Plant Soil Environ., 2003, 49(11):492-498 | DOI: 10.17221/4183-PSE

The influence of harvest date and crop treatment on the production of two different sugar beet variety types

L. Jozefyová, J. Pulkrábek, J. Urban
Czech University of Agriculture in Prague, Czech Republic

In a four-year trial, the effect was evaluated of the harvest time on the production of two different sugar beet variety types (the Z-type variety Elan and the NE-type variety Epos) grown in three patterns - 1. check pattern, 2. fertilisation with50 kgN/ha, 3. fertilisation with50 kgN/ha + fungicide treatment. Sugar beet was harvested in two terms: at the beginning of the beet processing season, and four weeks later. The differences between the varieties became apparent mainly at the later harvest time. The root yields of the NE-type variety Epos were higher at the later harvest by the average 4.35 t/ha (statistically significant, α = 0.01) while its sugar content was lower by 0.3% (α = 0.05) than in the Z-type variety Elan. The postponement of the harvest time increased the root yields of both varieties by the average 10.47 t/ha (i.e. by 17.9%, α = 0.01). The effect of the harvest time on the sugar content was dependent on the year. Due to retrovegetation following the rainfalls after a prolonged dry period in the year 2000, the sugar content decreased at the later harvest time by 1.68% in absolute figures (or by 8.35% rel., α = 0.01). The content of molassigenic substances in sugar beet roots varied according to the year rather than to the factors followed. The white sugar yields increased at the later harvest by the average 1.57 t/ha (or by 16.9%, α = 0.01). The average increment of sugar for each day of the postponed harvest was 58.2 kg/ha (or 0.63%). The effect of nitrogen fertilisation and fungicide treatment on the sugar beet production became apparent at the later harvest time. Fertilisation with50 kgN/ha + fungicide treatment increased the root yields by 1.07 t/ha (or by 10.32%, α = 0.01) in comparison with the pattern without nitrogen fertilisation and fungicide treatment. Spraying with fungicide itself increased the sugar yields by 0.81 t/ha (or by 7.81%, α = 0.01) in comparison with the pattern equally fertilised but not treated with fungicide.

Keywords: sugar beet; harvest time; variety; nitrogen fertilisation; fungicide; production

Published: November 30, 2003  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Jozefyová L, Pulkrábek J, Urban J. The influence of harvest date and crop treatment on the production of two different sugar beet variety types. Plant Soil Environ. 2003;49(11):492-498. doi: 10.17221/4183-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. Bajči P. (1990): Vzťahy medzi obsahom minerálneho dusíka v pôde, úrodou a cukornatosťou cukrovej repy. Rostl. Výr., 36: 1041-1052.
    2. Bajči P., Pačuta V., Černý I. (1997): Cukrová repa. ÚVTIP, Nitra.
    3. Bajči P., Tomanová E. (1991): Stupňované dusíkaté hnojenie a jeho vplyv na zmeny v tvorbe biomasy a v technologickej hodnote jednosemennej odrody cukrovej repy. Rostl. Výr., 37: 81-95.
    4. Bürcky K. (1991): Einfluss des Stickstoffangebotes auf Substanzbildung, Erntegewicht und Qualität der Zuckerrübe unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Temperatur und Globalstrahlung in Gefäßversuchen. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 167: 341-349. Go to original source...
    5. Chochola J. (1998): Výživa cukrovky a aktuální nákladová kalkulace. Listy Cukrov. Řepař., 114: 78-80.
    6. Kováčová M. (1997): K racionalizácii hnojenia cukrovej repy. Listy Cukrov. Řepař., 113: 162-164.
    7. Kožnarová V., Klabzuba J. (2002): Doporučení WMO pro popis meteorologických, resp. klimatologických podmínek definovaného období. Rostl. Výr., 48: 190-192. Go to original source...
    8. Kühn G. (1996): Angepaßte N-Düngung. Zuckerrübe, 45: 286-287.
    9. Märländer B. (1990): Influence of nitrogen supply on yield and quality of sugar beet. Z. Pfl.-Ernähr. Bodenkde, 153: 327-332. Go to original source...
    10. Märländer B. (1991): Einfluß der Erntezeit. Zuckerrüben - Produktionssteigerung bei Zuckerrüben als Ergebnis der Optimierung von Anbauverfahren und Sortenwahl sowie durch Züchtungsfortschritt - Versuch einer Analyse anhand langjähriger Feldversuche in Nordwestdeutschland. Ute Bernhardt-Pätzold Druckerei und Verlag, Stadthagen Deutschland: 79-91.
    11. Minx L. (1999): Délka vegetační doby - závažný problém českého řepařství. Listy Cukrov. Řepař., 115: 50-51. Go to original source...
    12. Pačuta V., Bajči P. (1998): Stav a zmeny vo výrobe cukrovej repy na Slovensku v posledných rokoch. Listy Cukrov. Řepař., 114: 46-49.
    13. Pačuta V., Černý I., Karabínová M. (2000): Vplyv vybraných faktorov na úrodu a kvalitu cukrovej repy. Rostl. Výr., 46: 371-378.
    14. Pulkrábek J., Šroller J., Zahradníček J. (1999): Vliv regulátorů růstu na výnos a jakost bulev cukrovky. Rostl. Výr., 45: 379-386.
    15. Spitzer T., Fišer F. (2000): Cercospora beticola (skvrnatička řepná) - výsledky z pokusů v roce 1999. Listy Cukrov. Řepař., 116: 157-159.
    16. Švachula V. (1999): Cykličnost cukernatosti řepy ve vztahu k dlouhodobým změnám klimatu (Je cukernatost řepy periodický jev). Listy Cukrov. Řepař., 115:196-198.

    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