Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Recommended irrigation did not produce a statistical difference in marketable tomato number or weight.

A claim from Implementation of an in-field IoT system for precision irrigation management · 2024

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Recommended irrigation did not produce a statistical difference in marketable tomato number or weight.

Treatment
recommended irrigation strategye0
Outcome
number of marketable tomatoese0
Direction
no statistical differencese0
Comparator
farmer's existing methode0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the tomato demonstration field, there were no statistical differences in the number of marketable tomatoes ( p = 0.382) and their weights ( p = 0.756) between the farmer's existing method and the recommended irrigation strategy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1638–1868

Title

Implementation of an in-field IoT system for precision irrigation management

Younsuk Dong; Benjamin Werling; Zhichao Cao; et al. Frontiers in Water 2024. doi:10.3389/frwa.2024.1353597

Other claims from this paper (6)

Record rev-61fa8a94ae1cefd66dd3efed6bee27f9c17b211d9eb5c7d867a82d78f6ca1449 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 6 in the model’s answer

irrigation · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

59 papers: 39 positive, 20 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this claim · 39 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    In 2010, 50% irrigation gave higher total and marketable tomato yields than 100% irrigation.

    Yield, Water-, and Nitrogen-use Efficiency in Field-grown, Grafted Tomatoes · 2013 · compared with 100% irrigation regime

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Irrigation increased marketable yield in both years.

    Effect of irrigation on yield parameters and antioxidant profiles of processing cherry tomato · 2013

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Trickle irrigation gave 22% greater marketable tomato yield than furrow irrigation.

    Comparison of Subsurface Trickle and Furrow Irrigation on Plastic-mulched and Bare Soil for Tomato Production · 1989 · compared with furrow irrigation

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    In 2001, total marketable yields were higher at 10 kPa irrigation than at 25 kPa.

    Blossom-end Rot Incidence of Tomato as Affected by Irrigation Quantity, Calcium Source, and Reduced Potassium · 2004 · compared with irrigated at 25 kPa

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    On sandy soil, marketable fruit yield was highest with 40% preplant and 60% drip-applied N.

    Nitrogen and Potassium Application Scheduling Effects on Drip-irrigated Tomato Yield and Leaf Tissue Analysis · 1997

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Drip irrigation increased marketable fruit yield by 127%.

    Responses of Fruit Yield and Quality of Processing Tomato to Drip‐Irrigation and Fertilizers Phosphorus and Potassium · 2011 · compared with nonirrigation

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Drip irrigation at 80% ET0 with straw mulching gave the highest fruit and marketable yield of tomato.

    Yield Response, Nutritional Quality and Water Productivity of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) are Influenced by Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulch in the Coastal Saline Ecosystem of Ganges Delta, India · 2020

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Ozonated water treatment of 3 min gave the best firmness retention in tomato slices compared with control washing.

    Quality of tomato slices disinfected with ozonated water · 2013 · compared with control washed in water during 5 min

    Opposite direction

50 papers more in this group

See all 59 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.