Effect of method and density of planting on growth and yield of late planted sugarcane
- 343 Downloads
Field experiments were conducted at Sugarcane Research Station, Jalandhar during 1998–99 and 1999–00 to study the effect of method and density of planting on germination, growth and yield of late planted sugarcane. Five methods of planting viz. planting under proper soil moisture condition followed by (f.b.) planking (P1); planting in dry soil f.b. planking and irrigation (P2); planting in furrows, covering the seed sets with 2 cm soil layer f.b. irrigation and blind hoeing (P3); Same as in P3 but no soil covering (P4); and Irrigation in furrows and then planting in furrows (P5) were kept in main plots, and three levels of planting density i.e. 90, 60 and paired rows of 60:30 cm row spacing (constituting a seed rate of 37,500, 56,250 and 75,000 three budded set/ha, respectively) in sub plots. The experiment was laid out in split-plot design with three replications. The sugarcane cv. CoJ 84 was planted on April 22, 1998 and April 14, 1999 during 1st and 2nd year of experimentation. The results indicated that, on an average, the per cent germination was maximum (53.0%) under P3 though at par to P1 (50.1%) and P4 (49.0%) but significantly better than under P2 (28.8%) and P5 (36.2%). Paired row (60:30 cm) planting recorded the maximum germination (47.1%) which was higher by 10.0 and 15.0% than under 90 and 60 cm planting, respectively. The cane yield during 1st year was maximum under P3 (53.4 t/ha) and it was at par to P4 (52.1 t/ha) and p1 (50.1 t/ha) but significantly higher than P2 (38.0 t/ha) and P5 (35.4 t/ha). During the 2nd year also, the yield under P3 was maximum (55.6 t/ha) but at par to P1 (52.3 t/ha) only. Among the density of planting, on an average, planting in paired rows of 60:30 cm increased the cane yield by 14.0 and 16.8 per cent compared to 90 and 60 cm row spacing, respectively; cane yield under 90 and 60 cm spacing was at par. These results concluded that under late sown conditions, planting in furrows, covering the setts with 2 cm soil layer f.b. irrigation and blind hoeing and planted in paired rows (using 75,000 three budded setts/ha), was the most beneficial method of planting.
KeywordsSugarcane planting methods growth yield late planted sugarcane
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anonymous (1998) Annual report (1997-98). Punjab Agricultural University Sugarcane Research Station, Jalandhar. pp 8.Google Scholar
- Bajelan, B. and Nazir, N. S. (1993). Effect of fertility variation and planting pattern on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane.Intl. J. Tropical Agri.,11: 249–254.Google Scholar
- Clements, H. F. (1980). Sugarcane crop logging and crop control: Principles and practices. Pituman Publishing Co., London. pp. 133.Google Scholar
- Dhawan, A. K., Sahtiya, H. L. and Dendsay, J.P.S. (1997). Low germination of sugarcane setts in Indian sub-tropics: Constraints and their Management.Indian J. Sugarcane Tech.,12: 17–21.Google Scholar
- Phogat, S. S., Verma, S. S. and Kumar, S. (1989). Effect of row spacing and nitrogen on late planted sugarcane.Indian J. Agron.,34: 257–258.Google Scholar
- Prasad, S. R., Motivale, M. P. and Singh, A. B. (1979). Effect of plant population and moisture regime on yield and quality of timely and late planted sugarcane in North-India.Indian J. Agric. Sci.,49: 252–265.Google Scholar
- Singh, D., Jain, D. L. and Singh, D. (1994). Effect of K in combination with planting pattern on autumn sugarcane.Indian J. Agric. Sci.,64: 397–399.Google Scholar
- Srivastava, S. N. L., Ranwa, R. S. and Kumar, S. (1997). Influence of planting geometry and nitrogen levels on sugarcane and sugar productivity.Indian J. Sugarcane Tech.,12: 17–21.Google Scholar
- Yadav, D. V. and Singh, G. B. (1997). Appropriate agro-techniques to enhance sugar productivity.Indian J. Sugarcane Tech.,12: 1–16.Google Scholar
- Yadav, R. L., Singh, R. V., Singh, R. and Srivastava, V. K. (1997). Effect of planting geometry and fertilizer N on nitrate leaching, NUE and sugarcane yield.Tropical Agri.,74: 115–120.Google Scholar