influence of bioactive matters on root yield, digestion and corrected sugar content of sugar beet

7/28/2019 Influence of Bioactive Matters on Root Yield, Digestion and Corrected Sugar Content of Sugar Beet

1/6

Proceedings of research papers of doctoral students, young researchers and pedagogues "Young researchers

2011"

INFLUENCE OF BIOACTIVE MATTERS ON ROOT YIELD, DIGESTION AND

CORRECTED SUGAR CONTENT OF SUGAR BEET.

AJBIDOROV Lucia, PAUTAVladimr, NDASKRoman

Abstract

The aim of the experiment was to determine the influence of leaf preparations, based on biologicallyactive substances (potassium humate and 5-aminolevulinic acid), on the root yield, digestion and

corrected sugar content of sugar beet. Biological active substances are used to stimulate the metabolicand vital functions of plants, increase plant drought adaptation and potentially support the plantnutrients income from the soil. The experiments were realized in years 2009 and 2010 on experimentalbase of Department of Crop Production of Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra. We used twosugar beet varieties - Jambus and Victor and two preparations Biafit Gold (contents - potassiumhumate) and Pentakeep V (5-aminolevulinic acid). Potassium humate and 5-aminolevulinic acid,active substances based on bioactive matters, were sprayed on sugar beet two times (Biafit Gold) andthree times (Pentakeep V) per vegetation. The results were evaluated by Analyses of Variance and

LSD test and showed, that the highest root yield achieved a variety Jambus (80.37 t ha-1), thedifference was not statistically significant. Both of foliar preparations increased the root yieldcompared to the control. By digestion, the preparation Pentakeep - V increased and preparation BiafitGold decreased digestion, the difference was statistically highly significant. The similar situation wasby corrected sugar content and the difference was also statistically highly significant.

KEY WORDS: sugar beet, bioactive matters, leaf preparation, Biafit Gold, PentakeepV

1 Introduction

Sugar beet belongs to plants with high demand to agrotechnic and nutrition (Loek et al.,

1997). In the world it still belongs among 15 most important crops (Pulkrbek et al., 2008).Therefore requires attention focus and management expertise, whereat should be based on

knowledge of soil properties, dynamics and consumption of nutrients on the physiological

requirements of plants and also influence and impact of weather conditions on these processes

(Rohik, 2001).Stabilisation of sugar beet production with the optimal quantitative and qualitative

parameters requires respecting the natural requirements of sugar beet for basic agroecological

factors and technological parameters of its growing (ern et al., 2001).A precondition for achieving high yield and good root quality of sugar beet is balanced and

adequate supply of nutrients. If the offer is low, losses on yield are accrued, or the quality is

reduced. If it is high, it occurs to the reduction of technological quality (Rohik, 2001).Nutrition of sugar beet affects all physiological and biochemical processes in roots (Pauta etal., 2006).

Fertilizer on the base bioactive natural substances such as humates, which use their

stimulus effect in the interaction with basic fertilizer nutrients positively affect the yield and

quality (Pauta, 1999).Today the sugar yield reaches more than ten times the amount in comparison with the

beginning of its growing more than 170 years ago (md, 1863 in Pulkrbek et al., 2008).Preparations containing biologically active matters are used to stimulate metabolic

functions of plants, enhance plant drought adaptation and another biotic and abiotic stress,

improve regeneration of plants after effect stressful factors and potentially support the plant

nutrients income from the soil. These preparations are not foliar fertilizers but they can

contain macroelements and microelements. As the bioactive matters which positively affect

vital functions of plants we can consider many substances of natural or synthetic origin, e.g.


2/6


2011"

plant hormones, aromatic nitro-substances, urea, salicylic acid or humine substances (ern etal., 2000, Feckov, 2005, Pauta et al., 2001, Pulkrbek et al., 1999).

2 Objective

Objective of the experiment was to determine influence of leaf preparations basedbiologically active substances (Biafit Gold and Pentakeep - V) on the selected parameters of

sugar beet in the conditions of maize production areas of Slovakia.

3 Materials and methods

Field experiments were established according the method of Split Plots by Ehremberger

(1995) in three repetitions on experimental base of the Slovak University of Agriculture in

Doln Malanta in years 2009 and 2010. In experiments were used two varieties of sugar beet(Viktor, Jambus) and two preparations containing bioactive substances such as potassium

humate (Biafit Gold) and 5-aminolevulinic acid (Pentakeep - V).

Soil preparation and crop establishment in the experiments were conducted in accordancewith the principles of sugar beet growing. The forecrop was winter wheat. Basic fertilization

was done by the balance method on the basis of agronomic soil analysis on expected yield 60

t ha-1. The final sowing distance was 0.45 x 0.18 m.

In experiments we observed two factors of experiment: 1. Preparations

2. Varieties

They were evaluated following yield and technological parameters of sugar beet

production:

1. Root yield (t.ha-1)2. Digestion (S)3. Corrected sugar yield (%), which we calculated according the formula:

B = Dg - [0,343.(Na+K) + 0,094.(-amino N) + 0,29] (1)

Brefined sugar content (%)Dgdigestion (S)

Nacontent of sodium (mmol.100 g-1 beet)Kcontent of potassium (mmol.100 g-1 beet) -amino Ncontent of alfa-amino nitrogen (mmol.100 g-1 beet)

Sugar beet was harvested from 3 and 4 row of length of 6 m of each variant. The analyses

of sugar beet were done in SELEKT Buany. The results were evaluated by Analyses ofVariance and LSD test.

3.1 Preparations

Biafit gold

It is a leaf liquid fertilizer containing bioactive natural substances (resins, sugars, uronic

acids and vitamins). Application to the leaf is intensifying nutrition of plants, supports the

growth of rooty system and whole plant. Those preparation on base organic resin, which is

receives as the waste by the manipulated of spruce.

Pentakeep -V

It is a fertilizer containing promoter of photosynthesis 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALK), which

is a biologically active substance that occurs in living organisms.


3/6


2011"

Applied doses of the preparations used in experiments are in Table 1 and 2. In Table 3 are the

dates of application of preparations.

Table 1:Application of Biafit Gold in individual growth stages (Pulkrbek, 2004)

Table 2: Application of Pentakeep - V in individual growth stages (Pulkrbek, 2004)

Dose Growth phase of beet

1. 1,5 l.ha-119 BBCH 9 and more developed leaves (an application developed

for 11 leaves)

2. 1,5 l.ha-1 31 BBCH beginn of closing growth

3. 1,5 l.ha-1 33 BBCH closed growth (30% plants are touching )

Table 3:Dates of application the leaf preparations (author's own results, 2009,2010)

1. aplication of leaf

preparations (Biafit Gold,

PentakeepV)


preparation

(PentakeepV)


preparation (Biafit Gol) and 3.

(PentakeepV)

4.6.2009 18.6.2009 3.7.2009

3.6.2010 24.6.2010 30.6.2010

3. 2 Varieties

In field experiments were observed two certified, genetically monogerm varieties of sugar

beet: 'Viktor', 'Jambus'.

Victor - diploid, double tolerant variety to rhizomania and cercospora, normal / sugar type.

Jambus - diploid, double tolerant variety to rhizomania and cercospora, normal / sugar type.

Dose Growth phase of beet

1. 10 l.ha-119 BBCH 9 and more developed leaves (an application developed

for 11 leaves)

2. 10 l.ha-1 33 BBCH closed growth (30 % plants are touching )


4/6


2011"

4 Results and discussion

Fig. 1Average temperatures in years 2009 and 2010 on locality Doln Malanta (author's own results, 2010)

From the first graph (Fig.1.) we can see, that in 2009 temperatures were in April and May

and also in August and September over the climate normal. The average temperatures in 2010

largely copied the climate normal, just in June, July and August temperatures were over the

climate normal and in October, below the climate normal. Both years were with regard to

temperatures - normal.

Fig. 2Average rainfall in years 2009 and 2010 on locality Doln Malanta (author's own results, 2010)

In 2009, just in April and May and also in August and September, when the temperatures

were over the climate normal, rainfall were below the climate normal. High temperatures andlow rainfall had an influence on qualitative and quantitative parameters of sugar beet.


5/6


2011"

Year 2010 was extreme, in terms of rainfall. In April, May and July, rainfall was high above

the climate normal. Annual rainfall in comparison with the climate normal is 540 mm per

year. In 2009 was annual rainfall 581 mm, it was a normal year, by contrast in 2010 it was

918 mm and year was considered a very humid.

PreparationsPreparations containing bioactive substances are statistically highly significantly reflected

in the digestion and corrected. The highest digestion we achieved with Pentakee -V 17.70 0S,

which was 0.13 0S more compared with control and 0.60 0S more compared with the

preparation Biafit Gold. It follows, that the preparation Pentakeep - V increased and

preparation Biafit Gold decreased digestion compared with control, but the difference was not

statistically significant.

In the corrected sugar content, we can stated a similar situation. The highest corrected

sugar content were achieved with using Pentakeep - V (14,96%) and the lowest with Biafit

Gold (14.36%).

In the control variant corrected sugar yield was 14.71%, the difference was statistically

highly significant. In the root yield the preparations increased root yield compared to controlas follows, the Biafit Gold about 3.26 t ha-1 and Pentakeep - V about 10.48 t ha-1, the

difference was not statistically significant.

VarietiesOn average experimental years, we have achieved the highest root yield with a variety

Jambus (80.37 t.ha-1). The variety Viktor reached root yield 74.98 t ha-1, which was 5.39 t ha-1

less than the variety Jambus, the difference was not statistically significant. Higher digestion

in observed years achieved the variety of lower root yield Viktor (17.49 0S). For variety

Jambus, the digestion was 17.43 0S. We can see that the difference is small (0.06 0S) and not

statistically significant.

Higher corrected sugar content achieved variety Viktor (14.7%), but as the digestion the

difference was small 0.05% and statistically not significant.

Effect of interaction of variety-preparation was for root yield not significant. In the

digestion and corrected sugar content was significantly highly significant.

Table 4: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)years 2009 and 2010 (author's own results)

Source of

Variability

Monitored parameter

Root yield Digestion Corrected sugar

content

p - values

Variety 0,1330 0,4413 0,3454

Preparation 0,0629 0,0000** 0,0000**

Variety x

Preparation0,4199 0,0000** 0,0000**

pValue - significant level* - statistically significant influence of factor,

** - statistically high significant influence of factor (resource of variability) for

observed parameter


6/6


2011"

5 Conclusion

1. Within the varieties Viktor and Jambus we did not found statistically significantdifferences in root yield, digestion and corrected sugar content.

2. Biafit Gold decreased and Pentakeep - V increased digestion compared to the control

variant. Preparations had statistically highly significant influence to digestion andcorrected sugar content.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by grants VEGA No. 1/0099/08: Biologization of sugar beet

productive process in the condition of climatic change and VEGA No. 1/0237/11: Production and quality of

important field crop species depending on adoption of rationalization technology steps under climatic change

conditions

References

Baji, P. Pauta, V. ern, I. 1997. Cukrov repa. Nitra : VTIP NOI, 1997, s.111. ISBN8085330350.

ern, I. Pauta, V. Villr, G. 2000. Vplyv Atoniku na rodu a technologick kvalitucukrovej repy. In: Listy cukrovarncke a epask, ro. 116, . 12, s. 316-319 ISSN 1210-3306ern, I. Pauta, V. imurkov, J. 2001. Influence of Atonik on sugar beet root yield andquality. In Acta fytotechnica et zootechnica, ro. 4, . 2, 2001, s. 34 37. ISSN 1335-258XEhrenbergerov, J. 1995. Zakldn ahodnocen pokusu. Brno : MZLU, 1995, 109 s. ISBN80-7157-153-9.

Feckov, J. 2005. Produkcia a kvalita cukrovej repy v zvislosti na vybranchantropognnych faktoroch. Doktorandsk dizertan prca. Nitra, 2005.Loek, O. Fecenko, J. Mazur, B. Mazur, K. 1997. The effect of foliar application of

humate on wheat grain yield and quality. In:Rostlinn vroba, . 43(1), s. 37-41Pauta, V. ern, I. Karabnov, M. Pekov, J. 1999. Vyuitie kvapalnch hnojv na

bze bioaktvnych prrodnch ltok pri pestovan repy cukrovej. In Zbornk refertov z tretejvedeckej celoslovenskej reprskej konferencie vNitre, Nitra: Agrotr, 1999, s. 102 106.ISBN 8088946035.

Pauta, V. Orulov, J. ern, I.KovIk, P. 2001. Vplyv stimulanch listovch hnojvna rodu buliev atechnologick kvalitu cukrovej repy. In Listy cukrovarncke a epask, ro.117, . 7-8, 2001, s. 182-185. ISSN 1210-3306.

Pauta, V. ern, I. 2006. Niektor poznatky v oblasti technolgie pestovania repy cukrovej.In: Nae pole, ro. 10, . 12, s. 42 - 43. ISSN 1335-2466

Pulkrbek, J. roller, J. Zahradnek, J. 1999. Vliv regultor rstu na vnos a jakost

bulev cukrovky. In: Rostlinn vroba, 45, (8): 379 386Pulkrbek, J. et al. 2008. Use of yield potential of sugar beet cultivars in the Czech republic.In Acta fytotechnica et zootechnica, ro. 11, . 2, 2008, s. 45 48. ISSN 1335-258X

Rohik, t. 2001. Priority vskumu a achtenia cukrovej repy v SR. In: IV. celoslovenskvedeck reprska konferencia. Nitra : VES SPU , 2001, s. 24

Address: Ing. Lucia ajbidorov, Department of Crop Production, FAPZ, SPU Nitra Tr. A.Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, SR tel: +420/641 641 4222 email: [email protected]
http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24label1%27%2C%27%27%29/http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24btnvybereng%27%2C%27%27%29/http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24btnvybereng%27%2C%27%27%29/http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24btnvybereng%27%2C%27%27%29/http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24btnvybereng%27%2C%27%27%29/mailto:lucia.sajbidorova@gmailmailto:lucia.sajbidorova@gmailhttp://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24btnvybereng%27%2C%27%27%29/http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24btnvybereng%27%2C%27%27%29/http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24btnvybereng%27%2C%27%27%29/http://__dopostback%28%27ctl00%24contentplaceholder1%24datalistsk%24ctl03%24label1%27%2C%27%27%29/

influence of bioactive matters on root yield, digestion and corrected sugar content of sugar beet

Documents