Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 1. Responses in fumigated and non-fumigated soil.

It has been reported that high-density planting of sugarcane can improve cane and sugar yield through promoting rapid canopy closure and increasing radiation interception earlier in crop growth. It is widely known that the control of adverse soil biota through fumigation (removes soil biological constraints and improves soil health) can improve cane and sugar yield. Whether the responses to high-density planting and improved soil health are additive or interactive has important implications for the sugarcane production system. Field experiments established at Bundaberg and Mackay, Queensland, Australia, involved all combinations of 2-row spacings (0.5 and 1.5 m), two planting densities (27 000 and 81 000 two-eyed setts/ha), and two soil fumigation treatments (fumigated and non-fumigated). The Bundaberg experiment had two cultivars (Q124, Q155), was fully irrigated, and harvested 15 months after planting. The Mackay experiment had one cultivar (Q117), was grown under rainfed conditions, and harvested 10 months after planting. High-density planting (81 000 setts/ha in 0.5-m rows) did not produce any more cane or sugar yield at harvest than low-density planting (27 000 setts/ha in 1.5-m rows) regardless of location, crop duration (15 v. 10 months), water supply (irrigated v. rainfed), or soil health (fumigated v. non-fumigated). Conversely, soil fumigation generally increased cane and sugar yields regardless of site, row spacing, and planting density. In the Bundaberg experiment there was a large fumigation x cultivar x density interaction (P<0.01). Cultivar Q155 responded positively to higher planting density in non-fumigated soil but not in fumigated soil, while Q124 showed a negative response to higher planting density in non-fumigated soil but no response in fumigated soil. In the Mackay experiment, Q117 showed a non-significant trend of increasing yield in response to increasing planting density in non-fumigated soil, similar to the Q155 response in non-fumigated soil at Bundaberg. The similarity in yield across the range of row spacings and planting densities within experiments was largely due to compensation between stalk number and stalk weight, particularly when fumigation was used to address soil health. Further, the different cultivars (Q124 and Q155 at Bundaberg and Q117 at Mackay) exhibited differing physiological responses to the fumigation, row spacing, and planting density treatments. These included the rate of tiller initiation and subsequent loss, changes in stalk weight, and propensity to lodging. These responses suggest that there may be potential for selecting cultivars suited to different planting configurations.

Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 3. Responses with different cultivars.

The promotion of controlled traffic (matching wheel and row spacing) in the Australian sugar industry is necessitating a widening of row spacing beyond the standard 1.5 m. As all cultivars grown in the Australian industry have been selected under the standard row spacing there are concerns that at least some cultivars may not be suitable for wider rows. To address this issue, experiments were established in northern and southern Queensland in which cultivars, with different growth characteristics, recommended for each region, were grown under a range of different row configurations. In the northern Queensland experiment at Gordonvale, cultivars Q187((sic)), Q200((sic)), Q201((sic)), and Q218((sic)) were grown in 1.5-m single rows, 1.8-m single rows, 1.8-m dual rows (50 cm between duals), and 2.3-m dual rows (80 cm between duals). In the southern Queensland experiment at Farnsfield, cvv. Q138, Q205((sic)), Q222((sic)) and Q188((sic)) were also grown in 1.5-m single rows, 1.8-m single rows, 1.8-m dual rows (50 cm between duals), while 1.8-m-wide throat planted single row and 2.0-m dual row (80 cm between duals) configurations were also included. There was no difference in yield between the different row configurations at Farnsfield but there was a significant row configuration x cultivar interaction at Gordonvale due to good yields in 1.8-m single and dual rows with Q201((sic)) and poor yields with Q200((sic)) at the same row spacings. There was no significant difference between the two cultivars in 1.5-m single and 2.3-m dual rows. The experiments once again demonstrated the compensatory capacity that exists in sugarcane to manipulate stalk number and individual stalk weight as a means of producing similar yields across a range of row configurations and planting densities. There was evidence of different growth patterns between cultivars in response to different row configurations (viz. propensity to tiller, susceptibility to lodging, ability to compensate between stalk number and stalk weight), suggesting that there may be genetic differences in response to row configuration. It is argued that there is a need to evaluate potential cultivars under a wider range of row configurations than the standard 1.5-m single rows. Cultivars that perform well in row configurations ranging from 1.8 to 2.0 m are essential if the adverse effects of soil compaction are to be managed through the adoption of controlled traffic.

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

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.