Investigation of Methanolic Sodium Nanosilicate and Glycine on Yield and Quality of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• H Rezaei ¹
• F Paknejad ¹
• M. N Ilkaei ¹
• D Habibi ¹
• M Sadeghi Shoa ²

¹ Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Karaj branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

² Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

10.22067/jcesc.2024.86567.1303

Abstract

Introduction
Sugar beet is one of the most important industrial plants cultivated under diverse weather conditions. Nutrition management plays an important role in the yield and quality of sugar beet. Nowadays, foliar spraying of nano fertilizers is an effective method of agricultural products. Methanol foliar spraying reduces photorespiration, also increases carbon dioxide and ultimately improves photosynthesis of plants. The application of glycine protects plant cells by regulating osmosis, stabilizing proteins, protecting the photosynthetic apparatus, and reducing reactive oxygen species. There is not enough studies about the effect of methanolic sodium nanosilicate on plants, especially under different weather conditions. Therefore, regarding the application of methanol, especially methanolic sodium nanosilicate, and the effect of glycine on plant yield, the present study was conducted to investigate the foliar application of methanol and glycine and their interaction effect, also introduce the best level of application of foliar application on the yield and quality of sugar beet in two regions with different weather conditions.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted in the 2018-2019 cropping year as a factorial randomized complete block design with three replicates at the research field of the Karaj and Qom two different climate locations. Karaj is a cold and mountainous region with mild summer and Qom is a dry and desert region with hot and dry summer. Treatments were 6 levels of methanol (0 (no use), 15 and 30% v v^-1, 5, 10 and 15 % v v^-1 methanolic sodium nanosilicate) as well as 3 levels of glycine amino acid (0 (no use), 2 and 4 g l^-1). Sugar beet yield and quality were measured. Foliar spraying was done 3 times during the plant growth season with 14 day intervals on the aerial parts of the sugar beet plant and the control plots were sprayed with water. Data were analyzed using SAS (Ver. 9.4) software and the means were separated by the Duncan test at a 5% probability level.
Results and Discussion
The results demonstrated that sugar beet yield and quality in the Karaj region were better than in Qom. Spraying methanol and also glycine increased the yield and quality of sugar beet compared to the control (no application). The application of 15% methanolic sodium nanosilicate improved the quality and yield of sugar beet compared to 30% methanol. The consumption of methanolic sodium nanosilicate 15% v v^-1+ glycine 4 g l^-1 increased the yield of root dry matter 65% and the yield of white sugar 50% compared to the control. Methanol is a source of carbon and glycine improved plant growth by increasing carbon efficiency. Also, with the increase of auxin hormone, it has produced more sugar substances and expanded the transfer of sucrose from the aerial parts to the roots. Therefore, the sugar percentage increased and the root impurities decreased. Among the methanol treatments, increasing the concentration of methanol up to 30% v.v^-1 not only did not improve the quality of sugar beet, but also reduced the quality and yield compared to methanolic sodium nanosilicate 15% v.v^-1. Methanolic sodium nanosilicate treatment of 15% v.v^-1 was much more effective than other treatments. Thus the yield of this treatment was better than the 30% v.v^-1 treatment. Because nano technology has provided suitable conditions for plant growth due to its high potential and better absorption by plants. In addition to nutrition, sugar beet production is greatly influenced by weather and environmental conditions. Sugar beet cultivation in Karaj was more satisfactory than in Qom, which can be said to be due to the presence of more soil organic matter, as well as more suitable weather conditions, especially at the end of the growing period in the Karaj region.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, spraying methanolic sodium nanosilicate 15% v v^-1 and glycine 4 g l^-1 were recommended to improve the yield and quality of sugar beet in climatic conditions similar to the Karaj region.

Keywords

• Alkalinity coefficient
• Root dry matter yield
• Root impurities
• Sugar percentage
• White sugar yield

Main Subjects

• Plant Physiology

---

©2024 The author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

1. Abdollahian-Noghabi, M., Sheykhol Eslami, R., & Babayi, (2005). Terms and definitions of quality and quantity of sugar beet, technological, technical abbreviations. Sugar Beet Journal, 21(1), 101-104. (in Persian with English abstract).
2. Ahmed, N., Zhang, Y., Li, K., Zhou, Y., Zhang, M., & Li, Z. (2019). Exogenous application of glycine betaine improved water use efficiency in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) via modulating photosynthetic efficiency and antioxidative capacity under conventional and limited irrigation conditions. The Crop Journal, 7(5), 635-650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2019.03.004
3. Babu, S., Singh, R., Yadav, D., Rathore, S. S., Raj, R., Avasthe, R., Yadav, S. K., Das, A., Yadav, V., & Yadav, B. (2022). Nano fertilizers for agricultural and environmental sustainability. Chemosphere Journal, 292(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133451
4. Bagheri Shirvan, M., Asadi, G. A., & Koochecki, A. (2020). Evaluation of quantity and quality characteristics of sugar beet varieties in different sowing date of direct sowing and transplanting in Shirvan and Mashhad. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 17(4), 551-565. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/20.1001.1.20081472.1398.17.4.4.8
5. Bashiri, B., Mir Mahoudi, T., & Fotouhi, K. (2015). Evaluation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) genotypes for their trait associations under saline conditions. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology, 9(2), 243-258. (in Persian with English abstract).
6. Bayomi, K. E. M., El-Hashash, E. F., & Moustafa, E. S. A. (2019). Comparison of genetic parameters in non-segregating and segregating populations of sugar beet in Egypt. Asian Journal of Crop Science, 3(1), 1-12. (in Persian with English abstract).
7. Buchholz, K., Marlander, B., Puke, H., Glattkowski, H., & Thielecke, K. (1995). Neubewertung des technischen Wertes von Zuckerrüben. Zuckerindustrie, 120(1), 113-121.
8. Dorokhov, Y. L., Sheshukova, E. V., & Komarova, T. V. (2018). Methanol in plant life. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9(1), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01623
9. Draycott, A. P. (2006). Sugar beet. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. United Kingdom. 514 pp.
10. Elemike, E. E., Uzoh, I. M., Onwudiwe, D. C., & Babalola, O. O. (2019). The Role of Nanotechnology in the Fortification of Plant Nutrients and Improvement of Crop Production. Applied Sciences, 9(3), 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9030499
11. Elliot, C. L., & G. H. Snyder. (1991). Autoclave-induced digestion for the colorimetric determination of silicon in rice straw. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 39, 1118-1119.
12. Epstein, E. (1999). Silicon. Annual Review Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 50, 641-664.
13. Fotouhi, K., Majidi, E., Rajabi, A., & 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 with English abstract).
14. Gupta, N., & Thind, S. (2017). Grain yield response of drought stressed wheat to foliar application of glycine betaine. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 51(3), 287-291. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijare.v51i03.7920
15. Haghighi, P., Habibi, D., Mozafari, H., Sani, B., & Sadeghishoae, M. (2021). Impact of methanol and glycine betaine on yield and quality of fodder beet genotypes (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris). Agronomy, 11(1), 2122. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112122
16. ICUMSA Method GS6-5. (2007). The determination of α-amino nitrogen in sugar beet by the copper method (‘blue number’)—after defecation with basic lead acetate—official—after defecation with aluminium sulphate—official: 3 pp.
17. Kubadinow, N., & Wieninger, L. (1972). Bestimmung des alpha-aminostickstoffs in zuckerru¨ben und betriebssa¨ften der zuckerproduktion. Zucker, 25, 43-47.
18. Kurepin, L. V., Ivanov, A. G., Zaman, M., Pharis, R. P., Allakhverdiev, S. I., Hurry, V., & Hüner, N. P. (2015). Stress-related hormones and glycine betaine interplay in protection of photosynthesis under abiotic stress conditions. Photosynthesis Research, 126(1), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-015-0125-x
19. Leonzio, G., Zondervan, E., & Foscolo, P. U. (2019). Methanol production by CO₂ hydrogenation: Analysis and simulation of reactor performance. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(16), 7915-7933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.056
20. Lubova, T. N., Islamgulov, D. R., Ismagilov, K. R., Ismagilov, R. R., Mukhametshin, A. M., & Alimgafarov, R. R. (2018). Economic efficiency of sugar beet production. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 13(1), 6565-6569. https://doi.org/10.3923/jeasci.2018.6565.6569
21. Nadali, I., Paknejad, F., Moradi, F., Vazan, S., Tookalo, M., Jami Al-Ahmadi, M., & Pazoki, A. (2010). Effects of methanol on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Australian Journal of Crop Science, 4(1), 398-401.
22. Nadali, I., Paknejad, F., & Ghafari, M. (2014). The effect of methanol as a carbon source on quantitative and qualitative traits of sugar beet under drought stress conditions. Agricultural Research Journal, 6(3), 232-246. (in Persian with English abstract).
23. Nassirpour, M., & Khademi, M. H. (2020). Evaluation of different cooling technologies for industrial methanol synthesis reactor in terms of energy efficiency and methanol yield: An economic-optimization. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 113(1), 302-314. https://doi.org/1016/j.jtice.2020.08.029
24. Nemeata Alla, H. E. A., Nemeata Alla, E. A. E., & Zalat, S. S. (2016). Sugar beet yield and quality as affected by concentration of boron and methanol application. Annals of Agricultural Science, 54(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.21608/ASSJM.2016.103906
25. Orojnia, S., Habibi, D., Fethullah Taleghani, D., Safari Dolatabadi, S. A., Pazoky, A., Moaveni, P., Rahmani, M., & Farshidi, M. (2011). Evaluation of sugar beet yield and yield components of different genotypes under drought stress. Journal of Agriculture and Plant Breeding, 8(1), 144-127. (in Persian with English abstract).
26. Paknejad, F., Majidiheravan, E., Noor Mohammadi, Q., Siyadat, A., & Vazan, S. (2007). Effects of drought stress on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, chlorophyll content and grain yield of wheat cultivars. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 5(4), 162-169.
27. Roode-Gutzmer, Q. I., Kaiser, D., & Bertau, M. (2019). Renewable methanol synthesis. Annual Review of Chemical and Bimolecular Engineering, 6(6), 209-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/cben.201900012
28. Wieninger, L., & Kubadinow, N. (1971). Beziehungenzwischen rubenanalysen und technischer bewertung von zuckerruben. Zucker, 24(1), 599-604.
29. Yamada, N., Takahashi, H., Kitou, K., Sahashi, K., Tamagake, H., Tanaka, Y., & Takabe, T. (2015). Suppressed expression of choline mono oxygenase in sugar beet on the accumulation of glycine betaine. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 96(1), 217-221.
30. Zbiec, I., Karczmarczyk, S., & Koszanskin, Z. (1999). Influence of methanol on some cultivated plants. Department of Plant Production and Irrigation. Agricultural University of Szczecin Poland, 73, 217-220.