Characterizing sugarbeet varieties for postharvest storage losses is complicated by environmental effects and genotype × environment interactions

Abstract

. 2007. Characterizing sugarbeet varieties for postharvest storage losses is complicated by environmental effects and genotype × × environment interactions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 87: 121-127. Each year millions of tons of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) roots are stored in large exposed piles prior to processing. During postharvest storage, respiration and invert sugar formation consume sucrose and even a small reduction in these losses would have substantial economic impact. This study investigated the relative importance of hybrid, environment, and hybrid × environment interactions and examined their implications in characterizing hybrids for sucrose loss during storage or developing hybrids with improved storage properties. Glucose, fructose, and extractable sucrose concentrations and respiration rate were measured 30 and 120 d after harvest (DAH) on five hybrids produced in six environments. Environment effects were significant on both dates for all traits except fructose 30 DAH. Significant hybrid × environment interactions were observed for respiration rate 30 and 120 DAH, for extractable sucrose 120 DAH, and for glucose concentration 30 DAH. The only trait with a significant hybrid main effect was extractable sucrose 30 DAH. For the 90 d between measurements, extractable sucrose losses for individual hybrid-environment combinations ranged from 1 to 63% of the sucrose available 30 DAH. It appeared that large environmental impacts and hybrid × environment interactions, compared to the relatively small hybrid influences, would complicate selecting parental lines with all or most of the storage traits desired. Furthermore, a comprehensive evaluation of commercial hybrids or breeding lines for storage traits would require considerable resources. Efforts to understand the impact of production practices and growing season environment on storage properties would probably be more productive than attempting to produce commercial hybrids with improved storage characteristics.

Genotypic differences in storage losses of sugar beet – causes and indirect criteria for selection

“…The environment where beets were grown and the storage period had a much stronger influence on the storage losses than the genotype, as also reported by Wiltshire and Cobb (), Kenter et al. (), and Campbell and Klotz (). But the effect of the genotype on storage losses was higher than the genotype effect on white sugar yield in the official variety testings in Germany (Wolf and Märländer ) and also in Europe (Hoffmann et al.…”

“…Possible causes for genotypic differences in the storability of sugar beet were expected in the activity of carbohydrate metabo-lism, susceptibility to infestation with pathogens, beet mass and soil tare (Mumford and Wyse 1976, Koster et al 1980, Kenter and Hoffmann 2005, Campbell and Klotz 2007, Strausbaugh and Gillen 2009, Kenter and Hoffmann 2009, Schnepel and Hoffmann 2014. In general, storage losses are always related to an infestation with pathogens (Bugbee and Cole 1976, van Swaaij and Huijbregts 2010, Schnepel and Hoffmann 2014.…”

Response of Different Sugar Beet Cultivars to Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates under the Arid Land Conditions

“…According to Kenter et al, (2006), van Swaaij and Huijbregts (2010), in sugar beets geno-typic differences in storage losses exist which are enhanced with increasing storage duration (Kenter and Hoffmann, 2009). Campbell and Klotz (2007) also found a significant genotype effect on storage losses, but it was rather low compared to the effect of the environment (growing site × year) and the inter-action (genotype × environment). The sugar beet genotype significantly affected sugar yield and storage besides root yield (Hoffmann et al ., 2005).…”

“…The results of the interaction of the insignificance effects of the interaction on the six studied traits of sugar beet might been due to the same response of each genotype to the three nitrogen fertilizer rates for the physiological and metabolic traits, which reflected into the non-significance effects for the interaction (Campbell and Klotz, 2007).…”

Biological effects of two Trichoderma harzianum isolates and mint oil on some postharvest fungal pathogens of sugar beet

“…Moreover, the mechanical harvesting and topping constitute entry sites for wound pathogens might cause severe injuries (e.g., bruising, cracks, and root tip breakage) which are unable to readily penetrate intact cell wall barriers of the periderm [7][8][9] might help in postharvest losses. Thus, apparently healthy harvested sugarbeet can display rot symptoms after storage [10,11]. The most commonly fungal species isolated from El-Katatny et al…”