Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:24:11.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time of application and chemical form of potassium, phosphorus, magnesium and sodium fertilizers and effects on the growth, yield and quality of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. F. Allison ,
K. W. Jaggard  and
M. J. Armstrong
M. F. Allison
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP, UK
K. W. Jaggard
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP, UK
M. J. Armstrong
Affiliation:
British Sugar plc, Holmewood Hall, Holme, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE7 3PG, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Summary Between 1985 and 1988, 14 field experiments at different sites in the UK assessed the effect of applying P, K, Na and Mg in autumn, early spring, late spring or as a split application in both autumn and late spring on the growth, yield and processing quality of sugarbeet. Supplementary experiments compared Kaynitro and Chilean nitrate of soda. None of the treatments had any effect on plant population densities, and any differences in sugar yield could be explained by the leaching of Na. The effects on processing quality were inconsistent and unlikely to be of agronomic or economic significance. Generally, Kaynitro and Chilean nitrate of soda performed no better than the other fertilizers so it is unlikely that their extra cost would be justified. Apart from Na, the timing of nutrient application appeared to be unimportant, even on soils of low fertility. However, Na, being very mobile, was best applied in spring.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 123 , Issue 1 , August 1994 , pp. 61 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Adams, S. N. (1961). The effect of time of application of phosphate and potash on sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56, 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, M. J. & Jaggard, K. W. (1990). Timing the application of P, K, Na and Mg fertilisers. British Sugar Beet Review 58 (2), 26–28.Google Scholar
Biscoe, P. B. (1990). Timing of fertilizers. In Proceedings of IFA/EFMA seminar on Best Agricultural Practices to Optimise Fertilizer Use, 9–11 October 1990, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, pp. 119–127. Paris, France.Google Scholar
Carruthers, A. & Oldfield, J. F. T. (1961). Methods for the assessment of beet quality. International Sugar Journal 63, 72–74, 103–105, 137–139.Google Scholar
Clare, R. W. & Harrod, M. F. (1978). Ploughing down phosphorus and potassium for sugar beet. Experimental Husbandry 34, 61–70.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. (1972). Sugar-Beet Nutrition. London: Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Bugg, S. M. (1982). Response by sugar beet to various amounts and times of application of sodium chloride fertilizer in relation to soil type. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Farley, R. F. (1971). Effect of sodium and magnesium fertilisers and irrigation on growth, composition and yield of sugar beet. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 559–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Marsh, J. A. P. & Tinker, P. B. H. (1970). Sodium and potassium relationships in sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 74, 567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Durrant, M. J. & Webb, D. J. (1974). Effects of plant density, irrigation and potassium and sodium fertilizers on sugar beet. I. Yields and nutrient composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Durrant, M. J. & Bennett, S. N. (1975). Availability to arable crops of magnesium from kieserite and two forms of calcined magnesite. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 475–480.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Durrant, M. J., Davies, D. B. & Vaidyanathan, L. V. (1976). Sodium and potassium fertilizer in relation to soil physical properties and sugar-beet yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, M. J. & Mash, S. J. (1989). Stimulation of sugar-beet hypocotyl extension with potassium nitrate. Annals of Applied Biology 115, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, R. F. (1972). Plant nutrients – potassium and sodium. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1971 Part I, 285.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C., Gill, W. D., Rodger, J. B. A., White, G. R. & Lawley, D. N. (1961). Experiments with salt and potash on sugar beet in South-East Scotland. Experimental Husbandry 6, 1–7.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C., Lang, R. W. & Hunter, E. A. (1973). The effect of method and rate of application of common salt and muriate of potash on sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W. & Clark, C. (1990). Remote sensing to predict the yield of sugar beet in England. In Applications of Remote Sensing in Agriculture (Eds Steven, M. D. & Clark, J. A.), pp. 201–206. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Farrow, B. & Hollowell, W. (Eds) (1989). Sugar Beet: a Growers Guide. London: Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee.Google Scholar
Johnston, A. E. & Goulding, K. W. T. (1988). Rational potassium manuring for arable cropping systems. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 46, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Last, P. J. & Draycott, A. P. (1977). Methods of fertilizer application for sugar beet. Experimental Husbandry 32, 56–64.Google Scholar
McDonnell, P. M., Gallagher, P. A., Kearney, P. & Carrol, P. (1966). Fertiliser use and sugar beet quality in Ireland. Potassium Symposium 1966, 107–126.Google Scholar
Milford, G. F. J., Cormack, W. F. & Durrant, M. J. (1977). Effects of sodium chloride on water status and growth of sugar beet. Journal of Experimental Botany 28, 1380–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Agricultural Development Advisory Service (1986). The Analysis of Agricultural Materials, 3rd edn, p. 248. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1956). The effects of very deep ploughing and of subsoiling on crop yields. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 48, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, M., Roussel, N. & Stallen, R. van (1966). Potassium in the fertilising of sugar beet. Potassium Symposium 1966, 61–87.Google Scholar
Tinker, P. B. (1967). A comparison of the properties of sodium and potassium in the soil. Information from the Nitrate Corporation of Chile Ltd 97.Google Scholar
Tinker, P. B. (1970). How long does applied sodium remain in the soil? Information from the Nitrate Corporation of Chile Ltd 115.Google Scholar
Webber, J. (1961). Ploughing down fertilizer for sugar beet. Experiments in Yorkshire 1954–57. Experimental Husbandry 6, 8–12.Google Scholar
Williams, R. J. B. (1976). The chemical composition of water from land drainage at Saxmundham and Woburn (1970–75). Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1975, Part 2, 37–62.Google Scholar