Search

【Objective】In order to provide theoretical reference for the selection of sugarcane varieties suitable for mechanized harvesting,the effect of mechanical harvesting on harvest quality and growth of different varieties of ratoon sugarcane was studied.【Method】The experiment was conducted by random block design. 11 varieties of two-year ratoon sugarcane were harvested mechanically and artificially treatment. Two treatments were set up in mechanical harvest. One was rolling over the plant ridge,and the other one was not. Harvest quality and agronomic characters were investigated after harvest.【Result】The average impurity rate of tested varieties by mechanical harvest was 10.93 %. The impurity content of ratoon sugarcane of mechanical harvest treatment was higher than that of CK(except Guitang 34),impurity rate of Guitang 02-1247 and Yunzhe 03-332 were high and were significantly higher than CK(P<0.05,the same as below),while that of artificial harvest treatment was cleaner. The stubble height and broken rate of mechanical harvest treatment were 4.25 cm and 14.28 %(absolute value) lower than that of artificial harvest treatment,respectively. Stubble height of Guiyin C1-2003 was low and very significantly lower than that of artificial harvest(P<0.01),its broken rate was high but still significantly lower than that of artificial harvest. Stubble height of Yunzhe 03-332 was high,broken rate was the highest,and the difference between harvest methods was not significant(P>0.05). The soil bulk density of mechanical harvest rolling treatment was 1.54 g/cm~3,which was 35.09 % and 23.20 % higher than that of before harvest and non-rolling treatment; and the soil water content of furrow after mechanical harvest was 23.44 %,16.15 % higher than that before harvest. Compared with the artificial harvest,the stubble seedling rate(165.31 %),plant height(27.73 cm) and pseudo-stem diameter(13.13 mm) of different varieties of ratoon sugarcane of mechanical harvest and rolling treatment decreased by 46.16 %,28.90 % and 17.99 %,respectively.Stubble seedling number of Guiyin C1-2003 was large,but stubble seedling rate was low,stubble seedling number of yunzhe 03-332 was the smallest and stubble seedling rate was low. Plant height of Guiyin C1-2003 by mechanical harvest was high,pseudo-stem diameter was thick,but plant height of yunzhe 03-332 was low,pseudo-stem diameter was thin.【Conclusion】Compared with the artificial harvest,the mechanical harvest has higher impurity rate,but lower stubble height and broken rate. The adverse effects of mechanical harvest on the growth of ratoon sugarcane are mainly caused by the rolling over the plant ridge,and are different due to the ratooning ability of different varieties. Considering the rooting quality and mechanical harvest quality,Guiyin C1-2003 is suitable for mechanical harvesting,Yunzhe 03-332 is not suitable for mechanical harvesting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Southern Agriculture is the property of Journal of Southern Agriculture 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. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences is the property of Editorial Department of Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences 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. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Southern Agriculture is the property of Journal of Southern Agriculture 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. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)