Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:36:48.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrate nitrogen in leaves and petioles of sugar beet in relation to yield of sugar and juice purity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. J. Last  and
P. B. H. Tinker
P. J. Last
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds
P. B. H. Tinker
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The use of the correct N dressing for beet is important, as any excess decreases juice purity and profit, and may decrease sugar yield, but no analytical method will at present predict the best dressing in any particular field. The concentration of nitrate in leaves and petioles of beet was determined to test if it would determine the need for top-dressings of N. Beet on seventeen field trials in 3 years testing N were sampled. Nitrate in a wet tissue extract was determined by reducing to ammonia with titanous sulphate and subsequent distillation.

The petiole nitrate concentration decreased sharply with time, from around 1000 ppm in wet tissue in early June to less than 100 ppm in early September. The nitrate concentrations were closely related to nitrogen dressing, and the rapid decline in concentration was decreased by top-dressings. Comparison of samples taken in June showed that most of the variation between the experiments could be accounted for by the different ages of the plants. Sodium fertilizer had no effect on nitrate content.

Petiole nitrate was inversely related to juice purity and sugar concentration, especially when the nitrate content exceeded 700 ppm in June.

On average, petiole nitrate concentrations about 800 ppm in June were associated with the largest sugar yields, but the content could not be used to predict nitrogen top-dressing requirement accurately at individual sites.

Measuring NO3-N cannot at present be recommended as a method for deciding how much nitrogen fertilizer to use, but it has value for detecting severe deficiencies and in research.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 1968 , pp. 383 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Adams, S. N. (1960). The value of calcium nitrate and urea for sugar beet, and the effect of late nitrogenous top dressings. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 54, 395–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1961). The effect of time of application of phosphate and potash on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56, 127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1962). The response of sugar beet to fertilizer and the effect of farmyard manure. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58, 219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. A., Garner, H. V. & Haines, W. B. (1957). The fertilizer requirements of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48, 464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1965). Inorganic forms of nitrogen. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Ed. Black, C. A.. Agronomy monograph 9. American Society of Agronomy, 1179–237.Google Scholar
Brown, R. J. (1943). Sampling sugar beet petioles for measurement of soil fertility. Soil Sci. 56, 213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, A. & Oldfield, J. F. T. (1961). Methods for the assessment of beet quality. Int. Sug. J. 63, 72–4, 103–5.Google Scholar
Dunning, R. A., Heathcote, G. D., Winder, G. H. & Tinker, P. B. (1966). Docking disorder. Rep. Rothamsted exp. Stn. 1965, p. 267.Google Scholar
Dunning, R. A. & Cooke, D. A. (1967). Docking disorder. Br. Sug. Beet. Rev. 36, 23–9.Google Scholar
Goodall, D. W. & Gregory, F. G. (1947). Chemical composition of plants as an index of their nutritional status. Imp. Bur. Hort. Plant Crops Tech. Comm. no. 17.Google Scholar
Haddock, J. L. (1950). Nutritional status of sugar beets as revealed by chemical analysis of petioles. Proc. Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. pp. 334–48.Google Scholar
Hills, F. J., Ferry, G. V. & Ulrich, A. (1963). Marginal nitrate deficiency of sugar beet and the problem of diagnosis. J. Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. 12, 476–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorritsma, J. (1961). De Bemesting van Suikerbieten. II. Mededelingen van het Instituut vor Rationele Suikerproductie. Nederland: Bergen op Zoom.Google Scholar
Kelley, J. D. & Ulrich, A. (1966). Distribution of nitrate nitrogen in the blades and petioles of sugar beets grown at deficient and sufficient levels of nitrogen. J. Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. 14, 106–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, L. S. & Smith, G. E. (1967). Nitrate accumulation in forage crops. Agron. J. 59, 171–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, K. & Bremner, J. N. (1955). Determination of ammonia and nitrate in soil. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 46, 320–8.Google Scholar
Sorensen, C. (1960). The influence of nutrition on the nitrogenous constituents of plants. II. Field experiments with heavy dressings of nitrogen to fodder sugar beets. Ada Agric. scand. 10, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, C. (1962). Nitrate tests and yield structure of fodder sugar beet leaves. Acta Agric. scand. 12, 106–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. (1965). The effects of nitrogou, potassium and sodium fertilizers on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 65, 207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, A. (1948). Plant analysis as a guide to the nutrition of sugar beet in California. Proc. Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. pp. 364–7.Google Scholar
Ulrich, A. (1950). Critical levels of sugar beets established from analysis of petioles and blades with special reference to yields and sucrose concentrations. Soil Sci. 69, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, A. (1964). The relative constancy of the critical nitrogen concentration of sugar beet plants. Plant Analysis and Fertilizer Problems (iv), 371–91. Published by American Society of Horticultural Science.Google Scholar
Ulrich, A. & Hills, F. J. (1952). Petiole sampling of sugar beet leaves in relation to their nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sodium status. Proc. Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. pp. 32–45.Google Scholar
Ulrich, A., Ririe, D., Hills, F. J., George, A. G. & Morse, M. D. (1959). Plant analysis–a guide to sugar beet fertilization. Calif, agric. Exp. Sin Bull. no. 766.Google Scholar
Welbank, P. J. (1964). Competition for nitrogen and potassium in Agropyron repens. Ann. Bot. 28, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. L. (1959). Petiole analysis as a guide to the manuring of sugar beet. Pl. Soil 11, 78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. J. & Davidson, K. K. (1964). Nitrate accumulation in crops and nitrate poisoning of animals. Adv. Agron. 16, 197–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar