Paper · 2019 · Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Effects of Drip Irrigation Regimes Under Plastic Film on Sugar Beet Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Xinjiang

Binlin Yang; Zhenhua Wang; Xiangwen Xie; et al.

6
claims
14
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract. This 2-yr study analyzed the effects of different irrigation regimes of drip irrigation under plastic film on sugar beet production in Xinjiang, China, and established a binary quadratic regression equation and normalization to describe the maximum root yield, sugar yield, and water use efficiency. Three irrigation frequencies (10, 11, and 12 d) and two irrigation water quotas (45 and 60 mm) were combined to form six treatments. Irrigation frequency had a significant effect on root yield at 1% level of significance in both years, but the effects on sugar yield and water use efficiency were nonsignificant. In both years, the sugar yield resulting from 60 mm irrigation water quota at frequency of 11 d increased by 10.8% and 6.5%, respectively, compared with that resulting from 45 mm irrigation water quota at frequency of 11 d. The regression equation based on the experimental observations indicated that in Xinjiang the optimal irrigation regime was 11 d and 55 mm which saved 21.2% irrigation water for the highest sugar beet yield. The data optimization to determine the weight of roots and evapotranspiration found that root growth exhibited a pattern similar to the aboveground crop growth, and the root growth was most rapid in the period 30 July to 10 August. Keywords: Irrigation frequency, Irrigation water quota, Optimal irrigation regime, Root growth, Root yield, Sugar yield, Water use efficiency.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation frequency had a significant effect on root yield at the 1% level in both years.

Treatment
Irrigation frequencye1
Outcome
root yielde1
Value
1% levele1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Sugar Beet Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Xinjiang”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“Irrigation frequency had a significant effect on root yield at 1% level of significance in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 443–544 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation frequency had no significant effect on sugar yield or water use efficiency.

Treatment
Irrigation frequencye1
Outcome
sugar yield and water use efficiencye2
Direction
nonsignificante2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Sugar Beet Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Xinjiang”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“Irrigation frequency had a significant effect on root yield at 1% level of significance in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 443–544 · show in text ↑
e2

“but the effects on sugar yield and water use efficiency were nonsignificant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 546–621 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

A 60 mm water quota at 11-day frequency increased sugar yield by 10.8% and 6.5% over 45 mm.

Treatment
60 mm irrigation water quota at frequency of 11 de3
Outcome
sugar yielde3
Direction
increasede3
Value
10.8% and 6.5%e3
Comparator
45 mm irrigation water quota at frequency of 11 de3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Sugar Beet Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Xinjiang”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–110 · show in text ↑
e3

“the sugar yield resulting from 60 mm irrigation water quota at frequency of 11 d increased by 10.8% and 6.5%, respectively, compared with that resulting from 45 mm irrigation water quota at frequency of 11 d”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–845 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

The optimal regime of 11-day frequency and 55 mm quota saved 21.2% irrigation water for the highest sugar beet yield.

Treatment
11 d and 55 mme4
Outcome
irrigation watere4
Value
21.2%e4
Setting
Xinjiange4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Sugar Beet Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Xinjiang”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–110 · show in text ↑
e4

“The regression equation based on the experimental observations indicated that in Xinjiang the optimal irrigation regime was 11 d and 55 mm which saved 21.2% irrigation water for the highest sugar beet yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–1053 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sugar beet root growth was most rapid from 30 July to 10 August.

Outcome
root growthe6
Qualifier
30 July to 10 Auguste6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Sugar Beet Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Xinjiang”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–110 · show in text ↑
e5

“root growth exhibited a pattern similar to the aboveground crop growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1144–1214 · show in text ↑
e6

“the root growth was most rapid in the period 30 July to 10 August”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1220–1285 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root growth followed a pattern similar to aboveground crop growth.

Outcome
root growthe5
Direction
similare5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Sugar Beet Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Xinjiang”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–110 · show in text ↑
e5

“root growth exhibited a pattern similar to the aboveground crop growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1144–1214 · show in text ↑

irrigation · physiology: water · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

41 papers: 33 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

44 papers: 30 positive, 14 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

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.