Evaluation of Quantity and Quality Characteristics of Sugar Beet Varieties in Different Sowing Date of Direct Sowing and Transplanting in Shirvan and Mashhad

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• M Bagheri Shirvan
• Gh Asadi
• A Koocheki

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

10.22067/gsc.v17i4.76512

Abstract

Introduction
Sugar beet is one of the important industrial crops in sugar production industry. Recently, Iranian farmers have encountered some challenges such as restricting government support and lack of water for irrigation. Therefore, sugar beet production has declined in recent years. In addition, lack of precision planting equipment, dependency on labour force in weed control and synchronizing sugar beet planting with irrigation of other crops such as cereals has increased problems for farmers. The appropriate sowing technique, optimum sowing date and application of acceptable varieties will solve these problems.
Materials and Methods
This experiment was conducted during 2017 in Mashhad and Shirvan stations. The experimental layout was factorial experimental design based on randomized complete block design. The factors in this experiment were sugar beet varieties (Anakonda and Dorotea), planting method (Transplanting and seed sowing) and sowing or transplanting date (5 May and 5 June). For transplanting treatments, the seed was planted into paper pots in tunnel house around 30 days before transplanting. The plots area was 15 m^-2, had 6 rows (50 cm apart) with 5 m length. In seed sowing treatments, seeds were sown 10 cm apart, then in 4-6 leaf stage, the plants were manually thinned to a density of 100,000 plants ha^-1 (20 cm apart). In transplanting treatments, seedlings were sown 20 cm apart. The plants harvested on 27 October in Mashhad and 29 October in Shirvan. After harvesting, the root and leaf were weighted. Then a sample from the root in each plot was selected and used to measured criteria sugar content, root impurities, molasses content, extractable sugar, sugar yield and extraction coefficient of sugar.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that root yield and sugar yield of sugar beet in Shirvan were higher than Mashhad. While the root impurities and molasses content in Mashhad were higher than Shirvan. The difference in soil and weather conditions could be one of the reasons for these differences between two areas. Transplanting treatments showed the highest root yield and leaf weight rather than direct sowing. Furthermore, the root impurities were highest in transplanting treatments. According to the reports, branched roots in transplanting roots would be higher than direct sowing and it can increase the root impurities. Based on this hypothesis, direct sowing of sugar beet increased the impure sugar and extractable sugar. According to the positive correlation between root yield and sugar yield, the highest sugar yield obtained from transplanting treatments. The results represented that delaying in sowing date increased the root impurities and molasses content. Therefore, the sugar yield in the second date of sowing or transplanting was less than first sowing date. The second sowing date increased the percentage of sodium, potassium and amino nitrogen, 26.29, 21.24, and 14.42, respectively. In addition, the second sowing date increased the molasses content compared to the first sowing date by 13.61%. Other studies also reported similar results. Some of the studies mentioned that decreasing the growth period can increase the root impurities in sugar beet. Different genotypes also showed different responses. The highest root yield and sugar yield and the lowest root impurities were related to Anakonda. The molasses content in Dorotea was 5.11% higher than Anakonda. Some of the studies expressed that different genotypes have different cell capacity to store the sugar. According to the evaluation of the interaction between different factors, the highest root yield (77.34 ton.ha^-1) and sugar yield (9.848 ton.ha^-1) were observed in transplanted sugar beet that planted in the first sowing date. There is a significant correlation between the extraction coefficient of sugar and root impurities content, this led to root impurities interfere with crystallization of sucrose and decreased the sugar extraction.
Conclusions
According to the results, transplanted sugar beet had more yield quantity and quality compared to seed sowing. Also, the second sowing date decreased the quality and quantity of sugar beet. In addition, planting of sugar beet in Shirvan condition was better than Mashhad condition. In general, it seems that the transplanted Anakonda on 5 May in both areas will be appropriate. However, making a decision, in this case, requires further evaluating such as economic aspects.

Keywords

• Extraction coefficient of sugar
• Root impurities
• Root yield
• Transplanting

20.1001.1.20081472.1398.17.4.4.8

---

References

1. AbdollahianNoghabi, M., Shikholeslami, R., and Babaee, B. 2005. Technical terms of sugar beet quantity and quality. Journal of Sugar Beet 21 (1): 101-104. (in Persian with English abstract).

2. Beckett, J. L. 1982. Variety × environment interactions in sugar beet variety trials. The Journal of Agricultural Science 98 (2): 425-435.

3. Beyaz, R., Alizadeh, B., Gurel, S., FatihOzcan, S., and Yildiz, M. 2013. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) growth at different ploidy levels. Caryologia: International Journal of Cytology, Cytosystematics and Cytogenetics 66 (1): 90-95.

4. Buchholz, K., Marlander, B., Puke, H., Glattkowski, H., and Thielecke, K. 1995. Neubewertung des technischenWertes von Zuckerrüben. Zuckerindustrie 120: 113-121.

5. Cakmakci, R., and Oral, E. 2002. Root yield and quality of sugar beet in relation to sowing date, plant population and harvesting date interactions. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 26: 133-139.

6. Chaligar, E., Raoufat, M. H., Khadem, S. M. R., and Chaligar, E. 2014. Design, fabrication and pseudo field evaluation of a sugar beet crust breaker and weeding unit equipped with an infrared sensor. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 4 (2): 194-205. (in Persian).

7. Dehghani, M., JafarAghaee, M., and MohammadiKia, S. 2015. Effect of cotton transplanting on its yield and water use efficiency. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture 28 (2): 307-314. (in Persian).

8. Draycott, A. P. 2006. Sugar beet. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

9. Erciyes, H., Bulut, S., and Arslan, M. 2016. Yield and quality characteristics of sugar beet cultivars under continental climatic conditions. Current Trends in Natural Sciences 5 (9): 152-157.

10. Fabeiro, C., Martin de Santa Olalla, F., Lopez, R., and Dominguez, A. 2003. Production and quality of the sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivated under controlled deficit irrigation conditions in a semi-arid climate. Agricultural Water Management 62: 215-227.

11. Fanadzo, M., Chiduza, C., and Mnkeni, P. N. S. 2009. Comparative response of direct seeded and transplanted maize (Zea mays L.) to nitrogen fertilization at Zanyokwe irrigation scheme, Eastern Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4 (8): 689-694.

12. Farzamnian, M., Zareie, G., Fathollah Talleghani, D., and Darvishi, D. 2011. Role of controlled deficit irrigation on sugar beet quantity and quality. Journal of Sugar Beet 26 (2): 169-183. (in Persian).

13. Ferdous, H. M., Abdul Khaliq, Q., and Karim, A. 2015. Effect of sowing dates on growth and yield of tropical sugar beet. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research 7 (1): 53-60.

14. Fotouhi, K., Majidi, E., Rajabi, A., and Azizinejad, R. 2017. Study of genetic variation for drought tolerance in sugar beet half-sib families. Journal of Sugar Beet 33 (1): 1-16. (in Persian).

15. Haghayeghi, A., Tohidloo, G., and Sadreghaen, H. 2005. Water use efficiency and yield of sugar beet under sprinkler and furrow irrigation. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 6 (22): 1-14. (in Persian with English abstract).

16. Hasibi, P., Kashani, A., Mamghani, R., and Meskarbashi, M. 2011. Feasibility study of spring culture of three sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivars by paper pot and direct sowing methods in Ahvaz. Journal of Plant Production (Scientific Journal of Agriculture) 33 (2): 41-54. (in Persian).

17. Hemayati, S. S., Shirzadi, M. H., Aghaeezadeh, M., Taleghani, D. F., Javaheri, M. A., and Aliashari, A. 2012. Evaluation of sowing and harvesting date effects on yield and quality of five sugar beet cultivars in Jiroft region (autumn planting). Journal of Sugar Beet 28 (1): 13-21.

18. Hosseinian, S. H., Abdollahian Noghabi, M., and Majnoon Hosseini, N. 2014. Effect of bolting on the yield and quality of two sugarbeet varieties in autumn sowing area in Dezful region of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 16 (4): 265-277. (in Persian with English abstract).

19. Hussain, A. 1987. The response of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) to planting method and sowing date. Ph.D. thesis. Lincoln College, University of Canterbury.

20. ICUMSA. 2007. The determination of the polarisation of sugar beet by the macerator or cold aqueous digestion method using aluminium sulphate as clarifying agent official in A. Bartens, K.G. eds. International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis. Methods Book, Berlin.

21. Jafarnia, B., ZareaFaze Abadi, A., Ghorbani, R., Rezvani Moghadam, P., and Ghaemi, A. R. 2015. Effects of plant density and nitrogen and bio fertilizer on qualitative characteristics of sugar beet in Mashhad and Torbat-e-jam regions of Iran. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 13 (2): 278-286. (in Persian).

22. Jaggard, K. W., Clark, C. J. A., and Draycott, A. P. 1999. The weight and processing quality of components of the storage roots of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79: 1389-1398.

23. Kandil, A. A., Badawi, M. A., El-Moursy, S. A., and Abdou, U. M. A. 2004. Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on 1: Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences) 5 (2): 227-237.

24. Karbalaei, S., Mehraban, A., Mobasser, H. R., and Bitarafan, Z. 2012. Sowing date and transplant root size effects on transplanted sugar beet in spring planting. Annals of Biological Research 3 (7): 3474-3478.

25. Kaya, R., and Buzluk, S. 2006. Integrated weed control in sugar beet through combinations of tractor hoeing and reduced dosages of herbicide mixture. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 30: 137-144.

26. KazeminKhah, K. 2006. The effect of transplanting time on the quality and quantity of paper pot cultivation of sugar beet in the saline soils of East Azerbaijan province. Journal of Agricultural Science 16 (1): 203-212. (in Persian).

27. Khaembah, E. N., and Nelson, W. R. 2016. Transplanting as a means to enhance crop security of fodder beet. Cold Spring Harbor Labs Journals. https://doi.org/10.1101/056408.

28. Koocheki, A. R., Nassiri Mahallati, M., Siyahmarguee, A., Gherekhloo, J., Rastgoo, M., and Ghaemi, A. R. 2008. Effect of different integrated weed management methods on weed density and yield of sugar beet crop. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 6 (2): 383-394. (in Persian with English abstract).

29. Kubadinow, N., and Wieninger, L. 1972. Bestimmung des Alpha-Aminostickstoffs in Zuckerru¨ben und Betriebssa¨ften der Zuckerproduktion. Zucker 25: 43-47.

30. LotfiKeyvanlo, A., and Armin, M. 2017. The effect of seedlings age and date of transfer on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of sugar beet. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 48 (1): 291-301. (in Persian with English abstract).

31. Milford, G. F. J. 1976. Sugar concentration in sugar beet: varietal differences and the effects of soil type and planting density on the size of the root cells. Annals of Applied Biology 83: 251-257.

32. Mirzaei, M. R., and Abdollahian Noghabi, M. 2012. Study of sugar beet growth pattern in Hamadan. Journal of Sugar Beet 27 (2): 117-134. (in Persian with English abstract).

33. Mohamadian, R. 2016. Effect of sowing date and defoliation intensity on root yield and yield quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 18 (2): 88-103. (in Persian with English abstract).

34. Nasri, R., Kashani, A., Paknejad, F., SadeghiShoae, M., and Ghorbani, S. 2012a. Correlation and path analysis of qualitative and quantitative yield in sugar beet in transplant and direct cultivation method in saline lands. Iranian Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding 8 (1): 213-226. (in Persian).

35. Nasri, R., Kashani, A., SadeghianMotahar, S. Y., and Habibi, D. 2012b. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of sugar beet in direct cultivation and paper pot transplanting under saline soils of Ahvaz, as an autumn planting. Iranian Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding 7 (4): 25-40. (in Persian).

36. NemeataAlla, H. E. A. 2016. Yield and quality of sugar beet as affected by sowing date, nitrogen level and foliar spraying with calcium. Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Science 42 (1): 170-188.

37. Noshad, H., and Khayamim, S. 2017. Effect of soil nitrogen on some physiological characteristics and quality of sugar beet. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 48 (1): 11-24. (in Persian with English abstract).

38. Oroojnia, S., Habibi, D., Taleghani D. F., Safari Dolatabadi, S., Pazok, A., Moaveni, P., Rahmani, M., and Farshidi, M. 2012. Evaluation of yield and yield components of different sugar beet genotypes under drought stress. Iranian Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding 8 (1): 127-144. (in Persian).

39. Petkeviciene, B. 2009. The effects of climate factors on sugar beet early sowing timing. Agronomy Research 7 (1): 436-443.

40. Rajabi, A., Pirniya, P., Amiri, R., Salimi, S., Ebrahimi, M., and Aghaeezadeh, M. 2014. Assessment of heritability and identification of suitable hybrids for late sowing in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet 29 (2): 163-174. (in Persian).

41. Rastegar, J., and Heydari, S. 2006. Effects of nursering and transplanting date on quantitative and qualitative characters of long-day onion (Allium cepa L.) cultivars. Seed and Plant Production Journal 22 (3): 303-317. (in Persian).

42. Sadrabadi Haghighi, R., Amirmoradi, S., and Mirshahi, A. 2011. Investigation og growth analysis of conventional and commercial sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) varieties at delayed planting date in Chenaran (Khorasan Razavi Province). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 9 (3): 505-513. (in Persian).

43. Sadreghaen, S. H., Zarei, G., and Haghayeghei Moghaddam, A. G. 2009. Effect of sprinkler and furrow irrigation on quantity, quality and water use efficiency of sugar beet. Journal of Water and Soil 23 (1): 173-183. (in Persian with English abstract).

44. Schnepel, K., and Hoffmann, C. M. 2016. Effect of extending the growing period on yield formation of sugar beet. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 202 (6): 530-541.

45. Scott, R. K., English, S. D., Wood, D. W., and Unsworth, M. H. 1973. The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season. The Journal of Agricultural Science – Cambridge Core 81: 339-347.

46. Sharifi, M. 2014. Correlation and path analysis of white sugar yield with some of traits under irrigated regimes in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) genotypes. Journal of Plant Ecophysiology 6 (17): 74-88. (in Persian).

47. Siahmarguee, A., Koocheki, A. R., and NassiriMahallati, M. 2010. Effect of different integrated weed management methods on weed characteristics and yield of sugar beet. Electronic Journal of Crops Production 3 (4): 49-71. (in Persian with English abstract).

48. Taheri, M., Abbasi, M., Daneshi, N., and Ebrahimi Pak, N. A. 2015. Assessing effect of different irrigation intervals and planting methods on onion yield. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture 29 (1): 11-19. (in Persian).

49. Vantine, M., and Verlinden, S. 2003. Growing organic vegetable transplants. West Virginia University.

50. Wieninger, L., and Kubadinow, N. 1971. Beziehungenzwischen Ru¨benanalysen und technischer Bewertung von Zuckerru¨ben. Zucker 24: 599-604.