Case Study

Effects of Subsurface Drip Irrigation and Different

Planting Arrangements on the Yields and
Technological Quality of Sugarcane
Regina Célia de Matos Pires 1; Eduardo Augusto Agnellos Barbosa 2; Flávio Bussmeyer Arruda 3;
Emílio Sakai 4; and Tonny Jose Araujo da Silva 5

Abstract: The objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) and sugarcane spacing on stem yields,
sugarcane technological quality, and the theoretical recoverable sugar yields during four cycles of sugarcane cultivation. The experimental
field was set up in randomized blocks treated with three planting row spaces (1.5 m, 1.8 m, and a double row planting scheme with 1.3 ×
0.5 m between the planting rows) and subdivided into fertigated and nonirrigated sections. The following parameters were analyzed: per-
centage of soluble solids contained in the juice (brix), percentage of apparent sucrose in the juice (Pol), total recoverable sugar (TRS), stem
yield, and the theoretical recoverable sugar yield. The data were evaluated using analyses of variance, and mean values were compared using
Duncan’s test with significance accepted at the 5% probability level. The results showed that irrigation increased stem yields in the ratoon
cane cycles and that the theoretical recoverable sugar yields increased in the last two ratoon cane cycles. In general, the sugarcane’s yield
characteristics were not altered by irrigation except during the second ratoon when the Brix, Pol, and TRS values were higher than those in the
rainfed areas. Regarding the row spacings, double row planting produced the greatest stem yields and theoretical recoverable yields in the
plant cane cycle and the second ratoon cane cycle. No interactions between irrigation and row spacing on stem production or yield character-
istics were observed, but an interaction was observed for the theoretical recoverable sugar yield in the second sugarcane ratoon cycle. These
results illustrate the benefits to sugarcane properties of SDI over the four years of this research. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774
.0000710. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Subsurface drip irrigation; Row spacing; Sugarcane; Sugar yield.

Introduction
Sugarcane development can be affected by adverse soil and
climatic factors, such as water deficits. This could lead to reduced
productivity and even restrict cultivation. Among the effects of
water deficits in the soil on sugarcane crops, reductions in the
numbers and weights of stems (Hossain et al. 2009), reductions in
longevity, and reductions in sucrose content under pronounced
stress stand out (Du et al. 1998). Thus, the irrigation of sugarcane
1
Ph.D. Researcher, Agronomic Institute (IAC), Av. Theodureto de
A. Camargo, 1500, CEP 13075-630, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. E-mail:
rcmpires@iac.sp.gov.br
2
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Agricultural Engineering, State Univ.
of Campinas (FEAGRI/UNICAMP), Av. Candido Rondon, 501, CEP
13083-875, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil (corresponding author). E-mail:
eduardo.agnellos@gmail.com
3 according to the nutrient uptake of the crops (Dobermann 2007;
Ph.D. Researcher, Agronomic Institute (IAC), Av. Theodureto de
A. Camargo, 1500, CEP 13075-630, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. E-mail:
farruda49@gmail.com
4
Ph.D. Researcher, Agronomic Institute (IAC), Av. Theodureto de
A. Camargo, 1500, CEP 13075-630, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. E-mail:
emiliosakai.iac@gmail.com
5
Ph.D. Professor, Federal Univ. of Mato Grosso (UFMT), Rodovia
Rondonópolis-Guiratinga, KM 06 (MT-270), CEP 78735-910,
Rondonópolis, Mato Grosso, Brazil. E-mail: tonny.silva@pq.cnpq.br
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 29, 2013; approved on
December 16, 2013; published online on February 3, 2014. Discussion per-
iod open until July 3, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drai-
nage Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437/A5014001(6)/$25.00.
in regions in which soil water deficits can limit production could be
an interesting technique.
Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) of sugarcane crops can enhance
sugarcane production and quality. Thus, SDI is a beneficial method
for the cultivation of sugarcane (Dalri and Cruz 2008).
The main advantages of SDI are related to water savings
because water is applied directly to the crop’s root zone, which
prevents losses due to direct evaporation from the soil and deep
drainage, and, if properly managed, SDI allows for the maintenance
of appropriate levels of soil moisture (Camp 1998; Lamm and
Trooien 2003; Lamm and Camp 2007). LAMM et al. (1995)
estimated that subsurface drip cultivation reduces the amount of
water required for irrigation by 25%. Furthermore, another advan-
tage of SDI is related to more efficient fertigation due to improved
water application uniformity (Gil et al. 2008; Rodríguez-Sinobas
et al. 2009). Fertigation can increase the efficacy of nutrient use
when those nutrients are fractionally applied throughout the cycle
Roberts 2008).
For sugarcane crops, reductions in row spacing or double-row
cultivation may produce a greater number of tillers, but the reduced
spacing increases competition between tillers for production factors
and reduces stem weight (Bull and Bull 2000). In extreme cases,
the increase in number of tillers may not offset the spacing reduc-
tion (Amolo and Abayo 2006). However, in irrigated areas, water
deficits are minimized and plant growth is not affected, but other
factors might affect crop productivity. Thus, further research
regarding proper cultivating practices in combination with the
use of irrigation for sugarcane crops is needed to promote favorable
environments for crop development.

© ASCE A5014001-1 J. Irrig. Drain Eng.

 This study is aimed at evaluating the effects of irrigation, ferti- For rainfed cultivation, fertilizers were applied manually to the
gation with subsurface drip irrigation, and plant spacing on stem planting rows once. In contrast, for the irrigated treatments, nu-
yield, the technological qualities of the juice, and the theoretical trients were applied via fertigation on a weekly basis according
recoverable sugar yield of sugarcane crops. to nutrient uptake (Haag et al. 1987). The sources of nutrients for
the mineral fertigation were ammonium nitrate, purified MAP, and
potassium sulfate.
Material and Methods Subsurface drip irrigation was applied. For the single-line sugar-
cane cultivation (i.e., spacings of 1.5 or 1.8 m), drip lines by the
The experiment was set up at Colorado Mill in Guaíra, São Paulo planting rows were set up at the furrow. For the double row spacing
State, Brazil, which is sited at latitude 20°16′S, longitude 48°10′W (i.e., spacings of 1.3 × 0.5 m), drips lines between the two rows
and an altitude of 594 m. The regional climate was Aw according to were set up with a smaller spacing (0.50 m). The drip lines were
the Köeppen scheme, and it is classified as tropical with dry winters placed at a depth of 0.30 m deep. Tiran (Netafim, Israel) emitters
and coldest month temperatures (Rolim et al. 2007). The planting with flow rates of 3.0 L h−1 were utilized, and emitters were spaced
of the RB855536 variety of sugarcane was performed manually in every 0.40 m.
May 2005 with six stems with three buds each per meter. The stems This irrigation depth was chosen based on the evapotranspira-
were placed at a depth of 0.20 m. tion of the crop (ETc) and the interval between irrigations. The
The experiment was conducted in randomized blocks in a estimation of the ETc was based on the reference values of evapo-
factorial 3 × 2 arrangement that included three row spacings with transpiration (ETo) and Kc values of sugarcane reported by Allen
and without irrigation and six replications. The row spacings were et al. (1998). This estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ETo)
as follows: 1.5 m between single rows, 1.8 m between single rows, values was performed with the Penman-Monteith method (Allen
and double row planting with spaces of 1.3 and 0.5 m. The plots et al. 1998) from climatic elements obtained from an automatic
were split into subplots with subsurface drip irrigation and fertiga- weather station located approximately 800 m away from the exper-
tion (I) and subplots without irrigation and manual fertilization (NI) imental area.
that were each composed of 10 planting lines 12 m in length. Irrigation events occurred three times a week, and they were
For the physical characterization of the soil, samples were suspended during rainfall events and at 45 days before harvesting
collected from layers 0–0.25, 0.25–0.50 and 0.50–0.75 m, and their to favor maturation. After planting, the experimental plots were
texture, density, porosity, and soil moisture at both field capacity irrigated once a week for a month by conventional sprinklers until
and at the permanent wilting point were determined (Table 1). The fixation of the sugarcane plants occurred to obtain uniform sprout-
ing. Thereafter, the crops were irrigated by SDI.
soil was classified as clayey.
The rainfall, crop evapotranspiration (ETc), and mean air tem-
For the characterization of the soil chemical properties in
perature values during the experiment are shown in Fig. 1. Notably,
the experimental area, soil samples were taken from layers of
the water depth due to sprinkler irrigation was also considered.
0–0.20, 0.20–0.40 and 0.40–0.60 m before the installation and
During the plant cane cycle, a dramatic increase in plant lodging
planting of the sugarcane (Table 2).
was observed, and, in some plots, uprooting and breaking of stems
The fertilization was programmed according to the recommen-
was observed, which impaired production. Because it was not fea-
dations of Raij et al. (1999). The experiment was conducted over
sible to evaluate the degree of lodging in each experimental plot,
four cultivation cycles: the plant cane cycle (2005/06), the first ra-
the effects of lodging on the stems’ productions were examined.
toon cane cycle (2006/07), the second ratoon cane cycle (2007/08), For that, was evaluation the estimation production cane plant
and the third ratoon cane cycle (2008/09). The NPK fertilizations (EPCP), which was performed in April 2006, using Eq. (1), and
of the four evaluated cycles were 90, 100, and 80 kg ha−1 ; 150, 40, plant lodging occurred from May 2006 to July 2006:
and 150 kg ha−1 ; 150, 25, and 300 kg ha−1 ; and 120, 80, and
160 kg ha−1 , respectively.
Np × Mfc
EPCP ¼ ð1Þ
1,000
Table 1. Hydro-Physical Soil Properties in Guaíra (São Paulo State),
Brazil
Soil water
where EPCP = estimated production of plant cane (Mg ha−1 ); Np =
Texture content number of tillers per hectare (tillers ha−1 ); Mfc = fresh stem weight
(kg stem−1 ); and 1,000 = conversion factor for Mg.
Bd Porosity Clay Silt Sand ΘFC ΘPWP The harvests for the plant cane (2005–2006), first ratoon cane
Depth (m) (kg m−3 ) (%) (g kg−1 ) (g kg−1 ) (g kg−1 ) (%) (%)
(2006–2007), second ratoon cane (2007–2008) and third ratoon
0–0.25 1.06 62.1 187 290 523 32.7 29.2 cane (2008–2009) cycles, were performed in August 2006, June
0.25–0.50 1.19 59.0 171 242 587 36.1 32.7 2007, July 2008 and August 2009, respectively. Sugarcane was har-
0.50–0.75 1.15 61.7 169 226 605 33.8 31.1 vested manually after burning. Stems of 12 m in length from the
Note: Bd = bulk density; ΘFc = field capacity; Θpwp = permanent five central rows of each plot were weighed using a scale with a
witting point. capacity of up to 5,000 kg.

Table 2. Chemical Analysis of Soil in the Experimental Area, Guaíra (São Paulo State), Brazil
Layer pH O.M. P H þ Al K Ca Mg CEC Sum of bases V
(m) H2 O (%) (mg dm−3 ) (cmolc dm−3 ) (cmolc dm−3 ) (cmolc dm−3 ) (cmolc dm−3 ) (cmolc dm−3 ) (cmolc dm−3 ) (%)
0–0.2 6.2 5 51 3.4 0.8 6.3 1.1 11.6 8.2 70.7
0.2–0.4 6.1 4 19 3.6 0.7 5.8 1.1 11.2 7.6 67.9
0.4–0.6 6.5 1.9 9 2.4 0.7 3.0 8.0 6.95 4.6 65.5
Note: CEC = cation exchange capacity; O.M. = organic matter.

© ASCE A5014001-2 J. Irrig. Drain Eng.

 600 30

Precipitation and ETc (mm)

500 25

Mean air temperature (°C)

400 20

300 15

200 10

100 5

0 0

nov-05

nov-06

nov-07
set-05

nov-08
set-06

set-07

set-08
jan-06

jan-07

jan-08

jan-09
jul-05

jul-06

jul-07

jul-08

jul-09
mai-05

mar-06
mai-06

mar-07
mai-07

mar-08
mai-08

mar-09
mai-09
Date (month-year)
Precipitation ETc Mean temperature air

Fig. 1. Mean air temperature, monthly rainfall, and monthly evapotranspiration of the crop (ETc) during sugarcane cultivation cycles; Guaíra (São
Paulo State), Brazil

For the analysis of total recoverable sugar (TRS), five stems for Table 3. Mean Values of Stem Production of Sugarcane during the First
each plot were taken and sent to the Colorado Mill laboratory. The Four Crop Cycles in Guaíra, São Paulo State, Brazil
methodology adopted for the technological analyses followed the Stem production (Mg ha−1 )
recommendations of Conselho dos Produtores de Cana-de-açúcar,
Plant First Second Third
Açúcar, Alcool do Estado de São Paulo (Consecana-SP) (2006).
Factors Variable EPCP cane ratoon ratoon ratoon
Thus, the determination of the soluble solid content of the juice
(Brix) was carried out with automatic readings from a digital refrac- Spacing (E) (m) 1.5 200 168 ab 133 ab 128 b 106 b
tometer with automatic corrections for temperature, and the final 1.8 186 158 b 131 b 128 b 108 ab
values are those for 20°C. The apparent sucrose content of the juice Double 196 183 a 142 a 141 a 115 a
F-test for E — 1.36a 6.66b 4.32b 3.70b 4.90b
(Pol) was determined using Eq. (2): DMS — — 11.5 9.98 13.3 7.1
Irrigation (I) With 212 a 166 140 a 137 a 115 a
Pol ¼ Lpb × ð0.2605 − 0.0009882 × BrixÞ ð2Þ
Without 175 b 172 130 b 129 b 104 b
F-test for I — 26.2b 1.4a 9.4b 3.4b 20.7b
where LPb = sucrose reading equivalent to that of subacetate lead; DMS — 14 — 6.7 7.1 4.8
and Brix = the soluble solid content of the juice. F-test for I × E — 0.5a 0.2a 0.8a 1.7a 0.4a
The total recoverable sugar (TRS) was determined by Eq. (3): DMS — — — — — —
CV% — 11.2 9.9 7.3 9.9 6.4
TRS ¼ 9.5263 × PC þ 9.05 × ARC ð3Þ Overall mean — 194 169 135 133 110
Note: CV = coefficient of variation; EPCP = estimated production of plant
where TRS = total recoverable sugar; PC = Pol of the sugarcane;
cane; lowercase letters represent mean values in the vertical, and uppercase
and ARC = reducing sugar of the sugarcane. letters represent mean values in the horizontal.
From the TRS and stem production (P) values, the authors cal- a
Nonsignificant.
culated the theoretical recoverable sugar yield per hectare (RTR), b
Significant at 5% probability by Tukey’s test.
which was obtained according to Eq. (4):

TRS × PC
RTR ¼ ð4Þ respectively). Similarly, regarding final stem production, a 6.5%
1,000
reduction was observed for the double spacing cultivation.
where RTR = yield of theoretical recoverable sugar, Mg ha−1 ; The EPCPs were significantly influenced by SDI the plant cane
TRS = total recoverable sugar, kg Mg−1 ; PC = stem production, cycle; in contrast SDI did influence stem yields (Table 3). Analyses
and Mg ha−1 ; 1,000 = conversion factor from kg to Mg. of the EPCPs revealed that the production of the irrigated sugarcane
The results were assessed with analyses of variance and com- was approximately 37 Mg ha−1 higher than of the nonirrigated sug-
parisons of mean with Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) using the SISVAR arcane. A stem production reduction of approximately 22% was
statistical software. observed between the EPCP that was evaluated before plant lodg-
ing and that evaluated at the final production for the irrigated culti-
vations. This reduction was approximately 2% for the rainfed
Results and Discussion cultivations. This result agrees with that of Oliveira and Braga
(2011), who observed that an excess of crop growth favored sugar-
Regarding the estimated production of plant cane (EPCP), no sig- cane lodging, and easy access to water and vigorous varieties can
nificant differences in stem production were observed between foster lodging. These authors also observed that lodging increased
the different spacings until April 2006 (Table 3). It is important linearly by with water irrigation depth for the RB961003 and
to consider that the applied fertilizers quantity were the same RB012046 varieties.
for all treatments according to the chemical soil analyses (Table 2). Row spacing had significant effects on stem production for all
Regarding the loss of EPCP and final stem production in the plant crop cycles as illustrated in Table 2. The double row cultivation
cane cycle, greater reductions in stem production due to lodging stood out from the other spacings because it resulted in the highest
occurred in the single spacings of 1.5 and 1.8 m (16% and 15%, stem production values across in all cycles.

© ASCE A5014001-3 J. Irrig. Drain Eng.

 The positive effect of double spacing on stem production was
certainly associated with the greater numbers of planting rows,
which lead to higher numbers of tillers per unit area. Singels
and Smit (2002) observed an increase in the number of tillers
with denser row spacing in irrigated areas. Additionally, Bell and
Garside (2005) argued that increments in tiller population ensure
greater stem production. Likewise, Singels and Smit (2009) studied
the effect of row spacing in sugarcane under conditions of proper
water and nutritional availability and observed that smaller planting
spacings result in more tillers and reduced weights per stem. More-
over, increments in the numbers of tillers favored the interception
of plants’ radiation and consequently, favored an increased shoot
biomass per unit area.
The effect of irrigation on sugarcane stem production was sig-
nificant in all ratoon cane cycles (Table 3). However, no significant
effects on the yields from the plant cane cycle were observed. These
findings can be explained by various factors: (1) the standardization
of the stands at the beginning of the cycle with sprinkler irrigation;
(2) the fact that the rainfall values for September 2005 were greater
than those of the other years (Fig. 1), which aided the water statuses
of the plants under rainfed cultivation; and (3) the occurrence of
intense plant lodging prior to plant cane harvest, which can be ob-
served in the differences in stem productions obtained with the
EPCP and in the harvests of the irrigated and nonirrigated plots.
In the three ratoon cane cycles, the sprouting of plants cultivated
without irrigation occurred under soil water deficits due to the low
amounts of rainfall (Fig. 1). Soil water availability is one of the
main factors that affects sugarcane sprouting because, under
conditions of water deficiency, failures in sprouting may occur
(Moreira and Cardoso 1998) that reduce the plant stand across
and the along the cycle and result in decreases in stem yields
(Casagrande and Vasconcelos 2008).
In the ratoon cane cycles, irrigation produced a mean increase
of 9.6 Mg ha−1 per cycle in stem production relative to rainfed cul-
tivation. These results corroborate those of Bezuidenhout et al.
(2003) and Smit and Singel (2006), who reported that water deficits
are a major factor in reducing stem production.
Although the effects of the evaluated factors (spacing and irri-
gation) on stem production were significant, the interaction be-
tween these factors was not significant. This indicates a lack of
synergism between these factors on stem production; thus, their
contribution operates independently.
The mean values of soluble solid content (Brix) and apparent
sucrose of the juice (Pol) for the four crop cycles are listed in
Table 4. The interactions between factors (spacing and irrigation)
did not significantly affected Brix or Pol in any of the four crop
cycles. Irrigation and spacings did not affect the Brix or Pol of the
sugarcane cultivated in the plant cane, first ratoon, or third ratoon
cycles (Table 4). These results agrees with those by Dalri and Cruz
(2008) who fertigated sugarcane by SDI during the first two crops
(the plant cane and first ratoon cane).
In the second ratoon cane cycle, double row cultivation favored
the Brix compared with other spacings (Table 4). Moreover, in the
second ratoon cane cycle, the double row spacing resulted in an
increase in Pol compared to the cultivation with spacing of 1.5 m.
The Pol values obtained for the sugarcane planted at 1.8 m spacing
was not different from those from other spacings. However, in the
second ratoon cane cycle, irrigation favored the Brix and Pol.
Furthermore, analysis of the total rainfall values and ETc of the
sugarcane (Fig. 1) highlights a negative difference between rainfall
and ETc in the second ratoon cane cycle. For the plant cane, first
ratoon, and third ratoon cycles, these differences were 1.22, 1150
and 192 mm, respectively. This observation is likely due to differ-
ences in water availability for plant development under the rainfed
conditions; the low water availability in the second ratoon cane
cycle could have stressed the sugarcane. However, rainfall and their
distribution are known to play an important role in the plant
development. Du et al. (1998) studied water stress in the leaf
and its effect on the sucrose content of sugarcane leaves and
verified that pronounced stress reduces sucrose content by 45%
compared to sugarcane grown in conditions of suitable soil water
availability.
The Brix and Pol results from the four production cycles
allowed us to confirm that subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) with
an interruption 45 days before harvesting does not have a deleteri-
ous effect on juice quality as compared to rainfed cultivation.
Similarly, Inman-Bamber (2004) observed that the interruption
of irrigation before harvesting increases sucrose concentrations
in sugarcane. Thus, in climate conditions similar to those of the
present experiment, the interruption of irrigation before harvest
has proven to be a valuable water management practice.
During the four crop cycles, the interaction between factors
(spacing and irrigation) was not significant in terms of total
recoverable sugar (TRS) (Table 5). The adopted spacings had no

Table 4. Mean Values of Soluble Solid Content of the Juice (Brix) and Apparent Sucrose Content of the Juice (Pol) of Sugarcane during the First Four Crop
Cycles in Guaíra, São Paulo State, Brazil
Brix (°Brix) Pol (%)
Factors Variable Plant cane First ratoon Second ratoon Third ratoon Plant cane First ratoon Second ratoon Third ratoon
Spacing (E) (m) 1.5 20.4 17.2 18.9 b 20.44 17.1 14.3 16.5 b 17.8
1.8 20.1 16.5 19.3 b 19.70 16.9 13.4 16.9 ab 17.0
Double 20.2 16.5 20.4 a 20.01 16.7 13.3 17.6 a 17.2
F-test for E — 0.11a 1.84a 10.45b 1.04a 0.22a 2.25a 3.13b 1.04a
DMS — — — 0.85 — — — 1.09 —
Irrigation (I) With 20.4 16.5 19.9 a 19.9 17.2 13.6 17.6 a 17.2
Without 20.0 17.0 19.3 b 20.2 16.6 13.8 16.4 b 17.5
F-test for I — 0.91a 1.95a 4.33b 0.56a 1.61a 0.26a 9.62b 0.21a
DMS — — — 0.57 — — — 0.74 —
F-test for I × E — 0.12a 0.33a 3.31a 0.55a 0.03a 0.57a 2.77a 0.70a
DMS — — — — — — — — —
CV% — 5.99 6.05 4.29 6.28 8.20 8.81 6.33 7.98
Overall mean — 20.2 16.7 19.6 20.0 16.9 13.7 17.0 17.3
Note: CV = coefficient of variation; lowercase letters represent mean values in the vertical, and uppercase letters represent mean values in the horizontal.
a
Nonsignificant.
b
Significant at 5% probability by Tukey’s test.

© ASCE A5014001-4 J. Irrig. Drain Eng.

Table 5. Mean Values of TRS and yield of RTR of Sugarcane during the First Four Crop Cycles in Guaíra, São Paulo State, Brazil
TRS (Kg ha−1 ) RTR (Mg ha−1 )
Factors Variable Plant cane First ratoon Second ratoon Third ratoon Plant cane First ratoon Second ratoon Third ratoon
Spacing (E) (m) 1.5 148 125 144 152 24.8 ab 16.7 18.5 b 16.2
1.8 147 120 147 147 23.2 b 15.8 18.8 b 15.9
Double 146 120 152 149 26.7 a 17.0 21.4 a 17.1
F-test for E — 0.12a 1.17a 2.94a 0.67a 3.65b 1.5a 7.80b 1.89a
DMS — — — — — 3.07 — 1.98 —
Irrigation (I) With 148 120 152 a 148 25.6 16.8 20.8 a 17.1 a
Without 146 123 143 b 150 24.2 16.0 18.3 b 15.7 b
F-test for I — 0.63a 1.81a 12.0b 0.31a 1.96a 1.81a 13.67b 6.86b
DMS — — — 5.4 — — — 1.3 1.1
F-test for I × E — 0.11a 0.88a 2.67a 0.63a 0.16a 0.10a 4.11b 0.76a
DMS — — — — — — — 2.81 —
CV% — 6.45 7.45 5.36 6.94 12.14 11.31 10.0 9.82
Overall mean — 147 121.8 147.3 149.2 24.89 16.50 19.55 16.37
Note: CV = coefficient of variation; lowercase letters represent mean values in the vertical, and uppercase letters represent mean values in the horizontal.
a
Nonsignificant.
b
Significant at 5% probability by Tukey’s test.

influence on TRS values throughout the experimental period. Sim- Table 6. Unfolding Analysis of the Yield of RTR in the Second Ratoon
ilarly, the Brix and Pol results for the plant cane cycle and the first Cane Cycle, Cultivated with Different Spacings, Subsurface Drip Irrigated
and third ratoon cane cycles revealed no significant effect of irri- in Guaíra, São Paulo State, Brazil
gation on TRS. These results corroborate those of Dalri and Cruz RTR (Mg ha−1 )
(2008) who also did not observe an effect of irrigation on sugarcane Spacing Irrigated Nonirrigated F-test
TRS. In the second ratoon cane cycle, irrigation elicited an increase
in TRS (Table 5), and similar results were obtained for the Brix and F-test 8,17a 3.73a
1.5 20.4 abA 16.6 bB 11.27a
Pol measures (Table 4).
1.80 18.7 bA 18.9 abA 0.04b
The RTR values obtained in the four crop cycles are shown in Double 23.2 aA 19.5 aB 10.58a
Table 5. The double row spacing induced increases in theoretical
recoverable sugar yields (RTR) in the plant cane cycle and the sec- Note: Lowercase letters represent mean values in the vertical, and uppercase
ond ratoon cane cycle compared to the 1.8 m row spacing and in the letters represent mean values in the horizontal.
a
Nonsignificant.
second ratoon cane cycle compared to the 1.8 and 1.5 m row spac- b
Significant at 5% probability.
ings (Table 5). The gains in RTRs observed for double row spacing
cultivation were mainly due to high stem production (Table 3). The
RTR gain observed for double row cultivation compared to 1.8 m
spacing cultivation in the plant cane cycle was 3.4 Mg ha−1 . In the spacings without irrigation. In the nonirrigated cultivation with
second ratoon cane cycle, the increases in RTR were 2.9 and double spacing, the RTR was greater than that of the single row
2.6 Mg ha−1 for the 1.5 and 1.8 row spacings, respectively. 1.5 m spacing row spacing.
As illustrated by the results in Table 5, there were no effects of It is important to highlight that during the last two cycles the
irrigation on the RTRs of the first two cycles. In contrast, in the last total rain and its distribution observed were similar to the normal
cycle, irrigation resulted in a greater amount of sugarcane RTR pattern of rain in the region (Rolim et al. 2007). In these years, it
compared to the rainfed sugarcane (Table 5). Singh et al. (2002) was observed that the use of double space and SDI improved the
observed that irrigation increased the production of sugar compared yield stem and sugar.
to nonirrigated cultivation and affirmed that this increase was most
strongly related to greater stem production. Wiedenfeld (1995) also
reported that irrigation increases RTR, and these authors observed Conclusions
that this increase was due to the increased stem production and
sucrose content. In the varieties studied, subsurface drip irrigation would improve
Importantly, as discussed previously, lodging occurred in the the production of plant cane and increased stem production in all
plant cane cycle and impaired stem production in the irrigated cycles of ratoon cane. Likewise, SDI increased the theoretical
sugarcane in terms of EPCP and stem production at harvest recoverable sugar yields in the double row and 1.5 m single row
(Tables 3 and 4). It is likely that if no marked drop in stem pro- spacings.
duction in the irrigated sugarcane occurred during the plant cane Sugarcane cultivation with double row spacing of 1.3 × 0.5 m
cycle, the RTR would have been greater than that of the non- produces a higher yield than single row planting with 1.5 m spacing
irrigated sugarcane. in the second and third ratoon cane cycles. Yield also increased in
Moreover, in the second ratoon cane cycle, a significant inter- the single row with 1.8 m spacing cultivation in the plant cane cycle
action between irrigation and spacing was observed (Table 5). and the first and second ratoon cane cycles.
Table 6 shows the results with unfolding of the factors and illus- Double row spacing and SDI increased the content of soluble
trates the synergic effect of irrigation and row spacing on RTR solids (Brix) in the second ratoon cane cycle, and the apparent
compared to the irrigated cultivation of the plants with the sucrose of the juice (Pol) was increased by irrigation and double
1.8 m row spacing. The irrigated double row and 1.5 m spacing row spacing of 1.3 and 0.5 m compared to single row spacing
treatments produced greater RTRs compared to the corresponding of 1.5 m.

© ASCE A5014001-5 J. Irrig. Drain Eng.

 There was no effect of the different spacings on the total recov-
erable sugar (TRS) in any crop cycle. However, irrigation could
enhance the total recoverable sugar in the second ratoon cane cycle.
In the plant cane cycle and in the second ratoon cana cycle, the
yield of total recoverable sugar increase in double spaced cultiva-
tion compared to the 1.8 m spacing. Also, SDI would enhance
the yield of total recoverable sugar in the second and third ratoon
cane cycles.
References
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998). “Crop evapo-
transpiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements.”
FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Food and Agricultural Organi-
zation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 328.
Amolo, R. A., and Abayo, G. O. (2006). “Effect of plant population and
planting patterns on sugarcane productivity in western Kenya.” 10th
Scientific Conf. Technical and Publications Sub-Committee, Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Nairobi, Kenya, 1–9.
Bell, M. J., and Garside, A. L. (2005). “Shoot and stalk dynamics and the
yield of sugarcane crops in tropical and subtropical Queensland,
Australia.” Field Crops Res., 92(2–3), 231–248.
Bezuidenhout, C. N., O’Leary, G. L., Singels, A., and Bajic, V. B. (2003).
“A processbased model to simulate changes in tiller density and light
interception of sugarcane crops.” Agr. Syst., 76(2), 589–599.
Bull, T. A., and Bull, J. K. (2000). “High density planting as an economic
production strategy: Theory and trial results.” Proc., 2000 Conf. of the
Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists held at Bundaberg,
D. M. Hogarth, ed., Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists
(ASSCT), Queensland, Australia, 104–112.
Camp, C. R. (1998). “Sugarcane drip irrigation: A review.” Trans. Am. Soc.
Agr. Eng. (ASAE), 41(5), 1353–1367.
Casagrande, A. A., and Vasconcelos, A. C. (2008). “Fisiologia da parte
aérea.” Cana-de-açúcar, L. L. Dinardo-Miranda, A. C. M. Vasconcelos
and M. G. A. Landell, eds. Instituto Agronômico (IAC), Campinas, São
Paulo, Brazil, 57–78 (in Portuguese).
Conselho dos Produtores de Cana-de-açúcar, Açúcar, Alcool do Estado de
São Paulo (Consecana-SP). (2006). Manual de instruções, 5th Ed.,
Consecana, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil, 112 (in Portuguese).
Dalri, A. B., and Cruz, R. L. (2008). “Produtividade da cana-de-açúcar
fertirrigada com N e K via gotejamento subsuperficial.” Eng. Agr.,
28(3), 516–524 (in Portuguese).
Dobermann, A. (2007). “Nutrient use efficiency—measurement and
management.” Proc., IFA Int. Workshop on fertilizer best management
practices, Brussels, Belgium, 1–28.
Du, Y. C., Nose, A., Wasano, K., and Uchida, Y. (1998). “Responses to
water stress of enzyme activities and metabolite levels in relation to
sucrose and starch synthesis, the Calvin cycle and the C4 pathway
in sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) leaves.” Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 25(2),
253–260.
Gil, M., Rodriguez-Sinobas, L., Juana, L., Sanchez, R., and Losada, A.
(2008). “Emitter discharge variability of subsurface drip irrigation in
uniform soils: effect on water-application uniformity.” Irrig. Sci.,
26(6), 451–458.
© ASCE A5014001-6
Haag, H. P., Dechen, A. R., and Carmello, Q. A. C. (1987). “Nutrição
mineral da cana-de-açúcar.” Cana-de-açúcar, Cultivo e Utilização,
S. B. Paranhos, ed., Fundação Cargill, Campinas, SP, Brazil, 88–162
(in Portuguese).
Hossain, S. M. I., Eusufzai, S. U. K., and Rahaman, M. A. (2009). “Effect
of different irrigation level on grown and yield parameters of
sugarcane.” Pakistan J. Agr. Res., 22(1–2), 28–35.
Inman-Bamber, N. G. (2004). “Sugarcane water stress criteria for irrigation
and drying off.” Field Crops Res., 89(1), 107–122.
Lamm, F. R., and Camp, C. C. (2007). “Subsurface drip irrigation.” Micro-
irrigation for crop production: Design, operation, and management,
F. R. Lamm, J. E. Ayars and F. S. Nakayama, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 618.
Lamm, F. R., Manges, H. L., Stone, L. R., Khan, A. H., and Rogers, D. H.
(1995). “Water requirement of subsurface drip-irrigated corn in north-
west Kansas.” Trans. Am. Soc. of Agr. Eng. (ASAE), 38(2), 441–448.
Lamm, F. R., and Trooien, T. P. (2003). “Subsurface drip irrigation for
corn production: a review of 10 years of research in Kansas.” Irrig.
Sci., 22(2–3), 195–200.
Moreira, D. R., and Cardoso, V. J. M. (1998). “Effect of soil moisture
content and the irrigation frequency on the sugarcane germination.”
Pesq. Agropec. Bras., 33(5), 721–729.
Oliveira, A. R., and Braga, M. B. (2011). “Florescimento e acamamento
de cultivares de cana-de-açúcar submetidas a diferentes lâminas de
irrigação.” Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa
Semiárido. Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento, 87, Petrolina,
Brazil22 (in Portuguese).
Raij, B. van, Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J. A., and Furlani, A. M. C. (1999).
Recomendações de adubações e calagem para o estado de São Paulo,
2nd Ed., Instituto Agronômico (IAC), Campinas, SP, Brazil, 39 (in
Portuguese).
Roberts, T. L. (2008). “Improving nutrients use efficiency.” Turk. J. Agr.
Forest., 32(3), 177–182.
Rodríguez-Sinobas, L., Gil, M., Juana, L., and Sánches, R. (2009). “Water
distribution in lateral and units of subsurface drip irrigation. II: Field
Evaluation.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774
.0000149, 729–738.
Rolim, G. S., Camargo, M. B. P., Lania, D. G., and Moraes, J. F. L. (2007).
“Classificação climática de Köppen e de Thornthwaite e sua aplicabi-
lidade na determinação de zonas agroclimáticas para o estado de São
Paulo.” Bragantia, 66(4), 711–720 (in Portuguese).
Singels, A., and Smit, M. A. (2002). “The effect of row spacing on an
irrigated plant crop of sugarcane variety NCo376.” Proc. S. Afr.
Sug. Technol. Ass., 76, 94–105.
Singels, A., and Smit, M. A. (2009). “Sugarcane response to row spacing-
induced competition for light.” Field Crops Res., 113(2), 149–155.
Singh, G., Chapman, S. C., Jackson, P. A., and Lawn, R. J. (2002). “Lodg-
ing reduces sucrose accumulation of sugarcane in the wet and dry
tropics.” Aust. J. Agr. Res., 53(11), 1183–1195.
Smit, M. A., and Singel, A. (2006). “The response of sugarcane canopy
development to water stress.” Field Crops Res., 98(2—3), 91–97.
Wiedenfeld, R. P. (1995). “Effects of irrigation and N fertilizer application
on sugarcane yield and quality.” Field Crops Res., 43(2), 101–108.
J. Irrig. Drain Eng.
Copyright of Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering is the property of American
Society of Civil Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.