Abstract
Abstract A 2‐year study was conducted to assess the effects of irrigation regimes using saline water on soil salinization, yield, water productivity, and net income of faba bean ( Vicia faba L.) under actual farming conditions in arid regions of Tunisia. Faba bean (cvs. Luz de Otono and local) was grown on a sandy soil and drip‐irrigated with water having an electrical conductivity of 6 dS m −1 . Two deficit irrigation (DI70 and DI40) and one full irrigation (FI) strategy consisting of applications of 40%, 70%, and 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), respectively, were compared to the traditional farmers' irrigation method (FM) in which 16 mm irrigation were applied every 5 days from planting till harvest. Results showed that the lowest soil salinity values at harvest were observed under FI treatment, while the highest were obtained with DI40 and the FM. The maximum values of faba bean yields were obtained under FI and the lowest with the FM. No significant reduction in yields was observed with the DI70 treatment compared to FI, while DI40 and the FM significantly decreased the fresh pod yields. Using 12%–20% more irrigation water than FI treatment, the FM did not improve soil salinity but resulted in a significant yield reduction compared to FI. Total water productivity values varied between 4.9 (FM) and 14 kg m −3 (DI40) across different years and treatments. Compared to the FM, which applies fixed amounts with the same frequency, the FI strategy, which adapts the irrigation amounts to the actual crop water requirements, was more productive and provided a significant advantage in terms of yield and net income. Under limited availability of irrigation water, adoption of the DI70 treatment was found to be a good alternative as it allowed 30% water saving and was subject to limited negative effects on soil salinity, yield, and net income.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation had the lowest soil salinity at harvest.
- Taxon
- faba bean
Vicia fabat0 - Treatment
- FI treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil salinity values at harveste0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lowest soil salinity values at harvest were observed under FI treatment”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
DI40 and farmer irrigation had the highest soil salinity at harvest.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- DI40 and the FMe0
- Outcome
- soil salinity values at harveste1
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest were obtained with DI40 and the FM”
e1“Results showed that the lowest soil salinity values at harvest were observed under FI treatment, while the highest were obtained with DI40 and the FM”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation gave maximum faba bean yield.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabae0
- Treatment
- FIe0
- Outcome
- faba bean yieldse0
- Direction
- maximume0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maximum values of faba bean yields were obtained under FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer irrigation gave the lowest faba bean yield.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- FMe0
- Outcome
- faba bean yieldse1
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowest with the FM”
e1“The maximum values of faba bean yields were obtained under FI and the lowest with the FM”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
DI70 did not significantly reduce yield relative to FI.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- DI70 treatmente0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- No significant reductione0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant reduction in yields was observed with the DI70 treatment compared to FI”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
DI40 significantly decreased fresh pod yield.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- DI40e0
- Outcome
- fresh pod yieldse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI40 and the FM significantly decreased the fresh pod yields”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer irrigation significantly decreased fresh pod yield.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- FMe0
- Outcome
- fresh pod yieldse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI40 and the FM significantly decreased the fresh pod yields”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer irrigation used 12%–20% more water than FI.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- FMe0
- Outcome
- irrigation watere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 12%–20%e0
- Comparator
- FI treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Using 12%–20% more irrigation water than FI treatment, the FM”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer irrigation did not improve soil salinity compared with FI.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- FMe0
- Outcome
- soil salinitye0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
- Comparator
- FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the FM did not improve soil salinity but resulted in a significant yield reduction compared to FI”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer irrigation significantly reduced yield compared with FI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the FM did not improve soil salinity but resulted in a significant yield reduction compared to FI”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Water productivity was 4.9 kg m−3 with farmer irrigation.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- FMe0
- Outcome
- Total water productivitye0
- Value
- 4.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total water productivity values varied between 4.9 (FM) and 14 kg m −3 (DI40)”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Water productivity was 14 kg m−3 with DI40.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- DI40e0
- Outcome
- Total water productivitye0
- Value
- 14 kg m −3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total water productivity values varied between 4.9 (FM) and 14 kg m −3 (DI40)”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
FI gave higher yield than farmer irrigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the FI strategy, which adapts the irrigation amounts to the actual crop water requirements, was more productive and provided a significant advantage in terms of yield and net income”
e1“Compared to the FM, which applies fixed amounts with the same frequency, the FI strategy, which adapts the irrigation amounts to the actual crop water requirements, was more productive and provided a significant advantage in terms of yield and net income”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
FI gave higher net income than farmer irrigation.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Treatment
- FI strategye1
- Outcome
- net incomee0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Comparator
- FMe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“provided a significant advantage in terms of yield and net income”
e1“Compared to the FM, which applies fixed amounts with the same frequency, the FI strategy, which adapts the irrigation amounts to the actual crop water requirements, was more productive and provided a significant advantage in terms of yield and net income”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
DI70 saved 30% of irrigation water.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI70 treatment was found to be a good alternative as it allowed 30% water saving”
t0“faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended DI70 where irrigation water is limited.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabat0
- Outcome
- adoption of the DI70 treatmente0
- Qualifier
- limited availability of irrigation watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under limited availability of irrigation water, adoption of the DI70 treatment was found to be a good alternative”
t0“faba bean”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: chemistry · Vicia faba (faba bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Vicia faba (faba bean)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →irrigation · yield · Vicia faba (faba bean)Positive and negative results
48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
58 papers more in this group
See all 62 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.