No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some effects of infection with yellowing viruses and of fungicide applications on bolting in sugar beet
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2009
Extract
Sugar-beet plants require an appropriate sequence of environmental conditions to change from the vegetative to the reproductive phase during the first year of growth. When plants bolt, the stem lengthens and bears flowers and the stem and root become lignified. Bolting is normally induced by a period of low temperature followed by higher temperatures and long-day conditions. The minimum time necessary, under these conditions, for initiation of bolting varies greatly with individual plants, susceptibility to bolting being genetically controlled. Intensive selection for resistance to bolting has resulted in the production of varieties which are highly resistant to bolting (e.g. Bell & Bauer, 1942; Campbell, 1953; Campbell & Russell, 1964). Elongation of the stem can be induced, without normal vernalization, by spraying beet plants with the naturally occurring growth substance gibberellic acid (Gaskill, 1957; Campbell, 1958). It has also been reported that infection with virus yellows sometimes affects the incidence of bolting (Desprez, 1959), although it has not been recorded which of the two common yellowing viruses in Europe is responsible.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967
References
Bell, G. D. H. & Bauer, A. B. (1942). Experiments on growing sugar beet under continuous illumination. I. Development studies. II. Glomerule yields, weight characteristics and germination. J. agric. Soi., Camb. 32, 112–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, G. K. G. (1953). Selection of sugar beet for resistance to bolting. Publs. Inst. int. Rech. Better. With Winter Congr. 1954, p. 5.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. K. G. (1958). Some responses of sugar beet to gibberellic acid. Publs. Inst. int. Rech. Better. 21st Winter Congr. 1958, 225–7.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. K. G. & Kussell, G. E. (1964). Breeding sugar beet. Rep. Pl. Breed. Inst. 1963–64, pp. 6–32.Google Scholar
Desprez, V. (1959). Influence of virus yellows and Cercospora on bolting of beet. Publs. Inst. int. Rech. Better. 22nd Winter Congr. 1959.Google Scholar
Gaskill, J. O. (1957). A preliminary report on the use of gibberellic acid to hasten reproductive development in sugar-beet seedlings. J. Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. 9, 521–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunkel, L. O. (1951). Identification of bolting disease of carrots. Phytopathology 41, 22. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1964). Breeding for tolerance to beet yellows virus and beet mild yellowing virus in sugar beet. I. Selection and breeding methods. Ann. appl. Biol. 53, 363–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1966). The control Alternaria species on leaves of sugar beet infected with yellowing viruses. I. Some effects of four fungicides on two beet varieties. Ann. appl. Biol. 56, 111–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1966a). The control of Alternaria species on leaves of sugar beet infected with yellowing viruses. II. Experiments with two yellowing viruses and virus-tolerant sugar beet. Ann. appl. Biol. 57, 425–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1966b). Some effects of inoculation with yellowing viruses on the susceptibility of sugar beet to fungal pathogens. I. Susceptibility to Peronosporafarinosa. Trans. Br. mycol. Soc. 49, 611–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1966c). Some effects of inoculation with yellowing viruses on the susceptibility of sugar beet to fungal pathogens. II. Susceptibility to Erysiphe species. Trans. Br. mycol. Soc. 49, 621–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yabuta, T. & Sumiki, Y. J. (1938). Isolation of gibberellin. J. agr. Chem. Soc. Japan 14, 1526. (From B. E. Cross (1954), J. Chem. Soc. pp. 4670–6.)Google Scholar