Influence of Drought Stress and Humic Acid on Growth, Yield and Sugar Production of Sugar Beet

Document Type : Scientific - Research

Authors

• Amrolah Esmaili ¹
• Mahmoud Reza Tadayon ²

¹ Agronomyy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Shahrekord, Iran

² Agronomyy Department, College of Agriculture, University of Shahrekord, Iran

10.22067/jag.v11i1.62811

Abstract

Introduction[1]
 Most of the food for the world comes from some 150 plant species cultivated as crops. Sugar (the common name for sucrose) is obtained from only two crops, cane and beet. Sugar cane has been produced in large quantities in tropical regions for many centuries and continues to dominate the world supply of sugar. In contrast, sugar beet is a relatively new crop, appearing in temperate regions in the nineteenth century and spreading widely only in the twentieth century. Sugar beet is now grown in some 50 countries and provides about a quarter of the 140 Mt sugar currently used each year. In a world with increasing demand for water, and where agriculture consumes most of the available fresh water, the problem of how to maintain or increase agricultural productivity with sustainable use of water resources is an enormous challenge. Drought is a major limitation and the most significant environmental stress to crop productivity worldwide. This stress is the most important and common abiotic factor that limits sugar beet production in semi-arid regions and also in some parts of Europe. Due to putting Iran in the arid and semi-arid and climate, it is essential to study the effects of water stress on plant growth. In the last decade, the impact of drought has been recognized as a major cause of yield losses in sugar beet. Humic substances play a vital role in soil fertility and plant nutrition. Plants grown on soils which contain adequate humic acid are less subject to stress, are healthier, produce higher yields; and the nutritional quality of harvested foods and feeds are superior. Humic acid can be directly, have positive effects on plant growth. Shoots and roots growth is stimulated by the humic acid, but its effect on the roots, is more prominent, root volume and the effectiveness of its root system will increase by humic acid.
 
Materials and Methods
 In order to study the effect of drought stress and humic acid on sugar beet an experiment was conducted as split plot in randomized complete block design (RCBD) base at Research Station of Shahrekord University in 2013. The main factor including: irrigation treatments (100%, 85%, 70% and 45% FC) and sub factors were humic acid at four levels (0, 2, 4 and 6 kg ha-1). Before planting seeds were disinfected with benomyl fungicide. Then planting was conducted in 10 plants m-2 density. Irrigation treatments was applied 40 days after sowing (unfolding of third trifoliate leaf) and continued in the growing season. Humic acid application was performed at three stages inclusive 4th, 8th and 16th leaf formation. Shoot dry weight, leaf area index, root diameter, root yield, sugar content, pure sugar percentage and molasses percentage was recorded. Data from these experiments were analyzed by analysis of variance using t-Student test for LSD calculation and are described as significant at the P < 0.05 level.
 
Results and Discussion
Shoots weight showed increasing trend at all treatments, but application of water restriction treatments reduced shoot weight. At all levels of irrigation and concentrations of humic acid, leaf area index showed an increasing trend until mid-season and then a gentler slope than the first half of the growing season began to fall. Deficit irrigation reduced root diameter but humic acid application increased it. Humic acid application increased root yield and increase the amount of humic acid, also increased the root yield. So that, highest root yield was recorded from of six kg.ha-1 humic acid treatment and the lowest root yield was obtained from the treatment of not using of humic acid application at each level of irrigation. Root yield in 85%, 70% and 45% of field capacity decreased by 4.2%, 11.3% and 18.2% respectively, while application of 2, 4 and 6 kg.ha-1 humic acid increased root yield by 416%, 84.8% and 110 % respectively. Application of 2, 4 and 6 kg.ha-1 humic acid reduced molasses percentage by 2.9%, 1.4% and 12.9% respectively.
 Conclusion
Application of humic acid enhances the root yield so that treatments 2, 4 and 6 kg per hectare humic acid, increased root yield by 41.6, 84.8 and 110.5 percent respectively.
 

Keywords

• Leaf Area Index
• Root yield
• Pure sugar content

20.1001.1.20087713.1398.11.1.12.7

---

References

Albayrak, S., and Camas, N. 2005. Effect of different levels and application times of humic acid on root and leaf yield and yield component of forage turnip. Journal of Agronomy 42: 130-133.

Bazza, M. 1993. Effect of drought stress and the time of its occurrence in the cycle on sugar beet yield and technological quality. Pp. 119-130. In: Proceedings of the 56th IIRB Winter Congress, Brussels, Belgium.

Cangi, R., Tarakcioglu, C., and Yasar, H. 2006. Effect of humic acid applications on yield, fruit characteristics and nutrient uptake in Ercis grape (V. vinifera L.) cultivar. Asian Journal of Chemistry 18: 1493-1499.

Delfine, S., Tognetti, R., Desiderio, E., and Alvino, A. 2005. Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth and yield of durum wheat. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 25: 183-191.

Earl, H.J., and Davis, R.F. 2003. Effect of drought stress on leaf and whole canopy radiation use efficiency and yield of maize. Agronomy Journal 95: 688-696.

Firoozabadi, M., Abdollahian-Noghabi, M., Rahimzadeh, F., Moghadam, M., Fisher, R.A., and Wood, J.T. 1979. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. III, Yield associations with morpho-physiological traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30.

Gardner, F., Brentpearce, R., and Mitchell, R. 1985. Lowa States University Press.404 pp.

Harper, S.M., Kerven, G.L., Edwards, D.G., and Ostatek-Boczynski, Z. 2000. Characterisation of fulvic and humic acids from leaves of Eucalyptus camaldulesis and from decomposed hay. Soil Biochemistry 32: 1331-1336.

Jaggard, KW., Dewar, A.M., and Pidgeon, J.D. 1998. The relative effects of drought stress and virus yellows on the yield of sugar beet in the UK, 1980–1995. Journal of Agricultural Science 130: 337-343.

Jovzi, M., and Zare Abyaneh, H. 2016. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and deficit irrigation on quantitative and qualitative traits of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet 31: 156-141.

Khajepoor, M.R. 2007. Cultivation of Industrial Crops. Jihad Daneshgahi, Isfahan, Iran. 564 pp. (In Persian)

Mohammadian, R., Moghaddam, M., Rahimian, H., and Sadeghian, S.Y. 2005. Effect of early season drought stress on growth characteristics of sugar beet genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 29(5): 357-368.

Nadali, I.M.A.N., Paknejad, F.A.R.Z.A.D., Moradi, F.O.U.A.D., and Vazan, S.A.E.I.D. 2010. Effects of methanol on yield and some quality characteristics of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cv. Rasoul in drought and non-drought stress conditions. Seed and Plant Production Journal 26(1): 95-108.

Nikbakht, A., and Kafi, M. 2008. Effect of humic acid on plant growth. Journal of Plant Nutrition 31: 2155-2167.

Ober, E. 2001. The search for drought tolerance in sugar beet. British Sugar Beet 69(1): 40-43.

Ober, E.S., Clark, C.J.A., Jaggard, K.W., and Pidgeon, J.D. 2004. Progress towards improving the drought tolerance of sugar beet. Zuckerindustrie 129(2): 101–104.

Ourcut, D., and Nilsen, E.T. 2009. Salinity and drought stress. In: Physiology of Plants under Stress 177-235.

Pidgeon, J.D., Werker, A.R., Jaggard, K.W., Richter, G.M., Lister, D.H., and Jones, P.D. 2001. Climatic impact on the productivity of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Europe 1961–1995. Agricultural for Meteorology 109: 27–37.

Prasad, P.V.V., Pisipati, S.R., Mutava, R.N., and Tuinstra, M.R. 2008. Sensitivity of grain sorghum to high temperature stress during reproductive development. Crop Science 48(5): 1911-1917.

Rahi, A., Davoodifar, M., Azizi, F., and Habibi, D. 2012. Evaluation of humic acid and graph trends in Dactylis glomerata, Gronomy and Plant breeding 8(3): 15-28.

Sabzevari, S., and Khazaie, H.R. 2010. The effect of foliar application with humic acid on growth, yield and yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Agroecology 1(2): 53-63. (In Persian with English Summary)

Sanjarimijani, M., Sirousmehr, A.R., and Fakheri, B. 2016. The effects of drought stress and humic acid on morphological traits, yield and anthocyanin of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.). Journal of Agroecology 8(3): 346-358. (In Persian with English Summary)

Sardashti, A., and Alidoost, M. 2007. Evaluation of humic acid compounds in north forest soil of Iran. 15th congress of Crystal. Iran. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. 361pp. (In Persian with English Summary)

Scott, R.K., and Jaggard, K.W. 1993. Crop Physiology and Agronomy. In: D. A. Cooke and R. K. Scott (Eds.). The Sugar Beet Crop. pp. 179-237. Londan, Champan and Hall.

Shabala, S. 2011. Plant Stress Physiology. Cabi Press, 329 pp.

Sharif, M., Khattak, R.A., and Sarir, M.S. 2002. Effect of different levels of lignitic coal derived humic acid on growth of maize plants. Plant Analysis 33: 3567–3580.

Sharifi, M., and Dehghanian, E. 2014. Evaluation of root yield and sugar content of new sugar beet hybrid to deficit and optimum irrigation. Sugar Beet 30(2): 193-205.(In Persian with English Summary)

Souza Claudia, R., de, Maroco João, P., Santos Tiago, P., dos, Rodrigues, M., Lucilia, Lopes Carlos, M., Pereira João, S. Chaves, M., Manuela. 2003. Partial root zone drying: regulation of stomatal aperture and carbon assimilation in field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera cv. Moscatel). Functional Plant Biology 30: 653-662.

Tan, K.H. 2003. Humic Matter in Soil and the Environment. Marcel Dekker, New York.