Response of single eye-budded settling sugarcane to different spacing and weed management practices under south Gujarat conditions

Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is a crucial industrial cash crop primarily cultivated in tropical and subtropical areas worldwide. It is not only the main source of sugar but also serves as an important raw material for producing jaggery, ethanol, biodegradable materials, and animal feed, making a significant contribution to the agricultural economy (Mishra et al., 2021) [11] . India ranks as the second-largest producer of sugarcane globally, following Brazil, with a cultivation area of 55.07 lakh hectares and a production of 4399.30 lakh tonnes in the 2024-25 season (Anonymous, 2025) [1] . In Gujarat, sugarcane is predominantly grown in the districts of Junagadh, Vadodara, Narmada, Bharuch, Tapi, Surat, Navsari, and Valsad. Traditionally, sugarcane is planted using 2 or 3 budded setts, but the practice of utilizing single eye budded settlings has emerged as a more efficient method. In contrast to the traditional planting method that needs 7.5-8.0 t seed cane/ha, this approach guarantees better use of planting materials and enhanced nursery management (Sachdeva et al., 2021) [19] . Nonetheless, the successful implementation of this method is heavily reliant on suitable agronomic practices, especially optimal spacing and efficient weed control. Plant spacing is a key factor influencing crop population, canopy development, light interception, nutrient uptake and moisture utilization. Optimum spacing facilitates efficient resource use and minimizes inter-plant competition, resulting in improved growth and yield. In single eye budded settling planted sugarcane, spacing assumes greater importance due to its distinct crop establishment pattern (Thorave et al., 2020; Virdia et al., 2022) [24,25] . Spacing also affects weed emergence and competition. Optimum crop geometry promotes faster canopy closure and suppresses weeds through shading (Patel et al., 2014) [14] .

Weeds are significant factors hindering sugarcane yield due to the crop's slow early development, broad row spacing, and extended growth duration. They compete with sugarcane for essential resources such as nutrients, moisture, light, and space, resulting in yield losses between 38 and 76 percent (Singh et al., 2018) [21] . The critical timeframe for crop-weed competition typically occurs between 60 and 120 days after planting (DAP) for spring cane, and at 150 DAP for autumn cane (Rohitashav et al., 2011) [18] . More broadly, the period from 90 to 120 DAP is regarded as critical (Srivastava et al., 2005) [22] . Effective management of weeds during this timeframe is necessary to achieve optimal cane yields (Rana et al., 2004) [17] . Farmers in the South Gujarat area view sugarcane as a crucial cash crop for their economic sustenance. However, no adequate information is so far available on inter and intra row spacing and proper weed control strategies in sugarcane by using single eye bud settling (Virdia et al., 2023) [26] . Therefore, identification of suitable spacing combined with efficient weed management practices is essential for sugarcane cultivation in South Gujarat conditions.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was carried out at College Farm, N. M. College of Agriculture, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat, India during rabi season of two consecutive years 2023-24 and 2024-25. Geographically, site is situated at 20˚ 57' North latitude, 72˚ 54' East longitude with an elevation of 10 meters of above the mean sea level. The soil of experimental site was deep black soil with low in organic carbon (0.36% and 0.34%) and available nitrogen (243.65 and 250.60 kg/ha), while medium in available phosphorus (30.68 and 32.14 kg/ha) and high in available potassium (338.36 and 348.62 kg/ha) during the two seasons, respectively. Experiment was laid out in Split Plot Design with four spacings as main plot and seven weed control measures as sub plots (Table 1). Observations were recorded on plant height, single cane weight, number of millable canes per hectare, drymatter production and cane yield at harvest. Recorded data was subjected to statistical analysis of variance as per procedure of Split Plot Design as described by Panse and Sukhatme (1967) [13] .

Results and Discussion

Plant height

The data presented in Table 2 revealed that plant height of sugarcane at harvest was not significantly varied by different spacings. This suggests that early vegetative growth of sugarcane is less sensitive to row and plant geometry, possibly due to sufficient availability of resources during initial growth stages. Whereas weed management treatments showed significant differences during both years and in pooled data. The weed-free treatment (W₂: Hand weeding at 30-day intervals up to 150 DAP) recorded the maximum plant height (303.72 cm, 311.54 cm and 307.63 cm during both the years and in pooled data, respectively), which was statistically at par with W 3 (IC fb HW at 30 and 60 DAP) and W₅ (HW at 30 DAP + application of 2,4-D @ 1.5 kg/ha + Metribuzine @1.0 kg/ha at 60 DAP) recorded comparatively higher plant height. The unweeded control (W₁) recorded the lowest plant height (269.31, 272.60 and 270.96 cm, during both the years and in pooled analysis, respectively). The interaction effect between spacing and weed management (S × W) was non-significant. Significant improvement in plant height under weed-free treatment (W 2 ) and interculturing combined with hand weeding (W 3 ) indicates the importance of minimizing crop-weed competition during the early growth phase. Effective weed control ensured better availability of nutrients, moisture and light, resulted in enhanced plant height (Mansuri et al., 2014 and Yadav et al, 2020) [10,27] . The superiority of integrated weed management practices such as W 5 over the unweeded control highlights the role of combining manual and chemical methods for effective weed suppression. The use of herbicides like 2,4-D and metribuzin in combination with hand weeding likely reduced weed density and improved crop growth as also reported by Kumar et al. (2021) [8] and Jaiswal et al. (2024) [6] in sugarcane.

Single cane weight

Single cane weight was significantly influenced by spacing during both years as well as in pooled analysis. The highest cane weight was recorded under S 2: 150 cm × 30 cm (1.31,1.33 and 1.32 kg during both the years and in pooled analysis, respectively). This was followed by S 1: 120 cm × 45 cm (1.25, 1.25 and 1.25kg), S 3 and S 4 (Table 3). Weed management practices significantly influenced single cane weight. The highest cane weight was recorded under weed-free treatment with hand weeding at 30-day intervals up to 150 DAP (W₂) with values of 1.26, 1.23 and 1.24 kg, which was at par with all other weed management treatments. In contrast unweeded control (W₁) recorded significantly lower single cane weight (0.92, 0.92 and 0.92 kg).

Number of Millable Canes/hectare

The data presented in (2014) [9] , who found that weed-free conditions significantly enhanced cane population. The improved performance of W₃ (Interculturing followed by hand weeding) indicates weed control during early growth stages, which is critical for tiller formation and survival. Early removal of weeds reduces competition during the formative phase of the crop, leading to higher cane population. These findings are supported by Ballayan et al. (2015), who emphasized the importance of early weed management in improving sugarcane growth parameters including cane population.

The lower NMC under unweeded control (W₁) clearly reflects the negative impact of prolonged weed competition, which suppresses tillering and increases mortality of shoots. This result is in agreement with Ramesha et al. (2018) [16] , who reported significant reductions in millable cane number under weedy conditions.

Dry matter production

Sugarcane drymatter production was significantly influenced by spacing during both years as well as in pooled analysis. Among the treatments, 150 cm × 30 cm spacing (S₂) recorded significantly higher drymatter accumulation (31969, 32423 and 32196 kg/ha during the year 2023-24, 2024-25 and pooled data, respectively). This was followed by 120 cm × 45 cm (S₁) (28761, 28927 and 28843 kg/ha), which remained at par with 100 cm × 60 cm (S₃) (28505, 28559 and 28531 kg/ha) and S4: 120 cm × 60 cm (25652, 25928 and 25790 kg/ha across both years and pooled analysis). The significantly higher dry matter accumulation under 150 cm × 30 cm spacing (S₂) can be attributed to an optimum canopy architecture and efficient radiation interception. This spacing ensured better light penetration and distribution within the canopy, which enhanced photosynthetic activity and biomass production. Similar findings were reported by Swapna et al. (2020) [23] with 150 cm row spacing (Table 3).

In case of different weed management strategies, hand weeding at 30-day intervals up to 150 DAP (W₂) recorded higher drymatter (33319, 33588 and 33453kg/ha during both the years and in pooled analysis, respectively) and it was statistically at par with interculturing followed by hand weeding at 30 and 60 DAP (W 3 ) (32614, 33088 and 32851 kg/ha during both the years and in pooled analysis, respectively) and W 5 (hand weeding at 30 DAP + 2,4-D + Metribuzin application at 60 DAP) (32183, 32540 and 32361 kg/ha during both the years and in pooled analysis, respectively). The lowest total dry matter accumulation was recorded under unweeded control (W 1 ) (15318, 15334 and 15326 kg/ha), which was significantly inferior to all other treatments during both the years and in pooled data, respectively. The higher dry matter accumulation under weed free and its parity with W 3 and W5 may be attributed to effective weed suppression during the critical crop-weed competition period, resulting in greater availability of nutrients, moisture, light and space for crop growth. This promoted better canopy development and photosynthetic activity, leading to increased biomass production. This was earlier confirmed by Fakkar et al.

(2009) [4] , Singh and Kumar (2013) [20] , Ballyan et al. (2015) [2] and Ombase et al. (2019) [12] . In contrast, the lowest dry matter accumulation under unweeded control (W₁) was due to severe weed competition throughout the crop growth period. The interaction between spacing and weed management (S × W) was nonsignificant during both years and pooled analysis.

Cane yield

Among the spacings, S 2: 150 × 30 cm recorded significantly higher cane yield (106.64, 108.58 and 107.61 t/ha) during both the year and in pooled data analysis, respectively). Also, S 1: 120 x 45 cm (96.12, 97.01 and 78 96.57 t/ha, respectively) and S 3: 100 × 60 cm (95.30, 95.85 and 95.58 t/ha) obtained significantly higher cane yield than S 4 :120 x 60 cm (85.66, 86.83 and 86.24 t/ha during both the year and in pooled data analysis, respectively) (Table 4). Higher yield advantage under 150 cm x 30 cm aligns with other reports by Ghaffar et al. (2012) [5] , Chaudhari et al. (2021) [3] and Virdia et al. (2023) [26] where it was observed that wider inter row and closer intra row spacing increased plant density and yield due to better canopy architecture and resource utilization. The lowest yield recorded under the 120 × 60 cm spacing (S 4 ) suggested that excessively intra row spacing reduced effective stand and light interception, leading to lower productivity.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the experiment under south Gujarat conditions for cultivation of single eye budded settling planted sugarcane, 150 × 30 cm proved superior by recording the highest dry matter production and cane yield, indicating better crop establishment, resource utilization and biomass accumulation. For effective weed management, hand weeding at 30 DAP followed by application of 2,4-D @ 1.5 kg/ha + metribuzin @ 1.0 kg/ha at 60 DAP or Readymix-Sulfentrazone 28% + Clomazone 30% wp @ 700 + 750 g/ha at 60 DAP can be recommended as a practical alternative to maintaining weed-free conditions throughout the crop growth period.

References

1. Anonymous. Annual report 2024-2025. New Delhi: Sugarcane Breeding Institute; 2025. p. 78-99.
2. Ballyan V, Kumar S, Kumar N, Kumar S. Weed management in spring-planted sugarcane. Indian J Weed Sci. 2015;47(1):46-49.
3. Chaudhari VD, Virdia H, Chaudhari NR. Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) yield and quality in relation to planting methods, spacing and intercropping. Int J Farm Sci. 2021;11(4):109-113.
4. Fakkar AAO, Ibrahim MM, Bekheet MA. Effect of some weed control methods on yield and quality of sugarcane under Sohag conditions. J Plant Prod. 2009;34(2):11411151.
5. 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.
6. Jaiswal VP, Shukla SK, Sharma L, Singh VP, Gaur A, Jha A, et al. Integrated use of 2,4-D, metribuzin, and pyrazosulfuron-ethyl (UPH 114b) for managing weeds and improving sugarcane yield in subtropical India. Sugar Tech. 2024;26(6):1626-1639.
7. Kadam TS, Bholane JP, Sapkal PD. Effect of weed management practices on weed indices, growth, yield attributes and quality in suru sugarcane. Pharma Innov J. 2023;12(12):1531-1535.
8. Kumar S, Kumar S. Evaluation of different herbicide application on the nutrient uptake of spring-planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in Varanasi. Pharma Innov J. 2021;10(3):556-559.
9. Kumar V, Kumar S, Kumar S, Singh O, Kumar V. Effect of fertility levels and weed-management practices on yield potential, nutrient uptake and economics of spring-planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Indian J Agron. 2014;59(1):128-133.
10. Mansuri RN, Patel DD, Sandhi SJ, Prajapati DR. Effect of integrated weed management in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) on weed intensity and cane yield. AGRES Int e-J. 2014;3(1):111-117.
11. Mishra P, Al Khatib AMG, Kumar SI, Mohammed J, Karakaya K, Dash A. Modeling and forecasting of sugarcane production in India. Sugar Tech. 2021;23(6):1317-1324.
12. Ombase KC, Chaudhari PM, Ghodke SK, Dixit RM. Effect of weed management practices on weed dynamics, growth, yield and economics in spring sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7(5):2555-2557.
13. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1967.
14. Patel D, Raj VC, Tandel B, Patel B, Patil P, Patel AM, et al. Sugarcane yield and nutrient uptake under plant geometry and variety in relation to mechanization. Bioscan. 2014;9(4):1445-1448.
15. Patel T, Dudhat MS, Patel D, Thanki JD. Comparative evaluation of agronomical, mechanical and chemical management of weeds and their impact on sugarcane productivity. Indian J Weed Sci. 2024;56(2):167-175.
16. Ramesha YM, Bhanuvally M, Krishnamurthy D, Gaddi AK. Weed management effect on growth and yield of sugarcane. Indian J Weed Sci. 2018;50(4):373-376.
17. Rana NS, Kumar S, Saini SK. Weed management in spring sugarcane based intercropping systems. Indian J Weed Sci. 2004;36(1-2):93-95.
18. Rohitashav S, Shyam R, Bhatnagar A, Singh VK, Kumar J. Bioefficacy of herbicides applied at the 2 to 4 leaf stage of weeds in sugarcane after second interculture. Indian J Weed Sci. 2011;43(3-4):145-148.
19. Sachdeva SK, Singh DP, Joshi PC, Bhatia R. Studies on feasibility of sett planting through single eye bud technique for rapid multiplication of sugarcane varieties. J Sugarcane Res. 2021;11(1):91-98.
20. Singh J, Kumar R. Management of weeds for sustainable sugarcane production in subtropical India. Indian J Sugarcane Technol. 2013;28(2):95-99.
21. Singh VP, Kumar D, Singh KK. Management of problematic weeds in sugarcane. Indian Farming. 2018;68(11):52-58.
22. Srivastava TK, Chauhan RS, Lal H. Weed dynamics and their management in sugarcane under different preceding crops and tillage systems. Indian J Agric Sci. 2005;75(5):256-260.
23. Swapna N, Reddy TP, Rakesh G, Reddy GE, Naik PJ, Venkataiah M. Effect of plant density and nitrogen management for realizing higher cane yield under bud chip method of planting in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum). Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 2020;39(32):124-129.
24. Thorave DS, Thanki JD, Patil KB. Improving sugarcane productivity through single eye bud settling by adopting different inter and intra row spacing of sugarcane. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(10):270-280.
25. Virdia HM, Patel V, Patel J. Effect of planting geometry for single eye budded settling on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane under South Gujarat condition. J Sugarcane Res. 2022;12:192-199.
26. Virdia H, Patel V, Patel J. Effect of planting geometry for single eye budded settling on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane under South Gujarat condition. J Sugarcane Res. 2023;12(2):192-199.
27. Yadav SP, Singh RK, Yadav DK, Nayak H. Influence of weed management practices on growth and nutrient uptake of spring planted sugarcane in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(7):576-582.