Abstract
Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants by decreasing both leaf area and net assimilation rate (N.A.R.). It did not reduce the number of leaves. The lower N.A.R. of infected plants may occur because photosynthesis is slowed by chlorosis of the leaves or by changes associated with it. Plants infected at the end of June had 30‐50% of their leaf area yellowed from mid‐August. Later infection caused less yellowing. The yellowing almost sufficed to account for the decrease in N.A.R., if yellowed parts of leaves do not photosynthesize. However, the similar diurnal fluctuations of carbohydrate in the laminae of healthy and infected leaves suggests that photosynthesis may not be much slowed by infection; if so, the decrease in N.A.R. indicates a large increase in respiration rate, especially of the root. The effects of yellows on leaf area and N.A.R. appear to be independent; late‐sown plants suffered a greater reduction of leaf area, but a smaller reduction in N.A.R., than early‐sown plants; similarly treated plants showed the same reduction of leaf area in two successive years, but the decrease in N.A.R. was much greater in the second. Most of the loss of dry matter was in the root; the dry weight of the petiole (including stem tissue) was also decreased but the dry weight of leaf lamina was little affected. Yellows greatly increased the reducing sugars in the leaf lamina, and caused smaller increases in sucrose and starch. These effects appeared when the leaves showed only etch symptoms. The increase in starch was greatest at this time, but the effect on sugar content subsequently increased with the development of yellowing. Yellows reduced the water content, nitrogen content and the arealweight ratio of the leaf lamina. The change in nitrogen content, but not the others, could be accounted for by the rise in carbohydrate. Yellows had no effect on the water content of petiole and root; it increased the nitrogen content of these parts. It reduced the sucrose content of the root, but the loss of sugar yield was mainly attributable to decreased root weight. Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants only when nitrogenous fertilizer was applied. As with yellows infection, the loss of dry matter resulted from reductions in both leaf area and N.A.R. Unlike yellows, mosaic depressed the dry weight of leaf lamina, as well as of petiole and root. Mosaic had no effect on carbohydrate content, water content or arealweight ratio of the leaf lamina, or on water content of petiole and root. It increased the nitrogen content of all parts of plants that received no nitrogenous fertilizer, but not of nitrogen‐treated plants. It slightly increased the sucrose content of the root. Infection with beet mosaic virus at the end of June caused a 20 yo loss of sugar yield from plants that received nitrogenous fertilizer. Yellows infection of similar plants at the same date reduced the sugar yield by 50%.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Beet yellows infection depressed sugar-beet dry-matter yield by decreasing leaf area and net assimilation rate, without reducing leaf number.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- Infection with beet yellows viruse0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse0pathogen
- Outcome
- dry‐matter yielde0
- Direction
- depressede0
- Qualifier
- by decreasing both leaf area and net assimilation rate (N.A.R.). It did not reduce the number of leavese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants by decreasing both leaf area and net assimilation rate (N.A.R.). It did not reduce the number of leaves.”
Claim · model-written summary
End-of-June yellows infection yellowed 30‐50% of leaf area from mid-August; later infection caused less yellowing.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- infected at the end of Junee0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- leaf area yellowede0
- Value
- 30‐50%e0
- Qualifier
- from mid‐Auguste0
- Comparator
- Later infectione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants infected at the end of June had 30‐50% of their leaf area yellowed from mid‐August. Later infection caused less yellowing.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellowing nearly explained the decrease in net assimilation if yellowed leaf parts do not photosynthesize, although similar carbohydrate fluctuations suggest photosynthesis may be little slowed and respiration may instead increase.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise2
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse2pathogen
- Outcome
- decrease in N.A.R.e0
- Qualifier
- if yellowed parts of leaves do not photosynthesizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yellowing almost sufficed to account for the decrease in N.A.R., if yellowed parts of leaves do not photosynthesize.”
e1“However, the similar diurnal fluctuations of carbohydrate in the laminae of healthy and infected leaves suggests that photosynthesis may not be much slowed by infection; if so, the decrease in N.A.R. indicates a large increase in respiration rate, especially of the root.”
e2“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Late-sown infected plants had a greater leaf-area reduction but a smaller net-assimilation reduction than early-sown plants.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- late‐sowne0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- greater reductione0
- Qualifier
- but a smaller reduction in N.A.R.e0
- Comparator
- early‐sown plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“late‐sown plants suffered a greater reduction of leaf area, but a smaller reduction in N.A.R., than early‐sown plants”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Similarly treated plants had the same leaf-area reduction across two years but a much greater net-assimilation decrease in the second year.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- reduction of leaf areae0
- Direction
- samee0
- Qualifier
- but the decrease in N.A.R. was much greater in the seconde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“similarly treated plants showed the same reduction of leaf area in two successive years, but the decrease in N.A.R. was much greater in the second.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellows dry-matter losses were mostly in roots, petiole dry weight also decreased, and leaf-lamina dry weight was little affected.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- Infection with beet yellows viruse1
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- loss of dry mattere0
- Qualifier
- the dry weight of the petiole (including stem tissue) was also decreased but the dry weight of leaf lamina was little affectede0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Most of the loss of dry matter was in the root; the dry weight of the petiole (including stem tissue) was also decreased but the dry weight of leaf lamina was little affected.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellows greatly increased reducing sugars and caused smaller sucrose and starch increases in leaf laminae, beginning with etch symptoms; starch effects peaked then while sugar effects increased with yellowing.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Organ / stage
- leaf laminae0
- Treatment
- Yellowse0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- reducing sugarse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- caused smaller increases in sucrose and starche0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellows greatly increased the reducing sugars in the leaf lamina, and caused smaller increases in sucrose and starch. These effects appeared when the leaves showed only etch symptoms. The increase in starch was greatest at this time, but the effect on sugar content subsequently increased with the development of yellowing.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellows reduced leaf-lamina water content, nitrogen content and arealweight ratio.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Organ / stage
- leaf laminae0
- Treatment
- Yellowse0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- water content, nitrogen content and the arealweight ratioe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellows reduced the water content, nitrogen content and the arealweight ratio of the leaf lamina.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The carbohydrate rise could explain the nitrogen-content change but not the other leaf-lamina changes.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Compound
- carbohydratee0
- Outcome
- change in nitrogen contente0
- Qualifier
- but not the otherse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The change in nitrogen content, but not the others, could be accounted for by the rise in carbohydrate.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellows did not affect petiole and root water content but increased their nitrogen content.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- Yellowse0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- water content of petiole and roote0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- it increased the nitrogen content of these partse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellows had no effect on the water content of petiole and root; it increased the nitrogen content of these parts.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellows reduced root sucrose content, while decreased root weight accounted for most sugar-yield loss.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- loss of sugar yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- mainly attributable to decreased root weighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It reduced the sucrose content of the root, but the loss of sugar yield was mainly attributable to decreased root weight.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Beet mosaic infection decreased sugar-beet dry weight only with nitrogenous fertilizer, through reduced leaf area and net assimilation.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Infection with beet mosaic viruse0
- Interactor
- beet mosaic virusBeet mosaic viruse0pathogen
- Outcome
- dry weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- only when nitrogenous fertilizer was appliede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants only when nitrogenous fertilizer was applied. As with yellows infection, the loss of dry matter resulted from reductions in both leaf area and N.A.R.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mosaic depressed dry weights of leaf lamina, petiole and root.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- mosaice0
- Interactor
- beet mosaic virusBeet mosaic viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- dry weight of leaf lamina, as well as of petiole and roote0
- Direction
- depressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Unlike yellows, mosaic depressed the dry weight of leaf lamina, as well as of petiole and root.”
e1“Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mosaic did not affect leaf-lamina carbohydrate content, water content or arealweight ratio.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Organ / stage
- leaf laminae0
- Treatment
- Mosaice0
- Interactor
- beet mosaic virusBeet mosaic viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- carbohydrate content, water content or arealweight ratioe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mosaic had no effect on carbohydrate content, water content or arealweight ratio of the leaf lamina, or on water content of petiole and root.”
e1“Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mosaic did not affect petiole and root water content.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- Mosaice0
- Interactor
- beet mosaic virusBeet mosaic viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- water content of petiole and roote0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mosaic had no effect on carbohydrate content, water content or arealweight ratio of the leaf lamina, or on water content of petiole and root.”
e1“Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mosaic increased nitrogen content throughout plants receiving no nitrogenous fertilizer, but not in nitrogen-treated plants.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- Infection with beet mosaic viruse1
- Interactor
- beet mosaic virusBeet mosaic viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- nitrogen contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- plants that received no nitrogenous fertilizer, but not of nitrogen‐treated plantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It increased the nitrogen content of all parts of plants that received no nitrogenous fertilizer, but not of nitrogen‐treated plants.”
e1“Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mosaic slightly increased root sucrose content.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- Infection with beet mosaic viruse1
- Interactor
- beet mosaic virusBeet mosaic viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- sucrose contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- slightlye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It slightly increased the sucrose content of the root.”
e1“Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
End-of-June mosaic infection caused a 20 yo sugar-yield loss in nitrogen-fertilized plants.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- Infection with beet mosaic virus at the end of Junee0
- Interactor
- beet mosaic virusBeet mosaic viruse0pathogen
- Outcome
- sugar yielde0
- Direction
- losse0
- Value
- 20 yoe0
- Qualifier
- plants that received nitrogenous fertilizere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Infection with beet mosaic virus at the end of June caused a 20 yo loss of sugar yield from plants that received nitrogenous fertilizer.”
e1“Infection with beet mosaic virus decreased the dry weight of sugar‐beet plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellows infection of similar plants at the same date reduced sugar yield by 50%.
- Taxon
- sugar‐beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- Yellows infectione0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse1pathogen
- Outcome
- sugar yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Qualifier
- at the end of Junee2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellows infection of similar plants at the same date reduced the sugar yield by 50%.”
e1“Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants”
e2“Infection with beet mosaic virus at the end of June caused a 20 yo loss of sugar yield from plants that received nitrogenous fertilizer.”
The same questions in other papers
infection · Beet yellows virus · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
10 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.