Abstract
Introduction Sugar beet, scientifically known as Beta vulgaris L, is allogamous, diploid, biennial plant of the spinach genus that is cultivated to produce storage roots. The growth period of sugar beet, depending on environmental conditions and genotype, varies from 5 to 9 months and is known as a late maturing plant. Therefore, estimating the yield reduction due to leaf fall plays an important role in farm management. In addition to the effects of stressors, some farmers may use sugar beet leaves to raise livestock during the growing season. In this case, too, the leaves are damaged. In the experiment of complete removal of leaves in three sugar beet cultivars, it was observed that complete removal of leaves in Antek and Vico cultivars led to reduced root yield and subsequently white sugar yield was significantly reduced, but In Sharif cultivar, leaf removal had no significant effect on root yield and sugar yield. They also reported that leaf removal increased the percentage of root sugar in Sharif cultivar. Effect of leaf removal time on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of autumn sugar beet cultivars in Gorgan region. Materials and Methods This experiment was carried out in factorial design during the 2019-2020 crop year in Varsen of Gorgan based on randomized complete block design with three replications. The first factor includes 6 autumn sugar beet cultivars including Monotana, Jerra-kws, Rosagold, Chimneh, Veles and Sharif and the second factor includes three levels, pruning in May (leaf development), pruning in June (reducing leaf development) and no pruning (control). Pruning was done using a sickle and the entire aerial part (petiole and leaves) was cut from a height of 5 cm above the crown. Seed bed preparation operations including plowing, retorting, leveling and farrowing were performed before planting. According to the planting plan, they were planted by hand on top of the ridges on November 2019. At the end of the growing season of each harvested plant, root yield and qualitative traits were calculated. The most common method of measuring sugar percentage by polarimetry method was calculated using saccharimeter, sodium and potassium by flame photometry method, harmful nitrogen by aqueous number method and other qualitative characteristics. The analyzed traits were analyzed using SAS software and the means were compared by LSD method at a statistical level of 5%. Results and Discussion Sugar beet cultivars showed significant differences in sugar content (grade), sodium, potassium, extractable sugar content, sugar and molasses extraction coefficient; However, no significant differences were observed between cultivars in terms of harmful nitrogen, alkalinity and root dry matter. Leaf pruning treatments except sodium and molasses were significant in other studied traits. The interaction between cultivars and pruning has also been significant in potassium and molasses traits. Significant differences were observed between the treatments by applying pruning treatment; So that the highest percentage of sugar (14.7%) was observed in the control treatment and the lowest percentage of sugar was observed in the June treatment (12%). The highest root yield was related to Chamineh cultivar with an average of 98 tons per hectare and the lowest root yield was related to Rosagold cultivar with an average of 80 tons per hectare. Due to the decrease in leaf production at the end of the sugar beet growing season, the amount of damage caused by root yield in leaf removal treatment in the final stages of growth (June pruning) is much less than the effect of leaf removal in the middle stage of growth. Conclusions Removal of sugar beet leaves in the final stages of growth had an effect on root quality properties such as sugar content, extractable sugar percentage and sugar extraction coefficient and root yield and reduced the mentioned traits. Root impurities also increased due to defoliation. Most yield losses were obtained when sugar beet leaves were removed or eliminated in the middle stages of growth (May pruning).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivars differed significantly in sugar content, sodium and potassium.
- Taxon
- Sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Outcome
- sugar content (grade), sodium, potassiume0
- Direction
- significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar beet cultivars showed significant differences in sugar content (grade), sodium, potassium, extractable sugar content, sugar and molasses extraction coefficient”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivars differed significantly in extractable sugar, sugar and molasses extraction coefficients.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- extractable sugar content, sugar and molasses extraction coefficiente0
- Direction
- significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar beet cultivars showed significant differences in sugar content (grade), sodium, potassium, extractable sugar content, sugar and molasses extraction coefficient”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivars showed no significant differences in harmful nitrogen, alkalinity or root dry matter.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Outcome
- harmful nitrogen, alkalinity and root dry mattere0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences were observed between cultivars in terms of harmful nitrogen, alkalinity and root dry matter”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf pruning significantly affected studied traits other than sodium and molasses.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- Leaf pruning treatmentse0
- Outcome
- other studied traitse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf pruning treatments except sodium and molasses were significant in other studied traits”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar and pruning interaction was significant for potassium and molasses.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- pruninge0
- Outcome
- potassium and molasses traitse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The interaction between cultivars and pruning has also been significant in potassium and molasses traits”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Unpruned controls had the highest sugar percentage, 14.7%.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- control treatmente0
- Outcome
- percentage of sugare0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 14.7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest percentage of sugar (14.7%) was observed in the control treatment”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
June pruning had the lowest sugar percentage, 12%.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- June treatmente0
- Outcome
- percentage of sugare0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 12%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowest percentage of sugar was observed in the June treatment (12%)”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Chamineh had the highest root yield, averaging 98 tons per hectare.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Material
- Chaminehe0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 98 tons per hectaree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest root yield was related to Chamineh cultivar with an average of 98 tons per hectare”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Rosagold had the lowest root yield, averaging 80 tons per hectare.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Material
- Rosagolde0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 80 tons per hectaree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowest root yield was related to Rosagold cultivar with an average of 80 tons per hectare”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
June leaf removal caused less root yield damage than mid-growth leaf removal.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- June pruninge0
- Outcome
- damage caused by root yielde0
- Direction
- much lesse0
- Comparator
- leaf removal in the middle stage of growthe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the amount of damage caused by root yield in leaf removal treatment in the final stages of growth (June pruning) is much less than the effect of leaf removal in the middle stage of growth”
e1“Sugar beet cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation reduced root sugar content, extractable sugar percentage and extraction coefficient.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Removal of sugar beet leaves in the final stages of growthe0
- Outcome
- sugar content, extractable sugar percentage and sugar extraction coefficiente0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Removal of sugar beet leaves in the final stages of growth had an effect on root quality properties such as sugar content, extractable sugar percentage and sugar extraction coefficient and root yield and reduced the mentioned traits”
Claim · model-written summary
Final-stage leaf removal reduced root yield.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Removal of sugar beet leaves in the final stages of growthe0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Removal of sugar beet leaves in the final stages of growth had an effect on root quality properties such as sugar content, extractable sugar percentage and sugar extraction coefficient and root yield and reduced the mentioned traits”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation increased root impurities.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- defoliatione0
- Outcome
- Root impuritiese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root impurities also increased due to defoliation”
e1“Removal of sugar beet leaves in the final stages of growth”
Claim · model-written summary
May pruning caused the greatest yield losses.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- May pruninge0
- Outcome
- yield lossese0
- Direction
- Moste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Most yield losses were obtained when sugar beet leaves were removed or eliminated in the middle stages of growth (May pruning)”
The same questions in other papers
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →pruning · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →pruning · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.