Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation between root weight and sugar content; do we have to continue traditional hypothesis?

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Plant Physiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sugar is a product that is consumed more or less anywhere in the world. Sugar, derived from the raw material of two distinct plants- sugar beet and sugar cane, is produced in a wide range of climatic conditions. In sugar beet, a negative correlation was most often reported between root weight and sugar content. To test and update this hypothesis, we have evaluated 7455 single sugar beet roots harvested in a period of 2015–2019 belonging to full-sib, half-sib, O-type and male-sterile lines for root weight, sugar content, and extraction coefficient of sugar. For all tested roots belong to the mentioned families, a positive weak correlation (r = 0.46, P < 0.01) was found between extraction coefficient of sugar and sugar content. A negative weak correlation (r = − 0.2, P < 0.01) was found between root weight and sucrose content which indicates that the negative relationship remains even in new varieties though not as tightly correlated as it was earlier.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  • Alexander, J. T. (1971). Factors affecting quality. In Johnson, R. T., Alexander, J. T., Rush, G. E., & Hawkes, G. R. (Eds.), Advances in sugarbeet production: Principles and practices (pp. 371–381). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergen, P. (1967). Seasonal patterns of sucrose accumulation and weight increase in sugar beets. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 14, 538–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L. G. (2002). Sugar beet quality improvement. Journal of crop production, 5(1–2), 395–413.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L. G., & Kern, J. J. (1983). Relationships among components of yield and quality of sugarbeets. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 22, 135–145.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. N. (1987). Sucrose production as affected by root yield and sucrose concentration of sugarbeets. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 24, 14–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, G. E. (1987). Selecting sugarbeets for low content of nonsucrose solubles. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 24, 41–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doney, D. (1983). Sugarbeet root yield sucrose concentration: physiology and genetics. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, 14, 216–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doney, D. L., Wyse, R. E., & Theurer, J. C. (1981). The relationship between cell size, yield, and sucrose concentration of the sugarbeet root. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 61, 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1996). Applied regression analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasahat, P., Aghaeezadeh, M., Jabbari, L., Hemayati, S. S., & Townson, P. (2018). Sucrose accumulation in sugar beet: From fodder beet selection to genomic selection. Sugar Tech, 20(6), 635–644.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harms, K., & Schulz, B. (2015). Method for increasing sucrose yield in agricultural production of sugar beet and sugar cane. U.S. Patent 9,029,635, issued May 12, 2015.

  • Helmerick, R. H., Finkner, R. E., & Doxtator, C. W. (1963). Variety crosses in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) I. Expression of heterosis and combining ability. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 12, 573–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, C. M., Kenter, C., & Bloch, D. (2005). Marc concentration of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in relation to sucrose storage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85, 459–465.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ICUMSA. (2009). International commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis. Methods book. Berlin: Bartens.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. M., & Townsend, B. J. (2015). Sugar beet, energy beet, and industrial beet. In V. M. V. Cruz & D. A. Dierig (Eds.), Industrial Crops: Breeding for BioEnergy and Bioproducts (pp. 81–99). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam, M. R. B., & Van den Ende, W. (2013). Sweet immunity in the plant circadian regulatory network. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64, 1439–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2019. Sugar. In OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019-2028, OECD Publishing, Paris/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

  • Owen, F. V. (1945). Cytoplasmically inherited male-sterility in sugar beets. Journal of Agricultural Research, 71, 423–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, L. (1957). Identification of genetically-superior individuals and the prediction of genetic gains in sugar beet breeding programs. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 9, 408–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, F. J. (1916). Correlation between morphological characters and the saccharine content of sugar beet. American Journal of Botany, 3, 361–376.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schiweck, H., Clarke, M., & Pollach, G. (2007). Sugar. In Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry. Weinheim: Wiley.

  • Simmonds, N. W. (1994). Yield and sugar content in sugar beet. International Sugar Journal, 96, 413–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. A., Hecker, R. J., Maag, G. W., & Rasmuson, D. M. (1973). Combining ability and gene action estimates in an eight-parent diallel cross of sugarbeet. Crop Science, 13, 312–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. A., & Martin, S. S. (1989). Effect of selection for sugarbeet purity components on quality and extractions. Crop Science, 29, 294–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theurer, J. C. (1979). Growth patterns in sugarbeet production. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 20(4), 343–367.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trebbi, D. (2005). Genetic analysis of sucrose accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) [dissertation]. East Lansing: Michigan State University

  • TSUDA, C. (1977). Genetic studies on the negative correlation between root weight and sugar content in sugar beets: XI effect of selections of foliar characters on the root weight and sugar content. Japanese Journal of Breeding, 27(4), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

    Parviz Fasahat, Mohsen Aghaeezadeh, Mostafa Hosseinpour & Saeed Sadeghzadeh Hemayati

Authors
  1. Parviz Fasahat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohsen Aghaeezadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mostafa Hosseinpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saeed Sadeghzadeh Hemayati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parviz Fasahat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fasahat, P., Aghaeezadeh, M., Hosseinpour, M. et al. Correlation between root weight and sugar content; do we have to continue traditional hypothesis?. Plant Physiol. Rep. 26, 188–191 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40502-020-00560-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40502-020-00560-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation