INFLUENCE OF WATER STRESS ON QUALITY, YIELD AND PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS OF SOME SUGAR BEET VARIETIES

INFLUENCE OF WATER STRESS ON QUALITY,
YIELD AND PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS OF SOME
SUGAR BEET VARIETIES
Abu-Ellail, F.F.B.* ; I.S.H. El-Gamal ; S. M.I. Bachoosh
and N.K. El- Safy
Sugar Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, 12619 Giza, Egypt
*Email – farrag_abuellail@yahoo.com
Key Words: Antioxidant activity, Growth, Yield, Sugar beet (Beta
vulgaris L.), Water stress.
ABSTRACT
Water stress is considered as one of the major factors responsible for
reducing sugar beet crop productivity. A field trial was conducted at Sidi
Salem district private farm (31° 07' N latitude, 30° 05'E longitude), Kafr El-
Sheikh governorate, north Nile Delta, Egypt, for two successive seasons at
2018-2019 and 2019-2020, to find out the effects of water stress treatments
(2, 3 and 4 weeks of irrigation intervals) on the vegetative growth, and juice
quality of five sugar beet varieties, which were three multigerm (Marwa-
KWS, Farida, and Nabila), and two monogram (Amaldi and Xanada).
Treatments were conducted in a split-plot design with three replicates. The
most important results obtained showed that delayed irrigation intervals (4
weeks) led to a marked decrease in, root diameter, root weight, root yield in
both seasons. Meanwhile, increase root length, sucrose%, extractable
sugar%, and sugar yield in both seasons. The drought-tolerant variety
(Marwa-KWS) showed significant differences compared to the control.
However, drought-sensitive variety (Nabila) was markedly affected even at
the water stress (4 weeks). Results indicated that varieties (Marwa KWS,
Farida, and Amaldi) appeared the best performance under the longest
irrigation intervals (4 weeks) for root and sugar yields and their components.
chlorophyll a and b, carotenoids, significantly decreased with delay
irrigating days, meantime increase antioxidant enzymes under stress
conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) is considered the most important sugar
crop for sugar production in Egypt. Sugar beet plays a prominent role in
sugar production, about 57.7% of the local sugar production, which
amounted to 1.25 million tons, is produced from sugar beet, which is
considered the first sugar crop in Egypt (Sugar Crops Council Report,
2020). It is an important crop that helps in establishing integrated
agricultural-industrial societies, especially in the newly reclaimed areas, and
contributes to many industries such as the sugar industry, and highly-value
animal feed (Moliszewska et al., 2016). Sugar beet is deemed to be an
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 35-50
important sugar crop, and improving its productivity is an urgent demand to
meet the consumption of the ever-growing population.
Water is scarce in Egypt which has to depend on River Nile as well
as water stress effect is highly influenced by the period, continuity, and
period of lack of time. Egypt is one of the most vulnerable countries to the
potential impacts and risks of drought stress that constringe the production
of crops and altered Food Security. Water stress in Egypt is expected to
further increase in the future as a result of rapid population growth, rising
temperatures, and increasing water consumption in Egypt and other Nile
basin countries, especially the Ethiopian dam on the Blue Nile. If not
properly dealt with, growing water scarcity will put severe strains on
Egypt’s economy and make the country more vulnerable to renewed food
scarcity. Drought is one of the most important growth restricting
environmental factors for crop species in arid and semi-arid regions of the
world as well as crop losses resulting from abiotic stresses such as drought
or salinity can reduce crop yield by as much as 50% (Chaves and Oliveira
2004). Climate changes largely exacerbate this situation due to the
increasing incidence of more extreme climate events. Lack of water can
inhibit the growth and development of plants, mainly by decreasing
photosynthesis, leaf turgor, and transpiration rates (Tahi et al., 2007). Plants
have evolved a series of adaptive mechanisms to maintain cellular optimal
environment for ensuring the normal growth of plants under drought stress
(Ludlow and Muchow 1990). The increasing threat of drought stress is
already having a substantial impact on agricultural production worldwide as
water stress causes significant yield losses with great risks for future global
food security. The susceptibility to water stress in sugar beet varieties varies
with the stages of plant development, water stress affecting to a certain
extent all growth and productivity traits (Abu-Ellail and El- Mansoub,
2020). Drought tolerance depends on varieties and genotype variances, with
abundant inter-and intra-specific variations (Barnabas et al., 2008). The
aims of this research were to study the effect of water stress on some
physiological traits, yield, and quality of five sugar beet varieties, and their
responses to water stress.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A field trial was conducted at Sidi Salem district private farm
(31° 07' N latitude, 30° 05'E longitude), Kafr El-Sheikh governorate,
North Nile Delta, Egypt in two successive seasons of 2018-2019 and
2019-2020. The treatments included two types of sugar beet varieties
(Marwa-KWS, Farida, and Nabila) as a multigerm, and (Amaldi and
Xanada) as a monogram and three irrigation intervals (control unstressed
2 weeks, 3 weeks, and 4 weeks) to study the effects of water stress on
growth, physiological traits, yield and quality of sugar beet varieties
under clay soil conditions. The experiment design was a split plot design
36 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
with three replications. The irrigation intervals were assigned in the main
plot while sugar beet varieties distributed randomly in the sub plots. Each
experimental basic unit included 6 rows, 60 cm apart, and 3.5 m long, (21
m2). Sowing date was on August 28th and 31th in the first and the second
seasons, respectively. After 40 days from sowing seedlings were thinned
to one plant/hill. Nitrogen fertilizer level at the rate of 100 kg N/fed in
the form of ammonium nitrate (33.5%) was applied in two equal
portions, the first was applied after thinning and the other was applied a
month after the first application. The fertilizers, surface irrigation and all
other agronomic practices were applied as recommended. Phosphorus
fertilizer level at the rate of 45 kg P2O5/fed in the form of Calcium
superphosphate (15.5% P2O5) was added during land preparation.
Potassium fertilizer rate of 36 kg K2O/fed in the form of potassium
sulfate (48% K2O) was applied with the second dos of nitrogen fertilizer.
Other cultural practices were carried out as recommend by Sugar Crop
Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre. The physical and
chemical analysis of the experimental soil, are given in Table (1),
according to the method of Richards (1954).
Table (1): Physical and chemical analysis of the experimental sites of
the two seasons.
Physical analysis 2018/2019 2019/2020
Sand% 21.68 20.32
Silt% 25.74 23.99
Clay% 52.58 55.69
Texture class Clay Clay
Chemical analysis
pH (1:2.5) 7.30 7.00
EC(m.mhos/cm) 2.18 2.00
Organic matter % 1.30 2.10
Available N ppm 17.00 16.00
Available P ppm 9.30 9.20
Available K ppm 275.74 252.54
Soluble anions (meq/L)
SO4 - 5.06 6.87
CO3- 2.00 2.14
HCO3 - 3.43 3.19
Cl - 11.31 8.60
Soluble cations (meq/L)
Ca++ 2.17 3.65
Mg++ 8.74 7.12
Na+ 10.34 9.29
K+ 0.56 0.64
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 37
At harvest time (200 days from sowing) ten plants from each sub
plot were randomly taken for different measurements for each treatment.
The following characters were determined:
1. Root length. 2. Root diameter. 3. Root fresh weight (g).
4. Sucrose percentage was determined according to Le-Docte (1927).
5. Extractable white sugar percentage was determined according to
Reinefeld et al., (1974).
6. Sugar loss to molasses percentage (SLM%), was determined as
described by Carruthers et al., (1962).
7. Root yield (ton/fed): was calculated based on weight experimental
plot.
8. Sugar yield (ton/fed.): was determined according to the method
described by McGinnus (1971), sugar yield = root yield (ton/fed) x
extractable sugar %.
9. Drought susceptibility index (DSI) of root and sugar yields:
It was calculated for each sugar beet variety at harvest time according
to the method of Fischer and Maurer (1978) as follows:
SSI= .
Where: Yd (mean yield for a variety in stress environment), Yw
(mean yield for a variety in normal environment), D (environmental
stress intensity) Sugar beet varieties with "DSI" value of 1.0 or more
than one are susceptible to drought, while those with values less than
1.0 are less susceptible (tolerant).
10. Decrease percentage of root and sugar yields (ton/fed):
It was calculated for each sugar beet variety at harvest time according
to the method of Abu-Ellail et al., (2019) as follows:
1. D1-D2/D1%, 2. D1-D3/D1%
Where: D1 (mean yield for a variety in normal irrigation intervals),
D2 (mean yield for a variety in stress environment 3 weeks), D3
(stress environment 4 weeks’ intervals).
11. Photosynthetic pigments:
Chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids were calorimetrically determined
in the leaves of sugar beet plants at 120 days after thinning according to
methods described by Wettstein (1957) and calculated as mg/g fresh
weight.
12. Antioxidant Enzyme Activities:
Chemical analyses were carried out on the samples of leaves and
roots during the two successive seasons.
38 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
1. Activity of catalase (CAT) was determined, according to Aebi, 1984.
2. Peroxidase (POX) activity was directly determined according to a
typical procedure proposed by Hammer Schmidt et al., 1982.
Statistical analysis
Data collected was statistically analyzed according to Gomez and
Gomez (1984) by using (SAS) computer software package. Revised
L.S.D at 5% level was used to compare the means.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Root yield and it is components
Results in Table (2) showed that water stress from 2 to 4 weeks was
accompanied by substantial significantly decreased in root diameter, root
weight and root yield in first season a counted by (3.51cm, 0.33kg and 10.71
ton/fed) corresponding by (2.95 cm, 0.35kg and 12.13 ton/fed) second
season compared to the control. While root length increased under water
stress (4 weeks’ intervals) in first season by (10.28 cm) and (10.05cm) in the
2nd season compared with control (2 week). This finding could be explained
by under the long irrigation intervals of 4 weeks; more water was depleted
from the lower depths due to the lack of the available water in the upper
layer. So roots tracing behind soil water within the sub soil layer. These
results are in general agreement with those obtained by Ibrahim et al.,
(2002) who found that root grow longer under moisture stress. Also, Emara
(1990) mentioned that the highest root length was obtained by irrigation
every 28 days, while the lowest root length was every 14 days.
Results in Table 2 showed significant differences between sugar
beet varieties. The highest mean values of root diameter, root weight and
root yield recorded by variety (Marwa-KWS) followed by variety
(Farida) in first and second season compared by the mean values of the
previous mention characters for Nabila, Xanada and Amaldi varieties.
This results may be due to the differences between the studied varieties
in gene expressions, these results are in agreement with that founded by
Abu-Ellail and El- Mansoub (2020) who reported that delay irrigation
days caused significant decreases in sugar beet plant growth criteria (root
diameter, root weight, and root yield). Meanwhile, increased root length
compared to control plants.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 39
Table (2): The effect of different irrigation intervals on root length, diameter, weight and root yield of five
sugar beet varieties during two successive 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 seasons.
Varieties 1st Season 2018/2019
Root length (cm) Root diameter (cm) Root weight (kg) Root yield (ton/fed)
Irrigation intervals (weeks) Irrigation intervals (weeks) Irrigation intervals (weeks)
Irrigation intervals (weeks)
2 3 4 Mean 2 3 4 Mean
2 3 4 Mean 2 3 4 Mean
Marwa
KWS
41.62 42.48 45.61 43.24 15.72 13.95 11.86 13.84 1.24 1.00 0.78 1.01 28.98 23.86 21.14 24.66
Nabila 24.72 31.00 42.71 32.81 13.36 11.68 10.02 11.69 0.84 0.71 0.53 0.69 27.42 18.82 15.63 20.62
Farida 31.79 36.29 36.91 35.00 15.16 13.48 11.20 13.28 1.09 0.92 0.72 0.91 29.13 22.59 18.59 23.44
Xanada 31.55 36.58 43.75 37.29 14.15 13.64 11.25 13.01 0.98 0.88 0.75 0.87 27.07 20.28 15.92 21.09
Amaldi 31.47 39.13 43.57 38.06 14.33 13.35 10.88 12.85 0.84 0.75 0.55 0.71 28.92 18.47 16.67 21.35
Mean 32.23 37.10 42.51 37.28 14.54 13.22 11.04 12.94 1.00 0.85 0.67 0.84 28.30 20.80 17.59 22.23
2nd Season 2019/2020
Marwa
KWS
33.95 36.74 45.49 38.73 15.52 14.03 12.58 14.04 1.28 1.08 0.93 1.10 30.49 24.28 19.98 24.92
Nabila 22.53 27.46 33.84 27.94 14.08 13.01 12.06 13.05 0.85 0.78 0.62 0.75 27.57 18.86 15.77 20.73
Farida 23.48 28.84 36.73 29.68 15.34 13.51 11.89 13.58 1.23 0.98 0.86 1.02 29.98 20.53 16.47 22.33
Xanada 28.85 30.28 31.28 30.14 15.22 14.92 12.17 14.10 1.06 0.91 0.77 0.91 28.36 21.55 16.19 22.03
Amaldi 29.12 34.31 46.05 36.49 14.85 13.88 11.57 13.43 1.18 0.84 0.66 0.89 29.38 19.79 16.76 21.98
Mean 28.63 30.49 38.68 32.60 15.00 13.87 12.05 13.64 1.12 0.92 0.77 0.94 29.16 21.00 17.03 22.40
L.S.D 5% 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
Stress (S) 0.72*
0.51*
0.59*
0.14*
0.18** 0.11* 0.28** 0.30*
Variety (V) 0.31*
0.28*
0.25*
0.13*
0.10** 0.08* 0.27** 0.18*
SXV 0.18* 0.43* 0.21* 0.46* 0.19** 0.09* 0.53** 0.61*
40 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Sugar yield and it is components
Sucrose%, extractable sugar% and sugar yield ton/fed as affected
by irrigation intervals are given in Table (3). The obtained results show
that increasing the irrigation intervals, sucrose and extractable sugar
percentages significantly increased, however, MLS% decreased. The
longest irrigation intervals had the highest mean values of sucrose and
extractable sugar percentage of sugar beet in first season (16.16 and
13.44 %) corresponding (16.68 and 12.68 %) in the second season,
meanwhile, the smallest MLS%, was recoded (1.22 and 1.66%) and the
smallest mean values of sugar yield ton/fed (2.31 and 2.24 ton/fed) in the
first and second season, respectively. This means that extending
irrigation intervals from 2 to 4 weeks, increased juice quality values.
Concerning water stress and its effect on sugar yield, it is observed show
from the illustrated data in Table (2) there is a significant reduction in the
values of sugar yield (ton/fed) with the increased irrigation intervals
period. This funding was completely true in both seasons. the observed
decrease in sugar yield may be due to suffering in the balance of water
stress on a physiological process in the plant which affected plant
metabolism consequently affected root yield Table 1, in turn, sugar yield
Table 2. Water stress inhibits the photosynthesis of plants, and thus
reduces growth and development (Gong et al., 2005).
Water stress significantly decrease in sodium (Na+) and
potassium (K+) concentrations was observed in the sugar beet varieties
whereas a reduced MLS%, it led to increase in juice quality (Wu et al.,
2014).
Data in table 3 indicated a significant difference in juice quality
traits and the highest mean values of sucrose and extractable sugar
percentages recorded by variety Amaldi, while the highest mean values
of sugar yield in first and second season registered by Marwa-KWS (3.00
and 3.06 ton/fed, respectively). With respect to the interaction effect
between water stress and the examined varieties, it could be noticed that
the juice quality and sugar yield statistically affected by this interaction.
The highest sucrose% and extractable sugar % was recorded with
Marwa-kws variety with water stress of 4 weeks. However, the irrigation
intervals, i.e every 2 weeks produced the highest sugar yield with variety
Marwa-kws. These results were highly true in both seasons.it could be
noted that root yield was the most effective one on sugar yield. Gizem
and Hamit, (2020) and Abu-Ellail and ElMansoub (2020) reported a
significant difference between the tested sugar beet varieties under water
stress. White sugar content increased in drought condition about 58.86%
in compare to normal condition (Habibi, 2011). Moderate moisture stress
just before harvest tends to increase sugar percentage without limited
sugar yield per acre (Kirda, 2002 and Abu-Ellail et al.,2019).
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 41
Table (3): The Effect of different irrigation intervals on sucrose, sugar extractable, sugar loss to molasses
(MLS) percentages and sugar yield of five sugar beet varieties during two successive seasons
2018/2019 and 2019/2020.
Varieties 1st Season 2018/2019
Sucrose% Extractable sugar% SLM% Sugar yield (ton/fed)
Irrigation intervals (weeks) Irrigation intervals (weeks) Irrigation intervals (weeks) Irrigation intervals (weeks)
2 3 4 Mean 2 3 4 Mean 2 3 4 Mean 2 3 4 Mean
Marwa KWS 14.41 15.22 16.38 15.34 10.82 12.83 13.21 12.29 2.17 1.69 1.12 1.66 3.14 3.06 2.79 3.00
Nabila 14.52 14.71 15.75 14.99 10.38 11.59 12.82 11.60 1.66 1.54 1.22 1.47 3.02 2.62 2.38 2.68
Farida 14.89 14.94 15.86 15.23 11.35 12.02 13.31 12.23 1.72 1.57 1.27 1.52 3.11 2.26 2.08 2.48
Xanada 14.49 15.31 16.07 15.29 10.54 12.37 13.34 12.08 1.81 1.49 1.23 1.51 2.85 2.51 2.12 2.50
Amaldi 15.34 15.63 16.73 15.90 10.61 13.28 13.14 12.34 1.77 1.53 1.27 1.52 3.07 2.45 2.19 2.57
Mean 14.73 15.16 16.16 15.35 10.74 12.42 13.16 12.11 1.83 1.56 1.22 1.54 3.04 2.58 2.31 2.64
2nd Season 2019/2020
Marwa KWS 15.53 15.92 17.23 16.23 11.01 13.56 12.73 12.43 2.34 2.07 1.92 2.11 3.36 3.29 2.54 3.06
Nabila 14.45 14.68 15.65 14.93 10.84 11.34 13.21 11.80 1.93 1.75 1.67 1.78 3.07 2.44 2.14 2.55
Farida 14.87 15.94 16.57 15.79 10.24 12.23 13.25 11.91 1.86 1.79 1.44 1.70 2.82 2.31 2.09 2.41
Xanada 14.94 15.11 16.64 15.56 10.98 13.59 13.44 12.67 1.91 1.75 1.65 1.77 3.29 2.79 2.21 2.77
Amaldi 15.62 16.54 17.32 16.49 11.16 12.66 13.07 12.30 1.84 1.69 1.64 1.72 3.28 2.51 2.19 2.66
Mean 15.08 15.64 16.68 15.80 10.85 12.68 13.14 12.22 1.98 1.81 1.66 1.82 3.16 2.67 2.24 2.69
L.S.D 5%
Stress (S) 0.41** 0.19* 0.34* 0.51* 0.02* 0.10* 0.21* 0.18**
Variety (V) 0.06* 0.05* 0.03* 0.05* 0.07* 0.03* 0.03* 0.02*
SXV 0.14* 0.11* 0.09 0.10* NS NS 0.23* 0.19*
42 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Photosynthetic pigments
The contents of photosynthetically active pigments (chlorophyll a,
chlorophyll b and carotenoids), which estimated in leaves of sugar beet plant
at vegetative stages are presented in (Fig. 1). Results showed the effect of
delay irrigation intervals to 4-weeks (water stress) significantly decreased
chlorophyll A (2.42 and 2.91 mg/g.f.w), chlorophyll B (1.09 and 1.47
mg/g.f.w) and carotenoids content (14.95 and 25.20 mg/g.f.w) in first and
second season respectively. Chlorophyll breakdown under stress is a typical
response for limiting photo-inhibition, which decreases leaf chlorophyll
accumulation under stress (Niazi et al., 2004). The percentages of decreases
in chlorphell A, chlorphell B and carotenoids in both seasons, as compared
with unstressed control condations.
Fig 1. Photosynthetic pigments of five sugar beet varieties as grown under
water stress.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 43
Sugar beet variety (Marwa-KWS) recorded the highest values of
chlorophyll A (3.04 and 3.52 mg/g.f.w), chlorophy ll b (1.22 and 1.76
mg/g.f.w) and carotenoids (1.13 and 0.94 mg/g.f.w) in first and second
season, respectively. while variety (Nabila) registered the lowest values
under water stress (4 weeks’ intervals). These reductions in chlorphell A
and B and carotenoids are mainly due to the reduction in photosynthetic
pigments, that led to decrease in growth parameters of sugar beet
varieties. Xiang et al., (2013) mentioned that the drought stress led to a
significant decrease and degradation in chlorophyll a and b as well as
total chlorophyll content. The sugar yield is the product of the total
amount of dry matter accumulated in the plant during growth, the
percentage allocated to the storage root, and the proportion of
accumulated dry matter (Bell et al., 1996).
Antioxidant Enzyme Activities
Results showed significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) for Catalase
(CAT) and Peroxidase (POD) activities under irrigation intervals (Fig. 2).
The POD and CAT activity increased sharply (2.24 and 0.44,
respectively) and (5.31 and 0.69) in first and second season respectively
in the leaves with delay irrigation intervals. These increases may help in
turgor up keeping and cellular membrane stabilization (Hosseini et al.,
2014). Many studies have shown that water stress, significantly increased
the peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT), that was the major
antioxidant enzymes (Bowler et al., 1992 and Wei et al., 2015).
The stress-induced activity of the POD and CAT in the leaves
was obviously different for the sugar beet varieties. Sugar beet variety
(Marwa KWS) recorded the highest percentage of CAT and POD (2.42
and 0.52%) and (5.62 and 0.69%) in first and second season,
respectively. while variety (Xanada) registered the lowest values under
water stress. Overall, activities of all the antioxidant enzymes increased
under water stress in all the varieties. Significant differences (P ≤ 0.01)
observed for activity levels of CAT and POD in irrigation × varieties
interactions in both years. These results are in agreement with findings of
Habibi et al., (2011) and Tohidi-Moghaddam et al., (2009) who,
showed the activities of antioxidant enzymes significantly changed after
water treatment.
44 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Fig 2. Antioxidant enzyme activities of five sugar beet varieties as
grown under water stress.
Drought susceptibility of sugar beet varieties
Yield components are the most important agronomic traits in
selecting for varieties tolerant to water stress, in addition, water stress (4
weeks’ intervals) reduced root and sugar yields by reducing the root
weight/plant, root diameter, sucrose% and extractable sugar% compare
results with performance under normal irrigation intervals (2 weeks).
Data in Table 4 showed that two varieties had a drought susceptibility
index (DSI) based on root and sugar yields less than one and were
relatively tolerant to drought stress in both season. DSI of root and sugar
yields (ton/fed) indicated that the varieties Marwa-KWS, and Farida were
tolerant to water stress, which had DSI values less than one. The most
sensitive varieties Amaldi and Nabila were had drought susceptibility
index (DSI) more than unity. Root yield was the most affected than
sugar yield, and the decrease percentage of root and sugar yields ranged
from 27.05 and 11.15 % for variety (Marwa-KWS) to the highest values
43.00 and 33.12% for variety (Nabila and Farida, respectively) in first
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 45
season. While in the second season it ranged from 34.47 and 24.40 % for
variety (Marwa-KWS) to the highest values 42.95 and 33.23% for variety
(Amaldi). Root and sugar yields confirmed that it is important to use
these traits as useful selection criteria for screening the drought tolerance,
most importantly, both traits can be considered for screening sugar beet
varieties at high water stress. Abu El-lail et al., (2019) found that the
selection of more tolerant varieties with the least DSI values may be a
suitable method under stress. Sadeghian et al., (2000) found that under
severe drought stress, root yield, sugar yield, and white sugar yield
decreased to 59%, 59%, and 60%, respectively, of the values obtained
with adequate water; whereas, sugar content increased 6%.
Table (4): The decrease percentage and drought susceptibility index
(SSI) of root and sugar yields (ton/fed) of five sugar beet
as affected by water stress levels during two seasons
2018/2019 and 2019/2020.
Varieties
Root yield (ton/fed) Sugar yield (ton/fed)
DSI
Decrease percentage
DSI
Decrease percentage
D1-D2/D1% D1-D3/D1% D1-
D2/D1%
D1-
D3/D1%
Season 2018/2019
Marwa
KWS
0.73 17.67 27.05 0.48 2.55 11.15
Nabila 1.13 31.36 43.00 1.38 13.25 21.19
Farida 0.95 22.45 36.18 0.88 27.33 33.12
Xanada 1.08 25.08 41.19 1.07 11.93 25.61
Amaldi 1.11 36.13 42.36 1.19 20.20 28.66
Mean 1.00±0.02 26.50±0.33 37.84±0.55 1.00±0.04 15.13±0.64 24.01±0.71
Season 2019/2020
Marwa
KWS
0.74 20.37 34.47 0.79 2.08 24.40
Nabila 1.13 31.59 42.80 1.16 20.52 30.29
Farida 0.89 31.52 45.06 0.81 18.09 25.89
Xanada 1.11 24.01 42.91 1.16
15.20 32.83
Amaldi 1.13 32.64 42.95 1.08 23.48 33.23
Mean 1.00±0.04 27.98±0.75 41.60±0.88 1.00±0.03 15.51±0.74 29.11±0.68
CONCLUSION
The results concluded that water stress significantly influenced
the root yield and sugar yield. The studied varieties, as well, showed
different reactions to water stress. There are acceptable varieties to be
introduced to the farmers for cultivation under deficit water conditions.
But, further research in this regard can provide more comprehensive
results. The varieties Marwa and Farida had DSI less than unity and
performed the best in relation to root yield and sugar yield. Hence, these
varieties can be cultivated as commercial varieties in districts of deficit
water stress.
46 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
REFERENCE
Abu-Ellail, F.F.B. ; K.A. Sadek and H.M.Y. El-Bakary (2019). Broadsense
heritability and performance of ten sugar beet varieties for
growth, yield and juice quality under different soil salinity
levels. Bull. Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ., 70:327-339.
Abu-Ellail, F. F.B. and M. M. A. El-Mansoub (2020). Impact of water
stress on growth, productivity and powdery Mildew disease of
ten sugar beet varieties. Alexandria Science Exchange J.,
41:(2)165-179.
Aebi, H. (1984). Catalase in vitro. Methods Enzymol. 105:121-126.
Barnabas, B. ; K. Jager and A. Feher (2008). The effect of drought and
heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell
Environ, 31(1): 11-38.
Bell, C.I. ; G.F.J. Milford and R.A. Leigh (1996). Sugar beet. In:
Zamski E., Schaffer A.A. (eds.): Photoassimilate distribution in
plants and crops. Source-sink relationships. Marcel Dekker Inc.,
USA, New York, Pp: 691–707.
Bowler, C. ; M.V. Montagu and D. Inze )1992(. Superoxide dismutase
and stress tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.,
43:83-116.
Carruthers, A. ; J. F. T. Oldifield and H. J. Teague (1962).
Assessment of beet quality. Paper presented to the 15th Annual
Technical Conference, Brtish Sugar Corporation Ltd. 28 PP.
Chaves, M.M. and M.M. Oliveira (2004). Mechanisms underlying
plant resilience to water deficits: Prospects for water-saving
agriculture. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55: 2365–2384.
El-Hassanin, A.S. ; S.M.R Moustafa ; N. Shafika ; A.M. Khalifa and
M. Ibrahim (2016). Effect of foliar application with humic acid
substances under nitrogen fertilization levels on quality and
yields of sugar beet plant. Journal of Current Microbiology and
Applied Sciences, 5(11): 668-680.
Emara, S.M. (1990). Effect of irrigation intervals, growth regulars and
NK fertilizer on yield and quality of sugar beet. M.Sc. Thesis,
Fac. Agric, Mansoura Univ., Egypt .
Enan, S.A.A.M.; E.F.A Aly and A.I. Badr (2016). Effect of humic acid
and potassium on yield and quality of some sugar beet varieties
in sandy soil. Journal of Plant Production Mansoura University,
7(2): 289- 297.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 47
Fischer, R. and R. Maurer (1978). Drought Resistance in Spring Wheat
Cultivars. I. Grain Yield Responses. Australian Journal of
Agricultural Research, 29: 897-912.
Gizem, A.K.S.U. and A.L.T.A.Y. Hamit (2020). The effects of
potassium application on drought stress in sugar beet: PART I.
Sugar beet quality components. Journal of Scientific
Perspectives, 4(2): 157-168.
Gomez, K.A. and A.A. Gomez (1984). Statistical Procedures for
Agriculture Research. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York,
USA.
Gong, H.J. ; X.Y. Zhu ; K.M. Chen ; S.M. Wang and C.L. Zhang
)2005(. Silicon alleviates oxidative damage of wheat plants in
pots under drought. Plant Sci., 169:313–321.
Habibi, D. )2011). Evaluation of antioxidant enzymes activity in sugar
beet genotypes under drought stress, Magnt Research Report, 2
(3): 225-238.
Hammer Schmidt, R.; E.M. Nuckles and J. Kuć (1982). Association
of enhanced peroxidase activity with induced systemic
resistance of cucumber to Colletotrichum lagenarium.
Physiological Plant Pathology,20(1): 73-76, IN9-IN10, 77-82
Hosseini, S.M. ; T. Hasanloo and S. Mohammadi (2014).
Physiological characteristics, antioxidant enzyme activities, and
gene expression in 2 spring canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars
under drought stress conditions. Turkish Journal Agricultural.
Forestry, 38:1–8.
Ibrahim, M.M. ; M.R. Khalifa ; M.A. Korim ; F.I. Zein and E.H.
Omer (2002). 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, 42(1): 87-102.
Kirda, C. )2002(. Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant Growth
stages showing water stress tolerance. Deficit irrigation
practices. Water Report, 22. p.8.
Le-Docte (1927). Commercial determination of sugar beet in the beet
root using the sacks. Le-Docte process. Int. Sugar. J., 29: 488-
492.
Ludlow, M.M. and R.C. Muchow (1990). A critical evaluation of traits
for improving crop yields in water-limited environments.
Advance in Agronomy, 43: 107–153.
48 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
McGinnus, R.A. (1971). Sugar Beet Technology 2nd ed. Sugar Beet
Development Foundation, fort collins, coloimbia, USA.
Moliszewska, E. ; M. Nabrdalik and P.J. Tubercle (2016). Disease
(Xanthomonas beticola) and other gall-malformed diseases of
sugar beet roots: a review. Journal of Plant Diseases and
Protection, 123 (5): 197-203.
Niazi, B.H. ; M. Athar and J. Rozema (2004). Salt Tolerance in Fodder
Beet and Sea Beet: Analysis of Biochemical Relation. Bulgarian
Journal of Plant Physiology 30: 78-88.
Reinefeld, E.; A. Emmerich; Winner and U. Beiss (1974). For the prediction
of molasses sugar extraction analgesics. Zucke., 27:2-12.
Sadeghian, S.Y. ; H. Fazli ; R. Mohammadian ; D. F. Taleghani and
M. Mesbah (2000). Genetic Variation for Drought Stress in
Sugarbeet. Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 37 (3):55-77.
Tahi, H. ; S. Wahbi ; R. Wakrim ; B. Aganchich ; R. Serraj and M.
Centritto (2007). Water relations, photosynthesis, growth and
water-use efficiency in tomato plants subjected to partial root
zone drying and regulated deficit irrigation. Plant Bio systems –
An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant
Biology: Official Journal of the Societa Botanica Italiana, 141:
265–274.
Tohidi-Moghadam, H.R. ; A.H. Shirani-Rad ; G. Nour-Mohammadi
; D. Habibi and M. Mashhadi-Akbar-Boojar (2009). Effect of
Super Absorbent Application on Antioxidant Enzyme Activities
in Canola (Brassica napus L.) Cultivars under Water Stress
Conditions. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological
Sciences, 4 (3): 215-223,
Wei, P. ; Y. Yang ; F. Wang and H. Chen )2015(. Effects of Drought
Stress on the Antioxidant Systems in Three Species of
Diospyros L. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol., 56(5):597-605.
Wettstein, D. (1957). Chlorophyll-lethal and the submicroscopic change
in form of the plastids. Exptl. Cell Res., 12: 427-433.
Wu, G.Q. ; C.M. Wang ; Y.Y. Su ; J. J. Zhang ; R.J. Feng and N.
Liang (2014). Assessment of drought tolerance in seedlings of
sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivars using inorganic and
organic solutes accumulation criteria. Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, 60: 565–576 .
Xiang, D.B. ; L.X. Peng ; J.L. Zhao ; L. Zou ; G. Zhao and C. Song
(2013). Effect of drought stress on yield, chlorophyll contents
and photosynthesis in tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum
tataricum). Food, Agriculture and Environment (JFAE), 11(3-
4):1358–1363.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 49
تأثير الإجهاد المائي عمى الجودة والإنتاجية والصفات الفسيولوجية لبعض
أصناف بنجر السکر
ف ا رج فرغل برعى أبو الميل ، اب ا رهيم سميمان هلال الجمل ، سعيد مصطفى اب ا رهيم بقوش
و نادية کامل الصافي
معهد بحوث المحاصيل السکرية ، مرکز البحوث الز ا رعية ، 21621 الجيزة ، مصر
يعتبر الإجهاد المائي أحد العوامل الرئيسية المسؤولة عن تقميل إنتاجية محصول بنجر
70 'شمالاً ° السکر. أجريت تجربة ميدانية بمزرعة خاصة بمديرية سيدي سالم )خط عرض 12
70 ' شرقاً( بمحافظة کفر الشيخ شمال دلتا النيل بمصر لموسمين متتاليين في ° وخط طول 17
4 ، 1 ، 1717 ، لمعرفة تأثير معاملات الإجهاد المائي ) 1 - 1721-1722 و 1721
أسابيع من فت ا رت الري( عمى النمو الخضري ، وجودة العصير لخمسة أصناف من بنجر السکر
، ثلاثة أنواع متعددة الجنين )مروة ، وفريدة ، ونبيمة( ، واثنان أحادية الجنين ) إکساندا و
أممدي (.أجريت المعاملات في تصميم القطعة المنشقة مرة واحدة بثلاث مکر ا رت. أظهرت أهم
النتائج التي تم الحصول عميها أن فت ا رت الري المتأخرة ) 4 أسابيع( أدت إلى انخفاض ممحوظ
في قطر الجذر ووزن الجذر ومحصول الجذر في کلا الموسمين. زيادة طول الجذر ونسبة
السکروز ونسبة السکر القابل للاستخلاص ومحصول السکر في الموسمين. أظهر الصنف
)مروة( تحمل لمجفاف وفروق معنوية. أما الصنف الحساس لمجفاف )نبيمة( فقد تأثر بشکل
ممحوظ حتى مع الإجهاد المائي ) 4 أسابيع(. أشارت النتائج إلى أن أصناف )مروة ، وفريدة ،
وأممدي( ظهرت أفضل أداء تحت فت ا رت الري الأطول ) 4 أسابيع( لمحصول الجذور والسکر
ومکوناتهما. الکموروفيل أ ، ب ، الکاروتينات ، انخفض بشکل ممحوظ مع تأخير أيام الري ، في
هذه الأثناء يزيد من إنزيمات مضادات الأکسدة تحت ظروف الإجهاد.
50 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021