تحلیل چندمعیاره اثر محرک‌های آلی رشد بر کاهش خسارت ناشی از تنش خشکی در چغندرقند

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مؤسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.

2 مؤسسه تحقیقات چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.

10.22092/ijsr.2026.370715.807

چکیده

به‌منظور بررسی اولیه توان محرک‌های آلی رشد در کاهش آثار تنش خشکی در چغندرقند (Beta vulgaris L.)، پژوهشی به­صورت پیش‌آزمون در ایستگاه تحقیقاتی کمال‌شهر کرج انجام شد. آزمایش به صورت اسپلیت پلات (کرت‌های خردشده) در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی اجرا شد. عامل اصلی آبیاری در دو سطح (آبیاری نرمال و تنش خشکی) و عامل فرعی تغذیه در چهار سطح (شاهد، اسید آمینه، اسید هیومیک و تیمار تلفیقی) قرار داشت. هر تیمار در هر بلوک با سه تکرار اجرا شد. صفات کمی و کیفی در طول رشد اندازه‌گیری و با تحلیل واریانس و روش تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره تاپسیس همراه با شبیه‌سازی مونت‌کارلو ارزیابی شد تا بتوان مقایسه دقیقی میان تیمارها با در نظر گرفتن چند شاخص عملکردی و کیفی انجام داد. نتایج نشان داد که تنش خشکی، عملکرد و وزن ریشه را کاهش و درصد ماده خشک خمیر ریشه (نسبت وزن خشک خمیر ریشه به وزن تر خمیر ریشه) و قند خالص را افزایش داد. تیمارهای محرک رشد، به‌ویژه اسید هیومیک و تیمار مصرف تلفیقی، عملکرد ریشه را بهبود دادند که نشان‌دهنده توان بالقوه این تیمارها در کاهش آثار منفی کم‌آبی بودند. تحلیل چندمعیاره حاکی از آن بود که در آبیاری نرمال، اسید آمینه و در تنش خشکی، مصرف تلفیقی تیمارها بهترین گزینه بود و در بیش از ۹۵ درصد شبیه‌سازی‌ها رتبه اول را کسب کرد. این نتایج مقدماتی، ظرفیت بالای رویکرد تلفیقی تاپسیس و مونت‌کارلو را به‌عنوان ابزاری کارآمد برای غربالگری تیمارهای مدیریتی و طراحی آزمایش‌های گسترده‌تر در شرایط خشکی نشان داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Multicriteria Analysis of the Effects of Organic Growth Stimulants on Reducing Damage Caused by Drought Stress in Sugar Beet

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Mohammadikia 1
  • Mohammad Passandideh 1
  • Farahnaz Hamdi Holasoo 2
  • Vali-Allah Yousef Abadi 2
1 Soil and Water Research Institute(SWRI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
2 Sugar Beet Seed Institute(SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives: Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) is one of the most important sugar-producing crops in arid and semi-arid regions, where water scarcity is a major limiting factor for yield and quality. Drought stress often reduces root growth and sugar yield, necessitating the development of sustainable management strategies to enhance drought tolerance. In recent years, organic growth stimulants such as amino acids and humic substances have attracted increasing attention due to their environmentally friendly nature and potential to improve plant performance under abiotic stresses. These stimulants not only promote physiological and biochemical processes in plants but also enhance soil health and nutrient availability, contributing to overall crop resilience. The objective of this pilot study was to preliminarily assess the effectiveness of different organic growth stimulants in alleviating drought stress effects on sugar beet and to identify superior treatments using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach. The findings of this research are expected to provide valuable insights for developing practical, eco-friendly strategies to improve sugar beet productivity under water-limited conditions.
 

 



Materials and Methods: This study was conducted at the Kamalshahr Research Station, Karaj, Iran, using a split-plot arrangement within a randomized complete block design. Two irrigation regimes, including normal irrigation and drought stress, were assigned to main plots, while four nutritional treatments (control, amino acid, humic acid, and combined application of growth stimulants) were allocated to subplots. Several quantitative and qualitative traits related to root yield and sugar quality were measured during the growing season. In addition to conventional analysis of variance, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was employed to rank treatments by simultaneously considering multiple criteria with equal weights. To evaluate the robustness and stability of the rankings, Monte Carlo simulation was applied based on repeated random perturbations of the input data.
 
Results: The results showed that drought stress markedly reduced root yield and root weight, while increasing root dry matter content (dry root pulp weight / fresh root pulp weight) and pure sugar percentage. Growth stimulant treatments generally improved root yield under both irrigation regimes, with humic acid and the combined application showing more pronounced positive effects. Multi-criteria analysis indicated that under normal irrigation conditions, the amino acid treatment achieved the highest closeness to the ideal solution. In contrast, under drought stress conditions, the combined application of growth stimulants was clearly identified as the superior treatment and ranked first in more than 95 % of Monte Carlo simulation runs, demonstrating a high level of ranking stability.
 

 



Conclusion: Although the outcomes of this research are preliminary and derived from a pilot study, the results suggest that organic growth stimulants, particularly the combined application, have considerable potential for mitigating drought stress effects in sugar beet. Moreover, the integration of TOPSIS with Monte Carlo simulation proved to be a powerful and reliable framework for multi-criteria evaluation and early-stage screening of management options. These findings provide a scientific basis for designing more comprehensive field experiments and developing sustainable irrigation and nutritional strategies for sugar beet production under water-limited conditions.

 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Amino acids
  • Humic acid
  • Sensitivity analysis
  • Stability
  • Monte Carlo method

مراجع

  1. Ampong, K., Thilakaranthna, M. S., and Gorim, L. Y. 2022. Understanding the role of humic acids on crop performance and soil health. Frontiers in Agronomy, 4, 848621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.848621.
  2. Anjum, S. A., Xie, X. Y., Wang, L. C., Saleem, M. F., Man, C., and Lei, W. 2014. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6, 2026–2032. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.1674.
  3. 2000. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: AOAC International.
  4. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., and Ignatius, J. 2012. A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 13051–13069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.
  5. Bremner, J. M. 1960. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. Journal of Agricultural Science, 55(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600021579
  6. Bulgari, R., Franzoni, G., and Ferrante, A. 2019. Biostimulants application in horticultural crops under abiotic stress conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 243, 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.08.054.
  7. Calvo, P., Nelson, L., and Kloepper, J. W. 2014. Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant and Soil, 383, 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2131-8.
  8. Canellas, L. P., Olivares, F. L., Aguiar, N. O., Dias, M. C., and Jones, D. L. 2020. Biostimulants: Mechanisms and applications in plant nutrition and growth. Scientia Horticulturae, 270, 109408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109408.
  9. Canellas, L. P., Olivares, F. L., Aguiar, N. O., Jones, D. L., Nebbioso, A., Mazzei, P., and Piccolo, A. 2015. Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Scientia Horticulturae, 196, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.013.
  10. Chen, Q. 2022. Humic acid modulates growth, photosynthesis, hormone and osmolytes system of maize under drought conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 263, 107447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107447.
  11. du Jardin, P. 2015. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Scientia Horticulturae, 196, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.021.
  12. Ebrahimian, E., Bybordi, A., and Seyed Sharifi, R. 2019. Effects of biostimulants on yield and quality of sugar beet under water deficit conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 42, 2263–2275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2019.1659314.
  13. El-Hassanin, A. A., Abdelhamid, M. T., and El-Nemr, M. A. 2016. Influence of humic acid application on growth, yield and water use efficiency of sugar beet under field conditions. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 11, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/IJPSS/2016/26147.
  14. 2013. Manual on the use of atomic absorption spectrophotometry for soil and plant analysis. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2021. FAOSTAT database on harvested area and production of sugar beet. FAO. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.
  16. Gee, G. W., & Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle-size analysis. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis: Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods (2nd ed., pp. 383–411). American Society of Agronomy.
  17. Ghaffari, H., Rahimi, A., and Shirani Rad, A. H. 2022. Effects of drought stress on yield, quality and physiological traits of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 24, 789–802.
  18. Heidari, M., Ghasemi, A., and Sharifi, R. 2017. Effect of amino acid application on yield and quality of sugar beet. Iranian Journal of Agronomy Sciences, 48, 215–227. (In Persian)
  19. Hoffmann, C. M., Huijbregts, T., van Swaaij, N., and Jansen, R. 2020. Impact of drought stress on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 120, 126140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126140.
  20. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications a State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer-Verlag.
  21. 2011. Methods Book: International methods of sugar analysis (7th ed.). International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis.
  22. Kenter, C., Hoffmann, C. M., and Märländer, B. 2019. Effects of weather variables on sugar beet yield and quality parameters. European Journal of Agronomy, 103, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.11.002.
  23. Keskin, B., Akhoundnejad, Y., Dasgan, H. Y., and Gruda, N. S. 2025. Fulvic acid, amino acids, and vermicompost enhanced yield and improved nutrient profile of soilless iceberg lettuce. Plants, 14, 609. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14040609.
  24. Khan, N. A., Nazar, R., and Iqbal, N. 2012. Amino acids as regulators of plant responses to stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 50, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2011.09.010.
  25. Khan, W., Prithiviraj, B., and Smith, D. L. 2021. Biostimulants in crop production: Impacts on yield, quality and physiological responses under stress conditions. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 40, 1234–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-020-10123-7.
  26. Kowalczyk, K., Zielony, T., and Gajewski, M. 2008. Effect of aminoplant and asahi on yield and quality of lettuce grown on rockwool. Vegetable Crops Research Bulletin, 69, 37–45.
  27. Lakhawat, S. S., Sharma, V., Singh, T., Patil, P., Priyadevi, S., and Gutam, S. 2024. Effects of pan evaporation-based drip irrigation levels on performance of guava grown in Udaipur and Rewa regions of India. Journal of Agrometeorology, 26, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.54386/jam.v26i1.2306.
  28. Levitt, J. 1980. Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Vol. 2: Water, radiation, salt, and other stresses. New York: Academic Press.
  29. Lindsay, W. L., and Norvell, W. A. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 42, 421–428. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x.
  30. Loeppert, R. H., and Suarez, D. L. 1996. Carbonate and gypsum. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods (pp. 437–474). Madison: SSSA and ASA.
  31. Mohammadi, A., Habibi, D., Vazan, S., and Mohammadi, S. 2018. Effect of amino acid application on yield and physiological traits of sugar beet under drought stress. Iranian Journal of Agronomy Sciences, 20, 145–158. (In Persian)
  32. Motaghi, S., and Nejad, T. S. 2014. The effect of different levels of humic acid on growth and yield of sugar beet. International Journal of Biosciences, 5, 61–68.
  33. Naderi, R., Schmidhalter, U., and Tavakol, E. 2002. Effects of humic substances on nutrient uptake and growth in sugar beet. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 25, 2291–2303. https://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-120014209.
  34. Nardi, S., Pizzeghello, D., Muscolo, A., and Vianello, A. 2002. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 34, 1527–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00174-8.
  35. Nelson, D. W., and Sommers, L. E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods (pp. 961–1010). Madison: SSSA and ASA.
  36. Olsen, S. R., and Sommers, L. E. 1982. Phosphorus. In A. L. Page et al. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties (pp. 403–430). Madison: ASA and SSSA.
  37. Rahimi, A., Madani, H., and Shirani Rad, A. H. 2019. Yield and quality response of sugar beet to biostimulants under limited irrigation. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 21, 1503–1515.
  38. Rahimi, A., Madani, H., and Shirani Rad, A. H. 2020. Effects of humic substances and biostimulants on growth, yield and quality of sugar beet under field conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 22, 1123–1135.
  39. Rašovský, M., Pulkrábek, J., Urban, J., and Zima, J. 2022. Effects of drought stress on sugar beet yield and technological quality. Sugar Tech, 24, 1123–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-01051-6.
  40. Rhoades, J. D. 1982. Soluble salts. In A. L. Page (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties (pp. 167–179). Madison: ASA and SSSA.
  41. Rose, M. T., Patti, A. F., Little, K. R., Brown, A. L., Jackson, W. R., and Cavagnaro, T. R. 2014. A meta-analysis and review of plant-growth response to humic substances: Practical implications for agriculture. Advances in Agronomy, 124, 37–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800138-7.00002-4.
  42. Rouphael, Y., and Colla, G. 2020. Biostimulants in agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00040.
  43. Sadeghi, H., Khazaei, H. R., and Kafi, M. 2016. Effect of humic substances and amino acids on quantitative and qualitative traits of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 53, 123–137. (In Persian)
  44. Sparkes, D. 2017. Sugar beet. In Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences (2nd ed.). Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/sugar-beet
  45. Sparks, D. L., Page, A. L., Helmke, P. A., and Loeppert, R. H. 1996. Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: Chemical methods. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.
  46. Taha, A. A., Ibrahim, M. A. M., and Abdelkhalek, A. A. 2011. Irrigation scheduling for pea using evaporation pan under drip irrigation at North Nile Delta region. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 2, 203–212.

 

پژوهش های خاک

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 27 خرداد 1405

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار