Harvest timing and genetic variability: Strategies for early selection in sugar beet breeding

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Sugar Beet Seed Breeding and Production Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran,

2 Sugar Beet Seed Breeding and Production Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran

3 Sugar Beet Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

4 Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: This study investigates how different harvest times affect the yield and quality of sugar beet varieties. By evaluating the performance of various varieties at different harvest times, the research aims to determine if early quantitative and qualitative assessments can accurately predict final outcomes. Confirming this hypothesis could significantly benefit breeding programs by enabling early selection, thereby speeding up the development of high-yield, high-quality sugar beet varieties.
Materials and Methods: The research involved 13 sugar beet varieties. These varieties underwent phenotypic evaluation over two years (2022 and 2023) at the Sugar Beet Research Station in Karaj Alborz, Iran. The experimental design was split-plot design based on the randomized complete block design, with four replications and five harvest dates. A combined analysis of variance was performed, treating the year effect as random and the variety and harvest date effects as fixed for white sugar yield. The mean of the main effects and their interactions were compared using Duncan's multiple range test at a 5% probability level. To assess the potential for early selection of varieties and expedite breeding, regression analysis was employed, which is a common statistical method for evaluating genotype-environment interactions. Additionally, Spearman's correlation, a non-parametric rank correlation method, was used to determine the correlation between the ranks of the varieties across different harvest dates.
Results: The analysis of variance revealed significant effects of the year, variety, harvest date, and the interactions between harvest date-year and harvest date-variety at a 1% probability level. The fifth harvest in 2022 reached an average of 11.36 t ha-1, while the first harvest in 2023 had the lowest yield, averaging 2.75 t ha-1. In terms of harvest date-variety interaction, Yalda and Hosna achieved high yields of 12.44 and 12.14 t ha-1 on the fifth and fourth harvest dates, respectively, followed by Robina and Shokoufa on the fourth and fifth dates. Regression analysis confirmed a significant linear relationship between environmental conditions and yield at the 1% probability level. This relationship indicated that as the environmental index increased, there was a corresponding increase in white sugar yield, mainly due to delayed harvest times. This pattern suggests a predictable and uniform response of white sugar yield to environmental changes. The genotype-environment interaction (linear) was also significant at the 1% probability level, indicating that although yield followed a linear trend, the slope of the regression line varied for different experimental varieties across different years and harvest dates. However, the mean square deviation from the regression line was non-significant, suggesting that the white sugar yield values of the experimental varieties closely aligned with the regression line. This implies that the response of a cultivar did not fluctuate significantly during linear changes in different years and harvest dates. In fact, despite the complexities of the genotype-environment interaction, the response of varieties to changes in different years and harvest dates remains stable around the regression line. Spearman correlation analysis supports these findings, indicating that quantitative and qualitative performance in the early stages cannot reliably predict final yield unless the harvest date is postponed until early October.
Conclusion: The study concludes that initial performance evaluations are not reliable for early selection. Delaying selection until October enhances the reliability of breeding decisions, ensuring the selection of cultivars with optimal genetic potential for high yields. This approach allows breeders to make more informed decisions, ultimately leading to the development of high-yield, high-quality sugar beet varieties. By understanding the interactions between genetic and environmental factors, breeders can improve the effectiveness of their strategies, thus contributing to more efficient sugar beet cultivation practices.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Dohm, J.C., Minoche, A.E., Holtgräwe, D., Capella-Gutiérrez, S., Zakrzewski, F., Tafer, H., Rupp, O., Sörensen, T.R., Stracke, R., & Reinhardt, R. (2014). The genome of the recently domesticated crop plant sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Nature, 505(7487), 546-549.
  2. Monteiro, F., Frese, L., Castro, S., Duarte, M.C., Paulo, O.S., Loureiro, J., & Romeiras, M.M. (2018). Genetic and genomic tools to asssist sugar beet improvement: the value of the crop wild relatives. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 74-89.
  3. Ribeiro, I.C., Pinheiro, C., Ribeiro, C.M., Veloso, M.M., Simoes-Costa, M.C., Evaristo, I., Paulo, O.S., & Ricardo, C.P. (2016). Genetic diversity and physiological performance of Portuguese wild beet (Beta vulgaris maritima) from three contrasting habitats. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 193305.
  4. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati, S., Saremirad, A., Hosseinpour, M., Jalilian, A., Ahmadi, M., Azizi, H., Hamidi, H., Hamdi, F., & Matloubi Aghdam, F. (2022). Evaluation of white sugar yield stability of some commercially released sugar beet cultivars in Iran from 2011-2020. Seed and Plant Journal, 38(3), 339-364. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/spj.2023.362024.1305
  5. Tomaszewska, J., Bieliński, D., Binczarski, M., Berlowska, J., Dziugan, P., Piotrowski, J., Stanishevsky, A., & Witońska, I. (2018). Products of sugar beet processing as raw materials for chemicals and biodegradable polymers. RSC Advances, 8(6), 3161-3177.
  6. Draycott, A.P. (2008). Sugar beet. (Ed.): Draycott, A.P.. Oxford, lackwell Publishing Ltd, UK, PP. 1-8.
  7. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati, S., Hamdi, F., Saremirad, A., & Hamze, H. (2024). Genotype by environment interaction and stability analysis for harvest date in sugar beet cultivars. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 16015.
  8. Marin, F.R., Rattalino Edreira, J.I., Andrade, J.F., & Grassini, P. (2021). Sugarcane yield and yield components as affected by harvest time. Sugar Tech, 23, 819-826.
  9. Nagib, S., El-Azez, A., & Ali, A. (2018). Evaluation of some new sugar beet varieties as affected by different harvest ages under conditions of Minia Governorate. Journal of Plant Production, 9(12), 1175-1180.
  10. Wang, J., Sun, X., Xu, Y., Wang, Q., Tang, H., & Zhou, W. (2021). The effect of harvest date on yield loss of long and short-grain rice cultivars (Oryza sativa) in Northeast China. European Journal of Agronomy, 131, 126382.
  11. Taleghani, , Hosseinpour, M., Nemati, R., & Saremirad, A. (2023). Study of the possibility of winter sowing of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) early cultivars in Moghan region, Iran [Scientific & Research]. Iranian Society of Crops and Plant Breeding Sciences, 24(4), 319-334. (In Persian). http://agrobreedjournal.ir/article-1-1269-fa.html
  12. Hoffmann, C.M., & Kluge-Severin, S. (2011). Growth analysis of autumn and spring sown sugar beet. European Journal of Agronomy, 34(1), 1-9.
  13. Hassani, M., Mahmoudi, S.B., Saremirad, A., & Taleghani, D. (2024). Genotype by environment and genotype by yield*trait interactions in sugar beet: analyzing yield stability and determining key traits association. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 23111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-51061-9
  14. Taleghani, D., Rajabi, A., Hemayati, S.S., & Saremirad, A. (2022). Improvement and selection for drought-tolerant sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ) pollinator lines. Results in Engineering, 13, 100367.
  15. Taleghani, D., Rajabi, A., Saremirad, A., & Darabi, S. (2024). Estimation of gene action and genetic parameters of some quantitative and qualitative characteristics of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) by line × tester analysis. Crop Breeding, 15(48), 201-212. [In Persian]. (In Persian).
  16. Saremirad, A., Hamdi, F., & Taleghani, D. (2023). Evaluation of genetic diversity in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ) hybrids in terms of yield, qualitative and germination traits. Applied Field Crops Research, 35(3), 87-67. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092 /aj.2023.357194.1580
  17. Rajabi, A., Ahmadi, M., Bazrafshan, M., Hassani, M., & Saremirad, A. (2023). Evaluation of resistance and determination of stability of different sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ) genotypes in rhizomania-infected conditions. Food Science & Nutrition, 11(3), 1403-1414. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3180
  18. Milford, G., Jarvis, P., & Walters, C. (2010). A vernalization-intensity model to predict bolting in sugar beet. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 148(2), 127-137.
  19. Schnepel, K., & Hoffmann, C. (2016). Effect of extending the growing period on yield formation of sugar beet. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 202(6), 530-541.
  20. (2021). Climatic features of Karaj. http://www.alborz-met.ir/Index.aspx?page_=form&lang=1&sub=0&tempname=Default&PageID=7971
  21. Kunz, M., Martin, D., & Puke, H. (2002). Precision of beet analyses in Germany explained for polarization. Zucker Industrie, 127(1), 13-21.
  22. Reinfeld, E., Emmerich, G., Baumgarten, C., Winner, & Beiss, U. (1974). Zur Voraussage des Melassez zuckersaus Ruben analysen Zucker. Chapman & Hall, World Crop Series.
  23. Cook, D., & Scott, R. (1993). The sugar beet crop: science into practice. Champan and Hall Press.
  24. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  25. Grubbs, F.E. (1969). Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics, 11(1), 1-21.
  26. Bartlett, M.S. (1937). Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A-Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 160(901), 268-282.
  27. Moore, K.J., & Dixon, P.M. (2015). Analysis of combined experiments revisited. Agronomy Journal, 107(2), 763-771.
  28. Wickham, H. (2016). Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. https://doi.org/10-1007-978-3319-24277-4-9
  29. Eberhart, S.T., & Russell, W. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties 1. Crop Science, 6(1), 36-40.
  30. Wissler, C. (1905). The Spearman correlation formula. Science, 22(558), 309-311.
  31. Hamidi, H., Ahmadi, M., & Taleghani, D. (2022). Selection of suitable sugar beet genotypes for winter sowing (Pending) in Torbat-e-Jam region. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 20(3), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.22067/jcesc.2022.74787.1138. [In Persian].
  32. Taleghani, D., Saremirad, A., Hosseinpour, M., Ahmadi, M., Hamidi, H., & Nemati, R. (2022). Genotype × environment interaction effect on white sugar yield of winter-sown short-season sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ) cultivars. Seed and Plant Journal, 38(1), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.22092/spj.2022,360021,1275. [In Persian].
  33. Märländer, B., Hoffmann, C., 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(4), 201-226.
  34. Jaggard, K., Koch, H., Sanz, J. A., Cattanach, A., Duval, R., Eigner, H., Legrand, G., Olsson, R., Qi, A., & Thomsen, J. (2012). The yield gap in some sugar beet producing countries. International Sugar Journal, 114(1363), 496-510.
  35. Hanse, B., Tijink, F. G., Maassen, J., & Van Swaaij, N. (2018). Closing the yield gap of sugar beet in the Netherlands—a joint effort. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 184-195.
  36. Scott, R., & Jaggard, K. (2000). Impact of weather, agronomy and breeding on yields of sugarbeet grown in the UK since 1970. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 134(4), 341-352.
  37. Zeddies, J. (2006). Die neue EU-Zuckermarktordnung–Beschlüsse, Auswirkungen und Bewertung. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(2), 97-99.
  38. Zimmermann, B., & Zeddies, J. (2000). Productivity development in sugar beet production and economic evaluation of progress in breeding. German Journal of Agricultural Economics/Agrarwirtschaft, 49(5), 195-205.
  39. Jansen, R., & Stibbe, C. (2007). Impact of plant breeding on the profitability of sugar beet production. International Sugar Journal, 109, 227-233.
  40. Javaheri, M.A., Zainaldini, A., & Najafi Nejad, H. (2004). The effect of planting date on sugar beet growth indicators in Arzoiye plain (autumn sowing). Research and Construction, 17(1), 64-69.
  41. Sadeghzadeh Hemayati, S., Shirzadi, M., Aghaeezadeh, M., Taleghani, D., Javaheri, M., & Aliasghari, A. (2012). Evaluation of sowing and harvesting date effects on yield and quality of five sugar beet cultivars in Jiroft region (autumn planting). Journal of Sugar Beet, 28(1), 42-25. [In Persian].
  42. Taleghani, D., Moharamzadeh, M., Hemayati, S.S., Mohammadian, R., & Farahmand, R. (2011). Effect of sowing and harvest time on yield of autumn-sown sugar beet in Moghan region in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal, 27(2), 355-371. [In Persian].
  43. Vahidi, H., Mirshekari, B., Sadeghzadeh Hemayati, S., Rajabi, A., & Yarnia, M. (2018). Response of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of sugar beet genotypes to different sowing and harvest dates. Journal of Sugar Beet, 34(1), 1-15. [In Persian].
  44. Javaheri, M.A. (2023). Effect of sowing and harvesting dates on root yield and some quality characteristics of sugar beet. Crop Science Research in Arid Regions, 4(2), 321-331. [In Persian].
  45. Mirzaei, M.R., & Saremirad, A. (2023). Estimation of gene action and genetic parameters of some characteristics related to sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ) seed germination by line× tester analysis. Journal of Crop Production, 16(4), 67-92. [In Persian].
  46. Wahab, A., Abdi, G., Saleem, M.H., Ali, , Ullah, S., Shah, W., Mumtaz, S., Yasin, G., Muresan, C.C., & Marc, R.A. (2022). Plants' physio-biochemical and phyto-hormonal responses to alleviate the adverse effects of drought stress: A comprehensive review. Plants, 11(13), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.390/plants11131620
  47. Jammer, A., Albacete, A., Schulz, B., Koch, W., Weltmeier, F., van der Graaff, E., Pfeifhofer, H. W., & Roitsch, T. G. (2020). Early-stage sugar beet taproot development is characterized by three distinct physiological phases. Plant Direct, 4(7), e00221. https://doi.org /10.1002/pld3.221
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 17, Issue 4
December 2025
Pages 85-106

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics