Analysis of Tuber Yield and Sugar Content of 10 Sugar Beet Varieties in Susceptible and Non-Susceptible Areas

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0511

Abstract

Abstract:

To evaluate the impact of susceptible and non-susceptible areas on root yield and sugar content of sugar beet, the root yield and sugar content of 10 sugar beet varieties were measured in 2017 and 2018 in 1 susceptible area and 6 non-susceptible areas. The experiment was a randomized complete block design, and the paired t-test and multivariate analysis of variance were adopted to analyze tuber yield and sugar content of the ten sugar beet varieties with 4 replicates. The results of multivariate analysis of variance showed that, except zone 3 in 2018, there was no significant difference in root yield among the 4 replicates in the other 6 zones in 2018 compared with 2017. Significant and non-significant differences were shown among the 10 varieties in the 7 areas in 2017 and 2018. The boxplot showed that the sugar content in 2017 and the root yield and sugar content in 2018 were significantly different between the susceptible area (zone 1) and the non-infectious areas (zone 2 to 7) (paired t-test, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001). In 2017, BETA377, BETA468, ST13112, LN90905, KWS2314, SV1554, BETA379 and KWS9147 in zone 1 had no significant differences and were at a high level. In 2018, the root yield of Knhn1357 in zone 1 was significantly different from that of the other nine varieties and was at a high level. In zone 1, the sucrose content of HI0554, BETA377, Kuhn1357 and SV1554 in 2017 and HI0554, BETA468, KWS2314 and Kuhn1357 were not significantly different from each other in 2018 and were at a higher level. In 2017 and 2018, except that LN90905 and HI0554 in 2017 had significant differences, there was no significant difference in root yield and sugar content of the 10 varieties in zone 5. In 2017 and 2018, there were significant differences in root yield and sugar content in zone 1 (paired t-test, P<0.001, P =0.036). In zone 5, there was no significant difference in root yield and significant difference in sugar content among the 10 varieties in 2017 and 2018 (paired t-test, p=0.931, p<0.001). After a comprehensive assessment, ST13112, LN90905 and SV1554 are less resistant to the disease, Knhn1357, BETA377, BETA468, KWS2314, KWS9147, BETA379 and HI0554 have strong disease resistance, and there are significant differences in root yield and sugar content within the same zone and among the varieties.

Key words: sugar beet, tuber yield, sugar content, paired t-test, multivariate analysis of variance

CLC Number:

Zhao Yaru, Shi Haoqi, Pi Zhi, Wu Zedong. Analysis of Tuber Yield and Sugar Content of 10 Sugar Beet Varieties in Susceptible and Non-Susceptible Areas[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(26): 1-8.

Figures/Tables 5

References 27

[1]	Romeiras M M, Ana V, Silva D N, et al. Evolutionary and biogeographic insights on the macaronesian Beta-Patellifolia species (Amaranthaceae) from a time-scaled molecular phylogeny[J]. Plos One, 2016, 11(3):e0152456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152456 URL
[2]	Pedersen H, Keimer B. Haploidy in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)[M]. Springer Netherlands, 1996:17-36.
[3]	Lamani K D, Halikatti S I. Performance of sugar beet (Beeta vulgaris) to different dates of sowing under temperature regime[J]. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 2019:1-12.
[4]	Biancardi E, Ebrary I. Genetics and Breeding of Sugar Beet[J]. Science Publishers, 2005: 10.
[5]	Kaloi G M, Mari A H, Bughio N, et al. Growth assessment of exotic sugar beet varieties in southen-zone of Sindh[J]. Pakistan Sugar Journal, 2019, 34(2):33-40.
[6]	Wu G Q, Lin L Y, Jiao Q, et al. Tetraploid exhibits more tolerant to salinity than diploid in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2019, 41(4):52. doi: 10.1007/s11738-019-2844-7 URL
[7]	Ebmeyer H, Hoffmann C M. Early drought stress: effects on yield formation and quality of sugar beet[J]. Zuckerindustrie, Sugar industry, 2020:104-113.
[8]	Jaggard K W, Qi A, Semenov M A. The impact of climate change on sugar beet yield in the UK: 1976-2004[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2007, 145(4):367-375.
[9]	Leng G, Huang M. Crop yield response to climate change varies with crop spatial distribution pattern[J]. Rep, 2017, 7(1):1-10. doi: 10.1530/jrf.0.0070001 URL
[10]	Lobell D, Cahill K N, Field C B. Historical effects of temperature and precipitation on California crop yields[J]. Climatic Change, 2007, 81(2):187-203. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9141-3 URL
[11]	Monreal J A, Jiménez ET, Remesal E, et al. Proline content of sugar beet storage roots: Response to water deficit and nitrogen fertilization at field conditions[J]. Environmental & Experimental Botany, 2007, 60(2):257-267.
[12]	Podlaski S, Chomontowski C. Various methods of assessing Sugar Beet seed vigour and its impact on the germination process, Field Emergence and Sugar Yield[J]. Sugar Tech, 2020, 22(1):130-136. doi: 10.1007/s12355-019-00754-5 URL
[13]	Lei H, Liu J, Zhang L. Tourism image endorsement based on experiment and variance analysis[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, 371(5):052001. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/371/5/052001 URL
[14]	Lamani K D. Performance of sugar beet genotypes and date of sowing on yield and quality parameters[J]. Advances in Research, 2019, 18(2):1-7.
[15]	King B A, Tarkalson D D. Irrigated sugarbeet sucrose content in relation to growing season climatic conditions in the northwest U.S[J]. Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 2017, 54:1-2.
[16]	Jones P D, Lister D H, Jaggard K W, et al. Future climate impact on the productivity of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Europe[J]. Climatic Change, 2003, 58(1-2):93-108. doi: 10.1023/A:1023420102432 URL
[17]	Kenter C, Hoffmann C M., Märländer B. Effects of weather variables on sugar beet yield development (Beta vulgaris L.)[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2006, 24(1):62-69. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2005.05.001 URL
[18]	Ulrich A. The influence of temperature and light factors on the growth and development of sugar beets in controlled climatic environments[J]. Agronomy journal, 1952, 44(2):45-58.
[19]	Ohki K, Ulrich A. Sugarbeet growth and development under controlled climatic conditions with reference to night temperature[J]. Journal of Sugar beet Research, 1973, 17(3):270. doi: 10.5274/jsbr URL
[20]	Chmielewski F M, A Müller, Bruns E. Climate changes and trends in phenology of fruit trees and field crops in Germany, 1961-2000[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2004:69-78.
[21]	Milford G, Pocock T O, Riley J, et al. An analysis of leaf growth in sugar beet. iii. leaf expansion in field crops[J]. Annals of Applied Biology, 2010, 106(1):187-203. doi: 10.1111/aab.1985.106.issue-1 URL
[22]	Scott R K, English S D, Wood D W, et al. The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1973, 81(2):339-347.
[23]	Freckleton R P, Watkinson A R, Webb D J, et al. Yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and nutrients[J]. Agricultural & Forest Meteorology, 1999, 93(1):39-51.
[24]	Hafner S. Trends in maize, rice, and wheat yields for 188 nations over the past 40 years: a prevalence of linear growth[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2003, 97(1-3):275-283. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00019-7 URL
[25]	Hammer G L, Dong Z, Mclean G, et al. Can changes in canopy and/or root system architecture explain historical maize yield trends in the U.S. Corn Belt?[J]. Crop Science, 2009, 49(1):299-312. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.03.0152 URL
[26]	Tarkalson D D, Bjorneberg D L, Camp S, et al. Improving Nitrogen Management in Pacific Northwest Sugar beet Production[J]. Journal of Sugar beet Research, 2016, 53(1):14-38. doi: 10.5274/jsbr URL
[27]	Bhullar M S, Uppal S K, Kapur M L. Effect of agronomic practices and varieties on productivity of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in semi-arid region of Punjab[J]. Journal of Research Punjab Agricultural University, 2009, 46(1-2):6-8.

区域	位置	海拔/m	经纬度
区域1^*	黑龙江	116.0	126°25′E,45°49′N
区域2^**	黑龙江	116.0	126°25′E,48°52′N
区域3^**	黑龙江	213.0	125°17′E,48°52′N
区域4^**	内蒙古	442.3	121°35′E,45°42′N
区域5^**	吉林	224.5	122°33′E,45°14′N
区域6^**	黑龙江	280.0	126°11′E,47°11′N
区域7^**	黑龙江	229.0	125°29′E,48°32′N

区域	位置	海拔/m	经纬度
区域1^*	黑龙江	116.0	126°25′E,45°49′N
区域2^**	黑龙江	116.0	126°25′E,48°52′N
区域3^**	黑龙江	213.0	125°17′E,48°52′N
区域4^**	内蒙古	442.3	121°35′E,45°42′N
区域5^**	吉林	224.5	122°33′E,45°14′N
区域6^**	黑龙江	280.0	126°11′E,47°11′N
区域7^**	黑龙江	229.0	125°29′E,48°32′N

区域	2017				2018
	根产量		含糖率		根产量		含糖率
	地块	品种	地块	品种	地块	品种	地块	品种
区域1	0.833	0.008^*	0.538	<0.001^*	0.366	<0.001^*	0.342	<0.001^*
区域2	0.891	0.828	0.231	0.002^*	0.666	0.492	0.455	<0.001^*
区域3	0.150	0.001^*	0.440	<0.001^*	0.008^*	0.002^*	0.443	0.005^*
区域4	0.829	0.001^*	0.559	0.033^*	0.470	0.260	0.075	0.838
区域5	0.151	0.018^*	0.256	0.472	0.449	0.491	0.062	0.876
区域6	0.850	0.014^*	0.294	0.481	0.042	0.001^*	0.075	0.001^*
区域7	0.628	0.848	0.517	0.137	0.361	0.305	0.025^*	0.008^*

区域	2017				2018
	根产量		含糖率		根产量		含糖率
	地块	品种	地块	品种	地块	品种	地块	品种
区域1	0.833	0.008^*	0.538	<0.001^*	0.366	<0.001^*	0.342	<0.001^*
区域2	0.891	0.828	0.231	0.002^*	0.666	0.492	0.455	<0.001^*
区域3	0.150	0.001^*	0.440	<0.001^*	0.008^*	0.002^*	0.443	0.005^*
区域4	0.829	0.001^*	0.559	0.033^*	0.470	0.260	0.075	0.838
区域5	0.151	0.018^*	0.256	0.472	0.449	0.491	0.062	0.876
区域6	0.850	0.014^*	0.294	0.481	0.042	0.001^*	0.075	0.001^*
区域7	0.628	0.848	0.517	0.137	0.361	0.305	0.025^*	0.008^*