Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Potassium fertilization significantly enhanced leaf area index.

A claim from Leaf, canopy and agronomic water‐use efficiency of field‐grown sugar beet in response to potassium fertilization · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium fertilization significantly enhanced leaf area index.

Treatment
Potassium (K) fertilizatione0
Outcome
leaf area indexe0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

“Potassium (K) fertilization significantly enhanced the leaf area index”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1010–1080
e1

“WUE of sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 590–627

Title

Leaf, canopy and agronomic water‐use efficiency of field‐grown sugar beet in response to potassium fertilization

B. Jákli; M. Hauer‐Jákli; F. Böttcher; et al. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 2017. doi:10.1111/jac.12239

Other claims from this paper (6)

Record rev-e794fb82dbcd9904a1695a744f202464c7cbb0ff93a2dcd3e6a47110cbbfa022 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

potassium · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

40 papers: 36 positive, 4 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
    Low potassium supply depressed harvested crop dry matter by up to 40.7%, except wheat grains.

    Yield formation of five crop species under water shortage and differential potassium supply · 2016

    Same directionCited by this paperAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

  2. negative
    95% replacement depressed MONOHILL storage-root growth.

    Genotypic differences in the response of sugar beet plants to replacement of potassium by sodium · 1981

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Increasing potassium dose reduced plant unit weight and leaf length.

    THE EFFECT OF DIVERSIFIED POTASSIUM FERTILIZATION ON THE YIELD AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF Beta vulgaris L. · 2011

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Decreasing K-rate from 24 to 12 kg K2O/fed reduced sugar beet root diameter and length.

    EFFECT OF FOLIAR SPRAY WITH IAA AND/OR KINETIN ON PHYSIO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND YIELDS OF SUGAR BEET PLANTS · 2006

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Potassium levels did not significantly affect relative growth rate and net assimilation rate of sugar beet.

    RESPONSE OF SUGAR BEET TO LEVELS AND TIMES OF POTASSIUM FERTILIZATION UNDER SALINITY CONDITIONS AT NORTHERN DELTA OF EGYPT. · 2002

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Omitting N, P, K and liming significantly decreased sugar beet shoot growth.

    Sugar Beet Shoot and Root Phenotypic Plasticity to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and Lime Omission · 2020

    Same directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

  7. positive
    Increasing potassium from zero to 48 kg K20/fed increased root fresh weight per plant.

    EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND POTASSIUM FERTILIZATION ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF SUGAR BEET IN SOHAG · 2000 · compared with zero

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Potassium deficit inhibited sugar beet growth.

    Effects of potassium deficiency and replacement of potassium by sodium on sugar beet plants · 2014 · compared with control groups

    Same directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

31 papers more in this group

See all 40 papers →

fertilization · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

109 papers: 97 positive, 12 negative or no effect

96 papers in the same direction as this claim · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    High Zn decreased root and shoot fresh and dry mass.

    Effects of zinc toxicity on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) plants grown in hydroponics · 2008 · compared with control conditions (1.2 microm Zn)

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Magnesium fertiliser did not affect growth.

    Effect of sodium and magnesium fertilisers and irrigation on growth, composition and yield of sugar beet · 1971

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Fertilizer bands 3 in. below the surface and 1 in. to the side caused some sugar beet germination damage in 1947 and 1948.

    Placement of fertilizers for row crops · 1949

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Reduced fertilizer application did not have a negative effect on sugar beet shoot and root growth.

    Reducing Mineral Fertilizer Usage: Utilizing Sheep Wool and Alkaline Hydrolysate for Enhanced Sugar Beet Cultivation · 2024

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    In dry springs or near sowing, sodium reduced germination.

    Sodium and Potassium Fertilizer in Relation to Soil Physical Properties and sugar-beet yield · 1976

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Large combined salt and potash applications decreased emergence in three experiments when placed in the seed bed before ridging.

    The effect of method and rate of application of common salt and muriate of potash on sugar beet · 1973

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Organic fertilizer treatments did not differ significantly in dry weight, plant height, or width.

    Cultivar, Season Extension, Fertilizer Trials of Swiss Chard and Pedagogy of Assessing Cultivars Using Technology · 2017 · compared with among the treatments

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Nitrogen fertilizer levels had an insignificant effect on root length of sugar beet in both seasons.

    EFFECT OF NITROGEN FERTILIZATION AND LAST IRRIGATION ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF SUGAR BEET (Beta vulgaris L.) IN NORTHERN DELTA · 2009

    Opposite direction

100 papers more in this group

See all 109 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.