Quantity and Quality Changes in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris Provar. Altissima Doel) Induced by Different Sources of Biostimulants

The application of biostimulants in agriculture is considered an economically and ecologically acceptable and, above all, a sustainable method of cultivation of field crops. This study aimed to investigate the impact of biostimulating agents on the production and growth parameters of the sugar beet. In 2018 and 2019, an experiment was conducted in which the effect of four types of treatment (B0–B3) on two varieties of sugar beet (Alpaca, Gorila) was observed. The results show that the beets treated with treatment type B3 (combination of humic acids, essential amino acids, biopolymers, and soil bacteria) had the significantly highest yield of roots compared with the control type. However, parameters such as sugar content, polarized sugar yield, white sugar content, and white sugar yield were the highest in condition B2, treated with an agent containing soil bacteria. Furthermore, biostimulants positively affected the leaf area index, with significant growth observed, especially in condition B3. Another important finding was that in the interaction analysis, the biostimulants had positive effects in dry conditions and on elevated values of traits of Alpaca variety caused by treatment in condition B2. In terms of relationships between individual parameters, an interesting finding was that there was only a weak relationship between root yield and sugar content (Rs = 0.0715), which indicates that biostimulants increase production size while maintaining or increasing its quality.

[1]  J. Bocianowski,et al.  Genotype by environment interaction for physiological traits in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) parents and hybrids using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model , 2021, European Food Research and Technology.

[2]  Dariusz Gozdowski,et al.  Influence of Various Forms of Foliar Application on Root Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet , 2021, Agriculture.

[3]  S. Srivastava,et al.  Sugar Beet Cultivation in India: Prospects for Bio-Ethanol Production and Value-Added Co-Products , 2021, Sugar Tech.

[4]  V. Pačuta,et al.  Grain Yield and Quality Traits of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Treated with Seaweed- and Humic Acid-Based Biostimulants , 2021, Agronomy.

[5]  V. Pačuta,et al.  Impact of Superabsorbent Polymers and Variety on Yield, Quality and Physiological Parameters of the Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris prov. Altissima Doell) , 2021, Plants.

[6]  P. Stevanato,et al.  Effect of Microalgal Extracts from Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus quadricauda on Germination of Beta vulgaris Seeds , 2020, Plants.

[7]  Y. Chendev,et al.  Sugar Beet Harvests under Modern Climatic Conditions in the Belgorod Region (Southwest Russia) , 2020, Climate.

[8]  W. Wadas,et al.  Changes in Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content of Very Early Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Biostimulants , 2020, Agronomy.

[9]  C. Hoffmann,et al.  Tissue composition and arrangement in sugar beet genotypes of different tissue strength with regard to damage and pathogen infestation , 2020 .

[10]  M. Mori,et al.  Plant-Based Biostimulants Influence the Agronomical, Physiological, and Qualitative Responses of Baby Rocket Leaves under Diverse Nitrogen Conditions , 2019, Plants.

[11]  T. Lenartowicz,et al.  Assessment of Stability and Adaptation Patterns of White Sugar Yield from Sugar Beet Cultivars in Temperate Climate Environments , 2019, Agronomy.

[12]  M. Frąc,et al.  Plant Biostimulants: Importance of the Quality and Yield of Horticultural Crops and the Improvement of Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stress—A Review , 2019, Agronomy.

[13]  R. Bulgari,et al.  Biostimulants Application in Horticultural Crops under Abiotic Stress Conditions , 2019, Agronomy.

[14]  A. Squartini,et al.  Molecular and Morphological Changes Induced by Leonardite-based Biostimulant in Beta vulgaris L. , 2019, Plants.

[15]  Dario Papale,et al.  A comparison of different methods for assessing leaf area index in four canopy types , 2019, Central European Forestry Journal.

[16]  S. Vicente‐Serrano,et al.  The impact of drought on the productivity of two rainfed crops in Spain , 2019, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.

[17]  M. Iqbal,et al.  Physicochemical Characteristics and Yield of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Cv. “California-Kws” Influenced with Irrigation Intervals , 2019, Sarhad Journal of Agriculture.

[18]  C. Kaya,et al.  Physiological Effects of the Brown Seaweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) and Humic Substances on Plant Growth, Enzyme Activities of Certain Pepper Plants Grown under Salt Stress , 2018, Acta biologica Hungarica.

[19]  M. Ćirić,et al.  Effect of Sugar Beet Genotype, Planting and Harvesting Dates and Their Interaction on Sugar Yield , 2018, Front. Plant Sci..

[20]  P. Barłóg,et al.  Sugar beet response to different K, Na and Mg ratios in applied fertilizers , 2018 .

[21]  A. Wenda-Piesik,et al.  Response of sugar beet to humic substances and foliar fertilization with potassium , 2018 .

[22]  V. Kožnarová,et al.  Recommendation of World Meteorological Organization to describing meteorological or climatological conditions - Information , 2018 .

[23]  D. Chołuj,et al.  Growth and dry matter partitioning in sugar beet plants (Beta vulgaris L.) under moderate drought , 2018 .

[24]  H. Chérif,et al.  Alleviation of Salt Stress in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum L.) Seedlings Through the Application of Liquid Seaweed Extracts of Fucus spiralis , 2017 .

[25]  Jianchu Xu,et al.  Using leaf area index (LAI) to assess vegetation response to drought in Yunnan province of China , 2017, Journal of Mountain Science.

[26]  O. Christen,et al.  Crop rotation effects on yield, technological quality and yield stability of sugar beet after 45 trial years , 2017 .

[27]  V. Pačuta,et al.  Influence of selected agrotechnical measures and climate conditions on root yield and digestion of sugar beet , 2016 .

[28]  E. Rój,et al.  Evaluation of Supercritical Extracts of Algae as Biostimulants of Plant Growth in Field Trials , 2016, Front. Plant Sci..

[29]  I. Lorite,et al.  Yield response of sunflower to irrigation and fertilization under semi-arid conditions , 2016 .

[30]  Guo-Qiang Wu,et al.  Effect of osmotic stress on growth and osmolytes accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) plants , 2016 .

[31]  C. Kabała,et al.  Conversion of soil pH 1:2.5 KCl and 1:2.5 H2O to 1:5 H2O: conclusions for soil management, environmental monitoring, and international soil databases , 2016 .

[32]  M. Schiavon,et al.  Plant biostimulants: physiological responses induced by protein hydrolyzed-based products and humic substances in plant metabolism , 2016 .

[33]  Marina Fruehauf,et al.  Encyclopedia Of Research Design , 2016 .

[34]  P. Jardin Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation , 2015 .

[35]  Davey L. Jones,et al.  Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture , 2015 .

[36]  R. Bulgari,et al.  Biostimulants and crop responses: a review , 2015 .

[37]  J. McGrath,et al.  Sugar Beet, Energy Beet, and Industrial Beet , 2015 .

[38]  H. Gawrońska,et al.  Biological mode of action of a nitrophenolates-based biostimulant: case study , 2014, Front. Plant Sci..

[39]  Y. Rouphael,et al.  Biostimulant action of a plant-derived protein hydrolysate produced through enzymatic hydrolysis , 2014, Front. Plant Sci..

[40]  C. Magorokosho,et al.  Genotype × Environment Interaction of Maize Grain Yield Using AMMI Biplots , 2014 .

[41]  H. Sharma,et al.  Plant biostimulants: a review on the processing of macroalgae and use of extracts for crop management to reduce abiotic and biotic stresses , 2013, Journal of Applied Phycology.

[42]  V. Dehbashi Sugar beet , 2013 .

[43]  J. Craigie,et al.  Seaweed extract stimuli in plant science and agriculture , 2011, Journal of Applied Phycology.

[44]  C. Hoffmann Sucrose Accumulation in Sugar Beet Under Drought Stress , 2010 .

[45]  L. Zorić,et al.  Histological characteristics of sugar beet leaves potentially linked to drought tolerance. , 2009 .

[46]  C. Hoffmann,et al.  Impact of different environments in Europe on yield and quality of sugar beet genotypes , 2009 .

[47]  R. Morillo-Velarde,et al.  Proline content of sugar beet storage roots: Response to water deficit and nitrogen fertilization at field conditions , 2007 .

[48]  G. Kauffman,et al.  Effects of a Biostimulant on the Heat Tolerance Associated with Photosynthetic Capacity, Membrane Thermostability, and Polyphenol Production of Perennial Ryegrass , 2007 .

[49]  O. K. Chung,et al.  Protein accumulation and composition in wheat grains: Effects of mineral nutrients and high temperature , 2006 .

[50]  J. Pidgeon,et al.  Using multi-environment sugar beet variety trials to screen for drought tolerance , 2006 .

[51]  C. Hoffmann,et al.  Solute Accumulation as a Cause for Quality Losses in Sugar Beet Submitted to Continuous and Temporary Drought Stress , 2006 .

[52]  B. Märländer,et al.  Effects of weather variables on sugar beet yield development (Beta vulgaris L.) , 2006 .

[53]  J. Pidgeon,et al.  Evaluation of physiological traits as indirect selection criteria for drought tolerance in sugar beet , 2005 .

[54]  N. Breda Ground-based measurements of leaf area index: a review of methods, instruments and current controversies. , 2003, Journal of experimental botany.

[55]  J. Norman,et al.  Instrument for Indirect Measurement of Canopy Architecture , 1991 .

[56]  A. Mehlich Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant , 1984 .

[57]  M. Kononova Humus of Virgin and Cultivated Soils , 1975 .

[58]  H. Belshaw,et al.  The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations , 1947, International Organization.

[59]  T. Mcmeekin,et al.  A NEW DIRECT NESSLERIZATION MICRO-KJELDAHL METHOD AND A MODIFICATION OF THE NESSLER-FOLIN REAGENT FOR AMMONIA , 1924 .