Abstract
Core Ideas Manure can have a lasting effect on soil fertility and crop production. Sugar beet yields are increased on soils with a manure history. Sugar beet quality can be decreased under heavy past manure applications. Past manure applications effects on sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.) production needs to be assessed in the areas where manure applications to crop land are common. A study was conducted in Kimberly, Idaho in 2014 and 2016 to assess the effects of manure application history and N rates on sugar beet production on a Portneuf silt loam (coarse‐silty mixed mesic Durixerollic Calciorthid) soil. From 2004 to 2009, manure was applied to plots every 2 years (M1, total application = 60 tons/acre), every year (M2 total application = 106 tons/acre), or no manure (F, commercial fertilizer only). In spring 2014, the manure main plots were split in half with half receiving a commercial fertilizer N rate treatment superimposed on the main plots in 2014 and the other half receiving the superimposed N rate treatments in 2016. In 2014 and 2016, the commercial fertilizer N rates were 0, 30, 56, 77, 100, 141, 180, and 202 lb/acre. The study design was a randomized block split‐plot with manure history as the main plot and N rate as the subplot. During both years of the study, N rate did not affect sugar beet yields, but M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment. Averaged across all N rates, root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively, although sugar yield was only significantly greater in 2016. Manure applications will impact sugar beet production for several years after manure applications have ceased.
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
N rate did not affect sugar beet yields in either study year.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0t0e1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During both years of the study, N rate did not affect sugar beet yields”
t0“Sugar Beet”
e1“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
e2“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
M1 manure history gave higher root yields than fertilizer only.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
t0“Sugar Beet”
e1“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
e2“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
M2 manure history gave higher root yields than fertilizer only.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
t0“Sugar Beet”
e1“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
e2“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure-history root yield exceeded fertilizer only by 12% in 2014.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
t0“Sugar Beet”
e1“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
e2“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure-history root yield exceeded fertilizer only by 36% in 2016.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
t0“Sugar Beet”
e1“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
e2“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar yield under manure history was significantly greater only in 2016.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar yield was only significantly greater in 2016”
t0“Sugar Beet”
e1“root yields from both manured treatments were 12 and 36% greater than the F treatment in 2014 and 2016, respectively”
e2“M1 and M2 treatments had higher sugar beet root yields compared to the F treatment”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 papers →nitrogen · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 142 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
157 papers more in this group
See all 161 papers →fertilization · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
236 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 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.