Abstract
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for producing high-value lettuce, grown in protected area, irrigated with micro-sprinkler and surface drip systems. The experiments were carried out in 2004-2006, in glass-covered solarium within the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. We utilized two irrigation method’s: drip irrigation and micro-sprinkler irrigation and three irrigation levels were established for each irrigation method. From the combination of the two irrigation method and the three times of watering resulted six experimental variants. Production of lettuce obtained at variants are presented in the following table. Water use efficiency was higher in case of drip irrigation in comparison to micro-sprinkler irrigation. The results obtained show the usefulness of drip irrigation in vegetable growing which considerably decreased water consumption and maintained proper moisture conditions for lettuce growth and yielding. Reducing irrigation had resulted in significant decrease of marketable yield. This was accompanied by a decrease in the crop water use, as a consequence of inadequate soil moisture in the rooting zone. Results also showed that water deficit reduced average fresh weight and dry matter of individual lettuces by an average varying between 20 to 30%. A significant reduction in the number of leaves per head was also obtained in the stressed treatments.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation had higher lettuce water use efficiency than micro-sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- LETTUCE
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- micro-sprinkler irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water use efficiency was higher in case of drip irrigation in comparison to micro-sprinkler irrigation”
t0“LETTUCE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation decreased water consumption while maintaining moisture for lettuce growth and yield.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- water consumptione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- maintained proper moisture conditions for lettuce growth and yieldinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drip irrigation in vegetable growing which considerably decreased water consumption and maintained proper moisture conditions for lettuce growth and yielding”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced irrigation significantly decreased marketable lettuce yield.
- Taxon
- LETTUCELactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- Reducing irrigatione0
- Outcome
- marketable yielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing irrigation had resulted in significant decrease of marketable yield”
t0“LETTUCE”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced irrigation decreased crop water use.
- Taxon
- LETTUCELactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- Reducing irrigatione0
- Outcome
- crop water usee0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing irrigation had resulted in significant decrease of marketable yield. This was accompanied by a decrease in the crop water use”
t0“LETTUCE”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit reduced fresh weight of individual lettuces by an average of 20 to 30%.
- Taxon
- lettucesLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- average fresh weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 20 to 30%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water deficit reduced average fresh weight and dry matter of individual lettuces by an average varying between 20 to 30%”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit reduced dry matter of individual lettuces by an average of 20 to 30%.
- Taxon
- lettucesLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 20 to 30%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water deficit reduced average fresh weight and dry matter of individual lettuces by an average varying between 20 to 30%”
Claim · model-written summary
Stressed lettuce treatments significantly reduced leaf number per head.
- Taxon
- LETTUCELactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- stressed treatmentse0
- Outcome
- number of leaves per heade0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A significant reduction in the number of leaves per head was also obtained in the stressed treatments”
t0“LETTUCE”
The same questions in other papers
drought · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →irrigation · quality: postharvest · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.