Abstract
Aims: To quantify the magnitude of the genotype x harvest cycle interaction (GxC) of sugarcane during three harvest cycles and to select superior clones for cultivation on the Coast of the Southern Forest of Pernambuco. Study Design: The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design. Place and Duration of Study: Evaluated during the 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 harvest years in the agricultural area of the Cucaú Plant, located in the Municipality of Rio Formoso (8°39' 49" S and 35º09'31" W, altitude of 5 m), Microregion of the Southern Forest of Pernambuco. Methodology: 11 genotypes Republic of Brazil of the RB 2004 series and three RB cultivars were evaluated. Each plot was represented by five grooves of 8.0 m in length, spaced in 1.0 m, totaling 40 m². The crops were harvested 15 months after planting (MAP) for the first crop cycle and 12 MAP during the two subsequent cycles were evaluated tons of sugarcane per hectare (TCH), tons of pol per hectare (TPH) and total recoverable sugar (ATR). The variance analyses, the Scott and Knott clustering test, the estimative of the simple and complex parts of the G x C interaction and the Pearson correlation coefficient were processed in the Genes program. Results: The genotypes showed a significant reduction of TCH from the first to the second cycle and that only the genotype UFRPE11 showed a significant decrease for the third. The genotypes UFRPE10, UFRPE6, UFRPE11, UFRPE7, UFRPE2, UFRPE9 and UFRPE1 exceeded all commercial varieties in TPH. It was observed for the variable ATR that there were no significant differences between the genotypes in the third cycle. The simple fraction of the interaction G x C were predominant between cycles C1 and C2 for TCH (67.91%) and TPH (69.35%), while for ATR (56.42%) the complex fraction was predominant. For the pair C2 x C3, the simple fraction of the interaction G x C predominated only in the TCH (62.85%) and TPH (62.41%) variables, but was not significant for the variable ATR. It is worth mentioning that the C1 x C3 cycle pair presented predominantly complex type interactions for all variables TCH (50.42%), TPH (52.20%) and ATR (59.66%). Conclusion: The simple fraction of the genotype x harvest cycles (G x C) interaction provides genetic gain for yield of sugarcane and sugar in selection in subsequent pairs of harvest cycles, year by year. The complex fraction of G x C interaction reduces the predictability of genetic gain, making it difficult to select new cultivars. Local selection favors expressive genetic gain in a few selection cycles. However, it does not favor the selection of genotypes with high adaptability and phenotypic stability, requiring tests in several environments. The UFRPE06 and UFRPE10 clones can be selected to continue the selection cycles for the southern coastal conditions of the Mata de Pernambuco.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 19
Claim · model-written summary
TCH significantly fell from the first to second harvest cycle.
Verbatim
e0“The genotypes showed a significant reduction of TCH from the first to the second cycle”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Only UFRPE11 had a significant TCH decrease in the third cycle.
Verbatim
e0“only the genotype UFRPE11 showed a significant decrease for the third”
e1“TCH from the first to the second cycle”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Seven named genotypes exceeded all commercial varieties in TPH.
Verbatim
e0“The genotypes UFRPE10, UFRPE6, UFRPE11, UFRPE7, UFRPE2, UFRPE9 and UFRPE1 exceeded all commercial varieties in TPH.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
ATR did not differ significantly among genotypes in the third cycle.
Verbatim
e0“there were no significant differences between the genotypes in the third cycle”
e1“It was observed for the variable ATR”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Simple GxC interaction predominated for TCH between C1 and C2 at 67.91%.
Verbatim
e0“The simple fraction of the interaction G x C were predominant between cycles C1 and C2 for TCH (67.91%)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Simple GxC interaction predominated for TPH between C1 and C2 at 69.35%.
Verbatim
e0“TPH (69.35%)”
e1“simple fraction of the interaction G x C were predominant between cycles C1 and C2”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Complex GxC interaction predominated for ATR between C1 and C2 at 56.42%.
Verbatim
e0“for ATR (56.42%) the complex fraction was predominant”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Simple interaction predominated for TCH between C2 and C3 at 62.85%.
Verbatim
e0“For the pair C2 x C3, the simple fraction of the interaction G x C predominated only in the TCH (62.85%)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Simple interaction predominated for TPH between C2 and C3 at 62.41%.
Verbatim
e0“TPH (62.41%) variables”
e1“For the pair C2 x C3, the simple fraction of the interaction G x C predominated”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The C2 by C3 interaction was not significant for ATR.
Verbatim
e0“was not significant for the variable ATR”
e1“For the pair C2 x C3”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Complex interaction predominated for TCH between C1 and C3 at 50.42%.
Verbatim
e0“C1 x C3 cycle pair presented predominantly complex type interactions for all variables TCH (50.42%)”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Complex interaction predominated for TPH between C1 and C3 at 52.20%.
Verbatim
e0“TPH (52.20%)”
e1“C1 x C3 cycle pair presented predominantly complex type interactions”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Complex interaction predominated for ATR between C1 and C3 at 59.66%.
Verbatim
e0“ATR (59.66%)”
e1“C1 x C3 cycle pair presented predominantly complex type interactions”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret simple GxC interaction as enabling genetic gain from selection across subsequent harvest cycles.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The simple fraction of the genotype x harvest cycles (G x C) interaction provides genetic gain for yield of sugarcane and sugar in selection in subsequent pairs of harvest cycles, year by year.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret complex GxC interaction as reducing predictability of genetic gain.
Verbatim
e0“The complex fraction of G x C interaction reduces the predictability of genetic gain, making it difficult to select new cultivars.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude local selection favors genetic gain in a few cycles.
Verbatim
e0“Local selection favors expressive genetic gain in a few selection cycles.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude local selection does not favor high adaptability and phenotypic stability.
Verbatim
e0“it does not favor the selection of genotypes with high adaptability and phenotypic stability”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend testing in several environments.
Verbatim
e0“requiring tests in several environments”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend UFRPE06 and UFRPE10 for further selection under southern coastal conditions.
Verbatim
e0“The UFRPE06 and UFRPE10 clones can be selected to continue the selection cycles for the southern coastal conditions of the Mata de Pernambuco.”
t0“Sugarcane”