Sugar Beet Production in France

Heno, Stéphanie; Viou, Lucie; Khan, Mohamed F. R.

doi:10.1007/s12355-017-0575-x

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Russia, Ukraine, France and the United States are among the top countries in the world in terms of sugar beet production 1 – 3 , and China ranks the seventh 4 – 6 . Sugar beet is an important cash crop in the northwest, northeast and north China 7 – 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of irrigation and nitrogen on chlorophyll content, dry matter and nitrogen accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Wang

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2-year field experiment was conducted to analyze the growth conditions, physical features, yield, and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of sugar-beet under limited irrigation conditions in northeast of China. A cultivar H003 was used as plant materials; six treatments (C1–C6) were included: C1, no nitrogen applied, rain-fed; C2, nitrogen (120.00 kg ha−1), rain-fed; C3, no nitrogen applied, hole irrigation for seeding; C4, nitrogen (120.00 kg ha−1), hole irrigation for seeding; C5, no nitrogen applied, hole irrigation for seeding; and C6, nitrogen (120.00 kg ha−1), hole irrigation for seeding, and irrigation at foliage rapid growth stage. The irrigation supply was only 500 mL/plant once. Results showed C6 showed the highest chlorophyll content, dry matter accumulation, yield, etc. and had the best NUE among all the treatments. In conclusion, under the routine fertilization conditions of northeast of China, the cultivation measure of hole irrigation 500 mL/plant for seeding combined with irrigation 500 mL/plant at foliage rapid growth stage greatly improved sugar-beet yield and NUE.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of irrigation and nitrogen on chlorophyll content, dry matter and nitrogen accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Wang

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rates of SLCH have large uncertainty as they depend on many factors (for a review, see Ruysschaert et al, 2004). However, a recent study estimated the mean sugar beet production in France over 88 tons ha −1 per harvest for the year 2016 (Heno et al, 2018). In this study, there is a reference to the mean soil losses during harvesting estimated at 5–8% (Jeanroy, 2016) which confirms our mean rate of 5 t ha −1 due to SLCH in sugar beets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil loss due to crop harvesting in the European Union: A first estimation of an underrated geomorphic process

Panagos

Borrelli

Poesen

2019

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades or so, there has been many research carried out to understand the mechanics and spatial distribution of soil loss by water erosion and to a lesser extent of wind, piping and tillage erosion. The acquired knowledge helped the development of prediction tools useful to support decision-makers in both ex-ante and ex-post policy evaluation. In Europe, recent studies have modelled water, wind and tillage erosion at continental scale and shed new light on their geography. However, to acquire a comprehensive picture of soil erosion threats more processes need to be addressed and made visible to decision-makers. Since 1986, a small number of studies have pointed to an additional significant soil degradation process occurring when harvesting root and tuber crops. Field observations and measurements have shown that considerable amounts of soil can be removed from the field due to soil sticking to the harvested roots and the export of soil clods during the crop harvest. This study aims to scale up the findings of past studies, carried out at plot, regional, and national level, in order to obtain some preliminary insights into the magnitude of soil loss from cropland due to sugar beets and potatoes harvesting in Europe. We address this issue at European Union (EU) scale taking into account long-term (1975–2016) crop statistics of sugar beet and potato aggregated at regional and country levels. During the period 2000–2016, sugar beets and potatoes covered in average ca. 4.2 million ha (3.81%) of the EU-28 arable land estimated at 110 million ha. The total Soil Loss by Crop Harvesting (SLCH) is estimated at ca. 14.7 million tons yr −1 in the EU-28. We estimate that ca. 65% of the total SLCH is due to harvesting of sugar beets and the rest as a result of potatoes harvesting.

show abstract

“…The work required for row weeding is expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to organize. Therefore, due to the decreasing number of workers in agriculture and the high cost of manual labor, and at the same time the increasing demand for ecological products, more and more research is focused on the development of weed management systems to eliminate weeds in the crop rows without causing excessive damage to the crop [13,16,23,28,36,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. Knowing that the sugar beet is particularly susceptible to weed competition, weed control is a necessary measure between and within crop rows [31].…”

Section: Intra-row Weeding Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weeding Effectiveness and Changes in Soil Physical Properties Using Inter-Row Hoeing and a Robot

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weed control is one of the most important technological operations to ensure crop yield and quality in ecological sugar beet production. However, conventional mechanical weed control is labor- and time-intensive and has adverse effects on the soil and the environment. The aim of this study was to experimentally investigate the influence of conventional mechanical and robotic weed control systems on soil properties and to assess the effectiveness of these different weed control methods in ecological sugar beet production. This study examines two different weed control systems: robotic weed control (RWC) and conventional weed control (CWC). Field experimental studies were carried out with a solar-powered field robot and conventional inter-row cultivation (CWC1—first cultivation, CWC2—second cultivation) to determine the effectiveness of mechanical weed control in ecological sugar beet crops. The influence of different weed control systems on the physical properties of the soil in the contact zone between the soil and the tires of weed control machines was investigated. The results showed that the average weed control effectiveness inter-row was higher in the RWC (81%) compared to that in the CWC2 (46%). The overall weed control effectiveness of the robotic weed control in the sugar beet inter-row and intra-row was around 49%. The measurements showed that the weed control process reduced the soil moisture and temperature in all treatments tested. Experimental studies have confirmed that the weed control operation, although carried out with relatively lightweight robots, also has an impact on soil bulk density. RWC weed control resulted in an average increase of 0.16 g cm–3 in soil bulk density in the topsoil layer (0–10 cm) after weeding. Both CWC1 and RWC increased soil penetration resistance (PR). For CWC1, the average increase in topsoil PR after weed control was 20%, while for RWC, the increase was marginal, only around 1%. Automated precision weed control by self-propelled solar-powered field robots is an important solution to reduce the need for tedious and time-consuming manual weeding.

show abstract

Sugar Beet Production in France

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

Effects of irrigation and nitrogen on chlorophyll content, dry matter and nitrogen accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Effects of irrigation and nitrogen on chlorophyll content, dry matter and nitrogen accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Soil loss due to crop harvesting in the European Union: A first estimation of an underrated geomorphic process

Weeding Effectiveness and Changes in Soil Physical Properties Using Inter-Row Hoeing and a Robot

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About