Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:48:13.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of the effects of soil aggregate size on the emergence and growth of beet (Beta vulgaris L.) I. Seedling emergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. L. Hammerton
J. L. Hammerton
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A fine soil separate gave the highest and most rapid seedling emergence. This was considered to be due to its better moisture supply characteristics and the lower mechanical impedance compared with coarser seed-beds. There was no evidence that natural seed clusters are any less responsive to soil aggregate size than processed beet seed clusters.

Consolidation slightly hastened emergence, though the mechanism of this is not clear. Sowing at ¾ in. was superior to deeper sowing (1½ in.), both in speed of emergence and in ultimate emergence. This was partly an effect of decreased mechanical impedance, and partly due to the shorter period over which the seedlings were susceptible to pathogens. Heavy dressings of soluble fertilizers were found to delay emergence, though without effect on the ultimate emergence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 1961 , pp. 213 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Atkins, W. R. G. (1909). Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc., N.S., 12, 35.Google Scholar
Ayers, A. D. & Hayward, H. E. (1948). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 13, 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barmington, R. D. (1950). Proc. Amer. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech., p. 228.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1932). Ann. Bot., Lond., 46, 571.Google Scholar
Coffman, F. A. (1923). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 15, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, G. W. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, G. W. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. S. (1956). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 24, 317.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. S. (1957). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 25, 167.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L., Landragin, P. A. J. W. (1955). New Phytol. 54, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorritsma, J. (1953). Meded. Inst. Suikerbiet., Bergeno. -Z. 23, 108.Google Scholar
Leach, L. D., Bainer, R. & Doneen, L. D. (1946). Proc. Amer. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech., p. 107.Google Scholar
Loumaye, E. (1952). Publ. tech. Inst. beige Amelior. Better. 20, 69.Google Scholar
Ludwig, J. W. & Harper, J. L. (1958). Plant & Soil, 10, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, J. A. & Hanley, F. (1936). J. Minist. Agric. 42, 1205.Google Scholar
Mercer, S. P. (1948). Farm and Garden Seeds. London: Crosby Lockwood.Google Scholar
Peters, D. B. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 21, 481.Google Scholar
Shepherd, R. W. & Harvey, P. N. (1959). Exp. Husbandry, 4, 1.Google Scholar
Snyder, F. W. (1957). J. Amer. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech. 9, 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, B. A., Snyder, F. W. & Carleton, W. (1956). J. Amer. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech. 9, 277.Google Scholar
Thow, R. F. (1958). Private communication.Google Scholar
Uhvits, R. (1946). Amer. J. Bot. 33, 278.Google Scholar