Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T22:38:05.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spacing and Space-planting Experiments on Sugar Beet in Israel*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Z. Dor ,
R. Carmeli ,
D. Lachover  and
M. Zur
Z. Dor
Affiliation:
The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Bet Dagan, Israel
R. Carmeli
Affiliation:
The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Bet Dagan, Israel
D. Lachover
Affiliation:
The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Bet Dagan, Israel
M. Zur
Affiliation:
The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Bet Dagan, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Root and sugar yield responses of the Polyrave variety were more favourable to the lower of two population levels (70,000 and 92,000 beets/ha.) and to the wider of two between-row distances (60 and 50 cm.). When the triploid Trirave variety was space planted and, for comparison, conventionally planted and thinned to 3 population levels at 60 cm. between-row distance, the intermediate (87,000 beets/ha.) level gave the highest sugar yield. The thinned treatments consistently outyielded the corresponding space-planted treatments. Space planting at 40 cm. between-row distance resulted in high beet populations (130,000 beets/ha.) which evoked unfavourable responses in root and sugar yield and even in sugar content.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 9 - 15
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

REFERENCES

Brewbaker, H. E. & Deming, G. W. (1935). J. agric. Res. 50, 195.Google Scholar
Doxtator, G. W. & Skuderna, A. W. (1946). Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 4, 157.Google Scholar
Fiedler, J. (1968). Inst. Recherche Better. 31st Winter Congr. 3, 5.Google Scholar
Friehauf, R. E., Bush, H. L. & Remmenga, E. E. (1963). J. Am. Sugar Beet Tech. 12, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1939). J. agric. Sci. 29, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutstein, I. (1964). Nat. Univ. Inst. Agr., Rehovot, Israel. Spec. Bull. 79.Google Scholar
Haddock, J. L., Smith, P. B., Downie, A. R., Alexander, J. T., Easton, B. E. & Jensen, V. (1959). J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 10, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, G. M., Grimes, D. W. & Finkner, R. E. (1964). J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 12, 686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inst. Tech. Fr. Better. Ind. (1960). Compte Rendue des travaux effectues en 1960, 85.Google Scholar
Inst. Tech. Fr. Better. Ind. (1963). Compte Rendue des travaux effectues en 1963, 83.Google Scholar
Longchamp, R. (1960). Publ. Inst. Tech. Fr. Better. Ind., 5.Google Scholar
Longchamp, R. (1961). Publ. Inst. Tech. Fr. Better. Ind., 9.Google Scholar
Ulrich, A. (1959). J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 10, 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerforschungs Institut (1966). Jahresbericht 11, Austria.Google Scholar