Abstract
Field experiment was conducted at Iranian Plant Pro tection Research farm in karaj during 2009 to evaluate the effects of diffrent planting patterns, times of mechanical control and herbicides application on weeds density and biomass in sugar b eet farms. The experimental design was split‐split plot based on randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. Planting pattern considered as main‐plot in three lincluding single row planting with 50 cm row width, single row planting with 60 cm row wi dth and twin row planting with 60 cm row width, time of mechanical control in three levels a s sub‐plot including mechanical weed control at 4‐6 leaves stage, 10‐12 leaves stage and 14‐16 l eaves stage (of sugar beet), and herbicides as sub‐sub plot in two levels including metamitron plus combination of phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesat and triflusulfuron‐metil plus combination of phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesat. Results of this study sh owed that times of mechanical weed control and herbicide application had significant effect on density and biomass of weeds. In most cases, planting pattern had appropiriate effect on weeds b iomass reducthion that best results were achived in twin row planting 60 cm. Furthermore, Be st results were achived in mechanical weed control at 4‐6 leaves stage of sugar beet that had the most reduction on weeds density and biomass. metamitron plus combination of phenmedipha m + desmedipham + ethofumesat had also the best effect on weeds density and biomass. Finally, sugar beet yield components were not affected by treatments as appropiriate as weeds con trol.
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
Mechanical control timing significantly affected weed density and biomass.
- Taxon
- Sugar Beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- times of mechanical weed controle0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- density and biomass of weedse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“times of mechanical weed control and herbicide application had significant effect on density and biomass of weeds”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide application significantly affected weed density and biomass.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- herbicide applicatione0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- density and biomass of weedse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“times of mechanical weed control and herbicide application had significant effect on density and biomass of weeds”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Twin row planting at 60 cm gave the best weed biomass reduction.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- twin row planting 60 cme0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- weeds b iomasse0
- Direction
- reducthione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“planting pattern had appropiriate effect on weeds b iomass reducthion that best results were achived in twin row planting 60 cm”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical weed control at the 4 to 6 leaf stage gave the largest reduction in weed density and biomass.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- mechanical weed control at 4‐6 leaves stagee0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- weeds density and biomasse0
- Direction
- most reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mechanical weed control at 4‐6 leaves stage of sugar beet that had the most reduction on weeds density and biomass”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Metamitron plus phenmedipham, desmedipham and ethofumesat gave the best effect on weed density and biomass.
- Taxon
- Sugar BeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- metamitron plus combination of phenmedipha m + desmedipham + ethofumesate0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- weeds density and biomasse0
- Direction
- best effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“metamitron plus combination of phenmedipha m + desmedipham + ethofumesat had also the best effect on weeds density and biomass”
t0“Sugar Beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments affected sugar beet yield components less than weed control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yield componentse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet yield components were not affected by treatments as appropiriate as weeds con trol”
The same questions in other papers
phenmedipham · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →metamitron · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →desmedipham · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →herbicide · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 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.