Advertisement

Sugar Tech

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 34–38 | Cite as

Field performance of micropropagated plants and potential of seed cane for stalk yield and quality in sugarcane

  • S. K. SandhuEmail author
  • S. S. Gosal
  • K. S. Thind
  • S. K. Uppal
  • Bipen Sharma
  • Madhu Meeta
  • Karnail Singh
  • G. S. Cheema
Research Article

Abstract

Two field experiments were conducted to ascertain the potential of micropropagation technique for faster production of seed cane by using tissue culture plants raised through apical meristem culture in first generation (TC 0) followed by clonal propagation through cane setts in next generation (TC1). About 18, 520 plants, produced from a single shoot through micropropagation, were required at row to row and plant to plant spacing of 90 and 60 cm, respectively as compared to 88 quintal of cane seed in conventional methods for planting in an area of one hectare. Multiplication ratio was 100–150 times using tissue culture plants as compared to 11–12 using conventional cane setts, leading to drastic reduction in seed cane requirement. The TC 1 exhibited superiority over vegetatively propagated conventional crop for millable canes and stalk yield by 17 and 10.4 per cent, respectively. Though the single cane weight and cane diameter (non-significantly) were slightly lesser in TC1 as compared to conventional crop, this did not distress its potential as seed crop. The incidence of Ratoon Stunting Disease (RSD) and Leaf Scald Disease (LSD) was very low in TC 1 crop as compared to conventional crop. The findings established the potential of tissue culture technique for the production of quality seed free of pests and pathogens in the existing varieties and rapid multiplication of newly released varieties for quick adoption by the growers.

Keywords

sugarcane micropropagation apical meristem culture multiplication rate seed cane 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burner DM, Grisham MP (1995) Induction and stability of phenotypic variationsugarcane as affectd by propagation procedure. Crop Sci. 35: 875–880.Google Scholar
  2. Chen James CP (1985) Cane Sugar Handbook. 11th Edn. Wiley Interscience Publication, New York. Pp. 788–790; 951–52.Google Scholar
  3. Flynn J, Powell G, Perdomo R, Montes G, Quebedeaux K, Comstock JC (2005) Comparison of yield parameters and disease incidence of traditional seed cane sources and kleentek, a commercial tissue culture based seed cane. J. American Society of Sugarcane Technologists 25: 88–100.Google Scholar
  4. Gosal SS, Thind KS, Dhaliwal LS (1998) Micropropagation of sugarcane — An efficient protocol for commercial plant production. Crop Improv. 25(2): 167–171.Google Scholar
  5. Hendre RR, Iver RS and Kotwal M (1983) Rapid multiplication of sugarcane by tissue culture. Sugarcane 1: 5–8.Google Scholar
  6. Hoy JW, Bischoft KP, Milligan SB, Gravois KA (2003) Effect of tissue culture explant source on sugarcane yield components. Euphytica 129: 237–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Irvine JE, Benda GTA (1987) Transmission of sugar cane diseases in plants derived by rapid regeneration from diseased leaf tissue. Sugarcane 6: 14–16.Google Scholar
  8. Kresovich S, McGee RE, Drawe HJ, Rivera JL (1986) Variability of agronomic characters in populations of tissue culture-derived and vegetatively propagated sugarcane. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 19: 528–532.Google Scholar
  9. Lal Nand (1996) Comparative field performance of micropropagated plant of sugarcane. Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology 11(1): 29–31.Google Scholar
  10. Lorens AG, Martin FA (1987) Evaluation of in vitro propagated sugarcane hybrids for somaclonal variation. Crop Sci. 27: 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nigade RD, Kadam UA, Hasure RR, More SM (2004) Influence of planting of single eye bud settlings and tissue culture plantlets on growth and yield of suru sugarcane (Co 86032). Indian Sugar (Dec Issue): 721–725.Google Scholar
  12. Roth (1969) The elimination of the virus diseases, streak by thermotherapy and tissue culturing. Proc South Africa Sugar Tech Assoc. 43: 66–71.Google Scholar
  13. Saini Navinder, Saini ML, Jain RK (2004) Large-scale production, field performance and RAPD analysis of micropropagatd sugarcane plants. Indian J. Genet. 64(2): 102–107.Google Scholar
  14. Singh B, Yadav GC, Lal M (2001) An efficient protocol for micropropagation of sugarcane using shoot tip explants. Sugar Tech 3(3): 113–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shukla SK, Mehni Lal (2003) Effect of sett size, planting method and soil moisture regime on growth and yield of sugarcane. Indian Journal of Agri. Sciences 73(10): 534–537.Google Scholar
  16. Sreenivasan TV (1995) Micropropagation of newly released sugarcane varieties for quality seed production. Kisan World Jan: 22.Google Scholar
  17. Sood Neeru, Gupta Piyush K, Srivastava RK, Gosal SS (2006) Comparative studies on field performance of micropropagated and conventionally propagated sugarcane plants. Plant Tissue Cult. & Biotech 16(1): 25–29.Google Scholar
  18. Srivastava SN, Kadian VS, Taneja AD, Rathore DN (1989) Effect of seed treatment on germination, yield and quality of sugarcane. Indian Sugar 39(1):31–35.Google Scholar
  19. Thangavelu S (2004) Study of tillers in sugarcane genetic stocks and its relationship with growth factors and cane and sugar yield. Indian Sugar Vol. Nov: 601–605.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. K. Sandhu
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. S. Gosal
    • 2
  • K. S. Thind
    • 1
  • S. K. Uppal
    • 1
  • Bipen Sharma
    • 1
  • Madhu Meeta
    • 1
  • Karnail Singh
    • 1
  • G. S. Cheema
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Plant Breeding and GeneticsPAULudhianaIndia
  2. 2.School of Agriculture BiotechnologyPAULudhianaIndia
  3. 3.Department of AgronomyPAU Punjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia

Personalised recommendations