اثر سـرزنی بر عملکرد و خصـوصیات کیفی ارقام چغندرقند (Beta vulgaris L) پاییزه در منطقه گرگان
محورهای موضوعی : اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی
نورالله تازیکه
1
(دانشجوی دکتری زراعت، دانشگاه گنبد‌کاووس، گنبد‌کاووس، ایران)
عباس بیابانی
2
(دانشیار فیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی، گروه تولیدات گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه گنبد کاووس، گنبد‌کاووس، ایران)
علیرضا صابری
3
(استادیار پژوهش، بخش تحقیقات زراعی و باغی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گلستان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، گرگان، ایران)
علی راحمی کاریزکی
4
(استادیار فیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی، گروه تولیدات گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه گنبد کاووس، گنبد‌کاووس، ایران. گرگان، ایران)
معصومه نعیمی
5
(استادیار اکولوژی گیاهان زراعی، گروه تولیدات گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه گنبد کاووس، گنبد‌کاووس، ایران. گرگان، ایران)
کلید واژه: درصد قند, کشت پاییزه, حذف برگ, سدیم و پتاسیم مضره,
چکیده مقاله :
برگ‌ها از جمله اندام‌های مهم گیاهان هستند که مواد غذایی (نشاسته و قند) در آنجا تولید می‌گردد. این مواد صرف نگهداری بافت‌های گیاهی، رشد و تولید برگهای جدید می‌شوند. به منظور ارزیابی عملکرد ارقام تجاری چغندرقند پاییزه، توانایی و قدرت تولید برگهای جدید در از بین رفتن آنها در مراحل پایانی رشد، آزمایشی به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار سال 1397 در ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی ورسن (گرگان) انجام شد. فاکتور اول شامل 6 رقم تجاری چغندرقند پاییزه (5 رقم خارجی و شریف رقم داخلی) و فاکتور دوم شامل عدم سرزنی، سرزنی در اردیبهشت‌ماه (مرحله میانی رشد) و سرزنی در خردادماه (مرحله نهایی رشد) در نظر گرفته شد. بعد از برداشت چغندرقند، عملکرد ریشه و بعضی از خصوصیات مهم کیفی ارقام اندازه‌گیری شد. نتایج نشان داد که ارقام تجاری چغندرقند پاییزه از نظر عملکرد و درصد قند (عیار) در سطح یک درصد اختلاف معنی‌داری از خود نشان دادند، به طوری که بیشترین عملکرد ریشه در رقم جراکاواس و کمترین عملکرد ریشه در رقم ولس مشاهده گردید. بیشترین درصد قند در رقم ولس و کمترین درصد قند (عیار) در رقم رزاگلد به دست آمد. اعمال تیمار سرزنی باعث کاهش کمّیت و کیفیت ریشه چغندرقند گردید ولیکن سرزنی در اردیبهشت‌ماه نسبت به خرداد ماه کیفیت و عملکرد ریشه چغندرقند را بیشتر کاهش داد، به طوری که درصد قند ریشه در سرزنی اردیبهشت ماه به میزان 8/8 درصد و در سرزنی خرداد ماه 2/10 درصد نسبت به تیمار شاهد کاهش یافت.
Leaves are one of the most important organs of plants where food (starch and sugar) are produced. These materials are used to maintain plant tissues, growth and production of new leaves. In order to evaluate the commercial fall growing cultivars of sugar beet, their potential to produce new leaves, a factorial experiment based on randomized complete block design was conducted with three replications at Varsan Agricultural Research Station (Gorgan), during 2018 growing season. The first factor consisted of 6 commercial sugar beet cultivars (5 foreign cultivars and Sharif, domestic) and the second factor of two times at toppings in May (middle stage of growth) and June (final stage of growth). Sugar beet root yield and some important quality characteristics were measured after harvesting. The results showed that the commercial cultivars showed significant differences in terms of yield and percentage of sugar (grade) at the one percent level of probability. Highest root yield was obtained from Jrakavas and lowest from veles cultivar. The highest percentage of sugar was due to veles and lowest to Rosagold cultivars. Topping reduced borb quantity and quality of sugar beet root, while May and June toppings reduced quality and yield of sugar beet root by 8.8% and 10.2% respectively as compared to the control treatment. The interaction effect of cultivar × topping was significant in all studied traits except root dry matter.
· Ahmadi, M., H. Shahbazi, J. Soltani, D. Taleghani, AS. Ghaemi, S. Sabzevari, P. Hesadi, S. Hojjati, and M. Salarikhah. 2018. Achievements of research and development of autumn sugar beet cultivation in Khorasan provinces. Iranian Journal of Sugar Industries. 5(8): 240-241. (In Persian).
· Atabak, S.A., M.H. al-Islami., H. Molavi., and M. Honarvar. 2016. Investigation of factors affecting the viscosity and rheological behavior of sugar beet molasses. International conference on recent trends in enginerring and materials sciens: 6 pp.
· Bakhshi Khaniki, GH, S. Javadi, P. Mehdi Khan, and D. Tahmasebi. 2011. Investigation of the effect of drought stress on some quantitative and qualitative characteristics of newly modified sugar beet cultivars. New Cellular and Molecular Biotechnology Journal. 1(3): 66-74 (In Persian).
· Dewar, A.M., and D. Cooke. 2006. Pests. , p. 316–354. In A.P. Draycott (Ed.) Sugar Beet. Blackwell
· Doorenbos, J., and A. H. Kassam. 1979. Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drinage paper No 33. FAO. Rome, Italy. 193 pp
· Farahmand, KH., M.A. Faramarzi, and M. Moharramzadeh. 2013. Possibility of autumn suger beet planting in Moghan region. Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding. 9(3): 45-55.
· Hassanvandi, M.S., and M. Hosseinpour. 2018. Effect of leaf removal on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of autumn sugar beet cultivars in Khuzestan. Ninth National Conference on Agriculture and Sustainable Natural Resources: 6 pp. (In Persian).
· Ilkaee, M.N., Z. Babaei, A. Baghdadi, and F. Golzardi. 2016. Effect of different planting dates and defoliation on the properties of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences. 4(1): 53-58.
· Jadidi, T., S. Hajjam, Gh. Kamali., K. Fotohi, and M.A. Noghabi. 2010. The effect of leaf sheath removal intensity at different stages of growth on root yield and sugar beet quality. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 12(3): 264-252. (In Persian)
· Jahani Moghadam, A., S. Parsa, S. Mahmoudi, and M. Ahmadi. 2017. Evaluation of the effects of planting date and cultivar on yield and stem on sugar beet cultivars under autumn planting conditions. Journal of Agriculture and Plant Breeding. 13(2): 43-57. (In Persian).
· Jamshidi, E., M. Agha Alikhani, and A. Ghalavand. 2009. Effect of defoliation intensity at different reproductive stages on seed and oil yields in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). Iranian Journal of Crop Science. 10: 349-361. (In Persian).
· Kamandi, A., A. Nezami, A. Kouchaki, and M. Nasiri Mahallati. 2008. The effect of defoliation on quantitative and qualitative yield of sugar beet in Mashhad. Iranian Journal of Crop Research. 6(2): 382-371. (In Persian).
· Kunz, M., D. Martin, and H. Puke. 2002. Precision of beet analyses in Germany explained for polarization. Zuckerindustrie. 127: 13-21.
· Mahmoudi, P., A. Khoochek, A. Nezami, and M. Nassiri. 2008. Effects of time and intensity of defoliation on yield and yield components of corn. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 6: 433-441.
· Mohammadian, R. 2016. Effect of planting time and leaf removal intensity on yield and root quality of sugar beet. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 18(2): 88-103. (In Persian).
· Pidgeon, J.D., E.S. Ober, A. Qi, C.J.A. Clark, A. Royal, and K.W. Jaggard. 2006. Using multi-environment sugar beet variety trials to screen for drought tolerance. Field Crops Research. 95: 268-279.
· Sarmast Garousi, A., R. Mohammadian, M.R. Haj Seyyed Hadi, and H. Noshad. 2012. Effects of defoliation intensity and timing on quantitative and qualitative yields of sugar beet. Plant Ecophysiology. 4:151-157. (In Persian).
· Sharifi, H. 2001. Investigation of the effect of planting and harvesting time on newly introduced sugar beet cultivars. Final report of the research plan. Safiabad Agricultural Research Center, Dezful. 48:38-41. (In Persian).
· Taleghani D.F., M. Moharramzadeh, S. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati, R. Mohammadian, and R. Farahmand. 2011. Effect of sowing and harvest time on yield of autumn-sown sugar beet in Moghan region in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal. 27(3): 255-371. (In Persian).
Tsialtas, J.T., E. Soulioti, N. Maslaris, and D.K. Papakosta. 2011. Effect of defoliation on leaf physiology of sugar beet cultivars subjected to water stress and re-watering. International Journal of Plant Production. 5: 207-220.
_||_· Ahmadi, M., H. Shahbazi, J. Soltani, D. Taleghani, AS. Ghaemi, S. Sabzevari, P. Hesadi, S. Hojjati, and M. Salarikhah. 2018. Achievements of research and development of autumn sugar beet cultivation in Khorasan provinces. Iranian Journal of Sugar Industries. 5(8): 240-241. (In Persian).
· Atabak, S.A., M.H. al-Islami., H. Molavi., and M. Honarvar. 2016. Investigation of factors affecting the viscosity and rheological behavior of sugar beet molasses. International conference on recent trends in enginerring and materials sciens: 6 pp.
· Bakhshi Khaniki, GH, S. Javadi, P. Mehdi Khan, and D. Tahmasebi. 2011. Investigation of the effect of drought stress on some quantitative and qualitative characteristics of newly modified sugar beet cultivars. New Cellular and Molecular Biotechnology Journal. 1(3): 66-74 (In Persian).
· Dewar, A.M., and D. Cooke. 2006. Pests. , p. 316–354. In A.P. Draycott (Ed.) Sugar Beet. Blackwell
· Doorenbos, J., and A. H. Kassam. 1979. Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drinage paper No 33. FAO. Rome, Italy. 193 pp
· Farahmand, KH., M.A. Faramarzi, and M. Moharramzadeh. 2013. Possibility of autumn suger beet planting in Moghan region. Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding. 9(3): 45-55.
· Hassanvandi, M.S., and M. Hosseinpour. 2018. Effect of leaf removal on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of autumn sugar beet cultivars in Khuzestan. Ninth National Conference on Agriculture and Sustainable Natural Resources: 6 pp. (In Persian).
· Ilkaee, M.N., Z. Babaei, A. Baghdadi, and F. Golzardi. 2016. Effect of different planting dates and defoliation on the properties of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences. 4(1): 53-58.
· Jadidi, T., S. Hajjam, Gh. Kamali., K. Fotohi, and M.A. Noghabi. 2010. The effect of leaf sheath removal intensity at different stages of growth on root yield and sugar beet quality. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 12(3): 264-252. (In Persian)
· Jahani Moghadam, A., S. Parsa, S. Mahmoudi, and M. Ahmadi. 2017. Evaluation of the effects of planting date and cultivar on yield and stem on sugar beet cultivars under autumn planting conditions. Journal of Agriculture and Plant Breeding. 13(2): 43-57. (In Persian).
· Jamshidi, E., M. Agha Alikhani, and A. Ghalavand. 2009. Effect of defoliation intensity at different reproductive stages on seed and oil yields in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). Iranian Journal of Crop Science. 10: 349-361. (In Persian).
· Kamandi, A., A. Nezami, A. Kouchaki, and M. Nasiri Mahallati. 2008. The effect of defoliation on quantitative and qualitative yield of sugar beet in Mashhad. Iranian Journal of Crop Research. 6(2): 382-371. (In Persian).
· Kunz, M., D. Martin, and H. Puke. 2002. Precision of beet analyses in Germany explained for polarization. Zuckerindustrie. 127: 13-21.
· Mahmoudi, P., A. Khoochek, A. Nezami, and M. Nassiri. 2008. Effects of time and intensity of defoliation on yield and yield components of corn. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 6: 433-441.
· Mohammadian, R. 2016. Effect of planting time and leaf removal intensity on yield and root quality of sugar beet. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 18(2): 88-103. (In Persian).
· Pidgeon, J.D., E.S. Ober, A. Qi, C.J.A. Clark, A. Royal, and K.W. Jaggard. 2006. Using multi-environment sugar beet variety trials to screen for drought tolerance. Field Crops Research. 95: 268-279.
· Sarmast Garousi, A., R. Mohammadian, M.R. Haj Seyyed Hadi, and H. Noshad. 2012. Effects of defoliation intensity and timing on quantitative and qualitative yields of sugar beet. Plant Ecophysiology. 4:151-157. (In Persian).
· Sharifi, H. 2001. Investigation of the effect of planting and harvesting time on newly introduced sugar beet cultivars. Final report of the research plan. Safiabad Agricultural Research Center, Dezful. 48:38-41. (In Persian).
· Taleghani D.F., M. Moharramzadeh, S. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati, R. Mohammadian, and R. Farahmand. 2011. Effect of sowing and harvest time on yield of autumn-sown sugar beet in Moghan region in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal. 27(3): 255-371. (In Persian).
Tsialtas, J.T., E. Soulioti, N. Maslaris, and D.K. Papakosta. 2011. Effect of defoliation on leaf physiology of sugar beet cultivars subjected to water stress and re-watering. International Journal of Plant Production. 5: 207-220.
