Effect of Planting Date and Nitrogen Fertility on Appearance and Senescence of Sugarbeet Leaves

Lee, Gail S.; Schmehl, W. R.

doi:10.5274/jsbr.25.1.28

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The plot size was twelve 22-in rows wide and 33 ft long. For this study, five consecutive plants at 10-in spacings in row three of each p lot, a total of 120 plants, were selected for obser vation during the season (Lee and Schmehl, 1988). The emerging leaves of each plant were tagged, and as the leaves senesced, they were removed by hand and collected in separate paper bags at approximately biweekly intervals from June 25 to September 30.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…F ield studies by Follett et al (1970), Storer et al (1973), and Dillon (1970) in Colorado have shown that the number of living leaves increases to a maximum of about 30 per plant in mid August to early September, then decreases to harvest. Leaf loss through senescence begins in June and continues throughout the season at an increasing rate until the accumulated number of senesced leaves equ als the living leaves on th e plant by about September first (Lee and Schmehl, 1988). The senescent leaves fall to the soil, dry matter is lost, and th e nutrients contained therein are released to the soil.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nutrient Concentrations in Sugarbeet Senescing Leaves During the Season and in Six Plant Parts at Harvest

Eslami¹,

Lee²,

Schmehl³

1988

JSBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Senescent sugarbeet leaves were collected at about two-week intervals through the growing season and analyzed for seven nutrients: Na, K, Ca, Mg, N, S, and P. These nutrients also were determined at harvest in leaves of four ages, and in crowns and roots. As the season progressed, average concentrations of Na, Ca, and Mg in senescent leaves decreased, whereas K and S remained approximately constant; N and P de creased early but increased later, probably due to in creased soil availability of these nutrients. Increasing N fertilization increased Nand Mg and decreased P concentrations in senescent leaves, but planting date had little effect. Nitrogen fertilization resulted in in creased Na, Mg, N, and S, but decreased Ca in the six plant parts at harvest. With increasing leaf age, Ca, Mg, Na, and S concentrations increased, whereas those of Nand P decreased. In general, the seven nutrients ocurred in lowest concentration in the root, in highest concentration in the leaves, and at intermediate levels in the crown. Increasing N fertilization levels resulted in increased Na, Mg, and N and decreased Ca in" roots and crowns at harvest. Relative to total crop uptake, leaf senescence resulted in greater proportional loss of the less mobile nutrients (Na, Ca, Mg, S) than of the more mobile Nand P, or of K, which was relatively uniformly distributed in leaves of each age.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrient Concentrations in Sugarbeet Senescing Leaves During the Season and in Six Plant Parts at Harvest

Eslami¹,

Lee²,

Schmehl³

1988

JSBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…accumulation follows a rather consistent pattern, with the greatest rates of increase between late July and early September (Carter and Traveller, 1981). Many agronomic factors are thought to influence maturity, such as N fertilizer rate (Draycott et al, 1973;Lee et al, 1987;Lee and Schmehl, 1988), genotype (Halvorson and Hartman, 1980), and planting date (Hull and Webb, 1970;Smit, 1993), but it is difficult to manage for maturity in a commercial field. The most important factor affecting maturation appears to be seasonal climatic changes (Loomis et al, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sugar Beet Performance and Interactions with Planting Date, Genotype, and Harvest Date

Lauer

1997

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Producers and processors have lengthened the sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) factory campaign by beginning harvest about 1 mo earlier. Agronomic practices may need to be adjusted to maximize yield and quality of sugar beet harvested earlier. The objective was to describe yield and quality relationships between dates of planting and harvest among 18 sugar beet genotypes. The experiment was conducted at the University of Wyoming Research and Extension Center near Powell, WY, during 1992 and 1993 on a Garland clay loam (fineloamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, mesic Typic Haplargids). Treatments consisted of five planting dates between 30 March and 8 June, and four harvest dates every 2 wk beginning 10 September. When averaged across all years, genotypes, and harvest dates, a delay in emergence of 46 d decreased root yield 38% (from 52.5 to 32.3 Mg ha" 1), sugar content 4% (183 to 175 g kg M), and recoverable sucrose 42% (9.25 to 5.34 Mg ha '). Delaying planting 46 d increased loss to molasses by 21% (7.75 to 9.41 g kg" 1). Root yield varied 18% among sugar beet genotypes (40.9-50.1 Mg ha" 1), sugar content varied 6% (173-185 g kg '), loss to molasses varied 13% (7.90-9.10 g kg" 1), and recoverable sucrose varied 14% (7.14-8.33 Mg ha" 1). Over the 43-d harvest period, root yield increased 22% (from 41.1 to 50.2 Mg ha" 1), sugar content 15% (165 to 190 g kg" 1), and recoverable sucrose 45% (6.41 to 9.28 Mg ha !). Over the harvest period, loss to molasses decreased 21% (from 9.10 to 7.12 g kg" 1). The relationships for both yield and quality between planting and harvest dates was linear and nearly parallel. Genotypic differences for yield and quality were greatest on early planting dates as compared with later planting dates. Recoverable sucrose ranking of genotypes at the beginning of harvest was similar at the end of harvest. Producers should consider planting high root yield genotypes in early planted fields that are harvested late, thereby taking advantage of the entire growing season, and genotypes with average root yield and above-average sugar content should be used for late planted or early harvested fields. A SUGAR BEET processors lengthen the factory campaign of refining roots into sucrose, producers are being paid incentives to begin harvesting about 1 mo prior to optimum root yield and quality. Identifying agronomic practices that improve yield and quality with early harvest of what could be considered an immature crop would benefit both producers and processors. Sugar beet maturity is often indicated by leaf yellowing and crown shrinking. Total recoverable sucrose

show abstract

“…Leaf appearance rate and leaf death rate (Lee and Schmehl, 1988) help explain the increase over time in SC concentration of the blades. Blade SC increased from 3.1 % on June 27 to 11.8% on October 18 (Figure 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Planting Date and Nitrogen Fertilization on Soluble Carbohydrate Concentrations in Sugarbeet

Dunn¹,

Lee²,

Schmehl³

1990

JSBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a field experiment conducted near Fort Collins, Colorado, we monitored seasonal trends in soluble carbohydrate (SC) concentrations in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Three N fertility levels (0, 100, and 300 lb NIA) and two planting dates (April 22 and May 27) were imposed to study the SC concentration in four plant p arts (leaf blade, petiole, crown, and taproot) at biweekly intervals from June 27 to September 5, then a final sampling on October 18, 1977. We found that: 1) increasing N-fertilization decreased SC con centration (% of dry weight) when averaged for all plant parts; 2) roots were highest in SC concentration followed in decreasing order by crowns, petioles, and blades; 3) when averaged for all plant parts, the maximum rate of increase in SC concentration oc curred between June 27 and August 22; 4) early plant ing increased SC concentration in crowns and roots, but had little effect on SC concentration in blades or petioles; 5) SC concentrations were higher in early planted than later-planted sugarbeets until August 22, but thereafter there was no difference; 6) SC con centrations in blades and crowns increased linearly as the season advanced, but root SC was a maximum by August 22; 7) early planting increased the SC con centration in roots until August 10; thereafter, there was no difference between planting dates; and 8) plan ting date had variable effects on SC in the petioles, b ut SC in blades was unaffected by planting date.

show abstract

Effect of Planting Date and Nitrogen Fertility on Appearance and Senescence of Sugarbeet Leaves

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Nutrient Concentrations in Sugarbeet Senescing Leaves During the Season and in Six Plant Parts at Harvest

Nutrient Concentrations in Sugarbeet Senescing Leaves During the Season and in Six Plant Parts at Harvest

Sugar Beet Performance and Interactions with Planting Date, Genotype, and Harvest Date

Effect of Planting Date and Nitrogen Fertilization on Soluble Carbohydrate Concentrations in Sugarbeet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About