Journal of Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution
ISSN: Coming Soon
Current Issue
Volume No: 1 Issue No: 1
share this page

Research Article | Open Access
  • Available online freely | Peer Reviewed
  • Using Different Types of Fertilization for Increasing Sugar Beet Growth under Sandy Soil Conditions.

    Zaki, MS 1     Eman I. El-Sarag 2     Howaida A. Maamoun 1     M. H. Mubarak 3 ,      

    1Plant Production Department -Agronomy unit, Desert Research Center.

    2Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences – Plant production department (Agronomy branch) - Arish University.

    3Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences– Plant production department (Agronomy breeding branch) - Arish University.

    Abstract

    Four nitrogen forms and four biofertilizer were application as well as their interactions on growth analysis of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L). The important results could be summarized as follow. Urea treatment achieved maximum increase in Leaf Area Index were 69.71, 81.32 and 166.54 at 120, 140 and 160 day in the 1st season, respectively, The highest one was 160.6 in the 2nd also was ammonium nitrate application at 160 days. Urea treatment inclusion in seeds with ntrobin application resulted the highest values of leaf area index (LAI), crop growth rate (CGR) and leaf area duration (LAD) and in the 1st season. A slight increase was 0.03 g/week in this case was found due to urea treatments as compared with the others treatment at the period from Relative growth rate (RGR3) in the 1st season. Ammonium nitrate treatment achieved the maximum values from Crop Growth Rate was 39.16 g/day in (CGR1), 93.24 and 13.5 g/day in (CGR2) and (CGR3) from urea treatment at the 1st season. The highest net assimilation rate was 0.66 g/dm.week achieved by ntrobin as compared the others treatment whereas, the lowest one 0.11 g.dm /week with the phosphorine application. Ammonium sulphate treatment with (phosphorin + ntrobin) obtained the highest net assimilation rate (NAR) in the 1st season. The highest values from leaf area duration were 0.11, 0.19 and 0.15 dm2/week achieved with urea and ntrobin in the 1st season at (LAD2), (LAD3) and (LAD4). Ammonium nitrate treatment with phosphorin obtained the highest leaf area duration (LAD) in the 2nd season. Generally, it could be recommended that fertilizing sugar beet plants variety Ymer with nitrogen forms inoculated with biofertilizer (ntrobin 600gm/fed) increased the growth of sugar beet plants under sandy soil conditions.

    Received 05 Jul 2018; Accepted 17 Aug 2018; Published 22 Aug 2018;

    Academic Editor:Morad Mokhtar, Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute, Genome Mapping Research, Cairo, Egypt.

    Checked for plagiarism: Yes

    Review by: Single-blind

    Copyright©  2018 Zaki MS, et al.

    License
    Creative Commons License    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

    Competing interests

    The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

    Citation:

    Zaki, MS, Eman I. El-Sarag, Howaida A. Maamoun, M. H. Mubarak (2018) Using Different Types of Fertilization for Increasing Sugar Beet Growth under Sandy Soil Conditions.. Journal of Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution - 1(1):19-39.
    Download as RIS, BibTeX, Text (Include abstract )
    DOIComing Soon

    Introduction

    World sugar production depends upon two main crops sugar cane and sugar beet. The percentage of recovered sugar out of cane and beet amount is about 70% and 30% of total world production of sugar, respectively. Sugar is considering a strategic commodity in many countries over the world. It comes after wheat from the strategic view for many countries in Africa, Europe, America and Australia. Sugar beet crop occupies ranked second in the production of sugar in the world. Egypt suffers from a gap between the consumed and produced sugar which reaches nearly one million ton 1.

    So, Researchers are pressing hard to narrowing the gap between production and consumption through increasing horizontal and vertical expansion. As, it is difficult to increase the horizontal expansion in the old valley, so, that it is promising to try to cultivate this strategic crop in the newly reclaimed lands. These lands are characterized as sandy saline soil and high salinity irrigation water 2.

    Also, the economic way of increasing sugar productivity could be achieved through developing appropriate new technology package for sugar beet crop that includes agronomic management to improve yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) such as nitrogen fertilization, which are the most important factors that affect the quantity and type of crop 3.

    The last three decades showed a gradual increase in sugar beet cultivation in Egypt. This is considered one of the important national targets to minimize the gap between production and consumption of sugar.

    The importance of sugar beet crop to agriculture is not only confined to sugar production, but also to its wide adaptability to grown in poor, saline, alkaline and calcareous soils. The crop is annual planting during the winter season from September till mid- November, and is highly adapted to grow in moderate saline soils especially in newly reclaimed land which has water shortage. There is high potential for using sugar beet to reducing the imported sugar from abroad 4.

    Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) is growing in North Sinai, because it is tolerant to high in the soil and water salinity. Around El Salam Canal (650.000 fed) is promising for the new reclaimed land cultivated with strategic crops such as sugar beet. The demand of sugar beet is showed the gap between production and consumption. Nitrogen in many cases is a limiting factor because few soils contain sufficient nitrogen in an available form. So, nitrogen rate had become an important role for growers to obtained maximum yield and quality 5. Sugar beet growers cultivate sugar beet plants with unsuitable nitrogen levels. Biofertilizer can be generally defined as preparations containing live or latent cells of efficient strains of nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubility and silicate decomposers used for application to soil with the objective of acceleration certain microbial processes to augment the extent of the availability of nutrients in a form which can be easily assimilated by plants 5.

    The aim of this investigation studies the effect of nitrogen fertilization, organic and biofertilizer on growth rate of sugar beet crop under conditions of North Sinai.

    Materials and Methods

    Two field experiments were carried out at the Experimental Farm, Faculty of Environmental Agricultural Sciences (FEAS), EL-Arish, Arish University, North Sinai Governorate during two successive winter seasons of 2014-15 and 2015-16 sugar beet (Beta vulgaris c.v. Ymer). This cultivar was obtained from Sugar Crops Research Institute, Agric., Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt. The experiment included 16 treatments were the combination between four forms of nitrogen (Olive pomace 1.54%N, ammonium nitrate 33.5% N, ammonium sulphate 20.6% N, urea 46.5% N) and four biofertilization treatments (Without, ntrobin 600gm/fed, Phosphorine 300 gm/fed and ntrobin + Phosphorine by rate 1:1). The previous crop was sugar beet and gaur in the first and second seasons, respectively, the experimental design was randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The main plots were devoted to source of nitrogen and biofertilizer treatments in sub-plots. Plot area was 8 m2 (1/500 fed-1) containing 4 rows of 4 m length (50 cm between rows and 25 cm between plants).

    Seeds were sown at rate of 4 kg fed-1 on the fifth October in the first and second seasons. After one month, the plants were thinned to two plants per hill, and then were singled to one plant per hill after 45 days from sowing. Organic fertilization (Olive pomace) treatment was added at a rate of 97.26 kg fed-1 after sowing. The chemical analysis of olive pomace was shown in Table 1. Biofertilization treatments were added for mixing with seeds. Nitrogen in four doses form of ammonium nitrate, urea and ammonium sulphate were added at a rate of 100 kg N fed-1 at 60,75,90,105 days from sowing. All used treatments were shown in Table 2.

    Table 1. Chemical analysis of Olive pomace used in the study adopted from 6.
    Cu g/kg Zn g/kg Mn g/kg Fe g/kg Mg g/kg   Ca g/kg K g/kg P g/kg   N g/kg C/N ratio EC (ds/m) P H (1:10) organic matter g/kg Dry matter %
    0.24 0.40 0.38 1.4 3.8 9.2 7.29 0.58 166 28.2 3.2 6.8 8489 49.6

    Table 2. show the experiment treatments adopted from 7.
       Organic (Olive pomace) Without biofertilizer ( Control )
    (1.54%N) Nitrogin biofertilizer (ntrobin 600gm/fed)
    (97.26 kg N / fed ) Phosphat biofertilizer ( Phosphorine 300gm/ fed)
      Nitrogin biofertilizer + Phosphat biofertilizer by rate 1:1
      Without biofertilizer ( Control )
    Urea (46.5% N) Nitrogin biofertilizer (ntrobin 600gm/ fed )
    (100kg N / fed ) Phosphat biofertilizer ( Phosphorine 300gm/ fed )
      Nitrogin biofertilizer + Phosphat biofertilizerby rate 1:1
      Without biofertilizer ( Control )
    Ammonium nitrate Nitrogin biofertilizer (ntrobin 600gm/ fed )
    (33.5% N) Phosphat biofertilizer ( Phosphorine 300gm/ fed)
    (100kg N / fed) Nitrogin biofertilizer + Phosphat biofertilizer by rate 1:1
      Without biofertilizer ( Control )
    Ammonium sulphate (20.6% N) Nitrogin biofertilizer (ntrobin600gm/ fed )
    (100kg N / fed) Phosphat biofertilizer ( Phosphorine 300gm/ fed)
      Nitrogin biofertilizer + Phosphat biofertilizer by rate 1:1

    Drip irrigation system (4 L/hr) was used. The experiment site was irrigated immediately just after seeding and thereafter, irrigation every 3 days by underground saline water (3500 ppm) pumped from a well from sowing was applied. All The other cultural practices were practiced as recommended for sugar beet. Samples of the experimental soil mixture were taken before sowing of sugar beet for chemical and physical analysis of 8 in Table 3. Chemical analysis of irrigation water is showed in Table 4 and Table 5 for both seasons.

    Table 3. Chemical analyses of the irrigation water in season 2014/2015 adopted from 9.
    pH EC Soluble ions ( mq /l)
    Cations Anions
    d.sm -1 ppm Ca ++ Mg ++ Na + K + Cl - Hco 3 - Co 3 -- So 4 --
    6.6 5.49 3500 17.22 19.17 19.29 .31 37.51 5.21 - 13.27

    Table 4. Chemical analyses of the irrigation water in season 2015/2016 adopted from 10.
    pH EC Soluble ions ( mq /l)
    Cations Anions
    d.sm -1 ppm Ca ++ Mg ++ Na + K + Cl - Hco 3 - Co 3 -- So 4 --
    6.6 5.5 3514 19.21 18.87 14.87 2.14 39.51 2.41 - 13.09

    Table 5. physical and Chemical analyses of the experimental soil during the two seasons adopted from 11.
    Soil properties Season
    2014/2015 2015/2016
    Coarse sand % 60.28 58.26
    Fine sand % 19.66 17.74
    Silt % 11.39 4.361
    Clay % 8.67 9.64
    soil texture Loamy sand
    Organic matter % 0.21 0.22
    Chemical analysis in extraction soila ) Cations ( mq /l)  
    Ca ++ 3.01 3.03
    Mg ++ 2.22 2.20
    Na + 3.82 3.75
    K + 0.45 0.51
    b) Anion ( mq /l)    
    Hco - 2.12 2.11
    Cl - 2.23 2.17
    So 4 -- 3.27 3.33
    CaCO 3 % 1.78 1.79
    EC (ds/m) (1:5) 0.95 0.95
    pH (1:2.5) 8.20 8.15

    Average monthly of some meteorological data for Sinai (El-Arish region) during sugar beet growth duration (October – April) in two growing seasons of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 are shown in Table 6.

    Table 6. Maximum and minimum values of temperature and relative humidity and rain full in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Months 2014/2015 2015/2016
    Temperature ( o C ) * RH (%) Rain mm/day Temperature ( o C ) * RH (%) Rain mm/day
    Max. Min. Mean Max. Min. Mean
    Oct. 28.8 16.6 26.5 85.7 4.4 28.8 16.6 22.7 72 4.4
    Nov. 24.2 12.1 18.15 79.8 12.9 25.7 12.3 19 70 10.6
    Dec. 20.5 8.8 14.65 85.3 20 20.5 8.8 14.65 71 20
    Jan. 18.9 7.6 13.25 72 25.9 19.2 8.5 13.85 70 19
    Feb. 19.5 7.9 13.7 70 13.9 19.9 9.1 14.5 69 2.4
    Mar. 21.5 9.6 15.55 70 15.8 21.3 18.8 20.05 67 3.2
    Apr. 25.5 12 18.75 66 5.1 23.7 13.3 18.1 67 3.8

    Source. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate ARC, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt.
    * RH = Relative humidity

    Random samples of five plants were taken from each sub plot after 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200 days from sowing which reflected the growth stages, i.e. initial, establishment, mid-season, late-season and ripening stages, respectively 12.Plants were separated into roots and tops to determine the following characters.

    Growth Analysis

    The growth analysis, viz. leaf area index (LAI), leaf area duration (LAD) in dm.2/week, relative growth rate (RGR) in g.g.-1d.-1 , crop growth rate (CGR) in g.day-1 and net assimilation rate (NAR) in g.dm-2.week-1 were computed according to 13 as the following formulae:

    Leaf area index (LAI) = leaf area (dm2/plant)/plant ground area (dm2).

    Leaf area duration (LAD) = (LA2 - LA1) * (T2- T1 ). dm.2/week

    Relative growth rate (RGR) = Loge W2 – Loge W1 / (T2 –T1) . g.g/week

    Net assimilation rate (NAR)= (W2- W1) (Loge A1-Loge A2)/ (A2 – A1)(T2-T1). g.dm-2.week

    Crop growth rate (CGR) = (W2 – W1) / (T2- T1 ). g/week

    Where .W1, A1 and W2, A2 refer to dry weight for top or root (g) and leaf area, respectively at time T1 and T2 (day or week).

    Statistical Analysis

    Experimental design was randomized complete block design. Data analyses using SAS 14 .Not statistically significant between the means followed by the same alphabetical letters at the 0.05 level of significance according to 15.

    Results and Discussion

    The main objective of this chapter in the study is to show and explain the obtained results and their responses to the effect of nitrogen fertilizer forms, biofertilization treatments and their interaction in term of growth of sugar beet at different growth stages at 120,140, 160 and 180 days in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 successive seasons.

    Growth Analysis

    Leaf Area Index.

    Leaf Area Index in response to nitrogen forms, biofertilization treatments and their interaction at 120, 140, 160 and 180 days during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons are marked down in Table 7, Table 8.

    Data listed in Table 7 that nitrogen treatments had significant effect on Leaf Area Index in the two seasons except at 180 day in 1st season and 120, 140 and 180 days in 2nd season. Urea treatment achieved maximum increase in Leaf Area Index were 69.71, 81.32 and 166.54 at 120, 140 and 160 day in the 1st season, respectively, The highest one was 160.6 in the 2nd also was ammonium nitrate application at 160 days. Whereas, the lowest leaf area index was 66.29 and 117.11 with olive pomace at 140 and 160 days in 1st season respectively, and was 128.8 with the olive pomace in the 2nd season at 160 day. Such increase in this trait may be returned to the role of nitrogen in increasing number of leaf and blade width per plant. In other words nitrogen fertilizers certainly stimulating growth and increasing leaf area index per plant. These results generally are in good agreement with those stated by16, 17, 18, 19.

    Table 7. Effect of nitrogen forms on Leaf area index after 120, 140, 160 and 180 days from sowing in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
      Treatments Seasons 2014/2015 2015/2016
    Days from sowing (DAS)
    120 140 160 180 120 140 160 180
    Olive pomace  50.48b 66.29b 117.1b 140.5 37.95 47.83 128.8b 131.5
    Urea 69.71a 81.32a 166.5a 164.8 44.24 96.14 149.9a 248.9
    Ammonium nitrate 65.19ab 72.67ab 138.1ab 212.3 58.57 68.13 160.6a 244.7
    Ammonium sulphate 66.76ab 80.39a 140.2ab 176.6 42.84 73.66 139.1ab 248.3
    significance * * * NS NS NS * NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant ).

    Regarding the effect of biofertilization treatments the data in Table 8 cleared that had significant effect of biofertilization treatments on leaf area index in the 1st season except at 120 days and insignificant effect in 2nd season except at 160 days. The results showed that ntrobin application achieved maximum increase in leaf area index was 86.24, 160.7 and 225.5 in 140, 160 and 180 days in the 1st season, respectively, the highest leaf area index was 195.5 in the 2nd at 160 days. Whereas, the lowest leaf area index was 113.52 and 131.59 with control application at 160 and 180 days in 1st season respectively, the lowest 121.5 one in the 2nd season was control treatment applied at 160 days. The increase in leaf area index as a result of biofertilization treatments may be referred to their effect on nitrogen fixation and the uptake of nutrients hence increased sugar beet growth and development. These findings are in fully accordance with results of 20, 21, 22, 23.

    Table 8. Effect of biofertilization on Leaf area index after 120, 140, 160 and 180 days from sowing in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
      Treatments Seasons 2014/2015 2015/2016
    Days from sowing (DAS)
    120 140 160 180 120 140 160 180
    Control 55.80 69.39ab 113.5b 131.5b 38.31 40.37 121.5b 167.6
    Ntrobin 71.55 86.24a 160.7a 225.5a 43.04 76.69 195.5a 294.2
    Phosphorine 62.69 84.03ab 158.2a 191.9ab 49.53 64.86 161.9ab 209.5
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 62.13 71.02ab 129.5ab 145.2b 51.64 47.50 125.2b 260.1
    significance NS * * * NS NS * NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test . where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant &
    ** =high significant ).

    With regard to the effect of the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization treatments on leaf area index were significant in the 1st season whereas, it were insignificant effect in 2nd season except at 160 days. The highest values from leaf area index were 87.70, 97.84, 224.05 and 306.21 achieved with urea treatment and ntrobin in the 1st season at 120, 140, 160 and 180 days, respectively, The highest values 238.90 from leaf area index was in 2nd season were produced with urea and phosphorine interaction at 160 days (table 9).

    Table 9. Effect of interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization on Leaf area index after 120, 140, 160 and 180 days from sowing in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
     Treatments Seasons 2014/2015 2015/2016
    Days from sowing ( DAS)
    120 140 160 180 120 140 160 180
    Olive pomace  Control 41.87b 71.91ab 110.8b 95.15b 37.54 71.62 96.39c 130.6
    Ntrobin 55.41ab 72.22ab 172.6ab 186.2ab 43.25 75.42 132.4bc 212.8
    Phosphorine 48.23ab 93.24a 164.5ab 163.9ab 49.43 73.70 178.4bc 218.2
    ) Ntro + Phosph ( 56.45ab 87.92ab 112.9b 116.5b 38.89 78.42 142.07bc 312.6
    Urea Control 62.12ab 68.22ab 115.1b 147.3ab 30.73 70.50 119.0a-c 157.6
    Ntrobin 87.70a 97.84a 224.0a 306.2a 39.10 86.14 149.7bc 270.4
    Phosphorine 68.55ab 93.83a 176.0ab 229.7ab 44.20 72.20 238.9a 221.9
    ) Ntro + Phosph ( 64.47ab 71.69ab 151.0ab 166.2ab 36.72 78.43 153.1ab 217.2
    Ammonium nitrate   Control 52.45ab 62.77ab 120.3b 132.9ab 47.87 68.89 117.5a-c 284.1
    Ntrobin 79.90a 79.41ab 134.2ab 219.6ab 48.43 75.06 122.1a-c 310.9
    Phosphorine 66.86ab 81.10ab 152.6ab 185.4ab 68.50 76.84 120.5a-c 428.7
    ) Ntro + Phosph ( 67.85ab 67.43ab 145.3ab 168.3ab 71.00 88.66 118.6a-c 201.6
    Ammonium sulphate Control 62.08ab 60.52b 111.0b 129.7ab 32.25 68.09 118.7a-c 116.1
    Ntrobin 83.18a 65.50ab 112.0b 190.0ab 37.85 71.56 140.2bc 377.4
    Phosphorine 67.11ab 67.97ab 139.6ab 188.7ab 56.80 73.16 151.2bc 259.4
    ) Ntro + Phosph ( 64.41ab 71.21ab 105.7b 150.9ab 50.80 85.64 132.5a-c 207.0
    significance * * * * NS NS ** NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant &
    ** =high significant ).

    Crop Growth Rate (CGR) g/day

    Means of crop growth rate (CGR) in g/day in response to nitrogen forms, biofertilization treatments and their interaction at (CGR1), (CGR2) and (CGR3) during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons are marked down in Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12.

    Crop growth rate (g/day) was significantly affected by nitrogen forms in the two seasons only (Table 10). Ammonium nitrate treatment achieved the maximum values from Crop Growth Rate was 39.16 g/day in (CGR1), 93.24 and 13.5 g/day in (CGR2) and (CGR3) from urea treatment at the 1st season. The maximum value from Crop Growth Rate was 15.41, 17.08 and 5.17 g/day in the 2nd season from urea treatment. The results generally are in good agreement with those stated by 24, 25, 26.

    Table 10. Effect of nitrogen forms on crop growth rate (g/day) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    CGR 1 CGR 2 CGR 3 CGR 1 CGR 2 CGR 3
    Olive pomace  27.53b 56.16b -33.79c -2.98d 6.32b -4.48b
    Urea 33.10b 93.24a 13.50a 15.41a 17.08a 5.17a
    Ammonium nitrate 39.16a 83.41ab -26.07c 12.76ab 10.76ab -2.95b
    Ammonium sulphate 38.37a 73.05b -4.17b 3.11c 10.82ab -0.46b
    significance * * ** ** * **

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test.where
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant
    Table 11. Effect of biofertilization on crop growth rate (g/day) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    CGR 1 CGR 2 CGR 3 CGR 1 CGR 2 CGR 3
    Control 28.72ab 96.55a -33.91c 11.23a 7.57 -7.21c
    Ntrobin 39.10a 99.06a -18.44b 11.26a 11.65 10.81a
    Phosphorine 35.87ab 59.82b 14.18a 9.23a 13.07 -8.21c
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 30.48ab 64.44b -12.37b -3.42b 12.69 1.88b
    significance * * * ** NS **

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiplerange test. where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)
    Table 12. Effect the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization on crop growth rate in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    CGR1 CGR2 CGR3 CGR1 CGR2 CGR3
    Olive pomace  Control 25.51ab 22.76b -60.95b -0.75ab 8.42ab -12.97a-c
    Ntrobin 26.50ab 97.57ab -41.48b 9.99ab 12.83ab 0.06a-c
    Phosphorine 48.89ab 111.6ab -7.02b 1.30ab 10.03ab -8.78a-c
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 52.60a 60.24ab -25.71b 1.91ab 12.04ab 3.73a-c
    Urea Control 19.81b 51.46ab -58.5b 3.50ab 3.00ab -15.81a-c
    Ntrobin 41.99ab 131.1a -17.98b 15.77a 9.39ab 16.43a
    Phosphorine 42.09ab 107.2ab -24.4ab 20.36a 32.28a 10.25a-c
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 36.78ab 75.02ab -3.40ab 22.00a 23.67a -22.69bc
    Ammonium nitrate   Control 22.56ab 63.83ab -24.72 4.58ab 0.97b -24.92c
    Ntrobin 24.78ab 95.96ab 8.77ab 11.20ab 19.58ab 12.77ab
    Phosphorine 29.29ab 94.6ab 8.84ab 17.69a 17.83ab 5.13a-c
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 33.54ab 79.25ab -9.58 17.57a 4.67ab 5.16abc
    Ammonium sulphate     Control 21.63ab 14.63b -44.45 7.95ab 1.05ab 6.53a-c
    Ntrobin 26.87ab 93.61ab 79.32a 25.50a 4.83ab 7.42a-c
    Phosphorine 40.82ab 73.16ab 14.76ab 13.81a 9.03ab 20.17a
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 43.10ab 43.25ab 4.36ab 18.81a 10.39ab 14.47a
    significance * * ** ** ** **

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)

    Data in Table 11 excreted that biofertilization treatments had a significant effect on crop growth rate at the 1st season and 2nd season except at (CGR2) in the 2nd season. As seems to appear from data that the ntrobin treatment gave the maximum values were 39.10 and 99.06 g/day in the 1st season at (CGR1) and (CGR2). However, and was 11.26 and 10.81 g/day in the 2nd season at (CGR1) and (CGR3) respectively, in the end of the growth period at (CGR3) the highest value was 14.18 g/day showed with phosphorine treatment in 1st season. Generally, biofertilization treatments exhibited slight improvement in Crop Growth Rate in all planting dates in the two seasons. This effect of biofertilization on enhancing growth of sugar beet plants was expected. These results are in harmony with those supported by 27, 28, 29.

    Concerning to the effect of nitrogen forms and biofertilization treatments interaction on crop growth rate (CGR) g/day, interaction resulted in the highest values of crop growth rate was 131.6 g/day at (CGR2) from urea with ntrobinin 1st season. However, the highest value was 32.23 g/day at (CGR2) from urea with phosphorine treatment in 2nd season.

    Relative Growth Rate (RGR) g/week.

    Data collected display the effect of nitrogen forms, biofertilization treatments and their interaction at (RGR1), (RGR2) and (RGR3) during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons are marked down in Table 13, Table 14.

    It is clearly seen that Relative growth rate (RGR) in g/week rate was insignificantly affected by nitrogen forms and bio fertilization treatments through both

    Concerning to the effect of nitrogen forms in (Table 13), (RGR3) only significant in the 1st season. A slight increase was 0.03 g/week in this case was found due to urea treatments as compared with the others treatment at the period from (RGR3) in the 1st season. Similar results were supported by 30, 31, 32.

    Table 13. Effect of nitrogen forms on relative growth rate (g/week) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    RGR 1 RGR 2 RGR 3 RGR 1 RGR 2 RGR 3
    Olive pomace  0.160 0.161 -0.009b -0.053 0.068 -0.009
    Urea 0.180 0.234 0.036a -0.053 0.090 -0.003
    Ammonium nitrate 0.200 0.247 -0.050b -0.049 0.075 -0.004
    Ammonium sulphate 0.210 0.197 -0.075b -0.041 0.062 -0.007
    significance NS NS * NS NS NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant

    On the whole, there were insignificant differences in biofertilization treatments over planting dates in the two seasons except (RGR3) in both season, the highest value was 0.033, 0.091g/week in (RGR3) at two seasons in (Table 14). These results are in harmony with those supported by 33, 34.

    Table 14. Effect of biofertilization on relative growth rate (g/week) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    RGR 1 RGR 2 RGR 3 RGR 1 RGR 2 RGR 3
    Control 0.150 0.175 -0.066b -0.060 0.071 -0.003b
    Ntrobin 0.200 0.253 -0.041b -0.034 0.089 -0.010b
    Phosphorine 0.220 0.217 0.033a -0.055 0.056 0.091a
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.180 0.195 -0.024b -0.048 0.080 -0.096b
    significance NS NS * NS NS *

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's
    multiple range test. where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)

    With regard to the effect of the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization treatments on relative growth rate (RGR) were insignificant in both season except in (RGR3). The highest values from relative growth rate were 0.19 g/week achieved with ammonium sulphate and phosphorine bio fertilizer in the 1st season. While, in the 2nd season was 0.17 g/week with ammonium sulphate and ntrobin in (Table 15).

    Table 15. Effect the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization on relative growth rate in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    RGR1 RGR2 RGR3 RGR1 RGR2 RGR3
    Olive pomace  Control 0.15 0.08 -0.08ab -0.64 0.78 0.01ab
    Ntrobin 0.27 0.27 -0.11b -0.44 0.14 0.03ab
    Phosphorine 0.23 0.26 -0.04ab 0.01 0.78 0.05ab
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.17 0.16 -0.04ab -0.60 0.80 0.14ab
    Urea Control 0.10 0.11 -0.08ab -0.73 0.10 -0.23b
    Ntrobin 0.22 0.28 -0.07ab -0.68 0.96 0.12a
    Phosphorine 0.24 0.29 -0.04ab -0.50 0.87 0.07ab
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.25 0.23 -0.01ab -0.22 0.76 -0.14ab
    Ammonium nitrate   Control 0.12 0.18 -0.05ab -0.70 0.10 -0.23b
    Ntrobin 0.13 0.28 0.01ab -0.39 0.65 0.12a
    Phosphorine 0.17 0.26 -0.02ab -0.58 0.79 0.03ab
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.22 0.25 0.02ab -0.31 0.57 0.04ab
    Ammonium sulphate     Control 0.11 0.05 -0.11b -0.58 0.49 -0.08ab
    Ntrobin 0.15 0.26 0.04ab -0.27 0.75 0.17a
    Phosphorine 0.24 0.19 0.19a -0.53 0.77 -0.40ab
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.24 0.13 0.01ab -0.74 0.70 0.09ab
    significance NS NS * NS NS **

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)

    Net Assimilation Rate (NAR) (g/dm.week)

    Net assimilation rate (NAR) in response to nitrogen forms, biofertilization treatments and their interaction at (NAR1), (NAR2), (NAR3) and (NAR4) during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons are marked down in (Table 16). The Net Assimilation Rate(NAR) was insignificantly affected by nitrogen forms in both seasons in (Table 16). These results are in stand with those confirmed by 35, 36, 37, 38.

    Table 16. Effect of nitrogen forms on net assimilation rate in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    NAR 1 NAR 2 NAR 3 NAR 4 NAR 1 NAR 2 NAR 3 NAR 4
    Olive pomace  0.36 0.48 -0.04 0.17 -0.08 0.08 -0.12 0.56
    Urea 0.47 0.61 -0.16 0.40 0.25 0.20 0.04 0.69
    Ammonium nitrate 0.39 0.67 -0.02 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.70
    Ammonium sulphate 0.41 0.49 -0.13 0.50 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.75
    significance NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant

    Net assimilation rate(NAR) was insignificantly affected by biofertilization treatments through both seasons except at (NAR1) in the 1st season (Table 17). The highest net assimilation rate was 0.66 g/dm.week achieved by ntrobin as compared the others treatment whereas, the lowest one 0.11 g.dm /week with the phosphorine application. This may be due to the role of nitrogen in fixing more nitrogen and producing some growth substances that encourage plant growth and dry matter accumulation. These results are in harmony with those supported by 39, 40.

    Table 17. Effect of biofertilization on net assimilation rate (NAR) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    NAR 1 NAR 2 NAR 3 NAR 4 NAR 1 NAR 2 NAR 3 NAR 4
    Control 0.33 0.47 -0.12 0.25b 0.09 0.09 -0.05 0.35
    Ntrobin 0.41 0.67 -0.04 0.66a 0.19 0.16 -0.10 0.71
    Phosphorine 0.49 0.56 -0.13 0.11b 0.16 0.16 -0.15 0.82
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.40 0.54 -0.06 0.23b -0.08 0.15 -0.11 0.83
    significance NS NS NS * NS NS NS NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)

    With regard to the effect of the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization treatments on net assimilation ratewere significant in (NAR3) in both seasons and (NAR4) in the 1st season. However, the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization treatments on net assimilation rate were insignificant (NAR1) and (NAR2) in both seasons and (NAR4) in the 2nd season. The highest values from net assimilation rate were 1.34 g/dm.week achieved with ammonium sulphate and (ntrobin + phosphorine) at the 1st season. However, the interaction between the ammonium sulphate and ntrobin achieved the highest value 0.24 g/dm.week from net assimilation rate in the 2nd season (Table 18).

    Table 18. Effect of interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization on net assimilation rate in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    NAR 1 NAR 2 NAR 3 NAR 4 NAR 1 NAR 2 NAR 3 NAR 4
    Olive pomace  Control 0.33 0.16 -0.18b 0.09bc -0.06 0.15 -0.01ab 0.59
    Ntrobin 0.58 0.67 -0.26b 0.17bc 0.15 0.20 -0.21ab 0.71
    Phosphorine 0.58 0.70 -0.09b 0.43abc 0.04 0.24 -0.35b 0.82
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.37 0.40 -0.12b 0.90ab 0.02 0.21 0.10ab 0.66
    Urea Control 0.23 0.28 -0.06b 0.04bc 0.05 -0.01 -0.16ab 0.18
    Ntrobin 0.46 0.69 -0.12b 0.16bc 0.29 0.14 0.22ab 0.43
    Phosphorine 0.43 0.82 0.04b 0.32bc 0.26 0.32 0.18ab 1.23
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.45 0.65 -0.08b 0.21bc 0.39 0.25 -0.22ab 0.94
    Ammonium nitrate   Control 0.29 0.48 -0.05b -0.18c 0.07 0.01 -0.30ab 0.23
    Ntrobin 0.29 0.72 0.06b 0.15bc 0.15 0.27 0.21ab 1.08
    Phosphorine 0.38 0.77 0.06b 0.36bc 0.17 0.17 0.08ab 0.56
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.47 0.72 -0.15b 0.35bc 0.23 0.03 0.07ab 0.39
    Ammonium sulphate     Control 0.24 0.15 -0.25b -0.01bc -0.89 -0.09 -0.12ab 0.15
    Ntrobin 0.33 0.87 0.12b 0.53abc 0.17 0.06 0.24a 0.85
    Phosphorine 0.54 0.56 0.63a 0.13bc 0.26 0.14 0.02ab 0.67
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.54 0.38 0.04b 1.34a 0.13 0.12 0.19ab 1.32
    significance NS NS * * NS NS * NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)

    Leaf Area Duration (LAD dm2/week)

    Data in Table 19, Table 20 and Table 21 display the effect of nitrogen forms, biofertilization treatments and their interaction in (LAD1), (LAD2), (LAD3) and (LAD4) during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 on Leaf Area Duration.

    Table 19. Effect of nitrogen forms on leaf area duration (dm2/week) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    LAD 1 LAD 2 LAD 3 LAD 4 LAD 1 LAD 2 LAD 3 LAD 4
    Olive pomace  0.04 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.29 0.24b 0.26b 0.22
    Urea 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.11 0.29 0.37a 0.40a 0.23
    Ammonium nitrate 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.36 0.35a 0.39a 0.30
    Ammonium sulphate 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.31 0.34a 0.37ab 0.30
    significance NS NS NS NS NS * * NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test. where
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant
    Table 20. Effect of and biofertilization on leaf area duration (dm2/week) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    LAD 1 LAD 2 LAD 3 LAD 4 LAD 1 LAD 2 LAD 3 LAD 4
    Control 0.33 0.47 -0.06 0.11b 0.08 0.09 -0.05 0.35
    Ntrobin 0.41 0.67 -0.12 0.25b 0.19 0.16 -0.10 0.71
    Phosphorine 0.49 0.56 -0.04 0.66a 0.16 0.16 -0.15 0.82
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.40 0.54 -0.13 0.23b 0.09 0.15 -0.11 0.83
    significance NS NS NS * NS NS NS NS

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test .where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)
    Table 21. Effect the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization on leaf area duration (dm2/week) in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
    Treatments 2014/2015 2015/2016
    LAD1 LAD2 LAD3 LAD4 LAD1 LAD2 LAD3 LAD4
    Olive pomace  Control 0.04 0.06cd 0.07b 0.06b 0.22b 0.23 0.24 0.16d
    Ntrobin 0.05 0.09a-d 0.13ab 0.10ab 0.25ab 0.26 0.28 0.21b-d
    Phosphorine 0.05 0.09a-c 0.12ab 0.09ab 0.27ab 0.24 0.26 0.23b-d
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.05 0.07b-d 0.08b 0.08b 0.25ab 0.24 0.29 0.28b-d
    Urea Control 0.05 0.07cd 0.09b 0.08b 0.22b 0.32 0.34 0.20cd
    Ntrobin 0.06 0.11a 0.19a 0.15a 0.31ab 0.33 0.38 0.24b-d
    Phosphorine 0.06 0.10ab 0.15ab 0.11ab 0.28ab 0.43 0.44 0.26b-d
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.05 0.08b-d 0.11ab 0.10ab 0.28ab 0.44 0.47 0.23b-d
    Ammonium nitrate   Control 0.04 0.06cd 0.09b 0.09ab 0.28ab 0.29 0.32 0.22b-d
    Ntrobin 0.06 0.08b-d 0.13ab 0.11ab 0.31ab 0.34 0.40 0.34a-c
    Phosphorine 0.05 0.07b-d 0.12ab 0.10ab 0.44a 0.40 0.36 0.30a-d
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.06 0.08b-d 0.11b 0.09ab 0.39ab 0.39 0.48 0.36ab
    Ammonium sulphate     Control 0.05 0.06cd 0.09b 0.08b 0.22b 0.27 0.28 0.22b-d
    Ntrobin 0.06 0.07b-d 0.12ab 0.11ab 0.26ab 0.29 0.42 0.43a
    Phosphorine 0.05 0.06d 0.11b 0.11ab 0.36ab 0.37 0.35 0.26b-d
    ( Ntro + Phosph ) 0.05 0.06cd 0.09b 0.09b 0.41ab 0.44 0.45 0.31a-c
    significance NS * * * * NS NS **

    Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability according to Duncan's multiple range test.where (Ntro + Phosph = Ntrobin + Phosphorine
    NS = not significant
    * = significant
    ** =high significant)

    The leaf area duration was insignificantly affected by nitrogen forms treatments through both seasons except in (LAD2), (LAD3) in the 2nd season. The highest leaf area duration was 0.37 and 0.40 dm2/week achieved due to urea as compared with the others treatment. However the lowest one was 0.24 and 0.26 dm2/week with the olive pomace treatment. Similar results were supported by41, 42.

    Concerning the effect of biofertilization treatments on leaf area duration, it showed an insignificant role at both seasons except in (LAD4) in the 1st season. The highest leaf area duration was 0.66dm2/week achieved with phosphorine treatment compared with the others treatment. However, the lowest one was 0.11 dm2/week with the control treatment (Table 20). These results are in stand with those confirmed by 43, 44, 45.

    With regard to the effect of the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization treatments on leaf area duration (dm2/week) were significant in 1st season except in (LAD1). However in the 2nd season were insignificant except in (LAD1) and (LAD4).The highest values from leaf area duration were 0.11, 0.19 and 0.15 dm2/week achieved with urea and ntrobin in the 1st season at (LAD2), (LAD3) and (LAD4). However, in the 2nd season the interaction between the ammonium sulphate and ntrobin achieved the highest value was 0.43 dm2/week from (LAD4), the interaction between the Ammonium Nitrateand Phosphorine achieved the highest value was 0.44 dm2/week from (LAD1) in (Table 21).

     

    References

    1.Aly E F A and Soha, R A Khalil. (2017) Yield, Quality and Stability Evaluation of Some Sugar beet Varieties in Relation to Locations and Sowing dates. , J. Plant Production, Mansoura Univ 8(5), 611-616.
    2.El-Razek Abd, AM, Ghonema M A. (2016) Performance of some sugar beet varieties as affected by environment and time of harvesting in Egypt. 14thInt. Conf. Crop Sci 265-283.
    3.Zaki M S, Eman I El-Sarag, Howaida A Maamoun, Mubarak M H.Agronomic Performance Sugar Beet (Beta vulgarisL.) in Egypt Using Inorganic, Organic and Biofertilizers.Egypt.J.Agron.Vol. , 40,No.1 ( 89, 103.
    4.Fatma Al Zahra Mohamed. Department of Economics and Agricultural Business Management, College of Agriculture, University of Alexandria (2014) An economic study of food security in Egypt Sugar (Master thesis).
    5.El-Razek Abd, M A. (2012) Response of sugar beet to nitrogen and potassium fertilization under two different locations. , Egypt. J. Agric. Res 90(1), 155-172.
    6.Selim M, Al-Jawhara A.Al-Owied (2017). Genotypic responses of pearl millet to integrated nutrient management. , BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH 14(2), 156-169.
    7.Zaki M S, Eman I El-Sarag, Howaida A Maamoun, Mubarak M H.Agronomic Performance Sugar Beet (Beta vulgarisL.) in Egypt Using Inorganic, Organic and Biofertilizers.Egypt.J.Agron.Vol. , 40,No.1 ( 89, 103.
    8.L A Richard. (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali Soils. , U.S.Department of Agriculture Handbook 60, 160.
    9.Zaki M S, Eman I El-Sarag, Howaida A Maamoun, Mubarak M H.Agronomic Performance Sugar Beet (Beta vulgarisL.) in Egypt Using Inorganic, Organic and Biofertilizers.Egypt.J.Agron.Vol. , 40,No.1 ( 89, 103.
    10.Zaki M S, Eman I El-Sarag, Howaida A Maamoun, Mubarak M H.Agronomic Performance Sugar Beet (Beta vulgarisL.) in Egypt Using Inorganic, Organic and Biofertilizers.Egypt.J.Agron.Vol. , 40,No.1 ( 89, 103.
    11.Zaki M S, Eman I El-Sarag, Howaida A Maamoun, Mubarak M H.Agronomic Performance Sugar Beet (Beta vulgarisL.) in Egypt Using Inorganic, Organic and Biofertilizers.Egypt.J.Agron.Vol. , 40,No.1 ( 89, 103.
    12.D A Cooke, R K Scott. (1995) . The Sugar Beet Crop.Chapman & Hall,2-6 Boundary Row, London SEI 8HN .
    13.C L Beedle. (1993) Growth analysis. In: photosynthesis and production in a changing environment. A Field and Laboratory Manual (eds.D.O.Hall, Chapman and Hall) London 36-46.
    14.SAS Institute (1994) The SAS system for Windows. Release 6.10. SAS Inst. , Cary, NC
    15.Duncun B D. (1955) Multiple range and multiple. F.test.Biometrics.11: 1-42.
    16.Sobhy Gh, Sorour M Zahran R, Abou-Khardah S, Nemeat-Alla E. (1999) Response of sugar beet to source and application time of nitrogen fertilizer in North Delta. First International Conf. on .Sugar and Integrated Industries Present and Future, Luxor,Egypt 484-497.
    17.Kandil A A, M A Badawi, S A El-Moursy, U M Abdou. (2004) Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and bio-fertilization treatment on 1.growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris. , L.) Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences) 5(2), 227-237.
    18.Osman A M H. (2005) Influence of nitrogen and potassium fertilization on yield and quality of two sugar beet varieties. , Egypt. J. Appl. Sci 19(2), 76-98.
    19.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture / Plant Productionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    20.Sultan M S, Attia A N, Salama A M, Sharief A E, Selim E H. (1999) Biological and mineral fertilization of sugar beet under weed control. I- Sugar beet productivity. Proc. 1stIntern. Conf. on Sugar and Integrated Industries “Present & Future”15-18thFeb.1999 , Luxor, Egypt, I 170-181.
    21.EL-Goud Abo, SMM. (2000) Agronomic studies on fodder beet. , Ph. D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Mansoura Univ
    22.Kandil A A, M A Badawi, S A El-Moursy, Abdou U M A. (2002) Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on.II- Yield, yield components and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.). , J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ 27(11), 7257266.
    23.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture / Plant Productionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    24.Zalat S S. Fac. of Agric., Zagazig Univ (1993) Effect of some cultural practices on sugar beet. Ph.D. Thesis , Egypt
    25.Sultan M S, Attia A N, Salama A M, Sharief A E, Selim E H. (1999) Biological and mineral fertilization of sugar beet under weed control. I- Sugar beet productivity. Proc. 1stIntern. Conf. on Sugar and Integrated Industries “Present & Future”,15-18thFeb.1999 , Luxor, Egypt, I 170-181.
    26.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture / Plant Productionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    27.Kandil A A, M A Badawi, S A El-Moursy, Abdou U M A. (2002) Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on: I- Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.). , J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ 27(11), 7247-7255.
    28.Zalat S S, Ibraheim M F M, El-Maggd B N Abo. (2002) Yield and quality of sugar beet as affected by bio and mineral fertilization. , J. Adv. Agric. Res 7(3), 613-620.
    29.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture / Plant Productionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    30.Kandil A A, M A Badawi, S A El-Moursy, U M Abdou. (2004) Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and bio-fertilization treatment on 1.growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris. , L.) Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences) 5(2), 227-237.
    31.EL-Moghazy. (2008) and chemical constituents of sugar beet as affected by nitrogen forms and rates and boron fertilizer. meeting the challenges of sugar crops & integrated industries in developing countries. , El-Arish, Egypt 75-82.
    32.M A El–Hawary, E M Soliman, I M Abdel-Aziz, El-Shereif M, Shadia A Mohamed. (2013) Effect of irrigation water quantity, sources and rates of nitrogen on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet. , ISSN 1816-1561.Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences 9(1), 58-69.
    33.Kandil A A, M A Badawi, S A El-Moursy, Abdou U M A. (2002) Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on: I- Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.). , J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ 27(11), 7247-7255.
    34.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture / Plant Productionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    35.F T Sahar. (2000) Effect of dates and forms of nitrogen fertilization on yield and quality of sugar beet under surface and spray irrigation methods in newly reclaimed areas. , Egypt, Ph.D. Thesis, Agron. Dept., Fac. Agric. Alex. Univ
    36.Allam S A H, K H Mohamed, G S EL-Sayed, Osman A M H. (2005) Effect of sowing dates, nitrogen fertilization and raw space on yield and quality of sugar beet crop. Annals Fac. , Agric. Sci., Moshtohr 43(1), 11-24.
    37.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture / Plant Productionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    38.M A El–Hawary, E M Soliman, I M Abdel-Aziz, El-Shereif M, Shadia A Mohamed. (2013) Effect of irrigation water quantity, sources and rates of nitrogen on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet.ISSN 1816-1561.Research. , Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences 9(1), 58-69.
    39.Kandil A A, M A Badawi, S A El-Moursy, Abdou U M A. (2002) Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on: I- Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.). , J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ 27(11), 7247-7255.
    40.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture / Plant Productionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    41.F T Sahar. (2000) Effect of dates and forms of nitrogen fertilization on yield and quality of sugar beet under surface and spray irrigation methods in newly reclaimed areas. , Egypt, Ph.D. Thesis, Agron. Dept., Fac. Agric. Alex. Univ
    42.El-Sheref A E M. (2007) Studied on yield and quality of sugar beet crop. , M. Sc.Thesis, Fac. Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ
    43.A M Salama. (1999) Biological and mineral fertilization of sugar beet under weed control. I- Sugar beet productivity. Proc. 1stIntern. Conf. on Sugar and Integrated Industries “Present and Future”,15-18thFeb , Luxor, Egypt, I 170-181.
    44.Saleh Moshera G H. (2007) . Studies on Biofertilization and Nitrogenous Fertilization of Sugar Beet. Agriculture PlantProductionsrv2.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn=PublicDrawThesis&BibID=9389617 .
    45.Seadh S E. (2012) Maximizing sugar beet yields with decreasing mineral fertilization pollution. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107 4(7), 293-298.