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.
Copyright © 2024 Elbasheir et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
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 pumps2,3. 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:
Whereas; CWR is crop water requirement (mm/day-1), ET0 is reference evapotranspiration under specified conditions and kc is the crop coefficient. The computation of the actual evapotranspiration (ETa) 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 (ETa) 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Inman-Bamber, N.G., 2004. Sugarcane water stress criteria for irrigation and drying off. Field Crops Res., 89: 107-122.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
How to Cite this paper?
APA-7 Style
Elbasheir,
H.A., Yagoub,
S.O., Mukhtar,
S.A. (2024). Effect of Water Deficit on Yield, Quality and Water Productivity of Sugarcane . Trends in Applied Sciences Research, 19(1), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3923/tasr.2024.93.103
ACS Style
Elbasheir,
H.A.; Yagoub,
S.O.; Mukhtar,
S.A. Effect of Water Deficit on Yield, Quality and Water Productivity of Sugarcane . Trends Appl. Sci. Res 2024, 19, 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3923/tasr.2024.93.103
AMA Style
Elbasheir
HA, Yagoub
SO, Mukhtar
SA. Effect of Water Deficit on Yield, Quality and Water Productivity of Sugarcane . Trends in Applied Sciences Research. 2024; 19(1): 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3923/tasr.2024.93.103
Chicago/Turabian Style
Elbasheir, Haitham, Ageeb Mohammed, Samia Osman Yagoub, and Salaheldin Ahmed Mukhtar.
2024. "Effect of Water Deficit on Yield, Quality and Water Productivity of Sugarcane " Trends in Applied Sciences Research 19, no. 1: 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3923/tasr.2024.93.103
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.