Abstract
A field study was conducted on sugar beet during a two-year period to investigate the effects and comparison of different irrigation methods and treatments on crop yield, irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), and pan coefficient determination in a semiarid region with limited water resources. The experiments were in complete randomized blocks design. Three replications were used with different levels of irrigation water amounts (25, 50, 75, and 100%), evapotranspiration (ET) of sugar beet seasonal water requirement with surface drip tape (SDT), and conventional furrow irrigation method (CFI), with and without soil and water monitoring, and comparison with CROPWAT modeling. The variety of sugar beet was Rasool. The highest and lowest average irrigation water use efficiencies on the basis of root yield with 16.16 and 9 kg/m3, and sugar yield with 3.82 and 1.33 kg/m3, for both experimental years was achieved under different irrigation treatments of T4 (25% ET) SDT and CFI, respectively. The results of this study showed that by using drip tape irrigation method with different treatments (100% ET), (75% ET), (50% ET), (25% ET), instead of conventional furrow irrigation method with and without soil, water, and root monitoring, (28.8, 46.6, 64.5, and 82.2%) and (38.4, 53.8, 69.2, and 84.6%) of sugar beet seasonal irrigation water requirement can be saved, respectively. The results also showed that sugar beet average annual water, requirement under conventional furrow irrigation method with soil, water, and root monitoring was almost 8.4% and 28.70% lower compared to CROPWAT modeling and conventional furrow irrigation without monitoring. Additionally, this study showed a pan coefficient (Kp) equal to 0.80 for the investigated semiarid region.
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
Root yield irrigation water use efficiency reached 16.16 kg/m3 under T4 drip and 9 kg/m3 under furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- T4 (25% ET) SDTe1
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencies on the basis of root yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 16.16 and 9 kg/m3e0
- Comparator
- CFIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest and lowest average irrigation water use efficiencies on the basis of root yield with 16.16 and 9 kg/m3”
t0“Sugar Beets”
e1“sugar yield with 3.82 and 1.33 kg/m3, for both experimental years was achieved under different irrigation treatments of T4 (25% ET) SDT and CFI, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar yield irrigation water use efficiency reached 3.82 kg/m3 under T4 drip and 1.33 kg/m3 under furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- T4 (25% ET) SDTe0
- Outcome
- sugar yielde0
- Value
- 3.82 and 1.33 kg/m3e0
- Comparator
- CFIe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar yield with 3.82 and 1.33 kg/m3, for both experimental years was achieved under different irrigation treatments of T4 (25% ET) SDT and CFI, respectively.”
t0“Sugar Beets”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip at 100% ET saved 28.8% or 38.4% of seasonal water requirement versus monitored or unmonitored furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- 100% ETe1
- Outcome
- seasonal irrigation water requiremente0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- 28.8e0
- Comparator
- conventional furrow irrigation methode1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“(28.8, 46.6, 64.5, and 82.2%) and (38.4, 53.8, 69.2, and 84.6%) of sugar beet seasonal irrigation water requirement can be saved”
t0“Sugar Beets”
e1“The results of this study showed that by using drip tape irrigation method with different treatments (100% ET), (75% ET), (50% ET), (25% ET), instead of conventional furrow irrigation method with and without soil, water, and root monitoring”
Claim · model-written summary
Monitored furrow irrigation used 8.4% less water than CROPWAT modeling.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- conventional furrow irrigation method with soil, water, and root monitoringe0
- Outcome
- average annual water, requiremente0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 8.4%e0
- Comparator
- CROPWAT modelinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet average annual water, requirement under conventional furrow irrigation method with soil, water, and root monitoring was almost 8.4% and 28.70% lower compared to CROPWAT modeling and conventional furrow irrigation without monitoring.”
Claim · model-written summary
Monitored furrow irrigation used 28.70% less water than unmonitored furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- conventional furrow irrigation method with soil, water, and root monitoringe0
- Outcome
- average annual water, requiremente0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 28.70%e0
- Comparator
- conventional furrow irrigation without monitoringe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet average annual water, requirement under conventional furrow irrigation method with soil, water, and root monitoring was almost 8.4% and 28.70% lower compared to CROPWAT modeling and conventional furrow irrigation without monitoring.”
Claim · model-written summary
The estimated pan coefficient was 0.80 in the semiarid region.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- pan coefficient (Kp)e0
- Value
- 0.80e0
- Setting
- semiarid regione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a pan coefficient (Kp) equal to 0.80 for the investigated semiarid region.”
t0“Sugar Beets”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- 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.