Abstract
The aim of this study was to address the problems of water scarcity and low water and fertilizer use efficiency in vineyards in the Guanzhong Plain of Shaanxi, China. In the experiment, drip fertigation technology was used, including three irrigation levels (W3 (100% M, and M as the irrigation quota), W2 (75% M) and W1 (50% M)) and four fertilization levels (F3 (648 kg/hm2), F2 (486 kg/hm2), F1 (324 kg/hm2) and F0 (0 kg/hm2)). Traditional fertilization (CG) and a rainfed (CK) treatments were used as control treatments. Field experiments were conducted in Yangling, Shaanxi, China from 2019 to 2021 (wet years in 2019 and 2020, and dry years in 2021) to determine irrigation and fertilization intervals corresponding to higher crop yields and water and fertilizer utilization efficiency in different precipitation patterns. The results showed that, compared with the CK and CG treatments, the drip irrigation and fertilization treatment increased grape yield and significantly improved water productivity and fertilizer agronomic use efficiency. The highest grape yields were obtained in the F2 treatment under drip fertigation, and the highest grape yields were 16044 kg/hm2 and 12728 kg/hm2 in wet years and dry years obtained at W1F2 and W2F2, respectively. With the same fertilization level (F2), the grape yields of the W1, W2 and W3 treatments in wet years increased by 37.95%, 23.73% and 23.50% compared with those in dry years, respectively. The optimal irrigation and fertilization intervals determined by the response surface method were: the irrigation amount ranged from 8 to 11 mm and 32–38 mm, nitrogen application ranged from 182 to 190 kg/hm2 and 162–164 kg/hm2, phosphorus application ranged from 116 to 131 kg/hm2 and 98–100 kg/hm2, and potassium application ranged from 216 to 225 kg/hm2 and 194–201 kg/hm2 in wet years and dry years, respectively. This provides a guideline for the precision management of irrigation and fertilization of grape under different precipitation year types in Guanzhong Plain of Shaanxi Province.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation and fertilization increased grape yield compared with the CK and CG treatments.
- Taxon
- grapee1
- Treatment
- drip irrigation and fertilization treatmente1
- Outcome
- grape yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- CK and CG treatmentse1
- Setting
- Yangling, Shaanxi, Chinae0
Not reportedValue
Verbatim
e0“Field experiments were conducted in Yangling, Shaanxi, China from 2019 to 2021”
e1“The results showed that, compared with the CK and CG treatments, the drip irrigation and fertilization treatment increased grape yield and significantly improved water productivity and fertilizer agronomic use efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation and fertilization significantly improved water productivity and fertilizer agronomic use efficiency of grape compared with the CK and CG treatments.
Verbatim
e1“The results showed that, compared with the CK and CG treatments, the drip irrigation and fertilization treatment increased grape yield and significantly improved water productivity and fertilizer agronomic use efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest grape yields were obtained with the F2 treatment under drip fertigation.
Verbatim
e2“The highest grape yields were obtained in the F2 treatment under drip fertigation”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest grape yield in wet years was 16044 kg/hm2, obtained at W1F2.
Verbatim
e3“The highest grape yields were 16044 kg/hm2 and 12728 kg/hm2 in wet years and dry years obtained at W1F2 and W2F2”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest grape yield in dry years was 12728 kg/hm2, obtained at W2F2.
Verbatim
e3“The highest grape yields were 16044 kg/hm2 and 12728 kg/hm2 in wet years and dry years obtained at W1F2 and W2F2”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W1 irrigation at the same F2 fertilization level, grape yield was 37.95% higher in wet years than in dry years.
Verbatim
e4“the grape yields of the W1, W2 and W3 treatments in wet years increased by 37.95%, 23.73% and 23.50% compared with those in dry years”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W2 irrigation at the same F2 fertilization level, grape yield was 23.73% higher in wet years than in dry years.
Verbatim
e4“the grape yields of the W1, W2 and W3 treatments in wet years increased by 37.95%, 23.73% and 23.50% compared with those in dry years”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W3 irrigation at the same F2 fertilization level, grape yield was 23.50% higher in wet years than in dry years.
Verbatim
e4“the grape yields of the W1, W2 and W3 treatments in wet years increased by 37.95%, 23.73% and 23.50% compared with those in dry years”
Claim · model-written summary
For wet years, the response-surface optimal irrigation and fertilization intervals were given, with irrigation of 8 to 11 mm.
Verbatim
e5“The optimal irrigation and fertilization intervals determined by the response surface method were: the irrigation amount ranged from 8 to 11 mm and 32–38 mm, nitrogen application ranged from 182 to 190 kg/hm2 and 162–164 kg/hm2, phosphorus application ranged from 116 to 131 kg/hm2 and 98–100 kg/hm2, and potassium application ranged from 216 to 225 kg/hm2 and 194–201 kg/hm2 in wet years and dry years, respectively”
e6“precision management of irrigation and fertilization of grape under different precipitation year types”
Claim · model-written summary
For dry years, the response-surface optimal irrigation and fertilization intervals were given, with irrigation of 32–38 mm.
Verbatim
e5“The optimal irrigation and fertilization intervals determined by the response surface method were: the irrigation amount ranged from 8 to 11 mm and 32–38 mm, nitrogen application ranged from 182 to 190 kg/hm2 and 162–164 kg/hm2, phosphorus application ranged from 116 to 131 kg/hm2 and 98–100 kg/hm2, and potassium application ranged from 216 to 225 kg/hm2 and 194–201 kg/hm2 in wet years and dry years, respectively”
e6“precision management of irrigation and fertilization of grape under different precipitation year types”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.