Plant Soil Environ., 2002, 48(10):458-462 | DOI: 10.17221/4395-PSE

Yields and root technological quality of sugar beet grown in crop rotation and long-term monoculture

B. Rychcik, K. Zawi¶lak
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland

The paper presents the findings of 6-year (1993-1998) investigations obtained in the field static experiment continued since 1967. This experiment concerned the estimation of the crop yield and its structure, and root technological quality under the conditions of crop rotation and extreme shortening of the rotation, i.e. monoculture. Investigations have proved that under agroclimatic conditions of north-eastern Poland it is possible to obtain 60 t of roots per ha in a naturally correct crop rotation, while in a long-term monoculture - 33 t, and 36 t and 19 t of top, respectively. The differences in monoculture crops occurred as a result of a plant loss during germination by 5.6%, and a smaller unit weight per root by 41.6%. The applied procedures of plant protection by herbicides and fungicides improved the root and top crop and favored the maintenance of plant density. A lowering of saccharose content in roots from 15.7% in the crop rotation to 15.0% in monoculture was recorded, and of sugar yield in the technological process from 13.0 to 12.3%, respectively. A high white sugar yield was obtained in crop rotation - 7.89 t per ha, while in monoculture it was only 4.06 t, i.e. 48.5% less.

Keywords: sugar beet; long-term experiment; crop rotation; monoculture; chemical protection; root yield; white sugar yield; molasses forming substances

Published: October 31, 2002  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Rychcik B, Zawi¶lak K. Yields and root technological quality of sugar beet grown in crop rotation and long-term monoculture. Plant Soil Environ. 2002;48(10):458-462. doi: 10.17221/4395-PSE.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Adamiak J., Niewiadomski W., Adamiak E. (1991): Tolerancyjnoœae buraka cukrowego na uprawê w trójpolowych p<sup>3</sup>odozmianach i w monokulturze na glebie ciê¿kiej. Biul. IHAR, 178: 121–127.
    2. Bar<sup>3</sup>óg P., Grzebisz W. (2001): Effect of magnesium foliar application on the yield and quality of sugar beet roots. Rostl. Výr., 47: 418–422.
    3. Gonet I., Gonet Z. (1981): Reakcja niektórych roœlin na uprawê w okresowej monokulturze w ró¿nych warunkach siedliskowych. I. Burak cukrowy. Pam. Pu<sup>3</sup>., 74: 47–57.
    4. Gutmañski I. (1986): Przestrzenne mo¿liwoœci rejonizacji buraka cukrowego w Polsce. In: Aktualne problemy produkcji buraka cukrowego w Polsce. IHAR, Bydgoszcz: 23–28.
    5. Heyland K.U., Lohmann G. (1997): The assessment of crop rotation in reference to increasing different yields and yield assuring production methods. Acta Acad. Agric. Techn. Olst., Agricultura, 64: 185–192.
    6. Krejèíø J. (1997): Crop rotation as a regulator of soil bioenergetic potential. Acta Acad. Agric. Tech. Olst., Agricultura, 64: 29–43.
    7. Kuœ J. (1992): Plonowanie buraka cukrowego w zale¿noœci od przedplonu i zmianowania. Biul. IHAR, 181/182: 235–241.
    8. Malec J. (1997): Warunki produkcji buraków w Polsce i ich wp<sup>3</sup>yw na jakoœae surowca. In: Postêp w uprawie buraka cukrowego i w jakoœci korzeni. SGGW, Warszawa: 74–84.
    9. Niewiadomski W. (1995): Nauka o p<sup>3</sup>odozmianach – stan i perspektywy. Post. Nauk Rol., 5/6: 71–90.
    10. Niewiadomski W., Zawiœlak K. (1982): Tolerancja buraka cukrowego na skracanie rotacji i monokulturê w œwietle 12-letnich doœwiadczeñ œcis<sup>3</sup>ych. Rocz. Nauk Rol., A-105: 39–59.
    11. Osiñska B., Szymczak-Nowak J. (1980): Agrotechniczne metody zapobiegania zgorzeli siewek buraka cukrowego. Ochr. Roœl., 9: 13–16.
    12. Paèuta V., Èerný I., Karabínová M. (2000): The effect of selected factors on the yield and quality of sugar beet. Rostl. Výr., 46: 371–378.
    13. Reinefeld E., Emmerich A., Baumgarten G., Winner C., Beiss U. (1974): Zur Voraussage des Melassezuckers aus Rübenanalysen. Zucker, 27: 2–15.
    14. Szymczak-Nowak J., Tyburski J., Zawiœlak K. (1997): Wp<sup>3</sup>yw udzia<sup>3</sup>u buraka cukrowego w p<sup>3</sup>odozmianie na wystêpowanie zgorzeli siewek. Acta Acad. Agric. Techn. Olst., Agricultura, 64: 218–224.
    15. Trzebiñski J. (1986): Nawo¿enie mineralne a jakoœae technologiczna buraka cukrowego. In: Aktualne problemy produkcji buraka cukrowego w Polsce. IHAR, Bydgoszcz: 70–77.
    16. Wojciechowska-Kot H., Kurowski T. (1988): Zdrowotnoœae roœlin i efektywnoœae fungicydów w wieloletniej monokulturze buraka cukrowego. Biul. IHAR, 165: 115–125.
    17. Zawiœlak K., Rychcik B. (1997): Burak cukrowy w p<sup>3</sup>odozmianie i monokulturze w œwietle 20-letnich badañ statycznych w Polsce pó<sup>3</sup>nocno-wschodniej. Acta Acad. Agric. Techn. Olst., Agricultura, 64: 227–236.
    18. Zawiœlak K., Tyburski J. (1992): The tolerance of root industrial and fodder crops to continuous cultivation. Acta Acad. Agric. Techn. Olst., Agricultura, 55: 149–162.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content