Genotypic differences in growth behavior and quality parameters of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) varieties under moisture stress conditions
Abstract views: 225
/ 
PDF downloads: 161
Authors
-
POOJA POOJA
-
A S NANDWAL
-
MEHAR CHAND
-
ANITA KUMARI
-
BABITA RANI
-
VISHAL GOEL
-
SAMAR SINGH
Keywords:
Juice quality, Sucrose synthase, Sugarcane, Sugar yield, Water deficitAbstract
A field experiment was conducted at CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Regional Research Station, Karnal to investigate the effect of available soil moisture regimes on productivity potential of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) varieties during 2014-15 and 2015-16. The experiment consists of three moisture regimes based on available soil moisture (ASM), i.e. irrigation at 50% ASM (control), 40% ASM (mild stress) and 30% ASM (severe stress) in main plots and four commercial sugarcane varieties differing in maturity duration, i.e. CoS 767 (Mid late), CoH 128 (Mid late), CoJ 64 (Early) and Co 0238 (Early) in sub plot was laid out in split-plot design with three replications. Soil moisture treatments were initiated after 45 days of planting (DAP). Higher germination was recorded in CoJ 64 (65.5%) and CoS 767 (58.0%) as compared to Co 0238 (49.0%) and CoH 128 (48.5%) at 45 DAP. At 30% ASM levels, higher reduction in stalk height was recorded in CoH 128 (33.6 and 85.96 cm) and CoJ 64 (36.33 and 83.03cm) as compared to CoS 767 (41.83 and 107.06 cm) and Co 0238 (50.6 and 122.76 cm) in June and July, respectively. Total number of tillers was reduced by 12.99, 14.37 and 14.5% at 40% ASM level and 16.97, 24.29 and 20.04% at 30% ASM level as compared to irrigation at 50% ASM level in the month of May, June and July, respectively. Significantly higher values of brix, pol and CCS (%) were recorded in CoJ 64 and Co 0238 as compared to CoS 767 and CoH 128 at 8th, 10th and 12th month at all levels of ASM. Varieties and ASM levels had no effect on the specific activity of sucrose synthase. Sugar yield significantly reduced by 31.11 per cent at 40% ASM level and 40.57 per cent at 30% ASM level, respectively as compared to 50% ASM level. Co 0238 and CoS 767 showed minimum reduction in yield than CoH 128 and CoJ 64. From the present study it is concluded that Co 0238 and CoS 767 are identified relatively more tolerant at 30% and 40% ASM levels than CoH 128 and CoJ 64.Downloads
References
Batta S K and Singh R. 1986. Sucrose metabolism in sugarcane grown under varying climatic conditions: synthesis and storage of sucrose in relation to the activities of sucrose synthase, sucrose phosphate synthase and Invertase. Phytochemistry 25: 2431–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(00)84484-2
Batta S K, Pant N C, Thind K S and Uppal S K. 2008. Sucrose accumulation and expression of enzyme activities in early and mid-late maturing sugarcanes genotypes. Sugae Tech 10: 319–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-008-0057-2
Botha F C and Black K G. 2000. Sucrose phosphate synthase and sucrose synthase activity during maturation of internodal tissue in sugarcane. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 27: 81–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/PP99098
Commodity Research Bureau. 2015. The 2015 CRB commodity yearbook. Commodity Research Bureau, Chicago, IL.
da Silva A L C and da Costa W A J M. 2004. Varietal variation in growth, physiology and yield of sugarcane under two contrasting water regimes. Tropical Agriculture Research 16: 1–12.
Fiaz N, Ghaffar A, Wains G M, Sarwar M A, Hassan M and Mudassir M A. 2013. Performance of promising sugarcane clones under different irrigation regimes. Mycopath 11: 23–6.
Ghaffar A, Mudassir M A, Sarwar M A and Nadeem M A. 2013. Effect of different irrigation coefficients on cane and sugar yield attributes of sugarcane. Crop and Environment 4: 46–50.
Gomathi R, Vasantha S, Hemaprabha G, Alarmelu S and Shanthi R M. 2011. Evaluation of elite sugarcane clones for drought tolerance. Journal of Surgical Research 1: 55–62.
Inman-Bamber N G and Smith D M. 2005. Water relations in sugarcane and response to water deficits. Field Crops Research 92: 185–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.01.023
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for policy makers. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. WMO, Geneva: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546013
Joshi S, Jadhav S B and Patil A A. 1996. Effect of tiller pruning on cane and sugar yield in early maturing sugarcane varieties. (In) Annual convention of the Deccan Sugar Technologists Association, 45, Pune, 1996. Proceedings. DSTA, Pune: p 24–8.
Khan I A, Bibi S, Yasmin S, Khatri A and Seema N. 2013. Phenotypic and genotypic diversity investigations in sugarcane for drought tolerance and sucrose content. Pakistan Journal of Botany 45: 359–66.
Konikow L and Kendy E. 2005. Groundwater depletion: a global problem. Hydrogeology 13: 317–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0411-8
Lawlor D W and Cornic G. 2002. Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell Environment 25: 275–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00814.x
Lingle S E. 1997. Seasonal internode development and sugar metabolism in sugarcane. Crop Science 37: 1222–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700040032x
Meena M R, Murthy N, Kumar R and Chhabra M L. 2013. Genotypic response of sugarcane under induced moisture deficit conditions. Vegetos 26: 229–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/j.2229-4473.26.1.033
Oki T and Shinjiro K. 2006. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313: 1068–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128845
Ramesh P and Mahadevaswamy M. 2000. Effect of formative phase drought on different classes of shoots, shoot mortality, cane attributes, yield and quality of four sugarcane cultivars. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185: 249–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037x.2000.00399.x
Singh P N, Dey P, Bhatnagar V K and Singh R D. 2001. Effect of press mud, FYM and irrigation regimes on water use, yield and quality of sugarcane. Indian Journal of Sugurcane Technologies 12: 46–51.
Singh R D, Singh P N and Kumar A. 2006 Evaluation of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) genotypes under variable water regimes. Indian Journal of Crop Science 1: 142–5.
Soares R A B, Oliveira P F M, Cardoso H R, Vasconcelos A C M, Landell M G A and Rosenfeld U. 2004. Efeito da irrigacao sobre o desenvolvimento e a produtividade de duas variedades de cana-de-acucar colhidas em início de safra. STAB Acucar, Alcool e Subprodutos 22: 38–41.
Vision SBI. 2030. Vision 2030, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore.
www.agricoop.nic.in, 2014-15
www.statista.com/statistics, 2014-15
Yadav R L and Prasad S R. 1998 Moisture use characteristics of sugarcane genotypes under different available soil moisture regimes in alluvial entisols. Journal of Agricultural Science 110: 5–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600079624
Zhu Y J, Komor E and Moore P H. 1997. Sucrose accumulation in the sugarcane stem is regulated by the difference between the activities of soluble acid invertase and sucrose phosphate synthase. Plant Physiology 115: 609–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.115.2.609
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of the articles published in The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences is vested with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which reserves the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad, for reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information. The Council has no objection to using the material, provided the information is not being utilized for commercial purposes and wherever the information is being used, proper credit is given to ICAR.
How to Cite
