PHYSIO-AGRONOMIC RESPONSE OF SPRING PLANTED …

PHYSIO-AGRONOMIC RESPONSE OF SPRING

PLANTED SUGARCANE TO DIFFERENT

NITROGEN AND POTASH FERTILIZER LEVELS

UNDER DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

BY

ZAHID IQBAL

M.Sc. (HONS.) AGRICULTURE

INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB,

LAHORE

PHYSIO-AGRONOMIC RESPONSE OF SPRING PLANTED

SUGARCANE TO DIFFERENT NITROGEN AND POTASH

FERTILIZER LEVELS UNDER DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

A thesis submitted to the University of the Punjab in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Agriculture (Agronomy)

By

Zahid Iqbal

Supervisors

Dr. Muhammad Bilal Chattha

Dr. Muhammad Nasir Subhani

INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB

LAHORE

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the research entitled “PHYSIO-AGRONOMIC RESPONSE OF

SPRING PLANTED SUGARCANE TO DIFFERENT NITROGEN AND POTASH

FERTILIZER LEVELS UNDER DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM ” described in this

thesis by Mr. Zahid Iqbal, is an original work of the author and has been carried out under our

direct supervision. We have personally gone through all the data, materials and results

reported in the dissertation and certify their correctness and authenticity. We further certify

that the materials included in this thesis has not been used in part or full in a dissertation

already submitted or in the process of submission in partial or complete fulfillment of the

award of any other degree from any institution. We also certify that the thesis has been

prepared under our supervision according to the prescribed format and we endorse its

evaluation for the award of Ph.D. degree through the official procedures of the University of

the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Here thesis is in pure academic language and it is free from typos and grammatical errors.

SUPERVISORS

Dr. Muhammad Bilal Chattha

Assistant Professor

Date: ____________

Dr. Muhammad Nasir Subhani

Associate Professor

Date: ____________

DECLARATION CERTIFICATE

This thesis which is being submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in the University of the Punjab,

Lahore, Pakistan does not contain any material which has been submitted for the award of

Ph.D. Degree in any University and, to the best of my knowledge and faith, neither does this

thesis contain any material published or written previously by another person, except when

due reference is made to the source in the text of the thesis.

Zahid Iqbal

Ph.D. Scholar

Institute of Agricultural Sciences

University of the Punjab, Lahore,

Pakistan

This humble effort is 1

Dedicated To 2

3

4

To sublime love of 5

My FATHER 6

& 7

My MOTHER 8

Who taught me 9

The first word to speak, 10

The first alphabet to write, 11

The first step to take 12

Inspired me 13

To higher ideas of life 14

And under whose feet my heaven lies 15

and 16

Whose hands always rose in prayer for me 17

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I indebted to Almighty Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful who proposed my

thoughts with exaltations, enlightened and enabled me to be in the queue who contributed to

mankind on the face of mother earth. Heartiest SALAM for the greatest teacher of humanity,

the last prophet Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H). May Allah bestowed me with all the energies

and potentials to follow the teachings of the Greatest teacher and continue to make material

contributions to already existing ocean of knowledge.

The research presented in this discussion is accomplished due to leadership guidance

of my esteemed supervisors Dr. Muhammad Bilal Chattha Assistant Professor and Dr.

Muhammad Nasir Subhani, Associate Professor, Institute of Agricultural Sciences,

University of the Punjab, Lahore. Their ever encouraging attitude, noteworthy suggestions,

animate directions and Zealous interest in my research helped me in articulating thoughts

which guided me successfully through conceptual skectch. Benediction to them.

It will always be immense pleasure for me to express gratitude to Dr. Muhammad

Saleem Haider, Professor/Director Institute of Agricultural Sciences, University of the

Punjab, Lahore for extending unprecedented cooperation, propitious directions, strategic

command, ever inspiring guidance during the course of studies.

Feeling pleasure in expressing profound thanks to Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq, Assistant

Professor, Coordinator Departmental Doctoral Program Committee and Dr. Muhammad Ali

Klasra, Assistant Professors, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, University of the Punjab,

Lahore, for their help in maintenance of professional integrity at each and every step till the

achieving uphill task.

My sincere thanks are also for dearest and nearest ones Mr. Rana Qurban Ali Khan,

Assistant Director, Agri. Extension Wing, Ferozwala Distt. Sheikhupura of Agriculture

Department for positive improvement in carrying out research and for their companionship.

Special thanks go to Dr. Nasir Mehmood, Deputy Director (QEC) Govt. College

Women University Faisalabad for their extended support in analysis of data collected from

the field.

Gratitude are also due for administration, Accounts Sections of Institute of

Agricultural Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore under the leadership of Chaudhary

Muhammad Aslam, Mr. Hammad, Mr. Sajjad and late Ehsan Zaidi who always listened me

respectfully and resolved the issues if any on top priority basis graciously.

The author wishes to dedicate this study to his beloved parents whose prayers

sustained him through difficult times. I would also like to express my deepest regard and

sincere gratitude‟s to my wife Fareena Zahid, my beloved daughter Aruma Fatima Zahid and

my sons Hafiz Huzaifa Hasan Zahid, Muhammad Sabih-ul-Hasan Zahid and Muhammad

Wajih-ul-Hasan Zahid who brought me to do the best of my ability in all endeavours.

Actually, their efforts are for above of my thanks.

Specially, I thank to my younger Sister Professor Dr. Salma Shahid, Head of

Department, Behavioral Sciences, Minhaj University, Lahore for her support and guidance in

completion of my research work.

(ZAHID IQBAL)

CONTENTS

List of Tables I

List of Figures Iv

Abstract Vi

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Introduction

Review of Literature

1

2.1 Introduction of sugarcane 5

2.2 Sugarcane botany 5

2.3 Major producers of sugarcane 6

2.4 Sugarcane production in Pakistan 6

2.5 Sugarcane growth and development 8

2.5.1 Cane sprouting 8

2.5.2 Cane tillering 8

2.5.3 Ripening 8

2.6 Sugarcane cropping 9

2.7 Water requirement of sugarcane 10

2.8 Methods of fertilizer application in sugarcane 11

2.9 Drip irrigation method and fertigation of sugarcane 12

2.10 Nitrogen application in sugarcane 15

2.10.1 Effect of nitrogen on sugarcane growth, yield and quality 15

2.11 Potassium in sugarcane cultivation 17

2.12 Potassium deficiency symptoms in sugarcane 18

2.12.1 Effect of K on sugarcane growth, yield and cane quality 19

2.13 Forms of K application 20

Chapter 3 Materials and Methods 22

3.1 Soil analysis 22

3.2 Experimental treatments details 23

3.2.1 EXPERIMENT I 23

Growth, Yield and Quality of Sugarcane as Affected by

different Levels of Nitrogen Application through Drip

Irrigation

23

3.2.2 EXPERIMENT II 23

Growth, Yield and Quality of Sugarcane as Affected by

different Levels of Potash Application through Drip Irrigation

3.3 Layout Plan and fertilizer application 24

3.4 Crop husbandry 24

3.4.1: Bed preparation, drip installation and sowing 24

3.4.2 Plant protection measures 25

3.4.3 Crop harvest/Observations 25

3.5 Growth and Yield Characteristics 25

3.5.1 Sprouting percentage 25

3.5.2 Total number of tillers per m2 25

3.5.2 Number of millable canes per m2 25

3.5.3 Plant height (cm) 25

3.5.4 Number of internodes per cane 26

3.5.5 Length of internodes (cm) 26

3.5.6 Cane length (m) 26

3.5.7 Cane diameter (cm) 26

3.5.8 Weight per stripped cane (kg) 26

3.5.9 Un-Stripped cane yield (t ha-1

) 26

3.5.10 Cane-top weight (t ha-1

) 26

3.5.11 Cane trash weight (t ha-1

) 26

3.5.12 Stripped cane yield (t ha-1

) 27

3.5.13 Harvest Index (%) 27

3.6 Physiological Characteristics 27

3.6.1 Leaf area index 27

3.6.2 Leaf area duration (days) (Hunt, 1978) 27

3.6.3 Total dry matter (t ha-1

) 27

3.6.4 Crop growth-rate (g m-2

day-1

) 27

3.6.5 Net assimilation-rate (g m-2

day-1

) 28

3.7 Quality Parameters 28

3.7.1 Brix percent 28

3.7.2 Sucrose content in cane juice 28

3.7.3 Cane fiber percent 28

3.7.4 Cane fiber percent (%) 28

3.7.5 Commercial cane sugar percent 28

3.7.6 Cane sugar recovery percent 28

3.8 Statistical Analysis 29

Chapter 4 Results 30

EXPERIMENT No. 1:

Growth, yield and quality of sugarcane as affected by different

levels of nitrogen application through drip irrigation

30

4.1.1 Morphological Attributes 30

4.1.1.1 Effect of Nitrogen on sprouting percentage of sugarcane % 30

4.1.1.2 Effect of Nitrogen on number of tillers per unit area 30

4.1.1.3 Effect of Nitrogen on number of millable canes of sugarcane ha-1

30

4.1.1.4 Effect of nitrogen on plant height of sugarcane (cm) 30

4.1.1.5 Effect of nitrogen on internodes per cane of sugarcane 30

4.1.1.6 Effect of nitrogen on internode length of sugarcane (cm) 35

4.1.1.7 Effect of nitrogen on cane length of sugarcane (cm) 35

4.1.1.8 Effect of nitrogen on cane diameter of sugarcane (cm) 35

4.1.1.9 Effect of nitrogen on weight per stripped cane of sugarcane (kg) 35

4.1.1.10 Effect of nitrogen on un-stripped cane yield of sugarcane (t ha-1

) 39

4.1.1.11 Effect of nitrogen on cane top weight of sugarcane (t ha-1

) 39

4.1.1.12 Effect of nitrogen on cane trash weight of sugarcane (t ha-1

) 44

4.1.1.13 Effect of nitrogen on stripped cane yield of sugarcane (t ha-1

) 44

4.1.1.14 Effect of nitrogen on harvest index of sugarcane (%) 44

4.1.2 Physiological characteristics 48

4.1.2.1 Effect of nitrogen on leaf area index of sugarcane 48

4.1.2.2 Effect of nitrogen on leaf area duration (days) 48

4.1.2.3 Effect of nitrogen on total dry matter of sugarcane (t ha-1

) 48

4.1.2.4 Effect of nitrogen on average crop growth rate of sugarcane (g m-2

day-1

)

50

4.1.2.5 Effect of nitrogen on net assimilation rate of sugarcane (g m-2

day-

1)

50

4.1.3 Quality characteristics 56

4.1.3.1 Effect of nitrogen on brix percent of sugarcane (%) 56

4.1.3.2 Effect of nitrogen on sucrose content of sugarcane (%) 56

4.1.3.3 Effect of nitrogen on cane fiber content of sugarcane (%) 56

4.1.3.4 Effect of nitrogen on commercial cane sugar content of

sugarcane(%)

60

4.1.4

4.1.4.1

4.1.4.2

4.1.4.3

Economic Analysis

Net field benefit

Dominance analysis

Marginal rate of return (%)

EXPERIMENT No. 2:

Growth, yield and quality of sugarcane as affected by different

levels of potash application through drip irrigation

63

63

64

65

66

4.2.1 Morphological Attributes 66




67








) 76


) 76


) 76


) 77


4.2.2 Physiological characteristics 84




) 84


day-1

)

85


day-

1)

91

4.2.3 Quality characteristics 91




4.2.3.4

4.2.4

4.2.4.1

Effect of nitrogen on commercial cane sugar content of sugarcane

(%)

Economic Analysis

Net field benefit

Dominance analysis

Marginal rate of return (%)

95

100

100

Chapter 5 Discussion 103

Chapter 6 Summary 116

Conclusion 118

Recommendations for future prospects 118

Literature Cited 120

i

LIST OF TABLES Table

no.

Title

Page

no.

2.1 Major producers of sugarcane crop in the world. 6

2.2 Yield potential of sugarcane in different countries of the world 7

2.3 Cultivated area, production and yield of sugarcane in different provinces

of Pakistan.

8

3.1 Analysis of the soil 22

Experiment 1



4.1.1.3 Effect of Nitrogen on number of millable canes of sugarcane ha-1 34








) 43


) 45


) 46


) 47





) 53

ii


day-1

) 54


day-1

) 55




4.1.3.4 Effect of nitrogen on commercial cane sugar content of sugarcane (%) 61

4.1.3.5 Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane (%)

62

Experiment 2




69








) 80


) 81


) 82


) 83




iii


) 89


day-1

) 90


day-1

) 92





4.2.3.5 Effect of different levels of potash application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane (%)

99

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

no.

Title

Page

no.

Experiment 1



4.1.1.3 Effect of Nitrogen on number of millable canes of sugarcane ha-1 34








) 43


) 45


) 46


) 47





) 53


day-1

) 54


day-1

) 55


v




4.1.3.5 Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane

62

Experiment 2




69








) 80


) 81


) 82


) 83





) 89


day-1

) 90


day-1

) 92

vi





4.1.3.5 Effect of different levels of potash application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane

99

vii

ABSTRACT

The trial on effect of different levels of nitrogen applied through soil and fertigation on

sugarcane crop was conducted during 2015 and 2016 at Water Management Research Farm,

Renala Khurd, Okara. The nitrogen levels were 0, 168, 210, 126 and 82 kg ha-1

whereas P and

K were constant and applied in soil in two equal splits at planting and 45 days after planting at

the rate of 112-112 kg ha-1

. There were seven treatments i.e. T1 (0-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

)

through soil application, T2 (168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

) through soil application and flood

irrigation, T3 (168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

) through soil application and drip irrigation, T4

(125% N of recommended dose of 168 N kg ha-1

) i.e. 210 kg N ha-1

through fertigation in 12

equal splits , T5 (100% N of recommended dose of 168 kg N ha-1

) i.e. 168 kg N ha-1

through

fertigation in 12 equal splits, T6 (75% N of recommended dose of 168 kg N ha-1

) i.e. 126 kg N

ha-1

through fertigation in 12 equal splits and T7 (50% N of recommended dose of 168 kg N ha-

1) i.e. 82 kg N ha

-1 through fertigation in 12 equal splits. During 2015, T4 125% N (210 kg N

ha-1

) produced significantly the highest cane yield of 114.25 t ha-1

than all other treatments

except T5 100% N (168 kg N ha-1

) applied through fertigation with which it was at par with

cane yield of 112.50 t ha-1

which was also significantly higher than the remaining treatments.

T6 75% N (126 kg N ha-1

) gave significantly higher cane yield of 102.50 t ha-1

than T7 50% N

(82 kg N ha-1

) and T1 (0 kg N ha-1

) but was at par with T2 100% N (168 kg N ha-1

) applied

through soil and flood irrigation and T3 100% N (168 kg N ha-1

) applied through soil and drip

irrigation. Thus, 25% Nitrogen of recommended dose was saved due to fertigation with similar

cane yield as that of recommended dose of Nitrogen. Similar results were achieved during

2016.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is an important crop of tropical to warm

temperate parts of the world. The successful sugarcane cultivation has also been reported in

various subtropical regions around the globe. Sugarcane producing countries lie between the

coordinates 36.70º north and 31.00º south of equator (Carry and Knox, 2001). The optimum

temperature requirement for the sugarcane is 15-35ºC having level of relative humidity 55-80%

with comparatively longer warm season receiving higher solar radiations and ample moisture

contents for its proper growth (Liu et al., 1998). Overall, a comparatively sunny, drier and

cooler frost free climate is considered highly suitable for successful sugarcane cultivation,

higher yield and harvesting. Generally, sugarcane crop needs averagely 1200-2000 mm annual

rainfall and it may take about 8-24 months‟ time period for proper maturity (Martin et al.,

1976; Malik, 1997). Sugarcane is being grown in various countries of the world. Brazil and

India are the major sugarcane producing countries followed by China, Thailand, Pakistan,

Mexico, Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines and USA (FAO, 2015). Pakistan is at 5th

position

in sugarcane production and 11th

in cane yield among various sugarcane producing countries.

In Pakistan, sugarcane is an imperative cash crop. It is generally grown for the

production of sugar. It is imperative income source for farmers of the country. It also provides

raw material for chip boards, paper and confectionery. Sugarcane contributes significantly for

the uplift of farming community (Raja, 2017). It provides 36.12 billion rupees to the farmers of

the country by providing about 32.11 million tons annually. Similarly, the Pakistani sugar

industry provides around 2.95 million tons sugar with total 73.5 billion rupees. Sugarcane also

strengthens the national economy of the country with overall contribution of about 4.00 billion

rupees as taxes. The overall share of sugarcane in national GDP and agriculture is 0.8 and

3.6%, respectively. Sugarcane industry also provides the important raw material to the national

sugar mills, thereby, providing employment for about 4.0 million people of the country (Naqvi,

2005; Raja, 2017). Sugarcane is grown on 1.141 million ha with overall cane yield of 54.91

tons per ha (GOP, 2015). Although its production area has been increased over the last decade

but per unit production is still very low in Pakistan as compared to other countries of the world.

2

However, the said yield in the country is very low as compared to other sugarcane producing

countries 65.59 tons per ha (Raja, 2017).

Sugarcane is an important natural and renewable agricultural resource. It provides

biofuel, sugar, bio-fertilizer, fiber as well as various co-products and bi-products having eco-

friendly sustainability. Bagas is the leading bi-product. It is major raw material source for

various manufacturing industries. The ethanol is generally produced from sugarcane molasses

that could be utilized as an important bio-fuel, a gasoline alternative and is extensively used

(Rosa, 2005).

Sugarcane is an important cash crop. Its yield depends on numerous factors. In

Pakistan, the leading factors of agro-technology of sugarcane affecting its production include

plating methods, low plant population, irrigation method, soil fertility and in appropriate use of

different fertilizers (Chattha, 2009). Similarly, lodging is very serious constraint in sugarcane

production system of Pakistan. Lodging badly affects juice quality, cane yield and sugar

recovery (Anwar et al., 2002). Lodging problem can be reduced by adopting suitable planting

methods and appropriate application of certain nutrients. Pakistan has enormous potential for

increasing the cane yield and production by adopting improved cultivation methods, optimum

use of fertilizers and irrigation methods (Majid, 2007b; Chattha, 2009).

Yield of sugarcane may also be increased with suitable planting methods receiving

optimum nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) fertilization under optimum irrigation regimes.

Sugarcane planting in comparatively deep trenches having wide row spacing about 120 cm

distance increased 30% cane yield as compared to flat plantation over the furrows having

recommended doses of fertilizers. The said planting also resulted in better aeration, reduced

lodging, weed reduction, improved fertilizer and irrigation use efficacy (Chattha et al., 2004).

The planting density with wider row spacing resulted in 9 tons higher cane yield in contrast to

narrow rows spacing. The higher cane yield was occurred due to increased tiller density under

wider rows spacing having increased leaf area. The increased area of leaf intercepted more

solar radiations and accumulated higher overall biomass (Annonymous, 2004).

Among different nutrients, N is essential nutrient because sugarcane growing requires

their optimum doses at critical phonological stages (Dinh et al., 2017). The higher application

of N fertilizers may significantly increase the vegetative growth ultimately leading to excessive

sugarcane lodging which in turn substantially reduce the average cane yield and cane quality

(Bell, 2014). It has been reported that N nutrient plays an imperative function in production of

3

sugarcane crop. N has been found to involve in numerous critical aspects including plant

vegetative growth, green leaf expansion and production of suckers and/or tillers in sugarcane.

Moreover, it is also important for biosynthesis of plant proteins which are considered essential

for proper photosynthesis particularly for rubisco and PEPCase (Dinh et al., 2017). It is a well-

known that N deficiency leads to lower vegetative growth and cane yield of sugarcane

however, its excessive application can result in increased growth of vegetative parts and

decreased cane yield and overall quality (Bell, 2014; Dinh et al., 2017). Moreover, N

deficiency also results in reduced interception of light and decreased photosynthesis owing to

reduced leaf area, chlorophyll biosynthesis and overall production of biomass. It is important to

mention that sugarcane crop accumulates increased biomass with optimum application rate of

N fertilizer (Thorburn et al., 2005; van Heer-den et al., 2010). Nevertheless, N fertilizer should

be utilized at rates that minimize the environmental influences with maintained agronomic

yield production. This could be achieved by the application of optimum and recommended N

doses at critical time period in sugarcane crop (van Heer-den et al., 2010). The increased

nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) can supplement optimum vegetative growth and increased cane

yield. Optimum application, increased N uptake and NUE can positively contribute to increase

overall yield in sugarcane (Dinh et al., 2017). Similarly, positive association was noted

between N application with cane yield and sugar yield having appropriate quality (Acreche,

2017). In the same way, significant increase was observed in vegetative growth and production

of sugarcane biomass in response to the N application (Calif and Edgecombe, 2015).

K is essential nutrient for the proper vegetative growth and photosynthesis of plants. It

plays imperative role in moisture translocation and sucrose storage of sugarcane plants. Among

various essential nutrients, K is mostly found abundant in juice of sugarcane (Mathew et al.,

2004). The K application to deficient soils significantly improves the sucrose recovery of

sugarcane. The foliar K application after 90 days of planting resulted in significantly increased

millable canes and overall cane yield. The overall biomass of the K application treated

sugarcane plants was also substantially increased (Mathew et al., 2004). The yield was also

increased in response to K fertilization in sugarcane (Verma, 2004). In the same way, K

application improved dry matter accumulation, bud sprouting and nutrients uptake of sugarcane

(Shukla et al., 2009). The vegetative growth, number of shoots, yield and sugar quality was

substantially enhanced in response to K application of sugarcane (Otto et al., 2010).

4

Reduced water availability is also the major reason of the low yield in Pakistan.

Sugarcane is a long growing season crop and it needs large water availability. Sugarcane is

generally grown as a frequently irrigated crop. Sugarcane crop normally need around 1700-

1900 mm water to complete its growth cycle (Chattha, 2009). The water application time and

the total requirement of water both are critical factors affecting sugarcane production. It is

imperative to wisely utilize the available water. The water resources by using suitable irrigation

approaches effectively enhance the per unit production of sugarcane (Gulati and Nayak, 2002).

Therefore, an improved, efficient and effective water management is direly needed particularly

during the hot dry period to increase the water use efficiency with significantly higher cane

yield. This is perhaps only plausible with the drip irrigation method (Uribe et al., 2013). This

micro irrigation technique has a possibility to play effective role in managing the scarcity of

water by the judicious water application directly in root zone of sugarcane plants (Kaushal et

al., 2012). The drip system uses water in highly precise way and irrigation water can be directly

applied in root zone of the crop. Moreover, this precise water application can also be used to

apply fertilizer (fertigation) to sugarcane plants and it may ultimately help to enhance crop

productivity. Furthermore, the NUE substantially increase in fertigation owing to the regular

and controlled fertilizers application. So, it is need of the time to increase quality and per unit

production of sugarcane. So, in this context, irrigation or water application has now become a

critical cultural practice to guarantee higher sugarcane yield (Rajegowd et al., 2004; Kaushal et

al., 2012). Based on the literature, yield and productivity of sugarcane can be improved with N

and K application with suitable irrigation system such as drip irrigation. So the objectives of

current research were as follows:

1. To assess effects of drip irrigation method on vegetative growth, cane yield and quality of

sugarcane.

2. To investigate effects of different levels of N and K fertilizers on vegetative growth, cane

yield and quality of sugarcane.

3. To standardize N and K fertigation levels under drip irrigation technique for sugarcane.

5

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1: Introduction of sugarcane

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L) is an important crop of tropical to warm










1976; Malik, 1997). Sugarcane is being grown in various countries of the world.

2.2: Sugarcane botany

Sugarcane belongs to Graminae which have about 37 species encompassing perennial

tall grasses. The members are innate to tropical to warm temperate parts of the world. Most of

the species are of economic importance and are being grown for various purposes. Sugarcane

also has a tall plant. The plant of the sugarcane is made up of leaves, stalks, and roots. Stem of

the plant exits above of the ground. Stem of the sugarcane consists of numerous nodes, buds,

and a root band. Leaves of the plant are attached with the stems as an alternate pattern to

efficiently capture the sunlight for photosynthesis. Sugarcane is of substantial economic

importance and is source of income for the farmers in various countries of the world. Also,

sugarcane is a rich source and reservoir of sucrose. Generally, stems are used as a mean of

asexual propagation (MSIRI, 2000). Sugarcane has been known as highly efficient

photosynthesizer. Being C4 crop plant, sugarcane generally be able to convert total 2-3%

captured sunlight into resourceful. It is well accepted that all sugarcane species interbreeds.

Moreover, the leading commercial sugarcane cultivars available to date are the complex

hybrids (AAESC, 2008).

6

Country Cultivated area

(million ha)

Country Production

(million tons)

Brazil 98.4 Brazil 739.3

India 50.6 India 341.2

China 18.3 China 126.1

Thailand 13.2 Thailand 100.1

Pakistan 11.3 Pakistan 63.7

Mexico 7.8 Mexico 61.2

Philippines 4.4 Philippines 31.9

Argentina 3.7 USA 27.9

USA 3.7 Australia 27.1

Australia 3.3 Argentina 23.7

2.3: Major producers of sugarcane

Sugarcane is being grown in various countries of the world. Brazil and India are the

major sugarcane producing countries followed by China, Thailand, Pakistan, Mexico,

Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines and USA (Table 1). Pakistan is at 5th

position in

sugarcane production and 11th

in cane yield among various sugarcane producing countries

(FAO, 2015).

Table 2.1: Major producers of sugarcane crop in the world.

2.4: Sugarcane production in Pakistan

Pakistan is at 5th

position in sugarcane production and 11th

in cane yield among various

sugarcane producing countries (FAO, 2015). In Pakistan, sugarcane is an imperative cash crop.

It provides raw material for chip boards, paper and confectionery. Sugarcane contributes

significantly for the uplift of farming community (Raja, 2017). Although its production area

has been increased over the last decade but per unit production is still very low in Pakistan as

7

compared to other countries of the world (Table 2). However, the said yield in the country is

very low as compared to other sugarcane producing countries 65.59 tons per ha (Raja, 2017). In

Pakistan, sugarcane is generally grown for the production of sugar. It is imperative income

source for farmers of the country. It also provides raw material for chip boards, paper and

confectionery. Sugarcane contributes significantly for the uplift of farming community (Raja,

2017). It provides 36.12 billion rupees to the farmers of the country by providing about 32.11

million tons annually. Similarly, the Pakistani sugar industry provides around 2.95 million tons

with total 73.5 billion rupees. Sugarcane also strengthens the national economy of the country

with overall contribution of about 4.00 billion rupees as taxes. The overall share of sugarcane

in national GDP and agriculture is 0.8 and 3.6%, respectively. Sugarcane industry also provides

the important raw material to the national sugar mills, thereby, providing employment for about

4.0 million people of the country (Naqvi, 2005; Raja, 2017). Sugarcane is grown on 1.141

million ha with overall cane yield of 54.91 tons per ha (GOP, 2015). Although its production

area has been increased over the last decade but per unit production is still very low in Pakistan

as compared to other countries of the world. However, the said yield in the country is very low

(Table 3) as compared to other sugarcane producing countries 65.59 tons per ha (Raja, 2017).

Table 2.2: Yield potential of sugarcane in different countries of the world

Country Yield (Tons ha-1

)

Australia 82.4

Mexico 78.2

Thailand 75.7

USA 75.7

Brazil 75.2

Philippines 73.2

China 69.0

India 67.4

Argentina 64.1

Pakistan 56.5

8

Table 2.3: Cultivated area, production and yield of sugarcane in different provinces of

Pakistan

2.5: Sugarcane growth and development

The knowledge of growth and development of sugarcane is important with respect to

nutrient application and irrigation. The growth and stages are given below.

2.5.1: Cane sprouting

In sprouting of sugarcane development process numerous small sized shoots are

produced enclosed in bud scales. The process of development has been found influenced by

various environmental and physiological factors particularly soil moisture and temperature.

The optimum temperature range of 27 to 33ºC is needed for the desired germination. Moreover,

soil moisture especially in upper 10 cm has been found critical for the development of roots in

the cane sets. So, both temperature and moisture must be present in optimum range for higher

germination of sugarcane sets to get required plant population (MSIRI, 2000).

2.5.2: Cane tillering

Tillering is the second phase of sugarcane development. The duration and rate of

tillering has a direct influence on the later phases of development and final cane yield. Apart

from the cultivar characters, the development of tillering is also affected by sunlight,

temperature, soil moisture, plant spacing and nutrients (MSIRI, 2000). It has been described

that optimum temperature range for tiller development is 30-35ºC. Similarly, the levels of N

and phosphorous (P) are 90 to 150 kg ha-1

and 75 to 100 kg ha-1

, respectively. The availability

of N not only affects emergence of tillers but also the survival of plants. Similarly, pacing of

rows should be 1.2 to 1.5 for planting of sugarcane for higher yield depending upon the

production areas (Gopalasundaram et al., 2012).

2.5.3: Ripening

During the sugarcane ripening, sucrose contents increase in the stalks. The optimum

conditions for the accumulation of sucrose in the sugarcane stalks are the ones that favor

increased photosynthesis rate during the day time and decreased growth at night time. The

Provinces Cultivated area

(000 ha)

Production

(000 tons)

Yield

(Tons ha-1

)

Punjab 752 40560 54

Sindh 249 14000 56

KPK 103 4200 41

Baluchistan 1 40 40

9

stalks of sugarcane may comprise of about 75 percent of the entire plant. On the basis of

composition, the stalk consists of around 2-3% non-sugars, 12-16% sugars, 15-18% fiber and

62-71% water contents (MSIRI, 2000). In general, the rate of ripening is significantly affected

by the N application rate, nature of variety grown, soil moisture contents, solar radiation hours

and temperature. During the process of ripening of sugarcane sucrose is transported from

leaves to certain other plant parts through the sheaths of the leaves. The sucrose is

biosynthesized during 24 hours‟ time period and is moderately stored matured in internodes

and remaining is shifted to the roots, apical plant parts and occasionally newly developing

suckers of the stools of sugarcane. The rate and amount of translocation of sucrose are

significantly affected by the environmental factors in sugarcane. It has been noted that the

optimum temperature for translocation of sucrose is 35ºC; while, no movement was observed at

higher temperature of 50ºC (MSIRI, 2000). However, it has been observed that the younger

stalk contributes higher sucrose contents for the growth purpose; whereas, older stalks are

predominantly used for its storage (MSIRI, 2000).

2.6: Sugarcane cropping systems

The research has indicated that intensive production of sugarcane may result in a

significant reduction of the soil organic matter and the practices like zero tillage, green canes

harvesting and cultivation of the green manure crops adopted to alleviate the said constraint

(Dominy et al., 2002). The practice of monoculture in sugarcane may leads to deleterious

nematodes infestations and certain fungal diseases. The occurrence of fungal disease and

detrimental nematodes substantially retard sugarcane establishment and results in significant

reduction of sugarcane yield (Pankhurst et al., 2004). The fungus and nematodes result in

declined yield due to harmful effects on sugarcane stalks and roots. The said constraints may be

managed with balanced sugarcane cropping systems by adopting crop rotation (Garside et al.,

2005). Furthermore, it has also been observed that the long-term monoculture of sugarcane,

uncontrolled heavy machinery uses and increased tillage operations and depletion of organic

matter also lead to decline in overall cane yield (Garside et al., 2005; Pankhurst et al., 2003).

The adoption of such cropping systems which Practices of the cropping systems that safeguard

soil organic matter, reduced uncontrolled use of heavy machinery, breaking of monoculture

cultivation and minimum tillage operations are the appropriate means to minimize yield

reduction in sugarcane (Garside et al., 2005; Pankhurst et al., 2003).

10

2.7: Water requirement of sugarcane

Sugarcane crop requires high and constant water supply for optimum production and

high cane yield. The normal method of irrigation to sugarcane is flood irrigation. However,

quick decrease of water potential and reduced efficiency of water use in conventional

(flooding) irrigation method alternative approach is required to save water and to aids in

increased productivity with improved sugar recovery. The alternative method of irrigation is

drip irrigation that has enormous potential to timely supply water with reduced losses and

improved nutrient use efficiency for sugarcane crop. Several factors can contribute in

estimation of water requirements of sugarcane crop. The sugarcane water requirements were

estimated in Akola. At 70% level of probability the estimated sugarcane evapotranspiration

(ET) was around 2065.30 mm; whereas, gross total water requirements for the crop were

1633.41 mm (Zade et al., 2001). However, these requirements may vary based on the cultivated

genotypes and production areas. It has been observed that standard annual ET and water

requirements of crop of the sugarcane were 2126.70 and 1983.30 mm, respectively (Arulkar et

al., 2004). In the same way, it was observed in another production region that reference water

requirements of the sugarcane crop were about 1345 mm (Rajegowd et al., 2004). At about 50

and 80% probabilities, the water requirement of sugarcane was also depended upon occurrence

of gross rainfall in relation to crop growth rate and stage (Kumar et al., 2005). Similarly,

seasonal mean irrigation water requirement for sugarcane was around 1119 mm at probability

level of 80%. Moreover, annual sugarcane crop and seasonal water requirement at per plant

grounds was highly dependent upon the production area as reported in Akola region of

Maharashtra by utilizing method of open pan evaporation (Ingle, 2007). The requirement of

water generally increases with increased growth rate of the crop. It has been noted that the

requirement of water was increased from 0.53 liters per day to 10.97 liters per day after 22

meteorological weeks (MW) and subsequently progressively declined to 1.81 liters per day at

27 MW. The maximum water requirement of „Adsali‟ and „Suru‟ sugarcane were found to be

121.7 and 147.9 m3 per day per ha, correspondingly (Ingle, 2007). However, the adequate

supply of water is critically important to obtain higher cane yield in sugarcane with improved

recovery of sugar contents. Furthermore, supply of optimum quantity of water is highly

important for increased sugarcane growth and yield particularly in the areas of production

where sugarcane writhes from irregular occurrence of rainfall and scarcity of water especially

from the months of April to June (before monsoon season onset) (Ingle, 2007). So, it is of

11

particular importance that to use those methods of irrigation which ensure optimum and

continuous supply of irrigation water for sustained production of sugarcane crop. In this regard,

use of drip irrigation method could yield highly production outputs to overcome water scarcity

with wise use of water required at critical growth stages of sugarcane crop.

2.8: Methods of fertilizer application in sugarcane

Fertilizers in sugarcane may be applied in different ways. However, sugarcane crop do

not exhibit any significant preferences to different methods of application and source of

fertilizers under cultivated conditions (Blackburn, 1984). Different methods and techniques

have been used to determine preference of nutrient uptake in sugarcane crop. The isotopic

method compared the efficacy of various nitrogen sources and it was noted that there was no

substantial difference in the used fertilizer. The nitrogen efficiency and recovery among the

urea, potassium nitrate and ammonium sulphate were not much different (Salgado-Garcia et al.,

2001). However, Schumann (2000) observed that the calcium ammonium nitrate, urea and

ammonium sulphate experienced quite similar nitrate-nitrogen field losses through

detnitrification or leaching. Nevertheless, ammonium based nitrogen resulted higher losses

through the process of volatilization under alkaline and acidic water limited production soils.

However, as all fertilizer sources of N were almost effective at equal rates in producing higher

yield of canes under the water limited production conditions the option for choosing an

appropriate fertilizer depends on its availability and cost (Singh and Yadav, 1996). Under the

current production systems urea based nitrogen fertilizer is most common and juice quality as

well as cane yield are not substantially affected by different carriers of nitrogen nutrient (Isa et

al., 2006). However, fertilizer sources play an imperative function in getting higher sugarcane

yield under saline-soils production systems. It has been reported that urea application in saline

soils leads to about 50% reduction of the dry matter contents owing to lower recovery of

nitrogen (34%), than ammonium sulphate fertilizer which has higher percentage of recovery

(Isa et al., 2006).

It has been shown that nutrient use efficiency may be increased by using slow release

fertilizers and inhibitors of nitrification for the nitrogenous fertilizers. Tar coated area; urea

super-granules and sulphur coated urea have been tested in sugarcane production at various

locations. The use of slow release fertilizers significantly improved nutrient use efficiency by

saving 50-100 kg of nitrogen ha-1

with significantly increased sugarcane yield (Hunsigi, 1993;

Srinivasan, 1995; Verma, 2004). Nevertheless, the slow release nutrient fertilizers were not as

12

suitable as traditional periled urea for the use of ratoon crop yield because the said fertilizers do

not substantially left N residues for the subsequent sugarcane crop especially when used on

calcareous soils (Dalal and Prasad, 1975). Sulphur coated urea significantly increased the

nitrogen use efficiency when used on the calcareous soils (Dalal and Prasad, 1975). The

recovery and uptake of N was much higher when urea-super granule was used in sugarcane

production (Yadav et al., 1990). It is also possible to decrease nitrogen-nitrate leaching

percentage to the ground water through the use of nitrogen-controlled-fertilizer and nitrogen

applications concentration about 40% without negatively influencing sugarcane yield.

However, slow release fertilizers are costly and their farmers‟ acceptability is much slower

(Masuda et al., 2003).

2.9: Drip irrigation method and fertigation of sugarcane

Different fertilizers or chemical can be applied to sugarcane crop in a convenient way

through drip irrigation system through special outlets in a process known as fertigation. The

losses of fertilizers can also be minimized through drip irrigation of the crop. The use of drip

irrigation is highly advantageous for growing of sugarcane with higher productivity and yield.

The short detail is given below. Conventional irrigation was compared with drip irrigated crop

of sugarcane (Shinde and Jadhave, 1998). In addition, various subsurface and surface methods

of drip irrigation were compared with the traditional irrigation system. It was found that 56%

reduced use of water was noted in the drip irrigation system that was automatically controlled,

compared to traditional method. Moreover, 52% higher yield was obtained with higher water

use efficiency and 2.5-3-folds reduced losses of irrigation water. So, it was confirmed that drip

irrigation is advantageous, than conventional method of sugarcane irrigation (Shinde and

Jadhave, 1998). Similarly, impact of various planting techniques and fertigation was

investigated on the yield and quality of the sugarcane planted under the system of drip

irrigation. It was observed that the crop of sugarcane that was grown in four rows (90 cm) apart

in paired rows (75 cm) distance under drip irrigation showed higher productivity and yield. The

N fertilizer was applied in 4, 10 or 20 splits via the method of drip irrigation system. The mean

yield of cane was 171.4 tons ha-1

in the crop that was supplied with 20 splits of N under 4 rows

planting geometry with drip irrigation. Moreover, planting geometry under the paired rows

having 20 N splits also gave somewhat equal yield of 169.8 tons ha-1

but it was significantly

higher than conventionally irrigated crop (Bhoi et al., 1999). It has also been noted that

fertigation could be employed as a method of decreasing use of N fertilizer in sugarcane

13

through drip irrigation. The use of N fertilizer was 30% decreased when supplied through drip

irrigation with higher productivity The pattern of growth indicated as leaf area and density of

tillers development was significantly increased in the crop that was supplied with 80 kg N ha-1

through drip irrigation. The yield was as high as the conventional irrigated crop where 120 kg

N h-1

was used. So, it is clear that fertilizer supply through drip irrigation positively reduce

fertilizer losses ultimately leading to increased water nutrient use efficiency (Kwong et al.,

1999). Application of liquid fertilizers through drip irrigation led to increased vegetative

growth and 20.74% more yield with 25% nutrients saving in sugarcane (Shinde et al., 1999).

Influence of various planting techniques and fertigation sources was investigated under drip

irrigation on productivity of sugarcane (Raskar and Bhoi, 2001). The impact of fertigation

levels and sources was studied on quality as well as yield of sugarcane in combination with

modified techniques of planting under drip irrigation system. The planting of sugarcane under

one row skipping following every four rows irrigated with drip system resulted in 25%

increased yield, compared to conventional system of planting through surface irrigation.

Similarly, commercial cane sugar and overall yield was found to be maximum with higher

fertilizer use efficiency. Nevertheless, the produced yield was 75-100% increased, in

comparison to conventionally recommended dose of fertilizer. Among the different used

fertilizers, the yield of the soluble fertilizers was almost similar with the produced yield

through urea fertigation, muriate of potash and diammonium phosphate fertilizers. The cane

yield and savings of water was increased in drip irrigated crop. Moreover, efficiency of water

use ranged from 1017-14.05% in drip irrigation planted crop, as compared to the surface

irrigation method sown crop of sugarcane (Raskar and Bhoi, 2001). The use of drip irrigation

leads to significantly improved benefits such as waster saving (20-60%), fertilizer use

efficiency, reduced labor working, increased productivity and reduced intensity of weeds in

sugarcane. The said benefits may ultimately leads to increased income of the farming

community, in contrast to conventional method of sugarcane irrigation (Chavai et al., 2003). In

the same way, Mahendran and Dhanalakhmi (2003) noted that drip fertigation resulted in

increased vegetative growth and overall yield of sugarcane depending upon the used planting

geometry. When fertigation was applied at fortnight intervals initiated 15 days after planting

onwards in 10 equal splits up to 150 days after planting showed improved growth. Moreover,

germination of sets, plants height, tillers, leaf area growth and accumulation of dry matter were

markedly increased in the crop planted under drip irrigation system combined with fertigation

14

as 100% ETC level. Moreover, the same treatment also resulted in improved millable canes,

length and girth of millable canes leading to substantially higher yield of sugarcane.

Furthermore, sugar and cane yield was also increased up to 181.8 tons ha-1

under drip irrigation

having 120 cm plant spacing under scheme of fertigatoin (Mahendran and Dhanalakhmi, 2003).

Fertigation of K and N through drip irrigation methods resulted in 24.04% increased

total yield along with 46.53% water saving, in contrast to conventionally applied nutrients and

surface irrigation in sugarcane (Rajanna and Patil, 2003). Moreover, imperative quality

characteristics such as commercial cane sugar percentage and brix were remained non-affected

in response to fertigation but comparatively higher in drip irrigated crop, than conventional

surface water application (Rajanna and Patil, 2003). Similarly, Digrase et al. (2004) found that

irrigation application through drip method gave substantially increased yield of canes (162.24

tons ha-1

), in comparison to irrigation of gravity flow system. Irrigation applied via drip method

showed markedly increased vegetative growth. However, use of recommended fertilizers at

80% rate resulted in significantly higher yield of cane along with 20% fertilizer cost saving of

sugarcane. Furthermore, the efficiency was markedly higher in drip irrigation system,

compared to gravity flow method of water application (Digrase et al., 2004). The 1059 kwh ha-

1, 44% saving of water and 23% increased yield of sugarcane was obtained in drip irrigation, in

contrast to flood irrigation method (Narayanamoorthy, 2004). Effect of fertilizer application

and water requirements was studied on sugarcane. It was noted that fertigation increased

fertilizer and water use efficiency (Wei et al., 2008). Similarly, emission uniformity in response

to fertigation under drip irrigation method showed improved yield and quality of cane sugar

(Kadam, 2009). Applications of the recommended NPK doses were applied as commercial

water soluble nutrients in combination with drip irrigation system. The NPK fertilizer applied

via 10 splits at two weeks interval led to increase growth and productivity of sugarcane. He

increasing water application practice in sugarcane cultivation leads to reduced uniformity of the

crop. It has been observed that crop yield was increased when 1150 mm irrigation water was

applied through drip system in 0.6 cm deep shallow clay loam natured soil, in comparison to

conventional irrigation application in sugarcane (Lecler, 2009). Fertigation of K in sugarcane

cultivation significantly enhanced number of stalks, number of buds, millable canes, dry matter

accrual and individual canes weight in the ratoon sugarcane crop. Moreover, it also resulted in

about 16.7% increased K contents of stubbles (Shukla et al., 2009). Furthermore, reducing

sugars contents of buds was also improved with fertigation K supply through grip system.

15

Yield of ratoon cane was also significantly increased to 15.22%; whereas as sugar yield was

13.9% enhanced, in comparison to control in sugarcane crop (Shukla et al., 2009).

Cultivation of sugarcane under drip irrigation system is beneficial and economical

technology. The increase nutrient and water use efficiency were some of the major advantages

of sugarcane under drip irrigation method with increased growth and yield (Ravikumar et al.,

2011; Shanthy and Kumar, 2010; Soomro et al., 2015; Torres et al., 2010).

2.10: Nitrogen application in sugarcane

Nitrogen (N) is an essential nutrient required for the normal metabolic activities

influencing different physiological processes of sugarcane. It is the leading source for the

biosynthesis of proteins and also mandatory for the normal process of photosynthesis and

production of sugar in the canes.

2.10.1: Effect of nitrogen on sugarcane growth, yield and quality

Nitrogen also helps in the provision of a healthy vegetative and productive growth with

higher yield and dry matter accumulation resulting in the higher production of sugar contents in

the canes. However, at the same time the higher use of N fertilizer leads to excessive vegetative

growth, delayed maturity and cane ripening. The application of N during later growth stages

significantly lowers the quality of the juice, certain other sugar characteristics including its

purity, clarification and colour (MSIRI, 2000). Similarly, the excess N fertilizer use also limits

the productivity of sugarcane; whereas, N leaching contaminates the underground water. This

is due to the liability of N to de-nitrification and volatilization (Moody and Aitken, 1997). The

response of sugarcane crop to N application was variable and complex and was found

associated with the availability of N present in the soil organic matter. The adequate N

fertilization not only enhances the cane yield; but, also, increases sucrose contents of sugarcane

(Perez and Melgar, 1998; Meyer and Wood, 2001). The response to N application rates differs

with the cultivated variety of the sugarcane. So, it is imperative to apply balanced N

concentration in combination with potassium to obtain maximum sugar conversion, sucrose

contents and the quality of the juice. However, the application of N fertilizer may also vary

with the production region, prevailing temperature, solar radiation and irrigation regimes

(Meyer and Wood, 2001).

In the certain dry sugarcane production regions, the application of N fertilizer

substantially increased the cane yield as, compared to various rain-fed areas. The excess, N

application prolongs the vegetative growth, delays maturity and the ripening of the sugarcane.

16

Similarly, the late N fertilizer use leads to decreased quality of sugar and sugar purity and

colour (Hunsigi, 1993). The recommended dose of N fertilizer is 120-150 kg ha-1

in the ratoon

crop of sugarcane. However, at the same time 200 kg ha-1

N has also been reported for the third

ratoon crop of sugarcane. The application of N fertilizer is highly dependent upon the nature of

soils and production regions of the sugarcane in the world. Sugarcane plants and the ratoon

crop generally get benefit for the higher N application rates when grown in the area where

natural soil N concentration is low or the soils are sandy in nature. The plant roots may also

store substantial quantity of N nutrient and will be consumed during the next season of the crop

(Vitti, 2003). It has also been reported that application of sugarcane mill products can also

affect the requirements of N fertilizer. The quantity of nutrient these supply needs to be taken

in the consideration during assessment of the fertilizer program for crop of the next season

(Meyer et al., 2007).

It has been shown that N is an imperative major nutrient affecting quality and yield of

sugarcane. The response to the applied N in the crops is universal. The application of N

generally enhances leaf area duration, leaf area index, canopy closure and photosynthesis rate

in sugarcane crop (Hunsigi, 1993). The increased yield of sugarcane in response to N

application results in enhanced tillers per plant, stem diameter, stalk length and millable canes

(Abayomi, 1987). The foliar application of N nutrient must be applied at 15 g kg-1

during the

critical growth stages for the higher yield of sugarcane (Gascho et al., 1986). Each kg of N

nutrient applied through soil showed about 0.07-0.35 tons of the millable canes in sugarcane

crop (Yadav and Singh, 1995). In the same way, seasonal N use efficacy was found to be 0.841

tons of sugarcane yields in response to per kg of N application (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).

The rate of N nutrients is about 50-300 kg ha-1

in the world. The application of 1 kg N leads to

approximately 0.5-1.2 tons increased yield of sugarcane (Hunsigni, 1993). However,

concentration of N application may vary depending upon crop duration, water availability and

type of soils. In general, 67.5-450 kg ha-1

N is needed to produce higher yield with adequate

quality depending upon variety and production climate (Verma, 2004). The application of 400

kg ha-1

N fertilizer during pre-season in sugarcane showed increased leaf area index, canopy

closure and photosynthesis rate (Jadhav et al., 1997). Lakshmikantham (1983) proposed a

simple rule of thumb that 1 kg of N may increase the final yield canes up to 1.25-1.50 kg N ton-

1 with significantly increased subsequent productivity of ratoon crop. So, optimum N

application highly required for successful sugarcane production. The optimum N fertilizer rate

17

is generally 25 percent higher than for plant cane. The N deficient sugarcane plants exhibit leaf

yellowing, smaller stalk diameter, pre-mature dying, retarded growth and old leaf senescence

(Humbert and Martin, 1955). The excess N application generally brings down the anticipated

yield of canes it also negatively influences sugarcane juice quality (Singh and Yadav, 1996).

The production of sugarcane water shoots having increased contents of reducing sugars in

response to late or higher nitrogen fertilization. The harmful influences of the over-dose of N

application on quality of juice include nitrogenous-compounds accumulation and subsequent

reduced uptake of phosphorous from the soil (Srinivasan, 1995). The higher N fertilizer

application resulted in decreased yield of cane and sugar contents in CO-6304 sugarcane

variety (Chiranjivi-Rao et al., 1974). The excess N nutrient leads to production of highly

succulent, tender and softer plants that ultimately becomes highly susceptible diseases, pests

and lodging owing to higher tops (Verma, 2004). It has also been reported that varieties of

sugarcane substantially differ with respect to N fertilizer concentration. Significantly higher

variations in responses of various varieties of sugarcane have been well documented in

different parts of the world (Srinivasan 1995; Naga-Madhuri et al., 2011).

Definite genetic variations have been observed regarding the internal N use efficacy in

crop of sugarcane (Nicole et al., 2007). The graded dose application of N resulted in a

significant different response in mid-late sown sugarcane varieties, as compared to earlier

cultivars (Zende, 1984). The optimum concentration of nitrogen fertilizer is highly dependent

on the cultivated sugarcane varieties. The optimal N fertilizer concentration was 239 and 302

kg N ha-1

for CO-86032 and CO-87044 sugarcane varieties, respectively. The optimum doses

response was established depending upon the quadratic analysis approach under subtropical

climatic condition (Ramesh and Mahadeswamy, 1996). The absolute sugarcane production was

significantly higher in attaining better N fertilizer use efficiency in the cultivated varieties those

positively responded to an optimum concentration of 100 kg ha-1

nitrogen. The response was

found highly favorable in sugarcane variety of CO-8145, than other varieties. On the whole,

nitrogen use efficiency was varied in various sugarcane varieties and ranged from 206-454 kg

N ha-1

(Srinivasan, 1993).

2.11: Potassium in sugarcane cultivation

Potassium (K) plays an important role in metabolism of sugarcane. It is abundantly

accumulating cat-ion in cell sap of the sugarcane plants. It mainly acts on the numerous

enzymes and plays a fundamental role in the biosynthesis and translocation of the sucrose to

18

stalks storage tissues in the leaves. It also plays an important function in hydration control and

osmotic concentrations in stomata of the guard cells (Kwong, 2000).

Sugarcane plants respond positively to K application by showing higher yield and

quality. However, significant responses were only observed in the soil showing deficit K

availability. The important consideration is that sugarcane evaluation response to K fertilization

should be taken into account the sugarcane semi-perennial nature. However in this perspective,

as the sugarcane plants are able to mine soil K, the response to K fertilization is generally not

found in the canes of the plants in the first as well as second ratoon crops (Kwong, 2000). It has

been reported that significance of the balanced nutrient application especially between N and K

in obtaining higher yield must not be ignored in sugarcane cultivation. Generally, sugarcane

plants respond to K application by showing increased cane yield in the absence of any

substantial changes in the concentration of sucrose contents in the canes. However, it has also

been observed that the excessive K uptake in sugarcane plants reduces sucrose recovery during

milling. The K application in sugarcane should be in optimum range to attain higher yield and

regulate the maturity of the plants; so, that maximal sugar is produced from mill-able canes

(Kwong, 2000).

2.12: Potassium deficiency symptoms in sugarcane

Sugarcane plants accumulate K nutrient rapidly during first 6 months of the growth. So,

optimum concentration of K should be optimized in order to obtain maximum yield. The

possible K uptake in sugarcane ranges from to 145 to 480 kg ha-1

(Kwong, 2000). The

deficiency of Kin sugarcane has been found generally localized with the symptoms of chlorosis

or molting, yellow orange colouring at tips of leaves, leaf border and necrotic spots along

margins and leaf tips. Eventually, the older leaves exhibit „fired‟ or entirely brown appearance.

Moreover, red coloration at the upper midrib surface can also be the symptoms of K deficiency

(MSIRI, 2000). It has also been observed that under moderate deficiency symptoms of K, the

younger leaves may remain dark-green; whereas, stalks become excessively slender in

appearance. The persistent or long term K deficiency significantly influences the development

of the meristems, shown by the development of fane-like appearance or branched and spindle

distortion symptoms (MSIRI, 2000). The soils with deficient K concentration generally have

non-efficient use of N fertilizer even in the application of its recommended doses (Krauss,

2004). So, it is imperative to apply sufficient or optimum K nutrient to effectively use the

19

assimilated N in canes to attain timely maturity and to safeguard higher conversion of the

reducing-sugars into sucrose (Yadav, 2001).

2.12.1: Effect of K on sugarcane growth, yield and cane quality

With respect to quality, K nutrition enhances biosynthesis and translocation of sugar to

storage tissues. Therefore, optimum K application is critical for the higher sugar recovery and

yield in sugarcane (Rossetto et al., 2004). The response of yield was increased in response to K

application in several sugarcane cultivating countries such as Brazil, Guatemala, India and

Pakistan (Rossetto et al., 2004). Similarly, the adequate K application also ensured increased

yield of sugar (Phonde et al., 2005). Moreover, the application K fertilizer also enhanced the

quality of pols and lowered the fiber contents in the canes (Malavolta, 1994; Mahamuni et al.,

1975; Khosa, 2002). In the same way, purity of the juice was also improved; but, at the same

time a very high K application substantially reduced the levels of sucrose (Perez and Melgar,

2000). The improved quality of juice was might be due to enhanced activities of some sucrose

synthesizing enzyme that helped to promote the yield of sucrose (Jayashree et al., 2008). In the

same way, substantially higher sucrose extraction needs lower concentration of the reducing

sugars (0.5%) and the higher application of K fertilizer may help to ensure the increased overall

sugar yield (Tmahamuni et al., 1975). At the same time, luxury use of K fertilizer adversely

influenced the sugar crystallization and caused reduced recovery of the refined and raw sugar

ultimately resulting in the higher losses of sugar from molasses (Tmahamuni et al., 1975).

Generally, the response of sugarcane to K application was noted as increased yield of

canes without adversely changes in the concentration of sucrose in the canes. Since the

excessive K fertilizer uptake in sugarcane decreases the sucrose recovery during the milling of

the canes, K application to sugarcane should be kept at optimum rates to attain higher yield and

to safely regulate the maturity to get higher sugar content from mill-able canes (Singh et al.,

2007). It has been observed that the soil having deficient K fertilizer also showed in-efficient

use of N even in the application of its recommended doses (Krauss, 2004). Similarly, it is

highly important to supply adequate K fertilizer to sugarcane to use the assimilated N in canes

to produce high quality crop and timely maturity with ensured concentration of the reducing

sugars to be converted into the sucrose. Likewise, with respect to quality the application K

fertilizer enhances the biosynthesis of sugar as well as it subsequent translocation in to the

storage tissues (Yadav, 2008).

20

The excess K application significantly increased ash contents in the juice of sugarcane.

Generally, sugarcane plants respond to K application by exhibiting increased canes yield

without showing any significant changes in the concentration of sucrose of canes. Since the

increased K uptake in sugarcane plants drastically reduces the sucrose recovery, hence, the rate

of K application to sugarcane should always be kept at optimum recommended doses to get

higher cane yield and to ensure earlier maturity with higher recovery of sugar from the canes

(Singh et al., 2007). It is worth to mention that N and K should be in balance ratio. However,

the response of N application may be small in the form of vegetative growth, but, the

application of K in combination with N always ensures higher cane yield (Gupta and Shukla,

1973).

2.13: Forms of K application

Potassium may be applied as a blended, straight fertilizer or as a compound fertilizer in

combination with P and K. Muriate of potash technically known as potassium chloride is the

major source of K in agriculture and accounts for around 95% among all K fertilizers being

used in the world (NETAFIM, 2008). Nevertheless, the application of K had a negative

association with juice sucrose of the sugarcane in the Okinawa region of Japan (Kawamitsu et

al., 1997). The negative correlation could be due to the possible reason of chloride ion which

resulted in the overall decrease of sugar contents (Kawamitsu et al., 1997). Any use of non-

suitable use of K source may significantly reduce the yield and quality of sugar. So, it is

important to use suitable form of K fertilizer to ensure higher yield and quality of sugar from

the mill-able canes.

K is an important element that fulfills various functions in the normal metabolism and

growth of the plants. The role of K in mediating the leaf stomatal opening, water uptake, cell

turgidity maintenance and biosynthesis of proline contents under moisture stress conditions is

of particular significance during the drought conditions that subsequently influence sugarcane

production (Gopalasundaram et al., 2012). Potassium has also been found critical for the

biosynthesis and transportation of carbohydrates as well as proteins along with sucrose

accumulation in sugarcane. The agronomic K value is responsible for the increased cane

length, girth, weight of canes and resistance or tolerance against lodging, drought and diseases.

The application of K generally enhances the sugar percentage and recovery of juice especially

when harvested at delayed stages (Hunsigi, 2011). However, the response K fertilization with

respect to increased yield and enhance juice quality is generally not very consistent. On the

21

basis of responses of sugarcane plants to K nutrient, 50-200 kg K2O ha-1

is recommended under

the tropical climatic conditions for the increased vegetative growth and higher yield with

improved sugar recovery (Verma, 2004). However, the response of sugarcane plant was limited

under the subtropical climatic conditions. The increased buds sprouting, nutrient uptake and

accumulation of dry matter was observed in response to 66 kg K2O ha-1

in combination with

moderate water application (Shukla et al., 2009). It has also been observed that sugarcane

ratoon crop seldom responded to application of K nutrient (Verma, 2002). The non-response of

sugarcane was could be due to sufficient previous K reserve in the field or due to certain

exchange reaction among the different K forms in the soils (Verma, 2002). The optimum

concentration of K nutrient may vary depending upon the water requirement and production

sites. Ngkee and Deville (1989) found that in the areas where annual rainfall is less than 2000

mm the application K nutrient in banded rows at the planting time can adequately fulfills the

crop requirement of sugarcane. However, increased vegetative growth, canes, shoots and yield

of sugar was obtained when K nutrient was applied at adequate rates (Otto et al., 2010). The

deficiency of K nutrient is generally first observed in the older leaves, shoot tips and leaf

margins having various necrotic spots and characterized by a typical „marginal firing‟ (Hunsigi,

1993).

22

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Current research comprised of two experiments, these were conducted during 2015 and

2016 at Water Management Research Farm, Renala Khurd, Okara. Sugarcane CV (CPF-246) was

used for study under field conditions and both experiments comprised with six treatments.

Experiments were laid out using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three time

replicated. The net plot size was 10 m × 6 m with planting technique 1.20 m apart with double

rows using seed rate of 75000 double budded setts ha-1

. Physico-chemical analysis of

experimental soil was estimated before sowing and after harvest of the crop during both years of

study. All the crop husbandry practices were kept similar for all the treatments.

3.1 Soil analysis

Before sowing soil samples were collected upto a depth of 45 cm for the physico-

chemical analysis of the experimental soil during both the years (2015 and 2016). The physico-

chemical analysis of the experimental soil is given in Table-3.1. The soil analysis indicated that

the experimental soil was silt loam with 7.75 pH. The soil seemed to be productive without any

problem for crop husbandry. The soil was medium in K2O but deficient in N, P2O5 and

organic matter.

Table: 3.1. Analysis of the soil

Soil characteristics 2015 2016

A. Mechanical analysis

Sand (%) 30 32

Silt (%) 40 41

Clay (%) 33 30

B. Chemical analysis

Ec (d Sm-1

) 1.95 1.93

pH 7.8 7.7

Organic matter (%) 0.99 0.92

Nitrogen (%) 0.06 0.06

Available phosphorus P2O5 (ppm) 6.90 6.95

Available K2O (ppm) 190 182

23

3.2: Experimental treatments details

Two experiments were conducted during the years 2015 and 2016.

3.2.1: EXPERIMENT I

Growth, Yield and Quality of Sugarcane as Affected by different Levels of Nitrogen

Application through Drip Irrigation

The experiment will consist of following treatments:

T1: Recommended dose of chemical fertilizers (168-112-112 kg NPK ha-1

) in four splits

under conventional irrigation (soil application), N in four splits i.e. at planting and then

every 45 days after planting, P2O5 and K2O in two splits at planting and after 120 days

of planting on earthing up.


) in four splits

under drip irrigation (all fertilizers applied in soil application).

T3: 125 percent of recommended dose of urea in 12 equal splits through drip irrigation +

recommended dose of Triple Super Phosphate (TSP) and Sulfate of Potash (SOP) in

two splits by soil application.


recommended dose of TSP and SOP in two splits by soil application.





3.2.2: EXPERIMENT II

Growth, Yield and Quality of Sugarcane as Affected by different Levels of Potash

Application through Drip Irrigation

The experiment will consist of following treatments:


) in four splits

under conventional irrigation (soil application), N in four splits i.e. at planting and then

every 45 days after planting, P2O5 and K2O in two splits at planting and after 120 days

of planting on earthing up.

24


) in four splits

under drip irrigation (all fertilizers applied in soil application).

T3: 75 percent of recommended dose of Nitrogen + 125 percent recommended dose of

Potash in 12 equal splits through drip irrigation + recommended dose of Triple super

phosphate (TSP) in two splits by soil application.


Potash in 12 equal splits through drip irrigation + recommended dose of TSP in two

splits by soil application.


Potash in 12 equal splits through drip irrigation + recommended dose of TSP in two

splits by soil application.

T6: 75 percent of recommended dose of Nitrogen + 50 percent recommended dose of Potash

in 12 equal splits through drip irrigation + recommended dose of TSP in two splits by

soil application.

3.3 Layout Plan and fertilizer application

For this study Sugarcane (c.v CPF-246) was used for study under field conditions and

both experiments comprised with six treatments. Experiments were laid out using randomized

complete block design (RCBD) with factorial arrangements and replicated thrice times. The net

plot size was 10 m × 6 m with planting technique 1.20 m apart with double rows using seed

rate of 75000 double budded setts ha-1

. Net plot size was 6.00 x 7.00 m (width x length).

Recommended dose of fertilizer was applied at 168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

in both experiments.

Fertilizer was applied at 168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

in 1st experiment as recommended dose of

sugarcane crop. Nitrogen and phosphorus were applied in the form of Urea and DAP while

potash was applied as potassium sulfate. Nitrogen was applied in three equal doses i.e. at

sowing, completion of germination and completion of tillering. Phosphorus and potash were

incorporated at sowing. In 2nd experiment, fertilizer was applied as per treatments of the

experiment.

3.4 Crop husbandry

3.4.1: Bed preparation, drip installation and sowing

The bed preparation was same in both experiments. Before seed bed preparation 10 cm

of depth irrigation was applied, when the soil reached the proper moisture level (Locally

known as “Watter”), the seed bed was prepared by cultivating the soil for 2 times with tractor

25

mounted cultivator to a depth of 10-12 cm each followed by planking and 2 times sub-soiler

followed by one planking. The furrows 32 were made by plough and trenches were made by

ridger according to the treatments of each experiment. The crop was planted in the pattern of

60 cm apart furrows, 120 and 150 cm apart trenches in first experiment and the crop was sown

in 150 cm apart trenches in the second experiment.

3.4.2: Plant protection measures

Insect pests and weeds were kept under control through chemical and cultural practices.

Chlorpyrifos was applied at 5 liters per hectare with 1st irrigation after planting to control the

termites. Furadon granules at 35 kg ha-1

were applied to control borers. Sugarcane weeds were

controlled through the application of Ametryn + Atrazine at 2.5 kg ha-1

, five days after sowing

after first irrigation with a Knapsac sprayer in the furrows and trenches and with inter-culture

in between the furrows and trenches.

3.4.3: Crop harvest/Observations

The crop was harvested at its physiological maturity on December and 2015 and 2016,

respectively. Data on the following observations were recorded by using standard procedures

during the course of study:

3.5: Growth and Yield Characteristics

3.5.1: Sprouting percentage

A uniform number of double budded setts per plot were planted and at the completion

of sprouting after 45 days of sowing, the number of seedlings emerged in each plot were

counted and then converted into percentage by using the following formula:

Sprouting percentage = Number of sprouted plants x 100

Total number of buds

3.5.2: Total number of tillers per m2

At the completion of tillering after 90 days of sowing, total number of plants per unit

area was counted. Then total sprout were subtracted from the total plants already germinated 45

days after planting to get number of tillers per unit area.

Tillers per unit area = Total number of sprouted 90 days after planting per unit area – Total

number of sprouted per unit area 45 days after planning.

26

3.5.3: Number of millable canes per m2

A millable cane refers to the cane that has attained full height and thickness at its

physiological maturity and is ready to harvest for processing. Number of millable canes in each

plot was counted at harvest and then converted into number of millable canes per m2.

3.5.4: Plant height (cm)

Ten randomly selected stalks from each treatment were tagged. Shoot length between

soil surface and growing point of shoot was measured at the physiological maturity of the crop.

3.5.5: Number of internodes per cane

Count the total number of cane on per sugarcane plant and computed the average of all

replications

3.5.6: Length of internodes (cm)

For the measurement of internode length, measure the distance between two nodes with

meter rod and computed the average of all replications

3.5.7:. Cane length (cm)

At harvest length of ten randomly selected canes from each treatment was measured

and averaged.

3.5.8: Cane diameter (cm)

Ten canes were randomly selected from each treatment and diameter of each cane from

base, middle and top was measured with a vernier caliper. The average of these values was

taken as cane diameter.

3.5.9: Weight per stripped cane (kg)

A stripped cane refers to the stalk that is clean, free from trash and top, dirt, and other

foreign matter. The randomly selected ten stripped canes from each treatment were weighed

together. Then weight per stripped cane (kg) was calculated.

3.5.10: Un-Stripped cane yield (t ha-1

)

All millable un-stripped canes of each plot were weighed together. Then un-stripped

cane weight per plot was converted into the un-stripped cane yield (t ha-1

).

3.5.11: Cane-top weight (t ha-1

)

At harvest, the tops of canes of each treatment were removed. The tops of each

treatment were weighed separately and converted into t ha-1

.

3.5.12: Cane trash weight (t ha-1

)

Trash of all stalks from each plot was stripped, weighed and converted into t ha-1

.

27

3.5.13: Stripped cane yield (t ha-1

)

All millable stripped canes of each plot were weighed together. Then stripped cane

weight per plot was converted into the stripped cane yield (t ha-1

).

3.5.14: Harvest Index (%)

Harvest index (HI) % for each treatment was calculated by using the method of

Donalid and Hamblin, 1976 as follows:

HI% = Stripped cane yield x 100

Unstripped cane yield

3.6: Physiological Characteristics

3.6.1: Leaf area index

Leaf area was measured at a regular interval of 30 days by a leaf area meter from four

repeats and thereafter, leaf area index (LAI) was calculated using the formula by Watson

(1947).

LAI = Leaf area

Land area

3.6.2: Leaf area duration (days)

Leaf area duration (LAD) was estimated according to Hunt (1978).

LAD = (LAI1 + LAI2) × (t2 – t1)/2

3.6.3: Total dry matter (t ha-1

)

All unstripped stalks (stalks along with tops and trash) of each plot were weighed

before stripping the trash and removing the tops. The biomass per plot was then converted into

the total cane biomass (t ha-1

).

3.6.4: Crop growth-rate (g m-2

day-1

)

Crop growth rate (CGR) was determined by using the following formula of Hunt

(1978).

CGR (g m-2 day-1) = w2 – w1

t2 – t1

Where,

w1 = plant dry weight m-2

at time t1,

w2 = plant dry weight m-2 at time t2,

t1 = time of 1st harvest

t2 = time of 2nd

harvest

28

3.6.5: Net assimilation-rate (g m-2

day-1

)

Net assimilation rate (ANAR) was determined by the formula of Hunt (1978).

NAR (g m-2

day-1

) = TDM

LAD

Where, TDM = total dry matter and LAD= Leaf area duration

3.7: Quality Parameters

3.7.1: Brix percent

Ten canes samples from each treatment were crushed through a cane crusher. Juice was

collected in the glass jars. Temperature of the juice was noted. Then the brix (percent) reading

was recorded by Brix hydrometer. The recorded brix values were corrected by using the

Schmitz‟s table (Meade, 1963).

3.7.2: Sucrose content in cane juice

Pol reading of the extracted juice of canes in each treatment was separately recorded

with the help of a polarimeter. The cane juice sucrose content (%) was calculated using the

Schmitz, table as described by Meade (1963).

3.7.3: Cane fiber percent

Cane fiber in cane was calculated by using the following formula (Bashir 1981).

Cane fiber percent = Dry weight of the washed, shredded cane (g) x 100

Fresh weight of the shredded cane (150 g)

3.7.4: Cane fiber percent (%)

Cane fiber in cane was calculated by using the following formula (Bashir 1981).

3.7.5: Commercial cane sugar percent

Commercial cane sugar (CCS) in percent was determined by using the following

formula of Meade (1963):

CCS (%) = 3 P/2 (1 – F + 5) – B/2 (1- F + 3)

100 100

Where, P = pol percent juice, b = brix percent juice and F = fiber percent cane

3.7.6: Cane sugar recovery percent

Cane sugar recovery percent (CSR %) was calculated by the formula as follows:

C.S.R. (%) = CCS (%) x 0.94

Where CCS = Commercial cane sugar and 0.94 is net titre (Sugar losses)

29

3.8: Statistical Analysis

Collected data were analyzed by statistically employing the Fisher‟s analysis of

variance technique (ANOVA) and significance of treatment means was tested using least

significant difference (LSD) test at 5% probability level (Steel et al., 1997).

30

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter comprised of the findings of two experiments, these were conducted during

2015 and 2016 under field conditions. First experiment was comprised of six treatments as

detailed mentioned in chapter 3. Morphological and physico-chemical analyses were done to

evaluate the findings of this experiment. All the crop husbandry practices were kept similar for

all the treatments.

EXPERIMENT No. 1: Growth, yield and quality of sugarcane as affected by different

levels of nitrogen application through drip irrigation

4.1.1 Morphological Attributes

4.1.1.1 Effect of nitrogen on sprouting percentage of sugarcane

Result regarding sprouting percentage of sugarcane indicated non-significant (P≤0.05)

relationship among treatments T2, T3 and T6 while T4 vary significantly from other treatments

and these techniques did not affect sprouting percentage during both the years of study (2015

and 2016) (Table. 4.1.1.1).

During the year 2015, treatment T3 showed maximum (57.42%) sprouting percentage

and minimum sprouting percentage was recorded in T1 plants (56.19%). During 2016, T6

showed maximum (58.76%) and T4 showed minimum (54.03%) sprouting percentage (Figure.

4.1.1.1).

4.1.1.2 Effect of nitrogen on number of tillers per unit area

Data regarding the number of tillers per unit area (Table. 4.1.1.2) showed that T2, T3

and T6 varied significantly (P≤0.05) from all other treatments. Furthermore, T1, T4 and T5 did

not vary significantly from each other and did not affect number of tillers per unit area. Both

year of experiment presented excellent performance by showing improved growth.

Significantly higher number of tillers per unit area was recorded in year 2016, than the year

2015. Among treatments, the maximum number of tillers per unit area were recorded in T3 i.e.,

23.00 during 2015 and 25.00 during 2016. Minimum number of tillers (15.00) during 2015 and

(17.00) during 2016 were observed in T6 treated plants (Figure. 4.1.1.2)

4.1.1.3 Effect of nitrogen on number of millable canes of sugarcane ha-1

Statistical interpretation of data regarding number of millable canes ha-1

(Table. 4.1.1.3)

revealed significant differences (P≤0.05) among treatments; however, T2 and T4 didnot not

31

vary significantly for this attribute. Treatment T5 and T6 also sowed the similar behavior. Both

year of study didn‟t show significant variations in the number of millable canes ha-1

. During the

year 2015, maximum number of millable canes (108881 millable canes ha-1

) were noted in T3

treated sugarcanes followed by T4 (99613 millable canes ha-1

). Minimum millable canes

(95042 millable canes ha-1

) were observed in T1 treatment. Similarly, during the year 2016,

maximum number of millable canes (112881 millable canes ha-1

) were noted in T3 treated

sugarcanes and minimum (96376 millable canes ha-1

) were observed in T1 (Figure. 4.1.1.3).

4.1.1.4 Effect of nitrogen on plant height of sugarcane

Data concerning cane length revealed that plant height was significantly (P≤0.05)

affected in response to different treatments except for T1 and T2 which did not vary

significantly. Furthermore, year 2016 showed significant improvement in plant height as

compared to the year 2015 (Table. 4.1.1.4).

Among different treatments, T3 treated plants showed maximum plant height 250.09

cm during the year 2016 and 237.76 cm during the year 2015. The minimum plant height

201.44 cm during 2016 and 198.18 cm during 2015 was recorded in T1 treated plants (Figure.

4.1.1.4).

4.1.1.5 Effect of nitrogen on internodes per cane of sugarcane

Data concerning internodes per cane (Table. 4.1.1.5) showed non-significant (P≤0.05)

relationship among all treatments except T3 which varied significantly from other treatments

and these techniques did not affect internodes per cane during both years of study (2015 and

2016).

During the year 2015, treatment T3 showed maximum internodes per cane with an average of

14.66 internodes and minimum internodes per cane were noticed in T1 treated plants with an

average of 11.33 internodes per cane. However, 12.33 internodes per cane were noticed in T2

and T3 treated plants and 12.00 internodes per cane were observed in T5 and T6 treated plants

during the same year. During the year 2016, maximum internodes per cane (15.66) were

noticed in T3 and minimum (12.00) in T1 and T4 treated plants; while, 13.00 internodes per

cane were recorded in T2, T5 and T6 treated plants (Figure. 4.1.1.5).

32

Table 4.1.1.1: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sprouting percentage

(%) of sugarcane

Treatments Year 2015 Year 2016 Means

T1 56.19 58.19 57.19 AB

T2 57.41 58.08 57.75 A

T3 57.42 58.42 57.92 A

T4 56.37 54.03 55.20 B

T5 56.53 57.53 57.03 AB

T6 56.43 58.76 57.60 A

Means 56.72 A 57.51 A

Means having different letters differ significantly from each other by LSD (P= 0.05)

Figure 4.1.1.1: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sprouting percentage of

sugarcane

Each value in above figure is the mean of three replicated and vertical bars give standard error

(SE) of means. LSD test for treatment significant at P≤0.05

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Sp

rou

tin

g P

erce

nta

ge

%

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016

33

Table 4.1.1.2: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on number of tillers per

unit area of sugarcane


T1 16 18 17.00BC

T2 17.66 19 18.33B

T3 23 25 24.00A

T4 17.33 18.33 17.83BC

T5 16.33 18 17.16BC

T6 15.66 17 16.33 C

Means 17.66 B 19.22A

Figure 4.1.1.2: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on Number of tillers per

unit area of sugarcane.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Nu

mb

er o

f ti

ller

s p

er u

nit

are

a

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016

Each value in above figure is the mean of three replicated and vertical bars give standard error (SE) of means. LSD

test for treatment significant at P≤0.05

34

Table 4.1.1.3: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on number of millable

canes of sugarcane ha-1


T1 95042.3 96375.7 95709C

T2 98747.7 102081.0 100414B

T3 108881.0 114214.3 110881A

T4 99613.3 100046.7 99830B

T5 97911.7 98645.0 98278BC

T6 98247.7 99581.0 98748BC

Means 99741 A 101546 A

Figure 4.1.1.3: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on number of millable

canes of sugarcane


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Nu

mb

er o

f m

illa

ble

can

es o

f su

garc

an

e

ha

-1

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



35

4.1.1.6 Effect of nitrogen on internode length of sugarcane

Data regarding internode length (Table. 4.1.1.6) revealed non-significant (P≤0.05)

relationship among all treatments except T3 which varied significantly from other treatments

and these techniques did not affect internode length during both years of study (2015 and

2016).

During the year 2015, 14.97 cm, 12.57 cm, 12.55 cm, 12.46 cm, 12.43 cm and 12.40 cm

internode length were recorded in T3, T2, T6, T4, T1 and T5 treated plants, respectively.

During the year 2016, 15.80 cm, 13.24 cm, 13.09 cm, 12.93 cm, 12.64 cm and 12.50 cm

internode length were recorded in T3, T2, T1, T6, T5 and T4 treated plants, respectively

(Figure. 4.1.1.6).

4.1.1.7 Effect of nitrogen on cane length of sugarcane

Data concerning cane length affected by different levels of nitrogen application through

drip irrigation is depicted in table. 4.1.1.7. Non- significant (P≤0.05) differences existed among

treatments except for T3 which showed significant variations from all other treatments. Both


Nevertheless, year 2016 showed significantly higher cane length, as compared to the year 2015.

Cane length, during the year 2015 was recoded as 218.59 cm in T3, 155.30 cm in T2, 153.37 in

T4, 150.70 in T6, 149.43 in T5 and 141.13 cm in T1 treated plants. During the year 2016, it

was recorded as 247.99 cm, 171.50 cm, 168.09 cm, 164.98 cm, 157.13 and 149.63 cm in T3,

T2, T6, T5, T1 and T4 treated plants respectively (Figure. 4.1.1.7).

4.1.1.8 Effect of nitrogen on cane diameter of sugarcane

Different levels of nitrogen application through drip irrigation showed significantly

(P≤0.05) higher cane diameter in T3 treated plants than control plants during both years of

study however year 2016 showed significantly better growth, than year 2015 (Table. 4.1.1.8).

Maximum cane diameter (6.97 cm in 2016 and 6.24 cm in 2015) was recorded in T3 treated

plants. Least cane diameter (4.06 cm in 2016 and 3.030 cm in 2015) was observed in T1 treated

plants (Figure. 4.1.1.8).

4.1.1.9 Effect of nitrogen on weight per stripped cane of sugarcane

Weight per stripped cane (Table. 4.1.1.9) was significantly affected by different levels

of nitrogen application through drip irrigation. It was significantly (P≤0.05) more in T3 plants

than all other treatments. Both years of study presented significant variations in this attribute as

the year 2016 showed significantly higher weight per stripped cane. During the year 2015, 1.05

36

kg, 0.95 kg, 0.93 kg, 0.92 kg, 0.85 kg and 0.77 kg weight per stripped cane were recorded in

T3, T6,

Table 4.1.1.4: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on plant height of

sugarcane (cm)


T1 198.18 201.44 199.81D

T2 202.55 203.55 203.05D

T3 237.76 250.09 243.92 A

T4 212.54 221.87 217.21B

T5 210.72 219.06 214.89BC

T6 206.16 212.83 209.50C

Means 211.32 B 218.14 A

Figure 4.1.1.4: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on plant height of

sugarcane


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Pla

nt

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



37

Table 4.1.1.5: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on internodes per cane of

sugarcane


T1 11.33 12 11.66B

T2 12.33 13 12.66B

T3 14.66 15.66 15.16A

T4 12.33 12 12.167B

T5 12 13 12.50B

T6 12 13 12.50B

Means 12.44A

13.11A

Figure 4.1.5: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on internodes per cane of

sugarcane


0

6

12

18

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Inte

rnod

es p

er c

an

e

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



38

Table 4.1.1.6: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on Internode length of

sugarcane (cm)


T1 12.43 13.10 12.76B

T2 12.57 13.24 12.90B

T3 14.97 15.80 15.38A

T4 12.46 12.50 12.48B

T5 12.40 12.64 12.52B

T6 12.56 12.93 12.74B

Means 12.89A 13.36A

Figure 4.1.1.6: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on Internode length of

sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Inte

rnod

e le

ngth

(cm

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



39

T4, T2, T5 and T1 treated plants, respectively. During the year 2016, 1.75 kg, 1.05 kg, 1.05 kg,

0.99 kg, 0.89 kg and 0.87 kg weight per stripped cane were noticed in T3, T2, T6, T4, T5 and

T1 treated plants, respectively (Figure. 4.1.1.9).

4.1.1.10 Effect of nitrogen on un-stripped cane yield of sugarcane

Data concerning unstripped can yield affected by different levels of nitrogen application

through drip irrigation is depicted in Table. 4.1.1.10. Significant differences (P≤0.05) existed

among treatments except for T4 and T6 which didn‟t show significant variations from each

other. Both year of experiment presented excellent performance by showing improved yield.

Nonetheless, year 2016 showed significantly higher unstripped can yield, as compared to the

year 2015. Maximum unstripped cane yield was noticed in T3 treated plants and minimum in

T1 treated plants during both year of study. During 2015, the unstripped cane yield of T3

treated plants was 107.13 t ha-1

than that of T1 treated plants which was 84.15 t ha-1

. During

2016, the maximum yield (120.46 t ha-1

) was noticed in T3 and minimum (89.15 t ha

-1) in T1

treated plants (Figure. 4.1.1.10).

4.1.1.11 Effect of nitrogen on cane top weight of sugarcane

Cane top weight was significantly affected by different levels of nitrogen application

through drip irrigation. It was significantly (P≤0.05) greater in T3 plants than all other

treatments. Both years of study presented significant variations in this attribute as the year 2016

showed significantly higher cane top weight (Table. 4.1.1.11). During the year 2015,

significantly higher cane top weight (15.65 t ha-1

) was observed in T3 plants and least (9.29 t

ha-1

) was documented in T1 plants. The can top weight in T2, T4, T5 and T6 plants during

2015 was recorded as 13.70 t ha-1

, 12.95 t ha-1

, 12.46 t ha-1

and 12.87 t ha-1

respectively.

During the year 2016, maximum cane top weight (19.65 t ha-1

) was found in T3 plants followed

by T2 plants (15.04 t ha-1

). The least weight (9.62 t ha-1

) was observed in T1 treated plants. The

cane top weight in T4, T5 and T6 was recorded as 14.62, 13.53 and 13.92 t ha-1

respectively

during 2016 (Figure. 4.1.1.11).

40

Table 4.1.1.7: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane length of

sugarcane (cm)


T1 141.13 157.13 149.13B

T2 155.30 171.50 163.40B

T3 218.59 247.99 233.29A

T4 153.37 149.63 151.50B

T5 149.43 164.98 157.21B

T6 150.70 168.09 159.40B

Means 161.42B 176.55A

Figure 4.1.1.7: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane length of

sugarcane


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e L

ength

(c

m)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



41

Table 4.1.1.8: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on nitrogen on cane

diameter of sugarcane (cm)


T1 3.03 4.06 3.546C

T2 4.85 6.19 5.520B

T3 6.24 6.97 6.606A

T4 5.08 5.74 5.410B

T5 4.40 5.00 4.696B

T6 5.22 5.55 5.383B

Means 4.802B 5.585A

Figure 4.1.1.8: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on nitrogen on cane

diameter of sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e D

iam

eter

(cm

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



42

Table 4.1.1.9: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on weight per stripped

cane of sugarcane (kg)


T1 0.77 0.87 0.82D

T2 0.93 1.05 0.99B

T3 1.05 1.75 1.40A

T4 0.93 0.99 0.96BC

T5 0.86 0.90 0.87CD

T6 0.95 1.05 1.00B

Means 0.915B 1.102A

Figure 4.1.1.9: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on weight per stripped

cane of sugarcane


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Wei

gh

t p

er s

trip

ped

can

e (k

g)

Zinc treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



43

Table 4.1.1.10: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on un-stripped cane yield

of sugarcane (t ha-1

).


T1 84.1533 89.1533 86.65 D

T2 88.82 94.1533 91.49 CD

T3 107.127 120.46 113.79 A

T4 100.45 107.117 103.78 B

T5 95.43 97.43 96.43 C

T6 98.9 105.567 102.23 B

Means 95.81 B 102.31 A

Figure 4.1.1.10: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on un-stripped cane yield

of sugarcane


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Un

-str

ipp

ed c

an

e yie

ld (

t h

a-1

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



44

4.1.1.12 Effect of nitrogen on cane trash weight of sugarcane

Can trash weight was significantly (P≤0.05) affected by different levels of nitrogen

application through drip irrigation during both years of study. Furthermore, year 2016 showed

higher can trash weight than year 2015 (Table. 4.1.1.12).

During the year 2015, the cane trash weight was significantly highest (6.60 t ha-1

) in T3 plants

than all other treatments. Minimum can trash weight (4.50 t ha-1

) was observed in T1 plants.

The recorded cane trash weight in T2, T4, T5 and T6 treated plants was 5.24, 5.88, 5.60 and

5.72 t ha-1

. Similarly, during the year 2016, cane trash weight was also highest (7.37 t ha-1

) in

T3 treated plants and minimum (5.17 t ha-1

) in T1 treated plants (Figure. 4.1.1.12).

4.1.1.13 Effect of nitrogen on stripped cane yield of sugarcane

Data regarding stripped cane yield affected by different levels of nitrogen application

through drip irrigation is given in Table. 4.1.1.13. Results revealed that all the treatments

varied significantly (P≤0.05). Highest stripped cane was recorded in T3 plants and minimum in

T1 plants. Both year of study (2015 and 2016) presented significant variations in this attribute.

The study year 2016 showed significantly improved stripped cane yield than 2015. During the

year 2015, 95.99 t ha-1

, 90.31 t ha-1

, 89.09 t ha-1

, 85.28 t ha-1

, 78.87 t ha-1

, 74.64 t ha-1

yield was

recorded in T3, T4, T6, T5, T2 and T1 treated plants, respectively. During the year 2016,

maximum stripped cane yield (101.33 t ha-1

) was observed in T3 treated plants and minimum

(77.97 t ha-1

) in T1 treated plants. In T2, T4, T5 and T6 treated plants 82.87 t ha-1

, 94.98 t ha-1

,

88.61 t ha-1

and 92.43 t ha-1

yield was noticed, respectively (Figure. 4.1.1.13).

4.1.1.14 Effect of nitrogen on harvest index of sugarcane

Harvest index was considerably affected by different levels of nitrogen application

through drip irrigation. It was significantly (P≤0.05) higher in T3 plants than all other

treatments. Both years of study presented significant variations in this attribute as the year 2016

showed higher harvest index than 2015 (Table. 4.1.1.14). During the year 2015, maximum

harvest index (87.59 %) was noted in T3 treated plants and minimum harvest index (76.88%)

was reported to be found in T1 treated plants. During 2016, maximum harvest index (97.52 %)

was recorded in T3 treated plants and minimum (80.88%) was reported in T1 treated plants

(Figure. 4.1.1.14).

45

Table 4.1.1.11: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane top weight of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 9.29 9.62 9.457 C

T2 13.70 15.04 14.373 B

T3 15.65 19.65 17.650 A

T4 12.95 14.62 13.790 B

T5 12.46 13.53 13.000 B

T6 12.87 13.92 13.395 B

Means 12.823 B 14.398 A

Figure 4.1.1.11: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane top weight of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e to

p w

eigh

t (t

ha

-1)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



46

Table 4.1.1.12: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane trash weight of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 4.50 5.17 4.83D

T2 5.24 5.77 5.506C

T3 6.61 7.37 6.99A

T4 5.89 6.55 6.22B

T5 5.60 5.94 5.77BC

T6 5.72 6.12 5.92BC

Means 5.5939 B 6.1550 A

Figure 4.1.12: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane trash weight of

sugarcane.


0

2

4

6

8

10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e tr

ash

wei

gh

t (t

ha

-1)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



47

Table 4.1.1.13: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on stripped cane yield of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 74.64 77.97 76.303 E

T2 78.87 82.87 80.873 D

T3 95.99 101.33 98.660 A

T4 90.31 94.98 92.643 B

T5 85.28 88.61 86.943 C

T6 89.09 92.43 90.760 BC

Means 85.697 B 89.697 A

Figure 4.1.1.13: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on stripped cane yield of

sugarcane


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Str

ipp

ed c

an

e yie

ld (

t h

a-1

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



48

4.1.2 Physiological characteristics

4.1.2.1 Effect of nitrogen on leaf area index of sugarcane

Data concerning leaf area index (LAI) affected by different levels of nitrogen

application through drip irrigation is depicted in Table. 4.1.2.1. Significant differences

(P≤0.05) existed among treatments except for T2 and T6 that did not vary significantly. Among

treatments T3 showed significantly greater leaf area index than all other treatments. As the

years of study concerned, year 2016 exhibited significantly higher leaf area index than year

2015.

Maximum leaf area index 6.65 during 2015 and 7.02 during 2016 was recoded in T3 treated

plants. Minimum leaf area index 4.67 during 2015 and 5.03 during 2016 was observed in T1

treated plants (Figure. 4.1.2.1).

4.1.2.2 Effect of nitrogen on leaf area duration

Leaf area duration was significantly affected by different levels of nitrogen application

through drip irrigation during both years of study as all treatments varied significantly (P≤0.05)

from control (T1). Both years of study all differed significantly. Year 2016 showed higher leaf

area duration than 2015 (Table. 4.1.2.2).

During the year 2015, maximum leaf area duration (305.67 days) was observed in T3

treated plants and minimum leaf area duration (251.33 days) was recorded in T1 treated plants.

However, 284.33, 281.00, 275.67 and 270.00 days of leaf area duration were noticed in T2, T6,

T4 and T5 treated plants respectively. During the second year of study (2016), highest leaf

area duration (315.67 days) was noticed in T3 and least (264.67 days) in T1 treated plants. This

attribute in T6, T4, T2, and T5 treated plants was recorded as 297.67, 292.33, 291.00 and

276.67 days respectively (Figure. 4.1.2.2).

4.1.2.3 Effect of nitrogen on total dry matter of sugarcane

Table. 4.1.2.3 Shows the data regarding total dry matter of sugarcane affected by

different levels of nitrogen application through drip irrigation. Results showed that all

treatment effects varied from each other and significantly (P≤0.05) highest total dry matter was

documented from T3 treated plants. Years of study also varied significantly as year 2016

showed more total dry matter than year 2015.

During first year of study (2015) maximum total dry matter (27.77 t ha-1

) was noticed in

T3 treated plants followed by T2 treatment (25.45 t ha-1

). Total dry matter of T4, T5 and T6

plants was found to be 23.57 t ha-1

which 22.27 t ha-1

and 20.35 t ha-1

, respectively. Least total

49

Table 4.1.1.14: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on harvest index of

sugarcane (%)


T1 76.89 80.89 78.887 C

T2 83.12 89.79 86.453 B

T3 87.46 97.53 92.493 A

T4 79.11 85.31 82.210 BC

T5 80.54 84.14 82.343 BC

T6 84.24 87.57 85.907 B

Means 81.893 B 87.538 A

Figure 4.1.1.14: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on harvest index of

sugarcane


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Harv

est

ind

ex (

%)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



50

dry matter (17.96 t ha-1

) was collected from T1 treated plants. During the second year of study

(2016), the total dry matter of T3 plants was maximum (34.44 t ha-1

) and that of T1 plants was

minimum (19.96 t ha-1

). Plants treated with T2, T4, T5 and T6 had 28.85, 26.23, 24.27 and

22.01 t ha-1

total dry matters, respectively (Figure. 4.1.2.3).

4.1.2.4 Effect of nitrogen on average crop growth rate of sugarcane

Significantly (P≤0.05) higher average crop growth rate was recorded in T3 plants than

control plants during both years of study. Furthermore, during the year 2016 higher average

crop growth rate was recorded than year 2015 (Table. 4.1.2.4). During the year 2015, average

crop growth rate of 8.01 g m-2

day-1

, 7.46 g m-2

day-1

, 7.30 g m-2

day-1

, 7.11 g m-2

day-1

, 6.62 g

m-2

day-1

and 6.59 g m-2

day-1

was recorded in T3, T6, T2, T5, T4 and T1 treated plants, during

the second year of study, 8.67 g m-2

day-1

, 7.73 g m-2

day-1

, 7.70 g m-2

day-1

, 7.44 g m-2

day-1

,

7.29 g m-2

day-1

and 6.92 g m-2

day-1

was recorded in T3, T6, T2, T5, T4 and T1 treated plants

(Figure. 4.1.2.4).

4.1.2.5 Effect of nitrogen on net assimilation rate of sugarcane

Net assimilation rate was significantly affected by different levels of nitrogen

application through drip irrigation. It was highest during the year 2016 (Table. 4.1.2.5). During

the year 2015, maximum net assimilation rate (2.18 g m-2

day-1

) was observed in T3 plants and

minimum (1.28 g m-2

day-1

) was noticed in T1 plants. Moreover, 2.05 g m-2

day-1

, 1.94 g m-2

day-1

, 1.89 g m-2

day-1

and 1.48 g m-2

day-1

net assimilation rate was recorded in T4, T6, T2 and

T5 treated plants. During the second year of study (2016), net assimilation rate was recorded in

the following order: T3 (2.78 g m-2

day-1

) > T4 (2.62 g m-2

day-1

) > T2 (2.22 g m-2

day-1

) > T6

(2.03 g m-2

day-1

) > T5 (1.84 g m-2

day-1

) > T1 (1.71 g m-2

day-1

) (Figure. 4.1.2.5).

51

Table 4.1.2.1: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on leaf area index of

sugarcane


T1 4.67 5.36 5.0150 D

T2 5.84 6.18 6.0100 BC

T3 6.66 7.02 6.8400 A

T4 6.11 6.48 6.2933 B

T5 5.44 5.84 5.6433 C

T6 5.95 6.22 6.0867 BC

Means 5.7794 B 6.1833 A

Figure 4.1.2.1: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on leaf area index of

sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Lea

f are

a i

nd

ex

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



52

Table 4.1.2.2: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on leaf area duration

(days)


T1 251.33 264.67 258.00 D

T2 284.33 291.00 287.67 B

T3 305.67 315.67 310.67 A

T4 275.67 292.33 284.00 B

T5 270.00 276.67 273.33 C

T6 281.00 297.67 289.33 B

Means 278.00 B 289.67 A

Figure 4.1.2.2: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on leaf area duration


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Lea

f are

a d

ura

tion

(d

ays)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



53

Table 4.1.2.3: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on total dry matter of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 17.96 19.96 18.963 E

T2 25.45 28.85 27.153 B

T3 27.77 34.44 31.107 A

T4 23.57 26.24 24.903 BC

T5 22.27 24.27 23.273 CD

T6 20.35 22.02 21.183 DE

Means 22.897 B 25.964 A

Figure 4.1.2.3: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on total dry matter of

sugarcane


0

10

20

30

40

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Tota

l d

ry m

att

er (

t h

a-1

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



54

Table 4.1.2.4: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on average crop growth

rate of sugarcane (g m-2

day-1

)


T1 6.59 6.92 6.75 B

T2 7.30 7.70 7.50 AB

T3 8.01 8.68 8.34 A

T4 6.62 7.29 6.95 B

T5 7.11 7.45 7.28 B

T6 7.47 7.73 7.60 AB

Means 7.18 A 7.62 A

Figure 4.1.2.4: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on average crop growth

rate of sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6Aver

age

crop

gro

wth

rate

(g m

-2 d

ay

-1)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



55

Table 4.1.2.5: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on net assimilation rate of

sugarcane (g m-2

day-1

)


T1 1.28 1.72 1.50 D

T2 1.89 2.23 2.06 BC

T3 2.18 2.78 2.48 A

T4 2.06 2.62 2.34 AB

T5 1.48 1.84 1.66 D

T6 1.94 2.03 1.98 C

Means 1.80 B 2.20 A

Figure 4.1.2.5: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on net assimilation rate of

sugarcane


0

1

2

3

4

5

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Net

ass

imil

ati

on

rate

(g m

-2 d

ay

-1)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



56

4.1.3 Quality characteristics

4.1.3.1 Effect of nitrogen on brix percent of sugarcane

Data regarding brix percent in response to different levels of nitrogen application

through drip irrigation is given in Table. 4.1.3.1. It was significantly (P≤0.05) higher in T3

plants than control plants. Both years of study presented significant variations in this attribute

as the year 2016 showed higher brix percent, than 2015. During the year 2015, significantly

higher brix percent (22.76%) was noticed in T3 plants. Minimum brix percent (18.76%) was

recorded in T4 plants. Furthermore, 22.20%, 20.90%, 20.16% and 18.76% brix were observed

in T2, T5, T6 and T1 plants respectively. During 2016, maximum brix percent (26.43%) was

recorded in T3 treated plants and minimum (20.62%) was reported in T4 treated plants. In

control plants, 21.30% brix was noted (Figure. 4.1.3.1).

4.1.3.2 Effect of nitrogen on sucrose content of sugarcane

Statistical interpretation of data regarding sucrose content

in sugarcane revealed

significant (P≤0.05) differences among treatments (Table. 4.1.3.2). Plants treated with T3

exhibited maximum sucrose content. As far as years of study are concerned, sucrose content

was maximum during the second year of study. During 2015, maximum sucrose contents

(13.43%) were recorded in T3 treated plants followed by T4 plants (12.44%) which was at par

with T6 (12.42%) and T5 (12.38%) treated plants. Minimum content (10.21%) was observed in

T1 treated plants. During 2016, maximum sucrose content was observed in T3 and minimum in

T1 treated plants. In sugarcane, 14.43%, 13.10%, 13.05%, 12.78%, 12.23% and 11.21%

sucrose content was noticed in T3, T4, T5, T6, T2 and T1 treated plants, respectively during

2016 (Figure. 4.1.3.2).

4.1.3.3 Effect of nitrogen on cane fiber content of sugarcane

Table 4.1.3.3 shows the data regarding cane fiber content affected by different levels of

nitrogen application through drip irrigation. Results indicated that can fiber content in

treatment T4, T5 and T6 did not vary significantly from each other but they differed

significantly (P≤0.05) from T3, T2 and T1. Significant improvement in cane fiber content was

also noticed in second year (2016) of study.

57

Table 4.1.3.1: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application brix percent of sugarcane

(%)


T1 18.97 21.30 20.13 BC

T2 22.20 25.20 23.70 A

T3 22.77 26.43 24.60 A

T4 18.77 20.62 19.69 C

T5 20.90 22.57 21.73 B

T6 20.17 21.83 21.00 BC

Means 20.62 B 22.99 A

Figure 4.1.3.1: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on brix percent of

sugarcane.


0

6

12

18

24

30

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Bri

x p

erce

nt

(%)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



58

Table 4.1.3.2: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sucrose content of

sugarcane (%)


T1 10.21 11.21 10.71 D

T2 11.20 12.24 11.72 CD

T3 13.43 14.43 13.93 A

T4 12.44 13.11 12.77 B

T5 12.38 13.05 12.71 BC

T6 12.42 12.79 12.60 BC

Means 12.01 B 12.80 A

Figure 4.1.3.2: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sucrose content of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Su

crose

con

ten

t (%

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



59

Table 4.1.3.3: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane fiber content of

sugarcane (%)


T1 11.34 12.00 11.67 D

T2 12.33 13.00 12.66 C

T3 14.38 15.03 14.70 A

T4 13.57 14.00 13.78 B

T5 13.51 13.87 13.69 B

T6 13.55 14.21 13.87 B

Means 13.11 B 13.68 A

Figure 4.1.3.3: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on cane fiber content of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e fi

ber

con

ten

t (%

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



60

During first year of study, highest cane fiber content (14.38%) was observed in T3

plants and minimum (11.33%) in T1 plants. In T2 plants, 12.33% content were recorded. In T4,

Plants, 13.57% cane fiber content was observed which were statistically at par with T6

(13.55%) and T5 (13.51%) treated plants. During the second year of study, maximum cane

fiber content (15.03%) was noticed in T3 plants followed by T6 plants (14.20%). Furthermore,

14.00% fiber content was found in T4 plants which were at par with T5 plants (13.87%). In T2

plants, 13.00% fiber content was recorded. Minimum cane fiber content (12.00%) were

observed in T1 plants (Figure. 4.1.3.3).

4.1.3.4 Effect of nitrogen on commercial cane sugar content of sugarcane

Data regarding commercial cane sugar content affected by different levels of nitrogen

application through drip irrigation is given in Table. 4.1.3.4. Results revealed that all treatments

didn‟t vary significantly (P≤0.05). All the treated plants showed non-significant change in

commercial cane sugar content from control plants. Both year of study (2015 and 2016) also

presented non-significant variations in this attribute. During the year 2015 commercial cane

sugar content was highest (14.1%) in T3 plant and least (11.6%) in T1 treated plants. In T4, T5

and T6 plants, commercial cane sugar content was recorded as was recorded as 13.5%. During

the year 2016, maximum commercial cane sugar content in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 treated

plants was noticed as: 12.4%, 12.6%, 15.1%, 13.63%, 14.0% and 14.1%, respectively (Figure.

4.1.3.4).

4.1.3.5 Effect of nitrogen on sugar recovery of sugarcane

Data regarding sugar recovery (%) from sugarcane affected by different levels of

nitrogen application through drip irrigation is presented in Table. 4.1.3.5. The results showed

that T3 plants had significantly (P≤0.05) highest sugar recovery. Both year of experiment

presented excellent performance by showing improved sugar recovery. Nonetheless, year 2016

showed significantly higher sugar recovery as compared to the year 2015.

During the first year of study, the sugar recovery in plants was recorded as: 14.39%,

13.40%, 13.38%, 13.34%, 12.16% and 11.80% in T3, T4, T6, T5, T2 and T1 treated plants

respectively. During the second year of study, maximum sugar recovery (15.19%) was

observed in T3 plants followed by T6 plants (13.94%) which were at par the sugar recovery

from T4 plants (13.76%). It was least 12.47%) in T1 treated plants (Figure. 4.1.3.5).

61

Table 4.1.3.4: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on commercial cane sugar

content of sugarcane (%)


T1 11.61 12.35 11.98 C

T2 12.29 12.63 12.46 C

T3 14.14 15.14 14.63 A

T4 13.53 13.63 13.58 B

T5 13.47 13.97 13.72 B

T6 13.51 14.14 13.82 B

Means 13.09 A 13.64 A

Figure 4.1.3.4: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on commercial cane sugar

content of sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6Com

mer

cial

can

e su

gar

con

ten

t (%

)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



62

Table 4.1.3.5: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane (%)


T1 11.81 12.47 12.14 D

T2 12.16 13.16 12.66 CD

T3 14.39 15.19 14.79 A

T4 13.40 13.77 13.58 B

T5 13.34 13.34 13.34 BC

T6 13.38 13.95 13.66 B

Means 13.08 B 13.64 A

Figure 4.1.3.5: Effect of different levels of nitrogen application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane


0

6

12

18

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Su

gar

reco

ver

y

(%)

Nitrogen treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



63

4.1.4: Economic analysis

4.1.4.1: Net field benefit

On the basis of two years average data (Table-4.1.4.1a), the maximum net field

benefit of Rs. 277260 ha-1

was given by 125% of recommended dose of

Nitrogen followed by 100% recommended dose of nitrogen with net field


while the minimum net field benefit of Rs. 122865 ha-1

was

given by 50% recommended dose of nitrogen .

Table 4.1.4.1: Net field benefit of sugarcane as influenced by different N levels on

sugarcane crop under drip irrigation system during 2015 and 2016 (Average of two

years).

Treatments Gross field benefits

(Rs ha-1

) Total expenditures

(Rs ha-1

) Net field

Benefits

(Rs. ha-1

)

Av. cane yield

(t ha-1

) Gross field

benefits

(Rs. ha-1

) 1)

Cost that vary

(Rs. ha-1

) Total Cost

(Rs. ha-1

)

T1= 168-112-112

NPK kg ha-1

RDF

through soil

application

100.75 453375 40580 234580 218795

T2= 168-112-112

NPK kg ha-1

RDF

through drip

102.87 462915 38980 232980 229935

T3= 125% N of

RDF

113.87

113.87

512415 41155 235155 277260

T4= 100% N of

RDF 112.12 504540 38980 232980 271560

T5= 75% N of

RDF

102.62 461790 36805 230805 230985

T6= 50% N of

RDF 78.11 351495 34630 228630 122865

Rate of sugarcane = Rs. 4500 t-1

RDF = Recommended dose of fertilizer

64

4.1.4.2 Dominance Analysis

Since net field benefit is not a final criterion for recommendation of suitable

method of planting with appropriate seeding density for general adoption as it does not

account for returns on investment, therefore, returns to investment were also calculated.

However, before calculating returns to investment, dominance analysis (Table-4.1.4.2 a)

was done in which two dominated treatments i.e. T2 and T3 were determined and

excluded from further analysis. While the remaining five treatments i.e. T1, T4, T5, T6 and

T7 were further considered in the marginal analysis (Table-4.1.4.2 b).

Table 4.1.4.2 Dominance analysis as influenced by different K levels on sugarcane

crop under drip irrigation system during 2015 and 2016 (Average of two years).

Treatments Cost that vary

(Rs. ha-1

) Net field benefit

(Rs.ha-1

)

T6= 50% N of RDF 34630 122865

T5= 75% N of RDF 36805 230985

T2= 168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

through drip 38980 229935 D

T4= 100% N of RDF 38980 271560

T1= 168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

through soil 40580 218795 D

T3= 125% N of RDF 41155 277240


65

4.1.4.3. Marginal rate of return

For the calculation of returns to investment marginal analysis of the treatments was

carried out. Since dominated treatments were not included in the marginal analysis, MRR

was, therefore, positive (Anonymous, 1988 and Cheema, 2002). On the basis of two years

average results (Table-4.1.4.3 a), maximum marginal rate of return of 1675 percent was

given by 75% recommended dose nitrogen followed by 100% recommended dose of

nitrogen with marginal rate of return of 466 percent while minimum marginal rate of

return of 52 percent was given by 125 % recommended dose of nitrogen.

Table 4.1.4.3 b: Marginal analysis as influenced by different K levels on sugarcane crop

under drip irrigation system during 2015 and 2016 (average of two years).

Treatments Cost that

Vary

(Rs.ha-1

)

Marginal

cost

(Rs.ha-1

)

Net field

benefit

(Rs.ha-1

)

Marginal net

Benefit

(Rs.ha-1

)

Marginal

rate

of return %

T7= 50% N of

RDF

34630 4350 122865 - -

T6= 75% N of

RDF 36805 6525 230985 108120 1675

T5= 100% N of

RDF 38980 8700 271560 40575 466

T4= 125% N of

RDF 41155 10875 277240 5680 52


66

EXPERIMENT No. 2: Growth, yield and quality of sugarcane as affected by different

levels of potash application through drip irrigation

4.2.1 Agronomic Attributes

4.2.1.1 Effect of different levels of potash application on sprouting percentage of

sugarcane

Data regarding sprouting percentage of sugarcane affected by different levels of potash

application through drip irrigation revealed that sprouting percentage of control plants (T1) was

significantly (P≤0.05) lower than T3 and T4 treated plants and higher than T6 plants. However,

T2 and T5 didn‟t vary significantly from control plants. These techniques did not affect

sprouting percentage during both the years of study (2015 and 2016) (Table. 4.2.1.1).

During the year 2015, maximum sprouting percentage (52.86%) was noticed in T4

plants and minimum in T1 plants (51.63%). During the year 2016, T3 showed maximum

(53.85%) and T6 showed minimum (50.47%) sprouting percentage. The sprouting percentage

in control plants during second year of study was 53.63% (Figure. 4.2.1.1).

4.2.1.2 Effect of different levels of potash application on number of tillers per unit area of

sugarcane

Data regarding the number of tillers per unit area (Table. 4.2.1.2) revealed significant

(P≤0.05) variations among treatments. Treatment T4 showed significantly higher number of

tillers per unit area. Both year of experiment presented excellent performance by showing

improved growth but they didn‟t vary significantly from each other. During the year 2015, the

maximum number of tillers per unit area (21.33) was recorded in T4 and minimum number of

tillers (15.00) in T1 treated plants. Similarly, during the year 2016, highest number of tillers per

unit area (22.33) was noticed in T4 and minimum (16.00) in T1 plants (Figure. 4.2.1.2).

4.2.1.3 Effect of different levels of potash application on number of millable canes of

sugarcane

Results showed that significant (P≤0.05) differences among treatments were present

however; T2, T3 and T5 did not vary significantly. Both year of study varied significantly in

the number of millable canes ha-1

. During the year 2015, maximum number of millable canes

(108779 millable canes kg ha-1

) were noted in T4 treated sugarcanes followed by T6 (99511

millable canes kg ha-1

) which was at par with T3 (98646 millable canes ha-1

), T5 (98146

millable canes ha-1

) and T2 (97810 millable canes ha-1

). Minimum millable canes (97274

millable canes ha-1

) were observed in T1 treatment.

67

Table 4.2.1.1: Effect of different levels of potash application on sprouting percentage (%)

of sugarcane


T1 51.633 53.633 52.63 AB

T2 51.973 52.640 52.30 AB

T3 52.857 53.857 53.35 A

T4 52.867 53.533 53.20 A

T5 51.873 51.873 51.87 AB

T6 51.853 50.477 51.16 B

Means 52.17 A 52.66 A

Figure 4.2.1.1: Effect of different levels of potash application on sprouting percentage (%)

of sugarcane


0

20

40

60

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Sp

rou

tin

g p

erce

nta

ge

(%)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



68

Table 4.2.1.2: Effect of different levels of potash application on number of tillers per unit

area of sugarcane


T1 15.00 16.00 15.50 D

T2 16.33 17.00 16.66 BCD

T3 17.67 18.67 18.16 B

T4 21.33 22.33 21.83 A

T5 16.00 16.67 16.33 CD

T6 17.33 18.00 17.66 BC

Means 17.27 A 18.11 A

Figure 4.2.1.2: Effect of different levels of potash application on number of tillers per unit

area of sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

25

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Nu

mb

er o

f ti

ller

s p

er u

nit

are

a

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



69

Table 4.2.1.3: Effect of different levels of potash application on number of millable canes

of sugarcane kg ha-1


T1 97273.7 97940.3 97607 C

T2 97809.7 98476.3 98143 BC

T3 98645.7 99812.3 99229 BC

T4 108779 112112 110446 A

T5 98145.7 99145.7 98646 BC

T6 99511.3 99744.7 99628 B

Means 100027 B 101205 A

Figure 4.2.1.3: Effect of different levels of potash application on number of millable canes

of sugarcane


85000

90000

95000

100000

105000

110000

115000

120000

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6Mil

lab

le c

an

es o

f su

garc

an

e k

g h

a-1

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



70

During the year 2016, maximum numbers of millable canes (112112 millable canes ha-

1) were noted in T4 treated sugarcanes and minimum (97940 millable canes ha

-1) were

observed in T1 treated sugarcane plants (Figure. 4.2.1.3).

4.2.1.4 Effect of different levels of potash application on plant height of sugarcane

Data concerning plant height affected by different levels of potash application through

drip irrigation revealed that plant height was significantly (P≤0.05) affected in response to

different treatments. Furthermore, year 2016 showed significant improvement in plant height as

compared to the year 2015 (Table. 4.2.1.4). Among different treatments, T4 treated plants

showed maximum plant height (251.33 cm) during the year 2015 and 273.67 cm during the

year 2016. The minimum plant height 177.00 cm during 2015 and 180.33 cm during 2016 was

recorded in T1 treated plants (Figure. 4.2.1.4).

4.2.1.5 Effect of different levels of potash application on internodes per cane of sugarcane

Statistical interpretation of data regarding internodes per cane (Table. 4.2.1.5) showed

significant (P≤0.05) relationship among treatments and T4 showed significantly higher

internodes per cane. During the year 2015, treatment T4 showed maximum (13.33) internodes

per cane and minimum 11.00) internodes per cane were noticed in T1 and T2 treated plants.

However, 12.66, 12.33 and 11.66 internodes per cane were noticed in T6, T5 and T3 treated

plants respectively during the same year. During the year 2016, maximum internodes per cane

(13.78) were noticed in T4 and minimum (10.33) in T1 treated plants while 13.00 internodes

per cane were recorded in T5 and T6 treated plants. In T3 and T2 treated plants 12.00 and

11.33 internodes per cane were noticed respectively (Figure. 4.2.1.5).

4.2.1.6 Effect of different levels of potash application on internode length of sugarcane

Highest internode length was recorded in T4 treated plants which varied significantly

(P≤0.05) from all other treatment. During the both years of study (2015 and 2016), internode

length didn‟t vary significantly (Table. 4.2.1.6).

71

Table 4.2.1.4: Effect of different levels of potash application on plant height of sugarcane

(cm)


T1 177.0 180.3 178.67 D

T2 191.3 196.7 194.00 C

T3 196.0 205.3 200.67 C

T4 251.3 273.7 262.50 A

T5 215.0 232.7 223.83 B

T6 212.0 227.0 219.50 B

Means 207.11 B 219.28 A

Figure 4.2.1.4: Effect of different levels of potash application on plant height of

sugarcane.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Pla

nt

hei

gh

t (c

m)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



72

During the first year of study (2015), 15.46 cm, 14.30 cm, 13.40 cm, 12.90 cm, 12.55

cm and 12.09 cm internode length were recorded in T4, T3, T5, T2, T6 and T1 treated plants

respectively. During the second year of study (2016), 15.81 cm, 14.63 cm, 13.15 cm, 13.09 cm,

12.90 cm and 12.43 cm internode length were recorded in T4, T3, T6, T5, T2 and T1 treated

plants respectively (Figure. 4.2.1.6).

4.2.1.7 Effect of different levels of potash application on cane length of sugarcane

Data concerning cane length affected by different levels of potash application through

drip irrigation is depicted in Table. 4.2.1.7. Significant (P≤0.05) differences existed among

treatments except for T3 and T5 which showed non-significant variations with each other. Both


Nevertheless, both years of study didn‟t vary significantly in their cane length. Cane length,

during the year 2015 was recoded as 205.67 cm in T4, 165.40 cm in T5, 165.29 cm in T3,

159.26 cm in T6, 142.08 cm in T2 and 133.10 cm in T1 treated plants. During the year 2016, it

was recorded as 219.25 cm, 174.62 cm, 171.26 cm, 170.34 cm, 145.55 cm and 128.63 cm in

T4, T3, T6, T5, T2 and T1 treated plants respectively (Figure. 4.2.1.7).

4.2.1.8 Effect of different levels of potash application on cane diameter of sugarcane

Different levels of potash application through drip irrigation showed significantly

(P≤0.05) higher cane diameter in T4 treated plants than control plants during both years of

study. However, year 2016 showed significantly better growth than year 2015 (Table. 4.2.1.8).

During the first year of study, maximum cane diameter (6.57 cm) was recorded in T4 treated

plants and least cane diameter (3.08 cm) was observed in T1 treated plants. During the second

year of study, maximum cane diameter (7.23 cm) was documented in T4 treated plants while

minimum cane diameter (3.38 cm) was noticed in T1 treated plants (Figure. 4.2.1.8).

4.2.1.9 Effect of different levels of potash application on weight per stripped cane of

sugarcane

Significant (P≤0.05) variations existed among treatments for weight per stripped cane

affected by different levels of potash application through drip irrigation. It was significantly

more in T4 plants than all other treatments. Both years of study presented significant variations

in this attribute as the year 2016 showed higher weight per stripped cane than the year 2015

(Table. 4.2.1.9).

73

Table 4.2.1.5: Effect of different levels of potash application on internodes per cane of

sugarcane


T1 11.00 10.33 10.66 C

T2 11.00 11.33 11.16 C

T3 11.67 12.00 11.83 BC

T4 13.33 13.78 13.55 A

T5 12.33 13.00 12.66 AB

T6 12.67 13.00 12.83 AB

Means 12.000 A 12.241 A

Figure 4.2.5: Effect of different levels of potash application on internodes per cane of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Inte

rnod

es p

er c

an

e

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



74

Table 4.2.1.6: Effect of different levels of potash application on Internode length of

sugarcane (cm)


T1 12.10 12.43 12.26 C

T2 12.91 12.91 12.90 C

T3 14.30 14.64 14.47 AB

T4 15.46 15.81 15.63 A

T5 13.40 13.09 13.24 BC

T6 12.56 13.16 12.85 C

Means 13.45 A 13.67 A

Figure 4.2.1.6: Effect of different levels of potash application on Internode length of

sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Inte

rnod

e le

ngth

(cm

)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



75

Table 4.2.1.7: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane length of sugarcane

(cm)


T1 133.10 128.63 130.86 D

T2 142.08 145.55 143.82 CD

T3 165.29 174.62 169.96 B

T4 205.67 219.25 212.46 A

T5 165.40 170.34 167.87 B

T6 159.26 171.26 165.26 BC

Means 161.80 A 168.27 A

Figure 4.2.1.7: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane length of sugarcane.


0

50

100

150

200

250

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e le

ngth

(cm

)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



76

During the first year of study (2015), 1.03 kg, 0.95 kg, 0.93 kg, 0.92 kg, 0.85 kg and

0.79 kg weight per stripped cane were noted in T4, T5, T6, T3, T2 and T1 treated plants

respectively. During the second year of study (2016), 1.80 kg, 1.05 kg, 1.03 kg, 1.02 kg, 0.92

kg and 0.86 kg weight per stripped cane were recorded in T4, T5, T6, T3, T2 and T1 treated

plants respectively (Figure. 4.2.1.9).

4.2.1.10 Effect of different levels of potash application on unstripped cane yield of

sugarcane

Data regarding unstripped can yield affected by different levels of potash application

through drip irrigation showed significant (P≤0.05) differences among treatments. As far as

years of study are concerned, year 2016 showed significantly higher unstripped can yield as

compared to the year 2015 (Table. 4.2.1.10). Unstripped cane yield was maximum (105.46 t ha-

1) in T4 treated plants and minimum (85.49 t ha

-1) in T1 treated plants during the year 2015

study. During 2016, the unstripped cane yield was maximum (110.13 t ha-1

) in T4 plants which

was at par with that of T6 plants (107.78) and least (88.15 t ha-1

) was noted in T1 plants

(Figure. 4.2.1.10).

4.2.1.11 Effect of different levels of potash application on cane top weight of sugarcane

Data regarding cane top weight affected by different levels of potash application

through drip irrigation showed significant (P≤0.05) variability among treatments. However,

treatment T5 and T6 didn‟t vary significantly. Significant variations existed in years of study

for this attribute as well. Year 2016 showed significantly higher cane top weight (Table.

4.2.1.11). During the year 2015, highest cane top weight (15.00 t ha-1

) was recorded in T3

plants and least (9.65 t ha-1

) in T1 plants. The cane top weight in T3, T6, T5 and T2 treated

plants was recorded as 13.69 t ha-1

, 12.95 t ha-1

, 12.87 t ha-1

and 12.46 t ha-1

respectively.

During the year 2016, maximum cane top weight (16.00 t ha-1

) was found in T4 plants followed

by T3 plants (14.72 t ha-1

) and then T5 plants (13.87 t ha-1

). The least cane top weight (10.41 t

ha-1

) was observed in T1 treated plants (Figure. 4.2.1.11).

4.2.1.12 Effect of different levels of potash application on cane trash weight of sugarcane

Different levels of potash application significantly (P≤0.05) affected the cane trash

weight. It was highest in T4 plants and least in T1 treated plans during both years of study.

Furthermore, year 2016 showed higher can trash weight than the year 2015 (Table. 4.2.1.12).

During the 1st year of study (2015), maximum cane trash weight (6.50 t ha

-1) was noted in T4

plants followed by T6 plants (5.88 t ha-1

) which was at par with T5 (5.72 t ha-1

) and T2 plants

77

(5.60 t ha-1

). Minimum can trash weight (4.56 t ha-1

) was recorded in T1 plants. During the 2nd

year of study (2016), cane trash weight was also highest (7.40 t ha-1

) in T4 treated plants and


) in T1 treated plants. The cane trash weight in T5, T6, T2 and T3 treated

plants was 6.49, 6.22, 6.03 and 5.96 t ha-1

, respectively (Figure. 4.2.1.12).

4.2.1.13 Effect of different levels of potash application on stripped cane yield of sugarcane

Application of different levels of potash on sugarcane significantly (P≤0.05) affected

the stripped cane yield. All the treatments varied significantly except T5 and T6. Both year of

study also varied significantly for this attribute. The study year 2016 showed higher stripped

cane yield than the year 2015 (Table. 4.2.1.13). During the 1st year of study, stripped can yield

in potash treated plants was recorded as: 95.32 t ha-1

in T4, 90.31 t ha-1

in T6, 89.09 t ha-1

in

T5, 85.28 t ha-1

in T2, 79.01 t ha-1

in T3 and 75.35 t ha-1

in T1 treated plants. During the 2nd

of

study, maximum stripped cane yield (100.65 t ha-1

) was noted in T3 treated plants and


) in T1 treated plants. Furthermore, 96.43 t ha-1

, 96.31 t ha-1

, 88.61 t ha-1

and 85.68 t ha-1

yield was recorded in T5, T6, T2 and T3 treated plants respectively (Figure.

4.2.1.13).

78

Table 4.2.1.8: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane diameter of

sugarcane (cm)


T1 3.08 3.38 3.23 D

T2 4.40 4.73 4.56 C

T3 5.20 6.20 5.69 B

T4 6.57 7.24 6.90 A

T5 5.25 5.92 5.58 B

T6 5.74 6.21 5.97 B

Means 5.04 B 5.61 A

Figure 4.2.1.8: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane diameter of

sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e d

iam

eter

(c

m)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



79

Table 4.2.1.9: Effect of different levels of potash application on weight per stripped cane

of sugarcane (kg)


T1 0.797 0.863 0.83 C

T2 0.857 0.923 0.89 C

T3 0.927 1.020 0.97 B

T4 1.033 1.800 1.41 A

T5 0.950 1.057 1.003 B

T6 0.933 1.033 0.98 B

Means 0.9161 B 1.1161 A

Figure 4.2.1.9: Effect of different levels of potash application on weight per stripped cane

of sugarcane


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Wei

gh

t p

er s

trip

ped

can

e k

g

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



80

Table 4.2.1.10: Effect of different levels of potash application on un-stripped cane yield of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 85.49 88.15 86.82 E

T2 95.42 96.75 96.08 C

T3 89.15 94.15 91.65 D

T4 105.46 110.13 107.79 A

T5 99.23 104.57 101.90 B

T6 100.45 107.78 104.12 AB

Means 95.87 B 100.26 A

Figure 4.2.1.10: Effect of different levels of potash application on un-stripped cane yield

of sugarcane


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Un

-str

ipp

ed c

an

e yie

ld (

t h

a-1

)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



81

Table 4.2.1.11: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane top weight of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 9.65 10.42 10.03 D

T2 12.47 13.13 12.80 C

T3 13.69 14.72 14.20 B

T4 15.00 16.01 15.50 A

T5 12.87 13.87 13.37 BC

T6 12.96 13.61 13.28 BC

Means 12.773 B 13.627 A

Figure 4.2.1.11: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane top weight of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Ca

ne

top

wei

gh

t (t

ha

-1)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



82

Table 4.2.1.12: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane trash weight of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 4.567 5.233 4.90 C

T2 5.603 6.037 5.82 B

T3 5.230 5.963 5.59 B

T4 6.503 7.403 6.95 A

T5 5.723 6.490 6.10 B

T6 5.887 6.220 6.05 B

Means 5.58 B 6.22 A

Figure 4.2.12: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane trash weight of

sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e tr

ash

wei

gh

t (t

ha

-1)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



83

Table 4.2.1.13: Effect of different levels of potash application on stripped cane yield of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 75.35 78.35 76.84 E

T2 85.28 88.61 86.94 C

T3 79.01 85.68 82.34 D

T4 95.32 100.65 97.98 A

T5 89.09 96.43 92.76 B

T6 90.31 96.31 93.31 B

Means 85.72 B 91.00 A

Figure 4.2.1.13: Effect of different levels of potash application on stripped cane yield of

sugarcane


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Str

ipp

ed c

an

e yie

ld (

t h

a-1

)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



84

4.2.1.14 Effect of different levels of potash application on harvest index of sugarcane

Considerable variability was recorded in harvest index of sugarcane affected by

different levels of potash application through drip irrigation. It was significantly (P≤0.05)

higher in T4 plants than all other treatments. Both years of study presented significant

differences in this attribute as the year 2016 showed higher harvest index than year 2015

(Table. 4.2.1.14). During the 1st year of study, maximum harvest index (85.92 %) was recorded

in T4 plants followed by T5 plants (84.24%). Minimum harvest index (77.89%) was reported

T1 treated plants which were at par with T6 plants (79.11%). During the 2nd

year of study,

maximum harvest index (92.59 %) was recorded in T3 treated plants and minimum (83.87%)

was reported in T1 treated plants (Figure. 4.2.1.14).

4.2.2 Physiological characteristics

4.2.2.1 Effect of different levels of potash application on leaf area Index of sugarcane

Data regarding leaf area index (LAI) affected by different levels of potash application

through drip irrigation is depicted in Table. 4.2.2.1. Significant (P≤0.05) differences existed

among treatments except for T6 and T3 that did not vary significantly. Among treatments T4

showed significantly greater leaf area index than all other treatments. As the years of study

concerned, year 2016 exhibited significantly higher leaf area index than year 2015 recorded as:

7.18 in T4, 6.83 in T3, 6.64 in T6, 6.28 in T5, 5.87 in T1 and 5.77 in T2 treated plants (Figure.

4.2.2.1).

4.2.2.2 Effect of different levels of potash application on leaf area duration of sugarcane

Leaf area duration was significantly (P≤0.05) affected by different levels of potash

application through drip irrigation during both years of study as all treatments varied

significantly from control (T1). Both years of study also differed significantly. Year 2016

showed higher leaf area duration than 2015 (Table. 4.2.2.2). Maximum leaf area duration

(303.00 days) was recorded in T4 treated plants during both years of study i.e., 2015 and 2016.

Minimum leaf area duration (255.00 days during 2015 and 275.00 days during 2016) was noted

in T1 (control) plants (Figure. 4.2.2.2).

4.1.2.3 Effect of different levels of potash application on total dry matter of sugarcane

Data regarding total dry matter of sugarcane affected by different levels of potash

application through drip irrigation is shown in Table. 4.2.2.3. Results revealed that all treatment

varied from each other and significantly (P≤0.05) highest total dry matter was found in T4

85

treated plants. Years of study also varied significantly as year 2016 showed more total dry

matter than year 2015.

During the year 2015, maximum total dry matter (27.20 t ha-1

) was recorded in T4

treated plants followed by T3 treated plants (25.43 t ha-1

) and then T6 treated plants (23.57 t ha-

1). Total dry matter of T2 and T5 treated plants was 22.27 t ha

-1 and 20.35 t ha

-1 respectively.

Least total dry matter (18.65 t ha-1

) was noted in T1 treated plants. During the year 2016, the

total dry matter was maximum (32.20 t ha-1

) in T4 treated plants and minimum (19.98 t ha-1

)

was recorded in T1 treated plants. Furthermore, T3, T6, T2 and T5 treated plants had 29.43 t

ha-1

, 26.90 t ha-1

, 25.60 t ha-1

and 23.68 t ha-1

total dry matters respectively (Figure. 4.2.2.3).

During the year 2015, maximum leaf area index (6.42) was recorded in T4 treated plants and

minimum (5.04) in T1 treated plants.

4.2.2.4 Effect of different levels of potash application on crop growth rate of sugarcane

Table 4.2.2.4 represented the data regarding average crop growth rate of sugarcane

affected by different levels of potash application through drip irrigation. Significantly (P≤0.05)

higher average crop growth rate was found in T4 treated plants than control plants during both

years of study. Treatment T2 didn‟t vary significantly from control plants. Both year of study

varied significantly for this attribute. Furthermore, during the year 2016 higher average crop

growth rate was recorded than the year 2015.

During the 1st year of study, maximum average crop growth rate (7.92 g m

-2 day

-1) was

recorded in T4 plants which were at par with T5 plants (7.46 g m-2

day-1

). This was followed by

T3 plants (7.30 g m-2

day-1

) which were at par with T6 plants (7.29 g m-2

day-1

). Minimum crop

growth rate (6.59 g m-2

day-1

) was recorded in T1 plants. During the 2nd

year of study, 8.59 g

m-2

day-1

, 8.46 g m-2

day-1

, 8.39 g m-2

day-1

, 8.30 g m-2

day-1

, 7.61 g m-2

day-1

and 7.48 g m-2

day-1

was recorded in T4, T5, T6, T3, T1 and T2 treated plants (Figure. 4.2.2.4).

86

Table 4.2.1.14: Effect of different levels of potash application on harvest index of

sugarcane (%)


T1 77.89 87.89 82.890 BC

T2 80.54 83.88 82.210 C

T3 83.12 89.79 86.453 ABC

T4 85.93 92.59 89.260 A

T5 84.24 92.57 88.407 AB

T6 79.11 84.44 81.777 C

Means 81.80 B 88.52 A

Figure 4.2.1.14: Effect of different levels of potash application on harvest index of

sugarcane


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Harv

est

ind

ex %

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



87

Table 4.2.2.1: Effect of different levels of potash application on leaf area index of

sugarcane


T1 5.043 5.877 5.46 D

T2 5.443 5.777 5.61 CD

T3 5.830 6.830 6.33 AB

T4 6.420 7.187 6.80 A

T5 5.953 6.287 6.120 BC

T6 6.110 6.643 6.37 AB

Means 5.80 B 6.43 A

Figure 4.2.2.1: Effect of different levels of potash application on leaf area index of

sugarcane


0

2

4

6

8

10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Lea

f are

a i

nd

ex

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



88

Table 4.2.2.2: Effect of different levels of potash application on leaf area duration (days)

of sugarcane


T1 255.0 275.0 265.00 D

T2 270.0 288.0 279.00 C

T3 284.3 297.0 290.67 B

T4 303.0 303.0 303.00 A

T5 281.0 287.7 284.33 BC

T6 275.7 282.3 279.00 C

Means 278.17 B 288.83 A

Figure 4.2.2.2: Effect of different levels of potash application on leaf area duration of

sugarcane


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Lea

f are

a d

ura

tion

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



89

Table 4.2.2.3: Effect of different levels of potash application on total dry matter of

sugarcane (t ha-1

)


T1 18.65 19.98 19.31 E

T2 22.27 25.61 23.94 CD

T3 25.44 29.44 27.43 AB

T4 27.20 32.20 29.70 A

T5 20.35 23.68 22.01 DE

T6 23.57 26.90 25.23 BC

Means 22.91 B 26.30 A

Figure 4.2.2.3: Effect of different levels of potash application on total dry matter of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Tota

l d

ry m

att

er (

t h

a-1

)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



90

Table 4.2.2.4: Effect of different levels of potash application on average crop growth rate

of sugarcane (g m-2

day-1

)


T1 6.95 7.62 7.28 B

T2 7.11 7.48 7.29 B

T3 7.30 8.30 7.80 AB

T4 7.93 8.59 8.26 A

T5 7.47 8.47 7.96 AB

T6 7.29 8.39 7.84 AB

Means 7.341 B 8.141 A

Figure 4.2.2.4: Effect of different levels of potash application on average crop growth rate

of sugarcane


0

3

6

9

12

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Cro

p g

row

th r

ate

(g m

-2 d

ay

-1)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



91

4.2.2.5 Effect of different levels of potash application on net assimilation rate of sugarcane

Significant (P≤0.05) variations existed among different treatments for net assimilation

rate of sugarcane as affected by different levels of potash application through drip irrigation. It

was noted highest in T4 treated plants. Both year of study also differed significantly for

parameter. It was higher during the year 2016 (Table. 4.2.2.5). During the year 2015, highest

net assimilation rate (2.15 g m-2

day-1

) was recorded in T4 treated plants which was at par with

T6 plants (2.05 g m-2

day-1

). Least net assimilation rate (1.34 g m-2

day-1

) was observed in T1

treated plants. Furthermore, 1.94 g m-2

day-1

, 1.89 g m-2

day-1

and 1.48 g m-2

day-1

net

assimilation rate was recorded in T5, T3 and T2 treated plants. During the year 2016, this

attribute was recorded as: 2.72 g m-2

day-1

in T4, 2.15 g m-2

day-1

in T6, 2.00 g m-2

day-1

in T5,

1.96 g m-2

day-1

in T3, 1.91 g m-2

day-1

in T2 and 1.87 g m-2

day-1

in T1 treated plants (Figure.

4.2.2.5).

4.2.3 Quality characteristics

4.2.3.1 Effect of different levels of potash application on brix percent of sugarcane

Data regarding brix percent showed significant results in response to different levels of

potash application through drip irrigation as shown in Table. 4.2.3.1. Treatments varied

significantly (P≤0.05) for this attribute. Both years of study presented significant variations in

this attribute as the year 2016 showed higher brix percent than 2015. During the first year of

study (2015), maximum brix percent (22.56%) was observed in T4 plants. Minimum brix

percent (18.76%) was recorded in T6 plants. Furthermore, brix percent of T3, T2, T5 and T1

treated plants were 22.20%, 20.90%, 20.16% and 19.26% respectively. During the year 2016,

brix percent was recorded as: 29.90%, 22.86%, 22.56%, 21.16%, 20.93% and 20.43% in T4,

T3, T2, T5, T1 and T6 treated plants respectively (Figure. 4.2.3.1).

4.2.3.2 Effect of different levels of potash application on sucrose content of sugarcane

Data regarding sucrose content in sugarcane revealed significant (P≤0.05) differences

among treatments. Maximum sucrose content was recorded in T4 treated plants. As far as year

of study are concerned, both years didn‟t vary significantly for this attribute (Table. 4.2.3.2).

During 1st year of study (2015), maximum sucrose content was recorded in T4 treated plants

and least in T1 plants. The sucrose content, 13.11%, 12.44%, 12.42%, 12.38%, 11.20% and

10.88% were observed in T4, T6, T5, T2, T3 and T1 treated plants respectively. During the

second year (2016), maximum sucrose content was observed in T4 and minimum in T3 treated

plants.

92

Table 4.2.2.5: Effect of different levels of potash application on net assimilation rate of

sugarcane (g m-2

day-1

)


T1 1.34 1.87 1.60 D

T2 1.48 1.91 1.69 CD

T3 1.89 1.96 1.92 BCD

T4 2.16 2.72 2.44 A

T5 1.94 2.01 1.97 BC

T6 2.06 2.16 2.10 AB

Means 1.8111 B 2.1056 A

Figure 4.2.2.5: Effect of different levels of potash application on net assimilation rate of

sugarcane


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Net

ass

imil

ati

on

rate

(g m

-2 d

ay

-1)

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



93

Table 4.2.3.1: Effect of different levels of potash application on brix percent of sugarcane

(%)


T1 19.27 20.93 20.10 D

T2 20.90 22.57 21.73 BC

T3 22.20 22.87 22.53 B

T4 22.57 29.90 26.23 A

T5 20.17 21.17 20.66 CD

T6 18.77 20.43 19.60 D

Means 20.64 B 22.97 A

Figure 4.2.3.1: Effect of different levels of potash application on brix percent of sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Bri

x p

erce

nt

%

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



94

Table 4.2.3.2: Effect of different levels of potash application sucrose content of sugarcane

(%)


T1 10.88 11.89 11.38 CD

T2 12.38 13.18 12.78 AB

T3 11.20 10.83 11.02 D

T4 13.11 14.08 13.59 A

T5 12.42 12.18 12.30 BC

T6 12.44 11.97 12.20 BC

Means 12.07 A 12.35 A

Figure 4.2.3.2: Effect of different levels of potash application on sucrose content of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

25

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Su

crose

con

ten

t %

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



95

In sugarcane, 14.08%, 13.18%, 12.18%, 11.97%, 11.89% and 10.83% sucrose content were

noticed in T4, T2, T5, T6, T1 and T3 treated plants respectively during 2016 (Figure. 4.2.3.2).

4.2.3.3 Effect of different levels of potash application on cane fiber content of sugarcane

Data regarding cane fiber content affected by different levels of potash application

through drip irrigation is shown in Table. 4.2.3.3. Results indicated that cane fiber content in all

treated plants differed significantly (P≤0.05) from control plants. However, T6, T5, T3 and T2

didn‟t vary significantly from each other. Non-significant differences in both years of study

were noted for his attribute. During the year 2015, highest cane fiber content (14.24%) was

recorded in T4 plants and minimum (12.01%) in T1 plants. In T6, T5, T2 and T3 treated plants

cane fiber content were recorded as 13.57%, 13.55%, 13.51% and 12.33% respectively. During

the second year of study, maximum cane fiber content (15.21%) were noticed in T4 plants

followed by T3 plants (13.33%) which was statistically at par with T6 (13.20%) and T5

(12.95%). Furthermore, 11.84% fiber contents were found in T2 plants. Minimum cane fiber

content (11.01%) were recorded in T1 treated plants (Figure. 4.2.3.3).

4.2.3.4 Effect of different levels of potash application on commercial cane sugar content of

sugarcane

Table 4.2.3.4 presents the data regarding commercial cane sugar content affected by

different levels of potash application through drip irrigation. Results revealed that all

treatments varied significantly (P≤0.05) from control plants except T5 which didn‟t vary

significantly from control plants. Both year of study (2015 and 2016) showed non-significant

variations in this attribute. During the 1st year of study, the commercial cane sugar content was

maximum (13.87%) in T4 plants followed by T6 plants (13.53%) which was at par with T5

(13.51%) and T2 plants (13.47%). Least commercial cane sugar content (11.97%) was noted in

T1 treated plants that was at par with T3 plants (12.29%) for their commercial cane sugar

content. During the 2nd

year of study, maximum commercial cane sugar content (16.17%) was

recorded in T4 plants and minimum (11.97%) in T5 treated plants. Furthermore, 14.47%,

13.29%, 12.97% and 12.83% commercial cane sugar content were found in T2, T3, T1 and T6

treated plants respectively (Figure. 4.2.3.4).

4.2.3.5 Effect of different levels of potash application on sugar recovery of sugarcane

Data concerning sugar recovery (%) from sugarcane affected by different levels of

potash application through drip irrigation is shown in Table. 4.2.3.5. The results showed that

T4 plants had significantly (P≤0.05) highest sugar recovery. Both year of experiment presented

96

excellent performance by showing improved sugar recovery. Nonetheless, these both years

didn‟t differ significantly from each other for this attribute. During the year 2015, maximum

sugar recovery (13.79%) from sugarcane was recorded in T4 plants and minimum (11.80%) in

T1 treated plants. Moreover, 13.40%, 13.38%, 13.34% and 12.16% sugar was recovered from

T6, T5, T2 and T3 treated plants respectively. During the year 2016, maximum sugar recovery

(17.59%) was observed in T4 treated plants and least (10.80%) in T1 treated plants. Sugar

recovery in T6, T5, T3 and T2 plants was 14.73%, 13.71%, 11.46% and 13.01% respectively

(Figure. 4.2.3.5).

97

Table 4.2.3.3: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane fiber content of

sugarcane (%)


T1 12.01 11.01 11.51 C

T2 13.51 11.85 12.68 B

T3 12.33 13.33 12.83 B

T4 14.24 15.21 14.72 A

T5 13.55 12.95 13.25 B

T6 13.57 13.20 13.38 B

Means 13.203 A 12.926 A

Figure 4.2.3.3: Effect of different levels of potash application on cane fiber content of

sugarcane.


0

5

10

15

20

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Can

e fi

ber

con

ten

t %

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



98

Table 4.2.3.4: Effect of different levels of potash application on commercial cane sugar

content of sugarcane (%)


T1 11.97 12.98 12.47 C

T2 13.47 14.47 13.97 AB

T3 12.29 13.29 12.79 BC

T4 13.87 16.17 15.02 A

T5 13.51 11.98 12.74 C

T6 13.53 12.83 13.18 BC

Means 13.10 A 13.62 A

Figure 4.2.3.4: Effect of different levels of potash application on commercial cane sugar

content of sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

25

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6Com

mer

cial

can

e su

gar

con

ten

t %

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



99

Table 4.2.3.5: Effect of different levels of potash application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane (%)


T1 11.81 10.81 11.30 C

T2 13.34 13.01 13.17 B

T3 12.16 11.46 11.81 C

T4 13.80 17.60 15.69 A

T5 13.38 13.71 13.54 B

T6 13.40 14.73 14.06 B

Means 12.982 A 13.554 A

Figure 4.2.3.5: Effect of different levels of potash application on sugar recovery of

sugarcane


0

5

10

15

20

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Su

gar

reco

ver

y %

Potash treatments

Year 2015 Year 2016



100

4.2.4: Economic analysis

4.2.4.1: Net field benefit

On the basis of two years average data (Table-4.1.4.1), the maximum net field


was given by 75% of recommended dose of Nitrogen

+ 125% of recommended dose of Potash followed by 75% recommended

dose of nitrogen + 100% of recommended dose of Potash with net field


while the minimum net field benefit of Rs. 165265 ha-1

was

given by 75% recommended dose of nitrogen + 50% of recommended dose of

Potash.

Table 4.2.4.1: Net field benefit of sugarcane as influenced by different K levels on

sugarcane crop under drip irrigation system during 2015 and 2016 (Average of two

years).

Treatments Gross field

benefits

(Rs ha-1

)

Total expenditures

(Rs ha-1

)

Net field

Benefits

(Rs.ha-1

)

Av. cane

yield

(t ha-1

)

Gross field

benefits

(Rs. ha-1

)

Cost that vary

(Rs. ha-1

) Total Cost

(Rs. ha-1

)

T1= 168-112-112 NPK kg

ha-1

through soil 91.27

410715 40580 234580 176135

T2= 168-112-112 NPK kg

ha-1

through drip 91.75

412875 38980 232980 179895

T3= 75% N + 125% K of

RDF 114.76

516420 39900 233900 282520

T4= 75% N + 100% K of

RDF 111.66

502470 35980 229980 272490

T5= 75% N + 75% K of

RDF 92.76

417420 32060 226060 191360

T6= 75% N + 50% K of

RDF 86.09

387405 28140 222140 165265

Rate of sugarcane = Rs. 4500 t-1


101

4.2.4.2 Dominance Analysis

Since net field benefit is not a final criterion for recommendation of suitable method

of planting with appropriate seeding density for general adoption as it does not account for

returns on investment, therefore, returns to investment were also calculated. However,

before calculating returns to investment, dominance analysis (Table-4.1.4.2) was done in

which two dominated treatments i.e. T1 and T2 were determined and excluded from further

analysis. While the remaining four treatments i.e. T3, T4, T5 and T6 were further

considered in the marginal analysis. (Table-4.2.4.2).

Table 4.1.4.2 Dominance analysis as influenced by different K levels on sugarcane

crop under drip irrigation system during 2015 and 2016 (Average of two years).

Treatments Cost that vary

(Rs. ha-1

) Net field benefit

(Rs.ha-1

)

T6= 75% N + 50% K 28140 165265

T5= 75% N + 75% K 32060 191360

T4= 75% N + 100% K kg ha-1 35980 272490

T2= 168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1 38980 179895 D

T3= 75% N + 125% K 39900 282520

T1= 168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1 40580 176135 D


102

4.2.4.3. Marginal rate of return

For the calculation of returns to investment marginal analysis of the treatments was

carried out. Since dominated treatments were not included in the marginal analysis, MRR was,

therefore, positive (Anonymous, 1988 and Cheema, 2002). On the basis of two years average

results (Table-4.1.4.3), maximum marginal rate of return of 504 percent was given by 75%

recommended dose of nitrogen + 100% recommended dose of Potash followed by 75%

recommended dose of nitrogen + 75% recommended dose of Potash with marginal rate of

return of 315 percent while minimum marginal rate of return of 50 percent was given by

75% recommended dose of nitrogen + 125% recommended dose of Potash.

Table 4.2.4.3: Marginal analysis as influenced by different K levels on sugarcane crop

under drip irrigation system during 2015 and 2016 (average of two years).

Treatments Cost that

Vary

(Rs.ha-1

)

Marginal

cost

(Rs.ha-1

)

Net field

benefit

(Rs.ha-1

)

Marginal

net

Benefit

(Rs.ha-1

)

Marginal

rate

of return %

T6= 75% N + 50%

K of RDF 28140 12190 165265 - -

T5= 75% N + 75%

K of RDF

32060 8270 191360 26095 315

T4= 75% N + 100%

K of RDF 35980 16110 272490 81130 504

T3= 75% N + 125%

K of RDF 39900 20030 282520 10030 50


103

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is an important crop of tropical to warm










1976; Malik, 1997). Sugarcane is being grown in various countries of the world. Brazil and

India are the major sugarcane producing countries followed by China, Thailand, Pakistan,

Mexico, Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines and USA (FAO, 2015). Pakistan is at 5th

position

in sugarcane production and 11th

in cane yield among various sugarcane producing countries.

In Pakistan, sugarcane is an imperative cash crop. It is generally grown for the

production of sugar. It is imperative income source for farmers of the country. It also provides

raw material for chip boards, paper and confectionery. Sugarcane contributes significantly for

the uplift of farming community (Raja, 2017). It provides 36.12 billion rupees to the farmers of

the country by providing about 32.11 million tons annually. Similarly, the Pakistani sugar

industry provides around 2.95 million tons sugar with total 73.5 billion rupees. Sugarcane also

strengthens the national economy of the country with overall contribution of about 4.00 billion

rupees as taxes. The overall share of sugarcane in national GDP and agriculture is 0.8 and

3.6%, respectively. Sugarcane industry also provides the important raw material to the national

sugar mills, thereby, providing employment for about 4.0 million people of the country (Naqvi,

2005; Raja, 2017). Sugarcane is grown on 1.141 million ha with overall cane yield of 54.91

tons per ha (GOP, 2015). Although its production area has been increased over the last decade



countries 65.59 tons per ha (Raja, 2017).

104

The drip system uses water in highly precise way and irrigation water can be directly applied in

root zone of the crop. Moreover, this precise water application can also be used to apply

fertilizer (fertigation) to sugarcane plants and it may ultimately help to enhance crop

productivity. Furthermore, the NUE substantially increase in fertigation owing to the regular

and controlled fertilizers application. So, it is need of the time to increase quality and per unit

production of sugarcane. So, in this context, irrigation or water application has now become a

critical cultural practice to guarantee higher sugarcane yield (Rajegowd et al., 2004; Kaushal et

al., 2012). Based on the literature, yield and productivity of sugarcane can be improved with N

and K application with suitable irrigation system such as drip irrigation.

Experiment 1

The effect of 125% of urea in 12 splits by drip irrigation in combination with soil

application of two TSP and SOP splits on germination percentage of sugarcane was non-

significant. It was expected because N, K or drip irrigation has no physiological effect of

germination process of the sugarcane. So, there was no substantial difference between

treatment and control groups of the sugarcane crop. Hussain et al. (2010) also found that

fertilizer application did not have any significant impact on the germination percentage of

sugarcane.

In sugarcane production system

tillers m

-2 are very critical to obtain increased cane yield

(Sarwar et al., 2012). In our case, the combined use of 125% recommended urea in 12 splits

through the drip irrigation method having two TSP and SOP splits via soil treatment showed

highest plant height, in comparison to traditional fertilizer application. It has been reported that

tillers m-2

usually increase under wider row spacing of sugarcane (Chattha, 2009). In our work,

tillers m-2

were possibly increased due to N induced vegetative growth and increased water use

efficiency due to drip irrigation which minimized water loses and its maximum quantity was

available to the growing sugarcane plants (Hussain et al., 2010).

The higher millable canes production is considered more beneficial in sugarcane

production. The millable canes are ultimately used to obtain high sugar percentage (Saleem et

al., 2012). In present work, sugarcane crop treated with 125% of urea in 12 splits by drip

irrigation in combination with soil application of two TSP and SOP splits produced maximum

plant height, than traditional nutrition treatment. The percentage of millable canes was possible

increased due to increased N and K application induced increment in tillers m-2

because these

tillers ultimately develop into millable canes (Saleem et al., 2012).

105

Plant height is very significant factor in getting higher cane yield in sugarcane (Uribe et

al., 2013). The yield of harvest index and sugar recovery increases with increased plant height

of the sugarcane. In this work, sugarcane crop treated with 125% of urea in 12 splits by drip

irrigation in combination with soil application of two TSP and SOP splits had maximum plant

height, than traditional nutrition treatment. The plant height increases with the application of N

because it promotes vegetative growth of sugarcane plants (Uribe et al., 2013). The height was

increased than control treatment because the used treatments were applied through drip

irrigation which ensured uniform and proper availability of N and K (Yadav et al., 2015;

Bhingardeve et al., 2017; Bhanuvally et al., 2017).

The number of internodes per cane is important to enhance the harvestable yield of

sugarcane. The more the internodes per cane the more will be the recovery of commercial sugar

(Sarwar et al., 2012). In current research, sugarcane crop subjected to 12 equal urea splits from

125% of recommended doses with drip irrigation along with two TSP and SOP splits through

soil application resulted in highest increase of plant height, in contrast to traditional fertilization

treatment. The internodes were increased due to the growth simulative effects of N that was

applied in combination with K through drip irrigation method (Sarwar et al., 2012; Bhanuvally

et al., 2017).

The length of internodes was also enhanced. The increased intermodal length is very

beneficial to increase the sugar accumulation in the sugarcane (Sarwar et al., 2012). The

combined use of 125% recommended urea in 12 splits through the drip irrigation method

having two TSP and SOP splits via soil treatment showed highest plant height, in comparison

to traditional fertilizer application. The internodal length was again greatly improved due to the

N induced growth stimulation in combination with K application through drip irrigation of the

sugarcane crop (Sarwar et al., 2012; Bhanuvally et al., 2017).

The length and diameter of the cane is most important as far as sugarcane production is

concerned (Hajjari et al., 2015). In this work, sugarcane crop treated with 125% of urea in 12

splits by drip irrigation in combination with soil application of two TSP and SOP splits had

maximum length and diameter or canes, than traditional nutrition treatment. The increased

length and diameter of cane is suitable to enhance the overall yield of sugarcane (Hajjari et al.,

2015). The cane length and diameter can be increased with the appropriate application of N and

K fertilizer. The application of N leads to enhanced cane length in sugarcane due to increased

vegetative growth and enhanced photosynthesis because the said nutrient stimulates vegetative

106

growth and increases the surface area to capture or to increase solar radiation interception

(Hajjari et al., 2015).

The weight per stripped cane is considered critical in sugarcane production (Saleem et

al., 2012). In current research, sugarcane crop subjected to 12 equal urea splits from 125% of

recommended doses with drip irrigation along with two TSP and SOP splits through soil

application resulted in highest increase of weight per stripped cane, in contrast to traditional

fertilization treatment. The weight of the stripped canes was increased due to uniform

application of important nutrients such as N and K which play critical role in various

phonological stages of sugarcane (Allison and Pammenter, 2002; Saleem et al., 2012).

Moreover, the said nutrients were applied through drip irrigation and chances of nutrient lose

were minimized and water was also become available to plants at adequate amount (Saleem et

al., 2012).

The yield of unstripped and stripped canes express overall yield of the canes in

sugarcane. The higher unstripped canes yield could be considered highly beneficial in the

production of sugarcane (Ghaffar et al., 2012). In our case, sugarcane crop treated with 125%

of urea in 12 splits by drip irrigation in combination with soil application of two TSP and SOP

splits produced maximum plant height, than traditional nutrition treatment. The unstripped and

stripped cane yield was significantly enhanced due to increased vegetative growth owing to

enhanced photosynthetic activity in response to N and K application through drip irrigation

(Hussain et al., 2017).

Cane topes and trash weight of sugarcane show the extent of biomass accumulation.

The more the biomass accumulations the higher will be the weight of canes topes and trash

(Saleem et al., 2012). In this work, sugarcane crop subjected to 12 equal urea splits from 125%

of recommended doses with drip irrigation along with two TSP and SOP splits through soil

application resulted in highest increase of cane topes and cane trash weight, in contrast to

traditional fertilization treatment. The weight of cane topes and trash was could also be

attributed to increased number of tiller per plant due to application of N and K fertilizers under

drip irrigation system (Hussain et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018).

Higher harvest index is known as the ultimate goal of sugarcane production (Sarwar et

al., 2012). The higher harvest index will ultimately results in increased production of sugarcane

(Allison and Pammenter, 2002). In current research, the combined use of 125% recommended

urea in 12 splits through the drip irrigation method having two TSP and SOP splits via soil

107

treatment showed highest plant height, in comparison to traditional fertilizer application. The

harvest index was increased in response to N and K fertilizer application due to increased cane

length, millable canes and total dry matter accumulation with increased total dry matter

contents under drip irrigation system of sugarcane (Hussain et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018).

The increased leaf area is known as very important index for the higher yield of

sugarcane. The increased leaf area index will intercept more solar radiation and ultimately

increase the photosynthesis rate (Wiedenfeld and Enciso, 2008). The increased photosynthesis

rate eventually results in increased production of photosynthates. In this study, sugarcane crop

treated with 125% of urea in 12 splits by drip irrigation in combination with soil application of

two TSP and SOP splits produced maximum plant height, than traditional nutrition treatment.

The leaf area index was increased was increased due to enhanced vegetative growth of the

leaves as the application of N fertilizer results in improved vegetative growth (Wiedenfeld and

Enciso, 2008). Similarly, K is also involved in increase activities of certain enzymes involved

in photosynthesis that eventually increases growth of leaves under regulated and controlled

water supply with drip irrigation system (Ali et al., 2018).

Leaf area duration is imperative factor affecting interception of solar radiation in

sugarcane production (Saleem et al., 2012). Increased leaf area duration may be considered

highly beneficial to increase the rate of photosynthesis leading increased crop growth rate

(Saleem et al., 2012). In our work, sugarcane crop subjected to 12 equal urea splits from 125%

of recommended doses with drip irrigation along with two TSP and SOP splits through soil

application resulted in highest increase of leaf area duration, in contrast to traditional

fertilization treatment. It has been stated that N nutrient has the ability to increase to vegetative

growth phases of plants (Saleem et al., 2012). Due to increased N induced vegetative growth,

leaf area duration of sugarcane was increased in combination with K application by drip

irrigation method. Similar results were observed by Ali et al. (2018) in K treated sugarcane

crop.

Highest production of the total dry matter is the ultimate objective in sugarcane

production. The total dry matter accumulation generally depends upon the crop growth rate and

higher biomass accretion (Bhanuvally et al., 2017). In our present study, sugarcane crop

subjected to 12 equal urea splits from 125% of recommended doses with drip irrigation along

with two TSP and SOP splits through soil application resulted in highest increase of total dry

matter, in contrast to traditional fertilization treatment. The total dry matter of sugarcane was

108

enhanced because of increased crop growth rate due to improved interception of solar radiation

(Bhanuvally et al., 2017). The interception of solar radiations was enhanced owing to increased

leaf area index or leaf area duration in response to N and K treatments under drip irrigation

system (Bhanuvally et al., 2017).

Crop growth rate is important for higher biomass accumulation in sugarcane (Saleem et

al., 2012). In present study, sugarcane crop treated with 125% of urea in 12 splits by drip

irrigation in combination with soil application of two TSP and SOP splits highest crop growth

rate, than traditional nutrition treatment. It has been observed that crop growth rate can be

increased with application suitable nutrients such as N and K along with adequate and timely

supply of irrigation water (Saleem et al., 2012). The increased crop growth rate may also be

attributed to increased leaf area duration and leaf area index because both these attributes leads

to the increased interception of the solar radiations (Saleem et al., 2012). Hence, crop growth

rate of sugarcane was increased due to increased solar radiation interception owing to improved

leaf area duration and leaf area index in response to N and K application in splits through drip

irrigation.

Net assimilation rate shows the rate of accumulation of biomass and photosynthates in

sugarcane. So, the higher net assimilation rate is necessary for higher biomass accumulation

with increased yield (Chattha, 2009). In present work, combined use of 125% recommended

urea in 12 splits through the drip irrigation method having two TSP and SOP splits via soil

treatment showed highest plant height, in comparison to traditional recommended fertilizer

dose. The net assimilation rate depends upon the leaf area duration as well as accumulation of

total dry matter (Singh and Singh, 1994). Hence, the increased net assimilation rate was

certainly owing to higher total dry matter increment with increased leaf area duration either due

to varietal difference (Almodares et al., 2007) or due to N and K application under drip

irrigation (Allison and Pammenter, 2002).

The percentage of brix expresses the extent of sweetness of sugarcane. The higher brix

percentage will ultimately leads to increased sugar recovery (Kumar et al., 2007). Sugarcane

crop treated with 125% of urea in 12 splits by drip irrigation in combination with soil

application of two TSP and SOP splits had highest percentage of brix, than traditional nutrition

treatment. The percentage of brix was increased due to increased metabolic activities in

response to K application because it usually take part in several important pathways involved in

biosynthesis of sugars as reported earlier (Bhanuvally et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018).

109

Sucrose content is most important quality attribute of sugarcane. So, higher sucrose

content is desirable to get increased commercial cane sugar of sugaracne (Hajjari et al., 2015).

In present work, combined use of 125% recommended urea in 12 splits through the drip

irrigation method having two TSP and SOP splits via soil treatment showed highest sucrose

content, in comparison to control. The level of sucrose contents generally increases due to

increased activities of some sucrose catalyzing enzymes (Tazuke et al., 2002). The activities of

such enzymes may increase in response to the application of N or K fertilizers (Watanabe et al.,

2016; Bhanuvally et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018). Similar results were noted in K applied at basal

position (Ali et al., 2018).

Cane fiber is significantly imperative parameter of sugarcane crop (Ali et al., 2018). In

this work, combined use of 125% recommended urea in 12 splits through the drip irrigation

method having two TSP and SOP splits via soil treatment showed highest cane fiber contents,

in comparison to control. Our results are contradictory with the findings of Soomro et al.

(2014) who reported that the effect on N or K was non-significant on cane fiber contents. These

variations were could be due to different sugarcane variety or production location. Higher

attainment of commercial cane sugar is the ultimate objective of the sugarcane production (Ali

et al., 2018). In present work, combined use of 125% recommended urea in 12 splits through

the drip irrigation method having two TSP and SOP splits via soil treatment showed highest

commercial cane sugar percentage, in comparison to control. It has been reported that K

efficiently increases sugar accumulation (Marschner, 1995). Similar results were previously

noted in K and phosphorous treated sugarcane (Hussain et al., 2008).

Sugar recovery is significantly imperative factor of sugarcane crop (Sarwar et al.,

2011). In this work, combined use of 125% recommended urea in 12 splits through the drip

irrigation method having two TSP and SOP splits via soil treatment showed highest sugar

recovery, compared to control. The higher sugar recovery may be due to increased sucrose

concentration and levels of commercial cane sugar in N and K treated sugarcane under drip

irrigation. As the percentage of sucrose and commercial cane sugar was increased; so, the sugar

recovery was enhanced (Sarwar et al., 2011; Sarwar et al., 2012).

Experiment 2

Sugarcane crop treated with 75% N along with 100% K in 12 splits by drip irrigation in

combination with recommended doses of TSP in two splits did not show any significant

110

influence on the germination percentage of sugarcane, than control. It was anticipated as N, K

or drip irrigation has no physiological influence on the germination of sugarcane. So, there was

no significant variation among the treatments and control. Similar to these results Hussain et al.

(2010) also noted that fertilizer treatment did not have any positive impact on the sugarcane

germination.

Sugarcane crop subjected to 75% N and 100% of 12 equal recommended doses K splits

with drip irrigation along with two TSP splits through soil application resulted in maximum

tillers m-2

, in contrast to control. In sugarcane, tillers m-2

is very critical to attain increased cane

yield (Sarwar et al., 2012). It was found that tillers m-2

usually increases under wider row spac

planting of sugarcane (Chattha, 2009). In our work, tillers m-2

were probably increased due to

N prompted vegetative growth along with better water use efficiency by using drip irrigation to

the sugarcane plants (Hussain et al., 2010).

The increased millable canes are highly beneficial with respect to sugarcane growing

(Saleem et al., 2012). In current work, combined use of 100% recommended K in 12 splits

through the drip irrigation method having 75% of suggested doses of N in combination with

two TSP splits via soil treatment showed highest number of the millable canes, in comparison

to control. The number of millable canes was enhanced might be due to N and K application

prompted increase of tillers m-2

as these tillers eventually develop into millable canes (Saleem

et al., 2012).

The yield of harvest index and sugar recovery increases with increased plant height of

the sugarcane (Uribe et al., 2013). In present work, sugarcane crop subjected to 75% N and

100% of 12 equal recommended doses K splits with drip irrigation along with two TSP splits

through soil application resulted in highest increase of plant height, in contrast to control. The

plant height enhances with the application fertilizers which increase vegetative growth of

sugarcane (Uribe et al., 2013). The height was increased as the used nutrients were applied

through drip irrigation which warranted constant and proper accessibility of N and K nutrients

(Yadav et al., 2015; Bhingardeve et al., 2017; Bhanuvally et al., 2017).

The increased number of internodes per cane is imperative to increase the yield of

sugarcane (Sarwar et al., 2012). In present investigation, combined use of 100% recommended

K in 12 splits through the drip irrigation method having 75% of suggested doses of N in

combination with two TSP splits via soil treatment showed maximum internodes per cane, in

comparison to control. The internodes were increased due to the growth promotive effects of N

111

that was used in combination with K through drip irrigation system (Sarwar et al., 2012;

Bhanuvally et al., 2017).

The increased intermodal length is very advantageous to increase accumulation of sugar

in sugarcane (Sarwar et al., 2012). Sugarcane crop treated with 75% N along with 100% K in

12 splits by drip irrigation in combination with recommended doses of TSP in two splits

produced maximum intermodal length, than control. The internodal length was increased due to

the N induced growth stimulation combined with K treatment through drip irrigation (Sarwar et

al., 2012; Bhanuvally et al., 2017).

The cane length and diameter are very important in sugarcane production (Hajjari et al.,

2015). In this work, sugarcane crop treated with 75% N along with 100% K in 12 splits by drip

irrigation in combination with recommended doses of TSP in two splits produced maximum

cane length and diameter, than control. The increased length and diameter of cane is suitable to

boost the yield of sugarcane (Chattha, 2009). The use of N leads to increased cane length of the

sugarcane as it increases vegetative growth and photosynthesis rate (Hajjari et al., 2015).

In current study, sugarcane crop subjected to 75% N and 100% of 12 equal

recommended doses K splits with drip irrigation along with two TSP splits through soil

application resulted in highest weight per stripped cane, in contrast to control. The weight of

the stripped canes was increased due to uniform availability of N and K which played critical

role in different phonological stages of sugarcane and resulted in the higher weight of the said

attributes (Allison and Pammenter, 2002; Saleem et al., 2012). Moreover, the said nutrients

were used via drip irrigation and chances of nutrient lose were reduced and water was available

to plants at sufficient concentration (Saleem et al., 2012).

In our study, combined use of 100% recommended K in 12 splits through the drip

irrigation method having 75% of suggested doses of N in combination with two TSP splits via

soil treatment showed highest unstripped and stripped canes, in comparison to control. The

yield of unstripped and stripped canes shows overall yield of sugarcane. The increased

unstripped canes yield is highly valuable in the production of sugarcane (Ghaffar et al., 2012).

The unstripped and stripped cane yield was considerably improved due to enhanced vegetative

growth due to better photosynthetic activity in response to application of N and K by drip

irrigation (Hussain et al., 2017).

In this study, sugarcane crop treated with 75% N along with 100% K in 12 splits by drip

irrigation in combination with recommended doses of TSP in two splits produced maximum

112

cane topes and trash weight, than control. Cane trash and top weight of sugarcane specify the

extent of biomass accumulation (Saleem et al., 2012). The weight of cane topes and trash could

also be ascribed to enhanced number of tillers per plant owing to positive effects of N and K

nutrients through drip irrigation method (Hussain et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018).

Higher harvest index is very important as it will ultimately leads to increased sugarcane

production (Allison and Pammenter, 2002). In present work, sugarcane crop subjected to 75%

N and 100% of 12 equal recommended doses K splits with drip irrigation along with two TSP

splits through soil application resulted in highest increase of harvest index, in contrast to

control. The harvest index was possibly enhanced in response to N and K fertilizer treatment

due to increased millable canes, cane length and total dry matter accumulation with increased

total dry matter contents under drip irrigation system as reported earlier in sugarcane crop

(Hussain et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018).

The increased leaf area is known as very important because leaf area index will

intercept higher solar radiations and ultimately enhance the photosynthesis rate (Wiedenfeld

and Enciso, 2008). The increased rate of photosynthesis ultimately results in improved

production of photosynthates. In this work, combined use of 100% recommended K in 12 splits

through the drip irrigation method having 75% of suggested doses of N in combination with

two TSP splits via soil treatment showed maximum leaf area index, in comparison to control.

The leaf area index was increased due to improved vegetative growth of the leaves because N

fertilizer treatment results in the improved vegetative growth (Wiedenfeld and Enciso, 2008).

Likewise, K has also been noted to be involved in the increased activities of some enzymes

taking part in photosynthesis process that eventually increases leaves growth under regulated

and controlled water supply through drip irrigation method (Ali et al., 2018).

Leaf area duration is most critical influencing the interception of the solar radiation

(Saleem et al., 2012). Increased leaf area duration is also considered important to increase the

photosynthesis rate leading to the increased crop growth rate (Saleem et al., 2012). In our

study, sugarcane crop treated with 75% N along with 100% K in 12 splits by drip irrigation in

combination with recommended doses of TSP in two splits showed maximum leaf area

duration, than control. The application of N nutrient has the capability to increase to vegetative

growth of the plants (Saleem et al., 2012). Due to enhanced N induced vegetative growth, leaf

area duration of sugarcane was significantly increased in combination with K treatment by drip

113

irrigation method. Similar results were noted by Ali et al. (2018) in K treated sugarcane crop

where the said nutrient was applied as basal application.

The accumulation of total dry matter generally depends on the crop growth rate and

increased biomass accretion (Bhanuvally et al., 2017). In our current work, combined use of

100% recommended K in 12 splits through the drip irrigation method having 75% of suggested

doses of N in combination with two TSP splits via soil treatment showed highest total dry

matter, in comparison to control. In our research, total dry matter of sugarcane was increased

due to increased crop growth rate having higher interception of the solar radiation (Bhanuvally

et al., 2017). The interception of solar radiations was increased due to enhanced leaf area index

or leaf area duration in response to application of N and K through drip irrigation (Bhanuvally

et al., 2017).

In present study, sugarcane crop subjected to 75% N and 100% of 12 equal


application resulted in highest crop growth rate, in contrast to control. Crop growth rate is

important in sugarcane production (Saleem et al., 2012). The increased crop growth rate may

be attributed to increased leaf area duration and leaf area index as both these attributes results

in increased interception of the solar radiations (Saleem et al., 2012). Hence, crop growth rate

of sugarcane was enhanced due to improved solar radiation interception having higher leaf area

duration and leaf area index in response to N and K treatments in splits through drip irrigation

method.

In current study, sugarcane crop supplied with 75% N along with 100% K in 12 splits

by drip irrigation in combination with recommended doses of TSP in two splits had maximum

net assimilation rate, than control. Net assimilation rate displays the rate of biomass and

photosynthates accumulation in sugarcane. So, the higher net assimilation rate is necessary for

higher biomass accumulation with increased yield (Chattha, 2009). The net assimilation rate

may also depend upon the leaf area duration and total dry matter accumulation (Singh and

Singh, 1994). Therefore, the increased net assimilation rate was due to increased total dry

matter with increased leaf area duration either due to varietal difference (Almodares et al.,

2007) or due to application of N and K nutrients via drip irrigation (Allison and Pammenter,

2002).

The brix expresses percentage the extent of sweetness of sugarcane and it is important

to increase the recovery of sugar (Kumar et al., 2007). Sugarcane crop subjected to 75% N and

114

100% of 12 equal recommended doses K splits with drip irrigation along with two TSP splits

through soil application resulted in highest brix percentage, in contrast to control. The

percentage of brix was improved due to enhanced metabolic activities due to application of K

as it usually take part in numerous important pathways associated with biosynthesis of the

sugars as reported earlier (Bhanuvally et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018).

Sucrose content is most important quality attribute of sugarcane (Hajjari et al., 2015). In

current work, combined use of 100% recommended K in 12 splits through the drip irrigation

method having 75% of suggested doses of N in combination with two TSP splits via soil

treatment showed highest sucrose content, in comparison to control. The concentration of

sucrose generally rises with increased activities of some sucrose catalyzing enzymes (Tazuke et

al., 2002). The activities of the enzymes may increase due to treatments of N or K nutrients

(Watanabe et al., 2016; Bhanuvally et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018). Similar results were found

when K nutrient was applied as basal treatment in sugarcane (Ali et al., 2018).

Cane fiber is considerably important attribute of sugarcane (Ali et al., 2018). In present

study, sugarcane plants treated with 75% N along with 100% K in 12 splits by drip irrigation in

combination with recommended doses of TSP in two splits exhibited highest cane fiber

contents, than control. Our results are contrary to the observations of Soomro et al. (2014) who

noted that the effects of N or K was non-significant on cane fiber contents. These discrepancies

were might be due to different production location or used variety.

In current research, sugarcane crop subjected to 75% N and 100% of 12 equal


application resulted in highest cane commercial sugar, in contrast to control. Higher

accomplishment of the commercial cane sugar is the definitive goal of the sugarcane

production (Ali et al., 2018). It has been shown that K application efficiently enhances sugar

accumulation and leads to higher percentage of commercial cane sugar (Marschner, 1995).

Similar results were noted previously in K and phosphorous treated sugarcane (Hussain et al.,

2008).

In the present study, combined use of 100% recommended K in 12 splits through the

drip irrigation method having 75% of suggested doses of N in combination with two TSP splits

via soil treatment showed maximum sugar recover, in comparison to control. Sugar recovery is

significantly critical factor regarding the sugarcane production and economic returns (Sarwar et

al., 2011). The increased sugar recovery may be due to enhanced sucrose concentration and

115

levels of commercial cane sugar in N and K treated sugarcane under drip irrigation. As the

percentage of sucrose and commercial cane sugar was increased; so, the sugar recovery was

also improved (Sarwar et al., 2011; Sarwar et al., 2012).

116

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY

Sugarcane is an important crop of tropical to warm temperature parts of the world. The

successful sugarcane cultivation has also been reported in various subtropical regions around

the globe. The optimum temperature requirement for the sugarcane is 15-35ºC having level of

relative humidity 55-80% with comparatively longer warm season receiving higher solar

radiations and ample moisture contents for its proper growth. Overall, a comparatively sunny,

drier and cooler frost free climate is considered highly suitable for successful sugarcane

cultivation, higher yield and harvesting. Generally, sugarcane crop needs averagely 1200-2000

mm annual rainfall and it may take about 8-24 months‟ time period for proper maturity.

Sugarcane is being grown in various countries of the world. Brazil and India are the major

sugarcane producing countries followed by China, Thailand, Pakistan, Mexico, Colombia,

Indonesia, the Philippines and USA. Pakistan is at 5th

position in sugarcane production and 11th

in cane yield among various sugarcane producing countries. In Pakistan, sugarcane is an

imperative cash crop. It is generally grown for the production of sugar. It is imperative income

source for farmers of the country. It also provides raw material for chip boards, paper and

confectionery. Sugarcane contributes significantly for the uplift of farming community. It

provides 36.12 billion rupees to the farmers of the country by providing about 32.11 million

tons annually. Similarly, the Pakistani sugar industry provides around 2.95 million tons with

total 73.5 billion rupees. Sugarcane also strengthens the national economy of the country with

overall contribution of about 4.00 billion rupees as taxes. The overall share of sugarcane in

national GDP and agriculture is 0.8 and 3.6%, respectively. Sugarcane industry also provides

the important raw material to the national sugar mills, thereby, providing employment for about

4.0 million people of the country. Sugarcane is grown on 1.141 million ha with overall cane

yield of 54.91 tons per ha. Although its production area has been increased over the last decade



countries 65.59 tons per ha.

The research work was conducted under two experiments during the years 2015 and

2016 at Water Management Research Farm, Renala Khurd, Okara Pakistan. In 1st experiment,

response of nitrogen application by drip irrigation on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane

117

was studied. In 2nd

experiment, effect of potash on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane was

studied. In both the experiments, sugarcane variety CPF-246 was used. The sugarcane crop was

sown in both the experiments on February during 2015 and 2016. The standard seed rate was

75,000 DBS ha-1

while the standard fertilizer used was 168-112-112 NPK kg ha-1

. Both the

experiments were laid out in RCBD with three replications with plot size of 6.00 X 7.00 meter

(width x length). Observations on different agro-physiological and quality characters were

recorded by using standard procedures. Agronomic parameters like sprouting percentage, total

number of tillers m-2

, millable canes, plant height, internode per cane, internode length, cane

length, cane diameter, weight per stripped cane, un-stripped cane yield, cane top weight, cane

trash weight, stripped cane yield, harvest index, leaf area index, leaf area duration, total dry

matter, crop growth rate, net assimilation rate, brix percentage, sucrose contents, cane fiber

contents, commercial cane sugar, sugar recovery were significantly improved by the

application of nitrogen by drip system except sprouting percentage. The maximum number of

tillers were observed in experiment two under T4 during 2016.Millable cane is the basically

sign of good crop, highest millable cane were reported 114214.3 kg ha-1

in experiment one with

treatment T3 during 2016 whereas minimum millable canes were reported by control

treatments of both experiments. Maximum plant height was observed in T4 of experiment 2

during 2016 i.e. (274 cm). Internode per cane was significantly different in each treatment;

maximum number of internode per cane was 15.66 in T3 of experiment one during 2016.

Internode length is also improved by the application of nitrogen and potash. Maximum cane

length 247.99 cm was observed in T3 of experiment during 2016 while, minimum cane length

was noted in control treatments. Cane diameter is significantly improved, maximum cane

diameter 6.97 cm in exp. 1 during 2016. The maximum weights per stripped cane 1.80 t ha-1

were produced in T4 of experiment two during 2016. Maximum un-stripped cane yield was

noted in 120.46 in T3 experiment one during 2016. The maximum cane top weight, cane trash

weight sugar were significantly improved in T3 of experiment one during 2016. Highest

harvest index was 97.53 % in T3 treatment of experiment one during whereas minimum

harvest index was reported by control treatment of both experiments. Physiological attributes

such as leaf area index, leaf area duration crop growth rate and net assimilation rate were

affected significantly in both the experiments. Maximum leaf area index was significantly

higher (7.02 and 7.0) in experiment one and two respectively. Maximum leaf duration was also

influenced by the application of nitrogen and potash through drip irrigation. Crop growth rate

118

was significantly higher in T4 of experiment one during 2016 likewise lowest crop growth rate

was observed in control treatments. Net assimilation rate (NAR) was significantly affected by

usage of nitrogen and potash by drip irrigation during both the years and significantly the

higher NAR (9.0) was achieved in T4 of experiment two during 2016. Quality characters such

as brix%, sucrose contents%, cane fiber contents, commercial cane sugar, sugar recovery

affected significantly by nitrogen and potash application during 2015 and 2016. Significantly

higher brix% 30.08% was produced by T4 treatment of experiment two during 2016.

Maximum sucrose contents% was observed by T3 treatment of experiment one during year

2016. Cane fiber contents were affected by both nitrogen and potash application during both

years and maximum cane fiber contents (15.03) were produced by T3 treatment of experiment

one during year 2016. Maximum cane commercial cane sugar 15.14% was given by T3 in

experiment two during 2016 whereas minimum commercial cane sugars were reported by

control treatments. Sugar recovery is a sign of good quality of cane juice 15.19% was presented

by T3 treatment during 2016 whereas lowest 11% was exhibited by control treatment of

experiment two during 2016.

Conclusions

The achievements on the basis of two years of research are as follows:

The highest cane yield was given by nitrogen fertigation @125% of recommended

dose of fertilizer. Higher dose of nitrogen applied through drip irrigation improves

the cane yield. The maximum marginal rate of return (1675%) was obtained by

application of nitrogen fertilizer @ 75% nitrogen of recommended dose of fertilizer.

Maximum cane yield was obtained by fertigation of 75% Nitrogen + 125% of

recommended dose of fertilizer. Higher dose of Potash applied through drip

irrigation improves the cane yield. The maximum marginal rate of return (504%)

was obtained by application of 75% Nitrogen + 75% Potash of recommended dose

of fertilizer.

Suggestions for further research

To get higher cane and sugar yield, different doses and sources of phosphorus

fertilizer should be tested through drip irrigation system.

119

To achieve maximum cane and sugar yield, different micronutrients should be

applied through drip irrigation system.

For effective and efficient control of weeds, different weedicides should be applied

through drip irrigation.

For the better control of insects and diseases, insecticides and fungicides should be

tested and applied through drip irrigation.

120

LITERATURE CITED

Abd El-Gawad, A.A., Nemat, A. Nour El-Din, El-Gaddawi and N.B. Azzazy. 1992. Effect of

nitrogen and zink application on growth criteria of sugarcane plants. Pak. Sug. J., 6(1):

3-10.

Abd El-Latif, F., A., Saif, L. M. and El-Shafai, A.M.A. 1999. Optimum row spacing and

nitrogen level for the plant cane and ratoon of the new promising sugar cane variety F.

153. Egyptian J. Agric. Res., 77 (2): 769-782.

Abo El-Wafa, A.M., Ferweez, H. and Mohamed, Kh. El. Sh. 2006. Effect of potassium fertilizer

levels on the productivity, quality and profitability of promising phil. 8013 sugarcane

clone compared with the commercial G.T. 54/9 sugarcane cultivar. Bull. Fac. Agric.,

Cairo Univ., 57 (3): 383-400.

Afghan, S.1996. Impact of planting patterns and nutrient management on agro-physiology of

sugarcane. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Agron., Uni. Agri., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Afzal, M., M. Rafiq, A.A. Chattha and M.B. Chattha. 2006. Seed rate recommendations for

commercial and future sugarcane varieties. Proc. 41st

P.S.S.T. Ann. Conv. Workshop,

Rawalpindi. P: 226-231.

Ahmad, R. 1997. Deterioration in cane yield and quality characteristics due to lodging in

sugarcane. Proc. 59th

Ann. Conv. Sug. Tech. Assoc. India. A 7-A 12 (Field crop Abst. 5

(10): 1038, 1998).

Ahmad, A., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar and A. Ghaffar. 2000. Agro-qualitative response of spring

sugarcane to geometric arrangements. Pak. Sugar J. XV (3): 2-5.

Ahmad, I. 2002. Bio-economic efficiency of spring-planted sugarcane as influenced by spatial

arrangement and nutrient management. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Agron., Uni. Agri.,

Faisalabad, Pakistan. P:155-158.

Ahmed, S., A.A.Chattha, M.Arshad and M.A.Randhawa. 1987. Effect of time of earthing up on

the grain yield of Maize (Zea mays L.). J. Agric. Res., 25(2).

121

Ahmad, S.N., K.N. Chinnaswami and K. Kumaraswamy. 1992. Efficiency of modified form of

urea and methods of application on the yield and quality of sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 42

(4): 227-229.

Ahmad, M. 1993. Soils of Pakistan: Potential and problems proceeding of the training on

balanced fertilizer use and the improvements, October, 17-20, NFDC, Islamabad: p. 54-

71.

Ahmad, Z., S. Khan, S. Rehman and G. Ahmad. 1995. Effect og nitrogen levels and setts density

on various agronomic characteristics of sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J., 9(3): 7-11.

Ahmed, Z.A., K.S.El-Sogheir and A.M.A. Ismail. 2008. Response of three sugarcane varieties to

different levels of potassium and phosphorus fertilization. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. 23 (4-a):

153-167.

Ahmed, Z.S. Khan, Rahman, S. and Ahmed, G. 1995. Effect of nitrogen levels and seet density

on various agronomic characteristics of sugarcane. Pakistan Sugar J., 9 (3): 7-11.

Akhtar, M., F.G.Ali, M.S. and S. Afghan. 2000. Effect of moisture regimes and fertilizer levels

on yield and yield parameters of spring planted sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J., 15(5): 2-6.

Ali, F.G. 1999. Impact of moisture regime and planting pattern on bio-economic efficiency of

spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) under different nutrient and weed

management strategies. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Agron., Uni. Agri., Faisalabad, Pakistan. P:

248-254.

Ali, F.G., M.A. Iqbal and A.A. Chattha. 1999. Cane yield response towards spacings and

methods of irrigation under Faisalabad conditions. Pak. Sugar J., 14 (4): 8-10.

Ali, F.G., M.A. Iqbal, A.A. Chattha and S. Afghan. 2000. Fertilizer use efficiency and cane

yield under different nitrogen levels and weed management practices in spring-planted

sugarcane. Pak. Sug. J., 15(01): 22-26.

Ali, F.G., M.A. Iqbal and K.B. Malik. 1998. To study the optimum level of irrigation and

fertilizer for cane cultivars BL-4 and BF-162. Pak. Sugar. J., 13 (4): 3-6.

Ali, F.G. ans S. Afghan. 2000. Effect of fertilizer and seed rate towards stripped-cane yield of

spring-planted sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J., 15(4): 12-16.

Ali, F.G., M.A. Iqbal and A.A. Chattha. 2002. Cane yield response of two cane varieties at

different fertilizer levels and seeding densities. Pak. Sugar J. XVII (6):52-56.

122

Ali, M., G. Ahmad and P. Shah. 1980. Response of sugarcane to rate of nitrogen and time of

harvesting. Frontier J. Agri. Res. 8(1): 100-102.

Ali, S.A. 1996. Response of varying doses of nitrogen and soil moisture regimes on sugarcane

crop. Bharatiya Sugar, 21 (4): 7-10.

Alonso, J.M. and J. Scandaliaris. 1988. Effect of planting system on sugarcane growth. Part 1.

Plant response. Revista Industrial Agricola de Tucumas., 65 (2): 45-64 (Hort. Absts., 60

(4): 2999).

Anonymous. 1992. Punjab Agriculture-An overview report. Deptt. Agric., Govt. Punjab

(Pakistan), Lahore. P. 13

Anonymous. 1995. Planting patterns effect on cane yield of CP 70-1547. Ann. Rep., Ayub Agri.

Res. Instt., Faisalabad, Deptt. Agric. Govt. Punjab (Pakistan): P. 52.

Anonymous. 2003. Management strategies for controlling the lodging of sugarcane variety SPF-

241. Annual report of Sugarcane Research Institute, Faisalabad : 64

Anonymous. 2003-04. Agricultural statistics of Pakistan. Govt. of Pakistan, MINFAL

(Economic Wing), Islamabad, pp: 106-107.

Anonymous. 2004. Annual Report. Mauritius Sugar Industry Res. Institute: 25-30.

Anonymous. 2004-05. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan. MINFAL, Govt. Pak. Islamabad: 27-

28.

Anonymous. 2005. World Sugar Statistics. Pak. Sugar Book. Pak. Soc. Sugar. Technologist: 89.

Anonymous. 2006-07. Agricultural statistics of Pakistan. Govt. of Pakistan, MINFAL

(Economic, Trade & Investment Wing), Islamabad, pp: 106-107.

Anwar, M., M. Ahmed and M.H. Rizvi. 2002. Effect of lodging and preharvesting irrigation on

juice quality of sugarcane varieties in Nawabshah, Sindh. Pak. Sugar J. 17:3, 22-27; 25

ref.

Asghar, M. 1978. Interactive relationship of planting method and fertilization in sugarcane.

M.Sc. (Hons.) Agric. Thesis, Deptt. Agron., Univ. Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Aslam, M. A. Hameed, A. A. Chattha and M.U. Chattha, 2005. Effect of sowing depth and

earthing up on lodging in sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J. XX (1): 6-8.

Asokan, S., A.N. Murthi and M. Mahadevsawamy. 2005. Effect of nitrogen levels and row

spacing on yield, CCS and nitrogen uptake in different sugarcane varieties. Sugar Tech.

7(213): 44-47.

123

Ayub, M., R. Ahmad, A. Tanveer, H.Z. Ahmad and M.S. Sharar. 1999. Growth, yield and

quality of sugarcane (Saccarum officinarum L.) as affected by levels of NPK application.

Pak. J. Bio. Sci., 2(1): 80-82.

Azam, M. 1985. Effect of NPK application on yield and quality of spring ratoon sugarcane

planted in different geometrical patterns. M.Sc. (Hons) Agri. Thesis, Dept. Agron., Uni.

Agri., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Aziz, K. 1991- Ratooning potential of autumn sugarcane as affected by pit and flat planting

M.Sc. (Hons) Agri. Thesis; Dept. Agron., Uni. Agri., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Azzazy, N.B. and Dergham, E.A. 2000. Effect of nitrogen and potassium fertilization on yield

and quality of two sugarcane promising varieties. Egyptian J.Agric. Res. 78 (4): 1615-

1625.

Azzazy, N.B., A.M.A. El-Shafai and A.M. Abd El-Aal. 2005. Performance of some promising

plant and ratoon sugarcane varieties under different nitrogen levels. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci.

20 (8A): 65-78.

Bahadur, K., M. Iqbal, M. Jamal and A. Wadud. 1980. Sugarcane response to increasing levels

of nitrogen under Bannu Conditions. Frontier J. Agri. Res., 8(1): 75-82.

Balusamy, M., P. Parameswaran and V.S. Shanumugasundaram. 1994. Studies on non-monitory

and monitory inputs like seed-rate, spacing and N levels on yield and quality of

sugarcane. Indian sugar 44 (1): 771-774.

Bashir, S. 1981. A study on the post harvest decline in quality of two sugarcane varieties at

different storage conditions at various harvesting times. M. Sc. (Hons.) Agric. Thesis

Deptt. Agron. Univ. Agri., Faisalabad. (Pakistan).

Bashir, S. 1997. Planting patterns and population dynamics effects on bio-economic efficiency

of autumn sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Agron., Uni.

Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Bashir, S., M.Z. Khan, N. Ahmad. 2002. Yield and quality of sugarcane as influenced by inter

row spacing and seed rate. Pak. Sugar J. XVII (4): 7-9.

Bashir, S. and M. Saeed. 2001. Effect of planting pattern and seeding density on yield, weed

mass production and crop lodging in sugarcane CV. SPSG. 394. Pak. Sug. J., 16 (01): 9-

13.

124

Bashir, S., A.A. Chattha, M. Yasin and Z. Mahmood. 2005. Sugarcane varieties and row spacing

effect on sugarcane traits. Pak.Sugar J. XX (2):18-20.

Bastidas, L.R., G.A. Segovia and C.A. Venezusla. 1989. Yield response of sugarcane cultivar

PR 980 to N, P and K fertilizer in a Mallisolin the basin of Lake. Valenea. 7: 33-44.

Bekheet, M.A. 2006. Effect of irrigation and potassium fertilization on yield and quality of two

sugarcane varieties. Assiut J. Agric. Sci., 37 (1): 1-19.

Berger, J. 1962. Maize production and the manuring of maize, Centre D., Etude DE, L. Azote –

5 Geneva,: 52-53.

Bhatnagar, A. and S.K. Saini. 2005. Effect of planting geometry and fertilizer levels on growth,

yield and nutrient uptake in late spring sugarcane under poly bag system of

transplanting. Indian Sugar J. 54(10): 859-865.

Bokhtiar, S.M., G.C. Paul, A.M. Rahman and M.M. Alam. 2002. Response of NPK and S on the

growth and yield of sugarcane grown in the calcareous dark grey floodplain soils of

Bangladesh. Pak. Sugar J. XVII (1): 16-21.

Bukhtiar, B.A. 1972. Effect of NPK on certain growth characteristics, yield and quality of

sugarcane. M.Sc. (Hons.) Agric. Thesis, Deptt. Agron., Univ. Agric., Faisalabad,

Pakistan.

Buragohain, S. Kr. 1996. Response of early, mid-late maturing sugarcane cultivars to different

levels of N, P and K in Assam. Indian Sug., 45 (12): 937-938.

Chattha, M.T.M. 1990. Effect of pit and flat plantation on yield and quality of autumn

sugarcane. M.Sc. (Hons) Agri. Thesis, Dept. Agron., Uni. Agri., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Chattha, A. A., M. Afzal and M. U. Chattha. 2004. Sustainable cultivation of sugarcane for

revival of sugar industry in Pakistan. Proc, 39th

annual convention, Pakistan Society of

Sugar Technologists. P: 36-49.

Chattha, A.A., M. Rafiq, M. Afzal, F. Ahmad and M. Bilal. 2006. Prospects of sugar industry

and sugar cultivation in Punjab. Proc. 41st

P.S.S.T. Ann. Conv. Workshop, Rawalpindi.

P: 173-183.

Chattha, A.A., M. Afzal and M.S. Bhatti. 2006. Modern implements for mechanical cultivation;

15-17. In successful cultivation of sugarcane, Government of Punjab, Pakistan.

125

Chattha, M.U., A. Ali and M. Bilal. 2007. Influence of planting techniques on growth and yield

of spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Pak. J. Agri. Sc., Vol. 44(3). pp

452-455.

Chaudhry, A.R. 1983. Maize inPaksitan, Package of recommendations for growers. 58-92.

Chaudhry, M.A., B. Ahmad and M. Sharif. 1995. Researcher‟s hand book for economic analysis

of experimental data. Agri. Social Sci. Res. Centre, Faculty of Agricultural Economics

and Rural Sociology, Univ. of Agri. Faisalabad. Pakistan.

Chaudhry, A.U. and F.A. Chattha. 2000. Determination of optimum level of phosphorus and its

effect on the growth, yield and quality of ratoon sugarcane. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 3(3): 483-

484.

Chavan, D.A., K.R. Power and D.N. Borukar. 1979. Dry matter accumulation pattern of three

cultivar seasonal crop of sugarcane as influensed by various levels of irrigation. Indian

Sugar J. 29(2): 97-103.

Cheema. I. A., M. Ayub and A. Jabbar. 2002. Bio economic efficiency of spring planted

sugarcane as influenced by spatial arrangement and nutrient management. Pakistan

Sugar J., 17 (6): 62-68.

Cheema, I. A., M. Ayub, M. Akhtar and R. Ahmad. 2003. Qualitative traits of sugarcane cv. CP-

77-400 as affected by spatial arrangement and nutrient management. Pak. Sugar j.vol.18

(2): 21-27.

Chougule, J. D. and B. R. Patil. 1980. Response of sugarcane (adsli) to rates of nitrogen on

medium black soil. INt. Sug. J., 84: 141.

Clement, H.F. 1964. Interaction of factors affecting yield. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol., 15: 409-

442.

Colazo, M. and R. Armas. 1985. Ingluence of potassium on early stage of sugarcane

development. Growth dynamica. Ciencias-de-la-Agricultura. 23(13): 54-65.

Creach, H. M., R. Rivero and E. Heredia. 1986. Effect of different planting densities on the

performance of four cane varieties in brown soils of Santiago (Cuba). Bol. INICA, (3)

(Spec. Suppt.): 33-50 [Sugarcane, No. 3: P. 17, 1991].

Dagode, V.G. 1976. Effect of potassium fertilizer on the yield and quality of sugarcane. Indian

Sugar J. 26(4): 195-197.

126

Deho, N.A., H.I. Majeedano, S.D.T. Unio and A.D. Jarwar, 2002. Effect of mulching methods

on weed management, growth and yield of sugarcane. Pak. Sug. J., 17 (11): 11-15.

Devi, C., K.L. Rao and D.V.M. Raju. 1990. The effect of row spacing and nitrogen on yield and

quality of early maturing sugarcane cultivars. Indian Sugar, 40 (7): 541-544.

Devraj, G. and V.S. Shanmugasundaram. 1988. Effect of spacing, sett type, seed rate, system of

planting and N levels on yield components of sugarcane cultivar COC 671. Indian Sugar,

38 (10): 535-538.

Dexi, D, S.S. Narwal and A. Behi. 1990. Relative influence of row spacing on height, thickness

and growth of sugarcane. Cooperative Sugarcane, 6 (3): 94-95.

Dhoble, M.V. and V.S. Khuspe. 1983. Effect of spacing on sugarcane. Journal of Maharashtra

Agriculture University, 8(1): 38-41.

Dillewijn, C.V. 1952. Botany of sugarcane. The Chronica Botanica Co. Book Dept., Waltham,

Mass., USA. P: 59-151.

Din, I. and R. G. Singh. 1981. Response of sugarcane to application of NPK. INd. Sug.Crops J.,

8(1): 15-17 (Hort. Absts., 52 (10): 678; 1982).

Domini, M.E. and Plana. 1989. Effect of planting density on sugarcane stalk growth and yield.

Cultivaos Trip., 11(3): 67-73.

Domini, M.E. and R. Plana. 1989. Planting density and seed cane production. Caltiros Trop., 11

(2): 55-65 (Sugarcane No. 3, P. 21, 1991).

Durai, R., S. N. Ahmad, B. J. Pandian and S. Rajasckaran. 1989. Studies on the effect of spatial

radiations on yield and quality of sugarcane in plant and ratoon crops. Bhartia sugar, 14

(12): 37-39.

El-Fattah, G. A., G.S. El-Kareem and F. H. Abdullah. 1986. Cane productivity as affected by

inter-row spacing and cane cultivars. Proc. 19th

Cong. ISSCT, 1-8. (Sugarcane No. 1, P.

21, 1988).

El-Geddawy, I.H., El-Debaby, A.S. Saad, A.M.M. and Azzazy, N.B. 1997. Irrigation systems

and nitrogen fertilizer in relation to yield and quality of sugarcane varieties. Egypt. J.

Agric. Res. 75 (4): 1037-1053.

El-Sayed, G.S., Osman, A.M.H. and Ahmed, A.M. 2005. Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus and

potassium fertilization on yield and quality of sugarcane. Sugar Crops Res., Inst. Agric.

Res. Center, Giza. Egypt.

127

El-Shafai, A.M.A. and A.M.A. Ismail. 2006. Effect of row spacing on yield and quality of some

promising sugarcane varieties. Egypt J. Appl. Sci. 21 (11): 32-46.

El-Soghier, K., S. Osman, A.M.H. and El-Sayed, G.S. 2003. Response of ratoon crop of some

sugarcane varieties to different doses of phosphorus fertilization. Sugar Crops REs. Inst.

Agri. Res. Center,Giza, Egypt.Annals of Agric. Sci. Moshtohor, 41 (2): 489-501.

Faria, C.M., B. De., L.B. Morgado, J.R. Pereire and O.P. Aragao. 1983. Effect of sources and

levels of N on irrigated sugarcane. Pesquiso Agro-Pecuaria Brasileira. 18 (7): 848-853

(Hort. Absts., 54(2-3): 150; 1984).

Fasihi, S. and K. B. Malik. 1985. Fifty Years of Research. Agri. Dept., Govt. of the Punjab,

Pakistan. P: 85.

Fasihi, S. D. and K. B. Malik. 1989 a. Effect of method of planting on the yield and quality of

sugarcane variety L. 116. Fifty years of Research, Directorate of Agricultural

Information, Punjab Pakistan), Lahore. P: 82.

Fasihi, S.D. and K.B. Malik. 1989 b. Effect of row spacing and seed rate on the cane yield (cv.

L-116). Fifty years of Research, Directorate of Agricultural Information, Lahore, Punjab,

Pakistan. P: 87.

Fasihi, S. D. and K. B. Malik. 1989c. Effect of seed rate on the yield of sugarcane. Fifty years of

research, Directorate of agricultural Information, Punjab (Pakistan), Lahore. P. 83.

Fasihi, S. D., M. A. Gill, A. Hussain and M. Asghar. 1977. Effect of methods of planting on the

yield and quality of sugarcane variety L. 116. Proc. 14th

Ann. Conv. Pakistan Soc. Sugar

Tech., 1976, at Lahore. 138-143.

Fasihi, S.D., K.B. Malik, B.A. Bukhtiar and M. Asghar. 1974. Effect of Sub-soiling and

different spacing on yield and quality of sugarcane cultivar BL 4. J.Agric. Res., 12 (3):

302-306.

Freeman, K.C. 1972. Fertilizer rates on sugarcane for syrup production. Agronomy J., 64:639-

640.

Gahlot, K.N.S. 1956. Studies on germination and tillering in sugarcane. Indian Sugars, 6: 567-

569.

Gana, A.K. 2008. Determination of optimal rate of nitrogen for chewing sugarcane production

in the southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. Sugar Tech 10(3): 278-279.

128

Garcia, R.M., F. Martin and A. Martinez. 1989. Preliminary study of three planting densities of

different canes. ATAC, 48(3): 2-11 (Sugarcane No. 1, p: 21; 1991)

Gardner, F. P., R. B. Pearce. And R. L. Mitchell, 1988. Physiology of crop plants. Scientific

publishers, Ratanda rowad, Jodhpar, India, P: 187-207.

Garside, A.L, M.J. Bell, J.E. Berthelsen and N.V. Halpin. 2002. Effect of fumigation, density

and row spacing on the growth and yield of sugarcane in two diverse environments.

Sugar-Cane-International., 19-26.

Gascho, G.T. and S.F. Singh. 1982. Row spacing effects on biomass and composition of

sugarcane in Florida. Int. Sugar. J. Vol. 84: 206.

Ghugare, R.V., D.V. More and S.T. Kenjale. 1995. Effect of levels of irrigation and nitrogen on

yield and quality of ratoon sugarcane (Co-7219). Bharatiya Sugar, 21 (8): 44-49.

Gill, H.S. and O.Singh. 1976. Response of some sugarcane cultivars to different levels of N, P

and k in Punjab. Indian Sugar, 26 (3): 145-149.

Gill, M. B. 1995. Physio-agronomic studies on flat versus pit plantation of autumn and spring

sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) Ph.D. Agri. Thesis, Deptt. Of Agronomy, Univ.

of Agri., Faisalabad (Pakistan). P: 41-89.

Haq, I. U. 1985. Studies on the feasibility and productive efficiency of the newly designed

multi-row strip planting geometry facilitating inter-cropping in autumn sugarcane. M.Sc.

(Hons.) Agri. Thesis, Deptt. Agron., Univ. Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Hunt, R. 1978. Plant growth analysis. Edward Arnold, U.K. 26-38

Hussain, I., M. Atta, M. Mahmood and M.S. Nazir. 1991. Effect of NPK fertilizer application on

the growth, yield and quality of autumn planted sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J., 5 (1): 1-5.

Ingawale, H.Y., U.D. Chavan and N. D. Patil. 1992. Effects of balanced NPK fertilizer on yield

and juice quality of sugarcane. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. India, 17 (1): 6-9 (Field Crop

Absts., 46 (4): 2366; 1993).

Ingram, K.T. and H.W. Hilton. 1986. Nitrogen-potassium fertilization and soil moisture effects

on growth and development of drip-irrigated sugarcane. Hawaiian Sugar planters Assoc.

Exp. Stan. Aiea. HI 96701, USA.

Iqbal, A., E. Ullah and K. Iqbal. 2002. Biomass production and its partitioning in sugarcane at

different nitrogen and phosphorus application rates. Pak. Sugar. J. 17 (2): 14-17.

129

Irvine, J.E., G.T. Benda and C.A. Richard. 1980. Sugarcane spacing 1. Historical and

Theoretical Aspects. Proc. 17th Cong. ISSCT, 1:350-356.

Irvine, J.E. and G.T. Banda. 1980. Sugarcane spacing II- Effect of spacing on the plant. Proc.

Int. Soc. Sugarcane Technol., 17th

Cong., pp. 336.

Irvine, J.E., C.A. Richard, C.E. Carter and J.W. Dunkelman. 1984. The effect of row spacing

and sub-surface on sugarcane yields. Sugarcane J. No. 2:2-5.

Ismail, A.M.A., A. M. Hargrus El-Sonbaty and S.H.Farrag 2000. Effect of phosphobacterin and

phosphorus levels on yield and quality of sugarcane. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 78 (4): 163-

1613.

Ismail, A. M. A., M.A. Bekheet and A.S. Abo El- Hamd. 2008. Yield and quality of four

sugarcane varieties as influenced byseed rate and nitrogen fertilization. Egypt J. Appl.

Sci., 23(1): 107-123.

James, N.I. 1971. Yield components in random and selected sugarcane populations. Crop

Science, 11(6): 906-908.

Jayabal, V. and S. Chockalingam. 1990. Effect of planting density on the yield of three cane

varieties. ATAC, 48 (3): 26-33. (Sugarcane No. 11, P: 21, 1991).

Jayabal, V. and N.Sankaran. 1991. Studies on the effect of intercross and nitrogen levels on

tiller production and tiller mortality in sugarcane. Sugar, 41: 33-35.

Kadian, V.S., S.N.L. Srivastava and V.R.Singh. 1981. Effect of doses of N, P and K on yield

and quality of sugarcane. Indian Sugar J. 31(6): 405-408.

Kakde, J.R. 1985. Growth and Sugarcane Production. Metropolitan Book Co., Pvt. Ltd., New

Delhi, India. P: 69-75.

Kamel, A.M. 2007. Response of sugarcane growth under levels of water stress to nitrogen and

potassium fertilization under Upper Egypt conditions. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric. El-

Minia Univ., Egypt.

Kannappan, K., P. Manickasundaram, J. Karamathullah and K. Kumaraswamy. 1990. Effect of

levels of nitrogen on the yield and quality of sugarcane under different spacing and

methods of planting. Indian Sugar, 40 (3): 157-159.

Kanwar, R.S. and K.K. Sharma. 1974. Effect of inter row spacing on tillers, mortality, stalk

population and yield of sugarcane. Inter. Soc. Sugar Tech. (2): 751-755. (Hort. Absts.,

45(10): 7955; 1975).

130

Kanwar, R.S., N. Singh and B.S. Bains. 1990. Effect of hot air treatment, inter row spacing and

seed piece size, etc. on yield and quality of sugarcane. Proc. 52nd

Ann. Conv. Sugar

Tech. Assoc. India: 9-13 (Sugarcane No. 41, P: 22, 1991).

Kathiresan, G. and R. Narayanasamy. 1991. Fixing the spacing, seed rate and N levels for

variety Co-8201. Indian sugar, 41 (7): 241-242.

Khalid, I. G. 1979. Yield and quality of sugarcane as affected by seedrate and its quality M.Sc.

Thesis, Deptt. Agron. Univ. of Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Khan, I.A., A. Khatri, G.S. Nizamani, M.A. Siddiqui, S.Raza and N.A. Dahar. 2005. Effect of

NPK fertilizers on the growth of sugarcane clone AEC86-347 developed at NIA,

Tando Jam, Pakistan. Pak. J. of Bot. 37(2): 355-360

Kumaraswamy, K., N. Guruswamy and N. Rajasekaran. 1992. Efficiency of phosphobacterium

bio fertilizer on the yield and quality of sugarcane. Indian Sugar. 41, pp. 841-845.

Lakhdive, B. A., B. G. Bathkal, V. N. Deshmukh and C. Deterao. 1979. Studies on scheduling

irrigation for borer sugarcane on the basis of evaporation. Indian sugar, 29 (6): 504-510.

Lakhdive, B.A., J. R. Kakde, V.N. Deshmukh and S.H. Daterao. 1979. N, P and K requirements

of sugarcane (Co-1163) under vidarbha, India. Indian Sugar, 2004 (3): 149-151.

Lakshmikantham, M. 1983. Technology in sugarcane growing, Second Ed., Oxford & IBH

Publishing Co., New Delhi, 259.

Lal, B., 1988. Yield, quality and root distribution pattern of sugarcane Co-1148 as influenced by

methods of planting. Bharatia sugar, 14 (1): 57, 59-60.

Lal, B. 1991. Effect of nitrogen levels on tillering in spring-plant sugarcane under different

moisture regimes. Proc. 53rd

Ann.Conv. Sug. Tech. Assoc. India, 47-51.

Lazo, M. R., L. G. Proenza and C. Legon. 1989. Effect of planting density on the yield of three

cane varieties. ATAC, 48(3):26-33.(sugar. No. 1, P: 21; 1991).

Le-Clerg, E.L. Leonard, W.H. and Clark, A.G. 1962. Field Plot technique. Burgess, Minnapolis

2nd

ed.

Legendre, B. L., 1970. Associations involving yield of sugar per acre and its components in

sugarcane.Ph.D. Thesis, Louisiana State Univ.Baton Rauge, La. P. 170.

Le-Grand, F. 1972. Production of sugarcane. Agronomy mpnpgraph number 1. Istt. Food and

Agricultural Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

131

Magbool, A. and M.E. Akhtar 2002. Effect of different levels of potassium on agronomic traits,

productivity and quality of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarium, L.) Asian J. Plant. Sci. 1

(4): 349-351.

Mahadevaswamy, M. and G. J. Martin. 2002. Production potential of wide row sugarcane

intercropped with aggregatum onion under different ratio of fertilizer levels and

population densities. Indian J. Agron. 47:(3): 361-366.

Mahmood, A. R. 1988. Effect of some planting techniques on the yield and quality of autumn

sugarcane at different plant population. M.Sc. Thesis, Deptt. Of AGron., Univ. Agri.,

Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Mahmood, T., M. S. Nazir, M. Ashfaq nad C. N. Ahmad. 1990. Correlation studies on

sugarcane. J. Agric. Res. 28 (4): 359-364.

Mahmood, S.A., B. Hasnain, I.H. El-Geddawy and M.F.A. Mustafa. 2008. Effect of some

fertilization treatments on productivity and quality of the newly released sugarcane

variety (PHIL. 8013). Meeting the Challenges of Sugar Crops & Integrated Industries in

Developing Countries, Al Arish, Egypt, pp 3-13.

Majid, A. 2007 a. Overview of sugar crops situation in Pakistan. Pak. Sugar. J. 22 (1): 12-17.

Majid, A. 2007 b. Sugarcane variety composition in Pakistan. Pak. Sugar J. 22 (2): 2-21

Mali, A. L. 1980. Studies on growth yield and quality analysis of sugarcane varieties in rotation

to different row spacing. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to G. B. Plant Univ.of Agric.And

Tech.,Pantnagar,India(India sugar 30 (10): 463-467.

Mali, A. L. and P. P. Singh. 1985. Quality of sugarcane as influenced varieties in relation to

varying row spacing. Indian sguar, 35 (11): 451-455.

Mali, A.L. and P.P. Singh. 1988. Effect of plant stand on shoot and dry matter production and

light transmission in sugarcane varieties. Indian sugar, 38: 465-469.

Mali, S.A., K.R. Power and D.N. Borulkar. 1982. Yield contributing characters of three cultivars

of seasnal sugarcane as influenced by N and P levels. Indian Sugar, 32 (2): 95-104.

Malik, K. B. and F. G. Ali. 1990. Cane yield response to seed density and row spacing in

autumn planting. 25th

An. Conv. Pak. Soc. Sugar. Tech. 239-243.

Malik, N.A. 1993. Response of sugarcane cultivars to different doses of NPK fertilizer in

Somalia. Pak. Sugar J., 7(1): 11-13.

132

Malik, K. B., F. G. Ali and A. Khalique. 1995. Response of plantation population and inter-row

spaces towards cane yield of spring-planted cane. 29th

An. Conv. Pakistan. Soc. Of sugar

Tech. P: 146-149.

Malik, K.B. 1997. Profitable cane cultivation. Agri. Deptt. Govt. of Punjab, (Pakisatn), Lahore:

35.

Malik, K.B. and F.G. Ali and A. Khaliq. 1996. Effect of plant population and row spacing on

cane yield of spring-planted cane. J. Agric. Res., 34(6): 389-395.

Malik, K.B. and F.G. Ali. 1990. Cane yield response to seed density and row spacing in spring

and autumn planting. Proc. 27th Ann. Conv. Pak. Soc. Sugar Tech. P: 239-243.

Martin, J.H., W.H. Leonard and D.L. Stamp. 1976. Sugarcane. In Principles of field crop

production. 3rd

Edn. Macmillan Pub. Co; Inc. 866. Third Avenue, New York. 10022,

USA; 417.

Mathur, B.K. 1972. Response of NPK fertilization on sugarcane crop. Indian Sugar, 21 (12):

809-815.

Meade, G.P. 1963. Cane sugar handbook. 8th

Edn.John Wiley and sons, Inc. New York.

Chapman and Hall, Limited London.

Minhas, Y.J., H.J. Majeedano, A.D. Jarwar, A.Q. Tareen and K.B. Samo 2004. Effect of

earthing up on growth and yield of different sugarcane varieties. Pak.Sugar J. XIX

(2):33-37.

Misra, A. and N. K. Mohan. 1982. Effect of seed rate and spacing on growth, juice quality and

yield of early varieties of sugarcane Indian J. Agron., 27 (4): 398-402.

Misra, G.N. 1964. A possible modification in the system of sugarcane culture adjustment in the

depth of soil cover over the setts during sifferent phases of crops. Indian Sugar, 24 (9):

619-622.

Mokadem, Sh. A. 1998. Response of the promising sugarcane cultivar G. 85/37 growing under

middle Egypt region to different sources and rates of nitrogen. Pak. Sugar J. 13(1): 10-

15.

MSTAT-C. Manual, 1991. Micro-statistical programme, Michigan State University, U. S. A.

Murayama, S., S.M.M. Uddin., A. Nose and Y. Kawawitsu. 1990. Effects of agronomical

practices on sugarcane yield. Sc. Bull. College Agric. Univ., Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan,

37: 1-6.

133

Nand, L. and N. Lal. 1997. Yield performance of sugarcane mericlone transplants under

different inter row and intra row spacing combinations. Sugarcane. J. 6: 12-14.

Naqvi, H. A. 2005. In: Pakistan Sugar Book. Pakistan Society of Sugar Technologists, Mandi

Baha-ud-Din, Punjab, Pakistan.

Narasimham, R.L. and K. Ramalingaswamy. 1991. Role of potassium in relising optimum cane

and sugar yield of some sugarcane cultivars. SISSTA-Sugar-J., 17(2-3): 25-30 (Field

Crop Absts., 46(8):5304; 1993).

Narwal, S.S. and D.S. MAlik. 1981. Effect of levels of nitrogen and their times of application on

the growth, yield and quality of sugarcane. Int. Sug. J., 84: 336.

Nassar, A.M. 1996. Yield and quality response of some sugarcane (Saccharum Spp.) cultivars to

potassium nutrition and date of harvest. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Agric. Cairo Univ. Cairo

Egypt.

Natrajin, B. 2005. Sugar and sugarcane international and national scenario and role of sugarcane

breeding institute in varietal improvement in India. Int. Trg. Oct. 12-26th

Coimbatore

India. P. 10.

Nazir, M.S., A. Gaffar, K. Mahmood, S. Nawaz and M. Aslam. 1999. Morpho-quantitative traits

of autumn planted sugarcane as influenced by seeding density and nutrient management.

Int. J. Agri. and Biol., 1 (4): 238-240.

Nazir, M.S., I. A. Fageer, G. Ali, R. Ahmad and T. Mahmood. 1988. Studies on planting and

inter-cropping in autumn sugarcane. Gomal Uni. J. Res., 8 (1-2): 57-64.

Nazir, M.S., M. Zulfiqar, G. Ali and M. Siddique. 1987. Quantitative and qualitative responses

of sugarcane to potassium and phosphorus on a fertilizer responsive soil with and

without nitrogen. Sarhad. J. Agri., 3(1): 17-22.

Nazir, M.S., R. H. Sahi and M. Saeed. 1987. Sugarcane Agro-technology. In Sugarcane. Univ.

Agric., Faisalabad with courtesy of PARCB, Faisalabad, Pakistan: 33-58.

Nisar, A., S. Afghan, T. Ahmad and R. A. Mahmood. 1993. Response of sugarcane cultivar to

different doses of NPK fertilizer in Somalia. Pak. Sugar J., 7(2): 15-17.

Nose, A., M. Nakama, K. Miyazato and S. murayama. 1987. Effect of plant density and soil type

on the growth characteristics of the first ratoon crop of summer planted sugarcane.

Science Bulletin of the College of Agri. Uni. Ryukyus, Okinawa (Japan), 34 (1): 1-10.

134

Nose, A., M. Nakama, K. Miyazato and S. Murayama. 1989. Effect of dense planting on the dry

matter production of summer planted sugarcane. Japanese J. Crop Sci., 58 (3): 279-289.

Nour, A. H., M.I.A. Samie, and E.E. Ghafuge. 1973. Spacing and seed rate experiments with

sugarcane in united Arab Rep. Int. Sugar. J. 75 (7): 177.

Orlando, J. and E. Zambello. 1980. Influence of NPK fertilization on the technological qualities

of plant cane, cultivar CB.41-76. Int. Sug. J., 84: 76.

Parasad, S.R., M.P. Motiwale and A.B. Singh. 1979. Effect of plant population and moisture

regimes on yield and quality of timely and late planted sugarcane. In on thesis India.

Indian J. Agri. Sci., 49(4): 262-265.

Parasad. D., U.K. Parasad and P.K. Bose. 1983. Effect of pre monsoon irrigation, nitrogen and

spacing on the yield of sugarcane varieties. Ind. J. Agron. 28(20): 131-133 (C.F. Hort.

Absts., 55(2): 1625; 1985).

Parashar, K.S., S.B. Hukkeri, M. N. Sandaphal and R.P. Sharma. 1980. Studies on the effect of

soil water stress and level of nitrogen inspring-planted sugarcane. Proc. 7th

Cong. ISST.,

1: 494-503. (Hort. Absts., 53 (12): 9091; 1983).

Patel, H.S. N. J. Mehta, M.P. Patel and B.C. Naik. 1990. Effect of row spacing and nitrogen

levels on yield and quality of early matuing sugarcane cultivars. Indian Sugar, 40 (8):

609-611.

Patel, C.C., N.B.Patel, H.U. Pandva, S.C. Mali and M.N. Patel. 2005. Response of sugarcane

genotypes to planting geometry and seed rates. Ind. Sugar J. 55(3): 23-28.

Pearson, C. H. O. 1961. Cultural practices in sugarcane crop. Ann. Report south Africa, Sugar

Assoc. Expt. Stn: 27-29.

Peros, J.P. 1990. Relationships between the mineral elements of sugarcane leaf laminae and

puccinia melanocephala infection. II. Field trials. Agron. Tropicale, 45 (3): 213-219.

Qureshi, M.A. 2005. Sugarcane cultivation in Pakistan. In Pakistan Sugar Book. Pak. Soc.

Sugar Tech.: 108-120.

Pineiro, D. J.A. and F. Hernandez‟s. 1987. Density of planting in two different regions of sancti

spiritus province.Bol. INICA, 3 (2): 30-44. (Sugarcane No. 6, P: 21, 1990).

Ramesh, P. and Mahadevaswamy, M. 1996. Agronomic practices for some promising sugarcane

cultivars intropican India. Indian Sug., 46 (9): 719-722.

135

Ramesh, V. and S. Varghese. 2000. Effect of fertilizer levels of N, P and K on the yield and

juice quality of sugarcane. Indian Sug., 50(5): 301-302.

Rao, V. P. and S. Nagarkatti. 1971. Sugarcane protection. Indian. Sugar. 21 (3): 219-225.

Rasario, E.L., R.E. Tapay and V. Dosado. 1976. Leaf growth characteristics of three sugarcane

varieties at different population densities and level of nitrogen fertilization. Proc. Phil.

Sugar. Tech., P. 1527-1537.

Raskar, B.S. and P.G. Bhoi. 2003 a. Effect of intra-row spacings, fertilizer levels and planting

materials on yield and economics of pre-seasonal sugarcane under drip irrigation. Sugar-

Tech. 5:4, 305-307; 7 ref.

Raskar, B.S. and P.G. Bhoi. 2003 b. Response of sugarcane to planting materials, inter-row

spacings and fertilizer levels under drip irrigation. Indian- Sugar. 53:9, 685-690; 8 ref.

Rathore, O.P., H.D. Verma nad G. K. Nema. 1996. Effect of potassium application on growth,

yield and quality of sugarcane. Indian Sug., 46 (8): 665-668.

Ravindra, T., R.C. Jain, S.R. Sharma, G.L. Thakur, D.P. Nema and R. Thakur. 1989. Response

of some promising early, mid-late and late sugarcane cultivars of the region to nitrogen

application. Bharatiya Sugar, 15 (2): 9-12 (Field Crop Absts. 44 (10): 7615; 1991).

Rehman, A., M.B. Kumbhar and S. Rehman. 1995. Effect of nitrogen fertilizationon the yield of

sugarcane cultivars. Pak. Sugar J., 9 (3): 3-6.

Rehman, S., G.S. Khan and S. N. Khan. 1989. Nitrogen requirement of sugarcane at different

levels of plant population. Sarhad J. Agric., 5 (3): 315-318.

Ricaud, R. and A. Arcenaux. 1987. Fertilization of sugarcane with a high plant population. J.

Amer. Soc. SugarcaneTech., 7: 69-73. (Sugarcane autumn supplement, 1988).

Ricaud, R. and B.J. Cochran. 1980 Method of planting sugarcane for sugar and biomass

production in Louisiana. Proc. 17th Cong. ISSCT, 1:302-310.

Rosa, A. 2005. Fundamentals of renewable energy processes Elsevier, ISBN-13: 978, 0-12-

0885107, pp.501-502

Salunkhe, A.N., S.R.Jamdade, S.B. Jadhav and D.M. Hogarth.2001. Maximisation of farm

profit by paired row systems in cane cultivation. Proc. XXIV Cong,I.S.S.C.T,-

Australia; (2): 217-218.

Salunkhe, C.D., V. D. Patil and A. G. Shinde. 1981. Response of sugarcane to rates and time of

nitrogen fertilization in Kolhapur region (C-740). Int. Sug. J., 84: 111):

136

Sandhu, M.I. 1991. Effect of fertilizer application and planting geometry on yield and sucrose

content of autumn planted sugarcane. M.Sc. (Hons) Agri. Thesis, Dept. Agron., Uni.

Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Sarwar, M., M. Afzal, M.A. Iqbal and A.A. Chattha. 2000. Effect of proper nutrition and agro-

management practices on lodging, cane yield and juice quality of a sugarcane genotype

CP 77-400. Pak. Sugar J., 15 (6): 135-139.

Sarwar, M., A.A. Chattha and M. Afzal. 2004. Studies on time of sowing and seeding rates in

spring planted sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J. XIX(2): 38-41.

Sendecor and Cochran. 1967. Statistical Method. 6th

Ed. Lowa State Univ. Press, Ames. Yowa,

USA.

Shafshak, S.A., I.H. El-Geddawy, S.A.H. Allam and G.S. El-Sayed. 2001. Effect of planting

densities and nitrogen fertilizer on growth criteria, Juice quality and chemical

constituents of some sugarcane cultivars. Pak. Sug. J., 16 (4): 2-14.

Sharma, O.L. and P.C. Gupta. 1990a. Effect of levels of irrigation, nitrogen and method of

planting on juice quality of sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 40 (5): 313-315.

Sharma, O.L. and P.C. Gupta. 1991. Effect of levels of irrigation, nitrogen and methods of

planting on N uptake and dry matter production of sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 41 (8): 611-

613.

Shih. S. F. and G.J. Gascho. 1980. Sugarcane stalk distribution in two row spacings. Proc. 44th

Cong. ISSCT, 17 (1): 38-51.

Shukla, S.K., R.S. Verma, G.B. Singh, V. Laljee and L.Verma. 1998. Tillering pattern of mid

late sugarcane varieties as influenced by different agro-techniques. Indian-Sugar. 48

(8): 581-584.

Singh, K. and R.L. Yadav. 1986. Anew approach to sugarcane cultivation in agronomy. Proc.

49th

Ann. Conv. Sugar. Tech. Assoc. India, P. 51-62.

Singh, B.P. and P.P. Singh. 1984. Studies on growth and dry matter accumulation under

different canopy structures in sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 34 (6): 463-467.

Singh, R.P. and P.O.Singh. 1984. Effect of seed rate, spacing and nitrogen on the yield and

quality of sugarcane under late-sown condition in Uttar Paradesh. Indian sugar crops J.,

13 (4): 14-18. (Hort. Absts. 59 (5): 4429; 1989).

137

Singh, V.P., K.C. Jha and S. Zaman. 1987. Effect of seed rate, spacing and nitrogen on the yield

and quality of sugarcane under late sown conditions in North Bihar. Indian Sugar Crops

J. 13 (4): 14-18.

Singh, G., D.P. Singh, R.S. Singh and R.A. Yadav. 1990. Response of sugarcane to planting

seasons and fertility levels. Ind. J. Agron., 35(3): 315-316. (Field Crop Absts., 44(7):

5029; 1991).

Sousa-Vieira-o-de, S. B. Milligan and V.O. Sousa. 2002. The effect of intra row plant spacing

on the effectiveness of family selection in sugarcane. Repeatability Analysis Cane-de-

Azucar, 20 (1): 3-17.

Sprague, G.F. 1955. Corn and corn improvement. Agri. Res. Ser. US Department of AGri.

IOWA State College, Ames. IOWA. Academic press inc. Publishers New York: 365.

Srivastava, K.K., A.K. Sirivastava and A. Kumar. 1984. Influence of inter plant competition on

tillering in sugarcane. Proc. 48th

Ann. Conv. Sugar Tech. Assoc. India, 149-160.

Steel, R. G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Dickey, 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A

biometrical approach, 3rd edition. McGraw Hill book Int. Co. New York. P: 172-177.

Sundara, B. and S. Subramanian. 1989. Fitting short duration sugarcane into cropping system,

yield and quality of short duration sugarcane as influenced by row spacing and nitrogen

levels indifferent sequences. Madras Agri. J., 76(3): 124-134.

Sundara, B. 2002. Influence of varieties, seed and fertilizer rates and planting patterns on

sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) grown under wide row spacing. Indian-Sugar.

52(5): 341-347.

Sundara, B. 2003. Sugarcane varietal response to wide row spacing. Indian-Sugar. 53(8): 573-

578.

Tang, K.H. 1976. Effect of inter-row spacing on yield of sugarcane in Taiwan. Int. Sugar, J., 81

(964): 109.

Thakur, K., P.K. Bose, B.P. Sali and R.P.R. Sharma. 1979. Response of sugarcane to nitrogen

and phosphorus in calcareous soils. Indian Sugar, 29 (6): 277-280.

Thomas, J.R., F.G. Solimans and I.N. Amken. 1977. Growth and yield of sugarcane as affected

by row spacing. Int. Sugar J., 83 (10): 302.

138

Thomas, J.R., F.G. Solimans and I.N. Amken. 1978. Growth and yield of sugarcane as

affected by row spacing and irrigation regime. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugarcane Technol.,

7 (NS), pp.

129-135.

Trevedi, N. and S.K. Saini. 1986. Response of sugarcane cultuvars to nitrogen application

under taral conditions of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Sugar, 35 (11): 603-607.

Urgel, G.V. 1966. Influence of planting density and furrow distance on the yield of cane and

sugar. Sugar Inst. Quart; 12 (1): 19-24. (Hort. Absts., 37 (3): 5952; 1967).

Vains, S.N., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar, T. Mahmood and A. Ahmad. 2000. Biological

traits of autumn sugarcane as influenced by spatial arrangement and plantation

method. Pak. Sugar J. 15(5): 15-19

Verma, H.P. 1954. Nitrogen in sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 1: 254.

Watson, D.J. 1947. Comparative physiological studies on growth of field crops. I. Variation

in net assimilation rate and leaf area between species and cultivars and eithin and

between years. Annals of Botany. 11: 41-76.

Vyas, S. P., S.K. Saina and R.P. Singh. 1988. Effect of row spacing on light transmission,

dry matter accumulation and yield of sugarcane varieties. Indian Sugar, 38 (11): 655-

659. (Sugarcane, No. 5, P: 18, 1989).

Yadav, R. L. 1981. Leaf area index and functional leaf area duration of sugarcane as affected

by

N rates. Indian J. Agron., 26 (2): 130-136.

Yadav, R. L. 1983. Dry matter production, yield and nutrient uptake by sugarcane ratoon as

affected by methods of planting and earthing up. Ind. J. Agron.,28(3): 214-217.

Yadav, R.L. and R.N. Prasad. 1986. Nutrient release from soil incorporated cane trash and rice

straw for sugarcane growth and yield. Indian J.Sug. Cane Tech., 3 (1): 6-10.

Yadava, R.L. 1991. Sugarcane production technology constraints and potentialities. Oxford

& IBH publishing Co. New Delhi (India): PP: 94-202.

Zehauf, M., A. Harrak and F.W. Hesse. 1992. Exhaustion of soil nitrogen,

phosphorus, potassium and trace elements in the Gharb.Sugarcane Int., J., 2, 22

(Proc. 1st. Meeting Assoc. Frans. Cannme Sucr., 1991, 153-158 (French).

Date post:	09-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

PHYSIO-AGRONOMIC RESPONSE OF SPRING PLANTED …

Documents