Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:42:26.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Experiments on the spacing of sugar beet: II. Results based on weights of individual plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. H. Garner
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Cambridge
H. G. Sanders
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Cambridge

Extract

1. Yields of plots estimated from the known weights of “perfect” beet (i.e. plants with no gaps in the ring immediately surrounding them) showed 18 × 9 in. to be the optimum spacing.

2. Sugar analyses performed on individual “perfect” beet showed that very diminutive roots were low in sugar, but that in general sugar percentage decreased with increasing weight of root; the decrease was, however, slight and only amounted to unity for an increase of 1000 g. in weight of root.

3. In a dry year the roots immediately surrounding a gap compensated to the extent of 80–89% for the missing plant: the allocation to the individual neighbours was approximately inversely proportional to the square of their distance from the site of the gap. In a wet year compensation was less complete, amounting to from 41 to 84% under various spacing treatments. In both years compensation was less complete in the case of tops than in the case of roots.

4. Within classes of beet similar in regard to spacing treatment and gappiness there still remained considerable variation due to soil and to genetic heterogeneity.

5. The genetic variability of commercial seed appears to be large, so that in sugar beet experiments it is very desirable that each plot should carry a considerable number of plants: in these experiments, assuming that all variations within ultimate classes were of genetic origin, 400 plants would have been necessary to reduce the plot error due to genetic variability to 2% of the mean.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1939). J. agric. Sci. 29, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuckols, S. B. (1936). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 28, 924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar