Sugarbeets Enjoy Warm Winter

Similar documents
Asparagus Response to Water and Nitrogen

Effect of Method of Application of Double Superphosphate on the Yield and Phosphorus Uptake by Sugar Beets 1

Managing Phosphorus to Optimize Potato Tuber Yield in the San Luis Valley

POTATO VARIETY RESPONSE TO PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZER

Definitions in Handbook

Plant Tissue Testing as a Guide to Side-Dressing Sugar Beets 1

Getting the Most out of Your Strawberry Soil Test Report. General Information

Effects of Phosphorus and Calcium on Tuber Set, Yield, and Quality in Goldrush Potato

Home and Market Garden Fertilization

Utilization of Phosphorus From Various Fertilizer Materials By Sugar Beets in Colorado 1

REVIEW OF AVOCADO FERTILIZER PRACTICES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Workgroup. UCD Alfalfa. Utilizing Plant Tissue Testing & Application Methods to Maximize Fertilizer Efficiency

Forcing Containerized Roses in a Retractable Roof Greenhouse and Outdoors in a Semi-Arid Climate

Fertilizers and nutrient management for hops. Diane Brown, Michigan State University Extension

Hybrid Seed Carrot. (Central Oregon) J. Hart and M. Butler. Yield, growth, and nutrient accumulation. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT EM 8879-E November 2004

Potatoes (2007) Potatoes Comparisons of Nitrogen Sources and Foliars (2008) Potatoes Nitrogen Types (2008) Potato Seed Piece Direct Fertilizer

Table 4. Nutrient uptake and removal by sunflower in Manitoba studies. Nutrient Uptake Removal Uptake Removal

Nutrient Management of Irrigated Alfalfa and Timothy

Nutrient Management And Nutrient Cycling Raymond C. Ward, President Ward Laboratories, Inc Kearney, NE

Bench Top Production Hydroponic Production

Cool Season Vegetables and Strawberry Response to Phosphates Research and Observations over the last Ten Years

CHECKLIST NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

The Effects of Soil Acidity on Phosphorus Uptake. by Vegetable Crops in Hestern Oregon- W. A. Sheets,-

FERTILIZER, IRRIGATION STUDIES ON AVOCADOS AND LIMES ON THE ROCKDALE SOILS OF THE HOMESTEAD AREA

Section 5: Vegetables and Bulbs

PASTURE AND HAY FIELDS: SOIL FUNDAMENTALS. Sanders County April 8, Clain Jones

Waking Up Your Sleepy Lawn. Joe Clark Rutgers Plant Biology Pathology Dept. Research Farm Supervisor

Sunlight. Chlorophyll

Nutrient Management for Perennial Fruit Crops. Practical Experiences in Nutrient Management UM/Western Maryland Research and Education Center

EC Sulfur for Alfalfa Production in Nebraska

Virginia Nutrient Management Standards and Criteria Revised July 2014

Introduction. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences North Florida Research and Education Center Suwannee Valley

STOLLER ENTERPRISES, INC. World leader in crop nutrition Potato Production Challenge - Page 1 of 9

Types of Fertilizers. Complete Incomplete Organic Inorganic Soluble Insoluble

Effect of soil structure on phosphate nutrition of crop plants

Seasonal soil moisture and nitrogen availability

OSU. Fertility aspects of green pea production

SOIL TEST NOTES. Applying Lime to Established Lawns

For nmental. Written By: Agustin o, Professor. Developed in. and justice for all. Department of. funded by activities. )

Soil Science Curriculum

Research Report: Effects of early season heating, low tunnels, and harvest time on ginger yields in NH, 2017 Introduction. Zingiber officinale

Hawaii Agriculture Research Center -1- Vegetable Report 2. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Vegetable Report 2 January 2000

Timing Kerb Applications in Lettuce

Part 2: Landscape Management. Types of Fertilizer. General-purpose. Slow-release Organic Liquid

Nutrient Considerations for Olives

ACTIVITY 2 How Does Your Garden Grow?

A Preliminary Report on Asparagus Harvest Duration

Corn Fertilization. Photo of a healthy, uniform stand of corn. A quick start and high productivity depend a lot on soil fertility.

Inherent Factors Affecting Soil ph. Soil ph Management

Getting Started with Your Vegetable Garden

SOIL TEST HANDBOOK FOR GEORGIA

Can We Have Too Much of a Good Thing? Lab

THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY

Hops Production. Dr. Heather Darby UVM Extension Agronomist

Farmers need to develop an understanding

Untbersrttp of &tt?ona. SUDAN GRASS IN ARIZONA By R. S. HAWKINS, Assistant Agronomist

Phosphorus Facts Soil, plant, and fertilizer

Inherent Factors Affecting Soil ph. Soil ph Management

Organic Fertilizers. Disadvantages. Advantages

Soil and Plant Methods List for Automated Ion Analyzers. Flow Injection Analysis

Fertigation. There are four fundamental components for success with fertigation: 1) Do not irrigate longer than 1 hour at a time.

Monopotassium Phosphate-Based Starter Fertilizers Enhance Snapbean Yield in Florida George J. Hochmuth 1

Vine Nutrition. A g e n d a 4/10/2017. Soil How to sample Sample submission sheet Lab analysis & results Interpretation

Understanding Soil Variability to Utilize Variable Rate Fertilizer Technology

Soil Test Report. HOME GARDEN VEGETABLE GARDEN Analysis Results

Comparison of Field Seeding of Sugar Beets and Mangel Wurzels with Two Methods of Transplanting 1

Evaluation of Foliar Insecticide Approaches for Aphid Management in Head Lettuce

G A Gardener's Guide for Soil and Nutrient Management in Growing Vegetables

Nutrient Management for Perennial Fruit Crops

B. Land capability subclass - DELETED Determine Land Capability Subclass according to the following rules. Mark all subclasses that apply.

Lesco Fertilizer Evaluation

The quest for acid-tolerant lucerne

Use of fertilizers is needed for all types of long-term crop production in order to achieve yield levels which make the effort of cropping worthwhile

Effect of Soil Amendment with Dry and Wet Distillers Grains on Growth of Canola and Soil Properties

Identification of Aberrant Railroad Wayside WILD and THD Detectors: Using Industry-wide Railroad Data. June 10, 2014

Role of Plant Hormones on Vegetative Growth of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)

Problem. Can paper mill sludge be used as a fertilizer for plants and does it change the ph of the

The Potash Development Association Potash for Sugar Beet

Tobacco Fertilization. Andy Bailey

Understanding Surface Water Runoff at Breneman Farms

Improving Your Grass With Calcium Sulfate

California Avocado Society 1955 Yearbook 39: PHOSPHATE RESPONSE IN AVOCADO TREES

SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Growing Broccoli at Veg-Acre Farms

Controlled Release Container Nursery Fertilizer Evaluations. Dr. James T. Midcap

Determining Amounts of Fertilizer for Small Areas

CMG GardenNotes #711 Vegetable Gardens: Soil Management and Fertilization

Peat-Lite Mixes. J. W. Boodley, Department of Floriculture

MILK DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Virginia Nutrient Management Standards and Criteria Revised October 2005

FOLIAR FEEDING and SAR for CITRUS TREES. Mongi Zekri and Gary England University of Florida, IFAS

Mint Fertility Experiment

Effect of Five Planting Dates on Yield of Six Sweet Onions

White Rot Fungicide Evaluations in Fresno County & Nitrogen Balance Progress Report

Full Disclosure, I create and sell Sumo Cakes Bonsai Fertilizer Basics

General Principles. Figure 1. Nitrogen uptake pattern for winter wheat grown in the Coastal Plain region of Virginia.

Research Report Row Spacing Effect on Forage Sorghum Yield and Quality at Maricopa, AZ, 2015

Potassium Fertigation In Highbush Blueberry Increases availability of K and other nutrietns in the root zone.

Project Leaders Curt R. Rom University of Arkansas Dept of Horticulture 316 PTSC, Fayetteville AR

Avocado sensitivity to salinity revisited Akko Experiment

Transcription:

Sugarbeets Enjoy Warm Winter Item Type text; Article Authors Abbott, J. L.; Nelson, J. M. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Sugarbeets: A College of Agriculture Report Download date 08/05/2018 16:14:47 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/215407

Sugarbeets Enjoy Warm Winter J. L. Abbott and J. M. Nelson University of Arizona Summary Very high nutrient availability, with sugarbeets exhibiting the minimum possible response to variables in phosphorus availability, were found in an experiment conducted at the Mesa Experiment Farm during the winter of 1980-81. This was the warmest on record for the Phoenix area. High yields of roots and sugar, with high sucrose concentration, resulted from warmer than usual surface soil temperatures, abundant sunshine and rapid growth throughout the season. Only soil maintained at a high level of phosphorus availability showed any effect on root and sugar yields. Triple superphosphate applied three ways increased phosphorus concentration in petioles during winter months, but did not affect yields in beets growing on a soil marginally low in available phosphorus. Fall planted sugarbeets in an "average" Arizona season grow slowly from November through March. This is because (a) the uptake of nutrients is slowed down by low soil temperatures, and (b) winter air temperatures also slow down the processes within the plant that convert carbon dioxide and water into sugars and produce other metabolites. Studies over several years at Mesa have shown that as soil temperatures drop below 50 F in the top foot of soil, phosphorus and nitrogen uptake are sufficient for only limited sugar synthesis. Phosphorus, because it acts somewhat like the sparkplug in an engine, must be kept near 0.15% in petioles or, besides slow grow growth, effects show up at harvest time in a disappointing sugar yield, even if fertilization keeps nitrogen at adequate levels in the plant. In 1979-80, and again in 1980-81, experiments were conducted at Mesa to determine the best way to apply phosphate fertilizer to sugarbeets. On soil of low and relatively high levels of available P, banding of triple superphosphate was compared with disking in 200 lbs. of TSP per acre. Results in 1980 were inconclusive, possibly due to a rainy, rather warm winter. Also disappointing was the result of the 1980-81 effort, because 1981 was the warmest year on record for the Phoenix area. Table 1 shows yield values for the 1980-81 soil -applied phosphate experiment at Mesa. Two harvests were made to observe possible effects of soil P level on beets left for mid -summer harvest. Yields of roots and sugar were not disappointing, except that no effects were shown for the three phosphorus application treatments. Yield values and sucrose percentages were somewhat higher for beets grown on the high residual P soil than for the low residual P soil for the May 28 harvest, but not for the July 21 harvest. Because root yields for the high residual P beets did not change during the harvest season, while root and sugar yields for the low residual P soil increased slightly, one might almost say that the higher soil P could be costly in terms of late harvest returns. However, the results are not statistically significant and would be no safer to base conclusions on than a farmer's comparison on Field A yl,. Field B. The data do, however, give researchers a base to use in planning an adequately replicated experiment to be conducted when Arizona winters return to what we might consider "normal ". Petiole samples were collected on five dates from November through April for nitrate -N and acetic acid acid -soluble P analyses. Figures 1 and 2 show the P concentration found for the two residual soil P levels and the four treatments imposed upon them. Nitrogen as urea was applied uniformly to a total of 244 lb. N/A to a soil very low in residual nitrogen. Nitrate levels found are shown in Table 2. Figure 1 shows P concentration found in petioles from beets planted on soil with bicarbonate - extracted P of 5 to 6 ppm. Only the control fell to a low to marginal P level. The applied phosphate treatments were above 0.15% P, or adequately supplied with P from December 18 onward. Available P for the split band application rose to 0.25% P on March 11. Values for the band applied on November 24 and the disked -in treatment were equal in P concentration after December 18, when the plots which received triple superphosphate as a surface application, disked into the seedbed before bedding reached nearly 0.20% P. Figure 2 illustrates what happens when a farmer makes an "insurance" application of phosphate fertilizer to a soil with a bicarbonate- extracted soil P value of 10 ppm in the top foot. Available P was built up in the soil by applying phosphate fertilizer to all previous crops over a period of 15 years. No benefit would be expected from the three P application treatments, whether the phosphate fertilizer was banded or disked into the seedbed before planting. In the winter of 1980-81, sunshine was abundant and soil temperatures a few inches below the surface were warm most of the time and fluctuated widely. Thermometers were placed in sugarbeet beds at one foot depth and at shallower depths and were read at 8 A.M. daily when possible, and less frequently at 5 P.M. during the usual "cold soil" months for both seasons. As was expected, the temperature fluctuated only a degree or two at one foot depth, but evening readings at four and eight inch depth often varied by 10 F and from 4 to 5 F at four and eight inch depths, respectively, in January and February 8

of 1981. Figure 3 shows how recorded temperatures varied from November through March. The bottom curve shows five -day averages of averaged readings of thermometers set at four -and twelve -inch depths, read at 8 A.M., in most cases the minimum readings for both depths. The upper curve shows 5 -day averages for maximum readings recorded at the Mesa Farm weather station for the same periods, measured on bare ground. The crosses show maximum readings of the field row thermometer showing actual thermometer readings made at 5 P.M. for a four inch depth value to compare with the upper curve. The bare ground readings exceeded the field row values in most cases but show a more continuous record for the temperatures near the soil surface. In the 31 -day period between January 15 and February 15, 1981, soil temperature measured at four inches at the weather station increased an average of 12 F above recorded minima. The period included 22 days with a spread of ll F or more and maxima of over 59 F on 27 days. For only a ten -day period in early February was there an eight -inch temperature below 500 F and it is evident that roots near the surface could feed on relatively abundant phosphorus most of the time. Indications from the lower curve in Figure 3 are that P availability should have been affected. Figure 1 did show that TSP applied to the low P soil increased P uptake by over 60% in December and January. But yield data in Table 1 show clearly that the relationship between P uptake during the low soil temperature period and sugar yield did not approach significant values. Only by "field A vs. field B" comparison can one even say that on the low P soil applied phosphate fertilizer increased root yield by 2.4% and increased sugar yield by 3.6 %; likewise, comparing the low residual soil P control with the high residual soil P control, the latter produced 9% greater root yield and 11.6% greater sugar yield. Surface soils remained so warm during the winter of 1980-81 that no answer was obtained to the question of whether banding or disking in the same amount of phosphate fertilizer is to be recommended. From such sketchy data we can skim off only a little support for what has been growing into a firm recommendation for management to maintain an adequate supply of available soil P for fall planted sugar - beets. That is, to apply phosphate fertilizer annually to crops preceding sugarbeets. This appears to be a surer bet than to apply phosphate fertilizer to a soil not likely to supply enough P for the crop. A soil with a bicarbonate -extracted (Olsen) P value of at least 10 ppm in the top foot is most likely to be adequate. 9

Table 1. Yields for 1980-81 sugarbeet experiment comparing four phosphate fertilizer treatments, Mesa Experiment Farm Harvested May 28, 1981 Harvested July 21, 1981 Residual Phosphate Yield, Sucrose Yield, Yield, Sucrose Yield, Soil P Fertilizer Roots Concn Sugar Roots Concn Sugar Level Treatment T/A % T/A T/A Low Control 33.1 16.6 5.50 38.5 200 lb TSP /A disked in pre-plant 34.9 16.75 5.85 38.0 200 lb TSP /A in band, split Nov. 24 34.0 16.55 5.59 37.1 and January 8 Z00 lb TSP /A in band, Nov. 24 32.8 17.2 5.67 35.5 High Control 36.1 17.05 6.14 35.3 200 lb TSP /A disked in pre-plant 38.0 17.35 6.59 37.5 200 lb TSP /A in band, split Nov. 24 34.9 17.4 6.08 40.3 and January 8 200 lb TSP /A in band, Nov. 24 36.2 17.0 6.16 36.3 % T/A 15.4 5.95 15.6 5.93 15.4 5.7 15.58 5.72 15.7 5.56 16.0 6.0 15.85 6.39 16.0 5.8 Means for residual soil P levels: Low 33.7 16.8 5.65 37.3 High 36.3 17.2 6.24 37.4 15.5 5.82 15.9 5.94 Table 2. Nitrate -N concentration of petioles for four dates, 1980-81. Residual Phosphate Soil P Application Level Treatment Dec. 18 Jan. 21 Mar. 11 Apr. 20 ppm Low Control 13,000 10,200 TSP Disked in pre-plant 16,700 9,250 Nov., Jan. split, TSP band 15,150 9,950 November TSP band 15,650 8,700 Average, Low Residual P 15,125 9,525 2,600 310 1,275 1,275 2,650 875 1,900 855 2,100 830 High Control 9,225 8,750 TSP Disked in pre -plant 11,250 9,450 Nov., Jan. split, TSP band 11,150 8,700 November TSP band 9,650 8,950 Average, High Residual Soil P 10,320 9,200 3,225 3,025 2,300 1,460 2,300 1,375 2,650 1,900 2,600 1,940 10

0.25 w N 10 11/24 12/18 1/21 3/11 Fig. 1. Soluble P in petioles of sugarbeets growing in a soil marginally deficient in phosphorus. Low residual P soil as control, 200 pounds of triple superphosphate per acre, applied three ways. 4/20 0.25 w 11/24 12/18 1/21 3/11 4/20 Fig. 2. Soluble P in petioles of sugarbeets growing in a soil not deficient in phosphorus. High residual P soil as control 200 pounds of triple superphosphate per acre, applied three ways. 11

of 80 75 X 70 Maximum at 4 inch depth, bare ground, Mesa Farm weather station- - x x 5 PM readings at 4 inch depth in sugarbeet beds < ñ,,x X 50 Average at 8 inch depth in sugarbeet beds - - - - - 5 15 25 NOV. 5 15 25 DEC. 5 15 25 5 15 25 5 15 25 JAN. FEB. MAR. Fig. 3. Recorded soil temperatures at four and eight inch depths, November, 1980 through March, 1981, averaged by five day intervals. 12