Effect of Different Tillage Systems and Deficit Irrigation on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Sugar Beet

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• A. Heidari
• A. Ghadami Firouzabadi

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Research Agricultural and Natural Resource and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension organization (AREEO), Hamadan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v12i2.88341

Abstract

Introduction: Conventional tillage is widely used in sugar beet growing areas. However, conventional farming uses more labour and machines that has a negative effect on soil and the environment. Due to limited water resources and recent droughts, proper use of modern tillage and irrigation methods can increase water efficiency and prevent soil degradation as a result of sustainable agriculture.
Materials and Methods: An experiment was conducted to investigate different methods of tillage and water requirements on quantitative and qualitative yield and sugar beet water productivity in the drip irrigation system in Ekbatan Research Station of Hamedan Province from 2018 to 2019. A strip plot experiment with sixteen treatments and three replications was used. Tillage methods in four levels, consisting of T₁- plowing with moldboard plow to a depth of 25-30 cm in autumn + power harrow to a depth of 15-20 cm in spring, T₂- subsoiling to a depth of 35-40 cm + plowing with moldboard plow to a depth of 25-30 cm in autumn + power harrow to a depth of 15-20 cm in spring, T₃- plowing with chisel plow equipped with roller packer to a depth of 25-30 cm in autumn + power harrow to a depth of 15-20 cm in spring and T₄- plowing with sweep plow equipped with roller packer to a depth of 25-30 cm in autumn + power harrow to a depth of 15-20 cm in spring and Irrigation factor consisting of I₁-100%, I₂- 90%,  I₃- 80% and I₄- 70% sugar beet water requirement were considered. Soil penetration resistance (PR), the volume of water consumption, root yield, sugar yield, white sugar yield and molasses were measured. Water efficiency in tillage and irrigation treatments was also calculated. MSTAT-C software was used for statistical analysis of data. The Duncan's multiple range test at a 1% probability level was used to compare the means.
Result and Discussion: At a depth of 0-30 cm, no significant difference was observed between tillage methods on soil penetration resistance. At greater depths (35-40 cm) T2 treatment (subsoil + moldboard plow) had the greatest effect in reducing soil resistance. The results showed that the effect of different tillage methods, water requirement and their interactions at the 1% probability level on root yield; sugar yield and white sugar yield were significant. There was no significant difference between sugar beet yield in the T4 tillage treatment and the conventional method (T₁). Treatments T4 (with an average yield of 50686 kg ha^-1) and T1 (with an average yield of 50507 kg ha^-1) had the highest sugar beet root yield. Also, the tillage method (T₄) compared to the conventional tillage method (T1) reduced fuel consumption by 14.7% and increased field capacity by 52.4% respectively. In the T4 tillage method, irrigation treatments I₁₀₀, I₉₀ and I₈₀ with mean water productivity of 6.113, 6.087 and 5.523 kg m^-3 of water consumption, respectively, had the greatest effect on increasing water productivity, while no significant difference was observed between them.
Conclusion: The tillage method (T₄) compared to the conventional tillage method (T₁) reduced fuel consumption by 14.7% and increased field capacity by 52.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference between sugar beet yield and water productivity in the T4 tillage treatment and the conventional method (T₁). Although full irrigation treatment (100% water requirement) has the highest water efficiency, there is no significant difference between 90 and 80% water requirement treatment. Therefore, in order to save water consumption, 80% water requirement is recommended. The result is that in the T4 tillage method with a supply of 80% water requirement of sugar beet after plant establishment (approximately from the middle of the growing season) about 12% (1207 m^-3) in water consumption without significant reduction in water productivity.

Keywords

• Chisel plow
• Drip irrigation
• Power harrow
• Soil penetration resistance
• Subsoiler

20.1001.1.22286829.1401.12.2.10.2

Open Access

©2022 The author(s). This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

1. Afzalinia, S., A. Karami, and S. M. Alavimanesh. 2019. Effects of tillage systems on soil properties, fuel consumption and wheat yield in the wheat-sesame rotation. Journal of Soil Research 33 (4): 441-455.
2. Allen, R. G., L. S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irriggation and Drainage Paper 56. 300 pp.
3. Arvidsson, J., E. Bolenius, and K. M. V. Cavalieri. 2012. Effects of compaction during drilling on yield of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris ). European Journal of Agronomy 39: 44-51.
4. Behaeen, M. A., G. R. Ashraf Mansouri, and F. Hamdi. 2012. Effect of different tillage methods in monogerm seedbed preparation on yield and quality of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet 28: 123-135. (In Persian).
5. Bengough, G., B. M. Mckenzie, P. D. Hallett, and T. A. Valentine. 2011. Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: a review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. Journal of Experimental Botany 62 (1): 59-68.
6. Bloch, D., C. M. Hoffmann, and B. Märländer. 2006. Impact of water supply on growth, photosynthesis, water use and carbon isotope discrimination of sugar beet in relation to genotypic variability. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 218-225.
7. Brereton, J. C., M. McGowan, and T. C. K. Dawkins. 1986. The relative sensitivity of spring barley, spring field beans, and sugar beet crops to soil compaction. Field Crop Research 13: 223-237.
8. Campbell, L. G., and K. K. Fugate. 2015. Relationships among impurity components, sucrose, and sugar beet processing qulity. Journal of Sugar beet Research 52: 2-21.
9. Clover, G. R. G., K. W. Jaggard, H. G. Smith, and S. N. Azam-Ali. 2001. The use of radiation interception and transpiration to predict the yield of healthy, droughted and virus-infected sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science 136 (02): 169-178.
10. Ebrahimipak, N. A. 2010. Determination of yield response factor (Ky) of sugar beet to deficit irrigation at different growth stages. Journal of Sugar Beet 26 (1): 67-79. (In Persian).
11. Evans, R. G., W. B. Stevens, and W. M. Iversen. 2009. Development of strip tillage on sprinkler irrigated sugar beet. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 26 (1): 59-69.
12. Ghadami Firouzabadi, A., and M. R. Mirzaeai. 2006. Investigation effects of tricle irrigation (Tape) on quantity and quality of sugar beet. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi 71: 6-11. (In Persian).
13. Ghasemi Abdolmaleki, A., G. Sepanloo, and M. A. Bahmanyar. 2015. Investigating the effect of different tillage methods on some physical properties of soil. Journal of Soil Research 29 (3): 309-320. (In Persian).
14. Hungria, M., J. C. Franchini, O. Brandao-Junior, G. Kaschuk, and R. A. Souza. 2009. Soil microbial activity and crop sustainability in a long-term experiment with three soil tillage and two crop-rotation systems. Applied Soil Ecology 42 (3): 288-296.
15. JahadAkbar, M., H. R. Ebrahimian, M. Torabi, and J. Gohari. 2003. Effect of water deficit on sugar beet quality and quantity in Kabotarabad-Esfahan. Journal of Sugar Beet 19: 81-100. (In Persian).
16. Javanmard, A., G. R. Gahramanian, K. Fotouhi, and A. Asadi Danalo. 2014. Evaluation of different tillage methods on soil physical properties and growth characteristics of sugar beet (Beta vaulgaris L.). Research in Crop Ecosystems 3: 83-94. (In Persian).
17. Jouzi, M., and H. Zare Abyaneh. 2015. Water productivity and water use efficiency indexes of sugar beet under different levels of water and nitrogen fertilizer. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation 22 (5): 117-133. (In Persian).
18. Keshavarz afshar, R., A. Nilahyane, C. Chen, H. He, W. B. Stevens, and W. M. Iversen. 2019. Impact of conservation tillage and nitrogen on sugar beet yield and quality. Soil & Tillage Research 191: 216-223.
19. Koch, H. J., J. Dieckmann, A. Buches, and B. Marlander. 2009. Yield decrease in sugar beet caused by reduced tillage and direct drilling. European Journal of Agronomy 30 (2): 101-109.
20. Larney, F. J., and R. A. Fortune. 1986. Recompaction effects of moldboard ploughing and seedbed cultivations on four deep loosened soils. Soil & Tillage Research 8: 77-87.
21. Miller, S. D., and A. G. Dexter. 1983. No-tillage sugar beet production. Sugar beet Research and Extension Reports 21: 124-25.
22. Mirzaei, M. R., and S. Rezvani. 2012. Effects of deficit irrigation levels at four growth stages on yield and quality of sugar beet. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 14: 94-107. (In Persian).
23. Mohamadian, R., M. Younesi Alamouti, A. Nourozi, S. Abbasi, and H. Noushad. 2014. Effects of some seedbed preparation methods on the soil physical properties and sugar beet yield and quality. Seed and Plant Journal 30: 277-295. (In Persian).
24. Nourjou, A., F. Abbasi, A. Jodaei, and M. Baghaei Kia. 2006. The effect of deficit irrigation on the quality and quantity of sugar beet in Miandoab region. Journal of Sugar Beet 22: 53-66. (In Persian).
25. Oweis, T., A. Hachum, and M. Pala. 2004. Water use efficiency of winter- sown chickpea under supplemental irrigation in a Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management 66: 163-179.
26. Rahimian, M. H. 2002. Determining the water requirement of sugar beet by lysimetric method. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization. Journal No. 347/81. (In Persian).
27. Rusu, T. 2005. The influence of minimum tillage systems upon the soil properties, yield and energy efficiency in some arable crops. Journal of Central European Agriculture 6 (3): 287-294.
28. Solhjou, A. A., A. Dehghanian, A. Sepaskhah, and M. Niroman Jahromi. 2006. Effect of subsoiling physical properties and sugar beet yield. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 25: 131-144. (In Persian).
29. Tarkalson, D. D., and B. A. King. 2017. Effects of tillage and irrigation management on sugarbeet Agronomy Journal 109: 2396-2406.
30. Topak, R., S. Suheri, and B. Acar. 2010. Comparison of energy of irrigation regimes in Sugar beet production in a semi-arid region. Energy 35: 5464-5471.
31. Tugrul, K. M., and I. Dursun. 2007. Tillage effect on yield, quality, management and cost of sugar beet. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 38 (2): 38-41.
32. Ucan, K., and C. Gencoglan. 2004. The effect of water deficit on yield and yield components of sugar beet. Turk Journal Agricultural 28: 163-172.
33. Ustun, S., O. Selda, M. K. Fatih, and K. Yasemin. 2014. Evaluation of water use and yield responses of drip-irrigated sugar beet with different irrigation techniques. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 74 (3): 302-310.
34. Van den Putte, A., G. Govers, J. Diels, K. Gillijns, and M. Demuzere. 2010. Assessing the effect of soil tillage on crop growth: a meta-regression analysis on European crop yields under conservation agriculture. European Journal of Agronomy 33: 231-241.
35. Younesi Alamouti, M., and A. Sharifi. 2011. Investigation and determination of power required fuel and some physical properties of soil in several tillage methods. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 2 (1):11-18. (In Persian).