Formation of leaf surface area and photosynthetic indicators of sugar beet crops depending on microfertilizers and fungicide protection systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32636/01308521.2023-(74)-1-8Keywords:
sugar beet, hybrid, fungicides, microfertilizers, leaf surface area, photosynthetic potential, net photosynthetic productivityAbstract
The article presents the results of studying the influence of microfertilizers and fungicidal protection systems on the formation of leaf surface area and photosynthetic indicators of sugar beet crops. The maximum leaf surface area of sugar beets was in the first decade of August – 35.0 and 37.6 thousand m2/ha, the photosynthetic potential of crops was in the first decade of September – 0.92 and 0.97 million m2 days/ha, the net crop photosynthetic productivity was in the first decade of August – 7.32 and 9.33 g/m2 per day, respectively, in hybrids Pushkin and Acacia. Depending on the accounting periods, the hybrid Acacia exceeded the hybrid Pushkin by these indicators on 9.8–12.6, 5.6–8.3 and 3.3–27.5 %.
Application of microfertilizers yaravita bortrac150 and yaravita mancozin in foliar fertilization increased the leaf surface area of sugar beet plants during the period of leaf closure in the interrow, the first decade of August and September by 2.4 and 1.4, 2.7 and 3.8, 2.1 and 2.6 thousand m2/ha, compared to the control. The increase in photosynthetic potential and net photosynthetic productivity in the first decade of September was 8.6 and 10.4 %, 1.4 and 3.1 %, respectively with microfertilizers yaravita bortrac150 and yaravita mancozin. The leaf surface area of sugar beet plants on variants with the second microfertilizer was 2.4–3.6 % higher than with the first.
The use of fungicidal protection systems increased the leaf surface area of sugar beets on the second option (shtefstrobin (0.6 l/ha) + shtefozal (0.5 l/ha) + shtilvet (0.1 l/ha)) by 2 ,3 thousand m2/ha; the third option (tserkoshtef (0.5 l/ha) + shtefstrobin (0.6 l/ha) + shtilvet (0.1 l/ha)) on 2.7 thousand m2/ ha, to the fourth (tserkoshtef (0.5 l/ha) + shtefozal (0.5 l/ha) + shtilvet (0.1 l/ha)) by 2.5 thousand m2/ha, compared with control. There was no significant difference was observed in the indicators of photosynthetic potential and net productivity of photosynthesis between the options of fungicide protection.
The highest leaf surface area, photosynthetic potential and net photosynthetic productivity were obtained in the hybrid sugar beet Acacia on the option of fungicide protection tserkoshtef (0.5 l/ha) + stefstrobin (0.6 l/ha) + shtilvet (0.1 l/ha) and foliar fertilization microfertilizer Yaravita mancozin (1 l/ha).
References
1. Аскаров В. Р. Вплив мікродобрив та фунгіцидів на урожайність, якість та ефективність вирощування цукрових буряків. Наукові доповіді НУБіП України. 2016. № 5. URL: http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/index.php/Dopovidi/article/view/7241 (дата звернення: 18.07.2023).
2. Аскаров В. Р. Продуктивність гібридів буряків цукрових нового покоління за використання комплексних мікродобрив та фунгіцидів у Лісостепу України : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. с.-г. наук : спец. 06.01.09 «Рослинництво» / НААН, Інститут біоенергетичних культур і цукрових буряків. Київ, 2017. 23 с.
3. Городецький О. С., Грабовський М. Б. Технологічні якості коренеплодів та економічна ефективність вирощування гібридів буряка цукрового компанії КВС в умовах ФГ «Расавське» Кагарлицького району Київської області. Агробіологія. 2018. № 2. С. 34‒40.
4. Жердецький І. М. Позакореневе підживлення у процесі формування врожаю цукрового буряку. Землеробство. 2008. Вип. 80. С. 115–121.
5. Іоніцой Ю. С. Наукові основи оптимізації агротехнічних умов вирощування буряків цукрових різних біологічних форм : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня д-ра с.-г. наук : спец. 06.01.09 «Рослинництво» / НААН, ННЦ «Інститут землеробства». Київ, 2016. 43 с.
6. Методики проведення досліджень у буряківництві / М. В. Роїк та ін. Київ : ФОП Корзун Д. Ю., 2014. 373 с.
7. Стрілець О. П. Продуктивність цукрових буряків залежно від комплексного застосування мікродобрив та фунгіцидів в умовах Правобережної частини Лісостепу України : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. с.-г. наук : спец. 06.01.09 «Рослинництво» / НААН, Інститут біоенергетичних культур і цукрових буряків. Київ, 2014. 20 с.
8. Abbas M. S., Mohamed H. S., Shahba M. A. New Approach to Utilize Nano-Micronutrients in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Sugar Beet Cultivation, Management and Processing / Misra V., Srivastava S., Mall A. K. (eds). Singapore : Springer, 2022. Р. 291‒313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2730-0_15.
9. Afeez B., Khanif Y. M., Saleem M. Role of zinc in plant nutrition. A review. American journal of experimental Agriculture. 2013.No 3. Р. 374‒391.
10. Artyszak A., Gozdowski D., Kucińska K. Effect of foliar fertilization with silicon on the chosen physiological features and yield of sugar beet. Fragmenta Agronomica. 2016. No 33 (2). Р. 7‒14.
11. Assessment of the physiological responses to drought in different sugar beet genotypes in connection with their genetic distance / D. Chołuj et al. J. Plant Physiol. 2014. No 171. P. 1221‒1230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2014.04.016.
12. Barłóg P., Nowacka A., Błaszyk R. Effect of zinc band application on sugar beet yield, quality and nutrient uptake. Plant Soil Environ. 2016. No 62. Р. 30‒35. DOI: 10.17221/677/2015-PSE.
13. Bhat S. A., Singh J., Vig A. P. Vermistabilization of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) waste produced from sugar factory using earthworm Eisenia fetida: Genotoxic assessment by Allium cepa test. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2015. Vol. 22. P. 11236‒11254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4302-4.
14. Biochemistry and cell ultrastructure changes during senescence of Beta vulgaris L. leaf / A. K. Romanova et al. Protoplasma. 2016. No 253. Р. 719‒727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-015-0923-1.
15. Calcium and zinc mediated growth and physio-biochemical changes in mungbean grown under saline conditions / M. Y. Ashraf et al. J. Plant Nutr. 2020. No 43. Р. 512‒525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2019.1685098.
16. Coombs J., Hall D. O., Long S. P. Techniques in bioproductivity and photosynthesis. Pergamon press, 1985. 324 р.
17. Duraisam R., Salelgn K., Berekete A. K. Production of beet sugar and bioethanol from sugar beet and it bagasse: a review. Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 2017. No 43. Р. 222‒233.
18. Economic efficiency of sugar beet production / T. N. Lubova et al. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2018. No 13 (8). Р. 6565‒6569. DOI: 10.36478/jeasci.2018.6565.6569.
19. Effect of boron deficiency on the photosynthetic performance of sugar beet cultivars with contrasting boron efficiencies
/ X. Song et al. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022. No 13. 1101171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1101171.
20. Effect of differentiated foliar fertilization on chosen physiological features of sugar beet / A. Artyszak et al. Fragmenta Agronomica. 2018. No 35 (1). P. 7‒16. DOI: 10.26374/fa.2018.35.01.
21. Effect of Fungicide Protection of Sugar Beet Leaves (Beta vulgaris L.): Results of Many Years Experiments / I. Jaskulska et al. Agronomy. 2023. No 13 (2). 346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020346.
22. Exogenous micronutrients modulate morpho-physiological attributes, yield, and sugar quality in two salt-stressed sugar
beet cultivars / T. A. Abd El-Mageed et al. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2021. No 21. Р. 1421‒1436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00450-y.
23. Feizi M., Fallahzade J., Noorshargh P. Sugar beet yield response to different levels of saline irrigation water and leaching in an arid region. J. Plant Nutr. 2018. No 41. Р. 654–663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2017.1415353.
24. Ghazy N., Shahin A. A., Mustafa F. A. Effect of Some Mineral Elements on the Yield, Sugar Contents and Improving Resistance to Cercospora Leaf Spot of Sugar Beet. Environment. Biodiversity and Soil Security. 2020. Vol. 4. Р. 73‒83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/jenvbs.2020.28240.1090.
25. Grzebisz W. Crop response to magnesium fertilization as affected by nitrogen supply. Plant and Soil. 2013. Vol. 368. Р. 23‒39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1574-z.
26. Hoffmann C. M., Koch H. J., Märländer B. Sugar beet. Crop Physiology ‒ Case Histories for Major Crops / Sadras V. O., Calderini D. F., Eds. San Diego, CA, USA : Elsevier Inc., 2020. Р. 635‒674.
27. Impact of climatic variables on carbon content in sugar beet root / L. F. Sánchez-Sastre et al. Agronomy. 2018. No 8. 147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8080147.
28. Impact of seed stimulation and foliar fertilization with microelements on changes in the chemical composition and productivity of sugar beet / U. Prośba-Białczyk et al. Journal of Elementology. 2017. No 22 (4). Р. 1525‒1535. DOI: 10.5601/jelem.2017.22.1.1408.
29. Impact of Superabsorbent Polymers and Variety on Yield, Quality and Physiological Parameters of the Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris prov. Altissima Doell) / V. Pačuta et al. Plants. 2021. No 10 (4). 757. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040757.
30. Karlsson Green K., Stenberg J. A., Lankinen A. Making sense of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the light of evolution. Evol. Appl. 2020. No 13. Р. 1791‒1805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13067.
31. Leaf, canopy and agronomic water use efficiency of field grown sugar beet in response to potassium fertilization / B. Jákli et al. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2018. No 204. Р. 99‒110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12239.
32. Living to die and dying to live: The survival strategy behind leaf senescence / J. H. M. Schippers et al. Plant Physiol. 2015. No 169. Р. 914‒930. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.00498.
33. Mekki B. B. Root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in response to foliar application with urea, zinc and manganese in newly reclaimed sandy soil. Am.-Euras. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2014. No 14. Р. 800‒806.
34. Micronutrients and their diverse role in agricultural crops: advances and future prospective / D. K. Tripathi et al. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015. No 37. Р. 139‒153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-015-1870-3.
35. Monitoring of sugar beet growth indicators using wide-dynamic-range vegetation index (WDRVI) derived from UAV multispectral images / Y. Cao et al. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020. No 171. 105331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105331.
36. Pathak A. D., Kapur R., Solomon S. Sugar Beet: A Historical Perspective in Indian Context. Sugar Tech. 2014. No 16. Р. 125‒132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-014-0304-7.
37. Quantity and Quality Changes in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris Provar. Altissima Doel) Induced by Different Sources of Biostimulants / M. Rašovský et al. Plants. 2022. No 11. 2222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11172222.
38. Sensitivity of Cercospora beticola to fungicides in Slovakia / K. Hudec et al. Acta Fytotech. Zootech. 2020. No 23. Р. 147‒154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2020.23.03.147-154.
39. Shehzad M. A., Maqsood M. Integrated nitrogen and boron fertilization improves the productivity and oil quality of sunflower grown in a calcareous soil. Turk. J. Field Crops. 2015. No 20 (2). Р. 213‒222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.83107.
40. Sugar beet fertilisation for sustainable yield under climate change conditions / V. Ivanina et al. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture. 2021. No 108 (4). Р. 355‒362. DOI: 10.13080/z-a.2021.108.045.
41. Sugar beet pulp: Resurgence and trailblazing journey towards a circular bioeconomy / A. K. Rana et al. Fuel. 2022. No 312. 122953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122953.
42. Sugar Beet Root Yield and Quality with Leaf Seasonal Dynamics in Relation to Planting Densities and Nitrogen Fertilization / I. Varga et al. Agriculture. 2021. No 11. 407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050407.
43. Sustainability of the sugar beet crop / P. Stevanato et al. Sugar Tech. 2019. No 21. Р. 703‒716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-019-00734-9.
44. Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy / N. Jordan et al. Science. 2007. No 316. Р. 1570‒1571. DOI: 10.1126/science.1141700.
45. Tsialtas J. T., Baxevanos D., Maslaris N. Chlorophyll meter readings, leaf area index, and their stability as assessments of yield and quality in sugar beet cultivars grown in two contrasting environments. Crop Sci. 2014. No 54. Р. 265‒273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2013.03.0186.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Арсеній ПОТАПОВ, Микола ГРАБОВСЬКИЙ (Автор)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
