Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:57:36.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of sowing date on plant establishment and bolting and the influence of these factors on yields of sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. W. Jaggard ,
R. Wickens ,
D. J. Webb  and
R. K. Scott
K. W. Jaggard
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
R. Wickens
Affiliation:
Arthur Rickwood Experimental Husbandry Farm, Mepal, Ely, Cambs
D. J. Webb
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
R. K. Scott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the effect of early sowing of sugar beet on plant establishment, bolting and yield and whether or not the standard of establishment and degree of bolting determined the most appropriate harvesting sequence. At Arthur Rickwood Experimental Husbandry Farm four experiments were made between 1974 and 1978 testing four sowing dates of four varieties each harvested on three occasions during the autumn. At Broom's Barn three dates of sowing of two varieties were tested in three experiments between 1976 and 1978. Sowing dates throughout the experiments covered a range from late February to late April. Also, at Broom's Barn in 1977 there were many bolters (plants which have a tall, flower-bearing stem) where the crop was sown on 4 March. The effects of bolter-control treatments, either cutting down the inflorescence or removing the plant, on sugar yield were compared. Sowing before mid-March often resulted in very gappy crops and many bolters; in consequence yields were seriously reduced. Late-March sowings were almost free from plant establishment problems and, where the bolting-resistant variety ‘Nomo’ was used, bolters were few; yields of Nomo were greater than where sown in early April. Progressively more yield was lost by delaying sowing throughout April. Variation in the extent of bolting between sites, seasons and sowing-date treatments was accounted for by variation in the number of cool days (with a maximum temperature of less than 12 °C) after sowing. Yield was lost at a rate of 0·7% for every 1% of bolters over the range 5–40% bolting. During the autumn, crops at Arthur Rickwood which had more than 5% bolters and/or less than 60000 plants/ha gained 0·45 t/ha less sugar than did those with full, bolterfree plant stands. In 1977 many of the early-sown plants bolted; pulling the bolters or cutting the inflorescences improved yield, but not sufficiently to raise yields to the level produced by later-sown, bolter-free crops.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , August 1983 , pp. 147 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Arnold, M. H. (1977). Weed beet and bolters. British Sugar Beet Review 45 (1), 12–13.Google Scholar
Chroboczek, E. (1934). A study of some ecological factors influencing seed-stalk development in beets (Beta vulgaris L.). Cornell University Agricultural Experimental Station, Memoir 154, 128 pp.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1974). The effect of cultural practices on the relationship between plant density and sugar yield. Journal of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research 6, 176–185.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Webb, D. J. & Wright, E. M. (1973). The effect of time of sowing and harvesting on growth, yield and nitrogen fertilizer requirement of sugar beet. 1. Yield and nitrogen uptake at harvest. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81 267–275.Google Scholar
Dunning, R. A. & Thompson, K. J. (1982). Sugar Beet–A Grower's Guide. London: Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C. & Adams, S. N. (1966). The effect of sowing date, harvest date and fertilizer rate on sugar beet. Experimental Husbandry 14, 65–74.Google Scholar
Holmes, M. R. J., Devine, J. R. & Donnett, F. W. (1976). Nitrogen requirements of sugar beet in relation to harvesting date. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86, 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsey, K. G. & Arnold, M. H. (1979). The origins of weed beet. Annals of Applied Biology 92, 279–285.Google Scholar
Hull, R. (1975). Rothamsted Report for 1974, part 1, p. 45.Google Scholar
Hull, R. & Jaggard, K. W. (1971). Recent developments in the establishment of sugar beet stands. Field Crop Abstracts 24, 381–390.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
Jaggard, K. W. (1979). The effect of plant distribution on yield of sugar beet. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Kimber, D. & McCullagh, S. (1980). Trials of commercial varieties of sugar beet. British Sugar Beet Review 48 (3), 33–35.Google Scholar
Knott, C., Palmer, G. M. & Mundy, E. J.The effect of row width and plant population on the yield of sugar beet grown on silt and black fen soils. Experimental Husbandry 31, 91–99.Google 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 International Institute for Sugar Beet Research. Report No. 2.4.Google Scholar
Lonoden, P. C. & Scott, R. K. (1980). Bolter control as a means of containing the weed beet problem: an interim report. British Sugar Beet Review 48 (1), 14–16.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C., Scott, R. K. & Tyldesley, J. B. (1975). Bolting of sugar beet grown in England. Outlook on Agriculture 8, 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maughan, G. L. (1974). Too many beet left in our fields. British Sugar Beet Review 42 (3), 158–163.Google Scholar
Maughan, G. L. (1982). Specific Field Survey (field stats). British Sugar Beet Review 50 (2), 64–66.Google Scholar
Milford, G. F. J., Biscoe, P. V., Jaggard, K. W., Scott, R. K. & Draycott, A. P. (1980). Physiological potential for increasing yields of sugar beet. In Opportunities for Increasing Crop Yields (ed. Hurd, R. G., Biscoe, P. V. and Dennis, C.), pp. 71–85. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. (1978). The year 1978 and the growth of our crop. Rothamsted Report for 1978, part 1, pp. 57–59.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K., English, S. D., Wood, D. W. & Uns-worth, M. H. (1973). The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 339–348.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Jaggard, K. W. (1978). Theoretical Criteria for maximum yield. Proceedings of the 41st Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, pp. 179–198.Google Scholar
Seale, R. S. (1975). Soils of the Ely District. Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Smit, A. L. (1982). Influence of temperature and daylength on bolting in sugar beet. Proceedings of the 45th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Stout, M. (1946). Relation of temperature to reproduction in sugar beets. Journal of Agricultural Research 72, 49–68.Google Scholar
Webb, D. J. (1974). Bolters. Rothamsted Report for 1973, part 1, p. 276.Google Scholar
Willey, L. A. (1970). Bolting in early-sown beet. British Sugar Beet Review 39 (2), 67–68.Google 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