Abstract
There is a need to mainstream traditional crops in sub-Saharan Africa, in order to tackle food and nutritional insecurity through incorporating nutritional quality into crop water productivity, in the wider context of the water–food–nutrition–health nexus. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of irrigation water regimes on the nutritional yield (NY) and nutritional water productivity (NWP) of cowpea under Moistube irrigation (MTI) and subsurface drip irrigation (SDI). We hypothesized that NY and NWP of cowpea were not different under MTI and SDI and that deficit irrigation improved NWP. The experiment was laid as a split-plot design arranged in randomized complete blocks, replicated 3 times, with 3 irrigation water regimes: 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), 70% of ETc, and 40% of ETc. Irrigation type and water regime did not significantly (p > 0.05) affect the nutritional quality of cowpea. Similarly, NWP of crude fat (28.20–39.20 g∙m-3), ash (47.20–50.70 g∙m-3) and crude fibre (30.70–48.10 g∙m-3) did not vary significantly. However, protein and carbohydrate NWP showed significant (p < 0.05) differences across irrigation water regimes and irrigation type. The highest protein NWP (276.20 g∙m-3) was attained under MTI at 100% ETc, which was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than SDI (237.1 g∙m-3) and MTI (189.8 g∙m-3) at 40% ETc. Cowpea is suited for production in water-scarce environments; however, there are trade-offs with carbohydrate NWP. This should not be of concern as often diets are already energy-dense but lacking in other micronutrients.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Irrigation type and water regime did not significantly affect the nutritional quality of cowpea.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatat0 - Treatment
- Irrigation type and water regimee1
- Outcome
- nutritional qualitye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)”
e1“Irrigation type and water regime did not significantly (p > 0.05) affect the nutritional quality of cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
NWP of crude fat did not vary significantly across irrigation treatments (28.20–39.20 g∙m-3).
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- Irrigation type and water regimee1
- Outcome
- NWP of crude fate2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Value
- 28.20–39.20 g∙m-3e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)”
e1“Irrigation type and water regime did not significantly (p > 0.05) affect the nutritional quality of cowpea”
e2“NWP of crude fat (28.20–39.20 g∙m-3), ash (47.20–50.70 g∙m-3) and crude fibre (30.70–48.10 g∙m-3) did not vary significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
NWP of ash did not vary significantly across irrigation treatments (47.20–50.70 g∙m-3).
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- Irrigation type and water regimee1
- Outcome
- ashe2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Value
- 47.20–50.70 g∙m-3e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)”
e1“Irrigation type and water regime did not significantly (p > 0.05) affect the nutritional quality of cowpea”
e2“NWP of crude fat (28.20–39.20 g∙m-3), ash (47.20–50.70 g∙m-3) and crude fibre (30.70–48.10 g∙m-3) did not vary significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
NWP of crude fibre did not vary significantly across irrigation treatments (30.70–48.10 g∙m-3).
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- Irrigation type and water regimee1
- Outcome
- crude fibree2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Value
- 30.70–48.10 g∙m-3e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)”
e1“Irrigation type and water regime did not significantly (p > 0.05) affect the nutritional quality of cowpea”
e2“NWP of crude fat (28.20–39.20 g∙m-3), ash (47.20–50.70 g∙m-3) and crude fibre (30.70–48.10 g∙m-3) did not vary significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein and carbohydrate NWP of cowpea differed significantly across irrigation water regimes and irrigation type.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- irrigation water regimese3
- Outcome
- protein and carbohydrate NWPe3
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)”
e3“protein and carbohydrate NWP showed significant (p < 0.05) differences across irrigation water regimes and irrigation type”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest protein NWP of cowpea (276.20 g∙m-3) was under MTI at 100% ETc and was significantly higher than under SDI.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- MTI at 100% ETce4
- Outcome
- protein NWPe4
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 276.20 g∙m-3e4
- Qualifier
- 237.1 g∙m-3e5
- Comparator
- SDIe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)”
e4“The highest protein NWP (276.20 g∙m-3) was attained under MTI at 100% ETc”
e5“which was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than SDI (237.1 g∙m-3) and MTI (189.8 g∙m-3) at 40% ETc”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest protein NWP of cowpea (276.20 g∙m-3) under MTI at 100% ETc was significantly higher than MTI at 40% ETc.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- MTI at 100% ETce4
- Outcome
- protein NWPe4
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 276.20 g∙m-3e4
- Qualifier
- 189.8 g∙m-3e5
- Comparator
- MTIe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)”
e4“The highest protein NWP (276.20 g∙m-3) was attained under MTI at 100% ETc”
e5“which was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than SDI (237.1 g∙m-3) and MTI (189.8 g∙m-3) at 40% ETc”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea is suited for production in water-scarce environments.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatae6
- Outcome
- production in water-scarce environmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Cowpea is suited for production in water-scarce environments”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: grain · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
soil water · physiology: water · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
irrigation · physiology: water · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 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.