Evaluation of seedling generation for germination, survivability and productivity traits
Sugarcane improvement can be accomplished through biparental/poly crosses or by general collections involving desired parents. Identification of promising families is vital to ensure better frequency of selectable segregants. This is crucial because the process of identifying productive desired segregants and developing a new sugarcane variety involves lengthy selection cycles. The yield potential of these selected clonal varieties mainly depends on the choice of parental combinations. Thus, hybridization among promising parents plays a critical role in creating hybrid clones that can outperform the existing commercial hybrids.
In this regard, a total of 33 crosses were effected, resulting in the germination of 3,020 seedlings, out of which 2,306 seedlings survived in field conditions. The overall germination and survivability of sugarcane seedling were observed to be 2.10% and 76.36% respectively. Notably, the Co 85002 GC family recorded the highest fluff germination of 8.1%, followed by CoVC 14062 GC (7.2%) and CoVC 14062 × CoT 8201 (6.3%). Highest seedling survival percentage was noticed in families such as Co 87015 GC (94.4%), followed by MS 68/47 GC (91.1%) and Thirumadhuram × CoPant 97222 (90.8%). Conversely, the lowest survival frequency after transplanting was recorded in ISH 502, GC (47.6%) (Table 1).
Further, 482 hybrid clones were selected during the seedling generation based on their overall appearance of the cane type, including features like colour, detrashability, clump stand, flowering etc., along with their performance either superior to or on par with commercial checks in terms of cane and sugar productivity traits. In the current study, the overall percentage of selectable segregants was observed to be 20.90%. Among the families studied, MS 68/47 GC (80.49%) recorded the highest percentage of selectable segregants, followed by MS 68/47 × Co 11015 (42.86%) and CoVC 14062 × Co 775 (42.55%) (Table 1). However, out of the 33 families studied, 15 exhibited population selection of more than 20.0%. In contrast, due to reduced seedling establishment and subsequent vigor compared to clonal checks, low selection rates were observed in families such as CoSnk 03754 GC (6.67%) followed by Co 87015 GC (8.33%) and ISH 536 GC (8.51%) in the seedling generation. These results are consistent with previous studies conducted by Sanghera and Jamwal (2019a) and Singh and Singh (2021).
In terms of commercial acceptability attributes, certain families viz., NB 94–545 GC, ISH 157 GC, MS 68/47 GC, CoVSI 15122 GC and Co 99004 GC, exhibited high progeny mean performance, with significantly superior over the popularly grown check, Co 86032 in terms of single cane weight. For juice quality, families viz., CoVC 14062 × Co 775, Co 86032 × CoSe 92423, CoVC 14062 × CoT 8201 and CoC 671 × 85 R 186 exhibited significantly high progeny mean for CCS% of up to 15.0% over the mid-late popular check Co 86032 (14.32%) (Table 1). These juice quality traits are of prime importance for the sugar industry’s acceptance. The Brix value (%) in the juice was highest in the Co 86032 × CoSe 92423 family, where the maternal parent, Co
Table 1
Seedling establishment characteristics, productivity traits and selection rates of sugarcane families in seedling generation
FC | Crosses (families) | Ground nursery (Seedling generation) |
NSG | NSE | G% | S% | NMC/ clump | CG | SCW | Brix% | Pol% | CCS% | NSS | PSS-I |
FCL: NHG, SBI, Coimbatore, 2019-20 |
1 | Co 7201 × ISH 307 | 41 | 32 | 1.40 | 78.00 | 12.0* (3–28) | 2.20 | 0.85 | 21.97 | 19.67 | 13.69 | 10 | 31.25 |
2 | MS 68/47 × Co 11015 | 42 | 35 | 1.40 | 83.30 | 7.0 (3–13) | 2.52 | 1.46 | 20.18 | 18.00 | 12.50 | 15 | 42.86 |
3 | CoVC 14062 × Co 775 | 66 | 47 | 1.60 | 71.20 | 9.0 (1–18) | 2.40 | 1.46 | 23.67* | 22.20* | 15.78* | 20 | 42.55 |
4 | Co 86032 × CoVC 14061 | 41 | 34 | 1.50 | 82.90 | 9.0 (1–22) | 2.20 | 1.09 | 22.08 | 20.48 | 14.48 | 6 | 17.65 |
5 | CoVC 14062 × CoT 8201 | 440 | 356 | 6.30 | 80.90 | 6.0 (1–21) | 2.60* | 1.47 | 23.59* | 21.42* | 15.01* | 90 | 25.28 |
6 | Thirumadhuram × CoPant 97222 | 303 | 275 | 3.40 | 84.16 | 11.0* (1–35) | 2.20 | 1.41 | 21.88 | 19.04 | 13.07 | 55 | 20.00 |
7 | NB-94-545 × CoH 70 | 40 | 31 | 1.30 | 77.50 | 9.0 (1–18) | 2.70* | 1.60 | 16.63 | 13.36 | 8.80 | 9 | 29.03 |
8 | CoC 671 × 85 R 186 | 45 | 31 | 1.50 | 68.90 | 8.0 (2–18) | 2.60* | 1.84 | 23.12 | 21.02* | 14.93* | 12 | 38.71 |
9 | Co 86032 × CoSe 92423 | 82 | 58 | 1.30 | 70.70 | 10.0 (1–18) | 2.40 | 1.59 | 24.02* | 21.78 | 15.25* | 15 | 25.86 |
10 | Co 86032 × Co 86249 | 40 | 31 | 1.10 | 77.50 | 11.0* (1–27) | 2.30 | 1.56 | 22.71 | 20.64 | 14.46 | 3 | 9.68 |
11 | CoVC 14062 (GC) | 179 | 141 | 7.20 | 78.80 | 10.0 (1–31) | 2.40 | 1.74 | 21.76 | 19.27 | 13.34 | 18 | 12.77 |
12 | NB 94–545 (GC) | 44 | 35 | 1.40 | 79.50 | 7.0 (1–18) | 2.60* | 1.94* | 19.01 | 16.68 | 11.50 | 6 | 17.14 |
13 | ISH 69 (GC) | 304 | 199 | 4.10 | 65.50 | 11.0* (1–38) | 2.20 | 1.54 | 20.54 | 17.48 | 11.87 | 18 | 9.05 |
14 | CoSnk 03707 (GC) | 39 | 30 | 0.80 | 76.90 | 11.0* (1–25) | 2.20 | 1.40 | 21.71 | 18.38 | 12.45 | 9 | 30.00 |
15 | CoSnk 03754 (GC) | 91 | 45 | 1.30 | 49.50 | 10.0 (1–28) | 2.10 | 1.21 | 21.21 | 18.33 | 12.54 | 3 | 6.67 |
16 | ISH 157 (GC) | 138 | 107 | 2.00 | 77.50 | 10.0 (1–27) | 2.40 | 1.99* | 21.02 | 18.19 | 12.45 | 20 | 18.70 |
17 | CoN 07072 (GC) | 80 | 43 | 2.70 | 53.80 | 10.0 (1–26) | 2.30 | 1.49 | 21.92 | 19.39 | 13.42 | 8 | 18.60 |
FCL: ARS Sankeshwar, 2019-20 |
18 | MS 68/47 (GC) | 45 | 41 | 1.50 | 86.70 | 7.0 (1–18) | 3.10* | 2.08* | 18.52 | 15.77 | 10.71 | 33 | 80.49 |
19 | Co 8371 (GC) | 45 | 32 | 3.00 | 71.11 | 10.0 (2–26) | 2.50 | 1.29 | 19.92 | 17.12 | 11.68 | 8 | 25.00 |
20 | Co 85002 (GC) | 302 | 219 | 8.10 | 72.50 | 9.0 (1–25) | 2.40 | 1.77 | 21.97 | 19.70 | 13.72 | 45 | 18.72 |
21 | Co 87015 (GC) | 36 | 34 | 0.60 | 94.40 | 6.0 (1–11) | 2.50 | 1.85 | 21.81 | 19.50 | 13.56 | 4 | 11.76 |
22 | Co 8213 (GC) | 55 | 37 | 1.40 | 67.30 | 8.0 (3–15) | 2.60* | 1.83 | 21.28 | 18.88 | 13.08 | 9 | 24.32 |
23 | ISH 512 (GC) | 35 | 30 | 1.30 | 85.70 | 8.0 (2–14) | 2.40 | 1.47 | 21.08 | 18.39 | 12.64 | 5 | 16.67 |
24 | ISH 536 (GC) | 55 | 47 | 1.20 | 85.50 | 9.0 (1–21) | 2.20 | 1.59 | 21.08 | 18.81 | 13.07 | 4 | 8.51 |
25 | CoVSI 15122 (GC) | 40 | 36 | 1.10 | 90.00 | 8.0 (1–21) | 2.40 | 1.96* | 21.98 | 19.99 | 14.01 | 6 | 16.67 |
26 | Co 13018 (GC) | 40 | 30 | 1.10 | 75.00 | 7.0 (1–16) | 2.40 | 1.50 | 22.38 | 20.77 | 14.69 | 6 | 20.00 |
FCL: ARS Mugad, 2019-20 |
27 | Co 86011 (GC) | 52 | 44 | 3.50 | 84.60 | 9.0 (3–18) | 2.50 | 1.43 | 20.68 | 18.54 | 12.91 | 12 | 27.27 |
28 | Co 85002 (GC) | 59 | 51 | 1.50 | 86.40 | 8.0 (1–27) | 2.50 | 1.80 | 22.24 | 20.06 | 14.01 | 5 | 9.80 |
29 | Co 87015 (GC) | 50 | 36 | 1.30 | 72.00 | 9.0 (3–15) | 2.30 | 1.27 | 22.47 | 20.55 | 14.44 | 3 | 8.33 |
30 | Co 99004 (GC) | 43 | 37 | 2.50 | 86.00 | 9.0 (2–28) | 2.30 | 1.99* | 22.45 | 20.45 | 14.34 | 13 | 35.14 |
31 | ISH 502 (GC) | 63 | 30 | 0.50 | 47.60 | 10.0 (3–18) | 2.50 | 1.55 | 20.09 | 17.51 | 12.03 | 4 | 13.33 |
32 | CoT 10367 (GC) | 42 | 34 | 0.50 | 81.00 | 7.0 (1–26) | 2.10 | 1.14 | 22.60 | 20.44 | 14.29 | 4 | 11.76 |
33 | PI 15131 (GC) | 43 | 38 | 1.10 | 88.40 | 9.0 (2–22) | 2.30 | 1.54 | 22.64 | 20.98* | 14.73 | 4 | 10.53 |
Total/ Mean | 3020 | 2306 | 2.10 | 76.36 | 9.00 | 2.39 | 1.55 | 21.52 | 19.17 | 13.31 | 482 | 20.90 |
Commercial checks (Plants grown with vegetative settlings) |
C1 | CoC 671 | | | | | 4.0 (3–7) | 2.60 | 1.71 | 24.85 | 23.97 | 17.24 | | |
C2 | Co 09004 | | | | | 8.0 (4–17) | 2.80 | 2.14 | 24.35 | 23.26 | 16.66 | | |
C3 | CoSnk 09211 | | | | | 5.0 (3–12) | 2.40 | 2.01 | 21.34 | 18.22 | 12.39 | | |
C4 | Co 86032 | | | | | 9.0 (5–16) | 2.40 | 1.80 | 22.85 | 20.54 | 14.32 | | |
C5 | CoSnk 09227 | | | | | 10.0 (3–15) | 2.60 | 1.69 | 22.34 | 20.34 | 14.26 | | |
C6 | CoSnk 09293 | | | | | 7.0 (3–12) | 3.10 | 1.75 | 22.85 | 20.78 | 14.56 | | |
| CD @ 5% | | | | | 2.27 | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.74 | 0.44 | 0.54 | | |
* Significantly superior over popular grown check Co 86032, FCL: Fluff collected locations, NSG: Number of seedlings germinated per cross, NSE: Number of seedlings survived per cross, G%: Fluff germination percentage per cross, S%: Seedling survival percentage per cross, NMC/ clump: Number of millable canes per clump, CG: Cane girth (cm), SCW: Single cane weight (kg), Brix%: Brix per cent in juice, Pol%: Sucrose content in juice, CCS%: Commercial cane sugar per cent, NSS: Number of selected segregants per cross advancement at the harvest stage, PSS−I: Percentage of selected segregants advanced to first clonal generation from ground nursery, GC: General collections |
86032, a proven high quality mid-late variety, contributed significantly to its progenies. These crosses not only recorded superior mean juice quality parameters but also exhibited highly acceptable cane productivity traits such as NMC/clump, cane girth and single cane weight. However, none of the families were superior over the early checks CoC 671 and Co 09004, indicating the need of incorporating more number of early high sugar clones as parents to obtain transgressive segregants for early high sugar. The performance of the crosses in this study suggests an increased potential and scope for enhancing cane and sugar productivity in mid-late maturity compared to early maturity with the present deployment of parental clones under study.
Evaluation of first clonal generation for cane and sugar productivity traits
Analysis of variance
The analysis of variance of 482 clones derived from 33 crosses, along with eight commercial checks, revealed a significant mean sum of squares for all traits, considering different sources of variation, including treatment effects (ignoring blocks), genotypes and checks (Table 2). Similarly, the mean square due to checks v/s genotypes (varieties) was significant for all the traits except NMC/ plot, which indicated that the test entries were significantly different from the checks. The low standard errors for all traits except cane yield, suggests that the experimental work was highly precise (Skinner et. al., 1987 and Kimbeng and Cox, 2003). In the case of commercial checks, no adjustments were needed as they were present in all blocks. However, adjustments were required for the test entries because they appeared only once in the experiment. To estimate the error mean square and block effects, repeated checks were used, following the approach outlined by Federer and Raghavarao (1975). However, the adjusted block effects were non-significant for all traits, except for cane girth, indicating the homogeneity of the evaluation blocks. Previous studies by Sanghera and Jamwal (2019b); Somu and Nagaraja (2020) also analyzed using an augmented design, which is proved to be an efficient approach for conducting large-scale sugarcane breeding experiments.
Estimates of genetic variability for the first clonal generation of sugarcane
Various statistical parameters such as, mean, standard deviation, co-efficient of variation (CV) and genetic variability parameters were calculated to assess the extent of variability within the population of 482 clones (Table 3). Among the traits studied, the highest CV was observed for cane yield (27.67%). While moderate level of variation was observed for all the traits except for Brix% (8.40%), indicating significant variability in these studied traits. These findings align with results reported by Anna Durai et al. (2015) and Sanghera and Jamwal (2019b). The mean values across families for the number of millable cane per plot, cane girth (cm), single cane weight (kg), Brix%, Pol%, CCS%, cane yield (t/ha) and CCSY (t/ha) were 29.0, 2.64 cm, 1.85 kg, 21.43%, 19.09%, 14.73%, 142.50 t/ha and 21.89 t/ha, respectively, were comparable to the popular check Co 86032 (Table 4), indicating enough scope for the selection and advancement of productive clones, leading to the development of varieties with enhanced productivity. The observed ranges for these traits were as follows: 15–52 for NMC/ plot, 1.95–3.38 cm for cane girth, 1.16–2.80 kg for single cane weight, 17.44–26.56% for Brix%, 14.53–22.63% for Pol%, 10.97–17.94% for CCS%, 66.50–224.00 t/ha for cane yield and 8.72–33.72 t/ha for CCS yield. These results are consistent with those reported by Sudhagar et al. (2023) and Tolera et al. (2023).
Table 2
Analysis of variance for cane and sugar productivity traits in first clonal generation of sugarcane
Sources of variation | d.f. | Mean sum of squares |
NMC/ plot | Cane girth | SCW | Brix% | Pol% | CCS% | CY | CCSY |
Treatment (ignoring Blocks) | 489 | 77.49** | 0.12** | 0.27** | 2.87** | 3.76** | 4.35** | 1068.39** | 54.25** |
Treatment: Check | 7 | 97.88** | 0.33** | 0.85** | 4.54** | 3.49** | 1.98** | 1529.70** | 30.55** |
Treatment: Genotypes | 481 | 75.56** | 0.11** | 0.24** | 2.60** | 3.50** | 4.20** | 1054.99** | 52.20** |
Treatment: Genotypes vs. Check | 1 | 0.14NS | 0.32** | 0.05* | 49.99** | 60.8** | 36.8** | 493.26* | 24.98** |
Block (eliminating Treatments) | 2 | 7.87NS | 0.05* | 0.03NS | 0.01NS | 0.02NS | 0.03NS | 76.69NS | 3.00NS |
Residuals | 14 | 16.26 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.35 | 109.08 | 15.80 |
Standard Errors (SEd) | | | | | | | | | |
A Test Treatment and a Control Treatment | 1.84 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.56 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 12.79 | 1.66 |
Control Treatment Means | 1.23 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 8.53 | 1.11 |
Two Test Treatments (Different Blocks) | 2.25 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.64 | 15.67 | 2.03 |
Two Test Treatments (Same Block) | 2.12 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 14.77 | 1.92 |
CD @ 5% | | | | | | | | | |
A Test Treatment and a Control Treatment | 3.95 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 1.2 | 1.32 | 1.13 | 27.43 | 3.56 |
Control Treatment Means | 2.63 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.75 | 18.29 | 2.37 |
Two Test Treatments (Different Blocks) | 4.83 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 1.47 | 1.62 | 1.38 | 33.60 | 4.36 |
Two Test Treatments (Same Block) | 4.56 | 0.32 | 0.27 | 1.39 | 1.52 | 1.30 | 31.68 | 4.11 |
NS P > 0.05; * P <= 0.05; ** P <= 0.01, d.f.: degrees of freedom, CD: Critical difference |
NMC/ plot: Number of millable canes per plot, SCW: Single cane weight (kg), Brix%: Brix per cent in juice, Pol%: Sucrose content in juice, CCS%: Commercial cane sugar per cent, CY: Cane yield (t/ha) and CCSY: Commercial cane sugar yield (t/ha) |
The results of the genetic variability analysis showed that the PCV values were higher than their corresponding GCV values for all the studied traits. This suggests that each trait is influenced of environmental or non-genetic factors. Phenotypic variability encompasses both genotypic (heritable) and environmental (non-heritable) variation (Tolera et al. 2023). The lowest values for both GCV and PCV were observed for Brix%, while the highest values were recorded for CCS yield. These findings align with the studies conducted by Kumar et al. (2018) and Somu and Nagaraj (2020). The GCV should be considered along with heritability estimations, as it provides a reliable indication of the amount of heritable variation present. In the current experiment, high heritability estimates were observed for all the traits studied, as classified by Robinson et al. (1949). This implies that simple selection for these traits would be effective. The study revealed that all traits had high heritability estimates, along with high GAM, except for Brix% and Pol%, which had moderate GAM (Table 3). Considering GAM in addition to heritability is more informative when selecting the best genotypes (Johnson et al. 1955). These findings are consistent with the results reported by Ahmed and Obeid (2012); Sanghera and Jamwal (2019b). The maximum GAM was observed for cane yield (51.11%), followed by NMC/ plot (42.65%), indicating potential for substantial improvement in cane productivity through breeding.
Table 3
Estimates of genetic variability parameters across different cross combinations for productivity traits in first clonal generation of sugarcane
Traits | NMC / plot | Cane girth (cm) | Single cane weight (kg) | Brix % | Pol % | CCS % | Cane yield (t/ha) | CCS yield (t/ha) |
Mean | 29.00 | 2.64 | 1.85 | 21.43 | 19.09 | 14.73 | 142.50 | 21.89 |
σ2p | 75.56 | 0.11 | 0.24 | 2.60 | 3.50 | 4.20 | 1054.99 | 55.20 |
σ2g | 59.30 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 2.40 | 3.20 | 3.85 | 945.91 | 39.40 |
GCV | 26.55 | 11.98 | 24.17 | 7.23 | 9.37 | 13.32 | 21.58 | 28.67 |
PCV | 29.97 | 12.56 | 26.48 | 7.52 | 9.80 | 13.91 | 22.79 | 33.94 |
ECV | 13.90 | 3.79 | 10.81 | 2.09 | 2.87 | 4.02 | 7.33 | 18.16 |
σ | 7.65 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 1.80 | 2.01 | 1.60 | 39.43 | 5.22 |
h2BS | 78.48 | 90.91 | 83.33 | 92.31 | 91.43 | 91.67 | 89.66 | 71.38 |
GAM | 42.65 | 20.57 | 37.12 | 15.97 | 19.83 | 20.51 | 51.11 | 35.06 |
CV % | 26.38 | 10.98 | 21.62 | 8.40 | 10.53 | 10.86 | 27.67 | 23.85 |
σ2p: Phenotypic variance, σ2g: Genotypic variance, GCV: Genotypic coefficient of variation, PCV: Phenotypic coefficient of variation, ECV: Environmental coefficient of variation, σ: Standard deviation, h2BS: Broad sense heritability (%): GAM: Genetic advance over mean (%), CV: Coefficient of variation, NMC/plot: Number of millable canes per plot, Brix%: Brix per cent in juice, Pol%: Sucrose content in juice, CCS%: Commercial cane sugar per cent |
Cane and sugar productivity traits in the first clonal generation
The pre-selected clonal population of 482 genotypes exhibited a wide range of cane and sugar productivity traits, when compared to the commercial checks. Among the top 25 promising clones listed in Table 5, several were significantly superior to the popularly grown check, Co 86032, in terms of commercially important traits (CCS%, Cane yield and CCS yield). Notably, three of these clones viz., SNK 190062, SNK 190412, and SNK 192184, recorded significantly higher cane yield compared to the popularly grown check, Co 86032, as well as the best cane-yielding check, Co 09004 (Table 5). These genotypes exhibited a 35–40% yield advantage over Co 86032, indicating their potential as improved commercial varieties with desirable cane features. Our results are in consensus with findings from previous studies conducted by Abo Elenen et al. (2018); Khokhar et al. (2022); Sanghera and Jamwal (2019a). A similar trend was observed for CCS yield, wherein 12 promising genotypes exhibited 16–36% superiority over the best CCS yielding check, Co 09004 (Table 5). Hence, these genotypes hold significant promise as commercial varieties in the region. Among the various juice quality parameters, the sucrose content in juice is crucial and deciding trait for industrial acceptability. Out of the 25 promising clones, three clones viz., SNK 190690, SNK 190680 and SNK 190145 exhibited significantly superior sucrose content compared to the best early high sucrose check, CoC 671. However, the cane productivity traits of SNK 190680 were significantly inferior.
Among the 482 clones evaluated, three specific clones viz., SNK 191675, SNK 190690, SNK 190145 and SNK 191748, derived from families MS 68/47 × Co 11015, Co 86032 × CoSe 92423, CoVC 14062 × CoT 8201 and MS 68/47 GC, respectively, exhibited significant superiority over the popular check Co 86032 in terms of cane and sugar productivity traits (Table 5). The mean performance of these families in the seedling and first clonal generation also exhibited promise for commercially important traits, such as cane yield, CCS% and sugar yield (CCSY). A total of 175 genotypes were selected for advancement to the second clonal generation, exhibiting significant potential for commercial exploitation. However, it is essential to assess their tolerance to major pests and diseases, their ratooning ability in subsequent selection stages and their performance in multi-location trials to ensure their suitability for commercial sugarcane cultivation. These results clearly depict the importance of the family selection in seedling generation, followed by individual selection in first clonal generation within the promising sugarcane families.
Comparative analysis of productivity traits in both seedling and first clonal generation of sugarcane
In the individual clonal selection method, no previous evaluation is performed to predict the genotypic values of the families. Consequently, the selection of individuals occurs within all families that constitute the base population of the experiment. In this case, families with low genotypic values are also subject to selection. In a comparative analysis of selection strategies in sugarcane, Brasileiro et al. (2016) reported that mass selection was responsible for selecting 38% of individuals within families with averages below the overall mean of the tested population. In the present study, the value obtained was on the order of 20%. On the other hand, methods based on the selection of families with higher genotypic values are explored through individual selection (Oliveira et al., 2013). This allows breeders to explore more criteria for the most promising families, enabling the better calculation of selection intensity based on the potential of each family. Therefore, the probability of identifying clones with high genotypic value for a given trait, which is then fixed through vegetative propagation, is high (Barbosa et al., 2004).
Table 4
Cane characteristics and selection rates recorded for sugarcane families in first clonal generation
FC | Crosses (families) | First clonal trial (Settling generation) |
NCE | NMC/plot | CG | SCW | Brix% | Pol% | CCS% | CY | CCSY | NSC | PSS-II |
1 | Co 7201 × ISH 307 | 10 | 36.0* | 2.6 | 1.9 | 20.1 | 18.6 | 13.1 | 190.0* | 24.9* | 2 | 20.0 |
2 | MS 68/47 × Co 11015 | 15 | 34.0* | 2.7 | 1.5 | 21.1 | 19.9 | 14.2 | 141.7 | 20.1 | 2 | 13.3 |
3 | CoVC 14062 × Co 775 | 20 | 37.0* | 2.5 | 1.8 | 20.7 | 19.2 | 13.6 | 185.0* | 25.1* | 5 | 25.0 |
4 | Co 86032 × CoVC 14061 | 6 | 31.0 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 19.9 | 18.4 | 13.0 | 146.4 | 19.0 | 1 | 16.7 |
5 | CoVC 14062 × CoT 8201 | 90 | 32.0 | 2.8* | 2.1* | 21.4 | 20.2 | 14.4 | 186.7* | 26.8* | 35 | 38.9 |
6 | Thirumadhuram × CoPant 97222 | 55 | 32.0 | 2.8* | 2.1* | 20.7 | 19.6 | 14.0 | 185.6* | 26.1* | 15 | 27.3 |
7 | NB-94-545 × CoH 70 | 9 | 21.0 | 2.8* | 2.7* | 19.1 | 17.3 | 12.1 | 157.5 | 19.1 | 1 | 11.1 |
8 | CoC 671 × 85 R 186 | 12 | 27.0 | 2.5 | 2.0* | 22.2 | 20.8 | 14.8 | 150.0 | 22.2 | 6 | 50.0 |
9 | Co 86032 × CoSe 92423 | 15 | 36.0* | 2.3 | 1.6 | 23.8* | 21.6* | 15.1* | 160.0 | 24.2* | 7 | 46.7 |
10 | Co 86032 × Co 86249 | 3 | 30.0 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 21.9 | 20.1 | 14.1 | 116.7 | 16.5 | 2 | 66.7 |
11 | CoVC 14062 (GC) | 18 | 28.0 | 2.6 | 2.0* | 21.7 | 20.0 | 14.1 | 155.6 | 21.9 | 7 | 24.1 |
12 | NB 94–545 (GC) | 6 | 29.0 | 3.3* | 2.0* | 19.5 | 17.3 | 12.0 | 161.1 | 19.3 | 1 | 16.7 |
13 | ISH 69 (GC) | 18 | 33.0 | 2.8* | 1.9 | 20.4 | 19.9 | 14.4 | 174.2* | 25.0* | 1 | 5.6 |
14 | CoSnk 03707 (GC) | 9 | 36.0* | 2.7 | 1.4 | 21.7 | 20.4 | 14.5 | 140.0 | 20.3 | 4 | 44.4 |
15 | CoSnk 03754 (GC) | 3 | 29.0 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 20.9 | 18.9 | 13.2 | 153.1 | 20.2 | 1 | 33.3 |
16 | ISH 157 (GC) | 20 | 29.0 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 21.1 | 19.4 | 13.7 | 153.1 | 20.9 | 2 | 10.0 |
17 | CoN 07072 (GC) | 8 | 36.0* | 2.5 | 1.6 | 20.9 | 19.2 | 13.5 | 160.0 | 21.6 | 1 | 12.5 |
18 | MS 68/47 (GC) | 33 | 27.0 | 3.2* | 2.3* | 19.0 | 17.6 | 12.4 | 172.5* | 21.5 | 9 | 27.3 |
19 | Co 8371 (GC) | 8 | 27.0 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 20.9 | 20.1 | 14.4 | 142.5 | 20.6 | 4 | 50.0 |
20 | Co 85002 (GC) | 45 | 27.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 22.1 | 21.1 | 15.1* | 142.5 | 21.5 | 25 | 55.6 |
21 | Co 87015 (GC) | 4 | 35.0* | 2.5 | 1.5 | 22.3 | 21.5* | 15.5* | 145.8 | 22.5 | 3 | 75.0 |
22 | Co 8213 (GC) | 9 | 28.0 | 2.7 | 2.0* | 20.6 | 18.9 | 13.3 | 155.6 | 20.7 | 5 | 55.6 |
23 | ISH 512 (GC) | 5 | 29.0 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 21.9 | 18.5 | 12.5 | 136.9 | 17.1 | 1 | 20.0 |
24 | ISH 536 (GC) | 4 | 28.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 20.9 | 19.3 | 13.6 | 147.8 | 20.1 | 2 | 50.0 |
25 | CoVSI 15122 (GC) | 6 | 22.0 | 2.8* | 2.3* | 21.0 | 19.5 | 13.8 | 140.6 | 19.4 | 4 | 66.7 |
26 | Co 13018 (GC) | 6 | 22.0 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 24.1* | 22.2* | 15.7* | 103.9 | 16.3 | 5 | 83.3 |
27 | Co 86011 (GC) | 12 | 35.0* | 2.7 | 1.9 | 21.9 | 20.4 | 14.5 | 184.7* | 26.7* | 7 | 58.3 |
28 | Co 85002 (GC) | 5 | 30.0 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 22.3 | 21.1 | 15.1* | 141.7 | 21.3 | 3 | 60.0 |
29 | Co 87015 (GC) | 3 | 34.0* | 2.6 | 1.6 | 21.7 | 20.3 | 14.4 | 151.1 | 21.8 | 2 | 66.7 |
30 | Co 99004 (GC) | 13 | 33.0 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 23.6* | 20.4 | 14.0 | 165.0 | 23.3* | 6 | 46.2 |
31 | ISH 502 (GC) | 4 | 18.0 | 2.7 | 2.3* | 21.4 | 20.1 | 14.3 | 115.0 | 16.4 | 1 | 25.0 |
32 | CoT 10367 (GC) | 4 | 21.0 | 2.7 | 1.4 | 18.9 | 17.3 | 12.2 | 81.7 | 2 | 50.0 |
33 | PI 15131 (GC) | 4 | 24.0 | 2.7 | 2.1* | 20.2 | 18.2 | 12.7 | 140.0 | 17.8 | 2 | 50.0 |
Total/ Mean | 482 | 29.0 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 21.4 | 19.1 | 14.7 | 142.5 | 21.9 | 174 | |
Commercial checks used in the study |
C1 | CoC 671 | | 33.0 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 24.6 | 22.0 | 15.3 | 146.7 | 22.4 | | |
C2 | Co 09004 | | 32.0 | 2.9 | 1.8 | 23.4 | 21.2 | 14.8 | 160.0 | 23.7 | | |
C3 | CoSnk 09211 | | 36.0 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 23.6 | 21.2 | 14.8 | 140.0 | 20.7 | | |
C4 | Co 86032 | | 30.0 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 22.6 | 20.0 | 13.8 | 141.7 | 19.6 | | |
C5 | CoSnk 09227 | | 35.0 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 22.4 | 20.3 | 14.2 | 145.8 | 20.7 | | |
C6 | CoSnk 09293 | | 26.0 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 21.9 | 20.1 | 14.1 | 130.0 | 18.4 | | |
C7 | CoSnk 13374 | | 23.0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 22.9 | 20.0 | 13.7 | 159.7 | 21.9 | | |
C8 | CoSnk 13436 | | 22.0 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 21.1 | 19.6 | 13.9 | 165.0 | 22.9 | | |
| CD @ 5% | | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 27.4 | 3.6 | | |
* Significantly superior over popular grown check Co 86032, SE: Standard Error, CD: Critical difference, NCE: Number of clones evaluated per cross, NMC/ plot: Number of millable canes per plot, CG: Cane girth (cm), SCW: Single cane weight (kg), Brix%: Brix per cent in juice, Pol%: Sucrose content in juice, CCS%: Commercial cane sugar per cent, CY: Cane yield (t/ha), CCSY: Commercial cane sugar yield (t/ha), NSC: Number of selectable clones per cross in first clonal trial, PSS−II: Percentage of selectable clones advanced to second clonal trial from first clonal trial, GC: General collections |
Table 5
Mean performances of 25 promising genotypes and their family code for commercially important traits in first clonal generation of sugarcane
Genotype | FC | NMC /plot | CG (cm) | SCW (kg) | Brix % | Pol % | CCS % | CY (t/ha) | CCSY (t/ha) |
SNK 190015 | 1 | 27.00 | 2.95* | 2.16* | 22.60 | 20.06 | 15.53* | 162.00 | 25.16 |
SNK 191675 | 2 | 30.00 | 2.73 | 2.22* | 24.50* | 21.14 | 16.21* | 185.00* | 29.99* |
SNK 192595 | 2 | 35.00* | 2.83 | 1.84 | 21.04 | 19.16 | 14.95 | 178.89 | 26.74* |
SNK 191273 | 3 | 26.00 | 2.85 | 2.34* | 24.06* | 21.36* | 16.54* | 169.00 | 27.95* |
SNK 190145 | 5 | 30.00 | 2.78 | 2.10* | 23.10 | 21.44* | 16.83* | 175.00* | 29.45* |
SNK 190161 | 5 | 34.00* | 2.79 | 1.88 | 22.60 | 20.06 | 15.53* | 177.56* | 27.57* |
SNK 190288 | 5 | 34.00* | 2.86 | 1.96 | 22.60 | 18.59 | 14.03 | 185.11* | 25.97 |
SNK 190548 | 6 | 37.00* | 2.74 | 1.85 | 21.94 | 17.31 | 12.86 | 190.14* | 24.45 |
SNK 190392 | 6 | 32.00 | 2.89 | 2.15* | 21.44 | 16.89 | 12.54 | 191.11* | 23.97 |
SNK 190412 | 6 | 33.00 | 3.03* | 2.13* | 21.44 | 16.64 | 12.29 | 195.25* | 24.00 |
SNK 190631 | 7 | 22.00 | 3.38* | 2.80* | 18.94 | 16.21 | 12.40 | 171.11 | 21.22 |
SNK 192087 | 8 | 28.00 | 2.85 | 2.19* | 22.94 | 20.75 | 16.16* | 170.33 | 27.53* |
SNK 190690 | 9 | 32.00 | 2.51 | 2.02 | 23.56* | 22.62* | 17.94* | 179.56 | 32.21* |
SNK 190062 | 9 | 45.00* | 2.66 | 1.58 | 21.10 | 18.04 | 13.79 | 197.50* | 27.24* |
SNK 190680 | 9 | 33.00 | 2.78 | 1.69 | 24.56* | 22.49* | 17.14* | 154.92 | 26.55* |
SNK 191748 | 18 | 28.00 | 2.98* | 2.31* | 22.65 | 20.20 | 15.66* | 179.67* | 28.14* |
SNK 191688 | 18 | 25.00 | 2.80 | 2.67* | 24.00* | 19.70 | 14.85 | 185.42 | 27.53* |
SNK 191829 | 18 | 32.00 | 2.94* | 2.05 | 21.65 | 18.15 | 13.79 | 182.22 | 25.13 |
SNK 191724 | 18 | 29.00 | 2.88 | 2.04 | 21.49 | 19.25 | 14.95 | 164.33 | 24.57 |
SNK 192184 | 19 | 30.00 | 3.18* | 2.32* | 21.94 | 19.20 | 14.80 | 193.33* | 28.61* |
SNK 192067 | 27 | 30.00 | 2.77 | 2.07 | 23.44* | 19.19 | 14.46 | 172.50 | 24.94 |
SNK 192075 | 27 | 30.00 | 2.93* | 1.99 | 22.44 | 19.85 | 15.35* | 165.83 | 25.46 |
SNK 192054 | 30 | 25.00 | 2.72 | 2.54* | 22.94 | 20.99 | 16.41* | 176.39 | 28.95* |
SNK 190541 | 30 | 32.00 | 2.51 | 2.02 | 23.56* | 20.81 | 16.22* | 175.00 | 28.39* |
SNK 192038 | 30 | 31.00 | 2.93* | 2.17* | 21.94 | 19.16 | 14.75 | 186.86* | 27.56* |
Mean | | 29.00 | 2.64 | 1.85 | 21.43 | 19.09 | 14.73 | 142.50 | 21.89 |
S.D. | | 7.65 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 1.80 | 2.01 | 1.60 | 36.43 | 5.22 |
Minimum | | 15.00 | 1.95 | 1.16 | 17.44 | 14.53 | 10.97 | 66.50 | 8.72 |
Maximum | | 52.00 | 3.38 | 2.80 | 24.56 | 22.63 | 17.94 | 224.00 | 33.72 |
Commercial checks used in the study |
Co 09004 | | 32.00 | 2.90 | 1.80 | 23.40 | 21.18 | 14.81 | 160.00 | 23.70 |
Co 86032 | | 30.00 | 2.65 | 1.70 | 22.20 | 20.00 | 13.84 | 141.67 | 19.61 |
CD @ 5% | | 3.95 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 1.20 | 1.32 | 1.13 | 27.43 | 3.56 |
CV | | 26.38 | 10.98 | 21.62 | 8.40 | 10.53 | 10.86 | 27.67 | 23.85 |
* Significantly superior over popular grown check Co 86032 for commercially important traits (CCS%, CY and CCSY), SD: Standard Deviation, CD: Critical difference, CV: Coefficient of variation, FC: Family code, NMC/ plot: Number of millable canes per plot, CG: Cane girth (cm), SCW: Single cane weight (kg), Brix%: Brix per cent in juice, Pol%: Sucrose content in juice, CCS%: Commercial cane sugar per cent, CY: Cane yield (t/ha) and CCSY: Commercial cane sugar yield (t/ha) |
Hence, in the case of single cane weight, it directly contributes to cane yield. The present study revealed varying average single cane weight among different crosses and clones in both seedling and first clonal generations. In seedling generation, the average single cane weight of 33 crosses ranged from 0.85 to 2.08 kg, with a mean of 1.55 kg. Meanwhile, among the 482 clones in the first clonal generation, the range of average single cane weight varied from 1.16 to 2.80 kg with a mean of 1.85 kg. The mean performance of MS 68/47 (GC), NB 94–545 (GC) and CoVSI 15122 (GC) was significantly superior to the popularly grown check, Co 86032 in both the seedling and first clonal generation for single cane weight. Conversely, the lowest single cane weight was observed in Co 7201 × ISH 307 and CoT 10367 (GC) (Table 1 and Table 4). Similarly, cane girth, which is another important trait directly linked to cane yield, exhibited variations among different crosses in both generations. In the seedling generation, the range of average cane girth for the 33 crosses varied from 1.30 to 4.10 cm with a mean of 2.39 cm (Table 1). In the first clonal generation, cane girth ranged from 1.9 to 3.4 cm with an average of 2.64 cm. The mean performance of certain crosses viz., CoVC 14062 × CoT 8201, NB-94-545 × CoH 70, NB 94–545 (GC) and MS 68/47 (GC) was significantly superior to the popularly grown check Co 86032 in both the seedling and first clonal generations for cane girth. Conversely, the lower cane girth was recorded in CoT 10367 (GC) and ISH 512 (GC) (Table 1 and Table 4). Similar trends in results were reported by Abo Elenen et al. (2018); Sanghera and Jamwal (2019a).
In terms of sugar productivity traits, the Brix% in the seedling generation ranged from 16.6–24.0%, with an average of 21.5%, while in the first clonal generation, it varied from 17.4 to 26.6% with an average of 21.4% at harvest. The mean performance of the cross, Co 86032 × CoSe 92423 was significantly superior to the popularly grown check, Co 86032 in both seedling and first clonal generation for Brix% in juice, while the lower Brix% was observed in crosses viz., NB-94-545 × CoH 70, MS 68/47 (GC) and NB 94–545 (GC) (Table 1 and Table 4). The wide range, combined with significantly superior means compared to Co 86032, indicates the presence of a higher frequency of progenies with high Brix values. This enhances the scope for isolating progenies with high juice quality for further advancement. These results are consistent with the findings of Abo Elenen et al. (2018), who reported a Brix% range of 13 to 24% in different cross combinations.
In the current investigation, among the bi-parental crosses, CoVC 14062 × CoT 8201, Co 86032 × CoSe 92423, Thirumadhuram × CoPant 97222 and among the general collections (open pollinated crosses), MS 68/47, Co 86011 and Co 99004 were found to be promising families in terms of germination, survival ability and the percentage of selectable segregants in both seedling and first clonal generations (Table 1, 2 and Fig. 1). Furthermore, the progenies from these combinations exhibited high mean values and showed a significant yield advantage over the current commercial cultivars. They also showed a good range of variations in yield attributing traits viz., NMC, cane girth, single cane weight, Brix%, Pol% and CCS%. This suggests that these promising parents can be relied upon for the development of economically valuable segregants that combine both cane (tonnage) and sugar productivity (juice quality) features. Additionally, the general collections of Co 87015 and Co 13018 exhibited significantly superior juice quality parameters over Co 86032, with highly acceptable tonnage features (NMC and SCW), leading to high PSS-II, enhancing the scope for isolating high sucrose segregants combining better tonnage much preferred by industry. Overall, these promising parents have the potential to contribute to the creation of new genetic materials for commercial sugarcane cultivation and also for the development of trait specific improved clones for future improvement programs.