Browse > Article

The Selection of Yield Response Model of Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris var. Aaron) to Nitrogen Fertilizer and Pig Manure Compost in Reclaimed Tidal Land Soil  

Lim, Woo-Jin (Division of Plant & biological Environment, Hankyong National University)
Sonn, Yeon-Kyu (National Academy of Agricultural Science)
Yoon, Young-Man (Division of Plant & biological Environment, Hankyong National University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer / v.43, no.2, 2010 , pp. 174-179 More about this Journal
Abstract
In order to interpret yield response of sugar beet to nitrogen fertilizer, and pig manure compost in saline-sodic soil of reclaimed tidal land, 4 kinds of response model, i.e., quadratic, exponential, square root, and linear response, and plateau model, are applied. The root fresh yield of sugar beet decreased exponentially with the increase of soil EC. The root fresh yield of sugar beet to nitrogen fertilizer was fitted best to the linear response, and plateau model among 4 yield response models with highly significant determination coefficient ($R^2=0.92^{**}$). The optimum N rate determined on the model was 138 kg N $ha^{-1}$. The root fresh yield of sugar beet to pig manure compost was fitted best to the quadratic model among 4 yield response models with highly significant determination coefficient ($R^2=0.99^{**}$). The maximum N rate determined on the model was 9.17 ton $ha^{-1}$. In conclusion, the proper model to interpret the yield of sugar beet in saline-sodic soil differs with the kinds of nutrient, linear response, and plateau model for fertilizer nitrogen, and quadratic model to pig manure compost.
Keywords
Nitrogen; Yield response; Linear response and plateau model; Reclaimed tidal land; Sugar beet;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Werker, A.R., and K.W. Jaggard. 1997. Modelling asymmetrical growth curves that rise and men fall: applications to foliage dynamics of sugar beer (Beta vulgaris L.). Ann. Bot. 79:657-665.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Royo, A.R., A. Eplayan., and R. Ortiz. 2000. Salinity-Grain Yield Response Functions of Barley Cultivars Assessed with a Drio-Injection System. Published in Soil Sci. Am. J. 64:359-365.   DOI
3 Scott, R.K., and K.W. Jaggard. 1993. The Sugar Beet Crop. Crop physiology and agronomy. p. 179-237.
4 Shin, C.W., J.J. Kim, J.H. Yoon, and B.O. Cho. 1983. Yield responses to NPK fertilizers in different corn cultivars and soils. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 16:242-249.
5 Mombiela, F.A., and L.A. Nelson. 1981. Relationships among some biological and empirical fertilizer response models and use of the power family of transformations to identify an appropriate model. Agronomy Journal. 73:353-356.   DOI
6 Overman, A.R., D. Downey, and S.R. Wilkinson. 1989. Application of simulation models 10 bahiagrass production. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 20.
7 Kim, D. 1996. Effects of Nitrogen and Potassium Application on Growth and Betacyanin Content of Sugar Beet. Res. Bull. Inst. Agr. Reso. Dong-A Univ. 5:255-264.
8 Park, Y.H., S.B. Ahn, and C.S. Park. 1984. Evaluation of the parameters of soil potassium supplying power for predicting yield response. $K_{2}O$ uptake and optimum $K_{2}O$ application levels in paddy soils II. determination of potassium supplying power by gapon equation and Kas/Kai and response to $K_{2}O$ application. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert.17:363-370.
9 Jaggard, K.W., and A. Qi. 2006. Crop physiology and agronomy. In: AP. Draycott, Editor. Sugar Beet, Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. p. 134-168.
10 Jeong, H.C., S.J. Cho, Y.H. Lee, and Y.Y.Kim. 1985. Upland soil fertility and its value of fertilizer response to flue-cured tobacco cultivation. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 18:156-160.
11 Colwell, J.D. 1983. Fertilizer requirements. AnAustralian Viewpoint. CSIRO, Division of Soil, Melbourne. Academic Press, London. p. 795-815.
12 Lee, Y.H., H.C. Jeong, and S.J. Cho. 1982. Fertilizer responses of flue-cured tobacco on the soils of different fertility. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 15:194-198.
13 Malnou, C.S., K.W. Jaggard, and D.L. Sparkes. 2006. A conopy approach to nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for the sugar beet crop. Europ. J. Agronomy. 25:254-263.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Malnou, C.S., K.W. Jaggard, and D.L. Sparkes. 2008. Nitrogen fertilizer and the efficiency of the sugar beet crop in late summer. Europ. J. Agronomy. 28:47-56.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Colwell, J.D. 1994. Estimating fertilizer requirements. A quantative approach. CAB Internation, Wallingford, UK.
16 Belanger, G., J.R. Walsh., J.E. Richards., P.H. milburn., and N. Ziadi. 2000. Comparison of Three Statistical Models Describing Poto Yield Respones to Nitrogen Fertilizer. Published in Agron. J. 92:902-908.   DOI
17 Entz, M.H., D.B. Fowler. 1989. Respones of winter wheal to N and water: Growth, water use, yield and grain protin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:1135-1147.   DOI
18 Holford, I.C.R., A.D. Doyle, and C.C. Leckie. 1992. Nitrogen response characteristics of wheat protein in relation to yield response and their interactions with phosphorus. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 43:969-986.   DOI
19 Andrieu, B.J., and K.W. Jaggard. 1997. Ground cover and leaf area index of maize and sugar beet crops. Agronomie. 17:315-321.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Black, C.A 1993. Soil fertility evaluation and control. Lewis Publishers.
21 Brady, N.C., and R.R. Well. 2002. The nature and properties of soils(13th ed.). Prentice Hall. New Jersey.
22 Cattanach, A.W., A.G. Dexter., and E.S. Oplinger. 1991. Sugarbeets. Alternative field crops manual. University of Wisconsin-Madison. WI53706.
23 Cerrato, ME., and A.M. Blackmer. 1990. Comparison of models for describing corn yield response to nitrogen fertilizer. Agronomy Journal 82:138-143.   DOI