Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:27:51.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A vernalization-intensity model to predict bolting in sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

G. F. J. MILFORD ,
P. J. JARVIS  and
C. WALTERS
G. F. J. MILFORD*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research and Development Department, British Sugar plc, Holmewood Hall, Holme, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE7 3PG, UK
P. J. JARVIS
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research and Development Department, British Sugar plc, Holmewood Hall, Holme, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE7 3PG, UK
C. WALTERS
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research and Development Department, British Sugar plc, Holmewood Hall, Holme, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE7 3PG, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed: Email: george.milford@tiscali.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A new model is presented that relates the numbers of bolters in sugar-beet crops to an intensity of vernalization calculated as the accumulated number of hours between sowing and the end of June that temperatures were between 0 and 13°C, with each temperature within this range differentially weighted for its vernalizing effect. The model allows varieties to be characterized in terms of a threshold number of vernalizing hours needed to induce bolting (the vernalization requirement) and the increase in the proportion of bolted plants with each additional 10 vernalizing hours accumulated above this vernalizing threshold (the bolting sensitivity). When parameterized for variety, the model allows the level of bolting to be predicted for crops sown on specific dates in particular locations.

Data from variety-assessment trials done at a wide range of locations throughout the main UK sugar-beet growing areas between 1973 and 2006, and from early sown bolting trials done at a few sites between 2000 and 2008, were used to define specific aspects of the model. These included the range and weightings of vernalizing temperatures, the period during which vernalization occurs, and the temperatures likely to cause plants to become devernalized.

The vernalization-intensity bolting model was parameterized and validated using separate subsets of the UK variety-assessment trial data. It was shown to be more discriminating and robust than an existing ‘cool-day’ model, which relates bolting to the number of days from sowing in which the maximum air temperature was below 12°C. Examples are given of the use of the new model to assess the bolting risk associated with early sowing in different regions of the UK, to interpret recent patterns of bolting (especially the large numbers of bolters seen in some commercial crops in 2008), and its potential use as an advisory tool.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 127 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bell, G. D. H. (1946). Induced bolting and anthesis in sugar beet and the effect of selection of physiological types. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 36, 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosemark, N. O. (1993). Genetics and breeding. In The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice (Eds Cooke, D. A. & Scott, R. K.), pp. 67–119. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, G. K. G. & Russell, G. E. (1965). Breeding sugar beet. In Report of the Plant Breeding Institute for 1963–64, pp. 6–32. Cambridge, UK: Plant Breeding Institute.Google Scholar
Fauchère, J., Richard-Molard, M., Souverain, F., Prats, S., Pérarnaud, V. & Decquiedt, B. (2003). Cartographie des risque de montées en France en relation avec les températures de printemps et d’été – conséquences sur l'expérimentation et le conseil. In Proceedings of the 1st Joint International Institut de Rechèrches sur la Betterave/American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 2003, pp. 189–205. Brussels & Denver, CO: IIRB & ASSBT.Google Scholar
Hornsey, K. G. & Arnold, M. H. (1979). The origins of weed beet. Annals of Applied Biology 92, 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, R. & Webb, D. J. (1970). The effect of sowing date and harvesting date on the yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Wickens, R., Webb, D. J. & Scott, R. K. (1983). Effects of sowing date on plant establishment and bolting and the influence of these factors on yields of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Qi, A. & Semenov, M. A. (2007). The impact of climate change on sugarbeet yield in the UK: 1976–2004. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 145, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Qi, A. & Inskip, P. (2009). Why was 2008 such a good year for beet yields? British Sugar Beet Review 77, 14–16.Google Scholar
Janssen, P. H. M. & Heuberger, P. S. C. (1995). Calibration of process-oriented models. Ecological Modelling 83, 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, P. W. & Payne, R. W. (1996). Genstat for Windows: an Introductory Course, 3rd edn. Harpenden, Herts, UK: Lawes Agricultural Trust.Google Scholar
Launay, M. & Guerif, M. (2003). Ability for a model to predict crop production variability at the regional scale: an evaluation for sugar beet. Agronomy 23, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexander, K. (1969). Increase in bolting as an effect of low temperature on unripe sugar beet seed. In Proceedings of the 32nd Winter Congress of the Institut de Rechèrches sur la Betterave, Brussels, pp. 71–75. Brussels: IIRB.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C., Scott, R. K. & Tydesley, J. B. (1975). Bolting of sugar beet grown in England. Outlook on Agriculture 8, 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longden, P. C., Clarke, N. A. & Thomas, T. H. (1995). Control of bolting and flowering in sugar beet. In Proceedings of the 58th Winter Congress of the Institut de Rechèrches sur la Betterave, Brussels, pp. 71–75. Brussels: IIRB.Google Scholar
Milford, G. F. J., Pocock, T. O. & Riley, J. (1985). An analysis of leaf growth in sugar beet: II. Leaf appearance in field crops. Annals of Applied Biology 106, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milford, G. F. J., Shield, I. F., Siddons, P. A., Jones, R. J. A. & Huyghe, C. (1996). Simple physiological models of plant development for the white lupin (Lupinus albus) and their use in agricultural practice. Aspects of Applied Biology 46, 119–124.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K., English, S. D., Wood, D. W. & Unsworth, M. H. (1973). The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, C. C., Finnegan, E. J., Rouse, D. T., Tadege, M., Bagnall, D. J., Helliwell, C. A., Peacock, W. J. & Dennis, E. S. (2000). The control of flowering by vernalization. Current Opinions in Plant Biology 3, 418–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, G. G. & Dean, C. (2002). Arabidopsis, the Rosetta stone of flowering? Science 296, 285–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stout, M. (1946). Relation of temperature to reproduction in sugar beets. Journal of Agricultural Research 72, 49–68.Google Scholar
Streck, N. A. (2003). A vernalization model in onion (Allium cepa L.). Revisita Brasiliera de Agrosciência 10, 99–105.Google Scholar
Streck, N. A. & Schuh, M. (2005). Simulating the vernalization response of the ‘Snow Queen’ lily (Lilium longiflorum Thunb.). Scienta Agricola 62, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streck, N. A., Weiss, A. & Baezinger, P. S. (2003). A generalized vernalization response function for winter wheat. Agronomy Journal 95, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sung, S. & Amasino, R. M. (2005). Remembering winter: toward a molecular understanding of vernalization. Annual Review of Plant Biology 56, 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, E. & Engel, T. (1998). Simulation of phenological development of wheat crops. Agricultural Systems 58, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmott, C. J. (1981). On the validation of models. Physical Geography 2, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. W. & Scott, R. K. (1975). Sowing sugar beet in autumn in England. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. W., Scott, R. K. & Longden, P. C. (1980). Effects of mother-plant temperature on seed quality in Beta vulgaris L. (sugar beet). In Seed Production (Ed. Hebblethwaite, P. B.), pp. 257–270. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E., Fellows, J. R., Phelps, K. & Reader, R. J. (1995). Vernalization in calabrese (Brassica oleracea var. Italica) – a model for apex development. Journal of Experimental Botany 43, 1487–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, W. & Hunt, L. A. (1999). Reanalysis of vernalization data of wheat and carrot. Annals of Botany 84, 615–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar