Abstract
A study was undertaken to determine if microsprinkler irrigation (MI) can provide sufficient water and produce similar yield and quality of pear ( Pyrus communis L.) fruit as flood irrigation (FI) in a cracking (shrinking-swelling) clay soil. Soil water content and fruit quality attributes were measured under MI and FI in 2 years. Water potential of the upper 120 cm (47 inches) of soil was maintained at 0.1 to 0.3 MPa (14.5 to 43.5 lb/inch 2 ) through most of the growing season in both MI and FI treatments. MI and FI treatments did not differ in their effect on fruit size, yield, or firmness decline during cold storage. No consistent effect on fruit susceptibility postharvest fungal decay related to irrigation treatment was observed. MI has the potential to reduce chemical and water movement to groundwater, while providing sufficient water to produce satisfactory yield and fruit quality in a cracking clay soil.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Both irrigation treatments maintained soil water potential at 0.1 to 0.3 MPa.
- Taxon
- pear
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=60)
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- both MI and FI treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Water potential of the upper 120 cm (47 inches) of soile0
- Value
- 0.1 to 0.3 MPae0
- Qualifier
- through most of the growing seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Water potential of the upper 120 cm (47 inches) of soil was maintained at 0.1 to 0.3 MPa (14.5 to 43.5 lb/inch 2 ) through most of the growing season in both MI and FI treatments”
t0“Pear”
Claim · model-written summary
Microsprinkler and flood irrigation did not differ in fruit size or yield.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- MIe0
- Outcome
- fruit size, yielde0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MI and FI treatments did not differ in their effect on fruit size, yield, or firmness decline during cold storage”
t0“Pear”
Claim · model-written summary
Microsprinkler and flood irrigation did not differ in firmness decline during cold storage.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- MIe0
- Outcome
- firmness decline during cold storagee0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MI and FI treatments did not differ in their effect on fruit size, yield, or firmness decline during cold storage”
t0“Pear”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatment had no consistent effect on postharvest fungal decay susceptibility.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- fruit susceptibility postharvest fungal decaye0
- Direction
- No consistent effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No consistent effect on fruit susceptibility postharvest fungal decay related to irrigation treatment was observed”
t0“Pear”
Claim · model-written summary
Microsprinkler irrigation may reduce chemical and water movement into groundwater while supplying adequate water and fruit quality.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- MIe0
- Outcome
- reduce chemical and water movement to groundwatere0
- Qualifier
- providing sufficient water to produce satisfactory yield and fruit quality in a cracking clay soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MI has the potential to reduce chemical and water movement to groundwater, while providing sufficient water to produce satisfactory yield and fruit quality in a cracking clay soil”
t0“Pear”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: postharvest · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
irrigation · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.