Growth and yield traits.

Plant height differed significantly among the genotypes in both the years (2008 and 2009). In 2008, genotype Dale recorded highest plant height (360.0 cm), followed by M81E (346.4 cm) and lowest being Top76-6 (328.0 cm) (Table 1). However during 2009, M81E recorded the maximum plant height (373.6), followed by Keller (369.7) and Dale (366.9). Foliar application of chemical sterilants and deheading showed significant difference in both the years (Table 1 and 2). In 2008, deheading had the lowest plant height compared to chemical sterilants and deheading (Table 5). Similarly, the maximum height was recorded in t-Cinnamic acid (372.1 cm) and the lowest in deheading (329.0 cm) (Table 6). Furthermore, interaction of genotypes and treatments was significant during the years, 2008 and 2009 (Table 1 and 2).

The data in Table 1 show higher plant stature for all treatments and genotypes across the years, except for the genotype Top 76-6, where increase in plant height was only noted in the t-Cinnamic acid treatment. Compared with the control, the Keller genotype was responsive to sterilent treatments as indicated by increase in plant height for both year 2008 and 2009.  For the year 2008, 8.6  increase in height was noted with t-Cinnamic acid treatment  and 3.7 for p-Coumaric acid treatment.  For year 2009,  3.05  increase in height was noted for t-Coumaric acid treatment and only 0.53 for t-Cinnamic acid treatment.  Dale genotype recorded 1.5 increase in plant height  when treated with t-Cinnamic acid only in 2008. M8IE genotype  showed 1.46 increase in height in 2008 when treated with p-Coumaric acid.   Top 76-6 had height increase of 12.5  with t- Cinnamic acid treatment compared with the control  during 2009.   Not one among the four sorghum genotypes tested responded to deheading  in terms of height increase.

Plant height has several implications it has the potential for high biomass numbers, as the leaves and stalk and grains develop more when they are exposed to sunlight, as these plants adapt to the existing conditions to be more efficient in receiving solar radiation (Hunter  Anderson, 1997). In addition, a taller plant has more internodes, and as an added effect, the plant has the higher chance for the girth of the stem to grow further. Chemical treatments are a good way to increase height, but it does not always work with all genotypes. The Keller genotype is best when chemical sterilants are used in both the short and long term, while the M81E works well when the treatments are done at a later date. The Top76-6 genotype, a fast maturing example, is not recommended for long-term planting, unless treated with t-Cinnamic acid.

Number of leaves
The Number of leaves was differed significantly among the genotypes in both the years (2008 and 2009). In 2008, genotype Top76-6 had the highest number of leaves (16.4), followed by M81E (15.6) and the lowest being Keller (11.7) (Table 3). However, M81E produced more number of leaves (12.4), followed by Keller (11.7) and Dale (11.6) in 2009 (Table 4). Foliar application of chemical sterilants and deheading did not show significant difference for number of leaves in 2008 (Table 1), whereas there was significant difference in 2009 (Table 2). Deheading treatment had the maximum number of leaves (12.5) and the minimum was found in p-Coumaric acid (11.1) (Table 6). The interaction between genotype and treatment was found to be non-significant in both the years (2008 and 2009) (Table 1 and 2).

There has been a decrease of plant leaves in all genotypes after two years. The Top76-6 genotype lost the most number of leaves, while the Keller genotype lost none of its leaves in the span of two years. The t-cinnamic acid treatment caused the highest retention of leaves in 2008, with 8.8. In 2009, deheading treatments kept the highest number of leaves in the plants, with 4.16 retention. A sweet sorghum genotype or cultivar will have the number of leaves dependent on the length of the vegetative period, and its leaves midrib colour can be an indicator of the juiciness of the plants stalk, as well as having fewer leaves than forage or grain sorghum (Hunter  Anderson, 1997).

Number of Internodes
The number of internodes per plant changed with a generally downward trend during the two years. The highest number in 2008 was the Top76-6 genotype, with 16.4 (Table 3). Using the Top 76-6 genotype as a basis, there is a significant change in the Keller and Dale genotypes and there is no major difference in the M81E genotype. During 2009, The highest number of belonged to M81E with a 14.1 (Table 4), with a significant difference over the other three genotypes (Table 4), whose means are more or less the same, with an overlap. During the treatments, p-Coumaric Acid has the highest number of internodes (14.8) and the minimum is deheading (14.2) (Table 5). In 2009, it was t-Cinnamic acid that has the highest number (13.4), while deheading is still the lowest (12.8) (Table 6), it is noted that the means are all very close to each and there is no significant changes (Tables 5 and 6). The treatment by chemical sterilants and deheading in 2008 did not show any significant difference, as well as the genotype-treatment interaction (Table 1). In 2009, it was the genotype-treatment interaction that showed significant difference, everything else was constant (Table 2).
  
 All genotypes showed a loss of internodes per plant in the span of two years, from 2008-2009 (Tables 3 and 4). The treatment that showed the highest loss of the number of internodes was the deheading treatment, which showed a -2.06 retention of internodes per plant. The deheading treatment was below the control figures. In 2009, the p-Coumaric acid treatment showed the least internodes per plant, again its figure below the control figures with a  -7.5 retention.  (Tables 5 and 6). The number of internodes per stalk influence the thickness of the stalk (Hunter  Anderson, 1997). In increasing the plants internodes in both the short and long terms, chemical treatments barely have an advantage over letting the plant grow on its own. The advantages are not worth the costs.

0 comments:

Post a Comment