+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Response of yield-type versus sugar-type sugar beet varieties to soil nitrogen levels and time of harvest



Response of yield-type versus sugar-type sugar beet varieties to soil nitrogen levels and time of harvest



Proceedings American Sugar Beet Technol : 64-70



A sugar-type variety, U.S. 35/2, contained a higher sucrose concentration but produced lower root yields and less gross sugar regardless of nitrogen level or date of harvest than did a tonnage type, U.S. 22/3, in two factorial field experiments. U.S. 22/3 gained relatively more in root yield with increasing length of the fall growing period than did U.S. 35/2. When both varieties responded to nitrogen fertilization U.S. 35/2 made an initially greater response than did U.S. 22/3 indicating the latter to be a more efficient nutrient forager. U.S. 35/2 appears to be photosynthetically less efficient than U.S. 22/3 and to store sugar at the expense of root and top growth.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 013816264

Download citation: RISBibTeXText


Related references

The effect of time of sowing and harvesting on growth, yield and nitrogen fertilizer requirement of sugar beet. 1. Yield and nitrogen uptake at harvest. Journal of Agricultural Science, UK 81(2): 267-275, 1973

The effect of time of sowing and harvesting on growth yield and nitrogen fertilizer requirement of sugar beet part 1 yield and nitrogen uptake at harvest. Journal of Agricultural Science 81(2): 267-275, 1973

Effect of water table and soil type on sugar crops. II- Sugar beet. 2- Plant and leaf yield and some agronomic characters. Annals of Agricultural Science, Moshtohor 29(1): 119-129, 1991

Sugar yield, nitrogen uptake by sugar beet and optimal nitrogen fertilization in relation to nitrogen soil analyses and several additional factors. Biology and Fertility of Soils 19(1): 55-59, 1995

Sugar beet d nutrition part 1 effect of variable levels of potash alone and in combination with constant levels of nitrogen and phosphorus on sugar content and root of sugar beet d. Pakistan Journal Of Scientific Research: 129-132, 1968

Effects of irrigation and date of harvest on varieties of sugar beet differing in production type. Rivista di Agronomia 10(3): 158-164, 1976

Studies on analysis of growth patterns in sugar beets. 9. Differences of sugar beet varieties in correlations between characteristics of plants in growing stage and at harvest time. Proceedings of the Japanese Society of Sugar Beet Technologists ( 34): 76-84, 1992

Effect of nitrogen levels and varieties on sugar beet growth, yield and quality. 2008

Yield analysis of seven sugar beet varieties under different levels of nitrogen in a dry region of Egypt. Agribiological Research 47(3/4): 231-241, 1994

Studies on the influence of harvesting time on the yield and sugar content of sugar beet varieties in Peshawar region. W. Pak. Jnl agric. Res 4: 1-2, 39-44. Bibl. 8, 1966

A comparative study of varieties and hybrids of sugar beet and their yield and sugar content under conditions of different soil moisture. Vopr. biologii kul'turn. vast, i s.-kh. zhivotnykh, 66-69, 1968

Effects of varying levels of nitrogen and plant densities on the sugar production of two varieties of sugar-beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 12(1): 19-22, 1978

Effect of varying levels of nitrogen and plant densities on the sugar production of 2 varieties of sugar beet beta vulgaris. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 12(1): 19-22, 1978

Effect on yield and sugar content of sugar beet and sugar-beet transplants of various soil-moisture contents in preceding generations.. Izv. Akad. Nauk kazakh. SSR Ser. biol. Nauk, 1, 17-22, 1963

Response of sugar beet varieties to the soil and foliar nitrogen fertilization. Annals of Warsaw Agricultural University, Agriculture ( 29): 59-65, 1995