Abstract
ABSTRACT Nitrogen (N) application can improve drought tolerance and water use efficiency (WUE) in crops. Previous studies have shown that aerated irrigation improves crop nitrogen absorption and utilization. However, the mechanisms behind the interaction of water and nitrogen under aerated drip irrigation and its impact on crop WUE remain unclear. This study conducted a 2‐years greenhouse experiment with spring‐summer and autumn‐winter tomato to investigate the effects of water and nitrogen coupling on leaf carbon (C) and nitrogen content, photosynthetic characteristics, plant dry matter accumulation, yield, and WUE. The experiment included three irrigation levels (W1, 50% ET c ; W2, 75% ET c ; W3, 100% ET c ) and three nitrogen application rates (N1, 0 kg ha −1 ; N2, 150 kg ha −1 ; N3, 250 kg ha −1 ). The results showed that increased nitrogen application and irrigation levels significantly increased leaf carbon and nitrogen content, net photosynthetic rate ( P n ), and stomatal conductance ( G s ) ( p < 0.05). Under deficit irrigation, nitrogen application increased leaf carbon content by 2.17% and nitrogen content by 9.34%, improved leaf photosynthetic capacity, and increased P n by 15.57% and G s by 19.32%. The W2 treatment demonstrated more significant improvement compared to W1. The W3N3 treatment produced the highest plant dry matter accumulation for both tomato types, with no significant difference from W2N3 ( p > 0.05). The W2N3 treatment produced the highest yield, 8.67%–9.13% higher than W3N3. The highest WUE occurred in W2N3 for spring‐summer tomato and W1N3 for autumn‐winter tomato. Although W1N3 had 1.02% higher WUE than W2N3, it had a 15.25% lower yield. Thus, W2N3 is recommended as the optimal water‐nitrogen management strategy for greenhouse tomato production. Correlation analysis revealed that leaf carbon and nitrogen contents positively correlated with P n , plant dry matter accumulation, and yield, whereas the leaf ratio of carbon and nitrogen (C/N) negatively correlated with WUE, suggesting that leaf carbon and nitrogen contents regulate tomato WUE. Nitrogen application under deficit irrigation enhanced leaf carbon and nitrogen contents, photosynthetic capacity ( P n , G s ), plant dry matter accumulation, yield, and WUE. Regression models suggest that the optimal water and nitrogen application rates for greenhouse tomatoes are 192.30–225.67 mm and 205.93–243.43 kg ha −1 for spring‐summer tomato, and 162.00–181.18 mm and 194.98–237.73 kg ha −1 for autumn‐winter tomato. These findings provide a theoretical basis for water‐efficient agricultural practices and sustainable greenhouse tomato production.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Higher nitrogen and irrigation significantly increased leaf carbon and nitrogen content.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- increased nitrogen application and irrigation levelse0
- Outcome
- leaf carbon and nitrogen contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased nitrogen application and irrigation levels significantly increased leaf carbon and nitrogen content, net photosynthetic rate ( P n ), and stomatal conductance ( G s ) ( p < 0.05)”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher nitrogen and irrigation significantly increased net photosynthesis and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- increased nitrogen application and irrigation levelse0
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic rate ( P n ), and stomatal conductance ( G s )e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased nitrogen application and irrigation levels significantly increased leaf carbon and nitrogen content, net photosynthetic rate ( P n ), and stomatal conductance ( G s ) ( p < 0.05)”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Under deficit irrigation, nitrogen raised leaf carbon by 2.17%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- nitrogen applicatione0
- Outcome
- leaf carbon contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.17%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under deficit irrigation, nitrogen application increased leaf carbon content by 2.17% and nitrogen content by 9.34%”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Under deficit irrigation, nitrogen raised leaf nitrogen by 9.34%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- nitrogen applicatione0
- Outcome
- nitrogen contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 9.34%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under deficit irrigation, nitrogen application increased leaf carbon content by 2.17% and nitrogen content by 9.34%”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Under deficit irrigation, nitrogen raised net photosynthesis by 15.57%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased P n by 15.57% and G s by 19.32%”
t0“Nitrogen Application Under Aerated Irrigation Mitigated Drought Stress by Improving Leaf Carbon and Nitrogen Reserves in Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Under deficit irrigation, nitrogen raised stomatal conductance by 19.32%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased P n by 15.57% and G s by 19.32%”
t0“Nitrogen Application Under Aerated Irrigation Mitigated Drought Stress by Improving Leaf Carbon and Nitrogen Reserves in Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W2 improved outcomes more than W1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- more significant improvemente0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- W1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The W2 treatment demonstrated more significant improvement compared to W1”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W3N3 produced the highest dry matter accumulation, without significant difference from W2N3.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- W3N3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- plant dry matter accumulatione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- W2N3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The W3N3 treatment produced the highest plant dry matter accumulation for both tomato types, with no significant difference from W2N3 ( p > 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
W2N3 produced the highest yield, 8.67%–9.13% above W3N3.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W2N3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 8.67%–9.13%e0
- Comparator
- W3N3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The W2N3 treatment produced the highest yield, 8.67%–9.13% higher than W3N3”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W2N3 gave the highest WUE in spring‐summer tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- W2N3e0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- spring‐summer tomatoe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest WUE occurred in W2N3 for spring‐summer tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N3 gave the highest WUE in autumn‐winter tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- W1N3e0
- Outcome
- W1N3 for autumn‐winter tomatoe0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N3 for autumn‐winter tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N3 had 1.02% higher WUE than W2N3.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N3 had 1.02% higher WUE than W2N3”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N3 had 15.25% lower yield than W2N3.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although W1N3 had 1.02% higher WUE than W2N3, it had a 15.25% lower yield”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf carbon and nitrogen contents correlated positively with photosynthesis, dry matter and yield.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Compound
- leaf carbon and nitrogen contentse0
- Outcome
- P n , plant dry matter accumulation, and yielde0
- Direction
- positively correlatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf carbon and nitrogen contents positively correlated with P n , plant dry matter accumulation, and yield”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf C/N ratio correlated negatively with WUE.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Compound
- leaf ratio of carbon and nitrogen (C/N)e0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- negatively correlatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaf ratio of carbon and nitrogen (C/N) negatively correlated with WUE”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The model suggests 192.30–225.67 mm water and 205.93–243.43 kg ha −1 nitrogen for spring‐summer tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- optimal water and nitrogen application ratese0
- Value
- 192.30–225.67 mme0
- Qualifier
- 205.93–243.43 kg ha −1e0
- Setting
- greenhousee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the optimal water and nitrogen application rates for greenhouse tomatoes are 192.30–225.67 mm and 205.93–243.43 kg ha −1 for spring‐summer tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The model suggests 162.00–181.18 mm water and 194.98–237.73 kg ha −1 nitrogen for autumn‐winter tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- autumn‐winter tomatoe0
- Value
- 162.00–181.18 mme0
- Qualifier
- 194.98–237.73 kg ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“162.00–181.18 mm and 194.98–237.73 kg ha −1 for autumn‐winter tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend W2N3 for greenhouse tomato production.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- W2N3e0
- Outcome
- optimal water‐nitrogen management strategye0
- Setting
- greenhousee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W2N3 is recommended as the optimal water‐nitrogen management strategy for greenhouse tomato production”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
73 papers more in this group
See all 77 papers →nitrogen · physiology: gas exchange · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
nitrogen · physiology: photosynthesis · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →nitrogen · molecular: metabolites · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 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.