Abstract
Nowadays, agriculture must satisfy the growing demand for food, and increasing its sustainability, from an environmental, economic, and social point of view, is the only way to achieve this. The objective of this study was to increase the water and nutrient use efficiency of a melon crop during two consecutive seasons under commercial conditions, growing under semi-arid area. For this purpose, two treatments were studied: (i) a farmer treatment (FRM), fertigated at ~100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) during the whole growing season; and (ii) a precision irrigation treatment (PI), irrigated by adjusting, between flowering and ripening, the weekly farmer irrigation to minimize the leaching below the root system. The threshold for allowable soil water depletion in the active root uptake zone was set at 20–30%. The cumulative water savings in each year relative to the FRM treatment ranged between 30 and 27% for 2020 and 2021, respectively. Yield was not negatively affected, with no differences in fruit load (fruit per m) or fruit weight (kg) between irrigation treatments, although higher yields were obtained in the second year due to seasonal changes. The crop water status indicators evaluated (stem water potential, net photosynthesis, and stomatal conductance) were not affected by the irrigation treatments. Water and nitrogen productivity, on average, increased by 45.5 and 54.4% during the experimental period, respectively; the average PI ascorbic acid content increased by 33.4%.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Precision irrigation saved 30% water in 2020 relative to farmer irrigation.
- Taxon
- Melon
.jpg?width=60)
Cucumis melot0 - Outcome
- water savingse0
- Direction
- savingse0
- Value
- 30e0
- Qualifier
- 2020e0
- Comparator
- FRM treatmente0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The cumulative water savings in each year relative to the FRM treatment ranged between 30 and 27% for 2020 and 2021, respectively”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
Precision irrigation saved 27%% water in 2021 relative to farmer irrigation.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Outcome
- water savingse0
- Direction
- savingse0
- Value
- 27%e0
- Qualifier
- 2021e0
- Comparator
- FRM treatmente0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cumulative water savings in each year relative to the FRM treatment ranged between 30 and 27% for 2020 and 2021, respectively”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield did not differ between irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- not negatively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was not negatively affected, with no differences in fruit load (fruit per m) or fruit weight (kg) between irrigation treatments”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
fruit load did not differ between irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fruit loade0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was not negatively affected, with no differences in fruit load (fruit per m) or fruit weight (kg) between irrigation treatments”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
fruit weight did not differ between irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was not negatively affected, with no differences in fruit load (fruit per m) or fruit weight (kg) between irrigation treatments”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield was higher in the second year.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- second yeare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher yields were obtained in the second year due to seasonal changes”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatment did not affect stem water potential, photosynthesis or stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- stem water potential, net photosynthesis, and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crop water status indicators evaluated (stem water potential, net photosynthesis, and stomatal conductance) were not affected by the irrigation treatments”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
Water productivity increased by 45.5%.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Outcome
- Watere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 45.5e0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and nitrogen productivity, on average, increased by 45.5 and 54.4% during the experimental period, respectively”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
nitrogen productivity productivity increased by 54.4%%.
- Taxon
- MelonCucumis melot0
- Outcome
- nitrogen productivitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 54.4%e0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and nitrogen productivity, on average, increased by 45.5 and 54.4% during the experimental period, respectively”
t0“Melon”
Claim · model-written summary
PI increased ascorbic acid content by 33.4%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average PI ascorbic acid content increased by 33.4%”
t0“Melon”
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 · physiology: photosynthesis · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.