Purpose. To reveal the peculiarities of the photosynthetic activity and formation of sugar sorghum agrophytocenosis productivity with different row spacing and plant density, application of plant growth stimulator Vympel 2 and the intensity of weed infestation of sowings in the Forest-Steppe of Ukraine. Methods. The study investigated hybrids ‘Dovista’ and ‘Huliver’ with a row spacing of 45 and 70 cm and plant density of 150,000, 200,000 and 250,000 plants/ha. Growth stimulator Vympel 2 (0.5 L/t) was used in pre-sowing seed treatment. The same growth stimulator was used as a foliar application in the tillering stage at the application rate of 0.5 L/ha. Results. The summative content of chlorophylls a and b in the leaves of ‘Dovista’ at the stage of tasseling with using growth stimulator was 9.3 mg/kg of dry matter and in ‘Hulliver’ 9.5 mg/kg of dry matter. The increase in the content of chlorophylls compared to the control treatments was 0.30 and 0.60 %, respectively. A plant density of 250,000 plants/ha and a row spacing of 45 cm contributed to the optimal photo responsibility of sugar sorghum agrophytocenosis and the minimum intensity of weed infestation. The latter made up 13.3 plants/m2, with a formation of vegetative mass of 112.0 g/m2 and dry mass of 37.4 g/m2 in ‘Dovista’ and 13.4 plants/m2 119.0 g/m2 and 39.5 g/m2 in ‘Huliver’, respectively. Seed treatment with Vympel 2 and its use for foliar dressing was effective for the phytocenotic restriction of weed growth and development. The study has shown that ‘Dovista’ hybrid has significant productivity potential due to a longer vegetation period. With varying row spacing and plant density, ‘Dovista’ yield exceeded ‘Huliver’ by 3.6 t/ha on the average of the experiment. Seed treatment with Vympel 2 (0.5 L/t) + foliar dressing in the tillering stage (0.5 L/ha) at a row spacing of 45 cm and increased plant density from 150,000 to 250,000 plants/ha ensured a yield increase from 7.3 to 13.0 t/ha. Similar treatments at a row spacing of 70 cm ensured yield values higher by 6.7–12.6 t/ha than in control treatments. Conclusions. Hybrid ‘Dovista’ ensured the highest yield of green biomass at a plant density of 250,000 plants per hectare and seed treatment with growth stimulator Vympel 2 (0.5 L/t) + foliar dressing in the tillering stage (0.5 L/ha) amounting to 98.8 t/ha, which was 5.3 t/ha higher than ‘Huliver’ with row spacing of 45 cm. The maximum FAR efficiency was obtained by growing sorghum sugar plants with a plant density of 250,000 plants per hectare, row spacing of 45 cm, and application of growth stimulator Vympel 2. It made up 5.2 % in ‘Dovista’ and 4.7 % in ‘Huliver’. It was found that using growth stimulator Vympel 2 together with a row spacing of 45 cm and plant density of 250,000 plants per hectare appeared the most effective limiting factor of the reoccurring weed infestation of the sowings. The highest energy yield, 457.35 GJ/ha in ‘Dovista’ and 467.82 GJ/ha in ‘Huliver’ was obtained at the row spacing of 45 cm with the increased plant density of 250,000 plants per hectare and seed treatment with growth stimulator Vympel 2 (0.5 L/t) + foliar dressing in the tillering stage (0.5 L/ha).


  • Almodares A, Hadi MR, Akhavan Kharazian Z (2011) Sweet Sorghum: Salt Tolerance and High Biomass Sugar Crop. In: N. Matovic, ed. Biomass - Detection, Production and Usage, pp. 441-460. InTech, Shanghai, China. https://doi.org/10.5772/19044
  • Almodares A, Hadi MR, Ranjbar M, Taheti R (2007) The effects of nitrogen treatments, cultivars and harvest stages on stalk yield and sugar content in sweet sorghum. Asian journal of plant sciences. 6(2): 423-426.
  • Barabash You, Taranenko LK, Sych ZD (2005) Biological basics of vegetable growing: 119-132
  • Barbanti L, Di Girolomo G, Vecchi A, Monti A (2012) Comportamento bio-agronomico del sorgo da biomassa a diverse intensità di investimento. In: De mastro G, Ventrella D, Verdini L (eds) XLI Convegno Nazionale della Società Italiana di Agronomia, Bari 1: 125-127.
  • Beck EH, Fettig S, Knake C, Hartig K, Bhattarai T (2007) Specific and unspecific responses of plants to cold and drought stress. J. Biosci. 32: 501-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-007-0049-5
  • Bennett WF, Tucker BB, Maunder AB (1990) Modern grain sorghum production. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
  • Broadhead DM, Freeman KC (1980) Stalk and sugar yield of sweet sorghum as affected by spacing. Agron J 72: 523-524.
  • Dai A (2013) Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat. Clim. Change. 3: 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633
  • Ermantraut ER, Prysiazhniuk OI, Shevchenko IL (2007) Statistical analysis of agronomic study data in the Statistica 6.0 software suite. Kyiv: PolihrafKonsaltynh. [in Ukrainian]
  • Fedorchuk MI, Kokovixin SV, Kalens`ka SM, Raxmetov DB, et al. (2017) Scientific and theoretical foundations and practical aspects of the formation of ecologically safe technologies of cultivation and processing of sorghum in the steppe zone of Ukraine. Kherson. [in Ukrainian]
  • Ferraris R, Charles-Edwards DA (1986) A Comparative Analysis of the Growth of Sweet and Forage Sorghum Crops. I Dry Matter Production, Phenology and Morphology. Aus J Agri Res 37: 495-512.
  • Ghannoum O (2009) C4 photosynthesis and water stress. Ann. Bot. 103: 635-644.
  • Grichar WJ, Besler BA, Brewer KD (2004) Effect of row spacing and herbicide dose on weed control and grain sorghum yield. Crop Prot. 23: 263-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2003.08.004
  • Grichar WJ, Besler BA, Brewer KD (2005) Weed control and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) response to postemergence applications of atrazine, pendimethalin, and trifluralin. Weed Technol. 19: 999-1003. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-04-180R2.1
  • Guiying L, Weibin G, Hicks A, Chapman KR (2000) A Training Manual for Sweet Sorghum. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Hrytsaienko ZM, Hrytsaienko AO, Karpenko VP (2003) Methods of biological and agrochemical studies of plants and soils. К. 320 p.
  • Kaczmarek S (2017) A study on Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench response to split application of herbicides. J. Plant Prot. Res. 57: 152-157. https://doi.org/10.1515/jppr-2017-0021
  • Kuroda K, Nishikawa R (2020) Effect of Digestate from Methane Fermentation using Ulva sp. and Food Waste for Cultivation of Decolored Pyropia yezoensis (Edible Laver Seaweed). European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 4(4): em0128. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8209
  • Lueschen WE, Putnam DH, Kanne BK, Hoverstad TR (1991) Agronomic practices for production of ethanol from sweet sorghum. J Prod Agri 4: 619-625.
  • Muller B, Pantin F, Génard M, Turc O, Freixes S, Piques M, Gibon Y (2011) Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs. J. Exp. Bot. 62: 1715-1729.
  • Nychyporovych AA (1980) Photosynthetic activity of plants as the basis of their productivity in the biosphere and agriculture. Photosynthesis and productive process: 5-28
  • Pannacci E, Bartolini S (2018) Evaluation of chemical weed control strategies in biomass sorghum. Plant Prot. Res. 58: 404-412.
  • Rosales-Robles E, Sanchez-de-la-Cruz R, Salinas-Garcia J, Pecina-Quintero V (2005) Broadleaf weed management in grain sorghum with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 19: 385-390. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-04-170R1
  • Saballos A (2008) Development and utilization of sorghum as a bioenergy crop. In: Vermerris (ed) Genetic Improvement of Bioenergy Crops. Springer Science, USA: 211-248.
  • Sheffield J, Wood EF (2008) Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations. Clim. Dynam. 31: 79-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0340-z
  • Shepel` NA (1994) Sorghum. Volgograd: Committee on Press [in Russian]
  • Smith K, Scott B (2010) Weed Control in Grain Sorghum, Grain Sorghum Production Handbook; Espinoza, L., Kelley, J., Eds.; Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas: Little Rock, AR, USA: 47-49.
  • Storozhy`k LI (2018) Formation of productivity of sorghum in the conditions of the Eastern Forest-steppe of Ukraine. Scientific works of the Institute of Bioenergetic Cultures and Sugar Beet, 26: 91-104. [in Ukrainian]
  • Storozhy`k LI, Muzy`ka OV (2017) Formation of structural parameters of a sugar sorghum yield depending on elements of cultivation technology. Advanced Agritechnologies, 5. https://doi.org/10.21498/na.5.2017.143946
  • Taiz L, Zeiger E, Møller I, Murphy A (2018) Fundamentals of Plant Physiology. Oxford university press. 561p.
  • Tari I, Laskay G, Takács Z, Poόr P (2013) Response of sorghum to abiotic stresses: A Review.J Agro Crop Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12017
  • Tsuchihashi N, Goto Y (2004) Cultivation of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) and determination of its harvest time to make use as the raw material for fermentation, practiced during rainy season in dry land of Indonesia. Plant Prod Sci 7: 442-448. https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.7.442
  • Wang D, Portis Jr. AR, Moose SP, Long SP (2008) Cool C4 photosynthesis: Pyruvate Pi Dikinase Expression and Activity Corresponds to the Exceptional Cold Tolerance of Carbon Assimilation in Miscanthus x giganteus. Plant Physiol. 2008 148: 57-67.
  • Willey N (2016) Environmental Plant Physiology. CRS press. 320p.
  • Wortmann CS, Liska AJ, Ferguson RB, Lyon DJ, Klein RN, Dweikat I (2010). Dryland performance of sweet sorghum and grain crops for biofuel in Nebraska. Agron J 102: 319-326.
  • Zegada-Lizarazu W, Monti A (2012) Are we ready to cultivate sweet sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock? A review on field management practices. Biomass Bioenergy 40: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.048
  • Zhu XG, Long SP, Ort DR (2010) Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield. Annu. Rev., Plant Biol., 61: 235-261.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.