Paper · 2000 · Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering

EFFECT OF WATER APPLICATION LEVELS AND DIFFERENT WETTING DEPTHS ON SUGARBEET YIELD AND ITS WATER RELATIONS AT NORTH DELTA

H. Shams El-Din,

15
claims
33
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Two field experiments were conducted at Sakha Agriculture Research Station Farm, during 1997/98 and 1998/99 seasons to study the effect of water applied levels (watering at field capacity, field capacity + 5% and field capacity – 5%) and different wetting depths (30, 45 and 60 cm) onsugarbeet yield and its water relations. The results showed that treatment W1, (field capacity) achieved the highest values of sugarbeet yield (20.17 ton/fed.) followed by treatment W3 (field capacity – 5%) , while treatment W2 (field capacity +5%) recorded the lowest values (18.52 ton/fed. The data indicated that treatment D1 (soil moisture depth of (30 cm) produced the highest values of sugarbeet yield and weight of the root per plant. The highest sugar yield was scored from soil moisture depth of 30 cm (D1) in the 1st and 2nd seasons (3419.55 and 3791.49 kg/fed.), respectively followed by treatment (D2). The lowest value of sugar yield was obtained from treatment (D3). Treatment W3 (field capacity plus 5%) recorded the highest values of water consumptive use (2479.4 and 2563.34 m3/fed.) followed by treatment W1 (2400.86 and 2484.87 m3/fed.) for the 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively. The highest values of water applied was recorded with the irrigation levels at field capacity + 5% and soil moisture depth of 60 cm. The lowest values were recorded by irrigation at field capacity – 5% and to soil moisture depth of 30 cm. Irrigation at field capacity – 5% (W3) treatment produced the highest values of water use efficiency for sugarbeet and sugar yield in the 1st and 2nd seasons, followed by treatment (W1) that irrigated at field capacity. Irrigation at field capacity + 5% treatment (W2) recorded the lowest values of water use efficiency. Irrigation at 30 cm of soil moisture depth (D1) achieved the highest values of water use efficiency for both sugarbeet and sugar yield followed by treatment D2 irrigated at depth of 45 cm. While the lowest values were obtained from treatment D3 (irrigated at depth of 60 cm). Data of soil moisture extraction reveal that most of the moisture was removed from the upper soil surface layer depth. There was a substantial reduction in moisture extraction downward throughout the soil profile. Generally about 70% of the available soil moisture was extracted by roots from the first foot (0-30 cm), and the rest (30 %) from the second down foot of soil profile.

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 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field capacity irrigation gave the highest sugarbeet yield of 20.17 ton/fed

Treatment
field capacitye1
Outcome
sugarbeet yielde1
Direction
higheste1
Value
20.17 ton/fed.e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatment W1, (field capacity) achieved the highest values of sugarbeet yield (20.17 ton/fed.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 349–443 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field capacity +5% irrigation gave the lowest sugarbeet yield of 18.52 ton/fed

Treatment
field capacity +5%e2
Outcome
sugarbeet yielde1
Direction
loweste2
Value
18.52 ton/fede2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatment W1, (field capacity) achieved the highest values of sugarbeet yield (20.17 ton/fed.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 349–443 · show in text ↑
e2

“treatment W2 (field capacity +5%) recorded the lowest values (18.52 ton/fed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 499–574 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil moisture depth of 30 cm gave the highest sugarbeet yield and root weight per plant

Treatment
soil moisture depth of (30 cm)e3
Outcome
sugarbeet yield and weight of the root per plante3
Direction
higheste3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e3

“treatment D1 (soil moisture depth of (30 cm) produced the highest values of sugarbeet yield and weight of the root per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–724 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil moisture depth of 30 cm gave the highest sugar yield, 3419.55 and 3791.49 kg/fed in the two seasons

Treatment
soil moisture depth of 30 cme4
Outcome
sugar yielde4
Direction
higheste4
Value
3419.55 and 3791.49 kg/fed.e4
Qualifier
1st and 2nd seasonse4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e4

“The highest sugar yield was scored from soil moisture depth of 30 cm (D1) in the 1st and 2nd seasons (3419.55 and 3791.49 kg/fed.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 726–856 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field capacity plus 5% treatment had the highest water consumptive use, 2479.4 and 2563.34 m3/fed

Treatment
field capacity plus 5%e5
Outcome
water consumptive usee5
Direction
higheste5
Value
2479.4 and 2563.34 m3/fed.e5

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e5

“Treatment W3 (field capacity plus 5%) recorded the highest values of water consumptive use (2479.4 and 2563.34 m3/fed.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–1084 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water applied was highest at field capacity +5% irrigation

Treatment
field capacity + 5%e6
Outcome
water appliede6
Direction
higheste6
Qualifier
soil moisture depth of 60 cme6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e6

“The highest values of water applied was recorded with the irrigation levels at field capacity + 5% and soil moisture depth of 60 cm. The lowest values were recorded by irrigation at field capacity – 5% and to soil moisture depth of 30 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1183–1420 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water applied was lowest at field capacity -5% irrigation

Treatment
field capacity – 5%e6
Outcome
water appliede6
Direction
loweste6
Qualifier
soil moisture depth of 30 cme6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e6

“The highest values of water applied was recorded with the irrigation levels at field capacity + 5% and soil moisture depth of 60 cm. The lowest values were recorded by irrigation at field capacity – 5% and to soil moisture depth of 30 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1183–1420 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field capacity -5% irrigation gave the highest water use efficiency for sugarbeet and sugar yield

Treatment
field capacity – 5%e7
Outcome
water use efficiency for sugarbeet and sugar yielde7
Direction
higheste7
Qualifier
1st and 2nd seasonse7

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e7

“Irrigation at field capacity – 5% (W3) treatment produced the highest values of water use efficiency for sugarbeet and sugar yield in the 1st and 2nd seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1422–1579 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field capacity +5% irrigation gave the lowest water use efficiency

Treatment
field capacity + 5%e0
Outcome
water use efficiencye0
Direction
loweste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“Irrigation at field capacity + 5% treatment (W2) recorded the lowest values of water use efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1642–1741 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil moisture depth of 30 cm gave the highest water use efficiency for sugarbeet and sugar yield

Treatment
30 cm of soil moisture depthe1
Outcome
water use efficiency for both sugarbeet and sugar yielde1
Direction
higheste1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e1

“Irrigation at 30 cm of soil moisture depth (D1) achieved the highest values of water use efficiency for both sugarbeet and sugar yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1743–1877 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation at 60 cm depth gave the lowest water use efficiency

Treatment
irrigated at depth of 60 cme2
Outcome
water use efficiencye1
Direction
loweste2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e1

“Irrigation at 30 cm of soil moisture depth (D1) achieved the highest values of water use efficiency for both sugarbeet and sugar yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1743–1877 · show in text ↑
e2

“While the lowest values were obtained from treatment D3 (irrigated at depth of 60 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1932–2017 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most soil moisture extraction occurred in the upper soil surface layer

Outcome
soil moisture extractione3
Qualifier
most of the moisture was removed from the upper soil surface layer depthe3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e3

“Data of soil moisture extraction reveal that most of the moisture was removed from the upper soil surface layer depth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2019–2136 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

About 70% of available soil moisture was extracted by roots from the first 0-30 cm

Outcome
available soil moisturee4
Value
70%e4
Qualifier
first foot (0-30 cm)e4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e4

“Generally about 70% of the available soil moisture was extracted by roots from the first foot (0-30 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2233–2336 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

About 30% of available soil moisture was extracted from the second foot of soil profile

Outcome
available soil moisturee4
Value
30 %e5
Qualifier
second down foot of soil profilee5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e4

“Generally about 70% of the available soil moisture was extracted by roots from the first foot (0-30 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2233–2336 · show in text ↑
e5

“and the rest (30 %) from the second down foot of soil profile”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2338–2399 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moisture extraction by roots decreased substantially with soil depth

Outcome
moisture extractione6
Qualifier
substantial reductione6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“SUGARBEET YIELD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–82 · show in text ↑
e6

“There was a substantial reduction in moisture extraction downward throughout the soil profile”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2138–2231 · show in text ↑

soil water · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

soil water · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

irrigation · physiology: water · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

41 papers: 33 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

soil water · physiology: water · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.