## 3 Results and Discussion
### Field Evaluation of Sugarcane Genotypes
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Variety/** & **Plant Height** & **Millable** & **Number** & **Average** & **Number of Tillers** & **Number of** \\
**Accession** & **(cm)** & **Canes Length** & **(m)** & **(m)** & **(n ha\({}^{-1}\))** & **(n ha\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline PSR & 190.93 \(\pm\) 33.60 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 155.04 \(\pm\) 3.24 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 14.91 \(\pm\) 0.58 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 28.08 \(\pm\) 1.76 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 247,000.00 \(\pm\) 1414.00 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 189,333.00 \(\pm\) 3771.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ FR 87-83 & 212.16 \(\pm\) 4.48 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 164.47 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 12.60 \(\pm\) 0.56 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 28.31 \(\pm\) 2.15 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 237,500.00 \(\pm\) 3536.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 160,000.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ KN & 173.25 \(\pm\) 4.60 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 143.50 \(\pm\) 2.12 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 10.80 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 28.79 \(\pm\) 2.14 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 188,350.00 \(\pm\) 1180.00 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 180,833.00 \(\pm\) 8250.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ CPCL & 130.73 \(\pm\) 2.92 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 98.04 \(\pm\) 6.66 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 11.50 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 25.06 \(\pm\) 1.14 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 118,000.00 \(\pm\) 2828.00 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 117,333.00 \(\pm\) 1508.00 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ CP & 167.02 \(\pm\) 17.10 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 167.95 \(\pm\) 18.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.90 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 22.70 \(\pm\) 0.73 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 175,000.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 157,500.00 \(\pm\) 1550.00 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ CP & 177.50 \(\pm\) 0.70 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 134.57 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 11.45 \(\pm\) 1.34 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 20.96 \(\pm\) 4.20 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 183,333.00 \(\pm\) 4714.00 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 152,333.00 \(\pm\) 6128.00 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) \\ Mex & 196.83 \(\pm\) 1.18 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 157.00 \(\pm\) 3.77 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 11.50 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 26.42 \(\pm\) 2.72 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 253,333.00 \(\pm\) 9428.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 206,667.00 \(\pm\) 9428.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Ananas & 142.57 \(\pm\) 6.60 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 139.00 \(\pm\)11.64 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 12.23 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 27.90 \(\pm\) 2.28 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 180,000.00 \(\pm\) 1733.00 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 138,333.00 \(\pm\) 2357.00 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ Baltasia & 189.60 \(\pm\) 39.00 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 156.50 \(\pm\) 27.90 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 12.50 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 31.98 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 217,000.00 \(\pm\) 4243.00 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 138,667.00 \(\pm\) 7542.00 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ \(p\)-values & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Results indicate the mean value \(\pm\) standard deviation of three determinations. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to [PERSON]’s test. The letters in the same column suggest homogeneous groups. \(p\)-values: ***, \(p<0.001\); *, \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Biometric parameters of sugarcane genotypes. The highest average node diameter was also recorded in the Baltasia accession with 31.98 mm, values in line with those reported by [PERSON] et al. [51] on other irrigated accessions. The lowest average diameter was found in the two varieties from Canal Point: CP 06-2495 (22.7 mm) and CP 09-1952 (20.96 mm). These values are consistent with those measured by [PERSON] et al. [48], between 21 and 22.9 mm, which, as in this study, showed the smallest diameters among the varieties studied. [PERSON] et al. [52] reported a higher average node diameter than those measured in CP 09-1952. The highest number of fillers has been recorded in the varieties Mex 69-290 (253,333 n ha\({}^{-1}\)) and PSR 07334 (247,000 n ha\({}^{-1}\)). The highest number of fillers and millable canes of the Mex 69-290 and PSR 07-334 varieties might suggest a greater adaptability of these than the other varieties studied. [PERSON] et al.