Abstract
Due to limited water resources it has become needed to study the best ways to decrease irrigation water use, increasing the water use efficiency, improve tree growth and sustain citrus crop production under those circumstances. Afield experiment was conducted during 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 seasons at El-Nubaria city, Beheira Governorate to investigate the effect of irrigation regime (80% and 60% from full irrigation) and soil conditioners (hydrogel at rate of 50 and 100g/tree as synthetic water absorbing soil amendments or organic plant residues at rate of 3.5 and 6.5kg/tree as natural absorbing soil amendments) on some properties of sandy soil, growth, yield, quality and productivity of irrigation water (PIW) for Washington navel orange trees under drip irrigation system. The obtained results pointed out that: The application of soil conditioners led to enhancing the properties and microorganisms activities and macronutrients of sandy soil especially with the high rates. Whereas, the low values of soil field capacity (10.47%), wilting point (4.26%) and available water (6.21%) were recorded with full irrigation without conditioners while, the high values (11.31 to 12.28%), (4.35 to 4.68%), (6.78 to 7.62%) respectively under irrigation regime combined conditioners. Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime increased the available nitrogen (up to 22.76%, phosphours (up to 9.98%), potassium (up to 15.14%), organic matter (up to 41.79%, CEC (up to 16.53%) and salinity (up to 4.64%) while soil bulk density was decreased (up to 5.66%) compared to full irrigation without conditioners. Moderate irrigation plus organic plant residues at rate of 6.5 kg/tree (T5) or plus hydrogel at 100g/tree (T3) significantly increased the most growth parameters (canopy volume, number of shoots/branch and leaf area), fruit set and decrease the fruit drop. Lowest percentage of fruit splitting (6.58 and 5.87 %) coated with T3 and T5 compared to deficit irrigation treatments plus the lowest rate of hydrogel or organic plant residues (T8 and T9). The highest yield was obtained by T3 (78.6 kg/tree) and T5 (79. 6 kg/tree). Control treatment (T1) followed by T3 and T5 tended to improve the physical fruit quality meanwhile deficit irrigation treatments T8 and T9 increased the most of chemical fruit quality. PIW mean values of Washington navel orange with full irrigation without conditioners were low (2.75 kg m-3) while, irrigation regime at 80 % and 60% recorded high values (3.49 kg m-3 and 3.88 kg m-3, respectively). PIW was increased with the high rates of soil conditioners.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Soil conditioners improved sandy-soil properties, microbial activity and macronutrients, especially at high rates.
- Taxon
- Washington Navel Orange Treest0
- Treatment
- soil conditionerse0
- Outcome
- properties and microorganisms activities and macronutrients of sandy soile0
- Direction
- enhancinge0
- Qualifier
- especially with the high ratese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
e0“The application of soil conditioners led to enhancing the properties and microorganisms activities and macronutrients of sandy soil especially with the high rates.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil field capacity with full irrigation and no conditioners was 10.47%.
Verbatim
e0“soil field capacity (10.47%)”
e1“recorded with full irrigation without conditioners while”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Wilting point with full irrigation and no conditioners was 4.26%.
Verbatim
e0“wilting point (4.26%)”
e1“recorded with full irrigation without conditioners while”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Available soil water with full irrigation and no conditioners was 6.21%.
Verbatim
e0“available water (6.21%)”
e1“recorded with full irrigation without conditioners while”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation combined with conditioners produced soil field capacity of 11.31 to 12.28%.
Verbatim
e0“high values (11.31 to 12.28%), (4.35 to 4.68%), (6.78 to 7.62%) respectively under irrigation regime combined conditioners”
e1“soil field capacity”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation combined with conditioners produced wilting point of 4.35 to 4.68%.
Verbatim
e0“high values (11.31 to 12.28%), (4.35 to 4.68%), (6.78 to 7.62%) respectively under irrigation regime combined conditioners”
e1“wilting point”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation combined with conditioners produced available soil water of 6.78 to 7.62%.
Verbatim
e0“high values (11.31 to 12.28%), (4.35 to 4.68%), (6.78 to 7.62%) respectively under irrigation regime combined conditioners”
e1“available water”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conditioners with irrigation increased available soil nitrogen by up to 22.76%.
Verbatim
e0“Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime increased the available nitrogen (up to 22.76%”
e1“compared to full irrigation without conditioners”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conditioners with irrigation increased available soil phosphorus by up to 9.98%.
Verbatim
e0“phosphours (up to 9.98%)”
e1“Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime increased”
e2“compared to full irrigation without conditioners”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conditioners with irrigation increased available soil potassium by up to 15.14%.
Verbatim
e0“potassium (up to 15.14%)”
e1“Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime increased”
e2“compared to full irrigation without conditioners”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conditioners with irrigation increased soil organic matter by up to 41.79%.
Verbatim
e0“organic matter (up to 41.79%”
e1“Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime increased”
e2“compared to full irrigation without conditioners”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conditioners with irrigation increased CEC by up to 16.53%.
Verbatim
e0“CEC (up to 16.53%)”
e1“Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime increased”
e2“compared to full irrigation without conditioners”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conditioners with irrigation increased soil salinity by up to 4.64%.
Verbatim
e0“salinity (up to 4.64%)”
e1“Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime increased”
e2“compared to full irrigation without conditioners”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conditioners with irrigation decreased soil bulk density by up to 5.66%.
Verbatim
e0“soil bulk density was decreased (up to 5.66%) compared to full irrigation without conditioners”
e1“Soil conditioners application combined with irrigation regime”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 and T5 significantly increased growth parameters and fruit set and reduced fruit drop.
- Taxon
- Washington Navel Orange Treest0
- Treatment
- Moderate irrigation plus organic plant residues at rate of 6.5 kg/tree (T5) or plus hydrogel at 100g/tree (T3)e0
- Outcome
- growth parameters (canopy volume, number of shoots/branch and leaf area), fruit sete0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Moderate irrigation plus organic plant residues at rate of 6.5 kg/tree (T5) or plus hydrogel at 100g/tree (T3) significantly increased the most growth parameters (canopy volume, number of shoots/branch and leaf area), fruit set and decrease the fruit drop.”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 and T5 decreased fruit drop.
- Taxon
- Washington Navel Orange Treest0
- Treatment
- Moderate irrigation plus organic plant residues at rate of 6.5 kg/tree (T5) or plus hydrogel at 100g/tree (T3)e0
- Outcome
- fruit drope0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Moderate irrigation plus organic plant residues at rate of 6.5 kg/tree (T5) or plus hydrogel at 100g/tree (T3) significantly increased the most growth parameters (canopy volume, number of shoots/branch and leaf area), fruit set and decrease the fruit drop.”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit splitting was 6.58% under T3.
Verbatim
e0“Lowest percentage of fruit splitting (6.58 and 5.87 %) coated with T3 and T5”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit splitting was 5.87% under T5.
Verbatim
e0“Lowest percentage of fruit splitting (6.58 and 5.87 %) coated with T3 and T5”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 yielded 78.6 kg/tree.
Verbatim
e0“The highest yield was obtained by T3 (78.6 kg/tree) and T5 (79. 6 kg/tree).”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
T5 yielded 79. 6 kg/tree.
Verbatim
e0“The highest yield was obtained by T3 (78.6 kg/tree) and T5 (79. 6 kg/tree).”
t0“Washington Navel Orange Trees”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
irrigation · nutrient: content · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
irrigation · yield · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →other · yield · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree
10 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.