© The Authors, 2025, Published by the Universidad del Zulia*Corresponding author:jorge.pinnacabrejos@gmail.com
Keywords:
Cations
Cultivars
Peru
Salinity
Salt tolerance
Extraction of K
+
, Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
, Na
+
in saline soil by mono or multi-germ sugar beet
Extracción de K
+
, Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
, Na
+
en suelo salino por remolacha azucarera mono o poligermen
Extração de K
+
, Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
, Na
+
em solo salino pela beterraba sacarina mono o poligérmen
Sergio Valdivia Vega
1
Jorge Pinna Cabrejos
1*
Sergio Valdivia Salazar
2
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(1): e244214
ISSN 2477-9407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v42.n1.XIV
Crop production
Associate editor: Dr. Jorge Vilchez-Perozo
University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
1
Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Facultad Ciencias
Agrarias, Escuela Ingeniería Agrónoma, Av. América Sur
3145, Urb. Monserrate, Trujillo, Perú.
2
Agrolab, J.J. Ganoza 166, Urb. California, Trujillo, Perú.
Received: 15-01-2025
Accepted: 06-02-2025
Published: 23-02-2025
Abstract
Approximately 33 % of surface of irrigated valleys in Peruvian
northern coast, has a bad drainage or salinity problem. Sugar beet has
good yields in those soils (90 t.ha
-1
). The objective of present work
was to know if in those soils there is a relationship between soil K,
Ca, Mg, Na, and its extraction by sugar beet, and if they contribute
with crop salinity tolerance. Experiment was made in Chicama
valley, with randomized complete block design, ten treatments:
ve multi-germ cultivars, ve monogerm; six replications. In each
plot ve soil sub-samples were taken, mixed in the eld making
one sample per plot, and available K, Ca, Mg, Na analyzed. Sugar
beet extractions of those elements were evaluated in buried dry
bio mass (roots) and aerial (leaves + crowns). Sugar beet mono or
multi-germ did not absorb more K, Ca, Mg, Na if their quantity
augmented in soil; for that is not an ecient soil “reclamator”.
K and Na contributed to sugar beet salt tolerance, Ca could give
salt tolerance, Mg had any action in salt tolerance. In those soils
where there are large amounts of CaCO
3
, Ca was absorbed with
low or high available Ca soil amounts. Na contributed to salt
tolerance because it was “included”. Mono or multi-germ showed
no dierences “including” nutrients.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(1): e254214 January-March. ISSN 2477-9409.
2-6 |
Resumen
Aproximadamente el 33 % de la supercie de los valles áridos
irrigados en la costa norte peruana, presenta problemas de salinidad
o mal drenaje. La remolacha azucarera tiene buenos rendimientos en
dichos suelos (90 t.ha
-1
). El objetivo de este trabajo fue determinar si
en dichos suelos hay una relación entre K, Ca, Mg, Na, y su absorción
por la remolacha azucarera, y si contribuyen con la tolerancia a la
salinidad. El experimento se instaló en el valle Chicama, diseño
estadístico en bloques completos al azar, diez tratamientos: cinco
cultivares poligermen, cinco monogermen; seis repeticiones. De
cada una de las parcelas se tomaron cinco submuestras de suelo, se
mezclaron en el campo, haciendo una muestra por parcela, donde se
analizó K, Ca, Mg, Na disponibles. La cantidad de dichos elementos
extraídos del suelo por el cultivo, se evaluó con la biomasa seca
subterránea (raíces) y aérea (hojas + coronas). La remolacha (mono
o poligermen) no absorbió más K, Ca, Mg, Na, si su cantidad
aumentaba en el suelo; por lo que no es un eciente “mejorador”
del mismo. K y Na contribuyeron con la tolerancia a la salinidad,
Ca pudo actuar dando tolerancia a la salinidad, Mg no tuvo ningún
papel en la tolerancia. En dichos suelos donde hay altos contenidos
de CaCO
3
se absorbió el Ca con contenidos disponibles bajos o altos.
Na contribuyó a la tolerancia a la salinidad porque fue “incluido”.
Mono o poligermen no muestran diferencias “incluyendo” nutrientes.
Palabras clave: cationes, cultivares, Perú, salinidad, tolerancia a las
sales
Resumo
Aproximadamente 33 % de superfície dos vales áridos irrigados
na costa norte do Peru apresenta problemas de salinidade ou má
drenagem. A beterraba sacarina tem bons rendimentos nesses solos
(90 t.ha
-1
). O objetivo deste estudo foi determinar se existe relação
entre K, Ca, Mg, Na e sua absorção pela beterraba sacarina, e se
eles contribuem para a tolerância à salinidade. O experimento foi
instalado no vale Chicama, com o delineamento estatístico em blocos
completos casualizados com dez tratamentos: cinco cultivares de
poligermes, cinco monogermes; seis repetições. Para cada uma das
parcelas se tomaram cinco sub-mostras do solo, fueiro misturadas o
campo, faceando uma mostra por parcela donde foram analisados os
K, Ca, Mg, Na disponíveis. A quantidade desses elementos extraídos
do solo pela cultura foi avaliada com a biomassa seca subterrânea
(raízes) e aérea (folhas + copas). A beterraba (mono o poli germe) não
absorveu mais K, Ca, Mg, Na, se sua quantidade aumentou no solo;
portanto, não é um “melhorador” eciente dele. K, Na contribuiu
para a tolerância à salinidade, Ca pode atuar para dar tolerância à
salinidade e Mg não teve papel na tolerância ao sal. Nesses solos
onde há altos teores de CaCO
3
, o Ca foi absorvido com baixos ou
altos teores disponíveis. Na contribuiu para a tolerância à salinidade
porque foi “incluído”. Mono o poli germe na mostra diferences
“incluindo” nutrimentos.
Palavras-chave: cátions, cultivares, Peru, salinidade, tolerância à
salinidade
Introduction
Salinity and poor drainage soils problems occurred and occur
in 33 % of irrigated arid valleys on coast of Peru (Masson, 1973;
MINAGRI, 2020). Most of these soils, potentially arable are in
marginal areas, have a high to very high concentration of salts: more
than 15 dS.m
-1
(MINAGRI, 2020; Alva et al., 1976). Rehabilitation
of these soils is a national need, but large investments are required
for ecient drainage and reclamation works, which are limited by
the scarce sources of good quality water (MINAGRI, 2020; Alva
et al., 1976). However, an economical solution in recovery of these
soils could be the use of salinity tolerant plants, such as sugar beet
(Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris var. altissima Döll) (Misra et al.,
2020; Tayyab et al., 2023). In Peru, research work has been done with
sugar beet in saline soils in 1980, and it was shown that is a protable
crop which produces 90 t.ha
-1
, develops in soils with high salinity
(around 11.45 dS.m
-1
) that do not allow any other crop economically
(Reynoso et al., 2001); but there is no bibliographic evidence that
the crop absorbs more nutrients from these soils, if they are more
abundant in it.
The amount of K
+
, Na
+
, -NH
2
amino solutes in beet plant contribute
to its high tolerance to frost (Reinsdorf et al., 2013), as well as its
“osmolality” (Loel and Homann, 2015). Betaine in grape, contribute
to tolerance to frost, as well as to salinity in the soil (Kandilli et al.,
2024), as in other crops (Kurepin et al., 2015); betaine is synthesized
and stored in beet (Loel and Homann, 2015). The rst mentioned
authors arm that betaine, as well as the stress produced by drought
or salinity, induce the expression of genes (wcor 410, and wcor 413)
responsible for response to low temperatures; and that tolerance to
stress due to osmosis-tolerance (Kandilli et al., 2024; Kurepin et al.,
2015) produced by dehydration due to salinity, drought, or cold, are
associated with certain “osmolytes”.
Tolerance to drought, frost, salinity in sugar beets is controlled by
the same physiological processes, basically the ones mentioned in last
paragraph (El-Sarag and Moselhy, 2013; Abbasi et al., 2018). In other
species, tolerance to salinity is given by exclusion of chloride and
inclusion of sodium, there is accumulation in aerial part of sodium
and potassium, implies a mechanism of vacuolar compartment
of sodium, which prevents its toxicity in the cytoplasm, where it
inhibits enzymatic reactions. Vacuolar compartment of sodium
occurs in aerial parts, but not in roots. While potassium acts as an
“osmoticum” (osmotic agent) (Hamrouni et al., 2011). Ca contributes
to drought tolerance, improving eciency of mineral nutrition, sugar
metabolism, and redox status (Hosseini et al., 2019), and tolerance
to salinity due to its protection to cellular compounds (Hamrouni et
al., 2011).
Objective of this work was to determine if in saline areas of
irrigated arid valleys of northern Peruvian coast, the greater the
amount of nutrients K, Ca, Mg, Na, in soil, their absorption by sugar
beet increases, and whether these nutrients contribute to tolerance to
salinity and if there are dierences among mono or muti-germ sugar
beet cultivars.
Materials and methods
This experiment was carried out in an arid irrigated valley, in La
Grama eld (7°53’22” S; 79°17’53” W; 20 masl), in Casa Grande,
on the north coast of Peru (Chicama Valley). Arid coast of Peru
is classied as a hyper-arid region (UNESCO, 1977; Galán et al.,
2010), subtropical desert (Tosi, 1960) or subtropical desiccated
desert (Guerrero et al., 2019). Area under study has an annual rainfall
generally less than 25 mm, average temperature of 20.5°C (between
15 and 25°C), relative humidity of 82.5 % (between 74 and 90
%), daily evaporation of 4.6 mm; this climate does not have major
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Valdivia et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(1): e254214
3-6 |
changes over time (SENAMHI, 2020). Soils belong to Entisols order
according to the “Soil Taxonomy” classication (Luzio et al., 1982),
Fluvisols according to FAO (2016).
Experiment was done in a randomized complete block design
with ten treatments: ve cultivars of sugar beet, multi-germ (Maroc,
Marina, Magna, Regina, Tribel), ve mono-germ (Mono Hy6, Mono
3190, Mono HyD2, HH 30 Hybrid, Mono 4006); six replications
for each cultivar, in accordance with the methodology published
by Reynoso et al. (2001). Plots were 1.6 m wide (four rows), 20 m
long (32 m²). Only the two central furrows (16 m²) were evaluated.
Direct sowing was done, furrows irrigation was initially every three
days until the establishment of the crop (20 days), then continuing
with irrigation by gravity (furrows), every 10- or 15-days during
development, and every 20 days until harvest, with a total of 5685
m
3
.ha
-1
(568.5 mm). The sowing was on April 25, 1980, and it was
harvested after 186 days when crop was ripe according to its sucrose
content. No hormones or herbicides were applied (weeds were
controlled manually), no ridging, and 180 kg N.ha
-1
were applied
before the rst month of age, phytosanitary controls were made when
necessary with chemical products (Reynoso et al., 2001). From each
of the plots (60 in total), ve soil sub-samples were taken at three
depths (0-30, 30-60, and 60-90 cm), distributed (each four meters)
along the entire furrow and mixed in the eld, making one sample
per depth and per plot. In these samples, saturation percentage, pH,
electrical conductivity of the saturation extract (CEe), CaCO
3,
organic
matter (OM), total nitrogen (Nt), available N (Na) (sum of the nitric
nitrogen and of the ammonium nitrogen), available phosphorus (Pa)
with the modied Olsen method, available K, Ca, Mg, Na, were
analyzed (Estefan et al., 2013) (table 1).
Table 1. Average results of 60 soil analysis of all experimental
plots, in its average layer of 0 to 60 cm depth.
%
Saturation
pH
Paste
ECe
dS.m
-1
CaCO3
%
OM
%
Nt
%
Na
kg.ha
-1
Pa
kg.ha
-1
50.5 7.9 11.45 4.77 3.07 0.17 81.9 83.6
SOLUBLE CATIONS in mg.100g
-1
AVAILABLE CATIONS in kg.ha
-1
Ca
2+
Mg
2+
K
+
Na
+
Ca
2+
Mg
2+
K
+
Na
+
0.88 3.08 0.62 4.27 22,587 6,657 4,552
6,854
ECe: Electrical Conductivity of saturation extract, OM: Organic Material, Nt: Total-N, Na:
Available-N (estimated), Pa: Available-P (Modied Olsen method).
In order to know the amount of K, Ca, Mg, Na extracted from
the soil by sugar beet, fresh and dry underground (roots) and aerial
(leaves + crowns) biomass was evaluated (Estefan et al., 2013), the
concentration of these elements were expressed in kg.ha
-1
.
Regressions were carried out using the Excel computer program
between the content of K
+
, Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
, Na
+
in the plant (leaves +
crowns, root, and total) and the content of those elements available
in the soil; also soil Ca – plant K, plant Ca-K, plant Ca-Mg, in the
layer average of 0-30, 30-60 cm depth, in the ten cultivars of sugar
beet studied.
Results and discussion
Relationship of K in the plant and K in the soil
There was a tendency to increase K in plant when K in soil
increased in the ten cultivars (table 2), although in six of them no
signicant statistical relationships were found (Marina, Magna,
Regina, Tribel, Mono Hy6, Mono Hy2).
A signicant relationship was found in Maroc cultivar, the higher
the K in soil, concentration in crown + leaves increased (R
2
= 0.66)
and also in total plant (R
2
= 0.76), being a not “strong” relationship, is
not highly signicant. Regression coecient (0.0225) indicates little
increase in extraction of K by plant as its quantity in soil increases.
There was a signicant response in Mono 3190 in total plant (R
2
=
0.77). In this same cultivar there was a highly signicant relationship
(R
2
= 0.96) between K in soil and in root. In HH 30 Hybrid, the
relationship between K of soil and leaves + crowns had R
2
= 0.80.
In Mono 4006, there was a signicant relationship for K in soil and
K in roots (R
2
= 0.81). There was signicant correlation in four of
the ten cultivars, one mono-germ, three multi-germ, showing a little
more tendency in multi than in mono-germ; which would explain the
lack of research work on the increase in the absorption of K by beet,
with its increase in the soil, despite being a very important nutritive
element (Mahapatra et al., 2020) and, for its tolerance to salinity
(Hamrouni, et al., 2011).
Although the tolerance to drought, salinity and frost of beet is
controlled by the same physiological processes that involve K (Loel
and Homann, 2015) which acts as an “osmoticum” (Hamrouni et
al., 2011) an increase of its content in soil, due to increased salinity,
or to any other reason, a little more K will be absorbed, but not much
more, so the crop is not a more ecient soil “improver” of soils
extremely rich in K, meaning in the best of cases an increase of 85.3
kg.ha
-1
of K in the plant by an increase of 1000 kg.ha
-1
in the soil
(regression coecient 0.0853 in Mono 3190), which indicates that
its eect as an osmotic agent (“osmoticum”) is manifested due to the
great absorption of that nutrient (between 295 and 782 kg.ha
-1
: “a”
of the formulas of the regression lines), not requiring more, even if it
is abundant in the soil. On the other hand, more K increases osmotic
pressure of guard cells and for this its turgidity and stomata opens,
photosynthesis increases (act as an “osmoticum”) requiring a limited
quantity of K.
The content in kg.ha
-1
of K was higher in root than in aerial part
(leaves + crowns) in most cultivars, despite that concentration of K in
root ranged between 1.75 and 2.05 %, and in leaves + crowns between
4.83 and 6.06 %; since roots weighed more than leaves + crowns (70
% of the total, roots, 30 % leaves + crowns, although for K the ratio
is 60 - 40 %), except for Mono Hy6, Mono 4006 where the amounts
were similar, and Mono HyD2 (Table 2) where it was higher in leaves
+ crowns. K concentration in aerial part, is inverse in non-saline and
neutral soils, from 3.5 to 6 % (roots) and from 1.3 to 3.0 % (leaves
+ crowns) (Midwest Laboratories, 2020), having higher amounts in
non-saline and calcareous soils in aerial part, ranging between 1.8
and 6.0 with an average of 4.2 % (Dursun et al., 2017) being in the
latter case closer to those of the present experiment, which suggests
that the high concentrations of leaves + crowns is due to calcareous
characteristics of soil; not improving its absorption, because there are
not statistical relationship between quantity of Ca in soil and K in
plant (only Mono HyD2, total plant, signicant) neither between Ca
and K in plant, but improving soil structure, water availability, and
photosynthesis, promoting migration of K from roots to leaves.
It is not clear if there was “exclusion” of K as a mechanism of
tolerance to salinity (it remains in root, and does not move towards
aerial part), or “inclusion” (it moves towards aerial part), as a
contribution to tolerance to salinity as stated by Hamrouni et al.
(2011) for the vine, showing its “osmoticum” in aerial parts. It could
be that “osmoticum” capacity of beets to tolerate salts is manifested
in whole plant, roots or leaves + crowns.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(1): e254214 January-March. ISSN 2477-9409.
4-6 |
Table 2. Regression equations and determination coecients (R
2
values in brackets; n=6) of available elements in soil and its extraction
by sugar beet.
Element Cultivar Root Leaves+crowns Total
K
Maroc 345.2+0.01X (0.57) 238.5+0.01X (0.66) 583.7+0.02X (0.76)
Marina 318.5+0.03X (0.54) 212.1+0.00X (0.03) 530.6+0.03X (0.46)
Magna 318.2+0.02X (0.58) 374.0-0.01X (0.64) 681.4+0.00X (0.04)
Regina 268.6+0.04X 0.36) 155.9+0.02X (0.47) 424.4+0.05X (0.43)
Tribel 366.0+0.01X (0.22) 475.3-0.02X (0.30) 782.5-0.00X (0.00)
Mono Hy6 281.5+0.01X 0.26) 275.8+0.01X (0.45) 557.2+0.02X (0.48)
Mono 3190 165.9+0.06X (0.96) 129.3+0.02X (0.28) 295.2+0.09X (0.77)
Mono HyD2 321.6+0.01X (0.16) 342.3+0.02X (0.18) 664.0+0.03X (0.26)
HH 30 Hybrid 328.4+0.01X (0.29) 173.4+0.01X (0.80) 501.8+0.02X (0.63)
Mono 4006 274.1+0.02X (0.81) 299.4+0.01X (0.10) 573.6+0.03X (0.47)
Ca
Maroc 27.0+9E-05X (0.10) 31.8+0.00X (0.19) 58.8+0.00X (0.20)
Marina 20.2+0.00X (0.24) 16.4+0.00X (0.48) 36.6+0.00X (0.44)
Magna 18.4+0.00X (0.12) 1.94+0.00X (0.48) 15.9+0.00X (0.71)
Regina 24.6+0.00X (0.15) 24.6+0.00X (0.27) 49.1+0.00X (0.42)
Tribel 16.2+0.00X (0.46) 35.8+0.0X (0.18) 49.6+0.00X (0.24)
Mono Hy6 2.0+0.00X (0.66) 42.3+0.00X (0.10) 44.3+0.00X (0.31)
Mono 3190 6.7+0.00X (0.90) 22.5+0.00X (0.48) 29.2+0.00X (0.75)
Mono HyD2 10.3+0.00X (0.68) 40.8+0.00X (0.27) 51.1+0.00X (0.42)
HH 30 Hybrid 18.0+0.00X (0.10) 25.7+0.00X (0.21) 43.6+0.00X (0.17)
Mono 4006 13.8+0.00X (0.15) 13.4+0.00X (0.43) 27.2+0.00X (0.39)
Mg
Maroc 72.0-0.00X (0.20) 52.7+0.00X (0.01) 124.7-0.00X (0.02)
Marina 53.0+0.00X (0.05) 48.5-0.00X (0.08) 101.5-0.00X (0.01)
Magna 86.4-0.00X (0.34) 40.9+0.00X (0.08) 127.0-0.00X (0.07)
Regina 64.6-0.00X (0.05) 19.3+0.00X (0.29) 83.9+0.00X (0.07)
Tribel 82.4-0.00X (0.23) 62.4+0.00X (0.01) 166.6-0.00X (0.06)
Mono Hy6 24.2+0.00X (0.44) 33.3+0.00X (0.33) 57.5+0.01X (0.53)
Mono 3190 59.9-0.00X (0.03) 43.8+0.00X (0.01) 103.6-0.00X (0.03)
Mono HyD2 54.5+0.00X (0.01) 78.4-0.00X (0.03) 132.9-0.00X (0.00)
HH 30 Hybrid 52.9+0.00X (0.06) 25.1+0.0X (0.10) 78.0+0.00X (0.15)
Mono 4006 46.2+0.00X (0.08) 14.5+0.00X (0.36) 60.8+0.00X (0.31)
Na
Maroc 68.5+0.01X (0.20) 280.1+0.02X (0.35) 348.6+0.03X (0.48)
Marina
49.0+0.01X (0.79) 223.4+0.01X (0.19) 272.4+0.02X (0.39)
Magna 97.4+0.00X (0.06) 182.9+0.03X (0.94) 264.7+0.03X (0.93)
Regina 194.0-0.01X (0.08) 279.5-0.00X (0.00) 473.6-0.01X (0.03)
Tribel 58.0+0.01X (0.11) 526.4- 0.01X (0.15) 567.9+0.02X (0.00)
Mono Hy6 59.5+0.00X (0.28) 257.5+0.02X (0.39) 316.9+0.02X (0.41)
Mono 3190 233.5-0.02X (0.39) 371.5-0.02X (0.07) 605.1-0.04X (0.21)
Mono HyD2 61.7+0.00X (0.32) 622.2-0.02X (0.19) 683.9-0.02X (0.14)
HH 30 Hybrid 95.6-0.00X (0.01) 230.0+0.01X (0.11) 325.6+0.01X (0.07)
Mono 4006 46.9+0.01X (0.70) 253.9+0.01X (0.52) 300.8+0.02X (0.70)
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Valdivia et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(1): e254214
5-6 |
Relationship of Ca in the plant and Ca in the soil
As in K, there was a tendency to increase Ca in plant, when Ca
increased in soil (Table 2). In six of the ten cultivars no signicant
statistical relationships were found (Maroc, Marina, Regina, Tribel,
HH 30 Hybrid, and Mono 4006). Regression coecients had lower
slopes than in the case of the previous element, meaning in the best
case (Magna) an increase of 27 kg.ha
-1
of Ca in plant by an increase
of 1000 kg.ha
-1
in soil. A signicant relationship was found in Magna
where there was an increase in Ca in total plant when Ca increased
in soil (R
2
= 0.71). A signicant relationship in Mono Hy6 where
increasing Ca in soil, Ca in roots increased (R
2
= 0.66). A signicant
relationship in Mono 3190, an increase in Ca in total plant when Ca
increased in soil (R
2
= 0.75), and a highly signicant relationship in
roots, when Ca increased in soil (R
2
= 0.90). In Mono HyD2 there
was a signicant relationship between the increase in Ca in roots with
the increase in soil (R
2
= 0.68). Lower extraction of Ca from soil
varied only between 16 and 59 kg.ha
-1
, much less than that extracted
by Hamrouni et al. (2011) found that the accumulation of Ca is not
modied by saline stress, coinciding with the present experiment,
where its content varied very little with its increase in soil, that is,
with salinity, which would demonstrate that this crop is not a more
ecient “improver” of them, than in saline soils with lower calcium
content. Likewise, in soils of the Peruvian coast, where there are high
contents of CaCO
3
, this nutrient is absorbed with low contents of
available Ca or with high, in relatively low quantities, so that they
will not be presented decits of this element, which is very important
for the crop (Hosseini et al., 2019).
There was more Ca in aerial part than in root, except in Marina,
Regina, and HH 30 Hybrid (Table 2), where contents were similar
in root and aerial part. Ca is clearly “included”; however, scientic
literature does not include Ca as an ion that can act to give crops
tolerance to salinity “including” it (Hadi and Karimi, 2012) although
it may be less absorbed if a lot of Na is absorbed by the plant in saline
soils (Haouala et al., 2007) or vice versa (Artyszak et al., 2014). In
this case, its eect of providing tolerance to salinity would not be
due to its “osmoticum”, or to its vacuolar compartment, but to its
protection of cell compounds (Hamrouni et al., 2011), or to its eect
on cell membranes or in transport and selectivity of ions, or in the
improvement of ion exchange (Hadi and Karimi, 2012); or by the
mechanisms that act giving resistance to the plant to drought (Hosseini
et al., 2019); those who would work in the aerial or underground part.
Relationship of Mg in the plant and Mg in the soil
Contrary to K and Ca, Mg did not increase in plant when Mg
increased in soil, and no signicant statistical correlations were found
in all cultivars (Table 2). There was a slight tendency to increase only
in Mono Hy6, Mono 4006. As with K and Ca, in soils with excessive
levels of Mg, there is no eciency as a crop “improver”. There was
not relationship between Ca and Mg in plant (only Regina total
signicant, leaves + crowns highly signicant; Tribel leaves + crowns
signicant) ratifying the relative low quantities of Ca absorbed even
if there are high contents of CaCO
3
. Mg extraction from soil varied
between 57 and 166 kg.ha
-1
, greater than that of Ca, but less than that
of K.
It was observed that the amount of Mg in the aerial part was
similar to that of the root, except in Marina, Regina, HH 30 Hybrid,
where the quantity was higher in the root than in the leaves + crowns.
Mg is not included or excluded, which indicates that it has no role in
tolerance to salts that sugar beet has, or to frost, since it is an element
that is not mentioned in the scientic literature for this purpose
(Reinsdorf et al., 2013), nor probably with drought resistance (El-
Sarag et al., 2013; Abbasi et al., 2018).
Relationship of Na in the plant and Na in the soil
There was a tendency to increase Na in plant when Na in soil
increased in Maroc, Marina, Magna, Mono Hy6, HH 30 Hybrid,
Mono 4006, with slopes similar to those of K (Table 2) ratifying the
importance of soil CaCO
3
improving soil structure and promoting K
and Na absorption. There was no such trend in the rest of cultivars,
where it was maintained or decreased. Signicant statistical
correlations were found only in Marina where the higher Na in soil,
the higher in root (R
2
= 0.79), in Magna highly signicant, when Na
in soil increased also did it in total plant (R
2
= 0.93) and in leaves+
crowns (R
2
= 0.94), and Mono 4006 the greater Na in soil, signicantly
more Na in total plant (R
2
= 0.70), and a greater amount of Na in soil
signicantly more Na in roots (R
2
= 0.70).
Extraction of Na by crop is very high, between 264 and 683
kg.ha
-1
, less than that of K, showing much greater variation than K,
with amounts greater than Mg, similar to those of K. There was no
increase of Na in plant with increase of Na in soil, indicating that
sugar beet did not act as an ecient “improver” of that nutrient, as
what happens with K, Ca, Mg. For greater tolerance to saline soils,
which often have Na in abundance, beet does not need to absorb
this element any more, indicating that although Na contributes to
resistance to salinity, drought, frost (El-Sarag et al., 2013; Abbasi et
al., 2018), its content in plant is independent of whether there is more
or less Na in soil.
Na content was higher in aerial part (leaves + crowns) than in
root in all cultivars (Table 2), despite the fact that roots weighed
considerably more than leaves + crowns (70 % of total roots, 30 %
leaves plus crowns). Its concentration was much higher in crowns +
leaves, where it ranged between 5.77 and 7.80 % than in roots (between
0.45 and 0.70 %). There is more absorption in the aerial part, having
“inclusion” of this element as a mechanism of tolerance to salinity
of soil, that is, it does not remain in root, but moves to aerial part, as
stated by Hamrouni et al. (2011) for the vine. This conrms that Na
is important for tolerance to salinity, drought, and frost (Reinsdorf et
al., 2013; El-Sarag et al., 2013; Abbasi et al., 2018).
Conclusions
Sugar beet, mono or multi-germ, in soils with levels greater than
5000, 25000, 7000, 8000 kg.ha
-1
of K, Ca, Mg, Na, did not absorb more
these elements if their quantity increased in soil, so it was not a more
ecient “improver” of soil, than in saline soils with lower contents
of those elements. K did not show more absorption in aerial part, did
not move to it (“inclusion”) nor did it stay in the root (“exclusion”)
as a mechanism of tolerance to salinity. Ca was “included” although
scientic literature does not include Ca as an ion that can act to give
tolerance to salinity “including” itself. Mg was neither included nor
excluded, indicating that it has no role in salt tolerance of beets. Na
showed more absorption in aerial part, there being no “exclusion”,
it did not remain in root, but moved to aerial part (“inclusion”), as a
mechanism of tolerance to soil salinity. Mono or multi-germ are not
dierent in “inclusion” properties of beet.
Literature cited
Abbasi, Z.; Golabadi, M.; Khayamim, S.; Pessarakli, M. 2018. The response of
drought-tolerance sugar beet to salinity stress under eld and controlled
environmental conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 41, 2660-2672.
https://www.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2018.1497174
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(1): e254214 January-March. ISSN 2477-9409.
6-6 |
Alva, C.A.; van Alphen, J.G.; de la Torre, A.; Manrique, L. 1976. Problemas
de drenaje y salinidad en la costa peruana. Bulletin 16. International
Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, ILRI. Wageningen, The
Netherlands. https://edepot.wur.nl/59708
Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Kucińska, K. 2014. The eect of foliar fertilization
with marine calcite in sugar beet. Plant, Soil and Environment, 60(9),
413-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/451/2014-PSE
Dursun, N.; Gezgin, S.; Özcan, M.M. 2017. The determine of sugar beet nutrition
problems in Konya plain’s soils. Advanced Research in Life Sciences,
1(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1515/arls-2017-0002
El-Sarag, E.I.; Moselhy, S.H. 2013. Response of sugar beet quantity and quality
to nitrogen and potassium fertilization under sandy soils conditions.
Asian Journal of Crop Science, 5, 295-303. https://www.doi.org/10.3923/
ajcs.2013.295.303
Estefan, G.; Sommer, R.; Ryan, J. 2013. Methods of soil, plant, and water
analysis: A manual for the West Asia and North Africa region. Third
Edition, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas,
ICARDA. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/7512
FAO. 2016. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la
Agricultura. Informes sobre Recursos Mundiales de Suelos 106. Roma.
http://www.fao.org/3/i3794es/I3794es.pdf
Galán de M., A.; Linares P., E.; Trujillo V., C.; Villasante B, F. 2010. Termoclima
y humedad en el sur del Perú. Bioclimatología y bioindicadores en el
departamento de Arequipa. Zonas Áridas, 14(1), 71-82. http://www.
lamolina.edu.pe/zonasaridas/ZA14/ZA14_FINAL.pdf
Guerrero P., A.; Rodríguez R., E.; Leiva G., S.; y Pollack V., L. 2019. Zonas
de vida en el proceso de Zonicación Ecológica Económica (ZEE) de
la provincia de Trujillo, región La Libertad, Perú. Arnaldoa, 26(2),
761-792. https://journal.upao.edu.pe/index.php/Arnaldoa/article/
view/1221?articlesBySameAuthorPage=6
Hadi, M.R.; Karimi, N. 2012. The role of calcium in plants’ salt tolerance. Journal
of Plant Nutrition, 35, 2037-2054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2
012.717158
Hamrouni, L.; Hanana, M.; Abdelly, C.; Ghorbel, A. 2011. Exclusion du chlorure
et inclusion du sodium : deux mécanismes concomitants de tolérance
à la salinité chez la vigne sauvage Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris (var.
“Séjnène”). Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 15(3),
387-400. https://popups.uliege.be/1780-4507/index.php?id=7663
Haouala, F.
; Ferjani, H. ; El Hadj, S.B. 2007. Eet de la salinité sur la répartition
des cations (Na
+
, K
+
et Ca
2+
) et du chlore (Cl
-
) dans les parties aériennes
et les racines du ray-grass anglais et du chiendent. Biotechnologie,
Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 11(3), 235-244. https://popups.
uliege.be/1780-4507/index.php?id=878&lang=en
Hosseini, S.A.
; Réthoré, E. ; Pluchon, S. ; Ali, N. ; Billiot, B. ; Yvin, J-C. 2019.
Calcium application enhances drought stress tolerance in sugar beet and
promotes plant biomass and beetroot sucrose. International Journal of
Molecular Sciences, 20(15), 3777. doi:10.3390/ijms20153777
Kandilli, G.G.; Söylemezoğlu, G.; Atak, A. 2024. The eects of glycine
betaine application on frost tolerance in three table grape cultivars.
Acta Horticulturae, 1385, 111-118. https://doi.org/10.17660/
ActaHortic.2024.1385.15
Kurepin, L.V.; Ivanov, A.G.; Zaman, M.; Pharis, R.P.; Allakhverdiev, S.I.;
Hurry, V.; Hüner,N.P.A. 2015. Stress-related hormones and glycine
betaine interplay in protection of photosynthesis under abiotic stress
conditions. Photosynthesis Research, 126 (2-3), 221-235. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/274317412_Stressrelated_hormones_and_
glycinebetaine_interplay_in_protection_of_photosynthesis_under_
abiotic_stress_conditions
Loel, J.; Homann, C.M. 2015. Relevance of osmotic and frost protecting
compounds for the winter hardiness of autumn sown sugar beet. Journal
of Agronomy and Crop Science, 201, 301-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jac.12083
Luzio, W.; Maldonado, F.; Rosales, A.; Scoppa, C.; Van Wamkeke, A. 1982.
Taxonomía de Suelos: Un sistema básico de clasicación para hacer
e interpretar reconocimientos de suelos. Cornell University, Ithaca,
NewYork, USA. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAQ981.pdf
Mahapatra, C.K.; Bhadra, T.; Paul, S.K. 2020. Nutrient management in sugar
beet: a review. Pakistan Sugar Journal, 35 (2), 31-43. http://dx.doi.
org/10.35380/sugar.035.02.0160
Masson, M.L. 1973. Evaluación de la salinidad en el Perú. In Grupo de trabajo
para la evaluación y control de degradación de tierras en zonas áridas
de América Latina. Proyecto Regional FAO/PNUD RLA 70/457. Boletín
Latinoamericano sobre Fomento de Tierras y Aguas, 6: 363-384. https://
edepot.wur.nl/485146
Midwest Laboratories. 2020. Agronomy Handbook. In Ankerman, D; Large, R.
(eds.). Agriculture, 132 p. https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/agronomy-
handbook-soil-and-plant-analysis.html
MINAGRI. 2020. Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego del Perú. Sector Agrario.
Cuencas y Drenajes. Estadísticas. Principales Cultivos en el Perú.
https://www.agrorural.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/PESEM-
AGRICULTURA-2015-2021.pdf
Misra, V.; Mall, A.K.; Pathak, A.D. 2020. Sugar beet: A sustainable crop for saline
environment. In Hasanuzzaman, M. (ed.). Agronomy Crops. Springer.
Singapore. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-15-
0025-1_4#citeas
Reinsdorf, E.; Koch, H.J.; Märländer, B. 2013. Phenotype related dierences
in frost tolerance of winter sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Field Crop
Research, 151, 27-34. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.07.007
Reynoso C., J.; Valdivia V., S.; Larsen C., E.; Pinna C., J. 2001. Comparativo
de cultivares de remolacha azucarera en suelos salinos. Arnaldoa,
8(1),93-100. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/125889#page/99/
mode/1up
SENAMHI. 2020. Clima. Mapa climático nacional. https://www.senamhi.gob.
pe/?&p=mapa-climatico-del-peru
Tayyab, M.; Sanaullah, M.; Wakeel, A. 2023. Sodium substitutes potassium
requirements of sugar beet under saline-sodic conditions. Journal of
Plant Nutrition and Soil Science,
186, 444-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jpln.202200398
Tosi, J. 1960. Zonas de vida natural en el Perú. Lima: Ed. IICA-OEA.
UNESCO. 1977. Un nuevo mapa de la distribución mundial de las regiones áridas.
La Naturaleza y sus Recursos, 13(3),2-3. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
search/N-EXPLORE-831281b9-b939-4603-9573-9221be8c98cc