Abstract
A field experiment comparing different irrigation methods (Sprinkler Irrigation “SPI”, surface drip “DI” and sub-surface drip “SDI) were precisely controlled for alfalfa productivity and water use efficiency. The experiment was conducted at the Agricultural Experimental Station of King Abdel-Aziz University. The design of the experiment was Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replicates, consists of three irrigation method. Water Electronics Module (WEM) technology was used to fully controlled the irrigation methods. The results revealed SDI increase growth parameters (plant length, number of tillers and leave to stem ratio) compared with DI and SPI. The least water supply was recorded in SDI followed by DI and SPI respectively while the highest IWUE obtained from SDI followed by DI and the least IWUE was recorded in SPI. SDI and DI saved 35.7% and 29.2% of irrigation water compared with SPI. In spite of decreasing water supply under SDI and DI high dry yield was obtained. The increase in dry yield was 45% in SDI and 15.9% in DI compared with SPI. The results of experiment especially soil moisture data proved that WEM is a practical tool to precisely supplied irrigation water when needed and can be recommended for efficiently controlled different automated irrigation systems. Key wards: Irrigation methods, precision irrigation, Alfalfa.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Sub-surface drip irrigation increased alfalfa growth parameters compared with surface drip and sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- Alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- SDIe1
- Outcome
- growth parameterse1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Qualifier
- plant length, number of tillers and leave to stem ratioe1
- Comparator
- DI and SPIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e1“The results revealed SDI increase growth parameters (plant length, number of tillers and leave to stem ratio) compared with DI and SPI”
Claim · model-written summary
Sub-surface drip irrigation had the least water supply, followed by surface drip and sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDIe2
- Outcome
- water supplye2
- Direction
- leaste2
- Comparator
- DI and SPIe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e2“The least water supply was recorded in SDI followed by DI and SPI respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Sub-surface drip irrigation had the highest irrigation water use efficiency, followed by surface drip.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e3“while the highest IWUE obtained from SDI followed by DI and the least IWUE was recorded in SPI”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprinkler irrigation had the least irrigation water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SPIe3
- Outcome
- IWUEe3
- Direction
- leaste3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e3“while the highest IWUE obtained from SDI followed by DI and the least IWUE was recorded in SPI”
Claim · model-written summary
Sub-surface drip irrigation saved 35.7% of irrigation water compared with sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDIe4
- Outcome
- irrigation watere4
- Direction
- savede4
- Value
- 35.7%e4
- Comparator
- SPIe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e4“SDI and DI saved 35.7% and 29.2% of irrigation water compared with SPI”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface drip irrigation saved 29.2% of irrigation water compared with sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- DIe4
- Outcome
- irrigation watere4
- Direction
- savede4
- Value
- 29.2%e4
- Comparator
- SPIe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e4“SDI and DI saved 35.7% and 29.2% of irrigation water compared with SPI”
Claim · model-written summary
High alfalfa dry yield was obtained under sub-surface and surface drip despite decreasing water supply.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDI and DIe5
- Outcome
- dry yielde5
- Direction
- highe5
- Qualifier
- In spite of decreasing water supplye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e5“In spite of decreasing water supply under SDI and DI high dry yield was obtained”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry yield of alfalfa increased by 45% under sub-surface drip irrigation compared with sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- SDIe6
- Outcome
- dry yielde6
- Direction
- increasee6
- Value
- 45%e6
- Comparator
- SPIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e6“The increase in dry yield was 45% in SDI and 15.9% in DI compared with SPI”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry yield of alfalfa increased by 15.9% under surface drip irrigation compared with sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- DIe6
- Outcome
- dry yielde6
- Direction
- increasee6
- Value
- 15.9%e6
- Comparator
- SPIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e6“The increase in dry yield was 45% in SDI and 15.9% in DI compared with SPI”
Claim · model-written summary
The WEM technology is a practical tool to precisely supply irrigation water when needed.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- precisely supplied irrigation watere7
- Qualifier
- when needede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e7“WEM is a practical tool to precisely supplied irrigation water when needed”
Claim · model-written summary
The WEM-controlled irrigation approach can be recommended for efficiently controlled different automated irrigation systems.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- efficiently controlled different automated irrigation systemse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Alfalfa under Different Irrigation Methods in Arid Climates”
e1“can be recommended for efficiently controlled different automated irrigation systems”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
88 papers more in this group
See all 92 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →irrigation · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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.