Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

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

Abstract

Introduction
Water stress is considered as one of the most widespread limitations to crop productivity and yield stability. In sugar beet, drought causes yield reductions between 10 and 30 %, which is increased in arid and semiarid regions. A solution is to improve the drought tolerance of sugar beet varieties and to identify sugar beet germplasm that is drought-tolerant and high yielding so that it can be included in future breeding programmes.
Materials and methods
To evaluate the effects of drought stress on qualitative characteristics of sugar beet including sugar content, Na, K, N, alkalinity coefficient, molasses sugar, root dry matter, canopy ground cover and wilting score of 36 sugar beet genotypes, a study was conducted in split plot based on randomized complete block design with three replications in Kamal-Abad station in Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Karaj in 2012. Main plots were allocated to two irrigation systems including normal and water stress and sub-plots were assigned to sugar beet genotypes including 29 o-type lines, developed from 7221, 110 and 111 seed bulks (BC1F2), as well as susceptible and resistant controls. Class A evaporation pan was used to measure evaporation. Irrigation was conducted after 80-90 and 270 mm evaporation from evaporation pan under normal and stress conditions. Each plot consisted of one planting raw with 8 m length and an interrow spacing of 0.5 m. During the growing season, number of plants after establishment, growth score, and growth uniformity were recorded. Canopy ground cover, wilting score and plant death were measured in three stages. Canopy ground cover was measured using a 0.25 m2 quadrat and wilting and senescence scores were measured at 11-13 am. Qualitative characteristics such as sugar content, white sugar content, sodium, potassium, nitrogen, alkalinity coefficient, molasses sugar and root dry matter were measured at harvest.
Results
Drought stress and genotype had significant effect (P<0.01) on canopy ground covering. With increasing irrigation frequency from 90 to 270 mm evaporation, drought stress reduced canopy ground cover from 57 to 38% and accelerated the green ground cover reduction from 81 to 67 days after sowing. Drought stress, scoring time, and their interaction had significant effect on wilting score but no significant effect was observed among genotypes. Under normal condition, 116 days after planting, wilting score increased 97% compared with 87 days after planting. However, under stress condition, 87 days after planting, wilting score increased 51% compared with 116 days after planting. In addition, drought stress increased senescence score (1.90) as compared to normal conditions (1.54 and 1.50, respectively). Furthermore, sugar content and white sugar content were decreased by 33 and 43%, respectively whereas root Na content and molasses sugar were significantly increased by 23 and 13%, respectively.
Conclusion
With consideration of all qualitative indices including sugar content and white sugar content, root impurities, alkalinity coefficient and molasses sugar, genotypes 1 and 30 for all six traits, and genotypes 10, 28, 31 and 33 for five traits, and genotypes 8, 12, 27, 34, and 35 for four traits had more optimum level than the other genotypes.

Keywords

Abdollahian-Noghabi, M., Froud-Williams, R.J., 1998. Effect of moisture stress and rewatering on growth and dry matter partitioning in three cultivars of sugar beet. Aspects of Applied Biology. 52, 71-78.
Bloch, D., Hoffmann, M.C., Marlander, B., 2006. Impact of water supply on photosynthesis, water and carbon isotope discrimination of sugar beet genotypes. European Journal of Agronomy. 24(3), 218-225.
Brown, K.F., Messem, A.B., Dunham, R.J., Biscoe, P.V., 1987. Effect of drought on growth and water use of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science. 109, 421-435.
Eck, H.V., Winter, S.R., Smith, S.J., 1990. Sugar beet yield and quality in relation to residual beet feed lot waste, Agronomy Journal. 82, 250-254.
Baradaran Firouzabadi, M., 2002. Study of physiologic and morphologic characteristics of sugar beet species subjected to drought stress. MSc dissertation. Tabriz University. [In Persian with English summary].
Bayat, A., Shahbazi, H., Mahzoni, J., Bayat, G., 1996. Evaluation of sugar beet varieties resistance to drought through line selection. Final report of project. Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center. [In Persian with English summary].
Choluj D., Wisniewska A., Szafranski K.M., Cebula J., Gozdowski D., Podlaski S., 2014. Assessment of the physiological responses to drought in different sugar beet genotypes in connection with their genetic distance. Journal of Plant Physiology. 171, 1221–1230.
Hang, A.N., Miller, D.E., 1986. Response of sugar beet to deficit, high-frequency sprinkler irrigation. I: Sucrose accumulation, and top and root dry matter production. Agronomy Journal. 78, 10–14.
Harvey, C.W., Dutton, J.V., 1993. Root quality and processing. In: Cooke, D.A., Scott, R.K. (eds.), The Sugar Beet Crop. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 571-617.
ICUMSA, 2009. International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis, Methods Book. Berlin, Bartens.
Jaggard, K.W., Dewar, A.M., Pidgeon, J.D., 1998. The relative effects of drought stress and virus yellow on the yield of sugar beet in the UK, 1980-1995. Journal of Agricultural Science. 103(2), 337-343.
Jalilian, A.A., Shirvani, R., Neamati, A., Basati, J., 2001. Effects of deficit irrigation on production and economy of sugar beet in Kermanshah region. Journal of Sugar Beet. 1, 1-14.
Kerr, S., Leaman, M., 1997. To water or not. British Sugar Beet Review. 65(2), 11-13.
Khorshid, A.M., 2000. Comparison of qualitative and quantitative characteristics of sugar beet genotypes under salt and drought stress conditions. MSc dissertation, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran. [In Persian with English summary].
Mirzaee, M.R., Rezvani, M.A., 2006. Determination of sensitivity to dehydration in four stages of the growth of sugar beet. Proceeding of 9th Iranian Crop Science Congress. Tehran University. p. 563. [In Persian with English summary].
Mirzaei M.R., Rezvani, M.A., Gohari, J., 2006. Effect of drought stress to yield and sugar beet physiological trait in different growth stages. Journal of Sugar Beet. 21(2), 139-156. [In Persian with English summary].
Mohammadian, R., Fathollah Taleghani, D., Sadeghzadeh Hemayati, S., 2010. Different irrigation management effects on some quantitative and qualitative characteristics of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 26(2), 139-156. [In Persian with English summary].
Monti, A., Amaducci, M.T., Pritoni, G., Verturi, G., 2006. Variation in carbon isotope discrimination during growth and at different organs in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L). Field Crops Research. 98, 157-163.
Oroj nia, S., Habibi, D., Taleghani, F.D., Safari Dolat Abadi, S., Pazoki, A., Moaveni, P., Rahmani, M., Farshidi, M., 2012. Evaluation of Sugar beet genotypes yield and yield components under stress condition. Agronomy and Plant Breeding Journal. 8(1), 127-144.
Rinaldi, M., 2003. Variation of specific leaf area for sugar beet depending on sowing date and irrigation. Italian Journal of Agronomy. 7, 23-32.
Sadeghian, Y.S., Fazli, H., Mohammadian, R., Taleghani, D.F., Mesbah, M., 2000. Genetic variation for drought stress in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet Research. 37, 55-77.
Stocker, O., 1960. Physiological and morphological changes in plants due to water deficiency. Arid Zone Research. 15: 63-104.
Van der Beek, M.A., Houtman, H.J., 1993. Does interaction between varieties and drought stress exist? p. 151-169. Proceedings of the 56th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, Brussels, Belgium.
Winter, S.R., 1988. Suitability of sugar beet for limited irrigation in a semiarid climate, Agronomy Journal. 72, 118-123.