Paper · 2020 · South African Journal of Plant and Soil

Drip irrigation systems controlled by soil moisture sensors and a soil water balance model for cassava grown in soils of two different textures

Xintai Xie; Thitiporn Machikowa; Sodchol Wonprasaid

6
claims
10
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) yield could be improved by drip irrigation if irrigation scheduling is correctly organized. Soil moisture content is an important factor for controlling irrigation. It can be directly monitored by soil moisture sensors or predicted by soil water balance (SWB) models. Field experiments were conducted to investigate cassava production under drip irrigation and to determine the relationship between soil moisture content predicted from SWB models and actual measurements from soil moisture sensors. Treatments were carried out in a randomized complete block design with four replications including: T1: rainfed; T2: drip irrigation controlled by soil moisture sensors; T3: drip irrigation controlled by a SWB model. The results showed that cassava yield and water use efficiency in irrigated treatments were higher than in rainfed treatments but there were no significant differences between T2 and T3. The predicted soil moisture content (SMCp) was slightly higher than the measured soil moisture content (SMCm). The difference between SMCp and SMCm was consistently the same throughout the measuring period. The overall results confirmed that the SWB model can be accurately used to predict soil moisture content. Drip irrigation controlled by the SWB model achieved a high cassava yield and WUE values similar to those produced using drip irrigation controlled by a soil moisture sensor.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation increased cassava yield relative to rainfed treatment.

Treatment
irrigated treatmentse0
Outcome
cassava yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
rainfed treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Manihot esculenta
Manihot esculenta · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cassava yield and water use efficiency in irrigated treatments were higher than in rainfed treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–876 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation increased cassava water use efficiency relative to rainfed treatment.

Treatment
irrigated treatmentse0
Outcome
water use efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
rainfed treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Manihot esculenta
Manihot esculenta · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cassava yield and water use efficiency in irrigated treatments were higher than in rainfed treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–876 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sensor and water balance scheduling did not differ significantly in yield and water use efficiency.

Treatment
T2e0
Outcome
no significant differencese0
Direction
no significant differencese0
Comparator
T3e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Manihot esculenta
Manihot esculenta · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there were no significant differences between T2 and T3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 881–936 · show in text ↑
t0

“cassava”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–102 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predicted soil moisture was slightly higher than measured moisture.

Outcome
predicted soil moisture contente0
Direction
slightly highere0
Comparator
measured soil moisture contente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Manihot esculenta
Manihot esculenta · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The predicted soil moisture content (SMCp) was slightly higher than the measured soil moisture content (SMCm).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 938–1048 · show in text ↑
t0

“cassava”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–102 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The difference between predicted and measured soil moisture remained consistent during measurement.

Outcome
difference between SMCp and SMCme0
Direction
consistently the samee0
Comparator
SMCme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Manihot esculenta
Manihot esculenta · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The difference between SMCp and SMCm was consistently the same throughout the measuring period.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1049–1144 · show in text ↑
t0

“cassava”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–102 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The soil water balance model accurately predicted soil moisture.

Outcome
predict soil moisture contente0
Qualifier
accuratelye0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Manihot esculenta
Manihot esculenta · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the SWB model can be accurately used to predict soil moisture content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1180–1249 · show in text ↑
t0

“cassava”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–102 · show in text ↑

irrigation · physiology: water · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

irrigation · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 18 positive, 2 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.