A. K. Gana et al.

African Journal of General Agriculture 1595-6984/2008 $12.00 + 0.00

Vol. 4, No. 2, June 30, 2008 © 2008 African Studies on Population and Health
Printed in Nigeria http://www.asopah.org

AJGA 2007098/4205

Relationships between chewing sugarcane (Saccharum

officinarum L.) stalk yield and some parameters affected by
fertility and weed control treatments at Badeggi, Nigeria
A. K. Gana*1, J. A. Y. Shebayan2, V. B. Ogunlela2 and E. C. Odion2
1
National Cereals Research Institute, P.M.B. 8, Bida Niger State, Nigeria.
2
Institute of Agricultural Research / Department of Agronomy, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria

(Received December 3, 2007)

ABSTRACT: Field trials were conducted at the upland sugarcane experimental field of NCRI Badeggi in 2004 - 2005,
2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007 wet and dry seasons to determine the relationship with chewing sugarcane stalk yield
with some soil chemical properties, weed and sugarcane agronomic characters as being affected by fertility and weed
control treatments at Badeggi, in Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. From the results obtained in the three trials,
stalk yield (ton/ha) was significantly and positively correlated with soil physico-chemical properties including cation
exchange capacity (CEC), organic matter, total percent nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable potassium,
percent sand, silt and clay. With the sugarcane agronomic characters, stalk yield (ton/ha) was significantly and
positively correlated with chewable stalks per plot at 10MAP, stalk girth (cm) at 10MAP, crop vigour score at 9MAP,
tiller count per plot at 3MAP. While on the other hand, the stalk yield was significantly and negatively correlated with
the weed cover score and weed dry matter production at 9MAP in the 2004 - 2005, 2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007.

Key Words: Chewing sugarcane; stalk yield (ton/ha); Agronomic characters; Guinea savanna.

Introduction
In many crops especially arable ones, yields are mostly dependent on some components or parameters,
but direct components of yield vary with crops (Reedy and Reedi, 1986). Contributions by some
parameters towards variations in yield are higher and more important than those of other components most
probably because of association between yield and its parameters are more direct in some crops than in
others. Since most of the characters of economic importance such as yields are complex in inheritance and
may involve several related characters, the degree of genotypic and phenotypic correlations of the
characters is important.
Correlations are of practical value since selection is usually concerned with changing two or more traits
simultaneously. Studies carried out by Reedy and Reedi (1986) on genotypic and phenotypic correlations
of cane yield with four yield components (stalk number per plot) had the greatest influence on cane stalk
yield followed by stalk weight. The correlations obtained by Singh et al. (1981) with respect to the number
of millable cane per stool, stalk length and diameter as well as brix value was positively correlated with
yield.

*To whom correspondence should b e addressed.

89
 Afr. J. Gen. Agric. Vol. 4, No. 2 (2008)

In Nigeria Oworu (1978) found positive correlation (r = 0.90) between sucrose percent and sugar purity
and pol but negatively correlated with percent fibre.
This paper therefore, provides information on relationship between chewing sugarcane stalk yield with soil
physico-chemical parameters, sugarcane agronomic characters and weed parameters.

Materials and Methods

Field trials were conducted on the upland sugarcane experimental field of the National Cereals
Research Institute Badeggi (Lat. 9°45′N, Long.06°07′E, 70.5 metres above sea level in the Southern
Guinea Savanna ecological zone of Nigeria in 2004 - 2007 wet and dry seasons. The soil of the
experimental site has been classified as ultisol and sandy loam in texture with bulk density of 1.49m-1
(Ayotade and Fagade, 1993). It has an average annual rainfall of 1124mm and mean temperature 23°C -
33°C respectively.
Details of physico-chemical properties of the soil and analysis of the cowdung during the periods of
experiment are presented in tables 1 -2. The treatments tested consist of seven fertility rates and four weed
control measures. The treatment therefore include:- F0 = control (no cowdung, no inorganic fertilizer, F1 =
120N - 60P2O5 - 90K2Okg/ha alone (NCRI recommended rate for sole sugarcane, F2 = 10tonnes/ha of air
dried cowdung (NCRI recommended rate), F3 = 10tonnes/ha of air dried cowdung + 120N - 60P2O5 -
90K2Okg/ha, ), F4 = 10tonnes/ha of air dried cowdung + 60N - 30P2O5 - 45K2Okg/ha, ), F5 = 5tonnes/ha of
air dried cowdung + 120N - 60P2O5 - 90K2Okg/ha and F6 = 5tonnes/ha of air dried cowdung + 60N -
30P2O5 - 45K2Okg/ha constituted the main plot, while the weed control treatments W0 = Weedy check, W1
= hoe weeding at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9MAP, W2 = atrazine 2.0kga.i./ha (P.E) + dimethametryne 3.0kga.i./ha
(P.E) + Supplementary hoe - weeding at 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9MAP and W3 = Diuron 2.0kga.i./ha (P.E) +
supplementary hoe-weeding at 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9MAP were the sub plot.
Each treatment was accommodated in a plot area of 15m2 (5 x 3m) and each plot contained 6 rows of
chewing sugarcane. Bida Local or Ajax was the chewing sugarcane variety that was used for the
experiment. Air dried cowdung was incorporated into the soil manually using short handle hoe a month
before establishing the trial. While the inorganic fertilizer was applied split at planting (½N - ½P2O5 -
½K2O base application) and at 6MAP during earthing up half ½N - ½P2O5 - ½K2O was applied. Pre-
emergence herbicides were applied a day after planting, while the post - emergence was applied at 5 weeks
after planting (WAP). Herbicides were applied using knapsack (CP3) sprayer in a spray volume of
250L/ha. The supplementary hoe - weeding was carried out at 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9MAP using short handle hoe.
Harvesting was done at 10MAP using cutlass. The sugarcane stalks from the net plot were tied into
bundles and weighed on 50kg scale.
The data collected for correlation matrix (r) were weed cover score 9MAP. The weed cover score was
collected using score scale of 0 - 10, 0 = clean, weed free plot, 10 = weedy plot, completely weed cover.
Weed dry matter production ton/ha 9MAP, Crop vigour score 9MAP. Crop vigour score was collected
using score scale of 0 - 10, 0 = sicky, diseased plants, 10 = healthy, very greenish plant. Stalk length
9MAP, number of chewable stalks per plot 10MAP, Stalk girth (cm) 10MAP, tiller count per plot 3MAP
and stalk yield (ton/ha). Soil samples per treatment were collected after each harvest. The data collected
were analysed using M-stat to run the correlation matrix (r).

Results and Discussion

Sugarcane stalk yield (ton/ha) was significantly and positively correlated with soil physico-chemical
parameters including cation exchange capacity (CEC), organic matter, total percent nitrogen, available
phosphorus, exchangeable potassium, percent sand, percent silt and percent clay in 2004 - 2005, 2005 -
2006 and 2006 - 2007 wet and dry season (r = 0.420*, 0.493* and 0.497*), 0.399*, 0.409* and 0.497*,
0.403*, 0.490* and 0.523**, 0.435*, 0.449* and 0.523**, 0.478*, 0.509** and 0.516**, 0.407*, 0.484*
and 0.496*, 0.401*, 0.410* and 0.428*, 0.423*, 0.399* and 0.405*) (Tables 3 - 5).

90
 A. K. Gana et al.

Table 1: Physico-chemical characteristics of soil taken from experimental sites before the establishment of
the trial

Soil properties Badeggi 2004

0 - 25cm depth
Physical properties
Sand (%) 91.00
Silt (%) 8.00
Clay (%) 1.00
Textural class Sandy
Chemical properties
pH in water 6.2
Organic carbon (%) 0.50
Organic matter (%) 1.10
Total nitrogen (%) 0.039
Available phosphorus (ppm) 8.95
Exchangeable cation (cmol / kg-1)
K 0.35
Mg 0.29
Ca 1.00
Na 0.16
CEC (cmol / kg-1) 5.85

Table 2: Laboratory analysis of cowdung component

Percent (%)
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
Nitrogen 0.313 0.314 0.315
Phosphorus 0.26 0.26 0.26
Potassium 0.34 0.34 0.35
Organic 15 16 16
Source: Cowdung from the cow market behind Gwadebe New Market - Bida

The significant positive correlation between stalk yield (ton/ha) and soil physico-chemical properties
proved those parameters to be the major elements and soil ameliorative agents thereby improving the
sugarcane growth for higher stalk yield (ton/ha). According to Little (1997) and Makinde and Alabi
(2000), N, P and K are the three major elements needed by the plant. These parameters are therefore very
important to be considered especially when evaluating the possibility of obtaining the potential yield from
sugarcane from a sandy poor soil.
Likewise, the stalk yield was significantly and positively correlated with number of chewable stalks at
9MAP, stalk girth (cm) at 10MAP, crop vigour score at 9MAP and tiller count per plot at 3MAP (the
agronomic characters) (r = 0.957**, 0.975** and 0.986**, 0.868**, 0.884** and 0.924**, 0.825**,
0.859** and 0.875**, 0.830**, 0.884** and 0.894**, 0.860**, 0.872** and 0.885**) in the three trials
(Tables 3 - 5). This indicate these agronomic characters as yield attributes and determinants. This result
confirm the correlation study by Pan et al. (2006) who recorded significantly positive correlation of
chewing sugarcane stalk yield (ton/ha) with growth or agronomic parameters.

91
Table 3: Correlation matrix (r) between stalk yield and various parameters as affected by fertility rates and weed control treatments at Badeggi, 2004-2005 wet and dry
seasons

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 1.00 0.42 0.399 0.40 0.435 0.478 0.407 0.401 0.399 0.58 0.611 0.459 - - 0.957 0.868 0.825 0.830 0.860
0 0* * 3* * * * * * 1** ** * 0.402 0.410 ** ** ** ** **
* *
2 1.00 0.952 0.47 0.800 0.872 0.268 0.400 0.143 0.43 0.104 0.063 0.032 0.006 0.369 0.227 0.191 0.162 0.438
0 ** 1* ** ** * 1* *
3 1.000 0.24 0.143 0.836 0.305 0.397 0.166 0.10 0.061 0.005 0.060 0.036 0.304 0.161 0.188 0.086 0.445
7 ** 2 *
4 1.00 0.285 0.294 0.273 0.342 0.124 0.19 0.199 0.187 - - 0.009 0.098 0.187 0.193 0.405
0 5 0.042 0.051 *
5 1.000 0.962 0.225 0.319 0.122 0.17 0.066 0.049 0.047 0.012 0.203 0.243 0.150 0.231 0.435
** 8 *
6 1.000 0.096 0.206 0.106 0.14 0.098 0.067 0.113 0.036 0.134 0.190 0.125 0.165 0.425
1 *
7 1.000 0.435 0.073 0.05 0.103 0.188 - - 0.086 0.145 0.169 0.086 0.054
* 4 0.062 0.004
8 1.000 0.514 0.06 0.026 0.034 - - 0.151 0.117 0.669 0.104 0.188
** 0.087 0.004 **
9 1.000 0.07 0.018 0.011 - - 0.096 0.083 0.028 0.099 0.685
5 0.064 0.183 **
10 1.00 0.754 0.955 - - 0.644 0.964 0.871 0.216 0.296
0 ** ** 0.482 0.564 ** ** **
* **
11 1.000 0.497 - - 0.368 0.432 0.771 0.575 0.350
* 0.413 0.571 * ** **
* **
12 1.000 - - 0.354 0.955 0.976 0.911 0.655
0.553 0.534 ** ** ** **
** **
13 1.000 - - 0.088 - - -
0.432 0.441 0.094 0.089 0.398
* *
14 1.000 - 0.485 - - -
0.425 * 0.572 0.011 0.398
* **
92
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
15 1.000 0.073 0.684 0.795 0.906
** ** **
16 1.000 0.132 0.935 0.424
** *
17 1.000 0.932 0.743
** **
18 1.000 0.873
**
19 1.000
1. ÆStalk yield (ton / ha) 2. Æ Cation exchange capacity (CEC) 3. Æ Percent organic matter (OM) 4. Æ Total nitrogen (N)
5. Æ Available phosphorus (P) 6. Æ Exchangeable potassium (K) 7. Æ Percent sand 8. Æ Percent silt 9. Æ Percent clay
10.ÆPercent reducing sugar(RS) 11ÆPercent Fibre 12.ÆPercent brix 13ÆWeed cover score at 9MAP 14ÆWeed dry matter production(ton/ha
at10MAP) 15. Æ Number of chewable stalks/plot at 10MAP 16. Æ Stalk length (cm) at 9MAP 17. Æ Stalk girth (cm) at 10MAP
18. Æ Crop vigour score at 9MAP 19. Æ Tiller count at 3MAP.
* Æ Significant at 5%, ** Æ Highly significant at 1%, MAP Æ Months after planting

Table 4: Correlation matrix (r) between stalk yield and various parameters as affected by fertility rates and weed control treatments at Badeggi, 2005-2006
wet and dry seasons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 1.00 0.49 0.409 0.49 0.449 0.509 0.484 0.410 0.405 0.62 0.597 0.585 - - 0.975 0.884 0.859 0.884 0.872
0 3* * 0* * ** * * * 8** ** ** 0.415 0.430 ** ** ** ** **
* *
2 1.00 0.953 0.84 0.911 0.921 0.283 0.631 0.214 0.50 0.101 0.139 0.211 0.092 0.377 0.243 0.436 0.134 0.593
0 ** 1** ** ** ** 6** * **
3 1.000 0.37 0.203 0.891 0.613 0.624 0.543 0.25 0.054 0.262 0.202 0.121 0.365 0.304 0.471 0.202 0.526
9 ** ** ** ** 4 * **
4 1.00 0.431 0.481 0.519 0.680 0.539 0.21 0.119 0.219 - - 0.213 0.138 0.240 0.264 0.513
0 * * ** ** * 1 0.108 0.093 **
5 1.000 0965 0.681 0.570 0.684 0.20 0.056 0.251 0.236 0.072 0.413 0.194 0.337 0.236 0.662
** ** ** ** 5 * **
6 1.000 0.192 0.414 0.212 0.23 0.089 0.110 0.226 0.073 0.169 0.218 0.247 0.333 0.541
* 1 **
7 1.000 0442* 0.123 0.07 0.100 0.273 - - 0.263 0.169 0.268 0.273 0.122
4 0.393 0.075
8 1.000 0.599 0.08 0.021 0.279 - - 0.095 0.194 0.732 0.314 0.293
** 5 0.864 0.091 **
**
9 1.000 0.10 0.016 0.159 - - 0.191 0.148 0.207 253 0.712
93
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
0 0.080 0.046 **
1 1.00 0.686 0.087 - - 0.798 0.972 0.936 0.244 0.331
0 0 ** 7** 0.532 0.584 ** ** **
** **
1 1.000 0.884 - - 0.651 0.461 0.943 0.777 0.913
1 ** 0.649 0.579 ** * ** ** **
** **
1 1.000 - - 0.371 0.966 0.948 0.931 0.775
2 0.560 0.867 ** ** ** **
** **
1 1.000 - - - -0.182 - -
3 0.561 0.462 0.134 0.117 0.473
** *
1 1.000 - - - - -
4 0.581 0.491 0.580 0.186 0.445
** * ** *
1 1.000 0.120 0.703 0.818 0.937
5 ** ** **
1 1.000 0.176 0.726 0.553
6 ** **
1 1.000 0.941 0.883
7 ** **
1 1.000 0.911
8 **
1 1.000
9
1. ÆStalk yield (ton / ha) 2. Æ Cation exchange capacity (CEC) 3. Æ Percent organic matter (OM) 4. Æ Total nitrogen (N)
5. Æ Available phosphorus (P) 6. Æ Exchangeable potassium (K) 7. Æ Percent sand 8. Æ Percent silt 9. Æ Percent clay
10.ÆPercent reducing sugar(RS) 11ÆPercent Fibre 12.ÆPercent brix 13ÆWeed cover score at 9MAP 14ÆWeed dry matter production(ton/ha
at10MAP) 15. Æ Number of chewable stalks/plot at 10MAP 16. Æ Stalk length (cm) at 9MAP 17. Æ Stalk girth (cm) at 10MAP
18. Æ Crop vigour score at 9MAP 19. Æ Tiller count at 3MAP
* Æ Significant at 5%, ** Æ Highly significant at 1%, MAP Æ Months after planting
94
Table 5: Correlation matrix (r) between stalk yield and various parameters as affected by fertility rates and weed control treatments at Badeggi, 2006-2007
wet and dry seasons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 1.00 0.49 0.417 0.52 0.523 0.516 0.496 0.428 0.431 0.78 0.517 0.674 - - 0.986 0.924 0.875 0.894 0.885
0 7* * 3** ** ** * * * 7** ** ** 0.48 0.509 ** ** ** ** **
5* **
2 1.00 0.985 0.97 0.982 0.966 0.695 0.791 0.344 0.53 0.095 0.225 0.38 0.141 0.478 0.352 0.544 0.212 0.637
0 ** 4** ** ** ** ** 7** ** 6 * ** **
3 1.000 0.56 0.273 0.897 0.780 0.835 0.616 0.45 0.050 0.288 0.39 0.179 0.388 0.355 0.659 0.294 0.627
3** ** ** ** ** 6* 0 ** **
4 1.00 0.777 0.835 0.640 0.756 0.453 0.57 0.114 0.249 - - 0.478 0.396 0.553 0.871 0.995
0 ** ** ** ** * 2** 0.33 0.099 ** ** **
9
5 1.000 0.968 0.726 0.634 0.788 0.39 0.052 0.288 0.39 0.459 0.488 0.366 0.601 0.242 0.969
** ** ** ** 0 6 * ** ** **
6 1.000 0.223 0.625 0.276 0.58 0.089 0.218 0.41 0.140 0.494 0.143 0.573 0.340 0.676
** 0** 2* * ** **
7 1.000 0.457 0.213 0.11 0.092 0.282 0.46 - 0.274 0.367 0.253 0.373 0.281
* 4 2* 0.111
8 1.000 0.614 0.12 0.020 0.288 - - 0.319 0.017 0.878 0.312 0.295
** 5 0.96 0.131 **
7**
9 1.000 0.12 0.013 0.167 - - 0.194 0.986 0.216 0.264 0.513
0 0.19 0.127 ** **
4
1 1.00 0.598 0.880 - - 0.812 0.734 0.941 0.953 0.424
0 0 ** ** 0.66 0.592 ** ** ** ** *
1** **
1 1.000 0.896 - - 0.720 0.968 0.948 0.945 0.953
1 ** 0.59 0.522 ** ** ** ** **
6** **
1 1.000 - - 0.387 0.204 0.959 0.935 0.831
2 0.58 0.899 ** ** **
9** **
1 1.00 - - - -0.230 - -
3 0 0.570 0.594 0.493 0.293 0.480
** ** * *
95
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 1.000 - - - - -
4 0.593 0.240 0.663 0.379 0.685
** ** **
1 1.000 0.343 0.759 0.898 0.958
5 ** ** **
1 1.000 0.254 0.953 0.664
6 ** **
1 1.000 0.951 0.902
7 ** **
1 1.000 0.954
8 **
1 1.000
9
1. ÆStalk yield (ton / ha) 2. Æ Cation exchange capacity (CEC) 3. Æ Percent organic matter (OM) 4. Æ Total nitrogen (N)
5. Æ Available phosphorus (P) 6. Æ Exchangeable potassium (K) 7. Æ Percent sand 8. Æ Percent silt 9. Æ Percent clay
10.ÆPercent reducing sugar(RS) 11ÆPercent Fibre 12.ÆPercent brix 13ÆWeed cover score at 9MAP 14ÆWeed dry matter production(ton/ha
at10MAP) 15. Æ Number of chewable stalks/plot at 10MAP 16. Æ Stalk length (cm) at 9MAP 17. Æ Stalk girth (cm) at 10MAP
18. Æ Crop vigour score at 9MAP 19. Æ Tiller count at 3MAP
* Æ Significant at 5%, ** Æ Highly significant at 1%, MAP Æ Months after planting
96
 A. K. Gana et al.

However, the stalk yield was significantly and negatively correlated with weed cover score and weed
dry matter production (ton/ha) at 9MAP (R= -0.402*, -0.415* and -0.485**, 0.410*, -0.430* and -
0.501**). This confirm the high vulnerability of sugarcane especially chewing sugarcane to weeds with
consequent reduction in stalk yield. The relationship observed rather indicates that weed parameters
indicated will be useful in differentiating the response of chewing sugarcane var. Bida Local or Ajax to
weeds.

Conclusion

Correlation study is very important as it measured the degree of associations between two or more
characters and also been quite useful information on effective selection programme. From the results of
this study, it can be concluded that significant and positive correlation between stalk yield (ton/ha) with
soil physico-chemical parameters, agronomic characters and weed parameters are therefore very important
to be considered in selection programme and also in determining possibility of obtaining optimum yield
from chewing sugarcane especially for this ecology.

References
Battan, K. R., Chaudhary, B. S. and Kadian, S. P. (1985). Studies on Correlation and Path Coefficient Analysis in
Sugarcane. Agric. Sc. Digest India 5:87 - 89.
Little, I. P. (1997). The fate of nitrogen fertilizer added to red gladatial soil its implications with respect to soil acidity.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 33:863 - 800.
Makinde, E. A. and Alabi, B. S. (2000). Influence of fertilizer type on weed control and the performance on maize
melon intercrop. Nigerian Journal of Weed Science 13:33 - 37.
Oworu, O. O. (1978). Preliminary evaluation of the agronomic potentials of some Nigerian local sugarcane clones
Proc. Inter symp. On sugarcane in Nigeria August - Sept. 1978. Pp 81-91.
Pan, D. E., Chen, G. S., Dengy, Y. L., Goa, Y. and Zhivily, Y. F. (2006). Agronomic and quality character of
different chewing cane cultivars. Proc. of international sympossium on Technologies to Improve Sugarcane
Production in Developing Countries. Guili P. R. pp 159 - 165.
Reedy, C. R. and Reedi, M. V. (1981). Degree of genetic determination, correlation and genotype and phenotypic path
analysis in cane and sugar yield in sugarcane. Indian J. Genetic 46(3):550 - 570.
Singh, H. N., Singh, S. B. and Singh, T. K. (1981). Selection parameters in sugarcane. Indian Journal Agric. Sc.
51:562 - 569.

97