Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:26:45.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the loss of yield of sugar beet caused by beet yellows virus. II. Nutrition and variety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Hull  and
Marion Watson
R. Hull
Affiliation:
Midland Agricultural College, Sutton Bonington
Marion Watson
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effect of beet yellows virus on the yield of sugar beet was tested in the presence and absence of various fertilizers and farmyard manure. In general the manorial treatments increased the root and sugar yields of both infected and healthy plants, but the losses caused by infection increased proportionally as the mean yields increased. When the effects of nitrogen, farmyard manure and salt on mean yield were large, the losses caused by infection were increased more than proportionally.

The fertilizers had little effect in varying the symptoms of the disease. There was some indication that the red colour associated with some varieties of sugar beet was intensified by deficiency of phosphate and potash.

The effect of fertilizers on rate of spread of infection was variable, and again appeared to depend largely upon the magnitude of the fertilizer effects on mean yield. Nitrogen, phosphate and potash occasionally had positive effects, and salt had a fairly consistent negative effect. None of the effects appeared to be of any economic importance.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 1947 , pp. 301 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

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

Coons, G. H., Stewart, D. & Elcock, H. A. (1931). Yearb. U.S. Dep. Agric. p. 493.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1938). Statistical Tables. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hale, J., Watson, M. A. & Hull, R. (1946). Ann. Appl. Biol. 33, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, F. V., Abegg, F. A., Murphy, A. M., Tolman, B., Price, , Chas, ., Larmer, F. G. and Carsner, E. (1939). Circ. UJS. Dep. Agric. no. 513.Google Scholar
Richards, F. J. (1941). Ann. Bot., Lond., 5, 18.Google Scholar
Watson, M. A. (1940). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 128, 535.Google Scholar
Watson, M. A. (1942). Ann. Appl. Biol. 29, 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, M. A., Watson, D. J. & Hull, R. (1946). J. Agric. Sci. 36, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1937). Imp. Tech. Commun. Bur. Soil. Sci., Harpenden, no. 35.Google Scholar