Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T00:59:51.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on field establishment of monogerm sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. A. Perry
D. A. Perry
Affiliation:
Scottish Horticultural Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The percentage emergence from monogerm sugar-beet seed in field experiments was reduced by high soil moisture content and soil compaction, but was unaffected by soil temperature. Seed lots were differentially influenced when the soil conditions were very adverse. Pelleted seed emerged a little better in good soil conditions and was not more sensitive to high soil moisture content than raw seed.

The relation between laboratory germination and the number of emerged seedlings was variable and followed no obvious trends, and there was no consistent rank order in the emergence ability of four commercial cultivars.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , October 1973 , pp. 245 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Berry, G. (1964). The evaluation of Penman's natural evaporation formula by electronic computer. Aust. J. appl. Sci. 15, 61–4.Google Scholar
Byford, W. J. (1963). Field emergence and laboratory germination of sugar-beet seed. Pl Path. 12, 174–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischnich, O., Grimm, H. & Thielebein, M. (1959). Einiges pflanzenund ackerbauliche Voraussetzungen für den Feldaufgang von Zuckerruben-Monogermsaatgut. Z. Acker- u. Pflbau. 108, 114–36.Google Scholar
Gates, L. F. (1959). Further experiments on black-leg disease of sugar-beet seedlings. Ann. appl. Biol. 47, 502–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, T. W. (1971). A relation between field emergence and laboratory germination in carrots. J. hort. Sci. 46, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, R. & Webb, D. J. (1970). The effect of sowing date and harvesting date on the yield of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75, 223–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. R. & Erikson, A. E. (1955). Relation of seed germination to soil moisture tension. Agron J. 44, 107–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maude, R. B., Vizor, A. S. & Shuring, C. G. (1969). The control of fungal seed-borne diseases by means of a thiram soak method. Ann. appl. Biol. 64, 245–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehme, H. (1968). Ergebnisse über die Wirkung pflanzenbaulicher Faktoren auf Ertrag und Qualität monokarper und polykarper Zuckerrubensorten. Albrecht-Thaer-Arch. 12, 255–69.Google Scholar
Perry, D. A. (1967). Seed vigour and field establishment of peas. Proc. int. Seed Test. Ass. 32, 3–12.Google Scholar
Perry, D. A. (1969). A vigour test for peas based on seedling evaluation. Proc. int. Seed Test. Ass. 34, 265–70.Google Scholar
Perry, D. A. (1972). Interacting effects of seed vigour and environment on seedling establishment. In Seed Ecology (ed. Heydecker, W.), pp. 311–23. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Stout, B. A., Buchele, W. F. & Snyder, F. W. (1961). Effect of soil compaction on seedling emergence under simulated field conditions. Agric. Engng, St Joseph, Mich. 42, 68–71.Google Scholar
Thielebein, M. (1960). Voraussetzungen für den Feldaufgang von Rubensaatgut. Zücker 13, 539–45.Google Scholar
Toole, V. K., Miles, E. F. & Toole, E. H. (1947). Soil moisture in relation to beet seed germination. Proc. Ass. off. Seed Analyst N. Am. 37, 127–33.Google Scholar
Willey, L. A. (1970). Varietal differences in field emergence. J. natn. Inst. agric. Bot. 12, 347–54.Google Scholar