Paper · 1995 · Weed Technology

Wild Mustard (Brassica kaber) and Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Interference in Sugarbeets (Beta vulgarisL.)

Abdelouhab Mesbah; Stephen D. Miller; K. James Fornstrom; et al.

6
claims
7
verbatim quotes
12
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Two furrow irrigated field experiments were conducted for two years at the Research and Extension Center, Powell, WY to determine the influence of various mixed densities and durations of wild oat and wild mustard interference in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet root yields were reduced by competition from all examined densities of wild oat and wild mustard, alone and in combination. Root yield reduction was less than additive with mixed densities of wild oat and wild mustard. Root yields decreased as the duration of interference after sugarbeet emergence from a mixed density of wild oat and wild mustard increased. Sucrose content of sugarbeet was not altered by competition. Based on regression analysis, the minimum time that a mixed density of 0.8 wild mustard and 1 wild oat/m of row can interfere with sugarbeet before causing an economic root yield loss was approximately 1.6 weeks after sugarbeet emergence.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All tested wild oat densities reduced sugarbeet root yield.

Treatment
all examined densities of wild oate0
Interactor
wild oate0weed
Outcome
root yieldse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sugarbeet root yields were reduced by competition from all examined densities of wild oat and wild mustard, alone and in combination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 241–373 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All tested wild mustard densities reduced sugarbeet root yield.

Treatment
wild mustarde0
Interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Outcome
root yieldse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sugarbeet root yields were reduced by competition from all examined densities of wild oat and wild mustard, alone and in combination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 241–373 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined wild oat and wild mustard competition reduced root yield less than additively.

Interactor
wild oate0weed
Second interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Outcome
Root yield reductione0
Direction
less than additivee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Root yield reduction was less than additive with mixed densities of wild oat and wild mustard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 375–468 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarbeets”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–83 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root yield declined as mixed weed interference lasted longer after emergence.

Treatment
duration of interferencee0
Interactor
wild oate0weed
Second interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Outcome
Root yieldse0
Direction
decreasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Root yields decreased as the duration of interference after sugarbeet emergence from a mixed density of wild oat and wild mustard increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–609 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Competition did not alter sugarbeet sucrose content.

Treatment
competitione0
Outcome
Sucrose contente0
Direction
not alterede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sucrose content of sugarbeet was not altered by competition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 611–670 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A mixed density of 0.8 wild mustard and 1 wild oat/m of row could interfere about 1.6 weeks after emergence before economic yield loss.

Interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Second interactor
wild oate0weed
Outcome
minimum timee0
Value
approximately 1.6 weekse0
Qualifier
mixed density of 0.8 wild mustard and 1 wild oat/m of rowe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the minimum time that a mixed density of 0.8 wild mustard and 1 wild oat/m of row can interfere with sugarbeet before causing an economic root yield loss was approximately 1.6 weeks after sugarbeet emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–909 · show in text ↑

competition · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 1 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.