Register      Login
Crop and Pasture Science Crop and Pasture Science Society
Plant sciences, sustainable farming systems and food quality
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > CP > CP08312
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 60(6)

Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 2. Strategies for the adoption of controlled traffic

A. L. Garside A D , M. J. Bell B and B. G. Robotham C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture.

A BSES LTD, c/-CSIRO, PMB Aitkenvale, Townsville, Qld 4814, Australia.

B Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, PO Box 23, Kingaroy, Qld 4610, Australia.

C Scan Consulting, 5 Ernie Twyford St, Bundaberg, Qld 4670, Australia.

D Corresponding author. Email: Alan.Garside@csiro.au

Crop and Pasture Science 60(6) 544-554 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP08312
Submitted: 15 September 2008  Accepted: 3 March 2009   Published: 12 June 2009

Abstract

Controlled traffic (matching wheel and row spacing) is being promoted as a means to manage soil compaction in the Australian sugar industry. However, machinery limitations dictate that wider row spacings than the standard 1.5-m single row will need to be adopted to incorporate controlled traffic and many growers are reluctant to widen row spacing for fear of yield penalties. To address these concerns, contrasting row configuration and planting density combinations were investigated for their effect on cane and sugar yield in large-scale experiments in the Gordonvale, Tully, Ingham, Mackay, and Bingera (near Bundaberg) sugarcane-growing regions of Queensland, Australia. The results showed that sugarcane possesses a capacity to compensate for different row configurations and planting densities through variation in stalk number and individual stalk weight. Row configurations ranging from 1.5-m single rows (the current industry standard) to 1.8-m dual rows (50 cm between duals), 2.1-m dual (80 cm between duals) and triple (65 cm between triples) rows, and 2.3-m triple rows (65 cm between triples) produced similar yields. Four rows (50 cm apart) on a 2.1-m configuration (quad rows) produced lower yields largely due to crop lodging, while a 1.8-m single row configuration produced lower yields in the plant crop, probably due to inadequate resource availability (water stress/limited radiation interception).

The results suggest that controlled traffic can be adopted in the Australian sugar industry by changing from a 1.5-m single row to 1.8-m dual row configuration without yield penalty. Further, the similar yields obtained with wider row configurations (2 m or greater with multiple rows) in these experiments emphasise the physiological and environmental plasticity that exists in sugarcane. Controlled traffic can be implemented with these wider row configurations (>2 m), although it will be necessary to carry out expensive modifications to the current harvester and haul-out equipment.

There were indications from this research that not all cultivars were suited to configurations involving multiple rows. The results suggest that consideration be given to assessing clones with different growth habits under a range of row configurations to find the most suitable plant types for controlled traffic cropping systems.

Additional keywords: multiple rows, row configuration, soil compaction, cane harvesters.


Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper was carried as part of the Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture program and was funded by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, BSES LTD (formerly the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations), and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Technical assistance was provided by John Berthelsen, Win Chappell, and Neil Halpin. We also thank the canegrowers who provided the experiment sites: Tom and Gaynor Watters (Gordonvale), BSES Tully Experiment Station (Tully), Morris Brothers (Ingham), Charles McLennan (Mackay), and Bundaberg Sugar Limited (Bingera). Helpful comments on the manuscript were provided by Drs Peter Allsopp, Bob Lawn, and Geoff-Inman Bamber.


References


Braunack MJ, Peatey TC (1999) Changes in soil physical properties after one pass of a sugarcane haul-out unit. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 39, 733–742.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Braunack MV, McGarry DC, Crees LR, Halpin N (1999) Strategic tillage for planting sugarcane. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 21, 101–107. open url image1

BSES (1984) Method 2, Pol – determination in juice (revised April 2001). In ‘The standard laboratory manual for Australian sugar mills. Volume 2, Analytical methods and tables’. pp. 1–2. (Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations: Brisbane, Australia)

Garside AL (2004) Wet Coast Breakers. BSES Bulletin, Issue 2, 24–26.

Garside AL, Bell MJ (2009a) Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 1. Responses in fumigated and non-fumigated soil. Crop & Pasture Science 60, 532–543. open url image1

Garside AL, Bell MJ (2009b) Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 3. Responses with different cultivars. Crop & Pasture Science 60, 555–565. open url image1

Garside AL, Bell MJ, Berthelsen JE, Halpin NV (2000) Effects of breaks and nitrogen fertiliser on shoot development, maintenance and crop yield in an irrigated plant crop of Q117. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 22, 61–67. open url image1

Garside AL, Bell MJ, Cunningham G, Berthelsen J, Halpin N (1999) Fumigation and rotation effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 21, 69–78. open url image1

Garside AL, Berthelsen JE, Pankhurst CE, Blair BL, Magarey RC, D’Amato C, Bull JI (2002) Effect of breaks from sugarcane monoculture and biocides on the growth and yield of a subsequent sugarcane crop. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 24, 82–91. open url image1

Garside AL, Salter B, Kidd J (2008) Soil compaction is a major issue operating against the development of sustainable sugarcane cropping systems. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Agronomy (CD-ROM). 14, open url image1

Hurney AP, Reghenzani JR, Chapman LS, Spry E (1979) No cane yield increase from dual row planting. Cane Growers Quarterly Bulletin 42, 67–71. open url image1

Isbell RF (1996) ‘Australian soil classification.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic.)

Muchow RC , Robertson MJ , Keating BA (1997) Limits to the Australian sugar industry: climatic and biological factors. In ‘Intensive sugarcane production: meeting the challenges beyond 2000’. (Eds BA Keating, JR Wilson) pp. 37–54. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)

Ridge DR, Hurney AP (1994) A review of row spacing research in the Australian sugar industry. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 16, 63–69. open url image1

Roach BT (1976) Observations on the effect of row spacing on sugarcane yield. Proceedings of the Queensland Society of Sugarcane Technologists 43, 95–101. open url image1

Roach BT (1977) Evaluation of the effects of dual row planting of sugarcane. Proceedings of the Queensland Society of Sugarcane Technologists 44, 131–137. open url image1

Robotham BG (2000) The yellow brick road to the sugar mill. In ‘Proceedings of the Australian Cane Growers Convention’. Cairns, Qld. pp. 95–101. (Canegrowers: Brisbane, Qld)

Singh G, Chapman SC, Jackson PA, Lawn RJ (2002) Lodging reduces sucrose accumulation of sugarcane in the wet and dry tropics. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53, 1183–1196.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1