Effect of Plant Spacing on Performance of Six Sugarbeet Hybrids

Abstract

Sugarbeet plant population per unit of area varies and is not always optimum for maximum production, since it is dependent on stand establishment and the desire of the grower as to row width to facilitate the use of mechanical equipment. Large beets are no longer necessary for efficient hand topping but are necessary for the reduction in loss from mechanical handling. The size sought may be larger than that which results in maximum total production. Determination of the optimum plant population is one of the first areas of research conducted when new conditions for growing sugarbeets are being investigated. Coons (2)2 reviewed the literature up to 1948 in which the optimum plant population was determined by many to be from 24,000 to 25,000 plants per acre spaced in rows 20-22 inches wide. Draycott, et al (4) determined a population of 33 ,500 plants per acre to be about optimum. Friehauf, Bush, and Remmenga (6) found 35,000 plants per acre to be about optimum for commercial beets where the plants are not necessarily spaced uniformly. Most investigators found a wide range in plant populations to result in equal production indicating beets can efficiently compen­ sate for space. Nelson and Wood (7) in 1958 at Longmont, Colo­ rado found no difference in productivity per acre from populations r anging from 13,000 to 23 ,000 plants per acre in an experiment in which the plants were relatively uniformly distributed. Draycott and Currant (5) found that under English conditions plant. popula­ tions from 16,000 to 32,000 or more give equal yields of sugar per acre. When greater sophistication developed in sugarbeet culture, sugarbeet agronomists began to wonder whether varieties of beet re­ sponded differently to varied spacing. Deming (3) compared a small topped hybrid variety, a European commercial variety, and a three times selfed inbred line at three different spacings. The in­ bred line failed to fully compensate at the wider spacing. Skuderna and Doxtator (8) compared two varieties at two spacings and reSe n io r Pl ant Breeder, The Grea t W e,tern Sugar Company, Longmont. Colo rado; Pl a nt Bleeder. H o ll y Suga r Corp., T racy. Ca liforni a a nd form e r S r . Plant Breed er, The Gre at Wcstnn Sugar Company; a nd Manager. Va rie ty Develo pment, The Grea t W es tern Sugar