Effect Of Some Tilliage Practices And Plant Spacing On Sugar Cane Productivity In Sohag:

Gamal Saad El-sayed

SUMMARYEFFECT OF SOME TILLAGE PRACTICES AND PLANTSPACING ON SUGAR CANE PRODUCTIVITYINSOHAGTwo field trials were conducted at Shandaweel Research Station (SohagGovernorate) in two successive seasons of 1997/1998 and 1998/1999, to studythe effect of some tillage practices (ploughing and hoeing) and row spacing onyield and quality of plant cane .Each field experiment included twelve treatments representing thecombination between the studied factors:1- Number of ploughing ( two, three and four ploughings).11- Row spacing ( 100 em and 125 em row spaces).III- Two hand hoeing treatments (hoeing twice and thrice).Sugar cane was planted during the first week of April and was harvestedtwelve months later. Sugar cane variety G.T.54-9 (the commercial variety) wasused in both growing seasons of this study. One and half drills of three-buddedcane cuttings were used in sugar cane planting (37800 buds/fed in case ofspacing rows at 100 em and 30240 buds/fed in case of 125 cm rowsspacing).Hoeing took place after 30,60 and 90 days from planting in bothseasons.A split split plot design with four replications was used in both seasonswhere, treatments of ploughing number were allocated in the main plotswhereas row spacing treatments were assigned to the sub plots and hoeinglevels were randomly distributed in the sub-sub plots. The experimental unitarea was 70 m2, 7 m in length and 10 m in width, including 10 rows (in case ofspacing rows at 100 em) and 8 rows (in case of spacing at 125 em).The results of the two growing seasons of the plant cane crop could besummarized as follows:I : Effect of ploughing intensity :1- Increasing ploughing number from two to three and four increasedgermination percentage at 45 days in both seasons with significantdifference in the second season.2- Increasing ploughing munber from two to three and four increased numberof stalks/nr’ after 105 and 165 days from planting. The increase was moreevident at 165 days.3- Increasing ploughing number from 2 to 4 times significantly increased stalkdiameter (em) at 150 and 210 days in the second season.4- Ploughing two and/or three times attained the highest stalk length, in bothseasons and throughout the different growth stages compared with fourploughings.5- Ploughing intensity significantly affected grassy weeds dry weight in thefirst season where a significant increase was recorded with the increase inploughing frequency. This effect was mainly due to the presence ofBermuda grass in the experimental site and frequent ploughing led to greatdistribution of the rhizomes in the soil. In regard to total weed density, nosignificant effect was detected for ploughings in both seasons.6- The highest values of N% of sugar cane leaves were attained by ploughingsugar cane field twice and thrice. Significant differences in N% in leaveswere observed at ISO days in the first season and at 330 days in bothseasons.7- The effect of ploughing number on K% in sugar cane leaves was significantat 210 and 270 days in the 1st season and at 150 days after planting in the2nd season. Ploughing sugar cane field twice produced the highest values ofK% in the Ist season at 210 and 270 days.8- Ploughing intensity did not affect Na% m leaves at the different growthstages in both seasons.9- Ploughing significantly affected N% in sugar cane stalk at harvest in1998/99 season and the highest N% was observed with 3 ploughings,10- The lowest value ofNa % of sugar cane stalk at harvest was obtained byploughing twice in the 1st season and by ploughing 4 times in the 2ndseason, with significant differences.11- The lowest value of K % of sugar cane stalk (0.72 % and 0.570/0) atharvest was recorded by ploughing sugar cane field 4 times in the 1st and2nd seasons respectively. Significant differences were observed in the firstseason.12- Increasing ploughing from two to three and four times decreased fiber 0/0in stalk at harvest in the first and second seasons.13- The total soluble solids percentage (TSS 0/0) values in juice weresignificantly affected by ploughing treatments at 150 and 210 days in the1st season and at 330 days in the 2nd season. Increasing ploughingfrequency generally increased TSS% in sugar cane juice.14- Number of ploughing significantly affected brix% in juice at harvest inboth seasons. The four ploughings treatment produced the highest brixpercentage in the second season. However, in the first season, ploughingtwice produced the highest brix%.15- Increasing ploughing intensity significantly increased sucrose % in juice atharvest in the first seasons only. However, the highest sucrose percentagewas recorded in both seasons with the highest number of ploughings ( fourtimes).16- Ploughing intensity did not significantly affect reducing sugar % in juice atharvest in both seasons.17-The highest purity and sugar recovery percentages was recorded in bothseasons with the highest number of ploughing, with significant differencesin the second season.18- Increasing ploughing number from two to three and four times increasednumber of millable cane by 17.6 and 27.260/0in the 151 season, being6.060/0 and 15.33 % in the 2nd one. The effect of ploughing intensity onnumber of millable cane/fed was significant in the 1st season only.19- Increasing ploughing number from two to three and four times increasedcane yield by 16.4 % and 24.9 % respectively, in the 151 season,corresponding to 6.21 % and 13.42 % in the 2Dd season.20- Increasing ploughing number from two to three and four times increasedsugar yield by 29.28 % and 48.43 % respectively, in the 1st seaso~corresponding to 5.98 % and 22.16 % in the 2Dd season. The effect ofploughing number on sugar yield was significant in the 1st season onlyII : Effect of row spacioe:1- Using row spacing of 100 em produced higher germination percentage inboth season compared with row spacing (125 em). The increase wassignificant in the second season.2- Row spacing of 100 cm significantly increased number of stalks/nr’ after105 and 165 days from planting in both seasons compared with planting at125 cm.3- Row spacing of 125 cm significantly increased stalk diameter in the 2ndseason at the various growth stages. However, effect of row spacing on thistrait was significant at 150 days- in the 1 51 season.4- Using row spacing of 100 em significantly increased stalk height at thedifferent stages in the 2nd season compared with the wider row spacing(125 cm). Also, in the 1st season, rows spacing of 100 em increased stalkheight compared with 125 em at 150 days from planting.5- Neither fresh weight nor dry weight of the different weed groups, as well asthe total weeds fresh and dry weight were significantly affected by rowspacing in both seasons.6- Row spacing significantly affected N % in leaves at 270 days in the 1stseason as well as at 330 days in the second one. Higher N% in leaveswas recorded at 100 em row spacing after 270 days in 1997/98 season,whereas higher N% in leaves was recorded at 330 days in 1998/99season.7- K % in leaves at 150 days in the 1st season as well as at 210 days in thesecond one was significantly affected by row spacing.8- Na % of sugar cane leaves was not significantly affected by row spacing atdifferent stages in both seasons.9- The effect of row spacing on N % of sugar cane stalk at harvest was notsignificant.10- Na % in stalk at harvest was significantly affected by row spacing in1998/99 season. A higher Na% was recorded at wider row spacing.11- The wider row space (125 em) produced lower value of K % of sugarcane stalk (0.72 %) at harvest in the 1st season.12- Fiber % in sugar cane stalk at harvest was not significantly affected by rowspacing.13- Row spacing significantly’ affected TSS % injuice at 210,270 and 330days from planting in 1998/99 season. An increase in TSS% was observedat 125 em row spacing compared with 100 cm.14- Brix % of sugar cane juice at harvest was not significantly affected by rowspacing.15- Sucrose percentage in sugar cane juice at harvest significantly increased at125 em row spacing in 1998/99 season compared with 100 em rowspacing.16- Reducing sugars, purity and sugar recovery percentages in sugar cane juiceat harvest were not significantly affected by row spacing in both seasons.17- Spacing cane rows at 100 cm width produced higher number of miUablecane/fed, by 3.78 % and 6.24 % in the 1st and 2nd seasons, compared with125 em in both seasons. However, these increases were below the level ofsignificance.18- Cane yield increased by 4.13 and 6.13 % in the 1st and 2nd seasons,respectively by planting row 100 em over 125 cm. The increases in bothseasons were below the significant level.19- Row space of 100 em insignificantly increased sugar yield by 6.93 % and3.43 % in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively.ill : Effect of hoeing:1- Hoeing frequency had no significant effect on number of stalks/rrr.at 105and 165 days from planting in both seasons.2- Increasing hoeing from two to three times increased stalk diameter in theboth seasons at all growth stages.3- Hoeing treatments did not significantly affect stalk height at the differentgrowth stages in both seasons.4- Three hoeing reduced the spread of weeds compared with two hoeing at 135days. The reductions in fresh and dry weights of total weeds were 57 and51 % in the first season, respectively, corresponding to 25 and 26 % in thesecond season.5- There was no significant effect of hoeing frequency on N % in leaves at thedifferent growth stages in the two seasons, except when the plant aged 270days in the 2nd season where hoeing sugar cane plant three times recordedhighest value with respect to N % of sugar cane leaves.6- Hoeing sugar cane plant twice a season increased K% in leaves in the 1stseason compared with 3 hoeings at 150 and 210 days while at 270 dayshoeing three times increased K% compared with hoeing twice. 7- Hoeing twice significantly increased Na% in leaves at 330 days in the firstseason, At the other growth stages in that season as well as at all stages inthe second one, no significant effect for hoeing was detected.8- Hoeing sugar cane plant twice a season significantly increased N % of sugarcane stalk at harvest compared with hoeing three times in both seasons.9- Hoeing treatments did not significantly influence K% in sugar cane stalk atharvest in both seasons.10- Hoeing frequency had no significant effects on fiber % in stalk at harvest inboth seasons.11- There was a general positive response in the values of TSS % in juice inboth seasons to hoeing sugar cane plants twice a season compared with 3hoeings. The significant effect of hoeing treatments was recorded at the 1stgrowth stage (150 days) in the 2 nd season.12- Hoeing treatments did not significantly influence brix % in sugar canejuice at harvest in both seasons.13- Two hoeings produced higher sucrose percentage in juice at harvest in bothseason compared with three hoeings. This effect was significant in thesecond season.14- Hoeing frequency had no significant effects on reducing sugars %, purity%and sugar recovery % in juice at harvest in both seasons.15- Practicing three hoeings insignificantly produced higher number ofmillable cane/fed in both seasons. The increases were 2.6 and 3.4 % in thefirst and second season, respectively, compared with 2 hoeings.16- Practicing three hoeings insignificantly produced higher cane yield /fed inboth seasons. This increase was 2.77 and 3.34 % compared with twohoeings in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively.17- Hoeing frequency had no significant effect on sugar yield in both seasons.IV : Interaction effects:The following Tables (30 and 31) show the significant interactions:Table (30) The highest respose values and combination of factors of themteractIon effects 0fth es tudIied characters 0f sugar cane i.ll 1997/98 seasonCharacters InteractionsPI. X Spac, PI. X Hoe. Snac, X Hoe. PI. X Snac, X Hoe.Stalk height (em) 213.65 em S NS 211.63 em S NSat 150DFP 3 pl. X 100 em 100 emX 2 hoe.Stalk height (em) NS NS 303.24 em S 315.90 em Sat 270 DFP 100 cmX 2 hoe. 3 pl. X 125 em X 3hoe.Stalk height (em) NS NS NS 344.66 em Sat 330 DFP 3 pl. X 125 emX 2 hoe.N % in leaf NS NS NS 3.37% Sat 150 DFP 4 pl. X 100 em X 2 hoe.N % in leaf 3.52% S NS NS NSat 210 DFP 3 pl, X 125 emN % in leaf 2.52% S 2.47% S NS NSat 270 DFP 4 pl. X 100 em 2 pl. X 2 hoe.N %in leaf 2.15 % S NS 2.01 % S NSat 330 DFP 4 pl, X 100 em 100 em X 2 hoe.K %inleaf NS 2.18% S NS NSat 210 DFP 2 PI. X 3 hoe.Na % in leaf NS NS 0.619 % S 0.74% Sat 150 DFP 125 emX 2 hoe. 2 pl. X 125 emX 2 hoe.Na % in leaf NS 0.64% S 0.60% S 0.67% Sat 210 DFP 2 pl. X 2 hoe. 125 emX 2 hoe. 3 pl. X 125 emX 2 hoe.Na % in leaf NS 0.61 % S 0.59% S 0.69% Sat 270 DFP 2 PI. X 3 hoe. 125em X 3 hoe. 2 PI. X 100 cmX 2 hoe.Na %in leaf 0.65% S NS NS NSat 330 DFP 4 nl, X 100 emN % in stalk 1.92 % S 1.83 % S NS 2.07% Sat harvest 2 pl. X 125 em 4 pl, X 2 hoe. 2 pl. X 125 em X 2 hoe.TSSO/O NS NS 14.99 % S NSat 150 DFP 125 em X 3 hoe.Reducing sugar 0.55 % S 0.57% S 0.53 % S NS%at harvest 2 pl. X 100 em 2 pl. X 3 hoe. 100 em X 3 hoe.Purity % 87.00 % S NS NS NS4 pl. X 100 emSugar recovery 12.33 % S NS NS NS% 4 pl. X 100 emTable (30) shows the best combinations between the studied factors in 1997/98season and the recorded values.Ploughing intensity X spacing significantly affected stalk height atDFP, N% in leaf at 210,270 and 330 DFP, Na % in leaf at 330 DFP, N% instalk at harvest, reducing sugar % at harvest and sugar recovery %.Combining4 ploughings + 100 em spacing recorded, mostly, the highest valuesPloughing intensity X hoeing treatments had significant effects on N%ill leaf at 270 DFP, K% and Nit % in leaf at 210 DFP, Na % in leaf 270 DFP,N% in stalk at harvest and reducing sugar % at harvest. Almost, combining 2ploughings + 2 hoeings recorded the highest values.Spacing X hoeing significantly affected on stalk height at 150 and 270DFP, N% in leaf at 330 DFP, Na % in leaf at 150, 210 and 270 DFP, TSS %at 150 DFP and reducing sugar % in juice at harvest. Combining 100 emspacing + 2 hoeings enhanced growth characters, whereas 125 em spacing + 3hoeings increased absorption of nutrients.The second order interaction had significant effects on stalk height at270 and 330 DFP, N% in leaf at 150 DFP, Na % in leaf at 150, 210 and 270DFP and N% in stalk at harvest. Combining 2 ploughings + 125 em spacing +2 hoeings almost recorded the highest values.Table (31) The highest respose values and combination of factors of themteraction effects 0f thes tudied characters 0f sugar cane i.ll 1998/99 seasonCharacters InteractionsPI. X Snae, PI. X Hoe. Spac, X Hoe. PI. X Snac. X Hoe.Germination % 40.87% S NS NS NSat 45 DFP 3 pl. X 125 emStalk diameter 2.60 em S NS NS NSat 270 DFP 2 pl. X 125 emStalk diameter 2.98 em S NS NS NSat 330 DFP 3 pl. X 125 emStalk height (em) NS NS 199.37 em S NSat 150 DFP 100 em X 3 hoe.Stalk height (em) NS 232.9 em S NS NSat 210 DFP 3 pl. X 3 hoe.Stalk height (em) 294.13 em S 288.38 em S NS NSat 270DFP 3 pl. X 100 em 3 pl, X 3 hoe.N % in leaf NS 2.48% S NS NSat 210 DFP 4 pl. X 3 hoe.N % in leaf NS NS NS 2.60% Sat 330 DFP 3 pl, X 125 cmX 2 hoe.K % in leaf NS . NS 2.33% S 2.47% Sat 150 DFP 125 em X 2 hoe. 2 pl, X 125 em X 2 hoe.K % in leaf NS 2.53 % S NS 2.74% Sat210 DFP 3 pl. X 3 hoe. 3 pl. X 100 cmX 3 hoe.K %inleaf NS NS NS 2.28% Sat 270 DFP 2 pl. X 100 emX 3 hoe.K %in leaf 1.82 % S 1.73 % S NS NSat 330 DFP 3 pI. X 100 em 3 pl, X 2 hoe.Na %in leaf NS 0.79% S 0.76% S NSat 150 DFP 3 pl. X 3 hoe. 100 em X 3 hoe.Na % in leaf 0.82% S NS NS NSat 210 DFP 2 pl. X 100 emNa %in leaf NS 0.63 % S NS NSat 270 DFP 2 nl, X 2 hoe.Na % in leaf 0.57% S 0.63 % S 0.55 % S 0.71 % S’at 330 DFP 2 pl. X 125 em 2 pl. X 2 hoe. 125 em X 3 hoe. 2 pl. X 100 em X 2 hoe.N % in stalk NS 1.80 % S 1.57 % S 2.00% S .,at harvest 3 pl. X 2 hoe. 100 em X 2 hoe. 3 pl. X 100 em X 2 hoe.K % in stalk NS NS 0.69% S NSat harvest 100 em X 3 hoe.Fiber % in stalk NS 12.50 % S NS 12.77 % Sat harvest 2 nl, X 3 hoe. 2 pl. X 100 em X 3 hoe.TSS% NS 15.05 % S NS NSat 150 DFP 2 pl. X 2 hoe.TSS% 17.74 % S NS 17.63 % S 18.23 % Sat 210 DFP 2 pl. X 125 em 125 em X 3 hoe. 4 pl, X 125 em X 3 hoe.TSS% 19.55 % S 18.85 % S 18.90 % S 19.63 % Sat 270 DFP 2 pl. X 125 em 2 pl. X 2 hoe. 125 em X 3 hoe. 2 nl, X 125 em X 3 hoe.TSS% 22.55 % S NS NS 23.07 % Sat 330 DFP 2 pl, X 125 em 4 pl, X 100 em X 2 hoe.Sucrose % in NS NS NS 18.86 % Siuice at harvest 4 pl. X 125 emX 2 hoe.Reducing sugar NS NS NS 0.72% S% at harvest 2 pl. X 125 emX 3 hoe.Purity % in NS 88.50 % S NS NSjuice at harvest 2u1 X 2 hoe.Sugar recovery NS 12.14 % S NS 12.65 % S%iniuice 2u1 X 2 hoe. 4 pI. X 125 cmX 2 hoe.In 1998/99 season, the significant interactions presented in Table (31)indicated that ploughing X spacing significantly affected germination % at 45DFP, stalk diameter at 270 and 330 DFP, stalk height at 270 DFP, K% in leafat 330 DFP, Na % in leaf at 210 and 330 DFP and TSS % at 210, 270 and 330DFP. The highest values of growth traits were almost recorded by combining 3ploughings + 125 em, whereas combining 2 ploughings + 125 em produced thehighest values of the chemical contents.Ploughing X hoeing had significant effects on stalk height at 210 and270 DFP, N%inleafat210DFP,K%inleafat210and330 DFP, Na%inleaf at 150, 270 and 330 DFP, N% in stalk at harvest, fiber % at harvest,purity% and sugar recovery% in juice at harvest. Combining 3 ploughings + 2hoeings, generally, increased these traits.Concerning spacing X hoeing, Table (31) showed that this interactionsignificantly affected stalk height at 150 DFP, K% in leaf at 150 DFP, Na 0/0in leaf at ISO and 330 DFP, TSS % at 210 and 270 DFP and N% and K% instalk at harvest. Combining 125 cm spacing + 3 hoeings recorded the highestvalues of the chemical contents ’in general.The second order interaction significantly affected N% in leaf at 330DFP, K% in leaf at 150,210 and 270 DFP, Na % in leaf at 330 DFP, N% instalk at harvest, fiber % in stalk at harvest, TSS % at 210,270 and 330 DFP,reducing sugar % in juice at harvest and sugar recovery 0/0. In general, thehighest values were recorded by combining 4 ploughings + 100 em ( and orem) spacing + 2 hoeings.