Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T23:57:54.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An agronomic and physiological re-evaluation of the potassium and sodium requirements and fertilizer recommendations for sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2008

G. F. J. MILFORD ,
P. J. JARVIS ,
J. JONES  and
P. B. BARRACLOUGH
G. F. J. MILFORD*
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, HertsAL5 2JQ, UK
P. J. JARVIS
Affiliation:
British Sugar plc, Holmewood Hall, Holme, Peterborough, Cambs PE7 3PG, UK
J. JONES
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, HertsAL5 2JQ, UK
P. B. BARRACLOUGH
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, HertsAL5 2JQ, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: george.milford@bbsrc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The potassium (K) and sodium (Na) requirements of sugar beet were re-examined in a 6-year series of experiments between 2000 and 2005 using reference plots with a wide range of long-established differences in exchangeable topsoil K (Kex). Two groups of plots with a topsoil concentration Kex range of 40–550 mg/kg were used, each situated within an individual field, one on a silty clay loam at Rothamsted and the other on a contrasting sandy loam at Woburn. The interactions between topsoil Kex and applied N, K and Na fertilizers were studied at Rothamsted. Under these well-defined conditions, maximum yields of 55–71 t/ha of adjusted clean beet were achieved with a topsoil Kex concentration of 120–150 mg/kg, i.e. at Soil K Index 2–, with a small difference between the two soils being accounted for by differences in exchangeable soil Na and subsoil Kex. There were no yield responses to freshly applied fertilizer K, even on low K plots where responses might be expected. It is concluded that the existing recommendations for K fertilizer use on UK sugar beet do not need to be adjusted to allow for the higher yields of modern crops.

There were no yield responses to NaCl fertilizer at any level of topsoil Kex at Rothamsted (where the soil contained 15–20 mg Na/kg), but yields were increased on low Kex plots at Woburn whose sandy loam contained only 5–10 mg Na/kg. The uptake of Na from the applied NaCl fertilizer was strongly influenced by the exchangeable K and Na status of the soil. On the low Na soil at Woburn, almost all of the applied Na was taken up by sugar beet grown on plots with low concentrations of topsoil Kex and half of it on plots with adequate concentrations of topsoil Kex compared with two-thirds and one-fifth, respectively, on the higher Na-content soil at Rothamsted.

Plants partitioned 0·75 of their K and 0·95 of their Na to the shoot and the balance to the storage root. This pattern of distribution was consistent across sites, seasons and soil K supply. The physiological interactions between K and Na were studied by examining their millimolar concentrations in the tissue-water (mmol/kg) of the shoots and storage roots. The tissue-water concentrations of K in the shoot increased asymptotically with the concentration of Kex in the topsoil, and the increase in K concentration was accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the tissue-water concentration of Na. Maximum concentrations of K in shoot tissue-water (and minimum concentrations of Na) were achieved when the topsoil contained a minimum of 200 mg Kex/kg. The optimal physiological tissue-water concentration of Na in shoots was estimated to be c. 90–100 mmol/kg; maintenance of this level required a minimum of 25 mg/kg of exchangeable Na in the topsoil. When not limited by soil Kex, plants maintained a total tissue-water concentration of c. 300–350 mmol/kg of K+Na within the shoot. This was achieved with 80 mmol of Na and 230 mmol of K/kg of tissue water on the high Na-content soil at Rothamsted, and with 40 mmol of Na and 275 mmol of K/kg tissue water on the low-Na soil at Woburn.

Significant correlations were established between measurements of beet K made in the factory tarehouse and those made using standard laboratory chemical analyses and between factory estimates of the concentrations of K in the tissue-water of delivered beet and the topsoil Kex. The uses of these relationships to estimate the off-takes of K in the harvested beet and provide feedback to growers on the K status of their soils, and the implications of the study for the use of K and Na fertilizers on UK sugar beet are discussed.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 429 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Adams, S. N. (1961). The effects of sodium and potassium fertilizer on the mineral composition of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56, 383–388.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1995). Potash for Sugar Beet. PDA Guidance Leaflet 12. York: Potash Development Association.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1997 a). Potassium Dynamics in the Soil. Extension guide. Horgen, Switzerland: International Potash Institute.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1997 b). Phosphate and Potash Removal by Crops. Leaflet 10. York: Potash Development Association.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2002). Sugar Beet: A Grower's Guide (6th edn). Peterborough: British Beet Research Organisation.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2006 a). Principles of Potash Use. Leaflet 8: York: Potash Development Association.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2006 b). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2005. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2006 c). Potash for Sugar Beet. Leaflet 12. York: Potash Development Association.Google Scholar
Armstrong, M. J., Jarvis, P. J., Milford, G. F. J., Bellet-Travers, D. M. & Leigh, R. A. (1998). Potassium off-takes in sugar beet: their relation to yield and beet quality. Aspects of Applied Biology 52, 53–56.Google Scholar
Bee, P. M. (2005). UK sugar beet portal – up and running. British Sugar Beet Review 73, 3–6.Google Scholar
Bee, P. M., Jarvis, P. J. & Armstrong, M. J. (1997). The effect of potassium and sodium fertiliser on sugar beet yield and quality. In Proceedings of the 60th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, Cambridge, pp. 279–282.Google Scholar
Bell, C. J., Milford, G. F. J. & Leigh, R. A. (1996). Sugar beet. In Photoassimilate Distribution in Plants and Crops: Source–Sink Relationships (Eds Zamski, E. & Schaffer, A. A.), pp. 691–707. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc..Google Scholar
Brown, K. F. & Biscoe, P. V. (1985). Fibrous root growth and water use of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 679–691.Google Scholar
Cassman, K. G., Peng, S., Olk, D. C., Ladha, J. K., Reichardt, W., Dobermann, A. & Singh, U. (1998). Opportunities for increased nitrogen use efficiency from improved resource management in irrigated rice systems. Field Crops Research 56, 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, D. R. & Draycott, A. P. (2006). Nutrition – phosphorus, sulphur, potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium and micronutrients – liming and nutrient deficiencies In Sugar Beet (Ed. Draycott, A. P.), pp. 185–220. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1976). Response by sugar beet to potassium and sodium fertilizers, particularly in relation to soils containing little exchangeable potassium. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1977). Sodium nutrition of sugar beet. Chilean Nitrate Agricultural Service Information Leaflet No. 137. London: Nitrate Corporation of Chile Ltd.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Draycott, A. P. & Boyd, D. A. (1974). The response of sugar beet to potassium and sodium fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 427–434.Google Scholar
Hollies, J., Draycott, A. P. & Chambers, B. J. (2001). Beet nutrition. The Agronomist 1, 5–6.Google Scholar
Jaggard, K. W. & Qi, A. (2006). Agronomy. In Sugar Beet (Ed. Draycott, A. P.), pp. 134–168. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Jarvis, P. J., Milford, G. F. J., Jones, J. & Barraclough, P. B. (2005). The potassium requirements of modern UK sugar beet crops and use of factory data to improve advice on the use of potassium fertilizers. Aspects of Applied Biology 76, 47–54.Google Scholar
Kirkby, E. A., Armstrong, M. J. & Milford, G. F. J. (1987). The absorption and physiological roles of P and K in the sugar beet plant with reference to the functions of Na and Mg. In Proceedings of the 50th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, Brussels, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Lane, P. W. & Payne, R. W. (1996). Genstat for Windows: An Introductory Course 3rd ed.Harpenden, Herts, UK: Lawes Agricultural Trust.Google Scholar
Leigh, R. A. & Johnston, A. E. (1983 a). Concentrations of potassium in the dry matter and tissue water of field-grown spring barley and their relationships to grain yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, R. A. & Johnston, A. E. (1983 b). The effects of fertilizers and drought on the concentrations of potassium in the dry matter and tissue water of field-grown spring barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 741–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAFF (2000). Fertilizer Recommendations for Agricultural and Horticultural Crops (MAFF Bulletin RB209). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Marschner, H. (1971). Why can sodium replace potassium in plants? In Proceedings of the 8th Colloquium of the International Potash Institute, Horgen, Switzerland, pp. 50–63.Google Scholar
Milford, G. F. J. (2006). Plant structure and crop physiology. In Sugar Beet (Ed. Draycott, A. P.), pp. 30–49. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Syers, J. K., Johnston, A. E. & Curtin, D. (2007). Efficiency of soil and fertilizer phosphorus use: reconciling changing concepts of soil phosphorus behaviour with agronomic information. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin, Rome 18, 107.Google Scholar