Abstract
Irrigation methods are critical to alleviate salinity problems in Mediterranean areas, where saline waters are frequently used to irrigate crops. Field experiments were conducted on Burley tobacco ('Nicotiana tabacum' L.) cv. C104 in Southern Italy for two years to compare drip versus furrow irrigation, in which waters of increasing salinity were used. Two irrigation methods (drip and furrow) and six irrigation treatments [rainfed control (RC), and fully-irrigated with water having an electrical conductivity (ECw) of 0.5 (normal water, NW), 2.5 (saline water, SW1), 5 (SW2), 10 (SW3), and 15 dS m-1 (SW4)] were factorially combined. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE, kg ha-1 mm-1), soil salt accumulation and soil moisture were measured for each treatment combination. Over the growing season the electrical conductivity of soil (ECe) across the 0.6 m soil's top profile increased with increasing salinity of the irrigation water but more in drip- than furrow-irrigated plots [0.177 and 0.105 dS m-1 ECe (dS m-1 ECw)-1, respectively, averaged over years]. Salinity of the irrigation water did not affect yield of cured leaves in the SW2 - SW4 range. Nevertheless, in the same range quality of cured product was generally depressed due to increases in leaf Cl- and decreases of filling power (cm3 g-1) of cut tobacco. Overall, furrow irrigation significantly produced greater yield, mean cured leaves weight and IWUE as compared with drip irrigation (1.7 vs. 1.5 Mg ha-1, 5.8 vs. 5.2 g, 5.9 vs. 5.4 kg ha-1 mm-1). The drip-irrigation proved to be superior over conventional furrow irrigation for tobacco cultivation under open-field conditions.
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
Soil electrical conductivity increased with increasing salinity of the irrigation water.
Verbatim
e1“Over the growing season the electrical conductivity of soil (ECe) across the 0.6 m soil's top profile increased with increasing salinity of the irrigation water”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil electrical conductivity increased more under drip than under furrow irrigation.
Verbatim
e1“Over the growing season the electrical conductivity of soil (ECe) across the 0.6 m soil's top profile increased with increasing salinity of the irrigation water”
e2“but more in drip- than furrow-irrigated plots [0.177 and 0.105 dS m-1 ECe (dS m-1 ECw)-1, respectively, averaged over years]”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity of the irrigation water did not affect the yield of cured leaves in the SW2 to SW4 range.
- Taxon
- Burley tobaccot0
- Treatment
- Salinity of the irrigation watere3
- Outcome
- yield of cured leavese3
- Direction
- did not affecte3
- Qualifier
- in the SW2 - SW4 rangee3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e3“Salinity of the irrigation water did not affect yield of cured leaves in the SW2 - SW4 range”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Quality of the cured product was generally depressed in the SW2 to SW4 range, associated with increased leaf Cl-.
Verbatim
e4“Nevertheless, in the same range quality of cured product was generally depressed due to increases in leaf Cl- and decreases of filling power (cm3 g-1) of cut tobacco”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Filling power of cut tobacco decreased in the SW2 to SW4 range.
Verbatim
e4“Nevertheless, in the same range quality of cured product was generally depressed due to increases in leaf Cl- and decreases of filling power (cm3 g-1) of cut tobacco”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow irrigation gave significantly greater yield than drip irrigation.
Verbatim
e5“Overall, furrow irrigation significantly produced greater yield, mean cured leaves weight and IWUE as compared with drip irrigation (1.7 vs. 1.5 Mg ha-1, 5.8 vs. 5.2 g, 5.9 vs. 5.4 kg ha-1 mm-1)”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow irrigation gave significantly greater mean cured leaves weight than drip irrigation.
Verbatim
e5“Overall, furrow irrigation significantly produced greater yield, mean cured leaves weight and IWUE as compared with drip irrigation (1.7 vs. 1.5 Mg ha-1, 5.8 vs. 5.2 g, 5.9 vs. 5.4 kg ha-1 mm-1)”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow irrigation gave significantly greater irrigation water use efficiency than drip irrigation.
Verbatim
e5“Overall, furrow irrigation significantly produced greater yield, mean cured leaves weight and IWUE as compared with drip irrigation (1.7 vs. 1.5 Mg ha-1, 5.8 vs. 5.2 g, 5.9 vs. 5.4 kg ha-1 mm-1)”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation was superior to conventional furrow irrigation for tobacco cultivation under open-field conditions.
Verbatim
e6“The drip-irrigation proved to be superior over conventional furrow irrigation for tobacco cultivation under open-field conditions”
t0“quality of Burley tobacco under saline conditions”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
irrigation · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
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.