© CAB International 2003. Nutrients for Sugar Beet Production: Soil–Plant Relationships
(A.P. Draycott and D.R. Christenson) 123
The first eight chapters have covered each nutrient needed by sugar beet and how shortfalls in soil supply can be amended by inorganic and organic applications. Often the amount of nutrient needed to produce the best economic return exceeds the removal in tap roots sent for processing. This is quite usual in crop production, because the fibrous root system explores less than 2% of the total soil volume and nutrients do not move large distances to the root surface. Also some of the applied nutrients may become unavailable through fixation, leaching or volatilization.
This chapter deals with the consequences of applying nutrients before and during sugar beet cropping. Where reserves remain in soil and can be used efficiently by follow- ing crops, consequences are beneficial and these are covered first. Of increasing concern since the last major review of this subject (Draycott, 1972) are any negative aspects of residual nutrients carried over in the soil and subsequent losses to the environment.
Future decisions over optimum amounts and timings of each nutrient for sugar beet must not be governed solely by farm eco- nomics, as in the past. Of even greater importance is that nutrients be employed such that harmful carry-over effects are, at worst, minimal or, better, maintain the pro- ductive capacity of soil in such a way that they have a benign environmental impact.
Sugar Beet in the Crop Rotation
In most countries where sugar beet is pro- duced successfully, it is grown in rotation with other crops. Where monoculture has been attempted, yields have usually declined rapidly, largely due to multiplication of dis- eases and other pests – particularly sugar beet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii). Weeds and weed beet also become a problem where the rotation is very short or rotational crop- ping is not practised. Mainly for these reasons it seems likely that sugar beet will continue to be grown in some form of arable or ley/arable rotation. In farming practice it is therefore important, when considering the amount of fertilizer needed by sugar beet, to take into account the needs of other crops in the rotation. This both maximizes economic returns and minimizes environmental impact.
It is not possible to study any crop in iso- lation from the rest of those grown in the rotation because plant residues and unused nutrients affect the amounts of fertilizer needed by the following crop. Thus fertiliz- ers applied to crops grown before sugar beet affect the amount required by sugar beet.
Previous cropping also affects the amount of fertilizer required, because crops take differ- ent quantities of nutrients from the soil and leave different nutrient residues. For exam- ple, sugar beet takes up large quantities of
some nutrients from the soil, which may deplete soil reserves and affect the following crop. Sugar beet tops are particularly rich in some elements and it is important to take this into account when tops are removed from the field. Many experiments have been made to investigate how these factors affect the nutrient requirement of sugar beet and how nutrition of sugar beet affects the fol- lowing crop.
Effects of Nutrient Reserves and Crop Residues on Sugar Beet
It is important to distinguish between nitro- gen and other nutrients, such as phosphorus and potassium. Mineral nitrogen does not tend to accumulate in soil except in dry cli- mates. In humid areas, where most sugar beet is grown, nitrogen is lost by leaching or denitrification after harvest. The residual effects of nitrogen are often due to mineral- ization of readily decomposable plant mater- ial. In contrast, phosphorus and potassium can accumulate in many soils as plant-avail- able reserves and therefore have beneficial effects on subsequent crops.
The different farming systems in which sugar beet is grown have an impact on the nutrient requirement of the sugar beet, in
particular on nitrogen. One of the first detailed accounts was that of Adams (1962), who showed that sugar beet grown after a run of cereals needed much more nitrogen than after one or two cereals. Tinker (1965) followed by showing that the optimum amount of nitrogen increased from about 100 to 140 kg N ha1as the number of preceding cereals increased from nil to three or more.
Boyd et al. (1970) examined over 170 field experiments and found that sugar beet fol- lowing potatoes needed 75 kg N ha1, whereas after other crops (nearly all cereals) 120 kg N ha1was best for sugar beet. In the USAChristenson and Butt (2000) found that sugar beet needed an additional 30–50 kg N ha1following maize compared with follow- ing Phaseolus field bean. The extra nitrogen needed after maize did not seem to be related to nitrogen fixation by field bean or by nitrogen present in organic forms in the soil. While there is no direct evidence of an allelopathic effect of maize residues on sugar beet, there is some evidence of this effect on other crops.
Hull and Webb (1967) made one of the first large-scale field experiments at Broom’s Barn specifically to investigate the effect of previous cropping on the nitrogen require- ment of sugar beet. Figure 9.1 summarizes the results. No nitrogen was needed after
7 8 9
0 50 100 150
Nitrogen (kg N ha–1) Sugar yield (t ha–1)
After wheat After barley After sugar beet After lucerne
Fig. 9.1. Effect of previous crop on nitrogen requirement of sugar beet.
lucerne, 100 kg N ha1after sugar beet and 145 kg N ha1after wheat or barley. Similar experiments were made, but with different crops and soils, at Silsoe and Broom’s Barn (Draycott and Last, 1970) and measurements made of nitrogen uptake and residual nitro- gen from the crops before the sugar beet.
Potatoes left about 70 kg N ha1and cereals none. Trefoil before sugar beet also returned about 65 kg N ha1. Thus nitrogen require- ments of sugar beet were 125 kg N ha1after cereals, 70 kg N ha1after potatoes and tre- foil and 125 kg N ha1after grass ley.
The three winters during the Broom’s Barn experiments were relatively dry and there was a linear relationship (r = 0.86) between the residual nitrogen from the first- year crops and the amount of fresh fertilizer nitrogen needed for maximum sugar yield.
There was some indication that fresh nitro- gen was slightly less effective than residual nitrogen. Unpublished survey data from the Red River Valley in the USAsuggests that carry-over nitrogen in the soil profile is uti- lized more efficiently than nitrogen applied in the current season. The reason for this is not clear.
Response to Various Cropping Systems and Fertilizer by Sugar Beet in Long-term
Experiments
Much fundamental work in the ‘classical’
experiments on clay soils has been done at Rothamsted, UK, and at its satellite stations on other soil types (Woburn – light sandy loam; Broom’s Barn – sandy loam;
Saxmundham – chalky, sandy boulder clay), published over the second half of the 20th century. Some of the main findings are sum- marized here, followed by details of parallel work in the EU and USA.
Woburn, ley/arable
Boyd (1968) reported this experiment, which was begun in 1937. The object was to com- pare the effects of 3 years of various leys on yields of two arable crops that followed and with yields of the same two crops in an all-
arable rotation. Farmyard manure was also tested, along with fertilizer nitrogen and potassium. At the start of the experiment there were doubts over the sustainability of continuous cash-cropping on such light-tex- ture soils. It is now widely accepted prac- tice, provided weeds, diseases and other pests are controlled and the soil nutrient sta- tus and soil organic matter are adequate (Johnston, 1997).
Until 1955, potatoes were the first test crop and barley the second (Mann and Boyd, 1958). The cropping scheme was changed in 1956 because of the build-up of potato cyst nematode, and sugar beet was inserted in place of potatoes as the first test crop (Boyd, 1968). Early results indicated that potassium, nitrogen and possibly other elements, such as magnesium, were being depleted by the arable rotation. When the scheme was changed to include sugar beet, plots were split to test more nitrogen and potassium.
Table 9.1 shows that there were large effects of rotation and large responses to farmyard manure. On the continuous arable sequence, farmyard manure increased yields of sugar by more than 40%, whereas on the ley sequence the increase was only 10%.
There was little increase in yield from extra nitrogen and potassium applied – an unex- pected result. Soil analyses showed that the crop should have responded to potassium.
Warren and Johnston (1961) on a nearby experiment showed that the lack of response was due to the distribution of the potassium in the soil. Where it was dug in, the crop responded; where it was broadcast on the surface, there was little response. Thus the yields of sugar were larger with farmyard manure than with fertilizers because the farmyard manure contained large amounts of potassium that had been ploughed in.
Table 9.1 also shows the mean sugar yields for 1962–1964. During those years, large corrective dressings of fertilizer equal- ized the potassium status of plots in each rotation. The effect was to decrease the response to farmyard manure by more than half. For all rotations except lucerne, responses to potassium were less than in pre- vious years. Responses to nitrogen differed between rotations but it was not possible to
indicate precisely the optimal nitrogen dress- ing after each rotation. From 1965 to 1967, four amounts of nitrogen were tested and sugar beet in the arable rotations needed most, the optima depending on whether or not farmyard manure was used.
Thus at Woburn these 12 years of results with sugar beet indicate that the early large effects of farmyard manure can be explained mainly in terms of response to nutrients, but there was still a small effect of farmyard manure not obtainable by fertilizers alone.
Another experiment at Woburn also empha- sized the importance of thorough mixing of the fertilizer dressing with the soil for maxi- mum response, so that it is not concentrated in the surface soil, where it may be largely unavailable in dry periods.
Woburn, organic-manuring experiment Mattingly (1974) reported further work on the light sandy loam soil to determine the long-term benefits of organic additions to sugar beet grown in rotation with cereals and field beans (Vicia faba). It was a successor to and extension of the green-manuring experiment (1936–1963), the ley/arable experiment, started in 1938, and the market-
garden experiment, started in 1941. In the organic-manuring experiment, started in 1964, peat, straw, green manures, farmyard manure and leys were tested in combination with mineral fertilizers.
Mattingly found that organic inputs were necessary to maintain yield, mineral fertiliz- ers alone not producing full yield. Peat and straw, both ploughed in, did not benefit sugar yield much. Green manures and farm- yard manure, however, produced more sugar than fertilizers alone. Most of the bene- fit was from nitrogen released from the organic matter. In the absence of organic additions, 125 kg N ha1was needed. Green manures provided 60 and farmyard manure 50 kg N ha1. Farmyard manure produced about 1.5 t sugar ha1more than fertilizers after adjusting for the available nitrogen released from the farmyard manure.
Rothamsted, continuous sugar beet Few field experiments have tested continu- ous sugar beet cultivation over a long period.
The Barnfield experiment at Rothamsted probably comes nearest to a sugar beet equiv- alent of the Broadbalk wheat experiment.
Lawes and Gilbert started a manurial experi- Table 9.1. Woburn ley/arable. Effect of preparatory cropping, farmyard manure and nitrogen and potassium fertilizer on a sugar beet test crop (after Boyd, 1968).a
Preparatory cropping in previous 3 years
Grazed Lucerne Arable (including Arable
ley for hay seeds and hay) (roots)
Sugar yield (t ha1)
Mean yield in 1956–1961 7.10 6.56 6.10 6.59
Response to:
Farmyard manure (38 t ha1) 0.85 1.18 1.57 1.83
Extra Na 0.35 0.38 0.30 0.01
Extra Kb 0.34 0.29 0.28 0.05
Mean yield in 1962–1964 7.61 7.38 6.80 7.66
Response to:
Farmyard manure 0.11 0.46 0.54 0.72
Extra Na 0.30 0.23 0.23 0.04
Extra Kb 0.11 0.29 0.09 0.14
aBasal application, 90 kg N ha1, 110 kg K2O ha1.
bAdditional 90 kg N ha1, 110 kg K2O ha1.
ment on turnips, swedes and mangolds on Barnfield in 1843. Mangolds were grown con- tinuously from 1876 until 1959, except for a few years when the crop failed. From 1946 to 1959 a part of each plot (the same part each year) was cropped with sugar beet. The results up to 1894 were summarized by Lawes and Gilbert in 1895 and reported in detail by Hall (1902). Watson and Russell (1943) examined the results up to 1940, and Warren and Johnston (1962b) up to 1959.
Cooke (1967) extracted much interesting information about mangolds up to 1945 and Draycott (1972) produced an overview of the sugar beet from 1946 to 1959.
The experiment compared (NH4)2SO4 with NaNO3and tested phosphorus, potas- sium, sodium and magnesium, rape-cake and farmyard manure. Ammonium and nitrate nitrogen gave the same increase in sugar beet root yield in the presence of phos- phorus and potassium or phosphorus and sodium. Potassium and sodium each increased yield where the nitrogen was given as ammonium sulphate, but neither had any effect where sodium nitrate was used. Fertilizers and farmyard manure were both needed for maximum yield.
The Barnfield study also provides unique data relating to nutrient uptake by mangolds and sugar beet, and corresponding changes in the quantities of nutrients in soil brought about by long, continuous cropping, although detailed chemical analyses of crops and soils were only made in the later years of the experiment. Many of the data have been referred to in previous chapters dealing with nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
Broom’s Barn, continuous sugar beet and crop rotations
An experiment was started in 1965 to com- pare five contrasting rotations of crops given nutrients in amounts considered optimal for each crop. Continuous sugar beet was tested, three three-course rotations consisting of one sugar beet and two other crops and one six- course rotation of one sugar beet and five barley. Four amounts of nitrogen were tested each time sugar beet was grown.
Results of the first 6 and second 6 years of the experiment were published by Draycott et al.(1972a, 1978b). Tops of sugar beet were ploughed in but cereal straw removed.
During those first 12 years, diseases and other pests had little effect on sugar beet in any of the rotations and yields were similar in all five rotations. Response to nitrogen by sugar beet varied greatly from year to year but not much between rotations, provided adequate potassium was supplied. To achieve a satisfactory potassium balance, the amount applied had to be revised upward several times.
The performance of the continuous sugar beet changed dramatically from the 13th (!) year of the experiment onwards. This resulted from the appearance of a heavy H.
schachtii infestation discovered when the crop was harvested, together with a light incidence of violet root rot (Helicobasidium purpureum). The latter had been seen on a few plants on continuous sugar beet in pre- vious years. The experiment in its original form was therefore abandoned and the area used for work on the relationship between H. schachtii and sugar beet yield (Webb et al., 1997).
Saxmundham, Norfolk, four-course rotations (RI and RII)
Along-term rotation experiment was begun at Saxmundham (RI) on sandy clay loam in 1899 with the Norfolk four-course system of roots, spring barley, legume and winter wheat. In 1965 sugar beet was grown in place of mangolds and the four-course sys- tem continued until 1969. From 1956 to 1964 sugar beet and mangolds were grown side by side on half plots. From 1899 to 1965 eight fertilizer treatments of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, in small quantities by current standards, were tested for each crop.
Farmyard manure and bone-meal were also tested. In 1966 the fertilizer treatments were changed to test dressings near to current commercial practice. The experiment was described by Trist and Boyd (1966) for the period 1899–1961 and by Williams and Cooke (1971) for the period 1964–1969.
Response to phosphorus was outstanding and yields were doubled. Response to nitro- gen was less than to phosphorus and very small unless phosphorus was also given.
Yields were a little less with farmyard manure than with a full fertilizer application.
The same rotation nearby tested farm- yard manure and supplementary nitrogen and phosphorus, seeking the best financial return from the small amounts of fertilizer available at the time (RII). Johnston et al.
(2001) have drawn interesting conclusions from sugar beet grown since 1969 on these plots, which previously received widely differing amounts of phosphorus and potassium over many years. In respect of phosphorus, previous treatments produced a wide range of soil phosphorus concentra- tions not normally encountered in commer- cial practice. Table 9.2 shows yields of sugar beet averaged over the 6-year period 1969–1976. In the absence of fresh phospho- rus fertilizer a soil concentration between 20 and 30 mg P kg1was needed for opti- mum yield.
In 2000 on the RI experiment, first- and second-order interactions between nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were investi- gated on plots that had received the same phosphorus and potassium applications since 1965. The plots had been ‘mothballed’
and from 1985 to 1998 grass was grown and was cut and removed annually. For the crops grown in 1999 and 2000, phosphorus and potassium were applied to those plots receiving phosphorus and/or potassium between 1899 and 1965. In 2000 there were differences in soil phosphorus, which were related to the large amount of phosphorus applied recently. There were, however, no differences in exchangeable potassium probably because the grass had removed much potassium and most of any potassium balance from the application in 1999 had been fixed. Yields of sugar from sugar beet in 2000 were similar on soils with least phosphorus at all levels of nitrogen and there was no response to potassium (Table 9.3). There was a large response to phospho- rus, especially when most nitrogen was applied. In the presence of phosphorus, there was a response to potassium with the smaller amounts of applied nitrogen but not at the largest. This suggests that, with too little nitrogen, sugar beet did not fully exploit the soil mass to find sufficient potas- sium to achieve optimum yield. This response to applied potassium may have occurred because both soils had about 150 mg K kg1 soil, which is near the critical value for sugar beet on this soil type (Chapter 4).
Table 9.2. Yields of sugar beet grown at Saxmundham in 1969–1976 on soils with four concentrations of soil phosphorus (after Johnston et al., 1986).
Available soil phosphorus (mg P kg1)
7 17 30 48
Sugar (t ha1) 4.3 6.0 6.5 6.6
Table 9.3. Yields of sugar from sugar beet given four amounts of nitrogen at Saxmundham 2000 (after Johnston et al., 2001).
Soil data kg N ha1
Treatment (mg kg1) 40 80 120 180
2000a P K Yield of sugar (t ha1)
Nil 16 189 5.6 6.6 8.1 8.4
K 20 143 5.5 7.1 7.9 8.5
P 32 150 6.0 7.8 8.5 10.3
PK 32 148 8.1 8.6 9.3 10.2
aP and K treatments in 2000 continued those from 1965 (for earlier treatments see Williams and Cooke, 1971).