Next Article in Journal
An Assessment of the Spatial Diversification of Agriculture in the Conditions of the Circular Economy in European Union Countries
Previous Article in Journal
Economic Evaluation of Nitrogen Fertilization Levels in Beef Cattle Production: Implications for Sustainable Tropical Pasture Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/agriculture13122234
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Physiological, Anatomical, and Morphological Traits between Sugarcane Hybrids and Their Parents with Different Stalk Dry Weights in the Early Growth Stage under Hydroponic Conditions

by
Jidapa Khonghintaisong
1,
Patcharin Songsri
1,2 and
Nakorn Jongrungklang
1,2,*
1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
2
Northeast Thailand Cane and Sugar Research Center, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(12), 2234; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13122234
Submission received: 1 November 2023 / Revised: 29 November 2023 / Accepted: 30 November 2023 / Published: 2 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The high stalk weight sugarcane cultivar has a special mechanism to obtain greater growth, which was inherited from its parents. Thus far, comparisons of the high stalk weight sugarcane cultivar growth with its parents and cultivars with a low stalk weight have never been reported. The purpose of this research was to reveal the growth mechanism of the high stalk dry weight cultivar KK3 by comparing its physiological, anatomical, and morphological traits to those of a low stalk dry weight cultivar (UT12) and their four parental cultivars under hydroponic conditions. Their growth characteristics were evaluated at 15-day intervals from 30 to 90 days after planting. The root traits were measured at 2 months after planting (MAP), whereas the anatomical and physiological parameters were collected at 3 MAP. Biomass was recorded at 1, 2, and 3 MAP. KK3 had similar anatomical root traits to its female parent, whereas it had similar aboveground morphological traits to its male parent. The comparison between UT12 and its parents revealed that almost all its root anatomical traits were similar to the female parent, but it did not differ in leaf anatomy and root system size. Some physiological traits of KK3 were not different from those of its parents. In contrast, the net photosynthesis rate (PN), height, tiller number, stem dry weight, and stomatal density of UT12 were lower than those of its parent. For KK3, its small root stele and vessel size and high root length, surface area, and volume supported water uptake. The increase in stomatal density and decreased stomatal pore length may be appropriate characteristics for reducing water loss in this drought-resistant cultivar. Furthermore, KK3 exhibited a high water use efficiency (WUE) to promote biomass accumulation and growth despite its low transpiration and photosynthesis rates. This basic knowledge will be useful for selecting the parents based on their characteristics to create new sugarcane cultivars with a high stalk dry weight for drought stress during the early-growth-stage breeding programs and predicting their performance.

1. Introduction

Sugarcane is a commonly cultivated crop in subtropical and tropical regions [1], and it is usually used to produce sugar, ethanol, and renewable biofuels [1,2,3]. The world’s four largest sugarcane producers are Brazil, India, China, and Thailand [4]. In these regions, sugarcane is grown under rain-fed conditions [5], indicating that the crop is mainly subject to unpredictable precipitation and variable drought periods [3]. In Thailand, sugarcane is planted from October to February, toward the end of the rainy season [3]. Hence, sugarcane is often grown under a late-rainy-season production system in Thailand [5]. The growth of the young establishing crop is dependent on the remaining soil moisture [6]; therefore, if the amount of water provided by rain is insufficient or delayed, rain leads to drought, and it can damage the sugarcane at the early growth stage [3], ultimately lowering the sugarcane yield [2,7,8]. Therefore, the production of dry matter, which includes the dry weight of leaves, stems, and roots at the early phases of development (2–4 months after planting), is important [9]. Stalk weight plays a major role in yield production [10], and several reports suggest that it also affects the final yield [11]. The tiller to early grand growth stages is a crucial period that influences the final yield [10,12]. To establish a cultivar that has a high stalk dry weight during the early stages of sugarcane development, the differences in the stalk dry weight of different sugarcane cultivars under optimum conditions need to be understood.
Cultivars with a high stalk dry weight have a higher yield and yield components than sugarcane cultivars with a low stalk dry weight [13,14]. The stalk dry weight of sugarcane is related to its physiological and morphological characteristics. Cultivars with a high stalk dry weight have a high water use efficiency and can maintain photosynthesis and transpiration under natural field [15] and drought conditions [16]. Their anatomical characteristics include an increased bulliform cell size, vascular bundle size, and stomatal density, and a reduced leaf thickness and stomatal size under drought conditions [17]. High biomass under water stress leads to increased total root length [9]; in addition, the root/shoot ratio of high biomass sugarcane cultivars can be enhanced to maintain water uptake, which increases the proportion of roots [9,18]. The positive association between root and shoot growth in sugarcane has been investigated in various conditions [19], namely in optimum conditions in a hydroponic system [18] and in field capacity conditions in pot trials [20]. Furthermore, the low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar presented a low drought tolerance index, yield potential, and reduction in yield of around 46.78% [8]. Although the characteristics of high stalk dry weight cultivars at the early growth stage have been reported, these previous reports could not show physiological evidence for greater growth and yield of high stalk weight cultivars in comparison to those with a low stalk weight. Thus, a better understanding of the physiological, anatomical, and morphological traits of sugarcane cultivars with different stalk dry weights needs to be established.
The high stalk dry weight of sugarcane hybrid cultivars may be influenced by the combination of female and male parents. In this context, parent selection is critical in ensuring that the hybrid performs well. A further benefit of parent selection in sugarcane is that hybrid performance can be employed to infer the breeding value of the parents from family information [21,22,23]. Although the genotype of hybrids is inherited from their parents, the performance of individuals could be affected not only by genetic factors but also by environmental factors [24,25]. Hence, a hydroponic system is the best controlled environment for research and has been determined to be the best choice for root studies, offering many benefits, including control of the root environment and complete and easy access to root samples [18]; in addition, sugarcane planting under optimum conditions will allow the genetic traits of each cultivar to reach their full potential.
In general, the performance of high stalk dry weight hybrid cultivars depends on the good performance of their parents. However, the understanding of the physiological, anatomical, and morphological traits of hybrid sugarcane cultivars is still limited, and it is unclear whether the female or male parent is the key donor of factors that affect the stalk dry weight. Furthermore, previous studies on the influence of parents on the below- and aboveground parts of high and low stalk dry weight sugarcane hybrids have been lacking in terms of physiology, anatomy, root, and growth characteristics. Investigations on roots, physiology, anatomy, and growth traits in the same experiment would clearly address the performance of individual families with different stalk dry weights under hydroponic conditions. KK3, a dominant cultivar in Thai, exhibits greater growth under fluctuating water conditions than other cultivars (such as UT12). We hypothesized that KK3 has a special mechanism to attain greater growth, which was inherited from its parents. So far, comparisons of its growth with its parents and cultivar with a low stalk weight have never been reported in detail. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to reveal the growth mechanism of KK3 by comparing its physiological, anatomical, and morphological traits with those of a low stalk dry weight cultivar (UT12) and their parents when grown under hydroponic conditions. This basic knowledge will be useful for selecting the parents based on their characteristics to create new sugarcane cultivars with a high stalk dry weight for drought stress during the early-growth-stage breeding programs and predicting their performance.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design and Culturing Procedure

The open greenhouse experiment was conducted under hydroponic conditions in the Agronomy Research Station, Khon Kaen University, Thailand (16°28′ N, 102°48′ E, 200 m above sea level), from January to May 2020. A randomized complete block design with four replicates was used. The six treatments were the sugarcane cultivars Khon Kaen (KK3), 85-25-352, Kanchanaburi 84-200 (K84-200), U-Thong 12 (UT12), Su-Phanburi 80 (SP80), and U-Thong 3 (UT3). The KK3 cultivar was identified as a high stalk dry weight and drought-resistant cultivar, whereas the UT12 cultivar is a low stalk dry weight and drought-susceptible cultivar under rain-fed conditions [8]. The 85-52-352 and K84-200 cultivars are the female and male parents, respectively, of the KK3 cultivar. The SP80 and UT3 cultivars are the female and male parents, respectively, of the UT12 cultivar. A sugarcane sett was planted inside a plastic bag and irrigated immediately to obtain uniform sugarcane seedlings. At 35 days after planting (DAP), the sugarcane seedlings were transplanted to the hydroponic system. The plastic pot size was 50 cm in diameter and 100 cm in height (100 L volume pot). The pots were separated into two sets (1 unit included 2 pots) via destructive data collection at 2 months after planting (MAP) in the first set (first pot) and at 3 MAP in the second set (second pot). The hydroponic system used water at a hydrogen potential of 7.05 and an electrical conductivity (EC) of 0.8 ds m−1. Two liquid fertilizers, namely A and B, were applied with water at a concentration of 1:100 (v/v) at 11 and 12 days after transplantation, respectively, which were replaced monthly. A 50 l volume of fertilizer solution A contained 80 g Fe-EDTA and 5.5 kg CaNO3−, while fertilizer solution B contained 2.82 kg MgSO4−, 5 kg KNO3, 435 g NH4H2PO4, 875 g KPO4−, 2 g Cu-EDTA, 9 g Mn-EDTA, and 5.5 g Zn-EDTA [18]. Insect and disease control were implemented as needed to keep the sugarcane free of disease and pests throughout the experimental period.

2.2. Meteorological Conditions

The maximum and minimum temperatures and relative humidity were measured daily from the weather station at the Agronomy Research Station, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University. The distance between the weather station and the open greenhouse experiment was approximately 10 m. The weather conditions except for solar radiation in the greenhouse and the field conditions were almost the same since the experiment was conducted as an open greenhouse experiment. The daily air maximum temperature ranged from 26.5 to 41.6 °C, the minimum temperature was 15.0 to 27.5 °C, and the relative humidity ranged from 75.0 to 96.0% throughout the experimental period.

2.3. Data Collection

2.3.1. Growth Characteristics

Cane height, leaf number, and tiller number were evaluated for growth analysis at 15-day intervals (30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 DAP) in 4 samples for each trait. Stalk height was measured from the ground to the last exposed dewlap. Leaf and stalk dry weights were measured at 1, 2, and 3 months after planting (MAP). The samples were oven-dried at 80 °C for 72 h or until a constant weight, and the dry weight of each leaf and stalk parts were recorded. A photo of the sugarcane development was taken monthly, which included the entire sugarcane structure.

2.3.2. Root Characteristics

Root sample evaluation of 4 whole-plant samples was conducted at 2 MAP and analyzed using the WinRhizo program (WinRhizo Pro (s) V. 2004a, Regent Instruments, Inc., Québec City, QC, Canada) to estimate root length, root surface area, and root volume. The root samples at 1 and 2 MAP were oven-dried at 80 °C for 72 h or until a constant weight was obtained, and the root dry weight was then determined.

2.3.3. Physiological Traits

Leaf gas exchange parameters, including net photosynthetic rate (PN), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), and water use efficiency (WUE), in 4 samples for each trait were collected from one plant per replicate using an infrared gas analyzer (IRGA) model Li-cor 6400xt with an LED light source (6400-02B Red/Blue Light Source, Li-Cor Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). For each plant, the leaf gas exchange parameters were collected on the second fully expanded leaf from the top of the main stem, between 10.00 and 12.00 a.m. at 3 MAP. The leaf temperature ranged from 31.14 to 33.75 °C. The CO2 concentration was 400 μmol mol–1, and the relative humidity in the sample cells was between 54.17 and 73.40%. WUE (µmol mol−1) was calculated using the relationship between the transpiration rate (E) and the net photosynthetic rate (PN). The calculation was performed according to [16,26]:
WUE = (Net photosynthetic rate (PN))/(Transpiration rate(E))

2.3.4. Anatomical Traits

Leaf and root anatomy were measured in 4 samples for each trait at 3 MAP in each replicate. The middle part (10 cm) of the second or third mature leaf was sampled for the anatomical survey. The bottom position (8–10 cm) of the root was sampled for the anatomical survey. The leaf and root samples were preserved immediately in FAA 70 fixative (70% ethyl alcohol, acetic acid, and formaldehyde in a 90:5:5 ratio) for anatomical analysis [17]. Freehand cross sections were collected for the leaf and root samples which were then stained with 1% (w/v) Safranin O. The anatomical characteristics were investigated using a light microscope (Olympus BH-2, Olympus America Inc., Melville, NY, USA) and Zeiss 540214-0000004 with an MB2004 configuration-AxioVision (MB2004 configuration-AV) program (Carl Zeiss Microimaging Inc., Thornwood, NY, USA) [17]. The anatomical characteristics of the leaves and roots were separated into two groups: qualitative and quantitative traits. The shapes of the bulliform cells were regarded as qualitative traits of the leaves. The quantitative data included the bulliform cell (BC) size, vascular tissue size, bundle sheet cell size, and epidermis vertical length. Root anatomy, namely xylem vessel number, total xylem vessel size, average xylem vessel size, and percentage of xylem vessel size, was measured. The xylem vessel size percentage per vascular stele area was calculated as follows:
Xylem vessel size percentage = [(Total xylem vessel size)/(vascular stele size)] × 100
The average stomatal density was determined in 4 samples by applying clear gel nail polish to the abaxial surface of the second or third mature leaf, gently removing the gel sheet, and placing it on a slide. The samples were examined using the same microscopic system as mentioned above. The total stomatal density was counted in an area of approximately 400 µm2.
The leaf stomatal characteristics, i.e., stomatal distribution and stomatal aperture size, were measured in 4 samples using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at the facility of the Faculty of Science, Khon Kaen University. At 3 MAP, the second or third mature leaf was collected from each treatment. The middle section of the leaf samples was divided into small fragments of approximately 1 mm [27]. These samples were washed twice with phosphate saline buffer (PSB) and fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in a refrigerator at around 4 °C for 2 h. The fixed leaf was washed three times in PSB for 10 min and dehydrated in a succession of ethanol solutions ranging from 50 to 100% for 15 min each. The leaf samples were subjected to critical-point dehydration using a CO2 dryer and sputter-coated with 10 mÅ of gold–palladium (Sputter Coater Cressington 108auto, Ted Pella, Inc., Redding, CA, USA) [28]. The samples were examined using a field emission scanning electron microscope (1450VP SEM, Zeiss, LIV, ​Cambridge, UK) at a voltage of 20 kV. The stomatal traits were analyzed using NIS Element 7.0 software, Nikon Instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA [27].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The collected data were subjected to analysis of variance according to a randomized complete block design using Statistix 10 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA). The comparisons to each parent for all the data were performed using the least significant difference (LSD) test [29].

3. Results

3.1. Belowground Traits

For the high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars, the root stele area of KK3 was similar to that of its female parent (85-2-352), whereas its male parent (K84-200) had a larger stele area feature than KK3 and 85-2-352 (Figure 1a–c). The root anatomy, such as xylem vessel number and percentage of xylem vessel area over the stele area, of the KK3 cultivar was not significantly different from that of its female and male parents. The total and average xylem vessel sizes of KK3 significantly differed from those of its male parent (K84-200), but they were similar to those of its female parent (85-2-352) (Table 1). In addition, KK3 did not differ in root length, root surface area, and root volume compared to its female and male parents (Figure 2a–c).
For the low stalk dry weight cultivars, the root stele size of the UT12 cultivar was between that of its female and male parents, with UT3 having a larger stele area than UT12. SP80 had a smaller stele area than UT12 (Figure 1d–f). The root anatomy, i.e., xylem vessel number and total and average xylem vessel sizes, of the UT12 cultivar was significantly different from that of UT3, but it was not different from that of SP80. The percentage of xylem vessel area over the stele area of UT12 differed significantly from that of its female parent, but it did not differ from that of its male parent (Table 1). Furthermore, there were no differences in root length, root surface area, or root volume between UT12 and its parents (Figure 2d–f).
There was a difference between the high and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars in terms of the water uptake parameters. The high stalk dry weight cultivar KK3 had a smaller stele area, xylem vessel number, total xylem vessel size, and average xylem vessel size than UT12 (a low stalk dry weight cultivar). In contrast, KK3 had a higher percentage of xylem vessel area over stele area than UT12. Although KK3 and UT12 had no different root length, root surface area, and root volume, KK3 had a higher trend in root length, root surface area, and root volume than UT12 (Figure 1 and Figure 2, and Table 1).

3.2. Aboveground Traits

In terms of leaf anatomical features, the leaf shapes of KK3 were similar to those of its female and male parents (Figure 3a–c). Furthermore, KK3 did not have a significantly different laminar thickness, xylem vertical length, phloem horizontal length, or epidermis from 85-2-325 and K84-200. In contrast, KK3 had a significantly different xylem vertical length, xylem horizontal length, bundle sheath vertical length, bulliform cell horizontal length, bulliform cell vertical length, and bulliform size from its male parent, whereas these traits were similar to those of its female parent. In addition, KK3 had a lower bundle sheath horizontal length than its parents (Table 2).
UT12 had a larger leaf shape and higher laminar thickness than its female and male parents (Figure 3d–f). The UT12 cultivar showed a significant difference in xylem vertical length and bundle sheath vertical length from its male parent, although these traits were similar to those of its female parent. The UT12 cultivar was similar to its parents in terms of xylem horizontal length, phloem vertical length, phloem horizontal length, bundle sheath horizontal length, bulliform cell horizontal length, bulliform cell vertical length, epidermal cell, and vertical length. Moreover, the bulliform size of UT12 was similar to that of its male parent but different from that of its female parent (Table 2).
KK3 showed a trend of a smaller leaf shape, leaf thickness, phloem horizontal length, and bundle sheath horizontal length but higher phloem vertical length and sheath vertical length compared to UT12. Furthermore, the KK3 and UT12 cultivars showed similar xylem vertical length, xylem horizontal length, bulliform cell horizontal length, bulliform cell vertical length, and epidermis thickness (Figure 3 and Table 2).
KK3 had a lower stomatal distribution and average stomatal density than its male parent, whereas these traits were similar to those of its female parent (Figure 4a–c and Figure 5a). In addition, the stomatal shape of KK3 was similar to that of its female parent (Figure 6a–c), and there was no significant difference in stomatal length, stomatal width, pore length, or guard cell width from either parent (Table 3). UT12 had a lower stomatal distribution and average stomatal density than its parents (Figure 4d–f and Figure 5b). However, UT12 and its parents showed similar stomatal shapes, stomatal lengths, stomatal widths, pore lengths, and guard cell widths (Figure 6d–f and Table 3). KK3 had a higher stomatal distribution and average stomatal density than the UT12 (Figure 4 and Figure 5). However, KK3 had smaller guard cells than UT12 (Figure 6 and Table 3).
Regarding physiological characteristics, the KK3 cultivar did not differ from its parents in terms of water loss traits, including gs, E, and WUE. Although KK3 had a lower PN than K84-200, it was not different from that of its female parent. UT12 showed a smaller gs compared to its female parent, but its gs was not significantly different from its male parent. In addition, UT12 had similar E and WUE compared to its parents. Moreover, UT12 had a lower PN than its female and male parents (Table 4). The difference in physiological traits between the high and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars revealed no difference in PN and WUE, but KK3 showed a slightly higher WUE than UT12. The KK3 and UT12 cultivars had similar water loss parameters, represented by gs and E (Table 4).

3.3. Growth Performances

The KK3 cultivar had a lower height than its female parent, whereas it was not different from that of its male parent (Figure 7a). KK3 showed no significant difference in tiller number compared with its female parent, but it had a higher tiller number than its male parent between 40 and 90 DAP (Figure 7b). In addition, there was a non-significant difference in leaf number between KK3 and its parents (Figure 7b). UT12 had a different height and tiller number from its parents, with UT12 having a lower height at 90 DAP and tiller number between 75 and 90 DAP compared with its female and male parents (Figure 7d,e). However, the leaf number in UT12 was not different from that in its parents (Figure 7f). Furthermore, KK3 had a higher height and tiller number than UT12, whereas the leaf number was not significantly different between the high and low stalk dry weight cultivars (Figure 7c,f).
KK3 had a similar shape and size to its female parent at 1 MAP, whereas KK3 had similar growth to its female and male parents at 2 and 3 MAP (Figure S1a–c). At 1 MAP, KK3 had a lower leaf dry weight than its parents. In addition, KK3 had a lower stalk dry weight than its female parent, but it did not differ in stalk dry weight from its male parent. KK3 showed the same root dry weight as its male and female parents (Figure 8a). KK3 had a similar leaf and stem dry weight to its male parent, which were lower than those of the female parent. Furthermore, the root dry weight of KK3 was not different from its male and female parents at 2 MAP (Figure 8b). At 3 MAP, KK3 had a higher leaf dry weight than its male parent, but it had a similar leaf dry weight to its female parent. In contrast, the KK3 cultivar showed a higher stem dry weight than its female parent, whereas there was no difference in stem dry weight between KK3 and its male parent (Figure 8c). In the aboveground part, the KK3 cultivar outperformed its female and male parents, whereas it had a similar belowground shape to its female parent at 1 MAP. The UT12 cultivar had similar growth to its female and male parents at 2 and 3 MAP (Figure S1d–f). The UT12 cultivar showed differences in leaf and stem dry weight compared to its male parent, but these values were similar to those of its female parent. In contrast, UT12 had a higher root dry weight than its parents at 1 MAP (Figure 8d). At 2 MAP, there were no differences in stem and root dry weight between UT12 and its male parent and no difference in leaf dry weight from its female parent. In addition, UT12 had a different root dry weight from its female parent, but it had a similar root dry weight to its male parent (Figure 8e). UT12 had a lower leaf dry weight than its female parent, whereas there was no difference from its male parent. Furthermore, UT12 showed a significantly lower stem dry weight than its parents at 3 MAP (Figure 8f).
In terms of visual features, KK3 had a smaller aboveground part (shoot size) than UT12, while KK3 invested growth into its roots compared to UT12 at 1 MAP. At 2 MAP, KK3 had a smaller aboveground size than UT12, whereas KK3 showed a larger underground part than the UT12 cultivar (Figure S1). In addition, the quantitative biomass data showed no difference in biomass between the high and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars at 1 and 2 MAP, but KK3 had higher leaf and stem dry weights (142.23 and 151.67 g, respectively) than UT12 (98.12 and 74.96 g, respectively) at 3 MAP. Furthermore, the proportion of assimilates that the KK3 and UT12 cultivars contributed to leaf and root sections at 1 MAP were similar. At 2 MAP, a higher assimilate proportion was sent to the stem and leaves rather than to the roots in both sugarcane cultivars. KK3 showed a higher assimilate proportion in the stem compared with the leaves; in contrast, UT12 showed a smaller assimilate proportion in the stem compared with the leaves at 3 MAP (Figure 8).

4. Discussion

Sugarcane is normally cultivated in subtropical and tropical regions [1], and sugarcane planting systems in the late rainy season often encounter drought conditions during the early growth stage at 2 to 4 months after planting [5]. Thereafter, the sugarcane receives rewatering during the elongation stage from rainfall [3,6]. The drought conditions in the early season are a main factor in reduced sugarcane growth and yield [8,9]. In Thailand, the KK3 cultivar is the most commonly planted commercial cultivar, covering 60–70% of the cultivable area [30], and is an appropriate cultivar for this sugarcane production system. KK3 exhibited decreased physiological and morphological characteristics and increased rooting traits when exposed to drought during the initial growth stage [9]. In addition, the KK3 cultivar rapidly increased its growth rate and height during the recovery phase (rainy season) [8]. Moreover, the KK3 cultivar is classified as having a high stalk dry weight in planted and ratoon seasons under rain-fed conditions. Therefore, the high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars under rain-fed conditions are categorized as drought-resistant cultivars [8]. Chapae et al. [31] studied KK3 and UT12 under drought conditions at the early growth stage in a hydroponic system, where KK3 demonstrated good adaptation of the characteristics that promote biomass maintenance in hydroponic systems, including gs, PN, dry weight partitioning, root dry weight, and proportion of green leaves. In general, drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars conserve water in leaves by reducing water loss and maintaining water uptake in the roots [9,32,33]. An improvement in the root/shoot ratio can help maintain water uptake, and the drought-resistant cultivar can maintain a high proportion of roots and shoots under water-deficit conditions [9]. Even though the roots are disturbed and respond to the initial drought, their response to the lack of water is lower than that of the aboveground parts [9,34,35]. However, these mechanisms reduce the development of biomass through a large decline in transpiration, leaf area, and carbon fixation [9,32,36]. The reduction in photosynthesis in sugarcane is mainly due to stomatal limitations, which affect gs, E, and the internal CO2 concentration [9,15,34,37,38,39,40,41]. Drought-tolerant sugarcane cultivars can effectively adapt their WUE when subjected to water-limited conditions [16]. Hence, the WUE has a positive relationship with the maintenance of productivity during the water stress stage [19,42]. Therefore, the characteristics related to drought-resistant traits in high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars conserve a high water status in leaves by reducing water loss and maintaining water uptake in the roots.

4.1. Root Anatomical and Morphological Traits

The roots play an important role in supplying the transpiration process, and the water status of the shoot is dependent on the effectiveness of water uptake from the soil by the root system [9,43]. A previous report had limited information about differences in root anatomy between high and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars; however, we did find a difference in this study (Figure 1 and Table 1). Xylem vessel characteristics are important due to their direct impact on axial water conductance [44]. Decreasing the diameter of xylem vessels in seminal roots conserves water use early in the season to support grain establishment and yield; a smaller xylem vessel diameter is a criterion for selecting drought-resistant cultivars in wheat [44,45]. Roots under hydrostatic pressure are indicative of hydraulic conductivities for uptake by quickly transpiring plants, with hydrostatic forces promoting water entrance into roots [46]. In peanuts, even though a smaller xylem vessel would help the roots absorb water and decrease the risk of cavitation when soil moisture is low, it would also slow down the flow of water through the root system when there is no stress by increasing the hydraulic resistance, as stated by Poiseuille’s law [47]. Accordingly, decreasing the diameter of the largest xylem vessels would have a significant impact on water flow through the root system by reducing axial conductance since water transport occurs in xylem vessels [44]. In the current research, the drought-resistant cultivar showed a smaller vessel size compared to the susceptible cultivar. In this research, drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars at the early growth stage should have small xylem vessels for good water uptake in the soil. The expression of anatomical root characteristics is greatly influenced by genetics, and there is a high genotypic variation in these traits [44]. In terms of root anatomy, the sugarcane high and low stalk dry weight hybrid cultivars were generally similar to their female parent (Figure 1 and Table 1). The genetic variation in xylem vessel diameter and number and xylem vessel diameter heritability is high in wheat (72%) [44,45]. In Arabidopsis, epidermal development and the root xylem are controlled by gene expression [48]. For example, a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) for deeper rooting in rice was found to contain the DEEPER ROOTING 1 (DRO1) gene [48,49] which regulates a relatively subtle alteration to root architecture. In this context, the expression of anatomical characteristics in the hybrids might be influenced by maternal effects. In the future, more research on the expression of sugarcane genes will be required for a better understanding.
A large root system with a massive surface area and deeper roots is a beneficial characteristic for extracting moisture from deeper soils under water-limited conditions [32,50,51]. A drought-tolerant sugarcane cultivar with a higher root length density performed better under drought conditions than a drought-susceptible cultivar [15]. Furthermore, sugarcane roots are more active in deeper soil layers as the moisture content of the upper soil layer decreases [20,52]. In this research, the high and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars showed no difference in root length, surface area, or volume from their parents, and the high stalk dry weight cultivar had better root morphological characteristics than the low stalk dry weight cultivar (Figure 2). In dicots and monocots, the presence or absence of different root types is regulated by several genes that can control root architecture and are inherited in Mendelian inheritance patterns [48]. Under initial drought conditions, outstanding root performance, which involves the adaptation of root surface area, root length, and root volume, also maintains the physiological and morphological characteristics of the aboveground sugarcane sections [9]. The roots play a role in the development of the sugarcane stalk, and the relationship between root and shoot growth has been positively correlated in different situations [19]. Furthermore, a large and deep root system could be considered as a screening criterion for drought-tolerant sugarcane cultivars [46,51]. Thus, sugarcane cultivars have high root traits such as root length, root surface area, and root volume, and their large root systems will be able to withstand drought-resistant conditions during the initial growth period.

4.2. Leaf Anatomical, Morphological, and Physiological Traits

The high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar did not differ from its female parent in terms of leaf anatomy, while the low stalk dry weight cultivar showed the same leaf anatomy as its female and male parents (Figure 3 and Table 2). Therefore, the leaf anatomy of these two sugarcane cultivars may be influenced by their parents. This result is consistent with Olsen et al. [53], who demonstrated that the percentage of vascular tissue in A. gerardii represents a population adaptation and is not influenced by the environment. Furthermore, the anatomical characteristics of grasses are more resistant to environmental changes [53,54]. On the other hand, environmental influences on leaf adaptation under water stress resulted in reduced midrib thickness, smaller major veins, and a smaller proportion of bulliform cells inside each leaf in Andropogon gerardii [55]. The KK3 cultivar had thinner leaves than the UT12 cultivar, whereas they had similar bulliform cell horizontal lengths, bulliform cell vertical lengths, and epidermis traits under the controlled hydroponic conditions (Figure 3 and Table 2). Taratima et al. [55] demonstrated that leaf anatomical traits of the drought-resistant KK3 cultivar included a reduction in leaf thickness, bulliform cell vertical length between the large and medium vascular bundles, cell wall of epidermal cells, and cuticle thickness of the adaxial midrib, adaxial stomatal size, and length of the long cell cut size of the abaxial leaf surface, whereas the leaf epidermis had an increase in abaxial cuticle thickness during drought conditions. Taratima et al. [17] demonstrated that drought-sensitive UT12 under drought conditions had reduced major vascular bundle features of the lamina, such as the vertical length, horizontal length, 1st vessel diameter (metaxylem), 2nd vessel diameter (metaxylem), vessel cell wall thickness (protoxylem), phloem vertical length, and phloem horizontal length, indicating a decrease in water transportation due to the reduced leaf area. In addition, in sugarcane leaves, increases in leaf thickness, epidermal cells, the cuticle, vascular bundle, and stomatal density are essential for survival during stress conditions; during a water deficit, the thicknesses of the upper and lower cuticles are increased [55]. When exposed to water stress, a drought-resistant sugarcane cultivar showed significantly less cell damage than the drought-susceptible cultivars [56]. Increasing the size of the vascular bundle in the leaves improved the efficiency of assimilate and water transportation [17,57]. Hence, some leaf anatomy characteristics of drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars will be reduced when they encounter water stress conditions at an early stage of development, whereas their leaf anatomy is also less damaged than that of drought-susceptible cultivars.
Quantitative characteristics, such as stomatal density, are determined by genetics [58,59]. Furthermore, stomatal length is related to both water conditions and genome size [60,61,62]. The stomatal characteristics of the high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar were likely derived from its female and male parents, whereas the low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar presented a lower stomatal density than its parents (Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 and Table 3). The KK3 cultivar had a higher stomatal density but smaller stomata size than the UT12 cultivar (Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 and Table 3). Our stomatal density results agreed with those of Taratima et al. [55] and Nawazish et al. [63], who showed that drought-resistant cultivars decreased their adaxial stomatal sizes under drought conditions. Furthermore, drought-susceptible cultivars had increased stomatal sizes under water-deficit conditions [17]. The stomatal density of drought-susceptible cultivars did not respond to water stress conditions, while drought-resistant cultivars showed increased stomatal density on the adaxial and abaxial sides during drought conditions [17]. The photosynthetic process is generally promoted by increasing stomatal density and decreasing stomatal size [55,63]. Stomatal density and guard cell size are highly flexible and can change depending on the water status, and this process may be directly related to photosynthesis and WUE. Therefore, drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars should have high stomatal density and small stomatal size so that there may be decreased water loss in the leaf part.
Both KK3 and UT12 inherited physiological traits from their parents, and KK3 had better WUE than UT12 (Table 4). This drought-resistant sugarcane cultivar had good physiological performance under normal conditions, which may be due to the potential of the sugarcane variety. Drought-resistant cultivars still have greater physiological activity than drought-susceptible cultivars under water stress conditions [37,38,64]. This is the opposite of a study conducted by Silva et al. [16], which indicated that drought-susceptible sugarcane cultivars have lower physiological activities, such as gs, E, and photosynthesis rate, than drought-resistant cultivars. Whereas, this is consistent with Silva et al. [16], who demonstrated that the WUE of drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars has been shown to be better than that of susceptible cultivars. Therefore, enhancing WUE has become an important characteristic in maintaining sugarcane growth [65]. These approaches have varying outcomes of success due to plants having the capacity to physiologically adapt to even small changes in their environment [66,67,68]. Thus, the ability of the cultivars impacts their physiological resistance to drought, but drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars have a high WUE to maintain water status in the aboveground part.

4.3. Growth and Biomass Performance between Different Biomass Potential Cultivars

KK3 had a similar height to its male parent, a similar tiller number to its female parent, and a similar leaf number to its parents. UT12 showed a slightly lower height and tiller number than its parents, but there were no differences in leaf number between it and its parents. KK3 had a higher height and tiller number than UT12, whereas the leaf number was not significantly different (Figure 7). Phenotypic divergence has been linked to genetic variance in plants [69]. Sugarcane cultivars with genetic variations display variations in morphological traits [69,70,71]. Plant height is often highly heritable and controlled by a few genes with large effects [72]. In contrast, sugarcane height, which is highly influenced by the environment, has low heritability and few genetic determinants [73,74]. The number of tillers and millable canes have moderate heritability and modest genetic effect and are instead influenced by the environment [74]. Drought-resistant cultivars have a higher stalk height, stalk number, and productivity than drought-susceptible sugarcane cultivars [13]. KK3 and UT12, grown under water-limited conditions, responded to early drought with a reduction in stalk height in pot [9] and hydroponic systems [6]. However, KK3 gradually increased its height growth rate in the early growth stage and in the recovery period under rain-fed conditions, whereas UT12 showed a slower height growth rate in both periods under rain-fed conditions [8]. Sugarcane decreases its green leaf biomass under dehydration conditions [75]. The maintenance of green leaf numbers is an effective drought adaptation in the KK3 cultivar [6]. In the early water-deficit stage, KK3 had good adaptability to drought stress at the formative stage, through gradually increasing its growth rate, but this growth rapidly accelerated, and the maximum growth rate was reached during the recovery period [8]. Hence, the growth characteristics of sugarcane cultivars were sensitive to environmental factors. Furthermore, drought-resistant and -susceptible cultivars had decreased growth characteristics when faced with water stress conditions at the initial development stage. KK3 had a similar dry weight to its male parent, whereas UT12 showed a similar dry weight to its parent at 1, 2, and 3 MAP (Figure 8). These two sugarcane cultivars are commercial cultivars, which may have inherited different traits from their parents. Sugarcane varieties used in commercial cultivation are complex polyploids. The sugarcane crop’s heterozygous and polyploid nature has affected the generation of more genetic variability [73]. Complex quantitative yield characteristics have relatively low heritability and are influenced by many genes [72]. Biomass and stalk yield in sugarcane have a significant G×E variation that is influenced by the environment [76]. KK3 had a similar biomass to UT12 at 1 and 2 MAP, whereas KK3 had a greater biomass than UT12 at 3 MAP. Furthermore, the proportion of assimilates of the KK3 cultivar was higher in the stem than the leaves, whereas UT12 had more assimilates in the leaves than in the stem at 3 MAP (Figure 8). Drought-resistant cultivars had different responses to drought stress in terms of stalk dry weight and leaf dry weight during the initial sugarcane growth stage, whereas there was no difference in biomass between non-stressed and drought-stressed plants during the recovery period [9]. The root dry weight response differed throughout cultivars; thus, the root/shoot ratio could not be an appropriate measure for assessing shoot growth [20]. In contrast, the drought-resistant cultivar can support a high proportion of roots and shoots in water stress conditions, and an improvement in the root/shoot ratio might help maintain water uptake [9]. It is expected that resistant cultivars will use different strategies to adapt to drought during the early growth stage. However, drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars have higher yield and yield components than susceptible cultivars [13,14]. Moreover, KK3 had good assimilate partitioning under water deficits at the early sugarcane growth stage in pot conditions [9], and it also showed good adaptation in the shoot and root portions in hydroponic conditions [6]. Therefore, the biomass of drought-resistant sugarcane cultivars was better than that of drought-susceptible cultivars, and drought-resistant cultivars had greater assimilation of partitioning to the aboveground part than the below-ground. This research provides important basic knowledge concerning the differences in physiological, anatomical, and morphological traits between sugarcane cultivars with different stalk dry weights and their parents under hydroponic conditions.

5. Conclusions

The comparison between high and low stalk dry weight cultivars and their parents revealed various root anatomical traits similar to those of the female parent, whereas the morphological traits were similar to those of the male parent. However, the low stalk dry weight cultivar generally showed similar root anatomical traits to its female parent and did not differ in leaf anatomy and root system size. Some physiological traits of the high stalk dry weight cultivar were not different from those of its parents. However, PN, height, tiller number, stem dry weight, and stomatal density of the low stalk dry weight cultivar were lower than those of its parents. The late rainy season of sugarcane planting systems uses high stalk dry weight cultivars due to their good performance and high productivity. The KK3 cultivar could maintain water uptake via a small root stele and root xylem vessels, but it had a high root length, root surface, and root volume. It also reduced water loss by altering stomatal characteristics, showing a higher stomatal density but a short pore length. Although low transpiration can disturb the photosynthetic rate of KK3, it can maintain a high WUE to promote growth and biomass accumulation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture13122234/s1, Figure S1: Sugarcane growth shape of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 1, 2, and 3 months after planting (MAP).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S. and N.J.; methodology, J.K., P.S. and N.J.; validation, P.S. and N.J.; formal analysis, J.K.; investigation, J.K., P.S. and N.J.; resources, P.S. and N.J.; data curation, J.K.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K. and N.J.; writing—review and editing, J.K., P.S. and N.J.; visualization, J.K. and N.J; supervision, P.S. and N.J.; project administration, N.J.; funding acquisition, N.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by assistance received from the Research Fund for Supporting Lecturer to Admit High Potential Student to Study and Research on His Expert Program Year 2020 at Khon Kaen University, grant number 631T219.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Northeast Thailand Cane and Sugar Research Center (NECS), Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, for providing financial support. This research was funded by assistance received from the Research Fund for Supporting Lecturer to Admit High Potential Student to Study and Research on His Expert Program Year 2020 at Khon Kaen University, grant number 631T219. The acknowledgment is extended to the Thailand Research Fund for providing financial support through the Senior Research Scholar Project of Sanun Jogloy (Project No. RTA6180002).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Formann, S.; Hahn, A.; Janke, L.; Stinner, W.; Strauber, H.; Logrono, W.; Nikolausz, M. Beyond sugar and ethanol production: Value generation opportunities through sugarcane residues. Front. Energy Res. 2020, 8, 579577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zingaretti, S.M.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Graca, J.P.; Pereira, L.M.; Lourenco, M.V. Sugarcane responses at water deficit conditions. In Water Stress, 1st ed.; Rahman, I.M.M., Ed.; Intech Open: Shanghai, China, 2012; pp. 255–276. [Google Scholar]
  3. Leanasawat, N.; Kosittrakun, M.; Lontom, W.; Songsri, P. Physiological and agronomic traits of certain sugarcane genotypes grown under field conditions as influenced by early drought stress. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wongkhunkaew, P.; Konyai, S.; Sriboonlue, V. Climate variability and rainfed sugarcane production: Thailand a case study. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference, Chulabhorn International Convention Center (Wora Wana Hua Hin Hotel & Convention) Hua Hin, APRIL, Prachuap Khiri Khan, Thailand, 26–27 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. Set-Tow, S.; Songsri, P.; Jongrungklang, N. Variations in root distribution patterns and cane yield of 16 elite sugarcane clones grown under varied soil conditions. Sugar Tech. 2020, 22, 1018–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tippayawat, A.; Jogloy, S.; Vorasoot, N.; Songsri, P.; Kimbeng, C.A.; Jifon, J.L.; Janket, A.; Thangthong, N.; Jongrungklang, N. Differential physiological responses to different drought durations among a diverse set of sugarcane genotypes. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. da Silva, P.P.; Soares, L.; da Costa, J.G.; da Silva Viana, L.; de Andrade, J.C.F.; Gonçalves, E.R.; dos Santos, J.M.; de Souza Barbosa, C.V.; Nascimento, V.X.; Todaro, A.R.; et al. Path analysis for selection of drought tolerant sugarcane genotypes through physiological components. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 37, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khonghintaisong, J.; Songsri, P.; Jongrungklang, N. Understanding growth rate patterns among different drought resistant sugarcane cultivars during plant and ratoon crops encountered water deficit at early growth stage under natural field conditions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khonghintaisong, J.; Songsri, P.; Toomsa, B.; Jongrungklang, N. Rooting and physiological trait responses to early drought stress of sugarcane cultivars. Sugar Tech. 2018, 20, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Riajaya, D.P.; Hariyono, B.; Cholid, M.; Kadarwati, F.T.; Santoso, B.; Djumali; Subiyakto. Growth and yield potential of new sugarcane varieties during plant and first ratoon Crops. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Waclawovsky, A.J.; Sato, P.M.; Lembke, C.G.; Moore, P.H.; Souza, G.M. Sugarcane for bioenergy production: An assessment of yield and regulation of sucrose content. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2010, 8, 263–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ramesh, P.; Mahadevaswamy, M. Effect of formative phase drought on different classes of shoots, shoot mortality, cane attributes, yield and quality of four sugarcane cultivars. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2008, 185, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Silva, M.A.; Silva, J.A.G.; Enciso, J.; Sharma, V.; Jifon, J. Yield components as indicators of drought tolerance of sugarcane. Sci. Agric. 2008, 65, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Begum, M.K.; Islam, M.S. Effect of drought stress on yield and yield components of sugarcane. Agrofor. Environ. 2012, 6, 105–109. [Google Scholar]
  15. Endres, L.; Silva, J.V.; Ferreira, V.M.; De Souza Barbosa, G.V. Photosynthesis and water relations in Brazilian sugarcane. Open Agric. 2010, 4, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Silva, M.A.; Jifon, J.L.; dos Santos, C.M.; Jadoski, C.J.; da Silva, J.A.G. Photosynthetic capacity and water use efficiency in sugarcane genotypes subject to water deficit during early growth phase. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2013, 56, 735–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Taratima, W.; Ritmaha, T.; Jongrungklang, N.; Maneerattanarungroj, P.; Kunpratum, N. Effect of stress on the leaf anatomy of sugarcane cultivars with different drought tolerance (Saccharum officinarum, Poaceae). Rev. Biol. Trop. 2020, 68, 1159–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chapae, C.; Songsri, P.; Jongrungklang, N. Hydroponics: An Alternative Method for Root and Shoot Classification on Sugarcane Genotypes. Agrivita 2019, 41, 350–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Smith, J.P.; Lawam, R.J.; Nable, R.O. Investigation into the root:shoot relationship of sugarcane and some implications for crop productivity in presence of sub-optimal conditions. In Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Townsville, QL, Australia, 27–30 April 1999; Volume 21, pp. 108–113. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khonghintaisong, J.; Songsri, P.; Jongrungklang, N. Root characters of individual tillers and the relationships with above-ground growth and dry matter accumulation in sugarcane. Pak. J. Bot. 2020, 52, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chang, Y.S.; Milligan, S.B. Estimating the potential of sugarcane families to produce elite genotypes using bivariate methods. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1992, 84, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cox, M.C.; Stringer, J.K. Efficacy of early generation selection in a sugarcane improvement program. In Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Ballina, Australia, 28 April–1 May 1998; Volume 20, pp. 148–153. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kimbeng, C.A. Early generation selection of sugarcane families and clones in Australia: A review. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2003, 23, 20–39. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ranjan, R.; Kumar, B. Study of genetic variability for cane yield and its component traits in early maturing sugarcane. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1739–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ranjan, S.; Gautam, A. Heritability Estimate. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior; Vonk, J., Shackelford, T., Eds.; Springe: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 3088–3091. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, D.; Li, A.; Lam, S.K.; Li, P.; Zong, Y.; Gao, Z.; Hao, X. Increased carbon uptake under elevated CO2 concentration enhances water-use efficiency of C4 broomcorn millet under drought. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Verma, K.K.; Song, X.P.; Zeng, Y.; Li, D.M.; Guo, D.J.; Rajput, V.D.; Chen, G.L.; Barakhov, A.; Minkina, T.M.; Li, Y.R. Characters of leaf stomata and their relationship with photosynthesis in saccharum officinarum under drought and silicon application. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 24145–24153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Riddech, N.; Ma, N.Y.; Ho, P.N.; Sarin, P. A plant growth promoting of rhizobacteria and endophytic bacteria in vegetable rhizosphere and root samples. J. Pure. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 16, 1909–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 241–423. [Google Scholar]
  30. Piriyapongsa, J.; Kaewprommal, P.; Vaiwsri, S.; Anuntakarun, S.; Wirojsirasak, W.; Punpee, P.; Klomsa-ard, P.; Shaw, P.J.; Pootakham, W.; Yoocha, T.; et al. Uncovering full-length transcript isoforms of sugarcane cultivar Khon Kaen 3 using single-molecule long-read sequencing. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chapae, C.; Songsri, P.; Gonkhamdee, S.; Jongrungklang, N. Understanding drought responses of sugarcane cultivars controlled under low water potential conditions. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 80, 370–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Blum, A. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential-Are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive. Crop Pasture Sci. 2005, 56, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kooyers, N.J. The evolution of drought escape and avoidance in natural herbaceous populations. Plant Sci. 2015, 234, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Smith, D. Water relations in sugarcane and response to water deficits. Field Crops Res. 2005, 92, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Smit, M.; Singels, A. The response of sugarcane canopy development to water stress. Field Crops Res. 2006, 98, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cominelli, E.; Conti, L.; Tonelli, C.; Galbiati, M. Challenges and perspectives to improve crop drought and salinity tolerance. N. Biotechnol. 2013, 30, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Silva, M.A.; Jifon, J.L.; de Silva, J.A.G.; Sharma, V. Use of physiological parameters as fast tools to screen for drought tolerance in sugarcane. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2007, 19, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. da Graca, J.P.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Farias, J.R.B.; de Oliveira, M.C.N.; Hoffmann-Campo, C.B.; Zingaretti, S.M. Physiological parameters in sugarcane cultivars submitted to water deficit. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 22, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Medeiros, D.B.; da Silva, E.C.; Nogueira, R.J.M.C.; Teixeira, M.M.; Buckeridge, M.S. Physiological limitations in two sugarcane varieties under water suppression and after recovering. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2013, 25, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ribeiro, R.V.; Machado, R.S.; Machado, E.C.; Machado, D.F.S.P.; Magalhães Filho, J.R.; Landell, M.G.A. Revealing drought-resistance and productive patterns in sugarcane genotypes by evaluating both physiological responses and stalk yield. Exp. Agric. 2013, 49, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Basnayake, J.; Jackson, P.A.; Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Lakshmanan, P. Sugarcane for water-limited environments. Variation in stomatal conductance and its genetic correlation with crop productivity. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 3945–3958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. De Silva, A.; De Costa, W. Varietal variation in stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis of commercial sugarcane varieties under two contrasting water regimes. Trop. Agr. Res. Ext. 2011, 12, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saliendra, N.Z.; Meinzer, F.C. Genotypic, developmental and drought-induced differences in root hydraulic conductance of contrasting sugarcane cultivars. J. Exp. Bot. 1992, 43, 1209–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lynch, J.P.; Chimungu, J.G.; Brown, K.M. Root anatomical phenes associated with water acquisition from drying soil: Targets for crop improvement. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6155–6166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Richards, R.A.; Passioura, J.B. Seminal root morphology and water-use of wheat. 1. Environmental effects. Crop Sci. 1981, 21, 249–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Smith, D.M.; Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Thorburn, P.J. Growth and function of the sugarcane root system. Field Crops Res. 2005, 92, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Thangthong, N.; Jogloy, S.; Punjansing, T.; Kvien, C.K.; Kesmala, T.; Vorasoot, N. Changes in root anatomy of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under different durations of early season drought. Agronomy 2019, 9, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wachsman, G.; Sparks, E.E.; Benfey, P.N. Genes and networks regulating root anatomy and architecture. New Phytol. 2015, 208, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Uga, Y.; Okuno, K.; Yano, M. Dro1, a major QTL involved in deep rooting of rice under upland field conditions. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 2485–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Lakshmanan, P.; Park, S. Sugarcane for water-limited environments: Theoretical assessment of suitable traits. Field Crops Res. 2012, 134, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ferreira, T.H.S.; Tsunada, M.S.; Bassi, D.; Araujo, P.; Mattiello, L.; Guidelli, G.V.; Righetto, G.L.; Gonçalves, V.R.; Lakshmanan, P.; Menossi, M. Sugarcane water stress tolerance mechanisms and its implications on developing biotechnology solutions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Baillie, C.; Willcox, J.; Attard, S.; Spillman, M.F. Increased Profitability and Water Use Efficiency through Best Use of Limited Water under Supplementary Irrigation in Sugarcane. Final Report for Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative; Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems: Townsville, Australia, 31 May 2003; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/22407748/Increased_profitability_and_water_use_efficiency_through_best_use_of_limited_water_under_supplementary_irrigation_in_sugarcane._Final_Report_for_Rural_Water_Use_Efficiency_Initiative_Queensland_Department_of_Natural_Reso (accessed on 21 June 2023).
  53. Olsen, J.T.; Caudle, K.L.; Johnson, L.C.; Baer, S.G.; Maricle, B.R. Environmental and genetic variation in leaf anatomy among populations of Andropogon gerardii (Poaceae) along a precipitation gradient. Am. J. Bot. 2013, 100, 1957–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stace, C.A. Plant Taxonomy and Biosystematics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  55. Taratima, W.; Ritmaha, T.; Jongrungklang, N.; Raso, S.; Maneerattanarungroj, P. leaf anatomical responses to drought stress condition in hybrid sugarcane leaf (Saccharum officinarum ‘KK3’). Malays. Appl. Biol. 2019, 48, 181–188. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhang, F.J.; Zhang, K.K.; Du, C.Z.; Li, J.; Xing, Y.X.; Yang, L.T.; Li, Y.R. Effect of drought stress on anatomical structure and chloroplast ultrastructure in leaves of sugarcane. Sugar Tech. 2015, 17, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bosabalidis, A.M.; Kofidis, A. Comparative effects of drought stress on leaf anatomy of two olive cultivars. Plant Sci. 2002, 163, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gailing, O.; Langenfeld-Heyser, R.; Polle, A.; Finkeldey, R. Quantitative trait loci affecting stomatal density and growth in a Quercus robur progeny: Implications for the adaptation to changing environments. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2008, 14, 1934–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, L.; Niu, H.; Wang, S.; Zhu, X.; Luo, C.; Li, Y.; Zhao, X. Gene or environment? Species-specific control of stomatal density and length. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 1065–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Aasamaa, K.; Sober, A.; Rahi, M. Leaf anatomical characters associated with shoot hydraulic conductance, stomatal conductance and stomatal sensitivity to changes of leaf water status in temperate deciduous trees. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 2001, 28, 765–774. [Google Scholar]
  61. Beaulieu, J.M.; Leitch, I.J.; Patel, S.; Knight, C.A.; Pendharkar, A. Genome size is a strong predictor of cell size and stomatal density in angiosperms. New Phytol. 2008, 179, 975–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Xu, Z.Z.; Zhou, G.S. Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 3317–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nawazish, S.; Hameed, M.; Naurin, S. Leaf anatomical adaptations of Cenchrus ciliaris L., from the salt range, Pakistan against drought stress. Pak. J. Bot. 2006, 38, 1723–1730. [Google Scholar]
  64. Silva, M.A.; Pincelli, R.P.; Barbosa, A.D.M. Water stress effects on chlorophyll fluorescence and chlorophyll content in sugarcane cultivars with contrasting tolerance. Bioscience 2018, 34, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Natarajan, S.; Basnayake, J.; Lakshmanan, P.; Fukai, S. Genotypic variation in intrinsic transpiration efficiency correlates with sugarcane yield under rainfed and irrigated field conditions. Physiol. Plant. 2020, 172, 976–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Halpin, C.; Barakate, A.; Askari, B.M.; Abbot, J.C.; Ryan, M.D. Enabling technologies for manipulating multiple genes on complex pathways. Plant Mol. Biol. 2001, 47, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Luguang, W.; Birch, R.G. Doubling sugar content in sugarcane plants modified to produce an isomer. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2007, 5, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
  68. McCormick, A.J.; Cramer, M.D.; Watt, D.A. Changes in Photosynthetic Rates and Gene Expression of Leaves during a source–sink perturbation in sugarcane. Ann. Bot. 2008, 101, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khan, Q.; Qin, Y.; Guo, D.J.; Zeng, X.P.; Chen, J.Y.; Huang, Y.Y.; Ta, Q.K.; Yang, L.T.; Liang, Q.; Song, X.P.; et al. Morphological, agronomical, physiological and molecular characterization of a high sugar mutant of sugarcane in comparison to mother variety. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Khan, I.A.; Dahot, M.U.; Khatri, A. Study of genetic variability in sugarcane induced through mutation breeding. Pak. J. Bot. 2007, 39, 1489–1501. [Google Scholar]
  71. Akhtar, M.; Elahi, N.; Ashraf, M. Morphological characters of some exotic sugarcane varieties. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2001, 4, 471–476. [Google Scholar]
  72. Edmeadesa, G.O.; McMasterb, G.S.; Whitec, J.W.; Campos, H. Genomics and the physiologist: Bridging the gap between genes and crop response. Field Crops Res. 2004, 90, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tena, E.; Mekbib, F.; Ayana, A. Heritability and correlation among sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) yield and some agronomic and sugar quality traits in Ethiopia. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1453–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pandey, D.; Singh, S.P.; Jeena, A.S.; Khan, K.A.; Tabassum, N.A.; Koujalagi, D. Study of genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance for various yield and quality traits in sugarcane genotypes (Saccharum officinarum). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 1464–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhao, D.; Barry, G.; Comstock, J.C. Sugarcane response to water-deficit stress during early growth on organic and sand soils. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2010, 5, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jones, M.R.; Singels, A.; Chinorumba, S.; Patton, A.; Poser, C.; Singh, M.; Martiné, J.F.; Christina, M.; Shine, J.; Annandale, J.; et al. Exploring process-level genotypic and environmental effects on sugarcane yield using an international experi-mental dataset. Field Crops Res. 2019, 244, 107622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 02234 g001
Figure 1. Root stele features of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Figure 1. Root stele features of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Agriculture 13 02234 g001
Agriculture 13 02234 g002
Figure 2. Root length (cm) (a,d), root surface area (cm2) (b,e), and root volume (cm3) (c,f) of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 2 months after planting.
Figure 2. Root length (cm) (a,d), root surface area (cm2) (b,e), and root volume (cm3) (c,f) of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 2 months after planting.
Agriculture 13 02234 g002
Agriculture 13 02234 g003
Figure 3. Leaf anatomy of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting. AD = adaxial, AB = abaxial, BC = bulliform cell, XY = xylem, PL = phloem, SCD = stomatal crypt depth.
Figure 3. Leaf anatomy of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting. AD = adaxial, AB = abaxial, BC = bulliform cell, XY = xylem, PL = phloem, SCD = stomatal crypt depth.
Agriculture 13 02234 g003
Agriculture 13 02234 g004
Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope images of the stomatal distribution of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope images of the stomatal distribution of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Agriculture 13 02234 g004
Agriculture 13 02234 g005
Figure 5. Average stomatal density per 100 µm2 of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) (a) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) (b) at 3 months after planting.
Figure 5. Average stomatal density per 100 µm2 of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) (a) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) (b) at 3 months after planting.
Agriculture 13 02234 g005
Agriculture 13 02234 g006
Figure 6. Scanning electron microscope images of stomata shape of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Figure 6. Scanning electron microscope images of stomata shape of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 (b) and its parents 85-2-352 (a) and K84-200 (c) (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 (e) and its parents SP80 (d) and UT3 (f) (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Agriculture 13 02234 g006
Agriculture 13 02234 g007
Figure 7. Height (cm) (a,d), tiller number (b,e), and leaf number (c,f) of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 days after planting.
Figure 7. Height (cm) (a,d), tiller number (b,e), and leaf number (c,f) of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 days after planting.
Agriculture 13 02234 g007
Agriculture 13 02234 g008
Figure 8. Leaf dry weight (LDW) and stem dry weight (SDW) at 1 month after planting (MAP) (a,d), 2 MAP (b,e), and 3 MAP (c,f); and root dry weight (RDW) at 1 MAP (a,d) and 2 MAP (b,e) of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively).
Figure 8. Leaf dry weight (LDW) and stem dry weight (SDW) at 1 month after planting (MAP) (a,d), 2 MAP (b,e), and 3 MAP (c,f); and root dry weight (RDW) at 1 MAP (a,d) and 2 MAP (b,e) of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively).
Agriculture 13 02234 g008
Table 1. Root anatomy of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Table 1. Root anatomy of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
CultivarXylem Vessel NumberTotal Xylem Vessel SizeAverage Xylem Vessel SizePercentage of
Xylem Vessel Area/Stele Area
(µm)(µm)(%)
High stalk dry weight sugarcane family
85-2-352 (female parent)9.919,616 b2092 b13.1
KK3 (hybrid)10.418,934 b2023 b13.2
K84-200 (male parent)10.033,171 a2795 a11.6
Mean10.123,907230312.6
F-testns****ns
Low stalk dry weight sugarcane family
SP80 (female parent)12.3 b29,291 b2870 b12.9 a
UT12 (hybrid)12.9 b41,346 b3055 b8.6 b
UT3 (male parent)20.0 a90,070 a4489 a8.7 b
Mean15.153,569347110.0
F-test*******
High and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars
KK310.4 b18,934 b2023 b13.2a
UT1212.9 a41,346 a3055 a8.6 b
Mean11.730,140253910.9
F-test*******
ns indicates non-significance; *, ** indicate significance at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels of probability, respectively. Means in the same column with the same letters are not significantly different according to the least significant difference (LSD) test at p < 0.05.
Table 2. Leaf anatomical features of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Table 2. Leaf anatomical features of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Characteristic High Stalk Dry Weight Sugarcane Family
85-2-352KK3K84-200MeanF-test
Female ParentHybridMale Parent
Laminar thickness (μm)244.6242.7224.2237.2ns
Xylem vertical length (μm)42.036.434.737.7ns
Xylem horizontal length (μm)53.0 a50.1 a43.5 b48.9*
Phloem vertical length (μm)53.9 a57.0 a40.6 b50.5**
Phloem horizontal length (μm)76.3 a66.3 ab53.8 b65.4*
Bundle sheath horizontal length (μm)73.5 a67.0 b79.3 a73.3**
Bundle sheath vertical length (μm)159.4 a158.9 a143.1 b153.8*
Bulliform cell horizontal length (μm)46.6 a47.2 a38.9 b44.3*
Bulliform cell vertical length (μm)78.0 a74.4 a59.9 b70.7**
Bulliform size (μm2)3682.0 a3665.4 a2063.9 b3137.1**
Epidermis vertical length (μm)9.89.110.29.7ns
CharacteristicsLow stalk dry weight sugarcane family
SP80UT12UT3MeanF-test
Female parentHybridMale parent
Leaf thickness (μm)246.3 b287.2 a256.6 b263.4*
Xylem vertical length (μm)41.5 ab44.5 a36.9 b40.9*
Xylem horizontal length (μm)52.152.348.050.8ns
Phloem vertical length (μm)50.554.357.354.0ns
Phloem horizontal length (μm)60.167.963.263.7ns
Bundle sheath horizontal length (μm)82.483.381.682.4ns
Bundle sheath vertical length (μm)167.6 ab186.8 a155.0 b169.8*
Bulliform cell horizontal length (μm)39.750.250.346.7ns
Bulliform cell vertical length (μm)72.881.077.277.0ns
Bulliform size (μm2)3096.4 b4442.6 a4464.5 a4001.2**
Epidermis vertical length (μm)9.810.310.810.3ns
ns indicates non-significance; *, ** indicate significance at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels of probability, respectively. Means in the same column with the same letters are not significantly different according to the least significant difference (LSD) test at p < 0.05.
Table 3. Stomatal size of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Table 3. Stomatal size of high stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
CultivarsStomatal LengthStomatal WidthPore LengthGuard Cell
(µm)(µm)(µm)(µm)
High stalk dry weight sugarcane family
85-2-352 (female parent)40.624.028.010.6
KK3 (hybrid)40.722.625.69.3
K84-200 (male parent)37.523.121.810.0
Mean39.623.225.110.0
F-testnsnsnsns
Low stalk dry weight sugarcane family
SP80 (female parent)41.622.928.510.0
UT12 (hybrid)42.426.530.711.8
UT3 (male parent)42.525.030.410.0
Mean42.224.829.810.6
F-testnsnsnsns
High and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars
KK340.722.625.69.3
UT1242.426.530.711.8
Mean41.524.528.110.5
F-testnsnsns*
ns indicates non-significance; * indicate significance at the 0.01 level of probability, respectively.
Table 4. Conductance of H2O (gs), transpiration rate (E), net photosynthetic rate (PN), and water use efficiency (WUE) of high stalk dry weight cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
Table 4. Conductance of H2O (gs), transpiration rate (E), net photosynthetic rate (PN), and water use efficiency (WUE) of high stalk dry weight cultivar KK3 and its parents 85-2-352 and K84-200 (female and male, respectively) and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivar UT12 and its parents SP80 and UT3 (female and male, respectively) at 3 months after planting.
CultivargsEPNWUE
(mol H2O m−2 s−1)(mmol H2O m−2 s−1) (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1) (µmol mmol−1)
High stalk dry weight sugarcane family
85-2-352 (female parent)0.152.9335.94 ab15.68
KK3 (hybrid)0.122.4434.57 b16.12
K84-200 (male parent)0.173.0340.21 a12.71
Mean0.152.8036.9114.83
F-testnsns*ns
Low stalk dry weight sugarcane family
SP80 (female parent)0.22 a3.6841.38 a11.95
UT12 (hybrid)0.12 b2.6032.43 b11.63
UT3 (male parent)0.19 ab3.5343.34 a13.30
Mean0.183.2739.0512.29
F-test*ns*ns
High and low stalk dry weight sugarcane cultivars
KK30.122.4434.5716.12
UT120.122.6032.4311.64
Mean0.122.5233.5013.88
F-testnsnsnsns
ns indicates non-significance; * indicate significance at the 0.01 level of probability, respectively. Means in the same column with the same letters are not significantly different according to the least significant difference (LSD) test at p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khonghintaisong, J.; Songsri, P.; Jongrungklang, N. Comparison of Physiological, Anatomical, and Morphological Traits between Sugarcane Hybrids and Their Parents with Different Stalk Dry Weights in the Early Growth Stage under Hydroponic Conditions. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13122234

AMA Style

Khonghintaisong J, Songsri P, Jongrungklang N. Comparison of Physiological, Anatomical, and Morphological Traits between Sugarcane Hybrids and Their Parents with Different Stalk Dry Weights in the Early Growth Stage under Hydroponic Conditions. Agriculture. 2023; 13(12):2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13122234

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khonghintaisong, Jidapa, Patcharin Songsri, and Nakorn Jongrungklang. 2023. "Comparison of Physiological, Anatomical, and Morphological Traits between Sugarcane Hybrids and Their Parents with Different Stalk Dry Weights in the Early Growth Stage under Hydroponic Conditions" Agriculture 13, no. 12: 2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13122234

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop