| تعداد نشریات | 286 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 84 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 2,873 |
| تعداد مقالات | 32,554 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 42,415,326 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 19,191,210 |
ارزیابی عوامل محدودکننده‌ی عملکرد چغندرقند بهاره در کشور با استفاده از روش CPA | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 38، شماره 2، مهر 1401، صفحه 145-168 اصل مقاله (1.17 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2023.358417.1303 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| پیمان حصادی1؛ حمید مظفری* 2؛ سعید صادق‌زاده‌حمایتی3؛ پیام معاونی4؛ بهزاد ثانی4 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکترای گروه زراعت، واحد شهرقدس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه زراعت، واحد شهرقدس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3دانشیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند- سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران | ||
| 4استادیار گروه زراعت دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهرقدس، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تعیین عوامل محدودکننده‌ی عملکرد و تعیین سطح بهینه عامل محدودکننده برای کاهش فاصله بین عملکرد واقعی و قابل‌دستیابی در افزایش عملکرد محصولات زراعی نقش مهمی دارد. این مطالعه با استفاده از روش تحلیل مقایسه کارکرد Comparative Performance Analysis, CPA) با هدف تعیین عوامل محدودکننده‌ی اجزای عملکرد چغندرقند (شامل عملکردریشه و عیارقند) و تعیین سهم نسبی این عوامل در سال 1399 انجام شده است. این مطالعه از طریق تکمیل پرسش‌نامه در سطح 220 مزرعه چغندرقند بهاره در کل کشور اجرا شد. همه داده‌های گردآوری شده پس از ثبت با استفاده از روش رگرسیون گام به گام و روش (CPA) به‌طور جداگانه برای دو صفت عملکردریشه و عیارقند مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند. بر اساس مدل‌های تولیدی منتج از این مطالعه، خلاء عملکرد ریشه معادل81/98 تن در هکتار (یا 57/2 درصد) و خلاء عیارقند معادل 4/88 واحد (یا 21/7 درصد) برآورد شد. در این میان، دو عامل فیزیوگرافیکی شامل ارتفاع از سطح دریا و طول‌جغرافیایی به‌ترتیب 14/1 و 30/1 درصد از خلاء عملکردریشه و عیارقند و یک عامل اجتماعی (میزان تحصیلات کشاورز) حدود 11/9 درصد از خلاء عیارقند را به خود اختصاص داد. در میان عوامل مربوط به مدیریت زراعی مؤثر بر خلاء عملکردریشه، 8/85 درصد به عواملی نظیر میزان مصرف بذر، تراکم نهایی بوته، روش آبیاری، تاریخ کاشت، پراکندگی بوته، تسطیح زمین، مدت ماندن ریشه در مزرعه، تنش خشکی و مقدار نیتروژن پایه به‌ترتیب با سهمی معادل 24/7، 11/3، 10/3، 9/8، 9/7، 8/8، 5/2، 4/1 و 1/9 درصد از مجموع خلاء عملکردریشه (81/98 تن در هکتار) را تبیین می‌کند و 14/2 درصد مربوط به عوامل دیگر بود. در ارتباط با خلاء عیارقند نیز عوامل مدیریتی شامل تعداد آبیاری، تاریخ قطع آبیاری، میزان کربن‌آلی موجود در خاک و میزان خسارت بیماری‌ها به‌ترتیب 24، 19، 10/3 و 4/6 درصد و در مجموع 57/9 درصد از 21/7 درصد از خلاء عیار قند (4/88 واحد) را تبیین می‌کنند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| خلاء عملکرد؛ روش CPA؛ عملکرد قابل‌دستیابی؛ عملکرد واقعی؛ مدیریت مزرعه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Assessment of factors limiting spring-sown sugar beet yield in Iran using the CPA method | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Peyman Hesadi1؛ hamid mozafari2؛ Saeed Sadeghzadeh Hemayati3؛ payam moaveni4؛ Behzad Sani4 | ||
| 1Department of Agronomy, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Agronomy, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Agricultural Research Education and Extension, Karaj,Iran | ||
| 4Assistant professor | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Determining the yield limiting factors as well as the optimal level of the limiting factor to reduce the gap between actual and attainable yield plays an important role in increasing the yield of crops. This study was conducted using the Comparative Performance Analysis (CPA) method with the aim of determining the limiting factors of sugar beet yield components (including root yield and sugar content) and also their relative contribution in 2020-2021. This study was carried out by completing the questionnaire in 220 Spring sugar beet fields in the whole country. All data collected were subjected to stepwise regression using CPA separately for the two traits of root yield and sugar content. Based on the models derived from this study, the root yield and sugar content gap was estimated at 81.98 t/ha (57.2%) and 4.88 units (21.7%), respectively. Meanwhile, two physiographic factors including elevation above sea level and geographical longitude accounted for 14.1 and 30.1% of the gap in root yield and sugar content, respectively and a social factor of the farmer’s education level accounted for about 11.9% of the gap in sugar content. Among the factors related to agronomic management that affect root yield gap, 85.8% re related to factors such as the seeding rate, final plant density, irrigation method, sowing date, plant distribution, land leveling, root retention at the field, drought stress, and base nitrogen content with a share equal to 24.7, 11.3, 10.3, 9.8, 8.8, 5.2, 4.1, and 1.9% of the total root yield gap (81.98 t/ha) and 14.2% was related to other factors. Regarding the sugar content gap, the management factors including irrigation frequency, cutting off irrigation date, the amount of organic carbon in the soil, and the disease damage accounted for 24.0, 19.0, 10.3, and 4.6% of the gap (4.88 units), respectively. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Actual yield, Attainable yield, CPA method, Farm manage, Yield gap | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abravan P, Soltani A, Majidian M, Mohsenabadi Gh. Study of field management factors and underlying reasons limiting yield of oilseed rape in east of Golestan province using CPA method. Ecological Agriculture. 2017; 7(2):46-60. [In Persian] Ahmadzadeh-Araji HR, Abdollahian-Noghabi M, Kamali GA, Vahedi S. Effect of climatic parameters on the increase of sugar content of sugar beet in 2007 in Iran, Case study: Chenaran sugar factory. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2011; 27(1):101-115. doi:110.22092/jsb.2011.687. [In Persian] Akeson WR. Methods for estimating sucrose loss in laboratory storage tests. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists. 1981; 21(1):56-73. Akinerdem F, Yildirm B, Mulayim M, Babaoglu M. Determination of optimum plant density and its effect on yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Turkish Journal of Agicultural and Forestry. 1994; 18: 21-25. Bauer A, Black AL. Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter content on soil productivity, Soil Sciences Soceity of American Journal. 1994; 58:185. doi:10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800010027x. BBRO. Beet yield challenge. First Report, May 2018. Beniston M, Rebetez M. Regional behavior of minimum temperature in Switzerland for the period 1979–1993. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 1996; 53:231–244. doi:10.1007/BF00871739. Bhardwaj AK, Jasrotia P, Hamilton SK, Robertson GP. Ecological management of intensively cropped agroecosystems improves soil quality with sustained productivity, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2011; 140:419–429. doi:10.1016/jagee.2011.01.005. Bie CAJM. Yield gap studies through comparative performance analysis of agro-ecosystems. International Institute for Aerospace and Earth Science (ITC), Enschede, the Netherlands, 2000. Board J. Light interception efficiency and light quality affect yield compensation of soybean at low plant populations. Crop Science. 2000; 40:1285-1294. doi:10.2135/cropsci2000.4051285x. Brown JW, Hayward HE, Richards A, Berntein L, Hatcher JT, Reeve RC, Richards LA. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA, 1954; Agriculture Handbook. Cakmakci R, Oral E. Root yield and quality of sugar beet in relation to sowing date, plant population and harvesting date interactions. Turkish Journal of Agicultural and Forestry. 2002; 26:133-139. Cattanach AW. Effect of greater than recommended plant populations on sugarbeet yield and quality. Sugar Beet Research and Extension Report. 1993; 24:314-319. Choluj D, Podlaski S, Karwowska R, Chrobak Z. Effect of soil moisture on seed germination and growth of sugar beet. In: Proceedings of the Institut International de Recherches Betteravières, 2001; Vol. 64:365–370. Clover GRG, Smith HG, Azam-Ali SN, Jaggard KW. The effects of drought on sugar beet growth in isolation and in combination with beet yellow virus infection. The Journal of Agricultural Science. Camberidge. 1999; 133:251-261. doi:10.1017/S0021859699007005. Culman SW, Snapp SS, Green JM, Gentry LE. Short- and long-term labile soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics reflect management and predict corn agronomic performance, Agronomy Journal. 2013; 105:493–502. doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0382. Zhao D, Zheng D, WU Sh, WU Zh. Climate changes in northeastern China during last four decades. Chinese Geographical Science, 2007; 17(4):317–324. doi:10.1007/s11769-007-0317-1. Dunham RJ. Water use and irrigation. In The sugar beet crop – Science into practice (eds D.A. Cooke and R.K. Scott), 1993; pp. 278–310. Chapman & Hall, London. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-0373-9_8. Durrant MJ, Marsh SJ, Jaggard KW. Effects of seed advancement and sowing date on establishment, bolting and yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1993; 121:333-341. doi:10.1017/S002185960008552X. Eckhoff JLA, Bergman JW. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) production under sprinkler and flood irrigation. In Proceedings from the 31st Biennial Meeting (Agriculture) of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 28 February–3 March 2001, pp. 239–241. American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, Denver. Eric A, Xavier B, Pierre D. Crop growth monitoring by SAR time series: Canopy closing date detection for maize and sugar beet. Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Bringing Radar Application Down to Earth, Monteral, Canada, 1998; pp:13-15. Fortune RA. Effects of cultural technique on establishment and growth of early-sown sugar beet. Crops Research Centre, Oak Park, 2002; No 22, 29p. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR, Webb DJ, Thomas TH. Yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and nutrients. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 1999; 93:39-51. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00106-3. Giorgi F, Hurrell JW, Marinucci MR, Benston M. Elevation dependency of the surface climate change signal: A model study. Journal of Climate, 1997; 10(2): 288–296. doi:/10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010<0288:EDOTSC>2.0.CO;2. Hanse B, Tijink FGJ, Maassen J, Van Swaaij N. Closing the yield gap of sugar beet in the Netherlands- A joint effort. Frontiers Plant Science. 2018; 9:184. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00184. Henderson B, Godde C, Medina-Hidalgo D, van Wijk M, Silvestri S, Douxchamps S, Herrero M. Closing system-wide yield gaps to increase food production and mitigate GHGs among mixed crop–livestock smallholders in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems. 2016; 143:106-113. doi:10.1016/jagsy.2015.12.006. Hijbeek R, van Ittersum MK, ten Berge HFM, Gort G, Spiegel H, Whitmore AP. Do organic inputs matter – a meta-analysis of additional yield effects for arable crops in Europe, Plant Soil. 2017; 411:293–303. doi:10.1007/s11104-016-3031-x. Jaggard KW, Koch HJ, Arroyo Sanz JM, Cattanch A, Duval R, Eigner H. The yield gap in some sugar beet producing countries. International Sugar Journal. 2012; 114:496–499. Jaggard KW, Limb M, Proctor GH. Sugar Beet: A Grower's Guide, The Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee, London. 1995. doi:10.5555/19892442204. Johnston AE. Soil organic matter, effects on soils and crops. Soil and Management. 1986; 2(3):97-105. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.1986.tb00690.x. Kayiranga D. The Effects of land factors and management practices on rice yields. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede (ITC), The Netherlands, 2006. Krall JM, Esechie HA, Raney RJ, Clark S, TenEyck G, Lundquit M, Humburg NE, Axthelm LS, Dayton AD, Vanderlip RL. Influence of within-row variability in plant spacing on corn grain yield. Agronomy Journal. 1997; 69:797-799. doi:10.2134/agronj1977.00021962006900050016x. Laidig F, Piepho HP, Drobeck T, Meyer U. Genetic and non- genetic long-term trends of 12 different crops in German official variety performance trials and on-farm yield trends. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2014; 27:2599-2617. doi:10.1007/s00122-014-2402-z. Lauer JG. Plant density and nitrogen rate effects on sugar beet yield and quality early in harvest. Agronomy Journal. 1995; 87:586-591. doi:10.2134/agronj1995.00021962008700030032x. Lauer JG. Sugar beet performance and interactions with planting date, genotype, and harvest date. Agronomy Journal. 1997; 89(3):469-475. doi:10.2134/agronj1997.00021962008900030017x. Lim W, Sonn Y, Yoon Y. The Selection of yield response model of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris var. Aaron) to nitrogen fertilizer and pig manure compost in reclaimed Tidal Land soil. Korean Journal of Soil Sciences and Fertility. 2010; 43:174–179. Liu X, Ping H. Relationship between the climatic warming over the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau and its surrounding area since recent 30 years and the elevation. Plateau Meteorology. 1998; 17(3): 245–249. Loel J, Kenter C, Märländer B, Hoffmann CM. Assessment of breeding progress in sugar beet by testing old and new varieties under greenhouse and field conditions. European Journal of Agronomy. 2014; 52:146–156. doi:10.1016/jeja.2013.09.016. Loveland P, Webb J. Is there a critical level of organic matter in the agricultural soils of temperate regions: A review, Soil Tillage Research 2003; 70:1–18. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00139-3. Lucas ST, Weil RR. Can a labile carbon test be used to predict crop responses to improve soil organic matter management? Agronomy Journal. 2012; 104:1160–1170. doi:10.2134/agronj2011.0415. Mackay I, Horwell A, Garner J, White J, McKee J, Philpott H. Reanalysis of the historical series of UK variety trials to quantify the contributions of genetic and environmental factors to trends and variability in yields over time. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2010; 122:225–238. doi:10.1007/s00122-010-1438-y. Malec J. Influence of sowing and harvesting dates on quality changes during storage. Proc. of the Meet. of the Scient. Comm. Bratislava, Slovakia. 15-17 June 1992. Mansuri M, Babazadeh MR, Emdad MR, Taleghani D. Effect of deficit irrigation management on qualitative and quantitative yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Karaj, Iran. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 2018; 16(1):455-466. doi:10.15666/aeer/1601_455466. Mantovani G, Vaccari G. Sugar beet storage in Mediterranean basin. Proceedings of the 53rd Winter Congress of the IIRB. 14-15 Feb. Bruxelles, Belgium, 1990; pp.281-293. Märländer B., Hoffmann C, Koch HJ, Ladewig E, Merkes R, Petersen J, Stockfisch N. Environmental situation and yield performance of the sugar beet crop in Germany: Heading for sustainable development. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2003; 189:201–226. doi:10.1046/j.1439-037X.2003.00035.x. Mohammadi S. Study of effective factors on sugar beet production in Iran between 1341-1377. Msc. Thesis, Mazandaran University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1999; pp. 78. doi:10.1016/jeja.2019.125988. [In Persian] Mohammadi-Ahmadmahmoudi E, Deihimfard R, Noori O. Yield gap analysis simulated for sugar beet-growing areas in water-limited environments. European Journal of Agronomy. 2020; 113:125988 Mohammadzadeh Z, Soltani A, Ajamnorozei H, Bazrgar AB. Modeling yield potential and yield gap of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Iran. Journal of Sugar Beet, 2020; 36(1):27-46. doi:10.22092/JSB.2021.352324.1255. [In Persian] Moraes Sa JC, Tivet F, Lal R, Briedis C, Hartman DC, Santos dos, JZ, dos Santos JB. Long-term tillage systems impacts on soil C dynamics, soil resilience and agronomic productivity of a Brazilian Oxisol, Soil Tillage Research. 2014; 136:38–50. doi:10.1016/jstill.2013.09.010. Nehbandani A, Soltani A, Zeinali E, Hoseini F. Analyzing soybean yield constraints in Gorgan and Aliabad Katul using CPA method. Journal of Agroecology. 2017; 7(1):109-123. [In Persian] Nekahi MZ, Soltani A, Siyahmarguee A. Bagherani N. Yield gap associated with crop management in wheat: Case study, Golestan province- Bandar Gaz. EJCP. Electronic Journal of Crop Production. 2014; 7(2):135-136. Oelofse M, Markussen B, Knudsen L, Schelde K, Olesen JE, Jensen LS, Bruun S. Do soil organic carbon levels affect potential yields and nitrogen use efficiency? An analysis of winter wheat and spring barley field trials, European Journal of Agronomy. 2015; 66:62–73. doi:10.1016/jeja.2015.02.009. Oerke EC, Dehne HW. Safeguarding production - losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Protection. 2004; 23:275–285. doi:10/1016/jcropro.2003.10.001. Oldemeyer RK, Erichsen AW, Suzuki A. Effect of harvest date on performance of sugar beet hybrids. Journal of American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists. 1997; 19:294-306. Özturk O, Topal A, Akinerdem F, Akgun N. Effects of sowing and harvesting dates on yield and some quality characteristics of crops in sugar beet cereal rotation system. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2008; 88(10):141-150. doi:0.1002/jsfa.3061. Pidgeon JD, Werker AR, Jaggard KW, Richter GM, Lister DH, Jones PD. Climatic impact on the productivity of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Europe, 1961–1995. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2001; 109:27–37. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(01)00254-4. Pradhan R. The effect of land and management aspects on maize yield. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede (ITC), The Netherlands. 2004. Rajapakse DC. Biophysical factors defining rice yield gaps. International Institute for Geo-Information Science. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede (ITC), Netherlands. 2003. Reeves M, Lal R, Logan T, Sigarán J. Soil nitrogen and carbon response to maize cropping system, nitrogen source, and tillage, Soil Sciences Soceity of American Journal. 1997; 61:1387–1392. doi:10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100050015x. Richard-Molard M, Cariolle M. Water and abiotic stress and genetic improvement. Proceedings of the Institut International de Recherches Betteravières, 2001; Vol. 64:153–158. Robinson FE, Worker GF. Plant density and yield of sugar beets in an arid environment. Agronomy Journal. 1969; 61:441-443. doi:10.2134/agronj1969.00021962006100030032x. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S. The effect of agronomical factors on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) radiation interception, growth and yield. Ph.D. Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, 2008; pp. 265. [In Persian] Salter PJ, Williams JB. The moisture characteristics of some Rothamsred, Woburn and Saxmundham soils. Journal of Agricultural Science. Cambridge, 1969; 73:155-158. doi:10.1017/S0021859600024242. Scholten OE. Characterisation and inheritance of resistance to beet necrotic yellow vein virus in Beta. Thesis Wageningen Agricultural University, 1997; pp. 117. Scott RK, Jaggard KW. Impact of weather, agronomy and breeding on yields of sugar beet grown in the UK since 1970. The Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2000; 134: 341-352. doi:10.1017/S0021859699007832. Sharmasarkar FC, Sharmasarkar Sh, Held LJ, Miller SD, Vance GF, RenDuo Z. Assessment of drip and flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for sugarbeets. Agricultural Water Management, 2001b; 46(3):241–251. doi:10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00090-1. Smit AL. The influence of sowing date and plant density on the decision to resow sugar beet. Field Crops Research. 1993; 34(2):159-173. doi:10.1016/0378-4290(93)90004-7. Smith L, Cattanach AW, Lamb JA. Uniform vs variable in-row spacing of sugar beet. Sugar Beet Research and Extension Report. 1989; 20:151-156. Sögüt T, Aroglu H. Plant density and sowing date effects on sugar beet yield and quality. Journal of Agronomy. 2004; 3(3):215-218. doi:10.3923/ja.2004.215.218. Soltani A, Torabi B, Galeshi S, Zeinali E. Analyzing wheat yield contraints in Gorgan with comparative performance analysis (CPA) method, Golestan. Research Report, Iran. [In Persian] Stine MA, Weil RR. The relationship between soil quality and crop productivity across three tillage systems in South Central Honduras, American Journal Alternative Agriculture. 2002; 17:2–8. doi:10.1079/AJAA20011. Torabi B, Soltani A, Galeshi S, Zeinali E. Analyzing wheat yield constraints in gorgan. Electronic Journal of Crop Production., 2011; 4(4):1-17. dor:20.1001.1.2008739.1390.4.4.1.9 [In Persian] Tschernjawskaja LT, Chelemski MS. Sugar losses in the storage and processing of sugar beets. Part 1: Studies to determine beet mass and sugar losses in beet storage. Zuckerindustrie, 1997; 122(6):440-446. Van Ittersum MK, Cassman KG. Yield gap analysis - Rationale, methods and applications: Introduction to the special issue. Field Crops Research. 2013; 143:1–3. doi:10.1016/jfcr.2012.12.012. Van Wart J, Van Bussel LGJ, Wolf J, Licker R, Grassini P, Nelson A, Boogaard H, Gerber J, Mueller ND, Claessens L, van Ittersum MK, Cassman KG. Use of agro-climatic zones to upscale simulated crop yield potential. Field Crops Research., 2013; 143:44-55. Vander Poel PW, Schiweck H, Schwartz T. Sugar technology beet and cane sugar manufacture. Published with support of the Beet Sugar Development Foundation. Denever, USA, 1998; Pp.251-305. Vonk WJ, van Ittersum MK, Reidsma P, Zavattaro L, Bechini L, Guzma´n G, Pronk A, Spiegel H, Steinmann HH, Ruysschaert G, Hijbeek R. European survey shows poor association between soil organic matter and crop yields. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2020; 118:325–334. doi:10.1007/s10705-020-10098-2. Weiner J. Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Elsevier GmbH. 2004; 6(4):207-215. doi:10.1078/1433-8319-00083. Yao T, Liu X, Wang N. Amplitude of climate change in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin. 2000; 45(1): 98–106. doi:10.1007/BF02886087. Zimmermann B, Zeddies J. Productivity development in sugar beet production and economic evaluation of progress in breeding. Agrarwirtschaft. 2000; 49:195–205. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.302539. Zimmermann H. Water consumption of sugar beet on diluvial soil. Archiv für Acker und Pflanzenbau und Bodenkunde. 1974; 18(11):825–840. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 595 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 376 |
||