Abstract
ABSTRACT There is insufficient information on the effects of drip irrigation and drip fertigation with nitrogen on growth and development of onions. The aim of the present work was to investigate the possibility of using these techniques in connection with fertilization, where nitrogen is split into preplant and side-dress application, that is used in onion (Allium cepa L.) production. Yield of spring sown onion (cvs. Riviera F1 and Utopia F1 in 1999 and cv. Riviera F1 only in 2000), were investigated in field experiments on a sandy-loam soil. Nitrogen fertilization consisted of a preplant application of 50 kg·ha−1 N incorporated in all treatments, and a side-dress application of: (1) 50 kg·ha−1 N in dry form without irrigation, (2) 50 kg·ha−1 N in dry form plus drip irrigation, or (3) 50, or (4) 150, or (5) 250 kg·ha−1 N in surface fertigation, applied through drip lines, and (6) 150 kg·ha−1 N in subsurface fertigation, applied through buried drip lines. In comparison with the not irrigated or fertigated control, addition of 50 kg·ha−1 N in dry form to the drip irrigated treatment 2 resulted in a significant marketable yield increase of both onion cultivars (cv. Riviera F1–18% and cv. Utopia F1–28%). Marketable yield increased as a result of application of 50 kg·ha−1 N, with fertigation (treatment 3, i.e., cv. Riviera F1–27% and cv. Utopia F1–55%). Fertigation N rates higher than 50 kg·ha−1 (treatments 4 to 6) did not increase onion yields. In 2000, the yield increase due to application of N in dry form and irrigation (treatment 2) was not significant. Higher marketable yields were produced when the 50 kg·ha−1 N rate was applied through drip fertigation (41% increase, treatment 3) and highest after applying 150 kg·ha−1 N (treatment 4) through fertigation (79% increase as compared to the control). Subsurface fertigation (treatment 6) had similar effects on yield as did surface fertigation. Irrigation and fertilization had little affect on total N concentration in onion plants.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Riviera F1 marketable onion yield rose 18% with dry N and drip irrigation versus control.
- Taxon
- onion
Allium cepae0 - Material
- Riviera F1e0
- Treatment
- 50 kg·ha−1 N in dry form to the drip irrigated treatment 2e0
- Outcome
- marketable yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 18%e0
- Comparator
- not irrigated or fertigated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In comparison with the not irrigated or fertigated control, addition of 50 kg·ha−1 N in dry form to the drip irrigated treatment 2 resulted in a significant marketable yield increase of both onion cultivars (cv. Riviera F1–18% and cv. Utopia F1–28%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Utopia F1 marketable onion yield rose 28% with dry N and drip irrigation versus control.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepae0
- Material
- Utopia F1e0
- Treatment
- 50 kg·ha−1 N in dry form to the drip irrigated treatment 2e0
- Outcome
- marketable yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Comparator
- not irrigated or fertigated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In comparison with the not irrigated or fertigated control, addition of 50 kg·ha−1 N in dry form to the drip irrigated treatment 2 resulted in a significant marketable yield increase of both onion cultivars (cv. Riviera F1–18% and cv. Utopia F1–28%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Riviera F1 marketable yield increased 27% with 50 kg·ha−1 N fertigation.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepat0
- Material
- Riviera F1e0
- Treatment
- 50 kg·ha−1 N, with fertigatione0
- Outcome
- Marketable yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 27%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Marketable yield increased as a result of application of 50 kg·ha−1 N, with fertigation (treatment 3, i.e., cv. Riviera F1–27% and cv. Utopia F1–55%).”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
Utopia F1 marketable yield increased 55% with 50 kg·ha−1 N fertigation.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepat0
- Material
- Utopia F1e0
- Treatment
- 50 kg·ha−1 N, with fertigatione0
- Outcome
- Marketable yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 55%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Marketable yield increased as a result of application of 50 kg·ha−1 N, with fertigation (treatment 3, i.e., cv. Riviera F1–27% and cv. Utopia F1–55%).”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation N rates above 50 kg·ha−1 did not increase onion yield.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepae0
- Treatment
- Fertigation N rates higher than 50 kg·ha−1e0
- Outcome
- onion yieldse0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
- Comparator
- 50 kg·ha−1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fertigation N rates higher than 50 kg·ha−1 (treatments 4 to 6) did not increase onion yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2000, dry N plus irrigation gave a nonsignificant yield increase.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- application of N in dry form and irrigatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- In 2000e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2000, the yield increase due to application of N in dry form and irrigation (treatment 2) was not significant.”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2000, 50 kg·ha−1 N drip fertigation increased marketable yield by 41%.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- 50 kg·ha−1 N rate was applied through drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- marketable yieldse0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Value
- 41%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher marketable yields were produced when the 50 kg·ha−1 N rate was applied through drip fertigation (41% increase, treatment 3)”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2000, 150 kg·ha−1 N fertigation increased yield by 79% over control.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- 150 kg·ha−1 N (treatment 4) through fertigatione0
- Outcome
- marketable yieldse1
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 79%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest after applying 150 kg·ha−1 N (treatment 4) through fertigation (79% increase as compared to the control)”
t0“Onion”
e1“Higher marketable yields were produced”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface and surface fertigation had similar yield effects.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- Subsurface fertigatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- similar effectse0
- Comparator
- surface fertigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Subsurface fertigation (treatment 6) had similar effects on yield as did surface fertigation.”
t0“Onion”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation and fertilization had little effect on plant total N concentration.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepae0
- Treatment
- Irrigation and fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- total N concentratione0
- Direction
- little affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation and fertilization had little affect on total N concentration in onion plants.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: content · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →irrigation · quality: postharvest · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →nitrogen · quality: postharvest · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →fertilization · quality: postharvest · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →irrigation · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
105 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
129 papers more in this group
See all 133 papers →nitrogen · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
156 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →fertilization · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 464 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
526 papers more in this group
See all 530 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.