Abstract
Agronomic and economic assessments of response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation are essential to optimize soil fertility management that maximizes farmers' profitability in a sustainable manner. A field study was conducted to evaluate the yield and economic responses of drip fertigated processing tomatoes to additions of fertilizer nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from 2003 to 2005. The experiment was arranged in a factorial design with four levels of fertilizer N (0, 120, 240, and 360 kg N ha −1 ) and three levels of fertilizer P (0, 100, and 200 kg P 2 O 5 ha −1 ). Fertilizer N application affected biomass yield of stems and leaves, total and marketable fruit yields, N use efficiency, and N agronomic efficiency. However, neither P application nor the interaction between fertilizer N and P influenced these variables. Nitrogen use efficiency and N agronomic efficiency decreased with increases in fertilizer N rate, with N use efficiency averaging 443 kg kg −1 and N agronomic efficiency averaging 237 kg kg −1 Both fruit yields and net economic returns responded quadratically to the fertilizer N rate, with a maximum marketable yield of 127 Mg ha −1 averaged across the 3 yr. The fertilizer N rates were 271 kg N ha −1 for the maximum marketable yield and 265 kg N ha −1 for the optimum economic yield. These values are considerably greater than the current recommendation, due to the largely increased yield with drip fertigation. Fertilizer N should be applied at an increased rate for processing tomatoes with drip fertigation to maximize the economic return.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer N application affected biomass yield of stems and leaves, total and marketable fruit yields of processing tomato.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe2
- Treatment
- Fertilizer N applicatione0
- Outcome
- biomass yield of stems and leaves, total and marketable fruit yieldse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Fertilizer N application affected biomass yield of stems and leaves, total and marketable fruit yields, N use efficiency, and N agronomic efficiency”
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen use efficiency and N agronomic efficiency decreased as fertilizer N rate increased in processing tomato.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe2
- Treatment
- increases in fertilizer N ratee3
- Outcome
- Nitrogen use efficiency and N agronomic efficiencye3
- Direction
- decreasede3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e3“Nitrogen use efficiency and N agronomic efficiency decreased with increases in fertilizer N rate, with N use efficiency averaging 443 kg kg −1 and N agronomic efficiency averaging 237 kg kg −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen use efficiency averaged 443 kg kg −1 in processing tomato.
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e3“with N use efficiency averaging 443 kg kg −1”
Claim · model-written summary
N agronomic efficiency averaged 237 kg kg −1 in processing tomato.
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e3“N agronomic efficiency averaging 237 kg kg −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit yields and net economic returns responded quadratically to the fertilizer N rate in processing tomato.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e4“Both fruit yields and net economic returns responded quadratically to the fertilizer N rate, with a maximum marketable yield of 127 Mg ha −1 averaged across the 3 yr”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum marketable yield of processing tomato was 127 Mg ha −1 averaged across 3 years.
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e4“with a maximum marketable yield of 127 Mg ha −1 averaged across the 3 yr”
Claim · model-written summary
The fertilizer N rate for maximum marketable yield was 271 kg N ha -1.
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e5“The fertilizer N rates were 271 kg N ha -1 for the maximum marketable yield and 265 kg N ha -1 for the optimum economic yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The fertilizer N rate for optimum economic yield was 265 kg N ha -1.
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e5“The fertilizer N rates were 271 kg N ha -1 for the maximum marketable yield and 265 kg N ha -1 for the optimum economic yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer N should be applied at an increased rate for processing tomatoes with drip fertigation to maximize economic return.
Verbatim
e6“Fertilizer N should be applied at an increased rate for processing tomatoes with drip fertigation to maximize the economic return”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimum N rates are considerably greater than the current recommendation, owing to the largely increased yield with drip fertigation.
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e7“These values are considerably greater than the current recommendation, due to the largely increased yield with drip fertigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer P application did not influence yield or N efficiency variables in processing tomato.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe2
- Treatment
- P applicatione1
- Outcome
- these variablese1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e2“response of processing tomato ( Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) to nutrient application with drip fertigation”
e1“However, neither P application nor the interaction between fertilizer N and P influenced these variables”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · nutrient: efficiency · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.