Response of Some Sugar beets cultivars to Organic fertilizers under South Sinai Conditions.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3197387/v1

Background: Sugar beets-winter is the primary sugar planting technique in arid Egypt, This study's major goal was to increase the growth of sugar beetroot cultivars in an arid region by applying organic fertilizers. It will be easier to increase crop performance under salinity if we have a superior grasp in terms of the molecular and physiological mechanisms driving salt acceptance.

Results: The sustainability of sugar beets, a novel crop in this region, is still unknown. Consequently, a field experiment four sugar beets cultivars (Casupia-Salama-Sahar and Faten) under three organic fertilization (0, 11.905, and 23.810 ton/ha). Field data were used to incorporate the capacity of 17 morphological, yield-related, and physiological features as indicators for detecting salt tolerant, net ecosystem economic advantages, and economic benefits.

Conclusions: Salama cultivar significantly surpassed other studied cultivars by 8.5%. The organic fertilization considerable impact on application rate, facilitate the elements and reduce the damage of the salts. Taking into account modifications to the organic fertilization traces, the Salama cultivar with (23.810 ton/ha), which produced the greatest net benefits to the ecosystem in terms of both economic and ecological advantages, and a 167 % Salama greater net economic benefits to the ecosystem than with the status quo Casupia cultivar and Organic Fertilization application rate (0 ton/ha), employing a comprehensive approach that combines Salama cultivar and Organic Fertilization application contributes to improvements sustainable sugar beets production systems in the El-Tur area, South Sinai, Egypt and places with comparable ecological characteristics.

Sugar beets

organic

cultivars

fertilizers

improve

significantly

system

Drought and soil salinity are two significant environmental stresses that have an impact on agricultural production in Egypt and around the world (Deinlein et al., 2014). To meet the rapidly rising population consumption, the Egyptian government imports 1.10 million tonnes of sugar annually. With approximately 37.3% of the local sugar production (1.61 million tonnes), sugar beetroot plays a significant role in sugar production and ranks second in terms of sugar production after sugarcane. But compost shows up a component of soil organic matter and general soil ecology and management that is less well understood. However, it was intended to become yet another tool that could be used in conjunction with cover crops, animal dung, and other management techniques. Globally, environmental deterioration brought on by human activity has become a serious issue. In addition, it is anticipated that by 2050, there will be 9.6 billion people on the planet (Shabala et al., 2015). Existing natural resources are under tremendous strain as a result of supplementary food needed feeding this expanding. Therefore, increasing a plant's ability to tolerate salt helps to increase agricultural output and food security. Climate change assessment and mitigation use the CF, an indicator that indicates the overall quantity of emissions from a production system. The NF is used to assess, alleviate degradation of the environment, such as eutrophication of the ocean and ozone depletion in the stratosphere, by describing the overall quantity of nitrogen lost as a result of human activity. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Belonging to Caryophyllales order, which is most basic group of dicots. It is a significant root crop around the globe because sugar is made using its foundations. About 42 million metric tonnes of sugar from sugar beets were produced globally in 2021, making up close to 30% of the global sugar supply (FAOSTAT, 2022). in many nations is one of the primary raw materials used to produce sugar. In terms of generating sucrose, it is regarded as the second-most significant crop in the world, right behind sugarcane. Numerous climatic conditions can be used to grow this crop. Besides being used in sugar physiological reactions sugar beetroot to salt stress have mostly been the subject of prior research. Clarifying the molecular underpinnings of salt (Lv et al., 2018 and Skorupa et al., 2019). These extensive research have quickly contributed to new understanding and significant understandings of the molecular mechanisms sugar's innate tolerance to salt beetroot. But as of yet, there hasn't been a thorough analysis of the most recent developments in our knowledge of the cellular and physiological underpinnings sugar beetroot salt acceptance. Despite being a crucial industrial cash crop, sugar beetroot productivity remains low since few farmers have the requisite technical skills to produce it; as a result, it became important to pay close attention to this issue and search for naturally safe stimulating growth agents that can significantly affect plant growth and yield characteristics. The current study's hypothesis is that the sugar beets cultivars with organic fertilization input would enhance the beetroot cultivars production system's ecological and financial advantages. In particular, the study's goals were (1) a tolerant variety was to compare the yields of roots, their internal

technological quality and the technological sugar yields, (2) comparing the reactive organic fertilisation emissions and OF of the various treatments, (3) evaluating the environmental and financial benefits of the four sugar beets cultivars (Casupia-Salama-Sahar and Faten) with organic fertilization inputs in the El-Tur area, in South Sinai, at Egypt.

Experiment materials

At the study, the soil and climate

The investigation was carried out the El-Tur Experimental Station in South Sinai, at Egypt. The test site is situated between ( 28°19' 13" and 28°21 '12 " N and between 33°35' 50" and 33°31' 52" E ) with a height above sea level of 47 metres. The station is situated in Egypt's South Sinai in the El-Tur region. The yearly precipitation averages 20 mm, and the average temperature is 28.6 °C. Figure 1 shows the meteorological parameters for the 2019–2020, 2020–21, and 2021–2022 growth seasons in the El-Tur area of the South Sinai. The average temperature, humidity %, wind m/s which represent the climate of this area, are at the experimental station's average levels for the El-Tur area of South Sinai, Egypt. Sand soil, the predominant soil type in this area, is present at the experimental site. The topsoil's original characteristics were as follows (Table 1).

Table (1): The mean chemical and physical properties of representative soil samples (0-30 cm depth) in the experimental site before sowing and of the irrigation water for the three growing seasons.

Soil properties	Values	Irrigation Water	Values
Clay	3.6	PH	6.74
Silt	8.3	EC (dS m^-1)	0.63
Sand	87.1	Aminouim N (mg L^-1)	5.64
Texture Grade	Sandy	Nitrare N (mg L^-1)	22.3
PH (Ext. 1:1)	7.92	Phosphorus (mg L^-1)	0.08
EC (Ext. 1:1), dS m^-1	4.69	Potassium (mg L^-1)	0.67
Total CaCO₃ (%)	33.2
Total Organic Carbon (%)	0.25
Total Organic Matter (%)	0.423
Nitrogen (mg kg^-1)	17.2
Phosphorus (mg kg^-1)	1.58
Potassium (mg kg^-1)	45.7

Experimental design

Four different sugar beets cultivars (Casupia-Salam-Sahar and Faten) under three organic fertilization application rates (0 ton/ha-1 (OF0), 11.905 ton/ha (OF1), and 23.810 ton/ha (OF2) a randomised a four-replicate block design was used organise them. In research region, OF0 represents the rate at which organic fertiliser is typically applied, while OF2 and OF1 represent the amounts of fertiliser that are applied by increase organic fertilization by doubled, respectively. Where, seeds of sugar beets at the rate of 20 cm between the gorges in rows 10.5 metres long and spaced 50 cm apart. Each plot has 8 rows, making the total plot size 42 m2. used in this study. The sugar beets were planted on 15 October 2019, 17 October 2020, and 16 October 2021 in the experiment, When preparing the soil, calcium superphosphate (15.5% P2O5) was applied a rate 74 kg P2O5/ha. Potassium sulphate (48% k2O) was broadcast prior to sowing at a rate of 115 kg k2O/ha. Ammonium sulphate (20.6% N) was broadcast at a rate of 150 kg N/ha prior to sowing, and ammonium nitrate (33.5% N) was applied in three equal doses prior to irrigation with a rate of 250 kg N/ha at 30, 60, and 80 days after sowing (750 kg ammonium nitrate). According to the Ministry of Agriculture's instructions, typical agricultural methods were used to grow sugar beets. According to regional agronomic practises, weed and pest control as well as other management techniques were carried out.

Environmental cost (EC) and CBB

The CBB (kg/ha−1) the cost of purchasing the inputs for agriculture, which also included agricultural capital investments (irrigation, Workers, Land rent, fertilisers, pesticides, seeds and diesel fuel for the agricultural machinery, e.g.) as well as human costs, artificial harvesting, and machinery use for sowing, weevil control), was calculated using.

Data collection

LAI, Top fresh weight, Carotenoids, Chlorophyll A, and Chlorophyll B Root diameter (cm), Root length (cm), dry weight at the top (g/plant), Weight of the roots (g/plant), overall (g/plant), overall sugar, crude fibre, crude protein Root weight (kg/ha), root fresh weight (kg/plant), L.E Root weight (L.E/ha), costs, Net gain/ha .

Ten plants appeared at random selected from each plot after 90 days measure the leaf area index (LAI), which was derived in accordance with (Westtstein., 1957), and the pigments used in photosynthesis (chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids) after 208 days following sowing at harvest, five guarded plants were randomly selected estimating the following characters from each plot: average root length and diameter (in centimetres), and average root and top fresh weight (in kilogrammes per plant), the typical root, top, total dry weights (g/plant).

H- Economic evaluation

1-Total gain (LE/ ha.) = Root weight (kg/ha) x price.

2-Net return (LE/ ha.) = Total gain – costs.

3- Cost information for labour, equipment, and all farm inputs were included. A tonne of sugar beet cost 700 LE.

4- Total costs equal 17857 LE/ha by not using organic fertiliser, 23857 LE/ha by using 11.905 tonnes of organic fertiliser per hectare, and 29857 LE/ha by using 23.810 tonnes of organic fertiliser per hectare.

Statistical analysis

The gathered information was statistically examined using split design outlined by Gomez and Gomez (1984) and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). SPSS 20.0 was used conduct analyses. When *P 0.05, statistical significance was determined. The split-plot within whole plot observations serve as the basis for the analysis of variance. To test for differences among Organic Fertilisation the model for simple split plot design, variation was divided into pertinent sources of variation.

The statistics on sugar beetroot yield and its characteristics throughout the course of a three season growth cycle clearly show season's data outperformed the first and second. These outcomes could be explained by the fact that the organic matter content of the experimental soil for the three seasons was higher than for the first and second seasons. At P 0.05, the interactions between ANOVA analysis also demonstrated

Effects of sugar beets cultivars on yield traits.

results Table (2) indicated the utilisation of LAI; ranged from 12.40 (Casupia) to 13.87 (Salama) in the first season, 12.77 (Casupia) to 14.32 (Salama) in the second one and 13.40 (Casupia) to 15 (Salama) in third seasons. Top fresh weight (Kg/plant); ranged of 0.693 (Casupia) to 0.761 (Salama) in the first season, 0.714 (Casupia) to 0.787 (Salama) in the second one and 0.750 (Casupia) to 0.824 (Salama), Chlorophyll (a); ranged from 5.312 (Casupia) to 6.041 (Salama) in the first season, 5.475 (Casupia) to 6.231 (Salama) in the second one and 5.746 (Casupia) to 6.543 (Salama) it is the third season. Chlorophyll (b); ranged from 2.579 (Casupia) to 2.937 (Salama) in the first season, 2.702 (Casupia) to 3.061 (Salama) in the second one and 2.802 (Casupia) to 3.201 (Salama) in the third season. Root length (cm); ranged from 1.166 (Casupia) to 1.321 (Salama) in the first season, 1.220 (Casupia) to 1.369 (Salama) in the second one and 1.260 (Casupia) to 1.440 (Salama) during the third season. Accordant results were seen by (Erciyes, et al., 2018). Root diameter (cm); ranged from 13.06 (Casupia) to 14.50 (Salama) in the first season, 13.49 (Casupia) to 15.04 (Salama) in the second one and 14.16 (Casupia) to 15.68 (Salama) in the third season. These outcomes follow the same pattern as those attained by (Harveson, et al., 2002). Top dry weight (g/plant); ranged from 85 (Casupia) to 95 (Salama) in the first season, 88 (Casupia) to 99 (Salama) in the second one and 93 (Casupia) to 103 (Salama) in third season. Root dry weight (g/plant); ranged from 342 (Casupia) to 367 (Salama) in the first season, 353 (Casupia) to 379 (Salama) in the second one and 371 (Casupia) to 398 (Salama) in the third season highly.

Table (2): Performance of sugar beets cultivars concerning yield attributes during 2019/ 2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/ 2022 seasons.

sugar beets	LAI	Top fresh	Chlorophyll	Chlorophyll	Carotenoids	Root	Root	Top dry	Root dry
cultivars		weight	(a)	(b)		Length	diameter	weight	Weight
(SB)		(Kg/plant)				(cm)	(cm)	(g/plant)	(g/plant)
					2019/2020
Casupia	12.40	0.693	5.312	2.579	1.166	23.96	13.06	85	342
Salama	13.87	0.761	6.041	2.937	1.321	27.49	14.50	95	367
Sahar	12.97	0.734	5.603	2.649	1.237	26.11	13.64	90	344
Faten	13.62	0.736	5.910	2.659	1.283	26.80	13.97	93	356
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
					2020/2021
Casupia	12.77	0.714	5.475	2.702	1.220	24.699	13.49	88	353
Salama	14.32	0.787	6.231	3.061	1.369	28.353	15.04	99	379
Sahar	13.36	0.757	5.774	2.732	1.309	26.896	14.08	93	356
Faten	14.09	0.760	6.113	2.781	1.330	27.605	14.40	96	368
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
					2021/2022
Casupia	13.40	0.750	5.746	2.802	1.260	25.880	14.16	93	371
Salama	15.00	0.824	6.543	3.201	1.440	29.687	15.68	103	398
Sahar	14.02	0.795	6.092	2.870	1.336	28.218	14.78	98	373
Faten	14.70	0.798	6.390	2.906	1.392	28.972	15.12	100	386
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**

** : Significant at 0.01 level of probability, and N.S: not significant. HA₀): without Humic acid; HA₁): 50 mg L^-1; HA₂): 100 mg L^-1; HA₃): 150 mg L^-1

Table (3) that application of Total dry weight (g/plant); ranged of 428 (Casupia) to 462 (Salama) in the first season, 441 (Casupia) to 477 (Salama) in the second one and 464 (Casupia) to 501 (Salama) in the third season. Total sugar ranged from 11.22 (Casupia) to 12.56 (Salama) in the first season, 11.67 (Casupia) to 13.09 (Salama) in the second one and 12.14 (Casupia) to 13.62 (Salama) in third seasons. Crude protein; ranged from 2.323 (Casupia) to 2.604 (Salama) in the first season, 2.401 (Casupia) to 2.731 (Salama) in the second one and 2.521 (Casupia) to 2.822 (Salama) in third seasons. Crude fiber; ranged from 0.873 (Casupia) to 0.983 (Salama) in the first season, 0.904 (Casupia) to 1.026 (Salama) in the second one and 0.942 (Casupia) to 1.073 (Salama) in third season. Root fresh weight (g/plant); ranged of 1352 (Casupia) to 1467 (Salama) in the first season, 1410 (Casupia) to 1528 (Salama) in the second one and 1461 (Casupia) to 1593 (Salama) in the third season. Root weight (kg/ha); ranged from 47332 (Casupia) to 51345 (Salama) in the first season, 49335 (Casupia) to 53465 (Salama) in the second one and 51118 (Casupia) to 55746 (Salama) in the third season. L.E Root weight (L.E/ha); ranged from 33132 (Casupia) to 35942 (Salama) in the first season, 34535 (Casupia) to 37426 (Salama) in the second one and 35783 (Casupia) to 39023 (Salama) in third seasons. Net gain (L.E /ha); ranged from 9275 (Casupia) to 12085 (Salama) in the first season, 10678 (Casupia) to 13569 (Salama) in the second one and 11926 (Casupia) to 15166 (Salama) in third seasons. In the third season highly significant (P < 0.05).

Table (3): Performance of sugar beets cultivars concerning yield attributes during 2019/ 2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/ 2022 seasons.

sugar beets	Total dry	Total	Crude	Crude	Root fresh	Root	L.E Root	Net
cultivars	Weight	sugar	Protein	fiber	weight	weight	weight	gain
(SB)	(g/plant)				(g/plant)	(kg/ha)	(L.E/ha)	(L.E/ha)
					2019/2020
Casupia	428	11.22	2.323	0.873	1352	47332	33132	9275
Salama	462	12.56	2.604	0.983	1467	51345	35942	12085
Sahar	435	11.68	2.426	0.923	1378	48218	33753	9896
Faten	449	12.12	2.502	0.951	1423	49805	34864	11007
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
					2020/2021
Casupia	441	11.67	2.401	0.904	1410	49335	34535	10678
Salama	477	13.09	2.731	1.026	1528	53465	37426	13569
Sahar	450	12.18	2.524	0.953	1419	49662	34764	10907
Faten	464	12.54	2.619	0.983	1482	51882	36317	12460
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
					2021/2022
Casupia	464	12.14	2.521	0.942	1461	51118	35783	11926
Salama	501	13.62	2.822	1.073	1593	55746	39023	15166
Sahar	471	12.67	2.653	1.005	1513	52952	37067	13210
Faten	486	13.18	2.728	1.044	1554	54375	38063	14206
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**

** : Significant at 0.01 level of probability, and N.S: not significant. HA₀): without Humic acid; HA₁): 50 mg L^-1; HA₂): 100 mg L^-1; HA₃): 150 mg L^-1

Alterations in yield attributes caused by organic fertilisation.

Table (4) showed that use of organic fertilization increased significantly of LAI; ranged from 11.01 (Without) to 15.56 (23.810 ton) in first season, 11.34 (Without) to 16.10 (23.810 ton) in second one, 11.90 (Without) to 16.82 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons. Top fresh weight (Kg/plant); ranged of 0.617 (Without) to 0.846 (23.810 ton) in first season, 0.637 (Without) to 0.873 (23.810 ton) in second one, 0.667 (Without) to 0.917 (23.810 ton/ha). Chlorophyll (a); ranged from 4.829 (11.905 ton/ha) to 6.655 (Without) in the first season, 4.983 (11.905 ton/ha) to 6.869 (Without) in the second one and 5.228 (11.905 ton/ha) to 7.217 (Without) in third seasons. Chlorophyll (b); ranged from 2.371 (11.905 ton/ha) to 3.018 (Without) in the first season, 2.456 (11.905 ton/ha) to 3.159 (Without) in the second one and 2.572 (11.905 ton/ha) to 3.299 (Without) in the third season. Carotenoids; ranged from 1.010 (Without) to 1.506 (23.810 ton) in first season, 1.079 (Without) to 1.567 (23.810 ton) in second one and 1.099 (Without) to 1.628 (23.810 ton) in third season. Root length (cm); ranged from 24.01 (Without) to 28.21 (23.810 ton) in first season, 24.73 (Without) to 29.09 (23.810 ton) in second one, 25.93 (Without) to 30.49 (23.810 ton/ha). Root diameter (cm); ranged from 12.64 (Without) to 15.03 (23.810 ton) in first season, 13.06 (Without) to 15.52 (23.810 ton) in second one, 13.66 (Without) to 16.29 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season. Top dry weight (g/plant); ranged from 77 (Without) to 105 (23.810 ton) in first season, 80 (Without) to 109 (23.810 ton) in second one, 84 (Without) to 114 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons. Root dry weight (g/plant); ranged of 255 (Without) to 444 (23.810 ton) in first season, 265 (Without) to 457 (23.810 ton) in second one, 278 (Without) to 479 (23.810 ton) in third season, in third seasons.

Table (4): Performance of Organic Fertilization (OF) concerning yield attributes during 2019/ 2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/ 2022 seasons.

Organic	LAI	Top fresh	Chlorophyll	Chlorophyll	Carotenoids	Root	Root	Top dry	Root dry
Fertilization		weight	(a)	(b)		Length	Diameter	weight	weight
(OF)		(Kg/plant)				(cm)	(cm)	(g/plant)	(g/plant)
					2019/2020
Without	11.01	0.617	6.655	3.018	1.010	24.01	12.64	77	255
11.905 ton/ha	13.07	0.730	4.829	2.371	1.239	26.05	13.70	91	358
23.810 ton/ha	15.56	0.846	5.665	2.730	1.506	28.21	15.03	105	444
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
					2020/2021
Without	11.34	0.637	6.869	3.159	1.079	24.73	13.06	80	265
11.905 ton/ha	13.46	0.755	4.983	2.456	1.276	26.85	14.18	94	370
23.810 ton/ha	16.10	0.873	5.842	2.842	1.567	29.09	15.52	109	457
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
					2021/2022
Without	11.90	0.667	7.217	3.299	1.099	25.93	13.66	84	278
11.905 ton/ha	14.13	0.792	5.228	2.572	1.344	28.51	14.86	98	388
23.810 ton/ha	16.82	0.917	6.134	2.963	1.628	30.49	16.29	114	479
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**

** and * : significant at 0.01 and 0.05 levels of probability, respectively. N.S: not significant.

Table (5) application of Total dry weight (g/plant); ranged of 332 (Without) to 549 (23.810 ton) in first season, 345 (Without) to 566 (23.810 ton) in second one, 362 (Without) to 593 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season. Total sugar; ranged from 10.80 (11.905 ton/ha) to 13.02 (Without) in the first season, 11.13 (11.905 ton/ha) to 13.56 (Without) in the second one and 11.74 (11.905 ton/ha) to 14.14 (Without). Crude protein; ranged from 2.046 (Without) to 2.883 (23.810 ton/ha) in first seasons, 2.156 (Without) to 3.013 (23.810 ton/ha) in the second one and 2.227 (Without) to 3.150 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons. Crude fiber; ranged from 0.689 (11.905 ton/ha) to 1.162 (Without) in the first season, 0.711 (11.905 ton/ha) to 1.201 (Without) in the second one and 0.753 (11.905 ton/ha) to 1.267 (Without) in third seasons. Root fresh weight (g/plant); ranged of 1021 (Without) to 1763 (23.810 ton) in first season, 1076 (Without) to 1816 (23.810 ton) in second one, 1127 (Without) to 1904 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season. Root weight (kg/ha); ranged from 35718 (Without) to 61`696 (23.810 ton) in first season, 37662 (Without) to 63545 (23.810 ton) in second one, 39452 (Without) to 66633 (23.810 ton/ha). L.E Root weight (L.E/ha); ranged from 25002 (Without) to 43187 (23.810 ton) in first season, 26364 (Without) to 44481 (23.810 ton) in second one. 27616 (Without) to 46644 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons. Net gain (L.E /ha); ranged of 7145 (Without) to 13330 (23.810 ton) in first season, 8507 (Without) to 14624 (23.810 ton) in second one, 9759 (Without) to 16787 (23.810 ton) in third season, in third season highly significant (P < 0.05).

Table (5): Performance of Organic Fertilization (OF) concerning yield attributes during 2019/ 2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/ 2022 seasons.

Organic	Total dry	Total	Crude	Crude	Root fresh	Root	L.E Root	Net
Fertilization	Weight	Sugar	protein	fiber	weight	weight	weight	Gain
(OF)	(g/plant)				(g/plant)	(kg/ha)	(L.E/ha)	(L.E/ha)
						2019/2020
Without	332	13.02	2.046	1.162	1021	35718	25002	7145
11.905 ton/ha	449	10.80	2.463	0.689	1432	50111	35078	11221
23.810 ton/ha	549	11.85	2.883	0.946	1763	61`696	43187	13330
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
						2020/2021
Without	345	13.56	2.156	1.201	1076	37662	26364	8507
11.905 ton/ha	463	11.13	2.536	0.711	1487	52052	36436	12579
23.810 ton/ha	566	12.43	3.013	0.988	1816	63545	44481	14624
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
						2021/2022
Without	362	14.14	2.227	1.267	1127	39452	27616	9759
11.905 ton/ha	486	11.74	2.666	0.753	1559	54558	38191	14334
23.810 ton/ha	593	12.83	3.150	1.028	1904	66633	46644	16787
F. test	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**

** and * : significant at 0.01 and 0.05 levels of probability, respectively. N.S: not significant.

The statistics on sugar beetroot yield and its characteristics throughout the course of a three season growth cycle clearly show season's data outperformed the first and second. These outcomes could be explained by the fact that the organic matter content of the experimental soil for the three seasons was higher than for the first and second seasons. At P 0.05, the interactions between ANOVA analysis also demonstrated

Effects of sugar beets cultivars on yield traits.

results Table (2) indicated the utilisation of LAI; ranged from 12.40 (Casupia) to 13.87 (Salama) in the first season, 12.77 (Casupia) to 14.32 (Salama) in the second one and 13.40 (Casupia) to 15 (Salama) in third seasons. Top fresh weight (Kg/plant); ranged of 0.693 (Casupia) to 0.761 (Salama) in the first season, 0.714 (Casupia) to 0.787 (Salama) in the second one and 0.750 (Casupia) to 0.824 (Salama) in the third season was also found by (Safina, S. A and E. M. Abdel Fatah., 2011 and Ahmed et al. 2022). Chlorophyll (a); ranged from 5.312 (Casupia) to 6.041 (Salama) in the first season, 5.475 (Casupia) to 6.231 (Salama) in the second one and 5.746 (Casupia) to 6.543 (Salama) it is the third season. Harmonic results were noted by (Höft, et al., 2018, Antunovi, et al, 2021 and Bilir, et al, 2021). Chlorophyll (b); ranged from 2.579 (Casupia) to 2.937 (Salama) in the first season, 2.702 (Casupia) to 3.061 (Salama) in the second one and 2.802 (Casupia) to 3.201 (Salama) in the third season. Root length (cm); ranged from 1.166 (Casupia) to 1.321 (Salama) in the first season, 1.220 (Casupia) to 1.369 (Salama) in the second one and 1.260 (Casupia) to 1.440 (Salama) during the third season. Accordant results were seen by (Erciyes, et al., 2018). Root diameter (cm); ranged from 13.06 (Casupia) to 14.50 (Salama) in the first season, 13.49 (Casupia) to 15.04 (Salama) in the second one and 14.16 (Casupia) to 15.68 (Salama) in the third season. These outcomes follow the same pattern as those attained by (Harveson, et al., 2002, Cucina, et al, 2021 and Ernst, et al, 2021). Top dry weight (g/plant); ranged from 85 (Casupia) to 95 (Salama) in the first season, 88 (Casupia) to 99 (Salama) in the second one and 93 (Casupia) to 103 (Salama) in third season. Root dry weight (g/plant); ranged from 342 (Casupia) to 367 (Salama) in the first season, 353 (Casupia) to 379 (Salama) in the second one and 371 (Casupia) to 398 (Salama) in the third season highly.

Table (3) that application of Total dry weight (g/plant); ranged of 428 (Casupia) to 462 (Salama) in the first season, 441 (Casupia) to 477 (Salama) in the second one and 464 (Casupia) to 501 (Salama) in the third season. Total sugar ranged from 11.22 (Casupia) to 12.56 (Salama) in the first season, 11.67 (Casupia) to 13.09 (Salama) in the second one and 12.14 (Casupia) to 13.62 (Salama) in third seasons. Harmonic results were noted by (El-Mansuob, et al, 2020 and Galal, et al, 2022). Crude protein; ranged from 2.323 (Casupia) to 2.604 (Salama) in the first season, 2.401 (Casupia) to 2.731 (Salama) in the second one and 2.521 (Casupia) to 2.822 (Salama) in third seasons. The result was also reported by (Safina, et al., 2012, Idris, et al, 2021 and Issukindarsyah, et al, 2021). Crude fiber; ranged from 0.873 (Casupia) to 0.983 (Salama) in the first season, 0.904 (Casupia) to 1.026 (Salama) in the second one and 0.942 (Casupia) to 1.073 (Salama) in third season. Root fresh weight (g/plant); ranged of 1352 (Casupia) to 1467 (Salama) in the first season, 1410 (Casupia) to 1528 (Salama) in the second one and 1461 (Casupia) to 1593 (Salama) in the third season. Root weight (kg/ha); ranged from 47332 (Casupia) to 51345 (Salama) in the first season, 49335 (Casupia) to 53465 (Salama) in the second one and 51118 (Casupia) to 55746 (Salama) in the third season. These outcomes follow the same pattern as those attained by (Shalaby, et al., 2011, Juriši, et al, 2021 and Khan, et al, 2020). L.E Root weight (L.E/ha); ranged from 33132 (Casupia) to 35942 (Salama) in the first season, 34535 (Casupia) to 37426 (Salama) in the second one and 35783 (Casupia) to 39023 (Salama) in third seasons. Net gain (L.E /ha); ranged from 9275 (Casupia) to 12085 (Salama) in the first season, 10678 (Casupia) to 13569 (Salama) in the second one and 11926 (Casupia) to 15166 (Salama) in third seasons. Harmonic results were noted by (El adaw, et al., 2016, Kristek, et al, 2020 and Leilah, et al, 2021). in the third season highly significant (P < 0.05).

Alterations in yield attributes caused by organic fertilisation.

Table (4) showed that use of organic fertilization increased significantly of LAI; ranged from 11.01 (Without) to 15.56 (23.810 ton) in first season, 11.34 (Without) to 16.10 (23.810 ton) in second one, 11.90 (Without) to 16.82 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons. Top fresh weight (Kg/plant); ranged of 0.617 (Without) to 0.846 (23.810 ton) in first season, 0.637 (Without) to 0.873 (23.810 ton) in second one, 0.667 (Without) to 0.917 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season was also found by (Habib, A.A.M., 2021, Lukas, et al, 2021 and Makheti, et al, 2021). Chlorophyll (a); ranged from 4.829 (11.905 ton/ha) to 6.655 (Without) in the first season, 4.983 (11.905 ton/ha) to 6.869 (Without) in the second one and 5.228 (11.905 ton/ha) to 7.217 (Without) in third seasons. Harmonic results were noted by (Martin, 1980, Melino, et al, 2022 and Pulkrábek, et al, 2021). Chlorophyll (b); ranged from 2.371 (11.905 ton/ha) to 3.018 (Without) in the first season, 2.456 (11.905 ton/ha) to 3.159 (Without) in the second one and 2.572 (11.905 ton/ha) to 3.299 (Without) in the third season. Carotenoids; ranged from 1.010 (Without) to 1.506 (23.810 ton) in first season, 1.079 (Without) to 1.567 (23.810 ton) in second one and 1.099 (Without) to 1.628 (23.810 ton) in third season. Root length (cm); ranged from 24.01 (Without) to 28.21 (23.810 ton) in first season, 24.73 (Without) to 29.09 (23.810 ton) in second one, 25.93 (Without) to 30.49 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season was also found by (Heidarian, et al., 2018, Pogłodziński, et al, 2021 and Rašovský, et al, 2021). Root diameter (cm); ranged from 12.64 (Without) to 15.03 (23.810 ton) in first season, 13.06 (Without) to 15.52 (23.810 ton) in second one, 13.66 (Without) to 16.29 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season. These outcomes follow the same pattern as those attained by (Sarhan, et al, 2020 and Stoši, et al, 2020). Top dry weight (g/plant); ranged from 77 (Without) to 105 (23.810 ton) in first season, 80 (Without) to 109 (23.810 ton) in second one, 84 (Without) to 114 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons. Root dry weight (g/plant); ranged of 255 (Without) to 444 (23.810 ton) in first season, 265 (Without) to 457 (23.810 ton) in second one, 278 (Without) to 479 (23.810 ton) in third season, in third seasons, similar result was reported (Wael, et al., 2015, Varga, et al, 2020 and Varga, et al, 2022).

Table (5) application of Total dry weight (g/plant); ranged of 332 (Without) to 549 (23.810 ton) in first season, 345 (Without) to 566 (23.810 ton) in second one, 362 (Without) to 593 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season. Total sugar; ranged from 10.80 (11.905 ton/ha) to 13.02 (Without) in the first season, 11.13 (11.905 ton/ha) to 13.56 (Without) in the second one and 11.74 (11.905 ton/ha) to 14.14 (Without). Harmony discoveries were made in the third season, such (Lv, et al. 2019, Yassin, et al, 2022, Safy, 2021 and Abu-Ellail, et al, 2021). Crude protein; ranged from 2.046 (Without) to 2.883 (23.810 ton/ha) in first seasons, 2.156 (Without) to 3.013 (23.810 ton/ha) in the second one and 2.227 (Without) to 3.150 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons the result was also reported by (Yassin, et al., 2022, Varga, et al, 2020 and Varga, et al, 2021) Crude fiber; ranged from 0.689 (11.905 ton/ha) to 1.162 (Without) in the first season, 0.711 (11.905 ton/ha) to 1.201 (Without) in the second one and 0.753 (11.905 ton/ha) to 1.267 (Without) in third seasons. Root fresh weight (g/plant); ranged of 1021 (Without) to 1763 (23.810 ton) in first season, 1076 (Without) to 1816 (23.810 ton) in second one, 1127 (Without) to 1904 (23.810 ton/ha) in the third season. Root weight (kg/ha); ranged from 35718 (Without) to 61`696 (23.810 ton) in first season, 37662 (Without) to 63545 (23.810 ton) in second one, 39452 (Without) to 66633 (23.810 ton/ha) Harmony discoveries were made in the third season, such (Jaskulska, et al. 2017, Abofard, et al, 2021 and Yassin, et al, 2021). L.E Root weight (L.E/ha); ranged from 25002 (Without) to 43187 (23.810 ton) in first season, 26364 (Without) to 44481 (23.810 ton) in second one. 27616 (Without) to 46644 (23.810 ton/ha) in third seasons. Net gain (L.E /ha); ranged of 7145 (Without) to 13330 (23.810 ton) in first season, 8507 (Without) to 14624 (23.810 ton) in second one, 9759 (Without) to 16787 (23.810 ton) in third season, in third season highly significant (P < 0.05). Harmony discoveries were made in the third season, such (Abd El-Aziz and El Sahed., 2021, Abu-Ellail and El-Mansoub, 2020 and Abou-Elwafa, et al, 2020).

Effects of interactions sugar beets cultivars and organic fertilization.

Figure (2) application of interaction sugar beets cultivars and organic fertilization on all of the assessed attributes, treatments had a greatly enhanced significant impact.

The highest estimate is generally 69.746ton/ha seed yield was obtained from the interaction between (Salama and 23.810 ton/ha) root weight in the third season was also found by (Heidarian,et al., 2018).

Figure (3) application of interaction sugar beets cultivars and organic fertilization on all of the assessed attributes, treatments had a greatly enhanced significant impact.

48823 L.E/ha for root weight in third seasons observations regarding harmony were noted by (Abd El-Aziz, et al., 2017, Ikhajiagbe et al. 2020 and Ali et al. 2023), from 18966 L.E/ha for net gain findings regarding harmony were noted in the third season by (Abd El-Aziz, et al, 2018, El-Metwally et al., 2010), in third season highly significant (P < 0.05).

One of the regions is the Tur Sinai world's driest, with an annual rainfall rate of just 20 millimetres, which is insufficient for any form of agriculture. Having to rely on groundwater with a 3000 PPM level was necessary to develop sugar beets The cultivation of the sugar beet cultivar Salama with a 23.810 ton/ha organic fertilisation yielded the most cost-effective sugar beet output in the El-Tur area in the South Sinai region.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

No applicable.

Consent for publication

No applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Competing interests

All the authors declared that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The Desert Research Centre, an independent research facility connected to the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, provided financial support for this work. (DRC, 010295/2019 EG).

Statement of conflicting interest the author declares that their interests do not conflict.

Author contributions

Conceived the presented idea and wrote the manuscript with support from author contributed to sample preparation, conceived the presented idea, developed the theory, performed the computations and carried out the experiments.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the discussions with Prof. Dr. Hassan Auda Awaad Auda of the Crop Breeding Department at Zagazig University in Egypt.

Abofard MM, Gaber AM, Abdel-Mogib M, Bakr MN, Abou-ElWafa SF (2021). Effect of the application of molasses and vinasses on the yield and quality of sugar beet and soil fertility. Egyptian Sugar Journal, (17): 23-40. doi: 10.21608/esugj.2022.219139
Abou-Elwafa SF, Amin AEA, Eujayl I. (2020). Genetic diversity of sugar beet under heat stress and deficit irrigation. Agronomy Journal. 112: 3573590. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20356
Abu-Ellail FFB, El-Mansoub MMA (2020). Impact of water stress on growth, productivity and powdery Mildew disease of ten sugar beet varieties. Alexandria Science Exchange J., 41 (2): 165-179.
Abu-Ellail FFB, El-Gamal ISH, Bachoosh SMI, ElSafy NK (2021). Influence of water stress on quality, yield and physiological traits of some sugar beet varieties. Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3): 35- 50.
Abd El-Aziz MA, HM El Sahed (2021) Effect of plant density on some maize hybrids productivity under new reclaimed soil conditions at South Sinai. Future J. Agric., (3): 33-41. https://zjar.journals.ekb.eg/article_51886_1d34e3b414c4792a874a7cb277b4601d.pdf
Abd El-Aziz MA, AH Salem, RM Aly, MS Abd El-Maaboud (2018) Grain Quality and Protein Yield of Three Bread Wheat Cultivars as Affected by Some Humic Acid and Compost Fertilizer Treatments under Newly Sandy Soil Conditions. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 45 (3):809-819. https://zjar.journals.ekb.eg/article_49118_70e26c42beee816ce0f45a1c3f02684d.pdf
Abd El-Aziz MA, AH Salem, RM Aly, MS Abd El-Maaboud (2017) The Role of Humic Acid and Compost in Maximizing Productivity of Some Wheat Cultivars Grown under Newly Reclaimed Sandy Soil at North Sinai, Egypt. Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 32 (9): 97-211. https://zjar.journals.ekb.eg/article_49118_70e26c42beee816ce0f45a1c3f02684d.pdf
Ahmed, S. Y.; M. A. Bekheet, M. A. Eissa, H. A. Hussien, S. F. Abou-Elwafa. (2022). Effect of water deficit irrigation and bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet. Egyptian Sugar Journal, 19 : 71 – 81. https:// doi.org/ 10.21608 / esugj.2023.181138.1028
Ali, E. A. E; M. A. Amer, A. Saad and Hend T. E. (2023). Maximizing mushroom residues benefits to produce vermicompost for Fusarium Oxysporium resistance in maize. Bulletin of the National Research Centre 47:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-023-01073-2
Antunovi´c, M.; Varga, I.; Stipeševi´c, B.; Ranogajec, L. (2021). Analýza chorvatského cukrovarnického sektoru a produkce cukrové ˇrepy. Listy Cukrov. A Repaˇrsk ˇ é, (137): 383–386.
Bilir, B.; Saltalı, K. (2021). The Effect of Nitrogen-Boron Application and Time on the Nitrate Content of Sugar Beet Leaves Used as Animal Feed. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol, ( 9): 395–400.
Cucina, M.; De Nisi, P.; Sordi, S.; Adani, F. (2021). Sewage Sludge as N-Fertilizers for Crop Production Enabling the Circular Bioeconomy in Agriculture: A Challenge for the New EU Regulation 1009/2019. Sustainability, 13, 13165.
Deinlein, U., Stephan, A. B., Horie, T., Luo, W., Xu, G., and Schroeder, J. I. (2014). Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 19, 371–379. doi: 10.1016/j. tplants.2014.02.001 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24630845/
Ernst, D.; Cern ˇ ý, I.; Paˇcuta, V.; Zapletalová, A.; Rašovský, M.; Skopal, J.; Vician, T.; Šulík, R.; Gažo, J. (2021). Yield and Sugar Content of Sugar Beet Depending on Different Soil Tillage Technologies. Listy Cukrov. A Repaˇrsk ˇ é, (137): 319–324.
El-Mansuob MMA, Sasy AH, Abd El-Sadek KA (2020) Effect of sowing date and nitrogen fertilization on powdery mildew disease, yield and quality of some sugar beet varieties. J. Biol. Chem. Environ. Sci., 15 (2): 35-54.
El adaw, R. S. (2016). An Analytical Economic Study of Sugar Beet in Kafr El Sheikh Governorate. Alex. J. Agric. Sci. (61): 49-57. https://zjar.journals.ekb.eg/article_46411_52cb8792605b44351902bf970bdc9093.pdf
El-Metwally, E. A.; N. M. M. Moselhy; E. A. Esmaeland M. A. Abd El-Aziz (2010). Effect of bio and mineral fertilization on naked barley under Rainfed and supplemental irrigation conditions at Matrouh area, Egypt. J.plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. Vol. 1 (10): 1385-1397. https://jpp.journals.ekb.eg/article_86586.html
FAOSTAT (2022). Database of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [Online] URL: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (Accessed 2nd December 2022). https://www.fao.org/statistics/en/
Galal AA, El-Noury MI, Essa MA, Abou El-Yazied A, Abou-ElWafa SF (2022) Effect of algae extract foliar application and inter-row planting distances on the yield and quality of sugar beet. Egyptian Sugar Journal, (18): 16- 31. doi:0.21608/esugj.2022.125012.1004
Habib, A.A.M. (2021). Response of Some Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Cultivars to Organic Manure and Mineral Fertilizers under Sandy Calcareous Soil Condition at South Sinai-Egypt. ALEX. SCIE. EXCH. J. 42 (1): 191-207. https://journals.ekb.eg/article_159688.html
Harveson, R. M.; G. L. Hein, J. A. Smith, R. G. Wilson, and C. D. Yonts. (2002).An Integrated Approach to Cultivar Evaluation and Selection for Improving Sugar Beet Profitability. Plant Disease , 86 (3): 191-204. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/panhandleresext/26/
Heidarian, F.; A. Rokhzadi, F. Mirahmadi. ( 2018). Response of sugar beet to irrigation interval, harvesting time and integrated use of farmyard manure and nitrogen fertilizer. Environmental and Experimental Biology . (16): 169–175. DOI: 10.22364/eeb.16.16 https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20203379364
Höft, N.; N. Dally, M. Hasler and C. Jung. (2018). Haplotype Variation of Flowering Time Genes of Sugar Beet and Its Wild Relatives and the Impact on Life Cycle Regimes.J. Fron Plan. Scie. (8): 1-11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.02211/full
Idris, M.; Baha, E.; Wael, A.M.; Abubaker Haroun, M.A. (2021). Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Plant Spacing on Vegetative Growth of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris). J. Agron. Res, (4): 6–13.
Ikhajiagbe,B.; M. C. Ogwu and A. E. Lawrence. (2020). Single-tree influence of Tectona grandis
Linn. f. on plant distribution and soil characteristics in a planted forest. Bulletin of the National Research Centre. 44:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-020-00285-0
Issukindarsyah, I.; Sulistyaningsih, E.; Indradewa, D.; Putra, E.T.S. (2021). The Effect of Ammonium Nitrate Ratio and Support Types on the NPK Uptake and Growth of Black Pepper (Piper nigrum L.) in Field Conditions. Poljoprivreda, (27): 25–33.
Jaskulska I., Kamieniarz J., Jaskulski D. (2017). Yields and the composition of roots of sugar beet varieties tolerant to the beet cyst nematode. J.Elem., 22(3): 799-808. DOI: 10.5601/jelem.2016.21.4.1280
Juriši´c, M.; Radoˇcaj, D.; Plašˇcak, I.; Rapˇcan, I. (2021). A Comparison of Precise Fertilization Prescription Rates to a Conventional Approach Based on the Open Source GIS Software. Poljoprivreda, (27): 52–59.
Khan, M.F.R.; Haque, M.E.; Bloomquist, M.; Bhuiyan, M.Z.R.; Brueggeman, R.; Zhong, S.; (2020). Sharma Poudel, R.; Gross, T.; Hakk, P.; Leng, Y.; et al. First Report of Alternaria Leaf Spot Caused by Alternaria tenuissima on Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris) in Minnesota, USA. Plant Dis, 104, 580.
Kristek, S.; Brki´c, S.; Jovi´c, J.; Stankovi´c, A.; Cupurdija, B.; Brica, M.; Karali´c, K. (2020). The application of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in ´ order to reduce the mineral nitrogen fertilizers in sugar beet. Poljoprivreda, (26): 65–71.
Leilah, A.A.; Khan, N. (2021). Interactive Effects of Gibberellic Acid and Nitrogen Fertilization on the Growth, Yield, and Quality of Sugar Beet. Agronomy, (1): 11-137.
Lv, X., Chen, S. and Wang, Y. (2019). Advances in Understanding the Physiological and Molecular Responses of Sugar Beet to Salt Stress.Front. Plant Sci. 10:1431. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01431 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01431/full
Lv, X., Jin, Y., and Wang, Y. (2018). De novo, transcriptome assembly and identification of salt-responsive genes in sugar beet M14. Comput. Biol. Chem. 75, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2018.04.014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928841/
Lukas, V.; Neudert, L.; Širůček, P.; Novák, J.; Elbl, J. (2021). Effect of variable rate application of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers in sugar beet. Listy Cukrov. A Řepařské , (137): 417–422.
Martin, R. J. (1980). Yields and Sugar Contents of Sugar Beet and Fodder Beet Cultivars. Proc. Agro. Soci. of New Zeal. (10): 9-12. https://www.agronomysociety.nz/files/1980_4._Sugar_fodder_beet_yields_sugar_content.pdf
Makheti M. C.; Atieno Ondede, D. (2021). Effect of nitrogen nutrition on the intensity of Cercospora leaf spot of Mulberry. Int. J. Hortic. Sci. Technol, (8): 335–342.
Melino, V.J.; Tester, M.A.; Okamoto, M. (2022). Strategies for engineering improved nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants via redistribution and recycling of organic nitrogen. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol, (73): 263–269.
Pulkrábek, J.; Brinar, J.; Javor, T.; Dvořák, P.; Bečková, L.; Kuchtová, P.; Hubáčková, J. (2021). Experience with variable fertilization of sugar beet. Listy Cukrov. A Reparske, ( 137) 184–193.
Pogłodziński, R.; Barłóg, P.; (2021). Grzbisz, W. Effect of nitrogen and magnesium sulfate application on sugar beet yield and quality. Plant Soil Environ, (67): 507–513.
Rašovský, M.; Paˇcuta, V.; Cern ˇ ý, I.; Ernst, D.; Michalska-Klimczak, B.; Wyszy ˇnski, Z. (2021). Monitoring of Influence of Biopreparates, Weather Conditions and Variety on Production Parameters of Sugar Beet. Listy Cukrov. A Repaˇrsk ˇ(é) 137-154.
Safina, S. A.; Hassanin , M. A.; EL-Metwally, EL-Met. A. and Elsherbini, N.R. (2012). Sowing date and plant density influences on yield and quality of some sugar beet varieties grown in sandy soils under drip irrigation system. J. Egypt. Acad. Soc. Environ. Develop., 13 (2): 73-85.https://scholar.cu.edu.eg/sites/default/files/drsayedsafina/files/73-85.pdf
Safina, S. A and E. M. Abdel Fatah. (2011). Response of three Sugar beet Varieties to Compost, Mineral Nitrogen Fertilizer and their Combination under Sandy Soil Conditions. Bull. Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ., 62 (4): 438- 446. https://ajas.journals.ekb.eg/article_313_47f8c2abf850ff48215e797d8b759a92.pdf
Safy NK (2021). Influence of water stress on quality, yield and physiological traits of some sugar beet varieties. Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3): 35-50.
Sarhan HM, El-Zeny MM, Abdel-Fatah EM (2020) Effect of foliar spraying times and levels of yeast extract and boron on productivity and quality of sugar beet under sandy soil conditions. Zagazig J. Agric. Res. 47(2): 389-401.
Shalaby, N.M.E., A.M.H. Osman and A.H.S.A. AL-labbody (2011). Relative Performance of Sugar Beet Varieties under three Plant Densities in Newly Reclaimed Soil. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 89 (1):291-299.
Shabala, S., Wu, H., and Bose, J. (2015). Salt stress sensing and early signaling events in plant roots: current knowledge and hypothesis. Plant Sci. 241, 109– 119. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2015.10.003 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26706063/
Skorupa, M., Gołębiewski, M., Kurnik, K., Niedojadło, J., Kęsy, J., Klamkowski, K., et al. (2019). Salt stress vs. salt shock-the case of sugar beet and its halophytic ancestor. BMC Plant Biol. 19, 57. doi: 10.1186/s12870-019-1661-x https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-019-1661-x
Stoši´c, M.; Brozovi´c, B.; Vinkovi´c, T.; Ravnjak, B.; Kluz, M.; Zebec, V. (2020). Soil resistance and bulk density under different tillage system. Poljoprivreda, (26): 17–24.
Wael A. M., Mohammed A. H., Mohammed, O. G., Hatim, A. S., Moamar A. A. (2015). Effect of Mineral and Bio-organic Fertilizers on Sugar beet Growth under Semi-Arid Zone. International. J. Sci. Res. (6):1020-1025. doi: 10.21275/19061706 https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v6i9/19061706.pdf
Varga, I.; Lonˇcari´c, Z.; Pospišil, M.; Rastija, M.; Antunovi´c, M. (2020). Dynamics of sugar beet root, crown and leaves mass with regard to plant densities and spring nitrogen fertilization. Poljoprivreda, (26): 32–39.
Varga, I.; Kerovec, D.; Engler, M.; Popović, B.; Lončarić, Z.; Iljkić, D.; Antunović, M. (2022). Determination N-NO3− in sugar beet leaves). Listy Cukrov. A Řepařské , (138): 69–72.
Varga, I.; Lončarić, Z.; Pospišil, M.; Rastija, M.; (2020). Antunović, M. Changes of Nitrate Nitrogen in Sugar Beet Petioles Fresh Tissue during Season with Regard to Nitrogen Fertilization and Plant Population. Listy Cukrov. A Řepařské, (136): 198–204.
Varga, I.; Lončarić, Z.; Kristek, S.; Kulundžić, A.M.; Rebekić, A.; Antunović, M. (2021). Sugar Beet Root Yield and Quality with Leaf Seasonal Dynamics in Relation to Planting Densities and Nitrogen Fertilization. Agriculture, 11, 407.
Wettstein D. (1957). Chlorophyll, Letal under submikro svopische formmech, sall-plastiden- Exptl Cell Ser., 12: 427-433. https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1595127
Yassin, O. M; Saleh M. Ismailb, M.A. Gamehb, F. A. F. Khalila and Ezzat M. Ahmed. (2022). Evaluation of chemical composition of roots of three sugar beets varieties growing under different water deficit and harvesting dates in Upper Egypt. Current Chemistry Letters (11) 1–10. https://www.growingscience.com/ccl/Vol11/ccl_2021_42.pdf
Yassin OM, Ismail SM, Gameh MA, Khalil FAF, Ezzat MA (2021) Optimizing Roots and Sugar Yields and Water Use Efficiency of Different Sugar Beet Varieties Grown Under Upper Egypt Conditions Using Deficit Irrigation and Harvesting Dates. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 61 (3): 367-372.
Yassin OM, Ismail SM, Gameh MA, Khalil FAF, Ezzat MA (2022). Evaluation of chemical composition of roots of three sugar beets varieties growing under different water deficit and harvesting dates in Upper Egypt. Current Chemistry Letters 11: 1-10.

Response of Some Sugar beets cultivars to Organic fertilizers under South Sinai Conditions.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1