IMPACT OF WATER STRESS ON MANIFESTATION OF CANE YIELD COMPONENTS AND PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS IN SUGARCANE (Saccharum Spp. HYBRID COMPLEX)

GULZAR S. SANGHERA¹*, HARMANDEEP SINGH², RAJAN BHATT^3
1Regional Research Station, Kapurthala, 144601, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, Punjab
²Regional Research Station, Kapurthala, 144601, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, Punjab
³Regional Research Station, Kapurthala, 144601, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, Punjab
* Corresponding Author : sangheragulzar@gmail.com

Received : 01-03-2018     Accepted : 06-03-2018     Published : 15-03-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 5       Pages : 5284 - 5290
Int J Agr Sci 10.5 (2018):5284-5290

Keywords : Sugarcane, water stress, germination, stomatal frequency, cane yield, Chlorophyll content
Academic Editor : Dr Annu Verma
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, Punjab
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Thirty sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) elite clones/varieties were evaluated for different cane yield components and physiological traits under normal (E1) and water stressed (E2) conditions. Analysis of variance revealed significant difference for traits studied in both the environments. Water stress imposed led to significant reduction in cane yield and component traits. Germination (%) in E2 environment exhibited a mean reduction of 34.19 % with a range of (19.10-48.98%) among different varieties and clones. However, number of millable canes, stalk length, stalk diameter and single cane weight showed the variable pattern for drought susceptibility index (DSI) worked out among different cultivars of sugarcane. For physiological traits, the mean percent decrease in relative water content (RWC) at 120 days, specific leaf weight, total chlorophyll content delineate different indices with respect to different clones/varieties. Based on cane yield, minimum DSI was exhibited by the clone ISH 148 (0.51) closely followed by ISH07 (0.56), ISH 135 (0. 58), KV2012-4 (0.66), ISH159 (0.69), KV2012-2 (0.70) and KV2012-3 (0.74) and all these clones/varieties were categorized as drought tolerant while KV2012-5, CoPb93, Co238, KV2012-2, CoPb12181 and CoPb94 had DSI (0.75-1.00) were categorized as intermediate and rest were droughts susceptible in terms of cane yield. The clones with desirable agro-physiological traits with low DSI needs to be evaluated on large scale under target environments for their specific adaptation.

1. Passioura J.B. (2007) J. Exp. Bot., 58,113–117.
2. Venkataramana S., Guruja R.P.N and Naidu K.M. (1986) Field Crops Res., 13, 345-353.
3. Quisenberry J.E., Roark B. and McMichael B.L. (1982) Crop Sci., 22, 918-922.
4. Inman-Bamber N.G. and Smith D.M. (2005) Field Crops Res., 92, 185-202.
5. Domaingue R. (1995) Proc. Congress of Intern Sugarcane Technol., 21, 418-435.
6. Inman-Bamber N.G and Jager J.M.D (1988) Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association”, June 1988.
7. Sanghera G.S., Singh R.P., Tyagi V. and Thind K.S. (2017) Quality and Quantum Improvement in Field Crops Pp. 109-152.
8. Turner P.E.T. (1981) Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists' Association. Pp 99-106.
9. Israelstam G.F. and Hiscox. J.D. (1979) Canadian J. of Botany, 57, 1332-1334.
10. Barnes J.D., Balaguer L., Manrique E., Elvira S., and Davison A.W. (1992) Envir. Exp. Bot., 32, 85-100.
11. Fisher R.A., and Maurer R. (1978) Aus. J. Agri. Res., 29, 892-912.
12. Fisher R.A. (1935) The design of experiments. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburg
13. Cheema H.S. and Singh B. (1990) A user’s manual to CPCS- 1.A computer programme packge for the analysis of commonly used experimental designs, PAU, Ludhiana.
14. Nair N.V., Nagrajan R., Mathew M.D. and Sreenivasan T.V. (1999) Sugar Tech., 1, 124-127.
15. Sanghera G.S., Tyagi V., Kumar R., Thind K.S. and Sharma B.S. (2015) J. Sci., 5 (1), 28-34.
16. Khan I.A., Bibi S., Yasmin S., Khatri A., Seema N. and Abro S.A. (2012) Pak. J. Bot., 44(3), 969-971.
17. Ishaq M.N. and Olaoye G. (2009) Sugar Tech., 11, 360-367.
18. Wagih M.E., Kaiulo J.V., Ala A. and Musa Y. (2001) Science in New Guinea 26, 38-45.
19. Pawar P.W. and Bhuktar A.S. (2011) Bioinfolet., 8, 262-265.
20. Hemaprabha G., Swapna S., Leena L.D., Sajitha B. and Venkataramana S. (2013) Sugar Tech., 15, 9–16.
21. Singh S. and Reddy M.S. (1980) Proc. Intern. Soe. Sugar Cane Tech., 27, 541-555.
22. Basnayake J., Jackson, P.A. Inman-Bamber N.G. and Lakshmanan P. (2012) J. Exp. Bot., 63, 6023–6033.
23. Gill H.S. and Singh H. (1959) Indian Journal of Sugarcane Research and Development, 1(3), 143-147.
24. Silva D.A., John M.L., Jifon A. and Jorge A.G. (2007) Braz. J. Plant Physiol., 19, 193–201.
25. Jamaux I., Steinmetz A. and Belhassen E. (1997) New Phytol., 137, 117-127.
26. Colom M.R. and Vazzana C. (2003) Environ. Exp. Bot., 49,135-144.
27. Zhao D., Glaz B. and Comstock J.C. (2010) American J. Agri. Bio. Sci, .5, 403-414.
28. Graça J.P., Godrigues F.A., Farias J.R.B., Oliveira M.C.N., Hoffmann-Campo C.B., Zingaretti S. M. (2010) Braz J. Plant Physiol., 22,189-197.
29. Silva M.A., Jifon J.L., Santos C.M., Jadoski C.J. and Silva J.A.G. (2013) Braz. Arch. Biol. Tech., 56, 735-748.
30. Aggarwal P.K. and Sinha S.K. (1984) Plant Physiol., 74, 1041-1045.
31. Misra A.N. (1995) Acta Physiol Plant, 17, 41-46.