Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Sajid Ali
 -- 1832 2023-05-13 11:15:29 |
2 format correct
Jessie Wu
 Meta information modification 1832 2023-05-15 03:51:22 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Tayyab, M.; Wakeel, A.; Mubarak, M.U.; Artyszak, A.; Ali, S.; Hakki, E.E.; Mahmood, K.; Song, B.; Ishfaq, M. Sugar Beet Cultivation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44231 (accessed on 13 September 2024).
Tayyab M, Wakeel A, Mubarak MU, Artyszak A, Ali S, Hakki EE, et al. Sugar Beet Cultivation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44231. Accessed September 13, 2024.
Tayyab, Muhammad, Abdul Wakeel, Muhammad Umair Mubarak, Arkadiusz Artyszak, Sajid Ali, Erdogan Esref Hakki, Khalid Mahmood, Baiquan Song, Muhammad Ishfaq. "Sugar Beet Cultivation in the Tropics and Subtropics" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44231 (accessed September 13, 2024).
Tayyab, M., Wakeel, A., Mubarak, M.U., Artyszak, A., Ali, S., Hakki, E.E., Mahmood, K., Song, B., & Ishfaq, M. (2023, May 13). Sugar Beet Cultivation in the Tropics and Subtropics. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/44231
Tayyab, Muhammad, et al. "Sugar Beet Cultivation in the Tropics and Subtropics." Encyclopedia. Web. 13 May, 2023.
Sugar Beet Cultivation in the Tropics and Subtropics
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agronomy13051213

Sugar beet, an important sugar crop, is particularly cultivated in humid regions to produce beet sugar, fulfilling about 25% of the world’s sugar requirement, supplementing cane sugar. 

sugar beet tropics adaptation challenges management practices sugar

1. Nutrient Management in Sugar Beet

The growth, yield, and quality of beet are affected by different sowing dates. It has been reported that the early sowing of beet (in September–October) produced a higher sugar yield and sucrose content per unit area in Egypt [1]. The late sowing of beet in November produced a reduced yield, length, and diameter, as well as sugar content, compared to early sowing in October [2].
In addition to the sowing date of beet, other parameters such as NPK also affect the growth, yield, and quality of beet. A proper and suitable application of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium improve the quality and yield of sugar beet. The sugar yield and other quality parameters can be improved by managing the fertility status of the soil [3].
The beet length, diameter, and yield increased with the increment of the N application in sugar beet, but the reverse result was recorded in the case of the TSS, sucrose percentage, and juice purity. The application of N at the right time plays a significant and effective role in maximizing the N utilization by reducing the losses of N [4]. The beet and recoverable sugar yield were increased with an N split application at the four- to eight-leaf stage of the sugar beet plant. The sucrose percentage and sugar yield improved significantly, as affected by the interaction between the rate and time of the N split application. Based on a pre-sowing analysis of the soil, researchers determine the diameter and root, as well as sugar yield, of sugar beet by a moderate split application of N [5]. The quality of sugar beet deteriorated with a high N application [6].
Phosphorous (P) is considered an essential nutrient for plants. It is an important and integral part of nucleic acid, lipids, and the production and transportation of sugar in sugar beet. It plays a significant role in plants, including energy generation, photosynthesis, glycolysis, nucleic acid synthesis, carbohydrate metabolism, respiration, and nitrogen fixation. A significant effect of the P application was recorded by [7] compared to the control for sugar beet production.
Potassium (K) plays a vital role in protein synthesis, and the photosynthesis process and assimilate translocation have an effect on the resulting yield and growth of beet plants. It has been reported that the root yield and sugar percentage are enhanced by the K application at a rate of 90 kg ha−1. Potassium application, along with N, showed effective results, owing to its synergistic effects when applied in various varieties of sugar beets [8].

2. Major Pest and Diseases

2.1. Curly Top

The beet curly top virus (BCTV) belongs to the family Germiniviridae and genus Curtovirus. A single-stranded DNA genome of ~3000 nucleotides has been found in the BCTV. It has a twinned icosahedral structure with encapsidation virions. It causes the curly-top disease in many crops, especially in the common bean, tomato, and sugar beet. It shows a wide range of symptoms including interveinal chlorosis, severe leaf curling, yellowing, deformation, shortening of the internode, and stunting. It is transmitted by the beet leaf hopper (Circulifer tenellus) in nature. This disease has resulted in several devastating effects on the sugar beet industry in western USA and caused the loss of tomato production in California. In the new world, the beet leaf hopper and BCTV were introduced through anthropogenic activities, and the biology of this disease is very complex owing to the migratory nature of the vector. The BCTV genome revealed the role of recombination in viral evolution after analyzing it. The beet industry was saved due to the development and release of new curly-top-resistant varieties. The most effective strategy to control it is integrated pest management, because resistant varieties are not available for all crops [9][10].

2.2. Rhizomania

Rhizomania is a disease caused by the beet necrotic vein virus (BNYVV). The sugar beet roots are affected by the soil-born fungus (Polymyxa betae Keskin), which is the main source of this disease. The infected roots of sugar beet plants show symptoms such as the development of rootlets around the tap root. The wine-glass-shaped roots would appear around the necrotic rings of the root tip, resulting in low-quality beet which has a low sugar content. An immuno-enzymatic test (ELISA) can be performed to quantify the disease easily. The reduction in sugar yield by this virus has been reported to be up to 80% [11]. In the beginning, it was reported in Italy, and now it prevails all over the cultivated lands of sugar beets. It has also been confirmed after RNA analysis that three pathotypes such as A, B, and P affect the sugar beet crop. Cultural practices are the best way to control this disease, or growing disease-resistant cultivars of sugar beet. These cultural practices, including growing the crop early in cool soil, avoiding soil compaction, minimizing watering, and employing crop rotation, can reduce the chances of disease spread [12][13].

2.3. Cercospora Leaf Spot

The causal agent of Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) is Cercospora beticola. This disease mostly spreads in humid regions of the world, including China, southern France, Austria, Greece, Japan, northern Italy, Michigan, northern Spain, etc. Necrotic lesions are the main symptoms that later damage the leaves of sugar beet. The crop shows immunity against this disease after 80–90 days of sowing. This shows the inhibitory mechanism in the plant leaves; then, the resistance develops. Different sea beets from the coasts of the Adriatic Sea have been crossed to develop genotypes that are resistant against CLS [14], and this led to the development of different resistant lines. In the United States and Italy, the selection was carried out for commercial sugar beet varieties against this disease [15]. To control it, many fungicides are used. An appropriate application of fungicides is one method of controlling this disease, while, on the other hand, a resistant disease cultivar is the best way to control it. The latter is more effective than the former owing to its environment-friendly behavior [16][17].

2.4. Beet Cyst Nematode

The sugar beet plants are affected by cyst nematodes (Heteroderma schachtii), which is a highly damaging pest. The yield and sugar reduction are affected by this, causing a reduction in beet size. The beet size and leaves do not develop properly in infected sugar beet plants under intense and high-temperature conditions. Cyst nematodes can be easily detected on the roots with the naked eye. It is very challenging to control this disease owing to the restrictions on fumigation usage and the wide range of host plants for this pest. The nematodes can be controlled effectively by practicing crop rotation. The embryo rescue and grafting techniques are the best methods to control cyst nematodes. Interspecific hybridization can be easily introduced in sugar beet to develop a resistance to this disease [18][19]. There is a gene that has been identified for its resistance against cyst nematodes in sea beets. Different varieties of sugar beet have been introduced by the United States and Europe for their resistance to this disease. The resistant cultivars of beet have been developed by crossing B. procumbens and B. vulgaris ssp. Maritime. To decrease the loss of yield in sugar beet plants, the characters from B. vulgaris ssp. have been effectively introduced [20][21].

3. Harvesting and Processing

The growing season of sugar beet is late winter or early summer in temperate-clime regions and the harvesting starts after 5–6 months. In contrast, the sowing time of sugar beet in Mediterranean-climate regions is autumn, and harvesting starts in early summer. The beet is lifted mechanically at the maturity stage (the leaves having turned yellow and the beet having gained its maximum weight, about 180–200 days after sowing) of the crop; then, the leaves are parted from the beet as it contains a lower sugar content and more impurities. The beet is quickly transported to the processing unit for the extraction of sugar to avoid the harsh condition of the environment, such as hot weather, which deteriorates the quality of the beet [22]. Sugar beets are cut into pieces such as slices for in order to extract the sugar. The hot water diffusion method is used to complete this step. Lime and carbon dioxide are passed many times through it to remove the impurities. The evaporation process starts after this to concentrate the extracted juice. It continues until a 60% sucrose purity has been attained. The thick juice starts to convert into crystals. A high temperature and partial pressure are the prerequisites to complete this process. The centrifugation process starts afterwards for obtaining molasses, which has a 45% sucrose concentration with a brown-like morph. White sugar is obtained after further purification, which is then transported to the markets [23][24].

4. Yield and Quality

The average production of sugar beet has been recorded as 40–60 t ha−1; sometimes, the range may go as high as 70–80 t ha−1. The purpose of the cultivation of sugar beet is to attain the optimum yield using cost-economic resources. The weight and size of the beet impart its quality, such as its sugar content. Its sugar yield and extractable sugar must be considered as quality parameters. Improving the yield of beet is the main output, but along with it, the total sugar yield must be enhanced. Climatic conditions determine the sugar yield, which is a quantitative character [2]. The root production and sugar content are controlled by non-additive and additive variance [25].
There is an inverse strong relation between the root yield and sugar yield; a higher weight of beet reduces its sugar content, and vice versa. In addition to the size and weight of the beet, many other physical and chemical traits also affect the extractable sugar during processing in the beet-processing industry [26]. Two methods control the extraction of sugar genetics and agronomic practices such as harvesting, storage, and transportation. Therefore, the quality of beet can be controlled by the grower through the selection of seed variety, plant density (number and distribution of plants), sowing and harvesting date, field preparation, irrigation practice, fertilization, and plant-protection measures. The yield and quality of beet decrease when the number of plants is less than 70 thousand ha−1. The yield and quality parameters of beet can also be deteriorated by a higher or lower plant density in the rows [27].
The non-sugar impurities such as Na, K, and α-amino N in sugar beet affect its quality as well as the sugar extraction process. There is a great need to reduce these non-sugar products in beet [28]. The effect of non-sugar impurities can be reduced following mass selection. It becomes more complex for breeding beet between non-sugar impurities, root weight, and concentration of sugar. In addition to impurities, the smoothness and soil attached to beet can also affect the extraction of sugar in the industry. The slicing and diffusion during the extraction of sugar are also affected by soil remaining on the beet after the crop has been harvested. Therefore, the quality and quantity of sugar beet can be improved by adopting agronomic as well as breeding practices [29].

References

  1. Pavlů, K.; Chochola, J.; Pulkrábek, J.; Urban, J. Influence of sowing and harvest dates on production of two different cultivars of sugar beet. Plant Soil Environ. 2017, 63, 76–81.
  2. Zarski, J.; Kuśmierek-Tomaszewska, R.; Dudek, S. Impact of irrigation and fertigation on the yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in a moderate climate. Agronomy 2020, 10, 166.
  3. Leilah, A.A.; Khan, N. Interactive Effects of Gibberellic Acid and Nitrogen Fertilization on the Growth, Yield, and Quality of Sugar Beet. Agronomy 2021, 11, 137.
  4. Heidarian, F.; Rokhzadi, A.; Mirahmadi, F. Response of sugar beet to irrigation interval, harvesting time and integrated use of farmyard manure and nitrogen fertilizer. Environ. Exp. Biol. 2018, 16, 169–175.
  5. Afshar, R.K.; Nilahyane, A.; Chen, C.; He, H.; Bart Stevens, W.B.; William, M.I. Impact of conservation tillage and nitrogen on sugarbeet yield and quality. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 191, 216–223.
  6. Ghaly, F.; Abd-Hady, M.; Abd-Elhamied, M. Effect of varieties, phosphorus and boron fertilization on sugar beet yield and its quality. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2019, 10, 115–122.
  7. Grzebisz, W.; Gransee, A.; Szczepaniak, W.; Diatta, J. The effects of potassium fertilization on water-use efficiency in crop plants. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 355–374.
  8. Anabestani, A.; Behjatnia, S.A.A.; Izadpanah, K.; Tabein, S.; Accotto, G.P. Seed transmission of beet curly top virus and beet curly top Iran virus in a local cultivar of petunia in Iran. Viruses 2017, 9, 299.
  9. Nansen, C.; Stewart, A.N.; Gutierrez, T.A.M.; Wintermantel, W.M.; McRoberts, N.; Gilbertson, R.L. Proximal remote sensing to differentiate nonviruliferous and viruliferous insect vectors–proof of concept and importance of input data robustness. Plant Pathol. 2019, 68, 746–754.
  10. Ahmad, S.; Ali, A.; Ahmad, M.; Ullah, N.; Afridi, U.K.; Bostan, N.; Qureshi, R.; Tawwab, S.; Ahmad, I.; Zubair, M. Characterization of beet necrotic yellow vein virus in Pakistan. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 100, 357.
  11. Zare, B.; Niazi, A.; Sattari, R.; Aghelpasand, H.; Zamani, K.; Sabet, M.S.; Moshiri, F.; Darabie, S.; Daneshvar, M.H.; Norouzi, P. Resistance against rhizomania disease via RNA silencing in sugar beet. Plant Pathol. 2015, 64, 35–42.
  12. Weiland, J.J.; Poudel, R.S.; Flobinus, A.; Cook, D.E.; Secor, G.A.; Bolton, M.D. RNAseq Analysis of Rhizomania-Infected Sugar Beet Provides the First Genome Sequence of Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus from the USA and Identifies a Novel Alphanecrovirus and Putative Satellite Viruses. Viruses 2020, 12, 626.
  13. Jay, S.; Comar, A.; Benicio, R.; Beauvois, J.; Dutartre, D.; Daubige, G.; Li, W.; Labrosse, J.; Thomas, S.; Henry, N. Scoring cercospora leaf spot on sugar beet: Comparison of UGV and UAV phenotyping systems. Plant Phenom. 2020, 9452123, 18.
  14. Vogel, J.; Kenter, C.; Holst, C.; Märländer, B. New generation of resistant sugar beet varieties for advanced integrated management of Cercospora leaf spot in central Europe. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 222.
  15. Pethybridge, S.J.; Vaghefi, N.; Kikkert, J.R. Management of Cercospora leaf spot in conventional and organic table beet production. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 1642–1651.
  16. Oerke, E.; Leucker, M.; Steiner, U. Sensory assessment of Cercospora beticola sporulation for phenotyping the partial disease resistance of sugar beet genotypes. Plant Methods 2019, 15, 133, 1–12.
  17. Escobar-Avila, I.M.; Cruz-Alvarado, Y.; Tovar-Soto, A.; Subbotin, S.A. First report of sugar beet cyst nematode, Heterodera schachtii on beet root and broccoli in Mexico. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 1434.
  18. Ghaemi, R.; Pourjam, E.; Safaie, N.; Verstraeten, B.; Mahmoudi, S.B.; Mehrabi, R.; Meyer, T.D.; Kyndt, T. Molecular insights into the compatible and incompatible interactions between sugar beet and the beet cyst nematode. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 483, 1–16.
  19. Hemayati, S.S.; Akbar, M.R.J.E.; Ghaemi, A.R.; Fasahat, P. Efficiency of white mustard and oilseed radish trap plants against sugar beet cyst nematode. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 119, 192–196.
  20. Nuaima, H.R.; Ashrafi, S.; Maier, W.; Heuer, H. Fungi isolated from cysts of the beet cyst nematode parasitized its eggs and counterbalanced root damages. J. Pest Sci. 2021, 94, 563–572.
  21. Tomaszewska, J.; Bieliński, D.; Binczarski, M.; Berlowska, J.; Dziugan, P.; Piotrowski, J.; Stanishevsky, A.; Witońska, I.A. Products of sugar beet processing as raw materials for chemicals and biodegradable polymers. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 3161–3177.
  22. Curcic, Z.; Ciric, M.; Nagl, N.; Taski-Ajdukovic, K. Effect of sugar beet genotype, planting and harvesting dates and their interaction on sugar yield. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1041.
  23. Hoffmann, M.C.; Christine, K. Yield potential of sugar beet–have we hit the ceiling? Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 289.
  24. Panella, L.; Kaffka, S.R.; Lewellen, R.T.; McGrath, J.M.; Metzger, M.S.; Strausbaugh, C.A. Sugar beet. In Yield Gains in Major U.S. Field Crops; Smith, S., Diers, B., Specht, J., Carver, B., Eds.; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; Volume 33, pp. 357–395.
  25. Kaffka, S.R.; Grantz, D.A. Sugar Crops. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems; Alfen, N.K.V., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 1, pp. 240–260.
  26. Nilahyane, A.; Chen, C.; Afshar, R.K.; Sutradhar, A.; Stevens, W.B.; William, I.W. Deficit irrigation for sugar beet under conventional and no-till production. Agro. Geosci. Environ. 2020, 3, e20114.
  27. Wakeel, A.; Steffens, D.; Schubert, S. Potassium substitution by sodium in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) nutrition on K-fixing soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2010, 173, 127–134.
  28. Pi, Z.; Stevanato, P.; Yv, L.H.; Geng, G.; Guo, X.L.; Yang, Y.; Peng, C.X.; Kong, X.S. Effects of potassium deficiency and replacement of potassium by sodium on sugar beet plants. Russian J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 61, 224–230.
  29. Hlisnikovský, L.; Menšík, L.; Křížová, K.; Kunzová, E. The effect of farmyard manure and mineral fertilizers on sugar beet beetroot and top yield and soil chemical parameters. Agronomy 2021, 11, 133.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Plant Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Muhammad Tayyab
,
Abdul Wakeel
,
Muhammad Umair Mubarak
,
Arkadiusz Artyszak
,
Sajid Ali
,
Erdogan Esref Hakki
,
Khalid Mahmood
,
Baiquan Song
,
Muhammad Ishfaq
View Times: 328
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 16 May 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback