Intervention effectmodel-written summary

SODm foliar fertilization increased sugar content of sugarbeet by 0.6%.

A claim from Application Effect of SODm Foliar Fertilization on Sugarbeet · 2011

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SODm foliar fertilization increased sugar content of sugarbeet by 0.6%.

Treatment
SODm foliar fertilizatione0
Outcome
sugar contente1
Direction
increasede1
Value
0.6%e1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

“The influence experiment of SODm foliar fertilization on root yield and sugar content of sugarbeet was conducted.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–113
e1

“sugar content increased by 0.6%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 223–254

Title

Application Effect of SODm Foliar Fertilization on Sugarbeet

Tian Shuang 2011

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-cdea67163ff8a1b3b839849f028f1b42c9f28bf144ce633e0a05cbd549dc5748 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ

105 papers: 88 positive, 17 negative or no effect

87 papers in the same direction as this claim · 17 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    Nitrogen fertilizer decreased root sugar content as a percentage of fresh and dry weight.

    The Effect of Nitrogen on the Growth and Sugar Content of Sugar-beet · 1971

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Timing of fertilizer N at 135 kg/ha did not significantly change sugarbeet root, top or sugar yield.

    Timing and Rate of Fertilizer Nitrogen for Sugarbeets Related to Nitrogen Uptake and Pollution Potential · 1978

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Sugar content was not affected by fertilization.

    The Effect of Farmyard Manure and Mineral Fertilizers on Sugar Beet Beetroot and Top Yield and Soil Chemical Parameters · 2021

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Nitrogen top-dressing never significantly affected sugar yield.

    The effect of nematicides, applied to the seed rows in spring, on growth and yield of sugar beet in Docking‐disorder‐affected fields · 1974

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    A too narrow fertilizer K:Na ratio decreased storage-root sucrose content.

    Sugar beet response to different K, Na and Mg ratios in applied fertilizers · 2018

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Neither fertilizer increased sugar yield above 25 ppm soil exchangeable magnesium.

    Comparisons of kieserite and calcined magnesite for sugar beet grown on sandy soils · 1972

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Fertilizer decreased beet sugar concentration relative to control in most cases.

    Optimizing nitrogen management to enhance irrigated sugar beet yield and quality · 2024 · compared with control treatment

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Sulphur fertilization had an insignificant effect on sugar yield.

    RESPONSE OF SUGAR BEET TO NITROGEN FERTILIZER AND SULPHUR SPRAY FREQUENCY IN MIDDLE EGYPT · 2010

    Opposite direction

96 papers more in this group

See all 105 papers →

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

67 papers: 63 positive, 4 negative or no effect

62 papers in the same direction as this claim · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    Foliar application of GA3 and N-fertilizers significantly decreased sucrose and total soluble solid (TSS) percentages of sugar beet.

    Interactive Effects of Gibberellic Acid and Nitrogen Fertilization on the Growth, Yield, and Quality of Sugar Beet · 2021

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Fungicide sprays had little effect on sugar yield.

    The control of Alternaria species on leaves of sugar beet infected with yellowing viruses · 1966

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Under severe drought, foliar 2 mM nano-silicon adversely affected sugar yield.

    Impact of nanosilicon and tebuconazole foliar application on some physiological traits, growth and white sugar yield of sugar beet under drought stress · 2020

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Both foliar preparations decreased root sugar content.

    Effect of foliar preparations containing bioactive substances on sugar beet yield and quality. · 2010

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Foliar calcium and silicon increased biological sugar yield about 15.5% over control.

    The effect of foliar fertilization with marine calcite in sugar beet · 2014 · compared with control treatment

    Same direction

  6. positive
    The combined treatment gave the highest sucrose, juice purity percentage and gross sugar yield.

    Efficiency of Potassium Fertilization and Salicylic Acid on Yield and Nutrient Accumulation of Sugar Beet Grown on Saline Soil · 2016

    Same direction

  7. positive
    Chitosan spraying increased sugar yield by 10.7% with W60.

    Carboxymethyl Chitosan Improves Sugar BeetTolerance to Drought by Controlling EnzymeActivity and Stomatal Conductance · 2024

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Spraying with copper or captan increased the sugar yield of virus-inoculated beet plants.

    The control of Alternaria species on leaves of sugar beet infected with yellowing viruses · 1965

    Same direction

58 papers more in this group

See all 67 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.