Abstract
Irrigation systems increase fruit yield of water shortage orchards in semiarid and arid lands, but their environmental impacts remain unclear. This study carries out a comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) of the furrow and drip irrigated pear production systems in the Loess Plateau of China based on 2009–2018 inventory data from integrated experimental stations. The water depletion (WD), water footprint (WF), global warming (GWP), acidification (AP), and eutrophication (EP) potentials of the furrow and drip irrigated pear production systems were calculated and compared, including the orchard installation phase (phase I), primary growing phase (phase II), low production phase (phase III), and full production phase (phase IV). Results indicated that the cumulative WD, GWP, AP, and EP of the drip irrigated system were 148.3 m3, 130.1 kg CO2-eq, 0.9 kg SO2-eq, and 0.6 kg PO4-eq per ton of pear fruit harvest, respectively, which were 37.3–73.5% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system. The GWP, AP, EP, and WD of phase I to III contributed 39.3–46.1% in the drip irrigated system vs. 27.8–38.6% in the furrow irrigated system of the total amount, which should not be neglected in perennial orchard systems. The annual WFs were 0.9, 0.2, and 0.2 m3 kg−1 year−1 in phases II, III, and IV of the drip system, respectively, which were 50–71.4% lower than that of the furrow system. Green WF of furrow and drip irrigated systems were approximately the same, but the blue WF and grey WF of drip irrigation systems were 35.7–62.1% and 66.0–73.2% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system. The drip irrigated pear production system significantly mitigated environmental impacts and WFs, mainly due to reduced fertilizer application, water consumption, electricity, and diesel demand. Irrigation that changed from a furrow to a drip system was responsible for most environmental reductions, but 8% decreases of yields in phase IV. The outcomes from assessing the furrow and drip irrigated pear production systems could provide useful information for decision-making by the pear orchardists in the Loess Plateau.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation had lower cumulative water depletion than furrow irrigation per ton of pear fruit.
- Taxon
- Pear
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=60)
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- drip irrigated systeme0
- Outcome
- WDe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 148.3 m3e0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigated systeme0
- Setting
- Loess Plateaut1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“the cumulative WD, GWP, AP, and EP of the drip irrigated system were 148.3 m3, 130.1 kg CO2-eq, 0.9 kg SO2-eq, and 0.6 kg PO4-eq per ton of pear fruit harvest, respectively, which were 37.3–73.5% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
t1“Loess Plateau”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation had lower global warming potential than furrow irrigation per ton of pear fruit.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip irrigated systeme0
- Outcome
- GWPe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 130.1 kg CO2-eqe0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigated systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cumulative WD, GWP, AP, and EP of the drip irrigated system were 148.3 m3, 130.1 kg CO2-eq, 0.9 kg SO2-eq, and 0.6 kg PO4-eq per ton of pear fruit harvest, respectively, which were 37.3–73.5% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation had lower acidification potential than furrow irrigation per ton of pear fruit.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip irrigated systeme0
- Outcome
- APe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 0.9 kg SO2-eqe0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigated systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cumulative WD, GWP, AP, and EP of the drip irrigated system were 148.3 m3, 130.1 kg CO2-eq, 0.9 kg SO2-eq, and 0.6 kg PO4-eq per ton of pear fruit harvest, respectively, which were 37.3–73.5% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation had lower eutrophication potential than furrow irrigation per ton of pear fruit.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip irrigated systeme0
- Outcome
- EPe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 0.6 kg PO4-eqe0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigated systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cumulative WD, GWP, AP, and EP of the drip irrigated system were 148.3 m3, 130.1 kg CO2-eq, 0.9 kg SO2-eq, and 0.6 kg PO4-eq per ton of pear fruit harvest, respectively, which were 37.3–73.5% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Early orchard phases contributed a greater share of total environmental impacts in drip than furrow systems.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The GWP, AP, EP, and WD of phase I to III contributed 39.3–46.1% in the drip irrigated system vs. 27.8–38.6% in the furrow irrigated system of the total amount”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual water footprints under drip irrigation were lower than under furrow irrigation across phases II to IV.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip systeme0
- Outcome
- annual WFse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 50–71.4%e0
- Qualifier
- phases II, III, and IVe0
- Comparator
- furrow systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The annual WFs were 0.9, 0.2, and 0.2 m3 kg−1 year−1 in phases II, III, and IV of the drip system, respectively, which were 50–71.4% lower than that of the furrow system”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Green water footprints were approximately equal between irrigation systems.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip irrigated systemse0
- Outcome
- Green WFe0
- Direction
- approximately the samee0
- Comparator
- furrowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Green WF of furrow and drip irrigated systems were approximately the same”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue water footprint was lower under drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation systemse0
- Outcome
- blue WFe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 35.7–62.1%e0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigated systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the blue WF and grey WF of drip irrigation systems were 35.7–62.1% and 66.0–73.2% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Grey water footprint was lower under drip irrigation.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation systemse0
- Outcome
- grey WFe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 66.0–73.2%e0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigated systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the blue WF and grey WF of drip irrigation systems were 35.7–62.1% and 66.0–73.2% lower than those of the furrow irrigated system”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation reduced environmental impacts and water footprints, attributed to lower resource inputs.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communise0
- Treatment
- drip irrigatede0
- Outcome
- environmental impacts and WFse0
- Qualifier
- reduced fertilizer application, water consumption, electricity, and diesel demande0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The drip irrigated pear production system significantly mitigated environmental impacts and WFs, mainly due to reduced fertilizer application, water consumption, electricity, and diesel demand”
Claim · model-written summary
Changing from furrow to drip irrigation decreased yield in phase IV by 8%.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- drip systeme0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- decreasese0
- Value
- 8%e0
- Qualifier
- phase IVe0
- Comparator
- furrowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation that changed from a furrow to a drip system was responsible for most environmental reductions, but 8% decreases of yields in phase IV”
t0“Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.