Abstract
Under drip irrigation condition, two field experiments of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) were conducted, in sandy soil, at El-Bostan area, Aly Mubarak Experimental Farm, Southern El-Tahrir Region, El-Buhira Governorate, Egypt, during 2013/14 and 2014/15 winter seasons, to evaluate the impact of water deficit irrigation and its relation with the critical period of weeds infestation on sugar beet yield, quality and water use efficiency. The experimental design was a split-plot design, where three water irrigation regimes treatments, i.e. 60, 80 and 100 % of evapotranspiration (ET0), were allocated in the main plots, and the ten weed removal intervals were allocated in the sub-plots which included five weed free for 3, 6, 9, 12 weeks after planting (WAP) and weed free the whole season, and five weed infestation for 3, 6, 9, 12 (WAP) and weed infestation for the whole season. The main findings indicated that the highest significant reduction on the fresh weights of grassy, broad-leaved and total weeds was obtained by irrigation at 60 % ET0 by14.8, 16.0 and 15.6 %, respectively, in 2013/14 season and 25.0, 13.6 and 17.3 %, respectively, in 2014/15 season, as compared to 100 % ET0, which reflected in increases on root and gross sugar yield per faddan by 58.8 and 60.2 %, respectively, in 2013/14 season and 65.5 and 40.1 %, respectively, in 2014/15 season, as compared to irrigation at 100 % ET0. Furthermore, water use efficiency of irrigation at 60% ET0 gave the highest values of root and sugar yield by 7.2 and 1.2 kg/m3, respectively, in the first season and 7.1 and 1.3 kg/m3, respectively, in second season. The dominant annual weeds were the broadleaf weeds with infestation rates 3.0 kg and 3.5 kg fresh weight /m2 in the first and second seasons, respectively. Whilst, the infestation rate of the grassy weeds was 1.3 kg and 1.4 kg fresh weight/m2 in the both seasons, respectively. In the both seasons, the highest reduction on the fresh weight of the two weeds categories and their total was obtained from all weed free and weed infestation treatments (> 90 %) as compared to weed infestation for the whole season, except with weed free for 3 weeks (< 70%). These results reflected on sugar beet yields (ton/fed). In the first season, the significant increasing on dry weight of tops, roots and the gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 118.6, 302.5 and 353.8 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season to 58.5 % for tops by weed free for 3 weeks, 135.2 % for roots by weed free for 6 weeks and 50.0 % for gross sugar yield by weed infestation for 9 weeks, as compared to weed infestation for the whole season. In second season, the significant increasing on dry weight of the tops, roots and gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 98.8, 311.3 and 288.7 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season to 37.5 % for the tops and 35.0 % for the roots in weed free for 3 weeks and 106.5 % in weed infestation for 6 weeks, as compared to weed infestation for the whole season. While, the rest weed free and weed infestation treatments in the both seasons didn't reach to significant increasing values. For sugar beet quality i.e. TSS, sucrose and purity %, all weed free and weed infestation treatments gave the same values approximately in deferent intervals. Also, different weed removal intervals can raise water efficiency by 240-320 % compared to leave the weeds to compete sugar beet plants for whole season. Concerning the interaction effects, the data indicated that the great reduction on the fresh weight of the two weed categories and their total was obtained from irrigation at 60 % ET0 with weed free for whole season, weed competition for 3 WAP and weed free for 12 WAP, in both seasons. Also, the interactions between both 60 and 80% ET0 irrigation regimes with both weed free for 12 weeks and the whole season gave the highest increasing on the roots and gross sugar yields (ton/fed) in the both seasons. The findings also revealed that the critical period of weed interference between 3 and 12 weeks after planting and the yield losses in this period. Thus, we can conclude that to save water irrigation and maximize root and sugar yields of sugar beet (ton/fed) must be irrigate at 60% ET0 with controlling weeds until 12 week from planting.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
At 60% ET0, grassy weed fresh weight fell 14.8% in 2013/14 and 25.0% in 2014/15 versus 100% ET0.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- irrigation at 60 % ET0e0
- Interactor
- grassye0weed
- Outcome
- fresh weights of grassye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 14.8, 16.0 and 15.6 %e0
- Comparator
- 100 % ET0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest significant reduction on the fresh weights of grassy, broad-leaved and total weeds was obtained by irrigation at 60 % ET0 by14.8, 16.0 and 15.6 %, respectively, in 2013/14 season and 25.0, 13.6 and 17.3 %, respectively, in 2014/15 season, as compared to 100 % ET0”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
At 60% ET0, broad-leaved weed fresh weight decreased relative to 100% ET0.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- irrigation at 60 % ET0e0
- Interactor
- broad-leavede0weed
- Outcome
- fresh weights of grassy, broad-leaved and total weedse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Comparator
- 100 % ET0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest significant reduction on the fresh weights of grassy, broad-leaved and total weeds was obtained by irrigation at 60 % ET0 by14.8, 16.0 and 15.6 %, respectively, in 2013/14 season and 25.0, 13.6 and 17.3 %, respectively, in 2014/15 season, as compared to 100 % ET0”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
At 60% ET0, total weed fresh weight decreased relative to 100% ET0.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- irrigation at 60 % ET0e0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- total weedse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Comparator
- 100 % ET0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest significant reduction on the fresh weights of grassy, broad-leaved and total weeds was obtained by irrigation at 60 % ET0 by14.8, 16.0 and 15.6 %, respectively, in 2013/14 season and 25.0, 13.6 and 17.3 %, respectively, in 2014/15 season, as compared to 100 % ET0”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
At 60% ET0, root yield increased 58.8% and 65.5% across the two seasons versus 100% ET0.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- roote0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Comparator
- 100 % ET0e0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increases on root and gross sugar yield per faddan by 58.8 and 60.2 %, respectively, in 2013/14 season and 65.5 and 40.1 %, respectively, in 2014/15 season, as compared to irrigation at 100 % ET0”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
At 60% ET0, gross sugar yield increased 60.2% and 40.1% across the two seasons versus 100% ET0.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- gross sugar yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Comparator
- 100 % ET0e0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increases on root and gross sugar yield per faddan by 58.8 and 60.2 %, respectively, in 2013/14 season and 65.5 and 40.1 %, respectively, in 2014/15 season, as compared to irrigation at 100 % ET0”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
At 60% ET0, root yield water use efficiency reached 7.2 and 7.1 kg/m3 in successive seasons.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- irrigation at 60% ET0e0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water use efficiency of irrigation at 60% ET0 gave the highest values of root and sugar yield by 7.2 and 1.2 kg/m3, respectively, in the first season and 7.1 and 1.3 kg/m3, respectively, in second season.”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Broadleaf weed infestation was 3.0 and 3.5 kg fresh weight per square meter in the two seasons.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Interactor
- broadleaf weedse0weed
- Outcome
- broadleaf weeds with infestation ratese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The dominant annual weeds were the broadleaf weeds with infestation rates 3.0 kg and 3.5 kg fresh weight /m2 in the first and second seasons, respectively.”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Grassy weed infestation was 1.3 and 1.4 kg fresh weight per square meter in successive seasons.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Interactor
- grassy weedse0weed
- Outcome
- infestation rate of the grassy weedse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the infestation rate of the grassy weeds was 1.3 kg and 1.4 kg fresh weight/m2 in the both seasons, respectively.”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Most weed removal intervals reduced weed fresh weight by more than 90% versus season-long infestation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- all weed free and weed infestation treatmentse0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- fresh weight of the two weeds categories and their totale0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- > 90 %e0
- Comparator
- weed infestation for the whole seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest reduction on the fresh weight of the two weeds categories and their total was obtained from all weed free and weed infestation treatments (> 90 %) as compared to weed infestation for the whole season, except with weed free for 3 weeks (< 70%).”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Three weeks weed-free reduced weed fresh weight by less than 70%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed free for 3 weekse0
- Value
- < 70%e0
Not reportedComparatorOutcomeDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“except with weed free for 3 weeks (< 70%).”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Season-long weed freedom increased top dry weight by 118.6% in season one and 98.8% in season two.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed free for the whole seasone0
- Outcome
- dry weight of topse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first season, the significant increasing on dry weight of tops, roots and the gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 118.6, 302.5 and 353.8 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Season-long weed freedom increased root dry weight by 302.5% in season one.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed free for the whole seasone0
- Outcome
- rootse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first season, the significant increasing on dry weight of tops, roots and the gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 118.6, 302.5 and 353.8 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Season-long weed freedom increased gross sugar yield by 353.8% in season one.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed free for the whole seasone0
- Outcome
- gross sugar yielde0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first season, the significant increasing on dry weight of tops, roots and the gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 118.6, 302.5 and 353.8 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
In season two, season-long weed freedom increased top dry weight by 98.8%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed free for the whole seasone0
- Outcome
- dry weight of the topse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In second season, the significant increasing on dry weight of the tops, roots and gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 98.8, 311.3 and 288.7 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
In season two, season-long weed freedom increased root dry weight by 311.3%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed free for the whole seasone0
- Outcome
- rootse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In second season, the significant increasing on dry weight of the tops, roots and gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 98.8, 311.3 and 288.7 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
In season two, season-long weed freedom increased gross sugar yield by 288.7%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed free for the whole seasone0
- Outcome
- gross sugar yielde0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In second season, the significant increasing on dry weight of the tops, roots and gross sugar yield (ton/fed) was between 98.8, 311.3 and 288.7 %, respectively, in weed free for the whole season”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed removal intervals gave approximately the same TSS, sucrose and purity values.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- all weed free and weed infestation treatmentse0
- Direction
- same values approximatelye0
Not reportedComparatorOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all weed free and weed infestation treatments gave the same values approximately in deferent intervals.”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed removal intervals raised water efficiency by 240-320% over season-long weed competition.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- different weed removal intervalse0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- water efficiencye0
- Direction
- raisee0
- Value
- 240-320 %e0
- Comparator
- leave the weeds to compete sugar beet plants for whole seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“different weed removal intervals can raise water efficiency by 240-320 % compared to leave the weeds to compete sugar beet plants for whole season.”
Claim · model-written summary
The critical weed interference period was 3 to 12 weeks after planting, with yield losses in that period.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- yield lossese0
- Qualifier
- between 3 and 12 weeks after plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the critical period of weed interference between 3 and 12 weeks after planting and the yield losses in this period.”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 60% ET0 irrigation and weed control until week 12 to save water and maximize root and sugar yields.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- irrigate at 60% ET0 with controlling weeds until 12 week from plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to save water irrigation and maximize root and sugar yields of sugar beet (ton/fed) must be irrigate at 60% ET0 with controlling weeds until 12 week from planting.”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →climate site · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →herbicide · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →herbicide · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →herbicide · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →irrigation · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.