Abstract
Abstract Costs of irrigation (labor, water, and energy) and sometimes limited‐late‐season water are factors associated with the choice of crop and economic returns. Sugarbeets ( Beta vulgaris L.) have shown certain tolerance to water stress, therefore the objective of this study was to evaluate growth rates and characteristics, sucrose accumulation, and N uptake by sugarbeets grown under mid to late‐season soil water deficit and plant water stress. Sugarbeets were grown in a field experiment on a Portneuf silt loam soil (Durixerollic Calciorthids; coarsesilty, mixed, mesic) under normal irrigation until 15 July, after which further irrigation was terminated or reduced on two treatments during a 2‐year period. Root yield, sucrose concentration, sucrose yield, plant N uptake, and petiole NO 3 ‐N were determined from samples taken throughout each season. These experiments demonstrated that very little, if any, sucrose yield reduction can be expected in the Idaho area if irrigations are discontinued after filling the soil profile with water about 1 August and if the soil contains at least 200 mm of available water to a soil depth of 160 cm. During dry years, there may be an advantage to applying a light irrigation about 1 month after water cutoff and to have sufficient surface soil water present at harvest to prevent loss of roots by breaking. Use of deficit water management during August, September, and October curtailed leaf growth, reduced leaf area when no longer needed, reduced N uptake from the soil, increased sucrose concentration in the beet root, and decreased fresh root yield. These effects on yields were mainly caused by dehydration of the beet tops and roots so sucrose production was scarcely affected even though only 70% of the normal irrigation water was applied. Limited irrigations reduced evapotranspiration rates because of drier surface soil and partial stomatal closure, thereby decreasing the rate of water extraction from the soil reservoir by the plant. Use of mid to late‐season deficit water management could substantially reduce sugarbeet production costs in irrigated areas and economically benefit the consumer, producer, and manufacturer.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Stopping irrigation after soil recharge around 1 August caused little if any sucrose yield loss under the stated Idaho water reserve.
- Taxon
- Sugarbeet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- irrigations are discontinuede0
- Outcome
- sucrose yielde0
- Direction
- very little, if any, sucrose yield reductione0
- Qualifier
- at least 200 mm of available water to a soil depth of 160 cme0
- Setting
- Idaho areae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“very little, if any, sucrose yield reduction can be expected in the Idaho area if irrigations are discontinued after filling the soil profile with water about 1 August and if the soil contains at least 200 mm of available water to a soil depth of 160 cm”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit water management curtailed sugarbeet leaf growth and reduced leaf area.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- deficit water managemente0
- Outcome
- leaf growth, reduced leaf areae0
- Direction
- curtailede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of deficit water management during August, September, and October curtailed leaf growth, reduced leaf area when no longer needed”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit water management reduced sugarbeet nitrogen uptake from soil.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- deficit water managemente0
- Outcome
- N uptake from the soile0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of deficit water management during August, September, and October curtailed leaf growth, reduced leaf area when no longer needed, reduced N uptake from the soil”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit water management increased sucrose concentration in the beet root.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- deficit water managemente0
- Outcome
- sucrose concentration in the beet roote0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of deficit water management during August, September, and October curtailed leaf growth, reduced leaf area when no longer needed, reduced N uptake from the soil, increased sucrose concentration in the beet root”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit water management decreased fresh sugarbeet root yield.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- deficit water managemente0
- Outcome
- fresh root yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of deficit water management during August, September, and October curtailed leaf growth, reduced leaf area when no longer needed, reduced N uptake from the soil, increased sucrose concentration in the beet root, and decreased fresh root yield”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield changes were mainly attributed to dehydration of beet tops and roots.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- effects on yieldse0
- Qualifier
- dehydration of the beet tops and rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These effects on yields were mainly caused by dehydration of the beet tops and roots”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Sucrose production was scarcely affected with 70% of normal irrigation water.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 70% of the normal irrigation watere0
- Outcome
- sucrose productione0
- Direction
- scarcely affectede0
- Comparator
- normal irrigation watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sucrose production was scarcely affected even though only 70% of the normal irrigation water was applied”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited irrigation reduced evapotranspiration rates.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Limited irrigationse0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiration ratese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Limited irrigations reduced evapotranspiration rates”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Drier surface soil and partial stomatal closure explained reduced evapotranspiration under limited irrigation.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Limited irrigationse0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiration ratese0
- Qualifier
- drier surface soil and partial stomatal closuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Limited irrigations reduced evapotranspiration rates because of drier surface soil and partial stomatal closure”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced evapotranspiration decreased the rate of plant water extraction from the soil reservoir.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- rate of water extraction from the soil reservoir by the plante0
- Qualifier
- decreasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“thereby decreasing the rate of water extraction from the soil reservoir by the plant”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest a light irrigation roughly one month after cutoff in dry years.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- applying a light irrigation about 1 month after water cutoffe0
- Qualifier
- During dry yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During dry years, there may be an advantage to applying a light irrigation about 1 month after water cutoff”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest adequate surface soil water at harvest to prevent broken roots.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- sufficient surface soil water present at harveste0
- Qualifier
- prevent loss of roots by breakinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to have sufficient surface soil water present at harvest to prevent loss of roots by breaking”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that mid to late season deficit management could reduce production costs.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- reduce sugarbeet production costse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of mid to late‐season deficit water management could substantially reduce sugarbeet production costs in irrigated areas”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that deficit water management could economically benefit consumers, producers and manufacturers.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- economically benefit the consumer, producer, and manufacturere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of mid to late‐season deficit water management could substantially reduce sugarbeet production costs in irrigated areas and economically benefit the consumer, producer, and manufacturer”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 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 →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.