Abstract
In water scarcity areas, it is necessary not only reducing the water applied as much as possible, but also optimizing nutrients application to avoid soil salinization and aquifers pollution because of leaching bellow the root zone. Increasing the sustainability of fertirrigation needs technology to adjust the irrigation time, knowing more precisely the soil water retention capacity and facilitate water absorption by the crop. The aim of this trial was to establish protocols for sustainable fertirrigation in melon crop under semi-arid conditions, both at an environmental and economic level, based on the use of soil water status indicators measured by sensors that allow us to increase the irrigation water use efficiency. Two irrigation treatments were established: i) Control (CTL), irrigated to satisfy the water requirements of the crop, according to the farmer's criterion throughout the crop cycle and ii) DI, deficit irrigation, irrigated to allow a maximum soil water depletion of 20%, with respect to field capacity throughout the crop cycle, from sensors located below the 20 cm depth horizon, in order to limit water leaching into the soil. An experimental design was established with 4 repetitions per treatment distributed at random, with 5 plants per repetition. Macro and micronutrients concentration of soil solution, leaves and fruits were analysed. The crop water status was determined fortnightly by measurements taken at solar midday of stem water potential, net photosynthesis, evapotranspiration rate and leaf conductance. Whereas photosynthetically active radiation absorption, basal stem and fruit equatorial diameters were determined to estimate plant and fruit growth. The physical (longitudinal and equatorial fruit diameters, fruit weight, pulp width and firmness) and chemical (titratable acidity, pH and total soluble solid of the juice, total phenolic content, total antioxidant capacity and total ascorbic acid) characteristics of harvested fruits were determined. Total water applied in CTL treatment was 3,254 m3 ha-1 throughout the crop cycle whereas DI received 2,284 m3 ha-1, a 29.8% lower. In both cases, the volume of water applied was lower than recommended by FAO. The regulation of the irrigation time in the DI treatment respect to the CTL promoted a reduction of the soil water content from 30 cm depth, mitigating the water loss below the root system, along with a lower contribution of nutrients, around of 43, 41.8 and 22% of N, P and K, respectively, and less salinization of the soil profile. No significant difference between treatments was detected in the concentration of these nutrients at leaf level. No difference was observed at harvest, with 0.53 and 0.59 g fruit g-1 total dry mass of harvest index in CTL and DI, respectively. Fruit quality was not negatively affected in DI but improved since ascorbic acid was higher. This means that DI treatment not only did not negatively affect the crop water status and the amount and quality of the yield, but also improved its biochemical quality while reducing water and nutrients use and leaching.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation applied 29.8% less water than the control over the crop cycle.
- Taxon
- melon
.jpg?width=60)
Cucumis meloe0 - Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- Total water appliede2
- Direction
- lowere3
- Value
- 29.8%e3
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
- Setting
- semi-arid conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e2“Total water applied in CTL treatment was 3,254”
e3“a 29.8% lower”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation reduced soil water content from 30 cm depth compared with the control.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- soil water contente5
- Direction
- reductione5
- Qualifier
- from 30 cm depthe5
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e5“promoted a reduction of the soil water content from 30 cm depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation gave a lower contribution of N, around 43%, compared with the control.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- contribution of nutrientse6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 43e6
- Qualifier
- Ne6
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e6“along with a lower contribution of nutrients, around of 43, 41.8 and 22% of N, P and K, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation gave a lower contribution of P, around 41.8%, compared with the control.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- contribution of nutrientse6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 41.8e6
- Qualifier
- Pe6
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e6“along with a lower contribution of nutrients, around of 43, 41.8 and 22% of N, P and K, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation gave a lower contribution of K, around 22%, compared with the control.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- contribution of nutrientse6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 22%e6
- Qualifier
- Ke6
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e6“along with a lower contribution of nutrients, around of 43, 41.8 and 22% of N, P and K, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation led to less salinization of the soil profile than the control.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- salinization of the soil profilee7
- Direction
- lesse7
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e7“and less salinization of the soil profile”
Claim · model-written summary
No significant difference between treatments was detected in leaf-level concentration of these nutrients.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- concentration of these nutrients at leaf levele5
- Direction
- No significant differencee5
- Comparator
- between treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e5“No significant difference between treatments was detected in the concentration of these nutrients at leaf level”
Claim · model-written summary
No difference in harvest index was observed at harvest between deficit irrigation and the control (0.53 and 0.59).
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- harveste5
- Direction
- No differencee5
- Value
- 0.53 and 0.59e5
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e5“No difference was observed at harvest, with 0.53 and 0.59”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit quality was not negatively affected by deficit irrigation.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- Fruit qualitye5
- Direction
- not negatively affectede5
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e5“Fruit quality was not negatively affected in DI”
Claim · model-written summary
Ascorbic acid in fruit was higher under deficit irrigation than under the control.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- ascorbic acide5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e1“ii) DI, deficit irrigation”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e5“improved since ascorbic acid was higher”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation did not negatively affect crop water status or the amount and quality of the yield.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Treatment
- DI treatmente5
- Outcome
- crop water status and the amount and quality of the yielde5
- Direction
- did not negatively affecte5
- Comparator
- Control (CTL)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e4“i) Control (CTL)”
e5“DI treatment not only did not negatively affect the crop water status and the amount and quality of the yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The volume of water applied in both treatments was lower than recommended by FAO.
- Taxon
- melonCucumis meloe0
- Outcome
- the volume of water appliede5
- Direction
- lowere5
- Comparator
- recommended by FAOe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in melon crop under semi-arid conditions”
e5“In both cases, the volume of water applied was lower than recommended by FAO”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
irrigation · nutrient: content · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →irrigation · quality: grain · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.