Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:15:02.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects on growth, development and yield of sugar beet of extension of the growth period by transplantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. K. Scott  and
P. M. Bremner
R. K. Scott
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough
P. M. Bremner
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A series of three field experiments, concerning the effects on growth, development and yield of sugar beet of extension of the growing season by transplantation, were carried out in 1962, 1963 and 1964. The first two experiments were subject to sequential sampling programmes for growthanalysis purposes, but in the third only yield data were recorded.

2. Root yield increased with advance in planting date and increase in plant population in all 3 years. Nitrogen had no effect on root yield in any year. There was no consistent interaction between time of planting and plant population in their effects on root yield. The advantage for transplanting over field sowing ranged from 4 tons washed beet per acre in the case of an early field sowing (20 March) to 10 tons in a late one (23 April). There were no treatment effects on the concentration of sugar in the roots. The roots of transplants were more globular in shape and fanged than were those of field-sown beet.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 1966 , pp. 379 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Blackman, G. E., Black, J. N. & Kemp, A. W. (1955). Ann. Bot., Lond. (N.S.), 19, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, P. M. & Radley, R. W. (1966). J. Agric. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Bremner, P. M. & Taha, M. A. (1966). J. Agric. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Brouwer, R. (1962). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 10, 399.Google Scholar
Gaastra, P. (1962). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 10, 311.Google Scholar
Orchard, B. (1963). In The Water Relations of Plants, p. 340. Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Warne, L. G. G. (1961). Nature, Lond., 192, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassine, E. C. (1948). Meded. Dir. Tuinb. 11, 503.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1952). Advanc. Agron. 4, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1956). In The Growth of Leaves, p. 178. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1958). Ann. Bot., Lond. (N.S.), 22, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Baptiste, E. C. D. (1938). Ann. Bot., Lond. (N.S.), 2, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Witts, K. J. (1959). Ann. Bot., Lond. (N.S.), 23, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wit, C. T. de (1959). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 7, 141.Google Scholar