jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Geometry Pdf 166415 | D3793 Item Download 2023-01-24 19-36-03


 135x       Filetype PDF       File size 0.02 MB       Source: arccarticles.s3.amazonaws.com


File: Geometry Pdf 166415 | D3793 Item Download 2023-01-24 19-36-03
agric sci digest 34 3 223 225 2014 agricultural research communication centre doi 10 5958 0976 0547 2014 01007 6 www arccjournals com effect of planting geometry and nitrogen application ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Posted on 24 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Partial capture of text on file.
                  Agric. Sci. Digest., 34 (3) : 223 - 225, 2014                       AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE
                  doi:10.5958/0976-0547.2014.01007.6                                               www.arccjournals.com
                  EFFECT OF PLANTING GEOMETRY AND NITROGEN APPLICATION THROUGH
                           FERTIGATION ON PRODUCTION AND QUALITY OF SUGARCANE
                                          K. Prabhakar, G. Karuna Sagar*, M. Sreenivasa Chari,
                                               C. Kiran Kumar Reddy and S. Chandra Sekhar
                                                Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad
                                             Agricultural Research Station, Utukur, Kadapa-516 003, India
                  Received: 22-08-2013                                                                        Accepted: 21-07-2014
                                                                    ABSTRACT
                          A field experiment was conducted during 2009-10 and 2010-11 to study the effect of planting
                       geometry and nitrogen levels on growth, yield and quality  of sugarcane.  Two spacings (S -paired
                                                                                                                       1
                       row planting 75/105 cm and S -normal planting 90 cm) and four nitrogen levels applied through
                                                        2
                       fertigation (D1-100 % RDN, D2-75 % RDN, D3-50 % RDN and D4-Farmers practice)  were tested in
                       strip-plot design with three replications.  Results revealed that paired row planting (75/105 cm)
                       registered significantly higher cane girth, cane weight, millable cane population and cane yield over
                       normal planting (90 cm) in both the years.  Application of 100 % recommended dose of nitrogen
                       through fertigation was found superior than the other treatments with respect to yield attributes and
                       cane  yield during both the years. Quality of sugarcane was not influenced by crop geometry and
                       nitrogen fertigation levels
                       Key words: Fertigation, Nitrogen levels, Planting geometry, Quality, Sugarcane.
                                   INTRODUCTION                              cost of drip irrigation system and to take up plant
                          Sugarcane, an important agro-industrial crop       protection measures. In the light of the above, the
                  in India is cultivated in about 4.94 m ha producing        present investigation was taken up to study the effect
                  about 342 m MT with productivity of 68.5 MT                of plant geometry and nitrogen levels through
                  (Indiastat.com).  The average cane yield of existing       fertigation on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane.
                  sugarcane cultivars is much lower than actual                        MATERIALS AND METHODS
                  production potential due to improper nutrient                      A field experiment was conducted at the
                  management and planting geometry.  Being a long            Agricultural Research Station, Utukur, Kadapa,
                                               -1 
                  duration crop, 125 MT ha of sugarcane removes              Andhra Pradesh during 2009-10 and 2010-11.  The
                  about 83 kg N (Yadav, 1991). Nitrogen is one of the        experimental soil was red sandy loam in texture,
                  important yield limiting nutrients and its efficient use   slightly alkaline in reaction (pH 8.2) and low in
                  is inevitable for economic sustainability. Therefore,      organic carbon (0.4 %), available N (197 kg/ha),
                  an adequate supply of nitrogen in the effective root       available P O  (12.5 kg/ha) and high in available
                  zone of crop is essential for obtaining sustainable                    2  5
                                                                             KO (280 kg/ha).  The treatments was laid out in
                  cane yield.                                                 2
                                                                             strip-plot design replicated thrice with two spacings
                          The economic yield is determined by the            viz., S - paired row planting  (75/105 cm) and S -
                  capability of plant to produce photosynthates and                1                                               2
                                                                             normal row planting (90 cm) as main-plots and four
                  their distribution to sink.  In order to realize the full  nitrogen levels through fertigation viz., D - 100 %
                                                                                                                           1
                  benefits of the land and environmental resources, it       recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN); D -75 %
                                                                                                                             2
                  is necessary to accommodate the plants in the field        RDN; D - 50 % RDN and D - Farmers practice, as
                                                                                     3                      4
                  in such a pattern that there is least competition          sub-plots.  The test variety 2000 V 36 (early maturing
                  among them for essential growth factors, besides           variety) was planted on 20-01-2009 and 10-03-2010
                  other advantages like reduction in the installation        and harvested on 14-02-2010 and 28-02-2011
                  *Corresponding author’s e-mail: karunaagro@yahoo.co.in
             224                          AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE DIGEST- A Research Journal
             during the year 2009 and 2010, respectively.                          1
                                                                                   1     9 7         8 8  1 5
                                                                              )    -     7 8  5 6    3 8  9 1  9 5
             Recommended dose of fertilizer was 224 kg N, 80                  a    0     . .  1 9    . .  . .  5 3
                                                                              h    1     9 2  . .    3 0  3 7  . .
                                                                              /    0     2 1  1 4    3 3  1 0  2 6
             kg P O  and 80 kg K O/ha. In fertigation, nitrogen               t    2
                                                                              (          1 1         1 1  1 1
                 2  5              2                                                
                                                                              d     
                                                                              l     
             was given through urea at bi-weekly intervals starting           e     
                                                                              i     
                                                                              y     
             from15 days after planting (DAP) up to 150 DAP in                     0     6 3         8 3  6 1
                                                                              e    1     2 5  9 4    4 1  8 1  3 2
                                                                              n    -     . .         . .  . .
             ten equal splits as per the treatments.  Phosphorus          .   a    9          4 1              0 4
                                                                          s   C    0     0 6  . .    7 6  5 4  . .
                                                                          l              3 1  0 2    3 3  1 0  3 7
                                                                          e        0
                                                                          v              1 1         1 1  1 1
             and potassium were applied as basal dose to all the                   2
                                                                          e    
                                                                          l    
                                                                               
                                                                               
             plots through single super phosphate and muriate of          n    
                                                                               
                                                                          e    
                                                                                   1
                                                                          g    
             potash, respectively.  The juice quality was analysed        o     a  1     9 6    4    8 0  4 8    4
                                                                          r     h  -     7 3  7      7 0  3 1  5
                                                                          t     /  0            2                0
             as per the procedure outlined by Spencer and Meade           i     n        2 1  7 6    1 5  9 2  5 6
                                                                          n     o  1     7 0  3      7 6  0 0  6
                                                                                i  0     6 6    1    6 6  6 6    1
                                                                          d   e t
             (1963). Data obtained from the experiment was                n   l a  2
                                                                          a   b l
                                                                              a u
                                                                              l
                                                                              l p
             statistically analyzed following standard statistical        y   i
                                                                          r     o  0
                                                                          t   M p  1     8 3         2 0  3 6
                                                                          e                     9
                                                                                e  -     4 8  9      9 5  1 0  4 5
             methods (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).                                                   5
                                                                          m     n  9     1 0  0      1 8  2 2  7 2
                                                                                                7
                                                                          o     a  0
                                                                                c        8 3  4      2 1  9 9  1 4
                                                                          e        0            1
                                                                                         6 6         7 7  5 5
                      RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                              g      
                                                                                   2
                                                                                 
                                                                          g      
                                                                                 
                                                                          n      
             Planting geometry: Cane yield was significantly              i      
                                                                          t      
                                                                                 
                                                                          n        1
                                                                                 
             influenced by the planting geometry.  Paired row             a        1
                                                                          l      
                                                                          p        -     0 5  5 2    9 8  3 0  4 9
                                                                              e  
                                                                                   0     8 6  0 0    8 8  6 5  0 0
                                                                              n          . .  . .    . .  . .  . .
             planting (S ) registered significantly higher cane yield     y        1
                        1                                                     a          1 1  0 0    1 1  1 1  0 0
                                                                          b   c )  0
                                      -1                                      l g  2
             (130.26 and 129.79 t ha ) as compared to normal              d   a k
                                                                          e     (
                                                                              u  
                                              -1                          c   d t
             planting (116.53 and 112.87 t ha ) in both the years         n   i W  0
                                                                          e   v  
                                                                          u   i    1
                                                                          l   d    -     3 9  2 8    9 6  2 8  7 7
             (Table.1).  The per cent increase in cane yield with         f      
                                                                              n          1 7  0 0    0 0  9 7  0 1
                                                                          n   I    9
                                                                          i              . .  . .    . .  . .  . .
                                                                                   0
                                                                                         2 1  0 0    2 2  1 1  0 0
             paired row planting  was to the magnitude of 10.54           s        0
                                                                                 
                                                                          a      
                                                                                   2
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
             and 13.03 per cent over normal planting in first and         e      
                                                                                 
                                                                          n        1
                                                                                 
                                                                          a      
                                                                          c   )    1
             second year, respectively.  The significantly higher                  -     5 7  3 2    4 6  1 5  1 2
                                                                          r      
                                                                              m    0     8 4  0 1    8 8  5 4  5 1
                                                                          a              . .  . .    . .  . .  . .
                                                                              c  
             cane yield in paired row planting was mainly due to          g   (    1
                                                                                         2 2  0 0    2 2  2 2  0 0
                                                                          u        0
                                                                          s   h  
                                                                              t    2
                                                                                 
             higher cane girth (2.67 and 2.85 cm), number of              f   r  
                                                                              i  
                                                                          o      
                                                                              g  
                                                                                 
                                                                          d        0
             millable canes (68148 and 67279) and reasonably              l   e  
                                                                                   1
                                                                          e   n  
                                                                          i        -     6 0  3 3    0 1  0 1  8 8
                                                                              a  
                                                                          y        9     7 5  0 1    8 8  5 4  0 1
             good single cane weight (2.13 and 1.80 kg) as                    C          . .  . .    . .  . .  . .
                                                                                 
                                                                          e        0
                                                                                         2 2  0 0    2 2  2 2  0 0
                                                                          n        0
                                                                                 
             compared to normal planting (2.50 and 2.47 cm;               a        2
                                                                                 
                                                                          c      
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
             63083 and 60136; 1.79 and 1.65 kg during 2009                d      
                                                                                 
                                                                          n        1
                                                                                 
                                                                          a        1     9 6         3 8  1 8
             and 2010, respectively).  The increase in yield and                 
                                                                                   -          2 3              4
                                                                          s              6 0         6 4  5 8    S
                                                                                   0     . .  1 5    . .  . .  2
                                                                          e                   . .              .
                                                                          t        1     7 5         8 8  4 3    N
             yield attributes with paired row planting owed due               s               0 0              0
                                                                          u   e  
                                                                                   0     2 2         2 2  2 2
                                                                          b      
                                                                          i   d    2
                                                                          r      
                                                                          t   o  
             to  better air circulation and light penetration which       t      
                                                                              n  
                                                                                 
                                                                          a   f  
                                                                                 
                                                                              o  
             might have enhanced the photosynthetic efficiency            d      
                                                                          l        0
                                                                              .  
                                                                          e        1     2 1         1 6  3 5
                                                                          i   o  
                                                                                   -          7 0              6
             of plants, reduced shoot mortality, increased number         y   N          9 8         6 9  3 5    S
                                                                                   9     . .  7 3    . .  . .  5
                                                                          ,                   . .              .
                                                                                   0     0 6         8 8  8 9    N
                                                                          s                   0 3              0
                                  -2                                      r      
             of millable canes m  and individual cane weight.                      0     3 2         2 2  2 2
                                                                          e      
                                                                          t        2
                                                                                 
                                                                          e      
                                                                                 
             These results are collaborated with that of Singh et                
                                                                          m      
                                                                                 
                                                                          a        1
                                                                          r   )  
                                                                                   1     0 8  4      7 0  1 9  2
             al. (2010) and Singh et al. (2009).  However, quality        a              . .         . .  . .
                                                                              m    -          0                7
                                                                          p                     S                S
                                                                              c    0     0 4  .      2 7  7 2  .
                                                                              (  
                                                                                   1     9 7  8 N    0 9  6 6  5 N
             parameters such as brix, sucrose, commercial cane            h      
                                                                          t        0     2 2  3      3 2  2 2  5
                                                                              h  
                                                                              t  
                                                                          w   g    2
                                                                                 
             sugar (CCS) and purity were not affected by plant            o      
                                                                          r   n  
                                                                                                                    n
                                                                              e  
                                                                          G   l                                     e
                                                                                   0
             geometry.                                                        e                                     g
                                                                          :        1     2 4  3      5 5  8 4  1
                                                                              n    -     . .         . .  . .       o
                                                                          1                   2                4    r
                                                                              a                 S                S  t
                                                                                   9     0 4  .      1 1  2 4  .    i
                                                                                 
                                                                              C    0     4 7  1 N    4 5  6 7  3 N  n
             Nitrogen levels: The highest magnitude of yield              E      
                                                                                   0     2 2  4      2 2  2 2  5     
                                                                                                                    f
                                                                                 
                                                                                   2                                o
             attributes i.e. cane girth, cane weight and millable                
                                                                                                                     
                                                                                 
                                                                          ABL                                       e
                                                                                                                    s
                                                                                 
             cane population and higher cane yield was recorded           T                                 e       o
                                                                                 
                                                                                      y                     c
                                                                                      r                     i       d
                                                                                      t                     t        
                                                                                 
             with the application of 100 % recommended dose                           e                     c       d
                                                                                                  s
                                                                                                  l  N      a       e
                                                                                      m                     r
                                                                                                  e    N  N
                                                                                         w           D      p       d
             of nitrogen (RDN) through fertigation (D ) which                         o           v
                                                         1                               o           R D  D         n
                                                                                      e           e         s
                                                                                         r l      l                 e
                                                                              t       g         )      R  R r    )
                                                                                           a               
             was however, at par with D  (75 % RDN) and                       n                 5    %      e    5  m
                                            2                                         g  d        n
                                                                              e          e m    0                0
                                                                                           r    . e    %  % m    .  m
                                                                                      n  r           0      r
                                                                              m       i  i      0 g              0
             significantly superior to other treatments (D  and D )           t       t    o  ± (    0 5  0 a  ± (  o
                                                         3      4                        a        o                 c
                                                                              a       n    N      r  1 7  5 F     
                                                                                         P    m      - -  - -  m    e
                                                                              e       a  - -      t
             in both the years of study (Table.1).   Lowest values                    l   1 2 E D i   1 2 3  4 E D
                                                                              r                                     R
                                                                                 
                                                                              T       P  S S  S C N  D D  D D  S C  *
                                                                                                   Vol. 34, No. 3, 2014                                                                             225
                                         TABLE 2: Juice quality parameters of sugarcane as influenced by planting geometry and nitrogen levels.
                           Treatment                                Brix (%)                              Sucrose (%)                              Purity (%)                          CCS (%)
                                                          2009-10         2010-11            2009-10             2010-11            2009-10              2010-11           2009-10      2010-11
                           Planting geometry
                           S-Paired row                     15.86           18.91              12.49               16.88               78.5                89.20              5.80              6.28
                            1
                           S-Normal                         16.90           17.98              13.49               15.75               79.8                87.34              6.60              5.74
                            2
                           SEm±                              0.42            0.49               0.61                0.73               1.63                 1.50               013              0.18
                           CD (0.05)                          NS              NS                 NS                  NS                 NS                   NS                NS                NS
                           Nitrogen levels
                           D-100 % RDN                      17.09           17.85              13.61               15.50              79.39                86.34              6.75              6.07
                             1
                           D-75 % RDN                       16.35           18.91              12.95               17.01              79.17                89.86              6.23              6.28
                             2
                           D-50 % RDN                       15.62           18.71              12.10               16.68              77.22                89.11              5.72              5.74
                             3
                           D-Farmers practice               16.45           18.31              13.31               16.09              80.58                87.77              6.39              5.96
                             4
                           SEm±                              0.78            0.83               0.88                0.96               2.29                 2.05              0.28              0.34
                           CD (0.05)                          NS              NS                 NS                  NS                 NS                   NS                NS                NS
                           *Recommended dose of nitrogen
                           of yield attributes  and cane yield was observed                                         results are in accordance with those of Mahendran
                           under farmers practice (D4). 100 % RDN (D1)                                              and Dhanalakshmi (2003) and Rajanna and Patil
                           increased the cane yield over D  and D  to the tune                                      (2003).  Application of RDN through fertigation did
                                                                               3            4                       not exhibit any significant influence on quality
                           of 15.72 and 24.27 respectively in 2009.  The
                           respective increase during 2010 was 14.59 and                                            parameters viz., brix, sucrose, CCS and purity.
                           19.66 per cent over D3 and D4.  This might be                                                         From the present study, it can be concluded
                           presumably due to concomitant supply of nitrogen                                         that better cane yield could be obtained with the
                           and translocation of photosynthates efficiently to sink                                  application of 75 % RDN through fertigation and paired
                           which resulted in higher number of millable canes                                        row planting (75/105 cm) in red sandy loam soils of
                           and improved the individual cane weight.  These                                          Southern Agro-climatic zone of Andhra Pradesh.
                                                                                                     REFERENCES
                           Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. International Rice Research
                                       Institute, Manila, Philippines. pp 304 -305.
                           Indiastat.com
                                                                                                     th
                           Mahendran, S. and  Dhanalakshmi, M. (2003). 65  Annual Convention, 24 August, 2003. Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India,
                                       pp 80-87.
                           Rajanna, M.P. and Patil, V.C. (2003). Effect of fertigation on yield and quality of sugarcane. Indian Sugar 52: 1007-1011.
                           Singh, S.N., Singh, P.K., Singh, A.K., Singh, S.C. and Sharma, M.l. (2009). Effect of planting geometry on physiological
                                       traits affecting sugarcane and sugar yield in sub tropical India. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 79:317-320.
                           Singh, P.K., Yadav, R.L. and Shukla, S.K. (2010). Effect of planting geometry, nitrogen and potassium application on
                                       yield and quality of ratoon sugarcane in sub tropical climatic conditions. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 80:1038-1042.
                                                                                                                          th
                           Spencer,G.I. and Meade, G.P. (1963). Cane Sugar hand book. 9  ed.G.P.Meade, John Wiley and Sons.Inc. New York.
                           Yadav, R. L. (1991). Sugarcane Production Technology, Constraints and Potentialities. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
                                       New Delhi, pp 94-96.
The words contained in this file might help you see if this file matches what you are looking for:

...Agric sci digest agricultural research communication centre doi www arccjournals com effect of planting geometry and nitrogen application through fertigation on production quality sugarcane k prabhakar g karuna sagar m sreenivasa chari c kiran kumar reddy s chandra sekhar acharya n ranga university hyderabad station utukur kadapa india received accepted abstract a field experiment was conducted during to study the levels growth yield two spacings paired row cm normal four applied d rdn farmers practice were tested in strip plot design with three replications results revealed that registered significantly higher cane girth weight millable population over both years recommended dose found superior than other treatments respect attributes not influenced by crop key words introduction cost drip irrigation system take up plant an important agro industrial protection measures light above is cultivated about ha producing present investigation taken mt productivity indiastat average existing c...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.