Abstract
Leaves are one of the most important organs of plants where food (starch and sugar) are produced. These materials are used to maintain plant tissues, growth and production of new leaves. In order to evaluate the commercial fall growing cultivars of sugar beet, their potential to produce new leaves, a factorial experiment based on randomized complete block design was conducted with three replications at Varsan Agricultural Research Station (Gorgan), during 2018 growing season. The first factor consisted of 6 commercial sugar beet cultivars (5 foreign cultivars and Sharif, domestic) and the second factor of two times at toppings in May (middle stage of growth) and June (final stage of growth). Sugar beet root yield and some important quality characteristics were measured after harvesting. The results showed that the commercial cultivars showed significant differences in terms of yield and percentage of sugar (grade) at the one percent level of probability. Highest root yield was obtained from Jrakavas and lowest from veles cultivar. The highest percentage of sugar was due to veles and lowest to Rosagold cultivars. Topping reduced borb quantity and quality of sugar beet root, while May and June toppings reduced quality and yield of sugar beet root by 8.8% and 10.2% respectively as compared to the control treatment. The interaction effect of cultivar × topping was significant in all studied traits except root dry matter.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Commercial sugar beet cultivars differed significantly in root yield and sugar percentage.
- Taxon
- Sugar Beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Outcome
- yield and percentage of sugar (grade)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e0“commercial cultivars showed significant differences in terms of yield and percentage of sugar (grade) at the one percent level of probability”
Claim · model-written summary
Jrakavas had the highest root yield.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- Jrakavase0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- Higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e0“Highest root yield was obtained from Jrakavas”
Claim · model-written summary
veles had the lowest root yield.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- velese0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e0“Highest root yield was obtained from Jrakavas and lowest from veles cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
veles had the highest sugar percentage.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- velese0
- Outcome
- percentage of sugare0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e0“The highest percentage of sugar was due to veles”
Claim · model-written summary
Rosagold had the lowest sugar percentage.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- Rosagolde0
- Outcome
- percentage of sugare1
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e0“lowest to Rosagold cultivars”
e1“The highest percentage of sugar was due to veles and lowest to Rosagold cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Topping reduced sugar beet root quantity and quality.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Toppinge0
- Outcome
- quantity and quality of sugar beet roote0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Topping reduced borb quantity and quality of sugar beet root”
Claim · model-written summary
May topping reduced sugar beet root quality and yield by 8.8% against control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Maye0
- Outcome
- quality and yield of sugar beet roote0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 8.8%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“May and June toppings reduced quality and yield of sugar beet root by 8.8% and 10.2% respectively as compared to the control treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
June topping reduced sugar beet root quality and yield by 10.2% against control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Junee0
- Outcome
- quality and yield of sugar beet roote0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 10.2%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“May and June toppings reduced quality and yield of sugar beet root by 8.8% and 10.2% respectively as compared to the control treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The cultivar by topping interaction was significant for all measured traits except root dry matter.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- toppinge0
- Outcome
- all studied traits except root dry mattere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e0“The interaction effect of cultivar × topping was significant in all studied traits except root dry matter”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: general · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
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.