Thesis 1

PLANT GEOMETRY IN SUGARCANE MECHANIZATION
Darpana Patel and Dr. V.C. Raj

DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
N.M. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
NAVSARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
NAVSARI-396 450
GUJARAT, INDIA
ABSTRACT
Field experiments were conducted at Main Sugarcane
Research Station, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat, India
to study the "Plant geometry in relation to mechanization in sugarcane
(Saccharum officinarum)" during rabi seasons of 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012. The soil of the experimental field was clay in texture, medium in
available nitrogen (293.2 kg ha-1), medium in available phosphorus (29.43
kg ha-1) and fairly rich in available potassium (322.00 kg ha-1).
Total sixteen treatment combinations consisting of four plant
geometries viz., P1: 90 cm between rows (normal row), P2: 120 cm between
rows (normal row), P3: 150 cm between rows (normal row) and P4: 30:150
cm twin row planting and four varieties viz., CoN 05071 (V1), CoN 08072
(V2), Co 86032 (V3) and Co 99004 (V4). The experiment was laid out in
split plot design with four replications.
Almost all the growth and yield attributes such as total plant
height, number of tillers, dry matter accumulation, millable cane height and
number of millable canes per metre row length were significantly
influenced by various plant geometries. Significantly higher values of all
1
these parametres were recorded with plant geometry P2 (120 cm normal
row spacing). Consequently, planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm row
spacing (P2) recorded significantly higher cane and sugar yields than other
plant geometries. Almost all the quality parametres were not influenced
significantly by different plant geometries. Number of total weeds, dry
weight of weeds, nutrient content and uptake by weeds and nutrient content
by plant did not differ significantly due to different plant geometries. Total
uptake of nutrient by plant was significantly maximum with planting of
sugarcane setts at 120 cm normal row spacing (P 2). The maximum net
realization of ₹ 2, 41, 099 ha-1 with BCR 2.90 was achieved with plant
geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing). Looking to the mechanization, normal
row spacing (120 cm) and twin row planting (30:150 cm) found suitable.
Various varieties showed significant variation in growth as
well as yield attributes. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded significant
improvement in number of tillers, total plant height and dry matter
accumulation at almost all the growth stages. Similarly, millable cane
height, number of internodes per cane, number of millable canes, cane girth
and single cane weight were significantly improved with variety V 1 (CoN
05071). Considerable improvement in pol (sucrose) % in juice, pol
(sucrose) % in cane, purity %, and C.C.S. % were noticed with variety V 1
(CoN 05071) and V4 (Co 99004). Weed population, nutrient content and
uptake by weed did not differ significantly due to different varieties.
Maximum nutrient content as well as total uptake by sugarcane crop were
noted with variety V1 (CoN 05071). The maximum net realization of ₹ 2,
41,770 ha-1 with BCR 2.86 was achieved with variety V1 (CoN 05071)
followed by variety V2 (CoN 08072) with net realization ₹ 2, 11,681 ha-1
and BCR 2.63. With regards to mechanization, variety CoN 05071 and or
CoN 08072 found equally suitable.
2
With respect to interaction effect, maximum value for almost
all the growth, yield and it's attributes, quality, total nutrient uptake were
recorded under planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm normal row spacing
(P2) with variety V1 (CoN 05071) with higher net realization. From
mechanization point of view, plant geometry P 2 (120 cm normal row
spacing) and P4 (30: 150 cm twin row planting) coupled with variety CoN
05071 and or CoN 08072 found most suitable.
On the basis of the results obtained from the present
investigation, it can be concluded that higher remunerative production of
sugarcane crop can be achieved by planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm
normal row spacing with variety CoN 05071. While 120 cm normal row
spacing or 30 : 150 cm twin row planting with variety CoN 08072 looking
to the feasibility found suitable for mechanization (planting, inter
cultivation, earthing up and harvesting) in sugarcane crop.
CONTENTS
3
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
NO. NO.
I INTRODUCTION 01
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 40
IV EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 70
V DISCUSSION 145
VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 161
REFERENCES 168
APPENDICES 1-46
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE

1 Physico-chemical properties of the soils of 41
experimental site
2 Mean weekly meteorological data recorded during 43
2010-2011 crop season
3 Mean weekly meteorological data recorded during 46
2011-2012 crop season
4 Cropping history of the experimental fields 50
5 Schedule of cultural operations carried out during the 59
4
period of investigation
6 Germination percentage of sugarcane as influenced 71
by plant geometry and variety
7 Number of tillers per metre row length in sugarcane 73
as influenced by plant geometry and variety
8 Total plant height (cm) of sugarcane as influenced by 76
plant geometry and variety
9 Dry matter accumulation by plant (t ha-1) at 90 DAP 79
as influenced by plant geometry and variety during
2010-2011and 2011-2012
2010-2011and 2011-2012
2010-2011and 2011-2012
5
Contd… List of Table
TABL TITLE PAGE
E
12 Dry matter accumulation by plant (t ha -1) at 82
harvest as influenced by plant geometry and variety
during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
13 Percent weed species observed in the experiment plots 85
14 Effect of plant geometry and variety on weed 86
population per m2 at 45 DAP
5 Effect of plant geometry and variety on weed 88
population per m2 at 90 DAP
16 Effect of plant geometry and variety on dry weight of 90
weeds (g m-2) at 90 DAP and final earthing up (kg ha-1)
17 Effect of plant geometry and variety on millable cane 93
height (cm) at harvest
18 Effect of plant geometry and variety on number of 95
millable canes per metre row length at harvest
millable canes per hectare at harvest
20 Effect of plant geometry and variety on millable cane 99
girth (cm) at harvest
internodes per millable cane at harvest
22 Effect of plant geometry and variety on single cane 102
weight (kg) at harvest
23 Effect of plant geometry and variety on cane yield (t ha - 104
1
)
24 Effect of plant geometry and variety on pol per cent 108
juice, pol per cent cane and purity per cent
Contd… List of Table
TABLE TITLE PAGE

25 Effect of plant geometry and variety on C.C.S. per cent 110
6
and fibre per cent
26 Effect of plant geometry and variety on commercial 112
cane sugar yield (t ha-1)
27 Effect of plant geometry and variety on N content (%) 114
and depleted (kg ha-1) by weeds at final earthing up
28 Effect of plant geometry and variety on P 2O5 content 116
(%) and depleted (kg ha-1) by weeds at final earthing up
29 Effect of plant geometry and variety on K 2O content 118
(%) and depleted (kg ha-1) by weeds at final earthing up
30 Effect of plant geometry and variety on nutrients 120
content (%) of sugarcane leaf blade at harvest
content (%) of sugarcane leaf sheath at harvest
content (%) of sugarcane stalk at harvest
33 Effect of plant geometry and variety on total nutrients 130
uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane plant at harvest
34 Simple correlation coefficient among different 134
characters of sugarcane crop (2010-2011)
35 Simple correlation coefficient among different 138
characters of sugarcane crop (2011-2012)
36 Economic evaluation of plant geometry and variety 142
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE AFTER

PAGE
1 Meteorological parametres recorded during 2010- 48
2011 crop season
2 Meteorological parametres recorded during 2011- 48
2012 crop season
7
3 Plan of layout 51
4 Number of tillers per metre row length as influenced 73
by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and
2011-2012
5 Number of tillers per hectare as influenced by plant 73
geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012
6 Total plant height (cm) as influenced by plant 76
2012 at different growth stages
7 Dry matter accumulation by leaf blade (t ha-1) at 82
different periodical stages as influenced by plant
geometry and variety during 2010-2011and 2011-
2012
8 Dry matter accumulation by leaf sheath (t ha-1) at 82
different periodical stages influenced by plant
geometry and variety during 2010-2011and 2011-
2012
9 Dry matter accumulation by stalk (t ha-1) at different 82
periodical stages influenced by plant geometry and
variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
8
Contd.. List of Figures
FIGUR TITLE AFTER
E PAGE
10 Total dry matter accumulation by sugarcane plant 82
(t ha-1) at different periodical stages
influenced by plant geometry and variety during
2010-2011and 2011-2012
11 Dry weight of weed (g m-2) at 90 DAP as 90
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
12 Dry weight of weed (kg ha-1) at final earthing up as 90
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
13 Millable cane height (cm) as influenced by plant 93
2012
14 Number of millable cane (NMC) per metre row 95
length as influenced by plant geometry and variety
during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
15 Number of millable cane (NMC) per hectare as 97
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
16 Number of internodes per millable cane per 100
hectare as influenced by plant geometry and
variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
17 Single cane weight as influenced by plant 102
2012
Contd.. List of Figures
FIGURE TITLE AFTER
9
PAGE
-1
18 Cane yield (t ha ) as influenced by plant 104
geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and
2011-2012
19 Cane yield (t ha-1) as influenced by plant 104
geometry and variety in pooled data
20 C.C.S. yield (t ha-1) as influenced by plant 112
geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and
2011-2012
21 Nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane plant as 130
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
22 Phosphorus uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane plant 130
as influenced by plant geometry and variety
during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
23 Potassium uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane plant as 130
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
LIST OF PLATES
10
PLATE TITLE AFTER
S PAGE
1 Sugarcane planter 144
2 Ridger 144
3 Mechanical harvester 144
11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
% - Per cent m -Metre (s)
@ - At the rate of m-2 -Per square metre (s)
0
C - Degree Celsius Max. - Maximum
BCR - Benefit cost ratio Min. - Minimum
CCS -Commercial cane sugar ml - Millilitre
C.D. - Critical difference mm - Millimetre (s)
cm - Centimetre (s) MT - Million tonne (s)
C.V. - Coefficient of variation N - Nitrogen
DAP - Days after planting No./no. - Number(s)
dS m-1 - Decisiemens per metre NS - Non-significant
et al. - And others P - Phosphorus
EC -Emulsify concentrate pH - Soil reaction
Fig. - Figure RD - Recommended dose
g - Gram(s) RDF - Recommended dose of
fertilizer (s)
GDP - Gross Domestic Product RH - Relative humidity
g m-2 - gram per square metre ₹ - Rupees
G. M. -Green manure r - Correlation co-efficient
ha - Hectare(s) Sig. Significant
ha-1 - Per hectare S. Em. - Standard error of mean
hrs - Hour(s) SPD - Split plot design
hr-1 -per hour Sr. - Serial
hrs day-1 -hours per day Sq. mt -Square metre
K -Potassium t -Tonne(s)
kg. -Kilogram (s) t ha-1 - Tonne per hectare
kg ha-1 -Kilogram per hectare Viz. - Namely
i.e. - That is
TERMINOLOGY
Plant crop
First planted crop raised from setts.
Fibre
Technically, fibre is dry, water insoluble matter in the cane.
12
Un-stripped cane yield
Total above ground cane biomass per unit area.
Stripped cane yield

Cane without tops and trash.
13
INTRODUCTION
I INTRODUCTION
Sugarcane is the second most important industrial crop of

India with highest production of sugar after Brazil. The area occupying in
the country is 5.04 million ha with the production and productivity of
361.04 million tonnes and 71.6 t ha-1, respectively (Anon., 2013a). About 4
14
million growers are involved in the cultivation of sugarcane in India. Sugar
industry contributes significantly to the rural economy as the sugar mills
are mostly located in the rural areas and provide large scale employment
for nearly 4 % of the rural population. The various byproducts of sugar
industry also contribute to the economic growth by promoting a number of
subsidiary industries. Sugarcane is emerging as a multiproduct crop used as
a basic raw material for the production of sugar, ethanol, electricity, paper
and boards besides a host of ancillary products viz., molasses, spirit,
bagasse, compost etc. Molasses is the cheapest feedstock for the distilleries
and the large part of the ethanol requirement of the country is going up
steadily and the potential of ethanol as a biofuel is seriously debated. One
hectare of sugarcane land with a yield of 82 t ha-1 produces about 7000
liters of ethanol. Generation of electricity using bagasse has become a
standard option for the sugar industry. The use of bagasse as a substitute
raw material for wood pulp in paper industry is vital for economical and
environmental sustainability.
Sugarcane, as a C4 plant, is photosynthetically the most
efficient crop which can fix 2-3 % of solar radiation. One hectare of
sugarcane crop may produce 100 tonnes of green matter every year, which
is two times more than agricultural yield of most other commercial crops.
In India, sugar is an essential item of mass consumption and the cheapest
source of energy, supplying around 10 % of the daily calorie intake.
Sugarcane cultivation in the country extends from 7º to 32º N
latitude covering both tropics and sub tropics. The regions located south of
23º N latitude are ideally suited for growing sugarcane due to long sunshine
hours throughout the year which facilitates better growth. The yield levels
in subtropical areas are significantly lesser (~56 t ha -1) as compared to the
tropics (~ 82 t ha-1), because sprouting and growth during winter months
15
are severely affected. Development of varieties capable of winter sprouting
and growth is the most essential if the current yield levels of subtropics are
to be improved. Sugarcane cultivation in the country is associated with
inherent inconsistencies in area and production due to various factors like
climate, fluctuating cane sugar prices, notable increase in cost of
production, inputs and labourers and scarcity of labourers etc. The present
requirement of sugar in the country is 23 million tonnes which is the
highest in the world. Due to huge domestic demands, the current
production can meet the domestic requirements with minimal export share
and it would have warranted massive imports. Contribution of sugarcane to
the national GDP is about 1.1 % indicating that the crop is grown only in
2.57 % of the gross cropped area. Contribution of sugarcane to the
agricultural GDP has steadily increased from 5 % in 1990-91 to 10 % in
2010-11. During the last two decades, the average annual growth of
sugarcane agriculture sector was about 2.6 % as against overall growth of 3
% in agriculture sector in the country (NAAS, 2009).
Improvement in cane and sugar yields and reduction in cost of
production are the key issues to be tackled by the cane growers judiciously.
Approximately, 75 per cent of the total cost of production of sugar is
attributable for raw material i.e. sugarcane alone. Cost on labourers, seeds,
fertilizers, irrigation, plant protection, tillage operation etc. are most
responsible for higher cost of production in sugarcane. The use of labourers
in sugarcane cultivation is substantial for various operations throughout the
crop period. On an average, 134 man hours of labour force is employed to
produce 1 MT sugar. Nearly, 25-35 per cent of the total cost of production
is being spent on the labour alone, out of which one third is on actual
cultivation and two third on harvesting, loading and transportation. The
various timely cultivation practices tend to usually delayed due to non
16
availability of labour force leading to considerable reduction in yield of
sugarcane. Similarly, operations like harvesting and transportation get
delayed due to conventional practices leading to reduced yields of cane and
sugar. Under these circumstances, mechanization at various stages of
sugarcane cultivation especially planting, interculturing, harvesting etc.
would go a long way in making sugarcane cultivation economically viable
and profitable. As such, techniques which would provide scope for
mechanization for minimizing cost of production besides improving the
cane and sugar yields are highly warranted. Secondly, the deteriorating
status of soil health and environmental quality necessitates quality in
production, conservation of resources and environment protection so as to
achieve sustainable production in sugarcane and sugar industry in the
country. In this context, proper plant geometry gains great importance.
Under the present circumstances of ever increasing cost of
cultivation and deteriorating soil health, there is prime need to bring about
considerable modifications in the production practices of sugarcane.
Conventionally, sugarcane planted at spacing of 90-105 cm is not suitable
for mechanized operations. Therefore, planting at different row spacing
technique was primarily thought to introduce mechanization in sugarcane
cultivation. Cultivation of sugarcane at a spacing of 120, 150 or 180 cm is
often referred as 'Wider row planting technique'. Wider row planting is
conceived to facilitates and introduce mechanization in sugarcane to reduce
cost of production in contrast to conventional method of planting.
Yield potential of a variety can be achieved by manipulating
agronomic practices where plant geometry influences the productivity of
sugarcane by maintaining optimum stalk population per unit area. Efficient
interception of radiant energy requires adequate leaf area, uniform
distribution of plants to give maximum ground cover. This is achievable by
17
planting geometry over the land surface. This technique has been
developed to obtain the maximum yield advantage with the best use of
available resources. Wider row planting in tropical areas have been found
to produce higher cane yields, facilitate mechanization of field operations
and reduce production costs (Sundara, 2003a). In the tropical states, it may
give higher yield under good drainage, soil conditions and proper
management with appropriate high tillering and yielding varieties. Under
South Gujarat conditions, it is reported that yields of 141 t ha -1 was
achieved by adopting wide row spacing (150 cm) (Mangal Rai, 2002).
Wide row spaced planting helps to provide abundant sunlight for increasing
cane yield, provides proper space for intercropping and interculturing
operations and also proper adoption of mechanization thereby increasing
the per unit profitability (Panghal, 2010 and Chaudhari et al.,2010).
Adoption of appropriate plant geometry in relation to different varieties for
cane mechanization holds a great potential to attain maximum productivity.
In plant cludistics, it is said that only the high-sugared ones
would survive any aberrance in the ecosystem and this giant grass has
survival through several millennia. Now it is one of the most important
crops supporting an agro-based industry in the world. India would need to
produce 415 mt of sugarcane with a recovery of 11 per cent to meet per
capita requirement of 35 kg sweeteners per year including 20 kg sugar and
15.0 kg gur and khandsari by 2020 A.D. (Singh et al., 2002). These
projections assume that cane productivity could be increased by increasing
the area under high sugar possessing early maturing sugarcane genotypes.
Use of high yielding varieties plays a remarkable role in increasing
sugarcane production (Ahmed, 1990). Adoption of high yielding genotypes
not only increase cane tonnage per hectare but also enhances sugar
production. However, cane yield and quality in sugarcane are dependent on
18
several quantitative inherited characters which themselves are also
influenced by environment. In subtropical belt, the availability of sugarcane
varieties with higher sugar content early in the crushing seasons is an
important strategy to fetch high sugar recovery in the mills. To achieve this
goal, development of early maturing high sugar genotypes is under
progress. The genotypes developed showed variable response to different
agronomic practices. Row spacing has a direct effect on plant population
and plays distinct role in amount of solar radiation interception. Moreover,
the genotypes having high or low tiller dynamics shows variable response
to change in planting density/row spacing. Early and short duration
varieties perform well under closer spacing while late varieties require
wider spacing (Gopalasundaram, 2009). To facilitate mechanized sugarcane
harvesting, varieties with suitable characteristics are needed. The varieties
which are erect, uniform in height, limited/non flowering, resistant to
lodging and having shorter stalk with high tillering are more preferable.
Sugarcane production is increased remarkably from last few
decades which were made possible due to development of high yielding
varieties and efficient crop production and protection technologies. The
demand of sugar in the country by 2030 will be 36 mt for which the
production has to be around 500 mt. This has to be achieved with the same
or reduced land area and with reduced manpower and water resources.
Combinations of efficient mechanization equipment/technique along with
high yielding varieties are going to play a pivotal role for this.
The farm labour input in sugarcane agriculture is becoming
costlier on the one side and on the other, the labour efficiency, the turnover
of work and duration of working hours are deplorable deteriorating
resulting in poor crop management, increasing the cost of cultivation and
reduce income to the farmers. Hence, farm mechanization is need of hour.
19
Mechanization does not totally means tractorisation, but also making
available adequate other matching equipment and implements to the
farmers to reduce the human efforts and improve the working efficiency.
Mechanization assures timely seed bed preparation and to bring precision
in metering seed, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and harvesting which
helps in increasing productivity with reduced losses, unit cost of production
and drudgery to men and women who work in crop cultivation. It also
helps in conserving the produce and byproducts, create agro processing
industries, adding value and generating additional income and employment.
The efficacy of agricultural inputs like sowing material, fertilizers,
chemical and natural resources can be improved through adoption of
appropriate agricultural equipments and improved farm machinery.
The principal advantage of mechanization in sugarcane
agriculture is that it reduces the demand for labour and allows operations to
be carried out very faster. Mechanization is needed to overcome some of
the major constraints to motivate productivity and to make farming less
arduous and attractive enough to enable educated youth for agriculture as
vocation willingly. Mechanization also aims at increasing land and labour
efficiency by improving the safety and comfort of agricultural labour and to
protect the environment by allowing precision operation and increasing the
overall income. To facilitate the use of machineries in cane fields, the row
spacing needs to be increased upto 150-180 cm for the use of big machines.
The availability of large interspaces between the wide rows will facilitate
the use of power tillers, other machinery and harvester for operations like
weeding, earthing up and harvesting. Efficient machinery helps in timely
farm operations, input use efficiency, increasing productivity by about 30
% (Pandey et al., 2012). Development and introduction of high capacity,
20
precise, reliable and energy efficient equipments and their judicious use can
bring precision speed and timeliness in field operations.
Mechanization brings numerous benefits by reducing the
cultivation expenses as today’s labour force is reluctant to come forward
for agricultural operations due to tough nature of the work, comparatively
low remunerations and lack of efficiency of manual labour and diversion of
labour to other remunerative work in industry, construction, business etc.
with increased cane yield and net return. It also decreases insect, pests
survival (Panghal, 2010). The cumulative effects of wider row planting,
mechanized operations including harvesting and multi-ratooning facility
will boost up profit margin to the cane growers (Nagendran, 2009)
indicating the need for mechanization. There is a great scope of
mechanization by small machines such as power tiller, mini tractor etc., for
interculturing operations which brings considerable saving on cost of
labour. Wide row planting technology is spreading fast in tropical states
and prove to give higher cane and sugar yields and better juice quality
(Sundara, 2002.). Wider row spacing of 120–150 cm may advisable for
long duration high tillering varieties under high soil fertile conditions and is
recommended to adopt mechanization for better workability of harvester.
Sugarcane agriculture can be sustained only if profitability can be ensured
through reduction in cost of cultivation and improving productivity per unit
area which is possible through mechanization and adoption of other
technological interventions in cane agriculture (Nair, 2009).
Sugarcane is an important cash crop of both Gujarat and South
Gujarat region which is most popular among the farmers. In Gujarat,
sugarcane is cultivated in area of 2.02 lakh ha with production and
productivity of 127.50 lac tonnes and 63.1 t ha-1, respectively (Anon.,
2013a). Heavy rainfall, perennial canal irrigation facility and good
21
infrastructure of sugar factories enhanced the sugarcane cultivation in
South Gujarat. But tremendous increase in various industries in this region
resulted in scarcity of labourers making all the operations difficult to carry
out at proper time. Moreover, labourers are also not preferring to work in
agriculture because of attractive wages and other benefits offered by the
industrialists. In these circumstances the farmers of this region are always
in search of that option which is less human labourers oriented. Owing to
sound economic background, the farmers of this area can afford costly
agrotechniques based on mechanization or any other concepts which
require lesser human labourers but suitable in all respect. The steep rise in
cost of production, non availability of labourers in adequate numbers at the
time of harvesting and high cost of inputs is eroding the profits thus making
sugarcane cultivation less sustainable. Cost of harvest is ₹ 450-650 t-1 in
tropics which is more than 25 % of the sale value of the product. Hence,
sugarcane growers of this area are required to be provided with proven
scientific information in term of mechanized harvesting since manual
harvesting is a time consuming, cost effective, labourer's expensive and
cumbersome work in sugarcane cultivation. In this context, development of
varieties and technologies suited for mechanization has become imperative
in view of this.
Keeping aforesaid all points in view, the present research work
entitled, "Plant geometry in relation to mechanization in sugarcane
(Saccharum officinarum)" has been planned to assess the performance of
genotypes and their requirement for spacing that may suitable for
mechanized operation at the Main Sugarcane Research Station, Navsari
Agricultural University, Navsari envisaging the following objectives:
1. To evaluate the effect of different plant geometries and varieties on
growth, yield and quality of sugarcane.
22
2. To study the effect of various plant geometries and varieties on
nutrient content and uptake by crop.
3. To find out the plant geometry and variety suitable for mechanized
farming.
4. To work out the economics of different treatments.
23
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Among the various agronomic practices, plant geometry and

selection of suitable variety brought about a great revolution in the
sugarcane production where shortage of labour is a serious constraint felt in
sugarcane cultivation in the country and for adoption of mechanized
farming. Since the main yield component is the number of millable stalks,
24
there is an apprehension that wider row spacing, cane population could get
reduced, might be causing yield reduction. However, to introduce the
mechanization in sugarcane cultivation, it is necessary to grow sugarcane at
wider rows and sustain yield levels by appropriate production technologies.
On the other hand, sugarcane being a long duration and widely spaced crop
and having initial slow growth facilitate weeds to come up in the unutilized
space and compete with crop for the available moisture, nutrients and
sunlight. Therefore, an attempt has been made to study the interactive
effect of plant geometry and variety in relation to mechanization in
sugarcane.
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to make a critical
review of the work done on the plant geometry in relation to mechanization
in sugarcane and its effect on growth, yield attributes, yield and quality of
sugarcane crop alongwith weed population and its growth. Plant geometry
and various varieties may prove beneficial in mechanization. The review
has been presented herewith under suitable headings.
2.1 Effect of plant geometry on growth, yield and yield
attributes and quality of sugarcane
Many experiments have been carried out in several countries
to determine the optimum row spacing with special reference to agronomic,
physiological and qualitative aspects of sugarcane. Spatial arrangement is
important in sugarcane culture since it regulates microclimate in immediate
vicinity of crop plants (Misra, 1964). Tang (1976) in Taiwan reported that
row spacing in sugarcane varies with geological and climatic conditions in
different regions. Devi et al. (1990) in India reported that spatial
arrangement of a crop mainly depends upon its growth habits and is mostly
governed by the soil and climatic conditions of the region.
2.1.1 Influence on growth parametres
25
Dhoble and Khuspe (1983) at Parbhani (Maharashtra) studied
the response of varying spacings in sugarcane. They observed improvement
in growth characters and enhancement in dry matter accumulation by
sugarcane at 120 cm inter row spacing over that at 90 cm inter row spacing
has been reported. Similarly, Singh et al. (1987) and Dexi et al. (1990)
found significant improvement in germination per cent with increasing row
spacing from 60 cm to 80 cm.
While working at Pakistan, Malik and Ali (1990) observed
slightly better germination at closer row spacing of 1.0 m than that at wider
row spacing (1.5 m). On the contrary, Ali et al., (1999) reported that
germination percentage and tillers per plant were not affected by row
spacings of 100 and 125 cm.
Karamathullah et al. (1992a) conducted an experiment at
Sugarcane Research Station, Sirugamani (Tamilnadu) during the year 1986-
87 and reported that method of planting did not produce any adverse effect
on germination percentage, tillers and plant height.
Germination of sugarcane at 8th week and tillering ratio before
and after earthing up was found maximum in the treatment of conventional
method of sugarcane planting than other skip row method (Patil and
Mohite, 1993).
An experiment carried out at Sugarcane Research Station,
Punjab Agricultural University, Jalandhar (Punjab) on cane crop geometry
revealed that the germination and number of tillers (65,900 ha -1 and
1,01,300 ha-1, respectively) were the lowest in 120 cm inter row spacing
while the highest (73,800 ha-1 and 1,41,200 ha-1, respectively) in 60 cm
inter row spacing, however, the variation among different treatments of
planting geometry were non significant for germination and number of
tillers (Singh, 1993).
26
Malik et al. (1996) carried out an experiment at Pakistan to
study the effect of planting population and row spacing on sugarcane yield.
They found that wider row spacing of 1.5 m and 1.25 m recorded
significantly higher number of tillers than that of a closer row spacing of
0.75 m.
Kantesh et al. (1997) conducted a field trial to study the
response of midlate sugarcane varieties to different methods of planting.
The results revealed that among the four planting systems (Pit, paired row,
ridge and furrow and ladder), the ridge and furrow system initially recorded
higher germination percentage (86.3) than paired row (74.4) system but
final shoot population was almost similar to that in paired row system.
Further, they noted significantly higher (287.50 cm) cane height under
paired row system.
A field experiment was conducted at Pakistan to study the
effect of planting patterns on sugarcane. From the results, Sarwar et al.
(1998) concluded that planting of sugarcane at 120 cm row spacing
recorded higher number of tillers and plant height as compared to 90 cm
row spacing.
Germination percentage, plant height and tiller which formed
shoots did not differ significantly due to planting method (Clindagave,
1999).
Singh et al. (1999) while working at Sugarcane Research
Station, PAU, Jalandhar (Punjab) found significant effect on germination
and number of tillers per plant under various geometries i.e. 75 cm, 120:30
cm, 120:60 cm, 60:30 cm, 90:30 cm and 150:30 cm. The highest
germination (56.6%) and number of tillers (1, 61,900 ha-1) were recorded
under row spacing of 75 cm and it was significantly higher than all the
paired row plantings.
27
Field experiments were conducted during 1995-97 on seasonal
sugarcane crop at Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri by Shinde et
al. (2000). They reported that expression of growth attributes of sugarcane
viz., plant height, number of tillers per plant and dry matter accumulation
per plant were at higher magnitude in skipped row planting compared to
paired row planting.
An experiment carried out at Pakistan on morphological
response of sugarcane to spaced arrangement by, Cheema et al. (2002)
showed that planting of sugarcane at 120 cm row spacing recorded
significantly higher plant height than 60 cm spaced row. Similarly, Khan et
al. (2002) at Pakistan reported that planting of sugarcane with the increase
in the strip size from 45 to 120 cm progressively increased germination per
cent in sugarcane crop.
From the results of a field experiment conducted at Sugarcane
Breeding Institute, Coimbatore, Sundara (2003b) found that 120 cm row
spacing recorded significantly higher germination percent, shoot population
at 90 DAP and stalk population at 180 DAP and harvest than 150 cm row
spacing.
Kadam et al. (2005b) conducted an experiment at Regional
sugarcane and Jaggery Research Station, Kolhapur to study the response of
new sugarcane varieties under wider row planting techniques. They
observed that germination percent and millable cane height were recorded
higher with 120 cm row spacing as compared to 90, 150 and 30/120 cm
row spacing.
Germination per cent (54.73), tillers m-2 (15.92) and plant
height (2.36 m) were recorded significantly higher under 120 cm row
spacing as compared to crop planted in furrow apart at 45 or 60 cm
(Chattha et al., 2007).
28
Singh et al. (2009) conducted an experiment at Bihar to study
the impact of planting techniques on sugarcane. They observed that
alternate pit method of planting within furrow by two budded setts recorded
higher germination per cent as compared to conventional method of
planting (75 cm).
An experiment was carried out on clay loam soil of
Faisalabad, Pakistan to study the critical period of weed competition for
weed control in sugarcane under two planting methods. From the results,
Zafar et al. (2010) reported that planting of sugarcane under 120 cm row
spacing recorded significantly higher number of tillers per plant and plant
height than 90 cm row spacing during the years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
From a field trial on sugarcane at Faisalabad (Pakistan),
Rehman et al. (2013) reported that different row spacings did not show
significant effect on number of tillers. They also reported that dry matter
production per plant was found higher with wider row spacing (120 cm) as
compared to 75 and 90 cm row spacings.
Plant height was significantly increased with plant geometry
120 cm row spacing at 120 and 180 days after planting than 150 cm and
30:150 cm row spacing while number of tillers per plant was not
significantly influenced due to various plant geometries (Anon., 2013b).
2.1.2 Influence on yield and yield attributes

Thomas et al. (1977) investigated the influence of row spacing
on stripped cane yield of sugarcane. They found that reducing the row
spacing from 182 to 122 cm increased cane yield in sugarcane crop.
Similarly, Ricaud and Cochran (1980) reported that planting of sugarcane
at 120 cm row spacing in furrow recorded significantly higher cane yield
than planting at 180 cm row spacing.
29
An investigation was carried out by Dhoble and Khuspe
(1983) at Parbhani (Maharashtra) to study the effect of spacing on seasonal
sugarcane crop. They reported that planting of sugarcane at 120 cm row
spacing gave higher cane and sugar yields than planting at 90 cm row
spacing. Similarly, Mali and Singh (1985) found significantly higher cane
length, diameter and commercial cane sugar production under 120 cm
spaced row crop as compared to 90 and 60 cm spaced rows in sugarcane.
Malik and Ali (1990) conducted an experiment at Faisalabad
(Pakistan) to study the effect of row spacing on sugarcane planted during
spring and autumn seasons. They reported that maximum canes were
produced at 1.0 m row spacing during spring planting than 1.5 m row
spacing. However, during autumn, 1.5 m row spacing produced more
millable canes than that of 1.0 m row spacing. Similarly, Malik et al.
(1996) found higher number of millable canes at 0.75 and 1.25 m spaced
rows than planting of sugarcane at 1.5 m spaced rows. On the contrary, Ali
et al. (1999) observed that planting of sugarcane at row spacings of 100
and 125 cm had no effect on number of millable canes per unit area.
While concluding the results of field experiments conducted at
different locations in the country by Shinde et al. (1990); Singh and Jain
(1994) and Roodagi (1998) also showed non significant results due to
planting method for number of millable cane, cane and C.C.S. yields. On
the contrary, Ali et al. (1999) found that the cane yield of sugarcane was
similar at both the spacings of planting i.e. at 100 or 120 cm in the variety
'CP 70-1547' of sugarcane.
While working on silt loam soil of Louisiana (U.S.A.),
Richard et al. (1991) observed that sugarcane millable stalk populations in
ratoon and cane yield in plant sugarcane crop were recorded higher when
30
crop was planted at 120 cm row spacing as compared to 90 and 180 cm row
spacings.
Karamathullah et al. (1992a) found that cane planting system
had no significant effect on number of internodes at 10 th, 11th and 12th
months of crop stage as well as on cane yield. Similarly, Karamathullah et
al. (1992b) also reported that cane girth, individual cane weight, millable
cane population and cane yield were not affected significantly by different
system of plantings viz., normal planting (80 cm) and paired row planting
(70-90-70 cm).
Singh (1993) observed no significant differences in cane yield
and its attributes among 60, 90 and 120 cm and paired row spacing of 60-
120-60-120 cm and 30-120-30-120 cm apart.
From the results of a field experiment conducted at Faisalabad
(Pakistan), Malik et al. (1996) reported that planting of sugarcane at 1.25 m
row spacing recorded significantly higher cane yield than planting at 0.75
m and 1.50 m row spacings.
Kantesh et al. (1997) observed that the yield and its
contributing characters of sugarcane crop like internode length, number of
internodes and cane girth were not influenced significantly by planting
geometry, while number of millable canes, cane and sugar yields were
significantly influenced by planting geometry and all these characters were
observed at their maximum level under paired row system than pit and
ridge and furrow system.
Sarwar et al. (1998) carried out an experiment at Faisalabad
(Pakistan) to study the response of sugarcane to planting patterns. They
reported that planting of sugarcane crop at 120 cm row spacing recorded
higher number of millable canes, cane length and weight per stripped cane
yield as compared to narrow row spacing of 90 cm in sugarcane.
31
Clindagave (1999) reported that normal furrow row method
and paired row planting method did not differ significantly with respect to
number of millable cane, cane and C.C.S. yield. The cane and sugar yields
did not differ between 90 and 150 cm spaced 'Co 86032' sugarcane
(Prabhakar, 1999).
Ahmed (2002) carried out an experiment at Faisalabad
(Pakistan) to study the bio economic efficiency of spring planted sugarcane
influenced by spatial arrangement. He found that cane diameter and sugar
yield was significantly increased with planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm
row spacing as compared to 60 cm row spacing.
Mahadevaswamy and Martin (2002) at Coimbatore observed
that row spacing of 120 cm recorded significantly higher single cane
weight and cane length during the year 2000-2001 and cane yield in pooled
as compared to 90 and 150 cm row spacing. Similarly, Sundara (2002) at
Coimbatore also observed that planting of sugarcane at 90 or 120 cm row
spacing gave significantly higher cane yield as compared to 150 cm row
spacing.
Raskar and Bhoi (2003a) conducted an experiment at Rahuri,
Maharashtra to study the spacing in sugarcane. They found that number of
millable cane improved with increasing row spacing from 30 to 90 cm.
They noticed significantly higher number of millable canes with 90 cm
spacing as compared to 30 or 60 cm row spacing.
From the results of a field experiment conducted at
Coimbatore, Sundara (2003b) observed that among wide row planting
method viz., 90, 120, 150 (single row) and 150 cm (dual row), 120 cm row
spacing gave higher cane and sugar yields in sugarcane crop.
Planting of sugarcane at 120 cm row spacing improved 30 per
cent yield over 60 cm row spacing with additional facility of interculture,
32
weed control, aeration, earthing up, control of lodging, saving of irrigation
water and easier fertilizer application (Chattha et al., 2004).
Hussain et al. (2005) conducted an experiment at Bihar to
study the effect of spacing on sugarcane. They found that number of
millable canes and cane yield were significantly increased at row spacing
of 90 cm and remained at par with row spacing 120 cm. They also noticed
that further increase in row spacing upto 150 cm showed significant
reduction in cane yield.
Khandagave et al. (2006) conducted an experiment at Pakistan
for maximization of sugar yield. They reported that planting of sugarcane
setts at 120 cm row spacing produced higher cane yield than conventional
method of planting (90 cm row spacing).
While studying the influence of planting techniques on
sugarcane crop at Faisalabad (Pakistan), Chattha et al. (2007) noticed that
planting of sugarcane at 120 cm row spacing gave significantly higher
number of millable canes and cane yield as compared to planting of setts at
45 and 60 cm row spacing apart furrow.
Gaddanakari et al. (2007) conducted an experiment at Bijapur
(Karnataka) to study the response of variety to wide row spacing. They
reported that sugarcane variety CoC 671 gave significantly higher single
cane weight planted at 150 cm row spacing as compared to 90 cm (normal
row), 75-150-75 and 90-180-90 cm (pair row) spacings.
A field experiment conducted on sugarcane during 2003-04
and 2004-05 at Thatta (Pakistan). From the results, Soomro et al. (2009)
observed that planting of sugarcane setts at 125 cm row spacing recorded
significantly higher cane thickness, cane height, number of internodes per
plant, millable cane per hectare and cane yield as compared to planting
setts at 75, 100 and 150 cm row spacings.
33
Zafar et al., (2010) studied the effect of planting methods on
sugarcane at Faisalabad (Pakistan). They found that significantly higher
number of millable canes (NMC per m2) in the year 2005-06; cane length
and stripped cane yield in the year 2006-07 and weight per stripped cane
(gm) during the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 recorded with 120 cm spacing
as compared to 90 cm row spacing.
An investigation carried out by Ehsanullah et al. (2011) at
Faisalabad (Pakistan) to evaluate the row spacing to improve yield of
sugarcane. They reported that planting of sugarcane setts at row spacings of
90 and 120 cm in sugarcane gave significantly higher cane yield as
compared to planting of setts at 60 cm row spacing.
Ghaffar et al. (2012) conducted a field experiment at
Faisalabad (Pakistan) to study the effect of spacing on sugarcane. They
obtained significantly higher cane length, weight per stripped cane, stripped
and unstripped yield with 120 cm spaced as compared to 75 and 90 cm row
spacings. They also reported that number of millable canes was not
significantly affected due to different row spacings.
Number of millable canes per hectare (N.M.C.), cane length,
cane girth, cane yield and commercial cane sugar yield (C.C.S.) were
significantly increased with 120 cm row spacing than 150 cm row spacing.
However, cane girth remained at par with 150 cm row (single row) spacing
and cane yield with 30:150 cm spacing (twin row) (Anon., 2013b).
A field experiment was conducted at Faisalabad, Pakistan to
study the row spacing on sugarcane by Rehman et al. (2013). They
recorded significantly higher cane diameter and weight per stripped cane
(kg) with planting sugarcane setts at 120 and 90 cm row spacings compared
to 75 cm row spacing while cane length was not significantly influenced
34
due to various row spacing. Stripped cane yield was also significantly
increased with row spacing of 120 cm than 75 and 90 cm row spacings.
From the above references, it can be concluded that in general
wide row planting in sugarcane crop resulted in good growth, better values
of yield and yield attributes than conventional method of planting in recent
trend of mechanization.
2.1.3 Influence on quality attributing parametres
A field experiment was conducted at Parbhani (Maharashtra)
to study the effect of spacing in sugarcane. From the results, Dhoble and
Khuspe, (1983) revealed that inter-row spacings of 90 and 120 cm did not
show any significant effect on C.C.S. %.
Yadav (1992) reported that the pol per cent as well as purity of
juice did not differ significantly due to different row arrangements.
Similarly, Singh (1993) showed that there was no significant differences in
juice quality viz., sucrose per cent, purity per cent viz., as well as
commercial cane sugar among 60, 90 and 120 cm and paired row planting
of 60-120-60-120 cm and 30-120-30-120 cm apart.
Malik et al. (1996) at Faisalabad (Pakistan) studied the effect
of planting population and row spacing on sugarcane. From the results,
they reported that there was non-significant differences in commercial cane
sugar per cent at three row spacings viz., 0.75, 1.25 and 1.5 m.
Results generated from a trial conducted at Coimbatore during
1992-93 to 1995-96 showed higher commercial cane sugar percentage with
60/90 cm paired row during 1992-93, whereas the differences were non
significant during 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 crop seasons (Ramesh,
1997 and 1998).
Commercial cane sugar percentage was not influenced by the
row spacings of 100 and 125 cm (Ali et al., 1999).
35
The planting methods did not influence significantly the
quality parametres viz., pol, reducing sugars and fibre percentage
(Clindagave, 1999). Similarly, Kantesh et al. (1997), Singh et al. (1999)
and Shinde et al. (2001) also observed non significant results due to
planting method on quality parametres of sugarcane.
Mahadevaswamy and Martin (2002) conducted a field
experiment with three row spacing viz., 90, 120 and 150 cm in sugarcane at
Coimbatore. Two years pooled results revealed that commercial cane sugar
(C.C.S.) per cent was not significantly increased due to different row
spacings. Similarly, Sundara (2002) at Coimbatore also reported that C.C.S.
per cent was not significantly increased due to 90,120, 150 (single row) and
150 cm (dual row) row spacings.
The row spacings did not show any significant influence on
the juice quality parametres. However, higher sucrose percent in juice,
purity percent and C.C.S. per cent were recorded with 120 cm row spacing
as compared to 90 (normal row), 150 (single row) and 150 cm (dual row)
row spacings (Sundara, 2003b).
Hussain et al. (2005) at Pusa (Bihar) observed that there was
no any significant improvement in juice quality parametres with change in
spacing from 90 to 150 cm and 30:120 cm (paired row). On the contrary,
Kadam et al. (2005a) at Kolhapur (Maharashtra) reported that quality
parametres viz., sucrose per cent juice, C.C.S. per cent and purity per cent
were recorded higher with planting of sugarcane at 120 cm row spacing as
compared to 90, 150 and 30/120 cm row spacings.
Singh et al. (2009) observed that ring pit method of planting
recorded higher pol per cent cane as compared to conventional method of
planting.
36
From the results of a field experiment conducted at Thatta
(Pakistan), Soomro et al. (2009) concluded that higher C.C.S. per cent
recorded with planting of sugarcane setts at 125 cm row spacing as
compared to planting setts at 75, 100 and 150 cm row spacings. On the
contrary, quality parametres did not significantly influence due to row
spacings 120, 150 cm and 30:150 cm (dual row) (Anon., 2013b).
After summarizing the above references, it can be stated that
quality attributing parametres influenced by planting geometry depend on
various agronomic practices.
2.1.4 Influence on weed flora
Sugarcane crop remain in the field for about 12 to 14 months,
wider spacing and slow growth of sugarcane plants during early growth
phase are favourable conditions for the growth of various weed flora at the
time of germination and also subsequent growth period. Therefore,
weeding at early stage of crop growth in sugarcane is very important. A
brief review on weed flora observed in sugarcane fields are given here.
Mahadevaswamy et al. (1994) observed that major weed flora
at Coimbatore consisted of Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link,
Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Wild and Panicum repens L. among the
grasses and Cyperus rotundus sp. the sedge and Trianthema
portulacastrum (L.) and Ipomoea spp. among the broad leaved weeds when
sugarcane planted at 90 cm row spacing.
Brar and Mehra (1995) from Punjab, reported Cyperus
rotundus L., C. compressus L., among sedges; Digitaria sp., Elusine sp.,
Sorghum halepense L., Cynodon dactylon L., Brachiaria sp. among
monocots and Digera arvensis L., Trianthema portulacastrum L., Celosia
argentia L., Vicia indica L., Tribulus terrestris L., Cucumis sp.,
Convolvulus arvensis L., Amaranthus viridis L. and Ipomea pestigrids L.
37
among dicots in summer sugarcane crop. However, in sugarcane
intercropping field, they found Phylaris minor L. and Avena ludovicina L.
among grass weeds and Trianthema portulacastrum L., Chenopodium
album L., Melilotus sp., Cirsium arvensis L., Lathyrus, Rume spp. viz.,
among dicot weeds at 90 cm row spacing.
The important and predominant monocot and dicot weeds
present in the sugarcane experimental field were Amaranthus viridis L.,
Chenopodium album L., Euphorbia hirta L., Solanum nigrum L., Cyperus
rotundus L. and Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers (Thakur et al., 1995).
Angadi et al. (1998) from Sankeshwar (Karnataka), studied
performance of herbicides in sugarcane variety Co-740 and observed
common weed species as Ageratum conyzoides L., Cyperus spp.,
Commelina benghalensis L., Euphorbia spp., Parthenium hysterophorus
L., Amaranthus spp. and many others.
Srivastava et al. (1999) working at Lucknow, observed that the
predominant weeds infesting the sugarcane crop were Cyperus rotundus L.,
Cynodon dactylon L. Pers, Trianthema portulacastrum L., Sorghum
halepense (L.) Pers, Chenopodium album L., Digera arvensis L.,
Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link, E. crusgali beauv., Setaria sp., Panicum
spp., Azaratum conyzoids L., Euphorbia spp., Amaranthus sp. They also
observed that at germination and tillering stages, the crop was infested with
Cyperus rotundus L., Trianthema portulacastrum L. and S. halepense (L.)
Pers, however, during elongation phase, Echinochloa sp., Panicum sp. and
Setaria sp. were most dominant.
The major weeds of the sugarcane field were Trianthema
portulacastrum L. (35%), Corchorus spp. (15%), Cleome viscosa L. (7%)
in dicots, and Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link (30%), Cyperus rotundus L.
38
(10%), Panicum repens L. (31%) and other (2%) in monocots (Kathiresan,
2000).
Nagaraju et al. (2000) conducted an experiment at Regional
Research Station, Visweswaraiah Canal Farm, Mandya, Karnataka and
observed predominant weed species in the experimental site included
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers, Digitaria marginata L., Apluda varia L.,
Elusine indica (L.) Gaertn, Panicum repens L. among monocots; Blumea
lacera L., Amaranthus tricolor L., Portulaca oleracea L., Ipomea spp.,
Solanum nigrum L., Euphorbia hirta L., Phyllanthus niruri L, Commelina
benghalensis L., Physalis minima L. among dicots and Cyperus rotundus
L., among sedges.
The predominant weed species which infested the sugarcane
experimental plot in order of their dominance were Cyperus rotundus L.,
Trienthema portulacastrum L. and Panicum repens L. (Sathyavelu and
Somasundaram, 2002) when sugarcane planted at 80 cm row spacing.
Mishra et al. (2003) conducted an experiment at Sugarcane
Research Station, Panipola, Nayagarh, Orissa and reported dominant weed
flora of sugarcane experimental site which was consisting of Cyperus
rotundus L., Cynodon dactylon L.(Pers), Digitaria sanguinalis L.,
Mimusops spp., Echinochloa colona L.(Link), Solanum nigrum L., Tridex
procumbens L., and Ipomea spp.
Patel (2003) while working at Navsari, observed that the
predominant weeds infesting the sugarcane planted at 90 cm and paired
row planting crop were Cyperus rotundus L., Eragrostis major L.,
Brachiara spp., Oryza sativa L., Echinochloa colonum L. among
monocots; Portulaca oleracea L., Phyllanthus maderaspatensis L..,
Alternanthera sessilis L., Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk, Euphorbia hirta L.,
Centella asiatica Urb., Digera arvensis Forsk, Melilotus indica (L.) All.,
39
Operculina turpenthum L., Physalis minima L., Hibiscus spp., Corchorus
acutangulus L., Abutilos indicum L. and Medicago sativa L. among dicots.
Thus, it is evident from the above review that the weed flora in
sugarcane field is a complex one and the pre-dominance of the species
varies from place to place.
2.1.5 Influence on weed growth
Patel (2000) reported that planting geometry did not give
perceptible variation for weed population at 45 and 90 DAP. However,
significantly the lowest dry weight of weeds was noted with normal
planting at 90 DAP during 1998-99 and at final earthing up during 1997-98
than P2 (60-120-60 cm pair row planting) and P3 (75-150-75 cm paired row
planting). Planting geometry treatments failed to show significant effect on
nutrients content in weeds, however, nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium
uptake by weeds increased under paired row plantings i.e. 60-120-60 cm
and 75-150-75 cm.
Patel (2003) observed that significantly the lowest monocots
and total weed population at 45 DAP and 90 DAP were found under 60-
120-60 cm paired row planting (P2), while dicot weeds at 45 DAP and 90
DAP were found higher under paired row planting and lower under 120 cm
twin row planting during 2000-01 while during 2001-02 weed population
(dicots, monocots and total) at 45 and 90 DAP were found to be non
significant except monocots at 45 DAP and the higher number were noted
under 150 cm twin row and paired row planting while dry weight of weeds
did not differ significantly due to different planting geometries at 90 DAP
and at final earthing up during both the years.
Field experiment conducted at Faisalabad, Pakistan to study
the weed-crop competition effects on growth and yield of sugarcane
planted by using two different methods. They found that planting of
40
sugarcane at 120 cm row spacing recorded significantly higher total weed
biomass during the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 than 90 cm row spacing,
however lowest total weed population was recorded with planting of
sugarcane at 120 cm apart row spacing than 90 cm row spacing (Zafar et
al., 2010).
2.2 Effect of variety
Among the numerous technologies responsible for increasing
cane productivity, adoption of high yielding variety with better juice quality
is the cheapest technology that the common cane growers can easily afford.
Variety do not perform equally well in abiotic stress conditions and further
they decline in vigour and yield after a considerable period of cultivation.
The performance of particular variety depends upon heredity potential of
the genotype and the environment where it is exposed during the course of
life cycle (Yadav, 1993). Hence, higher production may be obtained by
adopting suitable variety/genotype which grows better under particular
location with proper agronomic practices.
2.2.1 Influence on growth attributes
An experiment conducted at Coimbatore by Narayanmurthi et
al. (1997) to study the influence of row spacing on midlate sugarcane
varieties. They found that sugarcane variety Co 86032 recorded
significantly higher dry matter at harvest and tillers as compared to variety
Co 86027 and Co 86038.
While working on black soil of Padegaon (Maharashtra),
Sinare et al. (2006) observed that among different genotypes (Co 95012,
Co 95020, Co 94012, CoM 9902, Co 86032), the genotype Co 86032
recorded higher germination per cent and tillering ratio as compared to
other genotypes.
41
In a field trial carried out at Anakapalle (A. P.) Chitkala Devi
et al. (2005) reported that germination percentage, tiller population at 90
days after planting and shoot population at 180 days after planting were
recorded higher with variety Co 6907 as compared to 92A 355 and 93A
145. They also reported that inherent ability of genotypes may improve
growth parametres in respective genotypes.
Number of tillers at 90 and 120 days after planting and plant
height at 120 and 180 days after planting were recorded highest with
varieties Co 86032, CoN 08072 and CoN 05071 than variety Co 99004
(Anon., 2013b).
Patel and Patel (2013) studied the performance of sugarcane
genotypes on sugarcane yield at Navsari. They found that number of tillers
at 120 days after planting recorded highest with genotype CoN 05072 and
CoN 05071 as compared to Co 99004 and CoM 9516.
From the foregoing review, it may reveal that the selection of
suitable variety/genotype with their specific agroclimatic condition helps in
boosting up vegetative growth and yield of sugarcane.
The investigation carried out by Tripathi and Pandey (1993) at
Pantnagar (U.P.) revealed that the variation in yield parametres of different
sugarcane varieties due to differences in cane height and cane number.
Similarly, Sidhu et al. (1994) at Kheri (Punjab) also reported that difference
in cane yield due to differential varietal response on cane height and
number of canes.
From the experimental findings at Coimbatore, Narayanmurthi
et al. (1997) concluded that there was no significant difference was
observed in variety Co 86027, Co 86032 and Co 86038 on millable cane
population, cane and sugar yields.
42
Sinare et al. (2006) carried out an experiment at Padegaon
(Maharashtra) with five different varieties viz., Co 95018, Co 95020, Co
9401, CoM 9902 and Co 86032. They observed that genotype Co 86032
recorded higher cane height, number of internodes and millable canes than
other varieties.
While concluding the results of two years of experimentation
at Padegaon (Maharashtra), Danawale et al. (2011) observed that genotype
Co 2011-12 recorded significantly higher cane height, girth and millable
canes per hectare and found at par with genotype Co 86032.
Kadam et al. (2005a) carried out an experiment at Regional
Sugarcane and Jaggery Research Station, Kolhapur (Maharashtra) with
three sugarcane varieties viz., Co 92005, Co 86032 and Co 94012. They
indicated that sugarcane variety Co 86032 recorded higher number of
millable canes and proved superior to other two varieties.
Shukla (2003) conducted an experiment at IISR, Lucknow
(U. P.). They reported that genotype 'CoLk 9617' produced the highest
number of millable canes per hectare, cane yield (t ha -1) and commercial
cane sugar (t ha-1) and found superior to 'CoLk 94202' and 'CoLk 9606'.
An experiment conducted to study the response of new
sugarcane genotypes. Millable cane length, cane girth, single cane weight,
number of millable canes per hectare, cane and sugar yields were proved
superior with genotype 92 A 355 as compared to genotype 92 A 355
(Chitkala Devi et al., 2005).
Number of millable canes, cane and C.C.S. yields were
increased with genotype CoN 05071 and Co 99004 as compared to CoM
9516 (Anon., 2008 and Anon., 2010).
An experiment carried out at Regional Sugarcane Research
Station, Navsari (Gujarat) on agronomic evaluation of promising new
43
sugarcane genotypes. Cane yield, number of millable canes ha -1 and C.C.S.
(t ha-1) were increased with genotype CoN 05071 compared to genotypes
CoN 05072, Co 99004 and CoM 9516 (Anon., 2009).
The results from the experimental findings at Navsari
concluded that number of millable canes, cane girth, cane length, cane and
C.C.S. yields were found superior with variety CoN 05071 and Co 99004
as compared to variety CoN 08072 (Anon., 2013b).
Patel and Patel (2013) carried out an experiment at Navsari
(Gujarat) with four different genotypes. They reported that number of
millable canes and cane yield were recorded significantly highest with
genotype CoN 05071 as compared to genotype Co 99004 and CoM 9516;
cane girth with genotype Co 99004 while C.C.S. yield did not influence
due to different genotypes.
From the above review, it is clearly indicated that
variety/genotype differ in their potential for higher cane productivity.
Adoption of ideal variety/genotype under specific climatic condition of a
location may improve growth and yield attributes of sugarcane there by get
higher yield of cane.
2.2.3 Influence on quality attributing parametres
Narayanmurthi et al. (1997) studied the influence of row
spacing on yield in midlate sugarcane variety. They found that among
different varieties Co 86032 recorded significantly higher C.C.S. % than
variety Co 86027 and Co 86038 while sucrose % did not influence due
to various varieties.
Kadam et al. (2005a) carried out an experiment at Padegaon
(Maharashtra) to study the response of promising new sugarcane
genotypes. They observed that genotype Co 86032 recorded the highest
44
purity % as compared to genotype Co 95018, Co 95020, C0 94012 and
CoM 9902 in sugarcane.
Different genotypes not improved sucrose per cent in juice
during the year 2002 while it increased significantly during the year 2003
with genotype 93A 145 and 92A 355 than Co 6907 (Chitkala Devi et al.,
2005).
Quality parametres viz., C.C.S. %, pol % juice and pol % cane
were recorded the highest with variety CoN 05071 and Co 99004 than
variety CoN 08072 and Co 86032 while purity % was noticed higher with
variety Co 86032, CoN 05071 and Co 99004 than variety CoN 08072
(Anon., 2013).
From the above references it can be said that cane quality is
dependent to variety/genotype.
2.3 Interaction effect
Sidhu et al. (1994) carried out an experiment at Kheri (Punjab)
to study the performance of sugarcane varieties influenced by row spacing.
They reported that the interaction between row spacing and varieties did
not show any significant improvement on cane yield and quality
parametres.
Sundara (2002) at Coimbatore noticed significant interaction
between spacing and variety. Variety Co 6304 under 90 and 120 cm row
spacings gave higher cane and sugar yields as compared to 150 cm row
spacing. At the same location, Sundara (2003b) found significant
interaction between variety and row spacing. They observed variety Co
91010 recorded higher stalk population, cane and C.C.S. yields at 120 cm
row spacing and remained at par with 90 cm row spacing and 150 cm dual
row planting. On the contrary, Chitkala Devi et al. (2005) at Anakapalle (A.
45
P.) noticed non significant interaction effect between varieties and spacings
on growth, yield and quality characters of sugarcane.
Patel et al. (2005) at Navsari found significant interaction
between year, planting geometry and varieties. They observed that
sugarcane variety Co 87263 gave higher cane yield both under 90 cm
(normal planting) and paired row planting.
2.4 Depletion of nutrients by weeds in sugarcane
Planting geometry treatment failed to show significant effect
on nutrients content in weeds, however, nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium uptake by weeds increased under paired row planting however,
their depletion were the highest under sugarcane sole crop (Patel, 2000). He
also reported that phosphorus and potassium content in weeds at final
earthing up were higher under weed control treatment; however their
depletion was significantly the highest under unweeded control.
Nutrient content and uptake by weeds due to different plant
geometries were found to be non significant (Patel, 2003).
2.5 Nutrient uptake by sugarcane
Narayanmurthi et al. (1997) observed that total nutrients i.e.
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake were recorded significantly
highest with variety Co 86032 as compared to Co 86027 and Co 86038.
They also observed that per cent leaf nitrogen at five and ten month and per
cent sheath potassium at harvest were significantly highest with variety Co
86032 than Co 86027 and Co 86038.
Yadav et al. (1997) while working with sugarcane cv. Colk
800l at Lucknow reported that the double row planting technique on an
average minimized the nitrate N leaching from inter row space and
increasing the recovery of applied N by 15.8 per cent over conventional
method of planting.
46
The nutrients i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content
and its total uptake by sugarcane crop were significantly influenced by
planting geometry but the trend was inconsistent during both the years of
study (Patel, 2000).
Nutrient content by plant did not differ significantly due to
various planting geometries while, uptake of nutrients viz., nitrogen,
phosphors and potassium by leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk as well as total
uptake by plant were higher under 60-120-60 cm paired row planting. They
also reported different nutrients i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
content in leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk were not significantly affected
due to different planting geometries (Patel, 2003).
2.6 Mechanization in sugarcane in relation to variety and row
spacing
Variety and row spacing play an important role in boosting
cane productivity. Varieties are found to widely differ in their response to
row spacing. It is also essential to exploit complete potential of crop by
adjusting suitable row spacing for introducing mechanization for reducing
cost of cultivation. Wider row spacing of 120 -150 cm may advisable for
long duration and high tillering under high fertility conditions and it may
also recommended to adopt mechanization.
Richard et al. (1991) at Louisiana, U.S.A. conducted an
experiment to study the productivity of sugarcane on narrow rows as
affected by mechanical harvesting. They found that cane yield was
significantly influenced due to row spacing and variety. Variety CP 65-357,
CP 70-321 and CP 70-330 gave significantly higher cane yield with
planting of sugarcane setts at 90 cm, 120 cm and 90 cm respectively. They
further reported higher yield of suitable variety may achieved under
specific row spacing and mechanical harvesting.
47
Hemaprabha (2011) at Coimbatore reported that sugarcane
variety Co 86032, the wonder cane of the decade is a rare combination of
several advantageous characters like high yield, good quality, multi
ratooning potential and is amenable for wide row spacing .
Rajula Shanthy and Muthusamy (2012) reported that wide row
planting increased net returns through growing intercrops, facilitate
mechanization and reduced cost of cultivation.
2.7 Correlation studies
Singh and Singh (1970) observed that, cane yield was
significantly associated with stalk height, stalk weight, cane girth and
commercial cane sugar (t ha-1). Path coefficient analysis revealed that, the
C.C.S. per cent, stalk weight and number of millable canes ha -1 were the
most important components of cane yield. Parashar et al. (1980) in their
correlation studies at IARI, New Delhi, observed positive and significant
correlation of cane yield with cane height, cane diameter and number of
internodes per plant. Gajera et al. (1991) reported that, cane yield was
significantly and positively correlated with number of millable canes,
millable height of cane and number of internodes.
Yadav et al. (1991) observed that the yield of sugarcane had a
positive correlation with the number of mother shoots (0.709) and millable
canes (0.488). Rishi Pal et al. (1998) studied correlation and path
coefficient and reported that, the cane and sugar yields were closely
associated with number of millable canes, single stalk weight and stalk
height. It was revealed that, stalk height itself was not an important trait for
direct selection for higher cane and sugar yields. Roodagi et al. (2001)
reported that, the cane yield showed positive correlation with yield
attributes and quality parametres of sugarcane. Among the different
parametres, number of internodes, single cane weight, millable canes,
48
length of internodes and sugar yield were significantly correlated with
yield.
Srinivasan et al. (1977) and Srinivasan (1982) at Coimbatore
found negative correlation between the weed population and millable canes
and yield. Similarly, Mahadevaswamy et al. (1994) from Coimbatore
observed that there was significant negative correlation between weed dry
matter and cane yield (-0.9398).
Patel (2003) at Navsari observed positive and highly
significant correlation between cane yield (t ha -1) and total plant height at
harvest, millable plant height at harvest, number of millable canes per
hectare, NPK uptake by plant. While, total weed population at 45 DAP and
90 DAP as well as monocot weed population and NPK uptake by weeds
showed negative and highly significant correlation with cane yield. Quality
characters viz., sucrose % juice, sucrose % cane, purity %, fibre % and
C.C.S. % were negatively correlated but did not reach to the level of
significance with cane yield whereas, weed population and dry weight of
weeds were negatively correlated with cane yield.
2.8 Economics
2.8.1 Effect of plant geometry on economics
Dubey et al. (1995) while working at Agricultural Research
Station, Sidhi (M.P.) stated that among the different planting geometries,
paired row planting recorded the highest net profit (₹ 10,817 ha-1) and was
significantly superior over other planting geometries. While, Rao and
Veeranna (1998) indicated that the pooled data of net returns were not
influenced by methods of planting but the higher net return (₹ 52,083 ha-1)
was noted under the treatment of paired row planting than the normal
planting (₹ 46,590 ha-1).
49
Among the various planting geometries, paired row planting at
60-120-60 cm gave the highest net realization of ₹ 75,009 ha-1 with
additional income ₹ 501 ha-1 over normal planting and cost benefit ratio of
1:5.12, followed by normal planting at 90 cm (Patel, 2000).
Shinde et al. (2001) while working at Rahuri, reported that
during both the seasons (1995-97) the net returns and B:C ratio were not
significantly influenced by planting technique, but in pooled analysis,
significantly the highest net return (₹ 44,451 ha-1) and B:C ratio (1.75)
were obtained in skipped row as compared to paired row planting.
A field experiment conducted at Coimbatore to study the
effect of row spacing on sugarcane. From the results, Mahadevaswamy and
Martin (2002) stated that 120 cm row spacing gave higher benefit cost ratio
(2.00) over 90 and 150 cm (1.94 and 1.99, respectively) row spacings.
Patel (2003) indicated that the highest net realization of ₹
41,805 ha-1 and cost benefit ratio of 1:1.89 were recorded with paired row
planting of 60-120-60 cm (P2) followed by normal planting (90 cm) and
120 cm twin row planting.
From the results of field experiment conducted at Rahuri
(Maharashtra), Raskar and Bhoi, (2003b) concluded that planting of
sugarcane setts with increasing row spacing from 30 to 90 cm gave
significantly higher gross and monetary returns. It also recorded higher B:
C ratio.
Ghaffar et al. (2012) carried out an investigation at Faisalabad
(Pakistan) noticed higher gross income and net return with planting of
sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing as compared to 75 cm row spacing.
Shanthy and Muthusamy (2012) at Tamilnadu studied the
wider row spacing in sugarcane. They reported that planting of sugarcane
50
in wider row spacing (150 cm) gave higher gross and net income as
compared to normal row spacing (90 cm).
2.8.2 Effect of variety on economics
The highest net profit ₹ 37,392/- was obtained from genotype
BO 132 compared to genotype CoP 9501 and CoP 9502. They also reported
that autumn planting gave higher net profit than spring planting (Vashistha
and Sinha, 2004), while in another study the highest net return ( ₹ 57,780ha-
1
) and benefit cost ratio (1:90) were obtained from genotype BO 147
(Navnit Kumar et al., 2012).
An experiment was carried out at Regional Research Station,
Karnal (Harayana) to evaluate the sugarcane varieties. From the results,
Mehar Chand et al. (2010) reported that the higher gross return, return over
variable cost and benefit cost ratio were obtained with variety CoH 119.
2.8.3 Effect of mechanization on economics
NCAER (1980) survey revealed that tractor owners and users
derived higher per hectare gross income compared to traditional bullock
farms. It was about 63% higher on tractor owning farms as compared to the
bullock farms. The average net return from a tractor owning farm on per
hectare basis was reported to be 152% than bullock owning farm.
Yadav et al. (2003) at Bhopal (M. P.) reported that
conventional system of planting required higher cost of planting (₹ 3,987
ha-1) with 350 man- hours as against cost (₹ 2,200 ha-1) and 20 man-hours
in mechanical harvesting. They also reported that mechanical planting
reduced labour shortage and cost of production and increased sugarcane
productivity.
From the results of field experiment conducted at Karnal
(Haryana), Misra and Tripathi (2006) concluded that mechanical harvesting
with autsoft harvester is feasible with planting of sugarcane at 150 cm row
51
spacing, 1, 72, 144 buds ha-1 of seed rate and onion as intercrop gave higher
net return and benefit cost ratio than 75 cm row spacing.
Sharma and Prakash (2011) at Lucknow (U.P.) studied that
cultivation of sugarcane using machinery fulfill the shortage of labourers in
both subtropical and tropical regions of India. They also reported that the
percentage of operational cost was about 5.70 and 2.11 as against total
labourers use per ha (person per days) 199.91 and 297.20 in subtropical and
tropical respectively indicating that use of machinery can reduce the cost
on labourers.
Murali and Balakrishnan (2012) at Tamilnadu reported that
mechanical operations were found to be superior as compared to the
manual operation. They noted that 1000 man -hour were engaged for
harvesting of sugarcane (100 t ha-1) with cost of ₹ 55,000 ha-1 as against 12
man- hour with cost of ₹ 32,500 ha-1 in mechanical harvesting. Thus, it
reduces harvesting cost and found economical to cane growers.
52
MATERIALS AND METHODS
III MATERIALS AND METHODS
The field experiment was conducted at the Main Sugarcane

Research Station, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat, India
during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 with the objectives to know the plant
53
geometry in relation to mechanization in sugarcane (Saccharum
officinarum). The details regarding the materials used and methods adopted
in the present investigation are given in this chapter.
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Soil
According to the seventh approximation, the soils of the
experimental field is classified under the order "Vertisols" comprising
members of fine, montmorillonitic, isohyperthermic, family of typic
chromusters and soil series Eru. These soils are developed on silty basaltic
alluvium. The average thickness of solum including transitional layer AC
ranged from 2.0 to 3.0 metres. The rooting depth is extended upto 1.0 m.
The colour of the dry soil is dark brown silty clay.
The field experiments were conducted on plots G-17 and G-25
during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, respectively, at the Main Sugarcane
Research Station, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari. The soil of the
both plots (on an average of both years) was medium in available nitrogen
(293.2 kg ha-1), medium in available phosphorus (29.43 kg ha-1) and fairly
rich in available potassium (322.00 kg ha-1) and slightly alkaline in reaction
(7.86).
The detailed physico-chemical properties are enlisted in
Table1.
3.1.2 Climatic conditions
Geographically Main Sugarcane Research Station, Navsari
Table 1: Physico-chemical properties of the soils of experimental
sites (0-30 cm depth)
Properties Values obtained Method employed

from
2010- 2011-
54
2011 2012
A) Mechanical characteristics
1. Sand (%) 14.55 14.87 International pipette
2. Silt (%) 19.11 19.06 method (Piper,1950)
3. Clay (%) 65.88 66.25
B) Chemical characteristics
1. Organic carbon (%) 0.50 0.45 Walkley and Black
Rapid titration method
(Jackson, 1967)
2. Total nitrogen (%) 0.54 0.51 Modified Kjeldahl’s
method (Jackson, 1967)
-1
3. Available N (kg ha ) 250.4 336.0 Alkaline potassium
permanganate method
(Subbiah and Asija,
1956)
-1
4. Available P2O5(kg ha ) 30.50 28.36 Olsen’s method
(Jackson, 1967)
1
5. Available K2O (kg ha ) 289.00 355.00 Flame photometer
method (Jackson, 1967)
6. Electrical conductivity 0.19 0.21 Schofield method (Gaur,
(dsm-1 at 25oC) 1967)
7. pH (1:2.5 soil water 7.72 8.00 Potentiometric method
ratio) pH meter (Jackson,
1967)
Agricultural University, Navsari is located at 20 57 N latitude and 72o54 E
o
longitude, in the tropical region; having an altitude of ten metres above the
mean sea levels. The campus is located at three km away towards west of
Navsari and 13 km away from the Arabian sea towards east. During
the period of experimentation the weather parametres recorded at
meteorological observatory, College Farm, N.M. College of Agriculture,
Navsari are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 and graphically depicted in
Fig. 1 and 2.
55
The climate of South Gujarat region is typically tropical,
characterized by fairly hot summer, moderately cold winter and humid and
warm monsoon with heavy rainfall.
In general, monsoon commences from the second week of June and lasts
upto third week of September. Post-monsoon rain in the months of
October-November is not uncommon. Most of the precipitation is received
from South-West monsoon, concentrating in the months of July and
August. The annual average rainfall received during 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012 were 1597.2 mm and 1267.2 mm, respectively. The maximum rainfall
recorded during the experimental period was 622.0 and 617.0 mm in the
months of August and September, respectively.
The annual minimum and maximum temperature ranged from
10.6 to 37.6oC and 9.9 to 37.6oC during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012,
respectively. The annual mean relative humidity ranged from 11 to 97 and
17 to 97 per cent during the investigation period. The mean sunshine hours
ranged between 0.4 to 11.1 hours during the period of experimentation.
The overall climatological data indicated that the weather
conditions were normal and favourable not only for the satisfactory growth
and development of the sugarcane crop but also for the weeds during both
the years of experimentation.
Table 2: Mean weekly meteorological data recorded at the
meteorological observatory of NAU, Navsari from
December 2010 to January 2012
Std. Meteoro- Temperature Relative Humidity Rain- No. Sun-
Week logical (C 0) (% ) fall of shine
No. weeks Max. Min. Morning Evening (mm) rainy hrs
days day-1
December 2010
49 03-09 30.6 18.4 81 51 0.0 0 7.7
50 10-16 27.1 10.9 81 33 0.0 0 8.7
56
51 17-23 29.8 11.3 73 28 0.0 0 9.4
52 24-31 28.8 13.8 88 38 0.0 0 6.6
January 2011
1 01-07 28.0 13.5 57 29 0.0 0 8.5
2 08-14 30.2 10.6 70 20 0.0 0 9.6
3 15-21 29.9 10.6 82 25 0.0 0 9.5
4 22-28 32.2 13.1 80 53 0.0 0 9.3
5 29-04 32.0 14.0 73 33 0.0 0 9.2
February 2011
6 5-11 32.5 13.8 82 29 0.0 0 9.3
7 12-18 31.2 15.1 86 34 0.0 0 9.4
8 19-25 31.4 13.7 75 43 0.0 0 9.6
9 26-04 34.3 16.0 69 32 0.0 0 9.0
March 2011
10 05-11 34.3 16.0 69 32 0.0 0 8.8
11 12-18 34.4 15.6 76 24 0.0 0 9.6
12 19-25 37.6 15.9 57 11 0.0 0 9.7
13 26-01 34.0 19.8 88 37 0.0 0 9.5
April -2011
14 02-08 34.3 20.4 83 53 0.0 0 9.3
15 09-15 35.8 23.1 84 68 0.0 0 9.3
16 16-22 35.6 23.8 83 54 0.0 0 10.2
17 23-29 36.2 23.4 86 42 0.0 0 10.4
Std. Meteoro- Temperature Relative Rain- No. Sun
Week logical (C 0) Humidity (% ) fall of shine
No. weeks (mm) rainy hrs
days day-1
Max. Min. Morning Evening
May-2011
18 30-06 35.5 25.4 79 50 0.0 0 9.8
19 07-13 33.4 25.6 78 57 0.0 0 9.6
20 14-20 34.3 26.3 84 61 0.0 0 8.2
21 21-27 33.8 27.8 80 67 0.0 1 9.2
22 28-03 35.4 27.7 78 59 5.2 0 11.1
June-2011
23 04-10 35.4 26.6 88 65 29.0 1 5.0
24 11-17 33.2 26.1 92 76 19.0 3 6.7
25 18-24 33.0 28.0 93 75 4.7 3 3.5
26 25-01 32.8 27.7 87 78 17.4 3 1.4
July-2011
27 02-08 31.4 25.5 92 78 72.0 5 3.5
28 09-15 29.5 24.9 95 87 203.0 5 0.9
29 16-22 30.0 25.7 94 86 161.0 3 2.2
30 23-29 30.2 25.4 94 84 36.0 4 1.8
31 30-05 29.6 25.5 95 91 103.0 5 0.4
57
August-2011
32 06-12 29.5 26.2 91 88 39.0 5 1.2
33 13-19 29.7 25.2 94 86 98.0 5 1.8
34 20-26 29.0 25.0 97 91 227.0 5 0.4
35 27-02 29.1 24.9 95 86 258.0 4 1.9
September-2011
36 03-09 30.4 25.4 91 87 116.0 6 2.0
37 10-16 29.2 25.0 95 83 143.7 4 2.8
38 17-23 30.0 23.7 95 72 61.0 3 5.1
39 24-30 31.7 23.2 93 63 3.0 0 6.4
Std. Meteoro- Temperature Relative Rain- No. Suns
Week logical (C 0) Humidity (% ) fall of hine
No. weeks (mm) rainy hrs
days day-1
October-2011
40 01-07 33.8 23.4 87 54 1.0 0 7.0
41 08-14 36.6 24.1 85 41 0.0 0 7.7
42 15-21 36.2 23.7 87 47 0.0 0 7.3
43 22-28 35.9 23.7 86 46 0.2 0 7.4
44 29-4 36..0 21.1 78 46 0.0 0 8.2
November-2011
45 05-11 35.5 18.1 73 27 0.0 0 9.2
46 12-18 34.4 17.3 78 31 0.0 0 9.0
47 19-25 34.6 20.5 81 33 0.0 0 9.5
48 26-02 34.6 20.5 71 36 0.0 0 7.5
December-2011
49 03-09 33.9 17.2 82 33 0.0 0 8.5
50 10-16 32.1 14.3 75 19 0.0 0 8.2
51 17-23 32.6 15.2 76 30 0.0 0 7.6
52 24-31 30.4 11.5 85 28 0.0 0 8.0
January-2012
1 01-07 29.2 12.2 83 40 0.0 0 6.5
2 08-14 28.0 11.9 73 51 0.0 0 9.0
3 15-21 28.1 11.6 86 64 0.0 0 9.4
4 22-28 29.7 13.0 83 75 0.0 0 8.9
5 29-04 30.6 14.5 72 32 0.0 0 9.1
Total 1597.2 65
58
Table 3: Mean weekly meteorological data recorded at the
meteorological observatory of NAU, Navsari from
February 2012 to January 2013
Std. Meteoro Temperature Relative Rain- No. Sunshin

Week -logical C0 Humidity % fall of e hrs
No. week (mm) rainy day-1
days
Feb. -2012
6 05-11 28.0 12.0 60 24 0.0 0 9.5
7 12-18 30.4 12.9 77 28 0.0 0 9.4
8 19-25 35.1 15.1 70 23 0.0 0 9.4
9 26-04 32.3 14.5 85 34 0.0 0 9.1
Mar.- 2012
10 05-11 31.5 15.4 83 40 0.0 0 8.2
11 12-18 35.6 15.6 71 19 0.0 0 8.9
12 19-25 37.6 15.9 73 17 0.0 0 8.6
13 26-01 37.4 20.3 85 30 0.0 0 8.0
Apr.-2012
14 02-08 35.4 23.1 91 49 0.0 0 8.9
15 09-15 34.4 22.6 90 45 0.0 0 9.5
16 16-22 37.1 23.7 75.1 37.1 0.0 0 7.6
17 23-29 37.0 22.8 82.7 40.4 0.0 0 10.1
18 30-06 33.5 25.7 81.8 58.4 0.0 0 9.5
May -2012
19 07-13 34.0 25.0 84 56 0.0 0 9.9
20 14-20 34.8 25.7 80 52 0.0 0 11.0
21 21-27 33.6 27.1 81 58 0.0 0 9.6
22 28-03 33.6 28.2 75 60 0.0 0 9.0
June -2012
23 04-10 33.7 27.1 84 67 32.0 2 5.9
24 11-17 34.1 26.7 85 67 7.0 1 9.4
Week -logical (C 0) Humidity % fall of e hrs
days
June-12
25 18-24 33.0 27.1 85 72 51.0 3 7.3
26 25-01 32.0 26.5 89 72 65.0 3 8.0
59
July -2012
27 02-08 31.1 26.1 93 83 130 4 2.3
28 09-15 31.0 25.8 94 83 55 7 2.7
29 16-22 30.8 26.8 91 83 39 4 2.6
30 23-29 30.1 27.0 90 86 19 2 0.4
31 30-05 29.7 25.8 91 86 50.4 5 0.5
Aug.-2012
32 06-12 30.0 25.8 94 88 95.0 2 1.1
33 13-19 29.6 25.5 90 81 35.0 5 3.3
34 20-26 30.1 25.0 79 25 43.0 2 4.1
35 27-02 30.7 25.6 93 79 15.6 6 4.0
Sep. -2012
36 03-09 29.3 24.9 97 91 301.0 6 2.4
37 10-16 29.1 24.8 92 85 168.0 6 2.0
38 17-23 30.4 24.8 93 70 12.0 2 4.5
39 24-30 31.7 23.4 92 60 136.0 2 6.7
40 01-07 33.6 24.4 90 67 12 2 6.6
Oct. -2012
41 08-14 34.3 22.5 88.0 47.0 0 0 7.4
42 15-21 35.9 21.6 81.0 51.0 0 0 7.7
43 22-28 35.8 21.1 72.0 33.0 0 0 8.5
44 29-04 34.1 18.1 62.0 31.0 0 0 7.2
Nov. -2012
45 0-11 33.9 16.8 70.0 33.0 0 0 9.3
46 12-18 33.8 20.0 82.0 38.0 0 0 8.3
Week -logical (C 0) Humidity % fall of e hrs
days
Nov.-2012
47 19-25 32.4 14.2 70.0 23.0 0 0 8.7
48 26-02 32.2 13.8 84.0 33.0 0 0 8.8
Dec. -2012
49 03-09 33.5 19.2 68.0 33.0 0 0 6.3
50 10-16 30.7 15.3 86.0 38.0 0 0 7.9
51 17-23 32.1 17.4 66.0 31.0 0 0 8.1
52 24-31 31.0 14.5 66.0 33.0 0 0 9.3
Jan. -2013
1 01-07 28.2 9.9 87.0 41.0 0 0 6.9
2 08-14 30.6 12.7 73.0 38.0 0 0 9.0
3 15-21 29.0 11.9 87.7 48.2 0 0 7.0
4 22-28 30.4 14.0 75.9 36.2 0 0 8.0
Total 1267.2 66
60
Object 3
Fig. 1: Meteorological parametres recorded during crop season of 2010-2011
63
Object 5
Fig.2: Meteorological parametres recorded during crop season of 2011-2012
64
3.1.3 Cropping history of the experimental fields
As indicated earlier, the experiment was conducted in 17 and
25 plot of "G" block, Main Sugarcane Research Station, Navsari
Agricultural University, Navsari during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012,
respectively. The cropping sequence followed on the experimental field
during three years before starting of the investigation with fertilization is
presented in Table 4.
3.2 Experimental details
In order to study the "Plant geometry in relation to
mechanization in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum)", the field
experiment was conducted with four plant geometries and four varieties
during both the years. The treatment was assigned at random to the
respective plots. The treatment details along with symbols used in the
layout plan are as follows.
Design: Split plot design
Treatments:
A. Main plot treatment
a. Plant geometry (P)
1. 90 cm between rows (Normal row) P1
2. 120cm between rows (Normal row) P2
3. 150 cm between rows (Normal row) P3
4. 30:150 cm twin row planting P4
B. Sub plot treatment
b. Variety (V)
1. CoN 05071 V1
2. CoN 08072 V2
3. Co 86032 V3
65
4. Co 99004 V4
66
Table 4: Cropping history of the experimental fields
Year Season Crop First year plot Crop Second year plot
Fertilizer applied (kg ha-1) Fertilizer applied (kg ha-1)
N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2 O
2007- Kharif - - - - - - - -
2008
Winter Sugarcane 250 125 125 - -- - -
Summer - - - - - - - -
2008- Kharif - - - - - - - -
2009
Winter Sugarcane 300 62.5 125 Sugarcane 250 125 125
(Ratoon)
Summer - - - - - - - -
2009- Kharif Paddy 120 30 0 Green - - -
2010 manure crop
Winter - - - - - - - -
Summer - - - - - - - -
2010- Kharif - - - - Paddy 120 30 0
2011
Winter Present - - - Sunnhemp - - -
Experiment
Summer - - - - - - - -
2011- Kharif - - - - - - - -
2012
Winter - - - - Present - - -
Experiment
66
Replications: Four
III. Total number of treatments per replication: 16
Plot Size:
A. Gross:
(a) 8.00 m x 5.40 m for P1
(b) 8.00 m x 6.00 m for P2, P3 and P4
B. Net:
(a) 7.00 m x 3.60 m for P1 and P2
(b) 7.00 m x 3.00 m for P3 and P4
Total experimental area: 72.00 m x 54.80 m=3945.40 sq. m.
Spacing : As per treatment
Seed rate : Sugarcane - 50,000 two eye budded setts ha-1
Crop and variety : Sugarcane and as per treatment
The details of the treatment with layout plan are presented in Fig. 3.
3.3 Salient features of sugarcane varieties
A. CoN 05071
1 Year of released 2007
2 Clone number CoN 05071
3 Parentage Co Jn 86310 x Co 86249
4 Stool habit Erect (Slightly slanting )
5 Stem colour (Exposed) Yellowish green
6 Stem colour (Unexposed) Yellow
7 Ivory marks Present
8 Corky patches Present
9 Internode shape Concave
10 Internode alignment Zig-zag
11 Pithiness Absent
12 Splits Present
13 Wax Present
67
51.2 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
P2 P1 P4 P3 P4 P2 P3 P1
8.0 m
V4 V3 V2 V1 V4 V2 V1 V3
P2 P1 P4 P3 P4 P2 P3 P1
V2 V1 V3 V4 V3 V4 V2 V1
P2 P1 P4 P3 P4 P2 P3 P1
V1 V2 V4 V3 V2 V1 V3 V4
P2 P1 P4 P3 P4 P2 P3 P1
V3 V4 V1 V2 V1 V3 V4 V2
2.0 m
R II R IV
72.0 m
P4 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P4
V1 V2 V4 V3 V1 V2 V3 V4
P4 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P4
V4 V1 V3 V2 V4 V3 V1 V2
P4 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P4
V2 V3 V1 V4 V2 V1 V4 V3
P4 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P4
V3 V4 V2 V1 V3 V4 V2 V1
N
RI R III
Fig.3: Plan of layout
68
14 Node swelling Absent
15 Root zone colour (Exposed) Green
16 Root zone colour (Unexposed) Yellow
17 (a) No. of root eye rows Two to three
(b) Arrangement Irregular
18 Bud size Medium
19 Bud shape Round
20 Bud cushion Absent
21 Germpore position Apical
22 Bud groove Absent
23 Growth ring colour Yellow
24 Leaf length 120-150 cm
25 Leaf width 5 cm
26 Lamina colour Dark green
27 Leaf carriage Erect, open tip-drooping
28 Leaf sheath colour Green
29 Leaf sheath waxiness Absent
30 Leaf sheath spines Absent
31 Leaf sheath clasping Easy
32 Dewlap colour Green
33 Ligular process Present, dentoid
34 Shape of the auricle Ascending transitional
35 Flowering 3 to 5 percent due to water
logging
36 Yield potential 130-140 t ha-1
37 Salient characteristics Dark green medium broad
leaves, stalk green, after
detrashing stalks colour
becomes yellowish, medium
thick cracks in stalk, legular
process is longer.
B. CoN 08072
2 Clone number CoN 04131
3 Parentage Co95021 x Co 8347
4 Stool habit Erect
86
5 Stem colour (Exposed) Purpal
6 Stem colour (Unexposed) Yellow
7 Ivory marks Present
8 Corky patches Absent
9 Internode shape Cylindrical
10 Internode alignment Straight
11 Internode diameter (cm) 2.76
12 Pithiness Absent
13 Splits Absent
14 Wax Present
15 Node swelling Absent
16 Root zone colour (Unexposed) Yellow
17 Root zone colour (Exposed) Purple
18 (a) No. of root eye rows Two to three
19 Bud size Medium
20 Bud shape Round
24 Growth ring colour Purple
25 Leaf width (cm) 5 cm
26 Lamina colour Green
27 Leaf carriage Erect, open tip drooping
28 Leaf sheath colour Purple
29 Leaf sheath waxiness Absent
30 Leaf sheath spines Present, Deciduous
31 Leaf sheath clasping Easy
33 Ligular process Absent
34 Shape of the auricle Non flower
35 Flowering Sparse
36 Erectness Erect purplish
38 Salient characteristics Medium thick purplish cane with
wax and no split, green, open
erect, tip drooping leaves. Purple
leaf sheath with deciduous spine.
C. Co 86032
87
2 Clone number Co 86032
3 Parentage Co 62198 x CoC 671
4 Stool habit Semi erect
5 Leaf sheath hairiness Sparse
6 Ligule shape Crescent
7 Shape of inner auricle Deltoid
9 Leaf blade: Cuvature Erect
10 Leaf blade: Width Broad (5.6 cm)
11 Adherence of leaf sheath Weak
12 Internode:Colour (exposed to Yellow green 145 C
sun)
13 Internode: Colour Greyed brown N 199 C (light
(Unexposed) purple)
14 Internode: Diameter Thick (3.1 cm)
15 Internode shape Conoidal
16 Internode zigzag nature Absent
17 Internode growth crack Present
18 Rind surface appearance Corky patches and ivory marks
present
19 Internode waxiness Light
20 Bud shape Ovate
21 Bud size Medium
23 Bus cushion Present
24 Bud tip extension Touching the ring
25 Growth ring prominence Weak
26 Root band width Medium (0.7 cm)
27 Internode cross section Oval
28 Internode pithiness Absent
29 Number of Millable canes High
(NMC) per stool
30 Cane height Tall (258 cm)
31 Salient characteristics Medium thick, brownish yellow
cracking cane, weather marking
88
present, leaf sheath purple, lamina
dark green and high quality
variety.
D. Co 99004
2 Clone number Co 99004
3 Parentage Co 62175 x Co 86250
4 Stool habit Erect
5 Stem colour (Exposed) Yellowish green
6 Stem colour (Unexposed) Light yellowish green
7 Ivory marks Absent
8 Corky patches Absent
9 Internode shape Cylindrical
10 Internode alignment Tending zig-zag
11 Internode diameter 2.9 cm
12 Pithiness Light
13 Splits Absent
14 Wax Light
15 Node swelling Not swollen
16 Root zone colour (Exposed) Light green
17 Root zone colour Light green
(Unexposed)
18 (a) No. of root eye rows Two
19 Bud size Small, slightly protruding
20 Bud shape H with prominent bud wings
23 Bud groove Indicated
24 Growth ring colour Green
25 Leaf length 1.25 m
26 Leaf width 5 cm
27 Lamina colour Green
28 Leaf carriage Closed, tip drooping
29 Leaf sheath colour Purplish green
30 Leaf sheath waxiness Light
31 Leaf sheath spines Absent
32 Leaf sheath clasping Loose
89
34 Ligular process Present
35 Shape of the ligule Linear crescent
36 Flowering 5%
38 Salient characteristics Tall, erect, medium thick,
yellowish green canes with
closed canopy; green sheath
without spines or splits or ligular
process.
3.4 Field operations

The schedule of pre and post planting operations followed
during crop seasons are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Schedule of cultural operations carried out during the period

of investigation (2010-11 and 2011-12)
Date of operation Nature of operations
Plot G-17 Plot G-25
(2010-2011) (2011-2012)
Pre-planting operations
04.12.2010 16.11.2011 Cultivation with tractor
06.12.2010 16.11.2011 Harrowing, planking and levelling with
tractor
06.12.2010 17.12.2011 Field layout
07.12.2010 19.12.2011 Opening of ridges and furrows as per
treatment by tractor drawn ridger
07.12.2010 19.12.2011 Opening of irrigation channels
07.12.2010 19.12.2011 Repairing of ridges and bunds of each
experimental plots
10.12.2010 21.12.2011 Preparation of two budded sugarcane setts
and imposition of seed treatments to setts
and placing them on the bunds of ridges for
90
planting. Application of full dose of P 2O5
and K2O alongwith 15.00 per cent of N.
Planting and post-planting operations
11.12.2010 22.12.2011 Pre-planting irrigation and wet planting of
setts
14.12.2010 26.12.2011 Per-emergence application of atrazine
27.12.2010 09.01.2011 2nd Irrigation
11.01.2011 27.01.2012 3rd Irrigation
28.01.2011 10.02.2012 4th Irrigation
15.02.2011 27.02.2012 5th Irrigation
07.03.2011 13.03.2012
6th Irrigation
24.03.2011 29.03.2012
08.04.2011 14.04.2011 7th Irrigation
21.04.2011 30.04.2012 8th Irrigation
05.05.2011 14.05.2012 9th Irrigation
21.05.2011 31.05.2012 10th Irrigation
11th Irrigation
Contd… Table 5
Date of operation Nature of operations
Plot G-17 Plot G-25
(2010-2011) (2011-2012)
Planting and post-planting operations
06.06.2011 22.10.2012 12th Irrigation
18.10.2011 12.11.2012
13th Irrigation
09.11.2011 01.12.2012
28.11.2011 19.12.2012 14th Irrigation
17.12.2011 - 15th Irrigation
16th Irrigation
28.01.2011 10.02.2012 Top dressing of Nitrogen-2nd split of N (30 %)
15.02.2011 29.03.2012
3rd split of N (20 %)
24.03.2011 31.05.2012
01.03.2011 28.03.2012 4th split of N (35 %)
Interculturing
15.05.2011 25.05.2012 Final earthing up
20-02-2011 - Plant protection measures :
Spraying of Endosulfan 35 EC 0.075 % for
sugarcane
91
05.01.2012 05.01.2013 Harvesting of sugarcane
3.4.1 Land preparation

The experimental field was prepared by tractor drawn
implements. The ploughing was carried out after the harvest of kharif crop
in the month of October-November for both the years. The clods were
broken with the help of disc harrow and then cultivated in both the
directions by tractor drawn cultivator. Ridges and furrows were opened at a
distance of 90 cm, 120 cm, 150 cm and 30:150 cm with the help of tractor
drawn ridger. Plots were laid out as per the plan given in Fig. 3 during both
the years. The essential channels required to irrigate the plots were opened
with the help of tractor drawn ridger.
3.4.2 Fertilizer application
A common dose of 125 kg P2O5 ha-1 and 125 kg K2O ha-1 in the
form of single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively, were
applied uniformly to all the experimental plots prior to planting and it was
mixed with the soil.
Nitrogen was applied @ 250 kg ha-1 in the form of urea in all
treatments in four splits as under:
1. 15 per cent at the time of planting
92
2. 30 per cent at 45 days after planting
3. 20 per cent at 90 days after planting
4. 35 per cent before final earthing-up i.e. 150 days after planting
3.4.3 Seed rate and planting
Two eye budded setts obtained from different sugarcane
varieties were used @ 50,000 per hectare. Two eye budded setts were
planted in furrows after treating with 0.1 per cent solution each of Emisan
and Melathion for control of fungal and insect infestation. The planting was
done at a different planting geometries using same seed rate of 50,000 two
eye bedded setts i.e. at normal planting 90 cm between row (P 1), 120 cm
row planting (P2), 150 cm row planting (P3) and 30:150 cm twin row
planting (P4). In twin row planting, two setts were planted in zigzag way,
keeping the distance of 30 cm, in the same furrow. The setts were arranged
as per treatment, covered with soil in wet planting method.
3.4.4 Irrigation
Canal and tube well having good quality water was used for
irrigation. During the entire growth period 13 and 14 irrigations were given
during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 with 20-22 days interval in winter and
15-18 days interval in summer season, respectively.
3.4.5 Plant protection measures
All the necessary plant protection precautions were taken as
and when required for sugarcane crop. In general the field was free from
any serious pest and diseases of sugarcane crop.
3.4.6 Weed management
Weed management was done either by hand weeding or
applying chemical. Required quantity of herbicide was calculated and
applied. Herbicide atrazine was applied as pre-emergence i.e. 3 days after
sugarcane planting.
93
3.4.7 Harvesting
The harvesting date for sugarcane crop in both the years is
given in Table 5. The plot wise sugarcane millable cane yield was weighed
in kilogram and recorded for the entire experimental plot separately.
3.5 Bio-metric observations
During both the years of investigation, observations recorded
on weeds and crops are described below:
3.5.1 Observation on weeds
3.5.1.1 Weed population count
Weed population counts were taken by random placing of an
iron quadrate measuring 1.0 square metre area in each net plot at 45 and 90
days after planting. Periodical counts i.e. at 45 and 90 days after planting
were made from the same area. The number of monocots (grasses + sedges)
and dicots observed within the quadrate were counted and recorded.
3.5.1.2 Dry weight of weeds
The weed samples were collected twice, first at 90 days after
planting from 1.0 square metre area and expressed as g m -2 and second at
the time of final earthing up from entire net plot area of each plot and
expressed as kg ha-1. These samples were sun dried and then finally dried in
the electrical oven at 65oC for 24 hours. The dry weight of weeds was
recorded when samples attained a constant weight.
3.5.2 Observations on sugarcane
3.5.2.1 Germination count
In each plot, the germination count was made twice i.e. at 30
and 45 days after planting from two spots of one metre row length marked
in the net plot and converted it into the percentage.
3.5.2.2 Number of tillers
Number of tillers were counted from two places at 90, 135 and
94
180 days after planting from the net plot and the average was worked out to
report as number of tillers per metre row length.
3.5.2.3 Plant height
Ten plants per plot were selected at random from the net plot
and same plants were used for height, internodes and girth. The height in
cm was measured from ground level to top most point at 120, 180, 270
days after planting and at harvest. The average was worked out to express
the height per plant in cm.
3.5.2.4 Number of internodes
The numbers of internodes of ten plants were counted from
previously selected ten plants at harvest and the average was worked out to
report as number of internodes per plant.
3.5.2.5 Girth of cane
The girth of cane from three spots i.e. near ground, top and
middle was measured at harvest from previously selected ten plants. The
cane girth measured at three spots were averaged and recorded as the girth
of the cane in cm.
3.5.2.6 Number of millable canes
The count for number of millable canes were done at harvest
from two places from the net plot and the average was worked out to report
as number of millable canes per metre row length at the harvest. Millable
cane population was converted into hectare basis.
3.5.2.7 Cane yield
The net plot was harvested separately. The canes were
detrashed and millable canes were prepared by cutting top portion. The
weight of these millable canes for each experimental plot was recorded in
kilogram and then it was converted into tonnes per hectare by multiplying
it with conversion factor.
95
3.5.2.8 Total dry matter accumulation
Five plants for dry matter studies were taken at 90 days
interval after planting. The whole plants were separated into leaf blade, leaf
sheath and stalk of each plant parts. Then all the plant parts were cut into
small pieces, sun dried and final weight was recorded after oven drying at
65oC until the constant weight was obtained. The mean dry matter per plant
(g) was recorded by adding together the weight of leaf blade, leaf sheath
and stalk and converted on hectare basis (t ha-1).
3.5.3 Observations on cane quality

There are many methods for determination of sugarcane
quality, out of which Horne’s dry lead subacetate method for estimation of
pol per cent (sucrose) in cane is most reliable (George, 1963). This method
involves the estimation of pol per cent in juice and the pol. The detail
procedure for estimation of the various constituents viz., pol per cent in
juice, pol per cent in cane, commercial cane sugar per cent and in tonnes
per hectare, fibre percentage and the recovery of sugar are described below.
3.5.3.1 Sampling of the cane for analysis
Five canes were sampled at random from each net plot at 365
DAP as a representative sample for determination of quality characters. The
cane samples were cut into pieces of 45 to 50 cm, weighed and juice was
extracted by crushing in the mechanical crusher. The juice was collected in
a previously weighed bucket containing 0.5 g HgCl2 as preservative. The
juice thus extracted was used for further analysis of quality parameters. The
juice parametres were obtained by referring the table for the polarimeter
reading (George, 1963).
3.5.3.2 Pol per cent juice (sucrose % juice)
96
Juice sample of 100 ml from each treatment was taken and
transferred in 250 ml measuring flask. Horne’s lead subacetate was added
for good clarification. The mixture was shaken and the mixed solution was
filtered through a flutted filter paper. The filtrate was collected in a clean
dry 100 ml beaker. The clear filtrate was taken in a 200 mm calibrated pol
per cent tube for polarimeter observation. The polarimeter reading was
noted.
3.5.3.3 Per cent purity co-efficient
The per cent purity co-efficient was computed directly on
polarimeter.
3.5.3.4 Pol per cent cane (sucrose % cane)
The sucrose per cent cane was calculated by using the
following equation:
Pol (%) cane = Pol (%) juice x (0.9-Fibre (%)/100)
3.5.3.5 Commercial cane sugar (%)
The commercial cane sugar percentage (C.C.S. %) was
calculated as below:
C.C.S. % = [B x 1.02 - S x 0.29]
Where,
B = Juice brix
S = Sucrose (%) juice
3.5.3.6 Commercial cane sugar yield (t ha-1)
The commercial cane sugar (C.C.S.) yield (t ha-1) was
calculated using the cane yield value (t ha-1) and C.C.S. (%) as under:
C.C.S. (t ha-1) = Cane yield (t ha-1) x C.C. S. (%)
100
3.5.3.7 Fibre per cent cane
The 250 g of small pieces of stalk were filled in rapipol
97
containing 1000 ml of water. Rapipol was adjusted for 15 minutes. After
each 15 minutes rapipol automatically stopped and cane fibre pieces were
mixed with water. The mixture was filtered through muslin cloth. The
fibres were dried at 110oC to constant weight and fibre percentage was
calculated by using the formula described as below:
Fibre (%) = Dry fibre weight (gm) x 100
250
3.6 Chemical analysis
3.6.1 Nutrient content (%)
The weed samples collected at 90 days after planting and at
final earthing up and sugarcane samples (leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk)
collected at harvest were oven dried and ground to 40 mesh and utilized for
estimation of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content. Plant samples
were digested in di-acid mixture. The extract prepared after digestion was
used for estimation of N, P2O5 and K2O content as per the following
methods:
[a] Nitrogen
The nitrogen was estimated by modified micro Kjeldahl's
method (Jackson, 1967).
[b] Phosphorus
Unreduced vanadomolybdate phosphoric acid yellow colour
method was used for estimation of phosphorus from the extract (Jackson,
1967).
[c] Potassium
The potassium from the extract was determined by Flame
photometer (Jackson, 1967).
3.6.2 Uptake of nutrients
The uptake of nutrients was calculated by multiplying the dry
98
matter yield with the respective percentage of compositions of different
nutrients. The total uptake for N, P2O5 and K2O by the sugarcane crop was
obtained by summing the uptake of respective nutrients by leaf blade, leaf
sheath and stalk.
3.6.3 Soil analysis
The composite soil samples drawn from 0 - 30 cm depth
before experimentation (Initial) during both the years were dried, grounded
and then sieved through 2 mm size sieve. The initial soil sample was
analysed for different physico-chemical properties. The samples so
obtained were used for determination of N, P 2O5, K2O and C content by
methods as mentioned in Table 1.
3.7 Economics
The economics of planting sugarcane were worked out by
considering the prevailing market rates for different inputs and produces.
The gross realization and cost of cultivation were worked out by
considering the price rates given in appendix 42 and recorded in rupees per
hectare accordingly.
3.7.1 Gross realization (₹ ha-1)
The gross realization in terms of rupees per hectare was
worked out on the basis of yield of sugarcane for each treatment,
considering the prices prevailing in the market during the year 2010-11 and
2011-12 crop seasons (Appendices 42 and 43).
3.7.2 Cost of cultivation (₹ ha-1)
The cost of cultivation (₹ ha-1) for each treatment was worked
out by taking into consideration the cost of all the operations right from the
preparatory tillage till harvesting and the cost of all inputs involved.
(Appendices 42 and 46).
3.7.3 Net realization (₹ ha-1)
99
The net realization (₹ ha-1) was worked out by deducting the
total cost of cultivation from gross realization for each treatment.
3.7.4 Benefit cost ratio
The benefit cost ratio of each treatment was calculated by
dividing the gross realization by the cost of cultivation of the respective
treatments.
3.8 Correlation and regression studies
Correlation and regression studies were carried out with a
view to find out the inter relationship, if any, between millable cane yield
and growth parameters, yield attributes and weed dry weight in sugarcane
crop. A simple correlation co-efficient 'r' and regression equation was
worked out as suggested by Panse and Sukhatme (1985).
3.9 Statistical analysis
The experimental data pertaining to each character were
analysed statistically by using the technique of ''Analysis of variance'' for
split plot design and the significance was tested by ''Variance ratio'' i.e. 'F'
value (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). Standard error of mean (S. Em. ±) and
critical difference (C.D.) were worked out for each character studied to
evaluate difference between the treatments and interaction effects at 5 per
cent level. Graphical illustrations of the data have also been given at
relevant places.
For weed population studies at 45 and 90 days after planting
for monocots and dicots, the data were first transformed to square root to
reduce the range of variation and then statistically analyzed by standard
method as described by Steel and Torrie (1960).
3.10 Feasibility of mechanization
Tractor drawn implements were utilized for various field
operations viz., land preparation, ridges and furrow preparation,
100
interculturing, earthing up and harvesting. Visual eye observations on crop
injury, reduction in crop plant population and number and dry matter
accumulation by weeds as affected by use of mechanization were recorded.
Similarly, convenience experienced in performing various mechanized
operations was noted and taken into consideration to evaluate the plant
geometry and varying varietal characters of sugarcane varieties in relation
to mechanization.
101
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
IV EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Results of the field experiment entitled, "Plant geometry in

relation to mechanization in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum)"
conducted at Main Sugarcane Research Station, Navsari Agricultural
University, Navsari during the rabi seasons 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are
presented in this chapter. The data pertaining to various growth and yield
attributes, cane and sugar yields as well as its quality, nutrient uptake by
plant and economics were subjected to statistical analysis. The data have
been set out in Tables and also illustrated graphically wherever felt
necessary alongwith statistical inferences.
4.1 Germination count
The data pertaining to germination percentage of sugarcane
setts recorded at 30 and 45 days after planting were statistically analysed
and presented in Table 6.
4.1.1 Effect of plant geometry
The data presented in Table 6 revealed that various plant
102
geometries did not exert any significant influence on the germination of
sugarcane setts at 30 and 45 days after planting during both the years of
investigation.
4.1.2 Effect of variety
A perusal of data presented in Table 6 indicated that
germination percentage at 30 and 45 days after planting were not affected
significantly due to different varieties during both the years.
4.1.3 Interaction effect
Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety was
found to be significant with respect to germination of setts at 30 days after
Table 6: Germination percentage of sugarcane as influenced by plant
geometry and variety
Treatment Germination (%)
At 30 DAP At 45 DAP
2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12
Plant Geometry (P)
P1 56.50 54.31 69.96 69.40
P2 58.19 57.17 73.19 71.36
P3 59.19 54.35 72.74 67.93
P4 56.17 55.57 73.43 69.18
S. Em.± 1.05 1.24 1.82 1.47
C.D. at 5% NS NS NS NS
C.V. % 7.31 8.93 10.07 8.48
Variety (V)
V1 59.69 57.02 69.72 69.87
V2 57.41 54.72 74.40 69.23
V3 57.65 54.84 72.95 69.88
V4 55.29 54.81 72.24 68.86
S. Em.± 1.15 1.00 1.58 1.19
103
C.D. at 5 % NS NS NS NS
C.V. % 7.99 7.20 8.77 6.86
Interaction Sig. NS NS NS
DAP : Days after planting Sig.: Significant NS: Non significant
planting during first year only (Appendix 1). Treatment combination P 3V1
recorded maximum germination percentage however; it remained at par
with P1V2, P1V3, P3V2, P4V1 and P4V4 indicating that germination may be
higher with suitable variety under specific plant geometry.
4.2 Growth characters
The data on number of tillers per plant and plant height at
various growth stages are presented in Table 7 and 8.
4.2.1 Number of tillers per metre row length
The data on number of tillers at periodical interval are
presented in Table 7 and graphically depicted in Fig. 4 and 5. The data
clearly revealed that the number of tillers per metre row length was found
to be increased progressively upto 135 DAP then after it was decreased. It
may be due to competition among tillers for light, nutrients, air and
moisture. Tiller which able to take all these parametres easily become
better in growth.
4.2.1.1 Effect of plant geometry
The data presented in Table 7 showed that various plant
geometries significantly influenced the number of tillers per metre row
length in sugarcane at all the stages of observation except at 135 DAP
during both the years. At 90 DAP, planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm
104
row spacing (P2) recorded maximum number of tillers per metre row length
during both the years of experimentation however, it was at par with 150
cm (P3) row spacing and 30:150 twin row planting (P 4) and found
significantly superior to normal planting of 90 cm (P1) during both the
years.
At 135 DAP, number of tillers per metre row length were
found to be non significant among various plant geometries. Significantly
higher number of tillers per metre row length at 180 DAP were recorded
Table 7: Number of tillers per metre row length in sugarcane as
influenced by plant geometry and variety
Treatment Number of tillers per metre row length
Days after planting Days after planting
(2010-2011) (2011-2012)
90 135 180 90 135 180
Plant geometry (P)
P1 15.36 19.26 13.02 15.39 19.34 12.96
P2 18.09 19.69 16.22 18.19 19.68 16.22
P3 17.74 18.83 15.84 17.74 18.74 15.88
P4 17.88 19.04 16.00 17.76 19.02 16.01
S. Em.± 0.41 0.51 0.46 0.46 0.60 0.47
C.D. at 5% 1.31 NS 1.48 1.46 NS 1.51
C.V.% 9.49 10.66 12.12 10.53 12.42 12.34
Variety (V)
V1 17.03 18.60 15.01 17.01 18.62 15.07
V2 18.02 19.66 15.51 18.09 19.69 15.41
V3 18.01 20.51 16.51 18.07 20.47 16.24
V4 16.00 18.04 14.04 16.01 18.00 14.34
S. Em.± 0.57 0.41 0.50 0.48 0.39 0.47
C.D. at 5 % 1.63 1.18 1.43 1.37 1.13 1.33
C.V. % 13.19 8.57 13.03 11.07 8.22 12.19
Interactio NS Sig. NS NS Sig. NS
n
105
Sig. : Significant NS : Non significant
106
Object 7
Fig. 4: Number of tillers per metre row length as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011
and 2011-2012
107
Object 9
Fig. 5: Number of tillers per hectare as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012
108
under planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing (P 2) which being
statistically at par with 150 cm (P3) and 30:150 cm twin row planting (P4)
during both the years. Conventional planting of 90 cm (P 1) recorded
significantly lower number of tillers per metre row length during both the
years of experimentation.
4.2.1.2 Effect of variety
The data further indicated that the different varieties
significantly influenced the number of tillers per metre row length during
both the years at all periodical stages. At 90 DAP, significantly the higher
number of tillers per metre row length were recorded under variety V 2
(CoN 08072) which was statistically at par with variety V1 (CoN 05071)
and V3 (Co 86032) and found superior over variety V 4 (Co 99004) during
both the years of investigation.
Significantly higher number of tillers per metre row length at
135 DAP were recorded with variety V3 (Co 86032), being at par with
variety V2 (CoN 08072) during both the years. Variety V4 (Co 99004)
recorded the lowest number of tillers during both the years of
experimentation.
At 180 DAP, almost all the varieties recorded higher number
of tillers per metre row length except variety V 4 (Co 99004). Variety V3
(Co 86032) recorded significantly higher number of tillers per metre row
length but remained at par with variety V2 (CoN 08072) during first year
(2010-2011) and with variety V2 (CoN 08072) and V1 (CoN 05071) during
second year (2011-2012) of study.
4.2.1.3 Interaction effect
Interaction between plant geometry and variety was significant
during both the years at 135 DAP only. Treatment combination P 2V2
recorded significantly the highest number of tillers per metre row length
93
but remained at par with P1V2, P1V3, P1V4, P2V3, P4V1 and P4V3 during first
year and with P1V2, P1V3, P2V3, P4V1 and P4V3 during second year (2011-
2012) (Appendices 2 and 3).
4.2.2 Total plant height (cm)
The data on total plant height (cm) recorded at different crop
growth stages as affected by plant geometry and variety alongwith
statistical inferences are presented in Table 8 and graphically depicted in
Fig. 6. Data clearly revealed that total plant height was increased
progressively upto harvest with the advancement of crop growth.
A perusal of data presented in Table 8 indicated that various
plant geometries significantly influenced total plant height. Planting of
sugarcane setts at 120 cm (P2) row spacing recorded significantly
maximum plant height at all the growth stages and at harvest, while
minimum was recorded with 150 cm (P3) row spacing during both the years
of experimentation.
It is evident from the data that total plant height was
significantly affected by different varieties upto harvest of the crop. The
maximum total plant height was recorded with variety V 1 (CoN 05071) at
120 and 180 DAP but remained at par with variety V 4 (Co 99004) during
At 270 DAP and harvest maximum total plant height was
recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) being statistically at par with variety
V4 (Co 99004) and V2 (CoN 08072) during first year (2010-2011). During
second year, variety V1 (CoN 05071) and V4 (Co 99004) noted maximum
plant height being at par with each other. While at harvest, variety (CoN
05071), V2 (CoN 08072) and V4 (Co 99004) had recorded maximum total
94
Table 8: Total plant height (cm) of sugarcane as influenced by plant geometry and variety
Treatments Plant height (cm)
Days after planting Days after planting
(2010-2011) (2011-2012)
120 180 270 At harvest 120 180 270 At harvest
Plant geometry (P)
P1 143.75 187.06 229.19 279.19 144.19 188.50 228.31 279.13
P2 154.50 216.13 247.75 298.50 157.56 211.31 246.75 298.00
P3 141.69 180.31 225.13 273.44 141.75 184.38 226.44 274.75
P4 145.31 191.94 232.63 280.13 146.81 190.75 230.56 282.44
S. Em.± 2.82 3.86 4.68 5.53 3.12 4.06 4.53 5.05
C.D. at 5% 9.02 12.36 14.98 17.68 9.99 12.98 14.50 16.17
C.V. % 7.71 7.97 8.02 7.81 8.46 8.37 7.78 7.13
Variety (V)
V1 159.06 211.38 244.75 291.38 159.31 211.06 246.06 291.63
V2 139.25 181.81 232.63 281.19 141.88 182.75 227.69 280.75
V3 129.44 171.94 214.06 269.37 131.50 171.50 241.19 271.88
V4 157.50 210.31 243.25 289.31 157.63 209.63 244.13 290.44
S. Em.± 2.79 3.45 4.32 5.59 2.98 3.98 4.27 5.23
C.D. at 5% 8.01 9.89 12.40 16.04 8.55 11.40 12.25 14.99
C.V.% 7.64 7.11 7.40 7.91 8.08 8.21 7.33 7.37
Interaction NS Sig. Sig. Sig. NS Sig. Sig. Sig.
95
Object 11
Fig. 6: Total plant height (cm) as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 at
different growth stages
96
plant height and found superior to the variety V3 (Co 86032).
Interaction between plant geometry and variety was found non
significant with respect to plant height at 120 DAP, while it was found
significant at 180, 270 DAP and at harvest during both the years of
investigation. The data are presented in appendices 4 to 9.
At 180 DAP, maximum plant height was recorded with the
treatment combination P2V4 but found at par with P1V1, P2V1, P2V2, P2V3,
P3V1, P3V4, P4V1 and P4V4 during both the years of study.
At 270 DAP, significantly maximum plant height was
recorded with treatment combination P2V1 during both the years, however,
it was remained at par with P3V4 and P1V1 during both the years.
At harvest, significantly maximum plant height was recorded
with treatment combination P2V1 during both the years of investigation.
4.2.3 Dry matter accumulation in sugarcane
Dry matter accumulation in leaf blade, leaf sheath, stalk and
total dry matter accumulation by sugarcane plant at different growth stages
are presented in Table 9 to 12 and graphically depicted in Fig. 7, 8, 9 and
10 respectively. At initial period up to 90 DAP dry matter accumulation
was found lower then after it was increased drastically. Stalk was not
formed at 90 DAP during both the years.
An appraisal of data presented in Table 9 to 12 showed that at
almost all periodical growth stages, dry matter accumulation of leaf blade,
leaf sheath and stalk was the highest with plant geometry P 2 (120 cm row
spacing) during both the years and found significantly superior to the plant
geometry P3 (150 cm row spacing). At 90 and 180 DAP, leaf blade and leaf
sheath dry weight was the lowest with plant geometry P 1 (90 cm) during
97
both the years except at 180 DAP during second year (2011-2012) where it
was found the lowest with plant geometry P 3 (150 cm row spacing). Then
after, at remaining stages, P3 (150 cm row spacing) recorded the lowest dry
matter accumulations during both the years.
The data further revealed that significantly the highest dry
matter accumulation at almost all the periodical stages was recorded with
variety V1 (CoN 05071) during both the years while variety V 3 (Co 86032)
recorded the lowest.
Interaction effect of plant geometry and variety was found
significant at various periodical growth stages during both the years. At 90
DAP, dry weight of leaf sheath, total dry weight of leaf blade and leaf
sheath during first year (2010-2011) and dry weight of leaf blade, leaf
sheath and total dry weight of leaf blade and leaf sheath during second year
(2011-2012); at 180 DAP, dry weight of leaf blade, dry weight of leaf
sheath, dry weight of stalk and total dry weight of leaf blade, leaf sheath
and stalk during first year (2010-2011) and dry weight of stalk and total
dry weight of leaf sheath and stalk during second year (2011-2012) and at
270 DAP, dry weight of leaf sheath during first year (2010-2011) found
significant (Appendices 10 to 21).
At 90 DAP, treatment combination P2V1 recorded significantly
maximum dry weight of leaf blade during second year; dry weight of leaf
sheath and total dry weight of leaf blade and leaf sheath during both the
At 180 DAP, significantly the highest and the lowest dry
weight of leaf blade were recorded with treatment combination P2V1 and
P1V2 respectively during first year (2010-2011); dry weight of leaf sheath
98
Table 9: Dry matter accumulation by plant (t ha-1) at 90 DAP as
influenced by plant geometry and variety
Treatments Dry weight (t ha-1)
2010-2011 2011-2012
Leaf Leaf Total Leaf Leaf Total
blade sheath blade sheath
Plant geometry (P)
P1 0.687 0.668 1.355 0.684 0.671 1.355
P2 0.726 0.723 1.449 0.755 0.741 1.496
P3 0.673 0.704 1.377 0.695 0.718 1.413
P4 0.687 0.727 1.414 0.721 0.731 1.452
S. Em.± 0.011 0.012 0.016 0.016 0.012 0.017
C.D. at 5 % 0.037 0.038 0.052 0.05 0.038 0.055
C.V. % 6.61 6.81 4.65 9.01 6.67 4.85
Variety (V)
V1 0.721 0.746 1.468 0.763 0.748 1.511
V2 0.678 0.692 1.370 0.694 0.706 1.401
V3 0.684 0.676 1.360 0.680 0.691 1.371
V4 0.690 0.709 1.398 0.717 0.715 1.432
S. Em.± 0.011 0.018 0.021 0.020 0.025 0.022
C.D. at 5 % 0.033 0.051 0.060 0.058 0.036 0.064
C.V. % 6.61 10.05 5.99 11.33 7.10 6.25
Interaction NS Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig.
DAP : Days after planting

Sig. : Significant
NS : Non significant
99
Table 10: Dry matter accumulation by plant (t ha-1) at 180 DAP as influenced by plant geometry and variety
2010-2011 2011-2012
Leaf blade Leaf sheath Stalk Total Leaf blade Leaf sheath Stalk Total
Plant geometry (P)
P1 4.05 2.87 4.79 12.00 4.73 3.29 5.07 12.72
P2 4.59 3.17 5.60 14.04 5.11 3.38 5.49 13.78
P3 4.17 3.01 4.81 12.07 5.02 3.14 4.90 12.29
P4 4.48 2.99 4.72 11.83 5.08 3.27 5.15 12.91
S. Em.± 0.13 0.06 0.069 0.17 0.09 0.050 0.10 0.26
C.D. at 5 % 0.29 0.20 0.22 0.55 0.28 0.16 0.33 0.83
C.V. % 12.00 8.27 5.51 5.49 7.01 6.11 8.02 8.00
Variety (V)
V1 4.57 3.51 5.34 13.39 5.19 3.42 5.39 13.52
V2 4.21 2.59 4.98 12.49 4.83 3.19 5.28 13.23
V3 4.20 2.68 4.73 11.86 4.77 3.13 5.04 12.64
V4 4.31 3.28 4.86 12.18 5.14 3.34 4.90 12.29
S. Em.± 0.10 0.09 0.089 0.22 0.13 0.078 0.12 0.30
C.D. at 5 % 0.29 0.25 0.26 0.64 0.37 0.22 0.35 0.87
C.V. % 9.21 11.69 7.15 7.13 10.24 9.51 9.40 9.37
Interaction Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. NS NS Sig. Sig.
DAP : Days after planting Sig. : Significant NS : Non significant
-1
Table 11: Dry matter accumulation by plant (t ha ) at 270 DAP as influenced by plant geometry and variety
100
20010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 7.83 4.58 17.81 30.20 8.27 4.52 20.97 33.75
P2 7.76 5.65 18.24 31.65 9.05 5.65 23.03 37.73
P3 7.15 4.03 17.90 29.08 7.85 4.16 19.52 31.53
P4 7.41 4.12 18.24 29.77 8.17 4.40 21.09 33.65
S. Em.± 0.16 0.14 0.36 0.44 0.21 0.21 0.66 0.63
C.D. at 5 % 0.51 0.45 NS 1.41 0.69 0.68 2.10 2.02
C.V. % 8.45 12.13 7.94 5.85 10.29 18.11 12.43 7.40
Variety (V)
V1 7.98 5.35 18.94 32.70 9.10 5.20 23.58 37.88
V2 7.82 4.44 17.81 30.08 7.93 4.59 20.05 32.57
V3 7.64 4.22 17.75 29.61 8.17 4.36 19.84 32.37
V4 6.71 4.35 17.68 28.75 8.14 4.58 21.13 33.85
S. Em.± 0.27 0.13 0.35 0.51 0.31 0.16 0.71 0.78
C.D. at 5 % 0.78 0.39 1.01 1.46 0.88 0.47 2.04 2.25
C.V. % 14.52 11.70 7.80 6.72 14.76 13.89 13.42 9.18
Interaction NS Sig. NS NS NS NS NS NS
DAP: Days after planting Sig. : Significant NS : Non significant
Table 12: Dry matter accumulation by plant (t ha-1) at harvest as influenced by plant geometry and variety
Treatments At harvest (t ha-1)
2010-2011 2011-2012
101
Plant geometry (P)
P1 8.33 7.22 29.86 45.40 8.86 6.78 33.88 49.51
P2 9.51 7.71 33.17 50.38 9.60 7.70 36.31 53.61
P3 8.25 7.17 28.93 44.35 8.55 6.49 29.90 44.94
P4 8.57 7.26 31.76 47.58 8.77 6.75 31.65 47.16
S. Em.± 0.29 0.11 0.97 0.95 0.20 0.23 0.81 0.85
C.D. at 5 % 0.92 0.38 3.09 3.05 0.64 0.73 2.58 2.70
C.V. % 13.23 6.44 12.49 8.12 8.98 13.20 9.80 6.93
Variety (V)
V1 9.33 7.89 33.12 50.33 9.56 7.44 35.03 52.02
V2 8.57 6.93 29.67 45.17 9.08 6.66 32.46 48.20
V3 8.25 7.56 31.11 46.91 8.50 6.50 31.93 46.92
V4 8.51 6.98 29.81 45.30 8.64 7.13 32.32 48.09
S. Em.± 0.26 0.22 0.94 1.15 0.28 0.26 0.84 1.85
C.D. at 5 % 0.74 0.65 2.70 3.29 0.81 0.73 2.40 5.30
C.V. % 11.85 12.33 12.19 9.79 12.64 14.72 10.15 7.57
Interaction NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
102
Object 13
Fig.7: Dry matter accumulation by leaf blade (t ha-1) at different periodical stages as influenced by plant
geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
103
Object 15
Fig.8: Dry matter accumulation by leaf sheath (t ha-1) at different periodical stages as influenced by plant
geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
104
Object 17
Fig. 9: Dry matter accumulation by stalk (t ha-1) at different periodical stages as influenced by plant geometry
and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
105
Object 20
Fig. 10: Total dry matter accumulation by sugarcane plant (t ha-1) at different periodical stages as influenced
by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
106
was recorded maximum with P3V4 and remained at par with P1V1, P2V3,
P2V4, P3V1 and P4V1 during first year; treatment combination P2V2 recorded
maximum dry weight of stalk but remained at par with P 1V1, P2V1 and P2V3
during first year; dry weight of stalk was recorded maximum with
treatment combination P4V1 and remained at par with P1V2, P2V1, P2V2,
P2V3 and P3V2 during second year; total dry weight of leaf blade, leaf
sheath and stalk were recorded maximum with treatment combination P 2V2
and remained at par with P1V1, P2V1, P2V3 and P2V4 during first year while
treatment combinations P4V1 recorded the highest total dry weight of leaf
blade, leaf sheath and stalk but remained at par with P1V2, P2V1, P2V2, P2V3
and P3V2 during second year.
At 270 DAP, treatment combinations P 3V4 and P4V3 recorded
significantly higher dry weight of leaf sheath and remained at par with
P2V4, P3V3, P4V2 and P4V4. The lowest dry weight was recorded with P 1V3,
P2V2 and P3V1 during first year of study.
4.3 Weed studies
The detail studies on weeds with regard to population and dry
weight of weeds were carried out during the course of this investigation
which is described here.
Predominant weed species observed in experimental plots
during the course of investigation are presented in Table 13.
4.3.1 Weed population (m2)
The weed population of monocots, dicots and total were
counted at 45 and 90 DAP from the experimental fields during both the
years of experimentation and they are described here. As the population of
sedges was less it has been consider in monocot weeds.
4.3.1.1 Weed population at 45 DAP
The mean data as influenced by plant geometry and variety are
112
Table 13: Per cent weed species observed in the experimental plots
Scientific name Local name 2010-2011 2011-
2012
[A] Monocot weeds
Cyperus rotundus L. Chidho 0.10 0.30
Eragrostis major L. Khariyu 7.27 22.82
Brachiara spp. Signal grass 22.43 3.57
Oryza sativa L. Paddy 46.83 29.89
Echinochloa colonum L. Sama 6.33 17.47
[B] Dicot weeds
Portulaca oleracea L. Pattharchata 1.97 3.27
Phyllanthus maderaspatensis Shikari 0.41 -
L.
Alternanthera sessilis L. Khakhiweed 1.14 -
Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk Bhangaro 7.68 1.04
Euphorbia hirta L. Dudheli 0.52 -
Centella asiatica Urb. Brahmifuti 0.41 -
Digera arvensis Forsk Kanjira 0.31 21.11
Melilotus indica (L.) All. Methyo 0.10 0.37
Operculina turpenthum L. Nisotar 0.21 0.15
Physalis minima L. Popti 0.41 -
Hibiscus spp. Wildbhindi 0.62 -
Corchorus acutangulus L. Wildjute 0.31 -
Abutilos indicum L. Kanski 0.31 -
Medicago sativa L. Rajko 2.60 -

4.3.1.1.1 Effect of plant geometry
The data presented in Table 14 revealed that the lowest weed
population (monocots, dicots and total) was recorded with plant geometry
P2 (120 cm row spacing) and P1 (90 cm row spacing) but remained at par
with each other and found significantly superior to rest of the plant
geometries during both the years of experimentation except dicot weed
113
population during second year, it found the lowest with plant geometry P3
(150 cm row spacing) and remained at par with plant geometry P2 (120 cm
row spacing) and P1 (90 cm row spacing). The highest weed population
(monocots, dicots and total) was recorded with plant geometry P 3 (150 cm
row spacing) followed by P4 (30:150 cm twin row planting) during both the
years except dicot weed populations during second year (2011-2012).
Significantly the lowest dicot weed population was recorded with plant
geometry P3 (150 cm row spacing) and remained at par with P2 (120 cm
row spacing) and P1 (90 cm row spacing) during second year of
experimentation.
4.3.1.1.2 Effect of variety
The data revealed that different varieties had no significant
influence on weed population (monocots, dicots and total) during both the
years of investigation.
4.3.1.1.3 Interaction effect
Interaction of plant geometry and variety on number of
monocots, dicots and total weeds per m -2 were found non significant during
both the years except monocot weed population during second year of
investigation (Appendix 22).
Treatment combination P2V2 recorded significantly the lowest
monocot weed population and remained at par with P1V4, P2V1, P2V3 and
Table 14: Effect of plant geometry and variety on weed population per
m2 at 45 days after planting (DAP)
Treatment 2010-2011 2011-2012
Monocot
Dicots Total Monocots Dicots Total
s
Plant geometry (P)
P1 5.55* 2.20 6.01 5.62 2.62 6.24
(31.06)** (5.25) (36.31) (31.75) (7.31) (39.06)
114
P2 5.13 2.22 5.61 5.37 2.48 5.93
(26.63) (5.19) (31.81) (28.94) (6.31) (35.25)
P3 5.78 2.59 6.35 5.88 2.46 6.39
(33.44) (6.94) (40.38) (34.63) (6.25) (40.88)
P4 5.64 2.53 6.19 5.74 2.79 6.39
(31.92) (6.50) (38.44) (33.00) (7.88) (40.88)
S. Em.± 0.14 0.098 0.15 0.083 0.067 0.086
C.D. at 0.44 0.31 0.47 0.27 0.22 0.28
5%
C.V. % 9.93 16.44 9.65 5.88 10.42 5.53
Variety (V)
V1 5.62 2.60 6.20 5.68 2.84 6.36
(31.81) (6.88) (38.69) (32.31) (8.25) (40.56)
V2 5.57 2.29 6.04 5.56 2.51 6.11
(31.31) (5.44) (36.75) (31.06) (6.44) (37.50)
V3 5.48 2.21 5.94 5.71 2.46 6.23
(30.25) (5.31) (35.56) (32.63) (6.31) (38.94)
V4 5.41 2.45 5.97 5.67 2.55 6.24
(29.69) (6.25) (35.94) (32.31) (6.75) (39.06)
S. Em.± 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.067 0.11 0.078
C.D. at NS NS NS NS NS NS
5%
C.V. % 8.81 22.12 7.10 4.73 16.70 4.98
Interaction NS NS NS NS NS NS
* = Figure out side parenthesis indicates x transformed value

** = Figure in parenthesis indicates original value
NS: Non significant
P2V4 and while the highest weed population was recorded with treatment
combination P3V4.
4.3.1.2 Weed population at 90 days after planting
The data on number of monocot, dicot and total weed
population from one square metre area as influenced by different treatments
are presented in Table 15.
115
The data indicated that various plant geometries exerted
significant effect on number of monocot and total weed population only at
90 DAP during both the years. Plant geometry P 1 (90 cm row spacing) and
P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded minimum monocot and total weed
populations and found significantly superior to the plant geometry P 3 (150
cm row spacing) during both the years. The highest weed populations was
recorded with plant geometry P3 (150 cm row spacing) during both the
The data further revealed that different varieties did not show
any significant effects on weed population per m-2 at 90 DAP. However, the
lowest weed population was recorded with variety V 4 (Co 99004) and V2
(CoN 08072) during first year (2010-2011) while monocot weed with
variety V2 (CoN 08072) and V4 (Co 99004) and dicot and total weed
population with variety V3 (Co 86032) during second year (2011-2012) of
study.
The interaction effect between plant geometry and variety was
found non significant during both the years of experimentation.
4.3.2 Dry weight of weeds
The oven dry weight of weeds (g m -2) recorded at 90 DAP
Table 15: Effect of plant geometry and variety on weed population
per m2 at 90 DAP
Treatment 2010-2011 2011-2012
Monocots Dicots Total Monocots Dicots Total
116
Plant geometry (P)
P1 5.63* 2.80 6.31 5.70 2.84 6.39
(31.88)** (8.19) (40.06) (32.50) (8.50) (41.00)
P2 5.67 2.78 6.35 5.48 2.85 6.21
(32.25) (8.31) (40.56) (30.13) (8.56) (36.69)
P3 6.19 3.04 6.91 5.92 2.94 6.62
(38.5) (9.44) (47.94) (35.06) (8.88) (43.94)
P4 5.92 2.90 6.63 5.89 2.77 6.55
(35.13) (8.94) (44.06) (34.75) (8.19) (42.94)
S. Em.± 0.086 0.15 0.12 0.051 0.13 0.077
C.D. at 5% 0.27 NS 0.37 0.16 NS 0.25
C.V. % 5.85 21.24 7.10 3.53 18.41 4.78
Variety (V)
V1 5.87 3.08 6.65 5.78 3.15 6.59
(34.69) (9.75) (44.44) (33.44) (10.13 (43.56)
)
V2 5.84 2.82 6.52 5.72 2.78 6.40
(34.25) (8.44) (42.69) (32.88) (8.25) (41.13)
V3 5.94 2.79 6.58 5.76 2.64 6.37
(35.38) (8.25) (43.63) (33.31) (7.38) (40.69)
V4 5.76 2.82 6.45 5.72 2.84 6.41
(33.44) (8.44) (41.88) (32.81) (8.38) (41.19)
S. Em.± 0.090 0.18 0.13 0.066 0.17 0.093
C.D. at 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS
C.V. % 6.13 25.25 7.64 4.59 23.60 5.80
Interaction NS NS NS NS NS NS
* = Figure out side parenthesis indicates x transformed value

** = Figure in parenthesis indicates original value
NS: Non significant
117
from randomly selected one square metre area and at harvest (kg ha -1) from
net plot area are presented in Table 16 and graphically depicted in Fig.11.
Higher accumulation of dry matter by weeds recorded during 2010-2011
than 2011-2012. This was mainly due to higher number of weeds during
2011-2012.
4.3.2.1 Dry weight of weeds (g m-2) at 90 DAP
It is evident from the data presented in Table 16 that various
plant geometries did not show any significant effect during first year while
plant geometry P1 (90 cm row spacing) and P2 (120 cm row spacing)
recorded significantly the lowest dry weight of weeds at 90 DAP during
second year of experimentation.
The data further revealed that different varieties did not exert
significant effects on dry weight of weed at 90 DAP. However, the lowest
dry weight of weeds was recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) and V3
(Co 86032) during first and second year, respectively.
Interaction of plant geometry and variety was found
significant during both the years and the data are presented in appendix 23
and 24. Treatment combination P1V4 and P2V4 recorded minimum dry
weight of weeds at 90 DAP during first and second year, respectively.
4.3.2.2 Dry weight of weeds (kg ha-1) at final earthing up
The data on dry weight of weeds (kg ha-1) at final earthing up
during both the years of experimentation are presented in Table 16 and
graphically depicted in Fig. 12.
115
An appraisal of data in Table 16 revealed that plant geometry
Table 16: Effect of plant geometry and variety on dry weight of weeds
at 90 DAP and final earthing up
Treatment Dry weight

At 90 DAP (g m-2) At final earthing up (kg ha-1)
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 149.56 151.75 2490.69 2664.13

P2 150.94 155.19 2401.75 2491.19
P3 161.94 170.56 2635.63 2761.25
P4 156.25 166.50 2533.81 2674.06
S. Em.± 3.61 2.66 48.07 93.50
C.D.at 5% NS 8.50 153.78 NS
C.V. % 9.33 6.61 7.64 14.13
Variety (V)
V1 153.13 159.63 2417.50 2526.25

V2 154.81 162.94 2568.94 2628.75
V3 157.38 157.69 2547.19 2703.19
V4 153.37 163.75 2528.25 2732.44
S. Em.± 2.61 2.77 48.55 88.03
C.D.at 5% NS NS NS NS
C.V. % 6.75 6.88 7.72 13.30
Interaction Sig. Sig. Sig. NS
Sig. : Significant
116
Object 23
Fig. 11: Dry weight of weed (g m-2) at 90 DAP as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and
2011- 2012
117
Object 25
Fig. 12: Dry weight of weed (kg ha-1) at final earthing up as influenced by plant geometry and variety during
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
118
P1 (90 cm row spacing) and P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded significantly
the lowest dry weight of weeds and found significantly superior to the rest
of plant geometries during first year (2010-2011). Various plant geometries
did not show any significant effect on dry weight of weeds at final earthing
up during second year (2011-2012) of experimentation.
The data further showed that different varieties did not exert
their significant effect on dry weight of weed at final earthing up during
both the years of investigation. However, the lowest weed population was
recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) during both the years of
investigation.
Interaction between plant geometry and variety for dry weight
of weeds at final earthing up was found significant during first year (2010-
2011) only. Treatment combination P2V1 recorded minimum dry weight of
weeds at final earthing up but remained at par with P1V1, P2V3, P2V4, P3V1
and P3V4 (Appendix 25).
4.4 Yield and yield attributes
The data on millable cane height, number of millable canes,
cane girth, number of internodes, single cane weight and cane yield at
harvest are presented in Table 17 to 23.
4.4.1 Millable cane height (cm)
The observations on millable cane height of sugarcane crop
recorded at harvest during both the years of study and the data are
presented in Table 17 and graphically depicted in Fig. 13.
A perusal of data presented in Table 17 indicated that plant
geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded significantly highest millable
119
Table 17: Effect of plant geometry and variety on millable cane
height (cm) at harvest
Treatments Millable cane height (cm)
2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 237.88 229.00
P2 258.50 247.06
P3 238.75 245.00
P4 244.63 247.94
S. Em.± 3.75 4.43
C.D. at 5% 11.99 14.16
C.V.% 6.14 7.31
Variety (V)
V1 251.88 253.50
V2 231.94 228.44
V3 241.50 238.00
V4 251.44 249.06
S. Em.± 4.31 6.11
C.D. at 5% 12.37 17.53
C.V. % 7.06 10.09
Interaction NS NS
DAP : Days after planting

120
Object 27
Fig. 13: Millable cane height (cm) as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012
121
cane height but remained at par with plant geometry P 4 (30:150 cm twin
row planting) during first year (2010-2011) while plant geometry P 2 (120
cm row spacing), P3 (150 cm row spacing) and P4 (30:150 twin row
planting) recorded maximum cane height and remained at par with each
other at harvest during second year (2010-2011).
The data also revealed that different varieties exerted their
significant effect on millable cane height at harvest during both the years of
experimentation. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded maximum millable cane
height at harvest and it was remained at par with variety V 3 (Co 86032) and
V4 (Co 99004) during both the years of investigation.
4.4.1.3 Interaction effects
The interaction effect was found non significant with respect
to millable cane height at harvest during both the years of experimentation.
4.4.2 Number of millable canes per metre row length
The data on number of millable canes per metre row length of
sugarcane recorded at harvest are tabulated in Table 18 and graphically
depicted in Fig. 14.
4.4.2.1. Effect of plant geometry
The number of millable canes per metre row length was
significantly influenced by various plant geometries at harvest during both
The data presented in Table 18 revealed that plant geometry P 2
(120 cm row spacing) recorded maximum number of millable canes per
metre row length during both the years, however, it was at par with 90 cm
normal row planting (P1) during first year (2010-2011). The lowest number
of millable canes per metre row length was observed with plant geometry
P4 (30:150 cm twin row planting) during both the years of study.
125
Table 18: Effect of plant geometry and variety on number of millable
canes per metre row length at harvest
Treatments Number of millable canes per metre row
length
2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 10.85 10.63
P2 11.47 11.48
P3 10.66 10.68
P4 10.49 10.50
S. Em.± 0.22 0.21
C.D. at 5% 0.70 0.68
C.V.% 8.03 7.88
Variety (V)
V1 11.12 11.14
V2 11.42 11.41
V3 11.75 11.72
V4 9.19 9.02
S. Em.± 0.34 0.24
C.D. at 5% 0.96 0.69
C.V.% 12.37 8.91
Interaction NS Sig.
Sig. : Significant
126
Object 30
Fig. 14: Number of Millable cane (NMC) per metre row length as influenced by plant geometry and variety
during 2010- 2011 and 2011-2012
128
The data also showed that number of millable canes per metre
row length was significantly influenced by different varieties at harvest
during both the years. Variety V3 (Co 86032) recorded the maximum
number of millable canes per metre row length but remained at par with
variety V1 (CoN 05071) and V2 (CoN 08072) during both the years of
experimentation.
Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety was

found significant during second year only. Treatment combination P 2V3
recorded maximum number of millable canes per metre row length at
harvest and remained statistically at par with P 1V2, P2V1 and P3V3
(Appendix 26).
4.4.3 Number of millable canes per hectare
The data pertaining to number of millable canes per hectare

recorded at harvest are presented in Table 19 and graphically depicted in
Fig.15.
The data presented in Table 19 revealed that planting of

sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing (P2) recorded maximum number of
millable canes per hectare (1, 14,732) and remained at par with
conventional planting 90 cm (P1) (1, 08,457) during first year while plant
geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded maximum number of millable
canes per hectare (1, 14,757) and found significantly superior to the rest of
the plant geometries. The minimum number of millable canes per hectare
(1, 04,911 and 1, 04,970, respectively) recorded with twin row planting (P 4)
129
(30:150 cm twin row planting) during both the years of experimentation.
Table 19: Effect of plant geometry and variety on number of millable

canes per hectare at harvest
Treatments Number of millable canes per hectare

2010-2011 2011-12
Plant geometry (P)
P1 108457 106324
P2 114732 114757
P3 106607 106726
P4 104911 104970
S. Em.± 2181.52 2131.21
C.D. at 5% 6978.99 6818.03
C.V.% 8.03 7.89
Variety (V)
V1 111161 111369
V2 114167 114077
V3 117530 117173
V4 91850 90159
S. Em.± 3360.34 2131.21
C.D. at 5% 9637.89 6818.03
C.V.% 12.37 7.88
Interaction NS Sig.
Sig. : Significant
130
Object 32
Fig. 15: Number of Millable cane (NMC) per hectare as influenced by plant geometry and variety during
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
132
The data presented in Table 19 revealed that planting of

sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing (P2) recorded maximum number of
millable canes per hectare (1, 14,732) and remained at par with
conventional planting 90 cm (P1) (1, 08,457) during first year while plant
geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded maximum number of millable
canes per hectare (1, 14,757) and found significantly superior to the rest of
the plant geometries. The minimum number of millable canes per hectare
(1, 04,911 and 1, 04,970, respectively) recorded with twin row planting (P 4)
(30:150 cm twin row planting) during both the years of experimentation.
The data further indicated that different varieties significantly

influenced the number of millable canes per hectare during both the years
of experimentation. Variety V3 (Co 86032) recorded maximum number of
millable canes per hectare (117530) and remained at par with variety V 1
(CoN 05071) and V2 (CoN 08072) and found superior than variety V4
(Co 99004).

significant during second year of experimentation (Appendix 27).
Treatment combination P2V3 recorded maximum number of

millable canes per hectare but remained statistically at par with treatment
combinations P1V2, P2V1, P2V2 and P3V3.
4.4.4 Millable cane girth (cm)
The mean data on millable cane girth (cm) at harvest along

with statistical inferences are presented in Table 20.
133
Table 20: Effect of plant geometry and variety on millable cane girth
(cm) at harvest
Treatments Millable cane girth (cm)

2010-2011 2011-12
Plant geometry (P)
P1 2.50 2.49
P2 2.49 2.51
P3 2.46 2.49
P4 2.45 2.47
S. Em.± 0.015 0.033
C.D. at 5% NS NS
C.V.% 2.41 5.32
Variety (V)
V1 2.54 2.53
V2 2.42 2.43
V3 2.48 2.48
V4 2.47 2.50
S. Em.± 0.02 0.02
C.D. at 5% 0.057 0.070
C.V. % 3.21 3.92
Interaction (P x V)
S. Em.± 0.040 0.049

C.D. at 5% NS NS
C.V.% 3.21 3.92
NS: Non significant
134
geometries did not exert significant effect on millable cane girth during
both the years of experimentation.
An appraisal of data presented in Table 20 revealed that

variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded maximum cane girth during both the
years however, it was remained statistically at par with variety V 3 (Co
86032) during first year and variety V3 (Co 86032) and V4 (Co 99004)
during second year of experimentation.
Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety found to

be non significant on millable cane girth at harvest during both the years of
experimentation.
4.4.5 Number of internodes per millable cane
The data on number of internodes per millable canes at harvest

along with statistical inferences are presented in Table 21 and graphically
illustrated in Fig.16.
The data pertaining to numbers of internodes per millable cane

at harvest as affected by various plant geometries found non significant
during both the years.
The data further revealed that different varieties had

significant effect on number of internodes per millable canes at harvest
135
during both the years of experimentation. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded
higher numbers of internodes per millable cane however it was
Table 21: Effect of plant geometry and variety on number of

internodes per millable cane at harvest
Treatments Number of internodes per millable cane
2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 21.56 21.75
P2 23.19 22.81
P3 21.50 21.81
P4 21.94 21.92
S. Em.± 0.49 0.84
C.D. at 5% NS NS
C.V. % 8.82 6.61
Variety (V)
V1 23.06 23.31
V2 21.00 21.06
V3 21.44 21.50
V4 22.69 22.44
S. Em.± 0.53 0.42
C.D. at 5% 1.51 1.21
C.V. % 9.54 7.61
Interaction (P x V)
S. Em.± 1.05 0.84

C.D. at 5% NS Sig.
C.V. % 9.54 7.61
Sig. : Significant
136
137
Object 34
Fig. 16: Number of internodes per millable cane per hectare as influenced by plant geometry and variety during
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
138
statistically at par with V4 (Co 99004) during both the years of study.
Interaction between plant geometry and variety was found to
be significant with respect to number of internodes per millable canes at
harvest during second year only (Appendix 28). Treatment combination
P2V1 recorded higher number of internodes per millable canes at harvest
and remained statistically at par with treatment combinations P 1V1, P1V2,
P2V4, P3V1, P4V3 and P4V4.
4.4.6 Single cane weight (kg)
The mean data on single millable cane weight at harvest along
with statistical inferences are presented in Table 22 and graphically
A perusal of data presented in Table 22 showed that various
plant geometries did not exert significant effect on single cane weight
during both the years of experimentation.
The data further indicated that different varieties showed
significant influence on single cane weight during both the years of
investigation. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded maximum single cane
weight during both the years of study however it remained at par with
variety V4 (Co 99004) during first year (2010-2011) and both these
varieties found superior to the variety V2 (CoN 08072).
Interaction between plant geometry and variety found
significant during both the years of experimentation (Appendices 29 and
30). Treatment combination P2V4 recorded maximum single cane weight
however, it remained statistically at par with treatment combinations P1V1,
137
Table 22: Effect of plant geometry and variety on single cane weight
(kg) at harvest
Treatments Single cane weight (kg)
2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 1.18 1.19
P2 1.20 1.16
P3 1.15 1.14
P4 1.21 1.17
S. Em.± 0.02 0.02
C.D. at 5% NS NS
C.V. % 6.75 6.46
Variety (V)
V1 1.25 1.29
V2 1.12 1.11
V3 1.16 1.15
V4 1.20 1.11
S. Em.± 0.03 0.02
C.D. at 5% 0.08 0.06
C.V. % 9.04 7.70
Interaction (P x V)
S. Em.± 0.05 0.05
C.D. at 5% Sig. Sig.
C.V. % 9.04 7.65
Sig. : Significant
138
Object 36
Fig. 17: Single cane weight as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
139
P1V3, P3V1, P3V4, P4V1 and P4V4 during first year while treatment
combination P2V1 recorded significantly higher cane weight and it was
statistically at par with treatment combinations P 1V1 and P3V1 during
second year of experimentation.
4.4.7 Cane yield (t ha-1)
The mean data with respect to cane yield recorded at harvest
during both the years and pooled are presented in Table 23 and graphically
illustrated in Fig. 18 and 19.
The data presented in Table 23 showed that various
plant geometries significantly influenced on cane yield during both the
years of investigation. Plant geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded
maximum cane yield (124, 129 and 127 t ha-1) during both the years of
experimentation as well as in pooled data, respectively. However, it was not
differed significantly with plant geometry P4 (30:150 cm twin row planting)
during first year of study. The lowest cane yield (116, 113 and 117 t ha -1)
was recorded with plant geometry P 1 (90 cm normal row spacing), P 4
(30:150 cm twin row planting) and P1 (90 cm cm normal row spacing)
during individual year as well as in pooled data, respectively. The cane
yield on pooled basis was increased to the tune of 8.06 per cent with plant
geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) over plant geometry P1 (90 cm row
spacing).
influenced on cane yield (t ha-1) during both the years of experimentation as
well as in pooled data. Variety V 1 (CoN 05071) recorded significantly
higher cane yield (133, 132 and 132 t ha-1) during both the years of
investigation as well as in pooled data respectively, while the lowest cane
140
Table 23: Effect of plant geometry and variety on cane yield (t ha-1)
Treatments Cane yield (t ha-1)

2010-2011 2011-2012 Pooled
Plant geometry (P)
P1 116.05 118.63 117.34
P2 124.18 129.41 126.80
P3 118.15 117.53 117.84
P4 121.96 112.95 117.46
S. Em.± 1.86 2.39 2.14
C.D. at 5% 5.96 7.63 6.36
C.V. % 6.20 7.98 7.14
Variety (V)
V1 133.03 131.77 132.40
V2 117.93 117.80 117.86
V3 115.29 115.23 115.26
V4 114.10 113.72 113.91
S. Em.± 3.16 2.73 2.05
C.D. at 5% 9.08 7.84 5.78
C.V. % 10.53 9.14 9.86
Interaction 18.15 NS Sig.
Sig. : Significant
141
Object 38
Fig. 18: Cane yield (t ha-1) as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
142
Object 40
Fig. 19: Cane yield (t ha-1) as influenced by plant geometry and variety in pooled data
143
yield (114, 114 and 114 t ha-1) were noted with variety V4 (Co 99004)
during both the years as well as in pooled data respectively. Variety V 2
(CoN 08072), V3 (Co 86032) and V4 (Co 99004) remained statistically at
par with each other during both the years as well as in pooled data. The
cane yield on pooled basis was increased to the tune of 13.80 per cent with
variety V1 (CoN 05071) over variety V4 (Co 99004).
be significant with respect to cane yield recorded during first year and
pooled data and presented in appendices 31 and 32. Treatment
combinations P1V1 and P2V1 recorded maximum cane yield (139 and 138 t
ha-1) during first year and in pooled data respectively.
4.5 Quality studies
The data on quality in terms of pol (sucrose) content in juice
(percentage), pol (sucrose) content in cane (percentage), purity percentage,
C.C.S. percentage, fibre percentage and commercial cane sugar (C.C.S.)
yield (t ha-1) as influenced by the different treatments are presented under
appropriate sub headings.
4.5.1 Pol (%) juice (Sucrose % juice)
The mean data pertaining to pol (sucrose) content in juice (%)
are presented in Table 24.
geometries had no significant effect on pol (sucrose) content in juice during
both the years of experimentation.
It is evident from the data presented in Table 24 that different
varieties showed significant effect on pol per cent in juice. The highest pol
144
Table 24: Effect of plant geometry and variety on pol (%) juice, pol (%) cane and Purity (%)
Treatments Pol (%) juice Pol (%) cane Purity (%)
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 19.55 18.37 14.73 13.80 91.70 92.09
P2 19.35 18.43 14.61 14.02 91.30 92.35
P3 19.31 18.65 14.59 14.03 91.49 92.27
P4 19.41 18.54 14.64 14.00 91.44 92.58
S. Em.± 0.24 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.27 0.10
C.V. % 4.86 4.69 4.66 4.54 1.20 1.00
Variety (V)
V1 20.27 18.72 15.30 14.08 91.51 91.86
V2 17.77 18.16 13.37 13.75 90.54 90.02
V3 19.65 18.78 14.83 14.17 92.15 92.74
V4 19.92 18.34 15.07 13.86 91.73 92.49
S. Em.± 0.15 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.31 0.27
C.D. at 5% 0.44 0.50 0.36 NS 0.89 NS
C.V. % 3.13 3.80 3.39 3.81 1.36 1.15
Interaction NS NS NS NS NS Sig.
Sig. : Significant NS : Non significant
147
per cent in juice was recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) but it remained
statistically at par with variety V4 (Co 99004) during both the years of
investigation.
Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety did not
show any significant effect on pol (sucrose) per cent in juice during both
the years of study.
4.5.2 Pol (sucrose) content in cane (%)
The mean data pertaining to effect of plant geometry and
variety on pol (sucrose) content in cane (%) are presented in Table 24.
Various plant geometries had no significant influence on pol
(sucrose) content in cane (%) during both the years of investigation.
An appraisal of data presented in Table 24 showed that variety
V1 (CoN 05071) and V4 (Co 99004) recorded significantly higher pol
content (%) in cane and found significantly superior to the variety V 2 (CoN
08072) and V3 (Co 86032) during first year only.
Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety with
respect to pol (sucrose) content in cane (%) was found to be non significant
during both the years of study.
4.5.3 Purity (%)
The mean data on purity (%) of juice as influenced by plant
geometry and variety at harvest along with statistical inferences are
144
geometries did not differ significantly during both the years of
investigation.
The data also indicated that different varieties significantly
influenced the purity per cent during first year only. Variety V 3 (Co 86032)
recorded higher purity per cent but remained at par with variety V 1
(CoN 05071) and V4 (Co 99004).
Interaction between plant geometry and variety was significant
during second year only (Appendix 33). The data revealed that treatment
combination P2V3 recorded maximum purity per cent but it remained at par
with almost all the treatment combinations.
4.5.4 Commercial cane sugar (%)
The mean data on commercial cane sugar (%) along with
statistical inferences are presented in Table 25.
It is evident from the data presented in Table 25 that
commercial cane sugar (%) did not differ significantly due to various plant
geometries during both the years of investigation.
The data also revealed that different varieties showed
significant effect on commercial cane sugar (%) during both the years of
investigation. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded higher commercial cane
sugar (%) during both the years and remained statistically at par with
variety V4 (Co 99004) during the first year and with variety V 4 (Co 99004)
and V3 (Co 86032) during second year.
Interaction between plant geometry and variety did not show
145
Table 25: Effect of plant geometry and variety on C.C.S. (%) and Fibre
(%)
Treatments C.C.S. (%) Fibre (%)

2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 13.76 13.07 14.64 13.84
P2 13.59 13.08 14.53 13.91
P3 13.58 13.17 14.42 14.78
P4 13.64 13.19 14.54 14.47
S. Em.± 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.06
C.D. at 5% NS NS NS 0.20
C.V. % 5.08 5.32 6.21 1.73
Variety (V)
V1 14.25 13.33 14.54 14.76
V2 12.43 12.78 14.75 14.30
V3 13.86 13.39 14.53 14.54
V4 14.02 13.01 14.32 14.40
S. Em.± 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.13
C.D. at 5% 0.33 0.44 NS NS
C.V. % 3.40 4.68 3.75 3.65
Interaction NS NS NS Sig.
Sig. : Significant
any significant effect on commercial cane sugar (%) during both the years
of investigation.
4.5.5 Fibre (%) in cane
The mean data with respect to fibre percentage in cane at
harvest along with statistical inferences are presented in Table 25.
A perusal of data presented in Table 25 revealed that various
148
plant geometries did not influence the fibre percentage during first year
however, plant geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded significantly
the lowest fibre percentage during second year and found significantly
superior to the rest of the plant geometries.
The data further indicated that different varieties did not reach
to the level of significance during both the years of experimentation.
Interaction effect of plant geometry and variety found to be
non significant during first year however it showed significant effect on
fibre % during second year. Treatment combination P 2V4 recorded the
lowest fibre % and remained statistically at par with treatment
combinations P1V2, P2V1, P2V2, P2V3, P4V2 and P4V3 (Appendix 34).
4.5.6 Commercial cane sugar yield (t ha-1)
The mean data on commercial cane sugar yield (t ha-1) along
with statistical inferences are presented in Table 26 and graphically
It is evident from the data presented in Table 26 that
commercial cane sugar yield (t ha-1) was affected significantly during
second year only. Plant geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) recorded
Table 26: Effect of plant geometry and variety on Commercial Cane
Sugar (C.C.S.) yield (t ha-1)
Treatments C.C.S. (t ha-1)
2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 15.91 15.49
P2 16.92 16.93
P3 16.07 15.50
149
P4 16.63 14.91
S. Em.± 0.26 0.43
C.D. at 5% NS 1.38
C.V. % 6.32 11.03
Variety (V)
V1 18.96 17.54
V2 14.63 15.05
V3 15.94 15.42
V4 16.00 14.82
S. Em.± 0.44 0.40
C.D. at 5% 1.25 1.15
C.V. % 10.63 10.19
Interaction Sig. NS
Sig. : Significant
150
Object 42
Fig. 20: C.C.S. yield (t ha-1) as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
151
maximum commercial cane sugar yield (16.92 t ha-1) and found
significantly superior to the rest of plant geometries, while the lowest
commercial cane sugar yield (14.91 t ha-1) was recorded with plant
geometry P4 (30:150 cm twin row planting).
increased the commercial cane sugar yield during both the years of
experimentation. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded significantly maximum
commercial cane sugar yield (18.96 and 17.54 t ha-1, respectively) during
both the years and found significantly superior to the rest of the varieties.
The minimum sugar yield was noted with variety V2 (CoN 08072) and V4
(Co 99004) during first and second year respectively.
Interaction between plant geometry and variety found to be
significant during first year only (Appendix 35). Treatment combination
P1V1 recorded maximum commercial cane sugar yield (20.23 t ha -1) but
remained at par with treatment combinations P2V1, P3V1 and P4V1.
4.6 Chemical studies
4.6.1 NPK content (%) and uptake (kg ha-1) by weeds at final
earthing up
Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) content
(%) and uptake (kg ha-1) by weeds under different treatments at final
earthing up are presented in Tables 27, 28 and 29.
4.6.1.1 Nutrient (NPK) content (%) in weeds
4.6.1.1 Nitrogen content (%) in weeds
plant geometries did not show any significant effect on nitrogen content
153
Table 27: Effect of plant geometry and variety on N content (%) and
depleted (kg ha-1) by weeds at final earthing up
Treatments N content (%) N uptake (kg ha-1)
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 1.258 1.267 31.30 33.79
P2 1.214 1.226 29.06 30.62
P3 1.123 1.132 29.65 31.07
P4 1.179 1.190 29.80 31.85
S. Em.± 0.077 0.036 2.20 1.55
C.V. % 15.80 12.07 29.40 19.53
Variety (V)
V1 1.220 1.226 29.35 30.81
V2 1.189 1.178 30.55 31.00
V3 1.120 1.155 28.60 30.99
V4 1.246 1.258 31.31 34.52
S. Em.± 0.057 0.039 1.41 1.52
C.V. % 19.06 12.87 18.82 19.08
Interaction NS NS NS NS
NS: Non significant
(%) in weeds during both the years.

The data further indicated that different varieties failed to
show their significant effect with respect to nitrogen content (%) in weeds
during both the years of experimentation.
154
Interaction effect of plant geometry and variety was found non
significant during both the years.
4.6.1.2 Uptake of nitrogen by weeds (kg ha-1)
The mean data with respect to nitrogen uptake by weeds as
influenced by plant geometry and variety are presented in Table 27.
It is evident from the data that various plant geometries did not
exert their significant effect on nitrogen uptake by weeds during both the
The data further revealed that different varieties did not reach
the level of significance with respect to uptake of nitrogen during both the
years.
Interaction of plant geometry and variety was found to be non
4.6.1.3 Phosphorus content (%) in weeds
The data presented in Table 28 revealed that the effect of plant
geometries with respect to phosphorus content was found to be non
Table 28: Effect of plant geometry and variety on P 2O5 content (%) and
depleted (kg ha-1) by weeds at final earthing up
Treatments P2O5 content (%) P2O5 uptake (kg ha-1)
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
155
Plant geometry (P)
P1 0.402 0.526 10.02 13.98
P2 0.435 0.515 10.45 12.99
P3 0.410 0.526 10.85 14.49
P4 0.413 0.541 10.48 14.46
S. Em.± 0.017 0.018 0.48 0.52
C.V. % 16.49 13.77 18.48 14.93
Variety (V)
V1 0.437 0.521 10.55 13.30
V2 0.397 0.527 10.20 13.84
V3 0.411 0.529 10.50 14.26
V4 0.417 0.531 10.55 14.54
S. Em.± 0.014 0.016 0.45 0.58
C.V. % 13.61 12.13 17.15 16.60
NS: Non significant

The phosphorus content in weed was not significantly
influenced due to the different varieties during both the years of study.
Interaction effect of plant geometry and variety did not show
any significant effect with respect to phosphorus uptake by weed during
4.6.1.4 Uptake of phosphorus by weeds (kg ha-1)
156
An appraisal of data presented in Table 28 showed that various
plant geometries with respect to phosphorus uptake by weeds in sugarcane
crop at final earthing up found to be non significant during both the years
of experimentation.
The data further revealed that different varieties failed to exert
their significant effect with respect to phosphorus uptake by weeds during
both the crop season.
be non significant during both the years.
4.6.1.5 Potassium content (%) in weeds
The data presented in Table 29 indicated that various plant
geometries did not manifest their significant effect on potassium content in
weeds at final earthing up during both the years of experimentation.
The data further showed that different varieties failed to show
their level of significance with respect to potassium content in weeds
Table 29: Effect of plant geometry and variety on K 2O content (%)
and depleted (kg ha-1) by weeds at final earthing up
Treatments K2O content (%) K2O uptake (kg ha-1)
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 1.706 1.72 42.51 45.73
P2 1.684 1.69 40.48 42.18
P3 1.574 1.58 41.33 43.74
P4 1.579 1.59 40.16 42.66
157
S. Em.± 0.037 0.036 1.14 2.24
C.V. % 8.96 8.67 11.12 20.58
Variety (V)
V1 1.629 1.646 39.42 41.57
V2 1.586 1.595 40.59 41.74
V3 1.649 1.656 42.04 44.95
V4 1.679 1.686 42.42 46.05
S. Em.± 0.042 0.040 1.42 3.61
C.V. % 10.18 9.81 13.83 16.57
NS: Non significant

Interaction effect of plant geometry and variety did not exert
their significant influence on potassium content in weeds during both the
years of investigation.
4.6.1.6 Potassium uptake by weeds (kg ha-1)
The mean data on potassium uptake by weeds at final earthing
up as affected by plant geometry and variety are presented in Table 29.
Plant geometry with respect to potassium uptake by weeds was found non
significant during both the crop seasons.
It is evident from the data that the different varieties did not
158
show any significant effect with respect to potassium uptake by weeds.
Interaction effect of plant geometry and variety found to be
non significant during both the years of experimentation.
4.6.2 NPK content (%) in sugarcane leaf blade at harvest
The mean data with respect to nutrient content (%) in
sugarcane leaf blade as influenced by different treatments are presented in
Table 30.
4.6.2.1 Nitrogen content (%) in leaf blade
The mean data with respect to nitrogen content (%) in
sugarcane leaf blade at harvest are presented in Table 30.
The data (Table 30) showed that various plant geometries did
not show any significant effect on nitrogen content (%) in sugarcane leaf
blade at harvest during both the years of experimentation.
Table 30: Effect of plant geometry and variety on nutrient content (%)
of sugarcane leaf blade at harvest
Treatments N content (%) P2O5 content (%) K2O content (%)
2010- 2011- 2010- 2011- 2010- 2011-
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 0.709 0.716 0.263 0.265 1.063 1.054
P2 0.721 0.741 0.275 0.268 1.063 1.077
P3 0.712 0.684 0.265 0.263 1.008 1.017
P4 0.723 0.731 0.263 0.263 1.053 1.038
S. Em.± 0.029 0.018 0.0050 0.0050 0.030 0.026
C.D.at 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS
C.V. % 16.12 10.19 7.04 7.59 11.30 9.86
Variety (V)
V1 0.777 0.771 0.278 0.272 1.065 1.081
V2 0.670 0.662 0.266 0.266 1.021 1.021
159
V3 0.703 0.721 0.260 0.260 1.005 1.012
V4 0.716 0.718 0.265 0.261 1.097 1.072
S. Em.± 0.020 0.019 0.0041 0.0032 0.025 0.021
C.D. at 5% 0.058 0.053 0.012 0.0090 0.071 0.060
C.V. % 11.37 10.31 6.13 4.76 9.39 7.97
Interaction NS NS NS NS NS Sig.
Sig. : Significant

The data revealed that different varieties significantly
influenced nitrogen content in sugarcane leaf blade at harvest. Variety V1
(CoN 05071) recorded maximum nitrogen content during both the years
however it remained statistically at par with variety V3 (Co 86032) and V4
(Co 99004) during second year only.
any significant effect with respect to nitrogen content (%) in leaf blade at
harvest during both the years of study.
4.6.2.2 Phosphorus content (%) in sugarcane leaf blade
The mean data with respect to phosphorus content (%) in
A perusal of data presented in Table 30 revealed that there was no
significant differences were observed with respect to phosphorus content
(%) in sugarcane leaf blade at harvest due to various plant geometries
during both the years of investigation.
160
The mean data further indicated that variety V1 (CoN 05071)
noted maximum phosphorus content in sugarcane leaf blade at harvest
during both the years however it remained at par with variety V 2 (CoN
08072). The minimum phosphorus content was recorded with variety V 3
(Co 86032) followed by V4 (Co 99004) during both the years.
any significant effect with respect to phosphorus content (%) in leaf blade
at harvest during both the years.
4.6.2.3 Potassium content (%) in sugarcane leaf blade
The mean values with respect to potassium content (%) in
The data presented in Table 30 revealed that the various plant
geometries did not show any significant effect on potassium content (%) in
sugarcane leaf blade at harvest during both the years.
The data also revealed that different varieties had significant
effect with respect to potassium content in sugarcane leaf blade at harvest.
Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded maximum potassium content and
remained statistically at par with variety V4 (Co 99004) during both the
significant with respect to potassium content in leaf blade during second
year only. Treatment combination P2V1 recorded maximum potassium
content in leaf blade at harvest being at par with treatment combinations
P1V4, P2V2, P2V4, P4V1 and P4V4 (Appendix 36).
161
4.6.3 NPK content (%) in sugarcane leaf sheath at harvest
Mean data on nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content (%)
in sugarcane leaf sheath at harvest as influenced by different treatments are
presented in table 31.
4.6.3.1 Nitrogen content (%) in leaf sheath
Various plant geometries had no any significant effect on
nitrogen content (%) in leaf sheath during both the years of investigation.

A perusal of data presented in Table 31 clearly indicated that
different varieties exerted significant influence with respect to nitrogen
content (%) in leaf sheath at harvest. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded the
highest nitrogen content and found significantly superior to the rest of the
varieties during both the years of study.
Interaction between plant geometry and variety found
significant during both the years (Appendix 37 and Appendix 38).
Treatment combination P3V1 recorded the highest nitrogen content (%) in
leaf sheath and remained at par with treatment combinations P1V4, P2V1,
P3V3, P3V4 and P4V1 during first year and with P1V1, P1V2, P1V3, P2V2, P3V1,
P3V3, P3V4 and P4V4 during second year.
4.6.3.2 Phosphorus content (%) in leaf sheath
The perusal of data indicated that various plant geometries did
not produce significant effect on phosphorus content (%) in leaf sheath
during both the years of study (Table 31).
162
The data further revealed that different varieties exerted their
significant effect with respect to phosphorus content (%) in leaf sheath.
Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded maximum phosphorus content (%) in leaf
sheath at harvest and found significantly superior to the rest of varieties
Interaction between plant geometry and variety was failed to
show their significant influence with respect to phosphorus content (%) in
leaf sheath during both the years of investigation.
of sugarcane leaf sheath at harvest
2010- 2011- 2010- 2011- 2010- 2011-
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 0.401 0.417 0.170 0.178 0.979 1.009
P2 0.395 0.403 0.187 0.187 1.014 1.075
P3 0.426 0.419 0.166 0.169 0.967 0.956
P4 0.395 0.397 0.171 0.177 0.969 0.981
S. Em.± 0.011 0.0076 0.0055 0.0045 0.026 0.030
C.V. % 10.95 7.47 12.58 10.12 10.58 12.05
Variety (V)
V1 0.434 0.436 0.186 0.187 0.975 1.071
V2 0.398 0.407 0.168 0.174 0.948 0.960
V3 0.390 0.397 0.171 0.177 0.953 0.973
V4 0.394 0.396 0.168 0.173 1.056 1.017
S. Em.± 0.010 0.0084 0.0047 0.0039 0.021 0.029
C.D. at 5% 0.028 0.024 0.013 0.011 0.062 0.083
C.V. % 9.81 8.25 10.74 8.68 8.67 11.52
Interaction (P x V)
S. Em.± 0.020 0.017 0.0093 0.008 0.043 0.058
163
C.D. at 5% Sig. Sig. NS NS NS NS
C.V. % 9.81 8.25 10.74 8.68 8.67 11.52
Sig. : Significant
4.6.3.3 Potassium content (%) in leaf sheath
It is evident from the data (Table 31) that there was no
significant difference was observed in various plant geometries on
potassium content (%) in leaf sheath during both the years of
experimentation.
The data further revealed that different varieties significantly
influenced potassium content (%) in leaf sheath at harvest. Variety V 4
(Co 99004) recorded maximum potassium content during first year and
found significantly superior to the rest of the varieties. During second year,
variety V1 (CoN 05071) and V4 (Co 99004) noted maximum potassium
content being at par with each other.
non significant during both the years of experimentation.
4.6.4 NPK content (%) in sugarcane stalk (millable cane) at
harvest
The mean data with respect to nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium content (%) in sugarcane stalk at harvest as influenced by
different treatments are presented in Table 32.
4.6.4.1 Nitrogen content (%) in sugarcane stalk
164
geometries did not exert their significant effect with respect to nitrogen
content (%) during both the years of study.
The data further revealed that nitrogen content in sugarcane
of sugarcane stalk at harvest
2010- 2011- 2010- 2011- 2010- 2011-
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 0.276 0.285 0.200 0.191 0.300 0.310
P2 0.270 0.278 0.216 0.204 0.336 0.338
P3 0.303 0.307 0.191 0.183 0.296 0.302
P4 0.281 0.293 0.202 0.190 0.301 0.300
S. Em.± 0.0073 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.0093 0.0088
C.V. % 10.39 9.96 9.69 10.41 12.10 11.23
Variety (V)
V1 0.284 0.292 0.214 0.204 0.347 0.347
V2 0.276 0.281 0.204 0.188 0.287 0.296
V3 0.258 0.273 0.200 0.190 0.294 0.295
V4 0.311 0.316 0.190 0.187 0.304 0.313
S. Em.± 0.007 0.019 0.005 0.0046 0.0098 0.010
C.D. at 5% 0.020 NS 0.013 0.013 0.029 0.029
C.V. % 9.96 13.09 8.99 9.62 12.76 12.78
Interaction Sig. NS NS NS NS NS
Sig: Significant
NS: Non significant
stalk differed significantly due to different varieties during first year only.
165
Variety V4 (Co 99004) recorded significantly the highest nitrogen content
in stalk while the lowest nitrogen content in stalk was noted with variety V 3
(Co 86032).
significant during first year only (Appendix 39). Significantly higher
nitrogen content in stalk at harvest was noted with treatment combination
P4V4 however, it remained at par with plant geometry P 1 (90 cm row
spacing) with variety V2 (CoN 08072) and V4 (Co 99004); plant geometry
P2 (120 cm row spacing) with variety V 3 and V4; plant geometry P3 (150 cm
row spacing) with variety V1 (CoN 05071), V3 (Co 86032) and V4 (Co
99004) and plant geometry P4 (30:150 twin row planting) with variety V 1
(CoN 05071).
4.6.4.2 Phosphorus content (%) in sugarcane stalk
The mean data presented in Table 32 indicated that various
plant geometries had no significant effect on phosphorus content in sugar-
cane stalk at harvest during both the years of study.
It is evident from the data that different varieties significantly
influenced the phosphorus content of sugarcane stalk during both the years
of investigation. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded significantly highest
phosphorus content (%) in sugarcane stalk at harvest during both the years
however it remained statistically at par with variety V2 (CoN 08072).
non significant with respect to phosphorus content during both the years of
study.
166
4.6.4.3 Potassium content (%) in sugarcane stalk
plant geometries did not show any significant effect with respect to
potassium content during both the years of experimentation.
The data further indicated that various varieties exerted
significant effect with respect to potassium content at harvest. Variety V 1
(CoN 05071) recorded highest potassium content in stalk and found
significantly superior to the rest of the varieties during both the years of
investigation. Variety V2 (CoN 08072) and V3 (Co 86032) recorded
minimum potassium content in sugarcane stalk at harvest during first and
second year respectively.
any significant effect with respect to potassium content in sugarcane stalk
at harvest during both the years of study.
4.6.5 Total NPK uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane crop at harvest
The mean data presented in Table 33 and Fig. 21, 22 and 23

indicated that the total nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium uptake (kg ha -
1
) by sugarcane crop at harvest was comparatively higher during 2010-2011
crop season as compared to 2011-2012.
4.6.5.1 Total nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1)
The mean data pertaining to total nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1) by
sugarcane crop at harvest are presented in Table 33.
167
A perusal of data presented in Table 33 revealed that various
plant geometries significantly influenced total nitrogen uptake (kg ha -1)
during second year only. Planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm (P2) and 90
cm (P1) row spacing recorded maximum total nitrogen uptake (202.97 and
187.68 kg ha-1, respectively) and remained at par with each other while the
lowest total nitrogen uptake (178.29 kg ha-1) noted with 150 cm row
spacing (P3).
The data also revealed that the maximum total nitrogen uptake
(199.81, 207.81 kg ha-1) was recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) during
both the years of investigation and found significantly superior to the
varieties V2 (CoN 08072), V3 (Co 86032) and V4 (Co 99004).
significant during both the years of experimentation (Appendix 40 and 41).
Significantly higher total nitrogen uptake (kg ha -1) was recorded with the
treatment combination P4V1 and P1V1 during first and second year
respectively. However, plant geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) and P3
(150 cm row spacing) with variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded higher uptake
of total nitrogen (kg ha-1) and remained at par with P4V1 during first year
while plant geometry P1(90 cm row spacing) with V1 (CoN 05071); plant
geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) with almost all the variety; plant
geometry P3 (150 cm row spacing) with variety V 1 (CoN 05071) and plant
geometry P4 (30: 150cm twin row planting) with V 1 (CoN 05071) and V4
(Co 99004) recorded significantly higher total nitrogen uptake (kg ha -1) and
was found on par with treatment combination P1V1 during second year of
experimentation.
168
Table 33: Effect of plant geometry and variety on total nutrient uptake
(kg ha-1) of sugarcane plant at harvest
Treatments N uptake P2O5 uptake K2O uptake
2010- 2011- 2010- 2011- 2010- 2011-
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
Plant geometry (P)
P1 170.33 187.68 94.05 99.97 247.48 267.05
P2 187.94 202.97 112.26 114.40 290.05 310.12
P3 176.84 178.29 88.62 88.03 238.02 239.43
P4 180.20 183.68 98.90 94.83 256.90 251.71
S. Em.± 6.38 5.02 2.73 2.61 7.05 7.81
C.D. at 5% NS 16.05 8.72 8.34 22.55 24.98
C.V. % 14.27 10.66 11.07 10.50 10.92 11.70
Variety (V)
V1 199.81 207.61 111.60 111.35 290.67 304.57
V2 166.60 178.36 95.26 96.89 237.78 253.75
V3 167.95 173.78 95.94 94.06 246.37 243.85
V4 180.95 192.88 91.03 94.93 257.63 266.15
S. Em.± 4.66 3.71 3.19 2.28 7.75 7.22
C.D. at 5% 13.37 10.65 9.14 6.54 22.24 20.72
C.V. % 10.43 7.90 12.94 9.18 12.01 10.82
Interaction Sig. Sig. NS NS NS NS
Sig: Significant
NS: Non significant
169
Object 44
Fig. 21: Nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane plant as influenced by plant geometry and variety during 2010-
2011 and 2011-2012
170
Object 46
Fig. 22: Phosphorus uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane plant as influenced by plant geometry and variety during
2010- 2011 and 2011-2012
171
Object 48
Fig. 23: Potassium uptake (kg ha-1) by sugarcane plant as influenced by plant geometry and variety during
2010-2011 and 2011-2012
172
4.6.5.2 Total phosphorus uptake (kg ha-1)
The results with respect to the total phosphorus uptake (kg ha -
1
) was significantly affected by plant geometry and variety during both the
years of study and presented in Table 33.
The data presented in Table 33 showed that plant geometry P2
(120 cm row spacing) recorded maximum uptake and found significantly
superior to the rest of the plant geometries. Plant geometry P 3 (150 cm row
spacing) recorded minimum total phosphorus (kg ha-1) uptake during both
the years of investigation.
A perusal of data in Table 33 revealed that different varieties
significantly influenced total phosphorus uptake during both the years.
Variety V1 (CoN 05071) achieved the level of significance in total
phosphorus uptake as compared to the rest of the varieties.
Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety with
respect to total phosphorus uptake by sugarcane crop at harvest was found
to be non significant during both the years.
4.6.5.3 Total potassium uptake (kg ha-1)
The mean data pertaining to potassium uptake by sugarcane
crop at harvest are presented in Table 33.
It is evident from the data that wider row planting of
sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing (P2) recorded significantly
maximum potassium uptake over rest of the plant geometries during both
174
The data further revealed that different varieties exert their
significant effect on total potassium uptake during both the years of
investigation. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded maximum total potassium
uptake and found significantly superior to the rest of the varieties during
both the years of study.
Interaction between plant geometry and variety did not exert
their significant influence with respect to total potassium uptake by
sugarcane crop at harvest.
4.7 Correlation studies
Simple correlation co-efficient "r" between cane yield and
various important characters (Xn) was worked out and presented in Table
34 and 35.
4.7.1 Correlation coefficient
Data on simple correlation coefficients (r) computed between
cane yield (Y) and various important characters (Xn) during 2010-2011 and
2011-2012 are presented in Tables 34 and 35, respectively.
4.7.1.1 Cane yield (t ha-1)
During the first year of study, cane yield (t ha-1) showed
positive and significant correlation with number of internodes per millable
canes (0.446), cane girth at harvest (0.292), millable cane length at harvest
(0.287), single cane weight (0.530) and NP uptake by plant. While,
monocot weeds at 90 DAP, total weed population at 90 DAP (-0.131) and
NPK uptake by weeds were negatively correlated but did not reach to the
level of significance with cane yield while dry weight of weeds at final
earthing up (-0.340) was negatively correlated and have significant
correlation with cane yield.
175
Table 34: Simple correlation coefficient among different characters of sugarcane crop (2010-2011)
Characters Cane Germinatio No. of No. of Plant No. of Cane No. of
-
yield n (%) at 45 tillers mt tillers height internode girth millable
1
DAP row ha-1 at s cane-1 cane ha-1
length harvest
Cane yield 1.000
Germination (%) at 45 DAP -0.172 1.000
-1
No. of tillers m row length -0.013 0.197 1.000
at 180 DAP
No. of tillers ha-1 at 180 DAP -0.013 0.197 1.000 1.000
Plant height at harvest 0.154 -0.128 0.007 0.007 1.000
-1
No. of internodes cane 0.446 -0.114 -0.056 -0.057 0.253 1.000
Cane girth 0.292 -0.205 -0.089 -0.089 0.196 0.232 1.000
-1
No. of millable cane ha 0.175 0.043 0.330 0.330 0.031 -0.002 -0.004 1.000
-1
No. of millable cane m row 0.176 0.043 0.331 0.331 0.031 -0.002 -0.004 1.000
length
Millable cane length at 0.287 0.041 -0.052 -0.052 0.062 0.228 0.224 -0.219
harvest
Single cane weight 0.530 -0.080 -0.096 0.096 -0.007 0.243 0.0337 -0.306
Monocot weeds at 45 DAP 0.101 0.089 -0.095 -0.095 -0.147 -0.113 0.015 0.118
Monocot weeds at 90 DAP -0.180 0.215 0.244 0.244 -0.147 -0.019 -0.158 -0.041
Dicot weeds at 45 DAP 0.125 -0.035 -0.144 -0.144 0.108 -0.012 0.010 -0.008
176
Dicot weeds at 90 DAP 0.009 -0.022 0.217 0.217 0.080 -0.119 0.120 -0.011
Dry weight of weed at final -0.340 0.044 0.004 0.005 -0.429 -0.190 -0.245 0.109
earthing up (kg ha-1)
Total weeds at 45 DAP 0.137 0.068 -0.139 -0.138 -0.094 -0.107 0.017 0.104
Contd….Table 34
Characters Cane Germination No. of No. of Plant No. of Cane No. of
-1 -1
yield (%) at 45 tillers mt tillers ha height internode girth millable
DAP row at s cane-1 cane ha-1
length harvest
Total weeds at 45 DAP 0.137 0.068 -0.139 -0.138 -0.094 -0.107 0.017 0.104
Total weeds at 90 DAP -0.131 0.040 0.304 0.304 -0.066 -0.080 -0.053 -0.089
N uptake by plant 0.268 -0.221 -0.052 -0.523 0.085 0.212 0.284 -0.016
P2O5 uptake by plant 0.276 -0.251 0.070 0.070 0.387 0.267 0.270 0.204
K2O uptake by plant 0.214 -0.152 0.057 0.057 0.303 0.370 0.330 0.063
N uptake by weeds -0.127 -0.152 -0.186 -0.186 -0.117 0.029 -0.042
-0.023
P2O5 uptake by weed -0.205 -0.008 0.200 0.200 -0.232 -0.125 0.019 0.086
K2O uptake by weed -0.169 0.076 0.011 0.011 -0.332 0.013 0.126 0.117
Contd….Table 34
177
Characters Cane No. of Millable Single Monoco Monocot Dicot Dicot
yield millable cane cane t weeds weeds at weeds weeds
-1
cane m length weight at 45 90 DAP at 45 at 90
row length at DAP DAP DAP
harvest
No. of millable cane m-1 row 0.176 1.000
length
Millable cane length at harvest 0.287 -0.219 1.000
Single cane weight 0.530 -0.306 0.498 1.000
Monocot weeds at 45 DAP 0.101 0.117 -0.089 0.112 1.000
Monocot weeds at 90 DAP -0.180 -0.041 -0.172 -0.172 -0.070 1.000
Dicot weeds at 45 DAP 0.126 -0.009 0.132 0.013 0.067 0.125 1.000
Dicot weeds at 90 DAP 0.009 -0.106 -0.097 0.137 -0.009 0.151 0.084 1.000
Dry weight of weed at final -0.340 0.109 -0.38 -0.345 -0.046 0.352 -0.040 0.002
Total weeds at 45 DAP 0.137 0.104 -0.033 0.106 0.932 -0.018 0.424 0.023
Total weeds at 90 DAP -0.131 -0.089 -0.183 -0.055 -0.057 0.838 0.140 0.666
N uptake by plant 0.268 -0.015 0.318 0.021 0.036 -0.130 0.032 -0.164
P2O5 uptake by plant 0.276 0.204 0.261 0.023 -0.180 -0.210 0.009 -0.162
K2O uptake by plant 0.215 0.063 0.407 0.160 -0.175 -0.108 -0.043 -0.143
N uptake by weeds -0.127 -0.042 -0.177 -0.154 -0.099 -0.008 -0.025 -0.094
P2O5 uptake by weed -0.205 0.086 -0.219 -0.214 -0.084 0.152 -0.103 0.101
K2O uptake by weed -0.169 0.112 -0.264 -0.126 -0.175 0.160 -0.207 -0.016
Contd….Table 34
178
Characters Cane Dry Total Total N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O
yield weight of weeds weeds uptak uptak uptak uptak uptak uptak
weed at at 45 at 90 e by e by e by e by e by e by
final DAP DAP plant plant plant weeds weed weed
earthing
up
(kg ha-1)
Dry weight of weed at -0.339 1.000
final earthing up (kg ha-
1
)
Total weeds at 45 DAP 0.137 -0.056 1.000
Total weeds at 90 DAP -0.131 0.266 - 1.000
0.001
N uptake by plant 0.268 -0.046 0.044 - 1.000
0.188
P2O5 uptake by plant 0.276 -0.294 - - 0.641 1.000
0.160 0.248
K2O uptake by plant 0.215 -0.179 - - 0.681 0.775 1.000
0.175 0.160
N uptake by weeds -0.127 0.343 - - -0.050 -0.014 0.112 1.000
0.099 0.058
P2O5 uptake by weed -0.205 0.597 -0.113 0.170 -0.023 -0.125 0.038 0.331 1.000
179
K2O uptake by weed -0.169 0.588 - 0.111 -0.061 -0.218 -0.130 0.196 0.456 1.000
0.234
Critical value (1- TAIL, .05) = + or – 0.2076

Table 35: Simple correlation coefficient among different characters of sugarcane crop (2011-2012)
Characters Cane Germination No. of No. of Plant No. of Cane No. of
yield (%) at 45 tillers tillers height internodes girth millabl
DAP mt-1 ha-1 at cane-1 e cane
row harvest ha-1
length
Cane yield 1.000
Germination (%) at 45 DAP 0.172 1.000
No. of tillers m-1 row length at 0.144 0.101 1.000
180
180 DAP
No. of tillers ha-1 at 180 DAP 0.144 0.101 1.000 1.000
Plant height at harvest 0.124 0.206 -0.026 -0.026 1.000
-1
No. of internodes cane 0.244 0.293 0.023 0.023 0.223 1.000
Cane girth 0.206 0.077 -0.014 -0.014 0.094 0.061 1.000
-1
No. of millable cane ha 0.308 0.271 0.335 0.335 0.079 -0.043 0.059 1.000
-1
No. of millable cane m row 0.308 0.272 0.335 0.335 0.079 -0.043 0.059 1.000
length
Millable cane length at harvest 0.102 -0.137 0.146 0.146 0.195 0.328 0.238 -0.168
Single cane weight 0.362 -0.014 -0.856 -0.856 0.230 0.206 0.104 0.285
Monocot weeds at 45 DAP -0.177 0.028 -0.011 -0.011 -0.013 -0.070 0.094 0.054
Monocot weeds at 90 DAP -0.110 -0.130 0.077 0.077 -0.112 0.030 -0.148 -0.122
Dicot weeds at 45 DAP 0.059 -0.105 -0.094 -0.094 0.024 0.229 -0.105 -0.203
Dicot weeds at 90 DAP 0.364 0.078 -0.016 -0.016 0.142 -0.044 0.165 0.066
Dry weight of weed at final -0.220 -0.218 -0.023 -0.023 -0.214 -0.326 0.068 -0.196
Contd….Table 35
Characters Cane Germinatio No. of No. of Plant No. of Cane No. of
-1 -1
yield n (%) at 45 tillers mt tillers ha height internodes girth millable
DAP row at cane-1 cane ha-1
length harvest
Total weeds at 45 DAP -0.120 -0.316 -0.059 -0.059 0.002 0.062 0.024 -0.062
Total weeds at 90 DAP 0.199 -0.036 0.045 0.045 0.027 -0.012 0.018 -0.039
181
N uptake by plant 0.433 0.089 -0.052 -0.052 0.241 0.448 0.229 -0.070
P2O5 uptake by plant 0.486 0.088 0.043 0.043 0.385 0.378 0.092 0.215
K2O uptake by plant 0.432 0.106 -0.015 -0.015 0.440 0.336 0.200 -0.024
N uptake by weeds -0.084 -0.041 -0.085 -0.085 -0.196 -0.200 0.225 -0.203
P2O5 uptake by weed -0.239 -0.09 -0.020 -0.020 -0.300 -0.270 0.019 -0.215
K2O uptake by weed -0.055 0.063 -0.053 -0.053 -0.202 -0.241 0.109 -0.120
Contd….Table 35
Characters Cane No. of Millable Single Monocot Monoco Dicot Dicot
yield millable cane cane weeds at t weeds weeds weeds
cane m-1 length weight 45 DAP at 90 at 45 at 90
row at DAP DAP DAP
length harvest
No. of millable cane m-1 row 0.308 1.000

length
Millable cane length at harvest 0.102 -0.168 1.000
Single cane weight 0.362 0.285 0.218 1.000
Monocot weeds at 45 DAP -0.177 0.054 -0.121 0.171 1.000
Monocot weeds at 90 DAP -0.110 -0.122 0.078 0.187 0.296 1.000
Dicot weeds at 45 DAP 0.059 -0.202 0.157 -0.029 -0.078 0.138 1.000
Dicot weeds at 90 DAP 0.364 0.065 0.183 0.191 -0.077 -0.113 -0.045 1.000
Dry weight of weed at final -0.220 -0.196 -0.151 -0.307 0.118 0.082 -0.074 -0.095
182
Total weeds at 45 DAP -0.120 -0.062 -0.019 0.130 0.848 0.325 -0.524 -0.089
Total weeds at 90 DAP 0.199 -0.039 0.197 0.284 0.158 0.646 0.066 0.685
N uptake by plant 0.433 -0.070 0.244 0.266 -0.274 -0.175 0.177 0.097
P2O5 uptake by plant 0.486 0.215 0.275 0.310 -0.427 -0.263 0.135 0.069
K2O uptake by plant 0.432 -0.023 0.242 0.248 -0.362 -0.210 0.175 0.080
N uptake by weeds -0.084 -0.203 -0.120 -0.247 0.002 -0.088 -0.728 -0.053
P2O5 uptake by weed -0.239 -0.215 -0.139 -0.262 0.068 0.165 -0.040 -0.165
K2O uptake by weed -0.055 -0.121 -0.239 -0.151 0.121 0.021 -0.094 -0.092
Contd….Table 35
Characters Cane Dry Total Total N P2O5 K2 O N P2O5 K2 O
yield weight of weeds weeds uptake uptake uptake uptake uptake uptake
weed at at 45 at 90 by by by by by by
final DAP DAP plant plant plant weeds weed weed
earthing
up
(kg ha-1)
Dry weight of weed - 1.000
at final earthing up 0.220
(kg ha-1)
Total weeds at 45 - 0.061 1.000
DAP 0.120
183
Total weeds at 90 0.199 -0.013 0.170 1.000
DAP
N uptake by plant 0.433 -0.097 -0.139 -0.054 1.000
P2O5 uptake by 0.486 -0.215 -0.292 -0.140 0.617 1.000
plant
K2O uptake by 0.432 -0.075 -0.215 -0.093 0.663 0.785 1.000
plant
N uptake by weeds - 0.634 -0.037 -0.105 -0.100 -0.089 -0.760 1.000
0.084
P2O5 uptake by - 0.843 0.037 -0.006 0.000 -0.210 -0.114 0.485 1.000
weed 0.239
K2O uptake by - 0.794 0.053 -0.055 -0.002 -0.067 0.056 0.546 0.666 1.000
weed 0.055

184
During the second year i.e. 2011-2012 (Table 35), the yield attributing
characters viz., number of millable cane per ha (0.308) and single cane
weight (0.362) as well as NPK uptake by cane crop were positively and
significantly correlated with cane yield. While, monocot weed at 45 and 90
DAP (-0.177 and -0.120), total weeds at 45 DAP (-0.120) and dry weight of
weeds at final earthing up (-0.220) and NPK uptake by weeds were
negative but did not reach to the level of significance with cane yield.
Thus, it was inferred that most of the yield characters was
positively correlated with cane yield whereas, weed population and dry
weight of weeds were negatively correlated with cane yield during both the
years of experimentation except dry weight of weed during first year.
4.8 Economics
The data on economics of sugarcane crop as influenced by
plant geometry and variety are furnished in Table 36. The gross as well as
net realization and benefit cost ratio for individual treatments were worked
out on the basis of pooled cane yield considering prevailing market prices.
The 120 cm normal row spacing (P2) recorded the highest total
gross realization of ₹ 3, 67,971 ha-1, followed by 150 cm row spacing (P3)
(₹ 3, 41,713 ha-1) and 90 cm normal row spacing (P1) (₹ 3, 40, 397 ha-1).
The net realization obtained under the plant geometries P2, P3, P1 and P4
were ₹ 2, 41,099, ₹ 2, 16,017, ₹ 2, 12,643 and ₹ 2, 11,756 per hectare,
respectively. The benefit cost ratio under 120 cm normal row spacing (P 2)
was the highest i.e. 2.90 followed by P3 (2.72).
The highest net realization of ₹ 2, 41,770 ha-1 was obtained
with the variety V1 (CoN 05071) followed by V2 (CoN 08072) (₹ 2, 11, 681
ha-1). Similarly, the highest benefit cost ratio (2.86) obtained with variety
185
Table 36: Economic evaluation of plant geometry and variety (pooled)
Treatments Cane yield Cost of cultivation Gross realization Net realization B. C. R.
(t ha-1) (₹ ha-1) (₹ ha-1) (₹ ha-1)
Plant geometry (P)

P1 117.34 127755 340397 212643 2.66
P2 126.80 126872 367971 241099 2.90
P3 117.84 125696 341713 216017 2.72
P4 117.46 128414 340169 211756 2.65
Variety (V)
V1 132.40 130122 371892 241770 2.86
V2 117.86 130122 341803 211681 2.63
V3 115.26 130122 334248 204126 2.57
V4 113.91 130122 330320 200198 2.54
(A) Price of produce: (B) Price of inputs:
Sugarcane : ₹ 2900 t (i) Seed cost:
-1
Sugarcane : ₹ 2798 t-1
(ii) Fertilizer: (a) N : ₹ 12.24 kg-1
(b) P2O5 : ₹ 27.01 kg-1
(c) K2O : ₹ 13.65 kg-1
(iii) Herbicide: Atrazine : ₹ 450 kg-1
(iv) Labour charge : ₹ 100 day-1
186
Plate 1: Sugarcane planter
187
Plate 2: Ridger (For interculturing)
188
Plate 3: Mechanical harvester
189
V1 (CoN 05071) followed by variety V2 (CoN 08072) (2.63).
To know the feasibility of mechanization in sugarcane, certain
observation inclusive of eye and database were taken into consideration.
Convenience, comfort and shoot and root injury were observed and noted
for different treatments while data on plant population and cane yield, weed
count and dry weight of weeds were used to evaluate the mechanization
(use of sugarcane planter plate 1, interculturing plate 2, mechanical
harvester plate 3 etc.).
Normal row planting (120 cm) and twin row planting (30:150
cm) found most convenient with comparatively lesser injury to root and
shoots of sugarcane indicating their suitability for adoption of
mechanization, mechanized operations done in these treatments recorded
significantly the highest cane yield and the lowest weed count with the
lowest biomass showing their suitability for adoption of mechanization.
Among different cane varieties, CoN 05071 recorded the
highest values of almost all the characters showing its suitability and
feasibility for adoption of mechanization.
4.9.3 Interaction effect
Normal row planting (120 cm) and variety either CoN 05071
or CoN 08072 recorded significantly the highest values of almost all
parametres indicating their suitability and feasibility for adoption of
mechanization.
193
DISCUSSION
194
V DISCUSSION
During the course of presenting the results of the experiment

entitled, "Plant geometry in relation to mechanization in sugarcane
(Saccharum officinarum)", significant variation was observed in the criteria
for treatment evaluation under influence of different treatments. In this
chapter, it is contemplate to discuss the probable causes for variation
observed in different growth and yield parametres and to substantiate them
with available evidences and relevant literature.
5.1 Effect of soil and weather
It is evident from the data presented in Table 1 that the soil of
the experimental plots (average of both the years) was medium in available
nitrogen (293.2 kg ha-1), medium in available phosphorus (29.43 kg ha-1)
and fairly rich in available potassium (322.00 kg ha -1) and slightly alkaline
in reaction (pH 7.86) which is found suitable for raising the sugarcane crop.
Results of field experiment could largely affected by soil condition and
weather parametres during crop growth period.
The meteorological data (Table 2 and 3 and Fig. 1 and 2)
showed that the weather conditions prevailed during entire crop growth
period was normal and congenial for the normal growth and development
of sugarcane during both the years. Variation in weed flora and their growth
were observed during both the years. Besides, no severe incidence of
diseases or insect/pest was observed during the entire crop growth period.
Thus, the observed variations in the experimental results could largely due
to the treatment effect only.
5.2 Effect of plant geometry
Modification in plant geometry is known to bring about
maximum yield advantage with increasing water use efficiency,
195
convenience in carrying agricultural operations, preventing lodging and
best use of available resources under several problematic situations leading
to higher yield. Wider row planting technique is primary requirement for
introducing mechanization without any adverse effect on productivity of
sugarcane to reduce cost of cultivation.
5.2.1 Influence on growth attributing parametres
The results presented in previous chapter showed that various
plant geometries significantly influenced number of tillers per metre row
length at almost all the growth stages. It was increased upto 135 DAP then
after it was decreased. However, plant height and dry matter were also
increased upto harvest of sugarcane crop.
Germination percentage both at 30 and 45 DAP did not differ
significantly due to plant geometry (Table 6). It is ascertained from the
data that the germination percentage in all the treatments were uniform
which indicated that variation observed in growth and yield attributes as
well as yield was mainly due to different treatments only and not due to
germination percentage. It was observed from the data that different plant
geometries had no significance influence on germination percentage at 30
and 45 DAP during both the years. This might be due to the fact that there
is no competition for nutrient, light and water during germination time as
there was enough space for germination. Further, the setts provided most of
food for germination. These findings are in agreement with the findings of
Karamathullah et al. (1992a), Singh (1993), Ali et al., (1999) and
Clindagave (1999).
The average total number of tillers per metre row length
(Table 7) was greater in case of 120 cm row spacing (P 2) as compared to 90
cm row spacing (P1) in the mid-late growth period during both the years.
This was might be due to more number of sugarcane setts per metre row
196
length. These results are in accordance with the findings of Malik et al.
(1996), Sarwar et al. (1998), Shinde et al. (2000) and Zafar et al. (2010).
Number of tillers was reduced at 180 DAP may be due to competition
among tillers for light, nutrients, air and moisture. Tiller which able to take
all these parametres easily become better in growth.
Among growth attributes studied, plant height (Table 8) at
different crop growth stages were significantly higher with plant geometry
P2 (120 cm row spacing) during both the years. Sarwar et al. (1998),
Shinde et al. (2000), Cheema et al. (2002), Chattha et al. (2007), Zafar et
al. (2010) and Anon. (2013b) also noted significant differences in total
plant height of sugarcane with various plant geometries.
The dry matter accumulation in leaf blade, leaf sheath and
stalk (Table 9 to 12) at different growth stages were found higher under
plant geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing) and lower under 150 cm row
spacing (P3) during both the years except at 90 DAP where leaf blade and
leaf sheath were found lower under normal planting at 90 cm row spacing
(P1). At initial period to 90 DAP, dry matter accumulation was found lower
then after it was increased drastically may be due to stalk development and
development of source like number of leaves, leaf area index etc. This
attributed to better growth of plant in terms of plant height. Similarly,
Dhoble and Khuspe (1983), Shinde et al. (2000) and Rehman et al. (2013)
observed higher dry matter accumulation per plant under wide row
planting.
5.2.2 Weed population and their dry weight
Weed populations (monocots, dicots and total weeds)
(Table 14 and 15) in sugarcane was significantly influenced due to various
plant geometries at 45 and 90 DAP during both the years except dicot weed
at 90 DAP. The lowest monocot weed population was noted under 90 cm
197
(P1) and 120 cm (P2) row spacing while higher weed population were
recorded with plant geometry P3 (150 cm row spacing) which might be due
to vigorous weed growth due to more space. The dicot weeds population
significantly influenced due to plant geometry at 90 DAP during first year
only. The lowest and the highest dicot population were noted under P 2 (120
cm row spacing) and P3 (150 cm row spacing), respectively. The probable
reason for the lowest weed population in 120 cm row spacing (P 2) might be
due to better crop stand and more number of tillers resulting in better
competitive ability than weeds. Therefore, lesser light and space available
for weeds and consequently lesser weed population. The results are
supported by Zafar et al. (2010).
Dry weight of weeds was significantly influenced due to
different plant geometries at 90 DAP and at final earthing up, during
second and first year respectively (Table 16).
Among different parametres related to yield, millable cane
height and number of millable canes per metre row length (Table 17 and
18) were significantly influenced by various plant geometries.
Planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing (P 2) and
30:150 cm twin row planting (P4) recorded the maximum values for
millable cane height. It may be due to better development of growth
parametres. Positive response of sugarcane crop in terms of yield attributes
to various plant geometries are reported by Mali and Singh (1985), Sarwar
et al. (1998), Mahadevaswamy and Martin (2002), Soomro et al. (2009),
Ghaffar et al. (2012) and (Anon., 2013b) with respect to cane height.
Maximum number of millable canes per metre row length was observed
with plant geometry P2 (120 cm row spacing). This was largely attributed to
more number of sugarcane setts per metre row length leads to produce
198
more tillers, more efficient utilization of moisture, nutrients and solar
energy with less inter plant and intra plant competition. These findings are
in close conformity with those of Malik and Ali (1990), Richard et al.
(1991), Malik et al. (1996), Hussain et al. (2005), Chattha et al. (2007) and
Zafar et al., (2010). Cane girth, number of internodes per canes and single
cane weight did not differ significantly due to different plant geometries
during both the years. This might be due to varietal characters of specific
variety which may not alter generally under favourable conditions. The
present findings are in agreement with those reported by Karamathullah et
al. (1992a) and Kantesh et al. (1997).
Thus, overall better growth performance and higher values of
most of the yield attributes at wider row spacing than conventional method
of planting resulted into significantly higher cane and sugar yields (Table
23 and Table 26) with planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing
(P2). The increased cane yield in 120 cm row spacing might be due to better
light interception, greater availability of moisture, more aeration to
individual setts and increased plant population; better tillering and tiller
retention which resulted in taller stalks and increased cane weight at
harvest to the rest of plant geometries. Positive and significant correlation
with number of millable canes per hectare, total cane height, millable cane
height, number of internodes per canes, cane girth and single cane weight
were observed during both the years. Favourable effect of wider row
planting on cane and sugar yield in sugarcane has also been reported by
Dhoble and Khuspe (1983), Sundara (2003) and Anon. (2013b).
5.2.4 Influence on quality parametres
The sugarcane quality (Table 24 and 25) in terms of pol
percentage (sucrose) content in juice, pol percentage (sucrose) content in
cane, purity percentage, fibre percentage and commercial cane sugar (%)
199
were not influenced significantly by different plant geometries during both
the years. Similarly, in respect of quality parametres of sugarcane, non
significant differences were observed by Yadav (1992), Singh (1993),
Malik et al. (1996), Kantesh et al. (1997), Clindagave (1999), Singh et al.
(1999), Shinde et al. (2001), Mahadevaswamy and Matrin (2002), Sundara
(2003b), Hussain et al. (2005) and Anon. (2013b) while comparing
various plant geometries.
5.2.5 Influence on nutrient content and uptake by weeds
Variations in nutrient content and uptake by weeds due to
various plant geometries were found to be non significant during both the
years (Table 27, 28 and 29). This might be due to plant geometry had no
much pronounce effect on weed flora and dry matter accumulation by
weeds. Almost similar findings were reported by Patel (2000) and Patel
(2003).
5.2.6 Influence on nutrient content and uptake by sugarcane
crop
Various plant geometries did not exert their significant effect
on major nutrients i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content (%) in
leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk during both the years of experimentation
(Table 30 to 32).
Uptake of major nutrients by plant during both the years of
experimentation except total nitrogen uptake during first year were
recorded significantly higher with the planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm
row spacing (P2) (Table 33). This might be due to comparatively higher
respective sugarcane component production under this plant geometry
during both the years. Almost similar findings were also reported by Patel
(2003).
200
5.3.1 Influence on growth attributing parametres
It is clear from the data presented in previous chapter that
different varieties had remarkable influence on the crop growth from 90
DAP upto harvest.
Results revealed non significant effect of different varieties on
germination of sugarcane setts at 30 and 45 DAP during both the years
(Table 6). This might be due to germination of sugarcane setts was done
from reserved/stored food of cane. There is no competition between
different sugarcane varieties in the early period due to similar favourable
soil and climatic condition.
Among various growth attributes, number of tillers per metre
row length (Table 7) was significantly influenced by different varieties at
almost all the periodical growth stages viz., 90, 135 and 180 DAP during
both the years. Variety V3 (Co 86032) and V2 (CoN 08072) recorded
significantly the highest number of tillers per metre row length than rest of
the varieties at almost all the periodical stages during both the years. The
increase in number of tillers among different varieties may be due to
variation in partitioning of photosynthates. The results are in agreement
with those reported by Narayanmurthi et al. (1997), Sinare et al. (2006) and
(Anon., 2013b). This is because of different genotypes having different
inherent assimilation and their utilization in further growth.
Plant height was also significantly influenced due to different
varieties at all the growth stages during both the years (Table 8). Variety V 1
(CoN 05071) and V4 (Co 99004) recorded maximum plant height at almost
all the crop growth stages. This might be due to suitability of these varieties
to agro climatic condition of this region and genetic makeup these varieties.
Almost similar findings were also reported by Anon. (2013b).
201
Different varieties exerted significant influence on dry matter
accumulation (Table 9 to 12) at all the growth stages. Significantly the
higher dry matter accumulation was recorded with variety V 1 (CoN 05071).
This could be ascribed to fast growth habits, better tillering capacity and
genetic potential of this variety.
5.3.2 Weed population and their dry weight
Different varieties did not influence significantly on weed
population (monocots, dicots and total weeds) counted at 45 and 90 DAP
(Table 14 and 15) and dry weight of weeds at 90 DAP and at final earthing
up (Table 16) during both the years. This might be due to weed population
and their dry weight depends on specific agroclimatic condition of any
region.
It is clear from the data presented in previous chapter that
different varieties had significant effect on yield attributes viz., millable
cane height (Table17), number of millable canes per metre row length
(Table 18), number of millable canes per hectare (Table 19), cane girth
(Table 20), number of internodes per cane (Table 21) and single cane
weight (Table 22) during both the years of experimentation.
Significantly the highest millable cane height was recorded
with variety V1 (CoN 05071) being at par with variety V3 (Co 86032) and
V4 (Co 99004) during both the years. Number of millable cane per metre
row length and per hectare were found significantly the highest with variety
V3 (Co 86032), V2 (CoN 08072) and V1 (CoN 05071) which remained at
par with each other as compared to variety V 4 (Co 99004) during both the
years. Maximum cane girth was recorded with variety V 1 (CoN 05071) and
V3 (Co 86032) during first year and with V 1 (CoN 05071), V3 (Co 86032)
and V4 (Co 99004) during second year. Number of internodes per millable
202
canes and cane girth were significantly influenced due to different varieties.
Maximum number of internodes per millable canes and cane girth were
recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) during both the years however it
remained at par with variety V4 (Co 99004) with respect to number of
internodes and V3 (Co 86032) with respect to cane girth during both the
years. Significantly the highest single cane weight was recorded with
variety V1 (CoN 05071) as compared to rest of the varieties in almost both
the years. This might be due to different genotypes have different inherent
capacity for their growth organ for nutrient uptake, assimilation and their
utilization in further growth. This confirms the results of Tripathi and
Pandey (1993) and Sidhu et al. (1994) with respect to cane height and
number of canes; Sinare et al. (2006), with respect to millable cane height,
number of internodes and number of millable canes; Danawale et al. (2011)
with respect to cane height, cane girth and number to millable canes per
hectare and Chitkala Devi et al.(2005) and Anon. (2013b) with respect to
number of millable canes per hectare, cane length and cane girth.
Cane and sugar yields found significantly higher under variety
V1 (CoN 05071) as compared to rest of the varieties during both the years
as well as in pooled testing (Table 23 and Table 26). This might be due to
growth and developments of varieties/genotypes are the outcomes of
genetic, environmental and agronomic interferences. Though all the
varieties were grown under similar agroclimatic situation, the observed
variation in overall growth of varieties could be ascribed to their
biochemical activities and external environmental factors to which these
were exposed during the course of development. Moreover, variation in
yield and its attributes indicate their genetic behaviour towards these
characters and suitability of variety CoN 05071 to agroclimatic condition
of this region. It is also clear from the significant positive correlation
203
between cane yield and sugarcane plant height, millable cane length,
number of internodes per hectare, cane girth, number of millable cane per
metre row length and per hectare and single cane weight (Table 34 and 35).
Favourable effects of variety on cane and sugar yields have also been
reported by Shukla (2003), Chitkala Devi et al.(2005), Anon. (2008), Anon.
(2009), Anon. (2010), Anon. (2013b) and Patel and Patel (2013).
5.3.4 Influence on quality parametres
Different varieties significantly influenced quality parametres
viz., pol (sucrose) % in juice and cane, purity % and C.C.S. % during both
the years except pol (sucrose) % in cane and purity % during second year
and fibre % during both the years (Table 24 and 25). Variety V 1 (CoN
05071) and V4 (Co 99004) recorded maximum value of above parametres
in almost both the years of study. This might be due to genetic
characteristics of these varieties for these characters. These results are in
accordance with the findings of Narayanmurthi et al. (1997) with respect to
C.C.S. %; Kadam et al. (2005) with respect to purity % and Anon. (2013b)
with respect to pol % in juice, pol % in cane and C.C.S. %.
5.3.5 Influence on nutrients content and uptake by weeds
Nutrient content and uptake by weeds at final earthing up due
to different varieties were found non significant during both the years,
however the highest nutrient content and uptake by weeds were recorded
by variety V4 (Co 99004) during almost both the years (Table 27 to 29).
5.3.6 Influence on nutrient content and uptake by sugarcane
crop
Different varieties significantly influenced nutrient content
and uptake during both the years. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded
significantly the highest nitrogen content in leaf blade at harvest during
both the years and phosphorus content in leaf blade but remained at par
204
with variety V2 (CoN 08072) during both the years. However, potassium
content in leaf blade was found significantly higher with variety V1 (CoN
05071) and V4 (Co 99004) and remained at par with each other during both
the years (Table 30 to 32).
The highest nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake by
sugarcane plant (Table 33) were recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) as
compared to the rest to the varieties during both the years. This might be
due to higher yield and nutrients content observed with this variety. Almost
similar finding were observed by Narayanmurthi et al. (1997).
Growth attributing characters were significantly influenced by
interaction of plant geometry and variety during both the years. Interaction
effect between plant geometry and variety was found to be significant in
terms of germination percentage at 30 DAP during first year; number of
tillers per metre row length at 135 DAP during both the years and plant
height at 180, 270 DAP and harvest during both the years. Almost all the
growth parametres were recorded the highest with treatment combination
P1V1 (120 cm normal row spacing with variety V 1 (CoN 05071)) in almost
Among yield attributes, number of millable cane per metre
row length and per hectare and number of internodes per millable cane
during second year; single cane weight during both the years; cane yield
during first year and in pooled data; C.C.S. yield during first year; purity
%, fibre % during second year; weed population (total) at 45 DAP during
second year; dry weight of weed at 90 DAP during both the years and at
final earthing up during first year and total N uptake during both the years
were found significant. Almost all these parametres were recorded
maximum with treatment combination P2V1 (120 cm normal row spacing
205
with variety V1 (CoN 05071)). This might be due to wide space and manual
weeding in early stage of crop growth lead to less competition for nutrients,
space, light and moisture resulted in to higher tiller production and
suitability of variety with wide row spacing. Almost similar results were
observed by Sundara (2002) with respect to cane and sugar yields, Sundara
(2003) with respect to stalk population, cane and sugar yields and Patel et
al. (2005) with respect to cane yield.
significant with respect to purity % and fibre % during both the years.
Treatment combination P2V3 recorded maximum value of purity % and
P2V4 noted the lowest fibre %.
Among weed population, number of monocot weeds m -2 at 45
DAP (Appendix 22) was found significant due to interaction of plant
geometry and variety during second year. Significantly the lowest monocot
weeds were recorded with treatment combination P 2V2 being at par with
P2V1, P2V3, P2V4 and P1V4 over other treatment combinations. Dry weights
of weeds at 90 DAP during both the years and at final earthing up during
first year found to be significant (Appendix 23 to 24). The minimum dry
weight of weeds at 90 DAP were recorded with treatment combinations
P1V4 and P4V3 during first and second year respectively while P 2V1 noted
the lowest dry weight at final earthing up. This might be due to less
competition for light, moisture, nutrient and space between crop plant and
weed.
Maximum values for almost all the above characters were
observed with treatment combination P2V1 (120 cm normal row spacing
with variety V1 (CoN 05071). It gave higher net return ₹ 2, 73,334/- with
benefit cost ratio 3.13 (Appendix 43).
206
Nutrient content and uptake by weeds were not differed
significantly due to interaction of plant geometry and variety during both
the years. It is well known that when the weeds have not to face any hurdle
and have the sufficient available nutrients near the root zone, the removal
of these important and vital plant nutrients by weeds climb to its top.
Nutrients i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content and
uptake by sugarcane leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk as well as total
nitrogen uptake by whole sugarcane plant were influenced significantly due
to interaction of plant geometry and variety (Appendices 34 to 41).
Potassium content by leaf blade at harvest during second year; nitrogen
content of leaf sheath and stalk at harvest during first year and total
nitrogen uptake by sugarcane plant were found significant during both the
years. Treatment combination P2V1 recorded the highest potassium content;
P3V1 and P2V1 noted maximum nitrogen content in leaf sheath during first
and second year respectively and P4V2 recorded the highest nitrogen
content by stalk. Total nitrogen uptake was recorded higher with treatment
combination P2V1 in almost both the years. This might be due to the fact
that the better development of sugarcane crop due to adequate light, space,
moisture and nutrients availability and increase in the uptake of nitrogen.
5.5 Correlation and regression studies
The correlation co-efficient in Table 34 and 35 indicated that
the cane yield of sugarcane crop was positive and significantly correlated
with yield attributing characters such as millable height, number of
internodes per cane, cane girth and single cane weight during first year
while millable canes ha-1 and single cane weight during second year of
investigation. Uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium by cane were
also established positive and significant correlation with cane yield. The
results indicated that appreciable progress in cane yield can be achieved
207
through improvement in these parametres of sugarcane crop. These results
are in agreement with the findings of Parashar et al. (1980) with respect to
cane height, cane diameter, number of internodes per canes; Gajera et al.
(1991) with respect to number of millable canes, millable cane height and
number of internodes and Rishi Pal et al. (1998) with respect to single cane
weight.
Weed population (total and monocots) at 90 DAP and the
nutrient depleted by weeds in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
were negatively correlated with cane yield while dry weight of weed at
final earthing up was negatively correlated with cane yield but significant
correlation during first year only. These results are in accordance with
Srinivasan et al. (1977), Mahadevaswamy et al. (1994) and Patel (2003).
The results clearly indicated the significance of weed management in
sugarcane crop to obtain higher cane yield.
5.6 Economics
Among the various plant geometries, 120 cm normal row
planting (P2) recorded the highest net realization of ₹ 2, 41,099 ha-1 and
benefit cost ratio 2.86 followed by P 3 (150 cm normal row planting) and P 4
(30:150 cm twin row planting). 30: 150 cm twin row planting (P 4) recorded
the lowest net realization ₹ 2, 11,756 ha-1 and the lowest BCR (2.65). These
results are in conformity with those recorded by Shinde et al. (2001),
Mahadevaswamy and Martin (2002) and Ghaffar et al. (2012) (Table 36).
The highest net realization (₹ 2, 41,770 ha-1) and cost benefit
ratio of 2.86 were recorded with variety V 1 (CoN 05071) followed by
variety V2 (CoN 08072) with net realization (₹ 2, 11,681 ha-1) and cost
benefit ratio of 2.63. These results are in partially accordance with those of
Vashistha and Sinha (1992), Navnit Kumar et al. (1996) and Mehar Chand
et al. (2010).
208
Among various plant geometries, wide row planting at 120 cm
and 30:150 cm (twin row planting) found suitable for cultural operations
viz., weeding and earthing up. This method of planting is easy for the
human labour to move inside field for operations like trashing, propping,
plant protection, guiding irrigation water. It may be due to wide row which
facilitate the use of power tillers and other small machineries and provide
more space for germinating shoot, facilitate tillering and better tiller
survival. It also permit the use of mechanical planter and harvester which
reduces the planting and harvesting costs, trash burning and stubble
shaving as machine harvested plot cut down canes near to the ground level
which boost up profit margin to the cane growers upto certain level and
reduce labour cost. These results are in accordance with Yadav et al.
(2003), Sharma and Prakash (2011), Murali and Balakrishnan (2012) and
Rajula Shanthy and Muthusamy (2012).
Varieties with high tillering and erectness are suitable under
wide row planting for carrying out mechanized operations. Among four
varieties, CoN 05071 and CoN 08072 performed well in terms of cane
yield, amenable for wide row spacing with advantageous characters like
better tillering and erectness which facilitate easy mechanized operations.
Wide row planting (120 cm and 30:150 cm twin row) coupled
with erect variety CoN 05071 and CoN 08072 reduce cost of cultivation,
increase cane yield and suitable for adoption of mechanization thereby
increase the per unit profitability. Almost similar findings were reported by
Richard et al. (1991) and Hemaprabha (2011).
209
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
210
VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Field experiment was conducted at Main Sugarcane Research

Station, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari to study the, "Plant
geometry in relation to mechanization in sugarcane (Saccharum
officinarum)" during rabi seasons of 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The
treatments comprised four plant geometries viz., 90 cm (Normal row) (P1),
120 cm (Normal row) (P2), 150 cm (Normal row) (P3) and 30:150 cm
(Twin row) (P4) and four varieties viz., CoN 05071 (V1), CoN 08072 (V2),
Co 86032 (V3) and Co 99004 (V4) were evaluated in split plot design with
four replications. The soil of the experimental field was medium in
available nitrogen (293.2 kg ha-1), medium in phosphorus (29.43 kg ha-1)
and very high for potassium (322.00 kg ha-1). The soil was slightly alkaline
in reaction (pH 7.86). The crop was planted on 11.12.2010 during 2010-
2011 and 22.12.2011 during 2011-2012 as seasonal planting (Eksali).
The results presented and discussed in preceding chapters are
summarized here.
6.1 Effect of plant geometry
1. Almost all the growth attributes were significantly influenced due to
various plant geometries except germination percentage Number of
tillers per metre row length, plant height and dry matter
accumulation were recorded maximum with 120 cm normal row
spacing (P2) however it remained at par with plant geometry P 3 (150
cm normal row spacing) and P4 (30:150 cm twin row) with respect to
number of tillers.
2. Among yield attributes, millable cane height and number of millable
canes per metre row length and per hectare were significantly
211
influenced by various plant geometries. Millable cane height,
number of millable cane per metre row length and per hectare were
found higher with plant geometry P2 (120 cm normal row spacing)
however, it remained at par with plant geometry P 4 (30:150 cm twin
row) with respect to cane height. While cane girth, number of
internodes per millable canes and single cane weight was not
differed significantly.
3. Planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm normal row spacing (P2)
recorded significantly the highest cane yield during both the years as
well as in pooled data however, it remained at par with plant
geometry P4 (30:150 cm twin row) during first year. The increase in
cane yield was to the tune of 8.06 per cent over plant geometry P 1
(90 cm normal row spacing). Commercial cane sugar (C.C.S.) yield
was significantly influenced by various plant geometries during
second year only. Plant geometry P2 (120 cm normal row spacing)
recorded the highest C.C.S. yield and found significantly superior to
rest of the plant geometries. The increase in C.C.S. yield was to the
tune of 6.35 and 9.30 per cent during first and second year,
respectively over plant geometry P1 (90 cm normal row spacing).
4. All the quality parametres were not influenced by the various plant
geometries during both the years of study except fibre percentage
during second year which found significantly the lowest with
planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm row spacing (P2).
5. Significantly the lowest monocots and total weed population at 45
DAP and 90 DAP were recorded with 90 cm (P 1) and 120 cm (P2)
normal row spacing, while dicot weeds at 45 DAP and 90 DAP were
recorded higher with plant geometry P3 (150 cm normal row spacing)
in almost both the year of experimentation except dicot weed
212
population during second year which noted highest with plant
geometry P4 (30:150 cm twin row). Dry weight of weeds did not
differ significantly due to various plant geometries at 90 DAP and at
final earthing up during both the years.
6. Variation in nutrient content and uptake by weeds due to different
plant geometries were found to be non significant.
7. Nutrient content by plant did not differ significantly due to various
plant geometries while, uptake of nutrients viz., nitrogen, phosphors
and potassium by leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk as well as total
uptake by plant were recorded higher with planting of sugarcane
setts at 120 cm normal row (P2) spacing.
8. The highest net realization of ₹ 2,41,099 ha-1 and benefit cost ratio of
2.90 were recorded with planting of sugarcane setts at 120 cm
normal row spacing (P2) followed by 150 cm normal row spacing
(P3).
9. Normal row planting P2 (120 cm) and twin row planting P 4 (30:150
cm) found comparatively more suitable and feasible for
mechanization.
1. Various growth attributes were significantly influenced by different
varieties except germination percentage during both the years.
Significantly higher number of tillers per metre row length were
recorded with variety V2 (CoN 08072) and V3 (Co 86032) at almost
all the growth stages however, variety V 1 (CoN 05071) recorded
significantly higher number of tillers and remained at par with
variety V2 (CoN 08072) and V3 (Co 86032) at 90 DAP during first
and at 90 and 180 DAP during second year respectively. Variety V1
(CoN 05071) and V2 (CoN 08072) recorded maximum plant height
213
at almost all the periodical growth stages during both the years
however, variety V2 (CoN 08072) remained at par with variety V 1
(CoN 05071) and V4 (Co 99004) at 270 DAP during first year and at
harvest during both the years. The dry mater accumulation was
significantly influenced due to different varieties during both the
years. The maximum and minimum dry matter accumulation were
recorded with variety V1 (CoN 05071) and V3 (Co 86032)
respectively at almost all the growth stages.
2. Variety V1 (CoN 05071) recorded maximum values of almost all the
yield attributes however, it remained at par with variety V3 (Co
86032) and V4 (Co 99004) with respect to cane height; variety V 3
(Co 86032) and V2 (CoN 08072) with respect to number of millable
canes per metre row length and per hectare; variety V 3 (Co 86032)
during first year and variety V3 (Co 86032) and V4 (Co 99004)
during second year with respect to cane girth; variety V 4 (Co 99004)
with respect to number of internodes per millable canes and variety
V4 (Co 99004) during first year with respect to single cane weight.
3. The highest cane and sugar yields were recorded by variety V 1
(CoN 05071) followed by variety V2 (CoN 08072) as compared to
the rest of the varieties. The lowest cane yield was noted with variety
V4 (Co 99004).
4. Among different quality parametres, pol (sucrose) % in juice and
C.C.S. % during both the years; pol (sucrose) % in cane and purity %
during first year were significantly influenced by different varieties
while in remaining years pol % in cane, purity % and fibre % did not
differ significantly due to different varieties. Variety V 1 (CoN 05071)
and V4 (Co 99004) recorded maximum value of pol (sucrose) % in
juice, pol (sucrose) % in cane, purity % and C.C.S. % during their
214
respective years however, variety V3 (Co 86032) remained at par
with respect to purity % and C.C.S. % during first and second year
respectively.
5. Weed population (monocot, dicot and total) at 45 DAP and 90 DAP
as well as dry weight of weeds (g m -2) at 90 DAP and at final
earthing up (kg ha-1) were not significantly influenced due to
different varieties.
6. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of weed and uptake by
weed at final earthing up did not differ significantly due to different
varieties.
7. Maximum nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content and their
uptake by leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk as well as total uptake by
sugarcane crop were noted with variety V1 (CoN 05071).
8. The highest net realization of ₹ 2, 41,770 ha-1 was recorded with
variety V1 (CoN 05071) followed by V2 (CoN 08072) (₹ 2,11,681 ha-
1
) over other varieties. Similarly, benefit cost ratio (2.86) was also
obtained higher with variety V1 (CoN 05071) followed by V2 (CoN
08072) (2.63).
9. Sugarcane variety CoN 05071 and CoN 08072 found equally
feasible for mechanization.
Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety was found to
be significant in case of germination percentage at 30 DAP, number of
tillers per metre row length at 135 DAP, plant height at 180, 270 DAP and
at harvest, number of millable canes per metre row length and per hectare,
number of internodes per millable cane, single cane weight, commercial
cane sugar yield, purity %, fibre %, dry weight of weeds and total N
uptake, where maximum values for almost all the aforesaid characters were
215
observed with treatment combination P2V1 (120 cm normal row spacing
with variety V1 (CoN 05071)) with higher net return of ₹ 2,73,334 ha-1 with
benefit cost ratio 3.13. Normal row spacing (120 cm) and twin row planting
(30:150 cm) coupled with variety CoN 05071 and CoN 08072 found most
suitable for mechanization.
CONCLUSIONS
From the two years experimentation the following conclusions
can be drawn.
Wide row planting at 120 cm normal row spacing (P 2) gave
higher cane and sugar yield as well as higher net return and benefit cost
ratio as compared to rest of the plant geometries.
Variety V1 (CoN 05071) found the best with higher cane yield
followed by variety V2 (CoN 08072) also found better in mechanization.
Thus, higher profitable yield of sugarcane can be achieved with 120 cm
normal row spacing with planting of sugarcane variety CoN 05071 under
South Gujarat conditions. While 120 cm normal row spacing or 30 : 150
cm twin row planting with variety CoN 08072 looking to the feasibility
found suitable for mechanization (planting, inter cultivation, earthing up
and harvesting) in sugarcane crop.
FUTURE LINE OF WORK

1. There is need to evaluate effect of mechanized operations on soil
properties.
2. There is need to workout economically viable mechanized
operations.
3. New feasible and viable technology of mechanization may be found
out.
216
REFERENCES
217
REFERENCES
*Ahmed, I. (1990). Study on comparative rationing performance of some new

and old varieties of sugarcane. M.Sc. Thesis submitted to
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad,
Pakistan.
Ahmed Iftikhar (2002). Bio economic efficiency of spring planted sugarcane as
influenced by spatial arrangement and nutrient management.
http://prre.hec.gov.pkthsis/4550H.pdf.
*Ali, F.G.; Iqbal, M.A. and Chattha, A. A. (1999). Cane yield response towards
spacing and methods of irrigation under Faisalabad conditions,
Pak. Sugar J., 14 (4):8-10.
Angadi, V.V.; Kumbar, N.S. and Rajkumar, A.S. (1998). Performance of
herbicides in sugarcane variety Co. 740. Bharatiya Sugar, 23 (1):
97-98.
Anonymous, (2008). 4th meeting of NRM, AGRESCO report RSRS, NAU,
Navsari pp: 10-15.
Navsari pp: 6-11.
Navsari pp: 5-9.
Anonymous, (2013a). Indian Sugar, LXI (9) pp.90-91.
Anonymous, (2013b). 8th meeting of NRM, AGRESCO report RSRS, NAU,
Navsari pp: 8-11.
Brar, L.S. and Mehra, S.P. (1995). Weed management in sugarcane. Co-operative
Sugar, 26 (6): 447-448.
*Chattha, A. A.; Afzal, M. and Chattha, M. U. (2004). Sustainable cultivation of
sugarcane for revival of sugar industry in Pakistan. Proc. Of 39 th
218
Annual Convention, Pakistan Society of Sugar Technologists. pp.
36-39.
Chattha, M.U.; Ali, A. and Bilal, M. (2007). Influenced of planting techniques on
growth and yield of spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum
officinarum L.). Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Science, 44 (3):
452-456.
Chaudhari, S.; Dorge, J.T. and Tilekar, S.N. (2010). Impact of agricultural
technologies and development on cane productivity of sugarcane in
Western Maharashtra. Cooperative Sugar, 41(11): 69–74.
Cheema, I.A.M.; Ayub, M. and Jabbar, A. (2002). Morphological response of
spring planted sugarcane to spaced arrangement and nutrient
management. Pakistan Sugar Journal, 17 (6): 62-68.
Chitkala Devi, T.; Baratha Lakshmi, M. and Naidu, N. V. (2005) Response of
New Sugarcane Genotypes to Wide Row Spacing, Sugar Tech, 7
(4): 154-156.
Clindagave, R. B. (1999). Effect of planting methods, different levels of seed and
nitrogen on sugarcane yield and quality. Bhartiya sugar, 31 (5-6):
23-32.
Danawale, N. J.; Sinare, B. T.; Dhage, A.B.; Gaikwad, D. D.; Ombase, K.C. and
Pol, K.M (2011). Response of promising sugarcane genotypes to
fertilizer levels during spring season. Indian Sugar, LX (12): 33-
37.
Devi, C., Rao, K. L. and Raju, D.V.M. (1990). The effect of row space and
nitrogen on yield and quality of early maturing sugarcane cultivars.
Indian Sugar, 40 (7): 541-544.
Dexi, D.S.; Narwal, S and Bchi, A. (1990). Relative influence of row spacing on
height, thickness and growth of sugarcane. Cooperative Sugarcane,
6 (3): 94-95.
219
*Dhoble, M.V. and Khuspe, V.S. (1983). Effect of spacing, nitrogen and
phosphorus levels on sugarcane. Journal of Maharashtra
Agriculture University, 8 (1): 38-41.
Dubey, D.N.; Kulmi, G.S. and Jha, G. (1995). Performance of sorghum as
influenced by intercropping and planting geometry. Indian J.
Agron., 40 (3): 353-356.
*Ehsanullah; Jabran, K.; Jamil, K and Ghafar, A. (2011). Optimizing the row
spacing and seeding density to improve yield and quality of
sugarcane. Crop Environment, 2 (1):1-5.
Gaddanakeri, S.A.; Kamar, N.S.; Biradar, P.S. and Nadgouda, B.T. (2007).
Response of shy-tillering sugarcane variety Coc-671 to wide row
spacing and clipping. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
21 (3): 598-599.
Gajera, G.M.; Patel, H.S.; Patel, M.P.; Naik, P.L. and Mehta, N.S. (1991).
Correlation studies in sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 40 (12): 875-876.
Gaur, K.C. (1967). Estimation of total soluble salts from soil. Practical Agril.
Chem.,: 64-66.
George, P.M. (1963). Cane sugar hand book (9 th Edn). Johan Willey and Sons,
Inc., New York, London.
Ghaffar, A.; Ehsanullah; Akbar, N.; Khan, S. H.; Jabran, K.; Hashmi, R. Q.;
Iqbal, A. and Ali, M.A. (2012). Effect of trench spacing and
micronutrients on growth and yield of sugarcane (Saccharum
Officnarum L.). Australian Journal of Crop Science, 6 (1):1-9.
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984). Statistical procedure for Agricultural
Research (IInd edn). An International Rice Research Institute Book,
John Willey and Sons, Inc., New York.
*Gopalasundaram, P. (2009). Cane agronomy. In Sugarcane production
technology, ed. T. Rajula Shanthy, and N.V. Nair, 134–
145.Coimbatore: NFCSF & SBI Kalaikathir Printers.
220
*Hemaprabha, G. (2011). Sugarcane varieties. In Sugarcane production
technologies. Ed. T. Rajula Shanthy and N. V. Nair. 7-16. SBI:
Coimbatore.
Hussain, Md. S.; Singh, V.P. and Sinha Sudhirkumar. (2005). Effect of variety
and wider row spacing on plant population, cane yield and juice
quality. Bhartiya Sugar, 29(3): (34-37).
Jackson, M.L. (1967). “Soil Chemical Analysis” Prentice Hall of India. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, pp. 183-192.
Kadam, B.S.; Veer, D.M.; Pawar, R.P.; Bhage, R.S. and Moe, S.M. (2005a).
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium requirements for promising
new sugarcane genotypes under South Maharashtra. Cooperative
Sugar, 37 (1):53-56.
Kadam, B.S.; Veer, D.M.; Pawar, R.P. and Patil, J.S. (2005b). Response of new
sugarcane varieties to growth, yield and quality under wider row
planting techniques. Indian Sugar, LV (6): 25-29.
Kantesh, G.; Khot, R. S.; Hunshal, C.S. and Kambar, N. S. (1997). Response of
midlate sugarcane varieties to different methods of planting.
Bhartiya Sugar, 29 (1-2): 37-40.
Karamathullah, J.; Ramakrishnan, M.S.; Singaravelu, P. (1992a). Study of the
effect of intercropping in sugarcane under different planting
geometry on cane yield parameters yield and economics. Bharatiya
Sugar, 17 (3): 27-30.
Karamathullah, J.; Ramakrishanan, M.S.; Singaravelu, P. (1992b). Studies on the
effect of inter crops on growth, yield attributes and yield of
sugarcane under different planting pattern. Bharatiya Sugar, 17
(10): 59-63.
Kathiresan, G. (2000). Evaluation of cultural methods of weed control in
sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum). Indian J. Agron., 45 (4): 804-
807.
221
Khan, S.N.; Ali, A.; Khan, D and Minhas, S. (2002). Economic feasibility of inter
cropping sugarbeet in autumn planted sugarcane under various
plating geometry. Pakistan Sugar Journal, 17 (5): 10-12.
*Khandagave, R.B.; Hapase, D.G. and Somaiya, S. S. (2006). Maximization of
sugarcane and yields and reduction of production costs, a
participator rural appraisal. Pakistan Sugar Journal, 16 (3): 16-18.
Mahadevaswamy, M.; Kailasam, C. and Srinivasan, T.R. (1994). Integrated weed
management in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum). Indian J.
Agron., 39 (1): 83-86.
Mahadevaswamy, M.G.T. and Martin (2002). Production potential for wide row
sugarcane inter-cropped with aggregatum onion. Indian J. of
Agron., 47 (3): 366.
*Mali, A.L. and Singh, P.P. (1985). Quality of sugarcane as influenced by
cultivars in relation to varying row spacings. Indian Sugar, 35(8):
451-456.
*Malik, K.B. and Ali, F.G. (1990). Cane yield response to seed density and row
spacing in spring and autumn planting. Proc. 27th Ann. Cov. Pak.
Soc. Sugar Tech. pp 239-243.
*Malik, K.B. and Ali, F.G. and Khaliq, A. (1996). Effect of plant population and
row spacing on cane yield of spring planted cane. J. Agric. Res., 34
(6): 389-395.
*Mangal, Rai. (2002). Varietal improvement in sugarcane: Systems perspective.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Food, Nutrition
and Economic Security through diversification in sugarcane
production and processing system held at Lucknow, India 13–18.
Mehar Chand; Khippal, Anil; Singh, Samar; Lal, Roshan and Kadian, S. P.
(2010). Evaluation of sugarcane varieties of North-West Zone
under ring-pit planting method. Indian Journal of Sugarcane
Technology, 25 (1&2):9-12.
222
*Misra, G.N. (1964). A possible modification in fie system of sugarcane culture
adjustment in the depth of soil cover over the setts during different
phases of crop. Indian Sugar, 24 (9): 619-624.
Misra Arvind and Tripathi, B.K. (2006). Feasibility of mechanical harvesting of
sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid). Indian Journal of Agronomy,
51(1):65-67.
Mishra, P.J.; Mishra, P.K.; Biswal, S.; Panda, S.K. and Mishra, M.K. (2003).
Studies on integrated weed management practices in spring planted
sugarcane of coastal Orissa. Indian Sugar, 52 (12): 925-929.
Murali, P. and Balakrishnan (2012). Labour scarcity and selective mechanization
of sugarcane agriculture in Tamil Nadu. Sugar Tech, 14 (3):223-
228.
NAAS.
(2009).http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2009/i
ndex.asp.
Nagaraju, M.S.; Shankaraiah, C.; Gururaj, H.; Nanjappa, H.V. and Chandrappa,
M. (2000). Integrated weed management in sugarcane (Saccharum
officinarum L.). Co-operative Sugar, 31 (9): 723-728.
Nagendran, K. (2009). Farm machinery and implements in sugarcane cultivation.
In Sugarcane production technology, ed. T. Rajula Shanthy, and
N.V. Nair, 42–50. Coimbatore: NFCSF & SBI, Kalaikathir Printers.
*Nair, N.V. (2009). Current scenario of sugarcane agriculture and sugar industry
in the country. In Sugarcane production technology, ed.T. Rajula
Shanthy, and N.V. Nair, 1–7. Coimbatore: NFCSF & SBI,
Kalaikathir Printers.
Navnit Kumar; Singh Harendra; Rakesh Kumar and Singh, V.P. (2012).
Productivity and profitability of different genotypes of sugarcane
(Saccharum spp. Hybrid complex) as affected by fertility levels and
planting seasons. Indian J. of Agron., 57 (2): 180-185.
223
*NCAER, (1980). Implication of Tractorisation for Farm Employment,
Productivity and Income. National Council of Applied Economic
Research, New Delhi.
Narayanmurthy, N.; Asokan, S. and Mahadevaswamy, M. (1997). Influence of
nitrogen uptake, yield and quality in certain midlate sugarcane
varieties. Madras Agric. J., 84 (10):620-622.
Pandey, M. M.; Annamalai, S. J. K. and Naik Ravindra. (2012). Proceedings of
the International Symposium on New Paradigms in Sugarcane
Research, 15-18 October 2012, Sugarcaen Breeding Institute,
Coimbatore, India pp. xi-xvii.
Panghal, S.S. (2010). Cane production mechanization–A solution for labour
problems. Indian Sugar, 45: 27–32.
Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (1985). Statistical methods for agricultural
workers, ICAR Pub., New Delhi, pp 369.
Parashar, K.S.; Patil, R.R.; Prasad, M. and Dhaka, B.S. (1980). Studies on the
interrelationship between cane yield, juice quality and plant
characters of sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 30 (3): 149-151.
Patel, C. L.; Patel, N. B.; Pandya, H. V; Mali, S.C. and Patel M. N. (2005).
Response of sugarcane genotypes to planting geometry and seed
rate. Indian Sugar, LV (3): 23-28.
Patel, Darpana and Patel, D.U. (2013). Performance of sugarcane genotypes to
fertility levels. Bioinfolet, 10 (2A):455-457.
Patel, D.D. (2003). Effect of planting geometry and weed management on
sugarcane (Saccharum hybrid) var. CoN 85134 (Guj. Cane 2).
Ph.D. thesis, submitted to G.A.U., Navsari.
Patel, S. R. (2000). Effect of planting geometry, intercropping and weed
management on sugarcane (Saccharum hybrid) var. CoN-91132
(Guj. Cane-1). Ph.D. thesis submitted to G.A.U., S.K. Nagar.
Patil, J.P. and Mohite, B.V. (1993). Intercropping in seasonal sugarcane.
Bharatiya Sugar, 19 (1): 45-49.
224
Piper, C.S. (1950). “ Soil and Plant Analysis ”. The University of Adelaide,
Academic Press, N.Y. Australia.
*Prabhakar, C. (1999). Management practices for intercropping of soybean in
wide row sugarcane. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Sugarcane Breeding
Institute and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
Rajula Shanthy, T. and Muthusamy, G. R. (2012). Wider row spacing in
sugarcane: A socio-economic performance analysis. Sugar Tech, 14
(2):126-133.
Ramesh, P. (1997). Effect of planting geometry and method of planting on yield
components, yield, quality and water use of sugarcane. Indian J.
Agron., 43 (2): 338-341.
Ramesh, P. (1998). Effect of paired row planting with skip furrow irrigation and
trash mulch on yield, quality and water use of sugarcane. Indian J.
Agron., 42 (2): 389-391.
Rao, S. and Veeranna, V.S. (1998). Intercropping studies with sugarcane in
North-Eastern transitional zone of Karnataka. Co-operative Sugar,
30 (4): 294-296.
Raskar, B. S. and Bhoi, P.G. (2003a). Yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced
by intra-row spacing, fertilizer levels and planting materials. Indian
Sugar, 53 (5): 327-331.
Raskar, B. S. and Bhoi, P.G. (2003b). Response of sugarcane to planting
materials, inter row spacing and fertilizer levels under drip
irrigation. Indian Sugar, LIII (9): 685-690.
Rehman, A-UR., Ehsanullah; Ahmad, R. and Jabbar, A. (2013). Interactive study
of row spacing s and foliar application of macro and micro nutrients
on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane (Saccharum Officinarum
L.). Pak. J. Bot., 45 (2): 427-433.
*Ricaud, R. and Cochran, B.J. (1980). Method of planting sugarcane for sugar
and biomass production in Louisiana. Proc. 17th Cong. ISSCT,
1:302-310.
225
Richard, E.P.Jr.; Duncklelman, J.W. and Carter, C.E. (1991). Productivity of
sugarcane on narrow rows as affected by mechanical harvesting.
Field Crop Research, 26: 375-378.
Rishi Pal; Choudhary, B.S.; Mehta, A.S. and Kadian, S.P. (1998). Studies on
character interrelationship in chanal generation of sugarcane.
Indian Sugar, 47 (11): 907-917.
*Roodagi, L.I. (1998). Effect of planting methods and intercropping system in
sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). M. Sc. (Agri.) thesis
submitted to university of Agril. Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka.
Roodagi, L. I.; Itnal, C.J.; Biradar, D.P. and Angadi, S.A. (2001). Leaf area index,
light transmission ratio and sugar yield of sugarcane as influenced
by planting methods and intercropping systems. Bharatiya Sugar,
26 (10): 39-45.
*Sarwar, M.; Iqbal, M A.; and Ali, M.A. (1998). Effect of planting patterns on
agronomic traits of sugarcane. J. Agric. Res., 36 (2): 139-143.
Sathyavelu, A. and Somasundaram, E. (2002). Integrated weed management in
sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 52 (1): 871-873.
Shanthy, Rajula T. and Muthusamy, G. R. (2012). Wider row spacing in
sugarcane: A socio-economic performance. Sugar Tech, 14 (2):126-
133.
Sharma, A. K. and Prakash Brahm (2011). Causes and consequences of supply-
demand gap for labour in sugarcane in India. Agricultural
Economics Research Review, 24:401-407.
Shinde, S.H.; Dahiwalkar, S.D. and Berad, S.M. (2000). Response of sugarcane
to planting technique and fertigation through drip. Bharatiya Sugar,
25 (3): 19-24.
Shinde, S. H.; Dahiwalkar, S. D. and Berad, S. M. (2001). Influence of planting
technique and fertigation on sugarcane economics and quality.
Indian Sugar, 51 (2):17-21.
Shinde, V.V.; Lakhdive, B.A. and Ingole, P.G. (1990). Effect of planting pattern
226
of sugarcane and intercropping of summer groundnut on sugarcane
yield and quality. 14th Annual Convention of D.S.T.A., Pune, A :
109-114.
Shukla, S. K. (2003). Tillering pattern, growth and productivity of promising
sugarcane genotypes under various planting seasons and nitrogen
levels in subtropical India. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 48 (4):
312-315.
Sidhu, B. S.; Sharma, K. K. and Singh, A. (1994). Performance of sugarcane
(Saccharum Officinarum) varieties as influenced by row spacing.
Indian J. of Agron., 39 (4): 705-706.
Sinare, B.T.; Bhoite, D.S.; Dixit, R.M. and Bhoi, P.G. (2006). Response of
promising new sugarcane genotypes to fertilizer levels in Autumn
planting. Indian Sugar, LVI (4):29-32.
Singh, A.K., Lal, M. and Prasad, S.R. (2002). Enhancing productivity of early
maturing high sugarcane genotypes through management of crop
geometry and nitrogen nutrition. Indian Journal of Sugarcane
Technology, 17(12): 43-46.
Singh, B.V. and Singh, A.S. (1970). Correlation studies in sugarcane. Madras
Agric. J., 57: 474-477.
Singh, D. and Jain, G.L. (1994). Effect of potassium in combination with
nitrogen and planting patterns on autumn sugarcane. Indian J.
Agril. Sci., 64: 397-399.
Singh, N.; Jain, J.L. and Singh, D.K. (2009). Impact of planting techniques on
sugarcane and sugar productivity at Harinagar, Bihar. Indian Sugar,
August: 19-22.
Singh, O. (1993). Studies on cane crop geometry for mechanical harvesting.
Cooperative Sugar, 24 (8): 401-403.
Singh, R.P.; Tha, K.C. and Zaman, S. (1987). Effect of seed rate, spacing and
nitrogen on yield and quality of sugarcane under late sown
227
condition in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Sugar Crops Journal, 13 (4): 14-
18.
Singh, S.; Saini, L. K.; Garcha, A.I.S.; Singh, M. and Uppal, S.K. (1999). Effect
of planting geometry on the productivity of sugarcane. Bhartiya
Sugar, 31 (5-6):19-22.
Soomro, A. F.; Arain, M.Y.; Panhwar, R.N.; Rajput, M.A. and Gujar, N. (2009).
Effect of spacing and seed placement on yield and yield
contributing characters of sugarcane variety thatta-10 under agro
ecological conditions of Thatta. Pakistan Journal of Science, 61
(2): 110-115.
Srinivasan, J.R.; Rethinam, P.; Missra, A. and Ethirajan, A.S. (1977).
Relationship between the population and dry matter of weed with
the yield and quality of sugarcane under different weed control
methods. Weed Sci. Conf. and workshop in India. Abstr. No. 72
(Fide : Principle of weed Sci. by Rao, Oxford and IBH Pub. Co-
394).
Srinivasan, P.R. (1982). Studies on the efficiency of herbicides under wet land
conditions to promising varieties of sugarcane. Annual Report,
Sugarcane Breeding Institute: 126.
Srivastava, T.K.; Singh, G.B. and Srivastava, S.N. (1999). Efficacy of weed
control measures and soil persistence of atrazine in sugarcane
(Sccharum officinarum) as influenced by irrigation and nitrogen.
Indian J. Agron., 44 (3): 835-840.
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. (1960). Principles and procedure of statistics.
McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc.
Subbiah, B.V. and Asija G.L. (1956). A rapid procedure for estimations of
available nitrogen in soil. Curr. Sci., 25 (8): 259-260.
Sundara, B. (2002). Influence of varieties, seed and fertilizer rates and planting
pattern on sugarcane grown under wider row spacing. Indian
Sugar, LII (5):341-347.
228
*Sundara, B. (2003a). Response of new sugarcane varieties to wide row spacing.
Proceedings 65th Annual Convention of the Sugarcane
Technologists’ Association of India, Bhubneshwar, Orissa 22-24
August, pp A168-A177.
Sundara, B. (2003b). Sugarcane varietal response to wide row spacing. Indian
Sugar, LII (8):573-578.
*Tang, K.H. (1976). Effect of inter-row spacing on yield of sugarcane in
Taiwan. Proc. 16th Conv. JSST: 855-859. lnt. Sugar. J., 81
(964):109; 1979.
Thakur, G.L.; Verma, H.D. and Sharma, R.K. (1995). Integrated approach for
weed control in sugarcane (Saccharam officinarum). Indian J.
Agron., 40 (4): 715-718.
*Thomas, J.R.; Salinas, F.G. and Narnken, L.N. (1977). Growth and yield of
sugarcane as affected by row spacing. Int. Sugar J., 83(10): 102.
Tripathi, S. C. and Pandey, D. S. (1993). Effect of planting dates on yield and
quality of sugarcane (Saccharum species) varieties. Indian J. of
Agron., 38 (2):339-340.
Vashishtha, R.P. and Sinha, U. P. (2004). Response of sugarcane genotypes to
planting season and levels of fertilization in north Bihar. Indian J.
of Agron., 49 (3):192-193.
Yadav, R.L. (1992). Effect of sett size and row arrangement on yield and quality
of sugarcane. Co-operative Sugar, 23 (10): 667-670.
*Yadav, R. L. (1993). Agronomy of Sugarcane. International Book Distributing
Co., Lucknow. pp. 375.
Yadav, R.L.; Kumar, Ravi and Verma, R.S. (1991). Row spacing, plant density
and nitrogen application effect on plant and ratoon crops of
sugarcane in subtropical India. Bharatiya Sugar, 16 (12): 45-63.
Yadav, R.L.; Singh, R.V.; Signh, R. and Srivastava, V.K. (1997). Effect of
planting geometry and fertilizer N rates on nitrate leaching,
nitrogen use efficiency and sugarcane yield. Tropical Agri., 74(2):
229
115-120.
Yadav, R.N.S.; Yadav, Sandeep and Tejra, Raj Kumar. (2003). Labour saving and
cost reduction machinery for sugarcane cultivation. Sugar Tech, 5
(1 & 2):7-10.
Zafar, M.; Tanveer, A.; Cheema, Z.A. and Ashraf, M. (2010). Weed-crop
competition effects on growth and yield of sugarcane planted using
two methods. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42 (2):815-823.
*Original not seen
230
APPENDICES
231
Appendix 1: Germination percentage (%) at 30 DAP as influenced by
interaction between plant geometry and variety during
2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 60.76 55.26 51.60 58.38
P2 57.46 61.51 61.15 52.65
P3 63.79 54.25 58.81 59.90
P4 56.77 58.62 59.04 50.25
S. Em. ± 2.30
C.D. at 5% 6.59
C.V.% 7.99
Appendix 2: Number of tillers per metre at 135 DAP as influenced by

interaction between plant geometry and variety during 2010-
2011
Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 69.29 78.69 82.10 78.02
P2 74.88 87.46 79.60 73.17
P3 74.38 73.52 80.62 72.71
P4 79.00 74.86 85.90 64.81
S.Em. ± 0.82
C.D. at 5% 2.36
C.V.% 8.57
DAP- Days after planting
Appendix 3: Number of tillers per metre at 135 DAP as influenced by

2011-2012
Variety (V)
232
Plant V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
17.35 19.93 20.64 19.41
P2 18.74 21.82 19.82 18.33
P3 18.55 18.32 20.05 18.06
P4 19.82 18.69 21.38 16.20
S.Em. ± 0.79
C.D. at 5% 2.26
C.V.% 8.22
Appendix 4: Total plant height (cm) at 180 DAP as influenced by

2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 203.75 163.00 182.74 198.75
P2 209.01 219.25 213.75 222.50
P3 215.25 162.50 137.25 206.25
P4 217.50 182.50 154.00 213.75
S.Em. ± 6.89
C.D. at 5% 19.77
C.V.% 7.11
DAP: Days after planting
2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
206.74 163.49 186.00 197.75
P2 212.50 204.76 209.25 218.74
P3 214.51 177.49 139.74 205.76
P4 210.49 185.24 151.00 216.27
233
S.Em. ± 7.95
C.D. at 5% 22.81
C.V.% 8.21

2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 235.50 235.25 280.50 237.50
P2 277.50 238.50 229.50 245.50
P3 229.00 216.75 197.25 257.50
P4 237.00 240.00 221.00 232.50
S.Em. ± 8.64
C.D. at 5% 24.79
C.V.% 7.40
2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
234.23 226.52 201.24 251.26
P2 275.49 232.01 240.27 239.23
P3 241.00 207.74 209.50 247.51
P4 233.48 244.51 205.76 238.50
S.Em. ± 8.54
C.D. at 5% 24.49
C.V.% 7.33
234
Appendix 8: Total plant height (cm) at harvest as influenced by
interaction between plant geometry and variety
during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 289.00 272.75 271.75 283.25
P2 352.00 273.50 279.25 289.25
P3 244.00 295.25 274.00 280.50
P4 280.50 283.25 252.50 304.25
S.Em. ± 11.18
C.D. at 5% 32.08
C.V.% 7.91
Appendix 9: Total plant height (cm) at harvest as influenced by

2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
290.00 270.00 272.25 284.25
P2 348.25 274.25 283.75 285.75
P3 245.75 293.25 275.25 284.75
P4 282.50 284.00 256.25 307.00
S.Em. ± 10.45
C.D. at 5% 29.98
C.V.% 7.37
Appendix 10: Dry weight of leaf blade (t ha-1) at 90 DAP as influenced

by interaction between plant geometry and variety
during 2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
235
P1
0.687 0.658 0.679 0.711
P2 0.939 0.659 0.608 0.814
P3 0.656 0.708 0.714 0.703
P4 0.771 0.754 0.718 0.642
S. Em. ± 0.040
C.D. at 5% 0.12
C.V.% 11.33
Appendix 11: Dry weight of leaf sheath (t ha -1) at 90 DAP as influenced

during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 0.667 0.664 0.643 0.699
P2 0.904 0.686 0.648 0.655
P3 0.690 0.735 0.678 0.715
P4 0.725 0.684 0.736 0.766
S. Em.± 0.035
C.D. at 5 % 0.102
C.V. % 10.05
Appendix 12: Dry weight of leaf sheath (t ha -1) at 90 DAP as

influenced by interaction between plant geometry and
variety during 2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
0.701 0.657 0.631 0.694
P2 0.865 0.706 0.688 0.704
P3 0.725 0.714 0.723 0.708
P4 0.699 0.750 0.723 0.753
S. Em.± 0.025
236
C.D. at 5 % 0.073
C.V. % 7.10
Appendix 13: Dry weight of total leaf blade and leaf sheath (t ha -1) at
90 DAP as influenced by interaction between plant
geometry and variety during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 1.365 1.330 1.335 1.391
P2 1.686 1.377 1.332 1.401
P3 1.379 1.429 1.339 1.363
P4 1.440 1.343 1.435 1.439
S. Em.± 0.042
C.D. at 5 % 0.12
C.V. % 5.99
Appendix 14: Dry weight of total leaf blade and leaf sheath (t ha -1) at
90 DAP as influenced by interaction between plant
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
1.389 1.315 1.310 1.405
P2 1.804 1.364 1.296 1.519
P3 1.381 1.422 1.437 1.411
P4 1.470 1.504 1.441 1.394
S. Em.± 0.045
C.D. at 5 % 0.13
C.V. % 6.25
237
Appendix 15: Dry weight of leaf blade (t ha -1) at 180 DAP as
influenced by interaction between plant geometry
and variety during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 4.200 3.864 3.583 4.534
P2 5.628 4.277 4.268 4.172
P3 3.979 4.185 4.231 4.299
P4 4.469 4.502 4.740 4.227
S. Em.± 0.20
C.D. at 5 % 0.57
C.V. % 9.21
Appendix 16: Dry weight of leaf sheath (t ha -1) at 180 DAP as

Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 3.393 2.450 2.639 3.006
P2 3.194 2.827 3.343 3.323
P3 3.702 2.357 2.190 3.810
P4 3.726 2.714 2.548 2.988
S. Em.± 0.18
C.D. at 5 % 0.51
C.V. % 11.69
Appendix 17: Dry weight of stalk (t ha-1) at 180 DAP as influenced by

during 2010-2011
Variety (V)
238
Plant V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 5.677 4.677 4.446 4.341
P2 5.544 5.706 5.577 5.569
P3 5.133 5.060 4.479 4.579
P4 5.010 4.493 4.419 4.940
S. Em.± 0.18
C.D. at 5 % 0.51
C.V. % 7.15
Appendix 18: Dry weight of stalk (t ha-1) at 180 DAP as influenced

during 2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
4.911 5.609 4.960 4.802
P2 5.829 5.575 5.573 4.998
P3 4.952 5.362 4.493 4.786
P4 5.874 4.562 5.138 5.010
S. Em.± 0.24
C.D. at 5 % 0.69
C.V. % 9.40
Appendix 19: Total dry weight of leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk (t
ha-1) at 180 DAP as influenced by interaction between
plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
14.229 11.723 11.147 10.891
P2 13.903 14.301 13.982 13.961
P3 12.872 12.682 11.229 11.487
239
P4 12.565 11.268 11.084 12.387
S. Em.± 0.45
C.D. at 5 % 1.28
C.V. % 7.13
Appendix 20: Total dry weight of leaf blade, leaf sheath and stalk (t
ha-1) at 180 DAP as influenced by interaction between
plant geometry and variety during 2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
12.321 14.063 12.437 12.044
P2 14.618 13.980 13.976 12.537
P3 12.423 13.443 11.271 12.008
P4 14.726 11.446 12.886 12.567
S. Em.± 0.61
C.D. at 5 % 1.74
C.V. % 9.37
Appendix 21: Dry weight of leaf sheath (t ha-1) at 270 DAP as

Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 5.183 4.572 4.006 4.549
P2 4.572 4.006 4.549 5.724
P3 4.006 4.549 5.724 6.011
P4 4.549 5.724 6.011 5.578
S. Em.± 0.27
C.D. at 5 % 0.77
C.V. % 11.70
240
Appendix 22: Monocot weeds m-2 at 45 DAP as influenced by
during 2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
32.00 33.01 31.76 30.23
P2 30.48 26.77 31.01 27.49
P3 32.99 33.01 33.24 39.24
P4 33.75 31.49 34.51 32.25
S. Em.± 1.50
C.D. at 5 % 4.31
C.V. % 9.36
Appendix 23: Dry weight of weed (g m-2) at 90 DAP as influenced
during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
149.50 159.00 157.75 132.00
P2 142.75 153.00 150.00 158.00
P3 159.75 153.75 166.25 168.00
P4 160.50 153.50 155.50 155.50
S. Em. ± 5.22
C.D. at 5% 14.98
C.V.% 6.75
Appendix 24: Dry weight of weed (g m-2) at 90 DAP as influenced by

during 2011-2012
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
241
P1
306.49 389.25 351.25 361.26
P2 345.50 377.74 372.76 284.49
P3 375.00 348.00 316.00 334.50
P4 346.50 307.51 315.00 382.75
S. Em. ± 5.54
C.D. at 5% 15.88
C.V.% 6.88
Appendix 25: Dry weight of weed (kg ha-1) at final earthing up as

Plant Variety(V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 2307.74 2458.00 2554.50 2642.49
P2 2170.26 2581.25 2448.75 2406.74
P3 2740.75 2749.00 2702.24 2350.51
P4 2451.26 2487.50 2483.25 2713.24
S. Em. ± 97.10
C.D. at 5% 278.49
C.V.% 7.72
Appendix 26: Number of millable cane per metre row length at harvest
as influenced by interaction between plant geometry
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
10.32 12.59 10.95 8.67
P2 12.96 11.70 12.98 8.27
P3 10.52 10.58 12.10 9.49
P4 10.75 10.76 10.85 9.63
242
S.Em. ± 0.48
C.D. at 5% 1.38
C.V.% 8.91
Appendix 27: Number of millable cane per hectare at harvest as

Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
103174.60 125892.86 109523.81 86706.35
P2 129563.49 116964.29 129761.90 82738.10
P3 105238.10 105833.33 120952.38 94880.95
P4 107500.00 107619.05 108452.38 96309.52
S. Em. ± 4820.32
C.D. at 5% 13825.32
C.V.% 8.91
Appendix 28: Number of internodes per millable cane at harvest as

Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
23.00 22.75 19.49 21.76
P2 25.00 20.25 22.27 23.73
P3 23.23 21.27 21.24 21.51
P4 22.01 20.00 22.99 22.75
S.Em. ± 0.84
C.D. at 5% 2.41
C.V.% 7.61
243
Appendix 29: Single cane weight (kg) as influenced by interaction
between plant geometry and variety during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 1.34 1.20 1.24 0.93
P2 1.15 1.08 1.18 1.38
P3 1.24 1.03 1.11 1.23
P4 1.27 1.18 1.10 1.26
S.Em. ± 0.053
C.D. at 5% 0.15
C.V.% 9.04
Appendix 30: Single cane weight (kg) as influenced by interaction

Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
1.32 1.18 1.21 1.01
P2 1.38 1.07 1.18 1.01
P3 1.25 1.03 1.10 1.21
P4 1.22 1.15 1.12 1.21
S. Em. ± 0.045
C.D. at 5% 0.13
C.V.% 7.65
Appendix 31: Cane yield (t ha-1) as influenced by interaction

between plant geometry and variety during 2010-
2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
244
P1 138.69 136.21 101.09 88.19
P2 137.10 114.19 123.41 122.02
P3 126.90 114.16 117.26 118.93
P4 129.40 109.52 119.40 127.26
S. Em. ± 4.12
C.D. at 5% 11.74
C.V.% 10.53
Appendix 32: Cane yield (t ha-1) as influenced by interaction

between plant geometry and variety (pooled basis)
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 134.72 131.05 105.36 98.21
P2 138.49 122.07 123.96 122.67
P3 130.48 107.50 116.19 117.20
P4 125.89 110.83 115.53 117.56
S. Em. ± 4.32
C.D. at 5% 12.17
C.V.% 9.86
Appendix 33: Purity % as influenced by interaction between plant

Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
91.92 92.51 91.06 92.90
P2 90.57 92.88 93.57 92.38
P3 92.45 91.01 93.49 91.91
P4 92.52 92.18 92.84 92.77
S. Em. ± 0.53
245
C.D. at 5% 1.53
C.V.% 1.16
Appendix 34: Fibre % as influenced by interaction between plant

Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
15.34 13.99 15.42 14.62
P2 14.09 14.02 13.91 13.63
P3 15.12 14.99 14.60 14.41
P4 14.49 14.22 14.23 14.97
S. Em. ± 0.27
C.D. at 5% 0.76
C.V.% 3.65
Appendix 35: C.C.S. yield (t ha-1) as influenced by interaction

between plant geometry and variety during 2010-
2011
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1 20.23 16.70 14.31 12.38
P2 19.36 13.84 16.83 17.67
P3 18.11 13.63 16.13 16.40
P4 18.16 14.35 16.48 17.54
S. Em. ± 0.87
C.D. at 5% 2.50
C.V.% 10.63
246
Appendix 36: K2O content (%) in leaf blade at harvest as
Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
1.019 1.012 0.995 1.191
P2 1.163 1.089 0.999 1.057
P3 1.042 1.009 1.029 0.989
P4 1.101 0.975 1.023 1.053
S. Em. ± 0.042
C.D. at 5% 0.12
C.V.% 7.97
Appendix 37: N content (%) in leaf sheath at harvest as
Plant Variety (V)
V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
0.374 0.404 0.401 0.432
P2 0.443 0.411 0.357 0.359
P3 0.468 0.400 0.422 0.415
P4 0.450 0.376 0.380 0.368
S. Em. ± 0.020
C.D. at 5% 0.056
C.V.% 9.72
Appendix 38: N content (%) in leaf sheath at harvest as

Variety (V)
247
Plant V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
0.418 0.409 0.408 0.433
P2 0.452 0.440 0.365 0.357
P3 0.423 0.402 0.431 0.420
P4 0.451 0.379 0.383 0.377
S. Em. ± 0.017
C.D. at 5% 0.048
C.V.% 8.25
Appendix 39: N content (%) in stalk at harvest as influenced by

during 2010-2011
Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
0.275 0.298 0.215 0.313
P2 0.236 0.254 0.289 0.298
P3 0.315 0.273 0.307 0.309
P4 0.307 0.270 0.220 0.320
S. Em. ± 0.014
C.D. at 5% 0.040
C.V.% 9.82
Appendix 40: N uptake (kg ha-1) by plant as influenced by interaction

Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
175.21 179.47 152.54 174.10
P2 198.67 169.84 191.24 192.01
P3 203.16 149.88 180.70 173.60
248
P4 222.19 167.21 147.30 184.10
S. Em. ± 9.32
C.D. at 5% 26.74
C.V.% 10.43
Appendix 41: N uptake (kg ha-1) by plant as influenced by interaction

Plant Variety (V)

V1 V2 V3 V4
geometry (P)
P1
213.31 184.55 170.26 182.63
P2 209.67 195.59 200.16 206.47
P3 207.65 153.06 172.29 180.13
P4 199.80 180.22 152.42 202.29
S. Em. ± 7.43
C.D. at 5% 21.31
C.V.% 7.90
249
Appendix 42: Price rates of different inputs and produce for
calculating gross realization and cost of cultivation
(₹ ha-1) for sugarcane
Sr. Particulars Cost (₹ ha-1)
2010-11 2011-12
No.
A Fixed cost
1 Land preparation 7465 7470
2 Layout, bund forming and preparation of 1200 1300
irrigation channels (12 labourers ha-1)
3 Planting of setts 6000 6000
4 Hand weeding 2400 2400
5 Cost of fourteen irrigation @ 257 and 271 3598 3794
₹ irrigation-1 for 1st and 2nd year respectively
6 Plant protection measures 210 210
Weedicide 2190 2480
7 Interculturing @ 140 and 150 ₹ for 1 and 1160
st
1200
2nd year respectively
8 Harvesting @170 and 199 ₹ t -1
for 1st and 20414 23896
2nd year respectively
Total capital 44637 48750
9 Land revenue ₹ 50.00/ha/annum (12 50 50
months)
10 Interest on working capital @ 12.00 % (12 5356 5850
months)
11 Supervision charges @ 10.00 % of total 4464 4875
capital (12 months)
Fixed cost 54507 59525
B Rates used for cultivation and inputs
1 Tractor cultivation 140 hr-1 150 hr-1
Cont...
2 Tractor planking 100 hr-1 100 hr-1

3 Ridging, Interculturing and earthing up 100 hr-1 100 hr-1
4 Labour charges for routine agricultural 100 day-1 100 day-1
operations
5 Bio-compost 300 t-1 300 t-1
6 Irrigation charges 15 hr-1 20 hr-1
(Tube well water with electric pump)
7 Nitrogen in the form of urea 11.96 kg-1 12.52 kg-1
8 Phosphorus in the form of SSP 23.13 kg-1 30.88 kg-1
9 Potash in the form of Muriate of potash 7.67 kg-1 19.63 kg-
1
C. Variable cost
1 Cost of seed 6 ton @ ₹ 2750 and 2845 ton 16500 17070
-1
for 1st and 2nd year respectively
Cost of N in form of urea, phosphorus in
form of SSP and potash in form of MOP
with application cost
2 250 kg N (Urea) 3700 4090
3 125 kg P2O5 (SSP) 3191 4100
4 125 kg MOP 1259 2694
D Selling rate of produce
1 Sugarcane (₹ ton-1) 2800 3000
254
Appendix 43: Cane yield, gross realization, total cost of cultivation, net realization (₹ ha-1) and benefit to cost
ratio from sugarcane as influenced by different treatments
Treatments Cane yield Gross realization Total cost of Net realization Benefit to cost
(t ha-1) (₹ ha-1) cultivation (₹ ha-1) ratio
(₹ ha-1)
2010- 2011- 2010- 2011- 2010- 2011- 2010- 2011-2012 2010- 2011-
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2011 2012
P1V1 138.69 130.75 388332 392250 128199 129815 260133 262435 3.03 3.02
P1V2 136.21 125.89 381388 377670 128199 129815 253189 247855 2.97 2.91
P1V3 101.09 109.62 283052 328860 128199 129815 154853 199045 2.21 2.53
P1V4 88.19 108.23 246932 324690 128199 129815 118733 194875 1.93 2.50
P2V1 137.10 139.88 383880 419640 127640 129212 256240 290428 3.01 3.25
P2V2 114.19 129.96 319732 389880 127640 129212 192092 260668 2.50 3.02
P2V3 123.41 124.50 345548 373500 127640 129212 217908 244288 2.71 2.89
P2V4 122.02 123.31 341656 369930 127640 129212 214016 240718 2.68 2.86
P3V1 126.90 134.05 355320 402150 127149 128282 228171 273868 2.79 3.13
P3V2 109.52 105.48 306656 316440 127149 128282 179507 188158 2.41 2.47
P3V3 117.26 115.12 328328 345360 127149 128282 201179 217078 2.58 2.69
P3V4 118.93 115.48 333004 346440 127149 128282 205855 218158 2.62 2.70
P4V1 129.40 122.38 362320 367140 128710 130219 233610 236921 2.82 2.82
Cont...
P4V2 111.79 109.88 313012 329640 128710 130219 184302 199421 2.43 2.53
P4V3 119.40 111.67 334320 335010 128710 130219 205610 204791 2.60 2.57
255
P4V4 127.26 107.86 356328 323580 128710 130219 227618 193361 2.77 2.48
2010-2011
Sugarcane : ₹ 2800 t-1 (i) Seed cost: Sugarcane : ₹ 2750 t-1
(b) P2O5 : ₹ 23.13 kg-1
(c) K2O : ₹ 7.67 kg-1
2011-2012
Sugarcane : ₹ 3000 t -1
(i) Seed cost: Sugarcane : ₹ 2845 t-1
(b) P2O5 : ₹ 30.88 kg-1
(c) K2O : ₹ 19.63 kg-1
Appendix 44: Cane yield, gross realization, total cost of cultivation, net realization (₹ ha-1) and benefit to cost
ratio from sugarcane as influenced by different treatments (pooled)
256
Treatments Cane yield Gross realization Total cost of Net realization Benefit to cost
(t ha-1) (₹ ha-1) cultivation (₹ ha-1) ratio (BCR)
(₹ ha-1)
P1V1 134.72 390291 129007 261284 3.03
P1V2 131.05 379529 129007 250522 2.94
P1V3 105.36 305956 129007 176949 2.37
P1V4 98.21 285811 129007 156804 2.21
P2V1 138.49 401760 128426 273334 3.13
P2V2 122.08 354806 128426 226380 2.76
P2V3 123.96 359524 128426 231098 2.80
P2V4 122.67 355793 128426 227367 2.77
P3V1 130.48 378735 127716 251020 2.96
P3V2 107.50 311548 127716 183833 2.44
P3V3 116.19 336844 127716 209129 2.64
Cont...
P3V4 117.21 339722 127716 212007 2.66

P4V1 125.89 364730 129465 235266 2.82
P4V2 110.84 321326 129465 191862 2.48
P4V3 115.54 334665 129465 205201 2.59
P4V4 117.56 339954 129465 210490 2.63
(A) Price of produce : (B) Price of inputs:
257
Sugarcane : ₹ 2900 t-1 (i) Seed cost: Sugarcane : ₹ 2798 t-1
(b) P2O5 : ₹ 27.01 kg-1
(c) K2O : ₹13.65 kg-1
Appendix 45: Economic evaluation of plant geometry and variety (2010--2011)

Treatments Cane yield Cost of Gross realization Net realization B. C. R.
-1
(t ha ) cultivation (₹ ha-1) (₹ ha-1)
(₹ ha-1)
Plant geometry (P)
P1 116.05 128199 324926 196727 2.53
P2 124.18 127640 347704 220064 2.72
P3 118.15 127149 330827 203678 2.60
P4 121.96 128710 341495 212785 2.65
Variety (V)
258
V1 133.03 127924 361718 233794 2.83
V2 117.93 127924 330197 202273 2.58
V3 115.29 127924 322812 194888 2.52
V4 114.10 127924 319480 191556 2.50
Sugarcane : ₹ 2800 t-1 (i) Seed cost : Sugarcane : ₹ 2750 t-1
(ii) Fertilizer : (a) N : ₹ 11.96 kg-1
(b) P2O5 : ₹ 23.13 kg-1
(c) K2O : ₹ 7.67 kg-1
Appendix 46: Economic evaluation of plant geometry and variety (2011--2012)
Treatments Cane yield Cost of Gross realization Net realization B. C. R.
-1
(t ha ) cultivation (₹ ha-1) (₹ ha-1)
(₹ ha-1)
Plant geometry (P)
P1 118.63 127310 355868 228558 2.80
P2 129.41 126104 388238 262134 3.08
P3 117.53 124243 352598 228355 2.84
P4 112.95 128117 338843 210726 2.64
Variety (V)
V1 131.77 132320 382065 249745 2.89
V2 117.80 132320 353408 221088 2.67
259
V3 115.23 132320 345683 213363 2.61
V4 113.72 132320 341160 208840 2.58
Sugarcane : ₹ 3000 t-1 (i) Seed cost : Sugarcane :₹ 2845 t-1
(ii) Fertilizer : (a) N :₹ 12.52 kg-1
(b) P2O5 :₹ 30.88 kg-1
(c) K2O :₹ 19.63 kg-1
(iii) Herbicide: Atrazine :₹ 500 kg-1
(iv) Labour charge :₹ 100 day-1
260

Thesis 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLANT GEOMETRY IN SUGARCANE MECHANIZATION

Darpana Patel and Dr. V.C. Raj

III MATERIALS AND METHODS 40

VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 161

TABLE TITLE PAGE

TABL TITLE PAGE

TABLE TITLE PAGE

FIGURE TITLE AFTER

Stripped cane yield

Sugarcane is the second most important industrial crop of

Among the various agronomic practices, plant geometry and

2.1.2 Influence on yield and yield attributes

III MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted at the Main Sugarcane

Properties Values obtained Method employed

Std. Meteoro Temperature Relative Rain- No. Sunshin

Fig. 1: Meteorological parametres recorded during crop season of 2010-2011

Fig.2: Meteorological parametres recorded during crop season of 2011-2012

3.4 Field operations

Table 5: Schedule of cultural operations carried out during the period

3.4.1 Land preparation

3.5.3 Observations on cane quality

Results of the field experiment entitled, "Plant geometry in

DAP : Days after planting Sig.: Significant NS: Non significant

DAP : Days after planting

presented in Table 14.

* = Figure out side parenthesis indicates x transformed value

* = Figure out side parenthesis indicates x transformed value

at 90 DAP and final earthing up

Treatment Dry weight

P1 149.56 151.75 2490.69 2664.13

V1 153.13 159.63 2417.50 2526.25

DAP : Days after planting

4.4.2.3 Interaction effect

Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety was

4.4.3 Number of millable canes per hectare

The data pertaining to number of millable canes per hectare

4.4.3.1 Effect of plant geometry

The data presented in Table 19 revealed that planting of

Table 19: Effect of plant geometry and variety on number of millable

Treatments Number of millable canes per hectare

The data presented in Table 19 revealed that planting of

4.4.3.2 Effect of variety

The data further indicated that different varieties significantly

4.4.3.3 Interaction effect

Treatment combination P2V3 recorded maximum number of

4.4.4 Millable cane girth (cm)

The mean data on millable cane girth (cm) at harvest along

Treatments Millable cane girth (cm)

S. Em.± 0.040 0.049

NS: Non significant

4.4.4.2 Effect of variety

An appraisal of data presented in Table 20 revealed that

4.4.4.3 Interaction effect

Interaction effect between plant geometry and variety found to

4.4.5 Number of internodes per millable cane

The data on number of internodes per millable canes at harvest

4.4.5.1 Effect of plant geometry