Author
Listed:
- Jose Manoel Ferreira de Lima Cruz
- Manoela Gomes da Cruz
- Lucilo Jose Morais de Almeida
- Edson de Souza Silva
- Djalma Euzebio Simoes Neto
- Willams Jose de Oliveira
- Guilherme Silva de Podesta
- Fabio Mielezrski
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of red rot, brown leaf spot, and smut in ten sugarcane genotypes during two consecutive cycles, in the absence and presence of limestone. The experimental design consisted of randomized blocks with four replications, in the presence and absence of liming in the following sugarcane genotypes- G1 (RB002754), G2 (RB021754), G3 (RB041443), G4 (RB863129), G5 (RB93509), G6 (RB951541), G7 (RB962962), G8 (RB992506), G9 (SP79-1011), and G10 (VAT90-212) for genotype x environment interaction. The lowest incidences of red rot were observed in G3 (RB041443), G4 (RB863129), G8 (RB992506), and G9 (SP79-1011) for plant cane, and in G3 (RB041443), G4 (RB863129), G5 (RB93509), G8 (RB992506), and G9 (SP79-1011) for ratoon. All genotypes were susceptible to Colletotrichum falcatum, but limestone reduced its incidence in G3 (RB041443), G6 (RB951541), and G10 (VAT90-212) during the first growth cycle, and in G1 (RB002754), G2 (RB021754), G5 (RB93509), G6 (RB951541), G7 (RB962962), and G10 (VAT90-212) in the ratoon crop. Liming also reduced the incidence of brown leaf spot in G4 (RB863129), G6 (RB951541), and G9 (SP79-1011) in plant cane and G6 (RB951541) and G7 (RB962962) in the ratoon crop. Only the G9 genotype (SP79-1011) showed an incidence of smut. The genotypes had different incidence levels of red rot, brown leaf spot, and smut diseases, which varied in the presence of limestone. Limestone use reduced disease incidence as a function of genotype and cutting cycle.
Suggested Citation
Jose Manoel Ferreira de Lima Cruz & Manoela Gomes da Cruz & Lucilo Jose Morais de Almeida & Edson de Souza Silva & Djalma Euzebio Simoes Neto & Willams Jose de Oliveira & Guilherme Silva de Podesta & , 2021.
"Use of Liming and Incidence of Diseases in Sugarcane,"
Journal of Agricultural Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(3), pages 245-258, September.
Handle:
RePEc:mth:jas888:v:9:y:2021:i:3:p:245-258
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
JEL classification:
- R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mth:jas888:v:9:y:2021:i:3:p:245-258. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Technical Support Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jas .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.