Abstract
This field study was conducted in order to investigate the yield and quality of sugar beet cv zargan in relation to different irrigation regimes during 2005 at Ardabil conditions. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with four replicates. In this experiment irrigation regimes were I1 = Irrigation at 13.3 F.C (30% F.C), I2b= Irrigation at 15.5 F.C (50% F.C), I3 = Irrigation at 17.7 F.C (70% F.C) and I4 = Irrigation at 19.9 F.C (90% F.C). Parameters such as root yield (t/ha), leaf yield (t/ha), sugar content (%), Molasses (%), pure sugar content (%), white sugar yield (t/ha), Na (mmol/100 g root), K (mmol/100 g root) were evaluated. Irrigation treatments had a significant effect on sugar yield and its quality. Potassium concentration was not significantly affected by irrigation treatments. Results of irrigation treatments showed that the optimum soil water content for root yield is 70% of field capacity with 78.5 t/ha. The minimum root yield (52.5 t/ha) was observed at 90% of field capacity. Irrigation at 30, 50 and 70% of field capacity (I1, I2 and I3) had same effect on sugar content while sugar content decreased at 90% field capacity (I4). When the available soil water content was at 70% of field capacity, maximum root yield and quality was observed.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation significantly affected sugar yield and quality.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- Irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- sugar yield and its qualitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation treatments had a significant effect on sugar yield and its quality”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium concentration was not significantly affected.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Potassium concentratione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Potassium concentration was not significantly affected by irrigation treatments”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Root yield was optimal at 70% field capacity with 78.5 t/ha.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 70% of field capacitye0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- optimume0
- Value
- 78.5 t/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the optimum soil water content for root yield is 70% of field capacity with 78.5 t/ha”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Root yield was minimal at 90% field capacity with 52.5 t/ha.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 90% of field capacitye0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- minimume0
- Value
- 52.5 t/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The minimum root yield (52.5 t/ha) was observed at 90% of field capacity”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
30, 50 and 70% field capacity had the same effect on sugar content.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Irrigation at 30, 50 and 70% of field capacitye0
- Outcome
- sugar contente0
- Direction
- same effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation at 30, 50 and 70% of field capacity (I1, I2 and I3) had same effect on sugar content”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar content decreased at 90% field capacity.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 90% field capacitye0
- Outcome
- sugar contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar content decreased at 90% field capacity (I4)”
t0“sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: content · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 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.