مطالعه برخی مؤلفه‌های فیزیولوژیکی رشد در ارقام مختلف چغندرقند (Beta vulgaris L.)

نوع مقاله : کامل علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد چالوس، چالوس، ایران.

2 دانشیار دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد چالوس، چالوس، ایران.

3 دانشیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند- سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران

4 استادیار دانشکده کشاورزی دانگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد چالوس، چالوس، ایران.

5 استادیار گروه زراعت دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد چالوس، چالوس، ایران.

چکیده

مؤلفه‌های فیزیولوژیکی رشد رقم‌های ایرانی و خارجی چغندرقند طی دو سال زراعی 1398 و 1399 در ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی مطهری (کمال‌شهر کرج) مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. تعداد 10 رقم ایرانی و خارجی چغندرقند در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار کشت شدند. نتایج نشان داد که میزان تولید ماده خشک‌ کل در بین رقم‌های ایرانی و خارجی تفاوتی نشان نداد اما، میانگین نسبت وزن خشک ریشه به اندام‌هوایی (R/S) در رقم‌های خارجی (1/496) به‌نحو معنی‌داری معادل 18درصد بیش از رقم‌های ایرانی (1/268) شد. با توجه به این موضوع که رقم‌های ایرانی بر اساس اندازه‌گیری نسبت وزن برگ (LWR)، معادل 5/6 درصد پُربرگ‌تر از رقم‌های خارجی بودند، حداکثر شاخص سطح‌برگ رقم‌های ایرانی (2/66) نسبت به رقم‌های خارجی (2/33) بیشتر بود اما، کارآیی سطح‌برگ در فتوسنتز (NAR) در رقم‌های خارجی (83/17 گرم در مترمربع در روز) معادل 8/18 درصد بیش از رقم‌های ایرانی (15/01 گرم در مترمربع در روز) بود. از همین رو، به‌طور میانگین تولید هر گرم ماده‌‌خشک در رقم‌های خارجی و ایرانی نیازمند 18/7 و 22/1 سانتی‌مترمربع سطح‌برگ بود و نشان داد که تولید هر گرم ماده‌خشک در رقم‌های خارجی به15/7 درصد سطح‌برگ کمتری نسبت به رقم‌های ایرانی نیاز دارد. در نهایت، در این مطالعه از مؤلفه نسبت سطح برگ برای وزن خشک ریشه (RtLAR) جهت نشان دادن کارآیی سطح‌برگ برای تولید ماده‌خشک ریشه استفاده شد. بر همین اساس، میانگین سطح‌برگ موردنیاز برای تولید هر گرم ماده‌خشک ریشه در رقم‌های خارجی و ایرانی به‌ترتیب معادل 46/43 و 57/51 سانتی‌مترمربع برآورد شد. در مجموع، رقم‌های ایرانی با وجود تولید ماده‌خشک مشابه با رقم‌های خارجی، به‌دلیل ضعف در هدایت مواد ساخته‌شده به منبع اقتصادی (ریشه) امکان دستیابی به عملکرد مشابه وجود ندارد که اصلاح آن مستلزم بهبود نسبت R/S در رقم‌های ایرانی از طریق کاهش تولید اندام‌های هوایی و بهبود میزان آسیمیلاسیون در واحد سطح‌برگ است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Study of some physiological growth parameters in different sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivars

نویسندگان [English]

  • A.R. Berimavandi 1
  • M. Sam Daliri 2
  • S. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati 3
  • A.B. Mousavi 4
  • M. Mobaleghi 5
1 PhD student of Department of Agronomy, Chalous Branch, Islamic Azad University, Chalous, Iran.
2 Associate professor of Department of Agronomy, Chalous Branch, Islamic Azad University, Chalous, Iran.
3 Associate Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Agricultural Research Education and Extension, Karaj,Iran
4 Assistant professor of Department of Agronomy, Chalous Branch, Islamic Azad University, Chalous, Iran.
5 Assistant Professor, Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Islamic Azad University, Chalous Branch, Chalous, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Physiological growth parameters in Iranian and foreign sugar beet cultivars were evaluated during the two years of 2019-20 and 2020-21 at Motahari Agricultural Research Station in Kamalabad, Karaj. Ten Iranian and foreign sugar beet cultivars were cultivated in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Results showed that the total dry matter production did not show any difference between Iranian and foreign cultivars, but the average root to shoot ratio in the foreign cultivars (1.496) was significantly greater than that of the Iranian cultivars (1.268) by 18.0%. Since the Iranian cultivars were 5.6% more leafy than the foreign cultivars, the maximum leaf area index of the Iranian cultivars (2.66) was higher than that of the foreign cultivars (2.33), but the net assimilation rate in the foreign cultivars (17.83 g.m-2.d-1) was 18.8% higher than that of the Iranian cultivars (15.01 g.m-2.d-1). Therefore, on average, the production of one gram of dry matter in the foreign and Iranian cultivars required 18.7 and 22.1 cm-2 leaf area, respectively. This means that the production of one gram of dry matter in the foreign cultivars required 15.7% lower leaf area than that of the Iranian cultivars. Finally, in this study, the ratio of leaf area to root dry weight (RtLAR) component was used to show the efficiency of leaf area for root dry matter production. Accordingly, the average leaf area required to produce one gram of root dry matter in foreign and Iranian cultivars was estimated at 43.46 and 57.51 cm2, respectively. In general, despite the production of dry matter similar to foreign cultivars, Iranian cultivars cannot achieve the same yield as the foreign ones due to the weakness in directing the synthesized materials to the economic source (root), which improvement requires changes in R/S ratio through reducing the production of aerial organs and improving the rate of assimilation per leaf area unit.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Growth rate
  • Leaf area
  • Photosynthesis
  • Dry matter

مراجع

Amanullah Jr. Specific leaf area and specific leaf weight in small grain crops wheat, rye, barley, and oats differ at various growth stages and NPK source. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2015; 38:1694–1708. doi:10.1080/01904167.2015.1017051
Ashraf Mansouri GR, Bahrani MJ, Jokar L. Effect of planting date and plant density on growth and yield of two sugar beet cultivars in Darab. InSeventh Iranian Congress of Plant Breeding and Crop Production, Seed and Plant Improvement Research Institute, Karaj, Iran 2002. [In Persian]
Bazobandi M. The effect of planting date and nitrogen fertilizer on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of two sugar beet cultivars. Msc. Thesis, Tehran University, Faculty of Agriculture, 1995; pp. 185. [in Persian]
Buzanov NI, Pechenov VA, Okanenko AS. Moisture regime, photosynthesis and yield in polyploid beet. Sakharnaya Svekla, 1971; 12:31-33.
Cai B, Ge J. The effect of nitrogen amount on photosynthetic rate of sugar beet. Nature and Science. 2004; 2(2):60-63.
Clark EA, Loomis RS. Dynamics of leaf growth and development in sugar beets. Journal of the A.S.S.B.T. 1978; 20(2):97-113. doi:10.5274/JSBR.20.2.97.
Clover GR, Smith HG, Azam-Ali SN, Jaggard KW. The effects of drought on sugar beet growth in isolation and in combination with beet yellows virus infection. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 1999; 133(3):251-61. doi:10.1017/S0021859699007005.
Cochec FL, Soreau P. Growth comparison of three beet varieties in terms of sowing date. Sciences Agronomiques Rennes. 1974; pp.129-148.
Day W. A simple model to describe variation between years in the early growth of sugar beet. Field Crops Research. 1986; 14(3):213-220. doi:10.1016/0378-4290(86)90059-6.
Doney DL. Seedling physiology and sugarbeet yield. J.A.S.S.B.T. 1979; 20(4):399-416.
Ebrahimain HR, Jahad-Akbar MR. Investigation of sugar beet growth trend in Isfahan. Final Report, Sugar Beet Seed Institute, 1998; 77/616 (1999-02-22), pp. 43. [In Persian]
Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR, Webb DJ, Thomas TH. Yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and nutrients. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 1999 Jan 25;93(1):39-51. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00106-3.
Parsa S, Koocheki A, Nasiri Mahalati M, Ghaemi AR. Seasonal variation of radiation interception and radiation use efficiency in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 2007 Sep 23;5(2):229-38. doi:10.22067/gsc.v5i2.919. [In Persian]
Gifford RM, Evans LT. Photosynthesis, carbon partitioning, and yield. Annual Review of Plant Physiology. 1981; 32(1): 485-509. doi:10.1146/annurev.pp.32.060181.002413.
Goodman PJ. Physiological analysis of the effects of different soils on sugar beet crops in different years. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1968; 1: 339-57. doi:10.2307/2401565.
Hashemi Dezfuli AH. Crop Physiology Handbook, Shahid Chamran University, 1996; pp. 115. [In Persian]
Hashemi Dezfuli SA, Sharifi H, Gohari J, Alami Saeid Kh. Growth analysis and determination of important quality traits of multigerm sugar beet resistant to bolting in Dezfol region. Proceedings of the 4th Iranian Congress of Crop Production and Plant Breeding; 1999; Isfahan University of Technology, 1999; P. 109. [In Persian]
Heidari AM. Quantitative and qualitative performance of 16 commercial sugar beet cultivars based on multivariate methods in West Azerbaijan region, Miandoab. Msc. Thesis, Uromia University, Faculty of Agriculture, 2003; pp. 215. [In Persian]
Hodanova D. Structure and development of sugar beet canopy. 3. Chlorophyll characteristics. Photosynthetica, 1973; 7(4):338-344.
Hoffmann CM. Importance of canopy closure and dry matter partitioning for yield formation of sugar beet varieties. Field Crops Research, 2019; 236:75–84. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2019.03.013.
Karimi MM, Siddique KH. Crop growth and relative growth rates of old and modern wheat cultivars. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1991;42(1):13-20. doi:10.1071/AR9910013.
Kenter C, Hoffmann CM, Märländer B. Effects of weather variables on sugar beet yield development (Beta vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy. 2006 Jan 1;24(1):62-9. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2005.05.001.
Kerkig P. Effect of plant density on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of autumn sugar beet cultivars in Sistan. Msc. Thesis, Sistan & Blochestan University, Faculty of Agriculture, 2001; pp. 78.
Kolivand M. Study of sugar beet growth pattern in Kermanshah. Journal of Sugar Beet. 1995; 11(1&2):1-19. doi:10.22092/jsb.1996.116524. [In Persian]
Kurosawa K, Saitoh H, Kinoshita T. Yearly fluctuation of yielding characters and the influence of meteorological factors in sugar beet cultivars. Memoirs of the Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University. 1987; 15(4):363-370.
Lambers H, Nagel OW, Van Arendonk JJ. The control of biomass partitioning in plants from ‘‘favourable’’and ‘‘stressful’’environments: a role for gibberellins and cytokinins. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology. 1995; 21(2-3):24-32.
Lauer JG. Sugar beet performance and interactions with planting date, genotype, and harvest date. Agronomy Journal. 1997; 89 (3):469-475. doi:0.3389/fpls.2018.01041.
Launay M, Guerif M. Ability for a model to predict crop production variability at the regional scale: an evaluation for sugar beet. Agronomie, 2003; 23:135-146. doi:10.1051/agro:2002078.
Lindquist JL, Arkebauer TJ, Walters DT, Cassman KG, Dobermann A. Maize radiation use efficiency under optimal growth conditions. Agronomy Journal. 2005; 97:72-78. doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0072.
Mirzaei MR, Abdollahian-Noghabi M. Study of sugar beat growth pattern in Hamedan, Iran. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2012; 27(2):117- 134. doi:0.22092/jsb.2012.662. [In Persian]
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. [In Persian]
Najafinezhad H. Investigation of changes in sugar beet growth parameters in Moghan. Proceedings of the 2nd Iranian Congress of Crop Production and Plant Breeding; 1996; Karaj, Iran. 1995; P. 107. [in Persian]
Öztürk Ö, Topal A, Akınerdem F, Akgün 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 Jan;88(1):141-50. doi:10.1002/jsfa.3061.
Qi A, Kenter C, Hoffmann C, Jaggard KW. The Broom’s Barn sugar beet growth model and its adaptation to soils with varied available water content. European Journal of Agronomy, 2005; 23:108–122. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2004.09.007.
Repka J, Rimar J, Lorencik L. Yield analysis of field crops and the process of yield formation under the conditions of the east Slovak lowlands. 3. Seasonal changes of the photosynthetic productivity of sugar beet. Pol'nohospodarstvo. 1975; 20(2): 93-104.
Richter GM, Jaggard KW, Mitchell RA. Modelling radiation interception and radiation use efficiency for sugar beet under variable climatic stress. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2001 Aug 1;109(1):13-25. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(01)00242-8.
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. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2004.12.004.
Rinaldi M. Variation of specific leaf area for sugar beet depending on sowing date and irrigation. Italian Journal of Agronomy. 2003;7(1):23-32.
Scott RK, English SD, Wood DW, Unsworth MH. The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 1973 Oct;81(2):339-47. doi:10.1017/S0021859600059001.
Scott RK, Jaggard KW. Impact of weather, agronomy and breeding on yields of sugarbeet grown in the UK since 1970. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2000 Jun;134(4):341-52. doi:10.1017/S0021859699007832.
Sögüt T, Aroglu H. Plant density and sowing date effects on sugarbeet yield and quality. Journal of Agronomy. 2004; 3(3):215-218. doi:10.3923/ja.2004.215.218.
Spiegel MR. Mathematical handbook of formulas and tables. McGraw-Hill Pub. 1990. doi:10.1036/0071548556.
Stibbe C, Märländer B. Field emergence dynamics significance to intraspecific competition and growth efficiency in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). European journal of agronomy. 2002 Oct 1;17(3):161-71. doi:10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00005-9.
Storer KR, Schmehl WR, Hecker RJ. Growth analysis studies of sugarbeet. Technical Bulletin, Colorado State Univercity Experiment Station. No.118, 1973; 69pp.
Terry N. Developmental Physiology of Sugar Beet: I. The influence of light and temperature on growth. Journal of Experimental Botany. 1968 Nov 1;19(4):795-811.
Vandendriessche HJ. A model of growth and sugar accumulation of sugar beet for potential production conditions: SUBEMOpoII. Model performance. Agricultural Systems. 2000 Apr 1;64(1):21-35. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00005-6.
Varga I, Loncaric Z, Kristek S, Kulundžic AM, Rebekic A, Antunovic M. Sugar beet root yield and quality with leaf seasonal dynamics in relation to planting densities and nitrogen fertilization. Agriculture; 2021, 11:407. doi:10.3390/agriculture11050407.
Webb CR, Werker AR, Gilligan CA. Modeling the dynamical components of the sugar beet crop. Annals of Botany. 1997; 80:427-436. doi:10.1006/anbo.1997.0461.
Werker AR, Jaggard KW, Allison MF. Modelling partitioning between structure and storage in sugar beet: effects of drought and soil nitrogen. Plant and Soil, 1999; 207(1):97–106. doi:10.1023/A:1004444128026.
Wyse RO. Parameters controlling sucrose content and yield of sugarbeet roots.The American Society Of Sugar Beet Technologists. 1979; 20(44):368-85. doi:10.5274/JSBR.20.4.368.
چغندرقند
دوره 38، شماره 1
شهریور 1401
صفحه 15-36

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار