Abstract
The experiment was conducted by the three treatments of single film mulching, double film mulching and non-film mulching(CK) to determinate effect on root yield and quality of sugarbeet. The results showed that field germination potential of beet seed under double film mulching was increased by 58.34% and 23.34%, in comparison with non-film mulching and single film mulching, respectively. Weigh of per hundred sugarbeet seedlings and cotyledon area at seedling stage under double film mulching were better than that of single film mulching. Sugarbeet root tip significantly was increased 4.07% and 41.29% under both single and double mulching treatments, in comparison with non-film mulching, respectively. The root yields, sugar contents and sugar yields under single and double film mulching were increased by 41.61% and 33.83%, 1.25% and 1.07%, 52.36% and 43.26% in comparison without film mulching, respectively.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Double film increased germination potential 58.34% versus no film.
- Taxon
- beet
Beta vulgarise0 - Treatment
- double film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- field germination potentiale0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 58.34%e0
- Comparator
- non-film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“field germination potential of beet seed under double film mulching was increased by 58.34% and 23.34%, in comparison with non-film mulching and single film mulching, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Double film increased germination potential 23.34% versus single film.
- Taxon
- beetBeta vulgarise0
- Treatment
- double film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- field germination potentiale0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 23.34%e0
- Comparator
- single film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“field germination potential of beet seed under double film mulching was increased by 58.34% and 23.34%, in comparison with non-film mulching and single film mulching, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Double film improved hundred-seedling weight and cotyledon area versus single film.
- Taxon
- sugarbeet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- double film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- Weigh of per hundred sugarbeet seedlings and cotyledon areae0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- single film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weigh of per hundred sugarbeet seedlings and cotyledon area at seedling stage under double film mulching were better than that of single film mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Single film increased root tip 4.07% versus no film.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- singlee0
- Outcome
- root tipe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.07%e0
- Comparator
- non-film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarbeet root tip significantly was increased 4.07% and 41.29% under both single and double mulching treatments, in comparison with non-film mulching, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Double film increased root tip 41.29% versus no film.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- double mulchinge0
- Outcome
- root tipe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 41.29%e0
- Comparator
- non-film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarbeet root tip significantly was increased 4.07% and 41.29% under both single and double mulching treatments, in comparison with non-film mulching, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Single film increased root yield 41.61%.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- singlee0
- Outcome
- root yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 41.61%e0
- Comparator
- without film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root yields, sugar contents and sugar yields under single and double film mulching were increased by 41.61% and 33.83%, 1.25% and 1.07%, 52.36% and 43.26% in comparison without film mulching, respectively”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Double film increased root yield 33.83%.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- double film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- root yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 33.83%e0
- Comparator
- without film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root yields, sugar contents and sugar yields under single and double film mulching were increased by 41.61% and 33.83%, 1.25% and 1.07%, 52.36% and 43.26% in comparison without film mulching, respectively”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Single film increased sugar content 1.25%.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- singlee0
- Outcome
- sugar contentse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.25%e0
- Comparator
- without film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root yields, sugar contents and sugar yields under single and double film mulching were increased by 41.61% and 33.83%, 1.25% and 1.07%, 52.36% and 43.26% in comparison without film mulching, respectively”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Double film increased sugar content 1.07%.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- double film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- sugar contentse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.07%e0
- Comparator
- without film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root yields, sugar contents and sugar yields under single and double film mulching were increased by 41.61% and 33.83%, 1.25% and 1.07%, 52.36% and 43.26% in comparison without film mulching, respectively”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Single film increased sugar yield 52.36%.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- singlee0
- Outcome
- sugar yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 52.36%e0
- Comparator
- without film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root yields, sugar contents and sugar yields under single and double film mulching were increased by 41.61% and 33.83%, 1.25% and 1.07%, 52.36% and 43.26% in comparison without film mulching, respectively”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Double film increased sugar yield 43.26%.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- double film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- sugar yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 43.26%e0
- Comparator
- without film mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root yields, sugar contents and sugar yields under single and double film mulching were increased by 41.61% and 33.83%, 1.25% and 1.07%, 52.36% and 43.26% in comparison without film mulching, respectively”
t0“Sugarbeet”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →mulching · yield · 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 →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.