|  |
Performance of Foreign Cane Germplasm on Florida Sandlands 1
R.A. Gilbert, J.D. Miller, J.C. Comstock, B. Glaz, and S.J. Edme2Introduction
This article was first published in the 2007 Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists.In Florida, sugarcane is grown on both organic (78%) and mineral "sandland" soils (22%). The Canal Point (CP) breeding program has been very successful in producing sugarcane cultivars for organic soils in Florida (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SC083 ) . However, the CP program has been less successful in increasing sandland yields, and growers on sandland soils have expressed interest in testing germplasm ("foreign cane") released from programs specifically targeting mineral soils. This EDIS document summarizes field studies established to test foreign cane on Florida sandlands. A set of three experiments was established to evaluate 50 foreign cane genotypes from 11 countries for yield and disease resistance.
Methodology
In experiment 1, 50 clones were planted on a sandy soil at Hilliard Brothers Farms (Table 1 ). This experiment included 21 clones from the USA (CP, TCP, LCP, US, L), ten clones from China (Yuetang, CGS), five from Colombia (CC, EPC) three from New Guinea (NG), three from Taiwan (ROC), two from the Dominican Republic (CR), two from India (IND, Green German) and one each from Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines. In all experiments, sugarcane yields were recorded 12 months after planting by established methods (Gilbert et al., 2006). Field observations of disease were recorded in the spring of each year.Following plant-cane harvest in experiment 1, 23 high-yielding clones were selected to advance to experiment 2 (Table 2 ). These clones were planted in single-replicate plots at three mineral soil locations. Field disease observations were recorded in May, 1999 and final plant-cane yield data were recorded in November, 1999.
Following plant cane harvest of experiment 2, eight high-yielding clones were selected to replant at the same three mineral soil locations in experiment 3 in November, 1999 (Table 3 ). Field disease and yield data were collected for both the plant-cane (P) and first-ratoon (R) crops in experiment 3. In all experiments, the economic index used by the CP breeding program (Deren et al., 1995) was calculated to rank clones. In experiment 3 clones were ranked based on the sum of plant-cane and first-ratoon economic indices (Table 3 ).
Results and Discussion
The Yuetang clones in experiment 1 (Table 1 ) were notable for their large stalk weight and low plant population. Yields of Yuetang 85-1253 were 15 tons/acre of cane more than the second-ranked cultivar. Six Yuetang clones were in the top 13 for cane yield. The large stalk size recorded for the Chinese clones may be indicative of their selection for ease of manual harvesting in China. Economic indices of 11 of 13 clones with CP parentage were in the upper half, with none ranking lower than number 32. LCP 86-454 was notable for high plant population and low stalk weight. Clones originating from the USA tended to have high sucrose concentrations, with 12 of the top 14 sucrose concentration values recorded for these clones. Based on economic index and phenotype, 23 clones (italicized in Table 1 ) were selected for further evaluation in experiment 2. These included 14 clones from the USA, five from China and one each from Argentina, Colombia, India and New Guinea.The six most profitable clones in experiment 2 all had at least one CP parent (Table 2 ). Brown rust (caused by Puccinia melanocephala Syd.) was observed in 14 of 23 clones in the field. Rust is a disease with economic impact on sugarcane in Florida and is of particular concern for growers on mineral soils. LCP 85-384 and LCP 86-454 were notable for their high plant populations and low stalk weight, while the Yuetang clones exhibited the opposite growth pattern. Clones with USA origin again had the highest sucrose contents on Florida mineral soils. The top ten sucrose concentration values were recorded for these clones. Four of the Yuetang clones were in the top ten in terms of cane yield: however, their low sucrose content reduced their economic index relative to CP clones. The seven clones selected for inclusion with commercial check CP 78-1628 in experiment 3 are italicized in Table 2 .
Genotypes included in experiment 3 (Table 3 ) were CP 68-350 (used in Texas and Argentina), CP 78-1628 (check, #1 Florida cultivar on sand), CP 73-1547 (check, previous #2 Florida cultivar on sand), LCP 85-384 (#1 cultivar in Louisiana), LCP 86-454 (Louisiana cultivar), TCP 88-3461 (promising genotype in Texas), US 90-0026 (borer-resistant) and TCP 87-3388 (early-sugar cultivar). CP 68-350 produced significantly greater tonnage than the LCP, TCP and US clones in both plant- and first-ratoon crops. TCP 87-3388 was notable for poor tonnage in both crops. The three CP clones selected in Florida ranked higher in tonnage, sucrose yield and economic index than the five foreign canes in both the plant and first-ratoon crops. Rust was observed in the field on the three CP clones as well as on US 90-0026 and TCP 87-3388.
Conclusion
The foreign cane cultivars tested were inferior to the CP clones when grown on mineral soils of Florida. One possible explanation is that Florida mineral soils cropped to sugarcane are generally classified as Entisols or Spodosols Entisols or Spodosols with extremely high sand contents (> 90% sand), whereas the foreign canes tested were selected in mineral soils with higher clay contents. Thus, increased selection efforts of CP germplasm on sandy soils may be a more effective strategy than testing of commercial foreign canes on sandland. However foreign cane should continue to be imported for use as parental material in the basic breeding program to improve sugarcane biomass yields and disease resistance.References
Deren, C.W., Alvarez, J. and Glaz, B. 1995. Use of economic criteria for selecting clones in a sugarcane breeding program. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 21:437-447.Gilbert, R.A., Shine Jr. J.M., Miller, J.D., Rice, R.W. and Rainbolt, C.R. 2006. The effect of genotype, environment and time of harvest on sugarcane yields in Florida, USA. Field Crops Res. 95:156-170.
Tables
Table 1. Yield and economic index data for 50 clones recorded in 1998 plant-cane (Experiment 1).
RANK
VARIETY
COUNTRY
STNO†
STWT
SPT
TCA
TSA
ECON. INDEX
of origin
Stalks/acre
lb/stalk
Sucrose lb/ton
Cane ton/acre
Sucrose ton/acre
$/acre
1
FAM 79-432
Argentina
41961
3.33
202
71
7.2
1055
2
CP 68-0350
USA
29172
3.65
230
54
6.3
1052
3
YUETANG 85-1253
China
30609
5.58
182
86
7.8
974
4
CP 70-1133
USA
44260
3.04
196
68
6.7
923
5
L 90-191
USA
47709
2.05
227
50
5.6
873
6
LCP 85-384
USA
34345
3.38
206
59
6.1
870
7
YUETANG 81-4364
China
25292
4.18
206
53
5.5
756
8
NG 51-065
New Guinea
30178
3.25
212
49
5.2
739
9
US 90-0026
USA
41818
2.37
210
50
5.2
729
10
HOCP 85-845
USA
39518
2.23
218
45
4.9
702
11
US 93-0017
USA
34201
2.38
225
41
4.6
683
12
TCP 88-3461
USA
35351
2.54
215
45
4.8
679
13
CP 72-1210
USA
31040
2.57
226
40
4.6
674
14
CP 87-1248
USA
33626
2.21
231
39
4.5
673
15
TCP 89-3498
USA
37219
2.33
211
44
4.6
622
16
YUETANG 63-237
China
30752
3.55
190
55
5.2
619
17
YUETANG 59-065
China
25723
4.28
183
57
5.2
565
18
GREEN GERMAN
India
30321
2.61
219
38
4.1
551
19
CC 84-010
Colombia
30034
2.73
203
42
4.3
545
20
MEX 54-81
Mexico
43111
1.89
204
41
4.2
510
21
YUETANG 71-359
China
33626
3.58
175
60
5.2
505
22
US 90-0021
USA
42105
1.84
210
38
4.0
481
23
LCP 86-454
USA
48284
1.94
196
48
4.5
474
24
CP 70-0321
USA
37075
2.21
197
41
4.1
460
25
CP 78-1628
USA
32046
2.63
197
42
4.1
459
26
TCP 87-3388
USA
27016
2.60
208
36
3.7
439
27
NG 96-16
New Guinea
38369
2.22
183
43
4.1
418
28
CP 91-0547
USA
39662
2.13
185
43
4.0
414
29
ROC 12
Taiwan
27878
2.96
192
41
3.9
403
30
ROC 07
Taiwan
34345
3.20
170
55
4.7
398
31
CC 82-28
Colombia
46560
2.21
174
52
4.5
391
32
CP 92-624
USA
26441
2.40
211
32
3.4
381
33
EPC 38-122
Colombia
43398
2.29
170
50
4.3
359
34
ROC 03
Taiwan
29459
2.72
186
40
3.7
336
35
CR 087220
Dominican Rep.
19687
3.37
194
34
3.3
320
36
YUETANG 79-177
China
26729
3.06
178
41
3.7
302
37
YUETANG 54-143
China
25435
2.86
178
37
3.4
296
38
YUETANG 83-271
China
20550
3.90
175
41
3.6
280
39
P-MAG-84-03
Phillipines
24573
2.31
202
29
2.9
269
40
US 93-0016
USA
31327
2.37
178
38
3.3
246
41
IND 82-241
India
19544
3.81
175
38
3.3
237
42
CGS 10 #4
China
28309
3.34
155
48
3.7
173
43
CC 84-57
Colombia
32046
1.75
185
28
2.6
164
44
YUETANG 71-374
China
35638
2.78
150
50
3.8
160
45
US 90-1081
USA
20837
2.61
180
28
2.5
121
46
RB 735220
Brazil
36644
2.50
146
46
3.4
94
47
CR 87-1001
Dominican Rep.
32046
2.40
143
39
2.8
3
48
CC 83-07
Colombia
24861
2.25
156
29
2.2
0
49
US 90-1104
USA
37794
1.81
141
35
2.5
-23
50
NG 77-75CP
New Guinea
30178
1.91
124
29
1.8
-162
LSD 0.05
15700
0.57
32
25
2.5
526
STNO† = stalk number, STWT = stalk weight, SPT = sucrose concentration, TCA = cane yield, TSA = sucrose yield.
Table 2. Yield, economic index and disease incidence data for 23 clones recorded in 1999 plant cane (Experiment 2).
RANK
VARIETY
STNO†
STWT
SPT
TCA
TSA
ECON. INDEX
DISEASE‡
Stalks/acre
Lb/stalk
Surcose lb/ton
Cane ton/acre
Sucrose ton/acre
$/ha
1
CP 73-1547
27156
3.76
194
52
5.1
621
2
CP 68-0350
39520
2.89
186
58
5.4
617
R2x1, R3x1
3
CP 70-1133
36175
2.64
198
46
4.7
593
R1x1
4
TCP 88-3461
33722
3.03
192
53
5.0
592
5
LCP 85-384
44252
1.89
204
41
4.2
507
6
TCP 87-3388
32706
2.74
195
44
4.3
467
R2x1
7
YUETANG 63-237
30253
3.28
179
49
4.4
420
R3x2
8
US 90-0026
34416
3.06
178
51
4.5
413
R2x1
9
HOCP 85-845
34094
2.13
193
35
3.5
365
R2x1
10
CP 87-1248
31219
2.50
191
39
3.7
361
11
US 93-0017
30724
2.29
199
35
3.5
358
R1x1
12
CC 84-010
31740
2.57
185
40
3.7
343
R3x2
13
L 90-191
36646
1.76
206
31
3.2
341
14
GREEN GERMAN
33648
2.50
177
41
3.7
304
R2x2
15
LCP 86-454
46804
1.62
182
38
3.5
288
16
YUETANG 71-359
33474
2.73
169
44
3.8
284
17
YUETANG 81-4364
26487
3.77
170
50
4.1
274
R4x1
18
TCP 89-3498
33400
1.96
177
32
3.0
219
19
YUETANG 85-1253
28494
3.60
152
50
3.9
193
R2x1
20
NG 51-065
25025
3.39
160
42
3.3
155
R3x1
21
FAM 79-432
25521
2.68
172
34
2.9
149
22
CP 70-0321
30204
1.77
176
26
2.3
97
R3x1
23
YUETANG 59-065
19574
2.98
167
29
2.4
62
R2x1, R3x1
LSD0.05
7209
0.68
29
14
1.6
348
†STNO = stalk number, STWT = stalk weight, SPT = sucrose concentration, TCA = cane yield, TSA = sucrose yield.
‡Disease ratings: R = rust, 4 = most severe rating, x 1 indicates number of plots (out of 3)
Table 3. Yield, economic index and disease incidence data recorded in 2000 (plant cane) and 2001 (first ratoon) for eight clones (Experiment 3).
RANK
VARIETY
CROP
STNO†
STWT
SPT
TCA
TSA
EI
DISEASE‡
1
CP 68-350
P
33900
3.1
231
52
6.0
990
R3x1, R2x2, R1x4, SMx1
1
CP 68-350
R
39188
2.3
236
45
5.4
909
R1x1, SMx1
1
CP 68-350
AVG/SUM
36544
2.7
234
48
5.7
1899
2
CP 78-1628(CHECK)
P
38211
2.5
248
46
5.7
1006
R2x4, R1x1
2
CP 78-1628(CHECK)
R
42349
1.9
252
40
5.1
876
2
CP 78-1628(CHECK)
AVG/SUM
40280
2.2
250
43
5.4
1882
3
CP 73-1547(CHECK)
P
27442
3.3
233
45
5.3
840
R3x3, R2x2, R1x4
3
CP 73-1547(CHECK)
R
29675
2.8
259
40
5.3
947
R1x2
3
CP 73-1547(CHECK)
AVG/SUM
28559
3.1
246
43
5.3
1787
4
LCP 85-384
P
45827
1.9
227
43
4.9
745
4
LCP 85-384
R
43690
1.7
261
36
4.7
824
4
LCP 85-384
AVG/SUM
44759
1.8
244
39
4.8
1568
5
LCP 86-454
P
46071
1.7
235
39
4.5
685
5
LCP 86-454
R
44754
1.7
260
37
4.8
851
5
LCP 86-454
AVG/SUM
45413
1.7
247
38
4.7
1536
6
TCP 88-3461
P
30546
2.7
225
40
4.5
651
6
TCP 88-3461
R
32908
2.1
243
34
4.1
641
6
TCP 88-3461
AVG/SUM
31727
2.4
234
37
4.3
1293
7
US 90-0026
P
29809
2.5
224
35
4.0
537
R4x1, R3x2
7
US 90-0026
R
31160
2.2
239
32
4.0
620
R1x1
7
US 90-0026
AVG/SUM
30484
2.4
231
34
4.0
1157
8
TCP 87-3388
P
28568
2.4
225
33
3.7
501
R3x1, R2x3, R1x3
8
TCP 87-3388
R
28736
2.2
256
30
3.9
622
R1x9
8
TCP 87-3388
AVG/SUM
28652
2.3
241
31
3.8
1123
LSD 0.05
P
4726
0.3
19
6
0.8
211
R
4245
0.3
11
5
0.7
173
†STNO = stalk number, STWT = stalk weight, SPT = sucrose concentration, TCA = cane yield, TSA = sucrose yield, EI = economic index, units as in Table 2.
‡Disease ratings: R = rust, 4 = most severe rating, x 1 indicates number of plots (out of 18), SM = smut
Footnotes
1. This document is SS AGR 270, a publication of the Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Published August 2007. This publication is also part of the Florida Sugarcane Handbook, an electronic publication of the Agronomy Department. For more information you may contact the editor of the Sugarcane Handbook, R.A. Gilbert (ragilbert@ufl.edu). Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.2. R.A. Gilbert, Associate Professor, Agronomy Department, Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL: J.D. Miller (formerly) Research Geneticist, USDA-ARS Sugarcane Field Station, Canal Point, FL: J.C. Comstock, Research Plant Pathologist, USDA-ARS Sugarcane Field Station, Canal Point, FL: B. Glaz, Research Agronomist, USDA-ARS Sugarcane Field Station, Canal Point, FL: S. J. Edme, Research Geneticist, USDA-ARS Sugarcane Field Station, Canal Point, FL: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
The use of trade names in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information. UF/IFAS does not guarantee or warranty the products named, and references to them in this publication does not signify our approval to the exclusion of other products of suitable composition.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.
Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.