Abstract
Petunia ×hybrida Vilm. `Midnight' plants were grown in drainage lysimeters to evaluate growth in response to alternative irrigation strategies. Irrigation treatments were tensiometer-regulated automatic irrigation systems, regularly scheduled irrigation using an automated controller, and human perception of plant irrigation need (manual watering). Mean irrigation volumes were reduced by manual watering and tensiometer-regulated treatments, compared to the automated controller. Total mean irrigation volume applied by the automated controller (460 L) was significantly greater than received by the manually watered (293 L) or tensiometer-regulated (286 L) treatments. Regularly scheduled irrigation using an automated controller resulted in higher assimilation rates, final shoot dry mass, final biomass, shoot to root ratios, and growth indices compared to other irrigation methods tested. Assimilation rates were significantly higher for tensiometer-controlled irrigation than the manually watered treatment, but no differences were reported between these two treatments for growth parameters. Visual observations indicated aesthetic quality was compromised among tensiometer-regulated and manually watered treatments relative to the automated controller treatment.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Manual and tensiometer-regulated watering used less irrigation water than automated control.
- Treatment
- manually waterede0
- Outcome
- irrigation volumee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 293 Le0
- Comparator
- automated controllere0
_flowers_in_Westgate_Gardens%2C_Canterbury.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
PetuniaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_flowers_in_Westgate_Gardens%2C_Canterbury.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Total mean irrigation volume applied by the automated controller (460 L) was significantly greater than received by the manually watered (293 L) or tensiometer-regulated (286 L) treatments.”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Tensiometer-regulated irrigation used less water than automated control.
- Treatment
- tensiometer-regulatede0
- Outcome
- irrigation volumee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 286 Le0
- Comparator
- automated controllere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total mean irrigation volume applied by the automated controller (460 L) was significantly greater than received by the manually watered (293 L) or tensiometer-regulated (286 L) treatments.”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Scheduled automated irrigation produced higher assimilation rates, shoot dry mass, biomass, shoot to root ratios, and growth indices than other methods.
- Treatment
- Regularly scheduled irrigation using an automated controllere0
- Outcome
- assimilation rates, final shoot dry mass, final biomasse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other irrigation methods testede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regularly scheduled irrigation using an automated controller resulted in higher assimilation rates, final shoot dry mass, final biomass, shoot to root ratios, and growth indices compared to other irrigation methods tested.”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Automated irrigation increased shoot to root ratios and growth indices relative to other methods.
- Treatment
- Regularly scheduled irrigation using an automated controllere0
- Outcome
- shoot to root ratios, and growth indicese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other irrigation methods testede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regularly scheduled irrigation using an automated controller resulted in higher assimilation rates, final shoot dry mass, final biomass, shoot to root ratios, and growth indices compared to other irrigation methods tested.”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Tensiometer-controlled irrigation yielded higher assimilation rates than manual watering.
- Treatment
- tensiometer-controlled irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Assimilation ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- manually watered treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assimilation rates were significantly higher for tensiometer-controlled irrigation than the manually watered treatment”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth parameters did not differ between tensiometer and manual irrigation.
- Treatment
- tensiometer-controlled irrigatione1
- Outcome
- growth parameterse0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- manually watered treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no differences were reported between these two treatments for growth parameters”
e1“tensiometer-controlled irrigation than the manually watered treatment”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Tensiometer-regulated irrigation compromised aesthetic quality relative to automated control.
- Treatment
- tensiometer-regulatede0
- Outcome
- aesthetic qualitye0
- Direction
- compromisede0
- Comparator
- automated controller treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aesthetic quality was compromised among tensiometer-regulated and manually watered treatments relative to the automated controller treatment.”
t0“Petunia”
Claim · model-written summary
Manual irrigation compromised aesthetic quality relative to automated control.
- Treatment
- manually waterede0
- Outcome
- aesthetic qualitye0
- Direction
- compromisede0
- Comparator
- automated controller treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aesthetic quality was compromised among tensiometer-regulated and manually watered treatments relative to the automated controller treatment.”
t0“Petunia”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Petunia (petunia)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.