Abstract
The productivity of tomato fruit on the western shore of Lake Abaya in Ethiopia was severely hindered by saline‐sodic damage. This study aimed to assess the impact of applying gypsum and adopting soil mulching agricultural technology to improve the issues of salt‐affected soil in the region. The treatments consisted of a control group (T1), mulching (T2), gypsum application (T3), and a combination of gypsum (half level) and mulching (T4). Application rates of gypsum and straw mulching were 14.5 and 15 tons/ha, respectively. The mean total seasonal crop water consumptions of tomatoes were 378 mm (non‐mulching) and 333.02 mm (mulching). Straw mulching saved an average of 13.2% of soil water compared with non‐mulching treatments. At the end of the growing season, exchangeable sodium percentage was decreased by 42.3% (T2), 38.1% (T3), and 43.8% (T4) compared with control T1. The pH levels at the experimental site experienced reductions of 15.1% (T2), 1.1% (T3), and 14% (T4) compared with T1. The soil electric conductivity of the soil at the end of the tomato growing period was decreased by 59.6% (T2), 19.2% (T3), and 46.2% (T4). The average land productivity of tomatoes in the current study was 14.9 c tons/ha (T1), 16.2 b tons/ha (T2), 15.0 c tons/ha (T3), and 18.6 a tons/ha (T4). The average water productivity of tomatoes in the current study was 5.5 c kg/m 3 (T1), 7.2 b kg/m 3 (T2), 6.5 c kg/m 3 (T3), and 7.8 a kg/m 3 (T4). The benefit‐cost ratios for T1, T2, T3, and T4 were 1.67, 2.2, 1.78, and 2.4, respectively. The optimal strategy for mitigating saline‐sodic soil and ensuring sustainable tomato production involves applying gypsum at half the recommended level along with implementing straw mulching.
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
Mulching saved soil water.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- Straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- soil watere0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- 13.2%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Straw mulching saved an average of 13.2% of soil water compared with non‐mulching treatments”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching decreased exchangeable sodium percentage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- exchangeable sodium percentagee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 42.3%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“exchangeable sodium percentage was decreased by 42.3% (T2)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum decreased exchangeable sodium percentage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- exchangeable sodium percentagee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 38.1%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“exchangeable sodium percentage was decreased by 42.3% (T2), 38.1% (T3)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment decreased exchangeable sodium percentage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- exchangeable sodium percentagee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 43.8%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“exchangeable sodium percentage was decreased by 42.3% (T2), 38.1% (T3), and 43.8% (T4)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching reduced soil pH.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- pH levelse0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 15.1%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“pH levels at the experimental site experienced reductions of 15.1% (T2)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum reduced soil pH.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- pH levelse0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 1.1%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“pH levels at the experimental site experienced reductions of 15.1% (T2), 1.1% (T3)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment reduced soil pH.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- pH levelse0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 14%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“pH levels at the experimental site experienced reductions of 15.1% (T2), 1.1% (T3), and 14% (T4)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching reduced soil electrical conductivity.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- soil electric conductivitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 59.6%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil electric conductivity of the soil at the end of the tomato growing period was decreased by 59.6% (T2)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum reduced soil electrical conductivity.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- soil electric conductivitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 19.2%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil electric conductivity of the soil at the end of the tomato growing period was decreased by 59.6% (T2), 19.2% (T3)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment reduced soil electrical conductivity.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- soil electric conductivitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 46.2%e0
- Comparator
- T1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil electric conductivity of the soil at the end of the tomato growing period was decreased by 59.6% (T2), 19.2% (T3), and 46.2% (T4)”
e1“compared with control T1”
t0“Tomato”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: physics · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)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.