Next Article in Journal
Recapitulation of the Function and Role of ROS Generated in Response to Heat Stress in Plants
Next Article in Special Issue
Methane Production Rate during Anoxic Litter Decomposition Depends on Si Mass Fractions, Nutrient Stoichiometry, and Carbon Quality
Previous Article in Journal
Underutilized Mexican Plants: Screening of Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Properties of Mexican Cactus Fruit Juices
Previous Article in Special Issue
Silicon Cycling in Soils Revisited
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/plants10020370
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of the Application Date of Fertilizer Containing Silicon and Potassium on the Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet Roots

by
Arkadiusz Artyszak
*,
Dariusz Gozdowski
and
Alicja Siuda
Institute of Agriculture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences–SGGW, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(2), 370; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020370
Submission received: 23 December 2020 / Revised: 10 February 2021 / Accepted: 11 February 2021 / Published: 15 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Silicon in the Soil-Plant Continuum)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Water shortage and drought are a growing problem in Europe. Therefore, effective methods for limiting its effects are necessary. At the same time, the “field to fork” strategy adopted by the European Commission aims to achieve a significant reduction in the use of plant protection products and fertilizers in the European Union. In an experiment conducted in 2018–2020, the effect of the method of foliar fertilization containing silicon and potassium on the yield and technological quality of sugar beet roots was assessed. The fertilizer was used in seven combinations, differing in the number and time of application. The best results were obtained by treating plants during drought stress. The better soil moisture for the plants, the smaller the pure sugar yield increase was observed. It is difficult to clearly state which combination of silicon and potassium foliar application is optimal, as their effects do not differ greatly.

1. Introduction

The “field to fork” strategy adopted by the European Commission places significant restrictions on the use of plant protection products and mineral fertilizers. This threatens reduction of the production; therefore, it is necessary to look for innovative technologies that could prevent it, and one of them may be silicon foliar application [1,2]. Application of silicon causes reduction of plant infestation by diseases [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] and pest [5,8,9,11,12,13]. It also increases the plant’s tolerance to drought [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], high and low temperature [14,25,26,27], shading [28], flooding with water [14], and deficiency of macro- and micro-nutrients [29,30,31]. Silicon can also reduce the harmful effects of soil salinity, which can be severe problem in some regions [4,32,33,34,35]. Moreover, silicon can reduce the negative impact of heavy metals on plants [36,37,38].
There is a relatively small number of studies on the foliar application of silicon in the cultivation of sugar beet [15,16,39,40,41,42]. The effects were better and stronger if abiotic and biotic stresses occurred in the plants. Nevertheless, an open question of agricultural producers regarding the technical details of foliar application requires an urgent answer: what is the optimal application date and what is the optimal number of treatments in sugar beet crop production?
Various forms of products containing silicon are available on the market. Unfortunately, products containing stabilized orthosilicic acid are usually much more expensive than potassium silicates. Therefore, potassium silicate was used in the experiment. The effect of the application of different doses and dates of foliar fertilization with Sarmin maKSi fertilizer containing potassium silicate (K2SiO3) for different periods of time on the root yield of sugar beet, the biological sugar yield, and the pure sugar yield was evaluated.

2. Results

The results were presented using means across three years (2018–2020). In each year, a different cultivar was sown, but of the same normal type of sugar beet. Moreover, results for each cultivar (year) were presented separately (Tables S1, S2, and S3). The plant density during harvest was 79.5–89.00 thousand per ha (Table 1). Treatments No. 1, 2, 3, i.e., treatments where the first foliar fertilization was applied in BBCH (Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt und CHemische Industrie growth stage scale) 16 stage, and 6 with foliar application of the tested product resulted in a significant increase in the root yield in relation to the control (without foliar fertilization). The effect of the fertilizer application date varied in years of the experiment. In 2018, significantly higher root yields than in treatment No. 0 were obtained in the treatments No. 5 and 6, where the first foliar fertilization was applied 7 days after BBCH 16 stage, in 2019, on all treatments except No. 4 and 7, and in 2020, only for treatment No. 6 (Table S1).
The treatments where foliar applications were applied had no significant effect or significantly increased the sugar content in the roots as compared to the control treatment (Table 2). In the case of α-amino nitrogen, no significant effect was observed for most treatments, excluding treatments No. 2 and No. 6, where a significant reduction was observed, and in treatment No. 7, where a significant increase in content was observed. On the other hand, the content of potassium and sodium was significantly reduced as a result of the applied foliar nutrition, especially for potassium, which was the highest for the control. The value of the alkalinity coefficient was the highest for treatment No. 2 and the lowest for treatment No. 7.
The highest sugar content for cultivar Lavenda KWS (year 2018) was found in the treatment No. 3, for the cultivar Toleranza KWS (year 2019) in the treatment No. 1, and, for cultivar Jaromir (year 2020), all the tested treatments showed a similar value of this trait (Table S2). The differences in the sugar content in the roots should be explained rather by the course of weather conditions during the growing season, not by differences between cultivar, because they were very similar.
All treatments in which first foliar fertilization was applied no later than 7 days after BBCH 16 stage contributed to a significant increase in the biological sugar yield and the pure sugar yield as compared to treatment No. 0 (Table 3). Treatment No. 6 had significantly larger biological sugar yield and pure sugar yield in years 2018–2019 in comparison to treatment No. 0 (Table S3). In year 2019, treatments No. 1, 2, 3, i.e., treatments where the first foliar fertilization was applied in BBCH 16 stage, and 5 had significantly higher sugar yields. However, in 2020, no significant differences were found between the studied treatments.
The foliar application of silicon and potassium caused a significant increase in the fresh mass of the root, except for treatments No. 1 and No. 2 (Table 4). In 2018 and in 2020, plants in treatments No. 4, 6, and 7 had significantly higher fresh root mass than in treatment No. 0, and in 2019, in treatments No. 1, 2, and 3 (Table S3).
The fresh mass of leaves of a single plant was the most variable during the research period (coefficient of variation—CV = 52.4%) and the period of the lowest productivity of sugar (CV = 2.70%) (Table 5).
Table 6 shows the results based on the general linear model (GLM) for repeated measures where they were traits measured in the subsequent measurements. On the basis of these effects, we can conclude that a strong multivariate effect was observed for the year, as well all interactions with the repeated measures, which means that the effect was different for different variables.

3. Discussion

The final product in sugar beet production is pure sugar yield. The largest increases in pure sugar yield were obtained in 2018, when plants were exposed to drought stress in May. Smaller increases were observed in 2019, and their lack in 2020, when the value of the soil moisture was high and there was no drought stress. This confirms the results of previous studies, which prove that the effect of silicon applied on leaves is particularly visible in plants when they are exposed to strong stress factors [15,16,25].
Pure sugar yield is determined by the biological yield of sugar, which depends on the yield of roots and sugar content, as well as the content of molasses-forming components (α-amino nitrogen, potassium, and sodium ions). Root yield has the greatest influence on pure sugar yield [43]. The resulting increase in root yields occurs as a result of the fertlizer containing potassium silicate, despite the opinion that silicates only reduce biotic stress and have no effect on reducing abiotic stress, plant and root growth, leaf size, yield, and production quality [1]. The beneficial effect of foliar application of products containing various forms of silicon on the yield of sugar beet was found in previous studies. It was: marine calcite [15,39,40,41], mixture of poly- and ortho-silicic acids with the addition of Fe [15,40], choline stabilized orthosilicic acid with the addition of Ca [15], and silicon oxide nanoparticles formulated in propylene glycol with natural esters [16,42]. The potato tuber yield also increased due to the foliar application of marine calcite [44] stabilized orthosilicic acid with the addition of microelements [25,45], oligomeric silicic acid, and boric acid [4]. In some studies, the foliar application of choline stabilized orthosilicic acid with the addition of Ca did not increase the yield of potato tubers in relation to the control treatment [46].
In our current research, the technological quality of the roots usually did not change significantly, or it improved under the influence of the applied applications with the tested product; less often, the content of any molasses-forming component was significantly higher. This is confirmed by previous studies in which various forms of silicon were used for foliar application [15,16,39,40,41,42]. In potato cultivation, foliar application of silicon-containing products had a positive effect on tuber quality [25,44,45,46].
The experimental results also confirm the profitability of foliar application of marine calcite, choline stabilized orthosilicic acid with the addition of Ca, and mixture of poly- and ortho-silicic acids with the addition of Fe [47,48].

4. Materials and Methods

The experiment was carried out in Sahryń (50°41′ N, 23°46′ E) in 2018–2020 (Figure 1). The soil on which the experiment was located fulfill the very high soil requirements of sugar beet. The soil type was Calcic Chernozem (Aric, Siltic) (silty clay loam: clay—34%, sand—14%, silt—52%) [49]. Soil samples were collected at a depth of 0–30 cm immediately after harvesting of the forecrop. The soil chemical properties were evaluated at the District Chemical and Agricultural Stations in Warsaw-Wesoła. The following properties were evaluated: content of soil organic carbon (SOC) [50], pH potentiometrically in 1 M KCl [51], nitrate nitrogen (N-NO3) and ammonium nitrogen (NH4) [52], available macroelements (phosphorus [53], potassium [54], magnesium [55]), and microelements (boron [56], copper [57], iron [58], manganese [59], and zinc [60]). The same analyses were conducted after the harvest of sugar.
The soil samples collected for the 0–30 cm layer of depth after harvesting of the forecrop were analyzed. These samples contained 1.37–2.76% soil organic carbon (Table 7). The soil reaction was neutral or alkaline. Content of N-NO3 was in the range of 18.4–52.4 mg kg−1, N-NH4 content, was in the range of 1.58–3.33 mg kg−1, and mineral nitrogen content was in the range of 93–217 kg ha−1. The available contents of plants elements were as follows: P—44–99, K—62–133, Mg—60–99, B—2.2–5.6, Cu—6.9–8.8, Fe—490–735, Mn—157–192, and Zn—5.9–8.0 mg kg−1.
After the harvest of sugar beet, the soil contained 1.02–2.82% soil organic carbon, which was characterized by a pH in the range of 7.1–7.5. Content of N-NO3 was in the range of 22.7–84.3 mg kg−1, N-NH4 content was in the range of <1.00–1.54 mg kg−1, and mineral nitrogen was in the range of 89–335 kg ha−1. The available contents of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and magnesium (Mg) were 12–66, 37–137, and 65–90 mg kg−1, respectively, while the contents of microelements were as follows: B—1.2–6.8, Cu—5.2–8.8, Fe—443–900, Mn—136–167, and Zn—4.6–9.0 mg kg−1. The foliar application of the tested potassium silicate did not affect the soil’s nutrient content because the amounts of potassium and silicon introduced were small, and most of them ended up on plant leaves during the spraying.
The amount of precipitation during the growing season (April−September) was from 426 mm in 2019 to 540 mm in 2020 (Figure 2). Sugar beet has the greatest water requirements in July and August. The largest rainfall deficit in July occurred in 2019, and in August, a year earlier. In May, before and during the foliar application of silicon and potassium, the plants were exposed to drought stress in 2018.
The characteristics of crop management in the experiment are presented in Table S4. In subsequent years, three different cultivars of sugar beet were sown, which are similar in terms of most of the traits, and the cultivars belong to the normal type of sugar beet.
Sowing was performed with a precision seed drill. The row spacing was 45 cm, the distances in the row were 15 cm, and the depth was 2–2.5 cm. Weed, disease, and pest control was conducted in accordance with the plant protection recommendations of the Institute of Plant Protection—National Research Institute in Poznań (Poland).
In this study, foliar fertilizer Sarmin maKSi, which contains potassium silicate (Si—150 g dm−3, K—125 g dm−3), was applied. The experimental layout is presented in Table 8, including the total doses of Si and K by foliar application (per 1 ha).
In addition, a total of 600–630 g boron ha–1 was applied by foliar application in the whole experiment (2 × 300–315 g B ha–1).
The experiment in each year was based on a one factorial randomized block design, where different combination of dates and times of application were treated as one combined factor. However, due to the lack of significant block influence in the statistical analyses, the block effect was omitted, i.e., the analyses were performed for a completely randomized design.
In 2018, the foliar application was performed on May 22, May 29, and June 5; in 2019, on May 25, May 31, and June 8; and, in 2020, on May 23, May 30, and June 6. Spraying was performed with an Apollo trailed sprayer (Krukowiak). The dose of water in each spraying was 250 dm3 ha–1, and the concentration of the fertilizer was 2%. In the subsequent sprayings, we estimated that about 50% (1st spray), 75% (2nd spray), and 90–95% (3rd spray) of liquid was left on the plants. The effect of foliar fertilization in this case is much higher in comparison to uptake of the fertilizer by the roots.
The number of repetitions was 4, and the total number of plots was 32. Each plot included 6 rows. The dimensions of a single plot were a length of 16 m and width of 2.7 m (43.2 m2), of which 21.6 m2 was for harvesting (3 middle rows). During harvest, the plants were topped by hand on the three middle rows, and the leaves were weighed. The roots were then counted, dug up, and weighed. During the harvest, each plot was collected in accordance with the Polish Standard [61].
The root samples were pulped in the Plant Breeding Station of the Kutno Sugar Beet Breeding Company in Śmiłów. In Straszków (the Kutno Sugar Beet Breeding Company) on the automatic Venema technological line [62], the sugar content polarimetrically [63], the α-amino nitrogen by fluorometric methods [64], and the K and Na by photoelectric flame photometry [63].
The measurements performed in the experiments were as follows:
  • Plant density at harvest (thousand plants ha−1);
  • Root yield (t ha−1);
  • Yield of leaves (t ha−1);
  • Yield of fresh biomass (t ha−1) as a sum of the root yield (t ha−1) and yield of leaves (t ha−1);
  • Harvest index (HI) as a ratio of root yield to fresh biomass;
  • Foliage coefficient as a ratio of yield of leaves to root yield;
  • Content of sucrose in the roots (%);
  • Content of α-amino nitrogen in the roots (mmol kg−1);
  • Content of potassium (K) in the roots (mmol kg−1);
  • Content of sodium (Na) in the roots (mmol kg−1);
  • Alkalinity coefficient = (content of K (mmol kg−1) + content of Na (mmol kg−1))/content of α-amino nitrogen (mmol kg−1) [65];
  • Sugar yield losses (%) = standard molasses losses (%) + 0.6 (%);
  • Standard molasses losses (%) = 0.012 × (K + Na) + 0.024 (α-amino nitrogen) + 0.48 [66], where the content of K, Na, and α-amino nitrogen are given in mmol kg−1 of pulp;
  • Refined sugar content (%) = sucrose content (%) − sugar yield losses (%);
  • Sugar productivity (%) = refined sugar content (%)/sugar content (%) × 100;
  • Biological sugar yield (t ha−1) = root yield (t ha−1) × content of sugar in roots (%);
  • Pure sugar yield (t ha−1) = root yield (t ha−1) × [content of sugar (%) − sugar yield losses (%)] [66];
  • Fresh biomass of root (kg) as a ratio of root yield (kg) and the number of plants per plot at harvest;
  • Fresh biomass of leaves per plant (kg) as a ratio of (kg) and the number of plants per plot at harvest;
  • Fresh weight of individual plant as the sum of fresh root mass (kg) and leaves of a single plant (kg).
The data were subjected to ANOVA (analysis of variance) and Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference test) procedure of multiple comparison of means. The analyses were performed using Statistica 13 software (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) at a significance level of 0.05. Basic statistical parameters, such as range (min−max), standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV), were calculated for all variables.
Moreover, a general linear model (GLM) for repeated measures was applied, where the repeated measures were traits measured in the subsequent measurements. For such analysis, the following variables were selected: plant density, root yield, yield of leaves, technological yield of sugar, sugar content in roots, and sugar efficiency.

5. Conclusions

The foliar application of potassium silicate in sugar beet cultivation gives the best production results when plants are exposed to drought stress. The better soil moisture for the plants, the increase of the pure sugar yield is lower. It is difficult to indicate which of the treatment is the most optimal. The aim of further research should be an explanation of the mechanism of action of potassium silicate on plants.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/10/2/370/s1, Table S1. Means and standard deviations (SD) for yield and yield-related traits of sugar beet separately for each cultivar (year). Table S2. Means and standard deviations (SD) of technological quality of sugar beet roots separately for each cultivar (year). Table S3. Means and standard deviations (SD) of sugar yield of sugar beet and morphological features of sugar beet separately for each cultivar (year). Table S4. Crop management in the field experiments (2017/2018–2019/2020).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A.; methodology, A.A. and A.S.; supervision, A.A.; visualization, D.G.; writing—original draft, A.A., D.G., and A.S.; writing—review and editing, A.A. and D.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ongoing unpublished research.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Ciech Sarzyna Ltd. and Kutno Sugar Beet Breeding Company Ltd. for assistance in conducting the experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Laane, H.-M. The effects of foliar sprays with different silicon compounds. Plants 2018, 7, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Artyszak, A. Effect of silicon fertilization on crop yield quantity and quality—A literature review in Europe. Plants 2018, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ciecierski, W.; Korbas, M.; Horoszkiewicz-Janka, J. Effectiveness of silicon application on mycotoxins reduction in maize. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Silicon in Agriculture, Bengaluru, India, 24–28 October 2017; p. 96. [Google Scholar]
  4. Laane, H.M. The effects of the application of foliar sprays with stabilized silicic acid: An overview of the results from 2003–2014. Silicon 2017, 9, 803–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Khan, M.A.; Vinod, G.; Neeru, J. Impact of ortho silic acid formulation on yield and disease incidence of potatoes. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Silicon in Agriculture, Bengaluru, India, 24–28 October 2017; p. 137. [Google Scholar]
  6. Satisha, G.C.; Saxena, A.K.; Ganesshamurthy, A.N. Effect of silicon and macronutrients on plant growth, yield and disease incidence in chilli (Capsicum annuum L). In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Silicon in Agriculture, Bengaluru, India, 24–28 October 2017; p. 144. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sidique, S.N.M.; Azhari, N.A.; Ngadin, A.A.; Ibrahim, N.F.; Lob, S.; Jin, X. Beneficial effects on the growth and abiotic stress of melon (Cucumis Melo L.) var. Glamour Sakata. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Silicon in Agriculture, Bengaluru, India, 24–28 October 2017; pp. 124–125. [Google Scholar]
  8. Radkowski, A.; Radkowska, I. Effects of silicate fertilizer on seed yield in timothy-grass (Phleum pratense L.). Ecol. Chem. Eng. 2018, 25, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Zamojska, J.; Danielewicz, J.; Jajor, E.; Wilk, R.; Horoszkiewicz-Janka, J.; Dworzańska, D.; Węgorek, P.; Korbas, M.; Bubniewicz, P.; Ciecierski, W.; et al. The influence of foliar application of silicon on insect damage and disease occurrence in field trials. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2018, 27, 3300–3305. [Google Scholar]
  10. Schabl, P.; Gabler, C.; Kührer, E.; Wenzel, W. Effects of silicon amendments on grapevine, soil and wine. Plant Soil Environ. 2020, 66, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gomaa, M.A.; Kandil, E.E.; Barakat, A.S.T.; Shehata, H.; Kordy, A.M. Productivity of some onion varieties under different silicates forms in relation to thrips (Thrips tabaci L.) infection. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 11, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nikpay, A.; Laane, H.-M. Foliar amendment of silicic acid on population of yellow mite, Oligonychus sacchari (Acari: Tetranychidae) and its predatory beetle, Stethorus gilvifrons (Col.: Coccinellidae) on two sugarcane commercial varieties. Persian J. Acarol. 2020, 9, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nagaratna, W.; Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M.; Dhananjaya, B.C.; Prakash, N.B. Effect of silicon and plant growth regulators on the biology and fitness of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, a recently invaded pest of maize in India. Silicon 2021. [CrossRef]
  14. Ambroziak, J. Foliar application of pH neutral product and its effect on abiotic stress mitigation in field crops. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Silicon in Agriculture, Bengaluru, India, 24–28 October 2017; p. 105. [Google Scholar]
  15. Artyszak, A. Possibilities of Using Silicon for Foliar Fertilization of Sugar Beet; Wieś Jutra: Warsaw, Poland, 2017; p. 128. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hřivna, L.; Joany, K.H.; Machálková, L.; Burešová, I.; Sapáková, E.; Kučerová, J.; Šottníková, V. Effect of foliar nutrition of potassium and silicon on yield and quality of sugar beet in unusual windy conditions in 2014 and 2015. Listy Cukrov. Repar. 2017, 133, 182–187. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bukhari, M.A.; Ahmad, Z.; Ashraf, M.Y.; Afzal, M.; Nawaz, F.; Nafees, M.; Jatoi, W.N.; Malghani, N.A.; Shan, A.N.; Manan, A. Silicon mitigates drought stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) through improving photosynthetic pigments, biochemical and yield characters. Silicon 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. De Moraes, D.H.M.; Mesquita, M.; Bueno, A.M.; Flores, R.A.; de Oliveira, H.F.E.; de Lima, F.S.R.; Prado, R.M.; Battisti, R. Combined effects of induced water deficit and foliar application of silicon on the gas exchange of tomatoes for processing. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Farahani, H.; Sajedi, N.A.; Madani, H.; Changizi, M.; Naeini, M.R. Effect of foliar-applied silicon on flower yield and essential oil composition of damask rose (Rosa damascena Miller) under water deficit stress. Silicon 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kowalska, J.; Tyburski, J.; Kowalska, J.; Krzymińska, J. Effect of different forms of silicon on growth of spring wheat cultivated in organic farming system. Silicon 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kowalska, J.; Tyburski, J.; Bocianowski, J.; Krzymińska, J.; Matysiak, K. Methods of silicon application on organic spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. spp. vulgare) cultivars grown across two contrasting precipitation years. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mastalerczuk, G.; Borawska-Jarmułowicz, B.; Dąbrowski, P.; Szara, E.; Perzanowska, A.; Wróbel, B. Can the application the silicon improve the productivity and nutritional value of grass–clover sward in conditions of rainfall shortage in organic management? Agronomy 2020, 10, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Semina, S.; Gavryshina, I.; Zheryakov, E.; Nikulina, E. The formation of corn grain yield when using silicon containing preparations. Sci. Pap. Ser. A Agron. 2020, 63, 509–513. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ahmad, Z.; Waraich, E.A.; Barutçular, C.; Hossain, A.; Erman, M.; ÇIĞ, F.; Gharib, H.; Sabagh, A.E.L. Enhancing drought tolerance in wheat through improving morpho-physiological and antioxidants activities of plants by the supplementation of foliar silicon. Phyton Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 89, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Trawczyński, C. Wpływ biostymulatorów na plon i jakość bulw ziemniaka uprawianego w warunkach suszy i wysokiej temperatury/The effect of biostimulators on the yield and quality of potato tubers grown in drought and high temperature conditions. Biul. IHAR 2020, 289, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Akter, S.; Rahman, M.Z.; Hoque, M.; Rob, M.M.; Afroz, T.; Ali, M.A. Yield and NPK uptake of rice as influenced by Si fertilization under ambient and elevated temperature. J. Agric. Food Environ. 2020, 1, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gugała, M.; Sikorska, A.; Zarzecka, K.; Kapela, K.; Mystkowska, I. The effect of sowing method and biostimulators on autumn development and overwintering of winter rape. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2017, 16, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hussain, S.; Mumtaz, M.; Manzoor, S.; Shuxian, L.; Ahmed, I.; Skalicky, M.; Brestic, M.; Rastogi, A.; Ulhassan, Z.; Shafiq, I.; et al. Foliar application of silicon improves growth of soybean by enhancing carbon metabolism under shading conditions. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 159, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ali, N.; Réthoré, E.; Yvin, J.C.; Hosseini, S.A. The regulatory role of silicon in mitigating plant nutritional stresses. Plants 2020, 9, 1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stephano, M.F.; Geng, Y.; Cao, G.; Wang, L.; Meng, W.; Meiling, Z. Effect of silicon fertilizer and straw return on the maize yield and phosphorus efficiency in Northeast China. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. De Farias Guedes, V.H.; de Mello Prado, R.; Frazão, J.J.; Oliveira, K.S.; Cazetta, J.O. Foliar-applied silicon in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) alleviate zinc deficiency. Silicon 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sacała, E. The influence of increasing doses of silicon on maize seedlings grown under salt stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sienkiewicz-Cholewa, U.; Sumisławska, J.; Sacała, E.; Dziągwa-Becker, M.; Kieloch, R. Influence of silicon on spring wheat seedlings under salt stress. Acta Physiol. Plant 2018, 40, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hussein, M.J.; Abdullah, A.K. Exogenous of silicon and glycine betaine improves salinity tolerance of pepper plants (Capsicum annum L.). Plant Arch. 2019, 19, 664–672. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tejada-Ruiz, S.; Gonzalez-Lopez, C.; Rojas, E.; Jiménez-Becker, S. Effect of the foliar application of microalgae hydrolysate (Arthrospira platensis) and silicon on the growth of Pelargonium hortorum L.H. Bailey under salinity conditions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Emamverdian, A.; Ding, Y.; Xie, Y.; Sangari, S. Silicon mechanisms to ameliorate heavy metal stress in plants. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Bhat, J.A.; Shivaraj, S.M.; Singh, P.; Navadagi, D.B.; Tripathi, D.K.; Dash, P.K.; Solanke, A.U.; Sonah, H.; Deshmukh, R. Role of silicon in mitigation of heavy metal stresses in crop plants. Plants 2019, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Emamverdian, A.; Ding, Y.; Mokhberdoran, F.; Ahmad, Z.; Xie, Y. Determination of heavy metal tolerance threshold in a bamboo species (Arundinaria pygmaea) as treated with silicon dioxide nanoparticles. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Kucińska, K. The effect of foliar fertilization with marine calcite in sugar beet. Plant Soil Environ. 2014, 60, 413–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Kucińska, K. The effect of silicon foliar fertilization in sugar beet—Beta vulgaris (L.) ssp. vulgaris conv. crassa (Alef.) prov. altissima (Döll). Turk. J. Field Crop. 2015, 20, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Kucińska, K. The effect of calcium and silicon foliar fertilization in sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2016, 18, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Urban, J.; Pulkrabek, J. Increased yield and quality of sugar beet by means of foliar nutrition and biologically active substances. Listy Cukrov. Repar. 2018, 134, 188–194. [Google Scholar]
  43. Artyszak, A. Agronomic and Habitat Conditions for Sugar Beet Yielding and Health; Treatises and Monographs, 398; Warsaw University of Life Sciences Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; p. 154. [Google Scholar]
  44. Trawczyński, C. Wpływ dolistnego nawożenia preparatem Herbagreen na plonowanie ziemniaków. Ziemn. Polski 2013, 2, 29–33. [Google Scholar]
  45. Trawczyński, C. The effect of foliar preparation with silicon on the yield and quality of potato tubers in compared to selected biostimulators. Fragm. Agron. 2018, 35, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wróbel, S. Wpływ nawożenia ziemniaka odmiany Jelly dolistnymi preparatami YaraVita Ziemniak oraz Actisil na plon i cechy jego jakości/Effects of fertilization of potato cultivar Jelly with foliar fertilizers YaraVita. Biul. IHAR 2012, 266, 295–305. [Google Scholar]
  47. Artyszak, A.; Klarzyńska, E.; Litwińczuk-Bis, M.; Siuda, A. Profitability of sugar beet foliar nutrition with silicon. Ann. PAAAE 2019, 21, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Litwińczuk-Bis, M.; Siuda, A.; Artyszak, A. The economic effects of foliar fertilization of sugar beet with marine calcite. Ann. PAAAE 2019, 21, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; Update 2015, World Soil Resources Report 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  50. Regional Agrochemical Station in Warsaw. Research Procedure No. PB 01 ed.; Regional Agrochemical Station: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  51. PKN. PN-ISO 10390:1997. In Soil Quality—pH Determination; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  52. Regional Agrochemical Station in Warsaw. Research Procedure No. PB 46 ed.; Regional Agrochemical Station: Warsaw, Poland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  53. PKN. Polish Standard PN-R-04023:1996. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil—Determination of Available Phosphorus Content in Mineral. Soils; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  54. PKN. Polish Standard PN-R-04022:1996/Az1:2002. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil—Determination of Available Potassium Content in Mineral. Soils; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  55. PKN. Polish Standard PN-R-04020:1994/Az1:2004. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil—Determination of Available Magnesium Content in Mineral. Soils; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  56. PKN. Polish Standard PN-93/R-04018. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Boron; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  57. PKN. Polish Standard PN-92/R-04017. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Copper; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  58. PKN. Polish Standard PN-R-04021: 1994. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Iron; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  59. PKN. Polish Standard PN-93/R-04019. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Manganese; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  60. PKN. Polish Standard PN-92/R-04016. In Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Zinc; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  61. PKN. Polish Standard PN-R-74458. In Sugar Beet Roots; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hassan, I.; Mostafa, S. Influence of sugar beet nitrogen content on quality and efficiency of sugar extraction. J. Food Dairy Sci. 2018, 9, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. ICUMSA. International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis. 1994. Available online: http://www.icumsa.org (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  64. Burba, M.; Georgi, B. Die fluorometrische Bestimmung der Aminosaüren in Zuckerrüben und Zuckerfabriksprodukten mit Fluoreszamin und o-Phtalaldehyd. Zuckerindustrie 1976, 26, 322–328. [Google Scholar]
  65. Trzebiński, J. Ocena wydajności cukru z korzeni. In Produkcja Buraka Cukrowego; Gutmański, I., Ed.; PWRiL: Poznań, Poland, 1991; pp. 591–597. [Google Scholar]
  66. Buchholz, K.; Märländer, B.; Puke, H.; Glattkowski, H.; Thielecke, K. Neubewertung des technischen Wertes von Zuckerrben. Zuckerindustrie 1995, 120, 113–121. [Google Scholar]
Plants 10 00370 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of the field experiment.
Figure 1. Location of the field experiment.
Plants 10 00370 g001
Plants 10 00370 g002 550
Figure 2. Weather conditions (monthly precipitations in mm, mean temperature in °C and hydrothermal coefficient k) during the growing season of sugar beet (2018–2020). Multiyear precipitation from year: 1991–2020 and temperature from 2002–2020. Source: own study based on data from Institute IMGW-PIB (Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy – Institute of Meteorology and Water Management – National Research Institute), Strzyżów Sugar Factory.
Figure 2. Weather conditions (monthly precipitations in mm, mean temperature in °C and hydrothermal coefficient k) during the growing season of sugar beet (2018–2020). Multiyear precipitation from year: 1991–2020 and temperature from 2002–2020. Source: own study based on data from Institute IMGW-PIB (Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy – Institute of Meteorology and Water Management – National Research Institute), Strzyżów Sugar Factory.
Plants 10 00370 g002
Table
Table 1. Means and standard deviations (SD) for yield and yield-related traits of sugar beet (from 2018 to 2020).
Table 1. Means and standard deviations (SD) for yield and yield-related traits of sugar beet (from 2018 to 2020).
Fertilization TreatmentPlant Density at Harvest, Thousand pcs. ha−1Root Yield,
t ha−1		Yield of Leaves,
t ha−1		Total Yield (Roots + Leaves),
t ha−1		Harvest IndexFoliage Index
meanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSD
088.66 a 114.4976.57 b5.9641.98 a17.08118.55 c22.240.66 d0.090.54 a0.19
189.00 a13.3784.93 a7.3943.41 a15.04128.34 abc18.280.67 bcd0.070.51 ab0.18
286.11 ab10.5485.00 a9.8639.51 ab16.23124.51 bc24.550.70 ab0.080.46 bc0.16
385.42 ab15.0084.37 a13.6944.33 a20.17128.70 ab27.960.67 cd0.090.53 a0.23
484.72 ab18.7487.55 ab7.3141.18 ab13.46128.73 ab18.530.69 abc0.070.47 bc0.14
587.15 a14.5987.05 ab11.9941.84 a20.76128.89 ab31.880.69 ab0.080.46 bc0.18
682.52 ab17.5192.20 a11.0543.20 a19.14135.40 a29.290.70 ab0.080.45 bc0.16
779.51 b17.6883.83 b13.7435.98 b12.73119.81 bc24.490.71 a0.060.42 c0.12
1 Within each column, means associated to different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Table
Table 2. Means and standard deviations (SD) of technological quality of sugar beet roots (from 2018 to 2020).
Table 2. Means and standard deviations (SD) of technological quality of sugar beet roots (from 2018 to 2020).
Fertilization TreatmentSugar Content, %mmol kg−1Alkalinity FactorStandard Molasses Losses, %Sugar Yield Losses, %Refined Sugar Content, %Sugar Productivity, %
α-Amino NitrogenKNa
meanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSDmeanSD
017.01 bc 11.2028.89 b4.7339.06d a2.553.73 a0.871.51 ab0.211.69 ab0.132.29 ab0.1314.72 cd1.3186.45 de1.64
117.46 a1.6428.68 bc10.4436.53 cc7.322.84 c0.741.48 bc0.341.64 bc0.342.24 bc0.3415.21 a1.9786.90 abcd3.10
217.39 a1.1626.83 cd6.9237.82 cda4.433.40 ab0.581.62 a0.411.62 c0.202.22 c0.2015.18 a1.3687.13 ab1.97
317.24 ab1.1627.96 bcd8.6436.46 cc4.033.40 ab0.681.55 ab0.441.63 c0.242.23 c0.2415.01 abc1.3686.95 abc2.13
417.02 bc1.4528.78 b7.7237.48 ccda4.293.01 bc0.531.48 bc0.321.66 abc0.232.26 abc0.2314.76 bcd1.6786.55 cde2.47
517.05 bc1.4729.17 bc7.0435.50 ac3.622.94 bc0.521.38 c0.291.64 bbc0.202.24 bc0.2014.81 bcd1.6786.68 bcd2.30
617.23 ab1.5326.44 d8.0933.83 a5.572.96 bc0.471.46 bc0.291.56 d0.262.16 d0.2615.08 ab1.7687.29 a2.55
716.86 c1.6330.83 a8.1536.87 cc6.603.74 a0.971.37 c0.251.71 a0.272.31 d0.2714.56 d1.8686.09 e2.75
1 Within each column, means associated to different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Table
Table 3. Means and standard deviations (SD) of sugar yield of sugar beet (from 2018 to 2020).
Table 3. Means and standard deviations (SD) of sugar yield of sugar beet (from 2018 to 2020).
Fertilization TreatmentBiological Sugar Yield, t ha−1Pure Sugar Yield, t ha−1
meanSDmeanSD
013.05 c 11.5811.30 c1.54
114.89 ab2.3513.00 ab2.46
214.84 ab2.3612.96 ab2.31
314.63 b3.0012.76 b2.85
414.92 ab1.8412.94 ab1.87
514.88 ab2.5912.93 ab2.47
615.91 a2.4013.93 a2.39
714.18 bc2.8412.25 bc2.71
1 Within each column, means associated with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Table
Table 4. Morphological features of sugar beet (means from 2018 to 2020).
Table 4. Morphological features of sugar beet (means from 2018 to 2020).
Fertilization TreatmentFresh Weight of Individual Root, kgFresh Weight of Leaves per Plant, kgFresh Weight of Individual Plant, kg
00.89 d 10.51 cd1.40 c
10.98 cd0.51 cd1.49 bc
21.00 bcd0.47 d1.47 bc
31.03 bc0.58 b1.61 ab
41.10 abc0.53 bcd1.63 ab
51.02 bc0.50 cd1.52 bc
61.18 a0.56 bc1.74 a
71.11 ab0.48 d1.59 ab
1 Within each column, means associated with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Table
Table 5. Basic statistics for the studied traits of sugar beet in years 2018–2020 for all treatments together.
Table 5. Basic statistics for the studied traits of sugar beet in years 2018–2020 for all treatments together.
ElementMeanMinimumMaximumSDCoefficient of Variation, %
Plant density at harvest, thousand pcs. ha−185.3955.56113.8915.1617.76
Root yield, t ha−185.1961.89110.2810.9212.82
Yield of leaves, t ha−141.4314.9277.2216.6140.09
Total yield (roots + leaves), t ha−1126.6278.67180.8324.6819.49
Harvest index0.680.520.820.0811.34
Foliage index0.480.210.920.1735.71
Sugar content in the roots, %17.1614.7219.881.388.03
The content of α-amino nitrogen in the roots, mmol kg−128.4514.8042.407.6827.00
Potassium content in the roots, mmol kg−136.6927.5048.805.0613.78
Sodium content in the roots, mmol kg−13.251.905.600.7522.97
Alkalinity factor1.480.992.390.3321.97
Standard molasses losses, %1.641.202.110.2414.34
Sugar yield losses, %2.241.802.710.2410.50
Refined sugar content, %14.9212.1718.021.5910.67
Productivity of sugar, %86.7581.9190.652.342.70
Biological sugar yield, t ha−114.669.9919.462.4416.66
Pure sugar yield, t ha−112.768.3217.392.3818.64
Fresh weight of individual root, kg1.040.671.820.2827.37
Fresh weight of leaves per plant, kg0.520.191.260.2752.41
Fresh weight of individual plant, kg1.560.922.960.5333.82
Table
Table 6. Effects based on general linear model which include effect of repeated measures.
Table 6. Effects based on general linear model which include effect of repeated measures.
SSdfMSFp
Intercept1,704,95811,704,95832,565.06<0.001
Year78092390474.57<0.001
Treatment73771052.010.065
Year*treatment102814731.400.175
MSE137707252
Repeated measures 1615,9355123,1874837.31<0.001
Repeated measures*year31,705103170124.50<0.001
Repeated measures*treatment238835682.68<0.001
Repeated measures*year*treatment407870582.29<0.001
MSE2916836025
1 Repeated measures are selected variables measured in subsequent measurements, such as: plant density, root yield, yield of leaves, technological yield of sugar, sugar content in roots, and sugar efficiency.
Table
Table 7. Soil properties before establishing the experiment with sugar beet and after the harvesting (2017/2018–2019/2020).
Table 7. Soil properties before establishing the experiment with sugar beet and after the harvesting (2017/2018–2019/2020).
YearSOC, %pHKClmg kg−1Nmin, kg ha−1mg kg−1
N-NO3N-NH4PKMgBCuFeMnZn
before
20171.667.536.21.581478762692.27.34901675.9
20182.767.318.43.119391133995.68.86301578.0
20191.377.252.43.3321744116602.36.97351926.4
after
20182.407.584.31.543351237655.88.89001599.0
20192.827.447.4<1.001856671906.88.36061676.0
20201.027.122.7<1.008938137731.25.24431364.6
Table
Table 8. Description of the studied fertilization treatments.
Table 8. Description of the studied fertilization treatments.
Fertilization TreatmentSpraying Date
6 Leaf Stage (BBCH 16)7 Days Later14 Days LaterTotal Dose of Si and K Applied by Foliar Application per Season per 1 ha **
Control (0)–––Without foliar Si and K fertilization
10.5 dm3 ha−1 *––75 g Si, 62.5 g K
20.5 dm3 ha−10.5 dm3 ha−1–150 g Si, 125 g K
30.5 dm3 ha−10.5 dm3 ha−10.5 dm3 ha−1225 g Si, 187.5 g K
40.5 dm3 ha−1–0.5 dm3 ha−1150 g Si, 125 g K
5–0.5 dm3 ha−1–75 g Si, 62.5 g K
6–0.5 dm3 ha−10.5 dm3 ha−1150 g Si, 125 g K
7––0.5 dm3 ha−175 g Si, 62.5 g K
* In each dose of 0.5 dm3 Sarmin maKSi, 75 g Si and 62.5 g K were added. ** Total dose of Si and K per season applied by foliar fertilization.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Siuda, A. Effect of the Application Date of Fertilizer Containing Silicon and Potassium on the Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet Roots. Plants 2021, 10, 370. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020370

AMA Style

Artyszak A, Gozdowski D, Siuda A. Effect of the Application Date of Fertilizer Containing Silicon and Potassium on the Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet Roots. Plants. 2021; 10(2):370. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020370

Chicago/Turabian Style

Artyszak, Arkadiusz, Dariusz Gozdowski, and Alicja Siuda. 2021. "Effect of the Application Date of Fertilizer Containing Silicon and Potassium on the Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet Roots" Plants 10, no. 2: 370. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020370

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop