Abstract
Greenhouse experiments were conducted in 2017 and 2018 to investigate quantitative relationships between tomato yield parameters and deficit irrigation at different growth stages. Tomato plants received one of three irrigation treatments (full irrigation, 2/3, and 1/3 full irrigation) at flowering and fruit development (stage 2) and at fruit maturation (stage 3); no deficit irrigation treatments were applied at stage 1 during either season. We used linear regression to investigate how well the yield parameters such as whole-plant yield ( Y ), single-fruit weight ( y ), fruit diameter ( D ), and length ( L ) were correlated with seasonal evapotranspiration ( ET ) under different deficit irrigation treatments. Six water–yield models (Blank, Jensen, Singh, Stewart, Minhas, and Rao models) were used to predict the tomato yield parameters with deficit irrigation at different growth stages. The results showed that deficit irrigation at each growth stage significantly decreased ET , Y , y , L , and D , but not T 1 (2/3 full irrigation at flowering and fruit development). T 1 produced higher water use efficiency ( WUE ) with no significant decrease in yield parameters, indicating that an acceptable balance between high WUE and yield can be obtained with an appropriate water deficit at stage 2. Relative Y , y , D , and L increased linearly as relative seasonal ET increased. Water deficit sensitivity indexes calculated by the six different water–yield models showed that Y , y , D , and L were more sensitive to water deficit at stage 2 than at stage 3. The values of Y calculated by the Minhas and Singh models were similar to the observed values. The Minhas model provided good estimates of L and D , and the Blank model is recommended for calculating y when there is a water deficit at different growth stages. The water–yield models can be used to optimize irrigation water management and provide a sound basis for efficient tomato production.
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
Deficit irrigation significantly decreased evapotranspiration and yield and fruit size measures, except for T 1.
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- ET , Y , y , L , and De0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- but not T 1 (2/3 full irrigation at flowering and fruit development)e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deficit irrigation at each growth stage significantly decreased ET , Y , y , L , and D , but not T 1 (2/3 full irrigation at flowering and fruit development)”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
T 1 produced higher water use efficiency without a significant decrease in yield parameters.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- T 1e0
- Outcome
- water use efficiency ( WUE )e0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T 1 produced higher water use efficiency ( WUE ) with no significant decrease in yield parameters”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative yield and fruit dimensions rose linearly with relative seasonal evapotranspiration.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- Relative Y , y , D , and Le0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- relative seasonal ETe0
Not reportedCompound
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative Y , y , D , and L increased linearly as relative seasonal ET increased”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and fruit measures were more sensitive to water deficit at stage 2 than stage 3.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- Y , y , D , and Le0
- Direction
- more sensitivee0
- Comparator
- stage 3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Y , y , D , and L were more sensitive to water deficit at stage 2 than at stage 3”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Minhas and Singh model estimates of yield were similar to observations.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- values of Ye0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- observed valuese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The values of Y calculated by the Minhas and Singh models were similar to the observed values”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The Minhas model gave good estimates of fruit length and diameter.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- good estimates of L and De0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The Minhas model provided good estimates of L and D”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend the Blank model to calculate single-fruit weight under deficit irrigation.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- Blank model is recommended for calculating ye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the Blank model is recommended for calculating y when there is a water deficit at different growth stages”
t0“Tomato”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 117 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 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.