Abstract
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) is a very important leafy vegetable in China and is commonly grown using furrow irrigation. In order to improve production efficiency, greenhouse experiments were conducted at Experimental Station, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China using furrow irrigation (FI), micro-sprinkler irrigation (MS), plastic film mulching irrigation (PF) and a combined plastic film mulching-micro-sprinkler irrigation system (PF+MS) to study their effects on soil physical characteristics, water distribution, root morpho-physiological traits, nutrition absorption, lettuce yield and water use efficiency for a spring crop and autumn crop in 2015 (Fig 1). Root length, root surface area, and root density were significantly higher under PF and PF+MS than under FI. Moreover, these traits were higher under MS than under FI but these differences were not significant. The soluble protein, soluble sugar, and Vitamin C content of lettuce decreased in the order PF+MS > PF > MS > FI in both crops. In the spring crop, the biological yield of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 7.22%、36.77%、43.20% higher than FI, respectively. In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency (BWUE) of FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 20.93, 25.24, 36.81 and 38.54 kg m-3, respectively. The BWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 20.59%, 75.87% and 84.14% higher than FI. Economic water use efficiency (EWUE) of FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 17.06, 21.31, 31.11 and 32.31 kg m-3, respectively. The EWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 24.91%, 82.36% and 89.39% higher than FI, respectively. The autumn crop achieved a higher WUE than the spring crop. The results suggested that the combined plastic film mulching-micro-sprinkler irrigation was the most suitable irrigation approach for increasing lettuce yield.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
PF and PF+MS raised lettuce root length, root surface area and root density significantly above furrow irrigation (FI).
- Taxon
- lettuce
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- PF and PF+MSe1
- Outcome
- Root length, root surface area, and root densitye1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Comparator
- FIe1
- Setting
- greenhouset0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e1“Root length, root surface area, and root density were significantly higher under PF and PF+MS than under FI”
Claim · model-written summary
MS raised lettuce root traits above FI, but the difference was not significant.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- MSe2
- Outcome
- these traitse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- FIe2
- Setting
- greenhouset0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e2“Moreover, these traits were higher under MS than under FI but these differences were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble protein, soluble sugar and Vitamin C content of lettuce decreased in the order PF+MS > PF > MS > FI in both crops.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae3
- Treatment
- PF+MSe3
- Outcome
- soluble protein, soluble sugar, and Vitamin C contente3
- Direction
- decreased in the order PF+MS > PF > MS > FIe3
- Qualifier
- in both cropse3
- Comparator
- FIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e3“The soluble protein, soluble sugar, and Vitamin C content of lettuce decreased in the order PF+MS > PF > MS > FI in both crops”
Claim · model-written summary
In the spring crop, biological yield under MS was 7.22% higher than under FI.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- MSe4
- Outcome
- biological yielde4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 7.22%e4
- Comparator
- FIe4
- Setting
- spring crope4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e4“In the spring crop, the biological yield of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 7.22%、36.77%、43.20% higher than FI, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In the spring crop, biological yield under PF was 36.77% higher than under FI.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- PFe4
- Outcome
- biological yielde4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 36.77%e4
- Comparator
- FIe4
- Setting
- spring crope4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e4“In the spring crop, the biological yield of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 7.22%、36.77%、43.20% higher than FI, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In the spring crop, biological yield under PF+MS was 43.20% higher than under FI.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- PF+MSe4
- Outcome
- biological yielde4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 43.20%e4
- Comparator
- FIe4
- Setting
- spring crope4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e4“In the spring crop, the biological yield of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 7.22%、36.77%、43.20% higher than FI, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency under FI was 20.93 kg m-3.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- FIe5
- Outcome
- biological water use efficiency (BWUE)e5
- Value
- 20.93e5
- Qualifier
- kg m-3e5
- Setting
- spring crope5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e5“In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency (BWUE) of FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 20.93, 25.24, 36.81 and 38.54 kg m-3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency under MS was 25.24 kg m-3.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- MSe5
- Outcome
- biological water use efficiency (BWUE)e5
- Value
- 25.24e5
- Qualifier
- kg m-3e5
- Setting
- spring crope5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e5“In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency (BWUE) of FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 20.93, 25.24, 36.81 and 38.54 kg m-3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency under PF was 36.81 kg m-3.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- PFe5
- Outcome
- biological water use efficiency (BWUE)e5
- Value
- 36.81e5
- Qualifier
- kg m-3e5
- Setting
- spring crope5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e5“In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency (BWUE) of FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 20.93, 25.24, 36.81 and 38.54 kg m-3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency under PF+MS was 38.54 kg m-3.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- PF+MSe5
- Outcome
- biological water use efficiency (BWUE)e5
- Value
- 38.54e5
- Qualifier
- kg m-3e5
- Setting
- spring crope5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e5“In the spring crop, biological water use efficiency (BWUE) of FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 20.93, 25.24, 36.81 and 38.54 kg m-3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Biological water use efficiency under MS was 20.59% higher than under FI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e6“The BWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 20.59%, 75.87% and 84.14% higher than FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Biological water use efficiency under PF was 75.87% higher than under FI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e6“The BWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 20.59%, 75.87% and 84.14% higher than FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Biological water use efficiency under PF+MS was 84.14% higher than under FI.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- PF+MSe6
- Outcome
- BWUEe6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 84.14%e6
- Comparator
- FIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e6“The BWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 20.59%, 75.87% and 84.14% higher than FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Economic water use efficiency under FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 17.06, 21.31, 31.11 and 32.31 kg m-3, respectively.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- FI, MS, PF and PF+MSe7
- Outcome
- Economic water use efficiency (EWUE)e7
- Value
- 17.06, 21.31, 31.11 and 32.31e7
- Qualifier
- kg m-3e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e7“Economic water use efficiency (EWUE) of FI, MS, PF and PF+MS was 17.06, 21.31, 31.11 and 32.31 kg m-3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Economic water use efficiency under MS was 24.91% higher than under FI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e0“The EWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 24.91%, 82.36% and 89.39% higher than FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Economic water use efficiency under PF was 82.36% higher than under FI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e0“The EWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 24.91%, 82.36% and 89.39% higher than FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Economic water use efficiency under PF+MS was 89.39% higher than under FI.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- PF+MSe0
- Outcome
- EWUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 89.39%e0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e0“The EWUE of MS, PF, and PF+MS was 24.91%, 82.36% and 89.39% higher than FI”
Claim · model-written summary
The autumn crop had higher water use efficiency than the spring crop.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- autumn crope6
- Outcome
- WUEe6
- Direction
- highere6
- Comparator
- spring crope6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e6“The autumn crop achieved a higher WUE than the spring crop”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined plastic film mulching-micro-sprinkler irrigation is recommended for increasing lettuce yield.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- combined plastic film mulching-micro-sprinkler irrigatione7
- Outcome
- lettuce yielde7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in the greenhouse”
e7“the combined plastic film mulching-micro-sprinkler irrigation was the most suitable irrigation approach for increasing lettuce yield”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →mulching · yield · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →irrigation · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
41 papers more in this group
See all 45 papers →irrigation · yield · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
irrigation · physiology: osmolytes · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.