development of tillering pattern under transplanting and direct sowing methods in spring planted...
TRANSCRIPT
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.