Abstract
Abiotic stress is recurrent occurring problem for sugarcane crop in terms of hindrance in achieving good and high production. In India, drought coverage is 2.97 lakh ha while 2.5 lakh ha under coverage of waterlogging which is one of the reasons behind low cane production and productivity due to alteration in metabolism, growth and development of the plant either in direct or indirect way. Therefore, we investigated the comparison of morphological losses in drought and waterlogging sugarcanes. Morphological parameters assessed were leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, stalk diameter, cane height, cane weight, internodes number and average internodal length. Also, total root weight, dry matter production of stalk, leaves and roots were observed. Results showed that leaf length was marginally increased in drought canes but it was not so in case of waterlogged canes. Besides, there was decrease in total root weight of sugarcane affected by drought by 16.99% while there was increase by 10.06% in waterlogging affected canes in comparison to normal grown canes. In cane height and stalk diameter, decrease by 18.28%, 7.52%, respectively, in drought and 11.41%, marginal decrease, respectively, in waterlogged affected canes as compared to normally grown canes. Average internodal length was also found to increase in both drought as well as waterlogged canes by 39.02% and 36.60%, respectively, in comparison to normal grown canes. Number of internodes was decreased more in drought affected canes than in waterlogged canes. This study concluded that there are higher morphological losses in sugarcane in drought condition than in waterlogging conditions with respect to normal grown canes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Drought marginally increased leaf length of sugarcane compared with normal grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e1“leaf length was marginally increased in drought canes”
e5“there was increase by 10.06% in waterlogging affected canes in comparison to normal grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging did not increase leaf length of sugarcane compared with normal grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e1“leaf length was marginally increased in drought canes”
e2“it was not so in case of waterlogged canes”
e5“there was increase by 10.06% in waterlogging affected canes in comparison to normal grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased total root weight of sugarcane by 16.99% compared with normal grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e4“there was decrease in total root weight of sugarcane affected by drought by 16.99%”
e5“there was increase by 10.06% in waterlogging affected canes in comparison to normal grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging increased total root weight of sugarcane by 10.06% compared with normal grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e4“there was decrease in total root weight of sugarcane affected by drought by 16.99%”
e5“there was increase by 10.06% in waterlogging affected canes in comparison to normal grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased cane height of sugarcane by 18.28% compared with normally grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e6“In cane height and stalk diameter, decrease by 18.28%, 7.52%, respectively, in drought”
e7“11.41%, marginal decrease, respectively, in waterlogged affected canes as compared to normally grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased stalk diameter of sugarcane by 7.52% compared with normally grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e6“In cane height and stalk diameter, decrease by 18.28%, 7.52%, respectively, in drought”
e7“11.41%, marginal decrease, respectively, in waterlogged affected canes as compared to normally grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging decreased cane height of sugarcane by 11.41% compared with normally grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e6“In cane height and stalk diameter, decrease by 18.28%, 7.52%, respectively, in drought”
e7“11.41%, marginal decrease, respectively, in waterlogged affected canes as compared to normally grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging caused a marginal decrease in stalk diameter of sugarcane compared with normally grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e6“In cane height and stalk diameter, decrease by 18.28%, 7.52%, respectively, in drought”
e7“11.41%, marginal decrease, respectively, in waterlogged affected canes as compared to normally grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought increased average internodal length of sugarcane by 39.02% compared with normal grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e4“Average internodal length was also found to increase in both drought as well as waterlogged canes by 39.02% and 36.60%, respectively, in comparison to normal grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging increased average internodal length of sugarcane by 36.60% compared with normal grown canes.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e4“Average internodal length was also found to increase in both drought as well as waterlogged canes by 39.02% and 36.60%, respectively, in comparison to normal grown canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased the number of internodes of sugarcane more than waterlogging did.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e4“Number of internodes was decreased more in drought affected canes than in waterlogged canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Morphological losses in sugarcane are higher under drought than under waterlogging.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane crop”
e5“there are higher morphological losses in sugarcane in drought condition than in waterlogging conditions”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →drought · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 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.