The Use of Drip Irrigation for Sugarbeet Production

Cooperators: Blaine Hanson and Stephen Kaffka

Introduction: Irrigation water for field crop production will become increasingly limited in California. Drip irrigation has been shown to reduce irrigation water needs compared to sprinkler or furrow systems for a variety of crops under some circumstances. At times, reduced water use also is correlated with increased yields compared to other irrigation alternatives because of improved grower ability to apply water, nutrients and pesticides in a timely manner. Currently, drip technology is used with vegetable and fruit crops primarily, but a sugarbeet crop has been produced successfully in California using drip irrigation in District 7. There has been little, if any work evaluating the effectiveness of drip irrigation with sugarbeet.

In addition to the possiblities for water conservation, drip irrigation may have a role in reducing losses to root rots and rhizomania (Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus) in sugarbeet crops. During the warm summer months, sugarbeet must be irrigated frequently, resulting in long periods when soils are saturated and temperatures are high. Such conditions are conducive to the development of many of the common root rot organisms and to losses to rhizomania. By lowering soil water potentials near sugarbeet roots, the activity of Polymyxa betae K., the vector of the BNYVV, also may be significantly reduced.

There has not been any work to date examining the use of drip irrigation systems with sugarbeet, nor any field-based work examining the relationship between soil saturation and common root rot pathogens oer with rhizomania. The cost of drip irrigation systems has been declining due to new concepts and materials. If advantages from the use of drip irrigation can be demonstrated for several different field and vegetable crops, the use of drip may become a consideration for more producers. If sugarbeet can be shown to be well adapted to drip irrigation, producers with drip systems established may consider using sugarbeets in their crop rotations.

Objectives: This study sought to characterize the use of drip irrigation with sugarbeet, and to measure the moisture characteristics of the soil profile in which the beet crop develops. The occurrence of pathogenic organisms will also be evaluated. Specific objectives were to:
 

1. contrast the effects of different drip irrigation system layouts and irrigation frequencies on sugarbeet growth and yield,

2. characterize soil profile moisture patterns and measure soil moisture potentials at different locations in the profile under the different irrigation treatments, and

3. contrast differences in water use, crop growth, yield and disease incidence in drip and furrow irrigated plots.

 

Methods: Drip irrigation tape was placed at three depths (surface (0), 6 and 12 inches) and equivalent amounts of water applied at three irrigation frequencies (daily, twice weekly and weekly) to maintain different types of soil moisture profiles. Measurements of soil moisture and consumptive water use were made using neutron access probes and gypsum blocks placed systematically throughout the profile. Each of the nine treatment combinations was replicated three times. Water application was measured for each replication using flow meters. Adjacent to the drip irrigated plots, furrow irrigated plots were established and similar measurements made. At harvest, yield, sucrose percentage, purity, and incidence and types of root rots were evaluated from all treatments and plots. Weed biomass also was collected and compared. During August, percent row cover was compared for the different treatments. Percent row cover is a sensitve measure of moisture stress in sugarbeets.

Results:

1. Yield. There were significant differences between individual irrigation treatments with the highest yielding treatment being 2x-Weekly irrigation at 0 inch depth (6158 lbs.sucrose per acre) and the lowest being Daily irrigation at 12 inch depth (5185 lbs.sucrose per acre). See Table 1.

When treatments were aggregated by irrigation frequency, there was a trend towards higher sugar yields with less frequent irrigation (figure 1), but this trend was not significant. Similarly, when aggregated by depth, the deepest drip lines tended to result in the lowest yield overall, but not significantly so (figure 2).

There were no other significant crop yield or quality trends related to irrigation treatments. Root rots were not observed in any of the treatments.

Average yields from the furrow irrigated treatments, at 6,113 lbs. sucrose per acre, were significantly higher than all but one of the drip treatments.

2. Water use.

Discussion:
 

Conclusions:

Table 1. Mean sugar yields for individual irrigation treatments
 
 
Irrigation Treatment
Yield 
(lbs. sucrose per acre)
2x-Weekly (0") 6158
Weekly (0") 5693
Weekly (6")  5654
Daily (0")  5582
2x-Weekly (6")  5507
2x-Weekly (12")  5446
Weekly (12")  5363
Daily (6")  5320
Daily (12")  5185
LSD(0.05)  612 
Furrow Irrigation  6113