Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:43:14.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sodium and potassium relationships in sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. P. Draycott ,
J. A. P. Marsh  and
P. B. H. Tinker
A. P. Draycott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds
J. A. P. Marsh
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

Three field experiments with sugar beet grown on a light calcareous soil tested a wide range of amounts of sodium and potassium fertilizer with either magnesium or nitrogen. Both sodium and potassium increased sugar yield and there was a large negative interaction between them. Magnesium also increased sugar yield, but the larger dressing of nitrogen decreased it. Sodium, potassium and nitrogen fertilizers also affected the concentration of impurities in the root juice at harvest.

Plant samples were also analysed in August when the crop usually contains most sodium. Sodium fertilizer greatly increased the sodium and decreased the potassium concentration in the dry matter of the tops but the composition of the roots changed little. Potassium dressings slightly increased potassium in the tops but did not affect the root composition.

Exchangeable sodium in the top soil of plots given sodium fertilizer decreased rapidly early in the season, but increased again from August, probably because sodium was taken up rapidly early in the summer and returned later in dead leaves. Soil potassium decreased throughout the season on plots where potassium was applied, but did not change on plots without potassium fertilizer; this is explained by fixation and release from non-exchangeable forms.

On this soil there was no reason to regard sodium in its effect on yield, other than as a replacement for potassium, but its behaviour in the soil and effect on the composition of the plant was quite different.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , June 1970 , pp. 567 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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. (1961a). The role of sodium in manuring sugar beet in Great Britain. XXIVth Wint. Cong. Inst. Int. Rech. Betteravier, Brussels, pp. 311–16.Google Scholar
Adams, S. K. (1961b). The effect of sodium and potassium on sugar beet on the Lincolnshire Limestone soils. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56, 283–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1961c). The effect of sodium and potassium fertilizers on the mineral composition of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56, 383–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
apGriffith, G. & Walters, R. J. K. (1966). The sodium and potassium content of some grass genera, species and varieties. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 67, 81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, A. & Oldfield, J. F. T. (1961). Methods for the assessment of beet quality. Int. Sug. J. 63, 72–4; 103–5; 137–9.Google Scholar
Coulter, J. K. & Draycott, A. P. (1967). Root development. Rep. Rothamsted exp. Stn, 1966, p. 37.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Cooke, G. W. (1967). The effects of potassium fertilizers on quality of sugar beet. Potass. Symp. 1966, 131–5.Google Scholar
Garner, H. V. (1952).A fertilizer policy for sugar beet. Br. Sug. Beet Rev. 20, 109–13.Google Scholar
Goodman, P. J. (1963). Some effects of different soils on composition and growth of sugar beet. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. C, Gill, W. D., Rodger, J. B. A., White, G. T. & Lawley, D. N. (1961). Experiments with salt and potash on sugar beet in south-east Scotland. Expl Husb. 6, 1–7.Google Scholar
Huffaker, R. C. & Wallace, A. (1959). Effect of potassium and sodium levels on sodium distribution in some plant species. Soil Sci. 88, 80–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorritsma, J. (1956). (The manuring of sugar beet. I. N-K-Mg trial fields 1946–51 inclusive.) Meded. Inst. rat. SuikProd. 26, 227.Google Scholar
Lehr, J. J. (1942). The importance of Na for plant nutrition. III. The equilibrium of cations in beet. Soil Sci. 53, 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehr, J. J. (1953). Sodium as a plant nutrient. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 4, 460–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nightingale, H. I. & Smith, R. L. (1966). A culturing unit to evaluate sodic influence on calcium nutrition of alfalfa. Proc. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. 30, 470–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1965). The effects of nitrogen, potassium and sodium fertilizers on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 65, 207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1966). The relationship of sodium in the soil to uptake of sodium by sugar beet in the greenhouse and to yield responses in the field. Proc. Trans. Comm. II & IV Int. Soc. Soil Sci., Aberdeen, pp. 223–31.Google Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1967a). The effects of magnesium sulphate on sugar beet yield and its interactions with other fertilizers. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1976). A comparison of the properties of sodium and potassium in the soil. Chilean Nitrate Agricultural Service, Information, no. 97.Google Scholar
Tukey, H. B., Tukey, H. B. & Wittwer, S. H. (1958). Loss of nutrients by foliar leaching as determined by radio isotopes. Proc. Am. Soc. hort. Sci. 71, 496–506.Google Scholar
Wybenga, J. M. (1957). A contribution to the knowledge of the importance of sodium for plant life. Diss. Wageningen, no. 216.Google Scholar