Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T10:18:22.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of soil type and related factors on sugar beet yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Webster ,
C. A. H. Hodge ,
A. P. Draycott  and
M. J. Durrant
R. Webster
Affiliation:
Soil Survey of England and Wales, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
C. A. H. Hodge
Affiliation:
Soil Survey of England and Wales, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
A. P. Draycott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
M. J. Durrant
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Yields of sugar and responses to fertilizers were determined in about 400 fertilizer experiments on farms throughout the sugar-beet growing areas of Britain during 14 years from 1957 to 1970. The soil at each experimental site was described and classified and the records of the experiments have been examined to determine which properties of the soil influence sugar yield. The effect of year, rainfall, elevation, region and other factors such as sowing and harvesting date were also investigated.

Year-to-year variation accounted for 20 % of all variation in yield; increasing amounts of rainfall during the growing season appeared to decrease yield. There was a significant long-term trend of increasing sugar yield from the experiments of 0·042 t/ha/year. The experimental yields closely followed national yields each year but were always greater. Delay in sowing and early harvesting depressed yield by 0–02 and 0·01 t sugar/ ha/day respectively. Yields in Scotland (average 5·23 t/ha) were approximately 1·4 t/ha less than in England and Wales, but there were no evident regional differences within England and Wales.

Soil regarded as moderately drained yielded better than either well-drained or imperfectly drained soil, which in turn yielded better than droughty and poorly drained soil. The difference in the adjusted yield between drainage classes was 1·0 t/ha. Surprisingly, topsoil texture had no consistent effect on mean yield (as distinct from response to fertilizer). Subsoil texture, however, had an appreciable effect, the crop on sandy subsoil and chalk or limestone yielding poorly whilst that on silt or peat yielded best. The range of differences in sugar yield due to subsoil texture was almost 2 t/ha.

Yields were also examined in relation to soil profile type. Broad division into major soil groups gave meaningful differences but fine division by soil series was only useful for the 11 series on which at least ten experiments had been made. The crop yielded most sugar on gleyed calcareous soils, peats and humic gleys, and least on rendzinas and brown calcareous soils. Responses to nitrogen and potassium but not to phosphorus were affected by both topsoil and subsoil texture. Nitrogen and potassium both increased yield most on sandy soils and least on fine silts and peats.

The morphology, chemical and physical condition of soil clearly affect sugar yield greatly and further research is needed in experiments planned specifically to measure their influence and provide more precise guidance for selecting the best land for the crop.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , April 1977 , pp. 455 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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. (1960). The value of calcium nitrate and urea for sugar beet and the effect of late nitrogenous top dressings. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 54, 395–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1961). The effect of sodium and potassium on sugar beet on the Lincolnshire limestone soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56, 283–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1961). The effect of time of application of phosphate and potash on sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56, 127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1962). The response of sugar beet to fertilizer and the effect of farmyard manure. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (1973). Fertilizer recommendations. Bulletin 209, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Avery, B. W. (1971). Soil classification for England and Wales. Agricultural Research Council, Board Paper BP/27. (Unpublished.)Google Scholar
Avery, B. W. (1973). Soil classification in the Soil Survey of England and Wales. Journal of Soil Science 24, 324–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. A. & Dermott, W. (1964). Fertilizer experiments on maincrop potatoes, 1955–61. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63, 249–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. A., Tinker, P. B. H., Draycott, A. P. & Last, P. J. (1970). Nitrogen requirement of sugar beet grown on mineral soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 74, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, C. P., Cottrt, M. N., Jones, R. J. A. & Tinsley, J. (1970). Effect of soil parent material, elevation, aspect and fertilizer treatment on upland grass yields. Journal of the British Grassland Society 25, 272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, G. R. (1941). The Study of the Soil in the Field. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, G. R. (1951). The evaluation of soils and the definition of quality classes from studies of the physical properties of the soil profile in the field. Journal of Soil Science 2, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, D. A. & Draycott, A. P. (1971). The effects of soil fumigation and nitrogen fertilizers on nematodes and sugar beet in sandy soils. Annals of Applied Biology 69, 253–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Leenheer, L. & De Caestecker, K. (1950). Reliability of a quick field method to determine the productivity of different soil types for sugar beets. Transactions of the 4th International Congress of Soil Science, 2, 237–40.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. (1969). The effect of farmyard manure on the fertilizer requirements of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 73, 119—24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. (1971). Fertilizer requirements of sugar beet on peaty mineral and organic mineral soils. Experimental Husbandry no. 20, 64–8.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrani, M. J. (1969). The effects of magnesium fertilizers on yield and chemical composition of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72, 319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrani, M. J. (1972). Comparisons of kieserite and calcined magnesite for sugar beet grown on sandy soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 79, 455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallsworth, E. G. (1969). The measurement of soil fertility: the national soil fertility project. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 35, 78–89.Google Scholar
Hull, R. & Webb, D. J. (1970). The effect of sowing date and harvesting date on the yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75, 223–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Last, P. J. & Draycott, A. P. (1972). Top dressing nitrogen for sugar beet. Experimental Husbandry no. 22, 82–8.Google Scholar
Mackney, D. (1969). The agronomic significance of soil mapping units. In Systematics Association Publication No. 8, The Soil Ecosystem. Edited by Sheals, J. G.. Pp. 55–62.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1966). Physical limitations to crop growth. Agricultural Progress 41, 9–23.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1962). Woburn Irrigation 1951–9. III. Results for rotation crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 365–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1970). Woburn Irrigation 1960–8. VI. Results for rotation crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soil Survey Staff. (1960). Field Handbook. Soil Survey of Great Britain.Google Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1965). The effects of nitrogen, potassium and sodium fertilizers on sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 65, 207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1967). The effects of magnesium sulphate on sugar beet yields and its interactions with other fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 68, 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1970). Fertilizer requirements of sugar beet on peat soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 74, 73–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1951). Soil Survey Manual. Agricultural Handbook no. 18. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1933). The principles of orthogonality and confounding in replicated experiments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 23, 108–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar