| تعداد نشریات | 286 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 84 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 2,846 |
| تعداد مقالات | 32,300 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 41,387,136 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 18,562,183 |
Performance of ten sugar beet varieties for growth, yield and juice quality under different soil salinity levels | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 35، شماره 2، اسفند 1398، صفحه 233-249 اصل مقاله (984.57 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2020.341558.1232 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| فراخ ابوالعلی* ؛ ک.ا. صادق؛ م.ی. الباکری | ||
| استادیار موسسه تحقیقات چغندرقند مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی، جیزه، مصر. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| شوری خاک بر تولید گیاه، از جمله رشد چغندرقند، به ویژه در استان الفایوم کشور مصر تأثیر میگذارد.گزینش ارقام متحمل به شوری یکی از متداولترین روشهایی است که توسط بهنژادگران چغندرقند استفاده میشود.این تحقیق در استان الفایوم (مصر) واقع در 29 درجه و 17 درجه شمالی؛ 30 درجه و 53 درجه شرقی، در طول فصل زراعی 2017/2018 و 2018/2019 انجام شد.هدف از این تحقیق مطالعه اثر شوری خاک بر روی رشد، کیفیت و عملکرد 10 رقم مولتیژرم چغندرقند در سه منطقه منشات سینریس(S1)، 3/57dSm-1، منشات بنیعثمان (S2)، 8/6dSm-1 و منشات تنتاوی ((S3، 11/84dSm-1 بود.آزمایش به صورت طرح بلوک کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار انجام شد.نتایج نشان داد که عملکرد ریشه و عملکرد شکر و همچنین اندازه ریشه با افزایش سطح شوری خاک در مقایسه با تیمار شاهد بهطور معنیداری کاهش یافت.تحت شوری شدید خاک، عملکرد ریشه و شکر رقم Florima بهترتیب برابر 32/64 و 4/33 تن در هکتار بود؛ از طرف دیگر، رقم Euklid کمترین مقادیر را به ترتیب برابر 27/10 و 3/31 تن در هکتار داشت.در مورد اثر متقابل سطح شوری خاک و ارقام چغندرقند، بیشترین مقدار عملکرد ریشه و شکر توسط ارقامFlorima،Toro، Cleopatra وTarbelli، تحت شدید شوری خاک(11.84 dSm-1)ثبت گردید. با توجه به نتایج پیشنهاد میشود چهار رقم فوق توسط کشاورزان تحت خاک شور کشت شوند.این ارقام متحمل به شوری خاک هستند و میتوانند عملکرد ریشه و شکر پایدار در خاک تحت تنششوری ایجاد کنند.برآورد تخمین وراثتپذیری با قند قابل استحصال (94/4 درصد)، طول ریشه (93/36 درصد) و وزن ریشه (92/05 درصد) ثبت شد.وراثتپذیری صفات برای بهنژادگران از اهمیت زیادی برخوردار است، زیرا اندازه آن بیانگر صحت تشخیص انواع مختلف بیان فنوتیپی است.نتایج نشان داد که چهار رقم ارقام Florima،Toro،Cleopatra وTarbelli، دارای شاخص حساسیت به شوری(SSI)بر اساس عملکرد ریشه و شکر1> و نسبتاً به تنش شوری متحمل هستند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| چغندرقند؛ رقم؛ شوری خاک؛ عملکرد ریشه؛ عملکرد شکر | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluation of ten sugar beet varieties in terms of growth, yield and quality under different soil salinity levels | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| F. F.B. Abu-Ellail؛ K.A. Sadek؛ H.M.Y. El-Bakary | ||
| Assistant Professor of Sugar Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Soil salinity is affecting plant production, including sugar beet growing, especially in Al-Fayoum Governorate, Egypt. Screening for salinity tolerant varieties is one of the most often methods used by breeders in sugar beet. The present study was carried out at Al-Fayoum Governorate, (29°17ˋ N; 30°53ˋ E), Egypt, during 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons. The objective was to evaluate the effect of saline soil of three locations (villages) S1, 3.57 dSm-1 (Monshat Sinnuris), S2, 8.6 dSm-1 (Monshat bani Othman), and S3, 11.84 dSm-1 (Monshat Tantawy) on plant growth, quality and yield traits of ten multigerm sugar beet varieties. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with three replications. Results showed that root yield and sugar yield, as well as root dimensions were significantly decreased by increasing soil salinity levels as compared with the control treatment. Under severe soil salinity, Florima variety was superior in root and sugar yields [13.71 and 1.82 ton/fed (fed=0.42 ha)]; on the other hand, Euklid variety recorded the lowest values (11.38 and 1.39 ton/fed), respectively. As for the interaction between soil salinity levels and sugar beet varieties, the highest values for root and sugar yields were recorded by the varieties Florima, Toro, Cleopatra, and Tarbelli, under severe soil salinity (11.84 dSm-1). The results recommended the above four varieties to be cultivated by farmers under saline soil; these varieties are tolerant to soil salinity and they can produce stable root and sugar yields in the stressed soil. High broad-sense heritability estimates were obtained by extractable sugar (94.9%), root length (93.36%), and root weight (92.05 %). Heritability of metric traits is of great significance to the breeders as its magnitude indicates the accuracy with which a variety can be recognized by its phenotypic expression. Results showed that four varieties (Florima, Toro, Cleopatra and Tarbell (had a salinity susceptibility index (SSI) based on root and sugar yields of <1 and were relatively tolerant to salinity stress. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Performance, sugar beet, varieties, soil salinity, yield | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdel-Latef AA. Salt tolerance of some wheat cultivars. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. of Science, South Valley Univ., Qena, Egypt. 2005: pp80
Abu-El lail FFB, El-Taib ABA, Masri MI. Broad-sense heritability, genetic correlation and genetic variability of sugarcane yield components at first selection stage. Journal of Sugarcane Research. 2017: 7 (1): 27 – 34.
Abu El lail FFB, Hamam KA, Kheiralla KA, El-Hifny MZ. Salinity tolerance in 280 genotypes of two-rows barley. Egypt. Journal of Plant Breeding. 2014; 18: 331-345.
Annual Report of Sugar Crops Council. Sugar beet cultivation and production. 2019: pp1-50. (in Arabic)
Allard RW. Principles of Plant Breeding. New York: John Willy and sons, Inc. 1960; 5(4): 275
Black CA, Evans DD, Ensminger LE, White JL, Clark FE (eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis.Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, WI, USA. 1965; pp1143
Bray EA, Bailey-Serres J, Weretilny KE. Responses to a biotic stress. In; Gruissem, W., Bucha Man, B. and Jones, R (eds) Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Plants. Amer. Soc. of Plant Phys., Rockville, MD, 2000; 1158-1249.
Brown JD, Lilliand O. Rapid determination of potassium and sodium in plant material and soil extracts by Flame photometry. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1964; 48: 341-346.
Carruthers A, Oldfield JFT, Teague HJ. Assessment of beet quality. Paper Presented to the 15th Annual Technical Conference, British Sugar Corporation LTD. 1962; 36pp.
Devillers P. Prevsion du sucre melasse. Scurries francases, 1988; 129, 190-200. (C.F. The Sugar Beet Book).
Dexter ST, Frankes MG, Snyder FW. A rapid and practical method of determining extractable while sugar as may be applied to the evaluation of agronomic practices and grower deliveries in the sugar beet industry. Journal of American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists (JASSBT). 1967; 14, 433 – 454.
De-Herralde F, Biel C, Save R, Morales MA, Torrecillas A, Alarcon JJ. Effect of water and salt stresses on the growth, gas exchange and water relations in Argyranthemum coronopiflium plants. Crop Science. 1998; 139: 9-17.
Deinlein U, Stephan AB, Horie T, Luo W, Xu G and Schroeder JI. Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends in Plant Science. 2014; 19(6): 371-379.
Eisa SS, Ibrahim AM, Khafaga HS, Shehata SA. Alleviation of adverse effects of salt stress on sugar beet by pre-sowing seed treatments. Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 2012; 8(2): 799-806.
Eisa SS, Hussin S and Abd El-Samad EH. Enhancement of sugar beet productivity under saline conditions. Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 2011; 7(12): 2063-2072.
El- Hendawy SE, Hu Y, Yakant GM, Awad AM, Hafiz SE, Schmidhalter U. Evaluating salt tolerance of wheat genotypes using multiple parameters. European Journal of Agronomy. 2004; 22:245-253.
Farkhondeh R, Nabizadeh E, Jalilnezhad N. Effect of salinity stress on proline content, membrane stability and water relation in two sugar beet cultivars. International Journal of Agricultural Science. 2012; 2: 385-392.
Falconer DS, Mackey TFC. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 3rd Ed. Longman, London. 1996; 167(4): 1529–1536.
Fischer RA, Maurer RO. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars 1- Grain yield responses. Aust. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1978; 29:897-912.
Gobarh ME. Effect of foliar application with some micronutrients on sugar beet grown in newly reclaimed sandy soil. Journal of Agricultural Science. Mansoura University. 2001; 26(10): 5929-5937.
Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical Procedures for Agriculture Research. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York. 1984; pp 704
Ibrahim MM, Khalifa MR, Korim MA, Zein FI, Omer EH. Yield and quality of sugar beet crop as affected by mid to late season drought and potassium fertilization at north Nile Delta. Egypt. Journal of Soil Science. 2002; 42(1): 87 - 102.
Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1973; pp498.
Johnson WH, Robinson HE, Comstok RE. Estimation of genetic and environmental variability in soybean. Agronomy Journal. 1955; 47:314-318.
Khalil SM, Mostafa SN, Mostafa ZR. Influence of potassium fertilizer and soil salinity on chemical composition of sugar beet root. Minufiya Journal of Agricultural Research. 2001; 26(3): 583–594.
Krishnamurthy SL, Sharma PC, Sharma SK, Batra V, Kumar V, Rao LVS. Effect of salinity and use of stress indices of morphological and physiological traits at the seedling stage in rice. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology. 2016; (54):843-850
Le-Docte A. Commercial determination of sugar beet root using the Sachr Le- Docta process. Int. Sugar J., 1927; 29: 488-492. (C.F. Sugar beet nutrition, Applied Sciences Publishers LTD, London, A.P. Draycott).
Mekki BB, EL-Gazzar MM. Response of root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) to irrigation with saline water and follar potassium fertilization. Annals of Agricultural Sciences. 1999; 44(1): 213-225.
Miransari M, Smith DL. Overcoming the stressful effects of salinity and acidity on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] nodulation and yields using signal molecule genistein under field conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2007; 30: 1967-92.
Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol., 2008; 59: 651-681.
Munns R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, Cell & Environment, 2002; 25(2): 239-250.
Neumann PM. Inhibition of root growth by salinity stress: Toxicity of an adaptive biophysical response, In: Baluska f. Ciamporova M, Structure and function of roots, Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands, 1995; 299-394.
Pathak H, Rao DLN. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization from added organic matter in saline and alkaline soils, Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 1998; 30(6): 695-702.
Qadir M, Ghafoor A, Murtaza G. Amelioration strategies for saline soils: a review, Land Degradation and Development. 2000; 11(6): 501-521.
Steduto P, Hsiao TC, Fereres E, Raes D. Crop yield response to water. FAO, Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No. 66, Rome, 2012; pp207.
Waller RA, Duncan DB. A bays rule for the symmetric multiple comparison problem. American State Association Journal Des., 1969; 1458-1503.
Yusuf M, Hasan SA, Ali B, Hayat S, Fariduddin Q, Ahmed A. Effect of salicylic acid on salinity induced changes in Brassica juncea. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology. 2007; 50: 1096-1102. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,591 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 341 |
||