Abstract
SUMMARY In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods starting on 13 June, 18 July and 22 August, and the growth of the plants compared with that on unshaded plots. At the beginning of each period in 1967 some shaded and unshaded plants received additional nitrogen, and in 1968 plants continuously shaded from June to September were compared with unshaded plants irrigated to equalize their water losses with those of the shaded plants. The weather in 1967 was sunny and dry and that in 1968 dull and wet, but the yields of dry matter, and particularly of sugar, of the unshaded crop in the 2 years were similar because, although net assimilation rate ( E ) was greater in 1967 than 1968, mean leaf area index ( L ) in 1968 was almost double that in the 1967 crop. Shading decreased the incoming radiation by 56%; it decreased E proportionally in 1967, increasing L slightly, but it decreased both E (by 44%) and L in 1968. The weights of dry matter and sugar in the roots of the shaded crop were consistently smaller at the end of shading and at final harvest in October in both years, and their weights, but not those of the tops or the whole plant, at final harvest over all shading treatments in both years were proportional to the amount of radiation received by the crop between June and September. Although shading greatly decreased the supply of photosynthate to the roots, it did not change the sugar content percentage of dry matter, except in the early stages of growth when the sugar content was rapidly increasing. Sugar content percentage of fresh weight of the roots was consistently decreased by shading, wholly because water content was increased relative to dry matter. Therefore the sugar yield of shaded plants was less because the dry weights of the roots were less, not because the partition of photosynthate between sugar storage and root growth changed. There appears to be a mechanism within the root operating over a wide range of photosynthate supply that maintains a nearly constant proportion of sucrose to non‐sugar, contrary to the hypothesis that sugar stored in the roots is photosynthate in excess of what can be used in growth of the plant. However, in the extreme condition of continuous shading which drastically decreased the dry weights of all parts of the plant, sugar percentage of dry matter in the roots was decreased, but only from 80 to 70%. In 1967 extra nitrogen applied at the start of shading increased L and the dry weight of the tops in all periods, but had no effect on the dry weight of roots. Because 1968 was a wet year the irrigation treatment had no effect on E or L except for a slight increase in L during the first period; it had no effect on plant dry weight. Both irrigation and additional nitrogen decreased the sugar content percentage of fresh weight of the roots only by altering their water content; sugar percentage of dry matter was unaffected. None of these changes persisted until the final harvest in October.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Shading decreased incoming radiation by 56%.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- Shadinge1
- Outcome
- incoming radiatione1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 56%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e1“Shading decreased the incoming radiation by 56%; it decreased E proportionally in 1967, increasing L slightly, but it decreased both E (by 44%) and L in 1968”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading decreased net assimilation rate (E) proportionally in 1967.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Shadinge1
- Outcome
- Ee1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Qualifier
- proportionally in 1967e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e1“Shading decreased the incoming radiation by 56%; it decreased E proportionally in 1967, increasing L slightly, but it decreased both E (by 44%) and L in 1968”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading decreased net assimilation rate (E) by 44% in 1968.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Shadinge1
- Outcome
- Ee1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 44%e1
- Qualifier
- in 1968e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e1“Shading decreased the incoming radiation by 56%; it decreased E proportionally in 1967, increasing L slightly, but it decreased both E (by 44%) and L in 1968”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading slightly increased leaf area index (L) in 1967.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Shadinge1
- Outcome
- Le1
- Direction
- increasinge1
- Qualifier
- slightlye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e1“Shading decreased the incoming radiation by 56%; it decreased E proportionally in 1967, increasing L slightly, but it decreased both E (by 44%) and L in 1968”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading decreased leaf area index (L) in 1968.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Shadinge1
- Outcome
- Le1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Qualifier
- in 1968e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e1“Shading decreased the incoming radiation by 56%; it decreased E proportionally in 1967, increasing L slightly, but it decreased both E (by 44%) and L in 1968”
Claim · model-written summary
Shaded crops had consistently smaller root dry matter and sugar weights at the end of shading and at final harvest in both years.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Organ / stage
- rootse2
- Treatment
- shaded crope2
- Outcome
- weights of dry matter and sugar in the rootse2
- Direction
- smallere2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e2“The weights of dry matter and sugar in the roots of the shaded crop were consistently smaller at the end of shading and at final harvest in October in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Final-harvest weights of roots were proportional to radiation received between June and September over all shading treatments.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- shading treatmentse3
- Outcome
- weightse3
- Direction
- proportionale3
- Qualifier
- amount of radiation received by the crop between June and Septembere3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e3“their weights, but not those of the tops or the whole plant, at final harvest over all shading treatments in both years were proportional to the amount of radiation received by the crop between June and September”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading did not change the sugar content percentage of dry matter except in early growth.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- shadinge4
- Outcome
- sugar content percentage of dry mattere4
- Direction
- did not changee4
- Qualifier
- except in the early stages of growthe4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e4“Although shading greatly decreased the supply of photosynthate to the roots, it did not change the sugar content percentage of dry matter, except in the early stages of growth when the sugar content was rapidly increasing.”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading decreased root sugar content as percentage of fresh weight, because water content rose relative to dry matter.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- shadinge5
- Outcome
- Sugar content percentage of fresh weight of the rootse5
- Direction
- decreasede5
- Qualifier
- wholly because water content was increased relative to dry mattere5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e5“Sugar content percentage of fresh weight of the roots was consistently decreased by shading, wholly because water content was increased relative to dry matter.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar yield of shaded plants was less because root dry weights were lower, not because sugar partitioning changed.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- shaded plantse6
- Outcome
- sugar yielde6
- Direction
- lesse6
- Qualifier
- because the dry weights of the roots were lesse6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e6“Therefore the sugar yield of shaded plants was less because the dry weights of the roots were less, not because the partition of photosynthate between sugar storage and root growth changed.”
Claim · model-written summary
A root mechanism appears to maintain a nearly constant proportion of sucrose to non-sugar over a wide range of photosynthate supply.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- proportion of sucrosee1
- Qualifier
- a mechanism within the root operating over a wide range of photosynthate supplye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e1“There appears to be a mechanism within the root operating over a wide range of photosynthate supply that maintains a nearly constant proportion of sucrose to non‐sugar, contrary to the hypothesis that sugar stored in the roots is photosynthate in excess of what can be used in growth of the plant.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under continuous shading, root sugar percentage of dry matter fell only from 80 to 70%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- continuous shadinge2
- Outcome
- sugar percentage of dry matter in the rootse2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Value
- from 80 to 70%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e2“However, in the extreme condition of continuous shading which drastically decreased the dry weights of all parts of the plant, sugar percentage of dry matter in the roots was decreased, but only from 80 to 70%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Extra nitrogen at the start of shading increased leaf area index (L) in all periods in 1967.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- extra nitrogene3
- Outcome
- Le3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- in all periodse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e3“In 1967 extra nitrogen applied at the start of shading increased L and the dry weight of the tops in all periods, but had no effect on the dry weight of roots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Extra nitrogen increased the dry weight of the tops in 1967.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- extra nitrogene3
- Outcome
- the dry weight of the topse3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e3“In 1967 extra nitrogen applied at the start of shading increased L and the dry weight of the tops in all periods, but had no effect on the dry weight of roots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Extra nitrogen had no effect on root dry weight in 1967.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- extra nitrogene3
- Outcome
- dry weight of rootse3
- Direction
- no effecte3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e3“In 1967 extra nitrogen applied at the start of shading increased L and the dry weight of the tops in all periods, but had no effect on the dry weight of roots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation and additional nitrogen decreased root sugar content as percentage of fresh weight only by altering water content.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- irrigation and additional nitrogene4
- Outcome
- sugar content percentage of fresh weight of the rootse4
- Direction
- decreasede4
- Qualifier
- only by altering their water contente4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e4“Both irrigation and additional nitrogen decreased the sugar content percentage of fresh weight of the roots only by altering their water content; sugar percentage of dry matter was unaffected.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation and additional nitrogen did not change sugar percentage of dry matter.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- irrigation and additional nitrogene4
- Outcome
- sugar percentage of dry mattere4
- Direction
- unaffectede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e4“Both irrigation and additional nitrogen decreased the sugar content percentage of fresh weight of the roots only by altering their water content; sugar percentage of dry matter was unaffected.”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1968 irrigation had no effect on E or L, apart from a slight increase in L in the first period.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmente5
- Outcome
- E or Le5
- Direction
- no effecte5
- Qualifier
- except for a slight increase in L during the first periode5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e5“Because 1968 was a wet year the irrigation treatment had no effect on E or L except for a slight increase in L during the first period; it had no effect on plant dry weight.”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1968 irrigation had no effect on plant dry weight.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmente5
- Outcome
- plant dry weighte5
- Direction
- no effecte5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e5“Because 1968 was a wet year the irrigation treatment had no effect on E or L except for a slight increase in L during the first period; it had no effect on plant dry weight.”
Claim · model-written summary
Yields of dry matter and sugar of the unshaded crop were similar in the two years.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- unshaded crope6
- Outcome
- yields of dry matter, and particularly of sugare6
- Direction
- were similare6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1967 and 1968 plots of sugar beet in two identically grown crops were shaded for successive four week periods”
e6“the yields of dry matter, and particularly of sugar, of the unshaded crop in the 2 years were similar”
The same questions in other papers
shade · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
nitrogen · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →shade · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →irrigation · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →nitrogen · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
104 papers more in this group
See all 108 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.