Development of tillering pattern under transplanting and direct sowing methods in spring planted sugarcane M. O. A. Galal *, A. M. Abou-Salama **, E. A.

Development of tillering pattern Development of tillering pattern under transplanting and under transplanting and

direct sowing methods in spring direct sowing methods in spring planted sugarcaneplanted sugarcane

M. O. A. Galal*, A. M. Abou-Salama**, E. A. Teama**, and A. Z. Ahmed *

*Sugar Crops Research Institute, ARC, Giza** Agronomy Dept., College of Agriculture,

Assiut University, Egypt

Facts and assumptionsFacts and assumptions• Egypt's liberalization of its agricultural

economic system led to major changes in farmers' behavior.

• Due to limited water resources, the available area for farming is used in a rotation including more than one crop per year.

• The case is different in sugarcane growing area where the crop remains in soil for the whole year.

• A newly emerged problem is currently affecting spring planted crop. The growers intentionally delay cane spring planting till the harvest of the preceding crop (wheat) instead of growing temporary cover crop that can be cleared off the field in late February to plant the cane in March.

• As sugarcane growers are bound with contracts with the cane sugar company, they should start harvest of spring planted cane in a schedule that is prepared by the company.

• This causes a severe reduction in yield because of the decrease in crop age by about three months

• Many workers investigated the effect of decreasing growing season length on cane yield including Duhra et al. (1993) , Tripathi and Pandey (1993), Shiv-Kumar and Srivastava (1993), Jhansi and Rao (1996) ,and Dilip et al. (1998). All of them agreed that shorter growing season due to late planting reduces cane yield.

• Similar findings were also reported in Egypt by ElGergawy and El-Shafai (2000), Mohamed and El-Taib (2007a and b).

Review of literatureReview of literature

• Transplanting was tested as a measure to overcome the negative effects of delayed planting by many workers.

• Basher et al. (1993) ,Rahman et al. (1993), Ishimine et al. (1994) repoted that the highest yield of transplanted cane was obtained through higher yield attributes such as higher tillers and millable canes.

• Hiyane et al. (2006) suggested that settling transplanting is one of the important agronomic practices that could enable weed control and better yield of sugarcane.

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods• The present study was carried out at El-Mattana

Research Station, Luxor Governorate, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt (Latitude 25o 18 N).

• Soil type of the experimental location was sandy loam with an average pH of 8.1, available N of 20 ppm, Available P of 11 ppm, and available K of 516 ppm.

• The work was conducted during the two plant crop seasons of 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 to examine tillering pattern of three sugarcane varieties planted using direct sets planting (DS) vs. seedling transplanting (ST) under different spring planting dates.

• The tested varieties were G.T. 54/9, G. 98/28 and G. 84/47.• five planting methods namely; direct sowing on mid-March,

mid-April & mid-May along with two transplanting dates on mid-April and mid-May.

• Cuttings for transplants were sown on the 1st of March in both seasons.

• A split plot with four replications was used for the experiment. – The three varieties were randomly distributed to the main plot. – The five planting methods (3dirct sowing and 2 transplanting

methods) were assigned to sub-plot.

• Duncan multiple rang test at 5% was used for means comparisons.

• One meter segment in each experimental plot (42 m2 6 rows, 1 m wide and 7 m length)was marked to count the number of tillers on bi-weekly basis starting after full germination for 18 weeks and at harvest.

• In addition, regression equations were calculated for each variety and planting methods in each season.

Table 1: Average weekly recorded temperature data

period2010-2011 season2011-2012 season

highlowaveragehighlowaverage

Mar 14-2031.218.524.727.410.018.5Mar 21-2729.415.121.826.113.219.6Mar 28-Apr 333.715.724.429.917.423.9Apr 4-1034.719.326.828.215.821.9Apr 11-1735.519.527.528.819.023.4Apr 18-2435.320.827.933.019.425.8Apr 25-May 136.321.928.734.619.927.1May 2-837.020.928.839.123.430.9May 9-1539.023.530.933.620.226.7May 16-2240.825.833.035.220.127.7May 23-2937.824.731.040.524.932.3May 30-Jun 540.425.932.638.424.131.0Jun 6-1240.426.132.841.425.933.3Jun 13-1941.326.333.640.225.132.3Jun 20-2643.928.335.839.025.932.2Jun 27-Jul 340.926.633.738.725.131.7Jul 4-1040.927.233.741.126.533.7Jul 11-1743.128.636.041.827.634.5

Table 2: Mean squares for tiller numbers per meter as affected by varieties and planting methods in 2010-2011 Season.

SOV4

weeks6

weeks8

weeks10

weeks12

weeks14

weeks16

weeks18

weeksAt

harvest

Rep0.755

Ns1.52Ns

6.01Ns

6.17Ns

22.86Ns

5.48Ns

6.40Ns

11.26Ns

14.99*

Var.0.816

Ns2.81Ns

10.95Ns

7.85Ns

12.51Ns

22.51Ns

25.55*

31.51*

22.65*

Error a3.971.924.6815.8913.117.651.615.762.69Planting method

173.56**

130.06**

93.47**

148.14**

92.87**

51.73**

56.83**

47.14**

12.56*

Var. * pl13.00

*6.25

*14.57

Ns18.76

*8.60Ns

8.12Ns

8.25Ns

2.64Ns

2.12Ns

Error b3.462.667.646.947.545.695.186.213.80

Table 3: Mean squares for tiller numbers per meter as affected by varieties and planting methods in 2011-2012 Season.

SOV4

weeks6

weeks8

weeks10

weeks12

weeks14

weeks16

weeks18

weeksAt

harvest

Rep16.44

Ns13.82

Ns11.22

Ns24.31

Ns45.20

Ns50.95

Ns45.97

Ns29.60

Ns9.97Ns

Var.19.51

Ns44.45

Ns77.31

Ns90.21

Ns120.51

Ns127.91

*62.46

Ns42.45

Ns70.35

*Error a7.5612.0026.4051.7228.9818.3816.1713.859.30Plantin

g method

85.91**

85.94**

104.04**

136.35**

102.43**

22.22Ns

28.60Ns

41.55**

10.85Ns

Var. * pl

14.89*

18.30Ns

25.62Ns

44.17Ns

33.05Ns

11.75Ns

12.11Ns

17.65Ns

19.43*

Error b5.248.4117.8423.7522.9118.3611.1510.116.48

Table 4: Average tiller numbers per meter for the tested varieties in 2010-2011 Season.

Variety4

weeks6

weeks8

weeks10

weeks12

weeks14

weeks16

weeks18

weeksAt

harvestG.T.54/

98.75

a10.90

a13.50

a18.20

a20.70

a21.10

a20.25

a19.00

a16.10

a

G.84/479.10

a10.90

a13.35

a17.65

a19.65

a19.40

a18.70

b17.95

ab14.75

b

G.98/288.75

a11.55

a14.70

a16.95

a19.15

a19.15

a18.05

b16.50

b14.00

b

Table 5: Average tiller numbers per meter for the tested varieties in 2011-2012 Season

Variety4 weeks6

weeks8 weeks

10 weeks

12 weeks

14 weeks

16 weeks

18 weeks

At harvest

G.T.54/99.55

a11.45

a13.70

a18.35

a20.75

a20.90

a19.10

a17.85

a15.90

a

G.84/478.85

a10.60

ab12.85

a15.70

a19.45b

a20.65

a19.40

a16.95

a14.10

ab

G.98/287.60

a8.55

b9.95

a14.15

a16.00

b16.40

b16.20

a15.00

a12.15

b

Fig.1: Graphical presentation of the development of actual number of tillers per meter for the three examined varieties during 2010-2011

and 2011-2012 seasons (A&B).

AB

variety2010-20112011-2012G.T.54/9Y= 7.1345+0.856XY= 8.5762+0.7164XG.84/47Y= 7.9083+0.7208XY= 7.1851+0.761XG.98/28Y= 8.901+0.6089XY= 5.697+0.6622X

Table 6: Regression equation of tiller number per meter as affected by age of the three tested varieties in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons.

Fig. 2: Graphical presentation of the regression line of number of tillers per meter and age in field for the three examined varieties during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons (C&D).

CD

Table 7: Average tiller numbers per meter as affected by planting methods in 2010-2011 Season.

Planting method

4 weeks

6 weeks

8 weeks

10 weeks

12 weeks

14 weeks

16 weeks

18 weeks

At harvest

DS. March

3.58e

6.75d

10.50c

14.50d

18.25c

21.00ab

20.41a

18.91a

15.41ab

DS. April

6.91d

9.16c

11.91c

14.25d

17.00c

17.50c

17.08b

16.00b

13.75b

ST. April

13.41a

15.33a

17.75a

22.50a

24.08a

22.58a

21.50a

19.91a

16.25a

DS. May

11.16b

12.66b

14.66b

17.08c

18.83bc

18.16c

16.41b

15.41b

14.08b

ST. May9.25

c11.66

b14.41

b19.66

b21.00

b20.16

b19.58

a18.83

a15.25

ab

Table 8: Average tiller numbers per meter as affected by planting methods in 2011-2012 Season.

Planting method

4 weeks

6 weeks

8 weeks

10 weeks

12 weeks

14 weeks

16 weeks

18 weeks

At harvest

DS. March

5.25 c

7.83c

11.00b

14.75b

18.08b

19.33a

17.66ab

16.16ab

12.91b

DS. April

12.00 a

14.33a

17.00a

22.00a

23.75a

21.41a

20.33a

18.75a

15.33a

ST. April

7.25 b

8.58c

10.25b

14.41b

16.16b

19.58a

19.33ab

18.33a

14.66ab

DS. May

10.58 a

11.41b

12.83b

15.41b

18.25b

18.33a

16.66b

14.66b

13.58ab

ST. May8.25

b8.83

c9.75

b13,75

b17.41

b17.91

a17.16

b15.08

b13.75

ab

Fig.3 : Graphical presentation of the development of actual number of tillers per meter for the five planting methods during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons (A&B).

A B

Table 9: Regression equation of tiller number per meter as affected by age for the five tested planting methods in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons.

Planting method2010-20112011-2012

DS. MarchY= 0.4296+1.2555XY= 3.6825+0.9162X

DS. AprilY= 5.6974+0.7302XY= 12.658+0.5491X

ST. AprilY= 13.584+0.5501XY= 3.6925+0.9588X

DS. MayY= 11.574+0.3616XY= 9.9147+0.4415X

ST. MayY= 8.622+0.7455XY= 5.8165+0.7004X

CD

Conclusion

• under the conditions of this work, it is clear that transplanting of sugarcane can be a measure to compensate for delayed planting of spring sugarcane without adverse effect on tillering pattern or the final number of millable stalks.

• The slight decrease in number of millable stalks can be acceptable by farmers due to the economic return of the preceding crop.