Abstract
Abstract Water and fertilizer supply are the main factors limiting greenhouse vegetable production on the North China Plain. This study tested the hypothesis that negative‐pressure irrigation is advantageous for reducing water and fertilizer application compared with drip irrigation in a greenhouse. Three treatments (drip irrigation + optimal fertilizer [DOF], drip irrigation + Yamazaki tomato nutrient solution [DNS], and negative‐pressure irrigation + Yamazaki tomato nutrient solution [NNS]) were applied in a greenhouse tomato double‐cropping system conducted in consecutive spring–summer and autumn–winter seasons. Soil moisture content, nitrate‐nitrogen (N) concentration, fruit yield, total N uptake ( N u ), irrigation water productivity, and partial factor productivity of applied fertilizer were analysed. The seasonal variation of soil moisture and nitrate‐N contents in the 0–20‐cm soil layer for NNS treatment was stable. Nitrate‐N accumulated after the final harvest in the autumn–winter season of NNS treatment was significantly less than under DOF and DNS. Despite lower water and nutrient inputs, NNS showed higher N u and fruit yield than DOF and DNS. These results demonstrated that negative‐pressure irrigation can reduce irrigation water and nutrient inputs and nitrate‐N accumulation in the soil, and significantly improve water and fertilizer use efficiency in greenhouse‐grown tomato compared with those under drip irrigation.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture and nitrate-N in the 0–20-cm layer varied stably under NNS.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- NNSe0
- Outcome
- seasonal variation of soil moisture and nitrate‐N contentse0
Not reportedOrgan / stageDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The seasonal variation of soil moisture and nitrate‐N contents in the 0–20‐cm soil layer for NNS treatment was stable.”
t0“greenhouse tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
After the autumn–winter final harvest, NNS left significantly less accumulated nitrate-N than DOF and DNS.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NNSe0
- Outcome
- Nitrate‐N accumulatede0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- after the final harvest in the autumn–winter seasone0
- Comparator
- DOF and DNSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrate‐N accumulated after the final harvest in the autumn–winter season of NNS treatment was significantly less than under DOF and DNS.”
t0“greenhouse tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
NNS used less water and nutrient input than DOF and DNS.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NNSe0
- Outcome
- water and nutrient inputse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- DOF and DNSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Despite lower water and nutrient inputs, NNS showed higher N u and fruit yield than DOF and DNS.”
t0“greenhouse tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
NNS produced higher total nitrogen uptake than DOF and DNS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Despite lower water and nutrient inputs, NNS showed higher N u and fruit yield than DOF and DNS.”
t0“greenhouse tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
NNS produced higher fruit yield than DOF and DNS.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NNSe0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- DOF and DNSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Despite lower water and nutrient inputs, NNS showed higher N u and fruit yield than DOF and DNS.”
t0“greenhouse tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Negative-pressure irrigation significantly improved water and fertilizer use efficiency relative to drip irrigation in greenhouse tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- negative‐pressure irrigatione1
- Outcome
- water and fertilizer use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvee0
- Comparator
- drip irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly improve water and fertilizer use efficiency in greenhouse‐grown tomato compared with those under drip irrigation.”
e1“negative‐pressure irrigation can reduce irrigation water and nutrient inputs and nitrate‐N accumulation in the soil”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- 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.