Abstract
SummaryPartial rootzone drying (PRD) is a promising water-saving irrigation strategy for processing tomato, but its effects on fruit quality have not been fully explored. We explored PRD using glasshouse-grown ‘Petopride’ processing tomato. The treatments were (i) fully-watered control (C), or (ii) PRD where half the volume of water given to C was applied to one side of each plant, with the other side being watered next. Plants were irrigated twice a week, when the non-irrigated side of the PRD treatment had dried. The experiment was arranged in a completely randomised design, with six replications of each treatment. Each replication had four plants. Mid-day leaf water potentials were significantly lower in PRD plants than in C plants. PRD fruit matured earlier and had a higher yield than C fruit in the first six harvests. PRD fruit became redder than C fruit, from 3 d after harvest, as judged by their lower hue angle values. Total soluble solids contents and soluble sugars (sucrose, glucose, and fructose) concentrations were higher in PRD-treated fruit. During the first week after harvest, the average rates of ethylene production (in nmol CO2 g–1 s–1 ± SE) were 54.37 ± 8.10 for PRD fruit and 23.59 ± 4.75 for C fruit, respectively. The corresponding values for rates of respiration (in mmol g–1 s–1 ± SE) were 229.29 ± 33.69 for PRD fruit and 109.34 ± 23.21 for C fruit. Fruit weight loss in storage was similar between the two treatments. The values (as a percentage of original weight) were 11.46 ± 1.02% for PRD fruit and 10.53 ± 0.43% for C fruit. The water content of PRD fruit was lower than C fruit, which is an advantage for processing tomatoes. The PRD treatment saved 50% of the irrigation water, while improving many of the fruit quality attributes that are important for processing tomatoes. PRD is therefore confirmed as a feasible irrigation option when growing processing tomatoes.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
PRD significantly lowered midday leaf water potential relative to fully watered controls.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“Mid-day leaf water potentials were significantly lower in PRD plants than in C plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit matured earlier than controls.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“PRD fruit matured earlier and had a higher yield than C fruit in the first six harvests.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit had higher yield in the first six harvests.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“PRD fruit matured earlier and had a higher yield than C fruit in the first six harvests.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit became redder than control fruit three days after harvest.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“PRD fruit became redder than C fruit, from 3 d after harvest, as judged by their lower hue angle values.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit had higher total soluble solids.
- Taxon
- processing tomatot0
- Treatment
- PRD-treatede0
- Outcome
- Total soluble solids contentse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“Total soluble solids contents and soluble sugars (sucrose, glucose, and fructose) concentrations were higher in PRD-treated fruit.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit had higher sucrose, glucose, and fructose concentrations.
- Taxon
- processing tomatot0
- Treatment
- PRD-treatede0
- Outcome
- soluble sugars (sucrose, glucose, and fructose) concentrationse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“Total soluble solids contents and soluble sugars (sucrose, glucose, and fructose) concentrations were higher in PRD-treated fruit.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit had a higher first-week ethylene production rate than controls.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“During the first week after harvest, the average rates of ethylene production (in nmol CO2 g–1 s–1 ± SE) were 54.37 ± 8.10 for PRD fruit and 23.59 ± 4.75 for C fruit, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit had a higher first-week respiration rate than controls.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“The corresponding values for rates of respiration (in mmol g–1 s–1 ± SE) were 229.29 ± 33.69 for PRD fruit and 109.34 ± 23.21 for C fruit.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit weight loss in storage was similar under PRD and control watering.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“Fruit weight loss in storage was similar between the two treatments. The values (as a percentage of original weight) were 11.46 ± 1.02% for PRD fruit and 10.53 ± 0.43% for C fruit.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD fruit had lower water content than control fruit.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“The water content of PRD fruit was lower than C fruit, which is an advantage for processing tomatoes.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD saved 50% of irrigation water.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“The PRD treatment saved 50% of the irrigation water, while improving many of the fruit quality attributes that are important for processing tomatoes.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend PRD as a feasible irrigation option for processing tomatoes.
Verbatim
t0“processing tomato”
e0“PRD is therefore confirmed as a feasible irrigation option when growing processing tomatoes.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: hormones · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →irrigation · physiology: osmolytes · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →irrigation · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
55 papers more in this group
See all 59 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
116 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 papers →irrigation · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
238 papers in the same direction as this paper · 98 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
340 papers more in this group
See all 344 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.