micronutrient · Yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)

Results agree11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

23 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.

How these papers cite each other

1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.

Positive resultNegative result or no effect20002005201020152020
  • Positive result
  • Negative result or no effect
  • Citation, pointing to the cited paper
  • Citation across the two sides
  • Larger circle: more citations overall

Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.

Papers reporting a positive result 11

  1. Yield and quality of sugar beet after foliar feeding with nitrogen, magnesium, boron and copper · 1996

  2. Effects of complete micronutrients and their application method on root yield and sugar content of sugar beet cv. Rassoul · 2008

  3. INFLUENCE OF FOLIAR SPRAY OF SOME MICRONUTRIENTS AND NITROGEN FERTILIZER ON PRODUCTIVITY OF SUGAR BEET UNDER NEWLY RECLAIMED SOILS. · 2011

  4. Response of Sugar Beet to Micronutrients Foliar Spray under Different Nitrogen Fertilizer Doses · 2014

  5. Influence of Foliar Application with Micronutrients on Productivity of Three Sugar Beet Cultivars under Drip Irrigation in Sandy Soils · 2015

  6. Производительность сахарной свеклы в зависимости от применения внекорневой подкормки микроудобрениями и сроков уборки · 2015

  7. Utilization of Micronutrients in Dorotti Sugar-beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Cultivar · 2016

  8. Economic and energy efficiency of sugar beet growing under alternative fertilization programs · 2017

  9. PROFITABILITY OF SUGAR BEET FOLIAR NUTRITION WITH SILICON · 2019

    cited by 1 paper here

  10. THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FOLIAR FERTILIZATION OF SUGAR BEET WITH MARINE CALCITE · 2019

    cites 1 paper here

  11. Productivity of sugar beet under alternative organic-mineral fertilization · 2023

A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.

micronutrient on Beta vulgaris (beet) against other targets

micronutrient · yield on other organisms