10.07.2015 Views

Crop yield response to water - Cra

Crop yield response to water - Cra

Crop yield response to water - Cra

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Yield and harvest indexCommercial <strong>yield</strong>s vary hugely. Under favourable climatic conditions (7 300 MJ/m 2 of radiationover the life cycle, 4 000 GDD using a base temperature of 10 o C) and adequate <strong>water</strong> supply(1 800 mm net) experimental <strong>yield</strong> of 200 <strong>to</strong>nne/ha fresh cane (24 <strong>to</strong>nne sucrose/ha) per yearcan be achieved (derived from Inman-Bamber, 1995). Actual commercial <strong>yield</strong>s under irrigationvary from 80 <strong>to</strong> 150 <strong>to</strong>nne/ha fresh cane (10 <strong>to</strong> 17 <strong>to</strong>nne sucrose/ha) (Waclawovsky et al., 2010).Worldwide a <strong>yield</strong> of 120 <strong>to</strong>nne/ha (14 <strong>to</strong>nne sucrose/ha) is considered a good <strong>yield</strong> under fullirrigation. Rainfed cane <strong>yield</strong>s vary from 30 <strong>to</strong> 90 <strong>to</strong>nne/ha of fresh cane per year depending onsoil and climatic conditions, with a <strong>yield</strong> of 60 <strong>to</strong>nne/ha considered as good. Water productivityin terms of above ground biomass and evapotranspiration (WP B/et ) ranges from 3.5 <strong>to</strong> 5.5 kg/m 3 ,and, in terms of sucrose and evapotranspiration (WP sucrose/et ), from 1.3 <strong>to</strong> 2.2 kg/m 3 (derivedfrom Thompson, 1976; Olivier and Singels, 2003; Carr and Knox, 2011).The sucrose content of fresh stalk varies in extremes from 5 <strong>to</strong> 16 percent and from 20 percent<strong>to</strong> 58 percent on a dry mass basis, depending on genotype, crop age and growth conditions(temperature and <strong>water</strong> status) during the last four weeks preceding harvest. Typical stalksucrose content at harvest is around 12.5 percent on a fresh mass basis and around 50 percen<strong>to</strong>n a dry mass basis. Expressed as sucrose mass per unit of aboveground biomass the harvestindex varies around 35 percent (derived from Thompson et al., 1976; Inman-Bamber et al.,2002; Carr and Knox, 2011)ReferencesBell, M.J. & Garside A.L. 2005. Shoot and stalk dynamics and the <strong>yield</strong> of sugarcane crops in tropical and subtropicalQueensland, Australia. Field <strong>Crop</strong> Research 92: 231-248.Bull & Glasziou. 1976. Sugar cane. In: Evans, L.T. ed. <strong>Crop</strong> physiology. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.pp. 51-72.Carr, M.K.V. & Knox J.W. 2011. The <strong>water</strong> relations and irrigation requirements of sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum):a review. Experimental Agriculture 47: 1-25.Ebrahim, M.K., Zingsheim, O., El-Shourbagy, M.N., Moore P.H. & Komor E. 1998. Growth and sugar s<strong>to</strong>rage insugarcane grown at temperatures below and above optimum. Journal of Plant Physiology 153: 593–602.FAO. 2011. FAOSTAT online database, available at link http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed on December 2011.GAEZ. 2011. Global Agro-Ecological Zones ver. 3.0, FAO, IIASA.Glaz B. & Morris D.R. 2010.Sugarcane <strong>response</strong>s <strong>to</strong> <strong>water</strong>-table depth and periodic flood. Agronomy Journal 102(2): 372-380.Golden L.E. & Ricaud R. 1963. The nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents of sugarcane in Louisiana. LouisianaAgric. Exp. Stn. Bulletin 574.Inman-Bamber N.G. 1994. Temperature and seasonal effects on canopy development and light interception ofsugarcane. Field <strong>Crop</strong>s Research 36: 41-51.Inman-Bamber, N.G. 1995. Climate and <strong>water</strong> as constraints <strong>to</strong> production in the South African sugar industry. In:Proceedings of Conference South African Sugar Technology Association 69: 55-59.Inman-Bamber, N.G., Muchow, R.C. & Robertson, M.J. 2002. Dry matter partitioning of sugarcane in Australia andSouth Africa. Field <strong>Crop</strong>s Research 76: 71–84.Inman-Bamber N.G. & McGlinchey M.G. 2003. <strong>Crop</strong> coefficients and <strong>water</strong>-use estimates for sugarcane based onlong-term Bowen ratio energy balance measurements. Field <strong>Crop</strong>s Research 83 (2): 125-138.Lingle, S.E. 1999. Sugar metabolism during growth and development in sugarcane internodes. <strong>Crop</strong> Science 39,480–486.Nelson P.N. & Ham G.J. 2000. Exploring the <strong>response</strong> of sugar cane <strong>to</strong> sodic and saline conditions through naturalvariation in the field. Field <strong>Crop</strong>s Research 66: 245-255.Sugarcane 179

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!