Abstract
Conventional flooding irrigation fertilization results in low utilization of resources,high risk of environmental pollution,which has become a serious threat to the sustainable development of greenhouse vegetable production.The object of this study is to evaluate whether drip fertigation can improve water and nitrogen use efficiency and reduce nitrate pollution risk.A long-term experiment within 9 growing seasons was conducted in Shouguang,Shandong Province.Tomato yield,water and nitrogen use efficiency,economic benefits and soil nitrate content were analysed.Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization,fertilizer N and water inputs were reduced by 78% and 46%under drip fertigation system,while nitrogen partial productivity and irrigation water use efficiency were increased 5-fold and 2-fold,respectively.Tomato yield and economic benefits were increased by 6% and 22% under drip fertilization system,while the inter-annual variation of yield decreased significantly.The nitrate residues in the soil(0-90cm)was up to 819kg/hm2 for conventional production system,while it was reduced by 50% under drip fertigation system.In conclusion,compared to conventional flooding irrigation fertilization system,drip fertigation system is more efficient and stable with reduced resources input and environmental cost.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation reduced fertilizer N by 78% against conventional flooding irrigation fertilization.
- Treatment
- drip fertigation systeme0
- Outcome
- fertilizer Ne0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 78%e0
- Comparator
- conventional flooding irrigation fertilizatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization,fertilizer N and water inputs were reduced by 78% and 46%under drip fertigation system”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation reduced water inputs by 46% against conventional flooding irrigation fertilization.
- Treatment
- drip fertigation systeme0
- Outcome
- water inputse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 46%e0
- Comparator
- conventional flooding irrigation fertilizatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization,fertilizer N and water inputs were reduced by 78% and 46%under drip fertigation system”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation increased nitrogen partial productivity 5-fold.
- Treatment
- drip fertigation systeme2
- Outcome
- nitrogen partial productivitye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 5-folde1
- Comparator
- conventional flooding irrigation fertilizatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization”
e1“nitrogen partial productivity and irrigation water use efficiency were increased 5-fold and 2-fold,respectively”
e2“46%under drip fertigation system”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation increased irrigation water use efficiency 2-fold.
- Treatment
- drip fertigation systeme2
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 2-folde1
- Comparator
- conventional flooding irrigation fertilizatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization”
e1“nitrogen partial productivity and irrigation water use efficiency were increased 5-fold and 2-fold,respectively”
e2“46%under drip fertigation system”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertilization increased Tomato yield by 6%.
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- drip fertilization systeme0
- Outcome
- Tomato yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6%e0
- Comparator
- conventional flooding irrigation fertilizatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomato yield and economic benefits were increased by 6% and 22% under drip fertilization system,while the inter-annual variation of yield decreased significantly”
e1“Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertilization increased economic benefits by 22%.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- drip fertilization systeme0
- Outcome
- economic benefitse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Comparator
- conventional flooding irrigation fertilizatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomato yield and economic benefits were increased by 6% and 22% under drip fertilization system,while the inter-annual variation of yield decreased significantly”
e1“Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertilization significantly reduced inter-annual yield variation.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- drip fertilization systeme0
- Outcome
- inter-annual variation of yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- conventional flooding irrigation fertilizatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomato yield and economic benefits were increased by 6% and 22% under drip fertilization system,while the inter-annual variation of yield decreased significantly”
e1“Compared with conventional flooding irrigation fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation reduced soil nitrate residues by 50% relative to conventional production.
- Treatment
- drip fertigation systeme0
- Outcome
- nitrate residues in the soile0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Qualifier
- 819kg/hm2e0
- Comparator
- conventional production systeme0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The nitrate residues in the soil(0-90cm)was up to 819kg/hm2 for conventional production system,while it was reduced by 50% under drip fertigation system”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
116 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
225 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
267 papers more in this group
See all 271 papers →irrigation · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
238 papers in the same direction as this paper · 98 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
340 papers more in this group
See all 344 papers →fertilization · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
849 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
974 papers more in this group
See all 978 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.