Abstract
The present study was to explore the effects of different irrigation methods including subsurface drip irrigation( SDI),border irrigation( BI),sprinkler irrigation( SI),and CK on growth,quality and yield of alfalfa. The results showed that different irrigation methods had different effects on soil water content,and SDI treatment had the highest soil water content. In addition,this study found that different irrigation methods had greatly different effects on alfalfa quality,yield and water use efficiency. Dry yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 4 815. 87,4 300. 41 kg·ha- 1,respectively. Compared with BI,SI and CK treatments,yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI increased by 10. 56%,14. 92%,95. 26% and 13. 64%,23. 60%,120. 85%,respectively( P 0. 05). Water use efficiency of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 2. 66,2. 50 kg·m- 3,respectively. Compared with BI and SI treatments,water use efficiency of the two cuttings of SDI increased by 17. 70%,21. 46% and 20. 77%,34. 41%,respectively( P 0. 05). 度 SDI treatment had the lowest protein content and the highest fiber content,but crude protein yield of SDI treatment was significantly improved( P 0. 05). Crude protein yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 816. 13,814. 07 kg·ha- 1,respectively. Compared with BI,SI,CK treatments,crude protein yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI increased by 2. 38%,5. 84%,61. 90% and 10. 90%,18. 83%,100.01%,respectively( P 0. 05). These results suggested SDI could improve the growth,crude protein yield,dry yield and water use efficiency of alfalfa. Therefore,SDI was more suitable for alfalfa planting in arid northwest China.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
SDI gave the highest soil water content.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil water contente0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDI treatment had the highest soil water content”
t0“Effects of irrigation methods on yield and quality of alfalfa in arid northwest China”
Claim · model-written summary
First-cutting SDI dry yield was 4 815. 87 kg·ha- 1.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- Dry yielde0
- Value
- 4 815. 87e0
- Qualifier
- two cuttingse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 4 815. 87,4 300. 41 kg·ha- 1,respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Second-cutting SDI dry yield was 4 300. 41 kg·ha- 1.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- Dry yielde0
- Value
- 4 300. 41 kg·ha- 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 4 815. 87,4 300. 41 kg·ha- 1,respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI increased first-cutting dry yield by 10. 56%, 14. 92%, and 95. 26% versus BI, SI and CK.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- yield of two cuttings alfalfae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10. 56%,14. 92%,95. 26%e0
- Comparator
- BI,SI and CK treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with BI,SI and CK treatments,yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI increased by 10. 56%,14. 92%,95. 26% and 13. 64%,23. 60%,120. 85%,respectively( P 0. 05).”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI increased second-cutting dry yield by 13. 64%, 23. 60%, and 120. 85% versus BI, SI and CK.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- yield of two cuttings alfalfae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13. 64%,23. 60%,120. 85%e0
- Comparator
- BI,SI and CK treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with BI,SI and CK treatments,yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI increased by 10. 56%,14. 92%,95. 26% and 13. 64%,23. 60%,120. 85%,respectively( P 0. 05).”
Claim · model-written summary
First-cutting SDI water use efficiency was 2. 66 kg·m- 3.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye0
- Value
- 2. 66e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water use efficiency of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 2. 66,2. 50 kg·m- 3,respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Second-cutting SDI water use efficiency was 2. 50 kg·m- 3.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye0
- Value
- 2. 50 kg·m- 3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water use efficiency of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 2. 66,2. 50 kg·m- 3,respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI improved first-cutting water use efficiency against BI and SI by 17. 70% and 21. 46%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 17. 70%,21. 46%e0
- Comparator
- BI and SI treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with BI and SI treatments,water use efficiency of the two cuttings of SDI increased by 17. 70%,21. 46% and 20. 77%,34. 41%,respectively( P 0. 05).”
t0“Effects of irrigation methods on yield and quality of alfalfa in arid northwest China”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI improved second-cutting water use efficiency against BI and SI by 20. 77% and 34. 41%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 20. 77%,34. 41%e0
- Comparator
- BI and SI treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with BI and SI treatments,water use efficiency of the two cuttings of SDI increased by 17. 70%,21. 46% and 20. 77%,34. 41%,respectively( P 0. 05).”
t0“Effects of irrigation methods on yield and quality of alfalfa in arid northwest China”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI gave the lowest protein content.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- protein contente0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDI treatment had the lowest protein content”
t0“Effects of irrigation methods on yield and quality of alfalfa in arid northwest China”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI gave the highest fiber content.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- fiber contente0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDI treatment had the lowest protein content and the highest fiber content”
t0“Effects of irrigation methods on yield and quality of alfalfa in arid northwest China”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI significantly improved crude protein yield.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- crude protein yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“crude protein yield of SDI treatment was significantly improved( P 0. 05)”
t0“Effects of irrigation methods on yield and quality of alfalfa in arid northwest China”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI crude protein yields were 816. 13 and 814. 07 kg·ha- 1 across two cuttings.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- Crude protein yielde0
- Value
- 816. 13,814. 07 kg·ha- 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crude protein yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI treatment was 816. 13,814. 07 kg·ha- 1,respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI increased crude protein yields over BI, SI and CK by 2. 38%, 5. 84%, 61. 90% in the first cutting.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- crude protein yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2. 38%,5. 84%,61. 90%e0
- Comparator
- BI,SI,CK treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with BI,SI,CK treatments,crude protein yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI increased by 2. 38%,5. 84%,61. 90% and 10. 90%,18. 83%,100.01%,respectively( P 0. 05).”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI increased crude protein yields over BI, SI and CK by 10. 90%, 18. 83%, 100.01% in the second cutting.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- crude protein yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10. 90%,18. 83%,100.01%e0
- Comparator
- BI,SI,CK treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with BI,SI,CK treatments,crude protein yield of two cuttings alfalfa of SDI increased by 2. 38%,5. 84%,61. 90% and 10. 90%,18. 83%,100.01%,respectively( P 0. 05).”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI was recommended for alfalfa planting in arid northwest China.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Outcome
- more suitable for alfalfa plantinge0
- Setting
- arid northwest Chinae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDI was more suitable for alfalfa planting in arid northwest China”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
88 papers more in this group
See all 92 papers →irrigation · quality: protein · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · quality: grain · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.