Abstract
In a 2-year study (1993-94), tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. `New Yorker') plants grown in a sandy loam soil in field lysimeters were subjected to four water table depth (WTD) treatments (0.3, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 m from the soil surface). In 1994, precipitation during the flowering stage was far above average and apparently led to waterlogging in the shallowest WTD treatment, while in the drier year (1993), the deepest WTD treatment suffered from drought stress. In general, over the 2 years, the 0.6-m WTD showed the best yields and largest fruit, while the 1.0-m WTD showed the lowest yields and smallest fruit. However, the incidence of catfacing, cracking, and sunscald was generally higher in the 0.6 m WTD treatment and lower in the 1.0-m WTD treatment. Furthermore, fruit firmness was generally greatest for the two deeper WTD than for the shallower WTD. To strike a balance between yield and quality, a WTD of between 0.6- and 0.8-m is recommended for tomato production on sandy loam soils.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
The 0.6 m water table depth gave the best yields across two years.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- 0.6-m WTDe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- beste0
- Comparator
- 1.0-m WTDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, over the 2 years, the 0.6-m WTD showed the best yields and largest fruit, while the 1.0-m WTD showed the lowest yields and smallest fruit.”
t0“Yield and Quality of Tomato Fruit under Water-table Management”
Claim · model-written summary
The 0.6 m water table depth gave the largest fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 0.6-m WTDe0
- Outcome
- fruite0
- Direction
- largeste0
- Comparator
- 1.0-m WTDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, over the 2 years, the 0.6-m WTD showed the best yields and largest fruit, while the 1.0-m WTD showed the lowest yields and smallest fruit.”
t0“Yield and Quality of Tomato Fruit under Water-table Management”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1.0 m water table depth gave the lowest yields.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 1.0-m WTDe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- 0.6-m WTDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, over the 2 years, the 0.6-m WTD showed the best yields and largest fruit, while the 1.0-m WTD showed the lowest yields and smallest fruit.”
t0“Yield and Quality of Tomato Fruit under Water-table Management”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1.0 m water table depth gave the smallest fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 1.0-m WTDe0
- Outcome
- fruite0
- Direction
- smalleste0
- Comparator
- 0.6-m WTDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, over the 2 years, the 0.6-m WTD showed the best yields and largest fruit, while the 1.0-m WTD showed the lowest yields and smallest fruit.”
t0“Yield and Quality of Tomato Fruit under Water-table Management”
Claim · model-written summary
Catfacing, cracking and sunscald were generally higher at 0.6 m than at 1.0 m water table depth.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 0.6 m WTD treatmente0
- Outcome
- incidence of catfacing, cracking, and sunscalde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- 1.0-m WTD treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the incidence of catfacing, cracking, and sunscald was generally higher in the 0.6 m WTD treatment and lower in the 1.0-m WTD treatment.”
t0“Yield and Quality of Tomato Fruit under Water-table Management”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit firmness was greatest at the two deeper water table depths.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- two deeper WTDe0
- Outcome
- fruit firmnesse0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Comparator
- shallower WTDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit firmness was generally greatest for the two deeper WTD than for the shallower WTD.”
t0“Yield and Quality of Tomato Fruit under Water-table Management”
Claim · model-written summary
A water table depth between 0.6 and 0.8 m is recommended for tomato on sandy loam soils.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- a WTD of between 0.6- and 0.8-me0
- Setting
- sandy loam soilse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a WTD of between 0.6- and 0.8-m is recommended for tomato production on sandy loam soils.”
The same questions in other papers
soil water · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →soil water · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
soil water · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- no effect
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.