Abstract
Soil and water agro-management techniques play a critical role in grown crops to increase productivity. Mulching is one of the good agriculture practices methods to conserve soil moisture, control weeds and improve soil physical properties. Two field experiments were implemented at Wadi El-Natron Research Station, Water Management Research Institute, National Water Research Center, Egypt, during 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 winter seasons to evaluate the effect of four mulching types, No Mulch (NM, Control), Rice Straw Mulch (RSM), White Polyethylene Film Mulch (WPFM) and Black Polyethylene Film Mulch (BPFM) of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly) yield and quality as well as water use efficiency for root (WUEroot) and sugar (WUEsugar) in sandy soil. Significant differences among mulching types were observed. The results indicated that, both BPFM and WPFM recorded the highest sucrose values (21.14 and 19.77%), purity (85.88 and 82.01%), extractable sugar (19.49 and 17.68%), root yield (58.70 and 53.92 ton ha-1) and sugar yield (11.44 and 9.53 ton ha-1) in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively. On the contrary, NM recorded the highest impurities percentage and low weed control efficiency. Average of WUEroot (6.08, 7.36, 9.78 and 9.97 kg m-3) and WUEsugar (0.89, 1.16, 1.73 and 1.94 kg m-3) resulted from NM, RSM, WPFM, and BPFM, respectively, as an average in two seasons. Weed control efficiency values were (40.9, 30.45, 5.2 and zero%) for BPFM, WPFM, RSM, and NM, respectively and that helped in maintaining higher moisture content in the crop root zone.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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
Both BPFM and WPFM gave the highest sucrose values in sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Material
- Zwanpolye0
- Treatment
- BPFM and WPFMe1
- Outcome
- sucrosee2
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 21.14 and 19.77%e2
- Qualifier
- in the 1st and 2nd season, respectivelye3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e1“both BPFM and WPFM recorded the highest”
e2“sucrose values (21.14 and 19.77%)”
e3“in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Both BPFM and WPFM gave the highest purity of sugar beet juice.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- Zwanpolye0
- Treatment
- BPFM and WPFMe1
- Outcome
- puritye2
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 85.88 and 82.01%e2
- Qualifier
- in the 1st and 2nd season, respectivelye3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e1“both BPFM and WPFM recorded the highest”
e2“purity (85.88 and 82.01%)”
e3“in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Both BPFM and WPFM gave the highest extractable sugar in sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- Zwanpolye0
- Treatment
- BPFM and WPFMe1
- Outcome
- extractable sugare2
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 19.49 and 17.68%e2
- Qualifier
- in the 1st and 2nd season, respectivelye3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e1“both BPFM and WPFM recorded the highest”
e2“extractable sugar (19.49 and 17.68%)”
e3“in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Both BPFM and WPFM gave the highest root yield of sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- Zwanpolye0
- Treatment
- BPFM and WPFMe1
- Outcome
- root yielde2
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 58.70 and 53.92 ton ha-1e2
- Qualifier
- in the 1st and 2nd season, respectivelye3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e1“both BPFM and WPFM recorded the highest”
e2“root yield (58.70 and 53.92 ton ha-1)”
e3“in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Both BPFM and WPFM gave the highest sugar yield of sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Material
- Zwanpolye0
- Treatment
- BPFM and WPFMe1
- Outcome
- sugar yielde2
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 11.44 and 9.53 ton ha-1e2
- Qualifier
- in the 1st and 2nd season, respectivelye3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e1“both BPFM and WPFM recorded the highest”
e2“sugar yield (11.44 and 9.53 ton ha-1)”
e3“in the 1st and 2nd season, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No Mulch (NM) recorded the highest impurities percentage in sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- NMe6
- Outcome
- impurities percentagee6
- Direction
- higheste6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e6“NM recorded the highest impurities percentage and low weed control efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
No Mulch (NM) gave low weed control efficiency in sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- NMe6
- Outcome
- weed control efficiencye6
- Direction
- lowe6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e6“NM recorded the highest impurities percentage and low weed control efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
Average water use efficiency for root (WUEroot) in sugar beet was 6.08 to 9.97 kg m-3 across NM, RSM, WPFM and BPFM.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- NM, RSM, WPFM, and BPFMe5
- Outcome
- WUEroote4
- Value
- 6.08, 7.36, 9.78 and 9.97 kg m-3e4
- Qualifier
- as an average in two seasonse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e4“WUEroot (6.08, 7.36, 9.78 and 9.97 kg m-3)”
e5“resulted from NM, RSM, WPFM, and BPFM, respectively, as an average in two seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Average water use efficiency for sugar (WUEsugar) in sugar beet was 0.89 to 1.94 kg m-3 across NM, RSM, WPFM and BPFM.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- NM, RSM, WPFM, and BPFMe5
- Outcome
- WUEsugare4
- Value
- 0.89, 1.16, 1.73 and 1.94 kg m-3e4
- Qualifier
- as an average in two seasonse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e4“WUEsugar (0.89, 1.16, 1.73 and 1.94 kg m-3)”
e5“resulted from NM, RSM, WPFM, and BPFM, respectively, as an average in two seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control efficiency values in sugar beet were 40.9% for BPFM, 30.45% for WPFM, 5.2% for RSM and zero for NM.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- BPFM, WPFM, RSM, and NMe4
- Outcome
- Weed control efficiency valuese4
- Value
- 40.9, 30.45, 5.2 and zero%e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e4“Weed control efficiency values were (40.9, 30.45, 5.2 and zero%) for BPFM, WPFM, RSM, and NM, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching helped maintain higher moisture content in the sugar beet root zone, through weed control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- moisture content in the crop root zonee1
- Qualifier
- helped in maintaining higher moisturee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cv, Zwanpoly)”
e1“that helped in maintaining higher moisture content in the crop root zone”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
mulching · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.