Abstract
Abstract A drip-irrigation study was conducted at the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) to determine its effectiveness on yield and quality of tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Four drip-irrigation treatments, with moisture levels maintained above 25, 50, 65, and 80% available water, produced 20% to 40% more marketable yield than the treatment with monthly furrow irrigation, and 80% more than the nonirrigated control. Plots with 25% available water produced fewer nonmarketable fruits with similar yields to other drip-irrigation treatments and required 30% less water than the furrow irrigation control. Electrical conductivity of the root-zone soil extracts was lower for drip-irrigation treatments than for the furrow-irrigated plot. Leaf chloride content during the growing stages was not significantly different among various drip-irrigation treatments but was less than the furrow-irrigation treatment. No differences in fruit quality were measured between 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation produced 20% to 40% more marketable yield than monthly furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume1 - Treatment
- drip-irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- marketable yielde0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 20% to 40%e0
- Comparator
- monthly furrow irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Four drip-irrigation treatments, with moisture levels maintained above 25, 50, 65, and 80% available water, produced 20% to 40% more marketable yield than the treatment with monthly furrow irrigation”
e1“tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation produced 80% more marketable yield than no irrigation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume2
- Treatment
- drip-irrigation treatmentse1
- Outcome
- marketable yielde0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 80%e0
- Comparator
- nonirrigated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“produced 20% to 40% more marketable yield than the treatment with monthly furrow irrigation, and 80% more than the nonirrigated control”
e1“Four drip-irrigation treatments”
e2“tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 25% available water plots had fewer nonmarketable fruits than other drip treatments.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 25% available watere0
- Outcome
- nonmarketable fruitse0
- Direction
- fewere0
- Comparator
- other drip-irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plots with 25% available water produced fewer nonmarketable fruits with similar yields to other drip-irrigation treatments”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The 25% available water plots had similar yields to other drip treatments.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 25% available watere0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- other drip-irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plots with 25% available water produced fewer nonmarketable fruits with similar yields to other drip-irrigation treatments”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The 25% available water plots used 30% less water than furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 25% available watere0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigation controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plots with 25% available water produced fewer nonmarketable fruits with similar yields to other drip-irrigation treatments and required 30% less water than the furrow irrigation control.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Root zone soil electrical conductivity was lower under drip than furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- drip-irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Electrical conductivity of the root-zone soil extractse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- furrow-irrigated plote0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Electrical conductivity of the root-zone soil extracts was lower for drip-irrigation treatments than for the furrow-irrigated plot.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf chloride content did not differ significantly among drip treatments.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- drip-irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Leaf chloride contente0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Comparator
- various drip-irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chloride content during the growing stages was not significantly different among various drip-irrigation treatments”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf chloride content was lower under drip than furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- drip-irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Leaf chloride contente0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- furrow-irrigation treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chloride content during the growing stages was not significantly different among various drip-irrigation treatments but was less than the furrow-irrigation treatment.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit quality did not differ between irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- drip-irrigation treatmentse1
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- No differencese0
- Comparator
- treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No differences in fruit quality were measured between treatments.”
e1“various drip-irrigation treatments”
t0“Tomato”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: chemistry · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →irrigation · quality: grain · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →irrigation · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
55 papers more in this group
See all 59 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.