Abstract
A 2-year study was conducted to examine the impact of deficit irrigation on dry biomass, water-use efficiency (WUE), fruit yield and quality in open-field processing tomato at high plant density in a semi-arid environment. Three irrigation treatments (nil; and 100% (full) and 50% (deficit) restoration of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), respectively) and two plant densities (2.5 (P1) and 5.0 (P2) plants m–2) were studied. Dry biomass and fruit yield per plant were lower in P2 than in P1, but at high plant density the crop compensated for biomass and yield decrease at the plant level. Fruit yield in P2 was greater than that in P1, by 36% in 2004 and 33% in 2005. Water limitation improved quality traits compared with full irrigation. Deficit irrigation, especially in P2, enhanced WUE and allowed a water saving of >45% relative to full irrigation, while keeping high levels of fruit quality. The yield response factor, Ky, which correlates relative fruit yield losses to relative ETc reduction, was higher (0.63) than Kss (0.44), which correlates relative total dry biomass losses to relative ETc reduction, revealing a greater crop sensitivity to soil-water deficit in terms of fruit yield than dry biomass. Therefore, Ky may of use in identifying the plant density at which water productivity is maximised or yield losses are minimised.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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
Higher plant density lowered dry biomass and fruit yield per plant.
Verbatim
e0“Dry biomass and fruit yield per plant were lower in P2 than in P1”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher plant density compensated for biomass and yield decreases per plant at the crop level.
Verbatim
e0“at high plant density the crop compensated for biomass and yield decrease at the plant level”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
P2 increased fruit yield relative to P1 by 36% in 2004.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit yield in P2 was greater than that in P1, by 36% in 2004 and 33% in 2005”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
P2 increased fruit yield relative to P1 by 33% in 2005.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit yield in P2 was greater than that in P1, by 36% in 2004 and 33% in 2005”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Water limitation improved tomato quality traits relative to full irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“Water limitation improved quality traits compared with full irrigation”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation enhanced water use efficiency, especially at P2.
- Taxon
- processing tomatot0
- Treatment
- Deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Qualifier
- especially in P2e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation, especially in P2, enhanced WUE”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation saved more than 45% water relative to full irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation, especially in P2, enhanced WUE and allowed a water saving of >45% relative to full irrigation”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response factor Ky was 0.63, exceeding biomass response factor Kss at 0.44, indicating greater fruit yield sensitivity to soil water deficit.
Verbatim
e0“The yield response factor, Ky, which correlates relative fruit yield losses to relative ETc reduction, was higher (0.63) than Kss (0.44), which correlates relative total dry biomass losses to relative ETc reduction, revealing a greater crop sensitivity to soil-water deficit in terms of fruit yield than dry biomass”
t0“processing tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors propose Ky for finding plant density that maximizes water productivity or minimizes yield loss.
Verbatim
e0“Ky may of use in identifying the plant density at which water productivity is maximised or yield losses are minimised”
t0“processing tomato”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: general · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
116 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 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.