Thursday , January 18 2018
Home / Research Papers / Agriculture Sciences / Effect of Nutrition Management, Row Spacing and Earthing Up on Lodging, Cane Yield and Quality of Spring Planted Sugarcane

Effect of Nutrition Management, Row Spacing and Earthing Up on Lodging, Cane Yield and Quality of Spring Planted Sugarcane

Effect of Nutrition Management, Row Spacing and Earthing Up on Lodging, Cane Yield and Quality of Spring Planted Sugarcane

Abstract

Experiment was carried out at research farm of Institute of Agricultural Sciences during spring 2016 to Effect of Nutrition Management, Row Spacing and Earthing Up on Lodging, Cane Yield and Quality of Spring Planted Sugarcaneassess the response of sugarcane to different spatial arrangements, earthing and nutrient doses. Treatments include S1 = planting of sugarcane in 60 cm apart furrows (conventional farmer practice) and S2 = 120 cm apart trenches (standard). Earthing up treatments include E1= No earthing, E2 = earthing at 90 DAP. Nutrient doses include F1= 100-90-90, F2=150-110-110, F3 = 200-130-130 and F4 = 250-160-160 NPK kg ha-1. More lodging was witnessed at closer furrow than wide spaced trenches. Earthing up at 90 DAP decreased the lodging. Increase in Nitrogen dose enhance the lodging %age. Highest cane yield (125 t ha-1) was given by treatment in which sugarcane was planted at wider spacing followed by earthing 90 DAP with highest dose of NPK kg/ ha.  Highest sugar yield (16.85 t ha-1) was achieved in the treatment where earthing was performed 90 DAP with nutrient level of 250-160-160 NPK kg/ha.

Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is one of the important summer season crop which supports the rural economy and provide the raw material to ever increasing sugar industry of Pakistan.  Sugarcane is planted on 1.21 million hectare area with sugarcane production in Pakistan of 73.6 million metric tonnes during 2016-17 with average cane yield of 60.4 t ha-1 (GOP. 2017). Pakistan is major sugarcane producing country of world in terms of area but average cane and sugar yield is less than top cane producing nations. Improper row spacing, improper and imbalance use of fertilizer and no earthing up or earthing up at improper time are some of the reasons which cause the sugarcane crop to lodge due to which cane yield and quality is badly affected (Anwar et al. 2002).The appropriate planting method is very important to completely exploit the potential of a variety (Chattha et al. 2007). Narrow spacing creates difficulty in performing different intercultural operations which are necessary for good crop growth and ultimately reduce the yield (Ehsanullah et al. 2011). Sowing of sugarcane at wider spacing improves the yield and income (Rajula Shanty and Muthusamy, 2012).Trench planting method is more easy and effective (Sarwar et al. 1996). Earthing up improves the stripped cane yield of sugarcane crop than no earthing up (Aslam et al. 2005). Lodging decreased the sugar yield up to 21% in irrigated sugarcane crop (van Heerden et al. 2015). Sugarcane quality is influenced by nutrient management (Meyer and Wood, 2001). Increase in NPK fertilizer levels improves the cane yield than control treatment (Ricaud and Arcenaux, 1987).

Considering these factors present study has been carried out to investigate the role of spatial arrangement, earthing and nutrient management on sugarcane yield under the semi-arid and sub-tropical climate.

Materials and Methods

Experiment was conducted at the research farm of University of the Punjab, Lahore on loam soil during spring season 2016-17. The experimental site was canal irrigated with flat alluvial soil and positioned at Longitude 74o East with Latitude 31o North. Soil sampling was done at 12 inch depth for physico-chemical properties of experimental site (Table 1).

Table 1. Soil Physico-chemical Analysis

Growing

Season

Soil typepHOM

%

NitrogenPhosphorous (ppm)Potassium

(ppm)

2016-17Loam8.30.880.0610140

Design used for the layout of trial was RCBD with split split plot arrangement with three replication. Plot size was kept 3.6 meter x 6.0 meter. Sugarcane variety CPF-250 was used as a test crop. Treatments include two row spacing T1 = 60 cm apart furrows (conventional farmer practice) and T2 = 120 cm apart trenches (standard), while two earthing up treatments include T3 = No earthing up, T4 = earthing up at 90 DAP. Four nutrient levels include T5 = NPK fertilizer @ 100-100-100, T6 = NPK fertilizer @ 150-100-100, T7 = NPK fertilizer @ 200-150-150 and T8 = NPK fertilizer @ 250-150-150 kg ha -1. Crop was sown during 1st week of March 2016 using recommended seed rate. Setts were covered with 5 cm layer of soil with hands. U-shaped 8 inches deep and 24 inches wide trenches were made manually. Fertilizer was applied according to the treatments. ZnSO4 (33%) was used @ 12.5 kg ha-1. Earthing of crop was done with the help of spade 90 days after planting. Recommended agronomic and plant protection measures were taken to raise the crop to maturity. Harvesting was done during first week of February 2017. The data of number of tillers per square meter was taken 90 days after planting. Data of all other yield contributing factors were taken at harvest from whole plot. The collected data were analysed statistically by using computer software Statistics 8.1.

Results and Discussion

Cane diameter (cm)

Table 2 showed that maximum cane diameter (2.62) was attained by the treatment R1E2F4 followed by the treatment RIE2F3 which attain cane diameter (2.60). While the minimum cane diameter (2.08) was attained by the treatment R1E1F1. Cane diameter was improved with trench planting as compared to conventional sowing method. Similarly earthing up at 90 days after planting improved the cane diameter than no earthing up. Severe lodging was observed at narrow row spacing with no earthing up. Cane diameter was affected with lodging. Canes of lodged crop remained thin than erect crop. Sugarcane crop of those plots which received proper nutrition were healthier and their cane diameter was better than plots which received minimum amount of fertilizer. Similar results were reported by other scientists like (Ehsanullah et al. 2011) revealed that cane diameter was improved with increased row spacing.

Table 2: Influence of Row spacing, earthing up and nutrient levels on sugarcane stalk diameter (cm)

S 1S 2
E1E2E1E2
F12.08 n2.12 m2.20 k2.30 i
F22.11 m2.22 j2.38 f2.40 e
F32.18 l2.34 h2.42 d2.60 b
F42.20 k2.36 g2.50 c2.62 a

 

Millable canes per hectare

Millable canes per hectare were significantly affected by different row spacing, earthing-up and nutrient levels (Table 4). Maximum millable canes per hectare (86000) were produced by the treatment S1E2F4 which was statistically at par with the treatment S1E1F4 which produced 85900 millable canes ha-1 followed by the treatment S2E2F4 which produced 85500 canes per hectare. While minimum millable canes (81900 per hectare) were produced by the treatment S2E2F1. More number of millable canes were produced by conventional spacing than trench planting. It might be due to less intra row competition in 60 cm apart furrows than dual cane rows in 120 cm apart trenches. Similarly less cane mortality was observed in plots where high dose of fertilizer was applied as compared to plots where minimum fertilizer was applied. (Ali et al. 2000) also indicated that maximum canes were produced by higher dose of fertilizer 250-112-112 kg NPK ha-1.

Table 3: Influence of Row spacing, earthing and Nutrient doses on no. of canes per hectare

S 1S 2
E1E2E1E2
F182200 j82500 i81700 l81900 k
F283100 g83400 f82600 i82800 h
F385000 c85100 c84400 e84600 d
F485900 a86000 a85000 c85500 b

 

Stripped Cane Weight (Kg)

Table 4 revealed that maximum stripped cane weight (1.47) was given by treatment S2E2F4 followed by treatment S2E2F3 which gave (1.42 kg) stripped cane weight. While the minimum stripped cane weight (0.88) was given by the treatment S1E1F1. Wider row spacing improved the weight per stripped cane as compared to conventional narrow row spacing. It might be due to better light interception, better air circulation. Similarly earthing up at 90 days after planting improved the weight per stripped cane than no earthing up. Severe lodging was observed at narrow row spacing with no earthing up. Cane diameter was affected with lodging. Canes of lodged crop remained thin than erect crop. Sugarcane crop of those plots which received proper nutrition were healthier and their weight per stripped cane was better than plots which received minimum amount of fertilizer. Similar outcomes were reported by (Maqsood et al. 2005) who revealed that weight per stripped cane was reduced at narrow row spacing of 60 cm.

Table 4: Influence of Row spacing, earthing and nutrient doses on cane weight (kg)

S 1S 2
E1E2E1E2
F10.88 m0.98 l1.07 j1.15 h
F20.97 l1.09 i1.21 f1.26 e
F31.05 k1.15 h1.28 d1.42 b
F41.10 i1.18 g1.35 c1.47 a
Cane Yield

Sugarcane yield was affected significantly by different row spacing, earthing and nutrient doses (Table 5). Maximum sugarcane yield (125 t/ha) was produced by the treatment S2E2F4 followed by treatment S2E2F3 which gave cane yield (120 t/ha). While the lowest cane yield (77 t/ha) was given by the treatment S1E1F1. Earthing at 90 days after planting improved the stripped cane yield than no earthing up. Severe lodging was observed at narrow row spacing with no earthing up. Cane diameter was affected with lodging. Canes of lodged crop remained thin than erect crop. Sugarcane crop of those plots which received proper nutrition were healthier and their stripped cane yield was better than plots which received minimum amount of fertilizer. Similar outcomes were reported by other scientist (Maqsood et al. 2005) (Chattha et al. 2007).

Table 5: Influence of Row spacing, earthing and nutrient doses on cane yield (t/ha)

S 1S 2
E1E2E1E2
F177 l85 j88 i95 g
F283 k94 g100 f105 e
F390 h100 f108 d120 b
F495 g104 e115 c125 a

 

CCS %

Table 6 revealed that maximum commercial cane sugar % (13.48) was given by the treatment S2E2F4 followed by treatment S2E2F3 which gave commercial cane sugar % (13.46). While lowest commercial cane sugar % (13.05) was given by the treatment S1E1F1. Similarly earthing up at 90 days after planting improved the commercial cane sugar % than no earthing up. Severe lodging was observed at narrow row spacing with no earthing up. Cane diameter was affected with lodging. Canes of lodged crop remained thin than erect crop. Sugarcane crop of those plots which received proper nutrition were healthier and more juice % age was observed than plots which received minimum amount of fertilizer.

Table 6: Influence of Row spacing, earthing-up and nutrient doses on CCS %

S 1S 2
E1E2E1E2
F113.05 m13.08 l13.28 h13.30 g
F213.08 l13.14 k13.38 e13.40 d
F313.16 j13.35 f13.43 c13.46 b
F413.20 i13.38 e13.46 b13.48 a
Sugar Yield

Maximum yield (16.85) was produced by treatment S2E2F4 followed by treatment S2E2F3 which produced (16.15 t/ha) sugar yield (Table 7). While the least sugar yield (10.41 t/ha) was given by the treatment S1E1F1. Wider row spacing improved the sugar yield as compared to conventional narrow row spacing. Similarly earthing up at 90 days after planting improved the sugar yield than no earthing up. Severe lodging was observed at narrow row spacing with no earthing up. Sugar yield was affected with lodging. Canes of lodged crop remained thin than erect crop.

Table 7: Influence of Row spacing, earthing and nutrient doses on Sugar yield (t/ha)

S 1S 2
E1E2E1E2
F110.04 l11.11 j11.68 i12.63 g
F210.85 k12.35 h13.38 f14.07 e
F311.84 i13.35 f14.50 d16.15 b
F412.54 gh13.91 e15.47 c16.85 a

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *