| تعداد نشریات | 286 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 84 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,020 |
| تعداد مقالات | 33,746 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 45,000,744 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 48,361,095 |
اثرات تاریخ کاشت، پاکلوبوترازول و کود نیتروژن بر درصد ساقهروی و سایر صفات کمی و کیفی سه رقم چغندرقند پاییزه | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 36، شماره 2، مهر 1399، صفحه 155-169 اصل مقاله (1.22 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2021.352233.1254 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سمیرا افراخته1؛ داوود حبیبی* 2؛ مهدی صادقی شعاع3؛ فرزاد پاکنژاد4؛ منصور سراجوقی4 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری دانشکده کشاورزی، گروه زراعت، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشیار دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، کرج، ایران | ||
| 3استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران. | ||
| 4استادیار دانشکده کشاورزی، گروه زراعت، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| با توجه به جایگاه آب در بخش کشاورزی و اهمیت توسعه سطح زیرکشت چغندرقند پاییزه، این تحقیق به‌منظور بررسی اثر تیمارهای محدودیت رشد، تاریخ کاشت و رقم بر میزان ساقهروی و سایر صفات کمی و کیفی چغندرقند پاییزه در منطقه کرج طی دو سال زراعی 1397 و 1398 طراحی گردید. آزمایش به‌صورت فاکتوریل اسپلیت پلات در قالب طرح بلوکهای کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار اجرا گردید. فاکتورهای مورد بررسی عبارتاند از فاکتور اول تاریخ کاشت با دو سطح (اول مهر و اول آبان‌ماه)، فاکتور دوم محدودیت رشد با چهار سطح شاهد (بدون محدودیت)، مصرف پاکلوبوترازول (300 پی‌پی‌ام)، محدودیت مصرف کود نیتروژن (50 درصد میزان توصیه‌شده) و مصرف پاکلوبوترازول + محدودیت کود نیتروژن و فاکتور سوم ژنوتیپ با سه سطح رقم گیادا، یودورو و یک ژنوتیپ ایرانی مقاوم به ساقهروی بود. فاکتورهای تاریخ کاشت و محدودیت رشد در کرتهای اصلی و فاکتور ژنوتیپ در کرتهای فرعی قرار گرفت. صفات مورد بررسی شامل درصد ساقهروی، عملکرد ریشه، عیار قند، قند ملاس و عملکرد شکر سفید بود. نتایج نشان داد اثر سال برای صفت درصد ساقهروی معنیدار بود. کم‌ترین درصد ساقهروی به مقدار 0/50 درصد مربوط به اجرای سال دوم آزمایش با رقم یودورو کاشته شده در اول آبان ماه بود. رقم یودورو کاشته شده در اول مهرماه و تیمارشده با پاکلوبوترازول (300 پی‌پی‌ام) بیشترین عملکرد ریشه را با میانگین 79/91 تن در هکتار داشت. ارقام گیادا و یودورو کاشته شده در اول مهرماه به ترتیب با میانگین 8/15 و 8/62 تن در هکتار بیشترین عملکرد شکرسفید را داشته و اختلاف معنیداری بین آنها وجود نداشت. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| تنظیم‌کننده‌های رشد؛ چغندرقند؛ کشت پاییزه؛ گلدهی؛ عملکرد ریشه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Effects of planting date, paclobutrazol, and nitrogen fertilizer on bolting percentage and some quantitative and qualitative traits of three autumn sugar beet cultivars | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Samira Afrakhte1؛ Davood Habibi2؛ Mehdi Sadeghi-shoae3؛ Farzad Paknejad4؛ Mansour Sarajoughi4 | ||
| 1PhD student of Department of Agronomy, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 4Assistant professor of Department of Agronomy, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Considering the importance of water in agriculture as well as extending autumn-sown sugar beet cultivation area, this study was conducted to evaluate the effect of growth restriction treatments, planting date and cultivar on bolting and other quantitative and qualitative traits of autumn-sown sugar beet in Karaj, Iran during two years (2018-19). The experiment was performed as a factorial split plot in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications. Studied factors included two planting date (22nd September and 22nd October) as the first factor, the growth restriction with four levels including control (without limit), paclobutrazol (300 pp M), Nitrogen fertilizer restriction (50% of the recommended amount), Paclobutrazole + Nitrogen fertilizer restriction as the second factor, and three cultivars including Giada, Eudoro, and one Iranian genotype resistant to bolting as the third factor. Planting date and growth restriction factors were included in main plots and genotype factor in subplots. The studied traits included bolting percentage, root yield, sugar content, molasses sugar, and white sugar yield. Results showed that the effect of the year on bolting percentage was significant. The lowest bolting percentage (50%) was obtained by Eudoro cultivar on the second year of study planted on 22nd October. The highest root yield (79.91 tha-1) was related to the Eudoro cultivar, planted on 22nd September and treated with paclobutrazol (300 ppm). Giada and Eudoro cultivars planted on the 22nd September had the highest white sugar yield of 8.15 and 8.62 t ha-1, respectively with no significant difference between. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Autumn Planting, Flowering, Growth Regulator, Root Yield, Sugar Beet | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadi A, Ceiocemardeh A. Effect of drought stress on soluble carbohydrate, chlorophyll and Proline in four adopted wheat cultivars with various climate of Iran. Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2004; 35:753-63. (in Persian, abstract in English) Al-Sayed HM, El-Razek UA, Sarhan HM, Fateh HS. Effect of harvest dates on yield and quality of sugar beet varieties. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2012; 6(9):525-9. Arvin MJ, Banakar MH. Effects of plant growth regulators on bolting and several traits of onion (Allium cepa) cv. Texas Early Grano. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2002; 6: 59- 70. Biscoe PV, Jaggard KW, Farley RF, Messem AB. Radiation interception and sugar production. Rothamsted Exp. Station. Report for. 1978. Carter JN, Traveller DJ. Effect of Time and Amount of Nitrogen Uptake on Sugarbeet Growth and Yield 1. Agronomy Journal. 1981; 73(4):665-71. Clover G, Smith H, Jaggard K. The crop under stress. British sugar beet review. 1998; 66:17-9. Cooke DA, Scott JE. The sugar beet crop. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. New York. p. 173–219 Davis TD, Curry EA, Steffens GL. Chemical regulation of vegetative growth. Critical reviews in plant sciences. 1991;10(2):151-88. Draycott AP, editor. Sugar beet. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006; pp. 514. Draycott AP, editor. Sugar beet. John Wiley & Sons. 2008; pp. 496. El-Gizawy E, Shalaby G, Mahmoud E. Effects of tea plant compost and mineral nitrogen levels on yield and quality of sugar beet crop. Communications in soil science and plant analysis. 2014;45(9):1181-94. Fortune RA, Burke JI, Kennedy TF, O'Sullivan E. Effect of early sowing on the growth, yield and quality of sugar beet. Teagasc; 1999. Grimmer MK, Trybush S, Hanley S, Francis SA, Karp A, Asher MJ. An anchored linkage map for sugar beet based on AFLP, SNP and RAPD markers and QTL mapping of a new source of resistance to Beet necrotic yellow vein virus. Theoretical and applied genetics. 2007;114(7):1151-60. Hoffmann CM, Huijbregts T, van Swaaij N, Jansen R. Impact of different environments in Europe on yield and quality of sugar beet genotypes. European Journal of Agronomy. 2009;30(1):17-26. Jaggard KW, Qi A, Ober ES. Capture and use of solar radiation, water, and nitrogen by sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of experimental botany. 2009;60(7):1919-25. Jahani Moghadam E, Parsa S, Mahmoudi, S, Ahmadi M. Effect of planting date and cultivar on yield and the early flowering in autumn sowing of sugar beet varieties. Agronomy and Plant Breeding. 2017;13(2): 43-57. Jahadakbar MR, Ebrahimian HR, Taleghani D. Sugar Beet Autumn Planting in Warm Areas of Esfahan Province and Izeh Khozestan. Research Achievments for Field and Horticulture Crops. 2013; 1(2): 189- 201. (in Persian) Kaffka S. Sugar beet production and the environment. Annual Report of the California Sugar Beet Grower’s Assoc. 1996. Kandil AA, Badawi MA, El-Moursy SA, Abdou UM. Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on 1: Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences). 2004; 5(2):227-37. Kashani A, Sedghi H, Kareh, Farzdaghi HF. Presenting a suitable culture model for combined production of protein and sugar in Khuzestan, Report of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz. 1996. (in Persian) Kishorekumar A. Differential effects of hexaconazole and paclobutrazol on the foliage characteristics of Chinese potato (Solenostemon rotundifolius Poir., JK Morton). Acta Biologica Szegediensis. 2006;50(3-4):127-9. Lee GS, Dunn G, Schmehl WR. Effect of date of planting and nitrogen fertilization on growth components of sugar beet. Journal of American Soceity Sugar Beet Technology. 1987; 24:80-100. Leilah AA. Effect of planting dates, plant population and nitrogen fertilization on sugarbeet productivity under the newly reclaimed sandy soils in Egypt. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University. Basic Applied Sciences. 2005; 3:95-110. Longden PC, Thomas TH. Why not autumn sowing sugar beet. British Sugar Beet Review. 1989;57(3). Papakosta-Tasopoulou D, Sficas AG. Bolting, fresh root yield, and soluble solids of sugarbeets as affected by sowing date and gibberellin treatment. Journal of American Soceity Sugar Beet Technology. 1978; 20:115-26. Reinefeld E, Emmerich A, Baumgarten G, Winner C, Beiss U. Zur voraussage des melassezuckers aus rubenanalysen. Zucker. 1974; 27:2-15. Rinaldi M, Vonella AV. The response of autumn and spring sown sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) to irrigation in Southern Italy: water and radiation use efficiency. Field Crops Research. 2006 Feb 15;95(2-3):103-14. Sadeghi Shoae M, Habibi D, Fallah D, Paknejad F, Kashani A. The effect of paclobutrazol on autumn sugar beet in Karaj region, Journal of Environmental Sciences and Life Sciences. 2014;185-180. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S. Areas prone to autumn sugar beet cultivation in Iran, autumn sugar beet cultivation training course, Karaj, Sugar Beet Research Institute 2015; 23 to 25 September; pp 80. (in Persian, abstract in English) Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Taleghani DF, Fasahat P. Effects of drought stress on quantitative and qualitative characteristics, canopy ground cover and wilting score of sugar beet genotypes. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences. 2017;10(3):20-34. Sharma RR, Singh R. Gibberellic acid influences the production of malformed and button berries, and fruit yield and quality in strawberry (Fragaria× ananassa Duch.). Scientia Horticulturae. 2009 Feb 17;119(4):430-3. Sinji KS, Christa H. Development of leaf area index and light interception of autumn-sown and spring-sown sugar beet. Institute of Sugar Beet Research, Holtenser landstr. 77, d-37079 Gottingen. 2008. Tsegaw T. Response of potato to paclobutrazol and manipulation of reproductive growth under tropical conditions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria). 2006 Vahidi H, Rajabi A. The effect of drought stress on some quantitative and qualitative traits of sugar beet.12th Iranian Congress of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Breeding; Karaj, Iran: Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch. 2012; pp. 5. (in Persian, abstract in English) Weeden BR. Potential of Sugar Beet on the Atherton Tableland: A Report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. RIRDC; 2000. Winter SR. Sugarbeet response to nitrogen as affected by seasonal irrigation. Agronomy Journal. 1990; 2(5):984-8. Zheng RR, Wu Y, Xia YP. Chlorocholine chloride and paclobutrazol treatments promote carbohydrate accumulation in bulbs of Lilium Oriental hybrids ‘Sorbonne’. Journal of Zhejiang University Science. 2012;13(2):136-44. Zhu LH, Van de Peppel A, Li XY, Welander M. Changes of leaf water potential and endogenous cytokinins in young apple trees treated with or without paclobutrazol under drought conditions. Scientia Horticulturae. 2004; | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 457 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 447 |
||