Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:38:53.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of plant spacing, nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation on the appearance of symptoms and spread of virus yellows in sugar-beet crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. D. Heathcote
G. D. Heathcote
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Satisfactory comparisons of the incidence of virus yellows in sugar-beet fields or experimental plots with different amounts of N fertilizer can be made from visual symptoms early in the growing season, but not later because dressings of N fertilizer may then mask or delay the appearance of symptoms. Sugar-beet plants in the field infected with beet mild yellowing virus (BMYV) are less likely to show symptoms than those with beet yellows virus (BYV), and plants with BMYV in the glasshouse often fail to show clear symptoms.

Crop yield will be affected by the spread of viruses and colonization of plants by aphids, which in turn are affected by such factors as plant density, nitrogen supply and irrigation. The presence or absence of virus diseases and of aphids should therefore be considered during studies on the effects of these agronomic factors on the growth and yield of sugar beet. Where ample rather than little N fertilizer is used a small increase in the percentage of plants infected with yellows can be expected, and aphids will be more numerous, if plants are not treated with insecticide. Irrigation may also increase yellows incidence (e.g. from 16% to 20% of plants at Broom's Barn in 1967), but any loss of potential yield from increased virus incidence will be small compared with that gained from the use of fertilizer or irrigation. However, plant density can appreciably affect yellows incidence. For example, at Broom's Barn in 1972, 51% of plants in crops with 17500 plants/ha contracted BMYV but only 15 % of plants in crops with 126500 plants/ha. The less dense crop lost 3–4% more of its potential yield due to yellows than the dense crop; this represents a difference due to virus of about 0·25 t sugar/ha.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , February 1974 , pp. 53 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Baker, P. F. (1960). Aphid behaviour on healthy and on yellows-virus-infected sugar beet. Annals Applied Biology 48, 384–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawden, F. C. & Kassanis, B. (1950). Some effects of host nutrition on the susceptibility of plants to infection by certain viruses. Annals Applied Biology 37, 46–57.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. W. & McFarlane, J. S. (1967). Damage produced by beet yellows and beet western yellows under greenhouse and field conditions. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 14, 619–36.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. W., Price, C. & Gillespie, G. E. (1954). Effect of virus yellows on yield and sucrose content of beets in tests at Riverside California. Proceedings af the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 8, 236–40.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. A., Tinker, P. B. H., Draycott, A. P. & Last, P. J. (1970). Nitrogen requirement of sugar beet grown on mineral soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 74, 37–46.Google Scholar
Dhaycott, A. P. (1968). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1967, pp. 288–9.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. (1970). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1969, pp. 330–1.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1971). Effects of nitrogen fertilizer, plant population and irrigation on sugar beet. II. Nutrient concentration and uptake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 76, 269–75.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Durrant, M. J. & Boyd, D. A. (1971). The relationship between soil phosphorus and response by sugar beet to phosphate fertilizer on mineral soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77, 117–21.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Farley, R. F. (1971). Effect of sodium and magnesium fertilizers and irrigation on growth, composition and yield of sugar beet. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 559–63.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Webb, D. J. (1971). Effects of nitrogen fertilizer, plant population and irrigation on sugar beet. I. Yields. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 76, 261–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, M. J. & Messem, A. B. (1973). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1972, pp. 282–3.Google Scholar
Goodman, P. J. (1966). Effect of varying plant populations on growth and yield of sugar beet. Agricultural Progress 41, 89–107.Google Scholar
Harris, P. M. (1972). The effect of plant population and irrigation on sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78, 289–302.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1965). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1964, pp. 255–6.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1966). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1965, p. 261.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1967). Report of the Rothamsted Exerimental Station for 1966, p. 276.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1968). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1967, pp. 266–7.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1970 a). Effect of plant spacing and time of sowing of sugar beet on aphid infestation and spread of virus yellows. Plant Pathology 19, 32–9.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1970 a). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1969, p. 311.Google Scholar
Hull, R. (1965). Control of sugar beet yellows. Annals Applied Biology 56, 345–7.Google Scholar
Hull, B. & Watson, M. A. (1947). Factors affecting the loss of yield of sugar beet caused by beet yellows virus. II. Nutrition and variety. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 37, 301–10.Google Scholar
Jaggard, K. W. & Weight, E. M. (1971). Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1970, pp. 267–8.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. & Booth, C. O. (1959). Responses of Aphis fabae Scop, to water shortage in host plants in the field. Entomologia Experimentalis el Applicata 2, 1–11.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S., Booth, C. O. & Kershaw, W. J. S. (1961). Host finding by aphids in the field. III. Visual attraction. Annals Applied Biology 49, 1‐21.Google Scholar
Markkula, M. & Tiittanen, K. (1969). Effect of fertilizers on the reproduction of Tetranychus telarius (L.), Myzus persicae (Sulz.) and Acyrthoaiphon pisum Harris. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 8, 9–14.Google Scholar
Moericke, V. (1949). Über den Farbensinn der Pfirsich-blattlaus (Myzodes persicae Sulz.). Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde 29, 139.Google Scholar
Plank, J. E. Vander(1947). The relation between the size of plant and the spread of systemic diseases. Annals Applied Biology 34, 376–87.Google Scholar
Watson, M. A., Watson, D. J. & Hull, R. (1946). Factors affecting the loss of yield of sugar beet caused by beet yellows virus. 1. Rate and date of infection; date of sowing and harvesting. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 36, 151–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wearing, C. H. (1972). Responses of Myzus persicae and Brevicoryne brassicae to leaf age and water stress in Brussels sprouts grown in pots. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 15, 61–80.Google Scholar
Williams, R. J. B. (1969). The rapid determination of nitrate in crops, soils, drainage and rainwater by a simple field method using diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine with glass fibre paper. Chemistry and Industry pp. 1735–36.Google Scholar