Effects of sowing date on bolting and frost damage to autumn-sown sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in temperate regions

Authors

  • Rahim Mohammadian Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8965-6350
  • Javad Rezaei Sugar Beet Research Department, Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resource Research and Education Center, AREEO, Mashhad
  • Valyollah Yosefabadi Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36253/ijam-1862

Keywords:

killed plants, sowing date, bolting, growing degree days

Abstract

Sugar beet is mostly cultivated in relatively cool regions of the temperate zones by sowing in spring, but in some Mediterranean areas with mild winters, the crop is sown in autumn. Due to global warming, autumn cultivation of sugar beet is gradually extending towards new areas that are still characterized by relatively cold winters. Seedling loss and bolting are two factors limiting the adoption of autumn sugar beet cultivation in new areas. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of sowing date on (i) duration and rate of field emergence, (ii) phenological stages of sugar beet during early growth, (iii) quantitative traits of seedlings and (iv) bolting occurrence as well as frost killing of autumn-sown sugar beet. Field experiments were conducted in a randomized complete block design to determine the appropriate sowing date for autumn-sown sugar beet in 2017/18 and 2018/19 in the Karaj and Mashhad regions of Iran, which are both characterized by relatively cold winters. The experiment was conducted with a bolting-resistant cultivar and six sowing date treatments. The results showed that to reach plant growth stages of cotyledon, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 leaves, 163, 200, 321, 418, 500, 600, 639, 700 and 757 growing degree days (GDD), respectively, were required. The average duration and speed of seedling emergence increased and decreased, respectively, with delay in sowing. The results suggest adjusting the sowing date of winter sugar beet so that when temperatures effective for bolting (6-8 °C) occur, the plant has already received about 300 to 400 GDD. At this time, the growth stage and the largest root diameter of sugar beet are approximately 4-6 leaves and 0.11-0.27 cm, respectively. After 14- to 16-leaf stage (≥700-750 GDD), the percentage of killed plants due to low temperatures were negligible. Although, the risk for frost losses is higher at 4- to 6-leaf stage (300-400 GDD), accepting higher losses is justified by a lower probability of bolting.

References

Al-Jbawi E.M., Sabsabi W., Gharibo G.A., Omar A.E.A., 2015. Effect of sowing date and plant density on bolting of four sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) varieties. International Journal of Environment, 4(2): 256-270.

Baker N.R., Rosenquist E., 2004. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55(403): 1607-1621. http://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh196.

Bosemark N.O., 2006. Genetics and Breeding. In: Draycott AP (ed) Sugar Beet (p. 50-88), Blackwell, Oxford, Ames, Iowa.

Campbell L.G., Enz J.W., 1991. Temperature effects on sugar beet seedling emergence. Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 28(3&4): 129-140.

Deihimfard R., Rahimi-Moghaddam S., Chenu K., 2019. Risk assessment of frost damage to sugar beet simulated under cold and semi-arid environments. International Journal of Biometeorology, 63(4): 511–521. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-019-01682-5

Ellis R.H., Roberts E.H., 1980. Towards a rational basis for testing seed quality. In: Hebblethwaite P (ed) Seed Production (p. 625-635), Butterworths, London.

Esmaeili R., Mohammadian R., Heidari Sharif Abad H., Noor Mohammadi, G., 2022. Improving quantity and quality of sugar beet yield using agronomic methods in summer cultivation. Plant, Soil and Environment, 68(8): 347-357. https://doi.org/10.17221/151/2022-PSE

Feller C., Fink M., 2004. Nitrate content, soluble solids content and yield of table beet as affected by cultivar, sowing date and nitrogen supply. Horticultural Science, 39(6): 1255-1259. http://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.39.6.1255

Francis S.A., 2006. Development of sugar beet. In: Draycott AP (ed) Sugar Beet (p.9-29), Blackwell, Oxford, Ames, Iowa.

Hoffmann C.M., Kluge-Severin S., 2011. Growth analysis of autumn and spring-sown sugar beet. European Journal of Agronomy, 34(1): 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2010.09.001

Hoffmann C.M., Koch H.J., Märländer B., 2021. Sugar beet. In: Sadras V, Calderini D (eds) Physiology Case Histories for Major Crops (p. 634-672), Elsevier Crop, Elsevier.

Hongyong S., Zhang X., Chen S., Pei D., Liu C., 2007. Effect of harvest and sowing time on the performance of the rotation of winter wheat – summer maize in the North China Plain. Industrial Crops and Products, 25(3): 239-247. http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.12.003

Jaggard K.W., Qi A., 2006. Agronomy, In: Draycott AP (ed), Sugar Beet (p.134-168), Blackwell, Oxford, Ames, Iowa.

Kockelmann A., Meyer U., 2006. Seed production and quality, In: Draycott AP (ed), Sugar Beet (p. 89-113), Blackwell, Oxford, Ames, Iowa.

Krüger E., Josuttis M., Nestby R., Toldam-Andersen T.B., Carlen C., Mezzetti B., 2012. Influence of growing conditions at different latitudes of Europe on strawberry growth performance, yield and quality. Journal of Berry Research, 2(3): 143-157. http://doi.org/10.3233/JBR-2012-036

Loel J., Hoffmann C.M., 2014. Importance of growth stage and weather conditions for the winter hardiness of autumn-sown sugar beet. Field Crop Research, 162: 70-76. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.03.007

Milford, G.F.J., Jarvis, P.J., & Walters, C., 2010. A vernalization- intensity model to predict bolting in sugar Beet. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 148(2): 127–137. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859609990323

Milford G.F.J., Pocock T.O., Riley J., 1985a. An analysis of leaf growth in sugar beet. I. Leaf appearance and expansion in relation to temperature under controlled conditions. Annals of Applied Biology, 106(1): 163–172. http://doi.org /10.1111/j.1744-7348.1985.tb03106.x

Milford G.F.J., Pocock T.O., Riley J., 1985b. An analysis of leaf growth in sugar beet. II. Leaf appearance in field crops. Annals of Applied Biology, 106(1): 173–185. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1985.tb03107.x

Mohammadian R., Moghaddam M., Rahimian H., Sadeghian S.Y., 2005. Effect of early season drought stress on growth characteristics of Sugar Beet genotypes. Turkish Journal Agriculture and Forestry, 29(5): 357-368.

Mohammadian R., Ghasemi H., Bazrafshan M., Moharramzadah M., Mahdikhani P., 2014. Identification of morpho-physiological traits affecting white sugar yield in Sugar Beet. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding, 4(2): 23-34.

Mohammadian R., Baghani J., 2020. Strategies to increase water productivity in sugar beet cultivation. Agricultural Education Publication, Karaj, Iran. (in Persian)

Motulsky H.J., 1999. Comparing two curves. In Analyzing Data with Graphpad Prism, Graphpad Software (p 225-232) Inc. San Diego CA. https://cdn.graphpad.com/faq/1283/file/AnalyzingDataPrism3.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2022

Nizami A., Khazaei H.R., Farzinpour A., Saeidnejad A.H., Mehrabadi H.R., 2015. Effect of freezing stress on some of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) genotypes electrolyte leakage. Crop Production, 8(3): 63-76. (in Persian with English Abstract)

Reinsdorf E., Koch H.J., 2013. Modeling crown temperature of winter sugar beet and its application in risk assessment for frost killing in Central Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 182-183: 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.08.001

Reinsdorf E., Koch H.J., Märländer B., 2013. Phenotype related differences in frost tolerance of winter sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Field Crops Research, 151(12): 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.07.007

Reinsdorf E., Koch H.J., Loel J., Hoffmann C.M., 2014. Yield of bolting winter beet (Beta vulgaris L.) as affected by plant density, genotype and environment. European Journal of Agronomy, 54(3): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.11.011

Rinaldi M., Vonella A.V., 2006. 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, 95(2-3): 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.12.004

Slafer G.A., 2007. Physiology of determination of major wheat yield components, In: Buck HT, Nisi, JE, Salomon N (eds), Wheat production in stressed environments (p. 557-567), Springer, the Netherlands.

Sokratov S.A., Barry R.G., 2002. Intraseasonal variation in the thermoinsulation effect of snow cover on soil temperatures and energy balance. Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), ACL 13-1– ACL 13-6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000489

Taleghani D.F., Moharramzadeh M., Hemayati S.S., Mohammadian R., Farahmand R., 2011. Effect of sowing and harvest time on yield of autumn-sown sugar beet in Moghan region in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal, 27-2(3): 355-371. (in Persian with English Abstract)

Traversa U., Bombi G., Camaioni E., Macchiarulo A., Costantino G., Palmieri C., Caciagli F., Pellicciari R., 2003. Rat brain guanosine binding site. Biological studies and pseudo-receptor construction. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, 11(24): 5417-5425. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2003.09.043

Downloads

Published

2023-08-03

How to Cite

Mohammadian, R., Rezaei, J., & Yosefabadi, V. (2023). Effects of sowing date on bolting and frost damage to autumn-sown sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in temperate regions. Italian Journal of Agrometeorology, (1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.36253/ijam-1862

Issue

No. 1 (2023)

Section

RESEARCH ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Rahim Mohammadian, Javad Rezaei, Valyollah Yosefabadi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Licence and copyright agreement for IJAM

(revised October 2020)

The following licence and copyright agreement is valid for any article published by IJAM.

Author’s certification

By submitting the manuscript, the authors certify the following:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or proceedings-type publication – including discussion papers – or as part of a published lecture or thesis); it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; and its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work was carried out.
  • They have secured the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following licence and copyright agreement:

Copyright

  • The copyright of any article is retained by the author(s). More information on the transfer of copyright can be found below.
  • Authors grant our journals a licence to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
  • Authors grant any third party the right to use the article freely under the stipulation that the original authors are given credit and the appropriate citation details are mentioned.
  • The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

Anyone is free to share — to copy, distribute, and transmit the work to remix — to adapt the work under the following conditions:

  • Attribution — The original authors must be given credit.
  • For any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the licence terms of this work are.
  • Any of these conditions can be waived if the copyright holders give permission.
  • Nothing in this licence impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. The full legal code of this licence.