Abstract
The effect of drought stress in isolation, or in combination with beet yellows virus infection, on sugar beet growth was studied in the field and glasshouse. Drought reduced total plant weight by 26%, due to 20 and 29% reductions in foliage and storage root yields respectively. Sugar extraction efficiency was depressed by an increase in amino-nitrogen impurities. Drought did not limit water extraction depth, despite decreasing lateral root growth in proportion to total weight. During the field experiments, total crop cover was decreased in all the droughted treatments (halved in some cases) for at least part of the season. Consequently, these treatments intercepted 12% less light, which in combination with a 16% decrease in the dry matter/light conversion coefficient, led to the decrease in growth. The decrease in conversion coefficient was due to temporary closure of the stomata rather than a function of drought-induced damage to the photosynthetic mechanism. The absolute effect of drought remained the same irrespective of whether the plants were infected with beet yellows virus, i.e. there was no interaction between the two stresses. The reasons for this lack of interaction are discussed but it is likely that the stress effects were mediated at different times of the day and season.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced total sugar beet plant weight by 26%.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- Droughte1
- Outcome
- total plant weighte1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 26%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Drought reduced total plant weight by 26%, due to 20 and 29% reductions in foliage and storage root yields respectively”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced foliage and storage root yields of sugar beet by 20 and 29%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Droughte1
- Outcome
- foliage and storage root yieldse1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 20 and 29%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Drought reduced total plant weight by 26%, due to 20 and 29% reductions in foliage and storage root yields respectively”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar extraction efficiency of sugar beet was depressed by increased amino-nitrogen impurities.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Compound
- amino-nitrogen impuritiese2
- Outcome
- Sugar extraction efficiencye2
- Direction
- depressede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Sugar extraction efficiency was depressed by an increase in amino-nitrogen impurities”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought did not limit water extraction depth of sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Droughte3
- Outcome
- water extraction depthe3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Drought did not limit water extraction depth”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased lateral root growth of sugar beet in proportion to total weight.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- lateral roote4
- Treatment
- Droughte1
- Outcome
- lateral root growthe4
- Direction
- decreasinge4
- Qualifier
- in proportion to total weighte4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“despite decreasing lateral root growth in proportion to total weight”
e1“Drought reduced total plant weight by 26%, due to 20 and 29% reductions in foliage and storage root yields respectively”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
In field experiments, total crop cover of sugar beet was decreased in all droughted treatments, halved in some cases, for part of the season.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- droughted treatmentse5
- Outcome
- total crop covere5
- Direction
- decreasede5
- Value
- halved in some casese5
- Setting
- field experimentse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“During the field experiments, total crop cover was decreased in all the droughted treatments (halved in some cases) for at least part of the season”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought treatments intercepted 12% less light by sugar beet crop cover.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- these treatmentse6
- Outcome
- lighte6
- Direction
- lesse6
- Value
- 12%e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Consequently, these treatments intercepted 12% less light, which in combination with a 16% decrease in the dry matter/light conversion coefficient, led to the decrease in growth”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought treatments reduced the dry matter/light conversion coefficient of sugar beet by 16%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- these treatmentse6
- Outcome
- dry matter/light conversion coefficiente6
- Direction
- decreasee6
- Value
- 16%e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Consequently, these treatments intercepted 12% less light, which in combination with a 16% decrease in the dry matter/light conversion coefficient, led to the decrease in growth”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The decrease in sugar beet conversion coefficient is attributed to temporary stomatal closure rather than drought-induced damage to the photosynthetic mechanism.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- conversion coefficiente7
- Qualifier
- temporary closure of the stomatae7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The decrease in conversion coefficient was due to temporary closure of the stomata rather than a function of drought-induced damage to the photosynthetic mechanism”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The absolute effect of drought on sugar beet remained the same whether or not plants were infected with beet yellows virus.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- droughte0
- Interactor
- beet yellows virusBeet yellows viruse0pathogen
- Outcome
- absolute effect of droughte0
- Direction
- remained the samee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The absolute effect of drought remained the same irrespective of whether the plants were infected with beet yellows virus”
t0“sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →drought · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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.