Abstract
Two field experiments were conducted at El-Serw Agricultural Experiment and Research Station, during two successive winter seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/ 2013, to study the effect of soaking seeds in solutions of poly ethylene glycol (PEG) and humic acid (HA) on growth, yield, and nutrients contents of fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L. (vorochenger) grown in newly reclaimed saline soils conditions. Results showed positive effects of soaked seeds compared to the un-soaked seeds. At soaking time 12 h, the increases due to HA treatments were greater than those attributed to PEG. Soil pH was almost unchanged, the EC values were decreased by 35.5% and 37.99% while soil available NPK were increased by 28.44% and 33.65% for N; by 11.28% and 96.24% for P while K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control. The fresh and dry weights of root were increased by 133.3% and 136.86%, respectively, for PEG treatments. For HA treatments, the increases in the above mentioned characteristics amounted 155.26% and 161.63%, respectively. Root length and diameter were enhanced significantly. the increases in roots N content amounted 21.74 and 29.5%, P by 37.88 and 50%, K by 7.82 and 12.35% and Protein by 21.71 and 26.63% for PEG and HA, respectively. The leaves chlorophyll content (Chl) was increased by 84.43% and 156.51% and emergence by 36.36% and 42.15% while the proline decreased by 16.07% and 25.71% for PEG and HA, respectively.
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
Seed soaking had positive effects compared with unsoaked fodder beet seeds.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed positive effects of soaked seeds compared to the un-soaked seeds.”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
At 12 h soaking, humic acid effects were greater than poly ethylene glycol effects.
Verbatim
e0“At soaking time 12 h, the increases due to HA treatments were greater than those attributed to PEG”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH was almost unchanged.
Verbatim
e0“Soil pH was almost unchanged”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG decreased soil EC by 35.5% versus control.
Verbatim
e0“the EC values were decreased by 35.5% and 37.99% while soil available NPK were increased by 28.44% and 33.65% for N; by 11.28% and 96.24% for P while K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
HA decreased soil EC by 37.99% versus control.
Verbatim
e0“the EC values were decreased by 35.5% and 37.99% while soil available NPK were increased by 28.44% and 33.65% for N; by 11.28% and 96.24% for P while K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG increased soil available N by 28.44%.
Verbatim
e0“soil available NPK were increased by 28.44% and 33.65% for N; by 11.28% and 96.24% for P while K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
HA increased soil available N by 33.65%.
Verbatim
e0“soil available NPK were increased by 28.44% and 33.65% for N; by 11.28% and 96.24% for P while K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG increased soil available P by 11.28%.
Verbatim
e0“soil available NPK were increased by 28.44% and 33.65% for N; by 11.28% and 96.24% for P while K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
HA increased soil available P by 96.24%.
Verbatim
e0“soil available NPK were increased by 28.44% and 33.65% for N; by 11.28% and 96.24% for P while K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG increased soil available K by 13.14%.
Verbatim
e0“K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
HA increased soil available K by 18.5%.
Verbatim
e0“K was increased by 13.14% and 18.5% for both PEG and HA treatments respectively compared with the control”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG increased root fresh weight by 133.3%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The fresh and dry weights of root were increased by 133.3% and 136.86%, respectively, for PEG treatments.”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG increased root dry weight by 136.86%.
- Taxon
- FODDER BEETt0
- Treatment
- PEG treatmentse0
- Outcome
- dry weights of roote0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 136.86%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The fresh and dry weights of root were increased by 133.3% and 136.86%, respectively, for PEG treatments.”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
HA increased root fresh weight by 155.26%.
- Taxon
- FODDER BEETt0
- Treatment
- HA treatmentse0
- Outcome
- above mentioned characteristicse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 155.26%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“For HA treatments, the increases in the above mentioned characteristics amounted 155.26% and 161.63%, respectively.”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
HA increased root dry weight by 161.63%.
- Taxon
- FODDER BEETt0
- Treatment
- HA treatmentse0
- Outcome
- above mentioned characteristicse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 161.63%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“For HA treatments, the increases in the above mentioned characteristics amounted 155.26% and 161.63%, respectively.”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Root length and diameter increased significantly.
Verbatim
e0“Root length and diameter were enhanced significantly”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG and HA increased root N, P, K and protein contents, with treatment-specific increases reported.
Verbatim
e0“the increases in roots N content amounted 21.74 and 29.5%, P by 37.88 and 50%, K by 7.82 and 12.35% and Protein by 21.71 and 26.63% for PEG and HA, respectively”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG and HA increased leaf chlorophyll content, with respective increases of 84.43% and 156.51%.
Verbatim
e0“The leaves chlorophyll content (Chl) was increased by 84.43% and 156.51% and emergence by 36.36% and 42.15% while the proline decreased by 16.07% and 25.71% for PEG and HA, respectively”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG and HA increased emergence, with respective increases of 36.36% and 42.15%.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“emergence by 36.36% and 42.15% while the proline decreased by 16.07% and 25.71% for PEG and HA, respectively”
t0“FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
PEG and HA decreased proline, with respective decreases of 16.07% and 25.71%.
Verbatim
e0“the proline decreased by 16.07% and 25.71% for PEG and HA, respectively”
t0“FODDER BEET”
The same questions in other papers
poly(ethylene glycol) · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →other · nutrient: content · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →other · soil: chemistry · 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 →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.