Submitted:
12 June 2024
Posted:
14 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site Description
2.2. Experimental Setup
2.3. Experiment Management
2.4. Water Balance Computation
2.5. Parameters evaluated
- Accumulated seedling mortality (SM): For the survival analysis and the seedling fixation index, all the living and dead pre-sprouted seedlings were considered the total planted for each treatment and replication. The mortality follow-up was performed at 7,15, 34, 51, 76, 114, and 156 days after planting (DAP) when the mortality stabilization occurred.
- Root length (RL): The maximum size of the roots of the pre-sprouted seedlings was measured using metric tape at the end of the experimental period.
- Root dry mass (RDM): For this measurement, the initial substrate and root volume inside the tube perimeter were not considered, and the roots that exceeded this perimeter were cut out and separated for evaluation. After the separation, the roots were washed on top of a 1 mm sieve, and the material was taken to an oven with a forced hot air circulation system at 65 ºC until constant weight was achieved. Then, the dry mass was measured in analytical balance (precision: 0.01 g). The data was collected from a 30 x 30 x 30 cm ditch with three samples of pre-sprouted seedlings or one clump per plot, representing one replication each. The soil volume sampled was sieved with a 2 mm sieve for soil-root separation.
- Number of tillers sprouted per meter (TPM): At 15, 34, 51, 76, 114, and 156 DAP, the tillering was evaluated in all treatments. The number of tillers in 10 random pre-sprouted seedlings (clumps) was measured for each replication and divided by the planting spacing (0,5 m between seedlings). Every sprout from the seedlings that emerged through the soil surface was considered a tiller. The number of stalks per linear meter was obtained from the sum of all stalks found in the planting line of each replication divided by the length of the line (16 m).
- Total number of tillers (TNT): The tillering of all pre-sprouted seedlings was evaluated in all treatments by simply summing up the tillers. Every sprout from the seedlings was considered a tiller, whether it emerged or not through the soil surface.
- Plant height (ALT): At 15, 34, 51, 76, 114, and 156 DAP, the maximum height of the primary stalk of the sugarcane pre-sprouted seedlings was measured using a metric tape (from the soil surface to the end of the highest leaf).
- Leaf area index (LAI): The leaf area index was measured at 34, 51, 76, 114, and 156 DAP, considering the number of tillers per square meter times the leaf area of the primary tiller, as an adaptation of the equation proposed by [19], which did not consider the green leaves relatively open in the maize whorl. All leaves with green pigmentation above 20% and participation in active photosynthesis were considered. Thus, the Equation (4) was used:where LAI is the leaf area of the primary stalk of the seedlings (cm2), C is the leaf length +2 (cm), L is the greatest leaf width +2 (cm), 0.75 is the leaf shape coefficient (dimensionless) and N is the total number of leaves with green pigmentation above 20%.
- Shoot dry mass (SDM): At the end of the experimental period, the shoot dry mass (leaves and tillers) was analyzed. The leaves and tillers were separated from the roots and dried in the oven with a forced hot air circulation system at 65 ºC until constant weight was achieved. Then, the dry mass was measured in an analytical balance (precision: 0.01 g). The data was collected from three pre-sprouted seedlings or clump samples per plot, representing one replication each.
2.6. Data Analysis Strategy
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Poudyal, C.; Costa, L.F.; Sandhu, H.; Ampatzidis, Y.; Odero, D.C.; Arbelo, O.C.; Cherry, R.H. Sugarcane Yield Prediction and Genotype Selection Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-Based Hyperspectral Imaging and Machine Learning. Agronomy Journal 2022, 114, 2320–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CONAB Acompanhamento Da Safra Brasileira de Cana de Acucar.; Brasília, 2020.
- Gentile, A.; Dias, L.I.; Mattos, R.S.; Ferreira, T.H.; Menossi, M. MicroRNAs and Drought Responses in Sugarcane. Front Plant Sci 2015, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desalegn, B.; Kebede, E.; Legesse, H.; Fite, T. Sugarcane Productivity and Sugar Yield Improvement: Selecting Variety, Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate, and Bioregulator as a First-Line Treatment. Heliyon 2023, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coelho, A.P.; Dalri, A.B.; Faria, R.T.; Landell, E.D.A.; Palaretti, L.F. Perfilhamento Da Cana-de-Açúcar Cultivada Com e Sem Irrigação Suplementar e Plantada Por Mudas Pré-Brotadas: Um Novo Conceito. 2018, 4, 71–84.
- dos Santos, L.C.; Coelho, R.D.; Barbosa, F.S.; Leal, D.P.V.; Fraga Júnior, E.F.; Barros, T.H.S.; Lizcano, J.V.; Ribeiro, N.L. Influence of Deficit Irrigation on Accumulation and Partitioning of Sugarcane Biomass under Drip Irrigation in Commercial Varieties. Agric Water Manag 2019, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, S.; Shi, L.; Zha, Y.; Huang, K. A New Sugarcane Yield Model Using the SiPAR Model. Agron J 2022, 114, 490–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landell, M.; Campana, M.; Figueiredo, P.; Xavier, M.; Anjos, I.; Dinardo-Miranda, L.; Scarpari, M.; Garcia, J.; Bidóia, M.; Silva, D.; et al. Sistema de Multiplicação de Cana-de-Açúcar Com Uso de Mudas Pré-Brotadas (MPB), Oriundas de Gemas Individualizadas; Ribeirão Preto, 2012; Vol. 109.
- Gírio, L.A. da S.; Dias, F.L.F.; Reis, V.M.; Urquiaga, S.; Schultz, N.; Bolonhezi, D.; Mutton, M.A. Bactérias Promotoras de Crescimento e Adubação Nitrogenada No Crescimento Inicial de Cana-de-Açúcar Proveniente de Mudas Pré-Brotadas. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 2015, 50. [CrossRef]
- Maldaner, L.F.; Molin, J.P. Data Processing within Rows for Sugarcane Yield Mapping. Sci Agric 2020, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherri, A.C.; Vianna, A.C.G.; Ramos, R.P.; De Oliveira Florentino, H. A Methodology to Determine Size and Shape of Plots for Sugarcane Plantation. Sci Agric 2019, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, H.; Singh, R.K. Irrigation and Fertigation Scheduling Effect on Phenology and Yield of Spring Sugarcane (Sachhamm Officinarum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2020, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolim, G.; Sentelhas, P.; Barbieri, V. Planilhas No Ambiente ExcelTM Para Os Cálculos de Balanços Hídricos: Normal, Sequencial, de Cultura e de Produtividade Real e Potencial. Revista Brasileira de Agrometeorologia 1998, 6, 133–137. [Google Scholar]
- Embrapa Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos; 2nd ed.; EMBRAPA - SPI: Rio de Janeiro, 2006.
- van Genuchten, M.; Leij, F.; Yates, S.; Williams, J. The RETC Code for Quantifying Hydraulic Functions of Unsaturated Soils. EPA/600/2-91/065, R.S. 1991, 83. [Google Scholar]
- van Genuchten, M. A Closed-form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 1980, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Brien, D.; Richardson, M.; Karcher, D. Adapting Time Domain Reflectometry to Measure Surface Moisture of Sand-Based Putting Greens. Agron J 2023, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardo, S.; Soares, A.; Mantovani, E. Manual de Irrigação, 8°. ed; UVF: Viçosa, 2008; ISBN 85-7269-242-8. [Google Scholar]
- Francis, C.A.; Rutger, J.N.; Palmer, A.F.E. A Rapid Method for Plant Leaf Area Estimation in Maize (Zea Mays L.) 1. Crop Sci 1969, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falker Automação Agrícola LTDA Manual Do Medidor Eletrônico de Teor de Clorofila (ClorofiLOG/ CFL 1030) 2008.
- van Dillewiijn, C. Botany of Sugarcane. Walthham: Chronica Botanica 1952.
- Liu, B.; Liang, J.; Tang, G.; Wang, X.; Liu, F.; Zhao, D. Drought Stress Affects on Growth, Water Use Efficiency, Gas Exchange and Chlorophyll Fluorescence of Juglans Rootstocks. Sci Hortic 2019, 250, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khonghintaisong, J.; Songsri, P.; Toomsan, B.; Jongrungklang, N. Rooting and Physiological Trait Responses to Early Drought Stress of Sugarcane Cultivars. Sugar Tech 2018, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galvão, Í.M.; dos Santos, O.F.; de Souza, M.L.C.; de Jesus Guimarães, J.; Kühn, I.E.; Broetto, F. Biostimulants Action in Common Bean Crop Submitted to Water Deficit. Agric Water Manag 2019, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segato, S.; Mattiuz, C.; Mozambani, A.E. Aspectos Fenológicos Da Cana-de-Açúcar. In Atualização em produção de cana-de-açúcar; CP 21: Piracicaba, 2006; pp. 19–36.
- Alamilla-Magaña, J.C.; Carrillo-Ávila, E.; Obrador-Olán, J.J.; Landeros-Sánchez, C.; Vera-Lopez, J.; Juárez-López, J.F. Soil Moisture Tension Effect on Sugar Cane Growth and Yield. Agric Water Manag 2016, 177, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jangpromma, N.; Thammasirirak, S.; Jaisil, P.; Songsri, P. Effects of Drought and Recovery from Drought Stress on above Ground and Root Growth, and Water Use Efficiency in Sugarcane (Saccharum Officinarum L.). Australian Journal of Soil Science 2012, 6, 1298–1304. [Google Scholar]
- dos Santos, L.; Coelho, R.; Barbosa, F.; Leal, D.; Fraga Jr, E.; Barros, T.; Lizcano, J.; Ribeiro, N. Influence of Deficit Irrigation on Accumulation and Partitioning of Sugarcane Biomass under Drip Irrigation in Commercial Varieties. Agric Water Manag 2019, 221, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- dos Santos, C.M.; de Almeida Silva, M. Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Sugarcane to Oxidative Stress Induced by Water Deficit and Paraquat. Acta Physiol Plant 2015, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gessler, A.; Schaub, M.; McDowell, N.G. The Role of Nutrients in Drought-Induced Tree Mortality and Recovery. New Phytologist 2017, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Castro, S.G.Q.; Neto, J.R.; Kölln, O.T.; Borges, B.M.M.N.; Franco, H.C.J. Decision-Making on the Optimum Timing for Nitrogen Fertilization on Sugarcane Ratoon. Sci Agric 2019, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Souza, M.L.C.; Starling, C.S.A.Z.; Machuca, L.M.R.; Zuñiga, E.A.; Galvão, Í.M.; Guimarães, J.J.; Broetto, F. Biochemical Parameters and Physiological Changes in Maize Plants Submitted to Water Deficiency. SN Appl Sci 2020, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taiz, L.; Zeiger Eduardo; Møller, I.M.; Murphy, A. Fisiologia e Desenvolvimento Vegetal - 6a Edição; Artmed, 2017. ISBN 9788582713679.
- Matoso, E.S.; Reis, V.M.; Giacomini, S.J.; Silva, M.T. da; Avancini, A.R.; Anjos e Silva, S.E. Diazotrophic Bacteria and Substrates in the Growth and Nitrogen Accumulation of Sugarcane Seedlings. Sci Agric 2021, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ort, D.R.; Merchant, S.S.; Alric, J.; Barkan, A.; Blankenship, R.E.; Bock, R.; Croce, R.; Hanson, M.R.; Hibberd, J.M.; Long, S.P.; et al. Redesigning Photosynthesis to Sustainably Meet Global Food and Bioenergy Demand. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| Treatments | Description | Total Irrigation Levels (h) | Fixed irrigation frequency (IF) (in DAP) | |
| T0 | Control - no irrigation | - | - | |
| T1 | 3 applications of 10 mm | 30 mm | 1, 6 and 13 | |
| T2 | 3 applications of 20 mm | 60 mm | 1, 6 and 13 | |
| T3 | 3 applications of 30 mm | 90 mm | 1, 6 and 13 | |
| T4 | 3 applications of 40 mm | 120 mm | 1, 6 and 13 |
| Layer | pH | M.O | P | K | Ca | Mg | Al | H+Al | SB | CTC | BS |
| Cm | CaCl2 | g.dm-3 | mg.dm-3 | mmolc dm-3 | % | ||||||
| 0 - 25 | 5.2 | 51.8 | 24.1 | 2.5 | 36.3 | 13.8 | 1.7 | 37.9 | 52.6 | 90.5 | 57.7 |
| 25 - 50 | 5.0 | 18.7 | 14.2 | 1.3 | 28.2 | 11.1 | 2.1 | 40.9 | 40.6 | 81.6 | 49.2 |
| Layer | Clay | Silt | Sand | Soil density | Field capacity |
Permanent wilting point | Available water capacity |
|
| cm | % | g cm-3 | cm3 cm-3 | mm | ||||
| 0 - 25 | 51.94 | 12.28 | 35.78 | 1.44 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 10.0 | |
| 25 - 50 | 56.13 | 12.43 | 31.44 | 1.41 | 0.35 | 0.3 | 12.5 | |
| Layer | θs | θr | α | m | n |
| (cm) | (cm3 cm-3) | (cm3 cm-3) | (cm-1) | ||
| 0 - 25 | 0.50 | 0.29 | 0.2446 | 0.203 | 1.255 |
| 25 - 50 | 0.49 | 0.26 | 0.2359 | 0.169 | 1.203 |
| Treatment | Root length (cm) | |||||||||||
| 15 DAP | 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | 156 DAP | |||||||
| T0 | 3.4 | b | 5.6 | b | 11.3 | b | 13.3 | b | 19.0 | b | 22.4 | a |
| T1 | 9.3 | a | 10.7 | a | 13.2 | ab | 16.7 | a | 20.6 | ab | 26.7 | a |
| T2 | 11.1 | a | 13.2 | a | 15.0 | ab | 17.2 | a | 22.6 | a | 24.7 | a |
| T3 | 12.8 | a | 16.0 | a | 15.3 | a | 18.0 | a | 21.7 | ab | 26.0 | a |
| T4 | 12.0 | a | 15.3 | a | 15.2 | ab | 17.0 | a | 19.2 | ab | 23.6 | a |
| CV % | 18.71 | 19.05 | 11.63 | 8.29 | 5.56 | 9.09 | ||||||
| Treatment | Accumulated root dry mass (g seedling-1) | |||||||||||
| 15 DAP | 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | 156 DAP | |||||||
| T0 | 0.01 | b | 0.04 | b | 0.09 | b | 0.27 | b | 1.66 | c | 5.74 | b |
| T1 | 0.07 | ab | 0.11 | a | 0.21 | a | 0.71 | ab | 5.15 | b | 9.62 | ab |
| T2 | 0.11 | ab | 0.14 | a | 0.19 | ab | 1.33 | a | 7.01 | a | 10.50 | a |
| T3 | 0.12 | ab | 0.16 | a | 0.21 | a | 0.98 | ab | 4.54 | b | 12.82 | a |
| T4 | 0.13 | a | 0.14 | a | 0.20 | ab | 0.64 | ab | 4.73 | b | 10.96 | a |
| CV % | 8.39 | 4.50 | 5.91 | 15.65 | 6.08 | 18.28 | ||||||
| Treatment | Number of tillers sprouted per meter. | |||||||||||
| 15 DAP | 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | 156 DAP | |||||||
| T0 | 2.10 | b | 2.20 | b | 2.40 | b | 3.50 | b | 9.70 | c | 20.80 | c |
| T1 | 2.30 | ab | 2.70 | a | 4.10 | a | 7.20 | a | 20.30 | b | 24.70 | b |
| T2 | 2.50 | a | 2.70 | a | 3.90 | a | 7.70 | a | 23.30 | a | 28.00 | a |
| T3 | 2.30 | ab | 2.80 | a | 3.60 | a | 7.00 | a | 20.80 | ab | 24.90 | b |
| T4 | 2.40 | a | 2.50 | ab | 3.50 | a | 7.20 | a | 19.40 | b | 24.40 | b |
| CV % | 11,83 | 15,05 | 22.24 | 22.58 | 21.04 | 16.18 | ||||||
| Treatment | Total number of tillers per clump | |||||||||||
| 15 DAP | 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | 156 DAP | |||||||
| T0 | 1.80 | a | 1.60 | a | 2.90 | a | 3.70 | b | 4.30 | b | 16.80 | a |
| T1 | 1.90 | a | 2.30 | a | 4.00 | a | 7.00 | a | 15.80 | a | 20.00 | a |
| T2 | 2.60 | a | 2.90 | a | 3.80 | a | 8.10 | a | 20.40 | a | 21.80 | a |
| T3 | 3.10 | a | 2.90 | a | 4.00 | a | 7.80 | a | 16.10 | a | 20.00 | a |
| T4 | 1.90 | a | 3.00 | a | 4.30 | a | 7.40 | a | 16.30 | a | 20.40 | a |
| CV % | 22.22 | 21.97 | 18.67 | 18.04 | 13.03 | 12.2 | ||||||
| Treatment | Plant height (cm) | |||||||||||
| 15 DAP | 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | 156 DAP | |||||||
| T0 | 18.50 | c | 32.80 | b | 39.40 | c | 42.70 | c | 78.70 | c | 141.20 | b |
| T1 | 30.80 | b | 47.00 | a | 53.40 | ab | 62.60 | b | 114.00 | b | 164.90 | a |
| T2 | 30.90 | b | 48.50 | a | 55.10 | a | 70.60 | a | 122.30 | a | 168.60 | a |
| T3 | 31.80 | ab | 46.60 | a | 51.80 | b | 67.90 | a | 120.90 | ab | 170.00 | a |
| T4 | 32.30 | a | 47.20 | a | 50.80 | b | 68.60 | a | 120.90 | ab | 165.30 | a |
| CV % | 6.32 | 8.39 | 7.95 | 8.19 | 9.75 | 6.10 | ||||||
| Treatment | Leaf area index | |||||||||
| 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | 156 DAP | ||||||
| T0 | 0.006 | c | 0.009 | b | 0.030 | b | 0.300 | c | 1.340 | c |
| T1 | 0.017 | b | 0.036 | a | 0.160 | a | 1.040 | b | 1.650 | b |
| T2 | 0.022 | a | 0.038 | a | 0.190 | a | 1.360 | a | 2.330 | a |
| T3 | 0.019 | ab | 0.031 | a | 0.160 | a | 1.170 | ab | 1.800 | b |
| T4 | 0.015 | b | 0.029 | a | 0.180 | a | 1.110 | b | 1.680 | b |
| CV % | 1.220 | 2.640 | 8.220 | 17.740 | 16.610 | |||||
| Treatment | Shoot dry mass (g muda-1) | |||||||||||
| 15 DAP | 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | 156 DAP | |||||||
| T0 | 0.62 | c | 0.76 | b | 1.40 | b | 2.78 | c | 3.98 | c | 77.12 | c |
| T1 | 0.76 | bc | 1.08 | ab | 2.48 | a | 7.89 | ab | 33.79 | b | 112.13 | bc |
| T2 | 0.81 | ab | 1.20 | a | 2.38 | a | 11.93 | a | 51.09 | a | 216.42 | a |
| T3 | 0.97 | a | 1.34 | a | 2.60 | a | 8.04 | ab | 36.86 | b | 232.83 | a |
| T4 | 0.90 | ab | 1.25 | a | 2.80 | a | 6.60 | b | 37.30 | b | 190.02 | ab |
| CV % | 3.40 | 6.26 | 7.30 | 10.74 | 4.30 | 19.17 | ||||||
| Treatment | Total leaf chlorophyll content | |||||||
| 34 DAP | 51 DAP | 76 DAP | 114 DAP | |||||
| T0 | 37.60 | b | 30.10 | b | 46.40 | b | 47.00 | a |
| T1 | 36.50 | b | 37.20 | a | 52.80 | a | 48.70 | a |
| T2 | 40.00 | a | 37.90 | a | 51.40 | a | 47.40 | a |
| T3 | 36.90 | b | 35.90 | a | 51.90 | a | 48.30 | a |
| T4 | 37.10 | b | 39.50 | a | 51.90 | a | 48.60 | a |
| CV % | 9.23 | 15.63 | 7.94 | 6.47 | ||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).