The response of sugar beet to potassium and sodium fertilizers

1974 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Durrant ◽  
A. P. Draycott ◽  
D. A. Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Sowing Date ◽  
Fertilizer Recommendations ◽  
K Fertilizer ◽  
Crop Husbandry ◽  
Mineral Soils ◽  
Rate Of Response ◽  
Perfect Substitution

SummaryThe results of 216 field experiments with sugar beet (1957–69), testing K and Na fertilizers, were re-examined. There were only small increases in yield with K or Na on peat or peaty mineral soils but on mineral soils, 100 kg K/ha without Na increased sugar yield by about 0·4 t/ha and 100 kg Na/ha without K increased yield by 0·6 t/ha. Although the average response per kg of nutrient was approximately in inverse proportion to their atomic weights, K and Na were only partially interchangeable; their relative effects differed from field to field and year to year.K seemed most effective in years with more than 80 mm rainfall in March–April but responses were halved when rainfall was 50 mm or less. Sowing date and the interval between giving fertilizer and sowing also influenced response to K; with late-sown crops, K fertilizer given within two weeks of sowing was usually ineffective. Response to Na differed much less with season so Na was on average more effective than K, especially in dry springs. It seems, therefore, that instances of near-perfect substitution between K and Na fertilizers result from chance combinations of weather and crop husbandry.Since in some experiments yields from a combined dressing exceeded those from either nutrient alone, and as the weather is largely unpredictable, both K and Na fertilizers should be given on all mineral soils, except those very rich in K, to be certain of avoiding yield loss. Texture and exchangeable soil K and Na also affected both the amount and rate of response, but did not much influence optimal fertilizer dressings and so are not very useful for making differential fertilizer recommendations.

The effects of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet

1979 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 693-709 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. K. Scott ◽  
S. J. Wilcockson ◽  
F. R. Moisey
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Chenopodium Album ◽  
Growth And Yield ◽  
Stellaria Media ◽  
Leaf Production ◽  
Irreversible Effects ◽  
Hand Weeding

SUMMARYField experiments at Sutton Bonington between 1970 and 1974 tested how crop yields were affected by hand weeding at different stages in the life of early- and latesown crops. Losses where weeds were never controlled ranged from 95% where tallgrowingChenopodium albumL. predominated to 50% whenStellaria media(L.) Vill. andTripleurospermum maritimumL.) Koch ssp.inodorumHyl ex. Vaarama (T.inodorum) were most involved.In five of the seven crops examined the latest date (X) at which weeding had to commence to prevent irreversible effects on growth and yield and the earliest date at which weeding could cease without yield loss (Y) coincided. For late March/early April sowings this occurred 6 weeks after crop emergence, while for late April/early May sowings in which events were more rapid the same stage was reached 4 weeks after emergence. For an early-sown crop in 1973, when rainfall was frequent and heavy andC. albumprolific, X preceded Y with an interval of 4 weeks between the two dates (4–8 weeks after crop emergence, mid-May to mid-June). In complete contrast for a late-sown crop in 1974, when the weather was exceptionally dry andC. albumvirtually absent, Y preceded X and a single weeding at any time between 2 and 8 weeks after emergence would have prevented yield loss.Sugar beet had generally reached the late singling stage (4–6 true leaves) by the time weeding must have commenced. During the next 6 weeks, final yield was depressed by 120–150kg/ha (1·;5%) with each day that weeds were allowed to remain. However, leaf production continued throughout the season and the crop was capable of recovering from early checks caused by weed competition. It proved possible for crops whose weights were depressed by 25–30% when first weeded to recover completely by harvest.

Response by sugar beet to various amounts and times of application of sodium chloride fertilizer in relation to soil type

1982 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. P. Draycott ◽  
Susan M. Bugg
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Chloride ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Sodium Concentration ◽  
Organic Soil ◽  
Organic Soils ◽  
Predictive Test ◽  
Mineral Soils ◽  
Sugar Beet Crop ◽  
Sodium And Potassium

SUMMARYTwo-thirds of the sugar-beet crop in the U.K. receives sodium chloride as part of the fertilizer programme. It is well known that the crop responds profitably on sandy soils which contain relatively little sodium and potassium, and most of these fields now receive sodium chloride. Few crops on clays, silts and organic soils are treated because the value of sodium chloride has never been clearly defined. Thus 36 field experiments were made over the 5 years 1975–9 on contrasting soil types testing five amounts of sodium chloride, 0, 100, 200, 400 and 800 kg/ha, and at two times, either autumn or spring. All the fields chosen were in continuous arable rotations where potassium chloride was applied regularly and nearly all the soils contained more than 120 mg exchangeable K/l.Sodium chloride (400 kg/ha costing £12) increased sugar yield on average by about 0·2 t/ha (worth £40) on the mineral soils but no crop responded on organic soil. Exchangeable soil sodium concentration was not a good predictive test of which fields would respond but all the large increases in yield were on fields with less than 20 mg Na/1. A few crops responded on soils with 20–40 mg Na/1 but no crop responded on soil with more than 40 mg Na/1. A survey of sodium concentrations in 800 soils showed that most mineral soils contained less than 40 mg Na/1 so it is suggested that all mineral soils regardless of texture should receive 400 kg sodium chloride/ha. Crops on organic soils did not respond to sodium chloride because the soils already contained sufficient.Autumn and spring applications of sodium chloride on mineral soils gave similar increases in yield provided the fertilizer was not applied just before sowing, when in 2 years it decreased plant establishment. This effect was particularly damaging on clays and silts where it is frequently difficult for other reasons to obtain good seed beds and full establishment. It is concluded that sodium-containing fertilizers should always be applied well ahead of sowing to allow rainfall and cultivations to incorporate them into the soil. On clays and silts it is suggested that they should be applied before ploughing to avoid soil compaction but on sands there may be advantages in post-ploughing application.

Weed Management in Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Sugar Beet

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan J. Kemp ◽  
Erin C. Taylor ◽  
Karen A. Renner
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Root Yield ◽  
Beet Root ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Sugar Beet Root ◽  
Weed Removal

Field experiments were conducted to determine the critical period of weed interference in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet, and to determine if PRE herbicides increased weed control or sugar beet root yield when glufosinate, glyphosate, or conventional POST herbicides were applied. Glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet root yields were reduced by up to 66 and 67%, respectively, when weeds remained all season in the weedy control treatment compared with yields when weed removal occurred as soon as the weeds were 2.5 cm tall, approximately 2 to 3 wk after planting (WAP). A critical period of weed interference did not occur in this research. The critical time of weed removal was approximately 8 WAP in 1998 and beyond 11 WAP in 1999. Weeds averaged 20 cm in height at 8 WAP and weed densities were greater in 1998 compared with 1999. The critical weed-free period for glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet was 4.5 to 5 WAP in 1998. In 1999, the critical weed-free period at the Michigan Sugar location was 1.5 WAP in glyphosate-resistant sugar beet, and 6.5 WAP in glufosinate-resistant sugar beet for the Michigan Sugar site. Glyphosate or glufosinate POST provided better weed control and resulted in greater sugar beet root yield compared with conventional POST herbicides when data were combined over PRE herbicide treatments. PRE herbicides improved the control of common lambsquarters andAmaranthusspecies in some of the site-years when data were combined over POST treatments, but sugar beet yield did not increase. Our research suggests that PRE herbicides will not be necessary in glyphosate- or glufosinate-resistant sugar beet. To avoid sugar beet yield loss, multiple POST applications of glyphosate or glufosinate will be needed until 6 to 9 WAP to prohibit yield loss from weeds emerging after the last POST application.

Damping-off of sugar beet in Finland: II. Disease control 

1983 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 431-450
Author(s):  
Mauritz Vestberg ◽  
Risto Tahvonen ◽  
Kyösti Raininko
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Damping Off ◽  
Good Protection ◽  
Great Damage

In pot and field experiments carried out in 1979-1981, the systemic funqicide hymexazol prevented satisfactorily soil borne damping-off of sugar beet caused mainly by the fungus Pythium debaryanum auct. non Hesse. The results with the combination hymexazol + thiram were still better. This treatment gave very good protection against the disease up to about two to three weeks after emergence, increased the yield on the average by 5-10 % and produced considerably thicker and denser stands. Thereafter a large number of beets may have become infected, but no great damage was caused as only few died. Band spraying at emergence using hymexazol with a large amount of water as well as spraying into the seed furrow prevented the outbreak of the disease almost completely. Liming had little effect on damping-off.

scholarly journals The impact of cultivar resistance and fungicide treatment on mycotoxin content in grain and yield losses caused by Fusarium head blight in wheat

2010 ◽  
Vol 46 (No. 1) ◽  
pp. 21-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Šíp ◽  
J. Chrpová ◽  
O. Veškrna ◽  
L. Bobková
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Fusarium Head Blight ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Joint Effect ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Cultivar Resistance ◽  
Head Blight ◽  
Fungicide Treatment ◽  
The Impact

Reactions to artificial infection with Fusarium graminearum isolates and a new fungicide Swing Top were studied in nine winter wheat cultivars evaluated in field experiments at two sites for three years for expression of symptoms, deoxynivalenol (DON) content in grain and grain yield. The results demonstrate a pronounced and relatively stable effect of cultivar resistance on reducing head blight, grain yield losses and contamination of grain by the mycotoxin DON. It is advantageous that the moderate level of resistance to Fusarium head blight (FHB) was detected also in two commonly grown Czech cultivars Sakura and Simila. Average fungicide efficacy for DON was 49.5% and 63.9% for a reduction in yield loss, however, it was found highly variable in different years and sites. The joint effect of cultivar resistance and fungicide treatment was 86.5% for DON and even 95.4% for reducing the yield loss. A very high risk was documented for susceptible cultivars and also the effects of medium responsive cultivars were found to be highly variable in different environments and therefore not guaranteeing sufficient protection against FHB under different conditions.

scholarly journals Assessing the Potential of Extra-Early Maturing Landraces for Improving Tolerance to Drought, Heat, and Both Combined Stresses in Maize

Agronomy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Nelimor ◽  
Baffour Badu-Apraku ◽  
Antonia Yarney Tetteh ◽  
Ana Luísa Garcia-Oliveira ◽  
Assanvo Simon-Pierre N’guetta
Keyword(s):  
Heat Stress ◽  
Abiotic Stress ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Genetic Base ◽  
Maize Varieties ◽  
Early Maturing ◽  
Maize Landraces ◽  
Landrace Accessions

Maize landrace accessions constitute an invaluable gene pool of unexplored alleles that can be harnessed to mitigate the challenges of the narrowing genetic base, declined genetic gains, and reduced resilience to abiotic stress in modern varieties developed from repeated recycling of few superior breeding lines. The objective of this study was to identify extra-early maize landraces that express tolerance to drought and/or heat stress and maintain high grain yield (GY) with other desirable agronomic/morpho-physiological traits. Field experiments were carried out over two years on 66 extra-early maturing maize landraces and six drought and/or heat-tolerant populations under drought stress (DS), heat stress (HS), combined both stresses (DSHS), and non-stress (NS) conditions as a control. Wide variations were observed across the accessions for measured traits under each stress, demonstrating the existence of substantial natural variation for tolerance to the abiotic stresses in the maize accessions. Performance under DS was predictive of yield potential under DSHS, but tolerance to HS was independent of tolerance to DS and DSHS. The accessions displayed greater tolerance to HS (23% yield loss) relative to DS (49% yield loss) and DSHS (yield loss = 58%). Accessions TZm-1162, TZm-1167, TZm-1472, and TZm-1508 showed particularly good adaptation to the three stresses. These landrace accessions should be further explored to identify the genes underlying their high tolerance and they could be exploited in maize breeding as a resource for broadening the genetic base and increasing the abiotic stress resilience of elite maize varieties.

scholarly journals Modeling the Competitive Effect of Euphorbia dracunculoides and Astragalus sp. in Zero Input Rainfed Chickpea

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. IKRAM ◽  
A. TANVEER ◽  
R. MAQBOOL ◽  
M.A. NADEEN
Keyword(s):  
Protein Content ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Seed Protein ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Seed Protein Content ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Competition Period ◽  
Crop Competition ◽  
Weed Removal

ABSTRACT: Brown chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the two chickpea types grown in Pakistan and other countries. The critical period for weed removal in a rainfed chickpea system is an important consideration in devising weed management strategies. Field experiments were conducted in the winter season of 2011 and 2012 to determine the extent of yield loss with different periods of weed crop competition. Seven weed crop competition periods (0, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105 and 160 days after sowing - DAS) were used to identify the critical period for weed removal in rainfed chickpea. Experimental plots were naturally infested with Euphorbia dracunculoides and Astragalus sp. in both years. Individual, composite density and dry weights of E. dracunculoides and Astragalussp. increased significantly with an increase in the competition period. However, yield and yield-contributing traits of chickpea significantly decreased with an increase in the competition period. Chickpea seed yield loss was 11-53% in different weed crop competition periods. Euphorbia dracunculoides and Astragalus sp. removed 39.9 and 36.9 kg ha-1 of N, 9.61 and 7.27 kg ha-1 of P and 38.3 and 36.9 kg ha-1 of K, respectively. Season long weed competition (160 days after sowing) resulted in 19.5% seed protein content compared with 24.5% seed protein content in weed-free chickpea. A Logistic equation was fitted to yield data in response to increasing periods of weed crop competition. The critical timing of weed removal at 5 and 10% acceptable yield losses were 26 and 39 DAS, respectively. The observed critical period suggests that in rainfed chickpea, a carefully timed weed removal could prevent grain yield losses.

scholarly journals Control of Volunteer Glyphosate-Resistant Canola in Glyphosate-Resistant Sugar Beet

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vipan Kumar ◽  
Prashant Jha
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
Leaf Stage ◽  
Beet Root ◽  
Control Volunteer ◽  
Sugar Beet Root ◽  
Herbicide Programs

Occurrence of glyphosate-resistant (GR) canola volunteers in GR sugar beet is a management concern for growers in the Northern Great Plains. Field experiments were conducted at the Southern Agricultural Research Center near Huntley, MT, in 2011 and 2012 to evaluate effective herbicide programs to control volunteer GR canola in GR sugar beet. Single POST application of triflusulfuron methyl alone at the two-leaf stage of sugar beet was more effective at 35 compared with 17.5 g ai ha−1. However, rate differences were not evident when triflusulfuron methyl was applied as a sequential POST (two-leaf followed by [fb] six-leaf stage of sugar beet) program (17.5 fb 17.5 or 35 fb 35 g ha−1). Volunteer GR canola plants in the sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–containing treatments produced little biomass (11 to 15% of nontreated plots) but a significant amount of seeds (160 to 661 seeds m−2). Ethofumesate (4,200 g ai ha−1) PRE followed by sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl (17.5 or 35 g ha−1) provided effective control (94 to 98% at 30 d after treatment [DAT]), biomass reduction (97%), and seed prevention of volunteer GR canola. There was no additional advantage of adding either desmedipham + phenmedipham + ethofumesate premix (44.7 g ha−1) or ethofumesate (140 g ha−1) to the sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–only treatments. The sequential POST ethofumesate-only (140 fb 140 g ha−1) treatment provided poor volunteer GR canola control at 30 DAT, and the noncontrolled plants produced 6,361 seeds m−2, which was comparable to the nontreated control (7,593 seeds m−2). Sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–containing treatments reduced GR sugar beet root and sucrose yields to 18 and 20%, respectively. Consistent with GR canola control, sugar beet root and sucrose yields were highest (95 and 91% of hand-weeded plots, respectively) when the sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–containing treatments were preceded by ethofumesate (4,200 g ha−1) PRE. Growers should utilize these effective herbicide programs to control volunteer GR canola in GR sugar beet. Because of high canola seed production potential, as evident from this research, control efforts should be aimed at preventing seed bank replenishment of the GR canola volunteers.

Weed control in sugar beet with single and split applications of herbicides

1971 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice Eddowes
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Sandy Loam ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
The West ◽  
West Midlands ◽  
Free Environment ◽  
Annual Weeds ◽  
Residual Herbicide

SummaryRecent developments in chemical weed control in sugar beet have been reviewed. Two main approaches to the problem of providing reliable season-long control of annual weeds in sugar beet are, (a) the use of mixtures of herbicides applied pre-planting and incorporated into the soil during seed bed preparation, and (b) the use of split applications with a residual herbicide applied pre-emergence followed by a contact herbicide applied post-emergence.The second approach (b) was examined in a series of field experiments from 1967 to 1969, on light to medium sandy loam soils in the West Midlands. Comparisons were made between pre-emergence application of lenacil and pyrazon, pre-emergence application of lenacil and pyrazon followed by post-emergence application of phenmedipham, and post-emergence application of phenmedipham for weed control in sugar beet.Under dry soil conditions in April 1967, lenacil and pyrazon controlled only about 40% of the annual weeds, but in 1968 and 1969, when moist soil conditions predominated in April and May, lenacil and pyrazon controlled 80–95% of the annual weeds.Phenmedipham applied post-emergence gave about 90% control of annual broadleaved weeds initially, but it seemed unlikely that a single application of this herbicide would provide satisfactory weed control in sugar beet.In each of the 3 years 1967–9, a split application of a soil-acting residual herbicide (pro-emergence) followed by phenmedipham (post-emergence) gave outstanding weed control and enabled sugar beet to be established and grown until mid-June at least, in a near weed-free environment. It was concluded that this technique was the most effective for weed control in sugar beet on light to medium sandy loam soils in the West Midlands.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document