Preceding crops influence agronomic efficiency in sugar beet cultivation

  • Anna Jacobs
  • Heinz-Josef Koch
  • Bernward Märländer
Research Article


The choice of the crop succession influences the agronomic efficiency (yield per unit agronomic input) and is relevant for the sustainable intensification of crop cultivation. However, such effects are often ignored in assessments of agronomic efficiency. The aim of the study was to propose a concept for the assessment of and to publish data on (i) the effect of the preceding crop on the amount of agronomic inputs used and the yield in sugar beet cultivation and (ii) the agronomic efficiency of the 2-year sum of preceding crop – sugar beet successions. As preceding crop (including catch crop) – sugar beet successions, we investigated (i) mustard – silage maize – sugar beet, (ii) phacelia – grain pea – mustard – sugar beet, and (iii) winter wheat – mustard – sugar beet in a field trial (Harste, Germany; 2011–2014). We found that fertilizer requirement of sugar beet was highest (108 kg nitrogen ha−1; 125 kg phosphate ha−1) when mustard – silage maize was the preceding crop and lowest (30 kg nitrogen ha−1; 96 kg phosphate ha−1) when phacelia – grain pea – mustard was the preceding crop. The efficiency of the agronomic inputs used for the cultivation of the 2-year sum of preceding crop – sugar beet successions was generally highest for the succession with silage maize with the exception of nitrogen-efficiency which was highest for the succession with grain pea. The main effect of the preceding crop on fertilizer requirement was driven by the amount of harvest residues. Results of 2-year agronomic efficiency were affected by the high energy yield of the succession with silage maize (670 GJ ha−1) and the low N-fertilization in the succession with grain pea (130 kg N ha−1). We show for the first time a methodological approach to assess preceding crop’s effects on agronomic efficiency and to illustrate results for decision making towards a sustainable intensification of crop cultivation.


Sustainable intensification Energy Management Crop rotation Field experiment Yield 



Parts of this study were done with support from Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture by decision of the German Bundestag and via the Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V. within the joint project “The sugar beet as an energy crop in crop rotations on highly productive sites – an agronomic/economic system analysis”. We are grateful for technical help especially for the conduction of the field trials and to further support in data assessing. Thus, “Thank you!” to Jens Günther, Marten Steinke and their team, Wiebke Brauer-Siebrecht, Friederike Hoberg, and Ronja Ruppelt. We further thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to our manuscript.


  1. Baumgärtel G (2013) Düngung. In: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen (ed) Empfehlungen 2013 – Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenschutz. Albrecht Druck, Hannover, pp 6–21Google Scholar
  2. BioGrace (2013) List of Standard Values – Version 4 – Public. Accessed 15 Janurary 2013
  3. Brauer-Siebrecht W, Jacobs A, Christen O, Götze P, Koch H-J, Rücknagel J, Märländer B (2016) Silage maize and sugar beet for biogas production in rotations and continuous cultivation: dry matter and estimated methane yield. Agron 6:2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brentrup F, Pallière C (2008) GHG Emissions and Energy Efficiency in European Nitrogen Fertiliser Production and Use. In: The International Fertiliser Society (ed) Proceedings 639 – Conference in Cambridge on 11th December 2008, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  5. Buhre C, Kluth C, Bürcky K, Märländer B, Varrelmann M (2009) Integrated control of root and crown rot in sugar beet: combined effects of cultivar, crop rotation, and soil tillage. Plant Dis 93:155–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castoldi N, Bechini L (2010) Integrated sustainability assessment of cropping systems with agro-ecological and economic indicators in northern Italy. Eur J Agron 32:59–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis SC, Boddey RM, Alves BJR, Cowie AL, George BH, Ogle SM, Smith P, van Noordwijk M, van Wijk MT (2013) Management swing potential for bioenergy crops. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 5:623–638. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Klein C, Novoa RSA, Ogle S, Smith KA, Rochette P, Wirth TC, McConkey BG, Mosier A, Rypdal K, Walsh M, Williams SA (2006) N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (ed) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IGES Hayama, Kanagawa, pp 11.1–11.54Google Scholar
  9. de Vries SC, van de Ven GWJ, van Ittersum MK, Giller KE (2010) Resource use efficiency and environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation conversion techniques. Biomass Bioenergy 34:588–601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (1991) DLG-Futterwerttabellen für Wiederkäuer. DLG-Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  11. Dias T, Dukes A, Antunes PM (2015) Accounting for soil biotic effects on soil health and crop productivity in the design of crop rotations. J Sci Food Agric 95:447–454. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz S, Neumayer E (2007) Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: concepts and measurement. Ecol Econ 61:617–626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Union (2013) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 december 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Accessed 09 June 2016
  14. Feldheim W, Wisker E, Augustin S (1983) Brennwert und Ballaststoffgehalt von Getreideflocken, Mehlen und Broten. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 176:183–189. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Franzluebbers AJ, Francis CA (1995) Energy output:input ratio of maize and sorghum management systems in eastern Nebraska. Agric Ecosyst Environ 53:271–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Götze P, Rücknagel J, Jacobs A, Märländer B, Koch H-J, Holzweißig B, Steinz M, Christen O (2016) Sugar beet rotation effects on soil organic matter and calculated humus balance in Central Germany. Eur J Agron 76:198–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Götze P, Rücknagel J, Wensch-Dorendorf M, Märländer B, Christen O (2017) Crop rotation effects on yield, technological quality and yield stability of sugar beet after 45 trial years. Eur J Agron 82:50–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hao X, Chang C, Conner RL, Bergen P (2001) Effect of minimum tillage and crop sequence on crop yield and quality under irrigation in a southern Albert clay loam soil. Soil Till Res 59:45–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri PK, Meyer LA (ed). Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs A, Brauer-Siebrecht W, Rücknagel J, Götze P, Christen O, Koch H-J, Märländer B (2016) Silage maize and sugar beet for biogas production in crop rotations and continuous cultivation—energy efficiency and land demand. Field Crops Res 196:75–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Köpke U, Nemecek T (2010) Ecological services of faba bean. Field Crops Res 115:217–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lal R (2004) Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ Int 30:981–990. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen – Geschäftsbereich Landwirtschaft (2010) Empfehlungen zur Stickstoffdüngung nach der Nmin-Methode. Accessed 13 May 2016
  24. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffmann A, Giovannini E (2008) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators – Methodology and User Guide. Accessed 09 May 2016
  25. Nemecek T, Erzinger S (2005) Modelling representative life cycle inventories for Swiss arable crops. Int J LCA 10:68–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nemecek T, von Richthofen J-S, Dubois G, Casta P, Charles R, Pahl H (2008) Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations. Eur J Agron 28:380–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Safa M, Samarasinghe S (2012) CO2 emissions from farm inputs “case study of wheat production in Canterbury, New Zealand”. Environ Pollut 171:126–132. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sattler C, Nagel UJ, Werner A, Zander P (2010) Integrated assessment of agricultural production practices to enhance sustainable development in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Indic 10:49–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sneh B, Jabaji-Hare S, Neate S, Dijst G (eds) (1996) Rhizoctonia species: taxonomy, molecular biology, ecology, pathology and disease control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  30. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Vuuren DP, Bouwman AF, Beusen AHW (2010) Phosphorus demand for the 1970–2100 period: a scenario analysis of resource depletion. Glob Environ Chang 20:428–439. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sugar Beet ResearchGoettingenGermany
  2. 2.Thünen Institute, Institute of Climate-Smart AgricultureBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations