Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:23:08.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugar-beet seed advancement to increase establishment and decrease bolting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. Durrant  and
K. W. Jaggard
M. J. Durrant
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
K. W. Jaggard
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Experiments with seed advancement and devernalization identified treatments which both increased rate of emergence and establishment and decreased bolting. Treatment temperature and duration were more critical for devernalization than for improving establishment. Exposing seeds to 15 °C for 6 days (at restricted moisture availability to prevent premature germination) sometimes promoted slight devernalization but sometimes enhanced bolting; 20 °C for 3 days had little effect whereas 20 °C for 6 days was moderately effective. The best treatment for both improving establishment and decreasing bolting was to steep the seed in water for 3 h at 25 °C, dry it to between 115 and 120% of its original air-dry weight, store it for 4 days at 25 °C and then air dry.

Results in 1985 showed that the improvements are insufficient to allow sowing as early as 1 March. Following sowing on 17 March 1986, seed advancement increased establishment for two bulks of seed from 54 to 76% and from 63 to 77% respectively while bolting was decreased from 9·1 to 1·2% and from 5·9 to 0·7%. This suggests that in future it may be possible to recommend that sowing starts about a week earlier than at present.

The results also suggested that only a previous vernalizing experience could be reversed. There was no indication that a devernalizing stimulus could be stored by seeds and used to offset the effects of cold after sowing. However, the best treatment in 1985 would have reversed a much more severe vernalizing stimulus than that likely to be encountered by the seeds while on their mother plant.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 367 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Chroboczek, E. (1934). A study of some ecological factors influencing seed-stalk development in beets (Beta vulgaris L.) Memoir 154. New York: University of Ithaca.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J. & Loads, A. H. (1987). Experiments to determine the optimum advancement treatment for sugar beet seed. Seed Science and Technology 15, 185–196.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Payne, P. A. & McLaren, J. S. (1983). The use of water and some inorganic salt solutions to advance sugar beet seed. Annals of Applied Biology 103, 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gummerson, R. J. (1986 a). The role of soil measurements in understanding the effects of seedbed cultivation on seedling emergence. British Sugar Beet Review 54, No. 4, 25–32.Google Scholar
Gummerson, R. J. (1986 b). The effect of constant temperatures and osmotic potentials on the germination of sugar beet. Journal of Experimental Botany 37, 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbert, D. & Woodwark, W. (1969). Germination testing of sugar beet seed on different types of paper substrate. Journal Institut International de Recherches Betteravières 4, 169–174.Google Scholar
Jaggard, K. W. (1979). The effect of plant distribution on yield of sugar beet. Ph.D. thesis. University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Wickens, R., Webb, D. J. & Scott, R. K. (1983). Effects of sowing date on plant establishment and bolting and the influence of these factors on yields of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimber, D. & McCullagh, S. (1986). Trials of commercial varieties of sugar beet. British Sugar Beet Review 54 (2), 20–24.Google Scholar
Lexander, K. (1969). Increase in bolting as an effect of low temperature on unripe sugar beet seed. Proceedings of the 32nd Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research. Report No. 2.4.Google Scholar
Lexander, K. (1980). Present knowledge of sugar beet bolting mechanisms. Proceedings of the 43rd Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, pp. 245–258.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C. (1971). Advanced sugar-beet seed. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77, 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longden, P. C. (1976). Seed treatments to lengthen the sugar-beet growing period. Annals of Applied Biology 83, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle 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
Payne, P. A. (1986). Thiram steep treatments for the control of Phoma betae. Aspects of Applied Biology 13, 159–163.Google Scholar
Smit, A. L. (1983). Influence of external factors on growth and development of sugar beet (Beta vulgarisL.). Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wellensiek, S. J. (1964). Dividing cells as a pre-requisite for vernalisation. Plant Physiology 39, 832–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. W., Scott, R. K. & Longden, P. C. (1980). The effects of mother-plant temperature on seed quality in Beta vulgaris L. (sugar beet). In Seed Production (ed. Hebblethwaite, P. D.), pp. 257–270. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar