Abstract
The experiments and demonstrations of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables were conducted in Yongji,Jishan,Yuanping,Houma,Wanrong etc.of Shanxi.Results indicated that drip fertigation had remarkable effect.There were two economies as follows: Water economy: Compared with the traditional irrigation,813~2 685 cube meters of water and 408.8~1 342.5 Yuan were saved per hectares and utilization ratio of the moisture was increased by 36.5%~43.5%;Fertilizer economy: Compared with traditional fertilization,90~225 kg fertilizer and 420~1 800 Yuan were saved and the fertilizer efficiency increased from 15.2% to 24.2%.Two increases were as follows: yield of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 8.26%,22.22% and 3.76% respectively;moreover the net income of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 1 992,19 227 and 19 797 Yuan per hectares.
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
Drip fertigation saved 813~2 685 cube meters of water per hectare relative to traditional irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the traditional irrigation,813~2 685 cube meters of water and 408.8~1 342.5 Yuan were saved per hectares and utilization ratio of the moisture was increased by 36.5%~43.5%”
e1“experiments and demonstrations of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables”
e2“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation saved 408.8~1 342.5 Yuan in water costs per hectare.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the traditional irrigation,813~2 685 cube meters of water and 408.8~1 342.5 Yuan were saved per hectares and utilization ratio of the moisture was increased by 36.5%~43.5%”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
e2“experiments and demonstrations of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation increased moisture utilization by 36.5%~43.5%.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the traditional irrigation,813~2 685 cube meters of water and 408.8~1 342.5 Yuan were saved per hectares and utilization ratio of the moisture was increased by 36.5%~43.5%”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
e2“experiments and demonstrations of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation saved 90~225 kg fertilizer against traditional fertilization.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with traditional fertilization,90~225 kg fertilizer and 420~1 800 Yuan were saved and the fertilizer efficiency increased from 15.2% to 24.2%”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
e2“experiments and demonstrations of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation saved 420~1 800 Yuan in fertilizer costs.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with traditional fertilization,90~225 kg fertilizer and 420~1 800 Yuan were saved and the fertilizer efficiency increased from 15.2% to 24.2%”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
e2“experiments and demonstrations of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation increased fertilizer efficiency from 15.2% to 24.2%.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with traditional fertilization,90~225 kg fertilizer and 420~1 800 Yuan were saved and the fertilizer efficiency increased from 15.2% to 24.2%”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
e2“experiments and demonstrations of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield increased by 8.26% under drip fertigation.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- drip fertigatione1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 8.26%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 8.26%,22.22% and 3.76% respectively”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Grape yield increased by 22.22% under drip fertigation.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“yield of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 8.26%,22.22% and 3.76% respectively”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Greenhouse vegetable yield increased by 3.76% under drip fertigation.
- Taxon
- greenhouse vegetablese0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 3.76%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“yield of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 8.26%,22.22% and 3.76% respectively”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton net income increased by 1 992 Yuan per hectare.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione1
- Outcome
- net incomee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1 992e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“net income of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 1 992,19 227 and 19 797 Yuan per hectares”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Grape net income increased by 19 227 Yuan per hectare.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“net income of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 1 992,19 227 and 19 797 Yuan per hectares”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Greenhouse vegetable net income increased by 19 797 Yuan per hectare.
- Taxon
- greenhouse vegetablese0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione1
- Outcome
- net incomee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 19 797 Yuane0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“net income of cotton,grape and greenhouse vegetables increased by 1 992,19 227 and 19 797 Yuan per hectares”
e1“drip fertigation had remarkable effect”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
303 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 papers →fertilization · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
496 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
546 papers more in this group
See all 550 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.