Abstract
SUMMARY Seed treatments and methods of sowing sugar beet were tested in the laboratory and in field trials in 1975, 1976 and 1977 on a range of soil types including a sand, several loams and a peat. ‘Advancing’ the seed by controlled imbibition of water followed by drying before sowing, gave 2–3 % more emergence. Seedlings appeared 3–4 days earlier and were up to 50 % heavier at the four to six leaf stage, but by final harvest yields of sugar per unit area were similar from advanced and untreated seed. ‘Priming’ in osmotic solutions of salts or polyethylene glycol, to bring all seeds to the point of germination, before drying back and sowing gave inconsistent effects in the field with emergence percentage frequently being below that of the control. Steeping seed in water, aimed at removing germination inhibitors, improved germination and reduced the time to, and duration of, germination when tested in the laboratory but gave poorer results than the untreated control in the field. ‘Chitting’ the seed in the laboratory greatly improved emergence characteristics but treatment effects in the field were very variable. Chitted seeds were sown in carrier gels in the field to try to protect the radicles from damage but seedling establishment was no better from fluid drilling than from normal dry seed sown ‘raw’ or pelleted in clay, even when only chitted seeds were put into the fluid. Possible reasons for this are discussed. Fluid-drilled seeds consistently gave quicker emergence and larger seedlings. Even when these were 30–50 % heavier, differences had usually become negligible by the end of the average 230 days long growing season, so that sugar yields were not consistently affected by the treatments tested.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Advanced seed increased emergence by 2–3%.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- ‘Advancing’ the seed by controlled imbibition of water followed by drying before sowinge0
- Outcome
- emergencee0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 2–3 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“‘Advancing’ the seed by controlled imbibition of water followed by drying before sowing, gave 2–3 % more emergence”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Advanced seedlings appeared 3–4 days earlier.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- ‘Advancing’ the seede1
- Outcome
- Seedlings appearede0
- Direction
- earliere0
- Value
- 3–4 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seedlings appeared 3–4 days earlier”
t0“sugar beet”
e1“‘Advancing’ the seed by controlled imbibition of water followed by drying before sowing”
Claim · model-written summary
Advanced seedlings were up to 50% heavier at four to six leaves.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- four to six leaf stagee0
- Treatment
- ‘Advancing’ the seede1
- Outcome
- heaviere0
- Direction
- heaviere0
- Value
- 50 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“were up to 50 % heavier at the four to six leaf stage”
t0“sugar beet”
e1“‘Advancing’ the seed by controlled imbibition of water followed by drying before sowing”
Claim · model-written summary
Final sugar yields were similar for advanced and untreated seed.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- advancede0
- Outcome
- yields of sugar per unit areae0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- untreated seede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by final harvest yields of sugar per unit area were similar from advanced and untreated seed”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic priming had inconsistent field effects and emergence was often below control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- ‘Priming’ in osmotic solutions of salts or polyethylene glycole0
- Outcome
- emergence percentagee0
- Direction
- belowe0
- Comparator
- controle0
- Setting
- fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“‘Priming’ in osmotic solutions of salts or polyethylene glycol, to bring all seeds to the point of germination, before drying back and sowing gave inconsistent effects in the field with emergence percentage frequently being below that of the control”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Water steeping improved laboratory germination and shortened its time and duration.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Steeping seed in watere0
- Outcome
- germinatione0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Setting
- laboratorye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Steeping seed in water, aimed at removing germination inhibitors, improved germination and reduced the time to, and duration of, germination when tested in the laboratory”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Water steeping performed more poorly than untreated seed in the field.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Steeping seed in watere1
- Outcome
- poorer resultse0
- Direction
- poorere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
- Setting
- fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gave poorer results than the untreated control in the field”
e1“Steeping seed in water”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Chitting greatly improved laboratory emergence characteristics.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- ‘Chitting’ the seede0
- Outcome
- emergence characteristicse0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“‘Chitting’ the seed in the laboratory greatly improved emergence characteristics”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Chitting effects in the field were highly variable.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- ‘Chitting’ the seede1
- Outcome
- treatment effectse0
- Setting
- fielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“treatment effects in the field were very variable”
e1“‘Chitting’ the seed in the laboratory”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluid drilling did not improve seedling establishment over normal dry seed.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- fluid drillinge0
- Outcome
- seedling establishmente0
- Direction
- no bettere0
- Comparator
- normal dry seede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seedling establishment was no better from fluid drilling than from normal dry seed sown ‘raw’ or pelleted in clay”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluid drilling consistently quickened emergence and produced larger seedlings.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Fluid-drilled seedse0
- Outcome
- emergence and larger seedlingse0
- Direction
- quickere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fluid-drilled seeds consistently gave quicker emergence and larger seedlings”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Seedling weight differences usually became negligible by the end of the season.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- differencese0
- Direction
- negligiblee0
- Value
- 30–50 %e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Even when these were 30–50 % heavier, differences had usually become negligible by the end of the average 230 days long growing season”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The tested treatments did not consistently affect sugar yields.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- treatments testede0
- Outcome
- sugar yieldse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar yields were not consistently affected by the treatments tested”
t0“sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →processing · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.