Evaluation of Various Organic Amendment Sources to Improve the Root Yield and Sugar Contents of Sugar Beet Genotypes (Beta vulgaris L.) under Arid Environments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site, Soil and Climate
2.2. Experimental Design and Treatments and Plant Material
2.3. Crop Husbandry
2.4. Procedure for Recording the Data
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation of Optimized Doses of Organic Amendments for Sugar Beet Crop
3.2. Effect of Different Optimized Doses of Organic Amendments on Sugar Beet Genotypes under Different Environmental Sites
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ahmad, S.; Zubair, M.; Iqbal, N.; Cheema, N.M.; Mahmood, K. Evaluation of sugar beet hybrid varieties under Thal-Kumbi soil series of Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2012, 14, 605–608. [Google Scholar]
- Abou-Elwafa, S.F.; Amin, A.E.E.A.; Eujayl, I. Genetic diversity of sugar beet under heat stress and deficit irrigation. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 3579–3590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mekdad, A.A.A.; Shaaban, A. Integrative applications of nitrogen, zinc, and boron to nutrients-deficient soil improves sugar beet productivity and technological sugar contents under semi-arid conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 1935–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mubarak, M.U.; Zahir, M.; Ahmad, S.; Wakeel, A. Sugar beet yield and industrial sugar contents improved by potassium fertilization under scarce and adequate moisture conditions. J. Integrat. Agric. 2016, 15, 2620–2626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Varga, I.; Jović, J.; Rastija, M.; Markulj Kulundžić, A.; Zebec, V.; Lončarić, Z.; Iljkić, D.; Antunović, M. Efficiency and management of nitrogen fertilization in sugar beet as spring crop: A review. Nitrogen 2022, 3, 170–185. [Google Scholar]
- Marx, S.; Brandling, J.; Van der Gryp, P. Ethanol production from tropical sugarbeet juice. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 11709–11720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmad, S.; Ghaffar, A.; Rahman, M.H.U.; Hussain, I.; Iqbal, R.; Haider, G.; Khan, M.A.; Ikram, R.M.; Hussnain, H.; Bashir, M.S. Effect of Application of Biochar, Poultry and Farmyard Manures in Combination with Synthetic Fertilizers on Soil Fertility and Cotton Productivity under Arid Environment. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2021, 52, 2018–2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammad, H.M.; Khaliq, A.; Abbas, F.; Farhad, W.; Fahad, S.; Aslam, M.; Shah, G.M.; Nasim, W.; Mubeen, M.; Bakhat, H.F. Comparative effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil organic carbon and wheat productivity under arid region. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 1406–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barlog, P.; Grzebisz, W.; Peplinski, K.; Szczepaniak, W. Sugar beet response to balanced nitrogen fertilization with phosphorus and potassium. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 19, 1311–1318. [Google Scholar]
- Hadir, S.; Gaiser, T.; Hüging, H.; Athmann, M.; Pfarr, D.; Kemper, R.; Ewert, F.; Seidel, S. Sugar beet shoot and root phenotypic plasticity to nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and lime omission. Agriculture 2020, 11, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrispaul, M.; David, M.M.; Joseph, A.O.; Samuel, V.O. Effective microorganism and their influence on growth and yield of pigweed (Amaranthus dubians L.). J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2010, 5, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
- Golabi, M.H.; Denney, M.J.; Iyekar, C. Value of composted organic wastes as an alternative to synthetic fertilizers for soil quality improvement and increased yield. Compost Sci. Utilizat. 2007, 15, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.; Hussain, I.; Ghaffar, A.; Rahman, M.H.U.; Saleem, M.Z.; Yonas, M.W.; Hussnain, H.; Ikram, R.M.; Arslan, M. Organic amendments and conservation tillage improve cotton productivity and soil health indices under arid climate. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 14072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chauhan, P.S.; Singh, A.; Singh, R.P.; Ibrahim, M.H. Environmental Impacts of Organic Fertilizer Usage in Agriculture. In Organic Fertilizers: Types, Production and Environmental Impact; Nova Science Publisher: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 63–84. [Google Scholar]
- Perveen, S.; Ahmad, S.; Skalicky, M.; Hussain, I.; Habibur-Rahman, M.; Ghaffar, A.; Shafqat Bashir, M.; Batool, M.; Hassan, M.M.; Brestic, M.; et al. Assessing the potential of polymer coated urea and sulphur fertilization on growth, physiology, yield, oil contents and nitrogen use efficiency of sunflower crop under arid environment. Agronomy 2021, 11, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ijaz, M.; Hussain, I.; Tahir, M.; Shahid, M.; Ul-Allah, S.; Zafar, M.; Rasheed, I.; Nawaz, A. Alternatives to Synthetic Fertilizers. In Agricultural Waste; Apple Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 253–273. [Google Scholar]
- Minhas, W.A.; Hussain, M.; Mehboob, N.; Nawaz, A.; UL-Allah, S.; Rizwan, M.S.; Hassan, Z. Synergetic use of biochar and synthetic nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers to improves maize productivity and nutrient retention in loamy soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sattar, A.; Sher, A.; Ijaz, M.; Ul-Allah, S.; Butt, M.; Irfan, M.; Rizwan, M.S.; Ali, H.; Cheema, M.A. Interactive effect of biochar and silicon on improving morpho-physiological and biochemical attributes of maize by reducing drought hazards. J. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 1819–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scotti, R.; Ascoli, R.; Bonanomi, G.; Caceres, M.G.; Sultana, S.; Cozzolino, L.; Scelza, R.; Zoina, A.; Rao, M.A. Combined use of compost wood scraps to increase carbon stock improve soil quality in intensive farming systems. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2015, 66, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scotti, R.; Bonanomi, G.; Scelza, R.; Zoina, A.; Rao, M.A. Organic amendments as sustainable tool to recovery fertility in intensive agricultural systems. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 333–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaccardelli, M.; De Nicola, F.; Villecco, D.; Scotti, R. The development and suppressive activity of soil microbial communities under compost amendment. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 13, 730–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agbede, T.M. Effect of tillage, biochar, poultry manure and NPK 15-15-15 fertilizer, and their mixture on soil properties, growth and carrot (Daucus carota L.) yield under tropical conditions. Heliyon 2021, 7, 07391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enticknap, J.J.; Nonogaki, H.; Place, A.R.; Hill, R.T. Microbial diversity associated with odor modification for production of fertilizers from chicken litter. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 4105–4114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Y.; Wang, P.; Li, J.; Chen, Y.; Ying, X.; Liu, S. The effects of two organic manures on soil properties and crop yields on a temperate calcareous soil under a wheat-maize cropping system. Eur. J. Agron. 2009, 31, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojha, R.B.; Shah, S.C.; Pande, K.R.; Dhakal, D.D. Residual effect of farm yard manure on soil properties in spring season, Chitwan, Nepal. Int. J. Sci. Res. Agric. Sci. 2014, 1, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donn, S.; Wheatley, R.E.; McKenzie, B.M.; Loades, K.W.; Hallett, P.D. Improved soil fertility from compost amendment increases root growth and reinforcement of surface soil on slope. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 71, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vida, C.; de Vicente, A.; Cazorla, F.M. The role of organic amendments to soil for crop protection: Induction of suppression of soilborne pathogens. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2020, 176, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Ma, Y.; Cayuela, M.L.; Sanchez, M.A.; Wang, Q. Compost biochemical quality mediates nitrogen leaching loss in a greenhouse soil under vegetable cultivation. Geoderma 2020, 358, 113984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Nawaz, A.; Al-Sadi, A.M.; Solaiman, Z.M.; Alghamdi, S.S.; Ammara, U.; Ok, Y.S.; Siddique, K.H.M. Biochar for crop production: Potential benefits and risks. J. Soils Sedim. 2017, 17, 685–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turan, V. Calcite in combination with olive pulp biochar reduces Ni mobility in soil and its distribution in chili plant. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2022, 24, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turan, V.; Schroder, P.; Bilen, S. Co-inoculation effect of Rhizobium and Achillea millefolium L. oil extracts on growth of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and soil microbial-chemical properties. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 15178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barrow, C.J. Biochar: Potential for countering land degradation and for improving agriculture. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 34, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inyang, M.; Dickenson, E. The potential role of biochar in the removal of organic and microbial contaminants from potable and reuse water: A review. Chemosphere 2015, 134, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzoor, S.; Habib-ur-Rahman, M.; Haider, G.; Ghafoor, I.; Ahmad, S.; Afzal, M.; Nawaz, F.; Iqbal, R.; Yasin, M.; Danish, S.; et al. Biochar and slow-releasing nitrogen fertilizers improved growth, nitrogen use, yield, and fiber quality of cotton under arid climatic conditions. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2021, 29, 13742–13755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stavi, I.; Lal, R. Agroforestry and biochar to offset climate change: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Turan, V. Confident performance of chitosan and pistachio shell biochar on reducing Ni bioavailability in soil and plant plus improved the soil enzymatic activities, antioxidant defense system and nutritional quality of lettuce. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 183, 109594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turan, V.; Aydın, S.; Sonmez, O. Production, Cost Analysis, and Marketing of Bioorganic Liquid Fertilizers and Plant Nutrition Enhancers. In Industrial Microbiology Based Entrepreneurship. Microorganisms for Sustainability; Amaresan, N., Dharumadurai, D., Cundell, D.R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 42. [Google Scholar]
- Adekiya, A.O.; Agbede, T.M.; Aboyeji, C.M.; Dunsin, O.; Simeon, V.T. Effects of biochar and poultry manure on soil characteristics and the yield of radish. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 243, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmad, Z.; Shah, P.; Kakar, K.M.; El-Sharkawi, H.; Gama, P.B.; Khan, E.A.; Honna, T.; Yamamoto, S. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to different planting methods and row geometries II: Effect on plant growth and quality. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2010, 8, 785–791. [Google Scholar]
- Legendre, B.L.; Henderson, M.T. The history and development of sugar yield calculations. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 1972, 2, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
- Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Abou El-Magd, B.M.; Abd El-Azeem, S.M.; El-Shikha, S.A. Effect of farmyard manure and potassium fertilization on some soil properties and productivity of sugar beet crop. J. Agric. Res. Kafr El-Sheikh Univ. 2012, 38, 420–442. [Google Scholar]
- El-Ghareib, E.A.; El-Hawary, M.A.; ElShafai, A.M.A.; El- Rayess, Y.E.E. Effect of farmyard manure, plant density and biofertilizer treatments on growth and yield of sugar beet. J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2012, 3, 2173–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasanen, G.H.P.; Elsokkary, I.H.; Kamel, M.Z.; Abd Elsamea, A.M. Influence of nitrogen and organic fertilization on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet grown in calcareous soil. J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2013, 4, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heidarian, F.; Rokhzadi, A.; Mirahmadi, F. Response of sugar beet to irrigation interval, harvesting time and integrated use of farmyard manure and nitrogen fertilizer. Environ. Exp. Biol. 2018, 16, 169–175. [Google Scholar]
- Patterson, P.; White, C.; Shoop, E. Poultry Manure as a Garden Amendment. Penn State Ext. 2020. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/poultry-manure-as-a-garden-amendment (accessed on 12 December 2021).
- Abo El-Ftooh, A.A.; Agami, K.M.; Abd-El Rahman, M.M. The effect of some organic manure and insecticides on sugar beet productivity and population dynamic of beet fly, pegomya mixta VILL. J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2012, 3, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaly, F.A.; Sarhan, H.M.; Abdel-Hamied, A.S.; Mansour, T.M.A. Effect of different Sources and Rates of Organic Fertilization on Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Yields and its Quality Grown under Newly Reclaimed Sandy Soils. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2020, 11, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adugna, G. A review on impact of compost on soil properties, water use and crop productivity. Acad. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Res. 2016, 4, 93–104. [Google Scholar]
- Agbede, T.M.; Ojeniyi, S.O.; Adeyemo, A.J. Effect of poultry manure on soil physical and chemical properties, growth and grain yield of sorghum in southwest, Nigeria. Am.-Eur. J. Sustain. Agric. 2008, 2, 72–77. [Google Scholar]
- El Sheikha, A.F. Mixing manure with chemical fertilizers, why? and what is after. Nutr. Food Technol. 2016, 2, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Abou El-Seoud, I.I.A.; Elham, A.; Badr, A.; Elshimaa, A. Response of two sugar beet varieties to chicken manure and phosphorine application. Alex. Sci. Exch. J. 2009, 30, 433–441. [Google Scholar]
- Dikinya, O.; Mufwanzala, N. Chicken manure enhanced soil fertility and productivity: Effects of application rates. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manag. 2010, 1, 46–54. [Google Scholar]
- Subedi, S.; Srivastava, A.; Sharma, M.D.; Shah, S.C. Effect of organic and inorganic nutrient sources on growth, yield and quality of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) varieties in Chitwan, Nepal. SAARC J. Agric. 2018, 16, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curcic, Z.; Ciric, M.; Nagl, N.; Taski-Ajdukovic, K. Effect of sugar beet genotype, planting and harvesting dates and their interaction o sugar yield. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sher, A.; Kashif, M.; Nawaz, A.; Sattar, A.; Manaf, A.; Qayyum, A.; Ijaz, M. Genotypes versus sowing methods and their interactive effects on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) performance for morphological and yield attributes under arid climatic conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 22, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
- Ulakovic, V.; Glamoclija, N.; Filipovic, V.; Ugrenovic, V. Mineral nutrition plants in function of stable sugar beet production. SelekcSemenars 2015, 21, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
Treatment | Plant Height (cm) | Leave Weight per Plant (g) | Root Weight per Plant (g) | Sugar Contents (%) | Sugar Recovery (%) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sugar Beet Varieties | |||||||||||||||
Farmyard Manure (ton ha−1) | California | Serenada | Mean | California | Serenada | Mean | California | Serenada | Mean | California | Serenada | Mean | California | Serenada | Mean |
0 | 41.1 | 37.1 | 39.1 M | 253.1 | 247.5 | 250.3 | 523.4 | 485.3 | 504.4 H | 10.8 | 9.8 | 10.3 M | 10.1 | 9.1 | 9.6 M |
10 | 46.8 | 44.3 | 45.5 K | 288.7 | 281.6 | 285.1 | 780.0 | 744.6 | 762.3 G | 11.9 | 11.4 | 11.7 K | 11.2 | 10.8 | 11.0 K |
20 | 55.1 | 51.6 | 53.4 I | 324.4 | 322.2 | 323.3 F | 914.0 | 870.7 | 892.3 E | 13.5 | 12.4 | 13.0 HI | 12.8 | 11.8 | 12.3 HI |
30 | 63.2 | 60.2 | 61.7 D | 397.4 | 388.5 | 393.0 | 1042.3 | 992.6 | 1017.4 D | 13.8 | 12.6 | 13.2 HI | 13.1 | 11.9 | 12.5 GH |
40 | 64.8 | 61.0 | 62.9 C | 430.7 | 422.2 | 426.4 | 1065.6 | 1006.0 | 1035.8 D | 14.2 | 13.9 | 14.0 CDE | 13.5 | 13.2 | 13.4 CD |
Mean | 54.2 A | 50.9 B | 338.9 A | 332.4 B | 865.0 A | 819.8 B | 12.8 A | 12.0 B | 12.2 A | 11.4 B | |||||
Poultry manure (ton ha−1) | 0.0 | ||||||||||||||
0 | 42.3 | 38.4 | 40.3 L | 248.4 | 244.2 | 246.3 | 530.1 | 503.3 | 516.7 H | 11.4 | 10.4 | 10.9 L | 10.7 | 9.7 | 10.2 L |
5 | 50.0 | 47.4 | 48.7 J | 293.8 | 321.3 | 307.5 | 883.3 | 737.2 | 810.2 FG | 12.5 | 12.0 | 12.3 J | 11.8 | 11.4 | 11.6 J |
10 | 58.2 | 54.9 | 56.6 G | 353.3 | 347.7 | 350.5 | 942.5 | 913.3 | 927.9 E | 14.9 | 13.9 | 14.4 BC | 14.3 | 13.2 | 13.8 BC |
15 | 70.2 | 65.9 | 68.1 B | 455.2 | 438.9 | 447.1 | 1148.5 | 1082.0 | 1115.3 BC | 15.2 | 14.0 | 14.6 B | 14.6 | 13.4 | 14.0 B |
20 | 71.1 | 67.7 | 69.4 A | 453.0 | 436.8 | 444.9 | 1248.9 | 1124.3 | 1186.6 A | 15.6 | 15.2 | 15.4 A | 15.0 | 14.6 | 14.8 A |
Mean | 58.3 A | 54.9 B | 360.8 A | 357.8 B | 950.7 A | 872.0 B | 13.9 A | 13.1 B | 13.3 A | 12.5 B | 12.9 B | ||||
Biochar (ton ha−1) | 0.0 | ||||||||||||||
0 | 41.9 | 38.7 | 40.3 L | 251.3 | 247.4 | 249.3 | 506.6 | 474.9 | 490.8 H | 10.4 | 9.5 | 9.9 M | 9.8 | 8.8 | 9.3 M |
5 | 47.9 | 45.2 | 46.6 K | 276.8 | 269.1 | 272.9 | 880.0 | 755.7 | 817.8 F | 11.6 | 11.1 | 11.3 KL | 10.9 | 10.4 | 10.7 KL |
10 | 56.6 | 52.7 | 54.6 H | 311.9 | 301.9 | 306.9 | 908.4 | 909.9 | 909.2 E | 13.3 | 12.3 | 12.8 I | 12.7 | 11.7 | 12.2 I |
15 | 61.0 | 57.3 | 59.2 F | 330.4 | 322.1 | 326.2 | 1043.5 | 1058.4 | 1051.0 D | 13.7 | 12.5 | 13.1 GHI | 13.0 | 11.8 | 12.4 GHI |
20 | 61.4 | 58.8 | 60.1 EF | 398.2 | 390.2 | 394.2 | 1192.3 | 1124.3 | 1158.3 AB | 14.1 | 13.7 | 13.9 DEF | 13.4 | 13.0 | 13.2 DEF |
Mean | 53.8 A | 50.6 B | 313.7 A | 306.1 B | 906.1 A | 864.6 B | 12.6 A | 11.8 B | 11.9 A | 11.1 B | 11.5 | ||||
Compost (ton ha−1) | 0.0 | ||||||||||||||
0 | 42.6 | 39.1 | 40.9 K | 251.5 | 246.7 | 249.1 J | 504.0 | 482.7 | 493.3 | 10.7 | 9.7 | 10.2 M | 10.0 | 9.0 | 9.5 M |
10 | 49.4 | 46.4 | 47.9 J | 286.6 | 274.3 | 280.4 I | 1065.3 | 1051.9 | 1058.6 | 11.8 | 11.3 | 11.5 K | 11.1 | 10.6 | 10.9 K |
20 | 56.3 | 53.6 | 55.0 H | 323.1 | 311.0 | 317.1 FG | 1058.3 | 1060.9 | 1059.6 | 13.8 | 13.2 | 13.5 FG | 13.2 | 12.6 | 12.9 FG |
30 | 62.0 | 58.6 | 60.3 E | 408.0 | 403.5 | 405.8 CD | 1074.7 | 1058.4 | 1066.6 | 14.1 | 12.7 | 13.4 FG | 13.4 | 12.0 | 12.7 FG |
40 | 62.0 | 59.9 | 61.0 DE | 413.3 | 407.2 | 410.3 BC | 1200.8 | 1108.9 | 1154.9 | 14.3 | 13.9 | 14.1 CD | 13.6 | 13.2 | 13.4 CD |
Mean | 54.5 A | 51.5 B | 336.5 A | 328.5 B | 980.6 A | 952.6 B | 12.9 A | 12.1 B | 12.3 A | 11.5 B | |||||
LSD (p ≤ 0.05); V = 0.3497; T = 1.1059; T × V = 1.5640 | V = 5.14; T = 16.28; T × V = 23.02 | V = 17.4; T = 55.2; T × V = 78.1 | V = 0.15; T = 0.48; T × V = 0.68 | V = 0.15; T = 0.48; T × V = 0.68 |
Experimental Treatments | Number of Leaves per Plant | Leaf Length (cm) | Leaf Weight (g per Plant) | Leaf Yield (t ha−1) | Chlorophyll Contents (SPAD Value) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
Experimental Sites (ES) | ||||||||||
BZU Research Farm Layyah | 36.1 A | 41.8 A | 35.1 A | 39.4 A | 260.0 A | 270.3 A | 18.7 A | 20.1 A | 54.6 A | 55.9 A |
Farmer Field Layyah | 33.0 B | 36.3 C | 32.4 B | 35.7 B | 238.5 B | 246.8 C | 16.9 B | 18.5 B | 52.2 B | 53.1 B |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-A | 32.7 B | 37.3 B | 29.4 C | 35.2 C | 237.2 B | 251.2 B | 16.0 B | 18.5 B | 51.8 C | 53.1 B |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-B | 31.5 C | 35.1 D | 28.8 D | 28.8 D | 231.2 C | 231.2 D | 16.0 C | 16.0 C | 49.4 D | 49.4 C |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.72 | 0.92 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 1.78 | 1.84 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.27 |
Organic Amendments (OA) | ||||||||||
Poultry Manure | 38.6 A | 43.0 A | 34.8 A | 37.9 A | 268.3 A | 276.2 A | 18.4 A | 19.6 A | 52.4 A | 53.3 A |
Farm yard Manure | 33.1 B | 37.5 B | 35.5 B | 37.1 B | 141.9 B | 250.4 B | 17.4 B | 18.6 B | 51.6 C | 52.5 C |
Compost | 31.9 C | 36.2 C | 29.3 C | 32.6 C | 227.3 D | 235.4 D | 16.5 C | 17.4 C | 52.2 B | 53.0 B |
Biochar | 29.7 D | 33.8 D | 28.1 D | 31.4 D | 229.4 C | 237.5 C | 16.3 C | 17.5 C | 51.9 B | 52.9 B |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.72 | 0.92 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 1.78 | 1.84 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.27 |
Sugar Beet Genotypes (SG) | ||||||||||
California | 33.5 | 37.9 | 31.6 A | 34.9 A | 245.2 A | 253.3 A | 17.4 A | 18.5 A | 52.3 A | 53.2 A |
Serenada | 33.1 | 37.3 | 31.2 B | 34.7 B | 238.3 B | 246.5 B | 16.9 B | 18.0 B | 51.7 B | 52.6 B |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | NS | NS | 0.13 | 0.21 | 1.26 | 1.30 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.19 |
Interactions | ||||||||||
ES × OA | NS | NS | ** | NS | NS | NS | NS | ** | NS | NS |
ES × SG | NS | NS | ** | * | NS | NS | NS | NS | ** | NS |
OA × SG | * | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ** | ** | NS | NS |
ES × OA × SG | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Experimental Treatments | Root Length (cm) | Root Weight (g per Plant) | Root Diameter (cm) | Root Top Ratio | Root Yield (tha−1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
Experimental Sites (ES) | ||||||||||
BZU Research Farm Layyah | 22.7 A | 23.6 A | 990.8 A | 1004.5 A | 13.9 A | 14.9 A | 3.98 A | 3.72 D | 71.0 A | 75.8 A |
Farmer Field Layyah | 20.3 C | 21.3 B | 947.9 B | 959.0 B | 12.8 B | 13.9 B | 3.95 A | 3.89 B | 67.7 B | 70.2 C |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-A | 20.8 B | 21.4 B | 921.2 C | 944.1 C | 11.9 C | 13.4 C | 3.89 B | 3.77 C | 66.6 C | 71.4 B |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-B | 20.3 C | 20.3 C | 912.9 D | 913.0 D | 11.6 D | 11.6 D | 3.80 C | 3.96 A | 62.4 D | 62.4 D |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.15 | 0.25 | 2.38 | 2.78 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
Organic Amendments (OA) | ||||||||||
Poultry Manure | 22.2 A | 22.8 A | 997.5 A | 1009.4 A | 13.5 A | 14.4 A | 3.72 D | 3.66 D | 70.9 A | 73.9 A |
Farm yard Manure | 20.6 C | 21.2 B | 962.9 B | 975.0 B | 12.8 B | 13.8 B | 3.96 B | 3.89 B | 65.8 B | 68.8 B |
Compost | 20.8 B | 21.4 B | 931.5 C | 943.6 C | 12.0 C | 12.9 C | 4.10 A | 4.01 A | 66.4 B | 69.3 B |
Biochar | 20.7 BC | 21.2 B | 880.9 D | 892.7 D | 11.9 C | 12.8 C | 3.84 C | 3.76 C | 64.8 C | 67.7 C |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.15 | 0.25 | 2.38 | 2.78 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
Sugar Beet Genotypes (SG) | ||||||||||
California | 21.3 A | 21.9 A | 948.0 A | 959.9 A | 12.7 A | 13.6 A | 3.94 A | 3.89 A | 67.6 A | 70.6 A |
Serenada | 20.8 B | 21.3 B | 938.4 B | 950.4 B | 12.4 B | 13.3 B | 3. 87 B | 3.86 B | 66.3 B | 69.2 B |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.10 | 0.18 | 1.68 | 1.96 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.60 | 0.60 |
Interactions | ||||||||||
ES × OA | ** | ** | NS | NS | ** | NS | * | NS | ** | ** |
ES × SG | ** | ** | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ** | ** |
OA × SG | ** | NS | ** | * | NS | * | NS | NS | NS | NS |
ES × OA × SG | ** | * | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Experimental Treatments | Sucrose Percentage | Sugar Yield (tha−1) | Brix Percentage | Sugar Recovery Percentage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
Experimental Sites (ES) | ||||||||
BZU Research Farm Layyah | 14.1 A | 14.9 A | 9.7 A | 11.3 A | 19.2 A | 20.0 A | 13.3 B | 12.3 B |
Farmer Field Layyah | 13.8 B | 15.1 A | 9.4 B | 16.6 B | 18.3 B | 19.2 B | 18.3 A | 11.7 C |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-A | 12.0 C | 13.3 B | 8.0 C | 9.5 C | 17.1 C | 18.2 C | 12.5 C | 12.3 B |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-B | 11.6 D | 11.6 C | 7.2 B | 7.2 D | 16.2 D | 16.2 D | 11.7 D | 12.8 A |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.13 |
Organic Amendments (OA) | ||||||||
Poultry Manure | 13.8 A | 14.7 A | 9.6 A | 10.9 A | 18.6 A | 19.3 A | 14.8 A | 12.9 A |
Farm yard Manure | 12.7 B | 13.5 B | 8.3 B | 9.3 B | 17.4 BC | 18.1 B | 13.6 BC | 12.1 B |
Compost | 12.7 B | 13.4 BC | 8.4 B | 9.3 B | 17.5 B | 18.2 B | 13.7 B | 12.2 B |
Biochar | 14.4 C | 13.3 C | 8.1 C | 9.0 C | 17.3 C | 17.9 B | 13.5 C | 11.9 C |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.13 |
Sugar Beet Genotypes (SG) | ||||||||
California | 13.2 A | 14.0 A | 8.9 A | 9.9 A | 17.9 A | 18.6 A | 14.1 A | 12.4 A |
Serenada | 12.6 B | 13.5 B | 8.3 B | 9.4 B | 17.5 B | 18.2 B | 13.8 B | 12.1 B |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
Interactions | ||||||||
ES × OA | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
ES × SG | ** | ** | NS | NS | ** | ** | NS | ** |
OA × SG | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
ES × OA × SG | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Experimental Sites | Organic Amendments | Leaf Length (cm) | Leaf Yield (t ha−1) | Root Length (cm) | Root Diameter (cm) | Root-Top Ratio | Root Yield (t ha−1) | Sugar Yield (t ha−1) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
BZU Research Farm Layyah | Poultry Manure | 38.3 a | 21.9 a | 24.0 a | 24.8 a | 15.0 a | 3.6 j | 76.3 a | 81.2 a | 10.4 b | 13.2 a |
Farm Yard Manure | 37.0 b | 20.7 b | 22.1 c | 23.1 bc | 14.3 b | 3.7 f–h | 69.6 c | 74.1 cd | 9.5 c | 10.9 c | |
Compost | 33.1 e | 18.9 c | 22.5 b | 23.3 b | 13.4 d | 3.9 cd | 69.6 c | 74.4 cd | 9.6 c | 10.6 cd | |
Biochar | 31.9 f | 18.9 c | 22.2 bc | 22.9 bc | 13.3 de | 3.7 g–i | 68.7 c | 73.5 d | 9.3 cd | 10.6 cd | |
Farmer Field Layyah | Poultry Manure | 35.7 c | 20.3 b | 21.7 d | 22.8 bc | 13.8 c | 3.8 fg | 72.7 b | 75.4 bc | 10.9 a | 12.4 b |
Farm Yard Manure | 34.8 d | 18.7 c | 19.6 i | 20.6 e–g | 12.9 f | 4.0 bc | 66.1 de | 68.5 fg | 8.8 ef | 9.9 e | |
Compost | 29.9 i | 17.7 d | 20.2 f–h | 21.2 d | 12.3 g | 4.2 a | 66.5 d | 68.9 fg | 9.1 de | 10.4 d | |
Biochar | 29.0 j | 17.6 d | 19.9 h | 20.5 fg | 12.2 g | 3.9 e | 65.5 de | 67.9 g | 8.7 f | 9.8 e | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-A | Poultry Manure | 32.7 e | 20.3 b | 22.2 bc | 22.7 c | 13.1 ef | 3.6 ij | 71.4 b | 76.3 b | 9.3 cd | 10.8 c |
Farm Yard Manure | 31.5 g | 18.7 c | 20.4 f | 21.0 de | 12.3 g | 3.9 d | 64.7 e–g | 69.7 ef | 7.6 gh | 9.1 f | |
Compost | 27.5 k | 17.5 d | 20.4 f | 20.9 d-f | 11.3 i | 4.1 b | 66.4 d | 71.1 d | 7.8 g | 9.3 f | |
Biochar | 26.1 m | 17.4 d | 20.3 fg | 20.9 d-f | 11.2 i | 3.8 f | 63.9 f–h | 68.4 fg | 7.4 hi | 8.9 f | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-B | Poultry Manure | 32.3 f | 15.8 e | 20.8 e | 20.8 d-f | 12.2 gh | 3.7 hi | 63.1 gh | 63.1 h | 7.5 h | 7.5 g |
Farm Yard Manure | 30.9 h | 16.3 e | 20.2 f–h | 20.2 g | 11.9 h | 4.0 bc | 62.7 hi | 62.8 h | 7.4 hi | 7.4 g | |
Compost | 26.7 l | 15.7 e | 20.1 gh | 20.1 g | 11.1 i | 4.2 a | 62.9 h | 62.9 h | 7.2 i | 7.2 gh | |
Biochar | 25.3 n | 16.3 e | 20.3 fg | 20.3 g | 11.1 i | 3.9 e | 61.0 i | 61.0 i | 6.8 j | 6.8 h | |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.37 | 0.63 | 0.30 | 0.51 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 1.71 | 1.70 | 0.50 | 1.78 |
Experimental Sites | Organic Amendments | Sucrose Percentage | Brix Percentage | Sugar Recovery Percentage | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
BZU Research Farm Layyah | Poultry Manure | 15.1 a | 16.2 a | 20.3 a | 21.2 a | 19.4 a | 13.3 a |
Farm Yard Manure | 13.7 b | 14.8 bc | 18.8 c | 19.5 cd | 12.9 e | 11.9 de | |
Compost | 13.8 b | 14.3 d | 18.9 c | 19.8 c | 13.0 e | 12.1 d | |
Biochar | 13.6 bc | 14.4 cd | 18.7 c | 19.6 cd | 12.8 e | 11.8 de | |
Farmer Field Layyah | Poultry Manure | 15.1 a | 16.4 a | 19.4 b | 20.4 b | 14.3 c | 11.9 de |
Farm Yard Manure | 13.4 cd | 14.5 cd | 18.0 de | 18.9 e | 18.0 b | 11.7 e | |
Compost | 13.7 b | 15.1 b | 17.9 de | 18.9 e | 17.9 b | 11.7 ef | |
Biochar | 13.3 d | 14.5 cd | 17.7 e | 18.7 e | 17.7 b | 11.4 f | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-A | Poultry Manure | 13.1 d | 14.2 d | 18.1 d | 19.3 d | 13.5 d | 13.3 a |
Farm Yard Manure | 11.7 e–g | 13.0 e | 16.7 fg | 17.9 f | 12.1 fg | 11.9 de | |
Compost | 11.8 ef | 13.1 e | 16.8 f | 17.8 f | 12.3 f | 12.1 d | |
Biochar | 11.6 fg | 13.1 f | 16.7 fg | 17.7 f | 12.0 f–h | 11.8 de | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-B | Poultry Manure | 11.9 e | 11.8 f | 16.4 gh | 16.4 g | 11.9 g-i | 13 b |
Farm Yard Manure | 11.8 ef | 11.9 f | 15.9 i | 15.9 h | 11.7 hi | 12.8 bc | |
Compost | 11.5 gh | 11.5 fg | 16.3 hi | 16.3 gh | 11.7 i | 12.8 bc | |
Biochar | 11.2 gh | 11.2 g | 15.9 i | 15.9 h | 11.6 i | 12.7 c | |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.29 | 0.26 |
Experimental Sites | Sugar Beet Genotypes | Leaf Length (cm) | Root Length (cm) | Root Yield (t ha−1) | Chlorophyll Contents | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2020 | ||
BZU Research Farm Layyah | California | 35.3 a | 39.6 a | 22.9 a | 23.9 a | 72.2 a | 76.9 a | 54.8 a |
Serenada | 34.8 b | 39.2 a | 22.5 b | 23.2 b | 69.9 b | 74.6 b | 54.4 b | |
Farmer Field Layyah | California | 32.7 c | 35.7 b | 20.6 d | 21.8 c | 68.9 b | 71.3 cd | 52.4 c |
Serenada | 32.1 d | 35.8 b | 20.0 f | 20.7 de | 66.5 cd | 69.0 e | 52.1 d | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-A | California | 29.8 e | 35.6 b | 21.2 c | 21.8 c | 67.3 c | 72.4 c | 52.1 d |
Serenada | 29.1 f | 34.9 c | 20.5 de | 20.9 d | 65.9 d | 70.3 d | 51.5 e | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-B | California | 28.8 g | 28.8 d | 20.3 e | 20.3 f | 61.8 f | 61.8 g | 49.9 f |
Serenada | 28.8 g | 28.8 d | 20.4 e | 20.4 ef | 63.1 e | 63.1 f | 48.9 g | |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.26 | 0.42 | 0.21 | 0.36 | 1.21 | 1.20 | 0.27 |
Experimental Sites | Sugar Beet Genotypes | Sucrose Percentage | Brix Percentage | Sugar Recovery Percentage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2020 | ||
BZU Research Farm Layyah | California | 14.3 a | 14.9 b | 19.4 a | 20.2 a | 12.5 c |
Serenada | 13.9 b | 14.9 b | 18.9 b | 19.9 a | 12.0 d | |
Farmer Field Layyah | California | 14.1 a | 15.3 a | 18.4 c | 19.4 b | 11.8 e |
Serenada | 13.5 c | 14.8 b | 18.1 d | 19.0 c | 11.5 f | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-A | California | 12.3 d | 13.6 c | 17.4 e | 18.6 d | 12.5 c |
Serenada | 11.8 e | 13.0 d | 16.7 f | 17.8 e | 12.0 d | |
Farmer Field Bhakkar-B | California | 12.1 d | 12.1 e | 16.2 g | 16.2 f | 12.9 a |
Serenada | 11.1 f | 11.1 f | 16.1 g | 16.1 f | 12.7 b | |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.18 |
Organic Amendments | Sugarcane Genotypes | Number of Leaves per Plant | Leaf Yield (tha−1) | Root Length (cm) | Root Weight (g per Plant) | Root Diameter (cm) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 2020 | ||
Poultry Manure | California | 39.1 a | 13.6 a | 19.7 a | 22.5 a | 999.9 a | 1011.9 a | 14.5 a |
Serenada | 38.1 b | 13.4 b | 19.5 ab | 21.8 b | 994.9 b | 1006.8 b | 14.3 a | |
Farm Yard Manure | California | 32.6 bc | 13.0 c | 19.1 b | 20.9 c | 969.7 c | 981.9 c | 13.9 b |
Serenada | 33.5 b | 12.7 d | 18.0 c | 20.2 e | 956.0 d | 968.1 d | 13.6 c | |
Compost | California | 32.4 cd | 12.1 e | 17.7 cd | 20.9 c | 936.8 e | 948.5 e | 12.9 d |
Serenada | 31.6 d | 111.9 f | 17.2 e | 20.7 d | 926.2 f | 938.7 f | 12.9 d | |
Biochar | California | 30.2 e | 12.2 e | 17.6 c-e | 20.7 d | 885.6 g | 897.2 g | 13.2 d |
Serenada | 29.1 f | 11.7 g | 17.5 de | 20.6 d | 876.3 h | 888.1 h | 12.5 e | |
LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 1.02 | 0.41 | 0.44 | 0.21 | 3.37 | 3.93 | 0.29 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ijaz, M.; Ul-Allah, S.; Sattar, A.; Sher, A.; Hussain, I.; Nawaz, A. Evaluation of Various Organic Amendment Sources to Improve the Root Yield and Sugar Contents of Sugar Beet Genotypes (Beta vulgaris L.) under Arid Environments. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053898
Ijaz M, Ul-Allah S, Sattar A, Sher A, Hussain I, Nawaz A. Evaluation of Various Organic Amendment Sources to Improve the Root Yield and Sugar Contents of Sugar Beet Genotypes (Beta vulgaris L.) under Arid Environments. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):3898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053898
Chicago/Turabian StyleIjaz, Muhammad, Sami Ul-Allah, Abdul Sattar, Ahmad Sher, Ijaz Hussain, and Ahmad Nawaz. 2023. "Evaluation of Various Organic Amendment Sources to Improve the Root Yield and Sugar Contents of Sugar Beet Genotypes (Beta vulgaris L.) under Arid Environments" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 3898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053898