Int. J. Agron. Agri. Res. 15(5), 28-37, November 2019.

2019

Research article
Productivity and
quality of sugar beet
as affecting by
sowing and
irrigation methods
and hill spacings
By: HM Sarhan

Journal Name:
International Journal of
Agronomy and Agricultural
Research

Publisher:
international network for

Source: wikipedia.org
natural sciences

E-ISSN: 2225-3610, p-ISSN: 2223-7054

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR)

ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) 2225-3610 (Online)
http://www.innspub.net
Vol. 15, No. 5, p. 28-37, 2019
RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Productivity and quality of sugar beet as affecting by sowing

and irrigation methods and hill spacings
HM Sarhan*

Sugar Crops Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Giza, Egypt

Article published on November 30, 2019

Key words: Sugar beet, Sowing methods, Mechanical sowing, Manual sowing, Irrigation methods, Hill spacings,
Plant populations, Plant densities, Yield, Quality

Abstract

Two field experiments were carried out at Kalabsho Experimental Farm, Dakahlia Governorate, Sugar Crops
Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt, during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons to study the
effect of sowing methods (mechanical and manual methods), irrigation methods (surface and drip irrigation
system) and hill spacings (10, 15 and 20cm between hills) on yield and its components, as well as quality of sugar
beet cv. Hossam as a multigerm variety under sandy soil conditions. The obtained results could be summarized as
follows; the optimum sowing method that produced the highest values of yield and its components as well as root
quality parameters was mechanical sowing method (planter machine) in both seasons. Irrigation sugar beet
plants by using drip irrigation system yielded the highest values of yield and its components as well as root
quality parameters and followed by using surface flooding irrigation system in both seasons. Planting sugar beet
seeds on one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and 20cm between hills, resulting plant population density 35000
plants/fed produced, the highest values of yield and its components and root quality parameters and followed by
planting on 15cm between hills, resulting plant population density 46666 plants/fed and finally planting on 10cm
between hills, resulting plant population density 70000 plants/fed in the two seasons. From the obtained data in
this study, it can be concluded that sowing sugar beet using mechanical sowing method (planter machine),
irrigation by using drip irrigation system and planting on one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and 20cm between
hills, resulting plant population density 35000 plants/fed in order to maximizing its productivity and quality
under the environmental conditions of sandy soil in Kalabsho region, Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt.
* Corresponding Author: HM Sarhan  [email protected]

Sarhan Page 28
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Introduction Seadh et al. (2013) revealed that mechanical sowing

Sugar beet is a specially type of Beta vulgaris L. grown method of sugar beet significantly surpassed the
for sugar production and is considered the most traditional sowing method (manual) in root and
important sugar crop in Egypt and in many countries foliage fresh weights/plant, root length and diameter,
all over the world besides sugar cane. Recently, sugar root, top and sugar yields/fed in the two seasons.
beet crop has an important position in Egyptian crop Sowing methods showed significant effect on sucrose
rotation as winter crop not only in the fertile soils, but and purity percentages and the highest values of these
also in poor, saline alkaline and calcareous soils. Sugar parameters were achieved with manual sowing.
beet being, often, the most important cash crop in the
rotation, it leaves the soil in good conditions for the Recent studies indicated that by year 2030 one-third

benefit of the following cereal crops. By-products of of the population in the developing countries will be

sugar production, such as pulp, molasses and lime, exposed to absolute water scarcity, in the sense that

flow bath into agriculture to increase livestock they will not have sufficient water resources to meet

production and improve soil fertility as well as provide their agricultural demands, industrial and

various middle products as alcohol, forage and other environmental needs. With the reduction of water

many products. Developing high yielding varieties and resources, in agriculture, the application of suitable

its high demand for agricultural practices and other irrigation methods has become a necessity for the

production input is necessary. Thereby, sowing protection of water resources and the reduction in

method, irrigation method, plant densities resulting contamination of chemicals into groundwater. The

from hill spacings are among factors that enhance most difficult point, in agriculture, is to obtain more

sugar beet productivity. yield with less water, which may be possible to
increase the water use efficiency of the plant (Masri et
Producers must try to use an optimum sowing al., 2015). One of the ways of alleviating water
methods, which is considered to be one of the most scarcity, especially in the newly reclaimed areas, is by
important elements of sugar beet production. There using benefit irrigation system such as drip and
are a few investigations with respect to the effect of sprinkler irrigation, where water is a limiting factor
sowing methods on sugar beet productivity. In this for producing sugar beet strategically. In addition,
concern; Awad (2000) found that maximum root growing sugar beet in newly reclaimed sandy soil
weight, sugar percentage, root yield and sugar yields needs different cultural practices than from those
were obtained by rows machines planting. Morad et used in old lands, especially irrigation system. In this
al. (2007) concluded that the minimum total cost for respect, Cassel-Sharmasarkar et al. (2001) evaluated
harvesting sugar beet crop was obtained under the effect of surface drip and flood irrigation on water
mechanical planting and sugar beet harvester, and fertilizer use efficiency for sugar beet. They
compared with manual method. Zahoor et al. (2007) concluded that applying irrigation water with drip
showed that sowing methods significantly affected the systems used less water and fertilizer than when using
root and foliage weights, root and top yields/ha of flood irrigation. Sharmasarkar et al. (2001) reported
sugar beet crop. El-Geddawy et al. (2008) found that that drip irrigation system had an advantage and
sowing sugar beet mechanically attained additional produced 3-28% higher root yield and sugar content
increment in root yield over those under the as compared with surface irrigation method.
traditional method (sowing manually). There are Sakellariou-Makrantonaki et al. (2002) concluded
general tendencies toward increasing the sugar that subsurface drip irrigation led to a greater sugar
yield/fed by using planter technique for sowing sugar beet yield and higher sugar content and also
beet seeds. Sarauskis et al. (2010) showed that the significant water savings compared with surface drip
best results in terms of root yield up to 79.1t/ha were irrigation. Yonts (2006) stated that furrow irrigation
achieved by using the rotary harrow or rotovator as significantly produced greater sucrose yield, when
compared with sowing was conventional drilling. compared to sprinkler irrigation treatment.

Sarhan Page 29
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Hassanli et al. (2010) indicated that the irrigation weight/plants, sucrose%, top, root and sugar yields.
methods (drip, surface drip and furrow irrigation) Shalaby et al. (2011) found that significant increases
had a significant effect on sugar beet root yield, sugar in root fresh weight, sucrose%, root and sugar
yield, and irrigation water use efficiency. The highest yields/fed with increasing distance between hills from
root yield was obtained using surface drip irrigation 15 to 25cm. Yousef and Heidri (2011) demonstrated
and the lowest root yield was obtained using furrow that the highest root and sugar yields were resulted
irrigation. El-Darder et al. (2017) revealed that drip from spacing of 15 or 20cm between hills and 60cm
irrigation system with 80% of irrigation water between rows. Abdou et al. (2014) showed that
requirement (IWR) recorded the highest significant sowing sugar beet seeds in both sides of terraces
sucrose percentage, purity percentage and extractable 80cm width at 25cm distance between hills led to
sugar percentage in both seasons of sugar beet crop. significant increase in yields of roots, gross sugar and
While application of sprinkler irrigation at 100% white sugar. Ragab and Rashed (2016) reported that
(IWR) gave the heaviest root weight, purity planting sugar beet seeds at 20cm between hills
percentage and root yield. Ozbay and Yildirm (2018) progressive than other distance (15 and 25cm) for
showed that the irrigation methods has significant most important characters, root, top fresh weight,
effects on root and sugar yields of sugar beet. In drip sucrose and purity%. On the other hand. space 15cm
irrigation system, the amount of irrigation water and between hills gave the highest values of top fresh
evapotranspiration were almost 11% lower than the weight, root yield, sugar yield and sucrose%. Leilah et
sprinkler irrigation. al. (2017) showed that cultivating sugar beet seeds in
both sides of mastaba 80cm width at 35cm distance
There is a general agreement that plant population between hills (30000 plants/fad) resulting significant
play important roles for sugar beet not only on increase in foliage fresh weight/plant, plant weight,
productivity, but also on quality. For the effects of root weight, sucrose and purity percentages.
plant population, Nassar (2001) found that sucrose
content and recoverable sugar percentages were Therefore, this study aimed to study the effect of
linearly decreased with the reduction in plant density. sowing and irrigation methods and hill spacings on
Root yield and sugar yields were maximized with productivity and quality of sugar beet under the
plant density of 42000 plants/fed. Abd El-Kader environmental conditions of sandy soil in Kalabsho
(2005) found that plant density of 56000 plant/fed region, Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt.
gave the highest root and sugar yields compared to
the low density 33600 plant/fed. El-Bakary (2006) Materials and methods

found that hill spacings significantly affected root The present investigation was carried out at Kalabsho

fresh weight, root length and diameter, sucrose%, Experimental Farm, Dakahlia Governorate, Sugar

root and sugar yields/fed. Neamet - Alla et al. (2007) Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center

mentioned that planting sugar beet seeds in ridges of (ARC), Egypt during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016

50cm and hill space of 20cm caused significant seasons to study the effect of sowing and irrigation

increases in sucrose percentage and root diameter, methods and hill spacings on yields and its

but there were no significance effects on root length components as well as quality of sugar beet cv. Hossam

and juice purity percentage. Bhullar et al. (2010) as a multigerm variety under sandy soil conditions

found that plant population of 100 000 plants/ha

(rows spaced at 50cm and plants at 20cm) produced Each sowing method (mechanical and manual) was
the lowest beet root diameter and highest root length, performed in separate experiment. Mechanical sowing
root and sugar yields. Nafei et al. (2010) found that method was done by using planter machine in ridges
increasing plant spacing from 20 to 30cm caused 60cm in width. However, manual sowing method was
significant response in root length, diameter, fresh undertaken workers in ridges 60cm in width.

Sarhan Page 30
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Each experiment of sowing method was performed in Other agricultural practices for growing sugar beet
strip-plot design with three replicates in both seasons. were performed as recommendations by Ministry of
The vertical-plots were occupied with two irrigation Agriculture, except the factors under study.
methods (surface and drip irrigation system). The
plots were irrigated immediately after sowing by Table 1. Mechanical and chemical properties of soil
surface flooding method in both irrigation methods. at the investigational site in 2014/2015 and
After that, in surface flooding irrigation method, 2015/2016 seasons.
plants were irrigated after sowing regularly every 15- Variables 2014/2015 2015/2016
18 days. In the drip irrigation system, polyethylene A: Mechanical analysis
drip lines of 16mm in diameter had in-line type Sand (%) 91.40 91.80
Silt (%) 4.95 5.05
emitters. The distance between emitters along the Clay (%) 3.65 3.15
drip line was 0.20m and the discharge of one emitter Soil texture class Sandy Sandy
B: Chemical analysis
was 4L/h under the running pressure of 1.5 atm.
Soil reaction pH 8.07 7.91
EC (dS m-2) in soil water
2.89 2.81
The horizontal-plots were devoted at random with extraction (1:5) at 250C
Organic matter (%) 0.166 0.195
three hill spacings (10, 15 and 20cm between hills) on CaCo3 (%) 0.78 0.71
one side of the ridge. Plants were thinned at the age of Total N 18.50 20.50
Available
45 days from sowing to obtain one plant/hill, Macronutrients 2.85 2.97
P
(ppm)
resulting three plant population densities of 70000, Available
78.00 83.00
K
46666 and 35000 plants/fed, respectively.
Ca++ 1.19 1.12
Soluble cations Mg++ 0.46 0.53
Each experimental basic unit included ten ridges, (meq L-1) Na+ 5.53 5.27
K+ 0.19 0.21
each 60cm apart and 3.5 m length, which resulted an CO3-- 0.00 0.00
area of 21 m2 (1/200 fed). Soluble anions HCO3- 1.15 1.11
(meq L-1) SO4-- 0.76 0.88
Cl- 4.85 4.70
Soil samples were taken at random from the
experimental field area at a depth of 0-30cm from soil Studied characters
surface and prepared for both mechanical and At maturity (after approximately 195 days from
chemical analyses. The results of both mechanical and sowing) five plants were chosen at random from the
chemical analyses are presented in Table 1. outer ridges of each plot to determine yield
components and quality characters, as follows:
The experimental field well prepared by two
ploughing, leveling, compaction, division and then A-Yield components
divided to the experimental units. Calcium super 1. Root fresh weight (g/plant).
phosphate (15.5% P2O5) was applied during soil 2. Root dry weight (g/plant).
preparation at the rate of 200kg/fed. 3. Foliage fresh weight (g/plant).
4. Foliage dry weight (g/plant).
Sugar beet balls (seeds) were sown using To determine root and foliage dry weights, all plant
mechanical and manual methods as previously fractions were air-dried, then oven dried at 700C till
mentioned at the first week of November in both constant weight obtained.
growing seasons. Nitrogen fertilizer (100kg N/fed) 5. Root length (cm).
in form of urea (46.5%) was applied in three equal 6. Root diameter (cm).
doses, the first portion was applied after thinning
(45 days from sowing), the second portion was B- Yield quality
applied after 60 days from sowing, and the third 1. Sucrose percentage (%). It was determined
portion was applied after 75 days from sowing. Polarimetrically on lead acetate extract of fresh
Potassium sulphate (48% K2O) at the rate of macerated roots, according to the method of
24kg/fed was applied after 30 days from sowing. Carruthers and OldField (1960).

Sarhan Page 31
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

2. Apparent purity percentage (%). It was determined Least significant difference (LSD) method was used to
as a ratio between sucrose% and TSS% of roots, as the compare the differences among treatment means at
method outlined by Carruthers and Oldfield (1960). 5% level of probability, as described by Snedecor and
Cochran (1980).
C-Yields
At harvest, plants that produced from the two inner Results and discussion
ridges of each plot were collected and cleaned. Roots 1- Sowing methods effect
and tops were separated and weighted in kilograms, From obtained results in Tables 2 and 3, all yield
then converted to estimate: components (root and foliage fresh and dry
1. Root yield (t/fed).
weights/plant and root length and diameter) and root
2. Top yield (t/fed).
quality parameters (sucrose and apparent juice purity
3. Sugar yield (t/fed). It was calculated by multiplying
percentages in roots) had a significant effect owing to
root yield by sucrose percentage.
different sowing method (mechanical and manual
methods). It can be statement that mechanical sowing
All obtained data were statistically analyzed according
to the technique of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for method recorded the highest values of yield components

strip-plot design of each experiment (sowing and root quality parameters in the two seasons. In the
method), then the combined analysis was carried out other side, the lowest values of yield components and
as outlined by Gomez and Gomez (1984) by using root quality parameters of sugar beet were resulted from
means of “MSTAT-C” computer software package. manual sowing method in both seasons.

Table 2. Root and foliage fresh and dry weights/plant of sugar beet as affected by sowing and irrigation methods
and hill spacings as well as their interactions during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
Characters Root fresh weight Root dry weight Foliage fresh Foliage dry
(g/plant) (g/plant) weight (g/plant) weight (g/plant)
Treatments
2014/2 2015/201 2014/20 2015/2 2014/2 2015/2 2014/2 2015/2
015 6 15 016 015 016 015 016
Seasons
A- Sowing methods:
Mechanical 950.1 982.6 218.5 226.0 428.1 442.1 92.90 102.93
Manual 568.1 587.5 130.6 134.5 256.1 264.4 59.49 60.59
F. test * * * * * * * *

B- Irrigation methods:
Surface 672.7 696.1 154.7 160.1 302.7 313.2 70.19 72.02
Drip 845.5 874.0 194.4 200.3 381.5 393.3 82.20 91.51
F. test * * * * * * * *
C- Hill spacings:
10cm 738.7 764.0 169.9 174.7 333.1 343.7 69.15 79.00
15cm 759.3 785.8 174.6 180.7 342.5 353.6 78.79 81.96
20cm 779.3 805.4 179.2 185.2 350.7 362.5 80.64 84.32
F. test * * * * * * * *
LSD at 5% 13.6 14.3 3.1 3.4 5.0 6.1 3.22 2.26
D- Interactions (F. text):
A×B * * * * * * NS *
A×C NS NS NS NS * NS NS NS
B×C NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
A×B×C * * * NS * * NS NS

Sarhan Page 32
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Table 3. Root length and diameter, sucrose and apparent juice purity percentages in sugar beet roots as affected
by sowing and irrigation methods and hill spacings as well as their interactions during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016
seasons.
Characters Sucrose Apparent purity
Root length (cm) Root diameter (cm)
(%) (%)
Treatments
2015/20 2014/20 2014/20 2015/20 2014/20 2015/20
2014/2015 2015/2016
16 15 15 16 15 16
Seasons
A- Sowing methods:
Mechanical 25.88 25.19 14.87 14.00 19.57 19.42 76.46 82.09
Manual 17.16 16.86 10.91 10.41 17.47 17.48 76.90 76.79
F. test * * * * * * * *
B- Irrigation methods:
Surface 18.61 8.19 11.27 10.64 17.10 17.05 65.85 70.96
Drip 24.43 3.86 14.51 13.78 19.94 19.85 87.51 87.92
F. test * * * * * * * *
C- Hill spacings:
10cm 21.10 20.57 12.59 11.84 18.17 18.13 69.43 79.10
15cm 21.57 20.92 12.89 12.26 18.35 18.34 79.31 79.28
20cm 21.89 21.59 13.19 12.53 19.05 18.89 81.30 79.94
F. test * * * * * * * *
LSD at 5% 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.17 0.19
D- Interactions (F. text):
A×B * * * * * * * *
A×C NS NS NS * NS NS * *
B×C NS NS * NS * NS * *
A×B×C * NS NS NS * * * *

All yield characters (root, top and sugar yields/fed) reported by Awad (2000), Morad et al. (2007), El-
significantly affected by sowing method i.e. Geddawy et al. (2008) and Seadh et al. (2013).
mechanical and manual methods, this comment
was mostly true in the two seasons of study (Table Irrigation methods effect
4). The optimum sowing method that yielded the Yield components (root and foliage fresh and dry
highest values of root, top and sugar yields/fed was weights/plant and root length and diameter) and root
mechanical sowing method (planter machine) in quality parameters (sucrose and apparent juice purity
both seasons. The corresponding data were 21.093 percentages in roots) were significantly affected by
and 21.107 ton roots/fed, 9.075 and 8.896 ton studied irrigation methods (surface and drip
top/fed and 4.223 and 4.201 ton sugar/fed in the methods) in both growing seasons as shown in Tables
first and second seasons, respectively. On the other 2 and 3. The highest values for yield components and
hand, the lowest values of these traits were root quality parameters were achieved when
recorded under manual sowing condition in the irrigation sugar beet plants by using drip irrigation
two growing seasons. system in both season. On the other hand, the lowest
values for whole these yield components and root
These results may be attributed to the regularity quality parameters were resulted from using surface
spacing and numbers of plants between hills in flooding irrigation system in both seasons.
mechanical sowing method, which minimizing the
intra competition between plants and led to high light All yield characters under study i.e. root, top and sugar
use efficiency of solar radiation utilized by beet yields/fed were significantly responded due to studied
plants, in turn high in the conversion of light energy irrigation methods in both seasons (Table 4).
to chemical energy and consequently high Noteworthy, irrigation sugar beet plants by using drip
accumulation of dry matter and improvement of irrigation system yielded the highest values of root
yields and its components as well as root quality (23.694 and 23.478t/fed), top (10.235 and 9.956t/fed)
parameters. These findings are in harmony with those and sugar (4.759 and 4.701t/fed) yields/fed in the first

Sarhan Page 33
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

and second seasons, respectively. On the other hand, reclaimed areas, is by using benefit irrigation system
irrigation sugar beet plants by using surface flooding such as drip irrigation, reduction in contamination of
irrigation system resulted in the lowest means of yield chemicals into groundwater and enhancing vegetative
characters in both seasons. growth attributes and resulting in highest yields and
quality. In this connection Cassel-Sharmasarkar et al.
Such enhancement in sugar beet yields due to (2001), Sharmasarkar et al. (2001), Sakellariou-
favourable available soil moisture in sugar beet root Makrantonaki et al. (2002), Hassanli et al. (2010), El-
zone by drip irrigation system may be ascribed to Darder et al. (2017) and Ozbay and Yildirm (2018)
alleviating water scarcity, especially in the newly reported comparable results.

Table 4. Root, top and sugar yields/fed of sugar beet as affected by sowing and irrigation methods and hill
spacings as well as their interactions during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
Characters Root yield Top yield Sugar yield
(t/fed) (t/fed) (t/fed)
Treatments
2014/ 2015/ 2014/ 2015/ 2014/ 2015/
2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
Seasons
A- Sowing methods:
Mechanical 21.093 21.107 9.075 8.896 4.223 4.201
Manual 18.864 18.327 8.011 7.789 3.321 3.225
F. test * * * * * *
B- Irrigation methods:
Surface 16.263 15.957 6.851 6.729 2.785 2.726
Drip 23.694 23.478 10.235 9.956 4.759 4.701
F. test * * * * * *
C- Hill spacings:
10cm 18.759 18.697 7.896 7.953 3.472 3.446
15cm 19.607 19.705 8.589 8.378 3.647 3.691
20cm 21.569 20.750 9.143 8.697 4.197 4.002
F. test * * * * * *
LSD at 5% 0.914 0.875 0.238 0.269 0.204 0.180
D- Interactions (F. text):
A×B * * * * * *
A×C NS NS NS NS NS NS
B×C * * * * * *
A×B×C * * NS NS * *

Hill spacings effect planting sugar beet seeds on one side of the ridge,
The obtained results in Tables 2 and 3 show that 60cm width, and 15cm between hills, resulting plant
studied hill spacings (10, 15 and 20cm between hills) population density 46666 plants/fed produced the
that resulting three plant population densities of best results after aforementioned hill spacing in
70000, 46666 and 35000 plants/fed, respectively both seasons. Nevertheless, the lowest values of all
significantly affected yield components (root and studied yield components and root quality
foliage fresh and dry weights/plant and root length parameters were resulted from planting sugar beet
and diameter) and root quality parameters (sucrose seeds on one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and
and apparent juice purity percentages in roots) in 10cm between hills, resulting plant population
both seasons. It can be easily consider that planting density 70000 plants/fed in the two seasons. These
sugar beet seeds on one side of the ridge, 60cm results may be due to the facts that hill spacings
width, and 20cm between hills, resulting plant allow to high amounts of sun light to pass to plants
population density 35000 plants/fed markedly which reflect on photosynthesis process
accompanied with obvious increases and the highest consequently root weight. It also increase the soil
values of all studied yield components and root volume which feed plants (it decrease the
quality parameters in both seasons. In addition, competition among beet roots).

Sarhan Page 34
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

All yield characters under study i.e. root, top and Meanwhile, the minimum root and sugar yields/fed
sugar yields/fed were significantly affected due to values were obtained from manual sowing and irrigation
studied hill spacings (10, 15 and 20cm between hills) sugar beet plants by using surface flooding irrigation
in both seasons (Table 4). Planting sugar beet seeds system in both seasons.
on one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and 20cm
between hills, resulting plant population density Table 5. Root and sugar yields/fed of sugar beet as
35000 plants/fed produced the highest values of root affected by the interaction between sowing and
(21.569 and 20.750t/fed), top (9.143 and 8.697t/fed) irrigation methods during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016
and sugar (4.197 and 4.002t/fed) yields/fed in the seasons.
first and second seasons, respectively. Additionally, Root yield Sugar yield
Characters
planting sugar beet seeds on one side of the ridge, (t/fed) (t/fed)
Sowing Irrigation 2014/ 2015/ 2014/ 2015/
60cm width, and 15cm between hills, resulting plant methods methods 2015 2016 2015 2016
population density 46666 plants/fed produced the Surface 17.019 16.770 2.950 2.889
Mechanical
Drip 25.167 25.444 5.495 5.513
best results of yields after planting on 20cm between Surface 15.507 15.143 2.619 2.562
Manual
in both seasons. On the other hand, the lowest values Drip 22.222 21.511 4.024 3.888
F. test * * * *
of yields were resulted from planting sugar beet seeds LSD at 5% 1.056 0.926 0.191 0.123
on one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and 10cm
between hills, resulting plant population density Effect of the interaction between irrigation methods
70000 plants/fed in the two seasons. and hill spacings on root and sugar yields/fed was
significant in both seasons, as shown in Table 6.
This improvement in sugar beet yields that obtained Maximum means of root and sugar yields/fed were
with increasing hill spacing up to 20cm may be due to
produced from irrigation sugar beet plants by using
increasing the amounts of light coming to individual
drip irrigation system and planting on one side of the
plants. The aforementioned results generally are in
ridge, 60cm width, and 20cm between hills, resulting
good agreement with those stated by Nassar (2001),
plant population density 35000 plants/fed in both
El-Bakary (2006), Bhullar et al. (2010), Nafei et al.
seasons. On the other hand, minimum ones were
(2010), Shalaby et al. (2011), Yousef and Gholamrez
induced from irrigation sugar beet plants by using
(2011), Abdou et al. (2014) and Leilah et al. (2017).
surface flooding irrigation system and planting on

Interactions effect one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and 10cm between

Regarding the effect of interactions, there are many hills, resulting plant population density 70000
significant effect of the interactions among studied plants/fed in both seasons.
factors (sowing and irrigation methods and hill
spacings) on studied characters as shown in Tables 2, Table 6. Root and sugar yields/fed of sugar beet as
3 and 4. We reported enough the significant affected by the interaction between irrigation
interactions on root and sugar yields only. methods and hill spacings during 2014/2015 and
2015/2016 seasons.
A significant effects on root and sugar yields/fed in both
Root yield Sugar yield
seasons resulted from the interaction between sowing Characters
(t/fed) (t/fed)
methods and irrigation methods are presented in Table Irrigation Hill 2014/ 2015/ 2014/ 2015/
methods spacings 2015 2016 2015 2016
5. Root and sugar yields/fed reached its maximum 10cm 15.11 15.652 2.547 2.648
values with combination between mechanical sowing Surface 15cm 16.56 15.798 2.807 2.678
20cm 17.11 16.420 3.001 2.851
method and irrigation sugar beet plants by using drip 10cm 22.40 21.742 4.397 4.244
irrigation system in both seasons. It was followed by Drip 15cm 22.65 23.612 4.487 4.704
20cm 26.02 25.080 5.394 5.154
manual sowing method and irrigation sugar beet plants F. test * * * *
by using drip irrigation system in both seasons. LSD at 5% 1.341 1.238 0.308 0.255

Sarhan Page 35
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Data presented in Table 7 indicate that the triple References

interaction among sowing and irrigation methods and Abd-El-Kader EMAM. 2005. Effect of some
hill spacings had a significant effect on root and sugar Agricultural practices on sugar beet tolerance to salinity.
yields/fed during the first and second seasons. The M.Sc. Thesis in Agron Fac. of Agric. Al-Azhar Univ.
highest means of root and sugar yields/fed were
produced under mechanical sowing, irrigation sugar Abdou MA, Dalia IH, El-Geddawy, Elwan AM.
beet plants by using drip irrigation system and 2014. Productivity and quality of sugar beet as
planting on one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and affected by plant distribution pattern and nitrogen
20cm between hills, resulting plant population fertilizer level. J. Plant Production, Mansoura Univ
density 35000 plants/fed in both seasons. On the 5(12), 2155- 2167.
other wise, the lowest ones were obtained with
manual sowing, irrigation sugar beet plants by using Awad NMM. 2000. Effect of mechanical planting on
surface flooding irrigation system and planting on production of sugar beet yield. Ph. D. thesis, Fac. of
one side of the ridge, 60cm width, and 10cm between Agric Kafr EI- Sheikh Tanta Univ.
hills, resulting plant population density 70000
Bhullar MS, Uppal SK, Kapur ML. 2010.
plants/fed in both seasons.
Influence of planting density and nitrogen does on
root and sugar yield of beet (Beta vulgaris L.) under
Table 7. Root and sugar yields/fed of sugar beet as
sub-tropical semiarid conditions of Punjab. J. of Res.,
affected by the interaction among sowing and
Punjab Agric. Univ 47 (1/2), 14-17.
irrigation methods and hill spacings during
2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
Carruthers A, OldField JFT. 1960. Methods for
Root yield Sugar yield
Characters
(t/fed) (t/fed)
the assessment of beet quality. Int. Sugar J 63, 72-74.
Sowing Irrigation Hill 2014/ 2015/ 2014/ 2015/
methods methods spacings 2015 2016 2015 2016 Cassel-Sharmasarkar F, Sharmasarkar S, Miller
10cm 15.51 16.303 2.628 2.772
Surface 15cm 17.32 16.490 2.969 2.824
SD, Vance GF, Zhang R. 2001. Assessment of drip and
20cm 18.21 17.517 3.254 3.071 flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for
Mechanical
10cm 23.81 23.150 5.130 4.946 sugar beets. Agric. Water Man 46(3), 241-251.
Drip 15cm 23.30 25.900 5.073 5.637
20cm 28.38 27.283 6.282 5.957 El-Bakary HMY. 2006. Studies on yield and quality
10cm 14.71 15.000 2.466 2.524
parameters of some sugar beet varieties. M. Sc.
Surface 15cm 15.80 15.107 2.645 2.533
20cm 16.00 15.323 2.747 2.630 Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Al-Azhar Univ.
Manual
10cm 20.99 20.333 3.664 3.543
Drip 15cm 22.00 21.323 3.901 3.771 El-Darder AMA, Gamaa MA, Sayed MA, Kamel
20cm 23.67 22.877 4.506 4.351 MZ. 2017. Water stress effects on yield and quality of
F. test * * * * sugar beet crop in sandy soils. Alexandria Sci. Exch. J
LSD at 5% 2.027 1.750 0.448 0.361
38(4), 828-836.

Conclusion
El-Geddawy IH, Kheiralla KA, Darweish YYI,
From the obtained data in this study, it can be
Sharaf EA. 2008. Agricultural practices in relation
concluded that sowing sugar beet using mechanical
to yield and quality of sugar beet: Yield and yield
sowing method (planter machine), irrigation by using
components. Special Issue: Sugar Crops & Integrated
drip irrigation system and planting on one side of the
Industries in Egypt, Sugar Tech 10(3), 227-233.
ridge, 60cm width, and 20cm between hills, resulting
plant population density 35000 plants/fed in order to El-Maghraby, Samia S, Gomaa MA, Rehab IF,
maximizing its productivity and quality under the Hala Hassan MS. 2008. Response of sugar beet to
environmental conditions of sandy soil in Kalabsho some mechanical management practices, irrigation
region, Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt. and plant densities. Sugar Tech 10(3), 219-226.

Sarhan Page 36
 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Gomez KN, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical Sakellariou-Makrantonaki M, Kalfountzos D,

procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley and Vyrlas P. 2002. Water saving and yield increase of
Sons, New York, 2nd ed 68 P. sugar beet with subsurface drip irrigation. Global
Nest: Int. J 4(2-3), 85-91.
Hassanli AM, Ahmadirad S, Beecham S. 2010.
Evaluation of the influence of irrigation methods and
Sarauskis E, Godlinski F, Sakalauskas A,
water quality on sugar beet yield and water use
Schlegel M, Kanswohl N, Romaneckas K,
efficiency. Agric. Water Man 97, 357-362.
Jasinskas A, Pilipavicius V. 2010. Effects of soil
Leilah AA, Abdel-Moneam MA, Shalaby GA, tillage and sowing systems on sugar beet production
Abdou MAE, Heba M, AbdEl-Salam. 2017. Effect under the climatic conditions of Lithuania.
of plant population and distribution and nitrogen Landbauforschung lkenrode 60(2), 101-110.
levels on yield and quality of sugar beet. J. Plant
Production, Mansoura Univ 8(5), 591-597. Seadh SE, Attia AN, Said EM, Samia S El-
Maghraby, Ibrahim MEM. 2013. Productivity and
Masri MI, Ramadan BSB, El-Shafai AMA, El-
quality of sugar beet as affecting by sowing methods,
Kady MS. 2015. Effect of water stress and
weed control treatments and nitrogen fertilizer levels.
fertilization on yield and quality of sugar beet under
drip and sprinkler irrigation systems in sandy soil. Pakistan. J. of Biol. Sci 16(15), 711-719.

Intern. J. of Agric. Sci 5(3), 414-425.

Shalaby NME, Osman AMH, El-Labbody
Morad MM, Elsaid GH, El-Sharabasy MMA, AHSA. 2011. Relative performance of some sugar
Abd-Elgawad FA. 2007. Comparative study between beet varieties under three plant densities in newly
manual and mechanical methods of harvesting sugar reclaimed soil. Egypt, J. Agric., Res 89(1), 2011-2019.
beet crop. Misr J. Ag. Eng 24(4), 793-813.

Nafei AI, Osman AMH, Maha El-Zeny M. 2010. Sharmasarkar C, Sharmasarkar S, Miller SD,

Effect of plant densities and potassium fertilization Vance GF, Zhang R. 2001. Assessment of drip and

rates on yield and quality of sugar beet crop in sandy flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies
reclaimed soils. J. of plant production. Mansoura for sugar beets. Agric. Water Man 46, 241-251.
Univ 1(2), 229- 237.
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. 1980. Statistical
Nassar AM. 2001. Effect of plant density on the
Methods. 7th ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Iowa, USA.
productivity of some sugar beet varieties. J Agric Sci.
Mansoura Univ., 26(12), 7533-7546. Yonts CD. 2006. Sugar beet response to irrigation
method and polymer placed in the seed furrow. J. of
Nemeat-Alla EAE, Abou Shady KA, Youssef
Sugar Beet Res 43(4), 155-166.
NO. 2007. Sugar beet yield and quality as affected by
cultivating patterns and nitrogen levels. J. Agric. Sci. Yousef S, Heidri G. 2011. Influence of withholding
Mansoura Univ 32(10), 8069-8078. irrigation and harvest time on yield and quality of
sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Intern. J. of Agric., Bio
Ozbay S, Yildirm M. 2018. Root yield and quality
of sugar beet under drip and sprinkler irrigation with 12, 1814- 9596.

foliar application of micronutrients. Comu. Zir. Fak.

Zahoor A, Paigham S, Kakar KM, Sanaullah B,
Derg. (Comu. J. Agric. Fac.) 6(1), 105-114.
El-Sharkawi H, Honna T, Yamamoto S. 2007.
Ragab AY, Sahar Rashed H. 2016. Sugar beet Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to different
yield and quality as affected by water regime before sowing methods and row geometries. I- Effect on
harvest, density and some cultivars in new reclaimed plant growth and yield. Archives of Agron. and Soil
soils. J. of Adv. in Agric 6(1), 853-862. Sci 53(1), 49-61.

Sarhan Page 37