Abstract
Protected cultivation is gaining momentum in (semi) arid regions to ameliorate the adverse environmental impacts on vegetable crops, besides ensuring high resource use efficiency in resource-limiting environments. Among the less techno-intensive protected cultivation structures, naturally ventilated polyhouses (NVP), insect-proof net houses (IPN) and shade net houses (SNH) are commercial structures in India. With the aim to find the best-protected structure, together with optimum irrigation level, for high yield and water productivity of the tomato crop, the most popular crop in hot arid regions, we evaluated tomato performance in low-tech protected structures (NVP, IPN and SNH) in interaction with three irrigation levels (100, 80 and 60% of crop evapotranspiration, ETc) during spring–summer of 2019 and 2020. The NVP was found superior to both the net house structures (IPN and SNH) for different performance indicators of tomatoes under investigation. The components of plant growth (leaf and stem dry mass) and fruit yield (fruit size, weight, yield), as well as fruit quality (total soluble solids, fruit dry matter and lycopene content) were higher in NVP, regardless of irrigation level. The yield as well as water productivity were significantly higher in NVP at 100% ETc. However, there was no statistical variation for water productivity between NVP and IPN. Microclimate parameters (temperature, relative humidity and photosynthetic active radiation) were markedly more congenial for tomato cultivation in NVP followed by IPN in relation to SNH. Consequently, plants’ physiological functioning with higher leaf relative water content (RWC) and lower leaf water potential concomitantly with better photosynthetic efficiency (chlorophyll fluorescence, Fv/Fm), was in NVP and IPN. Most growth and yield attributes were depressed with the decrease in water application rates; hence, deficit irrigation in these low-tech protected structures is not feasible. For tomato cultivation in resource-scarce arid regions, the combination of the normal rate of irrigation (100% ETc) and NVP was optimal for gaining high yield as well as water productivity as compared to net houses.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
NVP performed better overall than IPN and SNH.
- Taxon
- tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- NVPe0
- Outcome
- superiore0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- IPN and SNHe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The NVP was found superior to both the net house structures (IPN and SNH) for different performance indicators of tomatoes under investigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
NVP increased tomato leaf and stem dry mass regardless of irrigation level.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NVPe0
- Outcome
- leaf and stem dry masse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- regardless of irrigation levele0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The components of plant growth (leaf and stem dry mass) and fruit yield (fruit size, weight, yield), as well as fruit quality (total soluble solids, fruit dry matter and lycopene content) were higher in NVP, regardless of irrigation level.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
NVP increased tomato fruit size, weight and yield regardless of irrigation level.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NVPe0
- Outcome
- fruit size, weight, yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- regardless of irrigation levele0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The components of plant growth (leaf and stem dry mass) and fruit yield (fruit size, weight, yield), as well as fruit quality (total soluble solids, fruit dry matter and lycopene content) were higher in NVP, regardless of irrigation level.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
NVP increased fruit soluble solids, dry matter and lycopene regardless of irrigation level.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NVPe0
- Outcome
- total soluble solids, fruit dry matter and lycopene contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- regardless of irrigation levele0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit quality (total soluble solids, fruit dry matter and lycopene content) were higher in NVP, regardless of irrigation level.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Tomato yield was significantly higher under NVP at 100% ETc.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NVP at 100% ETce0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield as well as water productivity were significantly higher in NVP at 100% ETc.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Water productivity was significantly higher under NVP at 100% ETc.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NVP at 100% ETce0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield as well as water productivity were significantly higher in NVP at 100% ETc.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Water productivity did not differ statistically between NVP and IPN.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- no statistical variatione0
- Comparator
- NVP and IPNe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no statistical variation for water productivity between NVP and IPN.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
NVP microclimate was more congenial than IPN and SNH for tomato cultivation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- Microclimate parameterse0
- Direction
- more congeniale0
- Comparator
- SNHe0
- Setting
- NVPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Microclimate parameters (temperature, relative humidity and photosynthetic active radiation) were markedly more congenial for tomato cultivation in NVP followed by IPN in relation to SNH.”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf relative water content was higher in NVP and IPN.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- leaf relative water content (RWC)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Setting
- NVP and IPNe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants’ physiological functioning with higher leaf relative water content (RWC) and lower leaf water potential concomitantly with better photosynthetic efficiency (chlorophyll fluorescence, Fv/Fm), was in NVP and IPN.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf water potential was lower in NVP and IPN.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Setting
- NVP and IPNe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants’ physiological functioning with higher leaf relative water content (RWC) and lower leaf water potential concomitantly with better photosynthetic efficiency (chlorophyll fluorescence, Fv/Fm), was in NVP and IPN.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthetic efficiency was better in NVP and IPN.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic efficiencye0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Setting
- NVP and IPNe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“better photosynthetic efficiency (chlorophyll fluorescence, Fv/Fm), was in NVP and IPN.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower water application depressed most tomato growth and yield attributes.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- decrease in water application ratese0
- Outcome
- growth and yield attributese0
- Direction
- depressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Most growth and yield attributes were depressed with the decrease in water application rates”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors deemed deficit irrigation infeasible in these protected structures.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- deficit irrigation in these low-tech protected structures is not feasiblee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deficit irrigation in these low-tech protected structures is not feasible.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended NVP with 100% ETc for high yield and water productivity.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- combination of the normal rate of irrigation (100% ETc) and NVP was optimal for gaining high yield as well as water productivitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of the normal rate of irrigation (100% ETc) and NVP was optimal for gaining high yield as well as water productivity as compared to net houses.”
t0“Tomato”
The same questions in other papers
protected cultivation · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →protected cultivation · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
protected cultivation · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →protected cultivation · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.