Register      Login
Crop and Pasture Science Crop and Pasture Science Society
Plant sciences, sustainable farming systems and food quality
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > CP > CP08311
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 60(6)

Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 1. Responses in fumigated and non-fumigated soil

A. L. Garside A C and M. J. Bell B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture.

A BSES LTD, c/- CSIRO, PMB Aitkenvale, Townsville, Qld 4814, Australia.

B Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, PO Box 23, Kingaroy, Qld 4610, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: Alan.Garside@csiro.au

Crop and Pasture Science 60(6) 532-543 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP08311
Submitted: 15 September 2008  Accepted: 3 March 2009   Published: 12 June 2009

Abstract

It has been reported that high-density planting of sugarcane can improve cane and sugar yield through promoting rapid canopy closure and increasing radiation interception earlier in crop growth. It is widely known that the control of adverse soil biota through fumigation (removes soil biological constraints and improves soil health) can improve cane and sugar yield. Whether the responses to high-density planting and improved soil health are additive or interactive has important implications for the sugarcane production system.

Field experiments established at Bundaberg and Mackay, Queensland, Australia, involved all combinations of 2-row spacings (0.5 and 1.5 m), two planting densities (27 000 and 81 000 two-eyed setts/ha), and two soil fumigation treatments (fumigated and non-fumigated). The Bundaberg experiment had two cultivars (Q124, Q155), was fully irrigated, and harvested 15 months after planting. The Mackay experiment had one cultivar (Q117), was grown under rainfed conditions, and harvested 10 months after planting.

High-density planting (81 000 setts/ha in 0.5-m rows) did not produce any more cane or sugar yield at harvest than low-density planting (27 000 setts/ha in 1.5-m rows) regardless of location, crop duration (15 v. 10 months), water supply (irrigated v. rainfed), or soil health (fumigated v. non-fumigated). Conversely, soil fumigation generally increased cane and sugar yields regardless of site, row spacing, and planting density. In the Bundaberg experiment there was a large fumigation × cultivar × density interaction (P < 0.01). Cultivar Q155 responded positively to higher planting density in non-fumigated soil but not in fumigated soil, while Q124 showed a negative response to higher planting density in non-fumigated soil but no response in fumigated soil. In the Mackay experiment, Q117 showed a non-significant trend of increasing yield in response to increasing planting density in non-fumigated soil, similar to the Q155 response in non-fumigated soil at Bundaberg.

The similarity in yield across the range of row spacings and planting densities within experiments was largely due to compensation between stalk number and stalk weight, particularly when fumigation was used to address soil health. Further, the different cultivars (Q124 and Q155 at Bundaberg and Q117 at Mackay) exhibited differing physiological responses to the fumigation, row spacing, and planting density treatments. These included the rate of tiller initiation and subsequent loss, changes in stalk weight, and propensity to lodging. These responses suggest that there may be potential for selecting cultivars suited to different planting configurations.

Additional keywords: cultivars, high-density planting, soil health, CCS.


Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper was part of the Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture program and was funded by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and BSES LTD (formerly the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations). We thank Neil Halpin, John Berthelsen, Lucca Pippia, and Norm King for their technical assistance. Helpful comments on the manuscript were provided by Drs Peter Allsopp, Bob Lawn, and Geoff-Inman Bamber.


References


Bell MJ, Garside AL (2005) Shoot and stalk dynamics and the yield of sugarcane crops in tropical and subtropical Queensland, Australia. Field Crops Research 92, 231–248.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Bell MJ, Garside AL, Magarey RC (2000) Effects of breaks on sugarcane growth. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 68–76. open url image1

Bell MJ, Garside AL, Moody PW, Pankhurst CE, Halpin NV, Berthelsen JE (2002) Nutrient dynamics and root health in sugarcane soils. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24, 92–98. open url image1

Berding N , Skinner JC (1987) Traditional breeding methods. In ‘Proceedings Copersucar International Sugar Cane Breeding Workshop’. Piracicaba, Brazil. pp. 269–320.

Braunack MJ, Peatey TC (1999) Changes in soil physical properties after one pass of a sugarcane haul-out unit. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 39, 733–742.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

BSES (1984) Method 2, Pol – determination in juice (revised April 2001). In ‘The standard laboratory manual for Australian sugar mills. Vol. 2. Analytical methods and tables’. pp. 1–2. (Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations: Brisbane, Qld)

Bull TA (1975) Row spacing and potential productivity in sugarcane. Agronomy Journal 67, 421–423. open url image1

Bull TA, Bull JK (2000a) High density planting as an economic production strategy. (a). Overview of potential benefits. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 9–15. open url image1

Bull TA, Bull JK (2000b) High density planting as an economic production strategy. (b). Theory and trial results. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 104–112. open url image1

Chapman LS (1996) Increase in sugar yield from plant breeding from 1946 to 1964. In ‘Sugar cane: research towards efficient and sustainable production’. (Eds JR Wilson, DM Hogarth, J Campbell, AL Garside) pp. 37–38. (CSIRO Publication, Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures: Brisbane, Qld)

Garside AL (2004) Wet coast breakers. BSES Bulletin Issue 2, 24–26.

Garside AL, Bell MJ (2009) Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 3. Responses with different cultivars. Crop & Pasture Science 60, 555–565. open url image1

Garside AL, Bell MJ, Berthelsen JE, Halpin NV (2000) Effects of breaks and nitrogen fertiliser on shoot development, maintenance and crop yield in an irrigated plant crop of Q117. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 61–67. open url image1

Garside AL, Bell MJ, Cunningham G, Berthelsen JE, Halpin NV (1999) Fumigation and rotation effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 21, 69–78. open url image1

Garside AL, Bell MJ, Robotham BG (2009) Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 2. Strategies for the adoption of controlled traffic. Crop & Pasture Science 60, 544–554. open url image1

Garside AL, Bell MJ, Robotham BG, Magarey RC, Stirling GR (2005) Managing yield decline in sugarcane cropping systems. International Sugar Journal 107(1273), 16–26. open url image1

Garside AL, Berthelsen JE, Pankhurst CE, Blair BL, Magarey RC, D’Amato C, Bull JI (2002) Effect of breaks from sugarcane monoculture and biocides on the growth and yield of a subsequent sugarcane crop. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24, 82–91. open url image1

Garside AL , Salter B , Kidd J (2008) Soil compaction is a major issue operating against the development of sustainable sugarcane cropping systems. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Agronomy 14, (CD-ROM).

Garside AL , Smith MA , Chapman LS , Hurney AP , Magarey RC (1997) The yield plateau in the Australian sugar industry: 1970–1990. In ‘Intensive sugarcane production: meeting the challenges beyond 2000’. (Eds BA Keating, JR Wilson) pp. 103–124. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)

Irvine JE, Benda GTA (1980) Sugarcane spacing II. Effects of spacing on the plant. Proceedings International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 17, 357–367. open url image1

Irvine JE, Richard CA, Garrison GD, Jackson WR, Matherne RJ, Camp C, Carter C (1980) Sugarcane spacing III. Development of production techniques for narrow rows. Proceedings International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 17, 368–375. open url image1

Isbell RF (1996) ‘Australian soil classification.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic.)

Magarey RC (1994) The effect of Pachymetra root rot on sugarcane yield. Plant Disease 78, 475–477. open url image1

Magarey RC, Croft BJ (1996) A review of root disease research in Australia. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 505–513. open url image1

Matherne RJ (1972) Effect of inter-row spacing and planting rate on stalk population and cane yield in Louisiana. Proceedings International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 14, 640–645. open url image1

Pankhurst CE, Magarey RC, Stirling GR, Holt J, Brown JD (1999) Rotation induced changes in soil biological properties and their effect on yield decline in sugarcane. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 21, 79–86. open url image1

Pankhurst CE, Stirling GR, Magarey RC, Blair BL, Holt JA, Bell MJ, Garside AL (2005) Quantification of the effects of rotation breaks on soil biological properties and their impact on yield decline in sugarcane. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37, 1121–1130.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1

Rice ER (1978) Effect of row width on yields of three sugarcane varieties in Florida. Proceedings of the American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 7, 122–124. open url image1

Singh G, Chapman SC, Jackson PA, Lawn RJ (2002) Lodging reduces sucrose accumulation of sugarcane in the wet and dry tropics. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53, 1183–1196.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1

Stirling GR, Blair BL, Pattemore JA, Garside AL, Bell MJ (2001) Changes in nematode populations on sugarcane following fallow, fumigation and crop rotation, and implications for the role of nematodes in yield decline. Australasian Plant Pathology 30, 323–335.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Stirling GR, Blair BL, Wilson E, Stirling AM (2002) Crop rotation for managing nematode pests and improving soil health in sugarcane cropping systems. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24, 129–134. open url image1

Thompson GD, du Toit JL (1965) Effect of row spacing on sugarcane crops in Natal. Proceedings International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 12, 103–112. open url image1