Effect of Water Deficit on Yield, Quality and Water Productivity of Sugarcane

Received 15 Apr, 2023

Accepted 21 May, 2024

Published 22 May, 2024

Background and Objective: In Sudan, sugarcane crop is exposed to a certain level of water deficit during particular periods, usually before and after the rainy season caused by technical problems with irrigation pumps. This shortage of irrigation water that occasionally happens with different levels is expected to reduce yield and quality. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of water deficit caused by wide intervals before and after rainfall on yield, quality and water productivity of plant cane. Materials and Methods: A field experiment was conducted during seasons 20108/19 and 2019/20 at Guneid Sugarcane Research Center Farm, Sudan. The experiment led to a randomized complete plot design with four replications. The treatments involved three levels of water deficit before rainfall; WDI₁: 30 days, WDI₂: 50 days, WDI₃: 70 days and after rainfall; WDI₄: 30 days, WDI₅: 50 days WDI₆: 70 days compared with control WDI₀: 12 days. Cane yield and quality parameters were recorded. Results: The experimental results revealed significant effects on cane yield parameters. The quality parameters resulted in no significant difference (p<0.05) in plant cane crops. Treatment WDI₁ gave significantly (p<0.05) the highest cane and sugar yield values. However, WDI₃ and WDI₆ treatments resulted in significantly (p<0.05) decreased in cane and sugar yield when compared with the other treatments. High values of water productivity were recorded when water deficit treatment was applied before rainfall. Conclusion: Water deficit treatments of 70 days before and after rainfall may be avoided in sugarcane irrigation scheduling. 

INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane (Saccharum offcinarum L.) is a field crop with a long growing season, normally 15 to 16 months and is grown between latitudes 35° north and south of the equator. Due to the high content of sucrose stored in the stalk. It is the first important crop in the production of sugar. It has been estimated that the total water requirement of a sugarcane crop varies from 20,000 to 30,000 m³/ha/year and it is tasrestimated that 12,000 to 13,000 m³ of water is required for a sugarcane crop of 12 months duration if used efficiently¹. Sometimes sugarcane crop is exposed to a certain level of water deficit during particular periods, usually before and after rainy season caused by drops on irrigation pumps^2,3. Water stress produced damage to crops and this damage depends on the stress duration, the crop and its development stage. The great damage to the productivity of stalks and sucrose is caused by longer and low water availability⁴. The crop growth pattern comprises three major stages, namely, early growth, grand growth and maturity growth⁵. The critical phases of cane growth were both tillering and elongation phases⁶. Kharif planted crop suffers due to water stress in its grand growth stage. The most important and sensitive phases were germination and tillering when exposed to soil moisture stress, which ultimately affects cane and sugar yield⁷. Thus, plants having different growth patterns result in different cane yields⁸.

The plant’s physiology, biochemical composition and sugarcane shape and structure are affected by sugar cane growth process⁶. Water stress affects biomass accumulation, the rate of water absorption, structural plant growth which changes the assimilation and sucrose accumulation⁷. The manner of production facing climate change in sugarcane management must promote an impellent efficient use of rainwater and minimize restrictive periods for crop development⁹. The most important factor reducing sugarcane production in the world is drought stress. Reduction in cane yield has been estimated at up to 60%¹⁰. In regions with high annual rainfall the water deficit is one of the main agriculture problems but with uneven distribution throughout the crop cycle, which has been intensified in crops under the influence of adverse climatic conditions³. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of water deficit caused by wide intervals before and after rainfall on yield, quality and water productivity of plant cane crops, Co 6806 cultivar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental site: A field trial was conducted at Sugarcane Research Center in the Guneid area during two growing seasons of 2018/19 started from 15/11/2019 and harvested after 15 months and 2019/20 started 15/11/2020 also harvested after 15 months. Guneid lies on latitude 14°S 48' and 15°0' N, Longitude 33°16' and 33°22' E and an altitude of 386 m above mean sea level. The soils of the area have been described as Suleimi soil series, vertisol with moderate fertility, due to high contents of smectitic clays, brown in colour, quite uniform and alkaline in reaction (pH ranged between 7.7 and 8.7). They are non-saline non-sodic, containing about 55 clay, 17 silt and 28% sand with a saturation of 61.5%, field capacity (FC) of 43.7%, welting point (WP) of 22.4% and available water content was 21.3%¹¹. Guneid climate is classified as semi-arid with a maximum temperature of 43°C, relative humidity ranges between 19 to 80% and annual rainfall was 282 and 267 mm during two growing seasons respectively¹¹.

Experimental design: The experimental design for the plant cane experiment was a factorial (2×4 factorial in RCBD) with four replications. The treatments involved three levels of water deficit before rainfall; WDI₁: 30 days, WDI₂: 50 days, WDI₃: 30 days and after rainfall; WDI₄: 30 days, WDI₅: 50 days, WDI₆: 70 days compared with control WDI₀: 12 days, replicated four times. The field experimental unit size was 112.5 m² (15m×7.5m) composed of five ridges.

Crop water requirement: Sugarcane Co 6806 cultivar was planted on the month of December. Furrow irrigation was used for the experiment and a parshal flume version 3.0 software was used to measure the quantity of water entering the field plots. The reference evapotranspiration (ET₀) for the Guneid area was computed using the FAO-Penman-Monteith approach computed using the equation as described by Jangpromma et al¹²:

CWR= ET₀×k_c

Whereas; CWR is crop water requirement (mm/day^-1), ET₀ is reference evapotranspiration under specified conditions and k_c is the crop coefficient. The computation of the actual evapotranspiration (ET_a) in mm/day for each month of the growing season was done upon entry of meteorological data. Cane yield and quality parameters: Cane yield parameters were recorded; stalk height (cm), stalk diameter (cm), stalk population and the juice quality parameters including sucrose percent pol (%), purity (%) cane and fiber (%) were determined from juice analyzed according to ICUMSA methods of analysis¹³. Moreover, cane yield (tc/ha) and sugar yield were calculated.

Water productivity (WP): Water productivity is one way of irrigation performance indicators. It can be calculated according to the equation¹³:

Statistical analysis: The collected data were analyzed using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) technique to evaluate the differences among treatments. Means were separated using the least significant difference (LSD) at a 5% level of significance. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistic 8.0-user guide-version 2.0 software USDA, NRCS March, 2007 USA.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Crop water requirements (CWR): The length of the rainy season is related to the duration of the rainy season received by plants and irrigation needed to meet plant water requirements and production estimates. The average rainfall to support high productivity is 1100-1500 mm/year with equitable distribution. Evapotranspiration during the growth of sugarcane ranges from 800 mm to 2000 mm¹⁴. According to Vicente et al.¹⁵ evapotranspiration is the main component of water loss to the atmosphere in a water balance, which is the relationship between canopy temperature and soil water potential. Table 1 shows the climatic data of the experimental area for the years 2017 to 2020. Table 2 shows the water requirements of sugarcane as a plant cane during the irrigation seasons. According to Vicente et al.¹⁵, evapotranspiration is the main component of water loss to the atmosphere in a water balance, which is the relationship between canopy temperature and soil water potential. So that, results indicated that the highest period of sugarcane water needs was the mid-season stage with water requirements that ranged from 4.7 to 9.3 mm/day, This is followed by the late season stage with a value of 4.3 to 6.40 mm/day water requirements, the development stage with 3.7 to 7.30 mm/day and the initial stage with 2.9 mm/day to 3.2 mm/day, respectively. The effective rainfall (Re) was recorded in the months of June to October, the values ranged from 11 to 124 mm. The results also indicated that the actual evapotranspiration (ET_a) reached a maximum value in the months of April and May. A similar trend was reported by Elbasheir et al.¹¹ and Abu Alama et al.¹⁶. Therefore, the seasonal water requirement for sugarcane as plant cane was the highest amount at periods of sugarcane water needs at the mid-season stage.

Effect of water deficit on cane yield and quality of sugarcane: Effect of water deficit on cane yield and quality of sugarcane: Experimental results data in Table 3a-b and 4a showed there was no significant (p<0.05) difference between water deficit treatments that were applied before and after rainfall in all cane yield and quality parameters. Mean while, Table 3b showed significant differences between water deficit treatments in cane yield parameters of cane length stem diameter and cane yield. So the poor irrigation interval can lead to the development of crop water deficit and result in a reduced yield due to water and nutrient efficiency¹⁷.

Table 4b showed that there was no significant difference between water deficit treatments on cane quality parameters of pol (%) cane, purity (%) cane and fiber (%). WDI₁: 30 days treatment recorded significantly the highest cane length value the highest number of millable stalks (×1000 ha^-1) and significantly recorded the highest cane yield compared to the other treatments. Rao et al.⁷ concluded that soil moisture stress/drought affects cane yield and cane quality. Especially formative stage of this crop (45-150 DAP) is the most sensitive stage to moisture stress and coincides with the summer period, depending on planting time.

Table 1:

Climatic data of the experimental area for the years 2017-2020

		Months
	Climatic data	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	Annual
2017	Maximum temperature (°C)	36.5	33.8	38.8	42.2	41.1	40.8	37.9	34.8	34.4	37.6	36.4	35.5
	Minimum temperature (°C)	18	15.8	18.8	25.3	25.1	25.4	24	23.1	22.8	21.9	19	17.6
	Relative humidity (%)	43.2	25.6	18.5	20.9	43.8	50.7	64.2	76.4	75.4	54.7	37.9	48.7
	Wind speed (m/sec)	2.5	2.2	2	2.2	2.4	4.4	4.2	3.3	3.1	1.3	5.8	4.8
	Evaporation (mm)	13.7	15.6	19.8	22.3	17.3	17.8	14.6	8.9	7.3	11.1	14.7	12.7
	Rainfall (mm)	-	-	-	-	22.5	20.9	23.8	107.2	42.3	46.8	-	-	263
2018	Maximum temperature (°C)	31.9	38.5	39.9	40.6	42	39.1	35.8	33.8	36	38.4	36.9	34.3
	Minimum temperature (°C)	14.4	20.3	19.8	21.2	25.8	24.4	23.5	22.7	21.9	22.3	18.3	15.8
	Relative humidity (%)	39.6	36.9	25.3	18.5	33.2	58.7	69.9	79.3	71.9	53.5	31	37.2
	Wind speed (m/sec)	1.9	1.7	1.6	1.7	2.5	4.3	3.5	2.1	2.4	1.3	1.4	1.8
	Evaporation (mm)	12.9	16.7	19.7	22.8	21	17.2	11.9	6.5	7.6	12	15.2	13.6
	Rainfall (mm)	-	-	-	-	3.1	64.4	88.2	69.4	57.1	-	-	-	282
2019	Maximum temperature (°C)	36.1	36.1	37.5	41.7	43.1	38.5	37.4	32.7	34.9	35	37.2	33.9
	Minimum temperature (°C)	17.2	19.1	18.8	22.5	25.7	24.4	23.5	22.8	23	22.1	18.8	15.1
	Relative humidity (%)	41.7	32.2	23.1	19.7	30.7	60.2	68.6	80.6	76.6	70.2	42.6	41.6
	Wind speed (m/sec)	1.9	2.1	1.9	1.7	2.4	4	4	2.5	2.8	1	1.1	1.5
	Evaporation (mm)	14.4	16.8	18.1	22.8	22	20.9	16.9	6.7	6.4	6.4	12	12.1
	Rainfall (mm)	-	-	-	-	-	15.6	43.4	129.7	69.7	8.4	-	-	267
2020	Maximum temperature (°C)	31.6	33.5	37.9	41.4	42.6	41.5	37.1	33.2	34.3	38.5	36.6	35.6
	Minimum temperature (°C)	12.8	14.4	24.8	22	25.6	24.9	22.2	20.1	22.7	24.7	18.3	16.4
	Relative humidity (%)	37.2	32.7	24.1	22	31.3	47.4	67.4	83.1	76.9	62.3	41.3	44.1
	Wind speed (m/sec)	1.8	2	1.9	1.7	1.8	3.7	4.5	2.6	3.8	1.4	1.4	1.4
	Evaporation (mm)	13.2	14.7	23.9	18.9	17.9	18.2	18.2	6.3	7.2	11.2	14.4	12.8
	Rainfall (mm)	-	-	-	-	-	-	33.5	142.1	15.4	-	-	-	191

Table 2:

Crop water requirements and rainfall (mm) during growing seasons

Date	Age	CWR 1st	CWR 2nd	Fall 1st	Fall 2nd	30 day	50 day	70 day	12 day	30 day	50 day	70 day
15/12	1	2.9	3										Water deficit interval before fall
01/01	15	3.2	4
151	30
01/2	45	3.7	4.3
15/2	60
01/3	75	4.3	4.8
15/3	90							3
01/4	105	7.3	6				2
15/4	120					I
01/5	135	9.2	8.7
15/05	150								0
16	165	8.4	9.3	67	11								Rainfall (mm)
15/06	180
17	195	6.6	9.2	88	45
15/7	210
01/8	225	6.1	8.8	69	124
15/8	240
01/9	255	5.9	6.8	57	66
15/9	270
01/10	285	4.7	5										Water deficit after fall
15/10	300
01/11	315	4.8	5.3							4
15/11	330										5
01/12	345	4.3	5.4									6
15/12	360
01/1	375	5.5	6.4
15/1	390
01/2	405	Dry off	Dry off
15/02/2019	420

Table 3a:

Effect of water deficit before and after rainfall on cane yield components

	Height (cm)		Thickness (cm)		Population (1000/ha)
Treatment (WDI)	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season
Before rainfall	251.0a	210.0a	2.36a	2.36a	107.5a	105.0b
After rainfall	249.0a	198.0a	2.31a	2.31a	105.0a	92.0a
Mean	250	204	2.34	2.34	106.25	115
CV (%)	10	11	5.81	5.81	9.0	15.0
LSD (p<0.05)	18	29	0.1	0.1	7.5	5.0
Means sharing the same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance, WDI: Water deficit intervals, CV (%): Coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 3b:

Effect of water deficit before and after rainfall on cane yield components

Treatment	Height (cm)		Thickness (cm)		Population (1000/ha)
(Intervals)	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season
12 days	264.0a	222.0a	2.44a	2.10b	105.0a	122.50a
30 days	258.0a	216.0a	2.28b	2.16ab	107.5a	117.5ab
50 days	246.0ab	200.0ab	2.38ab	2.20ab	105.0a	105.0bc
70 days	232.0b	177.0b	2.29b	2.29a	105.0a	95.0c
Mean	250.0	204.0	2.34	2.18	105.6	110.0
CV (%)	10.00	11.00	5.81	6.01	9.0	15.0
LSD (p<0.05)	25.00	23.00	0.14	0.14	8.0	17.5
Means sharing same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance, CV (%): Coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 4a:

Effect of water deficit before and after rainfall on sugarcane quality

	Pol (%)		Purity (%)		Fiber (%)
Treatment	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season
Before rainfall (WDI)	11.4a	11.6a	86.24a	86.09a	18.0a	17.93a
After rainfal (WDI)	l11.4a	11.4a	85.41a	85.91a	18.3a	18.14a
Mean	11.4	11.51	85.82	85.10	18.14	18.03
CV (%)	3.89	7.22	3.35	5.50	4.16	4.12
LSD (p<0.05)	0.33	0.67	2.11	4.46	0.56	0.27
Means sharing the same letters do not differ significantly at a5% level of significance, WDI: Water deficit intervals, CV (%): Coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 4b:

Effect of water deficit before and after rain fall on sugarcane quality

	Pol (%)		Purity (%)		Fiber (%)
Treatment (Intervals)	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season
12 Days	11.6a	11.5a	84.70bc	84.70a	18.0a	17.8a
30 Days	11.4a	11.8a	83.85c	86.87a	18.1a	18.1a
50 Days	11.6a	11.6a	86.98ab	87.45a	18.6a	18.0a
70 Days	11.2a	11.1a	87.77a	84.96a	18.0a	18.3a
Mean	11.5	11.5	85.82	86.00	18.1	18.0
CV (%)	3.9	7.2	3.35	5.50	4.2	4.1
LSD (p<0.05)	0.46	0.87	2.99	4.97	0.79	0.78
Means sharing same letters do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance, CV (%): Coefficient of variance , LSD: Least significant differences and Treat.: Treatments

In general, moisture stress in soil affects cane yield by reducing photosynthetic leaf area, number of tillers, number of millable canes, length and girth of cane and finally the weight of individual cane⁷. The WDI₁ treatment cane age before rainfall (WDI₁ treatment) has significantly (p<0.05) increased cane and sugar yield when compared with other treatments due to the fact that deficit irrigation with a low level of water stress at tillering (WDI₁) increases sugarcane plant numbers¹⁸. Moreover, water deficit during the mid-season stage when water deficit treatments were applied after rainfall significantly (p<0.05) decreased cane and sugar yield when compared to other treatments. This could mainly be due to the fact that the mid-season stage is most sensitive to water stress¹⁷. Generally, drought-tolerant canes maintain a higher relative water content than susceptible canes¹⁹.

Table 5a:

Effect of water deficit before and after rainfall on sugar and cane yield

	TSH (ton/ha)		TCH (ton/ha)
Treatment	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season
Bfore fall (WDI)	9.70a	6.98a	114.4a	82.36a
Ater fall (WDI)	8.93a	7.30a	105.3b	86.08b
Mean	9.3	7.15	109.8	84.23
CV (%)	12.50	16.03	9.88	11.00
LSD(p<0.05)	0.85	1.03	7.98	5.74
Means sharing the same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance, WDI: Water deficit intervals, TSH: Total sugar per hectare and TCH: Total cane per hectare, CV (%): Coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 5b:

Effect of water deficit before and after rainfall on sugar and cane yield

	TSH (ton/ha)		TCH (ton/ha)
Treatment (Intervals)	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season
12 Days	9.98a	8.25a	116.1a	96.75a
30 Days	10.20a	8.38a	1120.65a	94.75a
50 Days	9.00ab	6.83b	114.6b	79.7b
70 Days	8.10b	5.2c	78.36b	64.58c
Mean	9.3	7.15	97.95	83.93
CV (%)	12.5	16.03	9.88	12.61
LSD (p<0.05)	1.2	1.2	11.28	11.13
Means sharing the same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance, TSH: Total sugar per hectare,TCH: Total cane per hectare, CV (%): Coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Soil moisture stress affects cane quality in terms of percent sucrose and purity, besides aggravating certain pests and disease problems⁷. Cane and sugar yield were affected significantly (p<0.05) with decrease in cane and sugar yield when water deficit irrigation treatments were applied Table 5(a-b). This was agreed with Rao et al.⁷, who had reported, that water stress affects the rate of water absorption, biomass accumulation and structural plant growth and changes the assimilation and sucrose accumulation. Therefore, water deficit conditions show a negative response toward biochemical and physiological processes²⁰. The combined analysis of two seasons and for water deficit before and after rain-fall showed non-significant difference in growth, yield and quality paramerters Table 6(a-b) while in seasons there was a significant difference in TSH (Table 6c).

Effects of water deficit on sugarcane due to reduction in yield: Sugarcane yield was affected by water deficit as shown in Table 7. Low yield was observed when WDI₃, WDI₆, WDI₂, WDI₅ and WDI₄ treatments were applied. Cane yield had a positive effect when water deficit treatment WDI₁ (30 days before rainfall) was applied at the plant age of four months_. Thus, plants having different growth patterns result in different cane yields⁸. Increasing the plant’s ability to hold water and improve productivity under water deficit as Wasson et al.¹⁹ they were reported that the distribution of the root schemes depended strongly on the soil moisture. Moreover, Jangrunklang et al.²⁰ reported that longer roots in response to drought are important for plant resistance to drought.s Effect of water deficit on sugarcane water productivity: Table 8 shows the effect of water deficit on sugarcane water productivity. High values of water productivity were recorded when water deficit treatments were applied before rainfall, WDI₁ (30 days) and , WDI₂ (50 days), followed by WDI₄, WDI₀, WDI₅, W DI₃ andWDI₆. Yield reduction was not significant (p<0.05) when compared with the benefits of saved water. Ayana²¹ reported that deficit irrigation saved significant irrigation water without significant yield losses.

Table 6a:

Combine analysis factor A (WDI before and after fall)

Treatment (WDI)	Height (cm)	Thick.(cm)	Pol (%)	Purity (%)	Fiber (%)	TCH	TSH
WDI before fall	229.16a	2.26a	11.57a	85.75a	17.98a	94.05a	8.02a
WDI after fall	224.71a	2.25a	11.39a	85.95a	18.20a	92.83a	7.83a
Mean	226.94	2.26	11.49	85.850	18.10	93.43	7.93
CV (%)	10.3	5.90	5.63	4.63	3.83	11.82	14.34
LSD (p<0.05)	16.6	0.07	0.3248	1.9968	0.35	5.55	0.58
Means sharing same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance WDI: Water deficit intervals, TSH: Total sugar per hectare, TCH: Total cane per hectare, CV (%): coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 6b:

Combine analysis factor B (Irrigation deficit)

Treatment (Intervals)	Height (cm)	Thick.(cm)	Pol (%)	Purity (%)	Fiber (%)	TCH	TSH
12 days	243.1a	2.3a	11.5ab	84.45a	17.8a	102.75a	8.75a
30 days	236.8ab	2.2a	11.6a	85.37a	18.0a	104.0a	5.63a
50 days	223.2b	2.3a	11.6a	87.22a	18.3a	88.75b	9.0b
70 days	204.6c	2.3a	11.2b	86.36a	18.1a	78.25c	6.5c
Mean	226.9	2.3	11.5	85.85	18.1	93.5	8
CV (%)	10.3	5.9	5.63	4.63	3.8	11.8	14.3
LSD (p<0.05)	16.6	0.09	0.46	2.82	0.49	7.85	0.8
Means sharing same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance, TSH: Total sugar per hectare and TCH: Total cane per hectare, CV (%): coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 6c:

Season analysis on cance and sugar per hectare

Treatment (Intervals)	Height (cm)	Thick .(cm)	Pol (%)	Purity (%)	Fiber (%)	TCH	TSH
Season 1	250.0a	2.26a	11.5a	85.70a	18.14a	107.50a	8.73a
Season 2	204.0b	2.25a	11.5a	86.00a	18.03a	105.00a	7.15b
Mean	227	2.26	11.5	85.8	18.09	106.25	7.93
CV (%)	10.29	5.9	5.6	4.63	3.83	9	14.34
LSD (p<0.05)	11.74	0.07	0.3248	2	0.35	7.5	0.58
Means sharing same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance, TSH: Total sugar per hectare and TCH: Total cane per hectare, CV (%): Coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 7:

Effects of water deficit before and after rainfall on cane and sugar yield

	Reduction (%)
Treatment	TC	TS
WDI0	0	0
WDI1	6.7	8
WDI2	-17.3	-16.4
WDI3	-29.4	-25.1
WDI4	-4.8	-4.2
WDI5	-12.3	-11.5
WDI6	-21.9	-27.3
WDI0: Irrigated every 12 days (control), WDI1: Water deficit was 30 days before fall (BF), WDI2: Water deficit was 50 days (BF), WDI3: Water deficit was 70 days (BF), WDI4: Water deficit was 30 days after fall (AF), WDI5: Water deficit was 50 days (AF) and WDI6: Water deficit was 70 days (AF), TC: Total sugarcane and TS: Total sugar

Effect of water deficit on a number of irrigations and water saved: Data on irrigation water applied, saved CWR (m³ha^-1\season^-1 and water saved (m³) when water deficit treatments were applied before and after rainfall is shown in Table 9. Water saved was in high amount when water deficit was applied before fall WDI₂: 50 days and WDI₃: 70 days, followed by WDI₆, WDI₁, WDI₅ and WDI₄. The yield reduction was small, compared with the benefits gained through diverting the saved water to irrigate other cane with different ages for which water would normally be insufficient under Guniedirrigation practices. However, Bhebhe²², reported no significant difference between the stalk growth obtained between the 6-day and 12-day irrigation interval, the 12-day interval is recommended and could be used for irrigation to save water, resourcesand, inputs and at the same time reap higher yields. The efficiency of water use in sugarcane plants increased at irrigation rates from 56 to 83 kg/mm, which led to an increase in sugarcane yields ranging from 67.8 to 136.1 t/ha/year de²³.

Table 8:

Effect of water deficit before and after rainfall on water productivity

Treatment	CWR m3/ha		Total sugarcane		Water productivity
(WP)	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season	1st Season	2nd Season
WDI0	24560a	20490a	108.75b	96.74a	4.4c	4.7bc
WDI1	21390c	17590cd	122.25a	97.75a	5.7a	5.6a
WDI2	20130d	16050e	103.50bc	68.04c	5.1b	4.3b
WDI3	19000e	14850f	86.00cd	60.00c	4.5cd	4.1c
WDI4	22500b	19000b	104.00bc	91.74a	4.6c	4.8bc
WDI5	21440c	18000bc	94.00cd	86.25ab	4.4cd	4.8bc
WDI6	20310d	17040d	86.25d	75.50bc	4.3d	4.4c
Mean	21280	18200	102	81.88	4.8	4.7
CV (%)	1.65	2.88	9.8	14.1	1.65	5.06
LSD (p<0.05)	630	900	5	5.75	0.14	0.42
WDI0: Irrigated every 12 days (control), WDI1: Water deficit was 30 days before fall (BF), WDI2: Water deficit was 50 days (BF), WDI3: Water deficit interval was 70 days (BF), WDI4: Water deficit was 30 days after fall (AF), WDI5: Water deficit was 50 days (AF) and WDI6: Water deficit was 70 days (AF), CWR: Crop water requirement, means sharing the same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance, CV (%): Coefficient of variance and LSD: Least significant differences

Table 9:

Effect of water deficit intervals on number of irrigations applied and water saved

Treatment	No. of irrigations applied	No. of irrigation saved	CWR m3/ha/season	Water saved m3/ha/season
WDI0	32	0	22525	0
WDI1	30	2	19488	3037
WDI2	28	4	18088	4437
WDI3	26	6	16925	5600
WDI4	30	2	20750	1775
WDI5	28	4	19719	2806
WDI6	26	6	18675	3850
Means sharing the same letters do not differ significantly at a 5% level of significance WDI0: was irrigated every 12 days (control), WDI1: Water deficit was 30 days before fall (BF), WDI2: Water deficit was 50 days (BF), WDI3: Water deficit was 70 days (BF), WDI4: Water deficit was 30 days after fall (AF), WDI5: Water deficit was 50 days (AF), WDI6: Water deficit was 70 days (AF) and CWR: Crop water requirement

For all watering involved in this area, the amount of water from rain-fall must be taken into consideration as acompmintary irrigation to save the amount of water and reduce the number of irrigation. For future recommendations; water deficit treatments of 70 days before and after rainfall may be avoided in sugarcane irrigation scheduling.

CONCLUSION

The treatments involved three levels of water deficit before rainfall; WDI₁: 30 days, WDI₂: 50 days, WDI₃: 70 days and after rainfall; WDI₄: 30 days, WDI₅: 50 days WDI₆: 70 days compared with control WDI₀:12 days. The results revealed significant effects on cane yield parameters. The quality parameters resulted in no significant (p<0.05) in plant cane crops. Treatment WDI₁ gave significantly the highest cane and sugar yield values. However, WDI₃ and WDI₆ treatments resulted in significantly decreased cane and sugar yield when compared with the other treatments. High values of water productivity were recorded when water deficit treatment was applied before rainfall. Water deficit treatments of 70 days before and after rainfall may be avoided in sugarcane irrigation scheduling.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Water plays a greater role in all developmental stages of crops. Sugar cane grows for more than years (12 months) until harvestand, water plays a vital role in growth if any shortage of water or overlogging during rains leads to a reduction in quality and quantity. This research is conducted to evaluate the effect of water deficit caused by wide intervals before and after rainfall on yield, qualityand , water productivity of plant cane. Results revealed significant effects water deficit caused by wide intervals before and after rainfall on cane yield parameters. High values of water productivity were recorded when water deficit treatment was applied before rainfall. Water deficit treatments of 70 days before and after rainfall should be avoided in sugarcane irrigation scheduling.

REFERENCES

1. Leal, M.R.L.V., A.S. Walter and J.E.A. Seabra, 2013. Sugarcane as an energy source. Biomass Convers. Biorefin., 3: 17-26.
2. Ferreira, T.H., M.S. Tsunada, D. Bassi, P. Araujo and L. Mattiello et al., 2017. Sugarcane water stress tolerance mechanisms and its implications on developing biotechnology solutions. Front. Plant Sci., 8: 1077.
3. Kölln, O.T., G.J. de Castro Gava, H. Cantarella, S.R. Silva and P.C.O. Trivelin, 2021. Sugarcane yield loss due to water and nitrogen deficiencies evaluated by carbon isotopic discrimination method. Emir. J. Food Agric., 33: 751-763.
4. Inman-Bamber, N.G., 2004. Sugarcane water stress criteria for irrigation and drying off. Field Crops Res., 89: 107-122.
5. Ramesh, P., 2000. Effect of different levels of drought during the formative phase on growth parameters and its relationship with dry matter accumulation in sugarecane. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 185: 83-89.
6. Sulistiono, W., Taryono, P. Yudono and Irham, 2017. Growth analysis of transplanted sugarcane bud chips seedling in the dry land. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res., 6: 87-93.
7. Rao, C.M., P.S. Rao, M. Vijayakumar and M. Bharathalakshmi, 2021. Drought management in sugarcane at formative stage during pre-monsoon period. Biol. Forum-Int. J., 13: 241-244.
8. Abu-Ellail, F.F.B., A.F.I. Gadallah and I.S.H. El-Gamal, 2020. Genetic variance and performance of five sugarcane varieties for physiological, yield and quality traits influenced by various harvest age. J. Plant Prod., 11: 429-438.
9. Gurski, B.C., J.L.M. de Souza, R.A. de Oliveira and E. Gerstemberg, 2020. Water requirements and restrictions to sugarcane in cane plants and ratoon cane cycles in Southern Brazil. Acta Agron., 69: 136-144.
10. Chumphu, S., N. Jongrungklang and P. Songsri, 2019. Association of physiological responses and root distribution patterns of ratooning ability and yield of the second ratoon cane in sugarcane elite clones. Agronomy, 9.
11. Elbashier, H., S. Yagoub, N. Khalil and A. Mariod, 2023. Effect of water deficit at different growth periods on yield, quality and water productivity of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) under central Sudan agro-climatic zone. Yuzuncu Yıl Univ. J. Agric. Sci., 33: 313-326.
12. Jangpromma, N., S. Kitthaisong, K. Lomthaisong, S. Daduang, P. Jaisil and S. Thammasirirak, 2010. A proteomics analysis of drought stress-responsive proteins as biomarker for drought-tolerant sugarcane cultivars. Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol., 6: 89-102.
13. de Whalley, H.C.S., 1964. ICUMSA Methods of Sugar Analysis: Official and Tentative Methods Recommended by the International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (ICUMSA). 1st Edn., Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, ISBN: 978-1-4832-2832-7, Pages: 153.
14. Multsch, S., J.F. Exbrayat, M. Kirby, N.R. Viney, H.G. Frede and L. Breuer, 2015. Reduction of predictive uncertainty in estimating irrigation water requirement through multi-model ensembles and ensemble averaging. Geosci. Model Dev., 8: 1233-1244.
15. de Paulo Rodrigues da Silva, V., C.J.R. Borges and W.G. de Albuquerque, 2014. Water requirements of sugarcane grown in tropical climates. Semina: Agric. Sci., 35: 625-632.
16. Abu Alama, I.E.M., S.O. Yagoub, M. Abdelhaleem and A. Mariod, 2022. Effect of potassium sulphate fertilizer doses on sugarcane growth yield and quality grown in Sudan. Yuzuncu Yıl Univ. J. Agric. Sci., 32: 635-640.
17. Iqbal, R., M.A.S. Raza, M. Toleikiene, M. Ayaz and F. Hashemi et al., 2020. Partial root-zone drying (PRD), its effects and agricultural significance: A review. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent., 44.
18. Garcia, F.H.S., A.M.C. Mendonça, M. Rodrigues, F.I. Matias and M.P. da Silva Filho et al., 2020. Water deficit tolerance in sugarcane is dependent on the accumulation of sugar in the leaf. Ann. Appl. Biol., 176: 65-74.
19. Wasson, A.P., R.A. Richards, R. Chatrath, S.C. Misra and S.V.S. Prasad et al., 2012. Traits and selection strategies to improve root systems and water uptake in water-limited wheat crops. J. Exp. Bot., 63: 3485-3498.
20. Jongrungklang, N., B. Toomsan, N. Vorasoot, S. Jogloy, K.J. Boote, G. Hoogenboom and A. Patanothai, 2013. Drought tolerance mechanisms for yield responses to pre-flowering drought stress of peanut genotypes with different drought tolerant levels. Field Crops Res., 144: 34-42.
21. Ayana, M., 2011. Deficit irrigation practices as alternative means of improving water use efficiencies in irrigated agriculture: Case study of maize crop at Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 6: 226-235.
22. Bhebhe, Q.N., 2020. The effects of different irrigation intervals on stalk height and circumference of the sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L). Int. J. Progressive Sci. Technol., 20: 205-210.
23. de P.R. da Silva, V., B.B. da Silva, W.G. Albuquerque, C.J.R. Borges, I.F. de Sousa and J.D. Neto, 2013. Crop coefficient, water requirements, yield and water use efficiency of sugarcane growth in Brazil. Agric. Water Manage., 128: 102-109.