Abstract
Petunia `Midnight' were grown in drainage lysimeters in an open-sided clear polyethylene covered shelter to evaluate growth responses in response to alternative irrigation strategies. Three irrigation methods were evaluated: tensiometer-controlled automatic irrigation system, regularly scheduled irrigation utilizing an automated controller, and human perception of plant irrigation need. Drainage lysimeters (250 L) were backfilled with native sand field soil to simulate landscape conditions and managed with Best Management Practices. Following establishment, lysimeters irrigated by an automated controller were irrigated 1.3 cm daily. Tensiometer-controlled lysimeters were irrigated when plant available water (2.5 kPa to 1.5 MPa) had declined to 70% or less, and were irrigated back to field capacity. Canopy growth indices and leaf gas exchange measurements were evaluated relative to irrigation strategies. Actual evapotranspiration was calculated for each replication. Daily irrigation resulted in significantly higher assimilation rates, transpiration rates, and final shoot dry weights than the other treatments tested. Assimilation rates and transpiration rates were significantly higher for tensiometer-controlled irrigation than the human judged treatment, but no differences were found in final shoot dry mass.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Daily irrigation raised assimilation and transpiration rates over the other treatments.
- Treatment
- Daily irrigatione0
- Outcome
- assimilation rates, transpiration ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other treatments testede0
_flowers_in_Westgate_Gardens%2C_Canterbury.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
PetuniaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_flowers_in_Westgate_Gardens%2C_Canterbury.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Daily irrigation resulted in significantly higher assimilation rates, transpiration rates, and final shoot dry weights than the other treatments tested”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Daily irrigation raised final shoot dry weight over the other treatments.
- Treatment
- Daily irrigatione0
- Outcome
- final shoot dry weightse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other treatments testede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daily irrigation resulted in significantly higher assimilation rates, transpiration rates, and final shoot dry weights than the other treatments tested”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Tensiometer-controlled irrigation raised assimilation and transpiration rates over human-judged irrigation.
- Treatment
- tensiometer-controlled irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Assimilation rates and transpiration ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- human judged treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assimilation rates and transpiration rates were significantly higher for tensiometer-controlled irrigation than the human judged treatment”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Final shoot dry mass did not differ between tensiometer-controlled and human-judged irrigation.
- Treatment
- tensiometer-controlled irrigatione0
- Outcome
- final shoot dry masse0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- human judged treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assimilation rates and transpiration rates were significantly higher for tensiometer-controlled irrigation than the human judged treatment, but no differences were found in final shoot dry mass”
t0“Petunia”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Petunia (petunia)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.