Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T13:15:01.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Uptake of magnesium and other fertilizer elements by sugar beet grown on sandy soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. Durrant
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds
A. P. Draycott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds

Summary

Ten experiments (1967–9) on sandy soil in East Anglia measured the effect of magnesium fertilizer on yield and cations in sugar beet. Magnesium fertilizer increased sugar yield by up to 0·80 t/ha and on the three most responsive fields it consistently increased top and root dry·matter yields throughout the growing period.

On average, without magnesium fertilizer, the concentration of magnesium in tops progressively decreased from 0·33% at singling to 0·15% at harvest, and in roots from 0·39% to 0·09%. The corresponding decreases with magnesium fertilizer were (tops) from 0·68% to 0·20% and (roots) from 0·48% to 0·10%. Yield was increased by magnesium fertilizers when tops contained less than 0·35% Mg during May, 0·30% during June, 0·22% during July and 0·17% during August. Deficiency symptoms were not visible until the concentration in tops averaged less than 0·2% – the percentage of plants with symptoms increased rapidly at smaller concentrations. Magnesium fertilizer decreased the concentration of calcium in tops and roots but did not affect the concentration of potassium or sodium.

The maximum amount of magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium in tops (August–September) was 11, 218, 75 and 62 kg/ha respectively; these decreased to 8, 168, 55 and 50 kg/ha at harvesting, showing that only about 75% of the largest amount in tops was present at harvest. The amounts removed in roots at harvest were 9 kg/ha Mg, 75 kg/ha K, 11 kg/ha Na and 26 kg/ha Ca. A dressing of 100 kg/ha magnesium increased the amount of magnesium in the crop at harvest by only 4·5 kg/ha.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, S. N. (1961). The effect of time of application of phosphate and potash on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56, 127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, J. (1967). The distribution and availability to plants of sodium and other cations in soils. Ph. D. thesis, London University.Google Scholar
Bolton, J. & Penny, A. (1968). The effect of potassium and magnesium fertilizers on yield and composition of successive crops of rye grass, clover, sugar beet, potatoes, kale and barley, on sandy soils at Woburn. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70, 303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1969). The effects of magnesium fertilizers on yield and chemical composition of sugar beet. J. agric Sci., Camb. 72, 319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1970 a). The relationship between exchangeable soil magnesium and response by sugar beet to magnesium sulphate. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75, 137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Dubbant, M. J. (1970 b). Magnesium fertilizers for sugar beet (Part II). Br. Sug. Beet Rev. 38, 175–80.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Marsh, J. A. P. & Tinker, P. B. H. (1970). Sodium and potassium relationships in sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 74, 568–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrod, M. J. & Caldwell, T. H. (1967). The magnesium manuring of sugar beet on light sandy soils of East Anglia. Tech. Bull. Min. Agric. Fish. Fd, no. 14, pp. 127–42.Google Scholar
Salmon, R. C. & Arnold, P. W. (1963). The uptake of magnesium under exhaustive cropping. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1967). The effects of magnesium sulphate on sugar beet and its interactions with other fertilizers. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar