Abstract
This experiment was carried out during two summer successive seasons of 2016 and 2017, at a private farm in East Owainat area, New valley Governorate, Egypt, to study the effect of soil cover techniques by plastic sheet for cultivation lines: uncovered (UCS), half covered (HCS), full covered (FCS) at different applied irrigation water levels (IR=100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50 and 40% calculated based on crop evapotranspiration) under surface (SDI) and sub- surface drip (SSDI) irrigation systems on marketable yield, crop quality parameters, actual evapotranspiration (ETa), water use efficacy (WUE), irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) and yield response factor (Ky) for summer squash fruits "Cucurbita pepo L.". The results showed that, the marketable yield and studied quality parameters except total soluble solid (TSS) and acidity pH of summer squash fruits gave the highest values under FCS, IR=100% and SSDI treatment for both seasons. While, seasonal ETa gave the lowest values 100.48 and 98.95 mm for both seasons respectively, under UCS, IR= 40% and SDI treatment. Meanwhile, the maximum values of summer squash fruits WUE and IWUE were (25.27 and 16.38 kg m-3); (25.59 and 16.52 kg m-3) for both seasons respectively, under FCS, IR= 60% and SSDI treatment. Finally, the lowest values of Ky for summer squash fruits were 0.03 and 0.05 for both seasons respectively, under FCS, IR= 90% and SSDI treatment. This study concluded that the cultivation of summer squash under FCS, IR= 60% and SSDI treatment. could be saved about 42 and 44% of applied irrigation water and increased marketable yield of the summer squash fruit about 16 and 15% for both seasons respectively, compared to that under control treatment (UCS, IR= 100% and SDI).
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Marketable yield of summer squash fruits was highest under full plastic cover, 100% irrigation and subsurface drip.
- Taxon
- summer squashe1
- Treatment
- FCS, IR=100% and SSDI treatmente1
- Outcome
- marketable yielde1
- Direction
- higheste1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“the marketable yield and studied quality parameters except total soluble solid (TSS) and acidity pH of summer squash fruits gave the highest values under FCS, IR=100% and SSDI treatment for both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Studied quality parameters of summer squash fruits, except TSS and acidity pH, were highest under full plastic cover, 100% irrigation and subsurface drip.
- Taxon
- summer squashe1
- Treatment
- FCS, IR=100% and SSDI treatmente1
- Outcome
- studied quality parameterse1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Qualifier
- except total soluble solid (TSS) and acidity pHe1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“the marketable yield and studied quality parameters except total soluble solid (TSS) and acidity pH of summer squash fruits gave the highest values under FCS, IR=100% and SSDI treatment for both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal actual evapotranspiration of summer squash was lowest (100.48 and 98.95 mm) under uncovered soil, 40% irrigation and surface drip.
- Taxon
- summer squashe3
- Treatment
- UCS, IR= 40% and SDI treatmente2
- Outcome
- seasonal ETae2
- Direction
- loweste2
- Value
- 100.48 and 98.95 mme2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e2“seasonal ETa gave the lowest values 100.48 and 98.95 mm for both seasons respectively, under UCS, IR= 40% and SDI treatment”
e3“the maximum values of summer squash fruits WUE and IWUE”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency of summer squash fruits were 25.27 and 16.38 kg m-3, and 25.59 and 16.52 kg m-3 in the second season, under full plastic cover, 60% irrigation and subsurface drip.
- Taxon
- summer squashe3
- Treatment
- FCS, IR= 60% and SSDI treatmente3
- Outcome
- WUE and IWUEe3
- Direction
- maximume3
- Value
- 25.27 and 16.38 kg m-3e3
- Qualifier
- 25.59 and 16.52 kg m-3e3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e3“the maximum values of summer squash fruits WUE and IWUE were (25.27 and 16.38 kg m-3); (25.59 and 16.52 kg m-3) for both seasons respectively, under FCS, IR= 60% and SSDI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response factor (Ky) of summer squash fruits was lowest (0.03 and 0.05) under full plastic cover, 90% irrigation and subsurface drip.
- Taxon
- summer squashe4
- Treatment
- FCS, IR= 90% and SSDI treatmente4
- Outcome
- Kye4
- Direction
- loweste4
- Value
- 0.03 and 0.05e4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e4“the lowest values of Ky for summer squash fruits were 0.03 and 0.05 for both seasons respectively, under FCS, IR= 90% and SSDI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivating summer squash under full plastic cover, 60% irrigation and subsurface drip saved about 42 and 44% of applied irrigation water compared with the control.
Verbatim
e5“This study concluded that the cultivation of summer squash under FCS, IR= 60% and SSDI treatment. could be saved about 42 and 44% of applied irrigation water and increased marketable yield of the summer squash fruit about 16 and 15% for both seasons respectively, compared to that under control treatment (UCS, IR= 100% and SDI)”
Claim · model-written summary
The same cultivation increased marketable yield of summer squash fruit by about 16 and 15% compared with the control.
Verbatim
e5“This study concluded that the cultivation of summer squash under FCS, IR= 60% and SSDI treatment. could be saved about 42 and 44% of applied irrigation water and increased marketable yield of the summer squash fruit about 16 and 15% for both seasons respectively, compared to that under control treatment (UCS, IR= 100% and SDI)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →irrigation · quality: general · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
irrigation · quality: postharvest · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- 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.