Improvement of physiological indices of growth and root yield of sugar beet through seed hydropriming and foliar application of humic acid under delayed planting conditions

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University

2 Sugar Beet Research Department, Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Hamedan, Iran.

10.22034/saps.2023.56557.3044

Abstract

Background & Objective: This study was conducted with the aim of investigating the interaction of planting date, hydropriming of seeds and humic acid foliar application on the growth physiological indices and root yield of sugar beet.
Materials & Methods: The research was conducted as a split plot factorial based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. The main factor was planting dates (March 25, April 8 and 22, May 6) and hydropriming (primed and unprimed) and humic acid (water and humic acid spray) were factorially placed in sub-plots.
Results: The effect of planting date, hydropriming and humic acid foliar were significant on the growth indices and root yield. Planting date had the greatest effect and the highest maximums of leaf area index and crop growth rate, net assimilation rate, relative growth rate and root yield were related to March 25th planting date and the lowest were obtained on May 6th planting date. On the last planting date, hydropriming alone caused an increase of 17.5% and 24.4% relative growth rate and tuber yield, respectively, compared to the treatment water spraying without hydropriming.
Conclusion: If both seed hydropriming and humic acid foliar spraying are done at the same time, it will increase plant growth indices and improve root yield. In case of a 6-week delay in planting (planting on May 6), separate application of hydropriming is preferable to spraying humic acid, and their combination use can completely compensate for the effects of a 2-week delay in planting.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdollahian-Noghabi, M. 2000. The effect of drought stress and re-irrigation on the dry matter partitioning of three sugar beet cultivars. The 6th Iranian Crop Science Congress Proceeding, University of Mazandaran, Iran.  (in Persian).
Aguiar NO, Olivares FL, Novotny EH, and Canellas LP. 2018. Changes in metabolic profiling of sugarcane leaves induced by endophytic diazotrophic bacteria and humic acids. PeerJ, 6, e5445. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5445
Azevedo IG, Olivares FL, Ramos AC, Bertolazi AA, and Canellas L P. 2019. Humic acids and Herbaspirillum seropedicae change the extracellular H+ flux and gene expression in maize roots seedlings. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 6(1), 1-10.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-019-0149-0
Bezhin A, Hans-Joachim Santel A, and Roland Gerhards AA. 2018. The Effect of sugar beet seed priming on sugar beet yield and weed suppressive ability Kostyantyn. Journal of Plant Sciences, 6(4), 146-156. https://doi.org/ 10.11648/j.jps.20180604.15
Bagheri Shirvan M, Asadi GA, and Koocheki 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). https://doi.org/10.22067/gsc.v17i4.76512
Çınar VM. and Ünay A. 2021. The effects of some biofertilizers on yield, chlorophyll index and sugar content in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris var. saccharifera L.). Journal of Agriculture Faulty of Ege University, 58(2), 163-170. http://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.714633
Dawood MG. 2018. Stimulating plant tolerance against abiotic stress through seed priming. In Advances in seed priming (pp. 147-183). Springer, Singapore.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0032-5_10
Dolatparast B, Hosseinpanahi F, Siosemardeh A, and Mansory H. 2023. Evaluation of the effect of different irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer levels on growth indices and grain yield of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) in drip irrigation method. Journal of Crops Improvement, 25, 33-49. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2022.335869.2658
Dotto L, and Silva VN. 2017. Beet seed priming with growth regulators. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, 38(4), 1785-1798.‏ https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2017v38n4p1785
El-Hassanin AS, Samak MR,  Moustafa N, Shafika AM, Khalifa N, and Ibrahim-Inas M. 2016. Effect of foliar application with humic acid substances under nitrogen fertilization levels on quality and yields of sugar beet plant. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 5(11), 668-680. http://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2016.511.078
Esmaili A, and Tadayon MR. 2019. Influence of drought stress and humic acid on growth, yield and sugar production of sugar beet. Journal of Agroecology, 11(1), 185-198. (in Persian). http://doi.org/10.22067/JAG.V11I1.62811
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2020. The FAOSTAT Database. Available at Web site http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx.
 Farajzadeh-Memari-Tabrizi E, and Ghotbi A. 2018. Evaluation of seed priming with different nutrient solutions at different levels of water stress on the physiological characteristics and performance of sugar beet of genetic monocot seed variety. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences, 11, 117-126. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22077/escs.2017.160.1040
García AC, Santos LA, de-Souza LG A, Tavares OCH, Zonta E, Gomes ETM, and Berbara RLL. 2016. Vermicompost humic acids modulate the accumulation and metabolism of ROS in rice plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 192, 56-63.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2016.01.008 
Gobarah ME, Hussein MM, Tawfik MM, Ahmed AG and Mohamed MF. 2019. Effect of different sowing dates on quantity and quality of some promising sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) varieties under North Delta, condition. Egyptian Journal of Agronomy, 41, 343–354. https://doi.org/10.21608/agro.2019.20126.1197
Hoffmann-Christa M. 2019. Importance of canopy closure and dry matter partitioning for yield formation of sugar beet varieties. Field Crops Research, 236, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.03.013
Hunt R. 2017. Growth analysis, individual plants. In: Thomas, B., Murray, B.G., Murphy, D.J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences, Second edition. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394807- 6.00226-4
Jákli B, Hauer-Jákli M, Böttcher F, Meyer-zur-Müdehorst J, Senbayram M, and Dittert K. 2018. Leaf, canopy and agronomic water use efficiency of field grown sugar beet in response to potassium fertilization. Journal Agronomy and Crop Science, 204, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12239
Jokar M, Armin M, Jami-moini M. 2018. The effect of priming on reducing the effects of Epirus herbicide residues in sugar beet. Seed Research Journal, 9(2), 1-12. (in Persian).
Kandil A, Sharief A, and Fathalla F. 2013. Onion yield as affected by foliar application with amino and humic acids under nitrogen fertilizer levels. ESci Journal of Crop Production, 2, 62-72.
Kaya CN, Akram MA, and Sonmez O.2018. Exogenous application of humic acid mitigates salinity stress in maize (Zea mays L.) plants by improving some key physico-biochemical attributes. Cereal Research Communications 46(1), pp. 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1556/0806.45.2017.064
Mekdad AAA, Rady MM, Ali EF, Hassan FAS. 2021. Early sowing combined with adequate potassium and sulfur fertilization: promoting Beta vulgaris (L.) yield, yield quality, and K- and S-use efficiency in a dry saline environment. Agronomy, 11(4), 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040806
Milford GFJ. 2006. Plant structure and crop physiology. Pp. 30–49. In: Philip Draycott A. (eds). Sugar Beet. Wiley online liberary. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470751114.ch3
Mosavikia AA, Mosavi SG, Seghatoleslami M, and Baradaran R. 2020. Chitosan nanoparcicle and pyridoxine seed priming improves tolerance to salinity in milk thistle seedling. Noculae Bocanicae Horti Agrobocanici Cluj-Napoca, 48, 221-233. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha48111777
Mohammad-zadeh Z, Soltani A, Noruzi HA, and Bazrgar AB. 2021. Modeling of sugar beet yield gap and potential in Iran. Sugar Beet, 36(1), 27-46. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2021.352324.1255
Mohammadian R. 2016. Effect of sowing date and defoliation intensity on root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 18(2), 88-103. (In Persian). http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.15625540.1395.18.2.1.2
Naderi MR, Nour-mohammadi G, Majidi I, Darvish F, Shirani-rad AH, and Madani H. 2005. Evaluation of summer safflower reaction to different intensities of drought stress at Isfahan region. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 7 (3), 212-225. (in Persian).
Nemeat-Alla HEA, El-Gamal ISH, and El-Safy NK. 2021. Effect of potassium humate and boron fertilization levels on yield and quality of sugar beet in sandy soil. Alexandria Science Exchange Journal, 42, 395-405. https://doi.org/10.21608/asejaiqjsae.2021.171635
Nosrat N, Morteza G, and Rezaei J. 2020. Effect of N fertilizer and growth stimulating bacteria on growth traits of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) under delayed sowing condition. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology, 14(3), 381-400. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22055/ppd.2020.30457.1811
Lemaire S, Maupas F, Cournède PH, and Reffye PD. 2009. A morphogenetic crop model for sugar-beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Pp. 116-129. In:  Cao W, White JW and Wang E. Crop modeling and decision support. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lowry CJ, and Smith RG. 2018. Weed control through crop plant manipulations. Pp. 73–96. In: Non chemical weed control. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 809881-3.00005-X
Pedram A, Tajbakhsh M, Fathollah-Taleghani D, and Ghiyasi M. 2017. Sugar beet quantitative and qualitative yield related traits as affected by different seed priming treatments. American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 11(2), 13-18.
Puglisi I, Barone V, Fragalà F, Stevanato P, Baglieri A, and Vitale A. 2020. Effect of microalgal extracts from Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus quadricauda on germination of Beta vulgaris seeds. Plants, 9(6), 675.‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9060675
Ramos AC, Olivares FL, Silva LS, Aguiar NO, Canellas LP. 2015. Humic matter elicits proton and calcium fuxes and signaling dependent on Ca2+-dependent protein kinase (CDPK) at early stages of lateral plant root development. Chemical and Biological Technology Agriculture, 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-014-0030-0
Rahmani M, Aboutalebian MA. 2021. Response of tuber yield and some physiological growth indices of potato to phosphate and mycorrhizae under moisture stress. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 11(3), 35-49. (In Persian). http://dx.doi.org/10.47176/jcpp.11.3.26307
Ramberg HA, Bradley JC, Olson JSC, Nishio JN, Markwell J, and Osterman JC. 2002. The role of methanol in promoting plant growth: An update. Review Plant Biochemistry Biotechnology, 1(2), 113-126.
Rehman H, Iqbal H, Basra SM, Afzal I, Farooq M, Wakeel A, and Ning WANG. 2015. Seed priming improves early seedling vigor, growth and productivity of spring maize. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(9), 1745-1754.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)61000-5
Rinaldi M and Vonella AV. 2006. The response of autumn and spring sown sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) to irrigation in Southern Italy: Water and radiation use efficiency. Field Crops Reserch.95:103-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.12.004
Sadrabadi Haghighi R, Amir moradi Sh, and Mirshahi A. 2011. Investigation of growth analysis of conventional and commercial sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) varieties at delayed planting date in Chenaran (Khorasan Razavi Province). Iranian Field Crop Research, 9(3), 505-513. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/gsc.v9i3.11999
Sharma A, Antha R. 2016. Humic substances in aquatic ecosystems: A Review. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 5(10), 18462–18470. http://dx.doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2016.0510051
Soleymani A, Khajehpour MR, Nourmohammadi G, and Sadeghian Y. 2003. Effects of planting date and pattern on some physiological growth indices of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 9(1), 105-124. (In Persian).
Turan M, Melek-Ekinci M, Kul R, Kocaman A, Argin S, Zhirkova AM, Irina V, Perminova IV, and Yildirim E. 2022. Foliar applications of humic substances together with Fe/Nano Fe to increase the iron content and growth parameters of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Agronomy, 12, 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092044
Varga I, Loncaric Z, Kristek S, Markulj-Kulundzic A, Rebekic A, and Antunovic M. 2021. Sugar beet root yield and quality with leaf seasonal dynamics in relation to planting densities and nitrogen fertilization. Agriculture, 11(5), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050407
Waqas M, Ahmad B, Arif M, Munsif F, Khan AL, Amin M, Kang SM, Kim YH, Lee J. 2014. Evaluation of humic acid application methods for yield and yield components of mung bean. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5, 2269-2276. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2014.515241
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION
Volume 34, Issue 3
October 2024
Pages 275-294

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics