Abstract
Abstract Experiments were conducted to evaluate the interactive effects of different nitrogen and irrigation levels in 2017 and 2018 (April–July) on greenhouse‐grown tomato considering irrigation water, growth, physiology and productivity parameters. A randomized block design with three replications and two factors, water (W 1 , 100% of the requirement; W 2 , 90%; W3, 70%) and nitrogen fertilizer (F 1 225 kg/ha, F 2 180 kg/ha), was established. The highest values of crop consumptive use (ET) were observed under the W 1 F 1 treatment during both seasons (266 and 226 mm during 2017 and 2018, respectively). The highest values of stem and root biomass were also observed under W 1 F 1 during both experimental seasons, followed by W 1 F 2 and W 2 F 1, without significant differences. Compared with W 1 F 1 , W 1 F 2 and W 2 F 1 had no significant difference, but other treatments decreased the photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance significantly during both seasons. The highest irrigation level, W 1, increased fruit yield under both nitrogen levels (W 1 F 1 yielded 91 and 102 t ha −1 , followed by W 1 F 2, with 90 and 99 t ha −1 during 2017 and 2018, respectively). W 2 increased fruit yield under higher nitrogen levels (F 1 ) but decreased fruit yield under lower nitrogen levels (F 2 ). W 3 decreased yield drastically under both nitrogen levels. W 3 significantly decreased water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency. The highest partial factor productivity values of 23% and 22% were obtained under W 1 F 2 in 2017 and 2018, respectively, when compared with the control treatment. It was concluded that W 1 F 2 could be the best strategy for improving greenhouse‐grown tomato productivity.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
W 1 F 1 had the highest crop consumptive use in both seasons.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- W 1 F 1e0
- Outcome
- crop consumptive use (ET)e0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 266 and 226 mme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest values of crop consumptive use (ET) were observed under the W 1 F 1 treatment during both seasons (266 and 226 mm during 2017 and 2018, respectively)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 1 F 1 had the highest stem and root biomass in both seasons.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 1 F 1e0
- Outcome
- stem and root biomasse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- W 1 F 2 and W 2 F 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest values of stem and root biomass were also observed under W 1 F 1 during both experimental seasons, followed by W 1 F 2 and W 2 F 1, without significant differences”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Other treatments significantly decreased photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance relative to W 1 F 1, while W 1 F 2 and W 2 F 1 did not differ significantly.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- other treatmentse0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- W 1 F 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with W 1 F 1 , W 1 F 2 and W 2 F 1 had no significant difference, but other treatments decreased the photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance significantly during both seasons”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 1 increased fruit yield at both nitrogen levels.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 1e0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest irrigation level, W 1, increased fruit yield under both nitrogen levels (W 1 F 1 yielded 91 and 102 t ha −1 , followed by W 1 F 2, with 90 and 99 t ha −1 during 2017 and 2018, respectively)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 1 F 1 yielded 91 and 102 t ha −1 in 2017 and 2018.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 1 F 1e0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Value
- 91 and 102 t ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W 1 F 1 yielded 91 and 102 t ha −1”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 1 F 2 yielded 90 and 99 t ha −1 in 2017 and 2018.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 1 F 2e0
- Outcome
- W 1 F 2e0
- Value
- 90 and 99 t ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W 1 F 2, with 90 and 99 t ha −1 during 2017 and 2018, respectively”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 2 increased fruit yield under F 1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 2e0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- higher nitrogen levels (F 1 )e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W 2 increased fruit yield under higher nitrogen levels (F 1 )”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 2 decreased fruit yield under F 2.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 2e0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- lower nitrogen levels (F 2 )e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W 2 increased fruit yield under higher nitrogen levels (F 1 ) but decreased fruit yield under lower nitrogen levels (F 2 )”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 3 drastically decreased yield at both nitrogen levels.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 3e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W 3 decreased yield drastically under both nitrogen levels”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 3 significantly decreased water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 3e0
- Outcome
- water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W 3 significantly decreased water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
W 1 F 2 gave the highest partial factor productivity, 23% and 22% above control in 2017 and 2018.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- W 1 F 2e0
- Outcome
- partial factor productivitye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 23% and 22%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest partial factor productivity values of 23% and 22% were obtained under W 1 F 2 in 2017 and 2018, respectively, when compared with the control treatment”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude W 1 F 2 could best improve greenhouse tomato productivity.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- W 1 F 2e0
- Outcome
- best strategy for improving greenhouse‐grown tomato productivitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W 1 F 2 could be the best strategy for improving greenhouse‐grown tomato productivity”