Abstract
The study aimed at determining the influence of the foliar application of Condensed Molasses Solution (CMS) and two modern irrigation systems on the growth, yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in the winter of 2019/2020 and 2020/ 2021 winter seasons at the Experimental Station of the National Research Centre, Nubaria, Egypt. CMS was used as a foliar spray at 0.0, 5.0, 10.0 and 15.0 g L-1 at 45 and 60 days after the sowing. Drip and sprinkler irrigation systems were compared in terms of their efficiency to help in improving crop performance. The findings revealed that there was a gradual improvement in all the measured parameters with rise in CMS concentrations such as sugar yield, total soluble solids (TSS), sucrose content, purity of juice, and percentage protein.The real-time field data (soil moisture, weather patterns, and crop growth parameters), which allowed to create the smart irrigation scheduling model. Scheduling irrigation systems were associated with an improved productivity of irrigation water and decreased crop stress levels because it modifies irrigation schedules according to predictive analytics.The best sugar yield (6.58 ton fed-1), TSS (20.6%), sucrose (19.6%), juice purity (90.3%), and protein level (7.19) were found in 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation. Further, drip irrigation was always superior over sprinkler afternoon in enhancing sugar quality characteristics, although sprinkler irrigation had a bit greater biomass and protein accessibility. The results show that CMS and drip irrigation can be successfully used in combination to increase productivity and quality of technological sugar beet, which offers a viable method of management of the crop.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing CMS concentration gradually improved sugar yield.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- rise in CMS concentrationse2
- Outcome
- sugar yielde2
- Direction
- improvemente2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“gradual improvement in all the measured parameters with rise in CMS concentrations such as sugar yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing CMS concentration gradually improved total soluble solids.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- rise in CMS concentrationse2
- Outcome
- total soluble solids (TSS)e2
- Direction
- improvemente2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“gradual improvement in all the measured parameters with rise in CMS concentrations such as sugar yield, total soluble solids (TSS)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing CMS concentration gradually improved sucrose content.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- rise in CMS concentrationse2
- Outcome
- sucrose contente2
- Direction
- improvemente2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“gradual improvement in all the measured parameters with rise in CMS concentrations such as sugar yield, total soluble solids (TSS), sucrose content”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing CMS concentration gradually improved juice purity.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- rise in CMS concentrationse2
- Outcome
- purity of juicee2
- Direction
- improvemente2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“gradual improvement in all the measured parameters with rise in CMS concentrations such as sugar yield, total soluble solids (TSS), sucrose content, purity of juice”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing CMS concentration gradually improved percentage protein.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- rise in CMS concentrationse2
- Outcome
- percentage proteine2
- Direction
- improvemente2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“gradual improvement in all the measured parameters with rise in CMS concentrations such as sugar yield, total soluble solids (TSS), sucrose content, purity of juice, and percentage protein”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation scheduling was associated with improved irrigation water productivity.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Scheduling irrigation systemse2
- Outcome
- productivity of irrigation watere2
- Direction
- improvede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“Scheduling irrigation systems were associated with an improved productivity of irrigation water”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation scheduling was associated with decreased crop stress.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Scheduling irrigation systemse2
- Outcome
- crop stress levelse2
- Direction
- decreasede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“Scheduling irrigation systems were associated with an improved productivity of irrigation water and decreased crop stress levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar yield was best at 6.58 ton fed-1 with 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- sugar yielde2
- Direction
- beste2
- Value
- 6.58 ton fed-1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“The best sugar yield (6.58 ton fed-1), TSS (20.6%), sucrose (19.6%), juice purity (90.3%), and protein level (7.19) were found in 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
TSS was best at 20.6% with 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- TSSe2
- Direction
- beste2
- Value
- 20.6%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“The best sugar yield (6.58 ton fed-1), TSS (20.6%), sucrose (19.6%), juice purity (90.3%), and protein level (7.19) were found in 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sucrose was best at 19.6% with 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- sucrosee2
- Direction
- beste2
- Value
- 19.6%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“The best sugar yield (6.58 ton fed-1), TSS (20.6%), sucrose (19.6%), juice purity (90.3%), and protein level (7.19) were found in 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Juice purity was best at 90.3% with 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- juice puritye2
- Direction
- beste2
- Value
- 90.3%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“The best sugar yield (6.58 ton fed-1), TSS (20.6%), sucrose (19.6%), juice purity (90.3%), and protein level (7.19) were found in 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein level was best at 7.19 with 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- protein levele2
- Direction
- beste2
- Value
- 7.19e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“The best sugar yield (6.58 ton fed-1), TSS (20.6%), sucrose (19.6%), juice purity (90.3%), and protein level (7.19) were found in 15 g L-1 CMS under drip irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation enhanced sugar quality characteristics relative to sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- sugar quality characteristicse2
- Direction
- superiore2
- Comparator
- sprinkler afternoone2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“drip irrigation was always superior over sprinkler afternoon in enhancing sugar quality characteristics”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprinkler irrigation had slightly greater biomass than drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- sprinkler irrigatione2
- Outcome
- biomasse2
- Direction
- greatere2
- Comparator
- drip irrigatione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“sprinkler irrigation had a bit greater biomass and protein accessibility”
e3“drip irrigation was always superior over sprinkler afternoon”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprinkler irrigation had slightly greater protein accessibility than drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- sprinkler irrigatione2
- Outcome
- protein accessibilitye2
- Direction
- greatere2
- Comparator
- drip irrigatione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“sprinkler irrigation had a bit greater biomass and protein accessibility”
e3“drip irrigation was always superior over sprinkler afternoon”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that combining CMS and drip irrigation can increase sugar beet productivity and quality.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- CMS and drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- increase productivity and quality of technological sugar beete2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”
e2“CMS and drip irrigation can be successfully used in combination to increase productivity and quality of technological sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
molasses · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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 · quality: general · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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 →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.