Abstract
Increasing water use efficiency and reducing nitrogen pollutant discharge are important tasks for modern agriculture. To evaluate the effect of alternate partial root-zone irrigation (APRI) on tomato plant growth, water use efficiency and nitrate-15N uptake, an experiment was conducted from June to December in 2014 under greenhouse condition in northern China. The experiment contained two irrigation patterns (APRI and conventional irrigation (CI)), two 15N labeled depths in soil (10 and 50 cm) and two transplant time (early and late summer). Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass. APRI produced marginally lower yields, but saved 34.9% of irrigation water, and gave a 37.6-49.9% higher water use efficiency relative to CI. In addition, APRI improved fruit quality, mainly through increasing the contents of soluble solid (by 12.8-21.6%) and vitamin C (2.8-12.7%), and the sugar/acid ratio (3.5-8.5%). The 15N utilization efficiency (15NUE) in APRI was higher than that in CI, which was more evident when 15N was labeled at 50 cm depth. Significant (p<0.05) 15N recovery increase of 10.2-13.2% and 15N loss decrease of 35.4-54.6% were found for APRI compared to CI. The overall results suggest that APRI under greenhouse could benefit the nitrate-N recovery and increase the water use efficiency in tomato.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
APRI did not significantly affect aboveground growth and biomass accumulation of tomato compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Organ / stage
- aboveground parte0
- Treatment
- APRIe0
- Outcome
- growth and biomass accumulatione0
- Direction
- not significantlye0
- Comparator
- CIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI enhanced root length density of tomato compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- APRIe0
- Outcome
- length densitye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- CIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI increased root dry mass of tomato compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- APRIe0
- Outcome
- dry masse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- CIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI produced marginally lower tomato yields than CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- marginally lowere1
- Comparator
- CIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e1“APRI produced marginally lower yields, but saved 34.9% of irrigation water, and gave a 37.6-49.9% higher water use efficiency relative to CI”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI saved 34.9% of irrigation water compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe1
- Outcome
- irrigation watere1
- Direction
- savede1
- Value
- 34.9%e1
- Comparator
- CIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e1“APRI produced marginally lower yields, but saved 34.9% of irrigation water, and gave a 37.6-49.9% higher water use efficiency relative to CI”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI gave a 37.6-49.9% higher water use efficiency than CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 37.6-49.9%e1
- Comparator
- CIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e1“APRI produced marginally lower yields, but saved 34.9% of irrigation water, and gave a 37.6-49.9% higher water use efficiency relative to CI”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI increased soluble solid content of tomato fruit by 12.8-21.6% compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe2
- Outcome
- contents of soluble solide2
- Direction
- increasinge2
- Value
- 12.8-21.6%e2
- Comparator
- CIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e2“In addition, APRI improved fruit quality, mainly through increasing the contents of soluble solid (by 12.8-21.6%) and vitamin C (2.8-12.7%), and the sugar/acid ratio (3.5-8.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI increased vitamin C content of tomato fruit by 2.8-12.7% compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe2
- Outcome
- vitamin Ce2
- Direction
- increasinge2
- Value
- 2.8-12.7%e2
- Comparator
- CIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e2“In addition, APRI improved fruit quality, mainly through increasing the contents of soluble solid (by 12.8-21.6%) and vitamin C (2.8-12.7%), and the sugar/acid ratio (3.5-8.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI increased the sugar/acid ratio of tomato fruit by 3.5-8.5% compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe2
- Outcome
- sugar/acid ratioe2
- Direction
- increasinge2
- Value
- 3.5-8.5%e2
- Comparator
- CIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e2“In addition, APRI improved fruit quality, mainly through increasing the contents of soluble solid (by 12.8-21.6%) and vitamin C (2.8-12.7%), and the sugar/acid ratio (3.5-8.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 15N utilization efficiency of tomato was higher under APRI than under CI, more evidently when 15N was labeled at 50 cm depth.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe3
- Outcome
- 15N utilization efficiency (15NUE)e3
- Direction
- highere3
- Qualifier
- more evident when 15N was labeled at 50 cm depthe3
- Comparator
- CIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e3“The 15N utilization efficiency (15NUE) in APRI was higher than that in CI, which was more evident when 15N was labeled at 50 cm depth”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI increased 15N recovery by 10.2-13.2% compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe4
- Outcome
- 15N recoverye4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Value
- 10.2-13.2%e4
- Comparator
- compared to CIe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e4“Significant (p<0.05) 15N recovery increase of 10.2-13.2% and 15N loss decrease of 35.4-54.6% were found for APRI compared to CI”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI decreased 15N loss by 35.4-54.6% compared with CI.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- APRIe4
- Outcome
- 15N losse4
- Direction
- decreasee4
- Value
- 35.4-54.6%e4
- Comparator
- compared to CIe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that, compared to CI, APRI did not significantly (p>0.05) impact the growth and biomass accumulation in aboveground part of tomato, while it enhanced the root, reflecting by greater length density and more dry mass”
e4“Significant (p<0.05) 15N recovery increase of 10.2-13.2% and 15N loss decrease of 35.4-54.6% were found for APRI compared to CI”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 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
- positive
- positive
- 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
- positive
- positive
- negative
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 papers →irrigation · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
105 papers in the same direction as this paper · 67 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
171 papers more in this group
See all 175 papers →irrigation · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
104 papers in the same direction as this paper · 239 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.