Abstract
Water scarcity in arid regions is a serious problem, which calls for innovative irrigation water management. Partial root zone drying (PRD) technique can considerably reduce irrigation amount for crops. To investigate this further, tomato plants were imposed to either surface drip (SUR) with full irrigation (FI) at 100% of evaporative demands and regulate deficit irrigation (RDI) at 50% water of FI or subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) with fixed PRD at 75 (PRD75) and 50% (PRD50) of the FI. Surface evaporation under SUR with FI constitutes a large fraction of water losses from cropped fields while SDI with PRD75 preserved more water for plant up- take. Plants grown under water saving treatments showed lower stomatal conductance and transpiration rates compared to FI plants. Tomato yield under SDI with PRD75 was comparable to yield under SUR with FI for both tested seasons along with 25% water saving and 30% increase in water use efficiency (WUE). Otherwise, PRD50 reduced yield by 18-20%, but a substantial amount of irrigation water was saved along a 60 and 65% higher WUE compared to FI treatment. Fruit dry weight and harvest index (HI) were significantly higher with PRD75 compared to the other treatments. Seasonal N uptake and in turn N recovery was higher in PRD75 than any other treatment associated with improving N use efficiency.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip with PRD75 preserved more water for tomato plant uptake than surface drip with full irrigation
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- SDI with PRD75e1
- Outcome
- water for plant up- takee1
- Direction
- preserved moree1
- Comparator
- SUR with FIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e1“Surface evaporation under SUR with FI constitutes a large fraction of water losses from cropped fields while SDI with PRD75 preserved more water for plant up- take”
Claim · model-written summary
Water saving treatments lowered stomatal conductance and transpiration rates of tomato compared with full irrigation
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- water saving treatmentse2
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance and transpiration ratese2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Comparator
- FI plantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e2“Plants grown under water saving treatments showed lower stomatal conductance and transpiration rates compared to FI plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Tomato yield under SDI with PRD75 was comparable to yield under surface drip with full irrigation in both seasons
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- SDI with PRD75e3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- comparablee3
- Qualifier
- for both tested seasonse3
- Comparator
- SUR with FIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e3“Tomato yield under SDI with PRD75 was comparable to yield under SUR with FI for both tested seasons along with 25% water saving and 30% increase in water use efficiency (WUE)”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI with PRD75 saved 25% water relative to surface drip with full irrigation in tomato
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- SDI with PRD75e3
- Outcome
- water savinge3
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede3
- Value
- 25%e3
- Comparator
- SUR with FIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e3“Tomato yield under SDI with PRD75 was comparable to yield under SUR with FI for both tested seasons along with 25% water saving and 30% increase in water use efficiency (WUE)”
Claim · model-written summary
SDI with PRD75 increased tomato water use efficiency by 30% relative to surface drip with full irrigation
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- SDI with PRD75e3
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye3
- Direction
- increasee3
- Value
- 30%e3
- Comparator
- SUR with FIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e3“Tomato yield under SDI with PRD75 was comparable to yield under SUR with FI for both tested seasons along with 25% water saving and 30% increase in water use efficiency (WUE)”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD50 reduced tomato yield by 18-20% relative to full irrigation
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- PRD50e4
- Outcome
- yielde4
- Direction
- reducede4
- Value
- 18-20%e4
- Comparator
- FI treatmente4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e4“Otherwise, PRD50 reduced yield by 18-20%, but a substantial amount of irrigation water was saved along a 60 and 65% higher WUE compared to FI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD50 raised tomato water use efficiency by 60 and 65% relative to full irrigation
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- PRD50e4
- Outcome
- WUEe4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 60 and 65%e4
- Comparator
- FI treatmente4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e4“Otherwise, PRD50 reduced yield by 18-20%, but a substantial amount of irrigation water was saved along a 60 and 65% higher WUE compared to FI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD50 saved a substantial amount of irrigation water relative to full irrigation in tomato
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- PRD50e4
- Outcome
- irrigation watere4
- Direction
- savede4
- Qualifier
- a substantial amounte4
- Comparator
- FI treatmente4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e4“Otherwise, PRD50 reduced yield by 18-20%, but a substantial amount of irrigation water was saved along a 60 and 65% higher WUE compared to FI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit dry weight and harvest index of tomato were significantly higher with PRD75 than with the other treatments
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- PRD75e5
- Outcome
- Fruit dry weight and harvest index (HI)e5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- the other treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e5“Fruit dry weight and harvest index (HI) were significantly higher with PRD75 compared to the other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal N uptake and N recovery of tomato were higher with PRD75 than with any other treatment
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- PRD75e6
- Outcome
- Seasonal N uptake and in turn N recoverye6
- Direction
- highere6
- Comparator
- any other treatmente6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e6“Seasonal N uptake and in turn N recovery was higher in PRD75 than any other treatment associated with improving N use efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD75 is associated with improving N use efficiency in tomato
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- PRD75e6
- Outcome
- N use efficiencye6
- Direction
- improvinge6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato yield”
e6“Seasonal N uptake and in turn N recovery was higher in PRD75 than any other treatment associated with improving N use efficiency”
The same questions in other 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
- negative
- 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 →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 →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.