Effect of weed interference duration on quantitative and qualitative yield of Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) under direct Seeding and transplanting methods in Neyshabur region

Subject Areas : Crop Production Research

Karim Sharifan ¹ , Mohammad Armin ^{2 *} , Matin Jamimoeini ³

1 - Ph.D Student Department of Agrotechnology, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran.
2 - Professor, Department of Agrotechnology, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran.
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Agrotechnology, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran.

Received: 2025-04-06 Accepted : 2025-06-12 Published : 2025-06-21

Keywords: Interference duration, Planting method, Sugar beet, Transplanting, Weed management,

Abstract :

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of weed interference duration on the quantitative and qualitative yield of sugar beet under two planting methods: direct seeding and transplanting. The experiment was conducted as a split-plot design based on a randomized complete block design with three replications at a private farm in Neyshabur during the 2022–2023 growing season. The main plot factor was planting method (Direct seeding vs. transplanting), and the subplot factor was weed interference duration, which included weed competition from crop emergence up to 30, 45, 60, and 75 days after emergence, along with full-season interference and full weed control. Results indicated that under full-season interference, weed density in the transplanting method was 5.97% lower than in direct seeding. As the interference period increased, both weed dry weight and root and sugar yield declined in both planting methods. The highest reduction in root yield under full-season interference was observed in direct seeding (28.9%) and transplanting (23.3%) compared to the full control treatment. Sugar yield was significantly affected by weed interference duration, with up to a 34.6% reduction in the transplanting method under full-season interference. Planting method also had a significant effect on some root impurities: sodium, potassium, harmful nitrogen, and sugar molasses content were higher in the transplanting method, whereas alkalinity coefficient was higher in direct seeding. Overall, the results demonstrated that under weed interference conditions, transplanting produced higher root and sugar yields compared to direct seeding.

References:

منابع
جهاد اکبر، م.ر.، ر. طباطبایی نیم آورد و ح.ر. ابراهیمیان. 1383. بررسی دوره بحرانی کنترل علف¬های هرز چغندرقند در کبوترآباد اصفهان، مجله چغندر قند، 20(1): 61-73.
صادقی، ب.ا.، ر. برادران، و م.ح. صابری. 1395. تعیین دوره بحرانی کنترل علف¬های هرز چغندر قند در منطقه نیمبلوک قاینات خراسان جنوبی، نشریه دانش علف¬های هرز، 12(1): 31-43.
علا، ا.، م. آقاعلیخانی، ب. امیری لاریجانی، و س. صوف زاده. 1394. مقایسه سیستم کشت مستقیم و نشایی برنج در استان مازندران: رقابت علف هرز، عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد. نشریه پژوهش¬های زراعی ایران، 12(3): 463-475.
قیناغی، پ.، میرمحمودی، ت. و خلیلی اقدم، ن. 1402. دوره بحرانی کنترل علف هرز و تاثیر آن بر خصوصیات زراعی چغندرقند. نشریه اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهی، (۱۴) :۱۷-۳۰
لطفی کیوانلو، ع. و م. آرمین. 1396. تأثیر سن و تاریخ انتقال نشا بر ویژگی‌های کمی و کیفی چغندرقند. علوم گیاهان زراعی، 48(1): 291-301.
مهر اندیش، م.، م. گلوی، م. رمرودی، و م. آرمین. 1400. تاثیر نظام¬های مختلف تغذیه بر ویژگی¬های کمی و کیفی چغندر قند در شیوه¬های مختلف کشت. مجله به زراعی کشاورزی، 23(1): 59-72.
نصری، ر. کاشانی، ع.، س. صادقیان کلهر، و د. حبیبی. 1390. خصوصیات کمی و کیفی چغندر قند پاییزه در دو روش کشت مستقیم و انتقال نشاء گلدانی در اراضی شور اهواز، فصلنامه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، 7(4): 25-39.
نوبخت علیزاده سبزواری، م.، م. آرمین، م. و جامی معینی. 1396. نقش دفعات وجین بر میزان کاهش مصرف علف کش در چغندر قند، فصلنامه اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی، 11(43)، 667-684.
Abd El Lateef, B.B., M.S. Mekki,. A.B.D. El-Salam, and I.M. El-Metwally. 2021. Effect of different single herbicide doses on sugar beet yield, quality and associated weeds. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 45: 1-9.

Guerra, N., É.S.B. Da Silva, A.M. Tavares, A. Carlet, and A.M. de Oliveira Neto. 2016. Weed interference in beet crop in direct sowing and transplanted [Interferência de plantas daninhas na cultura da beterraba em semeadura direta e transplantada.]. Agro@mbiente On-line، 10(3): 235–242.

Karbalaei, S., A. Mehraban, H.R. Mobasser, and Z. Bitarafan. 2012. Sowing date and transplant root size effects on transplanted sugar beet in spring planting. Annals of Biological Research، 3(7): 3474-3478.
Khozaei, M., A.A. Kamgar Haghighi, S. Zand Parsa, A.R. Sepaskhah, F. Razzaghi, V. Yousefabadi, and Y. Emam. 2020. Evaluation of direct seeding and transplanting in sugar beet for water productivity, yield and quality under different irrigation regimes and planting densities. Agricultural Water Management, 238: 106230.

Kotlánová, B., P. Hledík, S. Hudec, P. Martínez Barroso, M.D. Vaverková, M. Jiroušek, and J. Winkler. 2024. The Influence of Sugar Beet Cultivation Technologies on the Intensity and Species Biodiversity of Weeds. Agronomy, 14(2): 390-405.

Kulan, E.G., and M.D. Kaya. 2023. Effects of Weed-Control Treatments and Plant Density on Root Yield and Sugar Content of Sugar Beet. Sugar Tech, 25(4): 805-819.

Soltani, N., J.A. Dille, D.E. Robinson, C.L. Sprague, D.W. Morishita, N.C. Lawrence, A.R. Kniss, P. Jha, J. Felix, R.E. Nurse, and P.H. Sikkema. 2018. Potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference in the United States and Canada. Weed Technology, 32(6): 749-753.

Tayyab, M., A. Wakeel, M.U, Mubarak, A. Artyszak, S. Ali, E.E. Hakki, K. Mahmood, B. Song, and M. Ishfaq. 2023. Sugar beet cultivation in the tropics and subtropics: challenges and opportunities. Agronomy, 13(5): 1213.