Printer Friendly

Mineral status, growth and yield response of sugar beet (Beta Vulagaris L.) to nitrogen fertilizer sources and water regime.


Water scarcity is considered one from the main challenges of crop production in the arid and semi-arid regions. The production of sugar in Egypt now not sufficient to face the recent demand or the continuous increases of population [1]. The optimum water use in agricultural production is especially important as one of the most important environmental factors affecting plant growth and development, particularly in arid and semiarid regions and weather conditions of Iran [2]. Therefore, irrigation water plays a significant role in agricultural practices and particularly in sugar beet cultivation [3]. Water shortages, especially in arid and semi-arid climate conditions, are a major barrier in agriculture development. Without optimizing use of water resources, agriculture production is impossible [4]. Sugar beets can be grown in a wide range of climatic conditions and are noted for tolerance to soil salinity [5,6]. Sugar beets are drought resistant plants that can produce economic yield even with declined irrigation [7]. Ober et al. [8] considers relative tolerance of sugar beet to drought as one of the important properties for most of arid and semi-arid regions, and stated that recently drought effect has been known as main factor of decreased yield in sugar beet. The water requirement of sugar beet cultivation is strongly dependent on weather conditions, irrigation management, growth period, plant density, genotype, and nitrogen application [9]. An adequate supply of nitrogen is essential for optimum yield. However, excessive nitrogen decreases sugar content and increases impurities (Na, K, and amino-N) [10,11]. Expressed that increased N amount to certain and optimum level, increased root yield, although net and gross sugar amount decreased with increasing N before root yield reaches to its maximum level. High amount of N increased sodium, potassium and amino N concentrations in root. Armestrong [12] concluded that increased N in soil increased root yield, N uptake by plant and also dry mater percentage of root. Application of fertilizers is one of the successful ways to increase the ability of crop plants to tolerate the adverse effect of abiotic stresses [13]. Therefore, controlled irrigation and fertilization to increase plant yield is of vital importance [14]. The main purpose of deficit irrigation is to raise the water use efficiency (WUE) and to obtain the highest yield per unit water [15]. Fertilizer is considered as a limiting factor to obtain high yield and quality. Vomucka and Pospisilvoa [16] reported that water use efficiency in plants under low stress was more than 80%, in mild-stress, 65 to 80% and in very severe stress below 65% [17]. The current study is designed to investigate the effect of N fertilization on ameliorate the adverse effect of drought by omitting of irrigation growth and yield of sugar beet crop.


In order to investigate the effect of Nitrogen fertilizer resources on growth, yield and mineral status of sugar beet plants grown under condition of drip irrigation systems. Two field experiment in the experimental station of the National Research Centre in Nobaria Governorate (North West of Nile Delta) during 2013 and 2014 winter seasons. Plant fertilized by urea (46.5%) and ammonium nitrate (33.3%) in rate of 100 Kg/fed split in three portions more than without N fertilizers as a control and grown under 100, 75 and 50% Etc irrigation regimes corresponding to 1890, 2835 and 3780 [m.sup.3]/fed., respectively.

The experiment included nine treatments three treatments of nitrogen sources and three irrigation regimes which the irrigation regime lied in the main plots and nitrogen sources were distributed randomize in the subplots. The design of the experiment was split plot in sex replicates.

Physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental site soil are shown in Table (1). Particle size distribution and moisture of the soil sample, Soil CaCO3, EC and pH were determined according to [18].

Seeds of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) variety were sown at November, 15 during two winter seasons. Plants thinned twice, the 1st after 15 days from sowing and the 2nd two weeks later. Calcium super phosphate (15.5 % P2O5) and potassium sulphate (48.5 K2O) were broadcasting before sowing. Nitrogen was added in two equal portions, the 1st after three weeks of sowing and the 2nd two weeks later.

All other agricultural practices were done as in the province. Two plants were picked from every sub plot and measure root length, root diameter, No. of leaves, leaves weight and mean weight of a total of the sugar beets per fed. Then cleaned, dried in electric oven at 70[degrees]C and ground. Digestion and determination of macro (N, P, K, Na, Ca and Mg) were done using the methods described by [19]. In addition, the value of water use efficiency was calculated according to the following equation:

Water use efficiency (WUS): Yield kg/fed/quantity of water used [m.sup.3]/fed All collected Data were subjected to the proper statistical analysis as described by [20].


Growth and yield:

Water regime:

Data in Table (2) showed that a significant effect at of level of water stress on all plant characters. The depression in calculated evapotranspiration (ETc) caused contentious depression in plant height and root length, this reduction to top yield as a result to non-abundance soil moisture in root zone may be reflect the reduction in top length, leave are index and net assimilation rate [21], however, root diameter as well as leaves weight/plant increased significant with 75% ETc and tended to decrease with 50% ETc water irrigation treatment. sugar beet plants irrigated with 75% water stress gave the highest plant height (23.89cm),root length (23.89cm), root diameter (2.63cm) and 1262kg/fed for productively. These results may be due to fodder beet plant are capable to development an extensive root system which enables them to extracts water from deeper water soil layers, which in turn increased their adaptability to grow in inadequate soil moisture content and reflected on root plasticity improvement under water stress conditions, this resulted agreement with [21,22]. However, increasing water stress at 50 % decreased significant of all mentioned parameter, this reduction may be due to non-abundance soil moisture in root zone may be refer to the reduction of all mention parameter. Concerning to irrigation levels, a significant reduction was observed in leave weight and leave no. as water stress levels, under 50% highest water stress where, the lowest values (2.94, 8.22) were obtained when irrigation at 50% ETc treatment. This reduction with increasing water stress levels may be due to the in cell division and expansion, which in turn reduced photosynthetic surface of sugar beet plants cultivars [21]. Also, this reduction may be attributed that lower radiation interruption as lower number and leaf area per plants under low available soil water content [23]. Abuomi and Wright [24] observed that drought had been shown to decrease the leaf initiation and leaf expansion which produced leaves by small area. This affected leaf area index, and leaves area ratio of sugar beet plants. Korshid and Rajab [25] observed the leaf length and leaf width decreases with water deficit in different breeding populations in Iran. WUE was the highest in DI25 irrigation conditions and the lowest in full irrigation conditions. According to the averaged values of 2 years, yield response factor (ky) was 0.93 for sugar beet. Also, Data showed that yield decreased as the water quantity decreased (Table 1). Water stress treatments had significant effect on root yield, growth sugar yield and water use efficiency. This may be related to the effect of water deficit on water potential, stomata closure and iterance of Co2 which intern affected photosynthesis which led to alter growth and yield. Esmaeili [26] indicated that there was high positive correlation between transpiration and root yield of sugar beet. Topak, et al., [27] noticed that, by drip irrigation system, increasing deficits resulted in a relatively lower root. They found a linear relationship between evapotranspiration and root yield of sugar beet. Furthermore, sugar beet root quality parameters were influenced by drip irrigation levels in both years. The results revealed that irrigation of sugar beet with drip irrigation method at 75% level (DI 25) had significant benefits in terms of saved irrigation water and large WUE, indicating a definitive advantage of deficit irrigation under limited water supply conditions. In an economic viewpoint, 25% saving of irrigation water (DI 25% from full irrigation) caused 6.1% reduction in the net income [27].

Nitrogen Source:

All growth character was increased significantly affected by nitrogen fertilizer compare to the treatment without nitrogen fertilizer but the differences between urea and ammonium nitrate were not significant (Table 2). Results indicated that N forms significant effect on root weight in both seasons. The increase among to (85% to 61%) as ammonium nitrate and urea addition as compared to control. This increasing in root weight (productivity) is mainly due to the role of N in stimulating the meristematic growth activity which contributes to the increase in number of calls in addition to cell enlargement. Similar findings were reported by [28]. Nitrogenous fertilization is one from the important step in sugar production. Sugar beet growth and yield lowered under without fertilization or non-sufficient nitrogenous fertilizers. The use of any nitrogen source depends upon N percentage, price type of crop and soil and solubility. However, nitrogen fertilizer forms as ammonium nitrate or urea increased significantly leaves weight and leaves no. as compared to control, the highest values were obtained when addition of urea fertilizer, these values were (5.71 gm and 11.44 leaves). These increases may be due to the positive effect of nitrogen on number and size of leaves which gave more leaf area in relation to ground occupied by these leaves and the accumulation of leave area in the weeks after planting is a key to success growing fodder beet [29]. While the highest values recorded when addition of ammonium nitrate (13148.1 kg/fed) for root productivity. Concerning to nitrogen fertilizer increased all yield; i.e. plant height and root length as well as root diameter. The positive response of sugar beet top and root to nitrogen application me be due to nitrogen fertilization enhanced plant capacity in protein synthesis and encouraging cell division,, where sugar beet responded positively to these building up roles of nitrogen the positive response of root diameter and other yield attributes to fertilizer of nitrogen supports the findings of [30,29]. Abd El-Mtagaly and Attia [31] pointed out that increasing rate of nitrogen fertilizer increased foliage, sugar and root yields in calcareous soil. Esmaeili [26] found that root yield increased as nitrogen increased up to the highest level used. The lowest yield was (50.28 t/h) with 0 N while the high yield was (61.45t/f) by 150 N Kg/h. Wilhelm [32] concluded that an adequate nitrogenous fertilizer in the early periods of growth is very useful for growth and yield and its quality through initiation of leaves. Nitrogen is very important for beet which plays important roles in protein building, enzymes and vitamins in plants [33].

Generally where applying ammonium nitrate gave the maximum values (13148.1 kg/fed.) for root productivity while applying of urea gave the highest values 2.48, 11.44, 5.71, 26 and 26) for root diameter leave no. leaves weight, root length and plant height.

The positive effect of nitrogen fertilization on sugar bed cultivars cleared that root yield augmentation was a consequence to positive response of root diameter, root length and increasing of metabolism efficiency from leaves to developing root. Mehdikhan [34] characterized the correlation between rooting morphology and rooting metabolites is positive and strong in sugar beet.

Water regime x N sources:

Significant differences among nitrogen sources in root yield were recorded under water stress. Table (2), ammonium nitrate gave higher root yield under 75% ETc by about (13148.4 kg/fed). These increase in root yield accompanying addition of nitrogen fertilizers might have been due to the increase in number of harvested root such results are in accordance with those reported by [35,28].

Generally, fertilized sugar beet plants with urea or ammonium nitrate improved growth criteria under different water regimes. Nitrogen fertilizer and water deficit were studies by many authors: [36,37].

Yield of roots increased by 77.96and 61.80%, 131.52 and 90.42% and 46.09 and 28.90% when plants fertilized by ammonium nitrate and urea more than the control treatments, respectively. This Data concluded that both N fertilizer forms gave its positive effects under 75% ETc Moreover, urea gave the high yield under 100% ETc but ammonium nitrate gave higher root yield under 75 and 50% ETc. Nitrogen improved yield of sugar beet under different water stress treatments. Esmaeili [26] are in line with our finding. Water requirement of sugar beet cultivation is strongly dependent on weather condition, irrigation management, plant density, growth period and genotypes [9]. Hussein, et al [38] concluded that nitrogen sources addition improved growth of jatropha plants. They found also that the longest plants with more green leaves was shown by addition of ammonium nitrate and irrigation plants in 12 days intervals and less did not affect growth parameters.

Mineral status:

Water regime:

The results demonstrate in Tables (3, 4, 5, and 6) that there was significant difference among different irrigation and different nitrogen fertilizers. The highest value of nitrogen content (0.82%) was obtained with 50% Etc followed by 100% and the lowest value with 75%. While the highest value of phosphorus (0.57%) was obtained under 100% ETc irrigation treatment.

Water stress showed a negative effect on plant N,P,Na, Mg and Ca uptake especially at 50% Etc, Mingzh and Feieke [39] reported, the drought stress had a negative effect on plant (N)(-3.73%) and plant P (9.18) and positive effect on plant N:P.

Data show Potassium content change between 0.70 to 2.18 % in root of sugar beet and 2.77 to 4.1 in leaves. Similar results reported by [40, 41].

As soon from the Tables, Na uptake in root and leaves sugar beet were increased linearly with increasing irrigation levels [41].

Magnesium content did not affected by level of water stress either in leaves or root sugar beet plant. While the Mg content in beet leaves were slightly higher than that in roots. Similar observation was made by [42]. The water stress had a significantly influence on calcium content of sugar beet. The highest content of Ca in sugar beet leaves was observed shown with 100% water regime. Calcium in leaves more than in the sugar beet root.

Data in Tables (3, 4, 5 and 6) clearly indicated that 50% ETc irrigation treatment induced the high content of N and K content in roots while P content increased under 100% ETc irrigation treatment. Na content in leaves increased with increased water stress at 50% ETc irrigation treatment but in root decreased by both 75 and 50% ETc More than the macronutrients which plants needed large quantities in its metabolism (essential macronutrients). Marschner [43]; Maathuis [44], Hansch and Mendel [45], mentioned that many physiological processes such as photosynthesis, fates and protein and enzymes affected by the level of macronutrients which play important roles in its synthesis and activity in plants. Pueke and Rennenberg [46] noticed that decreased by 94, 94, 75 and 85 of that of the control plants. Hussein, et al [38] noticed that widening of irrigation intervals showed a positive effect on N, P and K content and the reverse was true for Mn and Cu but Fe and Zn concentrations increased by 1st interval treatment and tended to decrease with the longest interval in jatropha leaves. Widening interval to 12 days decreased P, Fe and Cu content and the opposite was true for K and Ca contents.

Nitrogen source:

All nutrients content determined in leaves as well as in root increased by ammonium nitrate and urea addition. The increments resulted from urea application exceeded those obtained by ammonium nitrate application for N, P, K and Na but Ca and Mg increased when addition of ammonium nitrate. The source of N had significantly effect of N, P Mg and Ca uptake by root sugar beet. Ebert et al., [47] showed that calcium nitrate application increased leaf K and Ca concentrations in guava leaves. However, Kotsiras, et al., [48] observed that K, Ca, Mg and No3- in all fruit parts higher when N added in the form of NO3- consist 75% or more of total applied nitrogen. Gulser, et al [49] emphasized that increasing availability of P with ammonium sulphate doses through decreasing the pH was more than that by urea. Hussein, et al [38] revealed that ammonium sulphate showed the highest concentration of N, Ca, Na, Zn and Cu but ammonium nitrate gave the higher values of P and Mn. On the opposite site, the lowest of P, K and Ca with use of urea but Na obtained in control plants while lowest N by ammonium nitrates. Furthermore, a statistically significant impact not found on the N, P, K and all other nutrients content either root or leave.

Water regime x nitrogen source:

Irrigation and fertilization are the most effective factors in agricultural production but their combined impacts on the crop production are more important than individual impacts. First of all, irrigation causes more fertilizer uptake by plants. However, fertilizers can be washed below the root zone by excessive watering. Therefore, controlled irrigation and fertilization to increase plant yield is of vital importance [14].

The interaction between water regime and nitrogenous fertilizer was significantly affected N content of sugar beet plants but the differences in the other elements were not significant (Table 3). The differences between the values of Na, K and N given above may be due to the planting time, irrigation and fertilizer practices and irrigation technologies [50]. The nitrogen fertilization increased N content of roots compared to the control treatment. The increases with urea fertilizer exceeded those with ammonium nitrate. This was true under 50% ETc water regimes. The highest of N content increased by (64.5% and 29%) for urea and ammonium nitrate under 50% ETc irrigation regimes, respectively. This means that N content resulted from urea fertilization increased continuously as the depression on water regime ETc percentage. Meanwhile, application of ammonium nitrate increased the content of N under 50% ETc more than under 75% or 100% Etc In roots, increases by ammonium nitrate were lesser that induced by urea under 100% and 50% ETc quantity of irrigation water while, under 75% ETc urea increment exceeded those of urea but the value of Na content obtained by urea soil application take the same trend, still more than the control value. All other nutrients content in leaves did not showed any significant differences as responses to water regime and nitrogen fertilization interaction. N fertilization increased root growth and capacity under abiotic stress [51]. Hussein, et al [38] reported that, highest N uptake under 4 and 12 days irrigation intervals by ammonium nitrate, while under 8 days intervals it was by ammonium sulphate. The improve of all macro nutrients with different sources of nitrogen under different irrigation intervals were observed. Plant N and non-structural carbohydrate concentrations were greater in drought-hardened plants, a response that has also been reported in P. halepensis [52].

Protein percentage:

The percentage of protein in roots exceeded those in leaves Water regime as affected by water regime (Tables 3&4). Protein % decreased in pronouncedly in leaves with water stress compared to the control treatment (Table 4). However, the higher percentage of protein was by irrigated sugar beet plants with 100% ETc. In addition, the protein content in roots of 75% ETc treatment was lesser than that of the 50% ETc irrigation treatment.

Also data in Table (3) showed that fertilization with urea increased protein % in root as compared with control but the increase with urea more than that with ammonium nitrate, these values were (5.10% and 4.12%) for urea and ammonium nitrate respectively.

These results attributed to N fertilization enhanced plant capacity in protein synthesis and encouraging cell division, where sugar beet responded positively to these building up role of nitrogen, supports the findings of [30,29].

Furth more, the interaction of water regime x nitrogen forms was noted in Tables (3&4). The responses differences of this interaction were not significant either in leaves or in root.

Water Use Efficiency:

Water regime:

Water use productivity increased by 75% ETc and tended to decrease with the increase (Fig. 1) in ETc % (100%) while the 50% ETc treatment was in between. This Data are in Agreement with those of [25] who observed WUE was the highest in DI25% ETc irrigation conditions and the lowest in full irrigation condition.

Nitrogen forms:

Water use productivity was the higher with ammonium nitrate application compare to the unfertilized treatment which the lower in this phenomenon (Fig. 1).

Water Regime x Nitrogen forms:

Water use efficiency gave another point to view; it reflects the productivity management with respect of saving irrigation water. In case water scarcity, it is usual to irrigate plants by the lowest quantity of water and produce the highest quantity of productivity yield as possible. Water used efficiency of root yield (kg/[m.sup.3]) were draw in fig (1). The highest values of WUE of root yield were obtained by irrigation by 75% of the Etc (2835 [m.sup.3]/fed.) and fertilizer plants with 300 kg ammonium nitrate. On the other hand, the lowest WUE of root yield was obtained by irrigation plants with 100% of ETc and irrigation treatment and untreated plants of nitrogen, (in unfertilized ones) Fig. (1). these values were 59% (kg/[m.sup.3]) under 75% of ETc with ammonium nitrate to 20% (kg/[m.sup.3]) under unstressed condition and in untreated ones. Results obtained from the study conducted by [53] showed that drought stress resulted in the reduced efficiency of the grains water consumption

The highest values of WUP were with ammonium nitrate (Fig. 1) and 75% water quantity (ETc %) while the lowest in unfertilized ones and 100 % ETc irrigation treatment. There was a significant relationship between nitrogen fertilization rate and irrigation [54]. Irrigation influenced WUE and the response of this trait to N rates, they added that and the response to N rates and 140 kg N was optimum under 80 of ETc.


Article history:

Received 28 September 2015

Accepted 15 December 2015

Available online 24 December 2015


[1] Sander, J.Z., G.M. Batiaanssen Wim, 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat rice, cotton and maize, Agric. Water Manage, 67-115-133.

[2] Tohidloo, G.H., S.Y. Sadeghian, A. Kashani, J. Gohari, D.F. Taleghani and F. Hamdi, 2005. Study on water use efficiency, some agronomical and physiological characteristics on the three lines of sugar beet in well watered and stress conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 191: 279-301.

[3] Hassanli, A.M., S. Ahmadirad, S. Beecham, 2010. Evaluation of the influence of irrigation. Methods and water quality on sugar beet yield and water use efficiency. Agric. Water Manage, 97: 357-362.

[4] Kheirabi, J., S.A.A. Asadollahi, M.R. Entesari, A.R. Salamat, 1996. Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of Iranian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Tehran, Iran, 10-14, 1996 (in Persain).

[5] Tognetti, R., M. Palladino, A. Minnocci, S. Delfine, A. Alvino, 2003. The response of sugar beet to drip and low-pressure sprinkler irrigation in southern Italy. Agric. Water Manage, 60: 135-155.

[6] Sakellariou-Makrantonaki, M., D. Kalfountzos, P. Vyrlas, 2002. Water saving and yield increase of sugar beet with subsurface drip irrigation. Global Nest Int. J. 4(2-3): 85-91.

[7] Faberio, C., F. Martin de Santa Olalla, R. Lopez, A. Dominguez, 2003. Production and quality of the sugar beet cultivated under controlled deficit irrigation conditions in a semi-arid climate. Agric. Water Manage. 62: 215-227.

[8] Ober, E.S., C.J.A. Clark, M. Lebloa, A. Royal, K.W. Jaggard and J.D. Pidgeon, 2004. Assessing the genetic resources to improve drought in sugar beet. Agronomic traits of diverse genotypes under drought and irrigated conditions. Field Crop Res., in press.

[9] Kuchaki, B. and A. Soltani, 1995. Sugar Beet Agronomy. Mashhad University Publisher.

[10] Ouda, M.M.S., 2002. Effect of nitrogen and sulphur fertilizers levels on sugar beet in newly cultivated sandy soil. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 29: 33-50.

[11] Fathy, M.F., A. Motagally, K.K. Attia, 2009. Response of sugar beet plants to nitrogen and potassium fertilization in sandy calcareous soil. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 11(6): 695-700.

[12] Armestrong, M.J., G.F. Milford, T.O. Pocock, P.J. Last and W. Day, 1986. The dynamics of nitrogen uptake and its remobilization during the growth of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science Camb., 107: 145-154.

[13] Karim, R. and M. Rahman, 2015. Drought risk management for increased cereal production in Asian Least Developed Countries. Wither and Climatic Extremes, 7: 24-35.

[14] Ertek, A., 2014. The application for fertilizer-yield relationships of the ET-yield response factor equation. Turk. J. Agric. (TUBITAK) 38: 732-738.

[15] Kirda, C., 2002. Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance. Deficit irrigation Practices. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, pp: 30-10.

[16] Vomucka, L. and J. Pospisilvoa, 2003. Rehydration of Sugar Beet plant after water stress. Biology Plant, 46(1): 57-62.

[17] Carter, J.N., 1982. Effect of nitrogen and irrigation levels, location and year on sucrose concentration of sugar beet in southern Idaho. Journal of American Society Sugar Beet Technol., 21: 86-306.

[18] Black, C.A., D.D. Evans, L.E. Emsminger, G.L. White and F.E. Clarck, 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Agro. Inc. Madison. Wisc.

[19] Champman, H.D. and P.F. pratt, 1961. "Methods of Analysis for Soils, plants and water ". Agric. Publ. Univ., of California, Riverside.

[20] Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran, 1982. Statistical Methods 7th ed., Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames, Iowa, USA.

[21] EL-Sarag, Eman, 2013. Response of Fodder Beet Cultivars to Water Stress and Nitrogen Fertilization in Semi-Arid Regions. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 13(9): 1168-1175.

[22] Suralta, R.R., 2011. Significance of root plasticity in maintaining dry matter production in rice under fluctuating soil moisture stresses. International Award for Young Agriculture Researchers.

[23] Albayrak, S. and O. Yuksel, 2009. Leaf area prediction model for sugar beet and fodder beet. Suleyman Demirel Univeritesi, Feu Bilimleri Enstitusu Dergisi., 13(1): 20-24.

[24] Abuomi, Y.A. and D. Wright, 2002. Sugar beet leaf growth and yield response to soil water deficit. African Crop Sci. J., 10 (1): 5.

[25] Korshid, A. and A. Rajabi, 2014. Investigation in quantity and quality characters of sugar beet advanced breeding population in drought and salinity stress and unstress conditions. Intr. J. Crop Sci., 7: 532-536.

[26] Esmaeili, 2011. Evaluation of the effect of water stress and different level of nitrogen on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Intr. J of Biology, 3(2): 89-93.

[27] Topak, Ramazan, Suheri, Sinan, Acar and Bilal, 2011. Effect of different drip irrigation regimes on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield, quality and water use efficiency in Middle Anatolian, Turkey. Irrigation science, 29(1): 79-89.

[28] Mahmoud, E.A., B.S.H. Ramadan, I.H. El-Geddawy, F. Korany Samah, 2014. Effect of mineral and biofertilization on productivity of sugar beet. J. Plant Production, Mansoura Univ., 5(4): 699-710.

[29] Khogali, M.E., Y.M. Ibrahim and M.G. EL-Hag, 2012. Effect of nitrogen and spacing on growth of fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L. var. Crassa) cultivars under Sudan conditions. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific Innovation, 1(3): 67-71.

[30] Ouda, Soheir, M.M., 2005. Yield and quality of sugar beet as affected by planting density and nitrogen fertilizer levels in the new reclaimed soil. Zagazig Journal of Agircultural Research, 32(3): 701-715.

[31] Abd El-Mtagaly, F.M. and K.K. Attia, 2009. Response of sugar beet plants to nitrogen and potassium, the highest N uptake was by sown in sandy calcareous soil. Intr. J. Agric. And Biol., 11: 675-700.

[32] Wilhelm, W.W., 1998. Dry matter partitioning of leaf area of winter wheat grown in a long term fallow tillage comparisons in U.S. Central great plans. Soil and Tillage Res., 49" 49-56.

[33] Hemmat, A., A. Vahid, D. Faeshad and S. Abdolali, 2010. Effect of different levels of nitrogen fertilizer on yield, nitrate accumulation and several quantitative attributes of five Iranian spinach accessions. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. Sci., 8(4): 468-47.

[34] Mehdikhani, P., 2011. Correlation of morphological and physiological sugar beet traits with ethanol production from fresh root and molasses. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences, 1(3): 23-30.

[35] Mahmoud, E.A., M.I. Masri, 2009. Effect of nitrogen rates and its time of application on productivity of sugar beet under sprinkler irrigation in newly reclaimed soils. J. agric., Mansoura univ., 34(8): 9037-9048.

[36] Monreala, J.A., E.T. Jimineza, E. Rimsala, R. Monerilo-Velardeb, S. Garacia-Maurino and C. Echevarriaa, 2007. Proline content of sugar beet storage roots: Response of water deficit and nitrogen fertilization at field condition. Environ. Expr. Bot., 60(2): 257-267.

[37] Hussein, M.M. and Hanan S. Siam, 2014. Growth, yield and water use efficiency of fodder beet responses to the NPK fertilizer and withholding irrigation. IJSR, 3(11): 3118-3126.

[38] Hussein, M.M., Y. Camila El-Dieweny and Sawsan Y. El-Faham, 2012. Effect of irrigation intervals and nitrogen sources on growth and mineral status of jatropha plants Middle East J. of App. Sci., 2(1): 27-36.

[39] Mingzhu He and Feike A. Dijkstra, 2014. Drought effect on plant nitrogen and phosphorus: a meta-analysis. New Physiology, pp: 924-931.

[40] Yoicu, A., 2005. Van sarttlarinda sekerpancarmin kisith sulama programming belierlenmesi, Yuzuncu. Yil, Universitesi Ziraat Fakultes Yuksek Lisans Tezi, pp. 28 Iin Turkish).

[41] Ozgur, O.E., 2014. Seker Pancan (The Sugar Beet Crop). Filiz Matabaacilik San. Ve. Tic. Ltd. Sti., Ankara, ISBN 978-605-60998-2-3, pp: 9-10.

[42] NADAF, S.K., Y.M. IBRHAIM, M. AKHTAR, M.G. EL-HAG and A.H. AL-LAWATI, 1998a. Performance of fodder beet in Oman. Annals of Arid Zone., 37(4): 377-382.

[43] Marschner, H., 1995. "Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants". 2nd Ed. Acad. Press, London.

[44] Maathuis, F.J.M., 2009) Physiological functions of mineral macronutrients. Curr. Open. Plant Biol., 12: 250-258.

[45] Hansch, R. and R. Mendel, 2009. Physiological functions of micronutrients (Mn, Zn, Fe, Cu, Ni, Mo, B and Cl). Curr. Open. Plant Biol.,12: 259-266.

[46] Pueke, A.D. and H. Rennenberg, 2011. Impact of drought on macro- and microelements in provenance of beech (Fugassalyvatica L.). Tree Physiol., 31: 196-207.

[47] Ebert, G., J. Eblere, H. Ail-Dinar and P. Ludders, 2002. Ameliorating effect of calcium nitrate on growth mineral uptake and photosynthesis of NaCL-stressed guava (Pasidiumjaugava L.) seedlings. Fernandez.

[48] Kotsiras, A., C.M. Olypmos, J. Drosopoulos and H.C. Passam, 2002. Effect of nitrogen form and on the concentration and distribution of ions withen cucumber fruits.. CientiaHort., 95(3): 175-180.

[49] Gulser, F., 2005. Effect of ammonium sulphate and urea on No3- and No2- accumulation, nutrient content and yield of spinash. Cientia Hort., 106(3): 330-340.

[50] Sultan, K., E. Ahmet, 2015. Yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) at different water and nitrogen levels under the climatic conditions of Kirsehir, Turkey, Agricultural Water Management, 158: 156-165.

[51] Villar-Salvador, P., J.L. Penueles and D.L. Jacobs, 2013. Nitrogen nutrition and drought hardening exert opposite effect of the stress tolerance of Pinuspinea L. seedlings. Tree Physiol., 33(2): 221-232.

[52] Villar-Salvador, P., L. Ocana, J. Penuelas and I. Carrasco, 1999. Effect of water stress conditioning on the water relations, root growth capacity, and the nitrogen and non-structural carbohydrate concentration of PinushalepensisMill. (Aleppo pine) seedlings. Ann. For. Sc., 56: 459-465.

[53] Songsri, P., S. Jogloy, N. Vorasoot, C. Akkasaeng, A. Patanothai and C.C. Holbrook, 2008. Root distribution of drought resistant panut genotypes in response to drought. JH Agron. Crop Sci., 194: 92-103.

[54] Helvorson, A. and M. Baretolo, 2014. Nitrogen sources and rates effects on irrigated corn yield and water use efficiency. Agron. J., 95: 1479-148.

(1) Hussein, M.M, (1) Mehanna H., (2) Hanan S. Siam, (2) Safaa A. Mahmoud and (2) A.S. Taalab

(1) Water Relations Department, National Research Center, Postal Code 12262, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.

(2) Plant Nutrition Department, National Research Center, Postal Code 12262, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.

Corresponding Author: Hanan S. Siam, Water Relations Department, National Research Center, Postal Code 12262, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.


Table 1: Some physical chemical properties of El-Nobaria soil.

Particle size                              Field
distribution                               capacity (%)

Sand (%)   Silt (%)   Clay (%)   Soil

70.8       25.6       3.6        Sandy     20.1

Chemical properties

EC             pH (1:2.5)   CaC[O.sub.3]   O.M (%)
[dsm.sup.-1]                (%)

0.12           7.9          3.57           0.23

Soluble cations
(meq [L.sup.-12])

Ca++        Mg++        [K.sup.+]    [Na.sup.+]

2.4         2.0         0.162        1.87

Soluble anions
(meq [L.sup.-1])

C[O.sub     HC[O.sub    [Cl.sup.-]   S[O.sub.
.3.sup.-]   .3.sup.-]                4.sup.-]

--          1.50        0.65         4.28

Total N     Available     Available
(mg/100g)   (mg/100g)     micronutrients (ppm)

            P      K      Fe     Mn     Zn     Cu

15.1        13.0   21.0   4.47   2.61   1.44   4.0

Table 2: The effect of water regimes and nitrogen source on
the growth and productivity of sugar beet.

Water          N            Plant     Root      Leaves
regime         fertilizer   height,   length,   weight,
(W)            source (F)   cm        cm        gm

100%           Without      13.67     12.33     3.03
               Ammonium     26.00     23.67     6.00
               Urea         29.67     28.00     6.37
75%            Without      13.00     9.67      2.07
               Ammonium     29.00     28.33     6.17
               Urea         29.67     34.67     6.90
50%            Without      10.67     8.67      1.50
               Ammonium     17.67     18.33     3.47
               Urea         18.67     22.00     3.87
Water          100%         23.11     23.11     5.13
  regime       75%          23.89     23.89     5.04
  (W)          50%          15.67     15.67     2.94
N fertilizer   Without      12.44     12.44     2.20
  source(F)    Ammonium     24.22     24.22     5.21
               Urea         26.00     26.00     5.71

L.S.D. at 5 %               2.30      5.49      0.75
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               1.53      3.29      0.64
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               2.66      N.S.      1.11
  level for W X F

Water          N            Leaves   Tuber       Productivity,
regime         fertilizer   No.      diameter,   kg/fed.
(W)            source (F)            cm

100%           Without      8.33     1.30        7582
               Ammonium     11.00    2.20        13494
               Urea         11.67    1.97        12268
75%            Without      10.00    1.27        7254
               Ammonium     14.00    3.17        16802
               Urea         14.00    3.47        13813
50%            Without      7.00     1.00        6262
               Ammonium     9.00     1.70        9148
               Urea         8.67     2.00        8075
Water          100%         10.33    1.82        11115
  regime       75%          12.67    2.63        12623
  (W)          50%          8.22     1.57        7828
N fertilizer   Without      8.44     1.19        7033
  source(F)    Ammonium     11.33    2.35        13148
               Urea         11.44    2.48        11385

L.S.D. at 5 %               2.15     0.29        681
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               1.13     0.38        641
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.     0.66        1110
  level for W X F

Table 3: Minerals content in root sugar beet at different
water stress and nitrogen source

Water          N            Minerals in root
regime         fertilizer
(W)            source (F)

                            N      P      K      Na

100%           Without      0.76   0.44   0.83   0.57
               Ammonium     0.61   0.59   0.75   0.27
               Urea         0.74   0.65   1.00   0.45
75%            Without      0.69   0.48   0.68   0.40
               Ammonium     0.61   0.58   0.95   0.35
               Urea         0.68   0.63   1.13   0.75
50%            Without      0.62   0.27   0.80   0.62
               Ammonium     0.80   0.51   0.70   0.33
               Urea         1.02   0.57   2.18   0.40
Water          100%         0.69   0.57   0.86   0.43
  regime       75%          0.66   0.56   0.92   0.50
  (W)          50%          0.82   0.45   1.23   0.45
N fertilizer   Without      0.69   0.39   0.77   0.53
  source(F)    Ammonium     0.66   0.57   0.80   0.32
               Urea         0.82   0.62   1.44   0.53

L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   0.11   N.S.   N.S.
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   0.09   N.S.   N.S.
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   0.14   N.S.   N.S.
  level for W X F

Water          N            Minerals       Protein
regime         fertilizer   in root        %
(W)            source (F)

                            Mg     Ca

100%           Without      0.21   0.39    4.75
               Ammonium     0.24   0.52    3.81
               Urea         0.18   0.54    4.63
75%            Without      0.20   0.42    4.31
               Ammonium     0.20   0.67    3.80
               Urea         0.19   0.59    4.25
50%            Without      0.20   0.39    3.88
               Ammonium     0.20   0.44    5.00
               Urea         0.17   0.37    6.38
Water          100%         0.21   0.48    4.40
  regime       75%          0.19   0.56    4.12
  (W)          50%          0.19   0.39    5.10
N fertilizer   Without      0.20   0.40    4.31
  source(F)    Ammonium     0.21   0.54    4.21
               Urea         0.18   0.49    5.09

L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   0.039   N.S.
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   0.044   0.54
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   0.069   N.S.
  level for W X F

Table 4: Minerals content in leaves sugar beet at
different water stress and nitrogen source

Water          N            Minerals in leaves
regime         fertilizer
(W)            source (F)

                            N      P      K      Na

               Without      0.98   0.71   3.53   3.12
100%           Ammonium     1.47   0.67   3.55   2.63
               Urea         0.61   0.53   3.65   2.77
               Without      1.11   0.84   4.07   2.98
75%            Ammonium     0.88   0.68   2.77   3.07
               Urea         1.04   0.84   2.57   2.45
               Without      0.56   0.55   3.70   3.05
50%            Ammonium     0.82   0.69   3.32   3.15
               Urea         0.79   0.73   3.75   3.00
Water          100%         1.02   0.64   3.58   2.84
  regime       75%          0.92   0.88   3.13   2.83
  (W)          50%          0.72   0.66   3.59   3.07
N fertilizer   Without      0.88   0.70   3.77   3.05
  source(F)    Ammonium     1.05   0.75   3.21   2.95
               Urea         0.81   70.0   3.32   2.74

L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   N.S.   N.S.   N.S.
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   N.S.   N.S.   N.S.
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   N.S.   N.S.   N.S.
  level for W X F

Water          N            Minerals      Protein %
regime         fertilizer   in leaves
(W)            source (F)

                            Mg     Ca

               Without      2.40   4.50   6.13
100%           Ammonium     3.23   5.87   9.19
               Urea         3.30   6.27   3.81
               Without      2.60   4.70   6.94
75%            Ammonium     4.40   5.23   5.50
               Urea         3.63   5.33   5.25
               Without      2.30   4.27   3.50
50%            Ammonium     3.40   5.47   5.13
               Urea         3.50   5.40   4.94
Water          100%         2.98   5.54   6.48
  regime       75%          3.54   5.09   5.90
  (W)          50%          3.06   5.04   4.52
N fertilizer   Without      2.43   4.49   5.50
  source(F)    Ammonium     3.67   5.52   6.56
               Urea         3.48   5.67   5.06

L.S.D. at 5 %               0.43   N.S.   N.S.
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               0.29   0.61   N.S.
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.   N.S.   N.S.
  level for W X F

Table 5: Minerals uptake in root sugar beet at different
water stress and nitrogen sources

Water          N            Minerals uptake
regime         fertilizer   in root, kg/fed.
(W)            source (F)

                            N       P      K

100%           Without      57.7    33.6   63.6
               Ammonium     82.1    79.1   102.2
               Urea         91.5    79.7   122.3
75%            Without      50.0    34.5   49.8
               Ammonium     101.2   97.9   158.4
               Urea         94.1    87.1   157.8
50%            Without      39.1    16.9   49.9
               Ammonium     75.2    47.0   65.6
               Urea         84.8    46.7   180.6
Water          100%         76.1    65.1   96.0
  regime       75%          81.8    73.2   121.9
  (W)          50%          66.3    36.9   98.7
N fertilizer   Without      48.9    28.4   54.4
  source(F)    Ammonium     86.1    75.7   108.7
               Urea         90.2    71.2   153.6

L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.    14.8   N.S.
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               29.9    11.3   N.S.
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.    19.6   N.S.
  level for W X F

Water          N            Minerals uptake
regime         fertilizer   in root, kg/fed.
(W)            source (F)

                            Na      Mg      Ca

100%           Without      43.6    15.9    29.2
               Ammonium     35.8    32.4    69.9
               Urea         54.6    22.4    66.3
75%            Without      29.0    14.5    30.7
               Ammonium     59.1    33.1    112.0
               Urea         102.8   26.1    81.3
50%            Without      38.9    12.6    24.4
               Ammonium     30.3    18.2    40.2
               Urea         31.8    13.9    29.6
Water          100%         44.6    23.5    55.2
  regime       75%          63.6    24.6    74.7
  (W)          50%          33.7    14.9    31.4
N fertilizer   Without      37.2    14.3    28.1
  source(F)    Ammonium     41.7    27.9    74.1
               Urea         60.3    20.8    59.1

L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.    03.36   07.6
  level for W
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.    02.64   05.5
  level for F
L.S.D. at 5 %               N.S.    04.57   09.4
  level for W X F

Table 6: Minerals uptake in leaves sugar beet at different water
stress and nitrogen sources

Water regime (W)          N fertilizer       Minerals uptake in
                          source (F)         leaves, g/plant

                                             N       P       K

100%                      Without            0.030   0.021   0.111
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.084   0.040   0.210
                          Urea               0.038   0.031   0.233
75%                       Without            0.023   0.017   0.085
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.053   0.042   0.174
                          Urea               0.071   0.059   0.176
50%                       Without            0.008   0.008   0.056
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.028   0.024   0.117
                          Urea               0.031   0.029   0.147
Water regime (W)          100%               0.051   0.031   0.185
                          75%                0.047   0.041   0.145
                          50%                0.023   0.020   0.107
N fertilizer source (F)   Without            0.020   0.016   0.084
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.051   0.039   0.167
                          Urea               0.042   0.044   0.185
L.S.D. at 5 % level for W                    N.S.    0.014   N.S.
L.S.D. at 5 % level for F                    N.S.    0.018   0.045
L.S.D. at 5 % level for W X F                N.S.    N.S.    0.079

Water regime (W)          N fertilizer       Minerals uptake in
                          source (F)         leaves, g/plant

                                             Na      Mg      Ca

100%                      Without            0.096   0.073   0.136
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.156   0.195   0.354
                          Urea               0.177   0.209   0.398
75%                       Without            0.063   0.054   0.099
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.189   0.273   0.326
                          Urea               0.169   0.252   0.369
50%                       Without            0.046   0.035   0.064
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.112   0.118   0.190
                          Urea               0.119   0.136   0.212
Water regime (W)          100%               0.143   0.159   0.296
                          75%                0.140   0.193   0.264
                          50%                0.092   0.096   0.155
N fertilizer source (F)   Without            0.068   0.054   0.099
                          Ammonium Nitrate   0.152   0.195   0.289
                          Urea               0.155   0.199   0.326
L.S.D. at 5 % level for W                    0.041   0.041   0.040
L.S.D. at 5 % level for F                    0.032   0.031   0.056
L.S.D. at 5 % level for W X F                0.056   0.055   N.S.
COPYRIGHT 2015 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hussein, M.M.; Mehanna, H.; Siam, Hanan S.; Mahmoud, Safaa A.; Taalab, A.S.
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Date:Dec 1, 2015
Previous Article:Exploring the environmental benefits associated with battery swapping system processes.
Next Article:Synthesis of (PVA-PEG-PVP-MgO) nanobiomaterials and their application.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |