Abstract
Water and nitrogen (N) availability are determining factors for crop development and production. Assessments of sugarcane yield loss based on these factors may become more accurate by using the stable carbon (C) isotope technique. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of N and water on sugarcane yield, isolating the yield losses (YL) caused by N or by water limitations, and correlating them with the fractionation of C isotopes (Δ13C). The research was carried out in field conditions in the municipality of Jaú, Brazil. A statistical design in randomized block was used, considering the 2 ´ 2 ´ 2 factorial arrangement, composed of two cycles [first (2008/09) and second (2009/10)], two N rates (without and with N) and two water supplies (rainfed and irrigated). These variables were evaluated: biometric features (plant height, stalk diameter and tillering), yield elements [stalk yield (STY), sucrose yield (SUY), and stalk dry matter (SDM)], technological quality parameters [fiber content, sucrose juice content (SJC), and total sucrose recovery (TSR)], stalk N concentration (SNC) and accumulation (SNA), and Δ13C. The effect of irrigation associated with N fertilization on STY, SUY, and SDM, resulted in average increases of 53.7, 9.0, and 18.6 Mg ha-1, respectively. The average YL for STY in two crop seasons were 40.5%, 35.2%, and 48.2% due to limitations of N or water or N+water, respectively. The SNC was not affected by the water supply, but it was increased by N fertilization. The highest value of Δ13C was obtained for the treatment without N fertilization in rainfed conditions, and the least Δ13C was found for the one with N supply and irrigation. The Δ13C measurement was effective in identifying N and water deficiencies, presenting potential to be used as an indicator of N and water limitations for sugarcane yield. Keywords: Loss index of stalk biomass; Saccharum ssp.; Water deficit; Water‒N interaction; Water supply
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation with nitrogen fertilization increased stalk yield by 53.7 Mg ha-1.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- irrigation associated with N fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- STYe0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 53.7e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of irrigation associated with N fertilization on STY, SUY, and SDM, resulted in average increases of 53.7, 9.0, and 18.6 Mg ha-1, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation with nitrogen fertilization increased sucrose yield by 9.0 Mg ha-1.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- irrigation associated with N fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- SUYe0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 9.0e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of irrigation associated with N fertilization on STY, SUY, and SDM, resulted in average increases of 53.7, 9.0, and 18.6 Mg ha-1, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation with nitrogen fertilization increased stalk dry matter by 18.6 Mg ha-1.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- irrigation associated with N fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- SDMe0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 18.6 Mg ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of irrigation associated with N fertilization on STY, SUY, and SDM, resulted in average increases of 53.7, 9.0, and 18.6 Mg ha-1, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen limitation caused 40.5% average stalk yield loss.
Verbatim
e0“The average YL for STY in two crop seasons were 40.5%, 35.2%, and 48.2% due to limitations of N or water or N+water, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Water limitation caused 35.2% average stalk yield loss.
Verbatim
e0“The average YL for STY in two crop seasons were 40.5%, 35.2%, and 48.2% due to limitations of N or water or N+water, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined nitrogen and water limitation caused 48.2% average stalk yield loss.
Verbatim
e0“The average YL for STY in two crop seasons were 40.5%, 35.2%, and 48.2% due to limitations of N or water or N+water, respectively.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Water supply did not affect stalk nitrogen concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The SNC was not affected by the water supply”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased stalk nitrogen concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The SNC was not affected by the water supply, but it was increased by N fertilization.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon isotope discrimination was highest without nitrogen under rainfed conditions.
Verbatim
e0“The highest value of Δ13C was obtained for the treatment without N fertilization in rainfed conditions”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon isotope discrimination was lowest with nitrogen and irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“the least Δ13C was found for the one with N supply and irrigation.”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon isotope discrimination identified nitrogen and water deficiencies.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“The Δ13C measurement was effective in identifying N and water deficiencies”
t0“sugarcane yield loss”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
90 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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 →fertilization · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 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
- no effect
- 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
- negative
- negative
- no effect
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.