Paper · 2001 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Effect of intercropping in sugarcane (Saccharurn complex hybrid) on productivity of plant cane - ratoon system

A.K. SINGH; MENHl LAL; ARCHNA SUMAN

10
claims
13
verbatim quotes
12
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at Lucknow during 2002-03 and 2003-04 to assess the production potential and economic viability of autumn-planted sugarcanefibased intercropping systems, viz. sugarcane sole and sug- arcane intercropped with lentil (Lens esculentus), rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Indian mustard (Brassica compestris), rapeseed (Brassica sp.) and maize (Zea mays L.) for cobs at 2 row spacings of 90 and 75 cm. The intercropping with rajmash had no adverse effect on the number of millable canes (1 17.6 thousandlha), cane length (21 3 cm) and cane yield (83.4 t/ha) compared with sole cane. Intercropping of rajmash and maize for green cobs resulted in highest net profit (Rs 89,883 and 83,815lha) and benefit : cost ratio (B : C) (2.53 and 2.34) com- pared with sole sugarcane (Rs 50,199 /ha). Ratoon sugarcane intercropped with lentil gave higher cane yield (64.2 t/ha) than that from sugarcane sole. Besides, there was improvement in the physico-chemical properties of the soil under sugarcane + lentil intercropping system with lower bulk density (1.26 g/cm3) and higher infiltration rate (4.75 mmlhr) compared with sole sugarcane. Inclusion of short-duration intercrops like rajmash, and maize for green cobs in autumn-planted sugarcane improved the productivity and profitability, and lentil intercropping im- proved the soil health under plantfiratoon system.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rajmash intercropping had no adverse effect on number of millable canes relative to sole cane.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Treatment
intercropping with rajmashe0
Outcome
number of millable canese0
Direction
no adverse effecte0
Value
1 17.6 thousandlhae0
Comparator
sole canee0

Verbatim

e0

“The intercropping with rajmash had no adverse effect on the number of millable canes (1 17.6 thousandlha), cane length (21 3 cm) and cane yield (83.4 t/ha) compared with sole cane.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–610 · show in text ↑
e1

“autumn-planted sugarcanefibased intercropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 132–185 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rajmash intercropping had no adverse effect on cane length relative to sole cane.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Treatment
intercropping with rajmashe0
Outcome
cane lengthe0
Direction
no adverse effecte0
Value
21 3 cme0
Comparator
sole canee0

Verbatim

e0

“The intercropping with rajmash had no adverse effect on the number of millable canes (1 17.6 thousandlha), cane length (21 3 cm) and cane yield (83.4 t/ha) compared with sole cane.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–610 · show in text ↑
e1

“autumn-planted sugarcanefibased intercropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 132–185 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rajmash intercropping had no adverse effect on cane yield relative to sole cane.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Treatment
intercropping with rajmashe0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
no adverse effecte0
Value
83.4 t/hae0
Comparator
sole canee0

Verbatim

e0

“The intercropping with rajmash had no adverse effect on the number of millable canes (1 17.6 thousandlha), cane length (21 3 cm) and cane yield (83.4 t/ha) compared with sole cane.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–610 · show in text ↑
e1

“autumn-planted sugarcanefibased intercropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 132–185 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping of rajmash produced high net profit.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
Intercropping of rajmashe0
Outcome
net profite0
Direction
higheste0
Value
Rs 89,883e0
Comparator
sole sugarcanee0

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping of rajmash and maize for green cobs resulted in highest net profit (Rs 89,883 and 83,815lha) and benefit : cost ratio (B : C) (2.53 and 2.34) com- pared with sole sugarcane (Rs 50,199 /ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 611–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

maize for green cobs produced high net profit.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
maize for green cobse0
Outcome
net profite0
Direction
higheste0
Value
83,815lhae0
Comparator
sole sugarcanee0

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping of rajmash and maize for green cobs resulted in highest net profit (Rs 89,883 and 83,815lha) and benefit : cost ratio (B : C) (2.53 and 2.34) com- pared with sole sugarcane (Rs 50,199 /ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 611–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping of rajmash produced high benefit : cost ratio (B : C).

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
Intercropping of rajmashe0
Outcome
benefit : cost ratio (B : C)e0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.53e0
Comparator
sole sugarcanee0

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping of rajmash and maize for green cobs resulted in highest net profit (Rs 89,883 and 83,815lha) and benefit : cost ratio (B : C) (2.53 and 2.34) com- pared with sole sugarcane (Rs 50,199 /ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 611–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

maize for green cobs produced high benefit : cost ratio (B : C).

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
maize for green cobse0
Outcome
benefit : cost ratio (B : C)e0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.34e0
Comparator
sole sugarcanee0

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping of rajmash and maize for green cobs resulted in highest net profit (Rs 89,883 and 83,815lha) and benefit : cost ratio (B : C) (2.53 and 2.34) com- pared with sole sugarcane (Rs 50,199 /ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 611–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lentil intercropping increased ratoon cane yield to 64.2 t/ha.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
intercropped with lentile0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
64.2 t/hae0
Comparator
sugarcane solee0

Verbatim

e0

“Ratoon sugarcane intercropped with lentil gave higher cane yield (64.2 t/ha) than that from sugarcane sole.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 815–922 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sugarcane-lentil intercropping changed soil bulk density.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
sugarcane + lentil intercropping systeme0
Outcome
bulk densitye0
Direction
lowere0
Value
1.26 g/cm3e0
Comparator
sole sugarcanee0

Verbatim

e0

“under sugarcane + lentil intercropping system with lower bulk density (1.26 g/cm3) and higher infiltration rate (4.75 mmlhr) compared with sole sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1001–1154 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sugarcane-lentil intercropping changed soil infiltration rate.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
sugarcane + lentil intercropping systeme0
Outcome
infiltration ratee0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.75 mmlhre0
Comparator
sole sugarcanee0

Verbatim

e0

“under sugarcane + lentil intercropping system with lower bulk density (1.26 g/cm3) and higher infiltration rate (4.75 mmlhr) compared with sole sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1001–1154 · show in text ↑

Lens culinaris · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

Zea mays · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

Lens culinaris · soil: physics · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

intercropping · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ

88 papers: 67 positive, 21 negative or no effect

66 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

84 papers more in this group

See all 88 papers →

intercropping · soil: physics · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.