Comprehensive approach to boost sustainability, reliability and safety in sugarcane cultivation

Introduction

India is the 2 nd largest sugarcane producer in the world after Brazil (Resende et al. 2023) [71] . Nowadays, sugarcane is used as a food crop as well as a source of renewable energy, bioelectricity, bio fuel and bio materials (Figuerora-Rodriguez et al. 2019) [25] and is a sound economic source of farming community of India, leading to socio-economic development in the country. In last 70 years there is a remarkable achievement in sugarcane production from 57.05 Mt (1950-51) to 405.42 MT (2019-20) in India (Sharma et al. 2022) [77] . This sugar & allied industry sustains not only the cane growers, sugar millers, manufacturers of sugar machinery and agricultural implements. The sugarcane grower has facing important sustainability issues. Sugarcane productivity is hampered by huge losses due to several biotic and abiotic stresses like microbes, nematodes, drought, water logging, alkalinity and salinity. Salinity is a significant factor limiting sugarcane yield its effects are shown in changes to many physiological and morphological processes, which inhibit growth. (de Andrade et al. 2017) [19] . Besides this, cane cultivation has some other problems as small land holding which is difficult for mechanization, lack of location and situation specific varieties, limited irrigation facilities, imbalanced usage of fertilizers and abundance of pests and diseases are some of the major reasons for low productivity and recovery. (Singh et al. 2019a) [86] reported that sustained efforts and holistic approach is necessary to enhance the productivity of cane and sugar in integration of various sugarcane production technologies are required to be implemented. (Patnaik et al. 2016) [64] reported that sugarcane was planted by bud chip technology showed increase in productivity by 13.86% and decrease 10.24% cost as compared to traditional planting material. In early stage of sugarcane intercropping of short duration crops found most successful practice for efficient utilization of sun light, soil moisture, inter row spacing and other resources without affecting the main crop and increase productivity per unit area per unit time (Kumar et al. 2015a) [47] . Availability of high-yielding and high-quality sugarcane varieties are plays significant role in increasing farm productivity and farmers' incomes (Singh et al. 2019a) [86] . Soil fertility is maintained by using organic manures, crop residue and biofertilizers in combination with other plant nutrients. Integrated weed management practice effectively reduced the weed menace during early slow growth period of sugarcane while the hoeing done at 60 and 90 DAP along with herbicide which eradicated residual weed flora from the field (Ghodke et al. 2020) [27] . A sufficient supply of water is essential for healthy crop growth and high consistent harvests. IPM is the significant strategies to minimize pest infestation sustainably in a non polluted environment (Sable and Kadam 2012) [73] . The IPM techniques involves cultural practices that have been altered an prominence on biological control (predators, parasitoids and entomopathogens), plant extracts, pest monitoring, crop management techniques, and cautious use of insecticides (Khatri et al. 2020) [42] . Effective sugarcane disease management has changed as a result of novel interventions including continuous disease surveillance, better fungicide distribution, molecular diagnostics in conjunction with a healthy seed nursery, etc. (Viswanathan 2022) [104] . This article highlights technological advancement which tackles challenges like deterioration of soil health, infestation of weed, pest and diseases, low sugarcane production and increasing production cost. Technological advancements related to sugarcane production discussed thoroughly and deliberated upon so as to ensure a holistic improvement in the sustainable sugarcane production, productivity, socially acceptable economically viable with minimum damage to the environment.

Fig 1: Sugarcane smart technologies

A. Planting Techniques

Sugarcane is vegetatively propagated plant. The growth and yield parameter of sugarcane gives better response to planting layout, planting methods, planting material, bud placement, plant-population etc. Commercially sugarcane setts are used mostly for planting in different layout. Flat planting, ridges and furrows, paired row and ring pit methods are used for planting in all over the world (Nalawade et al. 2018) [60] .

Planting methods and row spacing

Trench methods of planting are mostly adopted in sugarcane among various planting methods. In this method 20-25 cm deep trenches are opened with ridger, having row to row distance is 75-120 cm. The highest no. of shoot, no. of millable cane, cane weight and yield was found in paired row planting than that of conventional planting (Singh et al. 2012) [84] . The higher (23.2%) production of cane yield in wide bed planting and paired row methods showed more B: C ratio. (Singh et al. 2019b) [87] . Tayade et al. (2017) [96] reported that the 90 cm spacing between rows was more effective for development of tillers, better use of sunlight and its converts it in to the formation of biomass, stalk and CCS yield. Among the planting methods, pit planting recorded highest benefit cost ratio (2.85) (Table 1). [82]

Planting Material

Yield, productivity and quality of produce is depends on seed material used. Well swollen eye buded, healthy, pest and disease free setts are used for planting of sugarcane. In pit planting the pre-germinated cane settlings can be an ideal source of planting material particularly in areas where there is problem of poor germination to ensure optimum plant population (Chand et al.

2011) [12] . As compared to bud chip settling micropropagated plantlets showed maximum number of millable cane (89.47 x 10 3 ha -1 ) and cane produce (91.0 tha -1 ). Tissue culture or bud chip planting material should be applicable and cost saving alternative. Among various researches the scientists found that bud chip planting material recorded highest yield parameter than other planting materials (Table 2).

B. Sugarcane Varieties

The introduction of new sugarcane varieties stands out as a pivotal moment, ushering in a new era of production, productivity and economic growth for farmers across the state.

The CSRS, Padegaon (MH), India, was first established in 1890 at Pune. In 1930 it was relocate to Padegaon, Dist. Satara. This CSRS has releasing 12 varieties of sugarcane which were high yielding, pest and disease resistant, water and nutrient responsive characters and make positive impact on economic development of farmers so these varieties become popular among the farmers (https://iisr.icar.gov.in/iisr/aicrp/pages/padegaon). These efforts led to the release of several commercially successful cultivars, significantly boosting sugarcane production in many regions including western Maharashtra, Marthwada and Vidarbha region. The CO 86032 sugarcane variety is known for its elite characteristics, particularly for sugar recovery, cane production and resilient to varied environments. Research done on this shown that it performs well regarding cane production, sugar yield and sucrose content, with notable improvements over other standard varieties (Srinivasan et al. 2022) [93] . Physiological parameters such as internodes length, stalk height and single cane weight have been highlighted as superior in it as compared to other varieties. Moreover, the enhanced productivity of these varieties has proven to be a game-changer for farmers, empowering them to maximize their land's yield potential while minimizing input costs. The results further revealed that the cultivation of Co 86032 improves the economic condition of farmers of Maharashtra from last 22 years (Gulave et al. 2020) [30] .

In conclusion, the impact of sugarcane varieties released in Maharashtra on production, productivity and the economy of farmers cannot be overstated. Through their adoption, farmers have not only increased their yields and incomes but have also contributed to the overall growth and prosperity of the state's agricultural sector. As Maharashtra continues to embrace innovation and sustainable practices, the future looks sweeter than ever for its farming community.

C. Intercropping

Intercropping is a promising approach to boost the production of short-term crops. like pulses, oilseed crops, maize, vegetables and spices. Sugarcane is a wide distance (60 to 180 cm) and take 12 to 18 months for harvesting so it require 30 to 45 days for sprouting because of slow growth in initial stage so there is a great opportunity to take small duration crops as a intercrop in sugarcane cultivation. Intercropping in sugarcane utilizes light, space and moisture in initial stage of sugarcane also minimizes weed infestation.

Intercropping with sugarcane alters the physical, chemical, and biological qualities of the soil. This could attributed the variation in growth habit, rhizodeposition, intake of nutrient and plant debris, etc. (Theirfelder and Wall 2012) [97] . Intercropping of soybean in sugarcane found ideal for enhancing production and income over unit area and time by efficient utilization of light, reducing N-leaching and stability in yield (Yang et al. 2013) [108] . While in sugarcane wheat, mustard and maize take as an intercrop helps to increase organic carbon and microbial respiration in soil (Suman et al. 2006) [95] . Under an intercropping system, plant roots directly interact with one another; consequently, root exudation may change microbial heterogeneity, activity of various enzymes and productivity of crop (Lian et al. 2019) [54] . Various intercropping systems have been developed due to its beneficial effect over monoculture regarding soil health, crop growth, yield and crop production per unit area (Hossain et al.

2003) [34] . Pulses are best suited in intercropping with sugarcane and helps microbial activities, yield and net return (Li et al.

2013) [53] . Potato + sugarcane cropping system increases production as well income than any other intercropping because maximum utilization of phosphorous, potassium and adequate use of nitrogen (Rehman et al. 2014) [70] followed by sugarcane + fenugreek (Singh et al. 2020) [83] (Table 3). There is negative effect of sugarcane monoculture on health of soil (Cherubin et al. 2016) [16] . Hence intercropping of different crops in sugarcane plays important role to improve health of soil and crop yield. [83] D. Integrated Weed Management Effect of weed infestation on growth of sugarcane plant and its production depends on its density and the age of the sugarcane (Mehra et al. 1990) [57] . According to Singh and Kumar (2013) [85] sugarcane is wide spacing crop which is favorable for growing wide range of weeds in initial stage. Application of fertilizers and repeated irrigations helps weeds to grow fast and compete with sugarcane plant at initial stage (Singh et al. 2008) [88] for water, nutrients, light and area increases weed density results in loss of cane yield (Zafar et al. 2010) [109] .

In India, almost 150 weed species found in sugarcane cultivated area (Rathika et al. 2023) [69] . [7] . The weeds are not controlled in early growth stage of sugarcane found reduction in sugarcane yield from 10-70 percent (Rathika et al.

2023) [69] . Chauhan and Srivastava (2002) [15] reported that 40-67% heavy yield loss in sugarcane due to weed infestation. There are four methods of weed control in sugarcane i.e. Cultural (Field preparation, Maintenance of plant population, Irrigation and drainage, Crop rotation, Mulching, Inter cultivation and Intercrops), Mechanical (Tillage, Hoeing, Hand Weeding), Biological and Chemical (Pre and post emergence of Herbicides). Cultural and mechanical practices became cumbersome, time consuming, labourious and costly (Ramesh and Rathika 2016) [67] . Application of herbicides is widely used for effective check of weeds in sugarcane. Herbicides are sprayed before and after the emergence of sugarcane plant to avoid sugarcane weed competition (Ghodke et al. 2020) [27] . [27] PE Pendimethalin + Sesbania (BM) + hand hoeing at 90DAP 82.3 128.0 100.5 2.72 Fanish and Ragavan (2020) [24] Three hoeing at 30 [46] A range of studies have demonstrated the positive impact of integrated weed management on sugarcane yield and quality.

Post-emergence application of metribuzin + 2, 4-D followed by hoeing at 60 and 90 DAP was the most effective integrated weed management practice for pre-seasonal sugarcane (Table 4).

The combination of chemical and mechanical weed management strategy found most successful method in reducing weed competition during the growth of sugarcane and also controlling residual weed flora.

E. Irrigation Water Management

Due to global climate change, heat waves and droughts may combine to harm field crops (Jaldhani et al. 2022) [37] . In sugarcane producing countries such as Brazil, Cuba, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, China, Thailand and India drought or early drought stress is a common issue. It inhibits the yield of photosystem II efficiency, physiological activity of plant which reduces biomass, sugar recovery and cane production up to 60 per cent (Leanasawat et al. 2021) [51] . Therefore, additional water from an appropriate watering system may be needed for the sufficient moisture in the soil during the life cycle of plant in order to reap greater benefits with high yield and an extended ratooning time. Sugarcane crops have been irrigated using various micro irrigation systems (Mahesh et al. 2016) [56] .

Water requirement and iWUE

The crop coefficient (Kc) and potential evapotranspiration (ETo) were major factors used for calculating requirement of water for sugarcane crop which meant that it depended on the climate and growth stages. The average annual water need was 1212 mm (Wonprasaid et al. 2023) [105] . Kaushal et al. (2012) [40] estimated that the production of sugarcane required a lot of water, between 1100 and 2200 mm every season. The iWUE of subsurface drip irrigation was 1.2 times higher than that of surface drip irrigation (Hanafy et al. 2008) [32] . Various research were revealed that subsurface drip irrigation conserve maximum moisture than surface drip irrigation because of avoiding loss of water from soil (Mahesh et al. 2016) [56] .

Soil Moisture Status

Amount of moisture in the soil plays crucial impact in sugarcane cultivation, affecting various parameter of the crop growth, development and yield. Proper soil moisture is major requisite for germination of sugarcane setts and the establishment of sugarcane seedlings. Root development, plant growth and biomass production, photosynthesis and transpiration, sugar accumulation and yield, nutrient uptake and stress resistance. During the growth season, average moisture in the soil under drip system was 24.3% which was greater than under rainfed situation (19.1%). Before the irrigation, moisture in the soil progressively dropped up to 19-20% in drip irrigation however, it increased up to 25-26% after drip irrigation and nearly equal to field capacity of soil (26.4%) (Wonprasaid et al. 2023) [105] . 25 to 30 per cent moisture boost the germination (71-95%) of sugarcane setts (Moreira and Cardoso, 1998) [59] . Development of sugarcane root and availability of nutrients particularly Ca and P2O5 was maximum at 20 to 40 cm depth in the soil because of drip irrigation system (Ohashi et al. 2015) [61] .

Yield Components

The application drip method in sugarcane cultivation improves quality of produce, production (7-25%) and water use efficiency (60-200%) (Kaushal et al. 2012) [40] . Yield of sugarcane was increased when the availability of water was as per the demand of sugarcane plant (Da Silva et al. 2013). Drip irrigation is used instead of floods, border, furrow, sprinkler or micro-sprinkler irrigation maximizes the production of cane by 28.92%, 14.55%, 8.03%, 2.32% and 5.17% respectively (Yang et al. 2023) [107] .

F. Integrated Nutrient Management

Plant nutrients regulate growth and development of sugarcane plant and its management is important for higher sugarcane yield. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and micronutrients are essential nutrients that are vital to the growth and metabolism of sugarcane plants (Singh et al. 2019a) [86] .

There is a great scope for utilization of agricultural waste from the sugarcane industry to lower the use of fertilizers (Dotaniya et al. 2016) [21] . Shukla et al. (2019) [80] recommended to apply composted 5 tons press mud or well-prepared10-15 tons FYM/compost in one hector area. Incorporation of bio-compost and farmyards which increase available nitrogen and enhances the multiplication of microbes (Sinha et al. 2014) [91] . Press mud contains 10-15% N, 1.4-4.0% P2O5, 0.5-2.0% K2O and variety of elements like Mg, S, Zn, Cu, Fe and Phospho Rich Organic Manure (PROM) was prepared using liquid inoculants in 30 days containing 8.84% organic carbon, 2.5%N, 10.55% P2 O5 and 0.62% K using windrow method (Shukla 2024) [79] . Press mud is rich source of Ca, Mg, Si, P2 O5, Fe and Mn (Yadav and Solomon 2006) [106] . Bagasse is a byproduct of sugar factories; it includes nutrients that can be utilized to produce biofertilizers in large quantities. (Rocha et al. 2011) [72] .

Gluconacetobacter is an endophytic nitrogen-fixing bacterium particular to sugarcane. Also 10 kg Azotobacter /Azospirillum applied in one hector area two times in first 60 days saves 25 per cent nitrogen (Shukla et al. 2019) [80] . Babar et al. (2011) [4] found that 50% Bio-fertilizer + 50% RDF of chemical fertilizer increases the sugarcane yield and reduces environmental pollution. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi protect the plant from salt stress condition by increasing nutrient uptake, accumulation of an osmoregulators, an increase in rate of osmolytes and water-use efficiency (Evelin et al. 2009) [23] . Acetobacter and PSB (@ 1000 ml ha -1 each) is applied as sets treatment, soil application (2000 ml ha -1 each at each time), at sowing and at earthing up gives higher cane yield and cost effective too by 50 per cent reduction of chemical nitrogen and phosphorous (Mahatma et al. 2016) [55] . Sesbania aculeate taken as green manure in asugarcane cultivation resulted additional 10 t ha -1 yield and net return of Rs.

25000ha -1 . Because of this green manuring, soil become rich in organic matter and nitrogen also lowers soil pH by 0.17. Kammar et al. (2023) [43] found that sugarcane ratoon was benefited by application of sugarcane trash and green manure and also helps nutrient status, microbial counts, soil microbial biomass, carbon and Dehydrogenase in soil as compared to burning or removal of sugarcane trash. Higher sugarcane yields were obtained from the integration of inorganic fertilizer and green manuring (Table 5 & 6). [44] 2 25% RDF+75% effluent Highest cane yield, sugar yield and nutrient uptake Sharma, (2014) [78] 3 100% of RDF Higher cane yield and monetary benefit Shivashenkaramurthy et al. (2021) [76] G. Integrated Pest Management Since the green revolution, crop pest conditions have drastically changed. The species of insects, frequency of their outbreaks and introduction of new pests have all contributed to the worsening of pest problems (Dubey et al. 2022) [22] . It is predicted that when global warming increases, losses from diseases and insect pests would rise (Deutsch et al. 2018) [20] . Networking, global cooperation, AI techniques, diagnosis and data analytics are necessary for the isolation and pest surveillance. (Dubey et al. 2022) [22] . Bio-intensive IPM is based on holistic agro-ecosystem interactions. This involves combining knowledge about insects, their symbionts, pathogens, natural enemies, plants and endophytes (Arshad et al. 2022) [3] .

Major Pests of Sugarcane

Insect pests, nematode and diseases can all have an impact on sugarcane (Leslie, 2004) [52] . Certain pests have detrimental effects on the economy, bringing crops value down to below profitability. Approximately 1300 insect pest species are known to harm sugarcane crops worldwide (Qamar et al, 2021) [65] . Insects from the order Lepidoptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera and Isoptera damage the sugarcane worldwide. There are three types of pest in sugarcane viz, Borer pests, Sucking pests and Subterranean pests (Table 7).

Losses by Pest

Insect pest attacks on every part of sugarcane plant from planting to harvesting, which decreases sugar recovery and 20-25% production (Kumar et al. 2019b) [45] the identical outcome was discovered by (Shyamrao and Kumar 2020) [81] . The major pest of sugarcane is borer, which reduces sugarcane yield by 8-10% in the field and by 10-15% in sugar industry (Jasmine et al. 2012) [38] . [11,18] to minimize the impact of pests on yield and quality of sugarcane (Campbell et al. 2009) [11] . IPM reduces pest population sustainably to a satisfactory level without harmful effect on environment (Sable and Kadam, 2012) [73] . Modified cultural techniques, focus on biological control (predators, parasitoids and entomopathogens), plant extracts, pest monitoring, crop management techniques and the cautious application of pesticides are all included in IPM (Khatri et al. 2020) [42] . Jaipal (2000) [36] suggested to use six ecology-based techniques were used such as use of urea, time of irrigation, management of crop residue, earthing up operation, propping of stalk, application nitrogen spray, release of different egg parasitoids (T. chilonis) and destruction of pests at their damaging stages.

Conclusion

Sugarcane is annual crop grown in three season and utmost to environmental factors such as temperature, rainfall, frost, etc. and is also susceptible to various insect pests, diseases, weeds and soil health. Application of different advance crop management technologies from selection of planting material to harvesting, helps in minimizing the adverse effect of biotic and abiotic stress by proper application of water, fertilizers, chemicals and reducing the carbon while improving the health of soil, qualitative and quantitative parameters and hence sustainability of sugarcane farming. Further, integrated approach and judicious use of various technologies such as planting techniques, cropping system, nutrient management, water management through micro irrigation, integrated pest, disease and weed management, etc. are plays important role in efficient utilization of inputs and resources for sustainable sugarcane production. This technological management helps for sustainable sugarcane production by maintaining soil health, avoiding harm to man, animal and environment. Thus technological advancements related to sugarcane agriculture and sugar industry shall be thoroughly discussed and deliberated upon so as to ensure a holistic improvement in the sugarcane production, productivity, quality of produce and socio economic standard of sugarcane grower.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementCorresponding author thanks D. Y. Patil Agriculture and Technical University, Talsande and Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Agriculture, Talsande (MS), India for encouraging and supporting this study. Also I am thankful to Prof. (Dr.) K. Prathapan and Dr. N. R. Kadge helping for preparing this article. Compliance with Ethical Standards

References

1. Anonymous. Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Commerce, New Delhi, 3 rd Adv. Est. 2023.
2. Ali HMW, Ahmad HB, Nazar ZA, Mudassir MA, Hasan MUL, Khaliq A, Afzal MS. Resistance to artificial infection of smut and genetic variability in sugarcane clones. Pak J Agric Res. 2023;36(2):115-123.
3. Arshad WR, Hameed A, Khaliq A. A new approach for integrated pest management of sugarcane in Pakistan. Pak Sugarcane J. 2022;2:8-16.
4. Babar LK, Iftikhar T, Khan HN, Makhdum AH. Agronomic trials on sugarcane crop under Faisalabad conditions, Pakistan. Pak J Bot. 2011;43(2):929-935.
5. Bagyalakshmi K, Viswanathan R. Development of a scoring system for sugarcane mosaic disease and genotyping of sugarcane germplasm for mosaic viruses. Sugar Tech. 2021;23:1105-1117.
6. Ballyan V, Kumar S, Kumar N, Kumar S. Weed management in spring-planted sugarcane. Indian J Weed Sci. 2015;47(1):46-49.
7. Begum M, Bordoloi BC. Effect of weed management practices on sugarcane ratoon. Agric Sci Digest. 2016;36(2):106-109.
8. Bhanupriya N, Singh RD, Ramessh C. Evaluation of planting materials and nutrient levels in chewing cane (Saccharum officinarum). Madras Agric J. 2014;101(1012):361-364.
9. Bhavani B, Rao VN. Management of sugarcane white fly (Aleurolobus barodensis MASK) in north coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh, India. Int J Soc Sci Interdiscip Res. 2013;2(9):112-115.
10. Campbell PL, Leslie GW, Mcfarlane SA, Berry SD, Rhodes R, Van AR, et al. An investigation of IPM practices for pest control in sugarcane. Proc South Afr Sugar Technol Assoc. 2009;82:618-622.
11. Chand M, Khippal A, Singh S, Lal R, Singh R. Effect of planting material and seed rate in pit-planted sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) in sub-tropical India. Indian J Agron. 2011;56(1):78-82.
12. Chandra R, Rana NS, Kumar S, Panwar GS. Effects of sugarcane residue and green manure practices in sugarcaneratoon-wheat sequence on productivity, soil fertility, and soil biological properties. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2008;54(6):651-664.
13. Chattha MU, Ali A, Bilal M. Influence of planting techniques on growth and yield of spring-planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Pak J Agric Sci. 2007;44(3):452-456.
14. Chauhan RS, Srivastava TK. Influence of planting techniques on growth and yield of sugarcane. Indian J Weed Sci. 2002;34(3-4):318-319.
15. Cherubin MR, Karlen DL, Franco AL, Tormena CA, Cerri CEP, Davies CA, et al. Soil physical quality response to sugarcane expansion in Brazil. Geoderma. 2016;267:156168.
16. Da Silva V de PR, Da Silva BB, Albuquerque WG, Borges CJR, De Sousa IF, Neto JD. Crop coefficient, water requirements, yield and water use efficiency of sugarcane growth in Brazil. Agric Water Manag. 2013;128:102-109.
17. Das A, Lala A. Insect pests of sugarcane. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi; 2024. p. 56-71.
18. De Andrade LM, Brito MDS, Junior RFP, Marchiori PER, Nóbile PM, Martins APB, et al. Reference genes for normalization of QPCR assays in sugarcane plants under water deficit. Plant Methods. 2017;13:28.
19. Deutsch CA, Tewksbury JJ, Tigchelaar M, Battisti DS, Merrill SC, Huey RB, et al. Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science. 2018;361:916-919.
20. Dotaniya ML, Datta SC, Biswas DR, Dotaniya CK, Meena BL, Rajendiran S, et al. Use of sugarcane industrial byproducts for improving sugarcane productivity and soil health. Int J Recycling Organic Waste Agric. 2016;5:185194.
21. Evelin H, Kapoor R, Giri B. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in alleviation of salt stress: A review. Ann Bot. 2009;104:1263-1280.
22. Fanish SA, Ragavan T. Enhancing productivity of sugarcane by successful weed management through integration of brown manuring of Sesbania and pre-and post-emergence herbicides. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(3):2076-2080.
23. Figueroa-Rodríguez KA, Hernández-Rosas F, FigueroaSandoval B, Velasco-Velasco J, Rivera NA. What has been the focus of sugarcane research? A bibliometric overview. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:3326.
24. Ghaffar A, Akbar N, Khan SH, Jabran K, Hashmi RQ, Iqbal A, et al. Effect of trench spacing and micronutrients on growth and yield of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Aust J Crop Sci. 2012;6(1):1-9.
25. Ghodke SK, Chaudhari PM, Thorave DS. Integrated weed management in preseasonal sugarcane. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(4):3183-3187.
26. Gouri V, Devi TC, Kumari MBGS, Rao KP. Intercropping studies in sugarcane under coastal zone of Andhra Pradesh. Indian J Sugarcane Technol. 2015;30(1):12-14.
27. Gulati JM, Sunmarg C, Kar J, Behra J, Jena SN, Lenka S. Effect of planting methods on growth pattern and productivity of sugarcane varieties. Indian J Agric Res. 2015;49(3):222-228.
28. Gulave CM, Pokharkar VG, Adhale PM. Economic impact of sugarcane variety CO-86032 on farmer's economy in Maharashtra. Indian J Econ Dev. 2020;16:354-359.
29. Gupta HK, Singh S, Awasthi RK, Kumar A. Integrated disease management in agriculture: A comprehensive approach to crop health. In: Emerging Trends in Entomology. Golden Leaf Publishers; 2023. p. 135-148.
30. Hanafy M, Mahrous A, El-Garib MZ. Water requirements for irrigated sugarcane under trickle irrigation systems. Misr J Ag Eng. 2008;25(4):1343-1357.
31. Holkar SK, Balasubramaniam P, Kumar A, Kadirvel N, Shingote PR, Chhabra ML, et al. Present status and future management strategies for sugarcane yellow leaf virus: A major constraint to the global sugarcane production. Plant Pathol J. 2020;36(6):536-557.
32. Hossain GMA, Bhokhtiar SMB, Paul SK, Anam MR. Intercropping of sugarcane with onion and potato followed by sesame in paired row system. Pak J Agron. 2003;2(2):85-91.
33. ICAR IISR. Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research website, Indian government, accessed 20 May 2024. Available from: https://iisr.icar.gov.in/iisr/aicrp/pages/padegaon.
34. Jaipal S. An IPM module for the management of major insect pests of sugarcane in Indian subtropics. Sugar Tech. 2000;2(3):1-8.
35. Jaldhani V, Rao DS, Beulah P, Nagaraju P, Suneetha K, Veronica N, et al. Chapter 2 -Drought and heat stress combination in a changing climate. In: Climate Change and Crop Stress. Academic Press; 2022. p. 33-70.
36. Jasmine RS, Rajendran B, Rani RK. BIPM components for the management of borer complex in sugarcane. J Biopest. 2012;5(Supplementary):209-211.
37. Kabiraj RC, Islam MS, Siddiqui MNA, Ahamed T, Siddika A. Effect of inter crop green manuring and nitrogen on the growth, yield and quality of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). J Agrofor Environ. 2017;11(1 & 2):257260.
38. Kaushal A, Patole R, Singh KG. Drip irrigation in sugarcane: A review. Agric Rev. 2012;33(3):211-219.
39. Khanzada AG. Pest management in sugarcane: an unabridged review. Pakistan Sugar J. 1993;7(2):11-18.
40. Khatri S, Pakuwal P, Khanal S. Integrated pest management of fall armyworm infestations in maize fields in Nepal: A review. Arch Agric Environ Sci. 2020;5(4):583-591.
41. Kumar A, Chattopadhyay S, Meena SK. Soil fertility assessment of sugarcane growing villages in Samastipur district of Bihar. Environ Ecol. 2023;41(2):759-764.
42. Kumar A, Babar L, Mohan N, Bansal SK. Effect of Potassium Application on Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Quality of Sugarcane and Soil Health. Indian J Fertil. 2019;15(7):782-786.
43. Kumar A, Pal S, Chand H. Insect Pests of Sugarcane and Their Management: An Overview. In: Advances in Agricultural Entomology Vol. 3. New Delhi: AkiNik Publications; 2019. p. 1-18.
44. Kumar R, Singh J, Uppal SK. Weed management in sugarcane ratoon crop. Indian J Weed Sci. 2014;46(4):346349.
45. Kumar R, Singh J, Uppal SK. Intercropping of medicinal and high value crops in autumn sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid) for higher productivity and profitability. Indian J Agron. 2015;60(1):135-138.
46. Kumar S, Chand G, Mandal D, Kumar A, Kumar S. Deterioration in sugarcane due to wilt disease. Ecol Environ & Cons. 2015;21:AS145-AS148.
47. Kumar S, Rana NS, Singh R, Singh A. Production potential of spring sugarcane as influenced by intercropping of dualpurpose legumes under tarai conditions of Uttarakhand. Indian J Agron. 2006;51(4):271-273.
48. Lakshmi Ch SR, Sreelatha T, U Rani T, Rao SRK, Naidu NV. Effect of organic manures on soil fertility and productivity of sugarcane in north coastal zone of Andhra Pradesh. Indian J Agric Res. 2011;45(4):307-313.
49. Leanasawat N, Kosittrakun M, Lontom W, Songsri P. Physiological and Agronomic Traits of Certain Sugarcane Genotypes Grown under Field Conditions as Influenced by Early Drought Stress. Agronomy. 2021;11:2319.
50. Leslie G. Pests of Sugarcane. In: Sugarcane. Blackwell Science Ltd; 2004. p. 78-100.
51. Li X, Mu Y, Cheng Y, Liu X, Nian H. Effects of intercropping sugarcane and soybean on growth, rhizosphere soil microbes, nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Acta Physiol Plantarum. 2013;35:1113-1119.
52. Lian T, Mu Y, Jin J, Ma Q, Cheng Y, Cai Z, et al. Impact of intercropping on the coupling between soil microbial community structure, activity, and nutrient-use efficiencies. PeerJ. 2019;7:1-18.
53. Mahatma L, Makwana KV, Sabalpara AN. Enhancement of sugarcane production and productivity by the biofertilizers with graded chemical fertilizers. Indian J Sugarcane Technol. 2016;31(1):6-9.
54. Mahesh R, Raja NA, Archana HA. Performance of surface and subsurface drip fertigation on yield and water use efficiency of sugarcane. 2 nd World Irrigation Forum; 6-8 Nov 2016; Chiang Mai, Thailand. p. 1-10.
55. Mehra SP, Kanwar RS, Brar LS. Weed management in spring-planted sugarcane. J Res Punjab Agric Univ. 1990;27(3):401-407.
56. Mishra K. Evaluation of bud chip method for enhancing yield and economics of sugarcane. Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7(3):1726-1729.
57. Moreira DR, Cardoso VJM. Effect of soil moisture content and the irrigation frequency. Pesq Agropecuária Bras. 1998;33(5):721-729.
58. Nalawade SM, Mehta AK, Sharma AK. Sugarcane planting techniques: A review. Contemp Res India. 2018;98-104.
59. Ohashi AYP, De MPires RC, Ribeiro RV, Silva ALBO. Root growth and distribution in sugarcane cultivars fertigated by a subsurface drip system. Bragantia. 2015;74(2):131-138.
60. Ombase KC, Ghodke SK, Jadhav VT, Mevada KD, Kadam DE. Planting Geometry and Intercropping in Sugarcane. Int J Agric Sci. 2018;10(3):5129-5131.
61. Parameswari B, Nithya K, Viswanathan R. Sugarcane: Ratoon stunting and grassy shoot. In: Diseases of Nationally Important Field Crops. New Delhi: Today & Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers; 2021. p. 235-244.
62. Patnaik JR, Singh SN, Sarangi D, Nayak PK. Assessing Potentiality of Bud Chip Technology on Sugarcane Productivity, Profitability and Sustainability in Real Farming Situations Under South East Coastal Plain Zone of Odisha, India. Sugar Tech. 2016;19:373-377.
63. Qamar Z, Nasir IA, Abouhaidar MG, Hefferon KL, Rao AQ, Latif A, et al. Novel approaches to circumvent the devastating effects of pests on sugarcane. Nat Sci Rep. 2021;11:12428.
64. Racedo J, Noguera AS, Castagnaro AP, Perera MF. Biotechnological strategies adopted for sugarcane disease management in Tucumán, Argentina. Plants. 2023;12:3994.
65. Ramesh T, Rathika S. Management of emerged weeds in irrigated black gram (Vigna mungo L.) through postemergence herbicides. Legume Res Int J. 2016;39(2):289292.
66. Rana NS, Kumar S, Saini SK, Panwar GS. Production potential and profitability of autumn sugarcane-based intercropping systems as influenced by intercrops and row spacing. Indian J Agron. 2006;51(1):31-33.
67. Rathika S, Ramesh T, Jagadeesan R. Weed management in sugarcane: A review. Pharm Innov J. 2023;12(6):38833887.
68. Intercropping. J Agric Chem Environ. 2014;3:24-28.
69. Resende RS, Cintra FLD, Pacheco EP, Amorim JRA, Gomes RSB, Da Silva SM. Soil penetration resistance and sugarcane rooting under subsuperficial drip irrigation levels. Sugar Tech. 2023;25(1):99-109.
70. Rocha GJ De M, Martin C, Soares IB, Maior AMS, Baudel HM, Abreu CAM De. Dilute mixed-acid pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse for ethanol production. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:663-670.
71. Sable BD, Kadam RP. Adoption gap in integrated pest management technology of cotton. Int J Plant Protect. 2012;5(2):352-355.
72. Samant TK. Bud chip method: A potential technology for sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) cultivation. J Med Plants Stud. 2017;5(3):355-357.
73. Sathiya K, Thirumurugan A, Ragavan T, Sundaravadana S, Vanitha C, Harisudan C. Growth and yield of sugarcane (Saccharam officinarum) as influenced by planting materials and plant geometry. Int J Environ Climate Change. 2024;14(1):676-680.
74. Shivashenkaramurthy M, Nayak GV, Channabasappa KS, Patil SB, Rajakumar GR. Effect of nutrient management and cultivars on sugarcane yield and economics. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(2):157-161.
75. Sharma TR, Gupta S, Roy AK, Ram B, Kar CS, Yadav DK, et al. Achievements in field crops in independent India. In: Indian Agriculture after Independence. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 2022. p. 73-113.
76. Sharma A. Effect of spent wash and chemical fertilizer on yield and nutrient uptake by sugarcane. Ann Plant Soil Res. 2014;16(1):32-34.
77. Shukla L. Bioconversion of sugarcane pressmud to value added product as prom. 3rd International Conference and Exhibition on Sustainability: Challenges & Opportunities in Global Sugar Industry; 2024. p. 107.
78. Shukla SK, Solomon S, Sharma L, Jaiswal VP, Pathak AD, Singh P. Green technologies for improving cane sugar productivity and sustaining soil fertility in sugarcane-based cropping system. Sugar Tech. 2019;21:186-196.
79. Shyamrao, Kumar. Sugarcane Borers: A major threat to sugarcane production in India and their management. Res Today. 2020;2(5 Spl):225-228.
80. Sidar RS, Tuteja SS, Singh VK. Effect of different varieties and planting methods on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane under northern hill zone of Chhattisgarh. J Plant Dev Sci. 2020;12(1):55-57.
81. Singh AK, Pathak AD, Srivastava TK, Singh RK, Singh AK, Singh AK, et al. Sugarcane based integrated farming system models for enhancing farmer's income and livelihood. Indian Farming. 2020;70(05):2-6.
82. Singh GD, Saini SK, Bhatnagar A, Singh G. Effect of planting methods and irrigation scheduling on growth, yield and quality of spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Ann Agric Res. 2012;33(1 & 2):21-24.
83. Singh J, Kumar R. Management of weeds for sustainable sugarcane production in subtropical India. Indian J Sugarcane Technol. 2013;28(02):95-99.
84. Singh K, Rinwa RS, Kumar P. Yield and economics of spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) under different planting method and nitrogen level. Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7(1):290-293.
85. Singh P, Singh SN, Tiwari AK, Pathak SK, Singh AK, Srivastava S, et al. Integration of sugarcane production technologies for enhanced cane and sugar productivity targeting to increase farmers' income: strategies and prospects. 3 Biotech. 2019;9:48.
86. Singh R, Shyam R, Tripathi SS, Kumar S. Integrated weed management studies in spring planted sugarcane. Indian J Weed Sci. 2008;40(1&2):85-87.
87. Singh SN, Singh P, Rai RK, Pathak AD. Vegetables intercropping with autumn planted sugarcane: A step towards doubling farmers' income in Indian sub-tropics. Indian Farming. 2018;68(01):65-68.
88. Singh SP, Singh SP, Vishwakarma SK, Kashyap S, Tiwari NN. Disease status of sugarcane in Uttar Pradesh. Int J Trop Agric. 2021;39(3):297-304.
89. Sinha SK, Jha CK, Kumar V, Kumari G, Alam M. Integrated effect of bio-methanated distillery effluent and bio-compost on soil properties, juice quality and yield of sugarcane in Entisol. Sugar Tech. 2014;16(1):75-79.
90. Sinha SK, Kumar V, Jha CK. Effect of integrated use of bio-compost and nitrogen on productivity and soil properties of sugarcane plant-ratoon system in calcareous soil. Sugar Tech. 2016;19:485-491.
91. Srinivasan A, Chellappa J, Varadaraju A, Veerasamy A, Ramaiyan K. Genetic diversity analysis in tropical sugarcane genotypes using morphometric traits. Sugar Tech. 2022; [cited 2022 Jan 24]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-022-01215-2.
92. Sugeerthi S, Jayachandran M, Chinnusamy C. Effect of planting materials and integrated nutrient management on yield of sugarcane seed crop. Madras Agric J. 2018;105(46):141-146.
93. Suman A, Lal M, Singh AK, Gaur A. Microbial biomass turnover in Indian subtropical soils under different sugarcane intercropping systems. Agron J. 2006;98:698704.
94. Tayade AS, Anusha S, Bhaskaran A, Govindraj P. Response of early maturing elite sugarcane genotypes to varied row spacing and fertilizer levels. J Sugarcane Res. 2017;7(1):4651.
95. Thierfelder C, Wall PC. Effects of conservation agriculture on soil quality and productivity in contrasting agro-ecological environments of Zimbabwe. Soil Use Manag. 2012;28:209-220.
96. Tiwari AK, Bharti Y, Tripathi S, Mishra N, Lal M, Rao GP, Sharma P, Sharma ML. Review article: Biotechnological approaches to improve sugarcane crop with special reference to disease resistance. Acta Phytopathol Entomol Hung. 2010;45(2):235-249.
97. Tiwari AK, Singh A, Singh SP, Dagar A, Kumari K, Kumar D, Pandey N, Kumar P. An overview of major fungal diseases of sugarcane in India: detection and management strategies. In: Molecular Markers in Mycology, Fungal Biology. Springer International Publishing Switzerland; 2017. p. 275-304.
98. Ullah S, Anjum SA, Raza MM, Riaz A, Abbas A, Yousif MM, Ma J, et al. Optimizing row spacing to ameliorate the productivity of spring sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Agric Sci. 2016;7:531-538.
99. Umesh UN, Prasad RK, Kumar V. Integrated effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield, quality parameter and nutrient availability of sugarcane in calcareous soil. J Pharmacol Phytochem. 2018;SP1:556-560.
100. Viswanathan R. Changing scenario of sugarcane diseases in India since introduction of hybrid cane varieties: path travelled for a century. J Sugarcane Res. 2018;8(1):1-35.
101. Viswanathan R. Impact of yellow leaf disease in sugarcane and its successful disease management to sustain crop production. Indian Phytopathol. 2021;74:573-586.
102. Viswanathan R. Emerging diseases of sugarcane and new disease management strategies. J Sugarcane Res. 2022;12:1-15.
103. Wonprasaid S, Xie X, Machikowa T. Long-term effects of drip irrigation on water use efficiency, yield, and net profit of sugarcane production. Sugar Tech. 2023;25(5):10141024.
104. Yadav RL, Solomon S. Potential of developing sugarcane by-product based industries in India. Sugar Tech. 2006;8(2 & 3):104-111.
105. Yang P, Wu L, Cheng M, Fan J, Li S, Wang H, et al. Review on drip irrigation: impact on crop yield, quality, and water productivity in China. Water. 2023;15:1733.
106. Yang W, Li Z, Wang J, Wu P, Zhang Y. Crop yield, nitrogen acquisition and sugarcane quality as affected by inter-specific competition and nitrogen application. Field Crops Res. 2013;146:44-50.
107. Zafar M, Tanveer A, Cheema ZA, Ashraf M. Weed-crop competition effects on growth and yield of sugarcane planted using two methods. Pak J Bot. 2010;42(2):815-823.