agrotechnologies to enhance sugarcane productivity in india

REVIEW ARTICLE

Agrotechnologies to Enhance Sugarcane Productivity in India

B. Sundara

Received: 15 June 2011 / Accepted: 14 October 2011 / Published online: 9 November 2011

� Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2011

Abstract Sugarcane productivity is stagnating in India.

Demand for sugarcane is increasing. Scope for extending

sugarcane area in the country is limited. Under these cir-

cumstances, emphasis must be on increasing sugarcane

productivity. Technologies such as situation-specific culti-

vars, newer planting techniques, heat therapy or meristem

culture derived quality seed material, site-specific and culti-

var-specific nutrient management, drip irrigation, fertigation,

integrated weed management, abiotic and biotic stress

management, etc. have the potential to increase yields sub-

stantially. This paper reviews some of the recent develop-

ments in these areas and suggests how these technologies can

be applied at field level to enhance productivity.

Keywords Sugarcane � Productivity �Situation-specific varieties � Site-specific management �Seeds � Biofertilizers � Weed management �Nutrient management � Drip irrigation � Fertigation

Introduction

Sugarcane is a traditional crop in India grown since time

immemorial. There are mentions of sugarcane in Vedic

literature. In fact, its Westward movement was through

India. Sugarcane was mostly confined to northern sub-

tropical belt in the beginning of the last century. However,

at present it is cultivated in almost all the states, excepting

the hilly regions. There are two distinct sugarcane-growing

agroclimatic belts, viz. sub-tropical and tropical. Subtrop-

ical sugarcane belt is characterised by extremes of weather

with restricted growing period and hence yields are rela-

tively lower. On the other hand, the tropical belt has more

or less equitable weather, the growing period is long

and hence yields are higher. There had been considerable

improvement in the productivity levels in the past, but have

more or less stagnated over the last two decades. Wide

fluctuation in sugarcane production is a characteristic fea-

ture of the Indian sugarcane agriculture. The demand for

sugarcane is increasing due to increase in the per capita

consumption of sugar by an ever-increasing population and

diversification of sugarcane uses. Hence, there is a need for

increasing production on sustainable basis. The increase

has to come largely through increased yields since it is

difficult to find additional land for sugarcane. Fortunately,

many proven and promising production technologies cur-

rently available can help improve yields substantially. This

review examines such technologies and suggests ways and

means of their adoption to enhance productivity.

Sugarcane Area, Production and Productivity in India

Sugarcane is grown over an area of around 4.3 million ha in

the country. During the last 10 years, the area fluctuated

between 3.7 million ha (2004–2005) and 5.2 million ha

(2006–2007) with a mean of 4.33 million ha. These fluctu-

ations were driven by natural factors, mainly drought, and

fluctuating cane prices. The sugarcane production also fol-

lowed more or less the same trend with about 234 million

tonnes in 2003–2004 and 237 million tonnes in 2004–2005

and the highest was in 2006–2007 at 356 million tonnes. The

yield ranged from 59.4 to 70 tonnes per ha with a mean of

66.31 t/ha. Decade wise data (Table 1) indicates that the

cane productivity has been stagnating for the last two

B. Sundara (&)

Sugarcane Breeding Institute (Indian Council of Agricultural

Research), Coimbatore 641007, India

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Sugar Tech (December 2011) 13(4):281–298

DOI 10.1007/s12355-011-0109-x

decades. In view of the relative inelasticity of the cane area,

the mean yield is far below the level required to meet the

demand for sugarcane during the coming decades.

Sugarcane Requirements

Taking into account the population growth, increase of per

capita consumption of sugar and other sweetening agents

derived from sugarcane, and emerging alternative uses, this

author projects that the sugarcane requirement by 2030

would be around 600 million tonnes, if not more. Con-

sidering that a maximum of about 5.5 million ha of land

would be available for cane cultivation, increasing the

yield to around 110 t/ha i.e. an increase of 57.1% over the

current level is required. However, this yield target could

be slightly lowered provided sugar recovery is improved

and some increase in the area is achieved. Nevertheless,

yield improvement will remain an important goal in sug-

arcane production. The task in hand is huge, but is

achievable considering the huge theoretical potential that

the crop has and the vast yield gaps that exist in different

regions of the country. The technologies detailed in the

following sections should help achieve the target. How-

ever, concerted and coordinated efforts of all concerned

viz., farmers, extension agencies, researchers, the state

machineries concerned, sugarcane-based industries, and

other farm-support systems are required.

Technologies and Approaches to Improve Yields

There have been continuous and sustained efforts by the

two major research institutes viz. Sugarcane Breeding

Institute (SBI), Coimbatore, and Indian Institute of Sug-

arcane Research (IISR), Lucknow, as well as the All India

Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Sugarcane to

evolve and refine agro-techniques to enhance sugarcane

productivity in the country. These efforts were actively

supported and complemented by the research units of

SAUs, Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI), Pune and R&D

units of some leading sugar industrial units.

Situation Specific Varieties

Sustained crop improvement work led by SBI has yielded

large number of improved cultivars. Many of them had

occupied extensive areas and subsequently replaced by

newer ones. At present, a large number of cultivars are

available for each of the States (Table 2). However, only a

few of them occupy bulk of the area. For example, Co

86032 occupies around 80% of the area in Tamil Nadu and

leads in the other tropical States too. In the subtropics, CoS

8436, CoS 767, CoH 119, B O110 are some of the leading

varieties.

The sugarcane growing situations vary widely across

the country and even within a small region. Since there is

strong cultivar and environment interaction, growing

situation specific high yielding cultivars is important to

improve yields. The varietal testing programme in place

takes care of the zonal variations; however, it is necessary

to identify specific varieties for smaller agro-climatic units.

Even within a factory area, there are varying growing

conditions such as upland areas with good drainage, low-

lying areas with impeded drainage, differing soil types with

distinct physical and chemical characteristics etc. There-

fore, selecting situation specific cultivars that make best

use of the production resources and produce highest pos-

sible yields under the situation concerned is important.

There are vast stretches of sugarcane growing areas

with several abiotic stresses like drought/moisture stress,

excess moisture/water logging, soil and water salinity and

alkalinity, soil acidity, and extremes of weather like hot

summers and cold winters. Since varietal response to such

adverse growing conditions also varies, it is important to

identify suitable varieties for each of the constraint situa-

tion. For example, cultivars CoS 96269, CoS 96275, CoS

97261 and CoS 767 were found suitable under moisture

stress in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh (Ram et al. 2008).

In Rudrur, Nizamabad district, Andhra Pradesh cultivars

93R 244 and 92R 247 were most responsive to drought

management practices (Rao et al. 2007a, b). In Jamak-

handi, Karnataka, cultivars Co 95003, Co 95005 and

Co 94019 showed better adaptation to moisture stress

(Vasantha et al. 2005). Further field evaluations of newer

clones showed that Co 9904, Co 99012, Co 96025, VSI

9/20, CoJn 86/600, and Co 86032 performing better under

limited irrigation on an alfisol at Coimbatore (Sundara and

Shakinah 2007). At Coimbatore, varieties Co 8208, Co

8145, Co 7717, Co 85004, Co 85007, CoC 671, Co 6806,

and Co 86032 performed better under salt affected soils

(Sundara 1994c). At Faridkot, Punjab, CoJ 88 performed

better and produced higher cane and sugar yields under

saline water irrigation. The performance of CoJ 88 as

ratoon under SW irrigation was even better (Singh et al.

2007; Ghuman et al. 2010). Large number of clones are

Table 1 Average sugarcane area, production, and yield during the

last five decades

Decade Area

million ha

Production

million tonnes

Yield t/ha

1960–1970 2.44 110.47 45.13

1970–1980 2.76 140.01 50.68

1980–1990 3.13 185.78 59.29

1990–2000 3.89 265.45 68.12

2000–2010 4.38 291.37 66.31

Note: Calculated from the data from Indian Sugar, March 2011

282 Sugar Tech (December 2011) 13(4):281–298

123

being tested and identified for their suitability for many of

the problem situations. However, there seems no definite

mechanism to release such clones for commercial culti-

vation. In the considered opinion of the author, there is a

need for such a mechanism.

Ratoon cropping is an integral part of sugarcane farm-

ing; but ratoon productivity in the country is poor in

most regions. Improving ratoon productivity is a sure way

of increasing the overall yields and production. Wide

variation in the ratooning potential of varieties has been

observed (Sundara et al. 1992; Sundara 2010). Therefore

using varieties with high ratooning potential is an impor-

tant approach to enhance productivity. In the present and

future contexts of sugarcane agriculture in the country with

emphasis on cost reduction, mechanization, adoption of

drip irrigation, conservation farming etc. multiratooning is

important. Therefore identifying varieties with multira-

tooning potential is required. At SBI, some varieties having

multiratooning potential (Co 8019, Co 8145, Co 8362, Co

8021, and Co 8208) were identified (Sundara 1996). A

recently concluded study on a vertisol of a sugar mill area

in northern Karnataka by this author indicated that cultivars

Co 0219, Co 0217, Co 85019, Co 86032, Co 91010 and

CoC 671 were having multiratooning potential.

There are changes in the sugarcane agronomy like

wide row planting, paired row planting etc. to facilitate

mechanization, adoption of microirrigation, etc. To take full

advantage of the changed agronomy, specific varieties are

required. At Coimbatore, varieties suitable for wide row

planting have been identified (Sundara 2002, 2003a,b,

2011a). For low input conditions, ‘phosphorus use efficient

cultivars’ (Co 8012, Co 8013, Co 8014, Co 8113, Co 8121,

Co 8126, Co 8145, Co 8150) (Sundara 1994a) and ‘nitrogen

use efficient cultivars’ (Co 86249, Co 99012, Co 95020 Co

94019) (Sundara 2011b) have been identified. These ‘man-

agement specific’ varieties will help improve productivity.

There are a large number of varieties available with

considerable variation with respect to their suitability to

different growing regions, their yield and quality potential,

disease and pest resistance, etc. These variations need to

be exploited further by studying their suitability to smaller

agroclimatic units through on-farm testing. The sugar

industrial units with their R&D facilities can under take

this job more effectively.

Quality Seed Material

Good quality seed material is essential to establish an

optimum and uniform initial crop stand which when

managed with optimum inputs and crop management

technologies can ensure higher yields. Quality seed mate-

rial implies varietal purity, seed cane setts with healthy

Table 2 Sugarcane varieties under cultivation/promising ones

State Varieties cultivated/suitable for cultivation

Andhra

Pradesh

Co 86032, Co 8014, CoA 92081, Co 7805, 81V48, 86V96,91V83, 93A145, CoC 671, Co85036, CoC 92061, 83V15, 97R129,

83V288, 83R23, CoA95081, CoA96081, 93R278

Assam CoJr 1, CoJr 2, CoBln 9101, CoBln 9102, CoBln 9103, CoBln 9104, CoBln 94063, CoBln 02173, CoBln 9006, CoBln 9605

Bihar SOS 767, CoSe 92423, CoS 8436, CoS 8432, CoSe 95422, BO 91, CoP 9301, CoP 9702, B O 110, Co 89003, CoH 119, CoJ 88,

CoJ 83, B O 146

Gujarat CoC 671, Co 86032, CoN 91132, Co 85036, Co 85004, Co 86002

Haryana CoS 767, CoS 8436, CoS 88230, CoJ 64, CoJ 85, Co 89003, CoH 119, CoJ 83, Co 0118, Co 0238, Co 0239

Karnataka Co 86032, CoC 671, Co 8371, CoSnk 03044, Co 94012, Co 91010, Co 7804, CoVc 2003-165, Co 8014, Co 62175

Maharashtra Co 86032, Co 94012, Co 7219, CoM 7125, CoM 88121, Co 8014, CoM 0265, Co 85004

Madhya

Pradesh

CoJn 86-141, CoC 671, Co 86032, CoJn 86-600

Orissa Co 87263, CoA 89085, CoC(SC)23, Co 62175, Co 86249, Co 7219, Co 8021, Co 87044, CoT 8021

Punjab CoS 8436, CoJ 64, CoJ 85, Co 89003, Co 86249, CoJ 88, Co 0118, Co 0238, Co 0239

Rajasthan Co 997, Co L29, Co 419, co 449, CoJ 111

Tamil Nadu Co 86032, Co 94008, CoV 94101, CoV 92102, Co 99004, CoC 90063, Co 86249, CoSi(SC)6, CoC 02034

Uttar Pradesh CoS 8436, CoS 767, Co 0118, Co 0238, Co 98014, CoS 88230, CoS 93278, CoS 95255, CoS 96258, CoS 96268, CoS 96269,

CoS 96275, CoS 8432, CoSe 92423, CoS 94270,CoS 95422, CoS 97264, CoS 96269, CoS 99259, UP 0097, Co 0232, UP 9530,

CoSe 96436

Uttarakhand CoPant 84212, CoPant 90223, CoPanth 94211, CoPanth 96219, CoS 767, Co S8436, CoS 88230, CoS 8432, CoPanth 97222, Co

0118, Co 0238, Co 0239

West Bengal CoB 94164, CoSe 92423, Co 7218, BO 91, CoJ 64, CoS 527

Ref: Govindaraj (2009), Premachandran (2009), Ram (2008a, b), Shukla (2007a, b) and many other published sources

Sugar Tech (December 2011) 13(4):281–298 283

123

buds, adequate moisture and nutrients, and free from sett-

borne pests or diseases. Heat therapy or meristem culture

(tissue culture) is employed to eliminate seed borne dis-

eases like ratoon stunting disease (RSD), grassy shoot

disease (GSD), and smut. These techniques maintain seed

quality for about 5 years under good growing conditions.

Repetitions of the heat therapy or tissue culture would

help extend the seed quality and thus commercial life of

important cultivars. Varietal degeneration due to the

accumulation of diseases (RSD, GSD, smut, wilt), pests,

and poor growing conditions is a common phenomenon in

sugarcane and many well-known varieties have deterio-

rated over the years(Sundara 1995). The degenerated

varieties can be rejuvenated through heat therapy or mer-

istem culture and balanced nutrition (Sundara and Jalaja

1994; Sundara 1995).

Growing the seed crop with a good agronomic package

ensures higher yield of quality seed cane. Quantity of

nitrogen and its proper timing influence seed quantity as

well as quality. At Anakapalle, Andhra Pradesh, applica-

tion of nitrogen at 100% recommended dose in two equal

splits on 45 and 90 days of planting produced higher

seed cane yield. Extending nitrogen application up to

135 days had favourable influence on seed quality with

lower sucrose and higher glucose content (Lakshmi et al.

2006). At Coimbatore, pre-fertilizing with NPK fertilizers

@ 50 kg N, 25 kg P2O5 and 25 kg K2O per ha about

6 weeks prior to harvest in addition to the fertilizers

applied earlier during the formative phase was found to

improve seed quality (Sundara 1994b).

Micropropagation (tissue culture, meristem culture) is

useful to obtain disease free seed material and its fast

multiplication. The micropropagation procedures have

been standardized (Jalaja 2001; Jalaja et al. 2008) and if

followed scrupulously, true-to-type seed material devoid of

diseases can be obtained. At present, yellow leaf disease

(YLD) is on the increase and tissue culture technique is

highly useful to obtain disease free planting material. The

optimum spacing to plant tissue culture plantlets depends

on the growing condition including the management

practices applied. At Coimbatore, 45 cm spacing within

rows spaced 90 cm apart gave the best result (Sundara and

Jalaja 1994). Recent reports from Maharashtra suggest

120 cm 9 15 cm as best (Salokhe 2007). In another study,

90 cm 9 90 cm with 150% of recommended fertilizer

(450 kg N, 170 kg P2O5 and 170 kg K2O/ha) application

was found best to get higher seed cane yield (Doule and

Nerkar 2007).

Planting Techniques

Wide row and ring or pit methods of planting have great

potential to produce higher cane and sugar yields.

However, these techniques need to be fine-tuned for large-

scale adoption.

Wide Row Planting

Sugarcane is normally planted in rows spaced at

60–120 cm in India. At present, wide row planting at

150–180 cm is becoming a practice in some southern states

to facilitate mechanized harvest. In fact, wide row planting

is a development in response to the need for mechanization

of sugarcane farming in view of the labour shortages

experienced. Wide row planting facilitates easy labour

movement within the field, permits mechanized intercul-

ture, saves cost, saves seeds and fertilizers, gives better

ratoons, and allows in situ trash management (Sundara

2002). Under wide rows, stalk number to shoot population

ratio is higher, individual stalk growth is better, stalk

population is more uniform and sugar recovery is higher.

Wide row planting facilitates intercropping. At Coim-

batore, soybean, black gram, green gram and onion were

successfully intercropped (Sundara 2004; Mahadevaswamy

2001). In situ incorporation of the intercropped green

manure crop increased cane yields particularly in the fol-

lowing ratoon crop (Sundara 2004).

Response of varieties to wide rows differs (Sundara

2002, 2003a, b). In general, varieties with field duration of

more than 12 months and high tillering nature respond well

(Sundara 2002). Varieties Co 86032, Co 85019, Co 6304,

Co 62175, Co 8021 were better than Co 87025, Co 8014

and CoC 671 at Coimbatore. Recently 10 new clones have

been identified and have been advanced for further testing

under the coordinated project (Sundara 2011a). Thus, to

exploit the full benefits of wide row spacing technology,

appropriate variety is essential. Therefore, it is suggested

that varietal selection for wide rows may be done under

wide row planting from the very beginning since varieties

selected under normal spacing would show variable

response when grown under wide rows.

A ‘dual row’ planting technique was developed to

improve yields under wide row planting. The technique

involves opening furrows 150 cm apart and widening the

furrow bottom to 20–25 cm to form a trench, and planting

setts on either side of the trench bottom. This technique

consistently increased cane yield over single row planting

under wide rows (Sundara 2003b). A similar planting

technique resulted in significantly higher ratoon crop yield

in Punjab (Bhullar et al. 2008).

Important considerations while adopting the wide row

planting are use of long duration high tillering cultivar,

adequacy of irrigation water, well-drained fertile soil, and

pest and disease management. In addition, intercropping,

trash incorporation and drip irrigation should preferably

form a part of wide row planting technology.


123

Ring or Pit Planting

The ring or pit system of planting developed by the Indian

Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow (Singh et al.

1984) has huge potential to increase yields. In the system,

circular pits of 90 cm diameter are dug out to a depth of

45 cm with a gap of 60 cm between the two adjacent pits.

At this spacing, the pits are spaced at 150 cm apart. The

layout was modified with a gap of 60 cm on one side and

90 cm on another side in which the irrigation channel was

formed (Sundara 1994d, 1998). The pits are filled with

loose soil and FYM or pressmud to a depth of 15 cm,

twenty-two-bud setts are planted in each pit, and covered

with soil to a thickness of 5 cm. As the crop grows, the dug

out soil is reapplied to the pits at the time of manuring. This

system has given 100% more yield as compared to the

normal planting in the subtropics (Yadav and Singh 1987).

However, in the tropical India, the yield improvement was

about 25% only (Sundara 1994d). The system also gives

better and many ratoons and is useful under saline soils and

saline water irrigated conditions (Sundara and Reddy

1994). The system was useful to increase yield in short

duration sugarcane varieties (Sundara 1994d; Sundara and

Gaikwad 1995). The IISR, Lucknow has developed a 35

HP tractor operated pit digger which can make 500 pits

(90 cm diameter 9 30 cm deep) per day of 8 h (Sharma

and Singh 1987). This planting method produced cane with

0.1 unit higher pol per cent than flat planting mainly due to

uniformly grown mother shoots at harvest (Singh et al.

1984). A further study by Yadav and Singh (1987) showed

that 90 9 120 cm pit placement was best giving a cane

yield of 178.4 t ha-1. Lal (1988) found that planting 10

sprouted setts per pit was better.

One of the major hurdles for increasing the productivity

in subtropical region is low plant population. Conventional

method of planting at 60–75 cm spacing restricts the cane

yield considerably due to less number of millable canes per

clump. The pit planting has been found to improve stalk

population and give higher cane and sugar yields (Chand

et al. 2010b, and Singh et al. 2008). The yield ranged from

86 to 222 t/ha. The wide fluctuation in yield under pit

planting may be due to improper selection of varieties and

other management practices.

Varietal specificity to pit planting was observed in the

subtropics. Varieties CoH 56(Early) and CoH 119 (Mid

group) were found better under pit planting with yields

of 136.1 t/ha and 154.8 t/ha, respectively. Among late

maturing varieties, CoH 110 was best suited with a cane

yield of 138.3 t/ha. With these varieties, the pit method was

economically advantageous (B:C ratio more than 2.0)

(Chand et al. 2010b).

On-farm experiments were conducted during 2003 in 96

farmers’ fields in 8 districts of Punjab, to compare the yield

and juice quality of sugarcane under ring-pit and conven-

tional flat methods of planting. On average, cane yield was

64% higher in the ring-pit method over the conventional

flat method because of the formation of 114% higher

millable canes (Yadav and Kumar 2005).

Integrated Weed Management

In weed control experimental fields, yield losses in the

weedy checks as compared to complete weed-free plots

were as high as 65% (Singh et al. 2005).The formative phase

particularly the tillering phase of the crop is the most critical

phase of weed competition when weed free environment is

most crucial. An integrated weed management (IWM)

practice involving cultural, herbicidal and cropping means

gives the best result. Good tillage practice helps in reducing

problem weeds. If adequate labour is available, hand

weeding is an effective means of controlling weeds. Mini

tractors or power tillers can be employed for intercultural

operations and weed control if planting is under wide rows.

Pre-emergence application of [email protected]–2.00 kg a.i. per

ha gives effective control of weeds up to around 45 days. If

broad-leaved weeds persist, post emergence application of

2, 4-D is effective. These practices are extensively adopted

in sugarcane cultivation in the tropical states.

Numerous studies carried out to evolve IWM practices in

the subtropics indicate periodical hoeing (30, 60, 90 DAP) or

hoeing with herbicides giving the best weed control and

thereby increasing cane and sugar yields (Srivastava et al.

2005; Tomar et al. 2005; Singh et al. 2005; Dashora and

Sharma 2005, 2006). Along with hoeings, the herbicides

found effective were thiozopyr (0.36 kg/ha or 0.48), atrazine

(2.0 kg/ha kg/ha), ametryn a(t 2.0 kg/ha), pendimethalin at

1.0 kg/ha (PE), metribuzin at 1.0 kg/ha (PE). In Haryana, in

sugarcane plant crop, ‘one hoeing after first irrigation fol-

lowed by spraying of 2 kg atrazine/ha after second irrigation

in moist soil’ and in ratoon crop, the integrated method ‘one

hoeing followed by spraying of 2 kg atrazine/ha in moist soil

at ratoon initiation stage’ or trash mulching were found to be

cost-effective weed management technologies. In a multiple

ratooning system, under the subtropical condition losses

caused by weeds in first and second ratoon yields were 32.7

and 45.9%, respectively. Weed control treatments applied in

the first ratoon significantly increased yield. Mulching and

hoeing in alternate interrow spaces or initial cultivation

improved yields. The treatment had residual effects on the

succeeding ratoon crop (Srivastava and Chauhan 2006). In

Gujarat, hand weeding three times at 30, 60, and 90 DAP and

two interculturings at 45 and 90 DAP resulted in the best

growth and yield. With intercropping of gram, highest

sugarcane equivalent yield was recorded under Pendimeth-

alin 1.0 kg/ha as pre emergence ? gram as an intercrop

(Patel et al. 2008).


123

The problem of weeding becomes more critical in

ratoons due to shortage of women labour at appropriate

time. Singh and Tomar (2005) reported yield loss of

27–38% due to presence of weed in ratoon crop and the

critical period for weed competition was between 30 and

60 days after ratooning. In Haryana, in ratoon cane highest

cane yield was recorded in three hoeing 7, 28 and 49 days

after ratoon initiation treatment being at par with trash

mulch in alternate rows ? hoeing at 7 and 42 DARI and

Glyphosate 0.4 kg/ha 21 DARI ? hoeing at 60 DARI.

Highest B:C ratio of 2.72 was recorded under trash

mulching in alternate rows ? hoeing at 7 and 42 DARI

(Chand et al. 2010a).

A field experiment at Regional Agricultural Research

Station, Anakapalle (Andhra Pradesh) indicated that pre-

emergence spraying of metribuzin @ 1.0 kg a.i/ha fol-

lowed by hoeing at 45 days after ratoon initiation reduced

the number and fresh weight of weeds with higher weed

control efficiency (76.4%) comparable to hand weeding

thrice at 1st, 4th and 7th weeks after ratoon initiation

(WARI) (81.0%). Highest cane and sugar yields were

obtained with pre-emergence application of metribuzin @

1.0 kg a.i/ha followed by one hoeing at 45 DARI which

was on par with conventional practice of hand weeding

thrice at 1st, 4th and 7th week after ratoon initiation

(Chitkaladevi et al. 2010). In Tamil Nadu, three times

hand hoeing on the first, fourth and seventh weeks of

ratoon initiation significantly reduced weed population and

improved cane yield. The hoeing treatment was at par with

the pre-emergence application of 1.0 kg a.i. metribuzin/

ha? one hand hoeing at 45 days after ratoon initiation

(Manickam et al. 2010).

At Lucknow, intercropping cowpea, green gram and

black gram in the spring planted sugarcane suppressed the

weed density and reduced the weed dry weight significantly

over the sole sugarcane during early growth stage (60 days

after planting). Plots receiving manual hoeing at 20, 40 and

60 days after planting resulted in minimum weed density as

well as weed dry matter and thus proved highly effective.

Sugarcane ? green gram intercropping system recorded the

highest cane and cane equivalent yields (Singh and Lal

2008). Rice-mustard-sugarcane (plant)-ratoon-wheat-crop-

ping system was more efficient and found more economical

than the ‘rice–wheat–sugarcane (plant)–ratoon–wheat’

cropping system (Lal et al. 2006).

Micro Irrigation and Fertigation

Micro-irrigation meets the crop water needs more accu-

rately and helps improve yields. Studies particularly in the

tropical region have proved its advantages. Water saving of

around 40% with an average yield improvement of 20%

has been achieved through micro-irrigation (Ramesh et al.

1994; Sundara 2005). When combined with fertigation,

remarkable increases in cane and sugar yields have been

recorded. Impact of drip irrigation on sugarcane was

studied through various efficiency indicators under farm-

ers’ field condition in Udumalpet taluk of Coimbatore

district in Tamil Nadu during 2008–2009 with 40 sugar-

cane farmers who had the experience of sugarcane culti-

vation under both drip as well as furrow irrigation. The

study revealed higher water use efficiency (40.64%), input

use efficiency (34.88%) and yield advantage (24.98%)

through drip irrigation over the conventional furrow irri-

gation (Karpagam et al. 2010). Drip irrigation is a valuable

technology and in the long run, would be economical

(Shanthy 2010). Sundara (2005) gave an account of

research results on microirrigation and constraints noted in

adopting the system for sugarcane in Coimbatore (Tamil

Nadu, India). The system saved 40% of the irrigation water

and gave about 10% more cane yield. Clogging of the

drippers, rat damage, and damage to the laterals are the

usual problems. A case study in Sivagangai district, Tamil

Nadu showed that while the productivity gains due to drip

irrigation was about 54% (30 tonnes/acre), the water saving

was about 58% over flood irrigation. The farmer was able

to save about 1,260 kwh/acre of electricity used in lifting

water from wells. Besides, the farmer could reduce the cost

of cultivation by about Rs. 3,450/acre through operations

like weeding, interculture, and irrigation. Discounted cash

flow analysis suggested that investment in drip irrigation in

sugarcane cultivation was economically viable even with-

out subsidy. The benefit-cost ratio varied from 1.98 to 2.02

without subsidy and 2.07 to 2.10 with subsidy at different

discount rates. Further, the calculated values of net present

worth indicated that the farmer could recover the entire

capital cost of drip irrigation from the income of the very

first year even without subsidy (Narayanamoorthy 2005).

Similar benefits were also observed in Maharashtra

(Narayanamoorthy 2006). However, the studies at Coim-

batore indicated no such advantages. In Haryana, drip

irrigation at 1.0 IW:CPE ratio increased cane yield, number

of millable cane, sugar yield, water use efficiency and

nutrient content in the index tissues as compared to furrow

irrigation. Economic analysis indicated that drip irrigation

was capable of saving water, but had high capital cost

(Goel et al. 2005). In Maharashtra, paired row planting at

75–150 and 90–180 cm under drip irrigation, gave 19.92

and 12.97% higher cane yield with 54.50 and 54.24%

saving in irrigation water over 100 cm spaced normal

planting. The net profit/cm of water in paired row planting

of 75–150 and 90–180 cm were Rs. 676.53 and Rs. 752.63

with benefit:cost (B:C) ratio of 2.09 and 2.18, respectively

An additional area of suru sugarcane to the extent of

1.21 ha and 1.52 could be obtained under drip irrigation at

75–150 and 90–180 cm paired row planting, respectively


123

(More and Bhoi 2004). Overall, drip irrigation for sugar-

cane is useful as a means to save water and to increase

yields. However, a multiratooning system would be a

necessity to be economically viable.

Fertigation is supplying plant nutrients through irrigation

water. However, at present fertigation essentially refers to

supplying fertilizer nutrients through micro irrigation or drip

irrigation. Fertigation helps in efficient use of nutrients in the

water-soluble fertilizers (WSF). However, application of

WSF through micro-irrigation is not widely adopted by

farmers due to lack of knowledge and unavailability of

precise research information (Bachchhav 2005). During

fertigation, reduction in the discharge and variation in

emission uniformity occurs due to the variation in discharge

of emitters because of clogging which was attributed to the

water quality and not to the fertigation (Kadam 2009). In

Maharashtra, application of water-soluble N, P and K fer-

tilizers (250:115:115 kg ha-1; applied in 20 equal weekly

splits) gave significantly more cane yield (153.35 t ha-1)

than straight fertilizers (N through urea in 20 equal weekly

splits and P and K as basal). Application of fertilizers

through drip resulted in significant increase in cane yield

(28%), WUE (114%) and water saving (41%) over surface

irrigation. Further, application of 100% of recommended

dose of fertilizers through drip was best.

Precision Nutrient Management

In Indian sugarcane agriculture, nutrient application

through manures and fertilizers is largely based on the

State recommendations which are mostly on region basis.

Alternatively, farmers follow their own practice. In either

case, there could be imbalance and inadequate supply

affecting productivity. The following approaches will help

optimize nutrient supply and increase yields.

Site-Specific Nutrient Management

Agro-climatic zones vary widely in soils and in their

potentials, behaviour and response to management and

fertilizer application efficiency within each zone and within

the management units (Ramamurthy et al. 2009). National

Agricultural Research Project appraisals have indicated

over application of N and inadequacy of K and secondary

and micronutrient (Naidu et al. 2008). An analysis made

in Kurukshetra, Haryana, showed wide variations in the

organic carbon and other nutrients (Lathwal 2006). A study

in the sugarcane growing areas of Kancheepuram taluk of

Tamil Nadu, using GIS to identify the soil fertility con-

straints, showed deficiency of available N, P and K in 100,

15.32 and 37.06% of the soils respectively. Besides, zinc

deficiency was observed in 87.85% of the soils and copper

in 35.06% (Sivakumar et al. 2006).These data illustrate the

soil nutrient variations that exist even within a smaller

geographical units and indicate the need for site-specific

nutrient application. Variable nutrient application on the

modern lines of precision agriculture is at present not

feasible in India. However, it should be possible to supply

nutrients on ‘field and crop based’ approach and effort

should be to assess the nutrient status of individual fields

and the crop needs and supply them accordingly.

Cultivar-Specific Nutrient Management

With the introduction of newer cultivars, there is a need to

assess their nutrient requirement afresh since their nutrient

needs could vary. Therefore, cultivar specific nutrient

management is important to exploit their full potential.

Most of the new cultivars seem to respond to additional

(25%) nutrients. In Haryana, for genotypes CoH 110, CoH

119 and CoS 93278 application of 125% of recommended

dose of fertilizers resulted in significantly higher number

millable canes and cane yield than 75% of recommended

dose, but was at par with 100% of recommended dose

(Chand et al. 2005). At Lucknow for the genotype CoLk

94184, 200, 26.2 and 49.8 kg N, P and K/ha was found

optimum during spring as well as summer planting (Shukla

2007a). In the North-West Zone early maturing varieties

CoS 96258 and CoLk 9414 and CoJ 96191, responded up

to 125% of recommended N an P while the midlate

maturing variety(CoS 93278) responded only up to 100%

RDF N and P (Srivastava et al. 2007).In Punjab, with

spring season planted midlate maturing genotypes(S

149/03, S 25/00 and CoS 98259), highest CCS yield was

obtained in the 187.5 kg N/ha rate, which was at par

with the 150 kg N/ha rate (Kumar et al. 2009). In Satara

District, Maharashtra, effects of different NPK levels

(75, 100 and 125% of the recommended NPK dose, i.e.

340:170:170 kg/ha) on yield and quality of new sugarcane

cultivars (Co 95018, Co 95020, Co 94012, CoM 9902 and

Co 86032) was studied. Application of 125% of the rec-

ommended NPK dose recorded the highest cane (131.2

t/ha) and CCS yield (17.54 t/ha) (Sinare et al. 2006). At

Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, application of 125% of the

RDF(275:63:113 kg/ha) increased cane and sugar yields

significantly in sugarcane clones C 960067, C 960696 and

C 961427 (Manickam et al. 2008).

Integrated Nutrient Management

Inorganic fertilizers used in conjunction with organic

manures are a key to enhance and sustain sugarcane yields.

Hence, integrated nutrient management (INM) has been an

important area of continued research. Some results are

given here. A recent study on an alluvial soil in Nellore

district, Andhra Pradesh revealed 14–27 t ha-1 additional


123

cane yield with different organic manures (FYM, press-

mud, poultry manure) applied along with inorganic fertil-

izers over inorganic fertilizers alone (Babu et al. 2005a, b,

2007). At Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, neem cake blended urea

with P, K and compost significantly enhanced cane yield

and juice quality (Mani et al. 2006). In Sirugamani, Tamil

Nadu, studies with cv. CoSi 95071, under clay loam soils

with low available N and P and moderate available K

status, the recommended NPK (275:63:113 kg/ha) com-

bined with enriched pressmud (10 t/ha) gave the highest

cane and sugar yields (Kathiresan 2008). At Chengalrayan

Sugar Mills, Tamil Nadu application of vermicompost @ 5

t ha-1 along with recommended NPK registered the highest

cane yield (157.51 t ha-1) and commercial cane sugar

(12.6%) (Sekar et al. 2007). In the EID Parry command

area in Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, the treatment ‘bio-

earth at 6 t/ha ? 75% NPK fertilizers ? Acetobacter’

significantly increased sugarcane yield which was at par

FYM at 12.5 t/ha ? 100% NPK (Soundarrajan et al. 2007).

In Padegaon, substitution of approximately 40% chemical

fertilizers was found feasible by using either 9 t pressmud

cake ? 2 t spent wash ? urea blended with neem

cake(UBNC) ? biofertilizers (Azotobacter, Acetobacter,

Azospirillum and P solubilizers, each at 1.25 kg/ha) or 20 t

FYM ? UBNC ? biofertilizers(Bhalerao et al. 2005). At

Anakapalle, Andhra Pradesh (AP) with variety 93A145,

maximum cane and sugar yields (100.12 and 13.39 t ha-1)

were recorded in the treatment which received 150% RDF

N ? FYM @ 25 t ha-1 as basal, followed by 125% RDF

N ? FYM 25 t ha-1 as two splits (Sreelatha et al. 2010).

At Navsari integrated use of FYM to supply @25% of

recommended dose of N (RDN) with RDF (250-125-

125 kg N-P-K/ha) and biofertilizers (Azatobacter and

phosphate solubilizing bacteria) increased the cane yield by

13.3 tonnes/ha in the plant crop. In the ratoon, 10 t/ha trash

incorporation with bio-fertilizer inoculation ? RDF (300-

6.25-125 kg N-P-K/ha) application increased cane yield by

30.6 t/ha (Virdia and Patel 2010; Virdia et al. 2009). In

Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh application of 50% N, P, K,

S and Zn ? 50% PMC ? biofertilizers (Azospirillum ?

phosphobactrin at 5 kg/ha each) gave the highest cane

yield (118.84 t/ha) and CCS (14.71 t/ha) in cv. CoS 97264

(Singh et al. 2009). In Uttar Pradesh on sugarcane cv.

CoS 97264, the treatment comprising FYM ? groundnut

cake ? urea in1:1:1 proportion gave the highest cane yield

(78.85 t/ha), sucrose percentage in juice (19.05), and purity

coefficient (86.58) (Prakash et al. 2009). At Pantnagar,

Uttaranchal, 100% NPK ? 25% N (farmyard manure) ?

biofertilizers gave the highest cane yield in planted and

ratoon cane (Saini et al. 2007). In Allahabad, use of organic

manure increased stalk yield and biomass compared with

chemical fertilizers alone (Varghese and Massey 2006).

Application of subabul mulch at 2 and 4 t/ha, increased

cane yield by 19 and 44%, respectively, over the control on

a loamy soil (Typic Ustochrept) under dry land conditions

in Punjab. Application of 12 tonnes of FYM/ha increased

cane yield by 32% over no-FYM treatment. The inclusion

of FYM and SM with N fertilizer resulted in a significant

increase in the yield of sugarcane crop with residual effect

on ratoon yield (Dhaliwal et al. 2008). The effects of

inorganic and organic fertilizers on the performance of

plant and ratoon crops of sugarcane were studied in

Padegaon, Maharashtra. For plant crops, 100% RR

(300:140:140 kg/ha); ? 25% N through FYM ? biofertil-

izers and 75% RR ? 25% N through FYM ? biofertilizers

resulted in the highest cane yields (146.0 and 143.5 t/ha),

commercial cane sugar (20.1 and 19.5 t/ha) (Bhalerao et al.

2007a, b).

Value Added Fertilizers and Fertilizer Application

Techniques

The efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in crop production is

very low. Research on nitrification inhibitors and slow-

release nitrogen fertilizers especially indigenous materials

such as neem-coated urea has shown that fertilizer nitrogen

efficiency could be increased by the use of these materials.

Use of nitrification inhibitors and slow-release nitrogen

fertilizers reduce ammonia volatilization, leaching and

denitrification losses and thus reduce nitrogen load on the

environment (Prasad 2005). At the Central Sugarcane

Research Station, Padegaon, Maharashtra, pocket applica-

tion of NPK (310:145:145) fertilizer with crow bar in two

splits, recorded highest yield (131 t/ha), and produced

additional 14 t/ha cane yield and 1.7 t/ha commercial cane

sugar yield, over conventional methods of row application

of fertilizers on surface. Pocket application of NPK fertil-

izers also recorded the highest economic return (Bhalerao

et al. 2007a). An experiment on medium black soil of Bi-

japur, Karnataka, The cane yield and net return recorded

with application of N as per leaf colour chart (LCC) 6

(152.2 t/ha and Rs.1.25 lakh/ha) and LCC 5 found on par

with each other (145.10 t/ha and Rs. 1.18 lakh/ha) and

were significantly better than recommended N treatment

(Gaddanakeri et al. 2007).

Biofertilizers

Efficacy of biofertilizers has been proved across the

country though responses have been considerably variable

depending upon the growing environment and the quality

of the biofertilizer. In Tamil Nadu, Azospirillum has been

extensively used and its efficacy was better under lower N

application rate (Srinivasan and Naidu 1987). The nitrogen

fixing bacterial endophyte Gluconacetobacter diazotrophi-

cus fixes nitrogen besides having ability to solubilise


123

phosphates. Hari (2003) found that all the G. diazotrophi-

cus strains solubilized TCP and MRP more effectively than

the Bacillus megaterium. All the G. diazotrophicus strains

produced organic acids, which reduced the pH of the

medium from 6.5 to 3 in 7 days while B. megaterium

reduced the pH only to a lesser extent during the same

period. Yet another endophyte Herbaspirillum spp also

benefits sugarcane. Variable populations of these endo-

phytes exist depending upon ontogenic and climatic vari-

ations as well. At Lucknow it was observed that the

population of G. diazotrophicus was more at 75 kg N/ha

application compared to nil or 150 kg whereas Herbaspir-

illum population increased up to 150 kg (Suman et al.

2008; Yadav et al. 2009). At Mandya, Karnataka, soil

inoculation of Azotobacter chroococcum as carrier based

inoculant at 2.5 kg ha-1 in two equal splits at 30 and

60 days after planting improved cane and sugar yields with

economy in fertilizer N up to 20–25% (Shankaraiah 2007).

Fixation and low mobility of the applied as well as native

phosphorus is an important problem and in most cases only

about 15% of the applied P is utilized by the crop to which it is

applied. Improving P availability through microbial means

will help improve yields and economize P fertilizer. At

Coimbatore application of 10 kg ha-1 of lignite based PSB

[Bacillus megaterium var. Phosphaticum] biofertilizer [bac-

terial load of 108cfug-1] without any P fertilizer increased PSB

population and soil available P status at different stages of the

crop. However, when PSB was used in conjunction with P

fertilizer, a much greater effect was observed. Applications

of PSB improved stalk number; stalk weight and cane yield.

The application of PSB improved the juice brix, sucrose

content and purity coefficient. The mean cane and sugar

yields (over six experimental crops, 3 plant ? 3 ratoons) of the

treatments involving PSB was 121(12.56% higher) and 15.58 t

ha-1 (15.15% higher) respectively, in contrast to 107.5 and

13.53 t ha-1 observed for treatments without PSB. Improve-

ment in juice sucrose and purity were significant by PSB

additions thus leading to higher CCS [%] and sugar yields.

PSB application enabled the rate of P fertilizer to be reduced by

25% (Sundara and Natarajan 1997, Sundara et al. 2002).

In field studies, it was found that rock phosphate (7.86%

P) could be applied in conjunction with PSB to substitute

50% of the costly super phosphate without affecting the

cane yield. Rock phosphate application with PSB enhanced

PSB population and available P levels in the soil. The

application of RP with PSB in general demonstrated higher

CCS [%] and consequently improved sugar yield. The rock

phosphate application had residual effect and showed

improvement in juice quality (Sundara et al. 2002).

Yadav and Singh (1990) observed cane yield and P

uptake by inoculating P solubilizer [Bacillus megaterium]

with different doses of phosphatic fertilizers in Bihar on an

alluvial soil. At Lucknow, Parihar et al. (2004) screened 12

endophytic bacteria isolated from sugarcane for phosphate

solubilizing activity (PSA). Nine of them showed PSA,

which were further evaluated for their effect on sugarcane

plant. Most of them significantly improved plant germi-

nation, physiological parameters and total phosphorus

content of the plant. Basal application of 6 kg PSB

(Pseudomonas striata) with 4 tonnes of pressmud cake per

hectare increased shoot population, stalk number and cane

yield by 17.2, 5.9, and 12% respectively in calcareous soils

(Sharma et al. 2003). Soil available P and total P in soil

found to increase by 14.42 and 5.2%.

In Maharashtra improvements in germination per cent,

cane girth, cane height, millable cane number, juice purity and

cane yield were observed with Azotobacter ? PSB ? 100%

NP treatment over individual inoculations (Shinde and

Bangar 2003). At Coimbatore, combined application of

Azospirillum and PSB with 50 or 75% NP, and, Glu-

conacetobacter and PSB with 50 or 75% NP gave cane and

sugar yields at par with the yields obtained at 100% NP

application thus suggesting the possibility of saving N and P

fertilizers in the rage of 25 to 50% (Sundara et al. 2004).

At Coimbatore, India, Sundara and Hari (2003, 2004)

conducted series of field experiments to assess the efficacy of

PSB, Gluconacetobacter and AM applications to sugarcane

individually and in combination. The microbial treatments

were given at 0 and 50% of the recommended P application

rate (75 kg P2O5/ha) on plant and ratoon crops in two soil

types (alfisol and vertisol) with separate controls (0, 50 and

100% P without microbes). Six experimental crops were

raised. Overall results indicated a three-fold increase in the

PSB and mycorrhizal population at 120 days of planting

compared to the population at planting. However, the popu-

lation build-up at later stages was marginal. All the treatments

comprising of PSB, AM-fungi or Gluconacetobacter recor-

ded higher population of the respective microorganism as

compared to uninoculated control. Highest population of PSB

and AM-fungi was recorded in triple inoculation treatments

(PSB ? Gluconacetobacter ? AM-fungus G. fasciculatum)

at 50% or zero P application. Generally, microbial pairing

resulted in higher PSB and mycorrhizal population than any

single biofertilizer application. Application of the microbial

cultures increased available P status in the soil. Among the

microbes used, AM-fungi consistently gave higher cane

yields at both zero and 50% P application. Combined appli-

cations of microbes did not show any additional benefit

though there was an indication of PSB and AM-fungi

exhibiting some synergistic effect in one of the experimental

crops on vertisol. With the microbial application, reducing the

P application rate to 50% of the recommended rate did not

affect the cane yield or juice quality thereby suggesting

considerable saving of P (Sundara 2009). Beneficial effects of

AM fungi were noted by several other studies (Radhika et al.

2005, Prasad et al. 2007).


123

Abiotic Stress Management

Drought

Drought or moisture stress is a serious problem in sugar-

cane farming in India causing 30–70% loss in yield. Some

of the proven technologies to reduce the losses are early

planting, soaking the setts in saturated limewater before

planting, narrow row planting, trash mulching, spraying

urea and potassium during the drought period, and spraying

antitranspirants (Sundara 1985a, b, 1987; Naidu et al.

2008). Many of these practices are adopted during drought

periods. Further investigations were carried out through the

AICRP on Sugarcane. Combination of different technolo-

gies, viz., soaking of setts in saturated limewater, appli-

cation of FYM, trash mulching, foliar spray of KCl and

Urea (2.5% each during the stress period) and pit planting

proved effective (Chand et al. 2010b; Singh et al. 2008;

Manickam et al. 2009). In some cases additional potassium

application 50 or 60 kg K2O/ha at 170–180 days was

useful. These practices besides giving higher yields also

improved cane quality. At Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, foliar

application of 0.5 ppm brassinolide as well as 200 ppm

salicylic acid on 60th day of planting improved the yield

components and thus cane yield (60.2 and 59.3 t/ha) under

moisture stress. The post treatment leaf sampling study

revealed that total chlorophyll content and relative water

content were highest in 200-ppm salicylic acid-sprayed

crop, while chlorophyll stability index was highest in 0.5-

ppm brassinolide-sprayed crop. Similar observations were

recorded in the ratoon crop (Durai 2006).

Salinity

An estimated 7–8 lakh ha of sugarcane in the country

experiences varying degrees of salt problem. In arid and

semi arid areas the underground water is saline, the annual

precipitation is less than the evaporation and thus soils

have become salt affected. Rising water table with poor

drainage has led to salinity build up in the canal-irrigated

tracts. The problem is severe in certain areas of Punjab,

Haryana, Rajasthan, and West UP in the subtropics; and, in

Maharashtra, Northern Karnataka, Telengana and Roya-

laseema areas of AP, and coastal as well as interior Tamil

Nadu in the tropics.

There are only a few scattered attempts to evolve man-

agement practices specifically for sugarcane. However, the

reclamation measures recommended for salt affected soils

and saline water irrigation would help alleviate the problem.

At Coimbatore on a sandy loam soil with high salinity and

irrigated with saline water, a modified trench system of

planting was highly useful (Sundara and Reddy 1994;

Sundara 1994c) which gave about 30% higher cane yield.

FYM or pressmud application and trash mulching further

improved yields. Subsurface drainage has been shown to

improve yields by 64% (Ritzema et al. 2008). The integrated

use of recommended NPK, micronutrients (Fe and Zn) and

biofertilizer with and without FYM significantly influenced

the yield of sugarcane in saline-sodic soil (Jagtap et al.

2008). At Coimbatore 25% additional N application

improved cane yields. Pocket manuring as well as packet

manuring was useful (Sundara and Vasantha 2004). Jagtap

et al. (2006) studied the nutrient release under sodic soils.

The release of ammoniacal N by urea ? FYM (105.9 mg/kg

soil) and urea ? FYM ? Azotobacter (108.3 mg/kg soil)

were significantly superior over use of urea alone

(96.5 mg/kg soil) or urea ? Azotobacter (97.4 mg/kg soil)

and the less amount of ammoniacal N was released under

FYM alone (34.9 mg/kg soil) and control (16.6 mg/kg soil).

The release of available P was increased due to FYM

application in saline sodic soil. Irrigation with saline water

(EC 3.2–3.5 dS/m) for 3 years decreased soil bulk density,

and increased infiltration rate, pH and electrical conductivity

relative to canal water irrigation. Irrigation with saline water

significantly decreased cane yield. Compared to saline water

treatment, cyclic use of saline water with canal water

increased cane yield ranging from 3% in 2SW/CW to 23% in

2CW/SW. Application of farmyard manure under saline

water irrigation improved cane yield by 34% over saline

water (Ghuman et al. 2010).

Waterlogging

Waterlogging/excess moisture is a serious limitation for

sugarcane production in the coastal areas, Indo-Gangetic

belt, and in most of the canal-irrigated tracts. The intro-

duction of irrigated agriculture in the arid and semi-arid

regions of India has resulted in the development of the twin

problem of waterlogging and soil salinization. It is esti-

mated that nearly 8.4 million ha is affected by soil salinity

and alkalinity, of which about 5.5 million ha is water-

logged. Subsurface drainage is an effective tool to combat

this twin problem of waterlogging and salinity. Subsurface

drainage systems, consisting of open and pipe drains with

drain spacing varying between 45 and 150 m and drain

depth between 0.90 and 1.20 m, installed in farmers’ fields

in different agro-climatic regions showed sugarcane with

54% increase in sugarcane yields (Ritzema et al. 2008).

Organizing ‘community drainage’ in sugar mill areas may

bring about dramatic yield increases. Early planting, close

row spacing, high earthing up, pre monsoon field cleaning,

post monsoon field cleaning, post monsoon nutrition with

P & K would improve sugarcane performance under

waterlogging (Sundara 1998). Use of waterlogging tolerant

varieties is an important technology to be adopted. There

are many proven varieties available (already listed under


123

Varieties, Table 2). In Kuchinagar, Uttar Pradesh, cultivars

CoSe 01424 and CoSe 04432 appeared promising under

waterlogging conditions (Singh et al. 2005).

Need Based Pest and Disease Management

Sugarcane in India continues to be plagued by many dis-

eases, the major ones being red rot, smut, wilt, pineapple

disease (sett rot), ratoon stunting disease (RSD), grassy

shoot (GSD) and mosaic. In addition, yellow leaf disease

(YLD) and ‘Pokha Boeng’ (top rot) are becoming a major

threat. The diseases cause 10–15% yield loss annually. The

yellow leaf disease (syndrome) caused by sugarcane yellow

leaf virus (SCYLV) is on the increase in the country. The

intensity of the disease is higher in ratoon crop and poorly

maintained crops. Infestation with internode borer, flower-

ing, drought conditions, Striga infestation, and infection

with other pathogens such as ratoon stunting, grassy shoot

etc. favour early expression of the disease. Severe infection

of SCYLV leads to reduced juice quality, cane yield and

sugar recovery. Combined infection of SCYLV and ratoon

stunting bacterium in sugarcane causes severe stunting than

their individual infection. Primary transmission of the dis-

ease occurs through infected setts and secondary transmis-

sion of the disease reported to occur through aphid vectors.

Tissue (meristem culture) is an effective means of obtaining

YLD free seed material (Viswanathan 2002, 2004).

Top rot (Pokkah Boeng) is on the increase. The disease

is common during rainy months in the field. Under normal

situations, it may not cause significant yield loss, but has

the potential to arrest the crop growth temporarily.

Symptoms develop during rainy periods coinciding with

grand growth period. The 3–7 months-old are most sus-

ceptible to the disease.

Among the insect pests, various kinds of borers are the

major problem. Early shoot borer, internode borer are more

severe in the tropical region while top borers in the

subtropics.

To control/prevent pest and disease incidents, certain

routine measures should be followed which include resis-

tant or tolerant cultivars for the pest/disease concerned,

seed treatment with a fungicide before planting, using

seeds from commercial nurseries raised from originally

heat treated/meristem cultured seeds, removal debris and

crop residues if the crop had been infected with pests or

diseases, etc. Any additional plant protection measures

should be a need based integrated management so that

effective control is obtained at reasonable cost. The control

measures may include pesticides, biological means and

cultural methods. Proper surveillance of pest disease

occurrence is highly important to take timely control

measures. No single method is efficient or available to

control sugarcane diseases. Hence, an integrated approach

involving cultural, chemical biological methods, host

resistance and legislative measures is suggested for the

sustainable management of sugarcane diseases.

Taking preventive measures immediately on noticing

the disease occurrence is the best way to avoid any major

outbreak. Effort to detect and diagnose sugarcane patho-

gens using more advanced and sensitive molecular-based

diagnostic tests are now available. In addition to detecting

sugarcane pathogens in seed canes, the recent approaches

in the disease diagnosis using serological and molecular

approaches have applications in the field of developing

disease-free seedlings, disease surveillance and integrated

disease management in sugarcane. Studies are in progress

to develop diagnostic kits based on tissue blot, dot-blot,

ELISA, NASH and RT-PCR for the different non-fungal

diseases of sugarcane. Currently PCR technique is used to

index sugarcane materials for GSD infection and RT-PCR

technique is used to index sugarcane for SCMV, SCSMV

and SCYLV infections. These diagnostics tests have

become essential to raise disease-free planting materials.

(Viswanathan and Padmanaban 2008).

Chemical controls are possible in diseases caused by

fungal pathogens. Recent studies at Coimbatore revealed

that sett treatment of Thiophanate Methyl fungicide in

combination with biocontrol bacterium Pseudomonas

reduces soil borne infection of red rot pathogen surviving in

debris. If rust is severe five to six sprayings of Mancozeb

(0.2%) between November and March is recommended to

control under our conditions. Similarly, to control eyespot

spraying of copper oxy chloride or Mancozeb (0.2%) once in

30 days during initiation period is recommended. Whenever

the disease is high, the fungicide should be sprayed at

18–20 day intervals (Viswanathan and Padmanaban 2008).

Thermotherapy, tissue culture and chemotherapy are

currently used to eliminate the virus/phytoplasma from

infected planting materials. Of these methods, meristem

tip culture is the most widely used to eliminate the

virus/phytoplasma. Studies conducted at SBI, Coimbatore

revealed that meristem culture combined with viricide

Ribavirin has effectively eliminated the SCYLV and SCYP

virus. The tissue culture seedlings derived through meri-

stem culture performed well under field conditions due to

freedom of the virus. Molecular diagnostic techniques have

been applied to index sugarcane seedlings for the viruses.

Thus, tissue culture combined with molecular diagnosis has

become a proven technology to eliminate the virus and

manage the disease (Viswanathan 2004).

Management of Late Planted Cane

In the subtropical India, wherever wheat–sugarcane

sequence is followed, sugarcane plantings are getting

delayed to summer since wheat harvests extend up to April.


123

Late planting leads to serious yield loss. A fast and high

tillering sugarcane variety is essential. Besides, use of better

quality setts, soaking setts in water and seed treatment with a

fungicide will help improve germination. Higher N dosage is

beneficial to hasten growth. Post-planting irrigation soon

after planting followed by blind hoeing when the soil is in

working condition help improve germination. Pre-monsoon

irrigations at 8–10 days interval (at 25% depletion in the soil

available moisture) are ideal for the late-planted crops. In

addition, after each of the irrigations, special effort is

required to keep the weeds under check by manually

removing them or by hoeing. Potato companion cropping

with wheat, after every four rows, has been suggested to

improve the economic returns in wheat-sugarcane sequence.

The potato can be harvested in February and replaced by

spring sugarcane. Thus, optimum time of cane planting

could be ensured (Verma 2009b).

Polycropping Involving Legumes

Polycropping here refers to intensive sequential cropping,

intercropping, or any other form of multiple cropping

practices. In polycropping systems, inclusion of legumes as

a component crop is most essential to improve soil fertility

and sustainability and to derive synergic advantages.

Sugarcane is rotated with different crops depending

upon the region concerned. Crop rotations are important

to maintain soil fertility and productivity (Sundara and

Subramanian 1990). Monocropping of sugarcane leads to

progressive decline in several regions where sugarcane has

been monocropped, cane yield decline, pest, and disease

and weed build-up have occurred. Insects like borers, dis-

eases like GSD, RSD, smut, red rot, wilt and nematode

incidences have become quite serious and important sug-

arcane varieties like Co 419, Co 740, Co 62175, and CoC

671 have degenerated in the tropical belt (Sundara 1995).

Growing green manure and in situ incorporation is a very

useful practice for the sustainability of sugarcane-based crop

rotations. Berseem, crotaleria, sunnhemp, dhaincha etc. are

highly useful to restore soil fertility. Average N addition to

soil by these crops range from 15 to 85 kg/ha (Sundara

1998). Growing of dhaincha as a green manuring crop was

more beneficial than growing soybean in the Kharif season

in the absence of organic manures (Bhalerao et al. 2008).

In the subtropical India, relay intercrop of autumn

sugarcane in standing rice produced 35.4% more cane and

38.3% more sugar with 24.1% higher returns besides

79.1% energy saving (Singh et al. 2010). Such technique

has also been experimented with spring planting of sug-

arcane in the standing wheat crop so that delay in the

planting of sugarcane is avoided.

During the initial 3 months period of sugarcane crop,

short duration leguminous intercrops which fix atmospheric

nitrogen, improve phosphorus nutrition, and help improve

soil physical condition, can be grown. A large number

of experiments on intercropping have been carried out

throughout the country since early fifties (Singh et al. 2003;

Sundara 2004; Verma 2009b). For the spring planted sug-

arcane in the subtropics, green gram, cowpea, black gram,

soybean, berseem, dhaincha are some of the suitable crops

for intercropping. Gram, lentil and peas are suitable in the

autumn-planted cane. In the spring ratoon cane, guar and

green gram can be intercropped while in the autumn

ratoon, berseem, peas and gram are suitable. Singh (2006)

reported that intercropping summer groundnut in the spring

planted sugarcane as new profitable cropping system for

Uttar Pradesh. Three rows of groundnut were grown in

sugarcane planted at 90 cm rows. In the tropical India,

green gram, cowpeas, black gram, groundnut and soybean

are suitable intercrops. Studies at Coimbatore and else-

where have shown the benefits intercropping soybean,

green gram and cowpeas under wide row planting of sug-

arcane (Sundara 2004). Through intercropping of legumes

about 25%, economy in N rate to sugarcane is possible,

besides improving the soil fertility.

Multiratooning

In India, raising one to two ratoons is most common, though

there are instances of many ratoons or ‘multiratoons’ in

certain pockets of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kar-

nataka. Ratoons are economical to grow and offer several

other advantages. However, cane yield decline in successive

ratoons is a common phenomenon. Average yield gap

between plant and the ratoon crop in the country is 20–25%.

Low ratoon yields are one of the reasons for the low average

yield of the country. Therefore, there is a need for continued

effort to improve ratoon productivity in the country.

Management practices to improve ratoon yields have

been worked out. Sugarcane varieties differ in their ra-

tooning ability (Sundara et al. 1992). Variety with good

ratooning potential and good plant crop are the essential

prerequisites for good ratoons. This has to be combined

with basic ratooning operations, viz. stubble shaving, off

barring and gap filling, and proper crop management

practices like early manuring, control of chlorosis and

management of pests and diseases to get higher ratoon

yields (Sundara 2010; Verma 2009a).

Considering emerging needs for adopting newer technol-

ogies such as mechanization, drip irrigation, conservation

farming, etc., multiratooning should be increasingly fol-

lowed. Multiratooning will help reduce the cost of cultivation,

save labour, facilitate adoption of drip irrigation, and inte-

grated nutrient management practices (Sundara 1996, 2010).

Four ratoons of sugarcane variety COM-88121 were

taken by using different in situ trash management


123

techniques and methods of fertilizer application at Pade-

gaon (Maharashtra).The results indicated that keeping trash

in furrows and fertilizer application with the help of crow

bar were better techniques of trash and fertilizer manage-

ment, respectively and recorded higher benefit: cost ratio

(4.9). After harvest of fourth ratoon, the organic carbon

content of the soil increased by 64%, N by 60%, P by 178%

and K by 75% in treatment keeping trash in furrows. There

was also an improvement in soil physical properties like

bulk density and water holding capacity. There was sig-

nificant yield increase due to in situ trash management and

pocket application of fertilizers (Jadhav et al. 2005).

In situ trash utilization helps in improving multiratoon

productivity. Alternate furrows can be deepened and trash

can be composted in the trenches so formed. Alternatively,

the trash can be aligned in situ in all the furrows with the

help of rakes and compressed by either stamping or any

other means. Over this, soil removed while stubble shaving

and off barring is put and microbial culture is added and

irrigated to facilitate decomposition. This method of in situ

trash composting was developed in Maharashtra (Shinde

et al. 1993). The method was experimented at Coimbatore

(Sundara 1998) and there was improvement in ratoon

yields. In Maharashtra, the technique was feasible under

wide row spacing of 120 cm. At present, wide planting of

150 cm spacing is becoming popular and in situ trash

composting must feasible.

Multiratoons are possible under the following condi-

tions: (1).Agro-climatic regions free from endemic pests

and diseases like red rot, RSD and GSD, (2) deep soils with

high moisture retentive capacity, but with proper drainage,

and (3) soils with high amount of organic matter. Deep

alluvial soils are better suited for multi-ratoons. Many

ratoons can be sustained by growing varieties with multi-

ratooning potential and with agro-techniques like addition

of organic matter and subsoiling, besides the usual ratoon

management practices (Sundara 2010). Varieties Co 8019,

Co 8145, Co 8362, Co 8021, and Co 8208 were having

multiratooning potential in tropical Indian conditions

(Sundara 1996). These varieties are not under cultivation at

present, but can be used as genetic stocks for evolving

varieties for multiratooning. It may even be worthwhile to

reexamine their suitability for multiratooning. A recently

concluded study on a vertisol of a sugar mill area in

northern Karnataka by this author indicated that cultivars

Co 0219, Co 0217, Co 85019, Co 86032, Co 91010 and

CoC 671 were having multiratooning potential.

Raising Ratoons from Late Harvested Crops

After the plant crop is harvested, ratooning operations

(stubble shaving, off barring, manuring and irrigation)

should be carried out immediately so that there is no

stubble deterioration. Blanket trash mulching will help

check evaporation and thus conserve soil moisture. In

addition, trash mulch would protect the stubbles and young

sprouts from high temperature. Application of lindane 5

litres/ha soon after stubble shaving against likely shoot

borer problem is important. Gap filling using polybag

seedlings may be required as there could be more gaps.

Ratooning the Early (winter) Harvested Crops

Crops harvested during winter months in the subtropics do

not put forth adequate sprouts. The following measures

may be adopted: (1)Trash burnings—trash burning gener-

ates heat and thus enhances sprouting. (2)Trash mulching

or transparent polythene mulch helps in raising soil tem-

perature. (3)Trench planting is a recommended practice in

the subtropics to get better ratoons from winter-harvested

crops. (4) Application of CCC at 8 kg/ha enhances

sprouting. Ethrel @ 500 ppm on the stubbles has been

found useful. At Lucknow, application of 66 kg K ha-1

with irrigation water in standing plant cane before harvest

improved bud sprouting, dry matter accumulation and

nutrient uptake in ratoon crop. Irrigation in standing plant

cane increased ratoon cane (69.9 t ha-1) and sugar yields

(7.6 t ha-1). This increase for ratoon cane and sugar yield

was 8.7 and 5.55%, respectively over the control. Further,

it increased ratoon cane yield by 15.21% (74.1 t ha-1) and

sugar yields by 13.9% (8.2 t ha-1) with K fertigation over

the control. Thus, K nutrition holds great promise for

improving growth of ratoon cane and sugar yields (Shukla

et al. 2009).

Mechanization

Mechanization of sugarcane farming is an important

requirement in the country in view of the labour shortages

increasingly felt throughout the country. Mechanization

would help reduce dependence of manual labour, facilitate

timely operations and help improve the quality of various

operations thereby facilitate improving yields.

In India, most of the cultural practices associated with

sugarcane production are undertaken by using traditional

tools, equipment and machinery. Mechanization of sugar-

cane cultivation is evolving as a shift occurs from traditional

practices to modern cultivation methods. These include

appropriate mechanization of tillage, planting, weeding and

inter-row cultivation, plant protection, harvesting, loading,

transport and other post-harvest operations including

ratooning. The advantages include enhanced productivity,

timeliness of operation, work quality, and utilization of

inputs and resources such as seed, fertilizer and chemicals,

along with reductions in total cultivation costs and human

drudgery. In India, Approximately 25–30% of the cost is for


123

manual labour. In comparison to traditional practices, there

is a cost saving of approximately 30–60% under mechanized

farming systems. Mechanized sugarcane cultivation can

reduce the cost of wages incurred for the various cultural

operations and has economic benefits as well as timeliness of

crop husbandry. Feedback studies conducted under the

National Agricultural Technology Project on Sugarcane

Mechanization (ICAR) indicates that sugarcane growers are

slowly adopting modern sugarcane machinery for selected

operations such as tillage and planting, on either ownership

or custom hire basis. Under Indian conditions, overall pro-

ductivity of sugarcane can be increased by 10–15% through

appropriate mechanization. However, access to the equip-

ment by growers is a constraint. The commercialization of a

suitable design of sugarcane combine harvester is also

urgently needed (Yadav 2010).

The IISR, Lucknow has developed several implements

and machinery to help partial mechanization, which is only

possible in the foreseeable future considering the peculiar

sugarcane growing situations having varying cropping

patterns and systems, and smaller landholdings and eco-

nomic and technical level of the farming community.

Harvesting machines have been imported by some pro-

gressive sugar mills in the tropical Indian states and efforts

have been made to mechanize harvesting. The experience

suggests the possibilities of mechanizing harvesting with

suitable changes in the agronomic practices. A low hp

tractor (Mitsubishi Shakti) drawn earthing up cum fertilizer

applicator unit is multipurpose equipment for performing

mechanical weeding, earthing-up, and fertilizer application

operation simultaneously in wide row planted sugarcane.

It covers 0.33 ha/h or 2.64 ha/day with weeding efficiency

of 94% and field efficiency of 82.70% developed by the

Department of Farm Machinery and Power, Dr A.S. Col-

lege of Engineering MPKV, Rahuri (Navale et al. 2009).A

sugarcane cutter planter developed by the IISR is able cut

the seed cane fed manually into setts, treat the setts with a

fungicide, open the furrows, and deliver basal manure, and

drop the setts in the furrows and cover it appropriately. It is

operated by 35 hp tractor and has 2 units. The performance

of the planter was evaluated in field. Its field capacity was

0.2 ha/h with field efficiency of 80.0% at effective working

width of 1.35 m and forward speed of 1.85 km/h at

2nd low gear. The set length was 31.8 cm with an average

overlap of 6.48 cm observed at the speed of 2.5 km/h. The

seed rate capacity of machine was found 5.55 tonnes

(Mandal and Maji 2008).

Conclusions

Sugarcane productivity is stagnating in India. To meet the

domestic demand for sugar, jaggery, juice (beverage), and

other diversified uses (ethanol, biomass, fibre etc.), there is

a need to enhance cane productivity to around 110 tonnes

per ha by the year 2030 from the present 70 tonnes in view

of the constraint on the availability of more land for cane

growing. The task, though a daunting one, is achievable

with many technologies that are already available. How-

ever, refinement of the technologies to suit the specific

growing conditions is required.

To improve the productivity, situation specific cultivars

and management practices are the keys. Cultivars for

diverse situations need to be specifically identified through

on-farm testing. There is a need for evolving suitable

mechanism to release such cultivars to target environments.

Emphasis needs to be on situation specific crop man-

agement practices. This includes integrated approaches to

weed control, nutrient management and pest and disease

management. In the nutrient management, organic manure

and biofertilizer combinations along with inorganic fertil-

izers have increased and sustained yields and hence, their

increased usage is important. Changing planting methods to

wide rows in the tropical states and ring-pit system in

the subtropical states will greatly help improve yields. In

addition, microirrigation with fertigation, particularly with

these planting techniques, can increase yield remarkably.

Greater use of tissue culture derived seed material will be

highly useful to raise disease free crops. Managing abiotic

stress affected cane areas is an important requirement.

Increased adoption of moisture stress management practices

will be required in view of the increased frequency of

droughts and paucity of irrigation water. Reclamation of salt

affected soils and improving drainage in ill drained soils will

bring about dramatic yield increases and hence need special

attention and investments. Conservation farming involving

leguminous cover crops and intercrops and residue utiliza-

tion will help improve and sustain productivity. Improving

ratoon productivity will increase the average yield sub-

stantially and greater adoption of multiratooning is called

for. Managing late-planted sugarcane in the subtropics and

raising good ratoons from the winter-harvested crops need

special attention. Finally, mechanized farming, at least

partially will help improve land and labour productivity.

Some Suggested Researchable Issues

Cultivars

Cultivars for smaller growing environments may be iden-

tified through on-farm testing. Constraint-specific cultivars

may be developed/identified and released. Short duration

varietal concept may be revived, for they are useful for

polycropping and improving sugar productivity. There is

also a need for ‘management specific cultivars’ (e.g. cul-

tivars for wide rows) and cultivars for multiratooning. It


123

may also be worthwhile to look for ‘special purpose cul-

tivars’ for jaggery, beverage, ethanol, biomass etc. Lastly,

there is a need for ‘climate-smart cultivars’ which can face

the challenges of climate change.

Management Practices

There seems no major breakthrough in the sugarcane man-

agement practices. Hence some newer areas and approaches

improve productivity may have to be considered. Conser-

vation farming involving polycropping and residue reten-

tion, precision farming for manageable field units under the

Indian context, cropping systems to generate synergistic

benefits, identification of more efficient PGPRs and their

utilization in the production systems, newer techniques to

improve productivity such as the possible use of chemical

stress and PGRs, and seed enhancement for environmental

stress tolerance, are some of the areas that may be considered

for production research.

References

Babu, M.V.S., C.M. Reddy, C.R. Kumari, and T.Y. Reddy. 2005a.

Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield, quality and

nutrient uptake of sugarcane. Mysore Journal of AgriculturalSciences 39(4):503–512.

Babu, M.V.S., C.M. Reddy, C.R. Kumari, and T.Y. Reddy. 2005b.

Effect of integrated use of organic and inorganic sources of

nitrogen on yield and juice quality of sugarcane (Saccharumofficinarum L.). Journal of Research ANGRAU 33(4): 120–125.

Babu, M.V.S., C.M. Reddy, A. Subramanyam, and D. Balaguravaiah.

2007. Effect of integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers

on soil properties and yield of sugarcane. Journal of the IndianSociety of Soil Science 55(2): 161–166.

Bachchhav, S.M. 2005. Fertigation technology for increasing sugar-

cane production. Indian Journal of Fertilisers 1(4): 85–89.

Bhalerao, V.P., M.B. Jadhav, and P.G. Bhoi. 2005. Substitution of

chemical fertilizers using different organics and studying their

effects on soil properties, nutrient uptake, yield and quality of

sugarcane. Cooperative Sugar 36(11): 903–908.

Bhalerao, V.P., M.B. Jadhav, and P.G. Bhoi. 2007a. Effect of

different methods of fertilizer application and management

practices on soil properties, yield and quality of sugarcane.

Cooperative Sugar 38(8): 29–33.

Bhalerao, V.P., M.B. Jadhav, and P.G. Bhoi. 2007b. Comparative

effect of organic manures with inorganic fertilizers on yield and

quality of seasonal sugarcane. Cooperative Sugar 38(5): 51–55.

Bhalerao, V.P., M.B. Jadhav, and P.G. Bhoi. 2008. Effect of

sugarcane based cropping systems with different organic sources

on sugarcane yield and soil properties. Indian Sugar 58(5):

39–46.

Bhullar, M.S., K.S. Thind, S.K. Uppal, and Kuldeep Singh. 2008.

Productivity, profitability and quality of sugarcane (Saccharum

spp.) plant-ratoon system in relation to planting methods and

seeding rate. Indian Journal of Agronomy 53(3):195–199, 8 ref.

Chand, Mehar, Roshan Lal, S.N. Srivastava, and Ran Singh. 2005.

Influence of planting season and fertility levels on promising

sugarcane genotypes. Haryana Journal of Agronomy 21: 215–

216.

Chand, Mehar, A. Kippal, S. Singh, R. Lal, and S.P. Kadian. 2010a.

Integrated weed management in sugarcane ratoon. IndianJournal of Sugarcane Technology 25(1&2):17–19.

Chand, Mehar, Roshan Lal, Anil Khippal, Ran Singh, and A.K.

Narang. 2010b. Drought management in sugarcane during pre-

monsoon period. Sugar Tech 12(1):64–66.

Chitkaladevi, T., M. Bharathalaksmi, M.B.G.S. Kumari, and N.V.

Naidu. 2010. Managing weeds of sugarcane ratoon through

integrated means. Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology25(1&2): 13–16.

Dashora, P., and R.P. Sharma. 2005. Integrated weed management

in spring planted sugarcane in southeast Rajasthan. HaryanaJournal of Agronomy 21(1): 49–51.

Dashora, P., and R.P. Sharma. 2006. Evaluation of certain new

approaches for weed management in spring planted sugarcane.

Research on Crops 7(1): 123–125.

Dhaliwal, S.S., C.B. Singh, and A.S. Toor. 2008. Integrated nutrient

management in rainfed sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)

through improved technology in submontaneous tract of Punjab.

Environment and Ecology 26(3A): 1400–1404.

Doule, R.B., and Y.S. Nerkar. 2007. Field performance and evalu-

ation of seed production technique of tissue-culture-derived

plants vis-a-vis conventional plants of sugarcane. Sugar Tech9(2/3): 182–192.

Durai, R. 2006. Physiological approaches to alleviate drought in

sugarcane. Cooperative Sugar 37(10): 31–33.

Gaddanakeri, S.A., D.P. Biradar, N.S. Kambar, and V.B. Nyamgouda.

2007. Productivity and economics of sugarcane as influenced by

leaf colour chart based nitrogen management. KarnatakaJournal of Agricultural Sciences 20(3): 466–468.

Ghuman, B.S., O.P. Choudhary, R.S. Singh, Kuldip Singh, J.S. Brar,

Angrej Singh, and G.S. Dhaliwal. 2010. Effect of saline water

irrigation on soil properties and yield and quality of sugarcane

(Saccharum officinarum). India. Indian Journal of AgriculturalSciences 80(8): 749–751.

Goel, A.C., Vijay Kumar, and J.P.S. Dhindsa. 2005. Feasibility of

drip irrigation in sugarcane in Haryana. Indian Sugar 55(7):

31–36.

Govindaraj, P. 2009. Sugarcane varieties suitable for cultivation in

different states. In Sugarcane production technology, ed. T.R.

Shanthy, and N.V. Nair, 22–41. Coimbatore: National Federation

of Cooperative Sugar Factories, New Delhi & Sugarcane

Breeding Institute.

Guleri, Radhika, R.P. Gupta, S.K. Goshal, M.S. Pander, and S.S.

Gosal. 2005. In vitro and in situ mycorrhization of microprop-

agated sugarcane plants and its effect on yield. Indian Journal ofMicrobiology 45(1): 71–73.

Hari, K. 2003. Production of plant growth promoting substances and

phosphate solubilization by Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus

isolated from sugarcane varieties. Journal of Soil Biology andEcology 23(1&2): 10–16.

Jadhav, M.B., S.M. Jagtap, R.V. Kulkarani, and A.B. Marathe. 2005.

Studies on in situ trash management and fertilizer application

techniques in multiple ratooning of sugarcane. Journal of Soilsand Crops 15(2): 297–303.

Jagtap, P.B., J.D. Patil, and A.D. Kadlag. 2006. Effect of urea

transformation on nutrient release in saline-sodic soil. Journal ofMaharashtra Agricultural Universities 31(3): 373–375.

Jagtap, P.B., J.D. Patil, C.A. Nebular, and A.D. Kadlag. 2008. Effect

of INM on nutrient uptake and growth of sugarcane in saline-

sodic soil. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities33(2): 154–158.

Jalaja, N.C. 2001. Sugarcane micropropagation—a laboratory man-ual, 1–24. Coimbatore: Sugarcane Breeding Institute.


123

Jalaja, N.C., D. Neelamathi, and T.V. Sreenivasan. 2008. Microprop-

agation for Quality Seed Production in Sugarcane in Asia and the

Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, Rome; Asia–Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Bio-

technology, New Delhi; Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural

Research Institutions, Bangkok, p. i–x ? 46.

Kadam, S.A. 2009. Effect of fertigation on emission uniformity of

drip irrigation system. International Journal of AgriculturalEngineering 2(1): 72–74.

Karpagam, C., Ravikumar Theodore, V. Ravichandran, and P. Murali.

2010. Impact of drip irrigation in sugarcane—a field level

enquiry. Cooperative Sugar 42(4): 51–53.

Kathiresan, G. 2008. Influence of organics and bio-fertilizers with

graded levels of major nutrients on sugarcane yield, quality and

economics under the soil having low, low and medium status of

NPK. Cooperative Sugar 39(10): 45–49.

Kumar, Rajender, S.K. Uppal, and R.S. Gill. 2009. Evaluation of

promising sugarcane genotypes and their response to nitrogen.

Journal of Research, Punjab Agricultural University 46(3/4):

112–113.

Lakshmi, M.B., T.C. Devi, and D.V.N. Raju. 2006. Nitrogen

management in sugarcane seed crop. Sugar Tech 8(1): 91–94.

Lal, B. 1988. Yield, quality and root distribution pattern of sugarcane

Co 1148 as influenced by methods of planting. Bharatiya Sugar14(1): 57–60.

Lal, Roshan, S.N.L. Srivastava, and Mehar Chand. 2006. Integrated

weed management for sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) plant-

ratoon cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(4):

251–255.

Lathwal, O.P. 2006. Soil fertility status of district Kurukshetra

(Haryana). Haryana Journal of Agronomy 22(1): 74–76.

Mahadevaswamy, M. 2001. Studies on intercropping of aggregatum

onion in wide spaced sugarcane.Ph.D Thesis. Tamil Nadu

Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

Mandal, S.K., and P.K. Maji. 2008. Design refinement of 2-row

tractor mounted sugarcane cutter planter. Agricultural Engineer-

ing International 10 Manuscript PM 06020.

Mani, S., G.J. Pitchai, T. Balaji, A. Saravanan, and T.N. Rao. 2006.

Balanced fertilization for maximising the quality of sugarcane

CO 86032 in Periyar Vaigai command area. Indian Sugar 56(9):

49–56.

Manickam, G., M. Jayachandran, V. Balasubramanian, R. Panneer-

selvam, and B. Rajendran. 2009. Effect of integrated drought

management practices on yield and quality of sugarcane.


Manickam, G., M. Jayachandran, M. Rajakumar, A. Coumar, R.

Pannerselvam, and B. Rajendran. 2010. Effect of integrated

weed management strategies on sugarcane ratoon. CooperativeSugar 42(3): 43–45.

Manickam, G., R. Panneerselvam, M. Jayachandran, K. Karunanidhi,

and B. Rajendran. 2008. Effect of varied levels of NPK

fertilization on growth and yield of sugarcane (Saccharum

officinarum) genotypes. Cooperative Sugar 39(9): 35–37.

More, S.M., and P.G. Bhoi. 2004. Economic analysis of suru

sugarcane (Co86032) and its ratoon under drip irrigation and

wide row planting system. Indian Sugar 54960: 447–452.

Naidu, L.G.K., V. Ramamurthy, S.C.R. Kumar, G.S. Sidhu, and

Rajkumar. 2008. Soil-based fertiliser recommendations: A

rational approach. Indian Journal of Fertilisers 4(7):47–50,

53–56.

Narayanamoorthy, A. 2005. Economics of drip irrigation in sugarcane

cultivation: Case study of a farmer from Tamil Nadu. IndianJournal of Agricultural Economics 60(2): 235–248.

Narayanamoorthy, A. 2006. Efficiency of irrigation: A case of drip

irrigation. Occasional Paper—National Bank for Agriculture and

Rural Development, Mumbai 45, 38 p.

Navale, S.A., R.S. Landage, H.P. Sable, V.M. Kadu, A.B. Lende, and

L.V. Garte. 2009. Performance evaluation of tractor drawn

sugarcane earthing-up cum fertilizer applicator suitable for wide

row sugarcane crop. International Journal of Agriculture, Envi-ronment and Biotechnology 2(4): 471–475.

Parihar, D.K., S. Archana, and P.W. Ramteke. 2004. Phosphate

solubilizing activity of endophytic bacteria isolated from sugar-

cane plant. Proc Natl Acad Sci India B Biol Sci 74:247–254.

Patel, D.D., C.L. Patel, and B.K. Patel. 2008. Effect of planting

geometry and weed management on morphophysiological char-

acters of sugarcane var. CoN 85134. Indian Sugar 58(6): 33–38.

Prakash, Ved, Mangey Ram, and K. Lal. 2009. Effect of continuous

application of organic manure and inorganic fertilizers on yield and

quality attributes of sugarcane. Cooperative Sugar 40(7): 65–67.

Prasad, Rajendra. 2005. Research on nitrification inhibitors and slow-

release nitrogen fertilizers in India: A review. Proc Natl AcadSci India B Biol Sci 75(3):149–157.

Prasad, Kamal, R.S. Bilgrami, R.C. Ram, and A. Sinha. 2007. Effect

of Glomus fasciculatum AM fungus and nitrogen on biomass

yield, chlorophyll, juice and sucrose contents of Saccharumofficinarum L. Microbial diversity: modern trends, 224–233.

Delhi: Daya Publishing House.

Premachandran, M.N. 2009. National sugarcane varietal improvement

programme. In Sugarcane production technology, ed. T.R.

Shanthy, and N.V. Nair, 8–21. Coimbatore: National Federation

of Cooperative Sugar Factories, New Delhi & Sugarcane

Breeding Institute.

Ram, Bakshi. 2008a. Upcoming promising sugarcane varieties and

their management. Cooperative Sugar 39(12): 23–32.

Ram, Bakshi. 2008b. Upcoming promising sugarcane varieties and

their management. Indian Sugar 58(4): 37–50.

Ram, Sewa, G.P. Mathur, J.P. Singh, and K. Lal. 2008. A drought

tolerant variety CoS 96269 under evaluation of sugarcane

cultivars. Cooperative Sugar 39(9): 39–40.

Ramamurthy, V., L.G.K. Naidu, S.C.R. Kumar, S. Srinivas, and

Rajendra Hegde. 2009. Soil-based fertilizer recommendations

for precision farming. Current Science 97(5): 641–647.

Ramesh, P., C. Kailasam, and T.R. Srinivasan. 1994. Performance

of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) undersurface drip,

subsurface drip (biwall) and furrow methods of irrigation.

Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 172(4): 237–241.

Rao, C.M., M.V. Kumar, M.J. Prakash, L.K. Reddy, M.N. Kishore,

V. Bharathi, and R.B. Naik. 2007a. 97 R 129 a drought tolerant

promising midlate sugarcane clone for Telangana Zone of

Andhra Pradesh. Cooperative Sugar 38(6): 37–39.

Rao, C.M., U.V. Kumar, R.B. Naik, D. Sekhar, and G.S. Katti. 2007b.

Relative performance of sugarcane clones/varieties under soil

moisture stress/drought during formative stage. Indian Sugar56(11): 23–28.

Ritzema, H.P., T.V. Satyanarayana, S. Raman, and J. Boonstra. 2008.

Subsurface drainage to combat waterlogging and salinity in

irrigated lands in India: Lessons learned in farmers’ fields.

Agricultural Water Management 95(3): 179–189.

Saini, S.K., S. Tyagi, and D. Singh. 2007. Effect of integrated nutrient

management on soil fertility and productivity in sugarcane and

its ratoon in sugarcane based cropping system: An economic

study. Cooperative Sugar 38(5): 57–62.

Salokhe, S.S. 2007. Performance of micropropagated sugarcane seed.

Indian Sugar 57(3): 23–27.

Sekar, A., G. Manickam, and P. Pannerselvam. 2007. Effect of

different sugarcane based organics in combination with inor-

ganic fertilizers on yield and quality of sugarcane (Saccharumofficinarum). Journal of Ecobiology 21(1): 93–95.

Shankaraiah, C. 2007. Nitrogen management through biological

process on nitrogen use efficiency in sugarcane and environ-

mental protection. Sugar Tech 9(2/3): 132–136.


123

Shanthy, T.R. 2010. Field level demonstrations to popularize drought

management practices in sugarcane. Cooperative Sugar 41(5):

45–48.

Sharma, M.P., and K. Singh. 1987. Tractor mounted pit digger for

ring method of sugarcane planting. Indian Journal of SugarTechnology 4(1): 93–95.

Sharma, B.L., R.R. Singh, and S.B. Singh. 2003. Integrated response

of phosphorus solubilizing bacteria [PSB] with pressmud cake

on sugarcane in calcareous soils. Co-operatve sugar 35: 37–40.

Shinde, D.B., and N.D. Bangar. 2003. Studies on dual inoculation of

nitrogenous and phosphatic bacterial cultures in sugarcane.

Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 28: 190–192.

Shinde, D.B., A.M. Navale, and S.B. Jadhav. 1993. A study on

incorporation of sugarcane trash in ratoon sugarcane. Journal ofMaharashtra Agricultural Universities 18(2): 264–265.

Shukla, S.K. 2007a. Growth, yield and quality of high sugarcane

(Saccharum officinarum) genotypes as influenced due to planting

seasons and fertility levels. Indian Journal of AgriculturalSciences 77: 569–573.

Shukla, S.K. 2007b. Productivity and economics of high-sugar

genotypes of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum hybrid com-

plex) in plant-ratoon system under various planting seasons and

fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 52: 164–167.

Shukla, S.K., R.L. Yadav, P.N. Singh, and I. Singh. 2009. Potassium

nutrition for improving stubble bud sprouting, drymatter parti-

tioning, nutrient uptake, and winter initiated sugarcane (Saccha-

rum spp. Hybrid complex) ratoon yield. European Journal ofAgronomy 30(1): 27–33.

Sinare, B.T., D.S. Bhoite, R.M. Dixit, and P.G. Bhoi. 2006. Response

of promising new sugarcane genotypes to fertilizer levels in

autumn planting. Indian Sugar 56(4): 29–32.

Singh, R.A. 2006. Companion cropping of spring sugarcane and

summer groundnut—anew cropping system for Uttar Pradesh,

India. International Arachis Newsletter 26: 34.

Singh, I.S., O.P. Singh, A.P. Singh, and D.N. Singh. 2005. Evaluation

of sugarcane clones/varieties tolerant to waterlogging. IndianSugar 7:27–30.

Singh, Kuldeep, O.P. Choudhary, R.S. Singh, and K.S. Thind. 2007.

Yield and quality of sugarcane cultivars as influenced by saline

water irrigation. Sugar Tech 9(2/3): 193–199.

Singh, Dheer, and P.K. Tomar. 2005. Productivity of sugarcane

ratoon influenced by weed management practices given in

planted cane and ratoon crop grown in mustard and wheat based

cropping system and its residual effects on wheat crop grown

after ratoon crop. Indian Sugar 55(4):25–29.

Singh, A.K., and Menhi Lal. 2008. Weed management in spring

planted sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid)-based intercropping

systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 78(1): 35–39.

Singh, A.K., Menhi Lal, Ishwar Singh, R.L. Yadav, and D.V. Yadav.

2008. Effect of planting method and drought-management

technique on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane (Saccharum

hybrid complex) under limited irrigation. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 53(3): 200–204.

Singh, A.K., G.P. Mathur, N.K. Pruthi, and K. Lal. 2009. The

influence of bio-fertility in sugarcane productivity. CooperativeSugar 40(11): 49–51.

Singh, Rohitakshav, Dhiman Sen, V.K. Singh, N.S. Rana, and Sanjay

Kumar. 2005. Effect of weed-management practices on spring-

planted sugarcane. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(3): 236–238.

Singh, S.B., S.C. Singh, and A. Singh. 2003. Studies on intercropping

with sugarcane in Uttar Pradesh. Co-operative Sugar 34(11):

883–892.

Singh, K., R.L. Yadav, B.S. Hora, B. Singh, R.V. Singh, and R.A.

Singh. 1984. Ring method of planting sugarcane. A new

technique. Biological Memoirs 2: 161–166.

Singh, G.K., R.L. Yadav, and S.K. Shukla. 2010. Effect of planting

geometry, nitrogen and potassium application on yield and

quality of ratoon sugarcane in sub-tropical climatic conditions.

Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80(12): 1038–1042.

Sivakumar, K., K. Dhanasekaran, V. Arunkumar, D. Venkatakrish-

nan, and S. Manimaran. 2006. Identification of soil fertility

constraints in sugarcane growing areas of Kancheepuram using

GIS. Indian Sugar 56(4): 33–38.

Soundarrajan, M., B. Anandakrishnan, M.S. Dawood, S. Jebaraj, and

R. Pushpavalli. 2007. Integrated nutrient management with

organic and inorganic fertilizers on productivity of sugarcane

and its impact on soil properties of Typic haplustalf. Sugar Tech9(2/3): 142–146.

Sreelatha, T., C.S.R. Lakshmi, T.U. Rani, and N.V. Naidu. 2010.

Integrated nutrient management for sustainable sugarcane pro-

duction. Cooperative Sugar 42(4): 41–44.

Srinivasan, T.R., and K. Mohan Naidu. 1987. Response of sugarcane

varieties to biofertilizers under different soil conditions. Sugar-cane 3: 5–11.

Srivastava, T.K., and R.S. Chauhan. 2006. Weed dynamics and

control of weeds in relation to management practices under

sugarcane (Saccharum species complex hybrid) multiratooning

system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(3): 228–231.

Srivastava, T.K., R.S. Chauhan, and Menhi Lal. 2005. Weed

dynamics and their management in sugarcane under different

preceding crops and tillage systems. Indian Journal of Agricul-tural Sciences 75(5): 256–260.

Srivastava, S.N.L., Roshan Lal, Mehar Chand, and S.R. Kadian. 2007.

Effect of fertility levels on newly developed sugarcane varieties

of North-West Zone of India. Indian Journal of AgriculturalResearch 41: 297–300.

Suman, Archna, A.K. Shrivastava, Asha Gaur, Pushpa Singh, J.

Singh, and R.L. Yadav. 2008. Nitrogen use efficiency of

sugarcane in relation to its BNF potential and population of

endophytic diazotrophs at different N levels. Plant GrowthRegulation 54(1):1–11.

Sundara, B. 1985a. Effect of levels of phosphorus and potassium and

their late application on sugarcane. Indian Journal of Agronomy30: 124–127.

Sundara, B. 1985b. Effect of trash mulching, urea spray and late

application of potassium on sugarcane grown under limited

irrigation. Indian Sugar 35(3): 211–219.

Sundara, B. 1987. Improving sugarcane productivity under moisture

stress constraints and through cropping systems. In Proceedingsof the International Symposium ‘Sugarcane Varietal Improve-ment’—Present status and future thrusts, ed. K. Mohan Naidu,

T.V. Sreenivasan, and M.N. Premachandran, 221–251. Coimba-

tore: Sugarcane Breeding Institute.

Sundara, B., P. Sankaranarayanan, and M.B.G.R. Batcha. 1992.

Varietal characteristics affecting ratooning potential of sugar-

cane. Sugarcane No. 6 (Nov.–Dec.) 1–4.

Sundara, B. 1994a. Phosphorus efficiency of sugarcane varieties in a

tropical alfisol. Fertilizer Research 39: 83–88.

Sundara, B. 1994b. Pre-fertilizing sugarcane nursery for higher yield

of quality seeds. SISSTA Sugar Journal 20(1): 157.

Sundara, B. 1994c. Short duration sugarcane based multiple cropping

systems. Indian Farming 39(2): 17–22.

Sundara, B. 1994d. Sugarcane varieties and management practices

under saline water irrigated areas. In Proceedings of the VII JointConvention of Sugar Technologists’ Association of India &Deccan Sugar Technologists’ Association Sept 23–25, 1994,

23–30.

Sundara, B. 1995. Causes for sugarcane varietal yield decline and

techniques of rejuvenation. In Proc. 57th Ann.Cinv.SugarTechnologists’ Association of India, New Delhi, 153–167.


123

Sundara, B. 1996. Studies on multiratooning in sugarcane. In Proc.58th Ann. Conv. Sugarcane Technologists’ Association of India,

14–16 September1996, New Delhi, 3–12.

Sundara, B. 1998. Sugarcane cultivation. New Delhi: Vikas Publish-

ing House.

Sundara, B. 2002. Influence of varieties, seed and fertilizer rates and,

planting patterns on sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)

grown under wide row spacing. Indian Sugar 52(5): 341–347.

Sundara, B. 2003a. Response of new sugarcane varieties to wide row

spacing. In Proc. 65th Ann. Conv. of STAI. Aug. 22–24, 2003,

Bhubaneswar, 168–177.

Sundara, B. 2003b. Sugarcane varietal response to wide row spacing.

Indian Sugar 53(8): 573–578.

Sundara, B. 2004. Sugarcane based intercropping systems for tropical

India. Co-operative Sugar 35(5): 377–385.

Sundara, B. 2005. Drip irrigation for sugarcane—our experience.


Sundara, B. 2009. Microbial facilitation of phosphorus nutrition in

sugarcane. In Phosphate solubilising microbes for crop improve-ment, ed. M.S. Khan, and A. Zaidi, 320–335. New York: Nova

Science Publishers.

Sundara, B. 2010. Sugarcane ratooning. In Ratoon cropping, ed.

B. Sundara, 31–103. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Sundara, B. 2011a. Selection of clones for wide row spacing.

Annual Report 2010–11, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, (ICAR),

Coimbatore.

Sundara, B, 2011b. Identification of varieties for low input conditions.

Annual Report 2010–11, 43–44. Sugarcane Breeding Institute,

(ICAR), Coimbatore.

Sundara, B., and B.H. Gaikwad. 1995. Effect of planting methods,

growth regulators and foliar nutrition on short duration sugar-

cane. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 20(3):

385–387.

Sundara, B., and K. Hari. 2003. Phosphorus solubilizing bacteria for

phosphorus economy in sugarcane nutrition. Sugarcane Breed-ing Institute Newsletter 22(2): 1–3.

Sundara, B., and K. Hari. 2004. Microbially aided phosphorus

nutrition of sugarcane. Annual Report, Sugarcane Breeding

Institute, Coimbatore, 2003–2004.

Sundara, B., K. Hari, K. Sivaraman, and N. Rajendra Prasad. 2004.

Evaluation and refinement of low cost technology packages for

sugarcane. Annual Report, 37–38. Sugarcane Breeding Institute,

Coimbatore 2003–2004.

Sundara, B., and N.C. Jalaja. 1994. Effect of intra row spacing on

mericlone transplants of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum).

The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 64: 546–549.

Sundara, B., and V. Natarajan. 1997. Effect of source and time of

phosphorus application with and without phosphorus solubiliz-

ing bacteria on sugarcane. In Proc. of the Annual Convention ofSugar Technol. Assoc. of India, 13–20. Sept. 26–28, 1997. Goa.

Sundara, B., V. Natarajan, and K. Hari. 2002. Influence of phosphorus

solubilizing bacteria on the changes in soil available phosphorus

and sugarcane and sugar yields. Field Crops Research 77:

43–49.

Sundara, B., and B.S. Reddy. 1994. Studies on sugarcane varietal

performance and planting systems under saline water irrigation.


Sundara, B., and E. Shakinah. 2007. Field evaluation of drought tolerant

varieties. Annual Report, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, 2006–07.

Sundara, B., and S. Subramanian. 1990. Changes in soil available

NPK in multiple cropping systems based on short duration

sugarcane crops relative to a conventional sugarcane cropping

system. Fertilizer Research 24: 67–76.

Sundara, B., and S. Vasantha. 2004. Sugarcane management in saline

soils. Sugarcane Breeding Institute Extension Publication No 81.

Tomar, P.K., Om Prakash, and Dheer Singh. 2005. Weed manage-

ment in late-planted sugarcane. India. Indian Journal of Agron-omy 50(4): 317–319.

Varghese, K., and N. Massey. 2006. Effect of planting season and

type of fertilizer on biomass yield and quality of sugarcane

(Saccharrum officinarum) cv. CoS 95255. Agricultural ScienceDigest 26(2): 107–110.

Vasantha, S., S. Alarmelu, G. Hemaprabha, and R.M. Shanthi. 2005.

Evaluation of promising sugarcane genotypes for drought. SugarTech 7(2/3): 82–83.

Verma, R.S. 2009a. Ratoon management. In Sugarcane cropproduction and improvement, ed. S.B. Singh, et al., 354–386.

Houston: Stadium Press.

Verma, R.S. 2009b. Sugarcane based cropping systems. In Sugarcanecrop production and improvement, ed. S.B. Singh, et al.,

279–298. Houston: Stadium Press.

Virdia, H.M., and C.L. Patel. 2010. Integrated nutrient management

for sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) plant-ratoon

system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 55(2): 147–151.

Virdia, H.M., C.L. Patel, and D.U. Patel. 2009. Integrated nutrient

management for sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex)

plant ratoon system. Indian Sugar 59(8): 35–42.

Viswanathan, R. 2002. Sugarcane yellow leaf syndrome in India:

Incidence and effect on yield parameters. Sugarcane Interna-tional 5: 17–23.

Viswanathan, R. 2004. Ratoon stunting disease infection favours

severity of yellow leaf syndrome caused by sugarcane yellow

leaf virus in sugarcane. Sugarcane International 22(2): 3–7.

Viswanathan, R., and P. Padmanaban. 2008. Hand book on sugarcanediseases and their management. Coimbatore: Sugarcane Breed-

ing Institute.

Yadav, R.N.S. 2010. Mechanization of sugarcane harvesting in Indian

scenario, strategy and viable options. Cooperative Sugar 42(1):

33–42.

Yadav, R.L., and Rajesh Kumar. 2005. On-farm comparison of ring-

pit and conventional flat planting methods for yield and quality

of sugarcane in North West India. Indian Journal of AgriculturalSciences 75(9): 605–607.

Yadav, R.L., and K. Singh. 1987. Effect of pit geometry on yield and

yield attributes of sugarcane (cultivarCo1148) in ring planting

system. Indian Journal of Sugar Technology 4(1): 17–20.

Yadav, K., and Tripurari Singh. 1990. Effect of Bacillus megateriumon the solubilization of s phosphatic fertilizers influencing yield

and uptake by sugarcane. Bharatiya Sugar 15: 15–23.

Yadav, R.L., A. Suman, S.R. Prasad, and O. Prakash. 2009. Effect

of Gluconacetobacter and Trichoderma viridae on soil health,

yield and n-economy of sugarcane cultivation under subtropical

climatic conditions of India. European Journal of Agronomy 30:

296–303.


123

agrotechnologies to enhance sugarcane productivity in india

Documents