Abstract
To study the interaction effects of humic acid rates (HA) × irrigation water quality on productivity of fodder beet yield (Beta vulgaris L.) and its quality as well as some soil chemical properties, two field experiments were conducted in a split plot design with three replications in two different locations, El-Salam canal and Bahr Hadous drain in Sahl El-Hossinia, Sharkia Governorate, Egypt during to winter seasons (2014/2015 and 2015/2016). The studied factors were four rates of humic acid (0, 800 , 1600 and 2400 ml HA for 400 l-1 of irrigation water i.e., 0,2, 4 and 6 ml HA l-1, respectively) and two types of irrigation water (El-Salam canal water 1.75 dSm-1 and Bahr Hadous drain water 3.31 dSm-1). The results indicated that using each of irrigation water and humic acid rate gave the best values of all the studied characters in El-Salam canal region compared to that obtained from Bahr Hadous drain region. Concerning the interaction effect (El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll), yield quality crude protein (CP), digestible crude protein (DCP), CF, ash, fat (%) in different organs and prolinein top organs of fodder beet plants) and chemical composition (N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn concentrations and uptake) of fodder beet yield as well as some soil chemical properties (pH, EC, CEC, macro and micronutrients contents).
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
El-Salam canal irrigation and humic acid gave the best studied characters relative to Bahr Hadous drain irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“using each of irrigation water and humic acid rate gave the best values of all the studied characters in El-Salam canal region compared to that obtained from Bahr Hadous drain region”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
El-Salam canal water with humic acid at 6 ml l-1 gave maximum root length, root diameter and fresh weight.
- Taxon
- fodder beett0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee0
- Outcome
- root length, root diameter, fresh weighte0
- Direction
- maximume0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum dry weight and four yield measures.
- Taxon
- fodder beett0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee0
- Outcome
- dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY)e0
- Direction
- maximume0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum total chlorophyll.
- Taxon
- fodder beett0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee0
- Outcome
- total chlorophylle0
- Direction
- maximume0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum crude protein, digestible crude protein and crude fibre quality measures.
- Taxon
- fodder beete0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee1
- Outcome
- crude protein (CP), digestible crude protein (DCP), CFe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“yield quality crude protein (CP), digestible crude protein (DCP), CF, ash, fat (%) in different organs and prolinein top organs of fodder beet plants)”
e1“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum ash, fat and proline measures.
- Taxon
- fodder beete0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee1
- Outcome
- ash, fat (%) in different organs and prolinein top organse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“yield quality crude protein (CP), digestible crude protein (DCP), CF, ash, fat (%) in different organs and prolinein top organs of fodder beet plants)”
e1“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum N, P and K concentrations and uptake.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“chemical composition (N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn concentrations and uptake) of fodder beet yield”
e1“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum Fe, Mn and Zn concentrations and uptake.
- Taxon
- fodder beete0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee1
- Outcome
- Fe, Mn and Zn concentrations and uptakee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“chemical composition (N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn concentrations and uptake) of fodder beet yield”
e1“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum soil pH, EC and CEC.
- Taxon
- fodder beett0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee1
- Outcome
- soil chemical properties (pH, EC, CECe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“some soil chemical properties (pH, EC, CEC, macro and micronutrients contents)”
e1“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY ON FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
The same combination gave maximum soil macro and micronutrient contents.
- Taxon
- fodder beett0
- Treatment
- El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 ratee1
- Outcome
- macro and micronutrients contentse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“some soil chemical properties (pH, EC, CEC, macro and micronutrients contents)”
e1“(El-Salam canal irrigation water × HA 6 ml l-1 rate) recorded the maximum values for all studied characters: growth attributes (root length, root diameter, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), fresh yield (FY), dry yield (DY), total fresh yield (TFY) and Total dry yield (TDY) and total chlorophyll)”
t0“EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY ON FODDER BEET”
The same questions in other papers
Syzygium polyanthum · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
irrigation · quality: grain · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
irrigation · quality: protein · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
irrigation · physiology: pigments · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
irrigation · nutrient: content · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →other · nutrient: content · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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 →other · quality: protein · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
8 of 11 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.