Response of high yielding varieties of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) to planting materials under waterlogged condition
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v69i2.5506Keywords:
Crop productivity, Economics, Planting material, Sugarcane varieties, Waterlogged conditionsAbstract
A 3 -years field experiment consisting of 2 planting materials viz., 3- bud setts and bud chips and 5 sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) varieties (‘BO 91’, ‘CoP 16437’, ‘CoP 16438’ and ‘BO 156’) was conducted during spring seasons of 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, to study the effect of planting materials and varieties on productivity of sugarcane under waterlogged conditions. Significantly higher plant population (157, 000/ha), plant height (292 cm), LAI (4.12), mortality percent (38.4%), length of internode (11.8 cm), millable canes (96, 300/ha) and B: C ratio (0.70) was observed with bud chip as planting material than three bud setts. However, significantly higher number of nodes having aerial roots (8.3), cane diameter (2.09 cm) and single cane weight (828 g) were observed with 3 bud setts. Among the varieties, ‘BO 156’ exhibited better growth performance under waterlogged conditions with higher tillers (175, 000/ha), plant height (295 cm), drymatter accumulation (29.5 t/ha) and number of internode/cane (12). The LAI (4.26) and number of nodes having aerial roots (8.9) were found higher in ‘BO 91’. Higher cane diameter (2.11 cm) and single cane weight (936 g) were obtained from ‘CoP 16437’. But the variety ‘BO 91’ recorded higher millable canes (107, 500/ha) which was statistically comparable to ‘BO 156’. The data indicated that variety ‘BO 156’ recorded significantly higher cane yield (78.0 t/ha), gross returns (₹226, 200/ha), net returns (₹107, 000/ha) and B: C ratio (0.90) but it was at par ‘CoP 16437’ in respect to cane yield and gross returns. The quality in terms of brix (19.5%) and pol (17.11%) of ‘CoP 16438’ and ‘CoP 16437’ was better than ‘CoP 092’ and ‘BO 156’ but the sugar yield of varieties ‘BO 156’ (9.1 t/ha) and ‘CoP 16437’ (8.4 t/ha) were at par to each other. The productivity and economic parameters indicated that bud chip raised settlings and sugarcane variety ‘BO 156’ is economically viable options under waterlogged conditions.
References
Ram, B. 2017. Development of sugarcane varieties for abiotic stresses suitable for sub-tropical conditions. Journal of Sugarcane Research 7(1): 11–26.
Budi, S., Redjeki, E.S. and Prihatiningrum, A.E. 2016. Effect of variety and stratified plantlets nursery to the growth of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) propagated in single bud. Research Journal of Seed Science 9(2): 42–47.
Gill, J.S. and Kaur, G. 2015. Infusion of single bud chip planting technique for sugarcane propagation. Indian Journal of Economic Development 11(1): 227–232.
Kumar, N. 2009. Growth, yield and quality assessment of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) varieties under waterlogged condition. Rajendra Agricultural University Journal of Research 19(1 and 2): 19–22.
Kumar, N. 2018. Effect of planting method on productivity and economics of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) varieties under waterlogged condition. Indian Journal of Agronomy 63(1): 95–99.
Kumar, N. 2020. Enhancing sugarcane plant- ratoon productivity through bud chip transplanting geometry. Sugar Technology 22(2): 208–215.
Kumar, N. and Kumar, V. 2020. Production potential and nitrogen fractionation of sugarcane-based cropping system as influenced by planting materials and nitrogen nutrition. Sugar Tech 22(4): 622–629.
Kumar, N., Rana, L., Singh, A.K., Kumar, Anil, Kamat, D.N. and Singh, S.N. 2023a. Performance of new early genotypes of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) as influenced by row spacing. Ecology, Environment and Conservation 29: 184–187.
Kumar, N., Singh, H., Kumar, R. and Singh, V.P. 2012. Productivity and profitability of different genotypes of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) as affected by fertility levels and planting seasons. Indian Journal of Agronomy 57(2): 180–185.
Kumar, N., Singh, H., Kumari, R. and Singh, V.P. 2015. Comparative analysis of yield and quality in sugarcane genotypes under waterlogged and normal condition. The Bioscan 10(1): 323–327.
Kumar, N., Sow, S., Rana, L., Singh, A.K., Kumar, A., Kumar, Anil and Singh, S.N. 2023b. Physio-agronomic performance of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) genotypes under various planting geometry. Annals of Agricultural Research 44(1): 93–98.
Loganandhan, N.B., Gujia, V., Binod-Goud and Natrajan, U.S. 2013. Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative (SSI): A methodology of ‘more with less’. Sugar Tech 15(1): 98–102.
Spencer, G.L. and Meade, G.P. 1955. Sugarcane Hand Book. John Wiley and Sons, London.
Tayade, A.S., Anusha, S., Bhaskaran, A. and Govindraj, P. 2017. Response of early maturing elite sugarcane genotypes to varied row spacing and fertilizer levels. Journal of Sugarcane Research 7(1): 46–51.
