Abstract
Abstract Deficit irrigation (DI) has been emerging as an important technique for enhancing crop water productivity (WP). However, advantage of DI under varying nitrogen (N) application rates remains unclear. Field experiments were conducted during 2012–2014 to investigate the impacts of six irrigation levels[FI (full irrigation), DI 10 , DI 20 , DI 30 , DI 40 and DI 50 , with irrigation amount of 100, 90, 80, 70, 60 and 50% of ETc, respectively) and four N application rates (N 0 , N 10 , N 20 and N 30 , with 0, 10, 20 and 30 kg N ha −1 , respectively) on WP, yield, quality, and net economic return of peanut in hot arid region of India. We used Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method to obtain the optimal combination of irrigation and N rates. Both irrigation level and nitrogen dose had significant effects on yield and quality parameters examined in the study. Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50 significantly reduced yield (40.2–62.1%), economic benefit (70.8–118.5%), WP (8.2–33.0%), and kernel oil content (7.5–11.9%), but DI 20 increased WP by 17.1% with only marginal reduction in economic benefit (2.6%), and yield (3.2%). Compared to N 0 , the N 30 had 1.7, 1.1, and 1.6-folds increased yield, oil content in the kernel, and WP, respectively. Among all treatments, DI 0 N 30 had the greatest yield and net return; DI 20 N 30 had greatest WP and oil content in the kernel. TOPSIS analysis showed that DI 20 N 30 was optimal in balancing of WP, yield, net return, and quality of peanut in northwestern arid India. The results have direct implications for improving irrigation water and N management for irrigated crops in arid regions.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation level and nitrogen dose significantly affected examined yield and quality parameters.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae1 - Treatment
- irrigation level and nitrogen dosee0
- Outcome
- yield and quality parameterse0
- Setting
- hot arid region of Indiae1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both irrigation level and nitrogen dose had significant effects on yield and quality parameters examined in the study.”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 40 and DI 50 reduced yield by 40.2–62.1% relative to FI.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- DI 40 and DI 50e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 40.2–62.1%e0
- Comparator
- FIe0
- Setting
- hot arid region of Indiae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50 significantly reduced yield (40.2–62.1%)”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 40 and DI 50 reduced economic benefit by 70.8–118.5% relative to FI.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- DI 40 and DI 50e0
- Outcome
- economic benefite0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 70.8–118.5%e0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50 significantly reduced yield (40.2–62.1%), economic benefit (70.8–118.5%)”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 40 and DI 50 reduced water productivity by 8.2–33.0% relative to FI.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- DI 40 and DI 50e0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 8.2–33.0%e0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50 significantly reduced yield (40.2–62.1%), economic benefit (70.8–118.5%), WP (8.2–33.0%)”
e1“on WP, yield, quality, and net economic return of peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 40 and DI 50 reduced kernel oil content by 7.5–11.9% relative to FI.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- DI 40 and DI 50e0
- Outcome
- kernel oil contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 7.5–11.9%e0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50 significantly reduced yield (40.2–62.1%), economic benefit (70.8–118.5%), WP (8.2–33.0%), and kernel oil content (7.5–11.9%)”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 20 increased water productivity by 17.1%.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- DI 20e0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 17.1%e0
- Comparator
- FIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI 20 increased WP by 17.1%”
e1“Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50”
e2“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 20 marginally reduced economic benefit by 2.6%.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- DI 20e0
- Outcome
- economic benefite0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 2.6%e0
- Comparator
- FIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI 20 increased WP by 17.1% with only marginal reduction in economic benefit (2.6%)”
e1“Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50”
e2“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 20 marginally reduced yield by 3.2%.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- DI 20e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 3.2%e0
- Comparator
- FIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI 20 increased WP by 17.1% with only marginal reduction in economic benefit (2.6%), and yield (3.2%)”
e1“Relative to FI, DI 40 and DI 50”
e2“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
N 30 increased yield 1.7-fold versus N 0.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- N 30e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.7e0
- Comparator
- N 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to N 0 , the N 30 had 1.7, 1.1, and 1.6-folds increased yield, oil content in the kernel, and WP, respectively.”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
N 30 increased kernel oil content 1.1-fold versus N 0.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- N 30e0
- Outcome
- oil content in the kernele0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.1e0
- Comparator
- N 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to N 0 , the N 30 had 1.7, 1.1, and 1.6-folds increased yield, oil content in the kernel, and WP, respectively.”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
N 30 increased water productivity 1.6-fold versus N 0.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- N 30e0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.6-foldse0
- Comparator
- N 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to N 0 , the N 30 had 1.7, 1.1, and 1.6-folds increased yield, oil content in the kernel, and WP, respectively.”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 0 N 30 had the greatest yield and net return.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- DI 0 N 30e0
- Outcome
- yield and net returne0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Comparator
- all treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among all treatments, DI 0 N 30 had the greatest yield and net return”
e1“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
DI 20 N 30 had the greatest water productivity and kernel oil content.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- DI 20 N 30e0
- Outcome
- WP and oil content in the kernele0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Comparator
- all treatmentse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI 20 N 30 had greatest WP and oil content in the kernel”
e1“Among all treatments”
e2“of peanut in hot arid region of India”
Claim · model-written summary
TOPSIS selected DI 20 N 30 as the optimal balance of water productivity, yield, return and quality.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- DI 20 N 30e0
- Outcome
- balancing of WP, yield, net return, and qualitye0
- Direction
- optimale0
- Setting
- northwestern arid Indiae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“TOPSIS analysis showed that DI 20 N 30 was optimal in balancing of WP, yield, net return, and quality of peanut in northwestern arid India.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: oil · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →irrigation · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
167 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
187 papers more in this group
See all 191 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.