Variability of Sugar Beet Plants rown in Pots Without Competition for Light, Water and Nutrients ;\1 BERT
IT LRICII
I
heet plants
an
frolll one ano,iler in
lllay di ffer
when gTown side
in the field and
. The
linated \
difFer in rool size by a factor of two and at
Len or more (1). Depending
the antecedent conditions
variahi
in size and ill sugar content lllay often be
correlated
such factors as disease, illsects or
(
pian tSldJ I be small beea use of
lig'ht
nutrients or water: v"bereas
because oE less competition. will he milch
IOlrer .
hut the
one
In addition to the variability associated
vil'Onmental
there is also the
plants much
for open-pollinated varieties Is
5) ami this determines to a
composition 01 the beet
at
the
source of variation may also be:
environmental.
a youngwith
will \.{row faster at the start:
the roots will
the tops \vill produce more
and ()nce til
hiS
size and
bors.
In contrast to this situation due
a beet
l()cat(~d by
of ic1ent
chance on a more fa\'orable spot,
aeration and less disease can
Be­
came of this interplay or environmental and
in the held, their ellens Cll1 I lOt be
from 011e another as
as heet plants are
estimate d
variabil
is
. Department of Soil:; ,1Iltl Plant :\tltri:ioll, Cnj\t'r~it· of Ca:ifnrni:l.
jOlJW\,\\
OF THE .'\,
S, S,
n.
'1',
[10111 lI'idel y spaced plants (4, :/ ) in fen ilc fields or [rom plants
grown outdoors sing ly ill p o ts \\' itllOlI t CO III petitiol1 fori ight,
I\'aler and nli tr ie llls, Th e magnitud e of th ese diHerences for
plants gro\\'n in pots ', vithout compe tition is the slIbjec t matter
o[ tiIis paper.
Ylethods and Procedures
The s ligar bee t plants were grow n in 207 pots p laced olltdoors
h :ll slInligiIt o n a concrete slab at Berkeley, Calilornia, /\,11
conditions and cultural practices were kept th e sa lli e so that th e
efi'ects 01 en \' ir 0I1111c lltal va riat ion were at a minimulll and the
OPF)rtullities For genetic expressiol1 lI'ere at a maximul\l, The
four gallon pots used lor th e study were painted on th e outside
with aluminum paint and on tile inside \"itlt Amercoa t 0: umber
,"3, Drainage I\;LS provid ed for by lour hol es drilled ncar the
ot ter edge a t til e botwlTl 01 tile pot. Vermiculite 1111l11her 2 was
added a teacup full at a t illle in ro tat ioll 1I111il a ll pots were filled
s!TT1ultan t"ous ly, The vermiculit e was packed firml y by a dding
nutrient solu ti on until drainage occ urred, lol1 oll'Cd b y dropping
l~aclt pot five tilJles on th e concrete slah, :--'[ore \'C'lllliculite Il'a s
added to fill the pots to th e proper leveL Seed 01 the variety US
7:) was plamed Oil 'vIay 18, I D:-Ji:l" alter treatment with Phyg(Jn
XL at the rate oj 1 % by vl' e ight. Ten seed balls\\'C l'C planted
to a d ept h oL 2 cm at tb e ce llle r 1)1' tlte p()\' in a c irc le l) ern in
dialll eter.
In
Tlte seeds, seed lin gs a nd plams were lI'atered dail y with
strength modified ll oagland's nutrien t solut io ll (9), AI eac h
watering suffIcient solution II'as added to allow for some (Lainage
through th e holes, During germination and final thinning', the
pots were placed in contactw iriJ each other in grou ps 01 21 pots ,
three co lumns of eigh t po ts each, Afte r th e fin a l thinning tile
pots liT re sepa rated by a minimulTl di stance of 20 inches on Lhe
concrete slab, This spaci n g ,,,as slIHlc ie nt to prevent an O\'eriap
of fo li age from nt"ighuorin g plants [or the entire grow th p eriod,
Yf
' [llinning o[ plants to one plant per pot ,,,as done gradually ,
On June 7, at the 2- to eady :l- ] e~t! stage, tlte plants were thinn ed
to 1 seedling per seedh a ll and fi seedlings per pOL The subse­
quent Lhinnings were 011 JUllC 11, 1:1, 17, ~ I and 22 , and on
th ese dates the plants w ere approx imatel} in tlte 4-, 6-, R-, 10- a nd
Ii-leaf stages of growth , r espect ive ly, .A fter the final th i nnin g a
sin g le plant, nnifoD11 in size an d deve lo pment, remained Ilear t he
center of eac h pOL Old l eaves , It"ss th a n 50% functional , were
r emoved biweekly a nd included in tlte tota l dry weight of leaves
VOL. XI,
"1\0.
7,
OCrollER
597
1961
produced. Spraying with Orlllo-mite 15"V:
::VF. at
lar intervals kept red
. under control.
.rhe sligar beet
were
virus
yellows, mosaic and .
diseases a
the
plants wcre harvested. At the time or harvest on October 26,
19:')4, the
01 the tallest.
matun,d leaf for each
plant was measllred and five
and
into petioles and blades. '] 'he remaining
were "shaved
,. leaving'
the
meristematic and
huds. which made it possihle to pro­
duce seed the follfrwing year from the roots selected as mother
heets. .\ll fresh material was weighed
and then
dried in a forced draft oven
HO n C. After the
the
and I,iades were ground in an intermediate
mill to pass a 40 mesh
and analyzed for
. K and ?\a
The beet Toms were washed Cree of vermiculite, freed of
free of moisture before
Beet
root weights
root and crown tissues.
beet pulp
sam pies For sucrose determin:!t ion contained roOf tissue on1 y
and were ohtained
a V-shaped
of root tissue
,vith a Kid rasp.
2fi.O gralll
of pill p for a root
placed individually in 4" x 2" x 4"
with a heat sealer, and frozen
contact
dry ice (10). The f l'I)Zel1
Were transferred to
freeze cabinet maintained at
C and
later for
Sllcrose by the hot digestion method (I). A fOllrth 26.0 gram
of pulp was dried at 81P
weighed and ground for
chemical analysis,
Results
A detailed
revealed that 11
of Ihe sligar beel
harvest
pLmLs had "red-spot" disease of genetic
were without the "red-spot"
or
were classified as normal, ;,5 as
10 as
affected
sugar heet
slig-ar heet
and R bv a
tion of virus yellows
sug'ar beet mosaic. 1\one o{ the
in spitc 0/ their presence, had a significant dIect on
grovvth,
beet root
sucrose concentration or on amount of
(Table 1). Because of the mildness of the 9!1 heet plants m:re :t
CaJ iEornia Spray-Chemical Corporation.
598
JO URNA L Of THE
A. S. S. B. T.
Table I.-Effect of disease 011 suo'ose concenu'atioll, weight of roots, tops and sugal' for
single plants per pot.
Disease
Numbcl­
of
Beet Root
plants
grams
grams
Dry
granls
Tops
total dry
luatter
grams
Living Tops
Sucrose
%
grams
Fresh
None
78
2815
13.4
377
997
133
202
Yellows, mild
2840
13.3
378
1000
133
204
Mosaic, mild
55
10
2812
13.6
382
986
134
196
Mosaic, mild recenl
28
2758
13.7
380
922
125
193
l\ rlosaic , severe
14
2741
13.5
370
883
12 1
18 1
<>
2704
13.5
362
843
117
197
193
2804
13.4
377
972
131
199
0.46
0.62
0.20
1.1 5
0.75
1.14
347 .6
1.14
55.0
266
34.9
38.0
19. 1
Yellows and mosa ic
Overall m ean
}~ -vaillel
Swndard deviation, (5 )
12.4
8.4
14.6
27.4
26.7
Red spot , mild
6
2585
13.3
342
8 14
114
195
Reel spot , severe
8
2001
12.3
246
821
III
I~I
14
2252
12.7
288
817
11 2
193
27.0
3.62
26.8
4.73
0.30
0.55
C.V.'
R ed spot , mild and severe
r -v a lll e~
1 Disease variance (normal plus all diseases exclus ive of red spot) divided by error va ri ­
an ce. Required F·value at 5% and 1% le vels of significance arc 2.26 and 3. 11.
2
Coefficient of variability.
Disease variance (normal pills reel spot) divided by error variance. Required F -v<l lues
at th e 5% anel I % levels of significance are 3.95 and 6.92.
J:
measurements and for the mineral content of the pulp and of
the petioles and blades of the recently matured leaves. Since
the "red-spot" disease caused a distinct decrease in beet root
"veight, top weight, sucrose concentration and in sugar produced
(Table 1), these plants were not included in the variability study
proper as summarized in Table 2.
The beet root weights for the " normal" plants ranged from
1,607 to 3,667 grams per plant, with a mean value of 2,804, and
a coefficient of variation of 12.3 (Table 2). This compares with
a range of 129 to 2,315 gra ms per beet for consecutive plants
down the row for the US 33 var iety at two locati ons in a held
near Woodland, California (Table 3), and 104 to 2,134 grams
per beet for consecutive plants harvested within a row for the
Am. # 5 variety near the coastal area of Los A ngeles County
(Ta ble 4). The corresponding coeffi cients of variability for root
weight ranged from 60 to 65 in the two fields. If these variations
are typica l of field grown beets of open-pollinated varieties such
as US 33 and Am. #5, th en beet root variability in the field is
much gTeater than for beets grown singly in pots. The coefficient
VOL. Xl, :\0. 7,
OCfOBER
J9Gl
gTown
also compares
of variability of 12.:) for the
from the clata of Pc)'wers
favorably tu a value of
.9
et al. (.j)
their fables 4 and 10) tor the F,
l.RS Ib
nOll com
in lhe field and
of the
beets (Tahle 2) ranged
as 16.0 percent, even
the
induding
In the field
under a nitrogen and phosphorus
from 1"1.4 to an exceed,
of
TabIt-· 2.-l\'Ican, range, ~tandard dcviation~ co('fl'kient of '";;lfiahllity and ITquircd I1l11n~
b("r of n:plications (or mcusurClnents mad(' 011 SUg~H: bet" plants grown outdoors in pots
vdthout competition.
Number
needed
for
J\fcasurCfllcnt
Mean
Range
S1
11.07 ·361,7
Bcet (g)
I:1A
Sucru,c «;0)
lO.5·lfi.O
1.13
eve
12.3
13
8..1
377
(g)
10~i_,
difference
p
0.05
17
972
·107
2~1D-]803
27.1
liO
113· 70~1
lOtH
26.2
fresh resitluc
:JJi
12.:;·1140
176.0
:J 1.6
50
70­
Dry top:­ (g)
13O.)
tops (g)
Fresh blades
'11.8
2G.6
Dr) blacks (0)
19·[()9
16.2
25.3
Dry
JR~132
ZO.7
31.1
JI.9
Hl.l
(g)
(g)
138.5
old kavt's (g)
Dl" toP"
pilip (:/0 )
I ~'I.I
87-31
2U.1
I G.R·2·\.3
1,31
Leaf munl
220.8
(iO··I:lO
68.2
27,:)
12·10
i330·1l.nOO
Old
+-
Height (ell) )
",03':-\ (pplll) dq pel inks
:;30 :HllO
ul)
J020.;1740
petiolc:,
1'0,·1' (ppm) .1n IHllp
](i5J
K ((;i;, ) pc!
J. In
«(X,)
blades
K (';'0) tin pulp
K
(~f
) dry plllp
1r('c basis)
, '.
-1
(ppm) dry pulp
PO"p (ppm)
K
Hi
051)·2370
~.:lG·9,IB
f};)
30.9
70
Hl
70­
-1}5
70+
26.0
251
13.2
19
17.3
~3
IH.9
~h
17.0
21
;:i.05
0.71
162
U.
0.'105
the square root 01 the
the 'ltalldanl de\iallOH,
iability.
CV is the codricit:1I t of
28
(;
lUI
1.00
(, R·!:l
0."9·2.!)7
49
70­
17
[or an individual plant.
600
]OljIC\A! OF TIlf.
A. S. S. B. T.
for percent sucrose for the pot and held experiment \"ere 8.4 and
7.J, respectively. Thesc ,allies for variability arc somewhat bigher
than tbe ,').4 value 1m tile F , hyhrid of Powers et al . (:1) but
are much lower Lhall those for the field n(;:lr \Voodlanc! Crahle
3), where some plants were deficient and some Ilondcficient in
nitrogen. 1-1ere the sucrose UJll('clltratiolls rangcd from 4.4 to
17.2 percent anel til e cocfTicients of variation from 2(U) to 21.9
percent. The ranges and (:( lcfTicicnls or variation for the amounl
of sugar pel' bee I root arc a pprccia hi y h igltcr than for the correTable 3.--.VaJ'iahility of sugar heets growing cons('(utin'Iy , . : j(hin lhl' row at two Ioca·
lions nCar 'Voodland. C a liforl.lia, 191M.
~J caSll rement
Sucrose,
1h'an1
II
12.7
11.8
-1. 1- 17.2
n. :;· \ S.7
2 .:"').)
20.9
21.6
II
,',68
1;00
120 · 1Hili
1' IO - 2 ~) 1;,
3:19
'152
59.7
6'1.7
I[
7'J. 7
iH A
11-2-19
1- 30(i
.',0.9
',0.9
fi S. 1
71.0
J[
1950
2'lO'l
.120·9000
171)·h211O
17G8
1!.I84
90.7
82 ."
I -UO
1202
110·" IOil
-130 · 2750
!H 3
11
G".9
47.6
3.8~
II
4 .71;
1.U/ -n,oK
1.1:: -7 . ~) H
Ii)
J\cclS, gram:s
SU ( fO SC,
g-ram s
NO, ·1\, ppm
1'O,·P, ppm
K . '7<,
l
:!
:~
tion
Range
."i~
2.6.>i
j
~(C;'ln oC :")0 consecu t.h e plan1 :'> at each loc<ltioll.
s, th e standard clc\·i:ui o n , is the square roo t oj tile yariancc for
C,V. is the coefficient of ' ·ilri a bility.
572
1.12
1.35
<111
28.9
28.'1
iJl(jjvjdual pl:Jnl.
Table 1.-l;"I· iabilil~' of sugar ht;"cts gruwing c..:OlIS<:(~ IILive]) wilhin rhe row at same loca­
nl~ar Dominguez, Californa, (August !!I , J9:; 0).
~leasllrcmelll
Sucn )se . 7~
Deets,
gl"alll S
Su crose, grams
NO, ·:\' _ ppm
1'0,,[', PPIlI
K,
C.V.'
Location
1%
-'leau
Range
S"
1..18
-19·96
IS:;
18.6
1-1.<1·21.1
J .:18
1.1 11
7.t,
7.5
1-18
-19·%
,!)O
591
10-1· 1710
112 · 2J:H
3""I J"
6:1.1
lill.a
1-18
-19·96
IOIi
10!)
21l · 21iO
20 ·::20
1>1.0
1;".0
:,8 A
" II
70- :!IJ:HI
1;Il-n:,1l
·IHI
9'1.l
9ij .7
N
J.-I S
·'19·~6
:)H L
1·-18
'19·90
;\ I ~
lAS
-19-96
50!)
I [l.!}-2:Uj
3 111·730
:):Hl · 7S0
:~ :)~
:, ~~,{)
!iO. 1
~H .~)
j. ~t~
~ ,5 () - N. h O
1.1 ­1
G.2~
2.10·il. 72
I. :l,'
1 s, fhe standard dC\'iatiol1 , is [he SCJll arc rool of the \'arianre fur an indhidual phml.
C.\!. is the cocifici e nt o[ yariahilil).
'!
C.V.'
:-,~ ). (j
17.0
I H. G
21.0
2 1.7
VOL. XL i'\o, I.,
OCTOBFR
GOI
H.)(il
,;11 lies for SII(TOSe U )Jln.:lllration and
the alllount
for beet-root
calculated hOIll the
fresh
from
fresh
cem
these
of sugar beet
ts in
lor LOp
leal
of pulp and (or the
coment 01 the
and pulp, Tops varied in
[rom :Z:l9 to I NO:) grams and ill lOlal dry mil It er
87 to 3 j 4 grallls per plant, C:oeHlciellls of \arialion Jar
and dry weight of rops \\'ere less tban for any o[ its parts,
for the hf'sil and dry
of the kar blade~, \n exIy low (ocfhcienL of va
It)!" pcr­
, II ol pulp alld an
value for plant
grea test ,'a ria hi I
was observed for the [lc,h and
ts 01 the residue material and for the leaf count. I he
s of ,'ariahility for the mineral ("oMent or the
(rom l:),~ percent for
to :U,O
for
rhe
for the
rllesc cliflcrences in variabilil y
the precision
o[ the
mcthod nscd and
0[ the conthe plallt pan itself.
sourcc of \"ilri­
likely associated with
because the
erro)" is so much slllallcr than (he varia Lion alllong
bladc~, or pulp,
In
pulp lhe lowest to big'hest
nitrate value differed hy a I'actor of
six [old and lor the
by approximately seven fold, Il'hercas the
values for
assiull1 arC' abuut LInee fold for
blades, 'I
OTown
,~
DisOlssion of Resu Its
The
results for the open-pollinated SW-\';Il beel
variety,
shown thai (here is still a 11
or
variahility among' illdi, idllal plants in sngar content.
mineral cOllstituents even when the plants have heell clllwrcd
carefully til
a standardiled teclmiqllC' that eliminates com­
pletely any
ion For I
,,,'ater, ;md nutrients. The
602
R.'.\L OF TIlE
A. S. S. R. T.
variability, however. lS much less thall that found under field
conditions or normal
experiments. III
order to detect a
bet ween t\\'o means at
probability level of
the rcqmred numbers of heels are 'l,
:n and 70 [or coefIiciclHs 01 \ariahililY of
:20 and
(6). 1"0 detect a difference of /:, and
means, lhe 111l111\)crs of heels for codlidcnts or
and 1. and 4. !J and
trial only 7 heel
ill SlI(ros(; conccntratlon
to [\\'0
fur heet roct
and 17 for amount or
(E,hle
trial niBS ,,·ith t\rD
dosely rdated sligar
and 1
levels o[
of O. and O.!l
\
numbcr or
in top
t and in mineral
tends to be higher (ra hIe
Variation among individual heel plants in lhe trial, can be separated into at least two main and the other env irol1mcl1 ta I rhe cll\i rOllInelllal
\\' i til disease was 1](
I)
al
ca lIses
t asslIme that
ba\e been due to the
0\
to llH: (']nirnnmcnt. TeSols 101
\\'cre also
onl y
genetic varia!>i liLy as the
alllong
~lSSlml('
incliyiduals. I fOWC\eL it is
that euvironmental
III th is case ell It UTa]
is n()nexistent.
,\ IllCaSll l'(' ol
and
ability could have heen ohtained by a
inated
with all equally
F
bricL as the recent wurk of Powcrs
and Po\\·crs. et al. of the test in 1
a comparable
was not ;I\ail­
'lile llSe of F, hybrids ill luture
in the
t direction and \\"ill lead
Lal \aria hi
The
the results
. XI,
7, OCTOl\J:R 196 I
a
ha~is \\ill reduce thc
to
O. I, one di\icled
the square roOl
01 appr()Xllllal
1
variahi
or
,\ fact or
or
III
Sugar heet plalJts 01 till:
dlillated
1'5
were
grown olltdoors in \ crlllicul
as single plallts pcr pot withollt
competitioll ior I It, water (;l Ilutrients. Diseases and
\H'l'C kept to a ruin
and had 110 significant effect upon the
Is. Variability clue to C'lVirol1l11cntal factors
minimulll. and vel Lite coefficients or variabilit'y
remained
. rhe values were: beet root
IXT
c
OllS(Tvcd as
heets
to 21
beel,
rule for the same
in the rm\"
71.W : H2.;) tu !1:).7(:;,: I .6 to
to ~H
In
of the relatively
of varia
ily ror pot gIo\\lI sug:lr beet plants, the numbers
bcns n:quin:cl to delect a difference oj UV" bel\vccn means at
the.J
!en'l
fica lice were only 1:) lor heet root
7 lor sucrose percellt alld 17 lor alllount of Sllcrose
beet root.
To delcct a ditTcrcl1(c oj I
ill nutriclH content
the petiules
(OIlSeCln 1\
ur
7n or more hcels
per pol \\'cre
yariabilit: ror sug-ar beet
I {J
among
F,
of
lO
mcans
A(knowledgment
Thc a1lthor is indehted to Dr. E. S.
Enloll1o]
of California. for t he
Jlladc on
prior to harvest.
. :\ssoCiate
read
di~casc
Literature Cited
(I) BIW\\SF. (.,
e.
A. :1lld i.l'llJa!l. F. \V. ]911.
aI :lnd chcmictlmcthods
Tohn \\'iln ;1Ilt! S()ns, Illc.. :\'vw York.
.\L :IIH] lit,luell, ,\. Iff)'),
inl mcrh()(h I'or usc lTl
CdiL ,·\gr. Y"p. 'ita. Bull. 7Gb. PI'- 2j·7K.
Rl'CI \Ug;l r let
Reinhold Publishillg
~('\\'
.
York .
1!1.',7.
pro­
l'own<" LI·:ROY, ROlll-.RI:;O", D. \\' .. ""IIIT"F\', R. S. and SUJ:\IFIIl., IV, R,
1!J:iR. l'opuLiLiol1 gl'JI<'li(·,[u<iic, ",illl sugar IJCeu, (!JC/II
L.) ,II diflc[e1l1 icn:h of soil lertilit}'. J. \ Ill, SOl. Sllg:lr 1:\('1'1 TcdlllO!.
IX: 6,')7·071>,
n. [). I!J:;!J. '>Ialislical tCliJlliqlll' ill agricuilur:d n',carel!. :'vIc·
Cr:l\\·Hill Book Co .. lllc.. i\('w York.
(Ii) 1'.\n:Rsu:\,
(7) 1
\,
I (),):!, V:[riaili]il) of "[lcll'pollin:i!cd, ilJiJrl'cl dnd II) hrid
sllg:11' beet \',Iri('[ic', ill grccn]lOUSI' I'xl'crillll'l1ls. Pro(, A Ill, SOl'. Sug:lr
LRIClI,
Beet Techno!. VI I: (i7·7:!'.
A, j ():)(), Ellu 1 ()j c(
lioll Oil sugar beeL pLllllS iii P,l[
cxpcrimcnts. J. .\lll, Soc. Sugat Ikel Tc( Illlol. X: "118·10R,
(!J) CLlUCIi. \, E1' \L. ] ((lR, UIcCls or clilll:ltc on sug:lr i;ccjs grown uIlder
sl:llllianli/cd condiliolls. J. \ Ill, Snc. Sugar lkc1 Techllo!. X: 1·:!,:L
(10) '[RICI[, \, :11111 01fKI., T\., I (HiO, l'rcp:lnltioll :11)(1 ,I magI' ()f Iwcl pullJ
samples lor SU( rosc
J ,\m, Soc Sug:l! lieu Tccillloi. XI'
h8·71.
(8) l'LRIClJ.