Claim · model-written summary
Average irrigation application rate was 3.3-fold less than grower practice.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee1
- Treatment
- LF-based irrigation schedulee2
- Outcome
- time averaged irrigation application ratee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 3.3-folde0
- Comparator
- grower’s standard practicee0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the grower’s standard practice the time averaged irrigation application rate was 3.3-fold less”
e1“plants received sufficient water”
e2“LF-based irrigation schedule”
Title
Quinn Cypher; Wesley C. Wright; Xiaocun Sun; et al. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 2022. doi:10.13031/aea.15082
Other claims from this paper (8)
- Method / resource The sensor-controlled system achieved average leaching fraction 0.17 against a target of 0.15.
- Method / resource The system delayed irrigation in response to rain and actuated at minimum runtime when needed.
- Intervention effect Leachate-based irrigation used 60% less water than the grower schedule.
- Intervention effect Average daily leaching fraction was 0.17 under LF irrigation versus 0.73 under control.
- Intervention effect Average leaching rate was 12.1-fold less than grower practice.
- Association Substrate water content was not correlated with leaching fraction.
- Intervention effect Irrigation treatment did not significantly change crop growth metrics.
- Method / resource Irrigation runtime adjusted from daily leaching fraction despite irrigation-to-leaching lag.