Abstract
Water stress continues to be one of the most significant environmental factor affecting growth, production and quality of crops worldwide. Improving water agricultural efficiency is crucial in many parts of the world, especially in arid and semi-arid regions, such as Saudi Arabia. The current study investigates the use of an automated irrigation system in comparison with manual irrigation. The plant material used in this study were varieties of wheat (Triticum durum L.) grown in different regions of Saudi Arabia. Plants were grown under two different water irrigation regimes, 80% and 40% of the field capacity which are controlled using humidity sensors connected to a micro-controller that detects the water quantity and compensates for water loss in the soil. Plants were grown in 1 kg capacity plastic pots containing compost mixed with sand (3:1 v:v) and kept in a growth cabinet. The automatic irrigation system performance is evaluated by measuring the growth of plants compared to those of manually irrigated. Growth parameters are shoot, root and total fresh weight and dry weights. No differences were observed in growth, expressed as fresh and dry weights, between the two irrigation systems. Growth showed that total dry weights at both water treatments were higher in the automated system plants than those manually irrigated. The results showed an efficiency of the automated irrigation system over the manual one, as measured by the performance of plants for photosynthesis rates.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Automated and manual irrigation produced no differences in wheat growth measured as fresh and dry weights.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume2 - Treatment
- automated irrigation systeme1
- Outcome
- growthe3
- Direction
- No differencese3
- Comparator
- manual irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The current study investigates the use of an automated irrigation system in comparison with manual irrigation”
e2“The plant material used in this study were varieties of wheat (Triticum durum L.) grown in different regions of Saudi Arabia”
e3“No differences were observed in growth, expressed as fresh and dry weights, between the two irrigation systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Total dry weight at both water treatments was higher in wheat under the automated irrigation system than in manually irrigated plants.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- automated systeme4
- Outcome
- total dry weightse4
- Direction
- highere4
- Comparator
- manually irrigatede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“The plant material used in this study were varieties of wheat (Triticum durum L.) grown in different regions of Saudi Arabia”
e4“Growth showed that total dry weights at both water treatments were higher in the automated system plants than those manually irrigated”
Claim · model-written summary
The automated irrigation system gave higher photosynthesis rates in wheat than manual irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- automated irrigation systeme5
- Outcome
- photosynthesis ratese5
- Direction
- higherinferrede5
- Comparator
- manual onee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“The plant material used in this study were varieties of wheat (Triticum durum L.) grown in different regions of Saudi Arabia”
e5“The results showed an efficiency of the automated irrigation system over the manual one, as measured by the performance of plants for photosynthesis rates”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →irrigation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 177 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 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.