Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40628848›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Directly replanting with GF296 extends the years of ratooning and yield in sugarcane.

Huiwen Zhou, Hanmin Luo, Youchen Wei, Hongchui Wei, Yuanke Wei, Ming Liu, Ming Li, Jianhua You, Yangrui Li, Haifeng Yan and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Huiwen Zhou *Sugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China.
Hanmin Luo *Sugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China.
Youchen WeiHechi Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences/Hechi Branch, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hechi, 546306, Guangxi, China.
Hongchui WeiHechi Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences/Hechi Branch, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hechi, 546306, Guangxi, China.
Yuanke WeiHechi Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences/Hechi Branch, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hechi, 546306, Guangxi, China.
Ming LiuHechi Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences/Hechi Branch, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hechi, 546306, Guangxi, China.
Ming LiSugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China.
Jianhua YouSugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China.
Yangrui LiSugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China. liyr@gxaas.net.
Haifeng YanSugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China. gstsyhf@163.com.
Lihang QiuSugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China. quihang163@163.com.

Funding

The National Natural Science Foundation of China 32260536The National Natural Science Foundation of China 32360540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is a sugar crop capable of ratoon cultivation, and its ratooning ability directly relates to sugarcane production costs and planting benefits. Sugarcane ridges with missing seedlings and gaps are an important reason for the reduction in the number of effective stalks and the years of ratooning of ratoon sugarcane. Therefore, analyzing the differences and correlations in important agronomic traits during yield formation within ratoon sugarcane populations after replanting treatment is of paramount importance for guiding ratoon cultivation. In this study, the 3rd-year ratoon sugarcane of the main varieties Guiliu 2 (GL2), Guitang 44 (GT44), and Yuetang 00236 (YT236), which are widely cultivated, served as the target population for replenishment. Using stem cuttings of Guifu 98-296 (GF296) as the replanting material, replanting treatment was applied to sugarcane ridges with missing seedlings and gaps in the planting plots of the after mentioned three varieties. Unreplanted populations served as their respective controls (CK). At harvest in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ratoon years, data on important agronomic traits and sucrose content of the sugarcane populations under the replanting and non-replanting treatments were investigated. An analysis was conducted to ascertain the differences and correlations among agronomic trait indicators. The economic benefits of the replanting treatment and CK were calculated. The findings of the study demonstrated that the number of effective stalks in the replanted populations of GL2, GT44, and YT236 was significantly higher than in the non-replanted control groups (CK), with an increase ranging from 10.72 to 45.26%. The yield of both the replanted and CK groups for GL2, GT44, and YT236 decreased by 9.56-54.14% with prolonged the years of ratooning. Conversely, the yield of the replanted populations increased by 28.19-158.61% over extended ratooning years. Significant variations were observed in plant height, stem diameter, and single-stalk weight among the original ratoon sugarcane varieties (GL2, GT44, YT236) and their respective CK groups across different ratooning years. In the non-replanted groups, the number of effective stalks exhibited a highly significant negative correlation with the years of ratooning (correlation coefficients: GL2: - 0.907, GT44: - 0.931, YT236: - 0.756), and yield also showed a highly significant negative correlation with the years of ratooning (GL2: - 0.915, GT44: - 0.905, YT236: - 0.930). Notably, after replanting, the negative correlation between the years of ratooning and both yield and effective stalk number was eliminated, indicating improved population structure. Furthermore, the replanted GL2, GT44, and YT236 populations exhibited increased economic benefits, with cumulative net income gains over three ratooning seasons of 48,120.80 CNY ha

Indexed as

Crop ProductionCrops, AgriculturalSaccharumSeedlingsSucroseSucroseEconomic benefitsProductive populationRatoon sugarcaneSugarcane ratooning abilitySugarcane stubbleThe number of effective stemsYield

Identifiers

PMID40628848
PMCPMC12238492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.