International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science

Vol. 7(1), pp. 635-640, March, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0449

Research Article

Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s

Breeding Programme across Three Ecological Zones
*1Edwin Shikanda, 2Japheth Jamoza, 3Anne Omututi
1,3KenyaAgricultural and Livestock Research Organization, Sugar Research Institute, P.O. Box 44 – 40100, KISUMU,
Kenya
2Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization Headquarters, P.O. Box 57811 - 00200, NAIROBI, Kenya

Higher yielding sugarcane varieties are needed to ensure the sustainability of the Kenya sugar
industry. The sector is dominated by comparatively old sugarcane varieties from India and South
Africa which are poor. Most of these varieties have succumbed to major diseases such as smut
caused by (Sporisorium scitaminea) and ratoon stunting disease - RSD (Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli),
have lost vigour resulting in low production. The research was conducted in three zones namely
Western Kenya (Mumias and Nzoia sugar Companies), Nyando Sugar belt (Kibos, Chemelil and
Muhoroni) and South Nyanza (Sony sugar Company). Thirteen sugarcane promising clones and
six check cultivars were evaluated on yield and quality in plant and two ratoon crops. The trial
was conducted under rain fed conditions using the randomized complete block design with four
replications. The results obtained indicated the highest cane yield of 123 t ha-1 was attained on
KEN 97-102 in South Nyanza zone while KEN 96-153 registered the lowest yield of 48.2 t ha-1 in
Nyando zone. Sugar yield was high in South Nyanza zone with the least recorded in Nyando zone.
Six test clones performed better than the check varieties in cane yield and were recommended
for distinctness uniformity and stability trial.

Key words: Sugarcane, Yield, Quality, Production, Diseases, Sustainability.

INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) is the main sugar
and bio-energy crop in the world. It accounts for ~70% raw
table sugar production worldwide while 30% comes from
sugar beet Contreras et al., (2009). Higher yielding
sugarcane varieties are needed to ensure the
sustainability of the Kenya sugar industry. Sugarcane
production in Kenya is on the decline. Current mean
sugarcane yield has been reported to be 51t ha-1
(Agriculture and food Authority-Sugar Directorate 2017
unpublished) which is far below the world competitive yield
of 120 t ha-1. Currently the industry is dominated by old
cane varieties from India and South Africa. The
performance of these varieties is poor since most are
struck by diseases such as smut (Sporisorium scitaminea)
and ratoon stunting disease – RSD) caused by (Leifsonia
xyli subsp. xyli), thus resulting in low production (Jamoza,
2014).These varieties include: Co 421 (42.87%), Co 945
(23.42%), Co 617(16.83%), and N14 (4.61%), ranked by
acreage planted (Agriculture and food Authority-Sugar
Directorate 2018 unpublished).
Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s Breeding Programme across Three Ecological Zones
The sugar industry in Kenya is faced with a myriad of
challenges that include: low sugarcane productivity and
quality at farm level, lack of organized seedcane
production framework resulting in use of inferior seed by
the farmers, disease and pest invasion, inefficiency in
processing of sugar and co-products, inefficient and
ineffective support services holding the sugar industry
value chain, poor service delivery and low sustainability
due to socio-economic constraints in the sugar sector and
lack of research funding to address some of these
challenges.
*Corresponding Author: Edwin Shikanda; Kenya
Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, Sugar
Research Institute, P.O. Box 44 – 40100, KISUMU, Kenya.
Email: edshik@yahoo.com; Tel: 0716290185
Co-Author Email: 2
Japhethjamoza@yahoo.com,
3
omututi2007@yahoo.com
Teressa et al. 636
Sugarcane production in Kenya is expanding into diverse
agro-ecological areas and the industry is venturing into
product diversification Leal (2007), Rao et al. (2007).
According to Jamoza et al.(2019 unpublished) the area
under sugarcane production in Kenya is reducing
drastically due to farmer’s withdrawal from production.
Furthermore, the land available for sugarcane production
is rapidly diminishing due to subdivision and competition
from other enterprises. Therefore, for the Kenya’ sugar
industry to remain economically sustainable, more novel
productive varieties should be developed to give valuable
contribution.
To mitigate sugarcane production challenges, Kenya
Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization’s-Sugar
Research Institute endeavours to develop varieties
adapted to the production conditions of the Kenyan sugar
industry. Specifically, the sugarcane variety improvement
programme aims to develop sugar rich varieties with high
yielding potential and resilience to biotic and a biotic
stress. The institute has developed and released 21
improved varieties for the Kenya sugar industry. Notable
among these are KEN 82-808, KEN 83-737, KEN 82-472,
EAK 73-335, D8484, KEN 82-121, KEN 82-493, KEN 82-
601, KEN 98-367, KEN 98-530, KEN 98-533, KEN 98-551,
KEN 00-13, KEN 00-3548 and KEN 00-3811 (Jamoza and
Shikanda,2018). However, these varieties currently
occupy only 16% of the surface area under sugarcane in
the industry (Agriculture and food Authority-Sugar
Directorate 2018 unpublished).
The selection and evaluation of varieties is a continuous
and systematic process that guarantees the availability of
new and improved genotypes for the sugarcane industry
for variety replacement and or diversification. The
objective of this study was to test the performance of 13
sugarcane clones (KEN 95, 96 and 97 series) selected in
preliminary variety trials for agronomic and quality traits in
three broad sugarcane zones in Kenya.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
The research was conducted in three zones namely
Western (Mumias and Nzoia longitudes 034° 16E to
034°51E and latitudes 00°17N to 00°41N), at 1314 m
above mean sea level, long-term annual rainfall of 2194
mm with a temperature range of 16.4 - 30.9°C and has free
draining loam soils; Nyando (Kibos, Chemelil and
Muhoroni) (34° 48’E, 0° 04’N ) at1184 m above mean sea
level on clay loam soils with long term mean annual rainfall
of 1490 mm with temperature ranges from 15.3 to 30°C.
and South Nyanza(Sony sugar company34° 32’E, 0° 54’S)
at an altitude of 1351 m above mean sea level and long-
term annual rainfall of 2200 mm and is characterized with
clay loam soils. Temperature ranges between 21 to 30°C.
All the 3 zones are characterized by bimodal rainfall
Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s Breeding Programme across Three Ecological Zones
pattern. Long rains are received between March and June,
while short rains are from September to November. These
locations were to be representative of the sugarcane
growing zones in Kenya.
Genotypes
Thirteen experimental genotypes selected from the KEN
1995, 1996, and 1997 crossing season at the Sugarcane
Breeding Centre Mtwapa were chosen for study and
evaluated in plant and two ratoon crops between March
2009 and June 2014. . These clones were selected in the
preliminary stage 4 of evaluation at Kibos Jamoza et al.
(2005). They included KEN 95-253, KEN 95-378, KEN 95-
385, KEN 95-593, KEN 95-609, KEN 95-713, KEN 97-102,
KEN 97-131, KEN 97-215, KEN 97-221, KEN 97-317, KEN
96-153 and KEN 96-173.Commercial varieties grown in
the respective zones namely Co 421, Co 945, Co 617, N
14, CB 38-22 and KEN 87-737 were used as controls.
Planting procedure and experimental design
Land preparation, crop establishment and management
were conducted in accordance to Rono et al. (2018). The
experiment was conducted using randomized complete
block design with four replications. The gross plot size was
six rows of eight m long while the net plot for data collection
and harvest measured four rows of eight m long.
Data collection
Data was obtained on key yield and quality attributes for
three crop cycles namely plant crop, ratoon 1 and 2.
Data was recorded on germination, tiller production,
disease and pest assessment, cane yield at harvest and
cane quality. Assessment of smut was done at 3, 5 and 7
months after planting and in subsequent ratoon crops. This
was achieved by counting the number of whips in each of
the affected plots. This was the extrapolated into smut
whips per hectare. Characterization of the clones against
smut was done as recommended by Hutchinson and
Daniels (1971).
Statistical data analysis
All the data were submitted to analysis of variance .Data
from the 6 sites was grouped by zone and analysed using
the statistical analysis system (SAS version 9.4 2013)
using ANOVA and means compared by Fischer’s least
significant difference (LSD) procedure according to Steel
and Torrie (1987).
RESULTS
In Nyando zone two clones KEN 95-593 and KEN 97-215
registered 3.15% and 1.64 % cane yield above the best sta
ndards (KEN 83-737 and Co 421). Eight test clones
recorded better cane yield above the mean of the standard

varieties. Pol % cane ranged from (10.63%) on KEN 97-
221 to (11.95%) on KEN 95-385. Sugar yields in Nyando
zone were low ranging from 5.39 tonnes (KEN 96-153) to
8.36 tonnes (KEN 95-593). This was not significant
compared to the standards (CO 421 and KEN 83-737) with
a mean sugar yield of 7.36. The test clones were more
resilient to smut compared to the checks (Table 1).
In Sony sugar Awendo zone KEN 97-102 performed well
in cane yield compared to the best standard variety. Three
clones KEN 97-102 (9%), KEN 95-378(1.14%) and KEN
95-253 (0.93%) means above checks were the best in
cane yield. Pol % cane ranged from (13.42%) KEN 97-221
to (14.28%) on KEN 95-378. Sugar yields were higher in
Sony zone compared with the other zones. Six clones
recorded high sugar yields in this zone thus comparing well
to the standards.KEN 97-102 with sugar yield of 19.40
tonnes outperformed the standard varieties in with a mean
of 16.31 tonnes. Data on disease incidences indicated the
test clones had low pressure on smut disease compared
to the check varieties (Table 2).
In Western Kenya 3 test clones KEN 97-102, KEN 97-131
and KEN 97-317 were not significant in cane yield
compared to the best standard KEN 83-737. Six test
clones recorded higher cane yields compared to the mean
of checks. Pol % cane ranged from (12.63%) KEN 97-221
to (13.07%) KEN 97-102.Six clones KEN 97-102(17.21)
KEN 96-173 (16.22) KEN 97-131 (14.83) KEN 97-317
(14.83) and KEN 95-378 (14.83) tonnes were better in
sugar yields compared to the standards Co 421 (14.23)
and KEN 83-737 (14.62).Overall reaction to diseases
indicated the test clones showed better resilience to smut
compared to the standard varieties in western Kenya
(Table 3).
An assessment to clone reaction to smut was undertaken
during the research period and all the clones tested
showed lower levels of smut disease with exceptional
performance of KEN 96-173 which exhibited immunity to
smut disease in all the three locations (Tables 1, 2 and 3).
DISCUSSION
Clones performed differently in six locations of the study in
both cane and sugar yields. Overall performance of the
clones in cane was good in Sony Sugar, Western Kenya
and lastly in Nyando. Clone KEN 97-120 showed its
superiority by producing 9.0 percent more cane yield than
the standard varieties. Eight others test clones in Sony
zone registered yields above 100 tha-1compared to the
other two locations though the yields were not significantly
different from the mean of the check varieties. Three test
clones recorded cane yields above 100 t ha-1in Western
Kenya. None of the clones in Nyando recorded yields
above 80 t ha-1. Yield parameters such as stalk population
and stalk height were higer in Sony followed by Western
Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s Breeding Programme across Three Ecological Zones
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 637
Kenya and lastly in Nyando sugar zone. There were highly
significant differences (PV> 0.01) among the treatments
for stalk population in Nyando zone. Similarly cane height
was highly significant among the treatments in Nyando
zone(PV > 0.01)..Statistically highest average cane
height(248.19 cm) was measured on KEN 95-713 in
Nyando sugar zone. Junejo et al. (2010) reported that cane
girth, cane height, cane internode and millable canes are
most important yield contributing parameters. Majidano et
al. (2003), Mehboob et al. (2000) stated that significantly
maximum cane thickness, cane height, cane internode
and number of millable canes ha-1were obtained with the
balanced NPK application.
In sugar yield highly significant (PV >0.01) differences
among the treatments were observed in all the zones.
Sugar yield and the associated quality traits were highest
in Sony sugar zone, and lowest in Nyando zone.
Genotypes KEN 97-102(19.40) tonnes KEN 95-378
(16.20), KEN 95-253 (16.55), KEN 97-131 (16.10), KEN
95-713 (16.02) and KEN 95-609 (16.01) performed well
specifically at Sony sugar zone in sugar yields The
following genotypes, KEN 97-102 (17.21), KEN 96-173
(16.22), KEN 95-253 (15.15) performed well in western
zone and are suitable for high sugar production in this
location while genotypes KEN 95-593 (8.36), KEN 97-
215(7.71), KEN 95-713(7.60), may be recommended for
cultivation in Nyando zone for high sugar content.
Genotype KEN 97-102 exhibited consistent high cane
yield and sugar recovery potential in two contrasting
varietal testing locations. The higher cane yield and sugar
recovery in KEN 97-102 may be attributed to its genetic
potential which was demonstrated under given crop
management practices. KEN 97-102 efficiently utilized the
existing soil and water resources for better cane and sugar
yield which confirmed its superiority over other standard
sugarcane varieties. Hence, its exploitation in farmer fields
and sugar mills will enhance sustainable cane and sugar
production in sugarcane growing zones of Kenya.
.
The results obtained in this study confirms the presence
of GEI as reported by (Jamoza 2011; Shikanda,2017).
Genotype × environment (G×E) interactions are a serious
concern in breeding programmes as they affect selection
decisions. When the rank of a genotype changes across
environments it requires an evaluation of genotypes
across the environments to determine their real value.
Studies in various sugarcane breeding programmes have
reported significant G×E interactions for cane and sugar
yield (Kimbeng et al. 2002; Glaz and Kang, 2008). In
Kenya, significant genotype by location interactions for
cane and sugar yield and their components have also been
reported (Jamoza and Wanjala, 2008; Jamoza, 2011;
Jamoza et al. 2014) and Shikanda, 2017). Jamoza (2011)
recommended that in view of significant GL interactions
and insignificant GLY interactions, emphasis should be put
on evaluation of varieties in many locations rather than
testing ratoon crops within locations.
Teressa et al. 638
Testing of genotypes in a wide range of environments
offers them a chance to express their full potential in
various traits under test. This further suggests that mean
performance of genotypes could be used in selecting of
superior clones Chang (1996) Khan et al. (2004).
CONCLUSION
This study revealed genetic variability of genotypes in both
quality and quantitative traits as influenced by the
environment. Under the conditions of this research 6
candidates KEN 97-102, KEN 97-131, KEN 97-317, KEN
95-378, (Western Zone) KEN 97-102 (Sony Zone) KEN
95-593, KEN 97-215 (Nyando Zone) are recommended to
have good potential for production in sugar and cane
yields. These results suggest that evaluation of sugarcane
clones for yield and quality should be conducted in more
locations and crop years to identify superior and stable
clones for specific locations. Genotype KEN 97-102
exhibited a combination of both high cane yield and sugar
across the three locations hence can be recommended for
production across locations.
Six superior clones which performed better than the
standard varieties have been submitted to the Kenya plant
health and inspectorate service (KEPHIS) for
consideration of conducting distinctiveness, uniformity and
stability (DUS) triage prior to release for commercial
production.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors have not declared any conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
Chang, Y.S (1996). Estimating heritability and correlations
among brix, purity and sugar content in sugarcane
using balanced multiple location and year data. Report
on Taiwan Sugar 151:1-10
Contreras AM, Elena R, Maylier P, Langenhove HV,
Dewulf J (2009) Comparative life cycle assessment of
four alternatives for using by-products of cane sugar
production. J Clean Prod 17:772–779.
Hutchison PB, Daniels J (1971). The use of 0-9 scale in
rating sugarcane characteristics. International society
of sugarcane technologists 27:128-130
Jamoza JE, Wanjala AW (2008). Genotype interactions in
sugarcane yield, trials and their implications in selection
Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s Breeding Programme across Three Ecological Zones
strategy. Kenya Society of Sugarcane Technologists
13: 2-7.
Jamoza JE (2011). Genetic and phenotypic relationship
among some yield components in sugarcane pp 1-2,
10-20, 79-81, 95-97.
Jamoza JE, Owuoch JO, Kiplagat O, Opile W (2014).
Broad-sense heritability estimation and correlation
among sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) yield and
some agronomic traits estimated in western Kenya.
International Journal of Agricultural Policy and
Research 2(1):016-025.
Jamoza, J.E, and Shikanda, E.K (2018). A catalogue of
sugarcane varieties released in Kenya Pp 1-23.
Junejo SG, Kaloi M, Panhwar RN, M. Chohan M, Junejo
AA, A.F. Soomro AF (2010). Performance of newly
developed sugarcane genotypes for some qualitative
and quantitative traits under Thatta conditions. Journal
of Plant Animal Science., 20 (1): 40-43.
Khan, I.A., Khatari, A., Siddiqui, M.A., Nizamani, G.S, and
Raza, S. (2004). Performance of promising sugarcane
for yield and quality in different ecological zones of
Sindhi. Pakistan Journal of. Botany. 36(1):83-92.
Kimbeng, C., Rattey, A.R. and Hetherington, M. (2002).
Interpretation and implications of genotype by
environment interactions in advanced stage sugarcane
selection trials in Central Queensland. Australian.
Journal. of Agricultural. Research., 53: 1035- 1045.
Leal, M.R.L.V. (2007). The potential of sugarcane as
energy an energy source. Proceedings of. International.
Society of. Sugar Cane Technologists. 26: 23-34.
Majidano HI, Y.J. Minhas YJ, A.D. Jarwar AD, S.D. Tunio
SD, Puno HK (2003). Effect of potassium levels and
method of application on sugarcane yield Pakistan
Sugarcane Journal 3: 17-19
Mehboob et al., 2000 A. Mehboob A, Ali FG, Saeed M,
Afghan S (2000). Effect of moisture regime and fertilizer
levels on yield and yield parameters of spring
sugarcane. Pakistan Sugarcane Journal 15 (5): 2-6.
Rao, M.S., Anusonpornpurm, S. and Weerathaworn, P.
(2007). Selection of multipurpose high-fibre sugarcane
cultivars. Proceedings of. International Society of Sugar
Cane Technologists. 26: 730-734.
Rono ,J,.Omollo, J,. Wasula, S,. Kasisi, C, and Wahome,
J. (2018). Sugarcane Growers guide. pp 1-30.
Shikanda, E.K, Jamoza, J.E, and Kiplagat, O. (2017).
Genotypic evaluation of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.
Hybrids) clones for sucrose content in Western Kenya.
Journal of plant breeding and crop science. Vol. 9(3):
pp. 30-36.
Steel, R.G.D, Torrie, J.H. (1987). Principles and
procedures of statistics pp 633.
 Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 639
APPENDIX
Table 1: Mean values for the growth, yield, quality parameters and disease reaction of the evaluated sugarcane clones in
nyando (2009- 2014)
YIELD PARAMETERS QUALITY PARAMETRS DISEASE
REACTION
VARIETY MEAN % % ABOVE STALK PLANT HR FIBRE JUICE POL TERSH SMUT
TCH ABOVE MEAN OF POP. HEIGHT BRIX (%) PURITY (%) RATING
BEST CHECKS (cm) CANE
CHECK
KEN 95-593 70.91 3.15 7.09 91,624 170.73 20.61 18.74 90.80 11.79 8.36 5.00
KEN 97-215 69.87 1.64 5.53 119,055 224.47 19.97 18.81 90.86 11.04 7.71 4.67
KEN 95-609 67.4 -1.96 1.80 79,638 218.27 20.49 19.57 90.14 10.92 7.36 4.00
KEN 97-131 67.3 -2.11 1.64 115,857 251.24 19.91 19.55 90.43 10.87 7.31 6.00
KEN 95-713 66.99 -2.55 1.18 111,875 248.19 20.49 19.38 89.40 11.34 7.60 6.67
KEN 97-102 66.98 -2.57 1.16 85,228 212.13 20.46 18.36 89.58 11.29 7.56 3.33
KEN 95-378 66.71 -2.97 0.74 62,421 217.85 20.32 19.28 86.96 11.26 7.51 5.70
KEN 95-253 66.32 -3.53 0.16 84,876 206.30 19.86 18.28 90.83 11.27 7.47 6.67
KEN 97-221 63.85 -7.12 -3.57 74,435 206.22 19.76 18.94 89.20 10.63 6.79 7.33
KEN 95-385 62.77 -8.69 -5.20 88,450 190.90 20.88 20.02 90.59 11.95 7.50 5.58
KEN 96-173 59.96 -12.78 -9.45 97,316 191.07 20.47 18.81 86.55 10.75 6.45 0.00
KEN 97-317 59.68 -13.19 -9.87 78,129 229.49 20.42 19.01 91.87 11.14 6.65 7.00
KEN 96-153 48.21 -29.88 -27.20 69,973 201.81 20.57 19.97 89.22 11.19 5.39 6.00
KEN 83-737 68.75 110,630 235.86 19.96 19.31 91.52 11.09 7.62 7.33
CO421 63.68 74,132 219.28 20.19 18.79 91.12 11.15 7.10 7.67
CB38-22 68,467 216.58 20.66 19.79 88.20 11.68 3.48
CO617 63,684 208.64 20.17 18.35 89.97 11.22 7.33
CO945 80,992 243.36 20.42 19.21 91.44 11.90 4.67
MEAN 64.63 86,488 216.24 20.30 19.17 89.97 11.18 7.36
PV 0.11 1 0.08 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.76 0.06
CV 16.01 281 18.12 3.78 3.73 3.71 5.16 59.32
R2 0.93 0 0.33 0.74 0.97 0.38 0.76 0.20
LSD 16.88 19,150 63.61 1.25 1.27 5.46 1.00 2.10

Table 2 : Mean values for the growth, yield, quality parameters and disease reaction of the evaluated sugarcane clones
in sony sugar (2009- 2014)
YIELD PARAMETERS QUALITY PARAMETERS DISEASE
REACTION
VARIETY MEAN % ABOVE % ABOVE STALK PLANT HR FIBRE JUICE POL TERSH SMUT
TCH BEST MEAN OF POP. HEIGHT BRIX (%) PURITY (%)CANE RATING
CHECK CHECKS (cm)
KEN 97-102 123.18 6.32 9.00 126,007 209.16 21.88 15.03 89.35 14.18 19.40 3.33
KEN 95-378 114.30 -1.35 1.14 110,955 223.14 21.80 15.09 89.60 14.28 16.20 5.70
KEN 95-253 114.06 -1.56 0.93 102,378 204.38 21.50 15.06 88.39 13.60 16.55 6.67
KEN 97-131 111.36 -3.88 -1.45 126,719 228.07 21.37 15.11 88.14 13.73 16.10 6.00
KEN 95-713 107.36 -7.34 -5.00 113,125 228.94 22.65 15.36 91.05 13.96 16.02 6.67
KEN 95-609 106.91 -7.72 -5.39 141,389 204.74 21.87 15.18 90.19 14.19 16.01 4.00
KEN 97-317 105.42 -9.01 -6.71 96,424 232.37 21.98 14.93 89.58 14.10 14.74 7.00
KEN 95-385 102.58 -11.46 -9.22 84,941 184.00 21.61 15.02 90.16 14.19 11.20 5.58
KEN 97-221 102.23 -11.76 -9.53 109,497 201.78 21.10 14.93 89.11 13.42 13.72 7.33
KEN 96-173 99.64 -14.00 -11.83 132,882 200.15 21.74 15.32 89.96 13.48 13.76 0.00
KEN 95-593 98.15 -15.29 -13.15 122,274 202.87 22.75 15.25 89.02 13.88 14.54 5.00
KEN 97-215 97.87 -15.53 -13.39 117,465 206.27 21.60 15.54 88.34 13.60 12.84 4.57
KEN 96-153 96.35 -16.84 -14.74 132,153 232.00 22.58 15.45 89.27 13.82 13.27 6.00
N14 115.86 123,924 192.50 22.11 15.18 90.35 13.90 16.29 4.80
CO421 114.00 113,611 200.88 21.62 15.45 87.76 13.45 16.07 7.57
CO945 109.16 126,424 210.45 21.68 14.94 90.66 14.24 16.37 4.67
MEAN 107.48 118,092 210.54 21.87 1518 89.43 13.87 15.19
PV 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.09 0.08 0.09
CV 13.28 14 8.16 2.94 5.79 2.36 2.40 39.2
R2 0.75 1 0.79 0.64 0.32 0.34 0.85 0.12
LSD 19.96 22,992 24.03 0.90 1.23 2.97 0.96 8.80

Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s Breeding Programme across Three Ecological Zones
Teressa et al. 640

Table 3: Mean values for the growth, yield, quality parameters and disease reaction of the evaluated sugarcane clones in
Western Kenya (2009- 2014)
YIELD PARAMETERS QUALITY PARAMETERS DISEASE
REACTION
VARIETY MEAN % ABOVE % ABOVE STALK PLANT HR FIBRE JUICE POL (%) TERSH SMUT
TCH BEST MEAN OF POP. HEIGH BRIX (%) PURITY CANE RATING
CHECK CHECKS T (cm)
KEN 97-102 102.72 -2.87 14.44 112,391 207.98 20.13 16.99 86.97 13.07 17.21 3.33
KEN 97-131 101.04 -4.46 12.57 108,187 236.30 20.13 17.22 86.48 12.60 14.83 6.00
KEN 97-317 100.36 -5.10 11.81 88,522 230.34 20.46 17.04 86.88 12.85 14.83 7.00
KEN 95-378 98.22 -7.13 9.42 121,766 215.85 20.12 16.95 83.72 12.62 14.85 5.70
KEN 95-253 93.42 -11.66 4.08 101,342 195.60 19.80 16.47 87.37 12.77 15.15 6.67
KEN 96-173 93.20 -11.87 3.83 118,177 192.75 20.00 16.68 86.62 12.65 16.22 0.00
KEN 95-609 86.84 -17.89 -3.26 131,588 193.16 20.51 16.90 85.67 12.61 13.00 4.00
KEN 95-713 86.77 -17.96 -3.33 97,897 218.40 20.25 16.86 86.04 12.74 13.20 6.67
KEN 97-215 85.11 -19.53 -5.18 93,900 206.76 19.79 17.15 86.42 12.66 14.47 4.67
KEN 96-153 84.98 -19.65 -5.33 111,341 229.44 20.49 17.10 85.80 12.63 13.36 6.00
KEN 95-593 83.73 -20.83 -6.72 109,333 177.67 20.25 16.74 86.63 12.87 12.65 5.00
KEN 97-221 79.69 -24.65 -11.22 89,303 187.70 19.76 16.79 85.39 12.53 11.84 7.33
KEN 95-385 73.74 -30.28 -17.85 77,004 169.83 20.24 16.87 87.21 12.83 13.70 5.58
KEN 83-737 105.76 120,546 248.98 20.03 16.96 87.85 12.87 14.62 7.33
CO421 73.76 83,783 186.82 19.95 16.45 88.04 12.69 14.23 7.67
CO945 110,128 195.30 19.37 15.90 80.34 13.82 19.03 4.67
N14 123,607 190.84 20.59 16.53 87.29 12.45 8.60 4.80

MEAN 89.96 105,813 204.93 20.11 16.80 86.16 12.78 14.22

PV 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 0.59 0.27 0.99 1.00
CV 16.12 13 12.42 5.47 4.51 3.95 6.72 57.49
R2 0.94 1 0.81 0.45 0.18 0.30 0.62 0.10
LSD 29.27 27,298 50.55 2.22 1.5 6.77 1.73 17.43

Accepted 4 December 2019

Citation: Shikanda E, Jamoza J, Omututi A (2020). Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s Breeding
Programme across Three Ecological Zones. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 7(1): 635-640.

Copyright: © 2020: Teressa et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are cited.

Performance of New Sugarcane Clones from the Kenya’s Breeding Programme across Three Ecological Zones