Abstract
Abstract Depending on genotype, sugar beet can differ considerably in yield and quality characteristics. These are additionally modified by environmental conditions with drought stress recently gaining in importance, restricting growth and altering the chemical composition of the beet. The occurrence and development of these genotypic differences during the vegetation period and their possible interaction with environmental conditions were investigated. In 2002 and 2003, four sugar beet genotypes differing in yield and quality and putative different with regard to drought tolerance were tested in field trials, partly under irrigated conditions, in a total of 10 environments with consecutive harvests starting in early summer. In 2 years of stress and non‐stress conditions they exhibited significant differences for taproot and leaf dry matter and the concentration of sucrose, K, Na and α ‐amino nitrogen in the taproot. These differences existed already in mid‐June and virtually did not change any more from this time on. Accordingly, interactions between genotype and harvest date did not occur. For sugar beet, genotype by environment interactions generally do not exist. Water supply, as an important single determinant of the effect of the environment, was studied separately analysing data from selected locations. Under drought conditions, withholding irrigation reduced leaf and taproot growth and root‐to‐leaf ratio, decreased the percentage of sucrose in dry matter and resulted in an accumulation of α ‐amino N. Interactions between genotype and water supply did not occur for any of the parameters under study. A genotype‐specific high α ‐amino N content, which might be of advantage for osmoregulation, did not improve the adaptation to drought. Differences in leaf maintenance or taproot‐to‐leaf ratio during drought also did not affect yield response. Due to the lack of interaction between genotype and harvest date as well as between genotype and irrigation it is concluded that harvest date or climatic factors of the growing region do not have to be taken into consideration when choosing a variety.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes differed significantly in taproot and leaf dry matter under stress and non-stress conditions.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Material
- genotypese1
- Outcome
- taproot and leaf dry mattere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2 years of stress and non‐stress conditions they exhibited significant differences for taproot and leaf dry matter”
e1“four sugar beet genotypes”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes differed significantly in taproot sucrose, K, Na and α-amino nitrogen concentrations.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- concentration of sucrose, K, Na and α ‐amino nitrogen in the taproote0
Not reportedMaterial
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the concentration of sucrose, K, Na and α ‐amino nitrogen in the taproot”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypic differences were present by mid-June and changed little thereafter.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- These differencese0
- Direction
- virtually did not change any moree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These differences existed already in mid‐June and virtually did not change any more from this time on”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype did not interact with harvest date.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- genotypee0
- Outcome
- interactions between genotype and harvest datee0
- Direction
- did not occure0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“interactions between genotype and harvest date did not occur”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype by environment interactions generally did not occur.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- genotypee0
- Outcome
- genotype by environment interactionse0
- Direction
- do not existe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For sugar beet, genotype by environment interactions generally do not exist”
Claim · model-written summary
Withholding irrigation during drought reduced leaf and taproot growth and the root-to-leaf ratio.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigatione0
- Outcome
- leaf and taproot growth and root‐to‐leaf ratioe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under drought conditions, withholding irrigation reduced leaf and taproot growth and root‐to‐leaf ratio”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Withholding irrigation during drought decreased the percentage of sucrose in dry matter.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigatione0
- Outcome
- percentage of sucrose in dry mattere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under drought conditions, withholding irrigation reduced leaf and taproot growth and root‐to‐leaf ratio, decreased the percentage of sucrose in dry matter”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Withholding irrigation during drought caused α-amino N accumulation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigatione0
- Outcome
- accumulation of α ‐amino Ne0
- Direction
- accumulatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under drought conditions, withholding irrigation reduced leaf and taproot growth and root‐to‐leaf ratio, decreased the percentage of sucrose in dry matter and resulted in an accumulation of α ‐amino N”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype did not interact with water supply for the studied parameters.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- genotypee0
- Outcome
- Interactions between genotype and water supplye0
- Direction
- did not occure0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Interactions between genotype and water supply did not occur for any of the parameters under study”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype-specific high α-amino N content did not improve drought adaptation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- genotypee0
- Outcome
- adaptation to droughte0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A genotype‐specific high α ‐amino N content, which might be of advantage for osmoregulation, did not improve the adaptation to drought”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf maintenance and taproot-to-leaf ratio during drought did not affect yield response.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- leafe0
- Outcome
- yield responsee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in leaf maintenance or taproot‐to‐leaf ratio during drought also did not affect yield response”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that harvest date and regional climate need not guide variety selection.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- harvest date or climatic factors of the growing region do not have to be taken into consideration when choosing a varietye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“harvest date or climatic factors of the growing region do not have to be taken into consideration when choosing a variety”
t0“Sugar Beet”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →irrigation · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 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.