World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6 (5): 589-594, 2010 ISSN 1817-3047 IDOSI Publications, 2010 Root Yield and Quality Traits of Three Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties in Relation to Sowing Date and Stand Densities Y.A. Refay Plant Production Department, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia Abstract: Many agronomic practices may need to be adjusted to maximize yield and quality of sugar beet. Thus, agronomic package must be always modified. The present study was conducted in split-split plot design at Agriculture Research Station, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, near Riyadh, during 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.The objective was to describe yield and quality of three sugar beet varieties th (Universe, Samo-1 and Samo- 2) in relation to three planting dates (15 of September, October and November) at two intra-row spacing (15 and 30 cm). Results revealed that total soluble solids (T.S.S%), total sugar percent and non reducing sugar percent (sucrose percent) were significantly affected by planting dates.sowing sugar beet at 15 October recorded the highest values of each of the above mention parameters, while either plant densities or sugar beet varieties had no significant effect. In the same concern, the interaction between (sowing date x plant density x varsities) also showed highly significant effect. Results also revealed that sugar yield and sugar purity percentage were affected significantly by sowing date at 15 October and November, whereas the interaction between the three factors under investigation did not show any effect. Studied characters of sugar beet leaves and roots were also included. In this study, environmental variability due to planting date, plant population densities and varieties had an effect on yield and quality. It is recommended, that under Saudi Arabia condition sowing sugar beet Samo-2variety on 15 November at 30 cm inter row spacing for maintaining high root yield with good qualities. Key words:sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) % Predictable planting date % Plant population %Root yield % Quality traits. INTRODUCTION presence of gaps considerably reduced root yield and quality [1-5]. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) is the second important Many researchers have been conducted to determine sugar crop after sugar cane; produce about 30 % of total the optimum plant population densities for high root yield world production and have readily adaptable to different and quality. For high root and sugar yields, plant environmental factors including climate. Few preliminary establishment should be 70 000-110 000 plants/ha [6, 7]. studies revealed the suitability of growing Sugar beet in However, Mahmoud et al. [8] found that widening the Saudi Arabia. High responsible yield and quality of sugar distance between hills from 15 to 20 cm in row width of 60 beet to many agronomic practices, among these planting cm significantly increased weight of individual root, root date and plant population density are thought to great yield, sucrose content and sugar yield. Ismail and Allam influence yield and quality. Early sowing sugar beet [9] reported that sowing sugar beet at 70000 and 105000 mature early and should be harvested early, while late per hectare gave high values of yield and quality traits. sowing sugar beet should be harvested later, after the Masri [10] observed a positive effect of increasing plant field has undergone a more complete maturing process. density from 87500 to 100000 plants/ha significantly Furthermore, early sowing sugar beet has greater yield increased sucrose content, purity, extractable sucrose and quality potential. However, late sowing enhanced and sugar yield. On the other hand, Lauer [11] found that percentage emergence and shortened emergence time, the planting density had no significant effect on root yield, Corresponding Author: Y.A. Refay, Department of Plant Production, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia, E-mail: refay@ksu.edu.sa. 589
while sucrose content was increased as plant density and 2006/2007 seasons. Seed bed was prepared, as increased. Early sowing and high plant establishment recommended. During seed bed preparation, dose of provided better leaf growth per unit area throughout phosphorus fertilizer (P2O 5) in the form of superphosphate the growing season [1, 12]. Studies from different (15.5 %) and potassium fertilizer (K2O) in the form of locations and years showed that late and poor emergence (Potassium sulphate (48 % K2O) were applied. Nitrogen in earlier sowings and short vegetation period in late was applied in the form of ammonium nitrate (33.5 % N) in sowings rapidly reduced sugar beet root yield [2, 13-15]. three equal splits doses, the first was applied after Late sowing decreased sugar content, white sugar thinning and other splits were added at one and two content and white sugar yield [6, 14, 16, 17]. However, month later. Seeds were planted on the experimented early sowing and high plant establishment provided planting dates. After 25 days from sowing at (4 leaf better leaf growth per unit area throughout the growing stage), the plants were thinned to leave one plant per hill. season [1, 12, 18]. Irrigation applied once every four days intervals using Because of the limited research information available flood irrigation system. under Saudi Arabia condition, it was desirable to establish After 180 days from sowing, roots were harvested the present investigation in the concern of planting from the central three ridges and weighted for determining date and optimum plant population for high root yield root yield per plot and used to calculate root yield on a with high qualities has been interested. per hectare basis. Quality traits, viz. total soluble solids (T.S.S %) using digital refractometer, Model PRI (ATAG). MATERIALS AND METHODS total sugar percent, non reducing sugar percent (sucrose percent)was determined using direct polarization method Two field experiments were conducted over 2 as described by De-Whally [21] and purity percentages years (2005/2006-2006/2007) at Agricultural and Research were determined by using the formula that (Sucrose % / Station, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Derab, T.S.S x 100). near Riyadh, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia (24 42N The powdered sample were ashed and the content latitude and 46 44 E Longitudes, Altitude 600 m). Split- of total nitrogen was determined according to the split plot design with four replications was used. The methods described by Cottenie et al. [19] and But th main plots were devoted to planting date (15 September, [20].Phosphorus and Potassium were determined October and November), whereas subplots were allocated according to Jackson [22].The content of Ca and Mg to intra-row spacing 15 and 30 cm, resulted plant were determined using a Zeis PMQ Atomic absorption population densities (110 000 and 55 000) and sub sub spectrophotometer according to the method described plots were assigned to the sugar beet varieties. Each by Issac and Karber [23]. experimental plot consisted of five rows 60 cm apart and Data were subjected to statistical analysis of 2 4 m long.the gross plot area was 12 m (4.0 m x 3.0m). variance according to the methods described by Gomez Prior to the field experiment, the field soil was and Gomez [24]. Since the data in both seasons took sampled 0-30 cm. depth from eight sites for physical similar trends and variance were homogeneous according and chemical analyses by the methods described by to Bartlett's test, the combined analysis of the data of Cottenie et al.[19] and But [20]. Results are presented in both seasons was done. Means of the treatments were Table 1 indicated that the monthly maximum, minimum, compared by the Least Significant Differences Test (LSD) mean temperature and relative humidity during 2005/2006 at (0.05) level of significance. Table 1: Monthly maximum, minimum, mean temperature and relative humidity uring 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 seasons Temperature ( C ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average relative Maximum Minimum Mean humidity, (%) ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Month 2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007 September 40.37 39.93 20.71 19.54 31.69 30.77 16.99 17.19 October 34.82 35.85 13.94 17.81 24.94 27.80 25.77 22.15 November 29.21 26.61 13.75 13.44 21.79 20.10 40.81 46.06 ]December 25.45 18.65 6.94 5.9 16.00 12.69 41.74 53.18 January 21.83 18.40 6.71 4.61 14.65 11.84 41.59 48.37 February 24.83 24.29 10.64 10.31 18.05 17.94 39.61 42.73 590
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION dates significantly influenced root quality traits of sugar beet plants; late planting date 15 November significantly Effect of Planting Dates: In both growing seasons, all increased all quality parameters as compared to planting dates at harvest produced less number of roots early planting in either 15 September or 15 October. as compared to the theoretical number of plant at sowing. Planting date on 15 November recorded higher sugar It is evident from Table 2 that, early planting dates on 15 content, highest juice purity and greatest sucrose September and15 October recorded the lowest number of percentage as compared to both early planting dates. roots /ha, respectively.whereas, the late planting date on These results are in agreement with the finding of Joseph 15 November produced the greatest number of roots. [5] and Smit [6], they reported that the maximum sugar The lowest number of roots at early planting dates may be content was observed on 24 September possibly due to due to restrictive effect by high temperature in the stage the effects of soil water content. Moreover, Yucel [3] of seed emergency and early growth stage (Table 1). Late found that highly positive correlation between climatic planting date not only produced the best number of roots factors and yield quality of sugar beet. Similar trend was per hectare, but also gave the highest fresh and dry root also observed in sugar and protein yield. yield. This confirms the statements by Draycott et al. [1], Minx and Rikanov [2] and Minx [4] that a liberal amount of Effect of Plant Population Density: Data presented water and temperature should be available in the soil at in Tables 2, 3 and 4 indicated that, statistically no planting to enhance rapid emergence and good growth. significant differences between the two plant densities In this study, it has been shown that chemical were found for all studied characters, except nitrogen and compositions of sugar beet are not significant affected potassium percentages, protein percentage and sugar by planting date, except nitrogen percentage, which was yield (ton/ha). Such effect was early observed, since the recorded the highest value at 15 November sowing date fresh and dry root weight per hectare as well as sugar as compared to early planting date at 15 September or 15 yield at the two plant densities was almost the same, this October (Table 3). As shown in Table 4, different planting result is in agreement with those reported by Lauer [11], Table 2: Sugar beet yield and yield component characters as affected by varietal differences, planting dated and plant densities (Means of two seasons) Theoretical No. Actual No. Escape Root fresh Root dry Treatment Character plant densities of root/ha percentage (%) yield(ton/ha) weight (ton/ha) Planting Dates 15 Sept. 82 500 62846 23.82 94.00 16.68 15 Oct. 82 500 72395 12.25 116.10 19.95 15 Nov. 82 500 75867 8.04 123.52 21.35 LSD at 0.05 level -- 8116.4 -- 8.16 2.25 Plant density 15 cm 110 000 87036 20.88 108.02 19.11 30 cm 55 000 53703 2.36 114.40 19.55 LSD at 0.05 level` -- 3757.8 -- Ns Ns Varieties Univers 82 500 68575 16.88 104.87 18.60 Samo-1 82 500 68791 16.62 109.11 18.76 Samo-2 82 500 72742 11.82 119.63 20.62 LSD at 0.05 level -- Ns -- 8.12 ns Table 3: Chemical composition of sugar beet root as affected by planting date and plant densities (Means of two seasons) Macro and microelement content in sugar beet root, (%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Treatment Character N P K Ca Mg Planting Dates 15 Sept. 0.81 0.40 1.29 0.04 0.15 15 Oct. 0.68 0.35 1.14 0.04 0.14 15 Nov. 0.95 0.34 1.35 0.04 0.18 LSD at 0.05 level 0.16 Ns ns ns ns Plant density 15 cm 0.77 0.35 1.14 0.04 0.15 30 cm 0.85 0.38 1.38 0.04 0.17 LSD at 0.05 level 0.07 Ns 0.227 ns ns Varieties Univers 0.79 0.35 1.27 0.04 0.16 Samo-1 0.82 0.36 1.31 0.04 0.16 Samo-2 0.83 0.38 1.29 0.05 0.15 LSD at 0.05 level ns Ns ns ns ns 591
Table 4: Sugar yield and some quality traits as affected by planting date and plant densities (Means of two seasons) T.S.S Purity Sucrose Extractable Protein, Sugar yield Protein yield Treatment Character (%) (%) (%) sucrose, (%) (%) (ton/ha) (ton/ha) Planting Dates 15 Sept. 18.88 83.37 15.92 15.70 5.06 14.76 0.747 15 Oct. 19.12 89.25 16.35 15.07 4.23 19.31 0.817 15 Nov. 19.62 93.77 19.94 17.53 5.95 19.82 1.179 LSD at 0.05 level 0.86 4.04 0.33 0.33 1.01 1.41 -- Plant density 15 cm 18.18 88.45 16.24 15.99 4.84 17.24 0.834 30 cm 18.23 89.33 16.57 16.22 5.33 18.62 0.992 LSD at 0.05 level Ns ns Ns ns 0.42 0.96 -- Varieties Univers 18.13 89.93 16.52 16.24 4.94 17.04 0.842 Samo-1 18.57 86.73 16.37 16.04 5.12 17.55 0.899 Samo-2 19.91 90.00 17.33 18.02 5.19 19.20 0.996 LSD at 0.05 level Ns ns Ns ns ns 1.42 -- Table 5: Influences of interaction between planting date and plant population density on yield and quality of sugar beet varieties (Means of two seasons) Plant density Plant density ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 15 cm 30 cm General mean of 15 cm 30 cm General mean of Treatments No. of roots /ha at harvest planting date N content in sugar beet root, (%) planting date Planting Dates 15 Sept. 74998.8 50693.6 62846.2 0.83 0.79 0.81 15 Oct. 92012.4 52776.9 72394.6 0.65 0.70 0.68 15 Nov. 94095.7 57637.9 75866.8 0.84 1.07 0.95 General Mean of plant density 87035.6 53702.8 LSD = 6502.52 0.77 0.85 LSD =0.117 Root protein content, (%) TSS % Planting Dates 15 Sept. 5.20 4.92 5.06 16.07 15.77 15.92 15 Oct. 4.08 4.37 4.22 17.42 17.28 17.35 15 Nov. 5.23 6.67 5.95 15.23 16.65 15.94 General Mean of plant density 4.84 5.32 LSD =0.731 16.24 16.57 LSD =0.589 Sucrose, (%) Sugar yield (ton/ha) Planting Dates 15 Sept. 15.86 15.53 15.69 14.78 14.73 14.75 15 Oct. 17.14 16.99 17.06 19.33 20.29 19.81 15 Nov. 14.94 16.11 15.52 17.60 20.82 19.21 General Mean of plant density 15.98 16.21 LSD =0.599 17.24 18.61 LSD =1.667 Table 6: Influences of interaction between planting date, plant population density and varieties on some yield and quality of sugar beet varieties (Means of two seasons) Variety ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Univers Samo-1 Samo-2 Planting date Plant density...tss %... General mean 15 Sept. 15 cm. 19.17 19.45 18.62 19.08 30 cm. 18.41 18.93 18.65 18.66 15 Oct. 15 cm. 19.75 18.83 19.54 19.37 30 cm. 18.62 19.57 18.39 18.86 15 Nov. 15 cm. 15.56 17.81 14.84 16.07 30 cm. 17.26 16.80 17.40 17.15 General mean 18.13 18.56 17.91 LSD= 1.40 592
Table 6: Continued...Extractable sucrose %... 15 Sept. 15 cm. 16.51 15.84 15.85 16.07 30 cm. 15.66 15.67 15.97 15.77 15 Oct. 15 cm. 17.94 17.00 17.32 17.42 30 cm. 17.00 17.13 17.70 17.28 15 Nov. 15 cm. 15.22 17.31 14.16 15.56 30 cm. 16.76 16.26 16.93 16.65 General mean 16.51 16.53 16.32 LSD = 0.73...Sucrose %... 15 Sept. 15 cm. 16.37 15.53 15.68 15.86 30 cm. 15.35 15.49 15.77 15.54 15 Oct. 15 cm. 17.70 16.68 177.06 17.15 30 cm. 16.86 16.72 17.39 16.96 15 Nov. 15 cm. 15.06 16.14 13.62 14.94 30 cm. 15.06 15.69 16.60 17.15 General mean 16.07 16.04 16.03 LSD= 0.72 who found that plant population density had no CONCLUSION significant effect on root yield, while sucrose content was increased as plant density increased. Noticeably, also that The present study appears that delays in sowing the over all treatments increasing plant density from 55 000 to proper varieties of sugar beet to mid November at narrow 110 000 plants/ha increased all studied parameters. This plant spacing by 15 cm intra-row (110 000 plants per observation is consistent with those obtained by Ismail hectare) gave higher root yield and sugar yield with good and Allam [9], who reported that sowing sugar beet at quality. 70000 and 105000 per hectare gave high values of yield and quality traits. Masri [10] indicated that a positive REFERENCES effect of increasing plant density; increasing plant density from 87500 and 100000 plants/ha significantly increased 1. Draycott, A.P., D.J. Webb and E. M. Wright, 1974. sucrose content, purity, extractable sucrose and sugar The effect of sowing and harvesting on growth, yield yield. Finally, number of harvested plant density and root and nitrogen fertilizer requirement of sugar beet: 1. yield responded linearly to increasing the plant density. Yield and nitrogen uptake at harvest. J. Agric. Sci. Camb., 81: 267-275. Effect of Varietal Variations: Fresh and dry root weight 2. Minx, L. and J. Rikanov, 1987. Yield and other yield quality parameters as well as chemical depression of sugar beet caused by gaps in composition of roots were greater for Samo-2 as compared stands sown on different dates. Rostlinna Vyroba, to those other two Univers and Samo-1 (Tables 2, 3 and 33(9): 959-964. 4). The superiority of Samo-2 variety may be attributed to 3. Yucel, S., 1992. Relationship between sugar beet its genetic made up. yield and quality and climatic factors in Turkey 55- Congers d, hiver Bruxelles Palais des Congres, pp: Combined Effect of Planting Date, Plant Population 223-233. Density and Varieties: Data presented in Tables 5 and 6 4. Minx, L., 1993. The effect of row spacing on the indicated that significant interactions were observed productive utilization of distances between plants by between planting date and plant population density for the sugar beet stand. Rostlinna Vyroba, number of roots per hectare, N and sucrose percentages 39(6): 531-541. as well as sugar and protein yield. The same picture was 5. Joseph, G.L., 1997. Sugar Beet Performance and also noticed as the result of the interaction between Interactions with Planting Date, Genotype and planting date and plant population density with varieties. harvest Date. Agron. J., 89: 469-475. Finally, data obtained worthy revealed that, the third order 6. Smit, A.L., 1993. The influence of sowing date and interaction significantly effect TSS and sucrose plant density on the decision to resow sugar beet. percentage. Field Crops. Res., 34: 159-173. 593
7. Ramazan, C., 2002. Root yield and quality of sugar 15. Durrant, M.J., S.J. Mash and K.W. Jaggard, 1993. beet in relation to sowing date, plant population Effects of seed advancement and sowing date on and harvesting date interactions. Turk. J. Agric., establishment, bolting and yield of sugar beet. J. 26: 133-139. Agric. Sci., 121(3): 333-341. 8. Mahmoud, E.A., M.A. El-Metwally and M.E.M. 16. Lauer, J.G., 1997. Sugar beet performance and Gobarh, 1999.Yield and quality of some multigerm interactions with planting date, genotype and sugar beet as affected by plant densities and harvest date. Agron. J., 89(3): 469-475. nitrogen levels. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura. Univ., 17. Tahisin, S. and A. Hali, 2004. Plant density and 24(9): 4499-4516. sowing date effects on sugar beet yield and Quality. 9. Ismail, A.M.A. and S.M. Allam, 2007. Yield and J. Agronomy, 3(3): 215-218. technological traits of sugar beet as affected by 18. Durr, C. and J. Boiffin, 1995. Sugar beet seedling planting density, phosphorus and potassium growth from germination to first leaf stage. J. Agric. rd fertilization. Proc. the 3 Conf. of Sustain Agric. Sci. Camb., 124: 427-435. Develop. Fac. Agric. Fayoum Univ., pp: 15-28. 19. Cottenie, A., M. Verlo, L. Kjekens and R. Camerlynch, 10. Masri, M.I., 2008. Effect of nitrogen level and 1982. Chemical Analysis of Plant and Soil. Laboratory planting density on sugar beet yield and its of Analytical Agro chemistry. State Univ. Gent, attributes. Egypt. J. Agron., 30(2): 119-136. Belgium. No. 42: 80-284. 11. Lauer, J.G., 1995. Plant density and nitrogen rate 20. But, R., 2004. Soil Survey laboratory Manual effects on sugar beet yield and quality early in Report No.42 USDA, National Resources harvest. Agron. J., 87: 586-591. Conservation Service. Washington. 12. Castillo Garcia, J.E. and L. Lopez Bellido, 1986. 21. De-Whally, H.C.S., 1964. ICUMSA, Methods of Growth and yield of autumn-sown sugar beet: Effects Sugar Analysis. Elsevier Pub. Co. New York, of sowing time, plant density and cultivar. Field 10-19, 37-44. Crops. Res.,14: 1-14. 22. Jackson, M.L. 1970. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice 13. Akcin, A., M.M. layim, B.Y. 1m. B. Sade, A. Tamko Hall of India, New Delhi, India, and M. Nder, 1992. eker pancar1nda (Beta vulgaris 23. Issac, R.A. and J.O. Karber, 1971. Atomic absorption saccharifera) eßit ve ekim zaman1n1n verim, verim and flame photometry technique of uses in soil, water unsurlar1 ve kalite.zerine etkileri. DoÛa- Tr. J. Agric. and plant tissues. Soc. Am. Madison, Wi., and Forestry, 16: 731-743. pp: 17-37. 14. Marlander, B., 1992. Hoher Ertrag und hohe Qualitat- 24. Gomez, K.A. and A. Gomez, 1984.Statistical ein Widerspruch beim Anbau von Zuckerr. ben? Procedure for Agricultural Research Hand book Zuckerind. 117(11): 908-912. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 594