Comparative evaluation of growth, yield and yield attributing traits in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) under different soil moisture regimes

POOJA DHANSU; A S NANDWAL; SURENDER KUMAR; MEHAR CHAND; BABITA RANI; NEERAJ KULSHRESHTHA

doi:10.56093/ijas.v92i8.90437

Authors

POOJA DHANSU ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Center, Karnal - 132001, Haryana
A S NANDWAL ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Centre, Karnal, Haryana 132 001, India
SURENDER KUMAR ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Centre, Karnal, Haryana 132 001, India
MEHAR CHAND ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Centre, Karnal, Haryana 132 001, India
BABITA RANI ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Centre, Karnal, Haryana 132 001, India
NEERAJ KULSHRESHTHA ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Centre, Karnal, Haryana 132 001, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i8.90437

Keywords:

Available soil moisture, Growth analysis, Yield attributes, Sugar Yield, Sugarcane

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during spring season of 2014–15 and 2015–16 at CCS HAU, RRS, Karnal to evaluate the response of four sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) varieties differing in their maturity i.e. CoS 767 (Mid late), CoH128 (Mid late), CoJ 64 (Early) and Co 0238 (Early) to deficit irrigation. The experiment was conducted in split plot design with three replications. Based on available soil moisture (ASM), three treatments i.e. irrigation at 50% ASM (control), 40% ASM (mild stress) and 30% ASM (severe stress) were imposed in main plot and sugarcane varieties in sub-plot. Under deficit irrigation, leaf area, leaf area index (LAI), crop grown rate (CGR), relative growth rate (RGR) and net assimilation rate (NAR), significantly, reduced at 30–60 and 60–90 DAP in all the varieties and the varieties Co 0238 and CoS 767 showed least reduction. The yield parameters, viz. number of millable canes, cane length, internodal length and single cane weight reduced significantly under water limited conditions and proved to be the most sensitive yield components responsible for decrease in cane and sugar yield. Cane yield and sugar yield reduced by 36.18% and 40.47%, and 27.5% and 31.09% at 30% and 40% ASM level, respectively. Co 0238 produced highest average cane yield and sugar yield (83.05 and 10.17 t/ha) followed by CoS 767 (68.23 and 8.28 t/ ha). Moreover, after stress revival Co 0238 and CoS 767 were able to recover faster which qualified these varieties to face short periods of drought without major losses in the initial phase of development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ferreira T H S, Tsunada M S, Bassi D, Araújo P, Mattiello L, Guidelli G V, Righetto G L, Gonçalves V R, Lakshmanan P and Menossi M. 2017. Sugarcane water stress tolerance mechanisms and its implications on developing biotechnology solutions. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1077. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01077

Farooq U, Mehmood S, Afghan S, Shahzad A and Asad M. 2015. Comparative study on agro-physiology of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) genotypes at different irrigation co-efficient values. Pakistan Journal of Botany 47: 527–32.

Gomathi R, Vasantha S, Hemaprabha G, Alarmelu S and Shanthi R M. 2011. Evaluation of elite sugarcane clones for drought tolerance. Journal of Sugarcane Research 1: 55–62.

Hemaprabha G, Nagarajan R and Alarmelu S. 2004. Response of sugarcane genotypes to water deficit stress. Sugar Tech 6(3): 165–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02942718

Hemaprabha G, Swapna S, Lavanya D L, Sajitha B and Venkataramana S. 2013. Evaluation of drought tolerance potential of elite genotypes and progenies of sugarcane (Saccharum sp. hybrids). Sugar Tech 15(1): 9–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-012-0182-9

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(2): 359–66.

Kumar A, Lata C, Krishnamurthy S L, Kumar A, Prasad K R K and Kulshreshtha N. 2017. Physiological and biochemical characterization of rice varieties under salt and drought stresses. Journal of Soil Salinity and Water Quality 9: 167–77.

Patil R P, Chetti M B and Hiremath S M. 2009. Influence of agrochemicals on morpho-physiological characters, yield and yield components of sugarcane under moisture stress. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science 22(4): 759–61.

Pooja, Nandwal A S, Chand M, Kumar A, Rani B, Kumari A and Kulshrestha N. 2017. Comparative evaluation of changes in protein profile of sugarcane varieties under different soil moisture regimes. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6(3): 1203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.610.145

Pooja, Nandwal A S, Chand M, Kumari A, Rani B, Goel V and Singh S. 2019a. Genotypic differences in growth behavior and quality parameters of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) varieties under moisture stress conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89(1): 65.

Pooja, Nandwal A S, Chand M, Singh K, Mishra A K, Kumar A, Kumari A and Rani B. 2019b. Varietal variation in physiological and biochemical attributes of sugarcane varieties under different soil moisture regimes. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 57(10): 721–32.

Pooja, Nandwal A S, Chand M, Pal A, Kumari A, Rani B, Goel V and Kulshreshtha N. 2020. Soil moisture deficit induced changes in antioxidative defense mechanism of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) varieties differing in maturity. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 90(4): 507–12.

Dhansu P, Kulshreshtha N, Kumar R, Raja A K, Pandey S K, Goel V and Ram B. 2021. Identification of drought-tolerant co-canes based on physiological traits, yield attributes and drought tolerance indices. Sugar Tech 23: 747–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-00967-7

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(4): 249–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037x.2000.00399.x

Silva MA, da Silva JAG, Enciso J, Sharma V and Jifon J. 2008. Yield components as indicators of drought tolerance of sugarcane. Scientia Agricola 65(6): 620–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162008000600008

Vasantha S, Alarmelu S, Hemprabha G and Shanthi R M. 2005. Evaluation of promising sugarcane genotypes for drought. Sugar Tech 7: 82–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02942536

Venkataramana S, Rao PNG and Naidu K M. 1986. The effects of water stress during the formative phase on stomatal resistance and leaf water potential and its relationship with yield in ten sugarcane varieties. Field Crops Research 13(4): 345–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(86)90035-3

Venkataramana S, Shunmugasundaram S and Naidu K M. 1984. Growth behaviour of field grown sugar-cane varieties in relation to environmental parameters and soil moisture stress. Agriculture, Forest Meteorology 31: 251–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(84)90039-X