Evaluation of growth, yield and quality of sugarcane genotypes under varying fertilizer levels

Field experiment entitled “Evaluation of Growth, Yield and Quality of Sugarcane Genotypes under Varying Fertilizer Levels” was conducted at Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune under the AICRP programme during the year 2024-25, to evaluate the performance of promising sugarcane genotypes under different fertilizer levels. The experiment was laid out in a Factorial Randomized Block Design (FRBD) with three replications, comprising two fertilizer levels, viz., 100% RDF and 125% RDF, and twelve sugarcane genotypes. The results revealed that application of 125% RDF significantly improved tiller count, millable cane population, growth attributes and cane yield compared with 100% RDF. The highest cane yield (101.82 t ha⁻¹) was recorded with 125% RDF, while its effect on CCS yield and juice quality parameters was non-significant. Among genotypes, Co 18013 recorded the highest tiller count (117.00 thousand ha⁻¹), whereas Co 18003 recorded the highest millable cane population (87.75 thousand ha⁻¹). Co 18012 recorded the highest cane yield (115.50 t ha⁻¹), while Co 18003 recorded the highest CCS yield (16.90 t ha⁻¹). Co 18003 also recorded superior juice quality with respect to Brix (23.83°) and sucrose (22.39%). The highest benefit: cost ratio was recorded in CoVc 18061 (1.58). The interaction between fertilizer levels and genotypes was non-significant for all the parameters, indicating a uniform response of genotypes to fertilizer levels. Overall, 125% RDF improved cane productivity, while Co 18012 and Co 18003 were superior for cane yield and CCS yield, respectively, demonstrating the importance of suitable fertilizer management and genotype selection for enhancing sugarcane productivity and profitability.

Illustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.

AI-generated illustration

↗ Enlarge

Fertilizer Impact ComparisonClose ×

AI-generated conceptual illustration (sugarcane plants). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Tiller count at 120 DAP (000’/ha) and NMC at harvest (000’/ha): F1: 100% RDF vs F2: 125% RDFClose ×

Replotted from Table 1 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Yield (t/ha) / Cane: V1: Co 18001 vs V2: Co 18002 vs V3: Co 18003 vs V4: Co 18009 vs V5: Co 18012Close ×

Replotted from Table 1 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Introduction

Sugarcane is one of the world's most important commercial crops, contributing significantly to sugar, ethanol, and bioenergy production. India is one of the leading sugarcane-producing countries and plays a vital role in the global sugar industry. Being a long-duration and high biomass-producing crop, sugarcane requires a continuous and adequate supply of essential plant nutrients for optimum growth, development, cane yield, and sugar production. Among the major nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium play a crucial role in regulating vegetative growth, root development, tillering, photosynthetic activity, assimilate translocation, and overall crop productivity (Kumar et al., 2020). Fertilizer management is one of the important agronomic practices for enhancing sugarcane productivity and maintaining efficient nutrient utilization. Imbalanced or inadequate nutrient supply can adversely affect crop growth and yield, while excessive application of fertilizers may reduce nutrient-use efficiency and increase production costs. Therefore, application of fertilizers at optimum levels according to crop requirement is essential for achieving higher cane and sugar productivity. The fertilizer requirement of sugarcane may also vary among genotypes due to differences in nutrient uptake, utilization efficiency, growth potential, and yield response. Evaluation of elite sugarcane genotypes under different fertilizer levels is therefore important for identifying genotypes with superior nutrient responsiveness and yield potential (Tayade et al., 2024) [8] . Different fertilizer levels can influence important agronomic traits such as tiller production, millable cane population, cane yield, sugar yield, and quality attributes. The interaction between genotype and fertilizer level is particularly important because superior genotypes may respond differently to increased nutrient availability. Hence, selection of suitable genotypes along with an appropriate fertilizer level can contribute to improved resource-use efficiency and sustainable sugarcane production. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the elite sugarcane genotypes under different fertilizer levels by assessing their growth, yield, and quality attributes. The findings will aid in identifying promising genotype × fertilizer combinations for enhancing cane and sugar productivity under the prevailing agro-climatic conditions.

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

Results

Results

Effect of Fertilizer Levels

The results presented in Tables 1 to 3 revealed that fertilizer levels significantly influenced the growth and yield performance of sugarcane. Application of 125% RDF recorded significantly higher tiller count (97.67 thousand ha⁻¹) at 120 DAP and millable cane population (77.21 thousand ha⁻¹) compared with 100% RDF. The higher tillering and millable cane population under 125% RDF could be attributed to improved nutrient availability, which promoted vigorous vegetative growth and better tiller establishment and survival. Similar findings were reported by Shukla (2010) [6] and Kumar et al. (2014) [4] , who observed improved tillering and millable cane population with higher fertility levels. [4] and Singh et al. (2014) [7] . The number of internodes was not significantly influenced by fertilizer levels, indicating that this trait may be comparatively less responsive to nutrient application and more influenced by genetic and environmental factors. Although the highest CCS yield (14.98 t ha⁻¹) was recorded with 125% RDF, the differences among fertilizer levels were non-significant. Similarly, fertilizer levels did not significantly influence juice-quality parameters, suggesting that quality traits were relatively less responsive to increased fertilizer application under the present conditions. Singh et al. (2014) [7] and Tayade et al.

(2024) [8] also reported non-significant effects of fertility levels on major juice-quality parameters of sugarcane. The higher cane yield obtained with 125% RDF resulted in the highest benefit:cost ratio (1.38), indicating that the additional fertilizer investment was economically compensated through increased productivity. Overall, application of 125% RDF proved superior to 100% RDF by improving tillering, millable cane population, growth attributes, cane yield and economic returns, without causing a significant change in juice quality.

Effect of Genotypes

The data presented in Tables 1 (2024) [5] and Nirmal et al. (2022) [2] . [8] . The economic analysis revealed that CoVc 18061 recorded the highest benefit: cost ratio (1.58) followed by Co 18012 (1.55), which may be associated with their favorable cane yield and yieldcontributing characters. Overall, Co 18012 was superior for cane yield, Co 18003 for CCS yield and juice quality, while

CoVc 18061 recorded the highest benefit: cost ratio, indicating the importance of genotype selection for improving sugarcane productivity, sugar recovery and economic returns under the prevailing conditions.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementWe are thankful to Mr. Sambhaji Kadupatil, Director General, Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune for his encouragement during this research work and giving permission to publish this article. Authors are also thankful to scientists and supporting staff of crop production division for their help during the field experimentation

Figures and tables from the paper

Treatment	Tiller count at 120 DAP (000’/ha)	NMC at harvest (000’/ha)	Yield (t/ha)	—
			Cane	CCS
F1: 100% RDF	88.13	68.67	96.22	14.04
F2: 125% RDF	97.67	77.21	101.82	14.98
Sem±	1.18	1.02	1.43	0.33
C.D. @ 5%	3.45	2.98	4.17	NS
V1: Co 18001	95.75	82.75	101.85	14.25
V2: Co 18002	89.00	74.75	96.94	14.69
V3: Co 18003	112.25	87.75	104.57	16.90
V4: Co 18009	75.75	62.75	95.30	14.18
V5: Co 18012	86.75	70.00	115.50	16.62
V6: Co 18013	117.0	81.25	90.66	13.22
V7:Co 18024	84.25	64.50	94.26	13.24
V8: CoVc 18061	105.00	78.75	113.13	14.60
V9:CoN 18071	88.00	63.50	89.05	13.06
V10: CoN 18072	95.25	77.00	95.40	13.98
V11: CoVSI 18121	83.00	62.00	94.61	13.82
V12: Co 09004	82.75	70.25	96.97	15.56
Sem±	2.90	2.50	3.50	0.80
C.D. @ 5%	8.45	7.31	10.23	2.34
Interaction effect
Sem±	4.10	3.54	4.95	1.13
C.D. @ 5%	NS	NS	NS	NS

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 1Close ×

Tiller count, millable cane count and cane yield as affected by different fertilizer levels and genotype

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

Treatment	No. of internodes	Girth of internodes (cm)	Total plant height (cm)	Single cane wt. (kg)
Factor A: Fertilizer levels
F1: 100% RDF	23.95	9.71	269.40	1.39
F2: 125% RDF	25.16	10.27	293.59	1.68
Sem±	0.43	0.12	5.02	0.05
C.D. @ 5%	NS	0.34	14.65	0.14
Factor B: Genotype
V1: Co 18001	24.83	9.79	258.41	1.35
V2: Co 18002	24.83	9.91	291.50	1.59
V3: Co 18003	24.16	9.66	294.58	1.36
V4: Co 18009	23.00	9.80	288.67	1.56
V5: Co 18012	25.58	10.42	317.58	1.91
V6: Co 18013	25.75	9.04	260.00	1.10
V7:Co 18024	22.83	10.25	224.08	1.32
V8: CoVc 18061	27.00	10.25	323.58	1.97
V9:CoN 18071	21.25	10.21	265.33	1.47
V10: CoN 18072	25.58	9.50	292.00	1.58
V11: CoVSI 18121	24.25	11.71	279.47	1.78
V12: Co 09004	25.66	9.37	282.75	1.40
Sem±	1.06	0.29	12.30	0.12
C.D. @ 5%	3.10	0.84	35.91	0.35
Interaction F×V
Sem±	1.50	0.41	17.40	0.17
C.D. @ 5%	NS	NS	NS	NS

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 2Close ×

Growth & yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by different fertilizer levels and genotype

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

Treatment	Brix (%)	Sucrose (%)	CCS (%)	B: C ratio
Factor A: Fertilizer levels
F1: 100% RDF	22.36	20.50	14.62	1.33
F2: 125% RDF	22.80	20.73	14.72	1.38
Sem±	0.22	0.26	0.20	-
C.D. @ 5%	NS	NS	NS	-
Factor B: Genotype
V1: Co 18001	21.83	19.78	14.03	1.39
V2: Co 18002	23.77	21.53	15.27	1.32

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 3Close ×

Quality parameters and economics as affected by different fertilizer levels and genotype

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

1. Krishnapriya V, Manimekalai R, Gomathi R, Duong VH, Arunkumar R, Prathima PT, Devakumar K, Thamilarasi K, Mahadeva Swamy HK, Amaresh, Govindaraj P, Dash PK. Strategic considerations for nutrient use efficiency in sugarcane: Physiological, molecular and genetic perspectives. Plant Science. 2026;364:112940.
2. Kumar D, Nirmal, Meena LR, Meena LK, Meena AL, Raghavendra KJ, Bhowmik A. Analysis of genetic diversity and correlation in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. L) clones in North-West zone of Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Sugarcane Research. 2022;12(1):63-74.
3. Kumar N, Rana L, Singh AK, Pramanick B, Gaber A, Alsuhaibani AM, Skalicky M, Hossain A. Precise macronutrient application can improve cane yield and nutrient uptake in widely spaced plant-ratoon cycles in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2023;7:1223881.
4. 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). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2014;59(1):139-144.
5. Pujer S, Sutagundi RB, Yekkeli NR, Khandagave RB. Performance of newly developed sugarcane genotypes for morphological and quality traits in North Karnataka. Journal of Sugarcane Research. 2025;13(1):83-90.
6. Shukla SK. Growth, yield and quality of high sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) genotypes as influenced by planting seasons and fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2010;80(6):523-528.
7. Singh R, Mishra A, Godara AS. Growth, yield and quality of mid late and late varieties of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. complex hybrid) as influenced by row spacing and fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2014;84(10):1280-1283.
8. Tayade AS, Ponnaiyan G, Anusha S, Palaniswami C, Govindaraj P. Agronomic evaluation of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid) genotypes for its cane yield and quality under different fertilizer levels. Journal of Sugarcane Research. 2024;12(2):186.