SummaryThe growth and water use of sugar beet affected by early (ED) and late (LD) drought was compared with that of irrigated (I) and unirrigated (NI) controls. Mobile shelters were used to exclude rain from ED plots during June and July, and LD plots during August and September, respectively, whereas outside these periods the ED and LD plots were irrigated as necessary.The ED treatment affected the fibrous roots severely. Many of the roots in the top 60 cm of soil died and development of the root system below this depth was slow. Expansion of the leaf canopy slowed, radiation interception was reduced and the rate of water use fell from about 1·2 times to 0·6 times Penman potential transpiration rate. The LD treatment, which was imposed when the fibrous root system was already extensive, had little effect on the fibrous roots except in the top soil. The accessible soil water was quickly depleted and the resulting stress was accompanied by earlier senescence of leaves. The rate of converting intercepted light to crop dry matter was reduced in both treatments. However, the ED treatment was the most detrimental because the amount of light intercepted in the months of highest radiation was greatly reduced owing to the restricted leaf cover. The relative effects on growth are reflected in the final sugar yields which were 8·7, 10·5, 9·9 and 12·0 (±0·30) t/ha in the ED, LD, NI and I treatments respectively.More of the deep soil water was used in the drought-affected plots (particularly LD) than in the irrigated controls. Maximum depths of water extraction were 140–150 cm in ED and I plots and > 170 cm in LD plots. The highest uptake rates per unit length of root (20–40 μl/cm per day) were measured in the deepest part of the root system. At all depths, uptake rates declined as the soil dried. After correcting for overestimated water use where necessary, the ratios of final dry matter and sugar yields respectively to season-long water use (June–October) were close to 1·4 and 0·8 t/ha per 25 mm for all four treatments.

SUMMARYDevelopment of the fibrous root system of sugar beet was studied by washing soil samples taken from field experiments through the growing season. At the beginning of June the root system was still poorly developed but during June there was rapid proliferation. In the top 70 cm there was only little further increase in root density after the end of June. Below 70 cm root density increased up to the end of August. Throughout the season fibrous root density decreased with depth. Despite the origin of the lateral roots from two grooves on the storage root, fibrous root distributions at each depth around individual plants were essentially uniform from mid-June onwards. In the absence of nitrogen fertilizer, fibrous root development exceeded that of a crop given fertilizer, particularly at depths greater than 50 cm early in the season. The maximum value of root density was 2·8 cm/cm3 soil recorded in the top 10 cm in mid-September. Compared with published data for other crops, the sugar-beet root system was sparser than that of winter wheat or maize but denser than that of a soya bean or cassava.Soil water content was measured with a neutron probe. Inflows to roots were calculated from soil water content changes in different soil layers. In the top 30 cm, inflows ranged up to 10·8 μl water/cm root.day and were up to five times higher than published inflows for winter wheat. At 30–100 cm sugar beet and winter wheat inflows were generally similar. The 0–30 and 30–120 cm layers contributed about 80 and 20% respectively of the total water use by sugar beet while no uptake was recorded below 110 cm. Previous studies have shown that sugar beet often takes up water from soil deeper than 110 cm, although it is not unknown for the depth of water removal to be restricted.

For many field-grown crops, including sugar beet, there is little information on the seasonal changes in leaf water potential and its components as the soil dries. Therefore, seasonal changes in leaf water, osmotic and turgor potentials of sugar beet were measured in two seasons, in crops that experienced differing degrees of soil moisture stress. In 1983 potentials of crops exposed to early and late droughts were compared with those of irrigated crops, and in 1984 measurements were made in a non-irrigated crop. In the irrigated crop the midday leaf water potential changed little during the season, except in response to fluctuating evaporative demand. In the drought and non-irrigated treatments there was a sharp fall in leaf water potential as soon as the soil water potential decreased. The size of the midday leaf water potential was primarily determined by soil dryness. However, the leaf water potential did not decrease below about -1-5 MPa in either year. The leaf osmotic potential declined at the same time as the leaf water potential, but the extent to which this happened differed in the two years. Only in the 1984 non-irrigated crop did the osmotic potential continue to decrease as the soil dried, suggesting that osmotic adjustment had taken place in 1984 but not in 1983. Thus higher turgor was maintained in the 1984 crop than in the 1983 drought-affected crops. Some turgors were recorded as apparently negative in 1983.Since the leaf water potential declined to a minimum of about -15 MPa, the soil water potential minima were also about -1-5 MPa. However, deeper soil was not dried to this extent, suggesting that the extra resistance for water uptake from deep soil was limiting or the rooting density was too low.The pattern of recovery of leaf water potential overnight suggested that the rhizosphere resistance to water movement was small, even as the soil dried. However, measurement of stem water potentials in 1984 indicated that a significant resistance to water flow existed within the aerial part of sugar beet plants. This shows that the use of the water potential in leaves as an estimate of that in stems or roots can be misleading.-a n d t h e t u r S o r P o t e n t i a l ' f v (Wallace, Clark & McGowan, 1983). Generally only f t and f, can be The flow of water from the soil to the atmosphere easily measured and \jr p is obtained by difference, via the plant is driven by a water potential gradient Turgor is considered to be a more appropriate between the leaf and the soil. The magnitude of the indicator of plant water status than i/r,, as many water potential gradient depends on the relative plant processes are turgor-dependent (Hsaio et al. rates of water absorption from the soil and water loss 1976). Use of i/r, alone ignores the possibility of from the leaf. Evaporation from the leaf lowers leaf osmotic adjustment which may allow positive turgor water potential and this change is transmitted via to be maintained even when i/r t becomes low. the xylem to the root, and hence to the soil.There is limited in...

No abstract