Abstract
Abstract Among many other ecosystem services, cover crops have potential to protect soil and nutrient loss from erosion. However, cover crop residues can alter nitrogen (N) dynamics and affect fertilizer N availability. Response of sugarbeet ( Beta vulgaris L.) yield and quality were studied for two fall‐seeded cover crops, winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) and cereal rye ( Secale cereale L.), and three fertilizer N treatments (fall and spring applications of 100% of recommended N, and 50% split in between fall and spring), in the Red River Valley of Minnesota. Cover crop species and fertilizer N application time significantly influenced sugarbeet canopy reflectance, soil inorganic N, and cover crop biomass production; however, they did not affect root yield and sugar concentration. Sugarbeet grown without a cover crop had higher normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and normalized difference red edge (NDRE) than sugarbeet grown after fall‐seeded rye. Fall N application had higher NDVI and NDRE than spring N application for most of the growing season. Cereal rye produced 15% higher biomass than winter wheat. Adoption of rye as a cover crop in sugarbeet might be possible without any adverse effect on sugarbeet production.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop species and nitrogen timing significantly affected sugarbeet canopy reflectance.
- Taxon
- sugarbeet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- Cover crop species and fertilizer N application timee0
- Outcome
- sugarbeet canopy reflectancee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cover crop species and fertilizer N application time significantly influenced sugarbeet canopy reflectance”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop and nitrogen timing significantly affected soil inorganic nitrogen.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Cover crop species and fertilizer N application timee0
- Outcome
- soil inorganic Ne0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cover crop species and fertilizer N application time significantly influenced sugarbeet canopy reflectance, soil inorganic N, and cover crop biomass production”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop and nitrogen timing significantly affected cover crop biomass.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Cover crop species and fertilizer N application timee0
- Outcome
- cover crop biomass productione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cover crop species and fertilizer N application time significantly influenced sugarbeet canopy reflectance, soil inorganic N, and cover crop biomass production”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop and nitrogen treatments did not affect sugarbeet root yield.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- fall‐seeded cover crop and fertilizer nitrogen application timet0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“however, they did not affect root yield and sugar concentration”
t0“Sugarbeet response to interactions between fall‐seeded cover crop and fertilizer nitrogen application time”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop and nitrogen treatments did not affect sugar concentration.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- fall‐seeded cover crop and fertilizer nitrogen application timet0
- Outcome
- sugar concentratione0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“however, they did not affect root yield and sugar concentration”
t0“Sugarbeet response to interactions between fall‐seeded cover crop and fertilizer nitrogen application time”
Claim · model-written summary
No cover crop gave higher sugarbeet NDVI and NDRE than rye.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- without a cover crope0
- Interactor
- rye
Secale cerealee0other - Outcome
- normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and normalized difference red edge (NDRE)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- fall‐seeded ryee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarbeet grown without a cover crop had higher normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and normalized difference red edge (NDRE) than sugarbeet grown after fall‐seeded rye”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall nitrogen gave higher NDVI and NDRE than spring nitrogen for most of the season.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Fall N applicatione0
- Outcome
- NDVI and NDREe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- most of the growing seasone0
- Comparator
- spring N applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fall N application had higher NDVI and NDRE than spring N application for most of the growing season”
t0“Sugarbeet response to interactions between fall‐seeded cover crop and fertilizer nitrogen application time”
Claim · model-written summary
Cereal rye produced 15% more biomass than winter wheat.
Verbatim
e0“Cereal rye produced 15% higher biomass than winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest rye cover crop adoption without adverse sugarbeet production effects.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- Adoption of rye as a cover crop in sugarbeete0
- Qualifier
- might be possible without any adverse effect on sugarbeet productione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Adoption of rye as a cover crop in sugarbeet might be possible without any adverse effect on sugarbeet production”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 88 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 papers →cover crop · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
cover crop · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →sowing time · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →sowing time · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →nitrogen · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 142 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
157 papers more in this group
See all 161 papers →fertilization · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 237 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 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.