Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:50:56.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sowing sugar beet in autumn in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. W. Wood  and
R. K. Scott
D. W. Wood
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Nr. Loughborough, Leicestershire
R. K. Scott
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Nr. Loughborough, Leicestershire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Experiments in England from 1970 to 1973 investigated the possibility of extending the growing season and increasing yields of bolting resistant sugar beet by sowing in autumn rather than in spring. September-sown plants grew rapidly in spring and achieved a complete leaf cover by mid-June by which time they had intercepted 40 % of radiation incident since mid-April compared with 28 and 9% for crops sown on 13 October and 13 April respectively. By early June autumn-sown plants were 20 fold heavier than spring sown but this advantage was progressively lost with the onset of bolting. Root growth slowed as assimilates were diverted to stem and inflorescence growth. Delaying autumn sowing from late September until mid-October delayed and reduced the frequency of bolting, probably because of a shortening of the period when plants were sufficiently large to respond to cold. Cutting down bolting inflorescences at frequent intervals improved root growth of both bolters and non-bolters. However, yields from autumn sowing never exceeded those from spring sowing, the best yield from an autumn-sown crop was 6·1 t/ha of sugar which was similar to that of the spring-sown crop. To try to prevent bolting of overwintered plants the growth regulator ethephon was applied at 10000 mg a.i./l water sufficient to wet the foliage in mid-April. Growth was severely checked and 55 % of plants died. Of the remainder 25–30% fewer than in the untreated crop bolted but yields were 26–42 % less. Less concentrated doses of ethephon did not affect bolting.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 84 , Issue 1 , February 1975 , pp. 97 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Arafune, T. & Osaki, M. (1966). A study on the introduction of sugar beet into the warmer regions of Japan. Bulletin of the Chugoku Agricultural Experimental Station (Series A) 13, 145–67.Google Scholar
Baldoni, R. (1955). Trials on growing sugar beet in winter. Field Crop Abstracts 10 (2), Abstr. 589.Google Scholar
Bremner, P. M. & Taha, M. A. (1966). Studies in potato agronomy. I. The effects of variety, seed size and spacing on growth development and yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 66, 241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byford, W. J. & Hull, R. (1967). Some observations on the economic importance of sugar beet downy mildew in England. Annals of Applied Biology 60, 281–96.Google Scholar
Chroboczek, E. (1934). A study of some ecological factors influencing seed-stalk development in beets (Beta vulgaris L). Cornell University Agricultural Experimental Station Memoir 154.Google Scholar
Fife, J. M. & Price, C. (1948). Changes in root weight of sugar beets during their reproductive phase. Proceedings of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, pp. 196–2031.Google Scholar
Gaskill, J. O. (1963). The influence of age and supplemental light on flowering of photothermally induced sugar beet seedlings. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 12, 530–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, R. (1951). Control of virus yellows in sugar beet seed crops. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society in England 113, 86–102.Google Scholar
Hull, R. (1961). The health of the sugar beet crop in Great Britain. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society in England 112, 101–12.Google Scholar
Humphries, E. C. & French, A. W. (1970). The effects of ‘Ethrel’ and morphactin on sugar beet and oats. Rothamsted Experimental Station Annual Report for 1969, p. 119.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C. (1973). The control of yield and quality of sugar beet seed. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C., Scott, R. K.Wood, D. W. (1974). Grading monogerm sugar-beet seed and its influence on performance. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margara, J. (1967). Recherches sur les gibberellines et le developpement floral chez la betterave. Journal of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research 2, 242–54.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. T. & Deming, G. W. (1952). Effect of bolters on yield and sucrose content of sugar beets. Proceedings of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 5, 441–4.Google Scholar
Popov, A. & Nedyalkov, N. (1968). On the characteristics causing cold hardiness in sugar beet. Field Crop Abstracts 24, Abstr. 888.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Bremner, P. M. (1966). The effects on growth, development and yield of sugar beet of extension of growth period by transplantation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 66, 379–88.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K., English, S. D., Wood, D. W. & Uns-Worth, M. H. (1973). The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 339–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K., Harper, F., Wood, D. W. & Jaggard, K. W. (1974). Effects of seed size on growth, development and yield of monogerm sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 517–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, M. (1946). Relation of temperature to reproduction in sugar beets. Journal of Agricultural Research 72, 49–68.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Watson, M. A. (1953). Comparative physiological studies of field crops. III. The effect of infection with beet yellows and mosaic viruses on the growth and yield of the sugar beet root crop. Annals of Applied Biology 40, 1–37.Google Scholar