Abstract
Commercial sugarcane varieties are hybrids between Saccharum officinarum, known for its high sucrose content but poor ratooning growth, and Saccharum spontaneum, known for its low sucrose but greater propensity to produce tillers and better disease resistance. While only 20% of the Saccharum hybrid genome originates from S. spontaneum, the genes underlying the ability to produce more tillers over successive harvests have historically been associated with this species. In order to assess the variation in stool branching and tiller recruitment, 10 genotypes were assessed, including four S. spontaneum, two S. officinarum, two recent S. spontaneum introgressed lines and 2 commercial hybrids. Differences in branching were observed amongst the S. spontaneum genotypes; while all were classified as sympodial rhizome types lacking a terminal bud, there were differences in the degree of branching and the lengths of the underground internodes, with some classified as sprawling (with seven levels of branching) and others as clumping (with four to five levels of branching) depending on the stem nodes. In contrast, the S. officinarum genotypes had limited branching, expanding to only three levels. The S. hybrids and S. spontaneum backcrosses had greater similarity to the clumping S. spontaneum genotypes than to the S. officinarum genotypes. Principal component analysis separated the genotypes of sprawling S. spontaneums, clumping S. spontaneum, hybrids/introgressed lines and S. officinarum. The variation in stool branching may be used to select S. spontaneum parents that would yield better ratooning abilities in their hybrids with S. officinarum, without the ‘weediness’ associated with sprawling rhizomes, for commercial sugarcane production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Aitken K, Li J, Piperidis G, Qing C, Yuanhong F, Jackson P (2018) Worldwide genetic diversity of the wild species Saccharum spontaneum and level of diversity captured within sugarcane breeding programs. Crop Sci 58:218–229. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2017.06.0339
Aitken KS, Hermann S, Karno K, Bonnett GD, Mcintyre LC, Jackson PA (2008) Genetic control of yield related stalk traits in sugarcane. Theor Appl Genet 117:1191–1203
Babu CN (1965) Genetical studies in Saccharum spontaneum L. inheritance of habit and occurrence of sprawlers. Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol. pp 1014–1020
Babu CN, Ethirajan AS (1962) A note on use of Saccharum spontaneum L. in sugar cane breeding. Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol. pp 464–469
Banik RL (2015) Morphology and growth. In: Kohl M (ed) Bamboo. The plant and its uses. Springer, Switzerland
Barber CA (1919) Tillering or under-ground branching, vol 10. Studies in Indian sugarcane, No, p 4
Bonnett G, Kushner J, Saltonstall K (2014) The reproductive biology of Saccharum spontaneum L.: implications for management of this invasive weed in Panama. NeoBiota 20:61–79
Bonnett GD (2014) Developmental stages (phenology). In: Moore PH, Botha FC (eds) Sugarcane: physiology, biochemistry, and functional biology. Wiley, Chichester
Bonnett GD, Olivares-Villegas JJ, Berding N, Saltonstall K Saccharum spontaneum a close relative of sugarcane is both beneficial and an invasive weed. In: ComBio 2011, Cairns, 25–29 September 2011 2011. ComBio 2011, p 86
Chapman LS, Wilson JR (1996) Improving the ratooning ability of sugarcane. Final report SD96003. Sugar Research and Development Coporation, Brisbane
D’Hont A, Glaszmann JC (2001) Sugarcane genome analysis with molecular markers - a first decade of research. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol 24:556–559
Dillon SL, Shapter FM, Henry RJ, Cordeiro G, Izquierdo L, Lee LS (2007) Domestication to crop improvement: genetic resources for Sorghum and Saccharum (Andropogoneae). Ann Bot 100:975–989
Edme SJ, Miller JD, Glaz B, Tai PYP, Comstock JC (2005) Genetic contribution to yield gains in the Florida sugarcane industry across 33 years. Crop Sci 45:92–97
Glassop D, Pollock D, Perroux JM, Rae AL (2017) Variation in stoold architecture and bud sprouting: morphological traits that may contribute to ratooning. In: Cox MC (Ed) Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Cairns, 3rd - 5th May 2017 2017. ASSCT, p 10
Grivet L, Arruda P (2001) Sugarcane genomics: depicting the complex genome of an important tropical crop. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:122–127
Hoekstra RG (1976) Anaylsis of when to plough out a sugarcane field. Proc S. Afr. Sugar Technol Assoc 1976:103–113
Hogarth DM, Allsopp PG, Queensland. Bureau of Sugar Experiment S (2000) Manual of canegrowing. Manual of cane growing. Indooroopilly, Qld. : Bureau of sugar experiment stations, Indooroopilly, Qld
Hu FY et al (2003) Convergent evolution of perenniality in rice and sorghum. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:4050. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0630531100
Jang CS, Kamps TL, Skinner DN, Schulze SR, Vencill WK, Paterson AH (2006) Functional classification, genomic organization, putatively cis-acting regulatory elements, and relationship to quantitative trait loci, of sorghum genes with rhizome-enriched expression. Plant Physiol 142:1148–1159. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.082891
Keerthipala AP, Dharmawardene N (2001) Determining optimal replanting cycles of sugarcane. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol. pp 65–69
Lee TSG, Bressan EA (2006) The potential of ethanol production from sugarcane in Brazil. Sugar Tech 8:195–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943556
Li Y-R, Wei Y-A (2006) Sugar industry in China: R & D and policy initiatives to meet sugar and biofuel demand of future. Sugar Tech 8:203–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943558
Matsuoka S, Garcia A (2011) Sugarcane underground organs: going deep for sustainable production. Trop Plant Biol 4:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12042-011-9076-3
Moore PH (1987) Anatomy and morphology. In: Heinz DJ (ed) Developments in crop science. Elsevier, Netherlands
OCED-FAO (2019) Sugar. In: OCED-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019
Paterson AH et al. (2009) The Sorghum bicolor genome and the diversification of grasses Nature 457:551–556 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7229/suppinfo/nature07723_S1.html
Perreta M, Ramos J, Tivano JC, Vegetti A (2011) Descriptive characters of growth form in Poaceae—An overview Flora - Morphology. Distrib Funct Ecol Plants 206:283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2010.04.022
Rae AL (2018) Impact of stool architecture on ratooning ability: Final report 2015/004. Sugar Research Australia Ltd, Brisbane
Rae AL, Martinelli AP, Dornelas MC (2014) Anatomy and Morphology. In: Moore Paul H, Botha Frederik C (eds) Sugarcane: physiology, biochemistry, and functional biology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester
Ramdoyal K, Badaloo GH (2007) An evaluation of interspecific families of different nobilised groups in contrasting environments for breeding novel sugarcane clones for biomass. In: Proceedings of the international society of sugar cane technologists conference. pp 632–645
Roach B (1989) Origin and improvement of the genetic base of sugarcane. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol 11:34–47
Roach BT (1968) Quantitative effects of hybridisation in Saccharum officinarum x Saccharum spontaneum crosses. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol. pp 939–954
Roach BT (1971) Nobilisation of sugarcane. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol. 4:206–216
Roach BT (1977) Utilisation of Saccharum spontaneum in sugarcane breeding. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol 16:43–58
Saltonstall K, Bonnett GD (2012) Fire promotes growth and reproduction of Saccharum spontaneum (L.) in Panama. Biol Invasions 14:2479–2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0245-6
Tew TL (1987) New varieties. In: Heinz DJ (ed) Developments in crop science. Elsevier, Netherlands
Walker DIT (1971) Utilisation of Noble and Saccharum spontaneum germplasm in the West Indies. Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol 1971(14):224–232
Whiteing C, Kingston G (2008) Final report - SRDC project SD08005 - BSS270 - Regional adoption of alternative harvester configurations for sustainable harvesting efficiency. Sugar Research and Development Corporation, Brisbane
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr Karen Aitken, CSIRO Agriculture and Food, for advice on divergent S. spontaneum, and Dr Felicity Atkin, SRA Meringa, for supplying setts.
Funding
This research was funded by Sugar Research Australia, project number 2015/004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Donna Glassop and Jai Perroux. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Donna Glassop and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glassop, D., Perroux, J. & Rae, A. Differences in sugarcane stool branching within Saccharum spontaneum genotypes and compared to Saccharum officinarum and commercial varieties. Euphytica 217, 50 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-021-02789-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-021-02789-w