Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during the winter (rabi) season of 201516 at Navsari, Gujarat to study the response of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) varieties to land configuration under south Gujarat climatic conditions. Nine treatment combinations, comprising 3 land configurations, viz. L , flat bed; L , ridge furrow; and L , raised 1 2 3 bed, in main plots and 3 varieties, viz. V , SV 887; V , SV 889 and V , SV 892 in subplots were evaluated in 1 2 3 split-plot design with 4 replications. Significantly the maximum values for fresh foliage, root and total biomass of sugarbeet were observed in raised bed (23.36, 68.36 and 91.72 t/ha), being 40.3, 22.3 and 26.5% higher, respec- tively, over flat bed. Similarly, raised bed also resulted in the maximum net realization ( 127.6 103/ha) and ben- efit: cost ratio (2.32). Sugar beet showed the highest fresh foliage, root and total biomass (21.53, 64.63 and 86.16 t/ha) in variety SV 887, with increased magnitude of fresh foliage, root and total biomass to the tune of 27.5, 10.6 and 14.4%, respectively, over variety SV 889. Similarly, variety SV 887 also exhibited the maximum net re- alization ( 118.2 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.18). The treatment combination involving raised bed with vari- ety SV 887 accrued the maximum net realization ( 131.4 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.39) and proved sig- nificantly superior to all the other treatment combinations except raised bed with all varieties and ridge furrow with variety SV 887. The results revealed that planting all the 3 varieties of sugar beet on raised beds and cv. SV 887 under ridge and furrow method performed equally well in heavy black soil of south Gujarat with the maximum pro- ductivity and profitability.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds increased fresh foliage biomass over flat beds by 40.3%.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- raised bede0
- Outcome
- fresh foliagee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 40.3e0
- Comparator
- flat bede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly the maximum values for fresh foliage, root and total biomass of sugarbeet were observed in raised bed (23.36, 68.36 and 91.72 t/ha), being 40.3, 22.3 and 26.5% higher, respec- tively, over flat bed.”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds increased root biomass over flat beds by 22.3%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- raised bede0
- Outcome
- roote0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 22.3e0
- Comparator
- flat bede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly the maximum values for fresh foliage, root and total biomass of sugarbeet were observed in raised bed (23.36, 68.36 and 91.72 t/ha), being 40.3, 22.3 and 26.5% higher, respec- tively, over flat bed.”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds increased total biomass biomass over flat beds by 26.5%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- raised bede0
- Outcome
- total biomasse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 26.5%e0
- Comparator
- flat bede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly the maximum values for fresh foliage, root and total biomass of sugarbeet were observed in raised bed (23.36, 68.36 and 91.72 t/ha), being 40.3, 22.3 and 26.5% higher, respec- tively, over flat bed.”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised bed produced the maximum net realization.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- raised bede0
- Outcome
- net realizatione0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 127.6 103/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similarly, raised bed also resulted in the maximum net realization ( 127.6 103/ha) and ben- efit: cost ratio (2.32).”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised bed produced the maximum ben- efit: cost ratio.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- raised bede0
- Outcome
- ben- efit: cost ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 2.32e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similarly, raised bed also resulted in the maximum net realization ( 127.6 103/ha) and ben- efit: cost ratio (2.32).”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
SV 887 had higher fresh foliage biomass than SV 889 by 27.5%.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- SV 887e0
- Outcome
- fresh foliagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 27.5e0
- Comparator
- SV 889e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar beet showed the highest fresh foliage, root and total biomass (21.53, 64.63 and 86.16 t/ha) in variety SV 887, with increased magnitude of fresh foliage, root and total biomass to the tune of 27.5, 10.6 and 14.4%, respectively, over variety SV 889.”
Claim · model-written summary
SV 887 had higher root biomass than SV 889 by 10.6%.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- SV 887e0
- Outcome
- roote0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10.6e0
- Comparator
- SV 889e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar beet showed the highest fresh foliage, root and total biomass (21.53, 64.63 and 86.16 t/ha) in variety SV 887, with increased magnitude of fresh foliage, root and total biomass to the tune of 27.5, 10.6 and 14.4%, respectively, over variety SV 889.”
Claim · model-written summary
SV 887 had higher total biomass biomass than SV 889 by 14.4%.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- SV 887e0
- Outcome
- total biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14.4%e0
- Comparator
- SV 889e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar beet showed the highest fresh foliage, root and total biomass (21.53, 64.63 and 86.16 t/ha) in variety SV 887, with increased magnitude of fresh foliage, root and total biomass to the tune of 27.5, 10.6 and 14.4%, respectively, over variety SV 889.”
Claim · model-written summary
SV 887 had maximum net re- alization.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- SV 887e0
- Outcome
- net re- alizatione0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 118.2 103/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similarly, variety SV 887 also exhibited the maximum net re- alization ( 118.2 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.18).”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
SV 887 had maximum benefit: cost ratio.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- SV 887e0
- Outcome
- benefit: cost ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 2.18e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similarly, variety SV 887 also exhibited the maximum net re- alization ( 118.2 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.18).”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised bed with SV 887 gave maximum net realization, with stated exceptions to its superiority.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- SV 887e0
- Treatment
- raised bede0
- Outcome
- net realizatione0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 131.4 103/hae0
- Qualifier
- except raised bed with all varieties and ridge furrow with variety SV 887e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The treatment combination involving raised bed with vari- ety SV 887 accrued the maximum net realization ( 131.4 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.39) and proved sig- nificantly superior to all the other treatment combinations except raised bed with all varieties and ridge furrow with variety SV 887.”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised bed with SV 887 gave maximum benefit: cost ratio, with stated exceptions to its superiority.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Material
- SV 887e0
- Treatment
- raised bede0
- Outcome
- benefit: cost ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 2.39e0
- Qualifier
- except raised bed with all varieties and ridge furrow with variety SV 887e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The treatment combination involving raised bed with vari- ety SV 887 accrued the maximum net realization ( 131.4 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.39) and proved sig- nificantly superior to all the other treatment combinations except raised bed with all varieties and ridge furrow with variety SV 887.”
t0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
All three varieties on raised beds and SV 887 on ridge and furrow performed equally well for productivity and profitability.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- pro- ductivity and profitabilitye0
- Direction
- equally welle0
- Setting
- south Gujarate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“planting all the 3 varieties of sugar beet on raised beds and cv. SV 887 under ridge and furrow method performed equally well in heavy black soil of south Gujarat with the maximum pro- ductivity and profitability”
The same questions in other 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 →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.