Paper · 2008 · Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering

EFFECT OF LOW QUALITY IRRIGATION WATER ON SPINACH YIELD AND SOME SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

E.M. El-Hadidi; A. A. Mosa; Sara El-Shabasy

9
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The increasing demand for water in arid areas requires looking for secondary water resources for irrigation, and this is the main goal of this study. For this purpose, pot experiment was carried out in the experimental greenhouses of the soils Dept., Fac. of Agriculture, Mansoura Univ., Egypt during the winter season of 2007/2008 to assess the quality of different irrigation water resources, i.e. fresh water from the River Nile as the control treatment, groundwater, drainage water and blended drainage water with fresh water. This is to evaluate the effect of irrigation with these water resources on quantitative and qualitative yield characteristics of spinach (Spinacia oleracea), and soil chemical properties at the end of the experiment. Results indicated that, the quality of irrigation water varied among the studied water resources, and the quality of the River Nile water was the highest. Consequently, it could be used for irrigating different field crops, with different soil conditions without any limitations. The SAR values of secondary water resources allow the irrigation in most soil conditions, but the sensitive plants for salinity, boron and chloride should be excluded from irrigation with the secondary water resources, even it was blended with fresh water. Spinach yield quantity, chlorophyll content and nutrients concentration insignificantly decreased through irrigation with secondary water resources, whereas sodium concentration significantly increased. On the other hand, soil salinity, soluble cations and anions were high significantly increased through irrigation with the secondary water resources, whereas soil pH was insignificantly increased.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary water resources slightly decreased spinach yield quantity, without significance.

Treatment
irrigation with secondary water resourcese0
Outcome
Spinach yield quantitye0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinach yield quantity, chlorophyll content and nutrients concentration insignificantly decreased through irrigation with secondary water resources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1432 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary water resources slightly decreased spinach chlorophyll content, without significance.

Treatment
irrigation with secondary water resourcese0
Outcome
chlorophyll contente0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinach yield quantity, chlorophyll content and nutrients concentration insignificantly decreased through irrigation with secondary water resources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1432 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary water resources slightly decreased spinach nutrient concentration, without significance.

Treatment
irrigation with secondary water resourcese0
Outcome
nutrients concentratione0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinach yield quantity, chlorophyll content and nutrients concentration insignificantly decreased through irrigation with secondary water resources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1432 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary water resources significantly increased spinach sodium concentration.

Treatment
irrigation with secondary water resourcese0
Outcome
sodium concentratione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinach yield quantity, chlorophyll content and nutrients concentration insignificantly decreased through irrigation with secondary water resources, whereas sodium concentration significantly increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1486 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary water resources significantly increased soil salinity and soluble cations and anions.

Treatment
irrigation with the secondary water resourcese0
Outcome
soil salinity, soluble cations and anionse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil salinity, soluble cations and anions were high significantly increased through irrigation with the secondary water resources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1507–1636 · show in text ↑
t0

“SPINACH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary water resources increased soil pH without significance.

Outcome
soil pHe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil pH was insignificantly increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1646–1683 · show in text ↑
t0

“SPINACH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–49 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

River Nile water had the highest quality among the tested irrigation water sources.

Outcome
quality of the River Nile watere0
Direction
higheste0

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the quality of irrigation water varied among the studied water resources, and the quality of the River Nile water was the highest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 772–901 · show in text ↑
t0

“SPINACH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–49 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors considered River Nile water suitable for irrigating field crops without limitations.

Taxon
field cropse0
Outcome
irrigating different field crops, with different soil conditions without any limitationse0

Verbatim

e0

“it could be used for irrigating different field crops, with different soil conditions without any limitations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 917–1026 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors advised excluding salinity-, boron- and chloride-sensitive plants from secondary-water irrigation.

Taxon
sensitive plantsMimosa pudicae0
Outcome
excluded from irrigation with the secondary water resourcese0
Qualifier
even it was blended with fresh watere0

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

Mimosa pudica
Mimosa pudica · TaxonSteve Fitzgerald · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the sensitive plants for salinity, boron and chloride should be excluded from irrigation with the secondary water resources, even it was blended with fresh water”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1283 · show in text ↑

irrigation · nutrient: content · Spinacia oleracea (spinach)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 2 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

irrigation · yield · Spinacia oleracea (spinach)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 7 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

irrigation · soil: chemistry · Spinacia oleracea (spinach)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

irrigation · physiology: pigments · Spinacia oleracea (spinach)Results agree

5 papers: 0 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.