Abstract
SUMMARY Gibberellic acid sprayed on sugar‐beet plants decreased leaf production, whereas (2‐chloroethyl)trimethylammonium chloride (CCC) applied to the soil increased it. These changes were associated with a change in shape of the growing point; GA elongated it and CCC flattened it. Leaf area per plant increased to a maximum of about 28 dm. at the end of June; CCC consistently decreased it, but GA had no effect although the plant had fewer leaves than the controls. GA increased petiole length in the first part of the season but later diminished it. Petiole length increased with amount of GA applied. CCC had the opposite effect, decreasing petiole length at the beginning of the season and afterwards increasing it. Total dry matter of plants treated with GA was significantly increased at harvests 3 weeks and 8 weeks after initial application. CCC‐treated plants had less dry matter throughout. GA increased crown dry weight and the effect increased with the amount applied. Neither GA nor CCC significantly influenced the weight of storage root. Plants overwintered in an unheated glasshouse continued to increase in dry matter; GA increased the weight of flowering stems but CCC had no effect. From observations on individual leaves mean leaf area growth curves for successive groups of five leaves were constructed. Gibberellic acid increased both areas and longevity of leaves 8 to 17 and GA‐treated plants had the same dry weight as controls in spite of fewer leaves, because leaf area duration was increased. This study emphasizes that different leaves contribute very differently to the total dry matter of the plant. Each of leaves 8–17 had an average duration of 22 dm. 2 ‐weeks and together they produced about two‐thirds of the final dry matter in autumn. CCC decreased leaf area duration and dry matter. None of the treatments changed net assimilation rate (E). In previous experiments with mustard plants CCC decreased E, either through a direct inhibitory effect of CCC on photosynthesis or through decrease in photosynthesis because the dwarfed stem in the treated mustard provided only a small sink for photosynthates. In sugar beet CCC does not affect E, possibly because the root provides a large sink. The differences between sugar beet and potato in development of leaf area and production of dry matter are discussed and the importance of leaf area duration emphasized. GA affects sugar beet and potato differently. It hastens leaf senescence in potato but delays it in sugar beet. GA may prolong the life of sugar‐beet leaves because by making them fewer it decreases competition between them. Gibberellic acid causes a transient increase in leaf growth and dry‐matter production both in sugar beet and potato.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellic acid reduced sugar beet leaf production.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- Gibberellic acide0
- Outcome
- leaf productione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gibberellic acid sprayed on sugar‐beet plants decreased leaf production”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil-applied CCC increased sugar beet leaf production.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- (2‐chloroethyl)trimethylammonium chloride (CCC)e0
- Outcome
- leaf productione1
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“(2‐chloroethyl)trimethylammonium chloride (CCC) applied to the soil increased it”
e1“sugar‐beet plants decreased leaf production”
Claim · model-written summary
GA elongated the sugar beet growing point.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- GAe0
- Outcome
- shape of the growing pointe1
- Direction
- elongatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GA elongated it and CCC flattened it”
e1“change in shape of the growing point”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC flattened the sugar beet growing point.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- CCCe0
- Outcome
- shape of the growing pointe1
- Direction
- flattenede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GA elongated it and CCC flattened it”
e1“change in shape of the growing point”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC consistently reduced sugar beet leaf area.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- CCCe0
- Outcome
- Leaf area per plante1
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CCC consistently decreased it, but GA had no effect”
e1“Leaf area per plant increased to a maximum of about 28 dm.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
GA had no effect on sugar beet leaf area.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- GAe0
- Outcome
- Leaf area per plante1
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GA had no effect”
e1“Leaf area per plant increased to a maximum of about 28 dm.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
GA increased sugar beet petiole length early in the season but reduced it later.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- GAe0
- Outcome
- petiole lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- first part of the seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GA increased petiole length in the first part of the season but later diminished it”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC decreased sugar beet petiole length early in the season.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- CCCe0
- Outcome
- petiole lengthe0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Qualifier
- beginning of the seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CCC had the opposite effect, decreasing petiole length at the beginning of the season and afterwards increasing it”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
GA significantly increased sugar beet total dry matter at three and eight weeks after application.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- GAe0
- Outcome
- Total dry mattere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 3 weeks and 8 weeks after initial applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total dry matter of plants treated with GA was significantly increased at harvests 3 weeks and 8 weeks after initial application”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC-treated sugar beet plants had less dry matter throughout.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- CCCe0
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- lesse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CCC‐treated plants had less dry matter throughout”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
GA increased crown dry weight with dose.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- GAe0
- Outcome
- crown dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GA increased crown dry weight and the effect increased with the amount applied”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither GA nor CCC significantly changed storage root weight.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- GA nor CCCe0
- Outcome
- weight of storage roote0
- Direction
- Neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither GA nor CCC significantly influenced the weight of storage root”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
GA increased flowering-stem weight in overwintered sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- GAe0
- Outcome
- weight of flowering stemse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GA increased the weight of flowering stems but CCC had no effect”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC had no effect on flowering-stem weight in overwintered sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- CCCe0
- Outcome
- weight of flowering stemse0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GA increased the weight of flowering stems but CCC had no effect”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
GA increased leaf area and longevity of sugar beet leaves 8–17.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- leaves 8 to 17e0
- Treatment
- Gibberellic acide0
- Outcome
- areas and longevitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gibberellic acid increased both areas and longevity of leaves 8 to 17”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC decreased sugar beet leaf area duration and dry matter.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- CCCe0
- Outcome
- leaf area duration and dry mattere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CCC decreased leaf area duration and dry matter”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither GA nor CCC changed sugar beet net assimilation rate.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- net assimilation rate (E)e0
- Direction
- Nonee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“None of the treatments changed net assimilation rate (E)”
t0“sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
Gibberellic acid · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Gibberellic acid · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →chlormequat chloride · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
chlormequat chloride · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
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.