Growth Attributes
According to the findings, the combined application of inorganic and organic sources as well as biofertilizers caused a significant fluctuation in the sugarcane germination percentage at 45 days after planting (DAP) (Table 1). The combined use of RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB recorded the highest germination percentage (43.4%) and its range varied from 43.4 to 36.5 percent but there was no significant difference between the treatments (Banerjee et al. 2018). The tiller population of sugarcane had significant differences among the treatments at 120, 150 and 180 DAP by the combined application of inorganic, organic and biofertilizers as shown in Fig. 2. Regardless of treatment differences maximum tillers was recorded at 120 DAP and gradually declined thereafter at 150 and 180 DAP. The maximum number of tiller population (170.7, 168.2 and 165.3×103/ha) was recorded at 120, 150 and 180 DAP in treatment which received RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB which is 89, 90 and 92% higher over untreated plot respectively. This can be possible due to better availability of nutrients in soil because of addition of inorganic fertilizers in combination with organic manures (vermicompost, green manure) and biofertilizers which resulted in more uptakes of nutrients. The improved tiller populations may have resulted from the increased nutrient absorption caused by integrated nutrient management (Bokhtiar et al. 2005). The data on plant height of sugarcane was recorded at 180 days after planting and it varies from 205.9-240.3cm (Table 1). It was found that the integrated application of nutrients showed no significant difference among the treatments. However, taller plants were observed in treatment which constitute RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB which is 16% higher over the treatment which constitute no fertilisers. Significant differences were observed in dry matter production which was very slow during early growth stages (90 DAP and 120 DAP). However, it increases sharply up to 150 DAP followed by a gradual increment till harvest stage. While at harvest stage it was found non-significant. The plots receiving no fertilizer and the recommended dose of fertilizer accumulated the least dry matter and it was decreased by 33, 19%, 43, 33%, 55, 45%, and 25, 5% at 90, 120, 150 and at harvest stage, respectively, in comparison to the treatment which comprise RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB (Fig. 2). Application of only recommended dose of fertilizers had less dry matter accumulation as compared to integrated nutrient management might be due to loss of nutrients through various ways.
Table 1
Growth, yield and yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by different treatments during spring season
Treatments | Germination percentage at 45 DAP | Plant height (cm) at 180 DAP | Millable canes at harvest (× 103 ha− 1) | Cane length at harvest (cm) | Cane diameter (cm) | Single cane weight (g) | Cane yield (t/ha) |
T1: Absolute control | 41.6 ± 2.06a | 205.9 ± 22.24a | 70.5 ± 2.62c | 275.3 ± 24.55a | 2.0 ± 0.13a | 605 ± 0.08a | 41.8 ± 0.71 c |
T2: RDF | 38.1 ± 0.30a | 223.9 ± 8.55a | 100.6 ± 8.44b | 296.7 ± 18.78a | 2.1 ± 0.15a | 722 ± 0.04a | 71.6 ± 10.02b |
T3: RDF + vermicompost | 36.5 ± 5.19a | 227.8 ± 15.04a | 122.3 ± 4.56a | 299.4 ± 18.36a | 2.2 ± 0.15a | 748 ± 0.03a | 90.2 ± 7.29a |
T4: RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter | 42.1 ± 0.30a | 233.3 ± 13.07a | 124.1 ± 5.72a | 311.7 ± 15.89a | 2.2 ± 0.11a | 751 ± 0.07a | 92.1 ± 2.11a |
T5:RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB | 43.4 ± 2.96a | 240.3 ± 8.73a | 125.4 ± 2.18a | 312.8 ± 14.44a | 2.2 ± 0.07a | 757 ± 0.05a | 94.0 ± 5.32a |
T6: RDF + GM | 39.2 ± 1.28a | 227.8 ± 9.10a | 117.7 ± 4.17a | 301.7 ± 17.02a | 2.2 ± 0.09a | 742 ± 0.03a | 86.1 ± 3.36ab |
T7: RDF + GM + Azotobacter | 40.7 ± 0.54a | 230.6 ± 7.34a | 119.1 ± 9.76a | 304.4 ± 19.27a | 2.2 ± 0.08a | 753 ± 0.00a | 88.5 ± 4.25a |
T8: RDF + GM + Azotobacter + PSB | 41.1 ± 2.01a | 238.3 ± 16.41a | 121.9 ± 0.47a | 312.2 ± 15.93a | 2.2 ± 0.05a | 743 ± 0.01a | 89.6 ± 0.74a |
Different letters in the same column indicates significant effect at 0.05% level (Duncan multiple range test); RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizer (150 kg N, 85 kg P₂O₅, and 60 kg K₂O); GM: Green manure; PSB: Phosphate solubilising bacteria; Vermicompost was applied @ 5 t/ha, Azotobacter and PSB @4 kg/ha |
Yield Attributes and Yield
The analysis of the data showed that in comparison to the absolute control and the recommended dose of fertiliser (RDF), the combined application of nutrients utilising inorganic, organic, and biofertilizers produced significantly more millable cane (Table 1). The treatment receiving RDF + vermicompost together with Azotobacter and Phosphorus Solubilising Bacteria (PSB) recorded significantly higher millable canes (125.4 ×103/ha) which was 78% higher than the unfertilised plot. This may be due to the fact that organic sources enhance the physical, chemical and biological environment of the soil creating the ideal conditions for nutrient release, whereas chemical fertilizer applications immediately supply the NPK levels through the recommended dose. Similar finding was recorded by Umesh et al. (2013). Furthermore, when nutrients from both organic and inorganic sources were supplied along with biofertilizers, a considerable increase in the quantity of millable canes was produced (Patel, 2006; Sinha et, al., 2024). The sugarcane's cane length, cane diameter, and single cane weight did not significantly differ across the treatments. The cane length, cane diameter and single cane weight were increased by 11%, 9% and 20% respectively, in the RDF + Vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB treated plot as compared to the unfertilized plot. The integrated use of organic and inorganic fertiliser combinations with biofertilizers also had an impact on the variation in cane output (Table 1). The maximum cane yield of 94.0 t/ha of sugarcane was recorded in RDF + vermicompost along with Azotobacter and PSB treated plot which was 124% higher than the 41.8 t/ha of an untreated plot. Throughout the sugarcane plant's growth phase, both the steady supply of plant nutrients from organic sources and the quick and easy availability of plant nutrients from inorganic sources. The combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers along with biofertilizers also provides a favourable soil environment for plant growth, which might have improved the cane yield. Balanced chemical fertiliser use alone will not be able to sustain cane productivity since one or more secondary and micronutrient deficiencies are becoming more prevalent. When chemical fertilisers and organic manures were used together, productivity increased noticeably and overall soil fertility improved compared to when chemical fertilisers were used alone (Singh et al. 1995). Similar finding was recorded by Shukla et al. (2015). According to Singh et al. (2014), the integrated usage of inorganic + organic fertiliser combined with biofertilizers (Azotobacter + PSB) considerably boosted cane production. Lakshmi et al. (2011) explained that FYM + RDF recorded a higher cane yield than RDF alone. Higher cane and sugar yield was reported by Durai and Devaraj (2003) with the application of FYM + 100% NPK + Azospirillum.
Juice Quality
Data on juice quality are presented in Table 2. Regarding juice quality, including brix, pol, purity, and CCS%, none of the treatments had any significant impact. The genetic makeup of the cultivar has the greatest impact on juice quality (brix, pol, purity and CCS%). In the current study, the application of organic, inorganic, and biofertilizers could have created a favourable soil environment and increased the supply of nutrients due to various treatments, which could have proportionately improved the growth and maintained the juice quality under various treatments. The results of research confirmed the non-significant impact of applying biocompost on juice quality by Rakkiyappan et al. (2001). According to Thakur et al. (2012), cane juice quality, including brix, sucrose, and purity content, is unchanged by the use of organic and conventional farming methods. According to research by Sinha et al. (2014) and Kumar (2012), both organic and inorganic nutrients had no impact on the juice's quality indicators of brix, pol, and purity.
Table 2
Juice quality parameters as influenced by different treatments during spring season
Treatments | Juice quality (%) | CCS (%) |
Brix | Pol | Purity coefficient |
T1 : Absolute control | 17.8 ± 0.48a | 15.7 ± 0.57a | 88.3 ± 0.87a | 10.9 ± 0.18 a |
T2 : RDF | 18.3 ± 1.03a | 16.1 ± 0.27a | 88.4 ± 0.52a | 11.1 ± 0.17a |
T3 : RDF + vermicompost | 18.3 ± 0.25a | 16.3 ± 0.44a | 89.2 ± 1.38 a | 11.3 ± 0.38a |
T4 : RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter | 18.6 ± 0.16a | 16.5 ± 0.57a | 88.6 ± 0.90a | 11.4 ± 0.13a |
T5 : RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB | 18.2 ± 0.30a | 16.1 ± 0.20a | 88.6 ± 2.52a | 11.1 ± 0.24a |
T6 : RDF + GM | 18.9 ± 0.17a | 16.6 ± 0.68a | 87.9 ± 4.42a | 11.5 ± 0.17a |
T7 : RDF + GM + Azotobacter | 19.3 ± 0.15a | 17.0 ± 0.40a | 88.0 ± 2.70a | 11.7 ± 0.44a |
T8 : RDF + GM + Azotobacter + PSB | 19.2 ± 0.23a | 16.8 ± 0.35a | 87.4 ± 1.96a | 11.6 ± 0.35a |
Similar letters in the same column indicates no significant differences at 0.05% level (Duncan multiple range test); RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizer (150 kg N, 85 kg P₂O₅, and 60 kg K₂O); GM: Green manure; PSB: Phosphate solubilising bacteria; Vermicompost was applied @ 5 t/ha, Azotobacter and PSB @4 kg/ha |
Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE)
The results on NUE for the nutrients N, P, and K assessed in terms of PFP, AUE, PUE, and CRE are shown in Fig. 3. The variation in sugarcane production may be responsible for variations in partial factor productivity, physiological use efficiency, agronomic use efficiency, and crop recovery efficiency of plant crops. Further, it was noticed that the application of RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB gave higher AUEn (348.1 kg kg-1), AUEp (614.2 kg kg-1) and AUEk (870.1 kg kg-1) than the rest of the treatment. Partial factor productivity and crop recovery efficiency was also found higher value in treatments which constitute RDF + vermicompost + Azotobacter + PSB which was PFPn (626.9 kg kg-1), PFPp (1106.5 kg kg-1), PFPk (1567.5 kg kg-1), CREn (1.13 kg kg-1), CREp (0.15 kg kg-1), and CREk (2.59 kg kg-1) respectively than the rest of the treatment. Physiological use efficiency of sugarcane plant crop was varied according to uptake of nutrient by the plants as well as cane yield was obtained. The data variation of PUEn (301.1-319.7 kg kg-1), PUEp (2983.8-3236.1 kg kg-1), PUEk (332.0-353.7 kg kg-1) respectively. The present investigation's findings showed that using inorganic, organic, and biofertilizers in combination can boost sugarcane's N, P, and K of PFP, PUE, crop recovery efficiency, and agronomic use efficiency in sugarcane. Increases in NUE may be the result of optimal nutrient availability in response to crop demand, which results in effective uptake. Similar finding was recorded by Tayade et al. (2020).
Correlation Studies
Correlation studies (Table 3), revealed that cane yield was highly correlated with the number of tillers at 180 DAP (r = 0.85), dry matter production at the harvest stage (r = 0.64), number of millable cane (r = 0.91), and single cane weight (r = 0.66) respectively. However, plant height at 210 DAP was significantly correlated with cane yield. Dry matter production at harvest stage, millable canes and single cane weight was highly correlated with number of tillers at 180 DAP. Kumar (2020) also reported similar results. However, there was no statistically significant correlation between tiller and quality indicators like brix, pol, purity, and CCS% at 180 DAP. Plant height was significantly correlated with brix percentage and non-significantly correlated with dry matter production (DMP), millable cane, single cane weight, pol and CCS%. Dry matter production (DMP) was highly correlated with millable cane (r = 0.63) and significantly correlated with single cane weight (r = 0.45). Millable cane was highly correlated with single cane weight (r = 0.54). Pol percent was highly correlated with purity and commercial cane sugar (CCS) percent (r = 0.57 and r = 0.75) respectively and CCS percent was also highly correlated with purity percent (r = 0.54). Non-significant correlations were found between cane yield and brix, pol, purity, and CCS percentage.
Table 3
Correlation coefficient of growth, cane yield and juice quality in sugarcane
| Tillers at 180 DAP | Plant height at 210 DAP | Dry matter accumulation (g/plant) at harvest | Millable canes (× 103/ha) | Single cane weight (kg) | Cane yield (t/ha) | Brix (%) | Pol (%) | Purity (%) | Commercial cane sugar (%) |
Tillers at 180 DAP | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
Plant height at 210 DAP | 0.359NS | 1 | | | | | | | | |
Dry matter accumulation (g/plant) at harvest | 0.557** | 0.377NS | 1 | | | | | | | |
Millable canes (× 103/ha) | 0.847** | 0.346NS | 0.629** | 1 | | | | | | |
Single cane weight (kg) | 0.530** | 0.211NS | 0.448* | 0.543** | 1 | | | | | |
Cane yield (t/ha) | 0.854** | 0.440* | 0.638** | 0.913** | 0.657** | 1 | | | | |
Brix (%) | 0.327NS | 0.450* | 0.293NS | 0.365NS | 0.287NS | 0.267NS | 1 | | | |
Pol (%) | 0.400NS | 0.086NS | 0.141NS | 0.264NS | 0.074NS | 0.265NS | 0.376NS | 1 | | |
Purity (%) | 0.004NS | -0.124NS | -0.178NS | -0.050NS | -0.187NS | -0.032NS | -0.283NS | 0.571** | 1 | |
Commercial cane sugar (%) | 0.396NS | 0.133NS | 0.232NS | 0.232NS | 0.424* | 0.376NS | 0.243NS | 0.754** | 0.535** | 1 |