Response of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of sugar beet genotypes to different sowing and harvest dates | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| Article 2, Volume 34, Issue 1, August 2018, Pages 1-15 PDF (1.38 M) | ||
| Document Type: Scientific - Research | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/jsb.2018.120304.1175 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Hedayat vahidi1; Bahram Mirshekari* 2; S. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati3; Abazar Rajabi4; mehrdad yarnia5 | ||
| 1PhD student Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Profeesor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Agricultural Research Education and Extension, Karaj,Iran | ||
| 4Associate ProfeesorSugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 5- Profeesor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| In semi-arid regions e.g. Iran, water is the major limiting factor for the growth and yield of sugar beet. Development of cultivars with flexible growth period, dependent on the environmental condition, is one of the methods to reduce water usage for sugar beet cultivation. The present study was performed in Sugar Beet Research Station of Motahhari, Karaj, Iran as a split factorial based on a randomized complete blocks design with four replications in two years (2015-16). Main plots were devoted to sowing date (mid-April and late-June), and sub-plots to the factorial combinations of three harvest dates (12 October, 1 November, and 21 November) and six genotypes including promising hybrids (7112*261)*5RR-87-HF.33 and 261*276.P.77.SP.19 and commercial cultivars Pars, Jolgeh, Paya and IR7. Potential root yield (RY) and sugar yield (SY) was reduced by 3.5-3.8% per week owing to delay in sowing. The significance of sowing date × genotype interaction (P<0.05) highlights diverse response of various genotypes to the shortening of the growth period. Superior genotypes for delayed planting were identified based on the combination of two components of the least response to delayed sowing as well as achieving the highest yield under delayed sowing condition in terms of SY as Paya, IR7, and Pars. Although the direct effect of harvest date on RY, SY, and sugar content (SC) was not significant due to the significant interaction of year × harvest date, however in general, it increased RY, SY, and SC by 21, 38, and 1.72 %, respectively via delaying the harvest date from 12 October to 1 November 1 in 2015. Therefore, the harvest date of 1 November was the most suitable time for sugar beets harvest in Karaj region. Non-significant interaction between sowing and harvest date for various studied traits indicated that the impacts of delay in sowing cannot be offset by delay in harvest. Overall, results showed that by each single day advancement in sowing (between mid-April and late-June) RY and SY increased by 400 and 50 kg ha-1, respectively and for each day delay in harvest (between 12 October and 1 November) RY and SY were increased by 370 and 100 kg ha-1, respectively. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| sugar beet; sugar; Root yield; spring sowing; Summer sowing | ||
| References | ||
|
- Ahmadi M , Taleghani D and Shahbazi HA. Study on possibility of autumn sowing sugar beet cultivation in south Khorasan razavi province. Journal of Sugar Beet 2017;33(1):33-46.(In Persian,abstract in English)
- Ashraf-Mansouri Gh. Effect of sowing date and plant population on two sugar beet cultivars root yield and sugar content in Darab region. Final research report, Agricultural and Natural Resource Research Center of Fars.2000.(In Persian)
- Barbanti J, Bettini G, Ciufreda G, Fabbri A and Gabellini E. Enhancing irrigation water use efficiency to reinforce sugar beet competitiveness in northern Italy.2010. In IIRB 72 Congress, Copenhagen.
- Beckett JL. Variety × environment interactions in sugar beet variety trials. J. Agric. Sci., UK. 1982;98(2):425-435.
- Bloch D and Hoffmann C. Seasonal development of genotypic differences in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and their interaction with water supply. J. Agronomy and Crop Science 2005;191:263-272.
- Cakmakci R and Oral E. Root yield and quality of sugar beet in relation to sowing date, plant population and harvesting date interactions. Turk. J. Agric. Forest, 2002;26:133-139.
- Çakmakçi R., Tingir N., "Vejetasyon periyodu uzunluğunun şeker pancarı gelişim verim ve kalitesi üzerine etkisi", Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, cilt.32, ss.41-49, 2001
- Campbell LG. Sugar beet quality improvement. Journal of Crop Production.2002; 5(1/2):395-413.
- Campbell LG and Kern JJ. Relationships among components of yield and quality of sugar beets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol.1983; 22:135-145.
- Campbell LG and Enz JW. Temperature effects on sugarbeet seedling emergence. J. Sugar Beet Res. 1991;28(3-4):129-140.
- Carboni G, Fois M, Lendini M and Virdis A. Sugar beet cultivars for autumn sowing in Sardinia. Informatore Agrario.2000; 56(41):61-63.
- Dillon MA and Schmehl WR. Sugarbeet as influenced by row width, nitrogen fertilization, and planting date. J.A.S.S.B.T. 1971;16(7): 585-594.
- Doney DL, Wyse RE and Theurer JC. The relationship between cell size, yield, and sucrose concentration of the sugarbeet root. Can. J. Plant Sci.1981; 61:447-453.
- Dunham R. Water use and irrigation. In The sugar beet crop. Science into practice, ed. D.A. Cooke, and R.K. Scott, London: Chapman & Hall.1993; 279–309.
- Durrant MJ, Marsh SJ and Jaggard KW. Effects of seed advancement and sowing date on establishment, bolting and yield of sugar beet. J. Agric. Sci. 1993;121:333-341.
- Feller C and Fink M. Nitrate content, soluble solids content, and yield of table beet as affected by cultivar, sowing date and nitrogen supply. Hort. Sci.2004; 39(6):1255-1259.
- Fortune RA. Effects of cultural technique on establishment and growth of early-sown sugar beet. Crops Res. Centre, Oak Park,2002; No 22, 29p.
- Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR, Webb DJ and Thomas TH. Yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and nutrients. Agric. Forest Meteor.1999; 93:39-51.
- Habibi D, Noormohammadi GH, Karimi Abachi MM, Majidi Heravan E and Darvish F . Effects of sowing date and plant population on root yield and sugar content. Iranian Agricultural Sciences Journal, 2004;10(1):22-33. (In Persian,abstract in English)
- Hoffmann CM and Kluge-Severin S. Light absorption and radiation use efficiency of autumn and spring sown sugar beets. Field Crops Res.2010; 119, 238–244.
- Jaggard KW, Limb M and Proctor GH. Sugar Beet: A Grower's Guide, The Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee, London.1995.
- Jaggard KW and Werker AR. An evaluation of the potential benefits and costs of autumn-sown sugarbeet in NW Europe. J Agric Sci. Camb.1999; 132(1):91-102.
- Jalilian A and Najafi R . Estimation of best sowing of sugar beet using climate pararmeters in different areas of Kermanshah province.Journal of Sugar Beet. 2017;33(2).(In persian,abstract in English)
- Kurosawa K, Saitoh H and Kinoshita T. Yearly fluctuation of yielding characters and the influence of meteorological factors in sugar beet cultivars. Memoirs of the Fac. of Agric., Hokkaido Univ. 1987;15(4):363-370.
- Lauer JG. Plant density and nitrogen rate effects on sugar beet yield and quality early in harvest. Agron. J.1995; 87:586-591.
- Lauer JG. Sugar beet performance and interactions with planting date, genotype, and harvest date. Agron. J.1997; 89 (3):469-475.
- Lee GS, Dunn G and Schmehl WR. Effect of date of planting and nitrogen fertilization on growth components of sugarbeet. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 1986;24(1): 81-100.
- Levitt J. Responses of plants to environmental stresses. In: Kozlowski TT (ed) Water, radiation, salt and other stresses, vol 2, 2nd edn. Academic, New York.1980; pp 93–186.
- Malec J. Influence of sowing and harvesting dates on quality changes during storage. Proc. of the Meet. of the Scient. Comm. Bratislava, Slovakia. 15-17 June 1992.
- Minx L and Rikanov J. Yield depression of sugar beet caused by gaps in stands sown on different dates. Rostlinna Vyroba.1987; 33:959-964.
- Olesen JE and Fenhann J (ed.); H. Larsen (ed.); G.A. Mackenzie (ed.); B. Rasmussen. Assessing impact of climatic change on crop production using growth models. Environmental models: emissions and consequences.1990; 139-147.
- Özturk O, Topal A, Akinerdem F and Akgun N. Effects of sowing and harvesting dates on yield and some quality characteristics of crops in sugar beet cereal rotation system. J. of the Sci. of Food and Agric. 2008;88(10):141-150.
- Qasim ZS and Al-Rawi KM. A study on the effect of planting date on yield, sucrose percentage and purity of twenty-six commercial varieties of sugar beet. Mesopotamia J. of Agric.1971; 7:3-11.
- Qi AM and Jaggard K .Uses of mathematical models in sugar beet agriculture. Int. Sugar J. 2004;106:36-41.
- Roshdi M and Rezadoost S. The effect of date of planting on the indices of growth yield of four different types of sugar beet. J. of Agric. Sci. Islamic Azad Univ.2001; 6(4):71-88.(In Persian,abstract in English)
- Sadeghzadeh-hemayati S, Shirzadi MH, Aghayizadeh M, Taleghani D, Javaheri MA and Asgari A.Effect of sowing and harvesting dates on yield and quality of five sugar beet varieties in autumn cultivation in jiroroft.Journal of Sugar Beet. 2012;28(1):25-42.(In Persian,abstract in English)
- Schiphouwer T. Cultivar, soil and climate fix the yield. Maandbla Suiker Unie.1991; 25(9):9-10.
- Scott RK and Allen EJ. Crop physiological aspects of importance to maximum yields - potatoes and sugar beet. UK, Agriucltural Development and Advisory Service; Agricultural Research Council: Maximising yields of crops. Proceedings of a symposium organized jointly by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and the Agricultural Research Council. 1978;25-30.
- Scott RK and Jaggard KW. Theoretical criteria for maximum yield. In: Proc. of the 41st Winter Cong. Institut Int. de Recherches, Betteravieres.1978; pp. 179-198.
- Scott RK and Jaggard KW. Crop physiology. In: D.A. Cooke and R.K. Scott (ed.) The sugar beet crop: Science into Practice. Chapman and Hall, London. 1993; pp 279-309.
- Scott RK and Jaggard KW. Impact of weather, agronomy and breeding on yields of sugar beet grown in the UK since 1970. J. Agric. Sci. Camb.2000; 134:341-352.
- Scott RK, English SD, Wood DW and Unsworth MH. The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season. J. of Agric. Sci., UK. 1973;81(2):339-347.
- Smit AL. The influence of sowing date and plant density on the decision to resow sugar beet. Field Crops Res.1993; 34(2):159-173.
- Sögüt T and Aroglu H. Plant density and sowing date effects on sugarbeet yield and quality. Journal of Agron. 2004;3(3):215-218.
- Winter, S.R. 1980. Planting sugarbeets to stand when establishment is erratic. Agron. J. 72:654-656.
- Winter, S.R. 1989. Sugarbeet yield and quality response to irrigation, row width, and stand density. J. Sugar Beet Res. 26(1):26-33.
- Yonts, C.D. and J.A. Smith. 1997. Effects of pant population and row width on yield of sugarbeet. J. Sugar Beet Res. 34(1-2):21-30.
- Yordanov, I., V. Velikova and T. Tsonev. 2000. Plant responses to drought, acclimation, and stress tolerance. Photosynthetica, 38:171–186.
- Zhang, Y.F., G.L. Li, X.F. Wang, Y.Q. Sun and S.Y. Zhang. 2017. Transcriptomic profiling of taproot growth and sucrose accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) at different developmental stages. PLoS ONE, 12(4):1-28. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 993 PDF Download: 654 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb