Abstract
Saudi Arabia faces water scarcity and inadequate sustainable sources, particularly in agriculture, necessitating efficient irrigation water management to improve productivity amidst rising demand. The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses, covering four irrigation levels (100%, 80%, 60%, and 40% of ETc) and three water sources (FW (0.9 dS·m−1), SW (3.6 dS·m−1) and MW (2.25 dS·m−1)). Salinity impacts crop yield, physiological responses, and fruit quality. The photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, transpiration, and chlorophyll content decrease with MW and SW, negatively affecting morphological characteristics. For MW, it was recommended to apply 60% deficit irrigation with a yield of 98 kg·ha−1, and water productivity (WP) improved to 21.93 kg·m−3 compared to 13.65 kg·m−3 at full irrigation (FI). In SW, 80% irrigation was suggested, as there was no significant difference in yield compared to FI. For FW, 60% deficit irrigation produced the best water conservation (104.58 kg·ha−1 yield and 23.19 kg·m−3 WP), while FI produced the highest yield per unit area (123.48 kg·ha−1 yield and 16.51 kg·m−3 WP). Nonetheless, greater water and salinity stress was associated with increased fruit quality measures such as total acidity, vitamin C, and soluble solids. The results show that implementing deficit irrigation with salinity strategies in greenhouse tomatoes could improve crop adaptability, yield, and water productivity in the face of water scarcity and salinity variability.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration decreased under MW and SW water in greenhouse tomato.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- MW and SWe1
- Outcome
- photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, transpiratione1
- Direction
- decreasee1
- Setting
- greenhousese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e1“The photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, transpiration, and chlorophyll content decrease with MW and SW, negatively affecting morphological characteristics”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll content decreased under MW and SW water in greenhouse tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- MW and SWe1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente1
- Direction
- decreasee1
- Setting
- greenhousese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e1“The photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, transpiration, and chlorophyll content decrease with MW and SW, negatively affecting morphological characteristics”
Claim · model-written summary
Morphological characteristics of tomato were negatively affected under MW and SW water.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- MW and SWe1
- Outcome
- morphological characteristicse1
- Direction
- negatively affectinge1
- Setting
- greenhousese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e1“The photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, transpiration, and chlorophyll content decrease with MW and SW, negatively affecting morphological characteristics”
Claim · model-written summary
For MW water, 60% deficit irrigation was recommended for tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- 60% deficit irrigatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e2“For MW, it was recommended to apply 60% deficit irrigation with a yield of 98 kg·ha−1, and water productivity (WP) improved to 21.93 kg·m−3 compared to 13.65 kg·m−3 at full irrigation (FI)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under MW water, 60% deficit irrigation raised water productivity to 21.93 kg·m−3 compared with 13.65 kg·m−3 at full irrigation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- 60% deficit irrigatione2
- Outcome
- water productivity (WP)e2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 21.93 kg·m−3e2
- Qualifier
- 13.65 kg·m−3e2
- Comparator
- full irrigation (FI)e2
- Setting
- greenhousese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e2“For MW, it was recommended to apply 60% deficit irrigation with a yield of 98 kg·ha−1, and water productivity (WP) improved to 21.93 kg·m−3 compared to 13.65 kg·m−3 at full irrigation (FI)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under MW water, 60% deficit irrigation gave a tomato yield of 98 kg·ha−1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- 60% deficit irrigatione2
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Value
- 98 kg·ha−1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e2“For MW, it was recommended to apply 60% deficit irrigation with a yield of 98 kg·ha−1, and water productivity (WP) improved to 21.93 kg·m−3 compared to 13.65 kg·m−3 at full irrigation (FI)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under FW water, 60% deficit irrigation gave the best water conservation in tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- 60% deficit irrigatione3
- Outcome
- water conservatione3
- Direction
- beste3
- Qualifier
- FWe3
- Setting
- greenhousese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e3“For FW, 60% deficit irrigation produced the best water conservation (104.58 kg·ha−1 yield and 23.19 kg·m−3 WP), while FI produced the highest yield per unit area (123.48 kg·ha−1 yield and 16.51 kg·m−3 WP)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under FW water, 60% deficit irrigation gave a tomato yield of 104.58 kg·ha−1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- 60% deficit irrigatione3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Value
- 104.58 kg·ha−1e3
- Qualifier
- FWe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e3“For FW, 60% deficit irrigation produced the best water conservation (104.58 kg·ha−1 yield and 23.19 kg·m−3 WP), while FI produced the highest yield per unit area (123.48 kg·ha−1 yield and 16.51 kg·m−3 WP)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under FW water, 60% deficit irrigation gave a tomato water productivity of 23.19 kg·m−3.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- 60% deficit irrigatione3
- Outcome
- WPe3
- Value
- 23.19 kg·m−3e3
- Qualifier
- FWe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e3“For FW, 60% deficit irrigation produced the best water conservation (104.58 kg·ha−1 yield and 23.19 kg·m−3 WP), while FI produced the highest yield per unit area (123.48 kg·ha−1 yield and 16.51 kg·m−3 WP)”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation gave the highest tomato yield per unit area, 123.48 kg·ha−1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- FIe3
- Outcome
- yield per unit areae3
- Direction
- higheste3
- Value
- 123.48 kg·ha−1e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e3“For FW, 60% deficit irrigation produced the best water conservation (104.58 kg·ha−1 yield and 23.19 kg·m−3 WP), while FI produced the highest yield per unit area (123.48 kg·ha−1 yield and 16.51 kg·m−3 WP)”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation gave a tomato water productivity of 16.51 kg·m−3.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- FIe3
- Outcome
- WPe3
- Value
- 16.51 kg·m−3e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e3“For FW, 60% deficit irrigation produced the best water conservation (104.58 kg·ha−1 yield and 23.19 kg·m−3 WP), while FI produced the highest yield per unit area (123.48 kg·ha−1 yield and 16.51 kg·m−3 WP)”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater water and salinity stress was associated with increased tomato fruit quality measures.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- greater water and salinity stresse4
- Outcome
- fruit quality measures such as total acidity, vitamin C, and soluble solidse4
- Direction
- increasede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e4“Nonetheless, greater water and salinity stress was associated with increased fruit quality measures such as total acidity, vitamin C, and soluble solids”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation combined with salinity strategies could improve greenhouse tomato adaptability, yield and water productivity.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- crop adaptability, yield, and water productivitye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e5“implementing deficit irrigation with salinity strategies in greenhouse tomatoes could improve crop adaptability, yield, and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
For SW water, 80% irrigation was suggested for tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- 80% irrigatione6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e6“In SW, 80% irrigation was suggested, as there was no significant difference in yield compared to FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Under SW water, 80% irrigation gave no significant difference in tomato yield compared with full irrigation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- 80% irrigatione6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- no significant differencee6
- Comparator
- FIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated the impact of irrigation levels and water salinity on tomato plants in greenhouses”
e6“In SW, 80% irrigation was suggested, as there was no significant difference in yield compared to FI”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
116 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 papers →irrigation · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
238 papers in the same direction as this paper · 98 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
340 papers more in this group
See all 344 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.