Abstract
ABSTRACT Water stress and suboptimal nitrogen fertilization limit sustainable onion production. A two‐season field experiment (2016–2018) evaluated the effects of varying irrigation (0.6, 0.9 and 1.2 ET c as M 1 , M 2 and M 3 ) and nitrogen levels (0%, 75%, 100% and 120% of recommended dose, RDN as N 0 , N 1 , N 2 and N 3 ) on evapotranspiration (ET a ), crop water productivity (CWP), irrigation water productivity (IWP), water‐yield functions and yield response to water stress. Irrigation increased the ET a (163–281 mm) and bulb yield (6.0–9.5 t ha −1 ) while decreasing the CWP (3.01–4.12 kg m −3 ) and IWP (4.13–6.81 kg m −3 ). An optimum balance was found at an average ET a of 220 mm, irrigation of 158 mm, yield of 8.2 t ha −1 and CWP of 3.6 kg m −3 . The overall yield response factor (K y ) was 0.78, indicating that onion is moderately sensitive to water stress, which improved with increasing nitrogen application. Among the treatments, microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDN (M 2 N 3 ) achieved the highest yield gain (65%), moderate CWP improvement (28%) and maximum net profit (109%) and benefit–cost ratio (107%) over the control (M 1 N 1 ). These results suggest that M 2 N 3 is the optimal strategy for water‐scarce Indo‐Gangetic plains and similar agroclimatic zones.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased onion evapotranspiration to 163–281 mm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation increased the ET a (163–281 mm) and bulb yield (6.0–9.5 t ha −1 ) while decreasing the CWP (3.01–4.12 kg m −3 ) and IWP (4.13–6.81 kg m −3 ).”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased onion bulb yield to 6.0–9.5 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- Onion
Allium cepat0 - Treatment
- Irrigatione0
- Outcome
- bulb yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.0–9.5 t ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation increased the ET a (163–281 mm) and bulb yield (6.0–9.5 t ha −1 ) while decreasing the CWP (3.01–4.12 kg m −3 ) and IWP (4.13–6.81 kg m −3 ).”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation decreased crop water productivity to 3.01–4.12 kg m −3.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- Irrigatione0
- Outcome
- CWPe0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Value
- 3.01–4.12 kg m −3e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation increased the ET a (163–281 mm) and bulb yield (6.0–9.5 t ha −1 ) while decreasing the CWP (3.01–4.12 kg m −3 ) and IWP (4.13–6.81 kg m −3 ).”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation decreased irrigation water productivity to 4.13–6.81 kg m −3.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- Irrigatione0
- Outcome
- IWPe0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Value
- 4.13–6.81 kg m −3e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation increased the ET a (163–281 mm) and bulb yield (6.0–9.5 t ha −1 ) while decreasing the CWP (3.01–4.12 kg m −3 ) and IWP (4.13–6.81 kg m −3 ).”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimum balance was 220 mm evapotranspiration, 158 mm irrigation, 8.2 t ha −1 yield and 3.6 kg m −3 crop water productivity.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Outcome
- optimum balancee0
- Value
- 220 mme0
- Qualifier
- irrigation of 158 mm, yield of 8.2 t ha −1 and CWP of 3.6 kg m −3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An optimum balance was found at an average ET a of 220 mm, irrigation of 158 mm, yield of 8.2 t ha −1 and CWP of 3.6 kg m −3 .”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
Overall onion yield response factor was 0.78, interpreted as moderate water stress sensitivity.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepae0
- Outcome
- yield response factor (K y )e0
- Value
- 0.78e0
- Qualifier
- moderately sensitive to water stresse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The overall yield response factor (K y ) was 0.78, indicating that onion is moderately sensitive to water stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nitrogen improved onion response to water stress.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepae0
- Treatment
- increasing nitrogen applicatione0
- Outcome
- sensitive to water stresse0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“onion is moderately sensitive to water stress, which improved with increasing nitrogen application”
Claim · model-written summary
M2N3 raised onion yield by 65% over M1N1.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDNe0
- Outcome
- yield gaine0
- Direction
- gaine0
- Value
- 65%e0
- Comparator
- M 1 N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDN (M 2 N 3 ) achieved the highest yield gain (65%), moderate CWP improvement (28%) and maximum net profit (109%) and benefit–cost ratio (107%) over the control (M 1 N 1 )”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
M2N3 improved crop water productivity by 28% over M1N1.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDNe0
- Outcome
- CWP improvemente0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Comparator
- M 1 N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDN (M 2 N 3 ) achieved the highest yield gain (65%), moderate CWP improvement (28%) and maximum net profit (109%) and benefit–cost ratio (107%) over the control (M 1 N 1 )”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
M2N3 increased net profit by 109% over M1N1.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDNe0
- Outcome
- net profite0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 109%e0
- Comparator
- M 1 N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDN (M 2 N 3 ) achieved the highest yield gain (65%), moderate CWP improvement (28%) and maximum net profit (109%) and benefit–cost ratio (107%) over the control (M 1 N 1 )”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
M2N3 increased benefit–cost ratio by 107% over M1N1.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDNe0
- Outcome
- benefit–cost ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 107%e0
- Comparator
- M 1 N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“microsprinkler irrigation at 0.9 ET c with 120% RDN (M 2 N 3 ) achieved the highest yield gain (65%), moderate CWP improvement (28%) and maximum net profit (109%) and benefit–cost ratio (107%) over the control (M 1 N 1 )”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend M2N3 for water-scarce Indo-Gangetic plains and similar zones.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- M 2 N 3e0
- Outcome
- optimal strategye0
- Setting
- Indo‐Gangetic plainse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“M 2 N 3 is the optimal strategy for water‐scarce Indo‐Gangetic plains and similar agroclimatic zones”
t0“Onion”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →irrigation · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
105 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
129 papers more in this group
See all 133 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.