Abstract
Optimal nutrition of sugar beets at critical growth stages is one of the crucial factors for the achievement of their highest yield potential. In the present study, it was presumed that reduced systems of sugar beet cultivation had no effect on the plants’ nutritional status at critical growth stages, on their yield or technological quality. In 2012-2013, two series of one-factorial field experiments with different beet crop husbandry were carried out in order to verify this hypothesis. The cultivation systems of sugar beet crops differed in the postharvest cultivation technology, mulch types and seedbed tillage. Conservation tillage systems were compared with the control treatment, which represented the conventional cultivation system with an application of manure and 35 cm deep autumn ploughing. The plant nutritional status assessment was carried out at two dates corresponding to the following growth stages: BBCH 16/17 (6-8 fully unfolded true leaves) and BBCH 39/40 (row closing). Regardless of the methods of tillage or the year of observation, the results showed that the plants at BBCH16/17 stage were well-nourished with macroelements but malnourished with microelements, mainly iron and zinc. The microelement deficiency in the plants was a result of adjusted soil reaction, which varied from slightly acidic to neutral. At the BBCH 39/40 stage, there was a decreasing trend in the content of leaf macronutrients in the no-tillage systems treatments compared to the conventional tillage with the ploughing depth to 35 cm and manure application. The reduced tillage systems in sugar beet cultivation did not result in either a yield decrease or a worse technological quality of roots. The experimental factor had no significant effect on the content of molassegenic compounds in beet roots. A decreasing trend was observed in the content of α-amino nitrogen and potassium when compared to the traditional cultivation system. The study showed that the choice of a cultivation technology is of secondary importance as long as the plant grows in optimal conditions resulting from an appropriate site selection.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
At BBCH16/17, plants were well nourished with macroelements.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Organ / stage
- BBCH16/17 stagee0
- Outcome
- well-nourished with macroelementse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the plants at BBCH16/17 stage were well-nourished with macroelements but malnourished with microelements”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
At BBCH16/17, plants were deficient in microelements, mainly iron and zinc.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- BBCH16/17 stagee0
- Outcome
- malnourished with microelements, mainly iron and zince0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the plants at BBCH16/17 stage were well-nourished with macroelements but malnourished with microelements, mainly iron and zinc”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed microelement deficiency to slightly acidic to neutral soil reaction.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- microelement deficiencye0
- Qualifier
- adjusted soil reaction, which varied from slightly acidic to neutrale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The microelement deficiency in the plants was a result of adjusted soil reaction, which varied from slightly acidic to neutral”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage tended to reduce leaf macronutrient content at BBCH 39/40 versus conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- BBCH 39/40 stagee0
- Treatment
- no-tillage systems treatmentse0
- Outcome
- content of leaf macronutrientse0
- Direction
- decreasing trende0
- Comparator
- the conventional tillage with the ploughing depth to 35 cm and manure applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the BBCH 39/40 stage, there was a decreasing trend in the content of leaf macronutrients in the no-tillage systems treatments compared to the conventional tillage with the ploughing depth to 35 cm and manure application”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage did not decrease sugar beet yield.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- reduced tillage systemse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not result in either a yield decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reduced tillage systems in sugar beet cultivation did not result in either a yield decrease or a worse technological quality of roots”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage did not worsen technological root quality.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- reduced tillage systemse0
- Outcome
- technological quality of rootse0
- Direction
- worsee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reduced tillage systems in sugar beet cultivation did not result in either a yield decrease or a worse technological quality of roots”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivation treatment had no significant effect on molassegenic compounds in beet roots.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- The experimental factore0
- Outcome
- content of molassegenic compounds in beet rootse0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The experimental factor had no significant effect on the content of molassegenic compounds in beet roots”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
Alpha-amino nitrogen content tended to decrease versus traditional cultivation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- content of α-amino nitrogene0
- Direction
- decreasing trende0
- Comparator
- the traditional cultivation systeme0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A decreasing trend was observed in the content of α-amino nitrogen and potassium when compared to the traditional cultivation system”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium content tended to decrease versus traditional cultivation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- potassiume0
- Direction
- decreasing trende0
- Comparator
- the traditional cultivation systeme0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A decreasing trend was observed in the content of α-amino nitrogen and potassium when compared to the traditional cultivation system”
t0“sugar beets”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that cultivation technology is secondary when site conditions are optimal.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- the choice of a cultivation technology is of secondary importancee0
- Qualifier
- as long as the plant grows in optimal conditions resulting from an appropriate site selectione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the choice of a cultivation technology is of secondary importance as long as the plant grows in optimal conditions resulting from an appropriate site selection”
t0“sugar beets”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: general · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 44 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
58 papers more in this group
See all 62 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.