Abstract
Deep tillage and irrigation are two soil management practices being used separately to alleviate water shortage for growing crops on soils with tillage induced hard pans. A split- block design with three replications was used to study the effects of subsoiling and irrigation intervals on sugarbeet yield, yield characteristics, soil bulk density, soil penetration resistance and water use efficiency. Three irrigation intervals of 7, 10 and 14 days were applied with tillage treatments of only mouldboard ploughing with no subsoiling (control), subsoiling to a depth of 30-35 cm plus mouldboard ploughing and subsoiling to a depth of 40-45 cm plus mouldboard ploughing. Results indicated that deep tillage reduces soil bulk density, cone index and percent of root branching and increases root length, root diameter, sugarbeet yield (about 25%) and water use efficiency (about 26%). As irrigation intervals increased sugarbeet yield and water use efficiency decreased 29 and 20%, respectively, however, root sugar content increased 14%. Results also indicated that the best treatment was subsoiling to a depth of 40-45 cm plus mouldboard ploughing with 10 day irrigation intervals and the subsoiling was effective at least for three years.
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
Deep tillage reduced soil bulk density and cone index.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEET
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- soil bulk density, cone indexe0
- Direction
- reducese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“deep tillage reduces soil bulk density, cone index and percent of root branching”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage reduced root branching percentage.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- percent of root branchinge0
- Direction
- reducese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“deep tillage reduces soil bulk density, cone index and percent of root branching”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased root length and diameter.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- root length, root diametere0
- Direction
- increasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“deep tillage reduces soil bulk density, cone index and percent of root branching and increases root length, root diameter, sugarbeet yield (about 25%) and water use efficiency (about 26%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased sugarbeet yield about 25%.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- sugarbeet yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- about 25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deep tillage reduces soil bulk density, cone index and percent of root branching and increases root length, root diameter, sugarbeet yield (about 25%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased water use efficiency about 26%.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- deep tillagee1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- about 26%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“increases root length, root diameter, sugarbeet yield (about 25%) and water use efficiency (about 26%)”
e1“deep tillage reduces soil bulk density”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced yield 29%.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- irrigation intervals increasede0
- Outcome
- sugarbeet yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 29e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“As irrigation intervals increased sugarbeet yield and water use efficiency decreased 29 and 20%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced water use efficiency 20%.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- irrigation intervals increasede0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“As irrigation intervals increased sugarbeet yield and water use efficiency decreased 29 and 20%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals increased root sugar content 14%.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- irrigation intervals increasede1
- Outcome
- root sugar contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“root sugar content increased 14%”
e1“As irrigation intervals increased”
Claim · model-written summary
The best treatment was 40-45 cm subsoiling with 10-day irrigation.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- subsoiling to a depth of 40-45 cm plus mouldboard ploughing with 10 day irrigation intervalse0
- Outcome
- best treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“the best treatment was subsoiling to a depth of 40-45 cm plus mouldboard ploughing with 10 day irrigation intervals”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling remained effective for at least three years.
- Taxon
- SUGARBEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- subsoiling was effectivee0
- Qualifier
- at least for three yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“SUGARBEET”
e0“the subsoiling was effective at least for three years”
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 →tillage · physiology: water · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →tillage · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
58 papers more in this group
See all 62 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.