دوره 12، شماره 35 - ( پاییز 1399 )
جلد 12 شماره 35 صفحات 29-18 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
khorshid A, Asadi A A. (2020). Investigation of Changes in Qualitative Characteristics of Sugar Beet Breeding Lines under Drought Stress and Normal Conditions. J Crop Breed. 12(35), 18-29. doi:10.52547/jcb.12.35.18
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-1085-fa.html
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-1085-fa.html
خورشید عبدالمجید، اسدی علی اکبر. بررسی تغییرات صفات کیفی لاین‌های اصلاحی چغندرقند در شرایط تنش خشکی و نرمال پژوهشنامه اصلاح گیاهان زراعی 1399; 12 (35) :29-18 10.52547/jcb.12.35.18
1- بخش تحقیقات چغندرقند، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان آذربایجان غربی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، ارومیه، ایران ترویج کشاورزی، ارومیه، ایران
2- مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان زنجان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، زنجان، ایران
2- مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان زنجان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، زنجان، ایران
چکیده: (2911 مشاهده)
کیفیت چغندرقند ترکیبی است از تمام حالات فیزیکی و شیمیایی ریشه چغندرقند که روی فرآیند تولید و یا محصول شکر و یا محصولات جانبی اثر میگذارد. از طرف دیگر کم‌آبی و دمای بالا در دوره رشد موجب افزایش ناخالصی های ریشه چغندر به ویژه ترکیبات نیتروژنه شده و درنهایت باعث تغییر در کیفیت چغندرقند می‌شوند. به‌منظور بررسی تغییرات خصوصیات کیفی چغندرقند تحت تنش خشکی خانواده‌های فول‌سیب حاصل از برنامه‌های اصلاحی در دو آزمایش جداگانه خشکی و نرمال در سال زراعی 1396 در ایستگاه تحقیقات مهندس مطهری کرج موردبررسی قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان داد که تنش خشکی باعث کاهش معنی‌دار عملکرد ریشه، عملکرد قند، عملکرد قند خالص، میزان پتاسیم، میزان ازت مضره و قند ملاس و افزایش میزان سدیم و خلوص شربت شد. فول‌سیب‌های مورد بررسی تنها از نظر صفات ازت مضره و ضریب قلیائیت دارای اختلاف معنی‌دار بودند. علیرغم معنی‌دار نشدن اختلافات بین ژنوتیپ‌ها ازنظر عملکرد ریشه و قند، بیشترین عملکرد ریشه مربوط به فول‌سیب‌های 5 و 6 و کمترین عملکرد مربوط به فول‌سیب 15 و شاهدهای 20، 23، 21 و 19 بود. همچنین فول‌سیب‌های 5، 1 و 6 دارای بیشترین و فول‌سیب‌های 2، 15، 9، 2 و شاهد 23 دارای کمترین عملکرد قند بودند
نوع مطالعه: پژوهشي |
موضوع مقاله:
اصلاح براي تنش هاي زنده و غيرزنده محيطي
دریافت: 1398/7/19 | پذیرش: 1399/5/11
دریافت: 1398/7/19 | پذیرش: 1399/5/11
فهرست منابع
1. Abbas, F., A. Mohanna, G. Al-Lahham, E. Al-Jbawi and Z. AL-Jasem. 2010. Evaluation the Response of Some Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Genotypes under Saline Water Irrigation Conditions. Under published in Arab Journal for Dry Environments. ACSAD.
2. Abd-El Motagally, F.M.F. 2004. Evaluation of two sugar beet cultivars (Beta vulgaris L.) for growth and yield under drought and heat conditions. Thesis for PhD. Institute of Plant Nutrition. University Giessen, Germany, 143 pp.
3. Abdollahian-Noghabi, M. 1999. Ecophysiology of sugar beet cultivars and weed species subjected to water deficiency stress. Ph.D thesis. University of Reading.
4. Ahmadi, M., E. Majidi Heravan, S.Y. Sadeghian, M. Mesbah and F. Darvish. 2011. Drought tolerance variability in S1 pollinator lines developed from a sugar beet open population. Euphytica, 178: 339-349. [DOI:10.1007/s10681-010-0307-8]
5. Al-Jbawil, E. and F. Abbas. 2013. The Effect of Length during Drought Stress on Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Yield and Quality. Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(1): 35-43.
6. Bloch, D., C.M. Hoffmann and B. Marlander. 2006. Solute accumulation as a cause for quality losses in sugar beet submitted to continuous and temporary drought stress. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 192: 17-24. [DOI:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00185.x]
7. Bloch, D. and C.M. Hoffmann. 2005. Seasonal development of genotypic differences in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and their interaction with water supply. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 191: 263-272. [DOI:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2005.00150.x]
8. Clover, G.R.G. 1998. Effects of beet yellows virus and drought on the growth of sugar beet. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham.
9. Daryab, A. 2003. Investigation on drought tolerance in traditional sugerbeet genotypes and their parents. M.Sc. thesis in Crop Breeding. Azad University, Karaj, Iran. (In Persian)
10. Ebrahimian, H.R. and S.H. Sadeghian. 2006. Study of yield and yield components of sugar beet monogerm varieties. Congress of Agronomy and Plant Breeding. Campus Abourihan - University of Tehran. Septamber, 2006. pp. 226 (In Persian).
11. Emami, E., M. Mehrpouyan and M. Moharam-Zadeh. 2011. Evaluation the root yield and quality traits of sixteen monogerm varieties of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Meshkin-Shahr climate condition. First National Conference on Modern Topics in Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Saveh- November 2011 (In Persian).
12. Faberio, C., M. Santa Olalla, R. Lopez and A. Dominguez. 2003. Production and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivated under controlled deficit irrigation condition in semiarid- climate. Agricultural Water Management, 62: 215-227. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-3774(03)00097-0]
13. Fateh, M., M. AbdolahianNoghabi and M. Mesbah. 2004. Effect of contioulesly drought stress on physiological traits of suger beet in Karaj. 8th Iranian Agronomy and Plant Breeding Congeres. 23-25 Agust. Karaj, Iran (In Persian).
14. Foroozesh, f., E.M. Majidi Heravan, M.R. Bihamta, D. Fatollah Taleghani and D. Habibi. 2012. Physiological Evaluation of Sugar Beet Genotypes under Drought Stress American-Eurasian Journal Agricultural and Environment Science, 12(6):820-826 (In Persian).
15. Fotouhi, K., M. Mesbah, S.Y. Sadeghian Motahar, Z. Ranji and M.R. Orazizadeh. 2007. Evaluation of salinity tolerance in sugar beet genotypes, Journal of Sugar Beet, 22(2): 1-18 (In Persian).
16. Ghafari, E., A. Rajabi, A. Izadi Darbandi, F. Rozbeh and R. Amiri. 2016. Evaluation of New Sugar Beet Monogerm Hybrids for Drought Tolerance. Journal of Crop Breeding 8(17): 8-16 (In Persian). [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.jcb.8.17.16]
17. Hamidi, H., M. Ahmadi, S.S. Ramezanpour, A. Masomi and S. khoramian. 2018. Evaluation of genetic diversity in sugar beet Half-Sib inbred lines under farm water stress condition. Journal of Crop Breeding, 10(28):145-154 (In Persian). [DOI:10.29252/jcb.10.28.145]
18. Harvey, C.W. and J.V. Dutton. 1993. Root quality and processing. In: D.A. Cooke and R.K. Scott (eds). The Sugar Beet Crop, 571-617 pp. London: Chapman and Hall. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-009-0373-9_15]
19. Hoffmann, C.M. 2010. Sucrose accumulation in sugar beet under drought stress. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 196: 243-252. [DOI:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2009.00415.x]
20. Hsiao, T.C. 2000. Leaf and root growth in relation to water status. Horticultural Science, 35: 1051-1058. [DOI:10.21273/HORTSCI.35.6.1051]
21. Jaggard, K. 1997. Growth of the sugar beet crop in 1998. British Sugar Beet Review, 65(1):10-12.
22. Kerr, S. and M. Leaman. 1997. To water or not. British Sugar Beet Review, 65(2): 11-13.
23. Mack, G. and C.M. Hoffmann. 2006. Organ-specific adaptation to low precipitation in solute concentration of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 25: 270-279. [DOI:10.1016/j.eja.2006.06.004]
24. Mahmoodi, R., H. Maralian and A. Aghabarati. 2008. Effect of limited irrigation on root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). African Journal of Biotechnology, 7: 4475-4478. [DOI:10.3923/ajps.2008.298.303]
25. Mirzaii, M. and S.M. Rezvani. 2007. Effects of water deficit on quality of sugar beet at different growth stages, Journal of Sugar Beet, 23(1): 29-42 (In Persian).
26. Mirzaii, M., S.M. Rezvani and J. Gohari. 2005. Effect of drought stress in different growth stages on yield and some physiological properties of sugar beet, Journal of Sugar Beet, 21(1): 1-10 (In Persian).
27. Mohammadian, R., D.F. Taleghani and S. Sadeghzadeh. 2010. Effect of different irrigation managements on quantity and quality of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet, 26(2): 139-156 (In Persian).
28. Mohammadian, R., M. Abdollahian-Noghabi, J. Baghani and A.G. Haghayeghi. 2009. The relationship of morphological traits at early growth stage of three sugar beet genotypes with final root yield and white sugar yield under different drought stress conditions, Journal of Sugar Beet, 25(1): 23-38 (In Persian).
29. Mousavi, S.K., P. Pezeshkpoor, A. Khorgami and M.N. Noori. 2009. Effects of supplemental irrigation and crop density on yield, and yield components of Kabuli chickpea cultivars. Journal of Agronomy Research, 7(2): 657-672 (In Persian).
30. Nabi Ilkaei, M., D. Habibi, P. Foroozesh, D. Fatollah Taleghani, A. Rajabi, S. Oroojnia and M. Davoodifard. 2013. Investigation of quality and quantity properties in different sugar beet genotypes under drought stress. Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, 8(4): 101-111 (In Persian).
31. Ober, E.S. and A. Rajabi. 2010. Abiotic stress in sugar beet. Sugar Technology, 12: 294-298. [DOI:10.1007/s12355-010-0035-3]
32. Ober, E.S., M.L. Bloa, C.J.A. Clark, A. Royal, K.W. Jaggard and J.D. Pidgon. 2005. Evaluation of physiological traits as indirect selection criteria for drought tolerance in sugar beet. Field Crops Research, 91: 231-249. [DOI:10.1016/j.fcr.2004.07.012]
33. Ober, E.S., C.J.A. Clark, K.W. Jaggard and J.D. Pidgeon. 2004. Progress towards improving the drought tolerance of sugarbeet. Zuckerindustrie, 129: 101-104.
34. Passioura, J.B. 1996. Drought and drought tolerance. Plant Growth Regulation, 20: 79-83. [DOI:10.1007/BF00024003]
35. Reinefeld, E., A. Emmerich, G. Baumgarten, C. Winner and U.M. Beib. 1974. Zur voraussage des melassezuckers aus rübenanalysen. Zucker, 27: 2-15.
36. Richards, R.A. 1996. Defining selection criteria to improve yield under drought. Plant Growth Regulation, 20: 157-166. [DOI:10.1007/BF00024012]
37. Rytter, R.M. 2005. Water use efficiency, carbon isotope discrimination and biomass production of two sugar beet varieties under well-watered and dry conditions. Journal of Agronomy Crop Science, 191: 426-438. [DOI:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2005.00162.x]
38. Sadeghian Motahar, S.Y., R. Mohammadan, D.F. Taleghani and A. Khorshid. 2001. Evaluation of sugar beet drought tolerance genotypes using of halfsib-family recurrent selection. Final report, SBSI.
39. Sharifi, M. 2003. Investigation on correlation of drought tolerance physiological indexes with qualitative and quantitative of ten new suger beet genotypes. M.Sc. Thesis in Crop Breeding. Shiraz University, Iran (In Persian).
40. Shehata, M.M., S.A. Azer and S.N. Mostafa. 2000. The effect of soil moisture on some sugar beet varieties. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 78(3): 1141-1160.
41. Smirnoff, N. 1993. The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytologist, 125: 27-58. [DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1993.tb03863.x]
42. Taleghani, D.F., S. Sadeghzadeh and S. Khiamym. 2010. Study of some quantitative and qualitative traits of promising sugar beet genotypes under drought stress conditions. Journal of Sugar Beet. 25(2): 113-123 (In Persian).
43. Vahidi, H., A. Rajabi, M.R. Seyed and D. Hadi Fathollah. 2013. Screening of suger beet (Beta vulgaris L.) genotype for drought tolerance. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences, 6:1104-1113.
44. Westgate, D., J. Batey, J. Brownlee and M. Butler. 1985. Some characteristics of interaction in foreign language classrooms. British Educational Research Journal, 11(3):271-81. [DOI:10.1080/0141192850110307]
ارسال پیام به نویسنده مسئول
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
