Abstract
Water supply is a major constraint to crop production for both chickpea and lentil in West Asia and North Africa, both of which have a Mediterranean climate. This study examined water use and water-use efficiency of chickpea and lentil from 3 experiments over 12 seasons, 1986–87 to 1997–98, in northern Syria. The strongest determinant of grain yield of chickpea and lentil and their water use under rainfed conditions is rainfall and its distribution. Large inter-seasonal fluctuations in weather resulted in larger inter-seasonal fluctuations in water use, and therefore in production of legumes. Seasonal evapotranspiration (ET) was significantly correlated with seasonal rainfall for both chickpea and lentil. Mean ET over 12 seasons was 268 mm for chickpea and 259 mm for lentil. The depth of extraction was, on average, 120 cm for chickpea and 80 cm for lentil. The average extractable soil water was 125 mm for chickpea and 90 mm for lentil over 12 seasons. For lentil, water-use efficiency for dry matter (WUEdm) and for seed yield (WUEgr) was 13.7 and 3.8 kg/ha.mm, respectively; for chickpea, WUEdm and WUEgr, 8.7 and 3.2 kg/ha.mm, respectively. Supplemental irrigation can significantly increase grain yield of both chickpea and lentil. However, there was less increase in grain yield in the wet seasons than in the dry seasons. Estimated soil evaporation was 80 mm for lentil and 105 mm for chickpea. The average transpiration efficiency was 7.1 kg/ha.mm for lentil and 6.4 kg/ha.mm for chickpea. Estimated potential transpiration efficiency for seed yield was 11.8 kg/ha.mm for lentil and 12.2 kg/ha.mm for chickpea. Both the average water-use efficiency and potential transpiration efficiency for lentil and chickpea were lower than those for cereals. Despite this, the rotation benefits and higher economic return provide the potential for these legumes to replace fallow or to break continuous cereal cropping in the region's farming system.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfall and its distribution is the strongest determinant of grain yield and water use of chickpea and lentil under rainfed conditions, and large inter-seasonal weather fluctuations produce larger fluctuations in water use.
- Taxon
- chickpea and lentil
Cicer arietinum
Lens culinarise1 - Treatment
- rainfall and its distributione1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Setting
- under rainfed conditionse1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The strongest determinant of grain yield of chickpea and lentil and their water use under rainfed conditions is rainfall and its distribution”
e2“Large inter-seasonal fluctuations in weather resulted in larger inter-seasonal fluctuations in water use, and therefore in production of legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal evapotranspiration was significantly correlated with seasonal rainfall in chickpea and lentil.
- Taxon
- chickpea and lentilCicer arietinumLens culinarise3
- Treatment
- seasonal rainfalle3
- Outcome
- Seasonal evapotranspiration (ET)e3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Seasonal evapotranspiration (ET) was significantly correlated with seasonal rainfall for both chickpea and lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation significantly increased grain yield of chickpea and lentil, with less increase in the wet seasons than in the dry seasons.
- Taxon
- chickpea and lentilCicer arietinumLens culinarise4
- Treatment
- Supplemental irrigatione4
- Outcome
- grain yielde4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Qualifier
- less increase in grain yield in the wet seasons than in the dry seasonse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Supplemental irrigation can significantly increase grain yield of both chickpea and lentil. However, there was less increase in grain yield in the wet seasons than in the dry seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Legumes such as these could replace fallow or break continuous cereal cropping in the region farming system.
Verbatim
e5“Despite this, the rotation benefits and higher economic return provide the potential for these legumes to replace fallow or to break continuous cereal cropping in the region's farming system”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean evapotranspiration over 12 seasons was 268 mm in chickpea.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume6
- Outcome
- Mean ETe6
- Value
- 268 mme6
- Qualifier
- 12 seasonse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Mean ET over 12 seasons was 268 mm for chickpea and 259 mm for lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean evapotranspiration over 12 seasons was 259 mm in lentil.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise6
- Outcome
- Mean ETe6
- Value
- 259 mme6
- Qualifier
- 12 seasonse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Mean ET over 12 seasons was 268 mm for chickpea and 259 mm for lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Average depth of extraction was 120 cm in chickpea.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume7
- Outcome
- depth of extractione7
- Value
- 120 cme7
- Qualifier
- on averagee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The depth of extraction was, on average, 120 cm for chickpea and 80 cm for lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Average depth of extraction was 80 cm in lentil.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise7
- Outcome
- depth of extractione7
- Value
- 80 cme7
- Qualifier
- on averagee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The depth of extraction was, on average, 120 cm for chickpea and 80 cm for lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Average extractable soil water was 125 mm in chickpea over 12 seasons.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- extractable soil watere0
- Value
- 125 mme0
- Qualifier
- over 12 seasonse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average extractable soil water was 125 mm for chickpea and 90 mm for lentil over 12 seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Average extractable soil water was 90 mm in lentil over 12 seasons.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- extractable soil watere0
- Value
- 90 mme0
- Qualifier
- over 12 seasonse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average extractable soil water was 125 mm for chickpea and 90 mm for lentil over 12 seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil water-use efficiency for dry matter was 13.7 kg/ha.mm.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- water-use efficiency for dry matter (WUEdm)e0
- Value
- 13.7e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For lentil, water-use efficiency for dry matter (WUEdm) and for seed yield (WUEgr) was 13.7 and 3.8 kg/ha.mm, respectively; for chickpea, WUEdm and WUEgr, 8.7 and 3.2 kg/ha.mm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil water-use efficiency for seed yield was 3.8 kg/ha.mm.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- for seed yield (WUEgr)e0
- Value
- 3.8e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For lentil, water-use efficiency for dry matter (WUEdm) and for seed yield (WUEgr) was 13.7 and 3.8 kg/ha.mm, respectively; for chickpea, WUEdm and WUEgr, 8.7 and 3.2 kg/ha.mm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea water-use efficiency for dry matter was 8.7 kg/ha.mm.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- WUEdme0
- Value
- 8.7e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For lentil, water-use efficiency for dry matter (WUEdm) and for seed yield (WUEgr) was 13.7 and 3.8 kg/ha.mm, respectively; for chickpea, WUEdm and WUEgr, 8.7 and 3.2 kg/ha.mm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea water-use efficiency for seed yield was 3.2 kg/ha.mm.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- WUEgre0
- Value
- 3.2e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For lentil, water-use efficiency for dry matter (WUEdm) and for seed yield (WUEgr) was 13.7 and 3.8 kg/ha.mm, respectively; for chickpea, WUEdm and WUEgr, 8.7 and 3.2 kg/ha.mm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Estimated soil evaporation was 80 mm in lentil.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- Estimated soil evaporatione0
- Value
- 80 mme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated soil evaporation was 80 mm for lentil and 105 mm for chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Estimated soil evaporation was 105 mm in chickpea.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- Estimated soil evaporatione0
- Value
- 105 mme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated soil evaporation was 80 mm for lentil and 105 mm for chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Average transpiration efficiency was 7.1 kg/ha.mm in lentil, lower than in cereals.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- average transpiration efficiencye0
- Value
- 7.1 kg/ha.mme0
- Qualifier
- lower than those for cerealse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average transpiration efficiency was 7.1 kg/ha.mm for lentil and 6.4 kg/ha.mm for chickpea”
e1“Both the average water-use efficiency and potential transpiration efficiency for lentil and chickpea were lower than those for cereals”
Claim · model-written summary
Average transpiration efficiency was 6.4 kg/ha.mm in chickpea, lower than in cereals.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- average transpiration efficiencye0
- Value
- 6.4 kg/ha.mme0
- Qualifier
- lower than those for cerealse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average transpiration efficiency was 7.1 kg/ha.mm for lentil and 6.4 kg/ha.mm for chickpea”
e1“Both the average water-use efficiency and potential transpiration efficiency for lentil and chickpea were lower than those for cereals”
Claim · model-written summary
Potential transpiration efficiency for seed yield was 11.8 kg/ha.mm in lentil, lower than in cereals.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- potential transpiration efficiency for seed yielde0
- Value
- 11.8 kg/ha.mme0
- Qualifier
- lower than those for cerealse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated potential transpiration efficiency for seed yield was 11.8 kg/ha.mm for lentil and 12.2 kg/ha.mm for chickpea”
e1“Both the average water-use efficiency and potential transpiration efficiency for lentil and chickpea were lower than those for cereals”
Claim · model-written summary
Potential transpiration efficiency for seed yield was 12.2 kg/ha.mm in chickpea, lower than in cereals.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- potential transpiration efficiency for seed yielde0
- Value
- 12.2 kg/ha.mme0
- Qualifier
- lower than those for cerealse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated potential transpiration efficiency for seed yield was 11.8 kg/ha.mm for lentil and 12.2 kg/ha.mm for chickpea”
e1“Both the average water-use efficiency and potential transpiration efficiency for lentil and chickpea were lower than those for cereals”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results differ
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →irrigation · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
120 papers more in this group
See all 124 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.