Abstract
To see the effect of various macro and micro nutrients with in combination on cane yield of sugarcane crop, a field experiment was conducted for three consecutive years i.e. 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 at research farm of Genda Singh Sugarcane Breeding and Research Institute, Seorahi, Uttarpradesh. The experiment consists of twelve treatments (T1-Control, T2-N, T3-NP, T4-NPK, T5-NPK+S, T6-NPK+Zn, T7-NPK+Fe, T8-NPK+Mn, T9-NPK+S+Zn, T10 NPK+S+Zn+Fe, T11-NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn, T12-FYM @20t/ha) was laid out in Randomized Block Design with three replications. Sugarcane variety CoSe 01434 was planted at 90 cm row spacing. The experimental findings on the basis of pooled data of three years revealed that germination per cent was not affected significantly with different nutrients combination treatments. The T 11 treatment (NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn) produced significantly higher shoot population, NMC, cane yield and sucrose per cent over control. These characters were 36.84, 33.64, 27.72 and 2.71 per cent higher than control treatment, respectively. FYM alone applied @ 20 t/ha was not much effective in improving the cane productivity of sugarcane crop. The significantly higher cane yield was attributed in NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn treatment due to more NMC and balance nutrients.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient combinations did not significantly affect sugarcane germination percentage.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- different nutrients combination treatmentse0
- Outcome
- germination per cente0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“germination per cent was not affected significantly with different nutrients combination treatments.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn increased sugarcane shoot population by 36.84 percent versus control.
Verbatim
e0“The T 11 treatment (NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn) produced significantly higher shoot population, NMC, cane yield and sucrose per cent over control. These characters were 36.84, 33.64, 27.72 and 2.71 per cent higher than control treatment, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn increased sugarcane NMC by 33.64 percent versus control.
Verbatim
e0“The T 11 treatment (NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn) produced significantly higher shoot population, NMC, cane yield and sucrose per cent over control. These characters were 36.84, 33.64, 27.72 and 2.71 per cent higher than control treatment, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn increased sugarcane cane yield by 27.72 percent versus control.
Verbatim
e0“The T 11 treatment (NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn) produced significantly higher shoot population, NMC, cane yield and sucrose per cent over control. These characters were 36.84, 33.64, 27.72 and 2.71 per cent higher than control treatment, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn increased sugarcane sucrose percentage by 2.71 percent versus control.
Verbatim
e0“The T 11 treatment (NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn) produced significantly higher shoot population, NMC, cane yield and sucrose per cent over control. These characters were 36.84, 33.64, 27.72 and 2.71 per cent higher than control treatment, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM alone at 20 t/ha was not very effective for sugarcane productivity.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- FYM alone applied @ 20 t/hae0
- Outcome
- cane productivitye0
- Direction
- not much effectivee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“FYM alone applied @ 20 t/ha was not much effective in improving the cane productivity of sugarcane crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors attributed greater cane yield under NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn to more NMC and balanced nutrients.
Verbatim
e0“The significantly higher cane yield was attributed in NPK+S+Zn+Fe+Mn treatment due to more NMC and balance nutrients.”
t0“sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
manganese atom · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
manganese atom · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →iron atom · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →zinc atom · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →iron atom · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
zinc atom · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
fertilization · pest · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.