Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during 201114 at Research Station of ICARCentral Tobacco Research In- stitute, Vedasandur, Tamil Nadu, to study the effect of drip fertigation in sun cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tabaccum L.). Drip fertigation was given with 60, 80 and 100% recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN), drip irriga- tion with 100% RDN (soil applied) as against the surface method of irrigation with 100% RDN. Drip fertigation at 100% RDN recorded significantly higher leaf length and leaf width than surface method of irrigation. The increase in first grade leaf yield (FGLY) and total cured leaf yield (TCLY) was 12.5% and 17.2%, respectively, with drip fertigation over surface method of irrigation. Water-use efficiency (WUE) ranged from 19.9 to 22.4 kg/ha-mm with the drip treatments. Cost of cultivation was higher with drip treatments ( 74,200 to 76,600/ha), than that of surface method of irrigation ( 67,900). The net returns increased by 19.9% with drip fertigation at 100% RDN and drip ir- rigation with 100% RDN (soil applied) over the surface irrigation. Similar trend was also observed for benefit: cost ratio. Nutrient uptake (NPK) and residual soil nutrients were higher with drip fertigation with 100 and 80% RDN. Chewablilty scores were higher (>65 out of 80) with drip fertigation with 100, 80% RDN and drip irrigation with 100% RDN soil applied, nicotine content increased (2.80 to 2.82%) and reducing sugars decreased (3.60 to 3.40%) with drip irrigation or with drip fertigation.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation at 100% RDN increased tobacco leaf length and width significantly relative to surface irrigation.
- Taxon
- tobacco
Nicotiana tabacumt0 - Treatment
- Drip fertigation at 100% RDNe0
- Outcome
- leaf length and leaf widthe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- surface method of irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip fertigation at 100% RDN recorded significantly higher leaf length and leaf width than surface method of irrigation”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation increased first grade leaf yield by 12.5% over surface irrigation.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- first grade leaf yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 12.5%e0
- Comparator
- surface method of irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in first grade leaf yield (FGLY) and total cured leaf yield (TCLY) was 12.5% and 17.2%, respectively, with drip fertigation over surface method of irrigation”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation increased total cured leaf yield by 17.2% over surface irrigation.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- total cured leaf yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 17.2%e0
- Comparator
- surface method of irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in first grade leaf yield (FGLY) and total cured leaf yield (TCLY) was 12.5% and 17.2%, respectively, with drip fertigation over surface method of irrigation”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water-use efficiency under drip treatments ranged from 19.9 to 22.4 kg/ha-mm.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Water-use efficiencye0
- Value
- 19.9 to 22.4 kg/ha-mme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water-use efficiency (WUE) ranged from 19.9 to 22.4 kg/ha-mm with the drip treatments”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation and drip irrigation at 100% RDN increased net returns by 19.9% over surface irrigation.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip fertigation at 100% RDN and drip ir- rigation with 100% RDN (soil applied)e0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 19.9%e0
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The net returns increased by 19.9% with drip fertigation at 100% RDN and drip ir- rigation with 100% RDN (soil applied) over the surface irrigation”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK uptake and residual soil nutrients were higher with drip fertigation at 100% and 80% RDN.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip fertigation with 100 and 80% RDNe0
- Outcome
- Nutrient uptake (NPK) and residual soil nutrientse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nutrient uptake (NPK) and residual soil nutrients were higher with drip fertigation with 100 and 80% RDN”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chewability scores exceeded 65 of 80 under drip fertigation at 100% or 80% RDN and drip irrigation at 100% RDN.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip fertigation with 100, 80% RDN and drip irrigation with 100% RDN soil appliede0
- Outcome
- Chewablilty scorese0
- Value
- >65 out of 80e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chewablilty scores were higher (>65 out of 80) with drip fertigation with 100, 80% RDN and drip irrigation with 100% RDN soil applied”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation or fertigation increased nicotine content to 2.80–2.82%.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation or with drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- nicotine contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.80 to 2.82%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nicotine content increased (2.80 to 2.82%) and reducing sugars decreased (3.60 to 3.40%) with drip irrigation or with drip fertigation”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation or fertigation decreased reducing sugars from 3.60% to 3.40%.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation or with drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- reducing sugarse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 3.60 to 3.40%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nicotine content increased (2.80 to 2.82%) and reducing sugars decreased (3.60 to 3.40%) with drip irrigation or with drip fertigation”
t0“Research Paper Influence of drip fertigation on growth, yield and leaf-quality characters of sun- cured chewing tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum)”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results differ
71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
77 papers more in this group
See all 81 papers →nitrogen · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results differ
84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →irrigation · growth · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →8 of 13 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.