net income and benefit cost ratio were higher with subsurface drip fertigation than with surface irrigation with band application of fertilizers.
Verbatim
e0“higher economic benefits like total income, net income and benefit cost ratio were also associated with SSDF during study than surface irrigation with band application of fertilizers”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Adoption of subsurface drip fertigation gained an additional mean net income of Rs 51,036 ha-1 over the normal method of cultivation.
Verbatim
e0“Adoption of SSDF also gained an additional mean net income of Rs 51,036 ha-1 than normal method of cultivation”
t0“Sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →irrigation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 papers →fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
311 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.