Abstract
Ratoon crop of 23 sugarcane genotypes viz., CoLK 94184, BO 91, CoS 767, CoJ 64, CoS 97264, UP 953, CoLk 12204, CoLk 12202, CoLk 12206, CoLk 07201, CoLk 04238, S 5085/11, S 5087/11, LG 06605, LG 04439, LG 05350, LG 05020, LG 03040, A-46-11, B-44-12, A-27-12, D-12-9, D-6-13 were evaluated for physiological, yield and juice quality parameters under waterlogged condition along with untreated control at Kharika Block, ICAR-IISR, Lucknow. Results obtained indicated higher plant height, internode number and root dry mass in waterlogged plants. Aerial rooting pattern varied among genotypes and it was up to 8th node on average basis. Leaf length, width, area and SPAD index decreased due to waterlogging. Waterlogged plants showed higher fresh weight in most of the genotypes, lowest leaf and stalk weight in CoJ 64. Considerable improvement was observed in number of millable canes (NMC; 8.92%), total cane weight (24.2) and cane height (17.6%) due to waterlogging. Sucrose content was in the range of 10.56% to 17.89% (control) and 11.1% to 16.02% (waterlogged) with 7% decrease. Highest decrease observed in November (-29% CoLk 12204) and January (-17.35% CoJ64), respectively indicated cane deterioration. The findings suggested improvement in yield attributes of some of genotypes due to higher plant height and weight. CoJ 64 genotype showed highest decrease in yield and juice quality attributes which confirmed its sensitivity and UP9530, LG 030340, CoS 767, CoLk 07201, CoLk 04238, LG 05350, CoLk 94184 and A-46-11 have been grouped as tolerant genotypes with UP9530 being the most tolerant one towards waterlogging.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogged sugarcane plants had higher plant height, internode number and root dry mass than untreated controls.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e1“Results obtained indicated higher plant height, internode number and root dry mass in waterlogged plants”
e2“were evaluated for physiological, yield and juice quality parameters under waterlogged condition along with untreated control at Kharika Block, ICAR-IISR, Lucknow”
Claim · model-written summary
Aerial rooting pattern of sugarcane varied among genotypes, up to the 8th node on average.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e3“Aerial rooting pattern varied among genotypes and it was up to 8th node on average basis”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging decreased leaf length, width and area of sugarcane.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e4“Leaf length, width, area and SPAD index decreased due to waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging decreased the SPAD index of sugarcane.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e4“Leaf length, width, area and SPAD index decreased due to waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogged sugarcane plants had higher fresh weight in most genotypes.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Waterlogged plantse5
- Outcome
- fresh weighte5
- Direction
- highere5
- Qualifier
- in most of the genotypese5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e5“Waterlogged plants showed higher fresh weight in most of the genotypes, lowest leaf and stalk weight in CoJ 64”
Claim · model-written summary
CoJ 64 had the lowest leaf and stalk weight under waterlogging.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Material
- CoJ 64e5
- Treatment
- Waterlogged plantse5
- Outcome
- leaf and stalk weighte5
- Direction
- loweste5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e5“Waterlogged plants showed higher fresh weight in most of the genotypes, lowest leaf and stalk weight in CoJ 64”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging improved the number of millable canes of sugarcane by 8.92%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge6
- Outcome
- number of millable canese6
- Direction
- improvemente6
- Value
- 8.92%e6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e6“Considerable improvement was observed in number of millable canes (NMC; 8.92%), total cane weight (24.2) and cane height (17.6%) due to waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging improved total cane weight of sugarcane (value 24.2).
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e6“Considerable improvement was observed in number of millable canes (NMC; 8.92%), total cane weight (24.2) and cane height (17.6%) due to waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging improved cane height of sugarcane by 17.6%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e6“Considerable improvement was observed in number of millable canes (NMC; 8.92%), total cane weight (24.2) and cane height (17.6%) due to waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogged sugarcane had sucrose content about 7% lower than control.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e7“Sucrose content was in the range of 10.56% to 17.89% (control) and 11.1% to 16.02% (waterlogged) with 7% decrease”
Claim · model-written summary
CoLk 12204 showed the highest decrease of cane quality in November, -29%.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e7“Highest decrease observed in November (-29% CoLk 12204) and January (-17.35% CoJ64), respectively indicated cane deterioration”
Claim · model-written summary
CoJ64 showed a decrease of cane quality in January, -17.35%.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e7“Highest decrease observed in November (-29% CoLk 12204) and January (-17.35% CoJ64), respectively indicated cane deterioration”
Claim · model-written summary
CoJ 64 showed the highest decrease in yield and juice quality attributes, confirming its sensitivity.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e6“CoJ 64 genotype showed highest decrease in yield and juice quality attributes which confirmed its sensitivity”
Claim · model-written summary
UP9530, LG 030340 and CoS 767 were grouped as tolerant sugarcane genotypes to waterlogging.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e5“UP9530, LG 030340, CoS 767, CoLk 07201, CoLk 04238, LG 05350, CoLk 94184 and A-46-11 have been grouped as tolerant genotypes with UP9530 being the most tolerant one towards waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
CoLk 07201, CoLk 04238 and LG 05350 were grouped as tolerant sugarcane genotypes to waterlogging.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e5“UP9530, LG 030340, CoS 767, CoLk 07201, CoLk 04238, LG 05350, CoLk 94184 and A-46-11 have been grouped as tolerant genotypes with UP9530 being the most tolerant one towards waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
CoLk 94184 and A-46-11 were grouped as tolerant sugarcane genotypes to waterlogging.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e5“UP9530, LG 030340, CoS 767, CoLk 07201, CoLk 04238, LG 05350, CoLk 94184 and A-46-11 have been grouped as tolerant genotypes with UP9530 being the most tolerant one towards waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
UP9530 was the most tolerant sugarcane genotype to waterlogging.
Verbatim
t0“Performance of sugarcane as ratoon crop under waterlogged conditions”
e5“UP9530, LG 030340, CoS 767, CoLk 07201, CoLk 04238, LG 05350, CoLk 94184 and A-46-11 have been grouped as tolerant genotypes with UP9530 being the most tolerant one towards waterlogging”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →flooding · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
flooding · physiology: pigments · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.