# Physio-agronomic performance of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) genotypes under various planting geometry

Ajeet Kumar

► To cite this version:

Ajeet Kumar. Physio-agronomic performance of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) genotypes under various planting geometry. ANNALS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 2023, 44 (1), pp.93-98. hal-04676839

HAL Id: hal-04676839

https://hal.science/hal-04676839v1

Submitted on 3 Sep 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ISSN 0970 - 3179

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Annals of
Agricultural Research

New Series Vol. 44

March 2023

Number 1

Published by
The Indian Society of Agricultural Science
(www.isas.net.in)
(http://epups.icar.org.in/ejournal/index.php/AAR)
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# THE INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

(www.isas.net.in)

(http://epubs.icar.org.in/ejournal/index.php/AAR)

(Founded in 1979)

**Patron** : Dr M.S. Swaminathan, Ex-Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and Chairman, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai

## EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR 2023 AND 2024

**President** : Dr N. S. Rathore, Former Vice Chancellor, MPUAT, Udaipur, Rajasthan

**Vice-Presidents** : Dr T. Mohapatra, Former Secretary, DARE & Director General, ICAR, New Delhi
Dr A.K. Vyas, Vice Chancellor, Agriculture University, Kota, India

**Secretary** : Dr Shiva Dhar, Principal Scientist, Agronomy, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi

**Joint Secretary** : Dr C. Tara Satyavathi, Director, IIMR, Hyderabad

**Treasurer** : Dr Anchal Dass, Principal Scientist, Agronomy, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi

**Past Presidents** : Dr M.V. Rao, Dr Prem Narain, Dr K.L. Chadha, Dr R.B. Singh, Dr Panjab Singh, Dr A.K. Singh

## Councillors

**North Zone** : Dr Sharmistha Barthakur, Principal Scientist, Plant Biotechnology, ICAR-NRCPB, New Delhi
Dr Prashant K. Dash, Principal Scientist, Plant Biotechnology, ICR-NRCPB, New Delhi

**East Zone** : Dr G.A. Shantibala Devi, Former Dean, Manipur University, Canchipur, Imphal
Dr Rajan Das, Professor, Plant Physiology, AAU, Jorhat

**South Zone** : Dr Ameena M., Associate Professor, Agronomy, KAU, Vellayani, Trivandrum
Dr S. Sudhir Kumar, Professor, Genetics and Plant Breeding, ANGRAU, Hyderabad

**West Zone** : Dr A.K. Gupta, Former Dean, SKN College of Agriculture, Jobner
Dr Manish Kumar Patel, Associate Research Scientist, NAU, Navsari

**Central Zone** : Dr Ashish Kumar Tripathi, Scientist, Plant Protection, KVK, JNKVV, Sagar
Dr S.N. Singh, Principal Scientist, ICAR-IISR, Lucknow

## EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief : Dr R.K. Rai, Ex. Professor & Head, Agronomy, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi

## Editors

* Dr Amit Kumar, Agronomy, Sikkam, India

* Dr Anil Dixit, Agronomy, Raipur, India

* Dr Anju Bijarnia, Agronomy, Kota, India

* Dr Babita Singh, Floriculture, New Delhi, India

* Dr Bishwa Bhaskar Choudhary, Agril. Economics, New Delhi, India

* Dr Chandu Singh, Genetics, New Delhi, India

* Dr D. Mahanta, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Deepti Singh, (Vegetable and Floriculture) Sabour, Bihar, India

* Dr Dinesh Singh, Plant Pathology, New Delhi, India

* Dr Dinesh Jinger, Agronomy, Gujarat, India

* Dr Ekta Joshi, Agronomy, Gwalior, India

* Dr Gaurendra Gupta, Agronomy, Jhansi, India

* Dr G.K. Sujayanand, Entomology, Kanpur, U.P., India

* Dr HAM Wickramasinghe, Biochemistry, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

* Dr H.S. Kushwaha, Agronomy, Chitrakoot, M.P., India

* Dr Kailash Prajapat, Agronomy, Karnal, India

* Dr Kapila Shekhawat, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Kefyalew Desta, Soil Water Management, Washington, USA

* Dr L.K. Baishya, Agronomy, Nagaland, India

* Dr Magan Singh, Agronomy, Karnal, India

* Dr Mohd. Hashim, Agronomy, Samastipur, Bihar, India

* Dr Nimisha Sharma, Fruit & Horticulture, New Delhi, India

* Dr N.K. Jain, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Prabhu Govindasamy, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Pravin Kumar Upadhyay, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Parvender Sheoran, Agronomy, Ludhiana, India

* Dr Rajanna G.A., Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Rajiv Kumar Singh, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Rhitu Rai, Plant Biotechnology, New Delhi, India

* Dr Rishiraj, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Ritu Jain, Floriculture, New Delhi, India

* Dr Satyapriya, Agril. Extension, New Delhi, India

* Dr Seema Sangwan, Microbiology, New Delhi, India

* Dr S.N. Bhagyashree, Entomology, New Delhi, India

* Dr S.S. Rathore, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Subhash Babu, Agronomy, New Delhi, India

* Dr Susma Sudhishri, SWCE, New Delhi, India

* Dr Tantuja Nandy, Soil Science, Assam, India

* Dr V. Govindasamy, Microbiology, New Delhi, India

All correspondence should be addressed to Dr Shiva Dhar, Secretary, The Indian Society of Agricultural Science, Division of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110 012
Email: isas_1979@yahoo.in, Phone No. 011-25842902

<table><thead><tr><td>Membership/Subscription</td><td>India</td><td>Foreign Air Mail</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Annual</td><td>Rs. 500</td><td>US $ 50</td></tr><tr><td>Life</td><td>Rs. 6000</td><td>US $ 600</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional</td><td>Rs. 2000</td><td>US $ 300</td></tr></tbody></table>

Discount to publishers 10%.

Subscription may be sent through bank draft or multicity cheque payable to "Indian Society of Agricultural Science" at New Delhi.
# ANNALS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

(Organ of the Indian Society of Agricultural Science)

To promote inter-disciplinary research in the field of agriculture and provide a forum for expressing views on policies and programmes relating to agricultural development

## CONTENTS

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Page</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Influence of split application of potassium on growth, yield and potassium dynamics under rice establishment methods</td><td>Sharanagouda Yamanappagouda, Ananthakumar, M.A., Denesh, G. R., Prakash, S.S. and Shivakumar, K. V.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of different nutrient management options on growth and yield of basmati rice cultivars</td><td>Ashutosh Kumar Rai, U.P. Shahi, B.P. Dhyani, S.P. Singh, Kamal Khilari, Adesh Singh and Anand Singh</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of planting dates on crop growth indices and yield of different rice varieties</td><td>Harithalekshmi V., B. Ajithkumar, P. Lincy Davis and Arjun Vysak</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Optimization of hygromycin concentration as a selectable marker to select putative transformants of HD3090 wheat cultivar transformed using mature seeds via in planta method</td><td>Namrata Pandey, R.M. Mishra and Sharmistha Barthakur</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of tillage and weed management practices on growth, yield attributes and yield of conservation agriculture based wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)</td><td>Gaurav Shukla, R.S. Singh, Rishabh Singh Chandel and Sauhard Dubey</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Energetics and Cost Economics of Wheat-based Cropping System</td><td>Manojit Chowdhury, Satish Devram Lande Tapan Kumar Khura, Roaf Ahmad Parray Pravin Kumar Upadhyay and Pradeep Kumar</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of organic sources and nutrient levels based SSNM on soil nutrient status and uptake of safflower (Carthamus tinctorious L.)</td><td>Hiremath, K.A., Kavera and Basavaraj Biradar</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Effects of bio-organics and micronutrients on yield and nutrient uptake by mustard on loamy-sand soil of Rajasthan</td><td>Surendra Kumar Kumawat and S.R. Naga</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of land configurations and phosphorus on root-shoot growth, yield attributes, harvest index and net B:C of soybean in Kandahar Afghanistan</td><td>Mohibullah Haqmal, Anchal Dass, Nasir Ahmad Nasrat, Anil K. Choudhary, Aye Aye San, Manjesh Kumar Gautam, G. A. Rajanna and S. K. Sarkar</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity, profitability and quality of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) affected by organic sources of nitrogen under irrigated condition</td><td>Ashish Raja Jangid, Monika Choudhary Swati Kunjam, Maneesh Yadav and Hemraj Kumawat</td><td>66</td></tr></tbody></table>
CONTENTS

<table><tr><td>Process Optimisation and Nutritional Analysis of Extruded Ready-to-Eat Multigrain Snack from Cereals Enriched with Flaxseeds</td><td>Anamika Singh and Abha Sharma</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Improved varietal selection and optimum soil application of Zn enhance mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) productivity and profitability</td><td>Ummed Singh, Pushkar Dev, L. Netajit Singh, Moola Ram and Rakesh Choudhary</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Influence of different water based extract and herbicides on growth, yield attributing characters and yield of spring planted sugarcane</td><td>Vikram Kumar, R.K. Singh and Gaurendra Gupta</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Physio-agronomic performance of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) genotypes under various planting geometry</td><td>Navnit Kumar, Sumit Sow, Lalita Rana A.K. Singh, Ajeet Kumar, Anil Kumar and Sidh Nath Singh</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>In-situ trash management and irrigation methods for enhancing soil fertility of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in semi-arid region of India</td><td>Basavaraj Biradar, U. S. Surve, A. V. Solanke¹, S. D. Gorantiwar, V. S. Patil, M. R. Patil, Manajanagouda S. Sannagoudar and Gaurendra Gupta</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>Characterization of Novel Germplasm for Yield and Yield Related Traits in Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn)</td><td>Mohit Sharma, K. Madhusudan, Prashant Vasisth and Parul Gupta</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of integrated weed management practices on fibre yield of rainfed Mesta in North Coastal Andhra Pradesh</td><td>Malleswari Sadhineni, T. Sreelatha and S. Mitra</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Response of integrated nutrient management (INM) on growth and yield attributes in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)</td><td>D. P. Singh, Brijesh Kumar Maurya, Meenakshi Kumari, R. P. Singh D. B. Singh and Prabhat Kumar</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of cluster frontline demonstration on green gram (Vigna radiata L.) Production and constraints in Sikar District semi arid region of Rajasthan</td><td>Lala Ram, B.L. Asiwal, Harphool Singh and Jitendra Kumar</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of Cluster Front Line Demonstrations on performance of Chickpea Crop in Western Rajasthan</td><td>Sumitra Devi Bamboriya, Arjun Singh Jat and Shanti Devi Bamboriya</td><td>136</td></tr></table>
# Physio-agronomic performance of sugarcane (*Saccharum* spp. hybrid complex) genotypes under various planting geometry

Navnit Kumar<fnref n="1" />*, Sumit Sow², Lalita Rana<fnref n="1" />, A.K. Singh³, Ajeet Kumar⁴, Anil Kumar<fnref n="5" /> and Sidh Nath Singh<fnref n="6" />

Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar 848 125

*Email: navnit.sri@rpcau.ac.in

Received: December 2022; Revised Accepted: March 2023

## ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. RPCAU, Pusa, Bihar during spring season of 2017-18 to study the physiological parameters, yield and economics of sugarcane genotypes under different planting geometry. The treatments comprised two planting geometries, viz. 90 and 120 cm row spacing with six genotypes, viz. CoLk 09204, CoLk 12209, CoP 12438, CoSe 12438, BO 91 and CoP 9301 in factorial randomized block design (FRBD) with three replications. Planting with 90 cm row spacing recorded maximum number of tillers (179 900/ha) 11.26%, 11.71% higher leaf area index (LAI) and higher number of millable canes respectively, as compared to 120 cm row spacing. Moreover, row spacing of 90 cm produced highest cane yield (94.1 t/ha), net returns (₹141600/ha) and B:C ratio (2.08) than 120 cm row spacing. Genotype BO 91 registered significantly higher germination (26.5%), number of tillers (208 100/ha), LAI (4.23) and millable canes (124 600/ha) than other genotypes. The quality parameters of juice did not undergo significant changes due to different spacing, but higher value of brix (20.3%) and pol (18.04%) of juice were recorded in the genotype CoP 9301. Whereas, CoLk 09204 gave 20.42, 40.57, 18.16, 14.36 and 48.60% higher cane yield over the genotypes CoLk 12209, CoP 12438, CoSe 12453, BO 91 and CoP 9301. Moreover, CoLk 09204 recorded highest sugar yield (12.8 t/ha), net returns (₹180100/ha) and 14.35, 17.73% higher B:C ratio than BO 91 and CoSe 12453, respectively. Thus, sugarcane should be planted at 90 row spacing and genotype 'CoLk 09204' may be adopted to enhance productivity and profitability of sugarcane.

**Keywords:** Cane yield, Genotype, Planting geometry, Profitability, Sugarcane

Sugarcane (*Saccharum* spp. hybrid complex) is a major commercial crop growing in India's tropical and subtropical areas. In Bihar, it occupies an area of 0.28 mha, produces 16.6 mt, and

has a productivity of 61.0 t/ha (ISMA, 2020). It is a long-duration crop and spacing may vary depending on variety and area. The efficiency with which a crop produces a harvestable product per unit of available nutrient varies with species genotype. The most significant aspect in sugarcane is the number of millable canes per unit area of land harvested, which can be increased through changing plant densities to a greater extent by increasing efficient interception of incident radiation. Since closer spacing impedes the mechanized intercultural operation, planting cane in wide rows helps in intercultural operations, harvesting and adopting intercropping (Chogatapur *et al.* 2018)

<footnote n="1">¹Assistant Professor-*cum*-Scientist, Department of Agronomy, Sugarcane Research Institute, ²Research Scholar, Department of Agronomy, ³Director, Sugarcane Research Institute, ⁴Assistant Professor-*cum*-Scientist, Department of Soil Science, Sugarcane Research Institute</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Assistant Professor-*cum*-Scientist, Department of Entomology, Sugarcane Research Institute,</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Associate Professor-*cum*-Senior Scientist, Department of Plant Pathology, Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Samastipur, Pusa-848 125, Bihar</footnote>
that not only improves the efficiency but also re-
sults in reducing the cost of cultivation and in-
creasing the profitability (Kumar *et al*., 2012;
Shanthy and Muthusamy, 2012).

However, as spacing increases, number of
millable canes may become a limiting factor in
yield of sugarcane (Singh et al., 2006). Due to their
innate adaptability, different sugarcane genotypes
may have variable yield potential under various
agroclimatic situations. Based on the canopy char-
acteristics and tillering habit of the genotype, it
requires a suitable planting geometry for maxi-
mizing the yield. Thus, it is important to choose
sugarcane genotypes along with its definite ge-
ometry for optimum productivity. In view of the
above, the present study was undertaken to evalu-
ate the relative performance of mid-late genotypes
with different row spacing on growth, yield, eco-
nomics and quality of sugarcane under Indo-
Gangetic plains of India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiments were carried out at Sug-
arcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar dur-
ing spring season of 2017-18. The geographical
location of Pusa comes under Middle Gangetic
plains of India at latitude of 25°59' N and longi-
tude 85°40' E with an altitude of 52.1 meter above
the mean sea level. The climate is sub-tropical,
greatly influenced by hot-dry summer and too
cold winter. It falls in the region of south-west
monsoon and generally monsoon starts from mid-
June and continue up to September. The total rain-
fall of 1166.1 mm, maximum temperature rang-
ing between 16.0 to 35.1 °C, mean minimum tem-
perature ranged between 7.7 to 26.7 °C and maxi-
mum relative humidity (14 hours) varied between
54 to 77% were recorded during the cropping pe-
riod of 2017-18. The soil was sandy loam with pH
of 8.3, organic carbon content of 0.42%, available
N of 227.0 kg/ha, available P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> of 22.6 kg/ha and
available K<sub>2</sub>O of 115.0 kg/ha at the start of the ex-
periment in 0 to 15 cm soil layer. Treatments com-
prising two planting geometry (90 and 120 cm row
to row distance) and six genotypes ('CoLk 09204',
'CoLk12209', 'CoP 12438', 'CoSe 12453', 'BO 91'
and 'CoP9301') were replicated thrice in factorial

randomized block design. All the six genotypes
fall under mid-late group and ready for harvest-
ing from first week of January. Crop was planted
in furrow method with seed rate of 50 q/ha in a
gross plot size of 8.0 m × 7.20 m in first week of
March, 2017 and harvested in the third week of
February, 2018. As the selected genotypes are high
yielding and nutrient responsive, 125% of the rec-
ommended fertilizer dose was applied for all the
genotypes. The recommended dose of fertilizer
was 150 kg N, 37.1 kg P and 49.8 kg K/ha. Half of
total N and full dose of P and K were applied as
basal and remaining N was applied in two splits,
after 45 DAP and 120 DAP. Other inputs and op-
eration were practiced as per recommendation.
All the agronomic and plant-protection operations
were carried out uniformly as and when required.
Observations on germination of cane buds, tillers
count and leaf area index were recorded at their
respective growth stages following standard
procedures. At harvest time, whole cane samples
were collected, cane juice was extracted using a
power crusher, and juice quality was assessed
using the Spencer and Meade method (1964).
Sugar yield was calculated as; sugar yield (t/ha) =
[S - 0.4 (B - S) × 0.73] × cane yield (t/ha)/100; where,
S and B are sucrose and brix per cent in cane juice
respectively. Selling price was uniform for geno-
types and net returns were calculated by deduct-
ing the total cost of cultivation from gross returns
for each treatment and expressed as ₹/ha. Statis-
tical analysis was done by the method of Analy-
sis of Variance suggested by Gomez and Gomez
(1984).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth and yield attributes

Growth and yield attributes of sugarcane dif-
fered significantly under various row spacing and
genotypes (Table 1). At 30 days after planting
(DAP) the germination percentage was unaffected
by the row spacing but genotype BO 91 registered
significantly higher germination (26.5%) which
was statistically at par with CoSe 12453 (24.7%)
as compared to other genotypes of sugarcane. The
variation in germination percentage was owing
to chemical composition of soluble solids in juice
as well as enzymes and hormones present in cell
sap, which varies from genotype to genotype. There was no significant variation found in plant height under different row spacing and genotypes. Whereas, Kumar *et al.* (2013) found significant variation in different genotypes. Number of tillers/ha in sugarcane increased progressively from 60 DAP to 150 DAP (Fig. 1). Planting with 90 cm row spacing showed maximum number of tillers (179900/ha), and among the genotypes, BO 91 recorded highest number of tillers (208100/ha) followed by CoSe 12453 (190 800/ha) at 150 DAP. This may be caused by an increase in the rate of biosynthesis of different plant metabolites, which would then result in an increase in the rate of tiller initiation. Moreover, at 240 DAP, planting of sugarcane at row distance of 90 cm exhibited 11.26% higher leaf area index (LAI) as compared to 120 cm row spacing. Similarly, Pawar *et al.* (2005) observed significantly higher LAI at 90 cm row spacing between the settlements. However, among the genotypes BO 91 recorded maximum LAI (4.23) which was at par with CoSe 12453 (4.15), CoP 12438 (4.06) but significantly 18.82, 29.35, 30.55% higher as compared to CoLk 09204, CoLk 12209, CoP 9301 respectively. Increased LAI values were caused by different planting geometries and genotypes, which resulted in increased leaf area and favourable synthesis of growth-promoting compounds in plants. The observed variation in the overall growth of genotypes could be attributed

to their biochemical activities and external envi-
ronmental factors to which these were exposed
during the course of development because all the
genotypes with different row spacing were grown
in an identical agronomic environment. These
results confirm the findings of Pandey and Shukla
(2003) and Kumar *et al.* (2014).

Higher cane diameter (2.22 cm) was recorded by 120 cm row spacing, whereas 90 cm row spacing showed 11.71% higher number of millable canes as compared to 120 cm row spacing. Manimaran *et al.* (2009) also observed significantly higher number of millable canes at 90 cm row spacing than the other spacing. Among the genotypes, CoLk 12209 recorded maximum cane diameter of 2.27 cm which was significantly superior over BO 91 and CoP 9301. Significantly higher number of millable canes (124 600/ha) was obtained with genotype BO 91 which was at par with CoSe 12453 but superior over rest of the genotypes. It was mainly because of the higher tiller production by the genotype BO 91 than the other genotypes during pre-monsoon period which led to higher retention of millable canes by the variety at harvest. The number of millable canes was positively associated with tillers/ha (r = 0.984) at 150 DAP and LAI (r = 0.921) at 240 DAP. The results were in conformity with the findings of Samant (2017) and Chakrawal and Kumar (2014a).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Effect of row spacing and genotypes on number of tillers ha-1 in sugarcane from 60 DAP to 150 DAP</figcaption></figure>
## Yield and quality

Row spacing of 90 cm resulted in higher cane yield (94.1 t/ha) which was significantly superior over 120 cm (81.4t/ha) row spacing. The reduction in cane yield due to widening of row spacing was directly related to the number of millable canes at harvest. Similar results were also reported by Singh *et al.* (2008). The magnitude of increase in cane yield by CoLk 09204 over the genotypes CoLk 12209 CoP 12438, CoSe 12453, BO 91 and CoP 9301 was 20.4, 40.6, 18.2, 14.4 and 48.6% respectively (Table 2). Moreover, the significant variation in cane yield could be attributed on account of their genetic makeup to exploit available resources more efficiently. These findings are supported by Tukaew *et al.* (2016).

The quality parameters of juice did not undergo significant changes due to different spacing, but higher values were observed at 90 cm. At harvesting, significantly higher values of brix (20.3%) and pol (18.04%) of juice were recorded in the genotype CoP 9301 and minimum brix and pol of 18.7% and 16.38% were observed in the genotype CoP 12438. While, purity percent of juice did not varied significantly due to genotypes. Quality traits of varieties are the outcome of genetic, environmental and agronomic interferences. Given that all the genotypes were produced under comparable agronomic conditions, the observed

variance in the quality parameters of the variety might be related to their biochemical activities and the external environmental elements to which they were subjected during the course of maturity. Commercial cane sugar percent (CCS) did not vary with different row spacing but among the genotypes, CoP 9301 recorded maximum CCS (12.51%). This might be due to variation in brix and pol percent of genotypes. Similarly, Rana *et al.* (2006) and Singh *et al.* (2011) also did not find any differences in CCS percent under various planting geometry.

In this study, row spacing and planting geometry had significant effect on sugar yield (Table 2). Sugarcane planted at 90 cm row spacing recorded 11.1 t/ha sugar yield which was 14.4% higher than that of planted at 120 cm row spacing. Since the CCS percent was not affected by planting geometry, the significant effect on it was exclusively due to cane yield on which the impact of planting geometry was significant. Whereas, Shukla (2007) and Singh *et al.* (2012a) obtained higher sugar yield with paired row planting. CoLk 09204 produced highest sugar yield (12.8 t/ha) which was significantly 21.9, 48.8, 20.75, 14.28 and 42.2% more than CoLk 12209, CoP 12438 CoSe 12453, BO 91 and CoP 9301. Sugar yield is function of CCS percent and cane yield. Though, higher cane yield contributed greater extent towards enhancing sugar yield than CCS

<table><caption>Table 1. Effect of different row spacing and genotypes on growth and yield attributes of sugarcane</caption><thead><tr><th>Treatment</th><th>Germination (%) at 30 DAP</th><th>Plant height (cm) at 300 DAP</th><th>Leaf Area Index at 240 DAP</th><th>Cane diameter (cm)</th><th>Millable canes (× 10<sup>3</sup>/ha)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><em>Row spacing (cm)</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>22.7</td><td>292.4</td><td>3.95</td><td>1.98</td><td>113.5</td></tr><tr><td>120</td><td>21.9</td><td>284.6</td><td>3.55</td><td>2.22</td><td>101.6</td></tr><tr><td>SEm±</td><td>0.45</td><td>5.44</td><td>0.083</td><td>0.04</td><td>2.66</td></tr><tr><td>CD (P=0.05)</td><td>NS</td><td>NS</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.12</td><td>7.8</td></tr><tr><td><em>Genotypes</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CoLk 09204</td><td>20.1</td><td>278.7</td><td>3.56</td><td>2.21</td><td>102.8</td></tr><tr><td>CoLk 12209</td><td>19.4</td><td>277.4</td><td>3.27</td><td>2.27</td><td>97.5</td></tr><tr><td>CoP 12438</td><td>22.3</td><td>288.6</td><td>4.06</td><td>2.12</td><td>106.8</td></tr><tr><td>CoSe 12453</td><td>24.7</td><td>301.2</td><td>4.15</td><td>2.08</td><td>116.9</td></tr><tr><td>BO 91</td><td>26.5</td><td>309.5</td><td>4.23</td><td>1.93</td><td>124.6</td></tr><tr><td>CoP 9301</td><td>20.8</td><td>275.8</td><td>3.24</td><td>1.99</td><td>96.8</td></tr><tr><td>SEm±</td><td>0.78</td><td>9.42</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.07</td><td>4.61</td></tr><tr><td>CD (P=0.05)</td><td>2.3</td><td>NS</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.22</td><td>13.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

DAP: Days after planting; SEm(±) = Standard error of mean; CD: Critical difference
<table><caption>Table 2. Effect of different row spacing and genotypes on yield, quality and economics of sugarcane</caption><thead><tr><th>Treatment</th><th>Cane yield (t/ha)</th><th>Brix (%)</th><th>Pol (%)</th><th>Purity (%)</th><th>Commercial cane sugar (%)</th><th>Sugar yield (t/ha)</th><th>Cost of cultivation (× 10<sup>3</sup>₹/ha)</th><th>Gross returns (× 10<sup>3</sup>₹/ha)</th><th>Net returns (× 10<sup>3</sup>₹/ha)</th><th>B:C ratio</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="11"><em>Row spacing (cm)</em></td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>94.1</td><td>19.4</td><td>17.13</td><td>88.3</td><td>11.84</td><td>11.1</td><td>131.4</td><td>273.0</td><td>141.6</td><td>2.08</td></tr><tr><td>120</td><td>81.4</td><td>19.6</td><td>17.29</td><td>88.2</td><td>11.95</td><td>9.7</td><td>127.4</td><td>236.1</td><td>108.7</td><td>1.85</td></tr><tr><td>SEm±</td><td>2.19</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.051</td><td>0.24</td><td>-</td><td>5.37</td><td>2.84</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>CD (P=0.05)</td><td>6.4</td><td>NS</td><td>NS</td><td>NS</td><td>NS</td><td>0.7</td><td>-</td><td>15.8</td><td>8.3</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><em>Genotypes</em></td></tr><tr><td>CoLk 09204</td><td>106.7</td><td>19.7</td><td>17.39</td><td>88.3</td><td>12.02</td><td>12.8</td><td>129.4</td><td>309.5</td><td>180.1</td><td>2.39</td></tr><tr><td>CoLk 12209</td><td>88.6</td><td>19.4</td><td>17.10</td><td>88.1</td><td>11.81</td><td>10.5</td><td>129.4</td><td>257.0</td><td>127.6</td><td>1.99</td></tr><tr><td>CoP 12438</td><td>75.9</td><td>18.7</td><td>16.38</td><td>87.6</td><td>11.28</td><td>8.6</td><td>129.4</td><td>220.2</td><td>90.8</td><td>1.70</td></tr><tr><td>CoSe 12453</td><td>90.3</td><td>19.4</td><td>17.07</td><td>88.0</td><td>11.78</td><td>10.6</td><td>129.4</td><td>261.9</td><td>132.5</td><td>2.03</td></tr><tr><td>BO 91</td><td>93.3</td><td>19.5</td><td>17.29</td><td>88.7</td><td>11.98</td><td>11.2</td><td>129.4</td><td>270.6</td><td>141.2</td><td>2.09</td></tr><tr><td>CoP 9301</td><td>71.8</td><td>20.3</td><td>18.04</td><td>89.3</td><td>12.51</td><td>9.0</td><td>129.4</td><td>208.2</td><td>78.8</td><td>1.61</td></tr><tr><td>SEm±</td><td>3.80</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.42</td><td>-</td><td>9.30</td><td>4.91</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>CD (P=0.05)</td><td>11.1</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.84</td><td>NS</td><td>0.15</td><td>1.2</td><td>-</td><td>27.3</td><td>14.4</td><td>0.23</td></tr></tbody></table>

B:C ratio: Benefit : Cost ratio; SEm(±) = Standard error of mean; CD: Critical difference; Selling price: ₹2900/tonne of cane

percent. These findings are supported by Kumar *et al.* (2013) and Chakrawal and Kumar (2014b).

## Economics

The economics was influenced significantly by planting geometry (Table 2). The maximum cost of cultivation was observed at 90 cm but highest gross returns (₹27300/ha), net returns (₹191600/ha) and B:C ratio (2.08) in sugarcane were also obtained with 90 cm row spacing. As 120 cm row spacing was found poor yielder, hence, gave significantly 23.2%, 11.1% lower net returns and B:C ratio respectively, than 90/cm spacing. Based on cost analysis all the genotypes varied significantly to each other in respect to net monetary returns. Though the cost of cultivation same for all genotypes, CoLk 09204 gave significantly higher net returns (₹180100/ha) followed by BO 91 (₹141200/ha) and CoSe 12453 (₹132500/ha). Similar trend was followed in B:C ratio. Though genotype BO

91 and CoSe 12453 showed higher growth attributes than CoLk 09204, it recorded 14.4, 17.7% higher B:C ratio than those genotypes respectively. This might be due to the realisation of higher cane yield with the same input cost in the respective genotype (Mohanty *et al.* 2015, Singh *et al.* 2012b).

## CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study, it may be concluded that planting of sugarcane genotypes under 90 cm row spacing was superior over 120 cm row spacing in respect of growth, yield and monetary returns. However, the genotype BO 91 showed the highest physiological attributes during the crop growth; genotype CoLk 09204 increased productivity and profitability of sugarcane as compared to other genotypes. Hence, genotype CoLk 09204 performed better under 90 cm row spacing in terms of cane yield and economic point of view under Bihar condition.

## REFERENCES

* Chakrawal, D. and Kumar, N. 2014a. Physio-agronomic analysis of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) varieties under different planting geometry. *Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology*. **29**(2): 67-71.

* Chakrawal, D. and Kumar, N. 2014b. Response of

sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid Complex) varieties to various planting geometry. *Indian Journal of Agronomy*. **59**(2): 341-343.

* Chogatapur, S.V., Chandranath, H.T. and Khandagave, R.B. 2018. Economics and intercropping indices of sugarcane based
intercropping system in plant cane. *International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences*. 7(8): 101-107.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. *Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research (2nd Ed.).* John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.

ISMA. 2020. Indian Sugar Mills Association. https://www.chinimandi.com/statistics/

Kumar, N., Singh, H., Kumar, R. and Kumari, G. 2014. Nutrient uptake, sugarcane yield and economics of high sugar early genotypes of sugarcane (*Saccharum* spp. hybrid Complex) under various planting seasons and fertility levels in Bihar. *Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences*. **84**(4): 444-51.

Kumar, N., Singh, H., Kumar, R. and Singh, V.P. 2012. Productivity and profitability of different genotypes of sugarcane (*Saccharum* spp. hybrid complex) as affected by fertility levels and planting seasons. *Indian Journal of Agronomy*. **57**(2): 180-185.

Kumar, N., Singh, H., Kumari, R. and Singh, V.P. 2013. Growth and phasic development of sugarcane genotypes under waterlogged and normal condition in subtropical India. *Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology*. **28**(02): 41-46.

Manimaran, S., Kalyanasundaram, D., Ramesh, S. and Sivakumar, K. 2009. Maximizing sugarcane yield through efficient planting methods and nutrient management practices. *Sugar Technology*. **11**(4): 395-397.

Mohanty, M., Das, P.P. and Nanda, S.S. 2015. Introducing SSI (Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative) technology for enhanced cane production and economic returns in real farming situations under east coast climatic conditions of India. *Sugar Tech. 17*: 116-120.

Pandey, M.B. and Shukla, S.K. 2003. Growth-cum-tillering pattern and its effect on productivity of sugarcane (*Saccharum* spp. hybrid complex) genotypes under different planting seasons and nitrogen levels in subtropical India. *Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences*. **73**(1): 23-28.

Pawar, M.W., More, D.B., Amodkar, V.T. and Joshi, S. 2005. Effect of intersettling spacing on sugarcane yield and quality. *Sugar Tech*. **7**(1): 87-89.

Rana, N.S., Kumar, S., Saini, S.K. and Panwar, G.S. 2006. Production potential and profitability of autumn sugarcane-based intercropping system

as influenced by intercrops and row spacing. *Indian Journal of Agronomy*. **51**(1): 31-33.

Samant, T.K. 2017. Bud chip method: A potential technology for sugarcane (*Saccharum officinarum*) cultivation. *Journal of Medicinal Plants Studies*. **5**(3): 355-357.

Shanthy, R. and Muthusamy, G.R. 2012. Wider Row Spacing in Sugarcane: A Socio-economic Performance Analysis. *Sugar Tech*. **14**: 126-133.

Shukla, S.K. 2007. Productivity and economics of high-sugar genotypes of sugarcane (*Saccharum* spp. hybrid complex) in plant-ratoon system under various planting seasons and fertility levels. *Indian Journal of Agronomy*. **52**(2): 164-167.

Singh, A.K., Lal, M. and Prasad, S.R. 2006. Effect of row spacing and nitrogen on ratoonability of early maturing high sugar genotypes of sugarcane (*Saccharum* spp. hybrid). *Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences*. **76**(2): 108-110.

Singh, A.K., Lal, M. and Singh, S.N. 2011. Agronomic performance of new sugarcane genotypes under different planting geometries and N levels. *Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology*. **26**(1): 6-9.

Singh, A.K., Singh, S.N., Rao, A.K. and Sharma, M.L. 2012b. Enhancing sugarcane (*Saccharum* hybrid complex) productivity through modified trench method of planting in sub-tropical India. *The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences*. **82**(8): 692-696.

Singh, A.K., Singh, S.N., Rao, A.K. and Sharma, M.L. 2008. Spacing, nitrogen, seed rate and seed size requirement of an early maturing sugarcane variety 'CoS 96228' for higher productivity in calcareous soil. *Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology*. **23**(1&2): 28-30.

Singh, G.D., Saini, S., Bhatnagar, A. and Singh, G. 2012a. Effect of planting methods and irrigation scheduling on growth, yield and quality of spring planted sugarcane (*Saccharum officinarum* L.). *Annals of Agricultural Research*. **33**(1&2): 21-24.

Spencer, G.L. and Meade, G.P. 1964. Cane Sugar Hand Book, 2nd edition 433-37 pp. John wiley and Sons, New York.

Tukaew, S., Datta, A., Shivakoti, G.P. and Jourdain, D. 2016. Production practices influenced yield and commercial cane sugar level of contract sugarcane farmers in Thailand. *Sugar Tech*. **18**: 299-308.