Effects of Close Spacing on the Growth of Garden Beet

Warne, L. G. G.

doi:10.1038/172506a0

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Uniformity of beet roots is difficult to obtain in growers fields. Standard globe-shaped processing varieties continue to increase in diameter as long as they are in the ground, have sufficient space to grow, and receive adequate water and nutrients (Hipp, 1977;Warne, 1953). Most varieties have multigerm seedballs, and emergence takes place over a prolonged period, depending on environmental conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Row Width, Population Density, and Harvest Date Effects on Marketable Yield of Table Beet

Kikkert

Reiners

Gugino

2010

hortte

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To maximize the yield of desirable grades of beet roots for processing, ‘Ruby Queen’ beet (Beta vulgaris) plants were grown at four row widths (18, 20, 22, and 24 inches) and two population densities (25 and 35 plants/ft) within the row in 2006. A third density (15 plants/ft) was added to the 18- and 20-inch row-width treatments in 2007. Beet plants were hand harvested 80, 100, and 120 days after planting, and the roots were graded by size and were weighed. A large number of seedlings died between the time of the initial stand counts 14 to 20 days after planting and the first harvest. Greater seedling loss at higher plant densities within rows was attributed in part to an increased incidence of wirestem disease (Rhizoctonia solani). The percentage of seedlings that produced marketable roots was less at higher seeding rates even though there were more total roots. Harvest date and plant population significantly affected root size and yield, whereas row width had no effect. High seeding rates and fewer days to harvest significantly increased the yield of undersize (<3/4 inches in diameter) roots, while at the same time decreased the yield of oversize roots (>2 1/2 inches in diameter). The highest yield of premium size 1 roots (3/4 inch to <1 5/8 inches in diameter) was obtained with the 35 plants/ft population. While the number of size 1 roots did not increase over the harvest period, the fresh weight per foot of row was significantly higher at 100 or 120 days compared with 80 days. In contrast, the number and fresh weight of larger size 2 roots (1 5/8 to <2 1/2 inches in diameter)/ft of row was highest at 25 plants/ft and did increase with number of days to harvest. The highest marketable yield (sizes 1 and 2 roots) increased significantly with number of days to harvest and was 1.6 to 1.8 tons/acre higher with 25 plants/ft compared with 35 plants/ft. High seeding rates and narrower row spacing increased the cost of seeds per acre and the risk for wirestem and other beet diseases, but did not improve yields in this study.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Row Width, Population Density, and Harvest Date Effects on Marketable Yield of Table Beet

Kikkert

Reiners

Gugino

2010

hortte

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sowing depth, seed type, in-row plant density, and row spacing are important factors influencing yield and taproot size [12][13][14][15][16]. For example, higher in-row plant densities increase the proportion of plants with small roots but at the expense of total root yield [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Prospects for Building Resilient Disease Management Strategies and Tactics for the New York Table Beet Industry

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The New York table beet industry is expanding and has unique challenges to minimize crop loss in both conventional and organic production. Diseases may reduce plant population density and increase heterogeneity in a stand, reduce the duration of time foliage is healthy, and decrease the yield of marketable roots. Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn and Pythium ultimum Trow are dominant in the pathogen complex affecting crop stand and root health. Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) caused by the fungus, Cercospora beticola Sacc

show abstract

“…GA 3 as ProGibb also significantly affected the percentages of large and giant roots. The percentages of large and giant roots were significantly increased in plots receiving GA 3 as ProGibb at 40 DAP, however this may have resulted from a significantly reduced in‐row population at harvest due to plant loss through the season, allowing table beet roots to grow larger without the physical restrictions of neighbouring plants (Kikkert et al, 2010; Pethybridge et al, 2018; Warne, 1953). The percentages of large and giant roots in all other treatments were not significantly different from the nontreated plots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strong and healthy foliage with an upright architecture is therefore critically important to facilitate harvesting. Table beet root yield and sizes are strongly influenced by cultivar (Goldman & Navazio, 2008), disease management (Chancia et al, 2021; Khan et al, 1992; Pethybridge et al, 2017; Shah & Stivers‐Young, 2004), plant populations (Benjamin, 1987; Benjamin et al, 1985; Benjamin & Bell, 1985; Goldman, 1995; Kikkert et al, 2010; Warne, 1953), light intensity (D'Egidio et al, 2019), light interception (Chancia et al, 2021; Saif et al, 2023) and plant nutrition (D'Egidio et al, 2019; Mampa et al, 2017). However, despite optimization of agronomic inputs (Kikkert et al, 2010; Shah & Stivers‐Young, 2004), in‐field variation can result in a substantial proportion of roots that do not fall within the acceptable size range for processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulating table beet growth using exogeneous gibberellic acid 3 in New York, USA

Pethybridge,

Murphy,

Branch

et al. 2023

Annals of Applied Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Table beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris) root suitability for processing into cans and jars is dictated by quality and shoulder diameter (crown width). For shoulder diameter, roots are sorted into six classes and those in the small (19.1‐44.5 mm) and small/medium (44.6‐40.8 mm) classes are considered suitable. Smaller (≤19 mm) roots are usually lost in harvesting while larger (≥ 40.9 mm) roots are typically discarded. Exogenous (foliar‐applied) gibberellic acid 3 (GA3) may alter source‐sink carbohydrate partitioning with potential advantages for processing table beet producers. Small plot replicated trials were conducted in each of three years (2020, 2021, and 2022) to evaluate the effect and optimal timing of exogenous GA3 on table beet yield components in New York, USA. GA3 was applied as ProGibb at 30 ppm in all trials and as ProGibb at 30 ppm and FalGro® 2X LV at 67 ppm (label rates) in 2022. GA3 as ProGibb resulted in significant increases in foliar health attributes (leaf blade length and width, petiole diameter, normalized difference vegetative index, and dry weight of foliage). GA3 as ProGibb significantly reduced average root shoulder diameter and affected the percentage of roots in various size categories. The percentage of tiny roots (<19 mm) was significantly decreased while the percentage of small roots was increased. The percentage of small/medium roots were unaffected. In 2022, the percentage of small roots was significantly increased compared to nontreated plots but was not significantly different between GA3 as either ProGibb or FalGro applied at 42 or 62 Days After Planting (DAP). Exogenous GA3 had no consistent, significant effect on the severity of the foliar disease, Cercospora leaf spot. The significant increase in foliar health attributes from GA3 are beneficial for harvest that relies upon top pulling machinery. Increases in the percentage of small roots and reductions in tiny roots can reduce wasted crop input investments. The optimal number of GA3 applications was seasonally dependent, ranging from a single application at 40 or 62 DAP in two years, to two applications in 2021. GA3 applications late (>80 DAP) in the cropping season had no significant effect on foliar health attributes or root yield components. The implications of these results on the New York table beet processing industry are discussed.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Effects of Close Spacing on the Growth of Garden Beet

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Row Width, Population Density, and Harvest Date Effects on Marketable Yield of Table Beet

Row Width, Population Density, and Harvest Date Effects on Marketable Yield of Table Beet

Challenges and Prospects for Building Resilient Disease Management Strategies and Tactics for the New York Table Beet Industry

Manipulating table beet growth using exogeneous gibberellic acid 3 in New York, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About