Abstract
Strip tillage has gained adoption in recent years with the availability of improved tillage equipment that can prepare a seedbed and place fertilizer in one tillage pass. Nitrogen management, including optimal N rates and placement, is an important concern for sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.) growers. A 2‐yr study was conducted at Huntley, MT, under flood and sprinkler irrigation to determine if N rates should be adjusted for different tillage and irrigation systems, and to determine if N placement improved sugar beet root yield and quality. Three tillage treatments were compared: conventional tillage with fertilizer broadcast (CT); strip tillage with fertilizer broadcast (ST); and strip tillage with fertilizer banded (SN). Five N rates were randomly applied to plots within each tillage treatment. Check plots were included each year to verify a response to applied N. Averaged over 2 yr, root yield was 3 Mg ha −1 higher under flood irrigation. The CT had higher sugar beet root yield and recoverable sucrose than either ST or SN treatments under flood irrigation. Sugar beets grown under different tillage, and irrigation systems, responded similarly to N fertilizer in both years. Combined results over the 2 yr indicated no significant N × tillage or N × irrigation interactions which implied that fertilizer‐N recommendations do not need to be adjusted for tillage or irrigation system. Moreover, no difference between SN and ST treatments were observed ( p = 0.5377) for recoverable sucrose which suggested that banding nutrients with a strip tillage implement did not improve efficiency.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Averaged over two years, sugar beet root yield was 3 Mg/ha higher under flood irrigation than under sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- flood irrigatione2
- Outcome
- root yielde2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 3 Mg ha −1e2
- Comparator
- sprinkler irrigatione1
- Setting
- Huntley, MTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“is an important concern for sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.) growers”
e1“was conducted at Huntley, MT, under flood and sprinkler irrigation”
e2“Averaged over 2 yr, root yield was 3 Mg ha −1 higher under flood irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage with fertilizer broadcast had higher sugar beet root yield and recoverable sucrose than strip tillage treatments under flood irrigation.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise3
- Treatment
- conventional tillage with fertilizer broadcast (CT)e4
- Outcome
- root yield and recoverable sucrosee3
- Direction
- highere3
- Qualifier
- under flood irrigatione3
- Comparator
- ST or SN treatmentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The CT had higher sugar beet root yield and recoverable sucrose than either ST or SN treatments under flood irrigation”
e4“Three tillage treatments were compared: conventional tillage with fertilizer broadcast (CT); strip tillage with fertilizer broadcast (ST); and strip tillage with fertilizer banded (SN)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar beets under different tillage and irrigation systems responded similarly to N fertilizer in both years.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetsBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise5
- Treatment
- N fertilizere5
- Outcome
- respondede5
- Direction
- similarlye5
- Qualifier
- under different tillage, and irrigation systemse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Sugar beets grown under different tillage, and irrigation systems, responded similarly to N fertilizer in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined over two years, no significant N x tillage or N x irrigation interaction was found for sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- N × tillage or N × irrigation interactionse6
- Direction
- no significante6
- Setting
- over the 2 yre6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“is an important concern for sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.) growers”
e6“Combined results over the 2 yr indicated no significant N × tillage or N × irrigation interactions”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend that fertilizer-N recommendations for sugar beet need not be adjusted for tillage or irrigation system.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- need to be adjusted for tillage or irrigation systeme7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“is an important concern for sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.) growers”
e7“do not need to be adjusted for tillage or irrigation system”
Claim · model-written summary
No difference in recoverable sucrose was observed between strip tillage with banded fertilizer (SN) and strip tillage with broadcast fertilizer (ST).
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- strip tillage with fertilizer banded (SN)e4
- Outcome
- recoverable sucrosee5
- Direction
- no differencee5
- Value
- p = 0.5377e5
- Comparator
- strip tillage with fertilizer broadcast (ST)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“is an important concern for sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.) growers”
e5“no difference between SN and ST treatments were observed ( p = 0.5377) for recoverable sucrose”
e4“Three tillage treatments were compared: conventional tillage with fertilizer broadcast (CT); strip tillage with fertilizer broadcast (ST); and strip tillage with fertilizer banded (SN)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 papers →tillage · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →transplanting · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →tillage · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
58 papers more in this group
See all 62 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
64 papers more in this group
See all 68 papers →fertilization · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
236 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 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.