Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the transitional impacts of single-lateral drip irrigation versus microsprinkler irrigation and wheat straw mulch, black polypropylene cover, and white polypropylene cover versus no ground cover (but herbicides were used to control weeds) on irrigation water use and productivity of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) trees (Lapins on Mazzard rootstock) on a fine loam soil at The Dalles, OR, from 2005 through 2007 in a split-plot design with four replicates. Our results showed that during the entire irrigation season from May to October, drip irrigation consumed only 21% to 29% of irrigation water relative to microsprinkler irrigation, the current irrigation system, averaged over the four ground cover systems in the 3 years. Water use efficiency was enhanced by 167% to 234% with drip irrigation over microsprinkler irrigation. Fruit yield and fruit quality including firmness, color, and size did not differ regardless of irrigation or ground cover system. Drip irrigation increased marketable fruit by 7% to 12% via reducing fruit surface pitting and bruising compared with microsprinkler. Straw mulch, black polypropylene cover, and white polypropylene cover also increased the percentage of marketable fruit in 1 out of 3 years. Overall, shifting from microsprinkler irrigation to single-lateral drip irrigation does not result in significant negative impacts on fruit yield or quality of bearing sweet cherry trees. Single-lateral drip irrigation has the potential to be a viable alternate irrigation system for sweet cherry production, where severe shortage of irrigation water occurs.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation used 21% to 29% as much water as microsprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- sweet cherry
Prunus aviumt0 - Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- irrigation watere0
- Direction
- onlye0
- Value
- 21% to 29%e0
- Comparator
- microsprinkler irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drip irrigation consumed only 21% to 29% of irrigation water relative to microsprinkler irrigation”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation enhanced water use efficiency by 167% to 234%.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 167% to 234%e0
- Comparator
- microsprinkler irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water use efficiency was enhanced by 167% to 234% with drip irrigation over microsprinkler irrigation”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit yield did not differ by irrigation or ground cover system.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation or ground cover systeme0
- Outcome
- Fruit yielde0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit yield and fruit quality including firmness, color, and size did not differ regardless of irrigation or ground cover system”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit quality, including firmness, color and size, did not differ by irrigation or ground cover system.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation or ground cover systeme0
- Outcome
- fruit quality including firmness, color, and sizee0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit yield and fruit quality including firmness, color, and size did not differ regardless of irrigation or ground cover system”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation increased marketable fruit by 7% to 12% through less pitting and bruising.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviumt0
- Treatment
- Drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- marketable fruite0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7% to 12%e0
- Comparator
- microsprinklere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation increased marketable fruit by 7% to 12% via reducing fruit surface pitting and bruising compared with microsprinkler”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch increased marketable fruit percentage in one of three years.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviumt0
- Treatment
- Straw mulche0
- Outcome
- percentage of marketable fruite0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 1 out of 3 yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Straw mulch, black polypropylene cover, and white polypropylene cover also increased the percentage of marketable fruit in 1 out of 3 years”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
Black polypropylene cover increased marketable fruit percentage in one of three years.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviumt0
- Treatment
- black polypropylene covere0
- Outcome
- percentage of marketable fruite0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 1 out of 3 yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Straw mulch, black polypropylene cover, and white polypropylene cover also increased the percentage of marketable fruit in 1 out of 3 years”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
White polypropylene cover increased marketable fruit percentage in one of three years.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviumt0
- Treatment
- white polypropylene covere0
- Outcome
- percentage of marketable fruite0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 1 out of 3 yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Straw mulch, black polypropylene cover, and white polypropylene cover also increased the percentage of marketable fruit in 1 out of 3 years”
t0“Responses of Irrigation Water Use and Productivity of Sweet Cherry to Single-Lateral Drip Irrigation and Ground Covers”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose single-lateral drip irrigation as a viable option where irrigation water is scarce.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviume0
- Treatment
- Single-lateral drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- viable alternate irrigation systeme0
- Qualifier
- where severe shortage of irrigation water occurse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Single-lateral drip irrigation has the potential to be a viable alternate irrigation system for sweet cherry production, where severe shortage of irrigation water occurs”
The same questions in other papers
organic · quality: postharvest · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
irrigation · physiology: water · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · yield · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →irrigation · quality: postharvest · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.