Zinaw Dilnesaw*, Feyissa Tadesse, Zinabu Wolde and Temesegen Tibuma

Performance Evaluation of Ten Exotic Commercial Sugarcane Varieties at Omo-Kuraz Sugar Factory Project South Omo Zone, South Nationalities and Peoples Regional State Ethiopia

Ethiopian Sugar Corporation Research and Training Division

Variety Development Research Directorate Sugarcane Breeding Team Tel +251222200888

P. O. Box 15 Wonji Research Center, Wonji-Ethiopia

*Corresponding author:

Abstract

The study was done to evaluate the adaptability and performance of Commercial Sugarcane cultivars of Ethiopia at Kuraz Sugar Project in Southern nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State 885 km from Addis Ababa, Southern Omo, Gnanegatom and SelammagoWoredas. The analysis of variance for number of stalks per plot (NSP), cane weight (CW), single stalk weight (SSW) and stalk girth (SG). Low GCV values were recorded for NIN (3.59), SH (3.37), SG (5.35), Bot (5.06), Middle (7.26), Top (8.49) and CYHa (9.25) were as moderate GCV were recorded for NSP (17.25), CW (15.86), SSW (15.93) and SPHa (17.25); Low PCV were recorded for NIN (8.70), SG (7.56) and Bot (6.82); moderate PCV were recorded for SH (13.95), Top (14.69) and Middle (10.44) high PCV were recorded for NSP (20.14), CW (24.02), SSW (24.11), SPHa (20.14) and CYHa (25.62). High heritability were recorded for NSP (73.36) and SPHa(73.36); while moderate heritability were recorded for CW(43.57), SSW(43.65), Bot (55.07), Middle (48.46), SG (50.11)and Top( 33.37) were as low heritability were recorded for NIN (17.02), SH (5.82) and CYHa (13.03).Therefore, it is recommended that varieties that performed first second and third;C132/81, SP70/1284 and C86/12 respectivelywere recommended for commercial cane production at Kuraz Sugar Project based on the study result found in these experiment.

Keywords: Ethiopia, Kuraz and varieties

Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) is one of six to thirty-seven species (depending on taxonomic system) of tall perennial grasses of the genus Saccharum (family Poaceae, tribe Andropogoneae). Some of the sugarcane species are Saccharum munja, Saccharum procerum, Saccharum ravennae Saccharum robustum, Saccharum sinense, Saccharum spontaneum, Saccharum arundinaceum, Saccharum bengalense and Saccharum edule (Akwilin and Yasuo, 1998). Sugarcane is grown in countries within latitudes 37º N and 32º S of equator. The ideal climate for sugarcane is spelled as long warm growing season with adequate rainfall (irrigation), fairly dry and cool but frost free ripening and harvesting season and freedom from tropical storms (Mangelsdorf, 1950).

Sugarcane is an important cash crop in many tropical and subtropical countries as it is widely adapted to a wide range of tropical and semi-tropical climate, soils, and cultural conditions, and is long, warm growing season. Up on movement of varieties from one country to the other country, the risk is somewhat low as compared to other crops but they should be evaluated for their performance against the adapted varieties in the new agro-ecologies. Evaluation of the introduced varieties across environments is very important. It was reported that sugarcane varieties vary in their adaptation in different environment (Bissessur, 2000), and in their ability to survive and produce a profitable ratoon (Rafiq et al, 2006).

Ethiopia is one of the potential sugarcane growing countries despite the fact that the productivity and the production of this crop is very poor. The reason is believed mainly due to lack of improved varieties for the diversified agro ecology of the country, particularly in heavy soils. Generally, there are two alternatives of increasing alternative varieties from which promising varieties are promoted to commercial level. The first approach is artificial hybridization and subsequent selection of varieties, while the second method is introduction and adoption of sugarcane varieties from abroad. As the second option is a shortcut approach, it is being deployed in Ethiopia.

Therefore, the area expansion of sugar projects onto a new agro-ecology of the country, calls for massive introduction and evaluation of improved exotic varieties is mandatory to complement attaining the intended Sugar industry goals of the country.

Therefore; this study was initiated to evaluate the performance of Cuba 2003 introduced sugarcane varieties at Kuraz Sugar Project location and

- investigated the nature and extent of genetic variability, and nature of correlation among some important traits of the introduced sugarcane varieties.

- evaluated the introduced sugar cane varieties for their growth performance and yield related parameters under kuraz agro climatic conditions of Ethiopia and select recommended top performing varieties for commercial production.

Material and Method

Description of the study area

Description of the Study Area

Kuraz Sugar Development Project is located between 5o 8’ 18” – 6o 16’ 59” latitude and 35o 43’ 37” – 36o 13’ 54” longitude and its elevation ranges from 370 – 500 m.a.s.l. It is located 918 km away from Addis Ababa in the south direction. It is found in South Omo Zone in the plain areas of the lower Omo basin of the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region. Soil types of the study are dominated by clay texture.

Treatments and experimental design

Ten commercial sugarcane varieties introduced from Cuba and two commercial cultivar designated by C86-12, C90-501, C86-165, C132-81,C120-78, C1051-73, B78-505, B80-250, SP70-1284,C86-56, B52-298 and NCO334were evaluated at Kuraz sugarcane plantation. The trial was laid out incompletely randomized block design with threereplications in luvisol. Each experimental plotcomposed of 6 rows of 5m length. The spacing was1.45m for furrows, 1.5m between adjacent plots, 2mbetweenreplications, and 3 meters from the bordercrop. Equal number of two budded sett of each varietywas planted.

Data collected and analysis

Data were collected from the four central rows of each plot for sprouting percentage, number of tiller and millable cane, internode length and cane height, cane yield, sugar percent cane, and sugar yield for plant cane crop (PC). All the data were subjected to statistical analysis using Mini Tab 11.12 computer software.

For the sake of convenience especially to estimate heritability and genetic advance, data were analyzed as per RCBD (Cochran and Cox, 1957). Mean comparisons among treatment means were conducted by the least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% levels of significance. The analysis of variance was used to derive variance components (Cochran and Cox, 1957).

RCBD ANOVA was computed using the following model:

Yij = μ+rj+gi+εij

Where, Yij = the response of trait Y in the ith genotype and the jth replication

μ = the grand mean of trait Y

rj = the effect of the jth replication

gi = the effect of the ith genotype

εij = experimental error effect

Estimation of phenotypic and genotypic variances

The phenotypic and genotypic variances of each trait were estimated from the RCBD analysis of variance.

The expected mean squares under the assumption of random effects model was computed from linear combinations of the mean squares and the phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variations were computed as per the methods suggested by Burton and Devane (1953).

Genotypic variance (σ2g) =

Msg – Mse
r

Environmental variance (σ2e) = Mse

Where;Msg and Mse are the mean sum of squares for the genotypes and error in the analysis of variance, respectively r is the number of replications.

The phenotypic variance was estimated as the sum of the genotypic and environmental variances.

Phenotypic variance (σ2ph) = σ2g + σ2e

Estimation of genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variability

The genotypic and phenotypic coefficients of variability were calculated according to theformulae of Singh and Chaundary (1977).

Genotypic Coefficient of Variation (GCV) = (σg/grandmean) * 100

Phenotypic Coefficient of Variation (PCV) = (σph/grand mean) * 100

Table 1. ANOVA

Source of variation / Df / Mean square / Expected mean square
Replication / r-1 / Msr / σ2e + gσ2r
Genotypes / g-1 / Msg / σ2e + rσ2g
Error / (r-1)(g-1) / Mse / σ2e

Where, r = number of replications; Msr = mean square due to replications; g = number of genotypes; Msg = mean square due to genotypes; Mse =mean square of error; σ2g, σ2r and σ2e are variances due to genotype, replication and error

Result and Discussion

Variance analysis

The analysis of variance for number of stalks per plot (NSP), cane weight (CW), single stalk weight (SSW),stalk girth (SG), Brix % at stalk bottom (Bot), Brix % at stalk middle (Middle) and stalk population per hectare (SPHa) characters showed that genotypes included in the test differed highly and significantly at (p 0.01) probability level with respect to all characters studied (Table 2). Moreover, studied varieties differ significantly at (p 0.05) for Brix % at top of stalk (Top) and varieties showed statistically non significance difference for number of inter nod (NIN) and Stalk height (SH) (Table 2)

Similar results were reported for millable cane, cane yield and sugar yield Tadesee and Dilnesaw (2014); for number of millable cane, Cane diameter, Single cane weight and Cane yield Chaudhary and Joshi (2005) and Cane yield, Millable cane number, Single cane weight and Stalk diameter s (Rewati R Chaudhary2001).

This indicates that there wassignificant amount of phenotypic variability and allthe genotypes differ each other with regard to the studied characters that opened a way to proceed for furtherimprovement through simple selection (Punia,1982).These result points to that the existence of wider variations among thestudied commercial varieties for the studied characters so as simple selection could be possible based on those characters could lead to designbetter sugar cane improvement breeding programs.

Genotypic and Phenotypic Coefficient of variation

Genotypic Coefficient of variation (GCV) and Phenotypic Coefficient of variation (PCV); Low GCV values were recorded for NIN (3.59), SH (3.37), SG (5.35), Bot (5.06), Middle (7.26), Top (8.49) and CYHa (9.25) were as moderate GCV were recorded for NSP (17.25), CW (15.86),SSW (15.93) and SPHa (17.25); Low PCV were recorded for NIN (8.70), SG (7.56) and Bot (6.82); moderate PCV were recorded for SH (13.95), Top (14.69) and Middle (10.44) high PCV were recorded for NSP (20.14), CW (24.02), SSW(24.11), SPHa (20.14) and CYHa (25.62) (Table 3).

As stated by Shivasubramanian and Menon (1973) the PCV and GCV values are ranked as low, medium and high with 0 to 10%, 10 to 20% and >20% respectively. The estimates for phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) were higher than for genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) in all the traits, indicating greater influence of environment on genetic variation. High GCV and PCV indicated that selection may be effective based on these characters and their phenotypic expression would be good indication of the genotypic potential (Singh et al., 1994). The estimates for phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) were higher than for genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) in all the traits, indicating greater influence of environment on genetic variation.

Heritability (h2)

Phenotypic and Genotypic coefficient of variation alone is not a correct measure to know the heritable variation present and should be considered together with heritability estimates. Therefore heritability of traits should also in compose in setting better plant breeding strategy.

High heritability were recorded for NSP (73.36) and SPHa(73.36); while moderate heritability were recorded for CW(43.57), SSW(43.65), Bot (55.07), Middle (48.46), SG (50.11)and Top( 33.37) were as low heritability were recorded for NIN (17.02), SH (5.82) and CYHa (13.03). Against to present study high heritability were reported by Tadess et al.(2014) for characters such as sugar yield (86.09) and cane yield (75.02), the present study agreed with Tadess et al.(2014) reported of low heritability for No of internodes (28.02) and moderate heritability were recorded for sucrose % (55.67).

Heritability values are categorized as low (0- 30%), moderate (30-60%) and high (60% and above) as stated by Robinson et al., (1949). Genotypic coefficient of variation alone is not a correct measure to know the heritable variation present and should be considered together with heritability estimates. Similar to present study high heritability estimates results were reported in Rewati R Chaudhary (2001) for millable cane number (88%) cane weight (84%), Nair et al., (1980) and Singh et al., (1994) reported similar results for mentioned characters. This indicate that simple selection for these traits would be effective method of sugar cane variety breeding program since these traits are highly heritable from parents to progenies.

Table2. ANOVA result of fourteen traits of 12 commercial Sugarcane varieties in Kuraz Research station

Source / NIN / NSP / SH / CW / SSW / SG / Bot / Middle / Top / SPHa
Treatment / 4.634 / 8858.4** / 1439 / 138.64** / 0.35** / 0.09** / 3.87** / 6.42** / 6.13* / 1053419132**
Replication / 3.111 / 1344.1 / 1472 / 23.08 / 0.06 / 0.00028 / 0.6886 / 0.702 / 3.914 / 159828761
Error / 2.869 / 956.4 / 1214 / 41.81 / 0.11 / 0.0227 / 0.828 / 1.681 / 2.45 / 113735589
Grand Mean / 21.36 / 297.58 / 257.34 / 35.83 / 1.80 / 2.82 / 19.91 / 17.31 / 13.05 / 102619.33

Where:** highly significant at (0.01), * significant at 0.05 level, number of interned (NIN), number of stalks per plot (NSP), stalk height (SH), cane weight (CW), single stalk weight (SSW), stalk girth (SG), Brix % at stalk bottom (Bot), Brix % at stalk middle (Middle), Brix % at top of stalk (Top) and stalk population per hectar (SPHa)

Table 2. Genotypic Variance, Phenotypic Variance Genotypic standard deviation (GSD), Phenotypic standard deviation (PSD), Genotypic Coefficient of variation (GCV), Phenotypic Coefficient of variation (PCV), Heritability (h2), Estimation of Genetic Advance (EGA) and Estimation of Genetic Advance over the population mean (EGA/P) result of fourteen traits of 10 exotic commercial Sugarcane varieties in Kuraz Research station

Source / NIN / NSP / SH / CW / SSW / SG / Bot / Middle / Top / SPHa / CYHa
Genotypic Variance / 0.59 / 2634 / 75 / 32.27 / 0.08 / 0.03 / 1.02 / 1.58 / 1.23 / 313227847.7 / 28551
Phenotypic Variance / 3.46 / 3590.4 / 1289 / 74.09 / 0.19 / 0.05 / 1.84 / 3.26 / 3.67 / 426963436.7 / 219185
GSD / 0.77 / 51.32 / 8.66 / 5.68 / 0.29 / 0.15 / 1.01 / 1.26 / 1.11 / 17698.24 / 168.97
PSD / 1.86 / 59.92 / 35.90 / 8.61 / 0.43 / 0.21 / 1.36 / 1.81 / 1.92 / 20663.09 / 468.17
GCV / 3.59 / 17.25 / 3.37 / 15.86 / 15.93 / 5.35 / 5.06 / 7.26 / 8.49 / 17.25 / 9.25
PCV / 8.70 / 20.14 / 13.95 / 24.02 / 24.11 / 7.56 / 6.82 / 10.44 / 14.69 / 20.14 / 25.62
Heritability / 17.02 / 73.36 / 5.82 / 43.57 / 43.65 / 50.11 / 55.07 / 48.46 / 33.37 / 73.36 / 13.03
EGA / 65.18 / 9055.48 / 430.33 / 772.48 / 39.00 / 22.02 / 154.01 / 180.27 / 131.82 / 3122714.24 / 12562.70
EGA/P / 305.15 / 3043.01 / 167.22 / 2155.80 / 2168.03 / 780.29 / 773.51 / 1041.66 / 1009.82 / 3043.01 / 687.55

Mean Comparison

As indicated in table 4 highest cane yield per hectare were recorded for C132/81(2410 Q/ha), SP70/1284 (2063.1Q/ha) and C86/12 (2030Q/ha). The highest Sugar content average Brix were recorded for B78/505 (18.54), C90/501(17.95) and C86/165 (17.87). Highest estimated sugar yield (10% of cane yield) were recorded for C132/81(241 Q/ha), SP70/1284 (206.31Q/ha) and C86/12 (203Q/ha).

Table 4. Mean Comparison Cane Yield per Hectare and Hand Refractometer Result

Varieties / Cane Yield (Q/Ha) / Estimated Sugar Yield(Q/Ha) / Rank / Varieties / Av Brix
C132/81 / 2410 / 241 / 1 / B78/505 / 18.54
SP70/1284 / 2063.1 / 206.31 / 2 / C90/501 / 17.95
C86/12 / 2030 / 203 / 3 / C86/165 / 17.87
NCO334 / 2003 / 200.3 / 4 / C1051/73 / 17.39
B52/298 / 1991 / 199.1 / 5 / C120/78 / 17.17
C90/501 / 1957 / 195.7 / 6
C86/165 / 1853 / 185.3 / 7 / C132/81 / 16.93
8 / B52/298 / 16.92
C86/56 / 1681 / 168.1 / 9 / B80/250 / 16.69
C120/78 / 1541 / 154.1 / 10 / SP70/1284 / 16.25
C1051/73 / 1531 / 153.1 / 11 / NCO334 / 15.89
B80/250 / 1435 / 143.5 / 12 / C86/12 / 15.63
B78/505 / 1431 / 143.1 / 13 / C86/56 / 13.84
Grand Mean / 2043.87 / 204.4 / Grand Mean / 17.78

Conclusion and Recommendation

The study revealed that highest cane yield per hectare were recorded for C132/81(2410 Q/ha), SP70/1284 (2063.1Q/ha) and C86/12 (2030Q/ha). Moreover highest estimated sugar yield (10% of cane yield) were recorded for C132/81 (241 Q/ha), SP70/1284 (206.31Q/ha) and C86/12 (203 Q/ha). Therefore, it is recommended that these three exotic commercial Varieties that perform first second and third C132/81, SP70/1284 and C86/12 respectively are recommended for commercial cane production at Kuraz Sugar Project based on the study result found in these experiment.

Reference

Akwilin, J.P. and T.T. Yasuo, 1998. Sugarcane production, processing and marketing in Tanzania. Department of Crop Science and Production, Sokaine University of Agriculture.

Bissessur D., R.A.E. Tilney-Bassett, L.C.Y. Lim Shin Chong, R. Domaingue and M.H.R.Julien. 2000. Family x Environment and Genotype x Environment Interactions for Sugarcane Across two Contrasting Marginal Environments in Mauritius. Printed in Great Britain. Expl. Agric., Vol 36, pp. 101-114

Burton GW, and Devane EH (1953). Estimating heritability in tall Fescue(Festuca arundinacea) from replicated clonal materials. AgronomyJournal 45: 487-488.

Chen J.C.P. and Chung C.C. 1993. Cane Sugar Handbook: a manual for cane sugar manufacturers and chemists. 12th ed. New York

Cochran WG, and Cox M (1957). Experimental designs. John Wiley and Sons, Inc,New York. pp.611.

Dabholkar, A.R., 1992. Elements of Biometrical Genetics. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, India, pp: 431

Feyissa Tadesse and Zinaw Dilnesaw 2014, Genetic Variability, Heritability and Character Association of Twelve Sugar CaneVarieties in Finchaa Sugar Estate West Wolega Zone Oromia Region of Ethiopia, International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol.Sci. 1(7): (2014): 131–137

Feyissa Tadesse, Tadesse Negi, Abiy Getaneh, Zinaw Dilnesaw, Netsanet Ayele andYeshmebet Teferi 2014., Genetic Variability and Heritability of Ten Exotic SugarCane Genotypes at Wonji Sugar Estate of Ethiopia, Global Advanced Research Journal of Physical and Applied Sciences Vol. 3 (4)

Kassa Hundito. 2010. Hand Book of Laboratory Methods and Chemical Control for Ethiopian Sugar Factories. Apple Printing Press; Addis Ababa.

Mangelsdorf, A. J. (1950). Sugarcane as seen from Hawaii. Econ. Bot. 4: 150-176.

Nair NV, Somarajan KG and Balasundaram N (1980). Geneticvariability, heritability and genetic advance in Saccharumofficinarum.Int. Sugarcane J. XXX I I: 275-276.

Punia, MS. 1982. Studies on variability, heritability and genetic advance of some quality attributes in sugarcane.Indian Sugar 31:911-914.

Rafiq M., AA Chattha, MR Mian, MS Anwar, Z Mahmood and J Iqbal. 2006. Ratooning Potential of different sugarcane genotypes under Faisalabad conditions. J. Sugarcane Research Institute, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad. J. Agric. Res., 44(4): 269-275.

Rewati R Chaudhary2000/2001Genetic Variability and Heritability in SugarcaneSugarcane Research Programme, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Jitpur, Bara Nepal Agric. Res. J., Vol. 4 & 5, 2000/2001

Rewati R Chaudhary and Bal K Joshi 2005, Correlation and Path Coefficient Analyses in Sugarcane Nepal Agric. Res. J. Vol. 6, 2005

Robinson HF, Comstock RE, Harvey VH (1949). Estimates of heritability and degree of dominance in corn. Agron. J., 41: 353-359.

Singh, RK, DN Singh, SK Singh and HN Singh. 1994.Genetic variability and correlation studies in foreign commercial hybrids of sugarcane. Agric. Sci. Dig.,Karnal 14:103-107.

Sundara, B. 2000. SUGARCANE CULTIVATION. VIKAS Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.