PERFORMANCE OF NEW PROMISING EARLY MATURING SUGARCANE GENOTYPES UNDER GRADED LEVELS OF NITROGEN

T. CHITKALA DEVI¹*, M. BHARATHA LAKSHMI², MBGS KUMARI³, D. NAGARJUNA^4
1Regional Agricultural Research Station, Anakapalle, 531001, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, 522034, India
²Regional Agricultural Research Station, Anakapalle, 531001, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, 522034, India
³Regional Agricultural Research Station, Anakapalle, 531001, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, 522034, India
⁴Regional Agricultural Research Station, Anakapalle, 531001, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, 522034, India
* Corresponding Author : ps.sugarcane@angrau.ac.in

Received : 05-11-2022     Accepted : 27-11-2022     Published : 30-11-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 11       Pages : 11872 - 11873
Int J Agr Sci 14.11 (2022):11872-11873

Keywords : Early maturing sugarcane genotypes, Nitrogen levels, Juice sucrose, Cane yield
Academic Editor : Dr Vijaya Lakshmi V, Dr Hemangi Mehta
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Regional Agricultural Research Station, Anakapalle, 531001, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, 522034, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The field experiment was conducted during three consecutive years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 at Regional Agricultural Research Station to study the response of new promising early maturing sugarcane genotypes to graded levels of nitrogen under irrigated conditions. The experiment was laid out in factorial RBD design three replications during all the three years of experimentation. The results of the study indicated that, new promising early maturing sugarcane genotypes viz., 2010A 229 (86.9 t/ha) or 2009A 107 (83.7 t/ha) or 2006A 223 (84.1 t/ha) gave significantly higher cane yield when compared to check variety 2003A255 (83.0 t/ha.) Application of 150% recommended dose of nitrogen along with FYM @ 25 t/ha recorded significantly higher cane yield (89.1 t/ha) when compared to 100% recommended dose of Nitrogen (80.5 t/ha) or 125% recommended dose of Nitrogen (83.5 t/ha) along with FYM @ 25 t/ha. The interaction effect between sugarcane genotypes and nitrogen levels found non significant. Juice sucrose percent differed due to different genotypes under test and with different levels of nitrogen. Among the genotypes tested, higher juice sucrose value was recorded with variety 2009 A 107 (19.15 %) closely followed by 2010A 229 (18.7%). Highest juice sucrose percent was noticed with 100 % recommended nitrogen (19.11 %) and with increase in dose of nitrogen application to 150% recommended dose, the juice sucrose values tended to decrease significantly. Commercial Cane Sugar Yield followed the same trend as that of cane yield in different treatments

1. Saldarrianga A.S., Angulo A.E., Soto R.E. and Leyva A. (1998) Proc. Inter. American Sugarcane Seminar, Crop Production and Mechanization, Miami, Florida. 9-11, September 1998, 208-225.
2. Bharathalakshmi M., Chitkala Devi T., Rao I.V.N. and Rao K.L. (2003) Sugar. Tech. International Journal of Sugar Crops, 5(1&2), 73-76.
3. Chitkala Devi T., Bharathalakshmi M. and Upendra Rao A. (2006) Paper presented at 93rd session of Indian Science Congress Conference held at ANGRAU, Hyderabad, 54.
4. Tayade et. al. (2018) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(5), 3377-3387.
5. Yingying Yang, Shiwu Gao, Yong Jiang, Zhaoli Lin, Jun Luo, Mingjie Li, Jinlong Guo, Yachun Su, Liping Xu, and Youxiong Que (2019) Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 406.
6. Asokan et.al., (2005) Sugar Tech., 7, 44-47.
7. Sarala N.V., Hemanth Kumar M., Vajantha B. and Hemalatha T.M. (2020) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 9(10), 1096-1102.
8. Saleem M.F., Ghaffar A., Anjum S.A., Cheema M.A. and Bilal M.F. (2012) Journal American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 32, 75-93.
9. Zeng X.P., Zhu K., Lu J.M., Jiang Y., Yang L.T., Xing Y.X. and Li Y.R. (2020) Agronomy, 10(353), 1-23.
10. Rakkiyappan P. (1991) Annual Report, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, 1990-91, 48.
11. Abayomi A.Y. (1987) Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 109, 285-295.
12. Thakur R., Jain R.C., Sharma S.R., Thakur G.L., Nema D.P. (1991) Bharatiya Sugar, 61(10), 1125.
13. Fritz J. (1974) Proc. Int. Soc. Sugarcane Technologist, 152, 162- 632
14. Hemlatha S. (2015) IJRSI, 2(3), 37-39.
15. Wiedenfeld R.P. (1997) Journal of the American Society Sugarcane Technologist, 17, 14-27.