Effect of different tillage methods on the nutritional status, yield and quality of sugar beets

• Autorzy: Gaj R. , Budka A. , Niewiadomska A. , Przybyl J. , Mioduszewska N.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Optimal nutrition of sugar beets at critical growth stages is one of the crucial factors for the achievement of their highest yield potential. In the present study, it was presumed that reduced systems of sugar beet cultivation had no effect on the plants’ nutritional status at critical growth stages, on their yield or technological quality. In 2012-2013, two series of one-factorial field experiments with different beet crop husbandry were carried out in order to verify this hypothesis. The cultivation systems of sugar beet crops differed in the postharvest cultivation technology, mulch types and seedbed tillage. Conservation tillage systems were compared with the control treatment, which represented the conventional cultivation system with an application of manure and 35 cm deep autumn ploughing. The plant nutritional status assessment was carried out at two dates corresponding to the following growth stages: BBCH 16/17 (6-8 fully unfolded true leaves) and BBCH 39/40 (row closing). Regardless of the methods of tillage or the year of observation, the results showed that the plants at BBCH16/17 stage were well-nourished with macroelements but malnourished with microelements, mainly iron and zinc. The microelement deficiency in the plants was a result of adjusted soil reaction, which varied from slightly acidic to neutral. At the BBCH 39/40 stage, there was a decreasing trend in the content of leaf macronutrients in the no-tillage systems treatments compared to the conventional tillage with the ploughing depth to 35 cm and manure application. The reduced tillage systems in sugar beet cultivation did not result in either a yield decrease or a worse technological quality of roots. The experimental factor had no significant effect on the content of molassegenic compounds in beet roots. A decreasing trend was observed in the content of α-amino nitrogen and potassium when compared to the traditional cultivation system. The study showed that the choice of a cultivation technology is of secondary importance as long as the plant grows in optimal conditions resulting from an appropriate site selection.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

different method; tillage method; mineral fertilization; sugar-beet; nutritional status; yield; quality

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Journal of Elementology
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 20
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.571-584,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Gaj R.

• Chair of Agricultural Chemistry and Environmental Biogeochemistry, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 71F, 60-625 Poznan, Poland

autor

Budka A.

• Chair of Agricultural Chemistry and Environmental Biogeochemistry, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

autor

Niewiadomska A.

• Chair of Agricultural Chemistry and Environmental Biogeochemistry, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

autor

Przybyl J.

• Chair of Agricultural Chemistry and Environmental Biogeochemistry, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

autor

Mioduszewska N.

• Chair of Agricultural Chemistry and Environmental Biogeochemistry, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

Bibliografia

• Atkinson B., Debbie L., Sparkes L., Sacha J., Mooney J. 2007. Using selected soil physical properties of seedbeds to predict crop establishment. Soil Till. Res., 97: 218-228.
• Arvidsson J., Bölenius E., Cavalieri K.M.V. 2012. Effect of compaction during drilling on yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Europ. J. Agron., 39:44-51.
• Arvidsson J., Etna A., Rydberg T. 2014. Crop yield in Swedish experiments with shallow tillage and no-tillage 1983-2012. Europ. J. Agron., 52: 307-315.
• Barłóg P. 2009. Investigation on sugar beet nutrition by macroelements with special attention given to sodium. Fert. Fertil., 35: 147. (in Polish)
• Bell C.I., Jones J., Milford G.F.J., Leigh R.A 1992. The effect of crop nutrition on sugar beet quality. Aspects Appl. Biol., 32: 19-26.
• Bending G.D., Turner M.K., Jones J. E. 2002. Interaction between crop residue and soil organic matter quality and the functional diversity of soil microbial communities. Soil Biol. Biochem., 34: 1073-1082.
• Bending G.D., Putland C., Rayns F. 2000. Changes in microbial community metaboilism and labile organic matter fractions as early indictors of the impact of management on soil biological quality. Biol. Fert. Soils, 31: 78-84.
• Buchholz K., Märländer B., Puke H., Glattkowski H., Thielecke K. 1995. Neubewertung des technischen Wertes von Zuckerrűben, Revaluation of technical value of sugar beet. Zuckerindustrie, 120(2): 113-121. (in German)
• Caliński T., Czajka S., Kaczmarek Z. 1987. A model for the analysis of a series of experiments repeated at several place over a period of years. I Theory. Biul. Oceny Odmian, 12(2): 7-33.
• Freckleton R.P., Watkinson A.B., Webb D.J. 1999. Yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and nutrients. Agr. Forest Meteorol., 93(1):39-51.
• Freibauer A., Rounsevell M.D.A., Smith P., Verhagen J. 2004. Carbon sequestrion in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma, 122: 1-23.
• Haneklaus S, Schnug E 1996. Naehrstoffversorgung von Zuckerrueben in Schleswig-Holstein und Juetland. Zuckerruebe, 45: 182-184. (in German)
• Haneklaus S., Sch nug E. 1998. Evaluation of critical values of soil and plant nutrient concentration of sugar beet by means of boundary lines applied to a large data set from production fields. Asp. Appl. Biol., 52: 87-94.
• Hartmann P., Zink A., Fleige H., Horn R. 2012. Effect of compaction, tillage and climate change on soil water balance of Arable Luvisols in Northwest Germany. Soil Till. Res., 124: 211-218.
• Hergert G.W. 2010. Sugar beet fertilization. Sugar Tech, 12(3-4): 256-266.
• Herlihy M. 1992. Effects of N, P and K on yield and quality of sugar beet. Irish J. Agric. Food Res., 31: 35-49.
• Holford I.C.R. 1997. Soil phosphorus: its measurement, and its uptake by plants. Aust. J. Soil Res., 35: 227-239.
• Holland J. 2004. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 103: 1-25.
• Kassam A., Friedrich T., Shaxson F., Pretty J. 2009. The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. Int. J. Agr. Sust., 7: 292-320.
• Koch H., Dieckmann J., Büchse A., Märländer B. 2009. Yield decrease in sugar beet caused by reduced tillage and direct drilling. Europ. J. Agron., 30: 101-109
• Kordas L., Zimny L. 1997. Effect of selected stubble crops on sugar beet yielding in direct sowing technology. Biul. IHAR, 202: 207-211. (in Polish)
• Krause U., Koch H., Maerlander B. 2009. Soil properties effecting yield formation in sugar beet under ride and flat cultivation. Europ. J. Agron., 31: 20-28.
• Loomis R.S., Conor D.J. 1992. Nitrogen processes. In crop ecology: Productivity and management in agricultural systems. Eds. Loomis R.S., Conor D.J., Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.; pp 195-223.
• Lynch J. 1995. Root architecture and plant productivity. Plant Physiol., 109: 7-13
• Marchetti R., Castelli F. 2011. Mineral nitrogen dynamics in soil during sugar beet and winter wheat crop growth. Europ. J. Agron., 35: 13-21.
• Mohammadian R., Sadeghian S.Y., Rahimian H., Moghadam M. 2008. Reduced water consumption of dormant – seeded sugar beet in a semiarid climate. Agr.Water Manag., 95: 545-552.
• Muchova Z., Francakova H., Slamka P. 1998. Effect of soil cultivation and fertilization of sugar beet quality. Rost. Vyroba, 44(4):161-172.
• Pacuta V., Cerny I., Karabinova M. 2000. The effect of selected factors on the yield and quality of sugar beet. Rostl.Vyroba, 46 (8):371-378.
• Peigne J., Ball B.C., Roger-Estrade J., David C. 2007. Is conservation tillage suitable for organic farming. Soil Use Manage, 23: 129-144.
• Soane B.D., Ball B.C., Arvidsson J., Basch G., Moreno F., Roger-Estrade J. 2012. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil Till. Res., 118: 66-87.
• Vandergeten J.P., Van der Linden J.P., Jarvis P., Leveque E,. Guiraud de Willot D., Kromer K.H. 2004. Test procedures for measuring the quality in sugar beet production - seed drillability, precision seeders, harvesters, cleaner loaders. Project of the Int. Inst. for Beet Research (I.I.R.B.), Brussels.
• Schnug E., Haneklaus S. 2008. Evaluation of the significance of sulphur and other essential mineral elements in oilseed rape, cereals and sugar beets by plant analysis. In: Sulfur: a missing link between soils, crops and nutrition. Jez J. ed. Agron. Monog., 50: 219-234.
• Zörb Ch., Senbayram M., Peiter E. 2014. Potassium in agriculture – Status and perspectives. J. Plant Physiol., 171: 656-669.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5601/jelem.2015.20.1.772