Abstract
Due to the global expansion of irrigated areas and the limited availability of irrigation water, it is necessary to optimize water use in order to maximize crop yields under water deficit conditions. To evaluate the yield response of two processing tomato hybrids (Ercole and Genius) grown under different irrigation treatments, a field trial was conducted during the 2008 growing season in Southern Italy. Three irrigation treatments were used: the restitution of 70% of maximum evapotranspiration (ET(subscript c)) both under ”Deficit Irrigation” (70DI) and ”Partial Root-zone Drying” (70PRD) strategies; full irrigated (FI: 100% ET(subscript c)). The two water deficit irrigation treatments (DI and PRD) showed stomatal conductance values lower than FI treatment and saved a substantial amount of water maintaining reasonable marketable yield. Moreover, PRD strategy showed slightly higher ”Water Use Efficiency” (WUE) values than DI. Finally, ”yield response factor” (Ky) showed always values less than unity, indicating the possibility to adopt, within certain limited condition, both DI and PRD in field-grown processing tomato cultivated in Southern Italy. In conclusion, in our experimental conditions, deficit irrigation practices seem to be acceptable relatively to processing tomato yield aspects and Ky could be promoted as a useful indicator for irrigation in water deficit conditions.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation lowered stomatal conductance relative to full irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“Processing Tomato”
e0“The two water deficit irrigation treatments (DI and PRD) showed stomatal conductance values lower than FI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Partial root-zone drying lowered stomatal conductance relative to full irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“Processing Tomato”
e0“The two water deficit irrigation treatments (DI and PRD) showed stomatal conductance values lower than FI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation saved a substantial amount of water while maintaining reasonable marketable yield.
Verbatim
t0“Processing Tomato”
e0“saved a substantial amount of water maintaining reasonable marketable yield”
e1“The two water deficit irrigation treatments (DI and PRD) showed stomatal conductance values lower than FI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Partial root-zone drying saved a substantial amount of water while maintaining reasonable marketable yield.
Verbatim
t0“Processing Tomato”
e0“saved a substantial amount of water maintaining reasonable marketable yield”
e1“The two water deficit irrigation treatments (DI and PRD) showed stomatal conductance values lower than FI treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Partial root-zone drying had slightly higher water use efficiency than deficit irrigation.
Verbatim
t0“Processing Tomato”
e0“PRD strategy showed slightly higher ”Water Use Efficiency” (WUE) values than DI”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response factor was below one.
Verbatim
t0“Processing Tomato”
e0“”yield response factor” (Ky) showed always values less than unity”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered deficit irrigation practices acceptable for processing tomato yield and Ky useful as an irrigation indicator.
Verbatim
t0“Processing Tomato”
e0“deficit irrigation practices seem to be acceptable relatively to processing tomato yield aspects and Ky could be promoted as a useful indicator for irrigation in water deficit conditions”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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
- positive
- positive
- positive
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 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.