Paper · 2019 · Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Meteorology Environment and Arid Land Agriculture Sciences

Performance of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Cultivars under the Intercropping with Clover in Arid Land Conditions

Fathy S. El-Nakhlawy Fathy S. El-Nakhlawy

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
2
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This investigation was carried out at Hada AL-Sham Agricultural Research Station, KAU to study the behavior of three sugar beet cultivars (Farida, Dita and Heros) under three intercropping systems (sugar beet sole, 1sugar beet: 2 clover and 1sugar beet:3 clover rows) during 2016-208 seasons. Intercropping systems produced higher root and sucrose yield/ha more than sole plantation. In addition, Farida cv was the highest in root and sucrose yield compared with the other cultivars. Farida cv under the1sugar beet: 3clover intercropping system produced the highest sucrose yield/ha (4.45t and 7.04 t/ha in the 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively).

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping systems produced higher root and sucrose yield per hectare than sole sugar beet plantation.

Treatment
Intercropping systemse1
Outcome
root and sucrose yield/hae1
Direction
highere1
Comparator
sole plantatione1

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

e0

“three sugar beet cultivars (Farida, Dita and Heros)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–162 · show in text ↑
e1

“Intercropping systems produced higher root and sucrose yield/ha more than sole plantation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 293–382 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Farida had the highest root and sucrose yield among the sugar beet cultivars.

Material
Faridae2
Outcome
root and sucrose yielde2
Comparator
the other cultivarse2

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

e0

“three sugar beet cultivars (Farida, Dita and Heros)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–162 · show in text ↑
e2

“Farida cv was the highest in root and sucrose yield compared with the other cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 397–482 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Farida under the 1 sugar beet to 3 clover intercropping system produced the highest sucrose yield per hectare, 4.45 t and 7.04 t/ha in the first and second seasons.

Material
Faridae3
Treatment
1sugar beet: 3clover intercropping systeme3
Outcome
sucrose yield/hae3
Direction
higheste3
Value
4.45t and 7.04 t/hae3

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

e0

“three sugar beet cultivars (Farida, Dita and Heros)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–162 · show in text ↑
e3

“Farida cv under the1sugar beet: 3clover intercropping system produced the highest sucrose yield/ha (4.45t and 7.04 t/ha in the 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 484–645 · show in text ↑

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

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.