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

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.

Evaluation of field water balance‐based deficit irrigation strategies for seasonal sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in a semiarid Indian plain

“…This revealed that the mid‐season stage is the most important stage for yield formation in sugarcane and that extreme water deficit is intolerable during this stage. These results are quite similar to those of Dhansu et al (2022), who found that soil moisture has a positive effect on cane girth.…”

“…It is possible to establish irrigation scheduling recommendations based on crop sensitivity to water deficit for different growth stages in order to meet water requirements during deficit‐sensitive growth stages when imposing deficits during less deficit‐sensitive stages. To establish an effective DI scheduling for sugarcane, various studies have been conducted in many growing regions around the world (Dhansu et al, 2022; Dinh et al, 2017; Ellis & Lankford, 1990; Hoang et al, 2018; Inman‐Bamber & Smith, 2005; Ishaq & Olaoye, 2009; Olivier & Singels, 2012; Ramesh & Mahadevaswamy, 2000; Robertson et al, 1999; Santos et al, 2019; Singh & Mohan, 1994; Singh et al, 2007, 2018; Sudhakar et al, 2010; Wagih et al, 2003; Wiedenfeld, 2000; Zhao et al, 2013). These studies show that, when managed properly, DI would increase water efficiency while retaining sugarcane yields and quality at economically reasonable levels.…”

“…These studies show that, when managed properly, DI would increase water efficiency while retaining sugarcane yields and quality at economically reasonable levels. However, most previous research on sugarcane water deficit has focused solely on enforcing a uniform water deficit at any growth level, especially with regard to drying-off management under full irrigation and the implications for biomass (Dhansu et al, 2022;Ellis & Lankford, 1990;Inman-Bamber & Smith, 2005;Ramesh & Mahadevaswamy, 2000;Roberts et al, 1990;Robertson et al, 1999;Santos et al, 2019;Singh & Mohan, 1994;Singh et al, 2007Singh et al, , 2018Wiedenfeld, 2000;Zhao et al, 2013). To formulate proper DI management strategies, a thorough understanding of the trade-offs between yield and water deficit applied in a specific growth stage, as well as the effects on subsequent growth stages, is needed (Dingre et al, 2021a(Dingre et al, , 2021b.…”