Abstract
Two field trials were carried out at the Experimental Farm, Sakha Agricultural Research Station, North Delta during the two successive winter growing seasons of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. The research aimed to study the of effect application of gypsum, mixture (byproduct of sugar factory lime treated by commercial H2SO4) and molas and their interaction on some salt affected soils properties, yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.), field water use efficiency (FWUE) and their economic efficiency. The experiments were designed as split-split plot with three replicates. The main plots were occupied by gypsum, G (0, 5, 7.5, 10 Mg Fed.-1), sub plots were devoted to sugar lime mixture, SLM (0, 4, 6 MgFed-1) and the sub-sub plots were molas, M (0, 30, 60 L Fed.-1). The results showed that the amendments addition clearly improved some chemical properties of the studied soil. The common parameters of saline sodic soil i.e., EC, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) , exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) , bulk density and hydraulic conductivity(H.C) were clearly improved by application of gypsum,.The results showed that combined treatments were more efficient than single one. Increase the rate of used gypsum led to a decrease in salinity as well as sodicity. The mean values of EC, SAR and ESP were decreased by-43.6%, -56.79% and -37.56%, respectively due to application of gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1, as compared to that without application. Application of sugar lime mixture (SLM) and molas had insignificant effect on soil ECe, SAR and ESP after the harvesting of sugar beet in both growing seasons. Data show that soil ECe, SAR and ESP recorded lowest value due to the interaction between G*SLM*M Percentage of Na-removed from the soils at the end of the experiment was about 51% due to the interaction between gypsum, sugar lime mixture and molas up to 10, 6 Mg fed.-1 and 60LFed.-1, respectively. On the other hand, the highest values of soil infiltration rate and hydraulic conductivity were found with the interaction between gypsum, SLM and molas as compared to the control. Roots , the top yields of sugar beet, sucrose (%) and extractable sugar yield were high significantly increased with application of gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1 and/or with the interaction between all amendments during both growing seasons. Also, root N, Na and K % after harvesting, were high significantly increased due to the interaction between all amendments during both seasons. Sugar recovery and recoverable sugar yield were high significantly increased due to the interaction between all amendments. The highest net income values from water unit (1.93, 1.42 and 1.28 LE/m3 water) were obtained with the application of 10 Mg gypsum fed-1 , 6 Mg sugar lime mixture fed-1 and 30 L molas fed.- 1, respectively. The highest total and net income were recorded with the interaction between 10 Mg gypsum fed-1 , 6 Mg lime Fed-1 and 60 L Molas Fed.-1. The amendment can be arranged, due to its effect on root of sugar beet, total income, net income, Net efficiency from water unit and economic Eff. in the order of: G*SLM*M > G*SLM >G*M>G> SLM*M> SLM >M Finally, the most effective treatment was the interaction between G*SLM*M.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Combined amendments improved saline-sodic soil properties more than single amendments.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEET
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- combined treatmentse0
- Outcome
- more efficiente0
- Direction
- more efficiente0
- Comparator
- single onee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that combined treatments were more efficient than single one.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing gypsum rate decreased soil salinity.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- gypsume0
- Outcome
- salinitye0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increase the rate of used gypsum led to a decrease in salinity as well as sodicity.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing gypsum rate decreased soil sodicity.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- gypsume0
- Outcome
- sodicitye0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increase the rate of used gypsum led to a decrease in salinity as well as sodicity.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum at 10 Mg fed-1 decreased soil EC by 43.6% versus no application.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1e0
- Outcome
- ECe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -43.6%e0
- Comparator
- without applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean values of EC, SAR and ESP were decreased by-43.6%, -56.79% and -37.56%, respectively due to application of gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1, as compared to that without application.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum at 10 Mg fed-1 decreased soil SAR by 56.79% versus no application.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1e0
- Outcome
- SARe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -56.79%e0
- Comparator
- without applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean values of EC, SAR and ESP were decreased by-43.6%, -56.79% and -37.56%, respectively due to application of gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1, as compared to that without application.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum at 10 Mg fed-1 decreased soil ESP by 37.56% versus no application.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1e0
- Outcome
- ESPe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -37.56%e0
- Comparator
- without applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean values of EC, SAR and ESP were decreased by-43.6%, -56.79% and -37.56%, respectively due to application of gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1, as compared to that without application.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar lime mixture and molas had an insignificant effect on soil ECe, SAR and ESP after harvest.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- sugar lime mixture (SLM) and molase0
- Outcome
- soil ECe, SAR and ESPe0
- Qualifier
- both growing seasonse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of sugar lime mixture (SLM) and molas had insignificant effect on soil ECe, SAR and ESP after the harvesting of sugar beet in both growing seasons.”
Claim · model-written summary
The gypsum, sugar lime mixture and molas interaction produced the lowest soil ECe, SAR and ESP.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- G*SLM*Me0
- Outcome
- soil ECe, SAR and ESPe0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil ECe, SAR and ESP recorded lowest value due to the interaction between G*SLM*M”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The three-amendment combination removed about 51% of soil sodium at the stated doses.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- gypsum, sugar lime mixture and molas up to 10, 6 Mg fed.-1 and 60LFed.-1e0
- Outcome
- Na-removed from the soilse0
- Value
- 51%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Percentage of Na-removed from the soils at the end of the experiment was about 51% due to the interaction between gypsum, sugar lime mixture and molas up to 10, 6 Mg fed.-1 and 60LFed.-1, respectively.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The amendment interaction gave the highest soil infiltration rate and hydraulic conductivity relative to control.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- interaction between gypsum, SLM and molase0
- Outcome
- soil infiltration rate and hydraulic conductivitye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest values of soil infiltration rate and hydraulic conductivity were found with the interaction between gypsum, SLM and molas as compared to the control.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum at 10 Mg fed-1 or the three-amendment interaction significantly increased sugar beet root and top yields.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1e0
- Outcome
- Roots , the top yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- both growing seasonse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Roots , the top yields of sugar beet, sucrose (%) and extractable sugar yield were high significantly increased with application of gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1 and/or with the interaction between all amendments during both growing seasons.”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum or the three-amendment interaction significantly increased sugar beet sucrose percentage and extractable sugar yield.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1e0
- Outcome
- sucrose (%) and extractable sugar yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Roots , the top yields of sugar beet, sucrose (%) and extractable sugar yield were high significantly increased with application of gypsum up to 10 Mg fed-1 and/or with the interaction between all amendments during both growing seasons.”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined amendments significantly increased sugar beet root N, Na and K percentages after harvest.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- interaction between all amendmentse0
- Outcome
- root N, Na and K %e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root N, Na and K % after harvesting, were high significantly increased due to the interaction between all amendments during both seasons.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The three-amendment interaction significantly increased sugar recovery and recoverable sugar yield.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- interaction between all amendmentse0
- Outcome
- Sugar recovery and recoverable sugar yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar recovery and recoverable sugar yield were high significantly increased due to the interaction between all amendments.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest net income per water unit was 1.93 LE/m3 with 10 Mg gypsum fed-1.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 10 Mg gypsum fed-1e0
- Outcome
- net income values from water unite0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.93e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest net income values from water unit (1.93, 1.42 and 1.28 LE/m3 water) were obtained with the application of 10 Mg gypsum fed-1 , 6 Mg sugar lime mixture fed-1 and 30 L molas fed.- 1, respectively.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest net income per water unit was 1.42 LE/m3 with 6 Mg sugar lime mixture fed-1.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 6 Mg sugar lime mixture fed-1e0
- Outcome
- net income values from water unite0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.42e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest net income values from water unit (1.93, 1.42 and 1.28 LE/m3 water) were obtained with the application of 10 Mg gypsum fed-1 , 6 Mg sugar lime mixture fed-1 and 30 L molas fed.- 1, respectively.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest net income per water unit was 1.28 LE/m3 with 30 L molas fed.- 1.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 30 L molas fed.- 1e0
- Outcome
- net income values from water unite0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.28 LE/m3 watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest net income values from water unit (1.93, 1.42 and 1.28 LE/m3 water) were obtained with the application of 10 Mg gypsum fed-1 , 6 Mg sugar lime mixture fed-1 and 30 L molas fed.- 1, respectively.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The three-amendment interaction produced the highest total and net income.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- interaction between 10 Mg gypsum fed-1 , 6 Mg lime Fed-1 and 60 L Molas Fed.-1e0
- Outcome
- total and net incomee0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest total and net income were recorded with the interaction between 10 Mg gypsum fed-1 , 6 Mg lime Fed-1 and 60 L Molas Fed.-1.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
Claim · model-written summary
For sugar beet root and economic outcomes, the three-amendment interaction ranked first among amendment combinations.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- root of sugar beet, total income, net income, Net efficiency from water unit and economic Eff.e0
- Direction
- G*SLM*M > G*SLM >G*M>G> SLM*M> SLM >Me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amendment can be arranged, due to its effect on root of sugar beet, total income, net income, Net efficiency from water unit and economic Eff. in the order of: G*SLM*M > G*SLM >G*M>G> SLM*M> SLM >M”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identified the three-amendment interaction as the most effective treatment.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEETBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- G*SLM*Me0
- Outcome
- the most effective treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Finally, the most effective treatment was the interaction between G*SLM*M.”
t0“SUGAR BEET(Beta vulgaris l.)”
The same questions in other papers
lime · soil: chemistry · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
lime · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
lime · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →lime · nutrient: content · 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 →other · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
15 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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.