
R.A. Gilbert, J.D. Miller, J.C. Comstock, B. Glaz, and S.J. Edme2
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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. |
||||||||
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) |
||||||||
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 |
|||||||||
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. Reviewed November 2010. This publication is also part of the Florida Sugarcane Handbook, an electronic publication of the Agronomy Department. For more information, contact the editor of the Sugarcane Handbook, Ronald W. Rice (rwr@ufl.edu). Please visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
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. Nick T. Place,
Dean.