The effect of crop rotation on performance and qualitative characteristics of sugar beet
Sugar beet and sugarcane are two major crops for sugar extraction throughout the world. However, the sugar beet importance is not just about sugar production but it also plays an important role in crop rotation and increased productivity in various industries as well as livestock feed. In this study the long-term (2009-16) field trial effect of alfalfa (4 years)-winter wheat (1 year)–fallow (1year)-sugar beet rotation on yield and quality parameters of sugar beet were evaluated for two consecutive rotations. The field trials were carried out at single location in Karaj, Iran, using randomized complete block design with four replications. Analysis of variance showed that the seasonal factors influenced different traits. In the first and second rotations, the root yield ranged from about 56.5 to 83.2 and 61.4 to 77.8 t ha-1, respectively with significant difference among cultivars in the first rotation. However, no significant difference was observed among both rotations in terms of root yield. Same results were obtained for sugar yield in both rotations which illustrates the stability of the above-mentioned traits. Except for sugar content, significant difference was observed among other traits in both rotations. We show for the first time the effect of completing two rotation sequences on sugar beet performance and quality for decision making into a continual expansion/development of crop cultivation.
Bennett AJ, Bending GD, Chandler D, Hilton S, Mills P (2011). Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations. Biological Reviews 87:51-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00184.x
Buhre C, Apfelbeck R, Hesse F, van Look M, Mielke C, Ladewig E (2014). Survey on production technology – regional differences in sugar beet production. Sugar Industry 139:40-47.
Crookston RK, Kurle JE, Copeland PJ, Ford JH, Lueschen WE (1991). Rotational cropping sequence affects yield of corn and soybean. Agronomy Journal 83(1):108-113. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1991.00021962008300010026x
Davis AS, Hill JD, Chase CA, Johanns AM, Liebman M (2012). Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PloS One 7(10):e47149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047149
Deumelandt P, Hofmann B, Christen O (2010). Effect of various rotations and fallow periods on soil quality parameters and yield in the sugar beet rotation experiment Etzdorf. Achieves of Agronomy and Soil Science 56:393-404.
Duda A, Liste HJ (1991). Measures of crop rotation for limiting the damage caused by the beet cyst nematode. Die Bodenkultur 42:253-260.
FAO (2017). Retrieved 2018 December 17 from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS
FAO/UNESCO (1990) Soil map of the world. Revised legend. World Soil Resources Report pp 60.
Fasahat P, Aghaeezadeh M, Jabbari L, Hemayati SS, Townson P (2018). Sucrose accumulation in sugar beet: from fodder beet selection to genomic selection. Sugar Tech 20(6):635-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-018-0617-z
Franzluebbers AJ, Francis CA (1995). Energy output:input ratio of maize and sorghum management systems in eastern Nebraska. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 53:271-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(94)00568-Y
Glemnitz M, Wurbs A, Roth R (2011). Derivation of regional crop sequences as an indicator for potential GMO dispersal on large spatial scales. Ecological Indicators 11:964-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.005
Götze P, Rücknagel J, Wensch-Dorendorf M, Märländer B, Christen O (2017). Crop rotation effects on yield, technological quality and yield stability of sugar beet after 45 trial years. European Journal of Agronomy 82:50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.10.003
Hemayati SS, Akbar MRJE, Ghaemi AR, Fasahat P (2017). Efficiency of white mustard and oilseed radish trap plants against sugar beet cyst nematode. Applied Soil Ecology 119:192-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.017
ICUMSA (2009). International commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis. Methods Book. Bartens, Berlin.
Jacobs A, Koch HJ, Märländer B (2018). Preceding crops influence agronomic efficiency in sugar beet cultivation. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0469-z
Khorshidi MB, Abedi MS, Mohammadi-Poor M, Nasseri A, Bybordi A (2013). Response of onion to rotation with sugar beet in Azarbaijan region. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production 23(4):215-226. (in Persian)
Koch HJ, Trimpler K, Jacobs A, Stockfisch N (2018). Crop rotational effects on yield formation in current sugar beet production–results from a farm survey and field trials. Frontiers in Plant Science 9:231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00231
Kopke U, Nemecek T (2010). Ecological services of faba bean. Field Crops Research115:217-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.10.012
Larney FJ, Nitschelm JJ, Regitnig PJ, Pearson DC, Blackshaw RE, Lupwayi NZ (2016). Sugar beet response to rotation and conservation management in a 12-year irrigated study in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 96:776-789. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2016-0005
Lamb JA, Sims AL (2011). Fertilizing sugar beet in southern Minnesota. Retrieved 2015 November 27 from http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-management/nutrient-lime guidelines/docs/fertilizing-sugar-beet-insouthern-mn.pdf
Liebman M, Dyck E (1993). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Applications 3(1):92-122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941795
Märländer B, Hoffmann CM, Koch H-J, Ladewig E, Merkes R, Petersen J, Stockfisch N (2003). Environmental situation and yield performance of the sugar beet crop in Germany: heading for sustainable development. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 189:201-226. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037X.2003.00035.x
Nemecek T, von Richthofen J-S, Dubois G, Casta P, Charles R, Pahl H (2008). Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations. European Journal of Agronomy 28:380-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2007.11.004
OECD/FAO (2015). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-en
Reinefeld E, Emmerich A, Baumgarten G, Winner C, Beiss U (1974). Zur Voraussage des Melassezuckers aus Rubenanalyssen. Zucker 27:2-15.
Rychcik B, Zawislak K (2002). Yields and root technological quality of sugar beet grown in crop rotation and long-term monoculture. Rostlinna Vyroba 48:458-462. https://doi.org/10.17221/4395-PSE
Stein S, Steinmann HH (2018). Identifying crop rotation practice by the typification of crop sequence patterns for arable farming systems-A case study from Central Europe. European Journal of Agronomy 92:30-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.010
van Zanten BT, Verburg PH, Espinosa M, Gomez-y-Paloma S, Galimberti G, Kantelhardt J, … Raggi M (2014). European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34:309-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4
Copyright (c) 2020 Notulae Scientia Biologicae
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Distribution - Permissions - Copyright
Papers published in Notulae Scientia Biologicae are Open-Access, distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
© Articles by the authors; licensee SHST, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright/to retain publishing rights without restriction.
Open Access Journal - the journal offers free, immediate, and unrestricted access to peer-reviewed research and scholarly work, due SHST supports to increase the visibility, accessibility and reputation of the researchers, regardless of geography and their budgets. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.