Abstract
1. Differences in the size and sugar content of individual beet roots show no evidence of inheritance. They are fluctuations, therefore, and apparently play no part in beet improvement. 2. No correlation was discoverable between percentage or quantity of sugar in sugar-beet roots of ordinary sizes and their yield of seed, nor between their yield of seed and the average percentage of sugar in their progeny. 3. The fluctuations of beet families planted in progeny rows in alternation with check rows exceeded their real differences, but real differences were distinguishable by the use of a large number of replications (cf. fig. 1). 4. Areas of beets in an apparently uniform field of small dimensions showed a difference of 2 per cent sugar. 5. Percentage of sugar and yield of sugar of sugar-beet rows vary independently. Progeny rows should be graded on both percentage and yield of sugar, therefore, or on yield of extractable sugar. 6. The average weight of root per row increases with yield of sugar and decreases with percentage of sugar. 7. The discontinuance of selection for one generation caused no deterioration in percentage of sugar. In fact, there was some apparent gain. 8. No improvement in yield or percentage of sugar was obtained by continuous selection. Both the good and the poor families transmitted average qualities.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed public-domain. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Individual beet root size and sugar content differences showed no evidence of inheritance.
- Taxon
- Sugar-Beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Organ / stage
- beet rootse0
- Outcome
- no evidence of inheritancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in the size and sugar content of individual beet roots show no evidence of inheritance”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar percentage or quantity in ordinary-sized roots did not correlate with seed yield.
- Taxon
- sugar-beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Outcome
- yield of seede0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
- Qualifier
- No correlation was discoverablee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No correlation was discoverable between percentage or quantity of sugar in sugar-beet roots of ordinary sizes and their yield of seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed yield did not correlate with mean progeny sugar percentage.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- seede0
- Outcome
- average percentage of sugare0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
- Qualifier
- nor between their yield of seed and the average percentage of sugar in their progenye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nor between their yield of seed and the average percentage of sugar in their progeny”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Within-family fluctuation exceeded real family differences, but replication distinguished them.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- real differences were distinguishablee0
- Comparator
- fluctuations of beet familiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fluctuations of beet families planted in progeny rows in alternation with check rows exceeded their real differences, but real differences were distinguishable by the use of a large number of replications”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Areas within an apparently uniform field differed by 2 per cent sugar.
Beta vulgarisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Areas of beets in an apparently uniform field of small dimensions showed a difference of 2 per cent sugar”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar percentage and sugar yield varied independently among sugar-beet rows.
- Taxon
- sugar-beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Organ / stage
- rowse0
- Outcome
- yield of sugare0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Percentage of sugar and yield of sugar of sugar-beet rows vary independently”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend grading progeny rows by both sugar percentage and sugar yield or extractable sugar yield.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- Progeny rowse0
- Outcome
- graded on both percentage and yield of sugare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Progeny rows should be graded on both percentage and yield of sugar, therefore, or on yield of extractable sugar”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean root weight per row increased with sugar yield.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Outcome
- average weight of root per rowe0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- yield of sugare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average weight of root per row increases with yield of sugar”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean root weight per row decreased with sugar percentage.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- roote1
- Outcome
- average weight of root per rowe1
- Direction
- decreasese0
- Qualifier
- percentage of sugare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreases with percentage of sugar”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
e1“The average weight of root per row increases with yield of sugar”
Claim · model-written summary
Stopping selection for one generation caused no deterioration in sugar percentage and an apparent gain.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- discontinuance of selection for one generatione0
- Outcome
- percentage of sugare0
- Direction
- no deterioratione0
- Qualifier
- some apparent gaine0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The discontinuance of selection for one generation caused no deterioration in percentage of sugar. In fact, there was some apparent gain”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous selection did not improve sugar yield or sugar percentage.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- continuous selectione0
- Outcome
- yield or percentage of sugare0
- Direction
- No improvemente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No improvement in yield or percentage of sugar was obtained by continuous selection”
t0“Sugar-Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Good and poor beet families both transmitted average qualities.
- Taxon
- Sugar-BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- good and the poor familiese0
- Outcome
- average qualitiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both the good and the poor families transmitted average qualities”
t0“Sugar-Beet”