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

Abstract

To improve the storability of sugar beets, this study aimed at determining reasons for genotypic variability in sugar losses and invert sugar accumulation during storage, and at identifying indirect criteria to select for varieties with low storage losses prior to storage. In 2011 and 2012, 18 genotypes, and in 2012 and 2013, six genotypes cultivated at two locations were stored for 8 and 12 weeks at 8°C under controlled conditions. The same 18 genotypes were grown under stress conditions in Spain in 2012/2013. Sugar losses were closely correlated with the invert sugar accumulation after storage. Genotypic differences in storage losses were primarily caused by differences in the level of infestation with microorganisms. The invert sugar accumulation was lower for genotypes with high marc concentration before storage, pointing to a non‐specific resistance. Additionally, the sugar concentration in dry matter before storage, and the invert sugar concentration after cultivation under stress conditions correlated with the invert sugar concentration after storage. These parameters are therefore suggested as criteria to select for improved storability of sugar beet genotypes.

Integrative transcriptomics reveals genotypic impact on sugar beet storability

“…Intriguingly, some studies found a genetic contribution to storage, with van Swaaij and Huijbregts ( 2010 ) describing significant differences in sucrose loss between 12 genotypes and a correlation to initial sucrose content. Similar results by Schnepel and Hoffmann ( 2016 ) found genotypic differences in storage loss that seemed to occur mainly based on a different (genotype-specific) microbial composition. It is also known that pathogen resistant genotypes are equipped with better storability (Strausbaugh et al 2009 ) and that there is a genotype-specific pathogen profile during storage (Liebe and Varrelmann 2016 ).…”

“…In this context, increased resistance to pathogens was shown to be highly and positively correlated with morphological and anatomical differences like an overall root stability, a specific cell wall composition, and a higher marc content (representing insoluble cell wall components) (Hoffmann et al 2018 ; Schnepel and Hoffmann 2016 ). The amount and composition of cell wall material defines its strength and stability to serve as nonspecific resistance to pathogens (Smirnova and Kochetov 2016 ; Hoffmann et al 2018 ).…”

Yield Potential of Sugar Beet – Have We Hit the Ceiling?

“…As the processing campaigns in the sugar factories are currently being extended, varieties are needed which can retain the assimilated sugar during the storage period. Among other factors such as damage during harvest operations, the genotype has an effect on the storability of sugar beet ( Schnepel and Hoffmann, 2016b ). Interestingly, there is evidence that varieties with lower marc content show higher sugar losses and invert sugar accumulation during storage.…”

“…Interestingly, there is evidence that varieties with lower marc content show higher sugar losses and invert sugar accumulation during storage. This seems to be the consequence of a higher susceptibility toward damage during harvest operations and toward the subsequent infestation with mold and rots during storage ( Figure 2 ; Hoffmann and Schnepel, 2016 ; Schnepel and Hoffmann, 2016b ).…”

Mechanical properties and compositional characteristics of beet (Beta vulgaris L.) varieties and their response to nitrogen application

“…It can be assumed that the genotypic differences that have been detected for these traits [3,4] are associated with differences in the strength of the storage root tissue. Mechanical properties of sugar beet have recently been studied by Nedomova et al [5], but only as related to changes during storage.…”