Abstract
Sugarcane variety ROC28 was used to investigate the effects of sub-soil drip fertigation on yield and quality of sugarcane.Four different fertilization treatments,viz.,drip fertigation,conventional fertilization without drip irrigation,conventional fertilization with drip irrigation and drip irrigation without fertilization were designed in sugarcane field.The fertilizer amount used was as follows: N @ 375 kg/ha,P2O5 @ 195 kg/ha,K2O @ 420 kg/ha,ZnSO4.7H2O @15 kg/ha and borax @15 kg/ha.The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane,increased number of tillers,improved elongation and widening of stalk at later growth stage,and increased yield with 31.9 and 22.8% with 2205.6 and 78.2 Yuan RMB/ha of income as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.Therefore,application of drip fertigation may be recommended as one of important measures for highly effective cost-saving sugarcane cultivation in upland.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier sugarcane growth compared with conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”
e2“as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation increased the number of sugarcane tillers.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”
e2“as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”
e3“increased number of tillers,improved elongation and widening of stalk at later growth stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation improved stalk elongation and widening of sugarcane at later growth stage.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”
e2“as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”
e3“increased number of tillers,improved elongation and widening of stalk at later growth stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation increased sugarcane yield by 31.9% compared with conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“and increased yield with 31.9 and 22.8% with 2205.6 and 78.2 Yuan RMB/ha of income as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”
e2“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional fertilization with drip irrigation increased sugarcane yield by 22.8% compared with conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“and increased yield with 31.9 and 22.8% with 2205.6 and 78.2 Yuan RMB/ha of income as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”
e2“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation gave an income of 2205.6 Yuan RMB/ha relative to conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“and increased yield with 31.9 and 22.8% with 2205.6 and 78.2 Yuan RMB/ha of income as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”
e2“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional fertilization with drip irrigation gave an income of 78.2 Yuan RMB/ha relative to conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“and increased yield with 31.9 and 22.8% with 2205.6 and 78.2 Yuan RMB/ha of income as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”
e2“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation is recommended as an important measure for highly effective, cost-saving sugarcane cultivation in upland fields.
Verbatim
t0“sugarcane”
e1“application of drip fertigation may be recommended as one of important measures for highly effective cost-saving sugarcane cultivation in upland”
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
- positive
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 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
- no effect
- no effect
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 papers →fertilization · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 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
- no effect
- negative
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 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.