Introduction

JGRC

Journal of Plant Genetics and Crop Research

2641-9467

Open Access Pub

United States

10.14302/issn.2641-9467.jgrc-18-1936

JGRC-18-1936

research-article

Using Different Types of Fertilization for Increasing Sugar Beet Growth under Sandy Soil Conditions.

Zaki

M. S.

1 El-Sarag

Eman I.

2 Maamoun

Howaida A.

1 Mubarak

M. H.

3 *

Plant Production Department -Agronomy unit, Desert Research Center.

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

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

Corresponding Author

Morad

Mokhtar

Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute, Genome Mapping Research, Cairo, Egypt.

M. H. Mubarak, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences – Plant production department (Agronomy breeding branch) - Arish University, Email: mubarakmohamed712@gmail.com

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

22 08 2018

1 1 19 39 05 07 2018 17 08 2018 22 08 2018

2018

Zaki, M. S., et al.

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.

This article is available from http://openaccesspub.org/jgrc/article/823

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 1^st season, respectively, The highest one was 160.6 in the 2^ndalso 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st season at (LAD₂), (LAD₃) and (LAD₄). Ammonium nitrate treatment with phosphorin obtained the highest leaf area duration (LAD) in the 2^nd 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.

Ammonium nitrate Nitrogen Beta vulgaris L Biofertilizer Leaf area duration (LAD) Leaf area index (LAI) Net assimilation rate (NAR) Relative growth rate (RGR) Variety Ymer.

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 1^stseason and 120, 140 and 180 days in 2^nd 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 1^st season, respectively, The highest one was 160.6 in the 2^ndalso 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 1^st season respectively, and was 128.8 with the olive pomace in the 2^nd 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 by16171819.

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	50.48^b	66.29^b	117.1^b	140.5		37.95	47.83	128.8^b	131.5
Urea	69.71^a	81.32^a	166.5^a	164.8		44.24	96.14	149.9^a	248.9
Ammonium nitrate	65.19^ab	72.67^ab	138.1^ab	212.3		58.57	68.13	160.6^a	244.7
Ammonium sulphate	66.76^ab	80.39^a	140.2^ab	176.6		42.84	73.66	139.1^ab	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

= 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 1^st season except at 120 days and insignificant effect in 2^ndseason 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 1^st season, respectively, the highest leaf area index was 195.5 in the 2^nd at 160 days. Whereas, the lowest leaf area index was 113.52 and 131.59 with control application at 160 and 180 days in 1^st season respectively, the lowest 121.5 one in the 2^nd 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 20212223.

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	69.39^ab	113.5^b	131.5^b		38.31	40.37	121.5^b	167.6
Ntrobin	71.55	86.24^a	160.7^a	225.5^a		43.04	76.69	195.5^a	294.2
Phosphorine	62.69	84.03^ab	158.2^a	191.9^ab		49.53	64.86	161.9^ab	209.5
( Ntro + Phosph )	62.13	71.02^ab	129.5^ab	145.2^b		51.64	47.50	125.2^b	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

= 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 1^st season whereas, it were insignificant effect in 2^nd 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 1^st season at 120, 140, 160 and 180 days, respectively, The highest values 238.90 from leaf area index was in 2^ndseason 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	41.87^b	71.91^ab	110.8^b	95.15^b	37.54	71.62	96.39^c	130.6
	Ntrobin	55.41^ab	72.22^ab	172.6^ab	186.2^ab	43.25	75.42	132.4^bc	212.8
	Phosphorine	48.23^ab	93.24^a	164.5^ab	163.9^ab	49.43	73.70	178.4^bc	218.2
	) Ntro + Phosph (	56.45^ab	87.92^ab	112.9^b	116.5^b	38.89	78.42	142.07^bc	312.6
Urea	Control	62.12^ab	68.22^ab	115.1^b	147.3^ab	30.73	70.50	119.0^a-c	157.6
	Ntrobin	87.70^a	97.84^a	224.0^a	306.2^a	39.10	86.14	149.7^bc	270.4
	Phosphorine	68.55^ab	93.83^a	176.0^ab	229.7^ab	44.20	72.20	238.9^a	221.9
	) Ntro + Phosph (	64.47^ab	71.69^ab	151.0^ab	166.2^ab	36.72	78.43	153.1^ab	217.2
Ammonium nitrate	Control	52.45^ab	62.77^ab	120.3^b	132.9^ab	47.87	68.89	117.5^a-c	284.1
	Ntrobin	79.90^a	79.41^ab	134.2^ab	219.6^ab	48.43	75.06	122.1^a-c	310.9
	Phosphorine	66.86^ab	81.10^ab	152.6^ab	185.4^ab	68.50	76.84	120.5^a-c	428.7
	) Ntro + Phosph (	67.85^ab	67.43^ab	145.3^ab	168.3^ab	71.00	88.66	118.6^a-c	201.6
Ammonium sulphate	Control	62.08^ab	60.52^b	111.0^b	129.7^ab	32.25	68.09	118.7^a-c	116.1
	Ntrobin	83.18^a	65.50^ab	112.0^b	190.0^ab	37.85	71.56	140.2^bc	377.4
	Phosphorine	67.11^ab	67.97^ab	139.6^ab	188.7^ab	56.80	73.16	151.2^bc	259.4
	) Ntro + Phosph (	64.41^ab	71.21^ab	105.7^b	150.9^ab	50.80	85.64	132.5^a-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

= 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 1^st season. The maximum value from Crop Growth Rate was 15.41, 17.08 and 5.17 g/day in the 2^nd season from urea treatment. The results generally are in good agreement with those stated by 242526.

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	27.53^b	56.16^b	-33.79^c	-2.98^d	6.32^b	-4.48^b
Urea	33.10^b	93.24^a	13.50^a	15.41^a	17.08^a	5.17^a
Ammonium nitrate	39.16^a	83.41^ab	-26.07^c	12.76^ab	10.76^ab	-2.95^b
Ammonium sulphate	38.37^a	73.05^b	-4.17^b	3.11^c	10.82^ab	-0.46^b
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

= 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	28.72^ab	96.55^a	-33.91^c	11.23^a	7.57	-7.21^c
Ntrobin	39.10^a	99.06^a	-18.44^b	11.26^a	11.65	10.81^a
Phosphorine	35.87^ab	59.82^b	14.18^a	9.23^a	13.07	-8.21^c
( Ntro + Phosph )	30.48^ab	64.44^b	-12.37^b	-3.42^b	12.69	1.88^b
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

= 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	25.51^ab	22.76^b	-60.95^b	-0.75^ab	8.42^ab	-12.97^a-c
	Ntrobin	26.50^ab	97.57^ab	-41.48^b	9.99^ab	12.83^ab	0.06^a-c
	Phosphorine	48.89^ab	111.6^ab	-7.02^b	1.30^ab	10.03^ab	-8.78^a-c
	( Ntro + Phosph )	52.60^a	60.24^ab	-25.71^b	1.91^ab	12.04^ab	3.73^a-c
Urea	Control	19.81^b	51.46^ab	-58.5^b	3.50^ab	3.00^ab	-15.81^a-c
	Ntrobin	41.99^ab	131.1^a	-17.98^b	15.77^a	9.39^ab	16.43^a
	Phosphorine	42.09^ab	107.2^ab	-24.4^ab	20.36^a	32.28^a	10.25^a-c
	( Ntro + Phosph )	36.78^ab	75.02^ab	-3.40^ab	22.00^a	23.67^a	-22.69^bc
Ammonium nitrate	Control	22.56^ab	63.83^ab	-24.72	4.58^ab	0.97^b	-24.92^c
	Ntrobin	24.78^ab	95.96^ab	8.77^ab	11.20^ab	19.58^ab	12.77^ab
	Phosphorine	29.29^ab	94.6^ab	8.84^ab	17.69^a	17.83^ab	5.13^a-c
	( Ntro + Phosph )	33.54^ab	79.25^ab	-9.58	17.57^a	4.67^ab	5.16^abc
Ammonium sulphate	Control	21.63^ab	14.63^b	-44.45	7.95^ab	1.05^ab	6.53^a-c
	Ntrobin	26.87^ab	93.61^ab	79.32^a	25.50^a	4.83^ab	7.42^a-c
	Phosphorine	40.82^ab	73.16^ab	14.76^ab	13.81^a	9.03^ab	20.17^a
	( Ntro + Phosph )	43.10^ab	43.25^ab	4.36^ab	18.81^a	10.39^ab	14.47^a
significance		*	*	**	**	**	**

= not significant

= significant

=high significant)

Data in Table 11 excreted that biofertilization treatments had a significant effect on crop growth rate at the 1^st season and 2^nd season except at (CGR₂) in the 2^nd 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 1^st season at (CGR₁) and (CGR₂). However, and was 11.26 and 10.81 g/day in the 2^nd 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 1^st 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 272829.

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 1^st season. However, the highest value was 32.23 g/day at (CGR₂) from urea with phosphorine treatment in 2^nd 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 1^st 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 1^st season. Similar results were supported by 303132.

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	-0.009^b	-0.053	0.068	-0.009
Urea	0.180	0.234	0.036^a	-0.053	0.090	-0.003
Ammonium nitrate	0.200	0.247	-0.050^b	-0.049	0.075	-0.004
Ammonium sulphate	0.210	0.197	-0.075^b	-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

= 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 3334.

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	-0.066^b	-0.060	0.071	-0.003^b
Ntrobin	0.200	0.253	-0.041^b	-0.034	0.089	-0.010^b
Phosphorine	0.220	0.217	0.033^a	-0.055	0.056	0.091^a
( Ntro + Phosph )	0.180	0.195	-0.024^b	-0.048	0.080	-0.096^b
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

= 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 1^st season. While, in the 2^ndseason 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	-0.08^ab	-0.64	0.78	0.01^ab
	Ntrobin	0.27	0.27	-0.11^b	-0.44	0.14	0.03^ab
	Phosphorine	0.23	0.26	-0.04^ab	0.01	0.78	0.05^ab
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.17	0.16	-0.04^ab	-0.60	0.80	0.14^ab
Urea	Control	0.10	0.11	-0.08^ab	-0.73	0.10	-0.23^b
	Ntrobin	0.22	0.28	-0.07^ab	-0.68	0.96	0.12^a
	Phosphorine	0.24	0.29	-0.04^ab	-0.50	0.87	0.07^ab
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.25	0.23	-0.01^ab	-0.22	0.76	-0.14^ab
Ammonium nitrate	Control	0.12	0.18	-0.05^ab	-0.70	0.10	-0.23^b
	Ntrobin	0.13	0.28	0.01^ab	-0.39	0.65	0.12^a
	Phosphorine	0.17	0.26	-0.02^ab	-0.58	0.79	0.03^ab
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.22	0.25	0.02^ab	-0.31	0.57	0.04^ab
Ammonium sulphate	Control	0.11	0.05	-0.11^b	-0.58	0.49	-0.08^ab
	Ntrobin	0.15	0.26	0.04^ab	-0.27	0.75	0.17^a
	Phosphorine	0.24	0.19	0.19^a	-0.53	0.77	-0.40^ab
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.24	0.13	0.01^ab	-0.74	0.70	0.09^ab
significance		NS	NS	*	NS	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 35363738.

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

= not significant

= significant

=high significant

Net assimilation rate(NAR) was insignificantly affected by biofertilization treatments through both seasons except at (NAR₁) in the 1^st 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 3940.

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	0.25^b	0.09	0.09	-0.05	0.35
Ntrobin	0.41	0.67	-0.04	0.66^a	0.19	0.16	-0.10	0.71
Phosphorine	0.49	0.56	-0.13	0.11^b	0.16	0.16	-0.15	0.82
( Ntro + Phosph )	0.40	0.54	-0.06	0.23^b	-0.08	0.15	-0.11	0.83
significance	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	NS	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 1^stseason. 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 2^ndseason. The highest values from net assimilation rate were 1.34 g/dm.week achieved with ammonium sulphate and (ntrobin + phosphorine) at the 1^stseason. However, the interaction between the ammonium sulphate and ntrobin achieved the highest value 0.24 g/dm.week from net assimilation rate in the 2^nd 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	-0.18^b	0.09^bc	-0.06	0.15	-0.01^ab	0.59
	Ntrobin	0.58	0.67	-0.26^b	0.17^bc	0.15	0.20	-0.21^ab	0.71
	Phosphorine	0.58	0.70	-0.09^b	0.43^abc	0.04	0.24	-0.35^b	0.82
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.37	0.40	-0.12^b	0.90^ab	0.02	0.21	0.10^ab	0.66
Urea	Control	0.23	0.28	-0.06^b	0.04^bc	0.05	-0.01	-0.16^ab	0.18
	Ntrobin	0.46	0.69	-0.12^b	0.16^bc	0.29	0.14	0.22^ab	0.43
	Phosphorine	0.43	0.82	0.04^b	0.32^bc	0.26	0.32	0.18^ab	1.23
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.45	0.65	-0.08^b	0.21^bc	0.39	0.25	-0.22^ab	0.94
Ammonium nitrate	Control	0.29	0.48	-0.05^b	-0.18^c	0.07	0.01	-0.30^ab	0.23
	Ntrobin	0.29	0.72	0.06^b	0.15^bc	0.15	0.27	0.21^ab	1.08
	Phosphorine	0.38	0.77	0.06^b	0.36^bc	0.17	0.17	0.08^ab	0.56
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.47	0.72	-0.15^b	0.35^bc	0.23	0.03	0.07^ab	0.39
Ammonium sulphate	Control	0.24	0.15	-0.25^b	-0.01^bc	-0.89	-0.09	-0.12^ab	0.15
	Ntrobin	0.33	0.87	0.12^b	0.53^abc	0.17	0.06	0.24^a	0.85
	Phosphorine	0.54	0.56	0.63^a	0.13^bc	0.26	0.14	0.02^ab	0.67
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.54	0.38	0.04^b	1.34^a	0.13	0.12	0.19^ab	1.32
significance		NS	NS	*	*	NS	NS	*	NS

= not significant

= significant

=high significant)

Leaf Area Duration (LAD dm<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842115076">2</xref>/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	0.24^b	0.26^b	0.22
Urea	0.05	0.08	0.14	0.11	0.29	0.37^a	0.40^a	0.23
Ammonium nitrate	0.05	0.09	0.11	0.10	0.36	0.35^a	0.39^a	0.30
Ammonium sulphate	0.05	0.07	0.10	0.10	0.31	0.34^a	0.37^ab	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

= 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	0.11^b	0.08	0.09	-0.05	0.35
Ntrobin	0.41	0.67	-0.12	0.25^b	0.19	0.16	-0.10	0.71
Phosphorine	0.49	0.56	-0.04	0.66^a	0.16	0.16	-0.15	0.82
( Ntro + Phosph )	0.40	0.54	-0.13	0.23^b	0.09	0.15	-0.11	0.83
significance	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	NS	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	0.06^cd	0.07^b	0.06^b	0.22^b	0.23	0.24	0.16^d
	Ntrobin	0.05	0.09^a-d	0.13^ab	0.10^ab	0.25^ab	0.26	0.28	0.21^b-d
	Phosphorine	0.05	0.09^a-c	0.12^ab	0.09^ab	0.27^ab	0.24	0.26	0.23^b-d
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.05	0.07^b-d	0.08^b	0.08^b	0.25^ab	0.24	0.29	0.28^b-d
Urea	Control	0.05	0.07^cd	0.09^b	0.08^b	0.22^b	0.32	0.34	0.20^cd
	Ntrobin	0.06	0.11^a	0.19^a	0.15^a	0.31^ab	0.33	0.38	0.24^b-d
	Phosphorine	0.06	0.10^ab	0.15^ab	0.11^ab	0.28^ab	0.43	0.44	0.26^b-d
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.05	0.08^b-d	0.11^ab	0.10^ab	0.28^ab	0.44	0.47	0.23^b-d
Ammonium nitrate	Control	0.04	0.06^cd	0.09^b	0.09^ab	0.28^ab	0.29	0.32	0.22^b-d
	Ntrobin	0.06	0.08^b-d	0.13^ab	0.11^ab	0.31^ab	0.34	0.40	0.34^a-c
	Phosphorine	0.05	0.07^b-d	0.12^ab	0.10^ab	0.44^a	0.40	0.36	0.30^a-d
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.06	0.08^b-d	0.11^b	0.09^ab	0.39^ab	0.39	0.48	0.36^ab
Ammonium sulphate	Control	0.05	0.06^cd	0.09^b	0.08^b	0.22^b	0.27	0.28	0.22^b-d
	Ntrobin	0.06	0.07^b-d	0.12^ab	0.11^ab	0.26^ab	0.29	0.42	0.43^a
	Phosphorine	0.05	0.06^d	0.11^b	0.11^ab	0.36^ab	0.37	0.35	0.26^b-d
	( Ntro + Phosph )	0.05	0.06^cd	0.09^b	0.09^b	0.41^ab	0.44	0.45	0.31^a-c
significance		NS	*	*	*	*	NS	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 2^nd 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 by4142.

Concerning the effect of biofertilization treatments on leaf area duration, it showed an insignificant role at both seasons except in (LAD₄) in the 1^st 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 434445.

With regard to the effect of the interaction between nitrogen forms and biofertilization treatments on leaf area duration (dm²/week) were significant in 1^st season except in (LAD₁). However in the 2^ndseason 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 1^st season at (LAD₂), (LAD₃) and (LAD₄). However, in the 2^nd 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).

Aly

E F A and Soha

A Khalil

Yield, Quality and Stability Evaluation of Some Sugar beet Varieties in Relation to Locations and Sowing dates

2017 J. Plant Production, Mansoura Univ 8 5 611 616

El-Razek

Abd

Ghonema

M A

Performance of some sugar beet varieties as affected by environment and time of harvesting in Egypt

2016

14thInt. Conf. Crop Sci

265 283

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

Fatma

Al Zahra Mohamed

An economic study of food security in Egypt Sugar (Master thesis)

2014 Department of Economics and Agricultural Business Management, College of Agriculture, University of Alexandria

El-Razek

Abd

Response of sugar beet to nitrogen and potassium fertilization under two different locations

2012 Egypt. J. Agric. Res 90 1 155 172

Selim

Al-Jawhara

Al-Owied (2017). Genotypic responses of pearl millet to integrated nutrient management

BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH 14 2 156 169

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

A Richard

Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali Soils

1954 U.S.Department of Agriculture Handbook 60 160

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.

A Cooke

K Scott

1995

The Sugar Beet Crop.Chapman & Hall,2-6 Boundary Row, London SEI 8HN

13.

L Beedle

Growth analysis. In: photosynthesis and production in a changing environment

1993

A Field and Laboratory Manual (eds.D.O.Hall, Chapman and Hall) London

36 46

14.

The SAS system for Windows. Release 6.10. SAS Inst

1994 SAS Institute

Cary, NC

15.

Duncun

B D

Multiple range and multiple

1955

F.test.Biometrics.11:

1 42

16.

Sobhy

Sorour

M Zahran R

Abou-Khardah

Nemeat-Alla

Response of sugar beet to source and application time of nitrogen fertilizer in North Delta

1999

First International Conf. on .Sugar and Integrated Industries Present and Future, Luxor,Egypt

484 497

17.

Kandil

A A

A Badawi

A El-Moursy

M Abdou

Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and bio-fertilization treatment on 1.growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris

2004 L.) Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences) 5 2 227 237

18.

Osman

A M H

Influence of nitrogen and potassium fertilization on yield and quality of two sugar beet varieties

2005 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

Biological and mineral fertilization of sugar beet under weed control. I- Sugar beet productivity

1999

Proc. 1stIntern. Conf. on Sugar and Integrated Industries “Present & Future”15-18thFeb.1999

170 181

Luxor, Egypt, I

21.

EL-Goud

Abo

SMM

Agronomic studies on fodder beet

2000 Ph. D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Mansoura Univ

22.

Kandil

A A

A Badawi

A El-Moursy

Abdou

U M A

Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on.II- Yield, yield components and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.)

2002 J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ 27 11 7257266

23.

Saleh

Moshera G H

2007

24.

Zalat

S S

Effect of some cultural practices on sugar beet

1993 Ph.D. Thesis Fac. of Agric., Zagazig Univ

Egypt

25.

Sultan

M S

Attia

A N

Salama

A M

Sharief

A E

Selim

E H

Biological and mineral fertilization of sugar beet under weed control. I- Sugar beet productivity

1999

Proc. 1stIntern. Conf. on Sugar and Integrated Industries “Present & Future”,15-18thFeb.1999

170 181

Luxor, Egypt, I

26.

Saleh

Moshera G H

2007

27.

Kandil

A A

A Badawi

A El-Moursy

Abdou

U M A

Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on: I- Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.)

2002 J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ 27 11 7247 7255

28.

Zalat

S S

Ibraheim

M F M

El-Maggd

B N Abo

Yield and quality of sugar beet as affected by bio and mineral fertilization

2002 J. Adv. Agric. Res 7 3 613 620

29.

Saleh

Moshera G H

2007

30.

Kandil

A A

A Badawi

A El-Moursy

M Abdou

Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and bio-fertilization treatment on 1.growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris

2004 L.) Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences) 5 2 227 237

31.

EL-Moghazy

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

2008 75 82

El-Arish, Egypt

32.

A El–Hawary

M Soliman

M Abdel-Aziz

El-Shereif

Shadia

A Mohamed

Effect of irrigation water quantity, sources and rates of nitrogen on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet

2013 ISSN 1816-1561.Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences 9 1 58 69

33.

Kandil

A A

A Badawi

A El-Moursy

Abdou

U M A

Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on: I- Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.)

2002 J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ 27 11 7247 7255

34.

Saleh

Moshera G H

2007

35.

T Sahar

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

2000 Ph.D. Thesis, Agron. Dept., Fac. Agric. Alex. Univ Egypt

36.

Allam

S A H

H Mohamed

S EL-Sayed

Osman

A M H

Effect of sowing dates, nitrogen fertilization and raw space on yield and quality of sugar beet crop. Annals Fac

2005 Agric. Sci., Moshtohr 43 1 11 24

37.

Saleh

Moshera G H

2007

38.

A El–Hawary

M Soliman

M Abdel-Aziz

El-Shereif

Shadia

A Mohamed

Effect of irrigation water quantity, sources and rates of nitrogen on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet.ISSN 1816-1561.Research

2013 Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences 9 1 58 69

39.

Kandil

A A

A Badawi

A El-Moursy

Abdou

U M A

Effect of planting dates, nitrogen levels and biofertilization treatments on: I- Growth attributes of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris,L.)

2002 J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ 27 11 7247 7255

40.

Saleh

Moshera G H

2007

41.

T Sahar

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

2000 Ph.D. Thesis, Agron. Dept., Fac. Agric. Alex. Univ Egypt

42.

El-Sheref

A E M

Studied on yield and quality of sugar beet crop

2007 M. Sc.Thesis, Fac. Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ

43.

M Salama

Biological and mineral fertilization of sugar beet under weed control. I- Sugar beet productivity

1999

Proc. 1stIntern. Conf. on Sugar and Integrated Industries “Present and Future”,15-18thFeb

170 181

Luxor, Egypt, I

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

Maximizing sugar beet yields with decreasing mineral fertilization pollution

2012

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107

4 7 293 298