Sulfur deficiency of sugar beets (Beta Vulgaris L.) was first reported in
1941 by Tolman and Stoker (10) in beets grown for seed in the Willamette Valley
of Oregon. The symptoms were described as retarded growth, yellow color,
breakdown of leaf tissue, lack of flowering, and increased susceptibility to
disease. Since then sulfur deficiency of this crop has been reported in California
(11) and Sweden (5). Sulfur deficiency of sugar beets decreases seed
yield (10) as well as the yield and percent of sugar in the roots (5). A review
of the sulfur requirements of sugar, fiber and oil crops has been published (8)

James, D.W.

Leggett, G.E.

Stewart, B.A.

Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory Publications

Sulfur Deficiency of Sugar Beets

USDA - ARS - NWISRL

SULFUR DEFICIENCY OF SUGAR BEETS'G. E. Leggett, B. A. Stewart, and D. W. James 2INTRODUCTIONSulfur deficiency of sugar beets (Beta Vulgaris L.) was first reported in1941 by Tolman and Stoker (10) in beets grown for seed in the Willamette Valleyof Oregon. The symptoms were described as retarded growth, yellow color,breakdown of leaf tissue, lack of flowering, and increased susceptibility todisease. Since then sulfur deficiency of this crop has been reported in Cali-fornia (11) and Sweden (5). Sulfur deficienCy of sugar beets decreases seedyield (10) as well as the yield and percent of sugar in the roots (5). A reviewof the sulfur requirements of sugar, fiber and oil crops has been published (8).Dijkshoorn et al. (4) showed that the N/S ratio of the protein fractions ofryegrass grown under various levels of N and S-was about 16.2. They conclud-ed that the major proportions of these nutrients are converted into protein inthe plant, and thus, if NO 3 -N is low relative to total N, the. N/S ratio of theherbage approximates that of the protein. A N/S ratio larger than 17 indicatesan accumulation of non-protein N which signifies a shortage of S within theplant. A N/S ratio of less than 17 indicates that ample S is present for thesynthesis of protein, providing other factors are favorable. Under conditionsof N deficiency, or when the capacity of the plant to synthesize protein isreached, inorganic-S accumulates if applied in excess to the plant needs.Ulrich et al. (11) report values as high as 13,600 ppm SO4 -S for the leaves ofsugar beets fertilized with high rates of S. The critical level required fornormal growth, however, appears to be only about 250 ppm SO4 -S.Stewart and Whitfield (9) showed that the N/S ratio of wheat plants grownin the greenhouse varied according to treatment and was indicative of the Sstatus of the plants. The N/S ratio of the S-deficient plants was greater than17, whereas the N/S ratio of the N-deficient or normal plants was 17 or less.The N/S ratio has also been used in diagnosing the S status of alfalfa grownin the field (7).Sulfur deficiency symptoms developed unexpectedly on sugar beets grownin a P fertilizer experiment near Prosser, Washington. The severity of thesymptoms varied because of the difference in previous fertilizer treatments,and thus afforded an opportunity to study the N/S ratio of the foliage in relationto the incidence of deficiency symptoms.Methods and MaterialsThe experiment was located on soil classified as Warden very fine sandy1 Proceeding, 17th Annual Fertilizer Conference of the Pacific North-west, Wenatchee, Washington. July 12-14, 1966.2Research Soil Scientists, USDA, Kimberly (Twin Falls), Idaho and FortCollins, Colorado, and ,Assistant Soil Scientist, 'Washington StateUniversity: Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center,Prosser, Washington, respectively.158loam before levellinging approximately 14ly low in available P,aimed at studying thegrown in 1962, SudanIn 1962, the calcareous subsoil was exposed by remov-inches of the surface soil. The resulting soil was extreme,K, and Zn and furnished the site for a fertility experimentresidual effects of P fertilizer. Red Mexican b9ns weregrass in 1963 and 1964, and sugar beets in 1965.The main variables in the experiment were rates and year of applicationof P. Concentrated superphosphate at rates of 33, 66, 132, and 264 pounds of Pper acre was applied to previously unfertilized plots in 1962, 1963, and 1964.All plots received 220 pounds of N per acre as NI-r4NO3 and 200 pounds of K peracre as KC1 in 1965. The entire area received 10 pounds of Zn and 5 pounds ofS per acre as zinc sulfate in 1962 and 1964.The sugar beets were planted the first of April and thinned to 10-inchspacings on May 10. Furrow irrigation was begun the first of June and con-tinued until mid-September at approximately 10 day intervals. The 5' contentof irrigation water used at the location was low (1.7 lb per acre-foot) (6).In July, the sugar beets in some of the plots unexpectedly became chloroticand showed symptoms resembling those of N deficiency, except that the entireplant was chlorotic and the older leaves did not clir up. In some plots slightsymptoms were present on scattered plants, whereas in other plots all plantswere severely affected. Tissue tests on the petioles of the chlorotic plantsindicated a high level of NO3-N. Small test strips were sprayed with threedifferent S-containing solutions. Within one week marked color differenceswere evident on the sprayed plants, thus identifying the problem as S deficiency.Each of 13 plots was sampled on August 19 by taking 12 recently maturedleaves. At the time of sampling each plot was rated numerically according tothe severity of the symptoms. The leaf blades were dried at 55° C and ground.Nitrogen was determined by a Kjedahl method (1) which was not modified toinclude NO3-N. For total S, the plant material was digested by a Mg(NO3) 2procedure (3). The SO 4 -S was then determined turbidimetrically by measuringlight scatter on a spectrofluorom_ eter (9). Protein N and S were determined bythese same methods after extracting the ground leaf material three times withhot 70% ethanol.Immediately after plant sampling, the entire area was treated with 240pounds of gypsum (16% S) per acre dissolved in the irrigation water. Within 10days a marked improvement in color and growth was evident on the severelyaffected plants. The plots sampled on August 19 were again sampled on Septem-ber 17 to determine any change in the S status of the plants resulting from theapplication of S.iResults and DiscussionOccurrence of S Deficiency SymptomsThe N/S ratios for the leaf blades and the leaf protein for the two sampl-ings are presented in table 1 along with the numerical ratings of the S deficiencysymptoms and the P treatments. The listing of P fertilizer treatments isappropriate because these treatments have a direct bearing on the incidence ofS deficiency symptoms. Where 0 or 33 lb of P per acre had been applied, theplants sampled in August were normal or only slightly affected in appearance,ixB159except that they were small. These plants were obviously P deficient; beetyields resulting from these treatments ranged from 50 to 77% of the 30-ton-per -acre- maximum yield in the experiment.The plants were normal where 264 lb of P per acre was applied in 1964.Where the same rate of P was applied in 1963 and 1962, the beets in 1965 weremoderately and severely S deficient. These differences in severity of symptomsare attributed to the residual effect of the S contained in the P fertilizer. Con-centrated superphosphate is reported to contain about 1% S (2). Thus, at thehighest rate of P fertilization, approximately 13 lb of S per acre was also ap-plied. The residual from this amount of S applied in 1964, along with thatapplied as zinc sulfate, and that contained in the irrigation water, furnishedadequate S for the sugar beet crop. When the fertilizer was applied in 1963 or1962, however, the carry over of S was less than adequate.All sugar-beets, regardless of when the P was applied, were severely Sdeficient where fertilized with 66 or 132 lb of P per acre. The amount of Sapplied at these levels of P fertilization in 1964-was too little for appreciablecarry over to occur.Nitrogen-Sulfur Relations in Sugar Beet Leaves The N and S percentages in the alcohol-washed residues for the Augustsampling are shown in Figure 1. The N/S ratios of the protein in the 13 sam--pies ranged from 14.5 to 17.8 and averaged 16.6, a value close to those re-ported for ryegrass (4) and wheat (9). For the September samples, the N/Sratios of the protein were generally lower than those for the earlier samples.The values ranged from 13.6 to 15.7 and averaged 14. 8. The reason for thesevalues being lower than those for the August samples is not known.The N/S ratios of the leaf samples taken in August ranged from 13. 0 to27.2, thus indicating an imbalance between N and S in some of the plants. Thedata presented in table 1 indicate that the greater the N/S ratio of the leaves,the more severe the S deficiency symptoms; the average N/S ratio for the nor-mal, chlorotic, and severely chlorotic plants was 15.1, 21. 0, and 23.5, respec-tively. At the time of the September sampling, none of the plants showed Sdeficiency symptoms. In fact, the plants at this time were well supplied withS as a result of the S applied in August. The total S in the leaves ranged from0.37 to 0.61%, about twice that for the August samples, and consequently theN/S ratios were all less than 12.On the basis of previous work and the value of 16.6 determined in thisstudy for the N/S ratio of the leaf protein, a N/S ratio of 17 was used as a guidefor assessing the S status of the various samples. When the N and S percentagesfor the leaf samples taken in August are plotted and the line representing a N/Sratio of 17 is included (see Figure 2), the separation of S-deficient and normalplants is good, except for three borderline cases. For plants showing severeS deficiency symptoms, the N/S ratio was greater than 17, whereas for normalor slightly affected plants the N/S ratio was 17 or less.Figure 2 also shows that the total S in the leaf blades for the August sam-pling is inversely related to the severity of the S deficiency symptoms. Theaverage S content of the normal, chlorotic, and severely chlorotic leaves was0.29, 0.22, and 0. 19%, respectively. At the relatively narrow range of Nlevels encountered here, a total S content of about 0.27% was required for160normal growth of the plants. This value would be expected to change withdifferent N levels, however, and thus the percent S alone would not reflect theS status of the plants. On the other hand, because of the constancy of the N/Sratio of the plant protein overwide ranges of N and S levels, this index wouldremain a valid criterion for assessing the S status of the crop.The percent N in the alcohol-washed residues as compared to the percentN in the leaves- for all samples reflects the differences in the non-protein Ncontent of the leaves and consequently the S status of the plants. For the nor-mal and slightly affected leaves sampled in August, the percent N was higherin the residue than in the leaf blades (compare Figures 1 and 2). The samerelationship existed for all of the September samples, which showed no signsof S deficiency. This difference resulted from concentrating the protein in theresidue by removal of sugars and other soluble compounds that did not containappreciable N. For the S deficient plants, however, concentrating the proteinin the alcohol-washed residue was more than offset by removal of soluble non-protein N. Consequently, the percent N in the residue was lower than in theleaves.The results presented here indicate that the N/S ratio of sugar beetleaves is a promising indicator of the S status of the crop. Before the relia-bility of the test can be established, however, its relationship to the yield andpercent sugar of the beets should be determined over wide ranges of N and Sfertility levels.161Table 1. The ratios of total N (Nt) to total S (St) and protein N (Np) to proteinS (Sp) of sugar beet leaves as affected by severity of S deficiencysymptoms.P FertilizationRate	 YearSeverity ofS deficiencysymptoms*N/S ratio of leavesSampled 8/19 Sampled 9/17Nt /St Np/Sp Nt/St Np/SpLb/A0 0 13.0 15.6 10.8 14.433 1962 0+ 17.4 16.8 11.5 14.466 2 21.7 17.0 9.1 15.7132 2 24.9 17.2 11.0 14.8264 2 24.7 16.5 9.7 15.633 1963 1 16.7 16.6 8.5 14.466 1+ 24.6 14.5 10.5 15.0132 2 27.6 17.5 9.9 14.4264 1 21.6 17.8 7.4 13.633 1964 0+ 15.9 15.7 8.5 14.466 2 22.5 17.5 7.9 14.8132 2 20.0 15.9 6.8 15.2264 0 14.3 16.6 8.4 15.6* Symptoms were rated as follows: 0 = no symptoms;1 = chlorotic; 2 = severely chlorotic when sampled on8/19. All plants were free of S deficiency symptomswhen sampled on 9/17.162% N6.00 – 0+ • 0   • 05.004.00       22 •2 •• 3.00    L 	0.20     0.30S0.40Figure 1. The percent N and S in the alcohol-washed residues of sugar beet leavessampled in August. (0 = no symptoms,1 = chlorotic, and 2 = severelychlorotic leaves. )1163% N5.00 N/S = 17• 1• 1+• 0• 2•• 2 • 2 0+•• 0+	 •04.00• 2•20.15	 0.20	 0.25	 0.30	 0.35SFigure 2..The percent N and S in sugar beetleaves sampled in August. (0 = nosymptoms, 1 = chlorotic, and 2 =severely chlorotic leaves. )164Literature Cited1. Bremner, J. M. '960. Determination of nitrogen in soil by Kjeldahlmethod. J. Agr. Sci. 55:11-33.Z. Caro, Joseph H. 1964. Characterization of superphosphate. InSuperphosphate, pp. 272 - 305. U. S. Dept. Agr. - Tenn. Val. Authority,U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.3. Chapman, H. D. and P. F. Pratt. 1961. Methods of analysis for soils,plants, and waters. Univ. of California, Div. of Agr. Sciences, Berkeley4. Dijkshoorn, W. , J. E. M. Lampe, and P. F. J. Van Burg. 1960. Amethod of diagnosing the sulfur nutrition status of herbage. Plant andSoil 13:227-241.5. Gunnarsson, 0. 1960. Some data from pot and field experiments withsulfur. Grundforbattring 13:13-38. .Abstr. in Soils and Fertilizers23:428. 1960.6. Nelson, C. E. 1953. Quality of irrigation waters from eight locationsin the Columbia Basin, 1950. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Circular 226,August 1953. 8pp.7. Pumphrey, F. V. , and D. P. Moore. 1965. Sulfur and nitrogen contentof alfalfa herbage during growth. Agron. J. 57:237-239.8. Stanford, George and Ho y/1rd V. Jordon. 1966. Sulfur requirements ofsugar, fiber and oil crops. Soil Sci. 101, pp. 258-266.9. Stewart, B. A. and C. J. Whitfield. 1965. Effect of crop residue, soiltemperature, and sulfur on the growth of winter wheat. Soil Sci. Soc.Amer. Proc. 29:752-755.10. Tolman, B. and G. L. Stoker. 1941. Sulfur and nitrogen deficiencyrelationships in sugar beets grown for seed in Oregon. J. Am. Soc.Agron. 33:1072-1079.11. Ulrich, A. , D. Ririe, F. J. Hills, A. G. George, and M. D. Morse.1959. Plant analysis--a guide for sugar beet fertilization. CaliforniaAgr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 766.

https://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/id/eprint/1037/1/55.pdf

Sulfur Deficiency of Sugar Beets

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory Publications

USDA - ARS - NWISRL