Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:01:46.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Establishment and growth of sugar beet as affected by seed treatment and fluid drilling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. C. Longden ,
M. G. Johnson ,
R. J. Darby  and
P. J. Salter
P. C. Longden
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP
M. G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP
R. J. Darby
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire, CV35 9EF
P. J. Salter
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire, CV35 9EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Seed treatments and methods of sowing sugar beet were tested in the laboratory and in field trials in 1975, 1976 and 1977 on a range of soil types including a sand, several loams and a peat.

‘Advancing’ the seed by controlled imbibition of water followed by drying before sowing, gave 2–3 % more emergence. Seedlings appeared 3–4 days earlier and were up to 50 % heavier at the four to six leaf stage, but by final harvest yields of sugar per unit area were similar from advanced and untreated seed. ‘Priming’ in osmotic solutions of salts or polyethylene glycol, to bring all seeds to the point of germination, before drying back and sowing gave inconsistent effects in the field with emergence percentage frequently being below that of the control. Steeping seed in water, aimed at removing germination inhibitors, improved germination and reduced the time to, and duration of, germination when tested in the laboratory but gave poorer results than the untreated control in the field. ‘Chitting’ the seed in the laboratory greatly improved emergence characteristics but treatment effects in the field were very variable. Chitted seeds were sown in carrier gels in the field to try to protect the radicles from damage but seedling establishment was no better from fluid drilling than from normal dry seed sown ‘raw’ or pelleted in clay, even when only chitted seeds were put into the fluid. Possible reasons for this are discussed.

Fluid-drilled seeds consistently gave quicker emergence and larger seedlings. Even when these were 30–50 % heavier, differences had usually become negligible by the end of the average 230 days long growing season, so that sugar yields were not consistently affected by the treatments tested.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , December 1979 , pp. 541 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Austin, R. B. & Longden, P. C. (1967). Some effects of seed size and maturity on the yield of carrot crops. Journal of Horticultural Science 42, 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. B., Longden, P. C. & Hutchinson, J. (1969). Some effects of ‘hardening’ carrot seed. Annals of Botany 33, 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, E. C., Campbell, G. S. & Barlow, W. K. (1973). A dewpoint hygrometer for water potential measurement. Agricultural Meteorology 12, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currah, I. E., Gray, D. & Thomas, T. H. (1974). The sowing of germinating vegetable seeds using a fluid drill. Annals of Applied Biology 76, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darby, R. J. (1978). Assessment of products as fluid carriers. Report of the National Vegetable Research Station for 1977, pp. 64–65.Google Scholar
Dunning, R. A. & Davis, N. B. (1975). Sugar beet, and its pest and virus problems, in England. Proceedings 8th British Insecticide and Fungicide Conference (1975), pp. 453–463.Google Scholar
Ells, J. E. (1963). The influence of treating tomato seed with nutrient solutions on emergence rate and seedling growth. Proceedings of the American Society of Horticultural Science 83, 684–687.Google Scholar
Heydecker, W. & Coolbear, P. (1977). Seed treatments for improved performance – survey and attempted prognosis. Seed Science and Technology 5, 353–425.Google Scholar
Heydecker, W., Higgins, J. & Turner, Y. J. (1975). Invigoration of seeds? Seed Science and Technology 3, 881–888.Google 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
Junttila, O. (1976). Germination inhibitors in fruit extracts of red beet (Beta vulgaris cv. rubra). Journal of Experimental Botany 27, 827–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickorish, G. R. & Darby, R. J. (1976). A handoperated fluid drill for small plot experiments. Experimental Agriculture 12, 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longden, P. C. (1971). Advanced sugar-beet seed. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77, 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longden, P. C. (1974). Washing sugar-beet seed. Journal of the International Institute of Sugar-Beet Research 6, 154–162.Google Scholar
Orchard, T. J. (1977). Estimating the parameters of plant seedling emergence. Seed Science and Technology 5, 61–69.Google Scholar
Salter, P. J. (1978). Fluid drilling of pre-germinated seeds: progress and possibilities. Acta Horticulturae No. 83, pp. 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Bremner, P. M. (1966). The effects of growth, development and yield of sugar beet of extension of the growth period by transplantation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 66, 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K., English, S. D., Wood, D. W. & Unsworth, N. 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
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, 517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Jaggard, K. W. (1978). Theoretical criteria for maximum yield. Proceedings 41st Winter Congress of the IIRB, pp. 179–198.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1952). The physiological basis of variation in yield. Advances in Agronomy 4, 101–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar