VARIETAL TOLERANCE OF SUGAR BEET (BETA VULGARIS L.) TO WATER STRESS | ||||
Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering | ||||
Article 13, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2019, Page 217-238 PDF (403.27 K) | ||||
Document Type: Original Article | ||||
DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2019.94449 | ||||
![]() | ||||
Authors | ||||
L. M. M. Hamed1; E. I. R. Emara2 | ||||
1Soil and Water Dept., Fac. of Agric., Cairo Univ., 12613, Giza, Egypt. | ||||
2Agronomy Dept., Fac. of Agric., Cairo Univ., 12613, Giza, Egypt. | ||||
Abstract | ||||
Two field experiments were conducted in the experimental farm, faculty of Agriculture, Cairo university, Giza, Egypt during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons to evaluate the tolerance of two monogerm sugar beet varieties: Puma and Palace cevek, and two multigerm varieties: Monte Bianko and Ninagri to water depletion levels (25, 50 and 75% of the available soil moisture). Puma variety was the most tolerant sugar beet variety according to stress tolerance index (STI) along with recorded the highest leaf area index (LAI) and plant dry weight at 150, 175 and 200 days after sowing as well as the highest root and sugar yields, followed by Monte Bianko, Ninagri and Palace cevek variety throughout the growing seasons, while the highest sucrose, purity and sugar recovery (SR) percentages resulted from Palace cevek variety. Increasing water depletion level from 25 up to 75% negatively affect beet growth traits and decreased root yield by 17.45 and 17.44% and sugar yield by 11.63 and 9.94% in the first and second seasons, respectively. On the contrary, sucrose, purity and SR significantly increased as water depletion increased, in addition to, the water use efficiency (WUE) increased by 48.3 and 40.1% in the 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively. Puma variety irrigated with 25% water depletion produced the highest LAI, plant dry weight, potassium and sodium content as well as root and sugar yields. | ||||
Keywords | ||||
Drought; Tolerance indices; Root yield; Quality; Sugar crops; Water use efficiency | ||||
Statistics Article View: 179 PDF Download: 262 |
||||