Abstract
Salinity and drought are two commonly occurring major threats to agricultural yields worldwide, including sugar beet production. Therefore, this work aimed to determine the effectiveness of biochar amendment in improving soil health and alleviating the combined effects induced by salinity and drought on morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of sugar beet plants. Two field studies were established at the experimental farm of Fayoum University, Egypt over two successive winter seasons (2019/2020 and 2020/2021). The experiments were carried out in a split-split plot design with triplicate including three factors: 1) soil salinity, with two levels of ECe (< 4 dS m−1 as control and 10 dS m−1) as main-plot factor; 2) deficit irrigation regimes (I100, I80, and I60) representing 100%, 80%, and 60% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), respectively as sub-plot factor; and 3) biochar amendment with three application levels (B0 as control, B10, and B20) corresponding to 0, 10, and 20 t ha−1, respectively as sub-sub plot factor. Drought and salinity stress induced significant reduction in growth attributes, relative water content, membrane stability, relative chlorophyll content (SPAD), yield and yield components of sugar beet plants. Meanwhile, the contents of sucrose, proline, Na, K, α amino-N were substantially increased with increasing stress severity. The application of biochar amendment improved the soil physical and chemical properties, resulting in better morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of saline-drought stressed sugar beet plants. Biochar at level (B20) produced the highest values of root yield (95.02 t ha−1) and sugar yield (20.24 t ha−1) for full irrigated sugar beet plants in non-saline soil. Moreover, the application of biochar enhanced water productivity for drought and saline stressed sugar beet plants. Biochar amendment could be effectively used as a helpful agro-management strategy in alleviating the detrimental impacts of salinity and water stress on sugar beet plants, improving soil quality and enhancing water productivity to ensure water sustainability and food security, especially in areas of limited water supply.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.,) is recognized as an important industrial crop worldwide, ranking second in sugar production after sugarcane (Subrahmanyeswari and Gantait 2022). In Egypt, sugar beet cultivation accounted for a considerable portion of overall sugar yield, generating 1.42 × 106 tons of sugar, which represented 62.1% of the sum sugar production (Abdelwahab et al. 2022). The juice extracted from sugar beet is particularly rich in sucrose. Moreover, sugar beet provides a variety of value-added byproducts that can be utilized in the manufacturing of eco-friendly chemical compounds and biodegradable polymer materials. These byproducts include biogas, lactic acid and bioethanol (Tomaszewska et al. 2018). The remaining parts of the sugar beet plant, including the tops with or without crowns, can be left in the field as green fertilizer or used for animal feed as ensilage. Furthermore, sugar beet pulp, along with molasses, is extensively used as a livestock feed supplement, as it is processed into high-fiber dietary food additives (Dygas et al. 2023). However, the production of sugar beet faces considerable challenges induced by abiotic stresses like salinity and drought (Shabbir et al. 2022; Yolcu et al. 2022).
Salinity and drought stand as the predominant abiotic stresses that greatly hinder agricultural yields on a global scale (Ma et al. 2020). Under such unfavorable environmental conditions, ensuring the growth and productivity of crops emerges as a primary challenge in modern agriculture. The detrimental impacts of drought and salinity on agriculture are further exacerbated by the scars of water resources, climate changes and rising food demand (Seleiman et al. 2021; Ullah et al. 2021). These factors have emerged as critical limitations of reduced crop productivity and, consequently, food security, intensifying the urgency for the agricultural sector to adopt more efficient water management practices.
Over the past fifty years, land salinization has emerged as a significant constraint in agriculture (Dewi et al. 2022; Hayat et al. 2020). Currently, around 33% of the world's cultivable land experiences salinization, resulting in substantial decreases in agricultural productivity (Devkota et al. 2022). Elevated salt concentrations have adverse impact on the physiological and biochemical functions of plants, which limiting the growth and development of both root and aerial systems (Ran et al. 2021; Shahid et al. 2020). The presence of salts induces two forms of stress in plants, namely osmotic and ionic stress (Khare and Jain 2021). The decrease in water potential due to elevated soil salinity levels leading to a decline in water absorption by plant roots (Gonzáles et al. 2021). Simultaneously, the high accumulation of Na+ and Cl− ions in plant cells leads to toxicity and nutritional imbalances (dos Santos et al. 2022). Water deficit arises when the water demand of a plant cannot be adequately met, whether due to insufficient precipitation or irrigation, leading to disruptions in the plant's optimal functioning (i.e. impaired growth, reduced photosynthesis rate and decreased stomatal conductance (dos Santos et al. 2022). Notably, drought stress causes significant reductions in crop productivity, this may refer to impaired performance of various photosynthesis-related traits (Zhang et al. 2020).
Plants experience osmotic stress as a result of drought and/or salt stress, leading to restricted cell extension and expansion, ultimately hindering plant growth (Zhao et al. 2021). Furthermore, drought and salt stress trigger oxidative stress in plants by stimulating the production reactive oxygen species (ROS) (Kesawat et al. 2023). Under environmental stress, their concentration rises, leading to stomatal closure which in turn minimize water loss (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2021). This increased level of ROS in plant tissues leads to oxidative damage to proteins, membrane lipids and nucleic acids (Juan et al. 2021; Ozturk et al. 2021). According to (Awadalla et al. 2021) sugar beet demonstrates significant tolerance to water stress, displaying slight variations in agronomic traits between well-irrigated and mildly drought-affected plants. Nevertheless, (Mahmoud et al. 2018) revealed a noteworthy rise in the sucrose content of sugar beet when subjected to limited water availability. However, enhancing the water status of the plant leads to improvements in plant growth characteristics, SPAD value, chlorophyll fluorescence and irrigation productivity (Ibrahim et al. 2022; Ma et al. 2020). Interestingly, it is worth to mention that, plants under adverse conditions to regulate their water balance, have developed a range of adaptation mechanisms at various levels, including morphological, anatomical, physiological and biochemical responses (Abdou et al. 2022; Kapoor et al. 2020; Saddhe et al. 2021).
Organic amendments, including compost, biochar, farmyard manure and poultry manure, have been widely utilized as eco-friendly solutions to enhance soil quality and crop productivity (Gaudutis et al. 2023; Su et al. 2022). Certainly, the utilization of organic amendments results in the enhancement of the organic carbon stock, improving the soil cation exchange capacity, which in turn improves the soil nutrient retention capacity, consequently enhances the soil fertility for crop production (Abdou et al. 2023; Rashmi et al. 2023). Moreover, the decomposition of organic materials enhances the release of nutrient elements in the soil (Gerke 2022). Among these organic materials, biochar, as a promising soil amendment, demonstrates high potential in enhancing soil health and fertility. Biochar, a carbon-rich substance acquired through the thermochemical transformation of biomass under conditions of limited oxygen (Saravanan and Kumar 2022). Different types of lignocellulosic materials, including plant residues, animal manure, food waste, sludge, etc. can be converted into biochar through processes such as pyrolysis, hydrothermal carbonization, or gasification (Low and Yee 2021). Typically, biochar exhibits a porous structure, an alkaline pH, and a significant amount of carbon content (Tomczyk et al. 2020). Amending soil with biochar leads to an increase in soil carbon content, reduction in nutrient leaching (Banik et al. 2021; Hossain et al. 2020), improvement in soil fertility, microbial activity, nutrient uptake and plant growth (Alkharabsheh et al. 2021). These positive effects of biochar can be attributed to the enhancement of soil physicochemical properties, such as soil bulk density, soil moisture content, soil pH, cation exchange capacity, electrical conductivity, organic carbon content, nutrient availability and enzyme activity (Ghorbani et al. 2022; Ndede et al. 2022; Singh et al. 2022).
Numerous studies have been done to examine the individual effects of salinity and drought on sugar beet plant growth and yield (Bouras et al. 2021; Ghaffari et al. 2021; Karagöz et al. 2018; Lebrun et al. 2022; Mansuri et al. 2018). However, worldwide, there are limited studies that focused on understanding how sugar beet plants respond to the simultaneous stress of both salinity and drought. Furthermore, the existing information regarding the utilization of biochar amendments to enhance sugar beet plant resilience under the adverse influences of salinity and drought conditions remains insufficient. This research hypothesizes that the biochar-amended soil will exhibit improved physicochemical properties that will enhance the performance of sugar beet plants to withstand combined salinity and drought stress. Therefore, the aims of this investigation were to evaluate the performance of sugar plants to associated detrimental impacts of salinity and drought stresses and determine the potential of biochar amendment in mitigating the salinity-drought negative impacts on the morpho- biochemical and physiological responses of sugar beet plants.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Field conditions
2.1.1 Climate
This field study was established at the experimental station of the Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Egypt, situated at latitude 29◦29_N and longitude 30◦91_E. Based on (Table 1), the climate conditions at the experimental site can be described as arid, with hot summers and limited or no rainfall in winter. During the sugar beet growing season (October—April), the highest temperature of 33.0 ◦C was recorded in October 2020, while the lowest temperature of 8.3 ◦C was recorded in February 2021. The evaporation values measured by Pan evaporation corresponded to the variations in air temperature. The maximum evaporation values, 4.8 and 5.2 mm per day, were noted for October and April, respectively. Conversely, the lowest values of 1.45 and 1.55 mm per day were registered in December and January, respectively. The monthly weather data for two seasons were provided by from the Fayoum meteorological station, Egypt.
2.1.2 Soil properties
This field-study was carried out in newly reclaimed soils, which had a sandy loam texture. The selected soils of experimental site were divided into two categories based on their salinity levels: non-saline soil with an electrical conductivity (ECe) of less than 4 dS m−1, and saline soil with an ECe of 10.30 dS m−1. The physical properties of the soil were measured according to (Klute and Dirksen 1986) method, and presented in (Table 2). The average values of soil bulk density (1.56 Mg m−3) and hydraulic conductivity (2.39 cm h−1) were observed in the non-saline soil (soil depth of 0–60 cm), meanwhile, in the saline soil, the corresponding values were 1.57 Mg m−3 and 2.46 cm h−1. The available water content at the same soil depth of 0–60 cm, averaged 11.02 and 10.60% in the non-saline and saline soils, respectively. Soil chemical analysis, was done following the method described by (Page 1982). In the non-saline soil (0–60 cm soil depth) the average values of soil pH (1:2.5 soil–water extracts) of 7.52, the content of organic matter (O.M) of 0.78%, cation exchangeable capacity (CEC) of 10.03 (cmole kg-1), and CaCO3 content of 6.63%. However, in the saline soil, the corresponding main values of these parameters: soil pH, O.M, CEC, and CaCO3 were 7.52, 0.67%, 9.71 (cmole kg−1), and 7.21% respectively, at the same soil depth of 0–60 cm.
2.2 Treatments
The experimental setup followed a split-split plot design within randomized complete blocks with three factors considered: soil salinity levels, deficit irrigation treatments and application rates of biochar amendment. Each treatment combination had three replicates. The main plots were allocated for soil salinity, consisting of two levels: < 4 dS m−1 (control) and 10 dS m−1. Sub-main plots were designated for deficit irrigation treatments, namely I100, I80, and I60, representing 100, 80, and 60% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) respectively. These sub-main plots were surrounded by dikes with a width of 2 m. The sub-sub plots were used for biochar amendment application rates denoted as of B0 (control), B10, and B20, corresponding to 0, 10, and 20 tons per hectare respectively. The area of each sub-sub plot was 10.5 m2 (3 × 3.5 m), while the area for each irrigation treatment was approximately 93 m2.
2.3 Irrigation water applications
At intervals of 10 days, sugar beet plants were subjected to irrigation with varying amounts of irrigation water applied (IWA). The daily reference evapotranspiration (ETo) values were calculated using Eq. (3.1) as described by (Allen et al. 1998).
Where
- Epan:
-
evaporation from the Class A pan (mm day−1)
- Kpan:
-
coefficient of pan evaporation
- ETc:
-
crop evapotranspiration and
- Kc:
-
crop coefficient.
The applied irrigation water application (IWA) (m.3/ha), in correspondence to the designed irrigation regimes, was conducted according to (Vermeiren and Jobling 1980)
Where
- ETc:
-
denotes the crop evapotranspiration (mm day−1)
- Ea:
-
represents the irrigation application efficiency as a percentage (%)
- LR:
-
Leaching requirement.
2.4 Biochar amendment
The utilized biochar amendment in this study was produced through the pyrolysis process, involving the burning of trees and plant waste in an oxygen-depleted or oxygen-limited environment at temperatures ranging from 600 to 700 degrees. The chemical analysis of used biochar amendment is presented in (Table 3).
2.5 Plant under study
Seeds of the sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L., Baraca) were obtained from the Crop Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center and manually sown on October 1st in 2 consecutive winter seasons during 2 years (2019/2020 and 2020/2021). In hills the seeds were planted, with a spacing of 20 cm between each hill and a distance of 60 cm between rows. The addition of biochar amendment to the experimental soil was done manually one week prior to sowing. At 4 true leaves age, the beet plants were thinned to maintain (one plant hill−1). Nitrogen fertilization was added at a rate of 109 kg N per hectare using urea (46.5%N). The nitrogen fertilizer was splitted into two equivalent doses, the 1st dose was done after thinning at the stage of 4 leaves per plant, while the 2nd dose was added one month later. Phosphorus fertilization, using super phosphate with a phosphorus content of 15.5% (P2O5), was performed at a rate of 70 kg P2O5 per hectare at sowing. Additionally, potassium fertilization was conducted after thinning using potassium sulfate with a potassium content of 48% (K2O), was done at a rate of 60 kg K2O per hectare. All other agronomic cultural practices, as well as disease and pest management for sugar beet, followed local commercial sugar beet production methods. In each season, the sugar beet plants were harvested after 190 days from planting.
2.6 Morphological measurements
At harvest in both seasons (190 days from planting) a random sampling of 10 guarded plants from each sub-sub plot was conducted. Root length in cm (RL) assessed with a meter-scale from the point of separation to the tip of the taproot. Leaf area per plant (LA in dm2) was measured using a digital planometer (Planix 7). Root diameter in cm (RD) was determined at the widest area of the root using a vernier caliper. Fresh weight and dry weight were measured using a digital balance.
2.7 Physiological Measurements
At 110 days from sowing, three randomly selected sugar beet plants were collected to determine plant physiological responses. leaf relative water content (LRWC%) and membrane stability index (MSI%) of fully expanded fresh leaves were determined. The (LRWC%) was determined following the method outlined in (Barrs 1968), while the MSI% was determined according to the method described by (Premachandra et al. 1990). To assess the relative chlorophyll concentration, a chlorophyll meter (SPAD502, KONICAMINOLTA. Inc., Tokyo) was used.
2.8 Osmoprotectants: Total soluble sugars and Proline contents:
The extraction and determination of total soluble sugars content (TSS; mg g-1 dry weight; DW) were performed using a professional method (Irigoyen et al. 1992). The extraction was carried out with 96% ethyl alcohol, and the measurement of TSS was done by recording the absorbance at 625 nm using a UV-160A UV Visible Recording Spectrometer, Shimadzu, Japan. The estimation of proline content was conducted using a rapid colorimetric method, and the absorbance was measured at 520 nm following the procedure described by (Bates et al. 1973).
2.9 Quality parameters
2.9.1 Juice impurities
The percentages of sodium and potassium were measured by flame photometer. The amount of α–amino N (using ninhydring and hydrindantin method) was assessed as described by (Carruthers et al. 1962).
2.9.2 Juice Quality
The percentage of sucrose was measured as mentioned by (Le Docte 1927).
The calculation of juice purity percentage was performed according to the following equation: Purity % = 99.36 – [14.27 (Na% + K% + α–amino N %) / sucrose %] (Devillers 1988).
Molasses lost sugar (MLS) was expressed as the following: \({\text{MLS}}=\;0.14\;(\mathrm{Na\%\;}\;+\;\mathrm{\;K\%})\;+\;0.25\;(\mathrm{\alpha\;}-\mathrm{amino\;N\;\%})\;+\;0.5\) (Devillers 1988). \(\mathrm{Extractable\;sugar\;\%}=\mathrm{\;sucrose\;\%}-{\text{MLS}}-0.6\) (De Xter et al. 1967)
2.10 Sugar Beet Yields
All sugar beet plants, including the previously sampled 10, within each experimental plot were gathered, cleaned, topped, and weighed. This was done to determine the root yield (RY ton ha−1) and top yield (TY ton ha−1), while the sugar yield (SY ton ha−1) was calculated by multiplying the root yield by the sucrose percentage (sucrose%).
2.11 Water Productivity (WP) of Sugar Beet Crop
The water productivity was quantified as the yield of sugar beet roots (in kg) per cubic meter of water consumed. The calculation of WP values followed the equation proposed by (Jensen et al. 1983).
2.12 Statistical analysis
Was done in split-split plot design within a randomized complete block design (RCBD), using the Genstat computer software package (version 11, VSN International Ltd., Oxford, UK). To determine significant differences among the variable means, Duncan's multiple range test was applied at a significance level of α ≤ 0.05.
3 Results
3.1 Soil properties
Results outlined in (Table 4) showed that, biochar amendment had an ameliorative effect on saline and non-saline soil properties. Soil bulk density (ρb) was decreased in biochar amended plots. This reduction was significant under used high levels of biochar (B20) as compared with non-biochar amended plots (B0). The decline in ρb was linked to a substantial increase in soil total porosity (TP). Under biochar application rate 20ton ha−1, TP in saline soil was increased by 5.52% compared with control. Interestingly, the use of biochar alters pore geometry, causing a significant decrease in quickly drainable pores (QDP) which associated with a significant increase in slowly drainable pores (SDP). QDP showed a substantial reduction by 14.23 and 20.23% in normal and saline soils respectively, meanwhile the increase in SDP under the same soil types amounted 22.13 and 34.38% respectively, in comparison with control (B0). The soil in two experimental sites is sandy loam in texture, indicating lower water retaining capacity. Used biochar amendment showed a positive effect on water holding capacity and water movement. Comparing with non-amended soils, the fraction of water holding pores (WHP) was increased by 16.65 and 20.05% in non-saline and saline soil respectively, due to biochar application level (B20). Furthermore, the implementation of biochar has significantly reduced the values of saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat) which in turn enhanced the soil's water retention capacity. In normal and saline soil, the reduction in K sat amounted 23.12 and 12.23% respectively as a result of conducted biochar with 20ton ha−1 against control. Field capacity also showed a considerable increase by 9.84 and 11.39% under normal and saline soils respectively, owing to biochar addition with 20ton ha−1 versus control. Interestingly it is worth noting that, a slight increase in soil pH was observed in response of biochar application compared with control. However, the variations in pH values in correspondence of used moderate and high levels of biochar statistically were not-significant in both soil types. Organic matter content was significantly increased in normal and saline soil by 57.26 and 50.52% respectively resulted by biochar addition with 20ton ha−1 compared with control. In addition, the determined soil cation exchangeable capacity (CEC) in both experimental sites were significantly increased in correspondence of used biochar amendment. Respecting to soil salinity the application of biochar had an opposite effect on soil salinity. In normal soil, the addition of biochar resulted in a slight increase in soil salinity, meanwhile in saline soil, the ECe value were decreased with biochar amendment.
3.2 Growth Traits
Data involved in (Tables 5 and 6) showed inhibitory effects generated by drought and/or osmotic stress on growth performance of sugar beet plants. Growth traits [i.e. root length (RL), root fresh weight (RFW), root dry weight (RDW), top fresh weight (TFW), top dry weight (TDW), leaf area (LA) and root/top ratio (R/T)] of sugar beet plants were significantly reduced in correspondence to salinity and drought stresses. In saline soil the decrease in RL, RFW, RDW, TFW, TDW, LA and R/T were 10.78, 48.04, 11.25, 38.05, 43.92 and 19.04% respectively as compared with non-saline soil. Statistically, the data indicated non-significant differences in root diameter of sugar beet plants due to increased salinity stress. Similar to, salinity, the used deficit irrigation caused morphological disorders in sugar beet plants. Under moderate water stress condition (I80), the values of RL, RD, RFW, RDW, TFW, TDW, LA and R/T were declined by 5.30, 7.11, 18.87, 33.33, 23.33, 16.31, 11.98 and 20.78%, respectively compared with full irrigation treatment. The maximum decrease was observed under water stress level (I60) by 14.69, 18.23, 50.33, 56.48, 47.92, 37.59, 23.59 and 3.17% for RL, RD, RFW, RDW, TFW, TDW, LA and R/T respectively lower than adequately waterd plants. Conversely, the addition of biochar had a stimulating effect on vegetative growth of stressed and normally grown sugar beet plants. The increase in plant growth corresponded with the higher levels of biochar application. Accordingly, the use of biochar levels B10 and B20 resulted increase in RL by (15.64 and 28.22%), RD by (23.32 and 43.52%), RFW by (47.02 and 68.45%), RDW by (39.02 and 86.79%), TFW by (23.81 and 49.66%), TDW by (13.27 and 40.82%), LA by (12.39 and 26.56%) and R/T by (24.07 and 33.33%) respectively, higher than non-biochar amended plants (control plots). Moreover, it is important to highlight that the interaction among the applied treatments demonstrated a positive impact of biochar amendment, particularly at a rate of 20 t ha−1 on growth performance of sugar beet plants which cultivated in normal soil and received irrigation at level (1100). Meanwhile, the lowest values of growth parameters were given with increasing the degree of soil salinity and drought stress, especially for non-biochar amended plants.
3.3 Physiological Response
The present investigation revealed considerable impacts on the physiological responses of sugar beet in relation to the applied experimental treatments, including salinity stress, drought stress, and biochar amendment, as well as their interactions. Leaf relative content (LRWC) (Fig. 1a), membrane stability index (MSI%) (Fig. 1b) and relative chlorophyll content (SPAD) (Fig. 1c) were reduced by 8.96, 4.72 and 7.10% respectively in correspondence to increased levels of soil salinity. Similarly, water stress negatively affected these traits. As compared with full irrigation, the reduction in LRWC, MSI and SPAD amounted 8.96, 5.91 and 14.67% respectively under sever water stress level (I60). In contrast the use of biochar mitigated the adverse effects of salinity and drought and enhanced the plant physiological responses. Enriching the soil with a high level of biochar amendment (B20) contributed to a significant increase in LRWC, MSI and SPAD by 5.94, 5.71, 8.87% respectively over control plots. Furthermore, the greatest values of LRWC, MSI% and SPAD) are given for sugar beet plants that treated with (I100x B20) in non-saline soil. Conversely, beet plats exposed to (S2x I60xB0) produced the lowest values of these physiological parameters.
3.4 The Accumulation of Osmoprotectants
The adverse conditions created by drought and salinity stresses triggered sugar beet plants to enhance the levels of some substances in their roots including total soluble sugar and sucrose as well as proline content in their leaves. Total soluble sugar (TSS, (mg g−1 dry weight of root beet)) showed a significant increase as water stress increased (Fig. 2a). Compared with full irrigation, TSS was increased by 10.05 and 19.68% in response of increasing drought stress levels to (I80) and (I60) respectively. Salinity also induced a significant increase by 27.61% in TSS compared with control. The addition of biochar enhanced the accumulation of TSS in roots of sugar beet plants. The addition of biochar with 10 and 20ton ha−1 resulted significant increase in TSS by 12.09 and 24.04% respectively over control (B0). The percentage of sucrose showed its highest value for biochar-amended sugar beet plants at level of (B20) and subjected to sever drought level (I60) in saline soil (Fig. 2b). However, the lowest value of sucrose was measured in combined treatment (S1x I100 x B0). Saline stress stimulated the accumulation of sucrose in beet roots, leading to a significant increase by 16.33% compared with non-saline soil (S1). Similar trend was also observed under drought stress. The applied deficit irrigation induced significant increase in sucrose% by 6.29 and 10.25% for moderate (I80) and intense drought stress (I60) respectively compared with well irrigated sugar beet plants (I100). Biochar amendment had appositive effect on sucrose accumulation in roots of sugar beet plants. In this regard, the applied biochar at moderate and high levels contributed to a substantial increase by 10.19 and 21.82% respectively over control (B0). Interestingly, it is worth noting that, the determined proline in leaves of sugar beet plants showed significant differences due to applied treatments (Fig. 2c). As increased levels of applied water stress, the values of accumulated proline (mg g−1 dry weight of root leaves) have been increased by 18.64 for (I80) and 29.92% for (I60) higher than control. Similar reaction was also detected in response to salinity stress, which raised the content of proline by 34.24% compared with its level under non-saline condition. The addition of biochar played a stimulating effect on proline accumulation in plant leaves. The increments in proline content in correspondence of used biochar amendment with 10 and20 ton ha−1 amounted 11.29 and 19.43% respectively, over control (B0).
3.5 Qualitative Parameters of Sugar Yield
The content of Na, K, α-amino N are classified as impurity components that significantly influence the quality of produced sugar. As the amounts of these traits increased the higher sugar in molasses is lost, which in turn causing reduction in sugar extractability. The concentration of Na+ (Fig. 3a), K+ (Fig. 3b) and α-amino N (Fig. 3c) were significantly increased under stress conditions. This increase in Na+ (meq/100 g of root beet), K+ (meq/100 g of root beet) and α amino N (meq/100 g of root beet) in saline soils amounted 46.01, 20.83 and 29.77% compared with non-saline soil. Respecting to the influence of drought stress on sugar impurity characters, it was observed that, the restricted water application at (I60), resulted in substantial increase in levels of Na+, K+ and α-amino N by 8.39, 17.45 and 22.00% higher than control (I100). As average in both saline and non-saline soils, the addition of biochar amendment (10 t ha−1) alters the accumulation of these components in roots of sugar beet plants, causing a significant reduction in contents of Na+, K+ and α amino N by 26.23, 7.07 and 8.60% respectively relative to control (B0). Moreover, in response of applied high level of biochar (B20), the reduction in Na+, K+ and α amino N amounted 44.60, 15.27 and 16.74% respectively compared with non-biochar treated plots. Interestingly, the levels of molasses lost sugar (MLS) (Fig. 3e) and extractable sugar (ES) (Fig. 3f) were increased under stress conditions. Salinity stress, increased MLS and ES by 22.24 and 16.19%. A similar finding was also detected due to drought stress. The effect of salinity on these parameters (MLS and ES) was significant, meanwhile the differences in MLS and ES induced by water stress statistically were non-significant. Unlike MLS and ES, the expressed values of purity (Fig. 3d) in response of drought and salinity stresses were decreased. Conversely, the addition of biochar amendment results considerable increase in ES and purity parameters. Biochar amendment reduced the amount of sugar that lost in molasses, which reflecting the positive impact of used soil amendment on yield qualitative parameters. The greatest value of purity (94.28%) was observed for adequately water sugar beet plant grown in non-saline soil and received biochar amendment at (20ton ha−1). However, under the same biochar application rate (B20), the sugar beet plants that exposed to salinity and intense drought level showed the highest values of SLM (2.39%) and ES (19.89%).
3.6 Yield Characters
Drought and salinity stresses induced detrimental effects on yield attributes of sugar beet plants. Data in (Table 7) showed gradual decrease in sugar beet productivity with increasing stress severity. The yields of sugar beet crop expressed by root yield (RY), top yield (TY) and sugar yield (SY) were significantly reduced in response to salinity and deficit water regimes. In saline soil the reduction in RY, TY and SY of sugar beet plants amounted 9.14, 9.97 and 20.42% respectively, compared with normal soil. In response to I80 and I60 the reduction in RY (16.15 and 35.82%), TY (17.20 and 34.69%) and SY (11.96 and 31.48%) respectively as compared with full irrigation regime I100. However, the addition of biochar amendment achieved higher yields for stressed and non-stressed sugar beet plants, demonstrating the potential of biochar in mitigating the deleterious effect of drought and salinity. As average in two sites (saline and non-saline soils), the addition of biochar at (B10) increased RY, TY and SY by 45.77, 20.52 and 61.59% respectively compared with control (B0). Also, under high application of biochar amendment, these parameters recorded significant increase by 55.02, 23.36 and 89.37% for RY, TY and SY respectively over control. Regarding the interaction effect of used treatments, the maximum values of RY, TY and SY were detected for fully irrigated (I100) sugar beet plants and grown in normal soil (S1) under high level of biochar addition (B20). Meanwhile, in saline soil and following limited water schedule (I60), sugar beet plants produced their lowest yields RY, TY and SY respectively, for non-biochar amended plots (B0).
3.7 Irrigation Water Applied and Water Productivity
According to the results inserted in (Table 8) the required amount of irrigation water in normal soil averaged 3696 (m3 ha−1). However, in saline soil due to added fraction of leaching requirements, the applied irrigation water was relatively increased and amounted 4375 (m3 ha−1). Furthermore, in each experimental site, the addition of irrigation water was varied according to the conducted irrigation regimes. The values of water productivity (WP) were significantly differed depending upon the soil type, used irrigation regime and application level of biochar amendment. The calculated WP values indicated significant increase as irrigation water applied decreased. Moreover, due to decreased amount of consumed irrigation water and higher yield in normal soil, the values WP were increased by 23.24 and 23.94% for root and top yield respectively compared with saline soil. Regarding the effect of applied deficit irrigation levels, the maximum values of WP/Root and WP/ Top were detected for limited irrigation supply at (I60). Interestingly, it is worth noting that, the differences in WP/Root and WP/ Top between (I100) and (I80) were in-significant. the addition of biochar amendment had a positive effect on recorded values of WP for roots and top yields. The use of biochar with level of (B20) induced a significant increase by 55.02 and 23.35% for WP/Root and WP/ Top respectively higher than control (B0). A similar trend was observed in expressed water productivity for sugar yield (WP/ sugar). In saline soil due restricted productivity of sugar and increased applied irrigation water the WP/ sugar was declined by 34.21% compared with non-saline soil. Under sever-drought condition (I60), the (WP/ sugar) was improved and gave its greatest value. Also, applied biochar amendment statistically resulted significant deference in (WP/ sugar).
4 Discussion
Soil salinity and drought are the two most common and frequently co-occurring environmental stresses restrict growth and sustainability of crop production. Drought and salinity have deleterious effects on plant development and yield throughout the crop life cycle. Accordingly, there is a pressing need to introduce more practical and efficient tools to maintain adequate moisture content and nutritional balance in grown crops exposed to drought and saline stress. Recently, deficit irrigation, as a water-saving irrigation approach, and biochar, as a soil amendment, have been used to cope with salinity and water stress. In this concern there are several studies which conducted to investigate the individual influences induced by salinity or drought on growth and yield of sugar beet plants (Abd El-Mageed et al. 2019; Ghaffari et al. 2021; Karagöz et al. 2018). However, the response of sugar beet plants to combined salinity- drought stress has not been sufficiently studied. Therefore, the objective of present study was to assessment the potential of biochar amendment in alleviating the combined effects triggered by drought and salinity factors on morph-physiological and biochemical responses of sugar beet plants.
The present study has revealed that the combined stress of salinity and drought induced significant changes in morphological, physiological, and biochemical responses of sugar beet plants, as well as yield and yield quality characteristics, resulting a considerable decrease in growth traits (Tables 5 and 6), relative water content (LRWC) (Fig. 1a), membrane stability index (MSI) (Fig. 1b), leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD) (Fig. 1c), and sugar yield (Table 7). Maintaining an appropriate soil–water regime is crucial for optimal crop growth under challenging conditions. To address this issue, biochar has been utilized as a soil amendment to enhance soil physicochemical properties and alleviate the negative effects of salinity-drought stress on sugar beet plants.
Soil physicochemical characteristics of the experimental site are sandy loam in texture (Table 2), which represents their lower capacity in terms of water and nutrient retention. The use of biochar amendment improved the soil–water relationships by increasing the water-holding pores and reducing the soil hydraulic conductivity (Table 4). Decreased bulk density of biochar amended soil might be due to a lower bulk density of used biochar material than soil; therefore, biochar probably decreased the soil bulk density due to its mixing or dilution effect (Verheijen et al. 2019). Biochar also had a beneficial effect on soil pore size, which significantly affected soil hydraulic properties. Indeed, clogging or filling of soil macropores with tiny biochar particles might contribute to a considerable reduction in quickly drainable pores, and at the seam time, enhance the proportion of slowly drainable pores, which in turn results in decreased soil hydraulic conductivity. In addition, the high surface area of biochar (Batista et al. 2018) increases the capacity of soil to hold water. A similar pattern was noticed by (Razzaghi et al. 2020) who pointed out the addition of biochar improved soil aeration and soil water holding capacity. In addition, (Seyedsadr et al. 2022) stated that biochar application to soil resulted in a notable enhancement in the soil's water retention capacity. Moreover, the enhancement of soil moisture retention due to biochar amendment could be attributed to the high surface area of biochar particles that inherently contain OH and COOH functional groups (Jačka et al. 2018; Tan et al. 2020; Tomczyk et al. 2020), which directly attract water molecules through polar interactions and indirectly through the positive effects of biochar on soil structure and aggregation stability (Seyedsadr et al. 2022). In addition, biochar exhibits a substantial ability in terms of water retention (Jačka et al. 2018). Biochar has a negative charged surface and high surface area, therefore incorporating biochar in the soil significantly affect the soil’s porosity, water holding capacity, surface area and pore-size distribution (Sharma et al. 2021). In addition to enhancing the soil's physical properties, the incorporation of biochar also positively influenced its chemical characteristics. Biochar amendment reduced the salinity of saline soil (Table 4). This reduction may be associated with improved salt leaching. Enrichment of the soil with biochar can accelerate the salt leaching process, causing a decrease in soil salinity(de Vasconcelos 2020; Lee et al. 2022). In contrast, the observed slight increase in soil electrical conductivity (ECe) values in non-saline soil following biochar application might be a result of the higher ECe of the biochar amendment (Table 4) than that of the soil (Hafeez et al. 2022; Singh et al. 2019). Moreover, the improved ion release during the decomposition of organic matter may be attributed to increased soil salinity. Interestingly, soil pH was increased in correspondence of applied biochar amendment (Table 4). (Wei et al. 2023) stated that, over time, biochar experiences oxidation, resulting in the release of alkaline ions (such as Ca+2 and K+) into the soil. These ions replace the originally adsorbed Al+3 and H+ on the negative sites of soil particles, thereby causing a rise in soil pH. Also, (Chen et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2022) noted that, the process of pyrolysis in biochar preparation has the potential to generate alkaline substances, including oxides, hydrides, and carbonates. These functional groups play a role in elevating the soil pH. These findings were similar to those documented by (ALVES et al. 2021; EL-Samnoudi et al. 2021; Seyedsadr et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2020). Interestingly, it is worth noting that biochar is a rich organic carbon material (Saravanan and Kumar 2022); consequently, the organic matter content and cation exchangeable capacity in the two experimental sites was significantly increased with biochar application compared with the control (Table 4). These findings are consistent with those reported by (EL-Samnoudi et al. 2021; Saifullah et al. 2018).
Regarding the influence of salinity and drought on plant performance, it is worth noting that both drought and salinity stress inhibited morphological, physiological, and biochemical responses in addition to yield and yield quality of sugar beet plants.
Growth traits (i.e., root length, root fresh weight, root dry weight, top fresh weight, top dry weight, leaf area, and root/top ratio) of sugar beet plants were significantly reduced in response to salinity and drought stress (Tables 5 and 6). Growth retardation of sugar beet plants is closely associated with physiological and biochemical alterations generated under stressful conditions. Limited water intake due to salinity and drought stress (Yolcu et al. 2021) causes cellular dehydration (Ahluwalia et al. 2021), which negatively affects the division and expansion of plant cells (Lv et al. 2019), resulting in growth retardation. Drought stress causes reduction in plant growth by disrupting photosynthesis, decreasing nutrient uptake, and stimulating of ROS production (Gharred et al. 2022). Likewise, drought, salinity stress impairs plant growth due to increased osmotic potential and ionic toxicity (Ludwiczak et al. 2021). According to (Abd El-Mageed et al. 2022; Ma et al. 2020), an increased soil osmotic potential decreases the uptake of water by plant roots. However, the application of biochar as a soil amendment had a positive effect on growth traits of sugar beet plants (Tables 5 and 6). Biochar amendment inherently contained considerable amounts of N, P and K (Table 3), which eventually enhanced the growth parameters of beet plants. Moreover, the slight increase of soil pH following the biochar addition (Table 4), which enhances the availability and uptake of nutrients (Barrow and Hartemink 2023). In addition, the increase in plant growth in response to biochar amendment could mainly due to the ameliorative effect of biochar on soil physical properties (Table 4) by enhancing the capacity of soil to hold more water, which in turn improved the water uptake. Likewise, improved soil chemical characteristics including organic matter content and cation exchange capacity (Table 4) are reasonable for better plant growth. Hence, this distinctive performance of sugar beet growth features reflects the beneficial role of biochar in reducing the harmful impacts of environmental stress on cultivated beet plants. Multiple studies have validated these findings (Durukan et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020).
Salinity and drought stress had an inhibitory effect on plant physiological responses, including reductions in leaf relative water content LRWC% (Fig. 1a), membrane stability index MSI% (Fig. 1b) and chlorophyll content SPAD (Fig. 1c). The LRWC is an essential indicator of plant water status. The lack of water absorption by roots under insufficient water supply and/or the existence of excess salt ions contributes to protoplasm dehydration of plant cells (Xiao and Zhou 2023), resulting in a decrease in leaf RWC. The decrease in membrane stability may be attributed to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species under adverse conditions, which causes lipid oxidation (Andrés Juan et al. 2021; Juan et al. 2021) and increases the penetrability of ion leakage (Ozturk et al. 2021). Chlorophyll is the main plant photosynthesis pigment, that is responsible for the absorption and transformation of light energy (Shin et al. 2021). Consequently, the chlorophyll content serves as a prominent physiological indicator of plant damage caused by salinity and drought stress (Farhat et al. 2022; Shin et al. 2021). The unfavorable impact of drought and salinity on leaf chlorophyll content SPAD of sugar beet plants could be a result of reduced leaf area (Table 6), a destruction of chloroplast and photosynthetic system and photo-oxidation (Pallavolu et al. 2023). This finding was observed by (Hameed et al. 2021) who demonstrated that, stress conditions inhibit the chloroplasts and negatively impact the activity of PSII and the assimilation rate of CO2. The decline in chlorophyll content in stressed- sugar beet, might be attributed to the production ROS, which in turn causes pigment degradation, reduction in CO2 influx and photosynthesis (Ahluwalia et al. 2021). Conversely, biochar addition at two doses (10 and 20ton ha−1) enhanced the physiological attributes of saline-drought stressed sugar beet plants compared to the control (B0) (Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c). Improved photosynthesis in water-stressed plants following biochar addition has been reported in several previous studies (Liu et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2023). This positive impact of biochar on plant-water relations and chlorophyll content might be linked to the ameliorative impact of biochar on soil physic-chemical properties (Table 4), leading to increased water availability in the root media. Furthermore, the accumulation of osmoprotectants in plant cells due to biochar amendment (Fig. 2a, 2b and 2c) could be responsible of improved nutrients and water uptake (Sharma et al. 2019), leading to better physiological responses than non-amended beets. Interestingly, the detected improvement in MSI in response to biochar application might be referred to the positive impact of biochar in reducing the uptake of Na+ ions (Jin et al. 2018), which eventually resulting in in lower electrolyte leakage. (Parkash and Singh 2020) observed decrease in levels of electrolyte leakage in eggplant plant amended with biochar in saline soils. In fact, the production of these osmolytes (i.e., total soluble sugar (Fig. 2a), sucrose (Fig. 2b) and proline (Fig. 2c)) motivates the root water uptake and facilitates the transfer of water among plant tissues, which maintain cell turgor. For instance, (Tanure et al. 2019) reported that plants under optimum nutritional and water conditions open their stomata, which motivates the assimilation of CO2 molecules and increases the transpiration rate. According to (Lebrun et al. 2022) increasing the content of osmoprotectants with biochar is closely-related with improved LRWC content in biochar-amended sugar beet plants.
Osmotic adjustment is crucial for maintaining cell turgor and alleviating the osmotic imbalances induced by salt and drought stress (Abou-Sreea et al. 2022; Ghosh et al. 2021; Selem et al. 2022). It involves the accumulation of organic and inorganic osmolytes under increased the osmotic potential of the environment. The accumulation of compatible solutes (i.e. total soluble sugar (Fig. 2a), sucrose (Fig. 2b) and proline (Fig. 2c)) in plant cells was significantly increased by salinity and drought stress. Indeed, plants under adverse conditions such salinity and drought promote the accumulation of these osmoprotectants to sustain their physiological activities. This increase in sucrose, total soluble sugar and proline owing to salinity and drought stress has been detected in several previous studies. (Wang et al. 2019) observed an increase in the leaves content of free amino acids, proline and glycinepine of saline-stressed sugar beet plants. The accumulation of sucrose, fructose and glucose plays an effective role in regulating osmotic adaptation (Yang et al. 2019), reducing leaf temperature (Wang et al. 2018; Wiśniewska et al. 2019) and preventing protein denaturation (Naguib et al. 2021) in drought-salt stressed beet plants. Proline is an important amino acid, that play a fundamental role for osmotic adjustment under various stressful conditions, besides its significant function in maintaining membranes integrity and preventing proteins denaturation (Alkahtani et al. 2021; Ghosh et al. 2022; Ibrahim et al. 2022). Generally, proline is concentrated in the cytosol, for maintaining osmotic adjustment in the cytoplasm (Ghaffari et al. 2021; Hinai et al. 2022; Semida et al. 2020). Significant increases in accumulated proline molecules have been observed in different organs of sugar beet plants under drought and salt stress (Alkahtani et al. 2021; Ghaffari et al. 2021) however, not all plant species are able to produce an adequate amount of these osmo-regulators to reduce the negative effects of harsh conditions. Interestingly, it is worth to mention that, the addition of biochar substantially increased the levels of these compatible solutes (Fig. 2a, 2b and 2c), which in turn improved the tolerance of beet plants to a biotic stress. This increase in sucrose and total soluble sugar after biochar addition might be a result of improved soil water retention capacity, transportation and assimilation of nutrient, that led to increased rates of photosynthesis and carbohydrate synthesis. Previous studies have documented an elevation in sucrose content in beet plants following the application of manure and biochar amendments (Abd El-Mageed et al. 2021; McKay et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2020). The observed increase in proline levels in biochar amended sugar beet plants might be attributed to improved soil nutrient status and nutrient uptake by plants, which in turn enhanced the synthesis of nitrogen compounds like proline in tissues of beet plant grown under harsh conditions. Hence, it’s important to indicate that, although the levels of these osmotic regulators (soluble sugars, proline, and sucrose) were increased in correspondence of increased salinity and drought stress, they were not sufficient for sugar beet plants to defend themselves against stress to perform acceptable growth and yield. However, amending the soil with biochar could be stimulated plants to concentrate more contents of these osmoprotectants to survive well under theses adverse conditions. This finding was in line with several studies that have shown an increase in proline levels in response of used organic fertilizers (Haider et al. 2022; Mahmoud et al. 2022; Obadi et al. 2023). In contrast (Ghassemi-Golezani and Rahimzadeh 2023; Nehela et al. 2021) observed a reduction in proline concentration in plants following the addition of organic amendments. Therefore, this different behavior of plants might be associated with the plant's tolerance threshold and stress severity of salinity and drought.
The contents of potassium, α-amino nitrogen and sodium are considered major impurity components that influence sugar yield (EL-Samnoudi et al. 2021; Hassan and Mostafa 2018; Nassar et al. 2018). Increased levels of these substances lead to a notable decrease in sugar extractability as a result of increased sugar loss in molasses (Rahimi et al. 2019). The concentration of sodium (Fig. 3a), potassium (Fig. 3b) and α-amino nitrogen (Fig. 3c) in roots of beet plants were increased, particularly under salinity and severe water stress, compared with the sufficiently waterd beet plants. Increasing the accumulation of these elements (Na, K and α-amino nitrogen) disrupt the crystallization process, leading to a higher amount of sugars being retained as molasses while reducing the yield of refined sugar. (Hassan and Mostafa 2018) revealed that, the industrial purification of sucrose was adversely affected with increased concentration of α-amino nitrogen, that influencing the overall sugar quality. Elevated α-amino nitrogen concentration reduces juice alkalinity, that causing a decrease in its thermostability, that increase the molasse lose sugar. Therefore, the low sugar purity under adverse conditions is a result of increased impurity factors. On the other hand, this increase in Na+ and K+ ions in sugar beet plants could be considered a protective mechanism against drought and salinity stress (dos Santos et al. 2022). Similar findings were observed by (Yolcu et al. 2021), who documented that water stress significantly influenced Na+, α-N, and K+ concentrations in water-stressed sugar beet plants. This increase in α-N under limited water supply might be due to the synthesis of N-substances that regulate imbalanced osmotic pressure in the leaves of drought-stressed beet plants (Ghaffari et al. 2021). In contrast, the application of biochar reduced the accumulation of these components. Accordingly, the high purity values of sugar were observed under well-irrigated sugar beet plants and received biochar amendment. Hence, the biochar amendment improved the qualitative traits of sugar yield by improving the (sucrose%, purity%, extractable sugar%, and coefficient of extractable sugar) and reducing the (impurity% and sugar lost in molasses%).
Regarding the effect of applied treatments on yield and yield contributing characters of saline and water stressed sugar beet plants it was observed that, the low values of top yield, root yield and sugar yield as outlined in table (Table 7), possibly due to limited leaf area (Table 6) and alterations in RWC (Fig. 1a) and membrane stability (Fig. 1b) resulting in photosynthetic disruption and yield loss. Additionally, the decline in yield may be related to restricted growth traits under these harmful conditions (Tables 5 and 6). In contrast, the observed increase in beet yield (i.e., root yield, top yield, and sugar yield) after biochar application might have occurred because of improved soil moisture content and plant nutritional status. The improvement in yield and quality of sugar beet plants could be a result of enhanced availability of macro and micro nutrients as well as improved soil physical environment (Table 4). Likewise, improved yield traits of sugar beet plant are a result of increased growth traits as aforementioned above in this research work (Tables 5 and 6). These results have provided a good evidence that the application of biochar, particularly at a rate of 20 tons per hectare had beneficial effects on soil moisture and nutrient status. Furthermore, it positively impacted the growth, root yield, sugar yield, and quality characteristics of both non-stressed and stressed sugar beet plants. This finding is in agreement with those of previous studies (Hossain et al. 2020; Tanure et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2020).
The improved water productivity values (Table 8) for grown sugar beet plants in non-saline soils and exposed to limited irrigation scheme, is a result of reduced irrigation water and enhanced root and sugar yields under biochar application. Compared with sufficient irrigation supply, saving the applied irrigation water by 40% under the irrigation regime (I60) resulted in the highest WP values. Biochar addition significantly increased WP in the saline- and drought-inhibited sugar beet plants. Biochar improved the soil physicochemical properties (Table 4), thereby enhanced the growth and yield of sugar beet plants, leading to higher WP than in un-amended plants (ALVES et al. 2021; Durukan et al. 2020; Ndede et al. 2022; Tanure et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2020).
5 Conclusion
Salinity and drought stress adversely affected the growth attributes, yield and quality traits, meanwhile, it increased the accumulation of compatible solutes in sugar beet plants. The incorporation of biochar as an amendment effectively ameliorated soil moisture retention and nutrient capacity. Biochar at level (B20) produced the highest growth characters, root yield (95.02 t ha−1) and sugar yield (20.24 t ha−1) for full irrigated sugar beet plants in non-saline soil. Additionally, biochar enhanced water productivity by 55.02% over control (B0) as average for drought and saline stressed sugar beet plants. Hence, the addition of biochar amendment by 20 t ha−1 could be effectively used as a helpful agro-management strategy in mitigating the inhibitory impacts of salinity and water stress on sugar beet plants, improving soil quality and enhancing water productivity to ensure water sustainability and food security, especially in areas of limited water supply.
Data Availability
The datasets used and /or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request
References
Abd El-Mageed TA, Rady MOA, Abd El-Wahed MH, Abd El-Mageed SA, Omran WM, Aljuaid BS, El-Shehawi AM, El-Tahan AM, El-Saadony MT, Abdou NM (2022) Consecutive seasonal effect on yield and water productivity of drip deficit irrigated sorghum in saline soils. Saudi J Biol Sci 29:2683–2690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.12.045
Abd El-Mageed TA, Belal EE, Rady MOA, Abd El-Mageed SA, Mansour E, Awad MF, Semida WM (2021) Acidified biochar as a soil amendment to drought stressed (Vicia faba l.) plants: Influences on growth and productivity, nutrient status, and water use efficiency. Agronomy 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071290
Abd El-Mageed TA, El-Sherif AMA, Abd El-Mageed SA, Abdou NM (2019) A novel compost alleviate drought stress for sugar beet production grown in Cd-contaminated saline soil. Agric Water Manag 226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105831
Abdou NM, El-Saadony FMA, Roby MHH, Mahdy HAA, El-Shehawi AM, Elseehy MM, El-Tahan AM, Abdalla H, Saad AM, Idris Badawy AbouSreea A (2022) Foliar spray of potassium silicate, aloe extract composite and their effect on growth and yielding capacity of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) under water deficit stress conditions. Saudi J Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2022.02.033
Abou-Sreea AIB, Roby MHH, Mahdy HAA, Abdou NM, El-Tahan AM, El-Saadony MT, El-Tarabily KA, El-Saadony FMA (2022) Improvement of selected morphological, physiological, and biochemical parameters of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) grown under different salinity levels using potassium silicate and aloe saponaria extract. Plants 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11040497
Abdelwahab S, Nassar S, Elgendy A, Shake V (2022) Value chain analysis of sugar beet in Egypt: with a focus on the production of refined sugar. Egypt J Agric Econ 3:888–898
Abdou NM, Roby MHH, AL-Huqail AA, Elkelish A, Sayed AAS, Alharbi BM, Mahdy HAA, Abou-Sreea AIB (2023) Compost improving morphophysiological and biochemical traits, seed yield, and oil quality of Nigella sativa under drought stress. Agronomy 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041147
ACF de Vasconcelos (2020) Biochar effects on amelioration of adverse salinity effects in soils. In: Appl Biochar Environ Saf IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92464
Ahluwalia O, Singh PC, Bhatia R (2021) A review on drought stress in plants: Implications, mitigation and the role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Resour Environ Sustain 5:100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100032
Alkahtani MDF, Hafez YM, Attia K, Rashwan E, Husnain L Al, Algwaiz HIM, Abdelaal KAA (2021) Evaluation of silicon and proline application on the oxidative machinery in drought-stressed sugar beet. Antioxidants 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10030398
Alkharabsheh HM, Seleiman MF, Battaglia ML, Shami A, Jalal RS, Alhammad BA, Almutairi KF, Al-Saif AM (2021) Biochar and its broad impacts in soil quality and fertility, nutrient leaching and crop productivity: a review. Agronomy 11(5):993. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050993
Allen RG, Pereira L, Raes S, Smith M (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirement-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper FAO, Rome. 300(9):D05109.
Alves BSQ, Zelaya KPS, Colen F, Frazão LA, Napoli A, Parikh SJ, Fernandes LA (2021) Effect of sewage sludge and sugarcane bagasse biochar on soil properties and sugar beet production. Pedosphere 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(21)60003-6
Andrés Juan C, Manuel Pérez de la Lastra J, Plou FJ, Pérez-Lebeña E, Reinbothe S (2021) Molecular sciences the chemistry of reactive oxygen species (ROS) revisited: outlining their role in biological macromolecules (DNA, Lipids and Proteins) and induced pathologies. Int J Mol Sci 22(9):4642. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094642
Awadalla AO, Ahmed AZ, Mohammad MS (2021) Possibility of sugar beet production in toshka region. II- effect of water stress on some sugar beet varieties. Egypt J Agron 43. https://doi.org/10.21608/agro.2022.102043.1286
Banik C, Koziel JA, De M, Bonds D, Chen B, Singh A, Licht MA (2021) Biochar-Swine manure impact on soil nutrients and carbon under controlled leaching experiment using a midwestern mollisols. Front Environ Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.609621
Barrow NJ, Hartemink AE (2023) The effects of pH on nutrient availability depend on both soils and plants. Plant Soil 487:21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-05960-5
Barrs HD (1968) Determination of water deficit in plant tissues. In: Kozlowski TT (ed) Water deficit and plant growth. nbsp;New York, Academic Press1:235–368.
Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060
Batista EMCC, Shultz J, Matos TTS, Fornari MR, Ferreira TM, Szpoganicz B, De Freitas RA, Mangrich AS (2018) Effect of surface and porosity of biochar on water holding capacity aiming indirectly at preservation of the Amazon biome. Sci Rep 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28794-z
Bouras H, Bouaziz A, Bouazzama B, Hirich A, Choukr-Allah R (2021) How phosphorus fertilization alleviates the effect of salinity on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris l.) productivity and quality. Agronomy 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081491
Carruthers A, Oldfield JFT, Teague HJ (1962) Assessment of beet quality. Paper presented to the 15th Annual Technical Conference, British Sugar Corporation LTD. 28
Chen D, Wang X, Wang X, Feng K, Su J, Dong J (2020) The mechanism of cadmium sorption by sulphur-modified wheat straw biochar and its application cadmium-contaminated soil. Sci Total Environ 714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136550
Devillers P. (1988) Prevision du sucre melasse sucrerie feanases. CF The Sugar Beet Crop 190–200
Devkota KP, Devkota M, Rezaei M, Oosterbaan R (2022) Managing salinity for sustainable agricultural production in salt-affected soils of irrigated drylands. Agric Syst 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103390
Dewi ES, Abdulai I, Bracho-Mujica G, Rötter RP (2022) Salinity Constraints for Small-Scale Agriculture and Impact on Adaptation in North Aceh, Indonesia. Agronomy 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020341
De Xter ST, Frakes MG, Snyder FV A (1967) Rapid and practical method of determining extractable white sugar as may be applied to the evaluation of agronomic practices and grower deliveries in the sugar beet industry. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 14(5):433–54
Dygas D, Kręgiel D, Berłowska J (2023) Sugar Beet Pulp as a Biorefinery Substrate for Designing Feed. Molecules 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28052064
dos Santos TB, Ribas AF, de Souza SGH, Budzinski IGF, Domingues DS (2022) Physiological responses to drought, salinity, and heat stress in plants: a review. Stresses 2:113–135. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2010009
Durukan H, Demirbas A, Turkekul I (2020) Effects of biochar rates on yield and nutrient uptake of sugar beet plants grown under drought stress. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 51:2735–2745. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1849257
EL-Samnoudi I, Ibrahim AE-A, Abd EL- Tawwab A, Abdou N (2021) Addition biochar to enhanced soil quality and sugar beet crop grown under water stress treatments in salt-affected soils. Fayoum J Agric Res Dev 35. https://doi.org/10.21608/fjard.2021.222924
El-Banna MN, Nassar MA, Hussein MA, Ismail AM, El Sheikh E (2018) Effect of nitrogen and compost fertilization on yield and quality of sugar beet. J Adv Agric Res 23(3):434–443
Farhat F, Arfan M, Wang X, Tariq A, Kamran M, Tabassum HN, Tariq I, Mora-Poblete F, Iqbal R, El-Sabrout AM, Elansary HO (2022) The impact of bio-stimulants on Cd-stressed wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): insights into growth, chlorophyll fluorescence, Cd accumulation, and osmolyte regulation. Front Plant Sci 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.850567
Gaudutis A, Jotautienė E, Mieldažys R, Bivainis V, Jasinskas A (2023) Sustainable use of biochar, poultry and cattle manure for the production of organic granular fertilizers. Agronomy 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051426
Gerke J (2022) The central role of soil organic matter in soil fertility and carbon storage. Soil Syst 6(2):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems6
Ghaffari H, Tadayon MR, Bahador M, Razmjoo J (2021) Investigation of the proline role in controlling traits related to sugar and root yield of sugar beet under water deficit conditions. Agric Water Manag 243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106448
Gharred J, Derbali W, Derbali I, Badri M, Abdelly C, Slama I, Koyro HW (2022) Impact of biochar application at water shortage on biochemical and physiological processes in medicago ciliaris. Plants 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11182411
Ghassemi-Golezani K, Rahimzadeh S (2023) Biochar-based nutritional nanocomposites: a superior treatment for alleviating salt toxicity and improving physiological performance of dill (Anethum graveolent l). Environ Geochem Health 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-022-01397-4
Ghorbani M, Amirahmadi E, Konvalina P, Moudrý J, Bárta J, Kopecký M, Teodorescu RI, Bucur RD (2022) Comparative influence of biochar and zeolite on soil hydrological indices and growth characteristics of corn (Zea mays L.). Water (Switzerland) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213506
Ghosh UK, Islam MN, Siddiqui MN, Cao X, Khan MAR (2022) Proline, a multifaceted signalling molecule in plant responses to abiotic stress: understanding the physiological mechanisms. Plant Biol 24(2):227–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.13363
Ghosh UK, Islam MN, Siddiqui MN, Khan MAR (2021) Understanding the roles of osmolytes for acclimatizing plants to changing environment: a review of potential mechanism. Plant Signal Behav 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2021.1913306
Gonzáles HHS, Peñuelas-Rubio O, Argentel-Martínez L, Ponce AL, Andrade MHH, Hasanuzzaman M, Aguilera JG, Teodoro PE (2021) Salinity effects on water potential and the normalized difference vegetation index in four species of a saline semi-arid ecosystem. PeerJ 9. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12297
Hafeez A, Pan T, Tian J, Cai K (2022) Modified biochars and their effects on soil quality: a review. Environments 9(5):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9050060
Haider FU, Wang X, Farooq M, Hussain S, Cheema SA, Ain N ul, Virk AL, Ejaz M, Janyshova U, Liqun C (2022) Biochar application for the remediation of trace metals in contaminated soils: Implications for stress tolerance and crop production. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 230
Hameed A, Ahmed MZ, Hussain T, Aziz I, Ahmad N, Gul B, Nielsen BL (2021) Effects of salinity stress on chloroplast structure and function. Cells 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10082023
Hasanuzzaman M, Raihan MRH, Masud AAC, Rahman K, Nowroz F, Rahman M, Nahar K, Fujita M (2021) Regulation of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in plants under salinity. Int J Mol Sci 22(17):9326. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22179326
Hassan I, Mostafa S (2018) Influence of sugar beet nitrogen content on quality and efficiency of sugar extraction. J Food Dairy Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.21608/jfds.2018.35416
Hayat K, Bundschuh J, Jan F, Menhas S, Hayat S, Haq F, Shah MA, Chaudhary HJ, Ullah A, Zhang D, Zhou Y, Zhou P (2020) Combating soil salinity with combining saline agriculture and phytomanagement with salt-accumulating plants. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1646087
Hinai MS Al, Ullah A, Al-Rajhi RS, Farooq M (2022) Proline accumulation, ion homeostasis and antioxidant defence system alleviate salt stress and protect carbon assimilation in bread wheat genotypes of Omani origin. Environ Exp Bot 193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104687
Hossain MZ, Bahar MM, Sarkar B, Donne SW, Ok YS, Palansooriya KN, Kirkham MB, Chowdhury S, Bolan N (2020) Biochar and its importance on nutrient dynamics in soil and plant. Biochar 2:379–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00065-z
Ibrahim AEA, Abd El Mageed T, Abohamid Y, Abdallah H, El-Saadony M, AbuQamar S, El-Tarabily K, Abdou N (2022) Exogenously applied proline enhances morph-physiological responses and yield of drought-stressed maize plants grown under different irrigation systems. Front Plant Sci 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.897027
Irigoyen JJ, Einerich DW, Sánchez‐Díaz M (1992) Water stress induced changes in concentrations of proline and total soluble sugars in nodulated alfalfa (Medicago sativd) plants. Physiol Plant 84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1992.tb08764.x
Jačka L, Trakal L, Ouředníček P, Pohořelý M, Šípek V (2018) Biochar presence in soil significantly decreased saturated hydraulic conductivity due to swelling. Soil Tillage Res 184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.07.018
Jensen V, Marcussen C, Smed E (1983) Nitrogen for sugar beet in Denmark: research and its utilization [effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield and sugar juice purity]. IIRB symposium. Nitrogen and sugar beet. Bruxelles (Belgium) 16–17
Jin F, Ran C, Anwari Q, Geng Y, Guo L, Li J, Han D, Zhang X, Liu X, Shao X (2018) Effects of biochar on sodium ion accumulation, yield and quality of rice in saline-sodic soil of the west of songnen plain, Northeast China. Plant Soil Environ 64. https://doi.org/10.17221/359/2018-PSE
Juan CA, de la Lastra JMP, Plou FJ, Pérez-Lebeña E (2021) The chemistry of reactive oxygen species (Ros) revisited: outlining their role in biological macromolecules (dna, lipids and proteins) and induced pathologies. Int J Mol Sci 22(9):4642. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094642
Karagöz H, Çakmakçi R, Hosseinpour A, Kodaz S (2018) Alleviation of water stress and promotion of the growth of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) plants by multi-traits rhizobacteria. Appl Ecol Environ Res 16:6801–6813. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1605_68016813
Kapoor D, Bhardwaj S, Landi M, Sharma A, Ramakrishnan M, Sharma A (2020) The impact of drought in plant metabolism: How to exploit tolerance mechanisms to increase crop production. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10165692
Kesawat MS, Satheesh N, Kherawat BS, Kumar A, Kim HU, Chung SM, Kumar M (2023) Regulation of reactive oxygen species during salt stress in plants and their crosstalk with other signaling molecules—current perspectives and future directions. Plants 12(4):864 https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040864
Khare R, Jain P (2021) Salt ion and nutrient interactions in crop plants. In: Physiology of salt stress in plants: perception, signalling, omics and tolerance mechanism, pp 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119700517.ch5
Klute A, Dirksen C (1986) Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory methods. En: methods of soil analysis: part 1. Phys Mineral Methods 5:687–734. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c28
Le Docte A (1927) Commercial determination of sugar in the beet root using the Sacks-Le Docte process. Int Sug J 27:488–492
Lebrun M, Bouček J, Bímová KB, Kraus K, Haisel D, Kulhánek M, Omara-Ojungu C, Seyedsadr S, Beesley L, Soudek P, Petrová Š, Pohořelý M, Trakal L (2022) Biochar in manure can suppress water stress of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and increase sucrose content in tubers. Sci Total Environ 814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152772
Lee X, Yang F, Xing Y, Huang Y, Xu L, Liu Z, Holtzman R, Kan I, Li Y, Zhang L, Zhou H (2022) Use of biochar to manage soil salts and water: Effects and mechanisms. Catena (Amst) 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106018
Liu X, Zhang J, Wang Q, Chang T, Shaghaleh H, Hamoud YA (2022) Improvement of photosynthesis by biochar and vermicompost to enhance tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yield under Greenhouse Conditions. Plants 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233214
Low YW, Yee KF (2021) A review on lignocellulosic biomass waste into biochar-derived catalyst: Current conversion techniques, sustainable applications and challenges. Biomass Bioenergy 154:106245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106245
Ludwiczak A, Osiak M, Cárdenas-Pérez S, Lubińska-Mielińska S, Piernik A (2021) Osmotic stress or ionic composition: which affects the early growth of crop species more? Agronomy 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030435
Lv X, Chen S, Wang Y (2019) Advances in understanding the physiological and molecular responses of sugar beet to salt stress. Front Plant Sci 10:493463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01431
Mahmoud AWM, Samy MM, Sany H, Eid RR, Rashad HM, Abdeldaym EA (2022) Nanopotassium, nanosilicon, and biochar applications improve potato salt tolerance by modulating photosynthesis, water status, and biochemical constituents. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020723
Mahmoud ESA, Hassanin MA, Borham TI, Emara EIR (2018) Tolerance of some sugar beet varieties to water stress. Agric Water Manag 201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.01.024
Mansuri M, Babazadeh H, Emdad MR, Taleghani D (2018) Effect of deficit irrigation management on qualitative and quantitative yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Karaj, Iran. Appl Ecol Environ Res 16. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1601_455466
Ma Y, Dias MC, Freitas H (2020) Drought and salinity stress responses and microbe-induced tolerance in plants. Front Plant Sci 11:591911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.591911
McKay G, Pradhan S, Mackey HR, Al Ansari T (2021) Biochar: a sustainable approach for water stress and plant growth. Int J Global Warming 25:425. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijgw.2021.10042683
Naguib WB, Divte PR, Chandra A, Sathee L, Singh B, Mandal PK, Anand A (2021) Raffinose accumulation and preferential allocation of carbon (14C) to developing leaves impart salinity tolerance in sugar beet. Physiol Plant 173. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13420
Ndede EO, Kurebito S, Idowu O, Tokunari T, Jindo K (2022) The potential of biochar to enhance the water retention properties of sandy agricultural soils. Agronomy 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020311
Nehela Y, Mazrou YSA, Alshaal T, Rady AMS, El-Sherif AMA, Omara AED, El-Monem AMA, Hafez EM (2021) The integrated amendment of sodic-saline soils using biochar and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria enhances maize (Zea mays L.) resilience to water salinity. Plants 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10091960
Obadi A, Alharbi A, Alomran A, Alghamdi AG, Louki I, Alkhasha A (2023) Effect of biochar application on morpho-physiological traits, yield, and water use efficiency of tomato crop under water quality and drought stress. Plants 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122355
Ozturk M, Turkyilmaz Unal B, García-Caparrós P, Khursheed A, Gul A, Hasanuzzaman M (2021) Osmoregulation and its actions during the drought stress in plants. Physiol Plant 172. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13297
Page AL (1982) Methods of soil analysis-Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological properties, 2nd edn. Am Soc Agron Inc PublMadison, USA, p 9
Parkash V, Singh S (2020) Potential of biochar application to mitigate salinity stress in eggplant. HortScience 55:1946–1955. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI15398-20
Premachandra GS, Saneoka H, Ogata S (1990) Cell membrane stability, an indicator of drought tolerance, as affected by applied nitrogen in soyabean. J Agric Sci 115:63–66
Pallavolu LA, Pasala R, Kulasekaran R, Pandey BB, Virupaksham U, Perika S (2023) Analysing the SPAD dynamics of water-stressed vs. well-watered sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) accessions and establishing their relationship with seed yield. PeerJ 11. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14711
Rahimi A, Moghaddam SS, Noorhosseini SA, Hajyzadeh M (2019) Effects of foliar application of micronutrients on agronomic traits of beet Cv. sonja under dsa (Hot Summer Continental) climatic conditions of Naqadeh Iran. Turk J Agric-Food Sci Technol 7. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i6.828-832.2089
Ran X, Wang X, Gao X, Liang H, Liu B, Huang X (2021) Effects of salt stress on the photosynthetic physiology and mineral ion absorption and distribution in white willow (Salix alba L.). PLoS One 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260086
Rashmi I, Kumawat A, Munawery A, Sreekumar Karthika K, Kumar Sharma G, Kala S, Pal R (2023) Soil amendments: an ecofriendly approach for soil health improvement and sustainable oilseed production. In: Oilseed crops - uses, biology and production. Intech Open. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106606
Razzaghi F, Obour PB, Arthur E (2020) Does biochar improve soil water retention? A systematic review and metaanalysis. Geoderma 361:114055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114055
Saddhe AA, Manuka R, Penna S (2021) Plant sugars: Homeostasis and transport under abiotic stress in plants. Physiol Plant 171. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13283
Saravanan A, Kumar PS (2022) Biochar derived carbonaceous material for various environmental applications: systematic review. Environ Res 214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113857
Saifullah DS, Naeem A, Rengel Z, Naidu R (2018) Biochar application for the remediation of salt-affected soils: challenges and opportunities. Sci Total Environ 625:320–335
Seleiman MF, Al-Suhaibani N, Ali N, Akmal M, Alotaibi M, Refay Y, Dindaroglu T, Abdul-Wajid HH, Battaglia ML (2021) Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants 10(2):259. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020259
Selem E, Hassan AASA, Awad MF, Mansour E, Desoky ESM (2022) Impact of exogenously sprayed antioxidants on physio-biochemical, agronomic, and quality parameters of potato in salt-affected soil. Plants 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11020210
Semida WM, Abdelkhalik A, Rady MOA, Marey RA, Abd El-Mageed TA (2020) Exogenously applied proline enhances growth and productivity of drought stressed onion by improving photosynthetic efficiency, water use efficiency and up-regulating osmoprotectants. Sci Hortic 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109580
Seyedsadr S, Šípek V, Jačka L, Sněhota M, Beesley L, Pohořelý M, Kovář M, Trakal L (2022) Biochar considerably increases the easily available water and nutrient content in low-organic soils amended with compost and manure. Chemosphere 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133586
Shabbir R, Singhal RK, Mishra UN, Chauhan J, Javed T, Hussain S, Kumar S, Anuragi H, Lal D, Chen P (2022) Combined abiotic stresses: challenges and potential for crop improvement. Agronomy 12(11):2795. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112795
Shahid MA, Sarkhosh A, Khan N, Balal RM, Ali S, Rossi L, Gómez C, Mattson N, Nasim W, Garcia-Sanchez F (2020) Insights into the physiological and biochemical impacts of salt stress on plant growth and development. Agronomy 10(7):938. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10070938
Sharma A, Shahzad B, Kumar V, Kohli SK, Sidhu GPS, Bali AS, Handa N, Kapoor D, Bhardwaj R, Zheng B (2019) Phytohormones regulate accumulation of osmolytes under abiotic stress. Biomolecules 9(7):285. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom9070285
Sharma P, Abrol V, Sharma V, Chaddha S, Srinivasa Rao C, Ganie AQ, Ingo Hefft D, El-Sheikh MA, Mansoor S (2021) Effectiveness of biochar and compost on improving soil hydro-physical properties, crop yield and monetary returns in inceptisol subtropics. Saudi J Biol Sci 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.09.043
Shin YK, Bhandari SR, Lee JG (2021) Monitoring of salinity, temperature, and drought stress in grafted watermelon seedlings using chlorophyll fluorescence. Front Plant Sci 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.786309
Singh H, Northup BK, Rice CW, Prasad PVV (2022) Biochar applications influence soil physical and chemical properties, microbial diversity, and crop productivity: a meta-analysis. Biochar 4(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00138-1
Singh R, Mavi MS, Choudhary OP (2019) Saline soils can be ameliorated by adding biochar generated from rice-residue waste. Clean (Weinh) 47. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201700656
Subrahmanyeswari T, Gantait S (2022) Advancements and prospectives of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) biotechnology. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 106(22):7417–7430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-022-12226-0
Su JY, Liu CH, Tampus K, Lin YC, Huang CH (2022) Organic amendment types influence soil properties, the soil bacterial microbiome, and tomato growth. Agronomy 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051236
Tanure MMC, da Costa LM, Huiz HA, Fernandes RBA, Cecon PR, Pereira Junior JD, da Luz JMR (2019) Soil water retention, physiological characteristics, and growth of maize plants in response to biochar application to soil. Soil Tillage Res 192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.05.007
Tan Z, Yuan S, Hong M, Zhang L, Huang Q (2020) Mechanism of negative surface charge formation on biochar and its effect on the fixation of soil Cd. J Hazard Mater 384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121370
Tomczyk A, Sokołowska Z, Boguta P (2020) Biochar physicochemical properties: pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind effects. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 19(1):191–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09523-3
Tomaszewska J, Bieliński D, Binczarski M, Berlowska J, Dziugan P, Piotrowski J, Stanishevsky A, Witońska IA (2018) Products of sugar beet processing as raw materials for chemicals and biodegradable polymers. RSC Adv 8:3161–3177. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ra12782k
Ullah A, Bano A, Khan N (2021) Climate change and salinity effects on crops and chemical communication between plants and plant growth-promoting microorganisms under stress. Front Sustain Food Syst 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.618092
Verheijen FGA, Zhuravel A, Silva FC, Amaro A, Ben-Hur M, Keizer JJ (2019) The influence of biochar particle size and concentration on bulk density and maximum water holding capacity of sandy vs sandy loam soil in a column experiment. Geoderma 347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.03.044
Vermeiren I, Jobling GA (1980) LLocalized irrigation--design, installation, operation, evaluation. FAO Rome 36
Wang H, Gong M, Xin H, Tang L, Dai D, Gao Y, Liu C (2018) Effects of chilling stress on the accumulation of soluble sugars and their key enzymes in Jatropha curcas seedlings. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-018-0568-6
Wang Y, Stevanato P, Lv C, Li R, Geng G (2019) Comparative physiological and proteomic analysis of two sugar beet genotypes with contrasting salt tolerance. J Agric Food Chem 67. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00244
Wei B, Peng Y, Jeyakumar P, Lin L, Zhang D, Yang M, Zhu J, Ki Lin CS, Wang H, Wang Z, Li C (2023) Soil pH restricts the ability of biochar to passivate cadmium: a meta-analysis. Environ Res 219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115110
Wiśniewska A, Andryka-Dudek P, Czerwiński M, Chołuj D (2019) Fodder beet is a reservoir of drought tolerance alleles for sugar beet breeding. Plant Physiol Biochem 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.10.031
Xiao F, Zhou H (2023) Plant salt response: Perception, signaling, and tolerance. Front Plant Sci 13:1053699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1053699
Yang A, Akhtar SS, Li L, Fu Q, Li Q, Naeem MA, He X, Zhang Z, Jacobsen SE (2020) Biochar mitigates combined effects of drought and salinity stress in Quinoa. Agronomy 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060912
Yang J, Zhang J, Li C, Zhang Z, Ma F, Li M (2019) Response of sugar metabolism in apple leaves subjected to short-term drought stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.05.025
Yolcu S, Alavilli H, Ganesh P, Asif M, Kumar M, Song K (2022) An insight into the abiotic stress responses of cultivated beets (Beta vulgaris l.). Plants 11(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010012
Yolcu S, Alavilli H, Ganesh P, Panigrahy M, Song K (2021) Salt and drought stress responses in cultivated beets (Beta vulgaris l.) and wild beet (beta maritima l.). Plants 10(9):1843. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10091843
Zhang P, Yang F, Zhang H, Liu L, Liu X, Chen J, Wang X, Wang Y, Li C (2020) Beneficial effects of biochar-based organic fertilizer on nitrogen assimilation, antioxidant capacities, and photosynthesis of sugar beet (beta vulgaris l.) under saline-alkaline stress. Agronomy 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101562
Zhang W, Wei J, Guo L, Fang H, Liu X, Liang K, Niu W, Liu F, Siddique KHM (2023) Effects of two biochar types on mitigating drought and salt stress in tomato seedlings. Agronomy 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041039
Zhao S, Zhang Q, Liu M, Zhou H, Ma C, Wang P (2021) Regulation of plant responses to salt stress. Int J Mol Sci 22(9):4609. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094609
Acknowledgements
The authors express gratitude to the agriculture experimental center (Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University) for conducting the field experiments.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Abdou, N.M., EL-Samnoudi, I.M., Ibrahim, A.EA.M. et al. Biochar Amendment Alleviates the Combined Effects of Salinity and Drought Stress on Water Productivity, Yield and Quality Traits of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.). J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 24, 2091–2110 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-024-01754-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-024-01754-5