Variations in growth performance and nitrogen uptake of sugarcane cultivars under rain-fed conditions

 35 1.87bcd 4.3bc 220.4de 0.80cd 2.2bcd 
Ni15 36 1.40d 4.7bc 216.7e 0.73cd 2.1cd 
Ni17 34 2.00a-d 4.3bc 224.0b-e 0.90bc 2.3b 
Ni21 42 1.57cd 3.7c 225.1b-e 0.87bcd 2.4ab 
Ni22 31 1.93a-d 5.0bc 236.7a-d 0.70d 2.0d 
Ni25 36 1.63bcd 4.0c 223.2cde 0.77cd 2.2bcd 
Ni27 28 2.17abc 5.0bc 250.9ab 1.03b 2.4ab 
Ni28 31 2.00a-d 5.0bc 244.3a-d 0.86bcd 2.2bcd 
Ni29 26 1.53d 5.0bc 223.5cde 0.90bc 2.3bc 
CV% - 19.3 19.1 6.8 13.5 6.3 
Significance 
level 
- * ** * ** ** 
Note: * and ** mean non-significant and significant at P< 0.05 and P< 0.01, respectively. Different small letters in the same 
column show significance between sugarcane varieties at the same water levels at P< 0.05 by LSD. 
Table 2. SPAD, stalk dry weight, leaf dry weight, total dry weight, total nitrogen uptake, and cane yield of sugarcane varieties 
under rain-fed conditions 
Varieties SPAD 
Stalk dry 
weight 
(g plant-1) 
Leaf dry weight 
(g plant-1) 
Total dry 
weight 
(g plant-1) 
Total N uptake 
(g plant-1) 
Cane yield 
(tones ha-1) 
NiF3 42.2c 585.3a 201.1ab 786.4a 4.0ab 138.5ab 
NiF8 48.5a 472.1abc 238.5a 710.6abc 3.7abc 100.1bc 
Ni9 44.6abc 418.0ab 234.5a 652.5a-d 3.8ab 114.3abc 
Ni12 44.8abc 371.8bc 172.0b 543.8c-f 3.1bcd 95.0c 
Ni15 45.9abc 353.5c 154.0b 507.5def 3.0bcd 94.2c 
Ni17 42.9c 383.7abc 212.4ab 596.0b-f 3.2bcd 108.6abc 
Ni21 44.2abc 276.6c 160.0b 436.6f 2.8cd 87.0c 
Ni22 48.0ab 434.7abc 203.5ab 638.2a-e 3.7abc 98.3c 
Ni25 42.9c 302.5c 157.1b 459.6ef 2.7d 83.8c 
Ni27 43.1c 528.3a 238.9a 767.2ab 4.3a 142.1a 
Ni28 43.0c 405.4abc 197.8ab 603.2a-f 3.5a-d 116.3abc 
Ni29 43.6bc 410.3bc 205.5ab 615.8a-f 3.8ab 122.7abc 
CV% 5.9 19.5 18.6 18.7 16.1 22.0 
Significance 
level 
Ns ** * * * * 
Note: ns, *, and ** mean non-significant, significant at P< 0.05 and P< 0.01, respectively. Different small letters in the same column 
show significant differences between sugarcane varieties at the same water levels at P< 0.05 by LSD. 
Dinh Thai Hoang et al. (2020) 
https://vjas.vnua.edu.vn/ 577 
Table 3. Correlation of agronomical and growth parameters with biomass production (n = 36) 
Parameters Total dry weight Cane yield 
Stalk number 0.54** 0.30ns 
Stalk height 0.56** 0.41* 
Stalk diameter 0.16ns 0.47** 
Stalk weight 0.56** 0.58** 
Leaf area 0.83** 0.60** 
Leaf dry weight 0.88** 0.72** 
Shoot dry weight 0.98** 0.87** 
Total N uptake 0.91** 0.89** 
Note: ns, *, and ** mean non-significant, significant at P< 0.05 and P< 0.01, respectively. 
2012; Dinh et al., 2017a; Ethan et al., 2016; 
Jangpromma et al., 2010; Robertson et al., 1999; 
Silva et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2010). In this 
study, the decrease of plant height increasing rate 
was recorded during the most severe water-
deficit period of 81 to 120 DAT, which led to a 
lower plant height of water-shortage treatment in 
comparison to that of control treatment from 81 
DAT until the end of the experiment. SPAD 
seemed less sensitive to water-shortage than 
plant height. The lower SPAD of stress treatment 
was observed in a later period from 102 to 112 
DAT, then becoming similar to SPAD of control 
treatment from 123 DAT (Figure 2d). However, 
the difference in plant height and SPAD after the 
experimental period between the two water 
treatments was not significant. A previous study 
suggested that starting irrigating when pF 
increases to 2.8 may avoid plant growth 
reduction (Dinh et al., 2019). Therefore, water 
shortage (totally around 20 days) in this study is 
too short to have any significant impact on the 
growth of sugarcane. Moreover, the disturbance 
from rainfall, especially during the later period of 
the experiment, may give sugarcane plants the 
chance to recover. Jangpromma et al. (2010) and 
Dinh et al. (2017b) also found the recovery of 
SPAD after the drought stress period. 
Jangpromma et al. (2012) agreed that mild 
drought stress during the short period from 90 to 
100 days after planting did not have any 
noticeable effects on the relative growth rate of 
sugarcane plant height. 
Variation in agronomical parameters, 
biomass, and N uptake of sugarcane varieties 
In this study, variation in growth, yield 
component, biomass, cane yield as well as total 
N uptake was found among investigated 
varieties. Genetic variation in leaf area, cane 
yield and yield components, partial and total 
biomass was also found in sugarcane varieties 
by; Dinh et al. (2018); Li et al. (2017); Jackson 
et al. (2016); Luo et al. (2014); Basnayake et al. 
(2012); and Ramesh (2000). The evidence of 
variation in N uptake of sugarcane varieties was 
reported by Schumann et al. (1998) and Ranjith 
and Meinzer (1997). Under pot conditions, Dinh 
et al. (2018) did not found any differences in total 
N uptakes among five similar sugarcane 
varieties, NiF3, Ni9, Ni17, Ni21, and Ni22, in 
both drought stress and non-stress treatments. In 
this study, the significant difference of N uptake 
was found only between NiF3 and Ni21; 
whereas, no difference was found among these 
two varieties with the other three varieties. 
In this study, total dry matter accumulation 
had a positive correlation with stalk number, 
stalk height, and stalk weight (Table 3). Tena et 
al. (2016) and Silva et al. (2008) also found a 
positive correlation among yield components 
(stalk number, stalk height, stalk diameter and 
stalk weight) and productivity under water-
shortage and normal irrigation conditions, 
respectively. It is suggested that sugarcane with 
high stalk number, stalk height, stalk weight, and 
leaf area has high potential for high dry matter 
accumulation. Moreover, because of the 
correlation coefficients of stalk number and stalk 
Variations in growth performance and nitrogen uptake of sugarcane cultivars under rain-fed conditions 
578 Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences 
weight with total dry weight were almost similar 
(r = 0.54** and r = 0.56**, respectively), the 
difference in total dry weight among varieties of 
stalk number and stalk weight type was not 
noticeable. This point of view is in line with 
Ehara et al. (1994). In the case of cane yield, the 
most contribution came from stalk weight (r = 
0.58**). In this study, both leaf dry weight and 
stalk dry weight directly contributed to total plant 
dry weight and cane yield with a higher 
correlation coefficient of stalk dry weight (r = 
0.98** and r = 0.87**) than that of dry leaf 
weight (r = 0.88** and r = 0.72**) with total dry 
weight and cane yield, respectively. It means that 
stalk has a larger contribution to total biomass 
production and cane yield than leaf. Furthermore, 
another finding of this study is that there were 
positive correlations between total N uptake and 
total dry matter accumulation and between total 
N uptake and cane yield. It agreed and supported 
the suggestion of Dinh et al. (2017a) that higher 
N uptake could support better biomass and yield 
performance of sugarcane under both irrigation 
and water shortage conditions. Under the same N 
application conditions, better N uptake or N use 
efficiency could support better growth and crop 
yield (Acreche, 2017; Calif & Edgecombe, 2015). 
Higher N use efficiency could also help plants 
attain higher ability to confront water deficit (Dinh 
et al., 2017a). From this study, NiF3 and Ni27 
could be introduced as the promising varieties for 
higher growth performance and N uptake under 
rain-fed conditions. 
Conclusions 
The results indicated that there were no 
significant reductions in the growth of sugarcane 
under rain-fed conditions compared to irrigated 
conditions. Under rain-fed conditions, the 
genetic variation was found among twelve 
sugarcane varieties in leaf area, yield 
components, partial and total biomass, total 
nitrogen uptake, and cane yield. The correlation 
coefficients among agronomical and growth 
parameters were positive and significant. Better 
growth performance of sugarcane could be 
supported by higher nitrogen uptake under rain-
fed conditions. NiF3 and Ni27 were the best 
varieties for growth performance and nitrogen 
uptake under rain-fed conditions. 
References 
Abayomi Y. A. (2001). Nitrogen use efficiency and drought 
tolerant capacity of two commercial sugarcane 
cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science and 
Technology. 9-11: 9-15. 
Acreche M. M. (2017). Nitrogen-, water- and radiation-use 
efficiencies affected by sugarcane breeding in 
Argentina. Plant Breeding. 1-8. DOI: 
10.1111/pbr.12440. 
Barbosa A. M., Guidorizi K. A., Catuchi T. A., Marques T. 
A., Ribeiro R. V. & Souza G. M. (2015). Biomass and 
bioenergy partitioning of sugarcane plants under water 
deficit. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 37: 142. 
Basnayake J., Jackson P. A., Inman-Bamber N. G. & 
Lakshmanan P. (2012). Sugarcane for water-limited 
environments. Genetic variation in cane yield and sugar 
content in response to water stress. Journal of 
Experimental Botany. 63: 6023-6033. 
Begum M. K. & Islam M. S. (2012). Effect of drought stress 
on yield and yield components of sugarcane. Journal of 
Agroforestry and Environment. 6: 105-109. 
Calif D. & Edgecombe M. (2015). Study shows nitrogen 
use efficiency trait increase biomass of sugarcane. 
Retrieved from, 2017. 
Dinh T. H, Kaewpradit W., Jogloy S., Vorasoot N. & 
Patanothai A. (2014). Nutrient uptake of peanut 
genotypes with different levels of drought tolerance 
under midseason drought. Turkish Journal of 
Agriculture and Forestry. 38: 495-505. 
Dinh T. H., Watanabe K., Takaragawa H., Nakabaru M. & 
Kawamitsu Y. (2017a). Photosynthetic response and 
nitrogen use efficiency of sugarcane under drought 
stress conditions with different nitrogen application 
levels. Plant Production Science. 20: 412-422. 
Dinh T. H., Watanabe K., Takaragawa H. & Kawamitsu Y. 
(2017b). Effects of drought stress at early growth stage 
on response of sugarcane to different nitrogen 
application. Sugar Tech. 20: 420-430. 
Dinh T. H., Takaragawa H. & Kawamitsu Y. (2018). 
Nitrogen use efficiency and drought tolerant ability of 
various sugarcane varieties under drought stress at 
early growth stage. Plant Production Science. DOI: 
10.1080/1343943X.2018.1540277. 
Dinh T. H., Takaragawa H., Watanabe K., Nakabaru M. & 
Kawamitsu Y. (2019). Leaf photosynthetic response to 
change of soil moisture content in sugarcane. Sugar 
Dinh Thai Hoang et al. (2020) 
https://vjas.vnua.edu.vn/ 579 
Tech. DOI:10.1007/s12355-019-00735-8. 
Doorenbos J. & Pruitt W. O. (1992). Calculation of crop 
water requirements. In: Crop water requirements. FAO 
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24 (Roma). 1-65. 
Ehara H., Tsuchiya M. & Takamura T. (1994). Growth and 
dry matter production of sugar cane in warm temperate 
zone of Japan. Japanese Journal of Tropical 
Agriculture. 38: 51-58. 
Ethan S., Olagoke O. & Yunusa A. (2016). Effect of deficit 
irrigation on growth and yield of sugarcane. Direct 
Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science. 4: 
122-126. 
FAO (2018). Chapter 2- FAO Penman-Monteith equation. 
Retrieved from  
/X0490E/x0490e06.htm on January 10, 2018. 
Hossain M. A., Ueno M., Maeda K. & Kawamitsu Y. 
(2005). Potential evapotranspiration and crop 
coefficient estimates for sugarcane in Okinawa. 
Journal of Agricultural Meteorology. 60: 573-576. 
Jackson P., Basnayake J., Inman-Bamber N.G., 
Lakshmanan P., Natarajan S. & Stokes C. (2016). 
Genetic variation in transpiration efficiency and 
relationships between whole plant and leaf gas exchange 
measurements in Saccharum spp. and related 
germplasm. Journal of Experimental Botany. 67: 861-
871. 
Jangpromma N., Songrsi P., Thammasiririak S. & Jaisil P. 
(2010). Rapid assessment of chlorophyll content in 
sugarcane using a SPAD chlorophyll meter across 
different water stress conditions. Asian Journal of 
Plant Science. 9: 368-374. 
Jangpromma N., Thammasirirak S., Jaisil P. & Songsri P. 
(2012). Effects of drought and recovery from drought 
stress on above ground and root growth, and water use 
efficiency in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). 
Australian Journal of Crop Science. 6: 1298-1304. 
Li C., Jackson P., Lu X., Xu C., Cai Q., Basnayake J., 
Lakshmanan P., Ghannoum O. & Fan Y. (2017). 
Genotypic variation in transpiration efficiency due to 
differences in photosynthetic capacity among 
sugarcane-related clones. Journal of Experimental 
Botany. 68: 2377-2385. 
Lopes M., Araus J. L., van Heerden P. D. R. & Foyer C. H. 
(2011). Enhancing drought tolerance in C4 crops. 
Journal of Experimental Botany. 62: 3135- 3153. 
Luo J., Pan Y. B., Xu L., Zhang Y., Zhang H., Chen R. & 
Que Y. (2014). Photosynthetic and canopy 
characteristics of different varieties at the early 
elongation stage and their relationships with the cane 
yield in sugarcane. The Scientific World Journal. DOI: 
10.1155/2014/707095. 
Okinawa Prefectural Government, Department of 
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2015). Cultivation 
Manual for Sugarcane. Retrieved from 
site/norin/togyo/kibi/mobile/ 
documents/07saibaigoyomi.pdf on October 12, 2017. 
Ranjith S. & Meinzer F. C. (1997). Physiological correlates 
of variation in nitrogen-use efficiency in two contrasting 
sugarcane cultivars. Crop Science. 37: 818-825. 
Schroeder B. L., Salter B., Moody P. W., Skocaj D. M. & 
Thorburn P. J. (2014). Evolving nature of nitrogen 
management in the Australian sugar Industry. In: Bell 
M. J. (Ed.). A review of nitrogen use efficiency in 
sugarcane. Sugar Research Australia Ltd. eLibary pp.15-
88. Retrieved from  
on December 1, 2015. 
Schumann A. W., Meyer J. H. & Nair S. (1998). Evidence 
for different nitrogen use efficiencies of selected 
sugarcane varieties. Proceedings of South African 
Sugar Technologists’ Association. 72: 77-80. 
Silva M. A., Jifon J. L., Silva J. A. G. & Sharma V. (2007). 
Use of physiological parameters as fast tools to screen 
for drought tolerance in sugarcane. Brazilian Journal 
of Plant Physiology. 19: 193-201. 
Silva M. A., Silva J. A. G., Enciso J., Sharma V. & Jifon J. 
(2008). Yield components as indicators of drought 
tolerance of sugarcane. Scientia Agricola (Piracicaba, 
Braz.). 65: 620-627. 
Tena E., Mekbib F. & Ayana A. (2016). Correlation and path 
coefficient analyses in sugarcane genotypes of Ethiopia. 
American Journal of Plant Sciences. 7: 1490-1497. 
Waclawovsky A. J., Sato P. M., Lembke C. G., Moore P. H. 
& Souza G. M. (2010). Sugarcane for bioenergy 
production: an assessment of yield and regulation of 
sucrose content. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 8: 263-276. 
Zhao D., Barry G. & Comstock J. C. (2010). Sugarcane 
response to water-deficit stress during early growth on 
organic and sand soils. American Journal of 
Agricultural and Biological Science. 5: 403-414.