Paper · 2024 · Land Reclamation and Hydraulic Engineering

WATER CONSUMPTION, YIELD AND QUALITY OF ONIONS DEPENDING ON HUMIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION UNDER DRIP IRRIGATION IN SARATOV TRANS-VOLGA REGION

Nina A. Pronko; Konstantin V. Korsakov; Life Force Group, Saratov, Russian Federation; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-sa

Abstract

Purpose: to study the features of humic fertilizer impact on water consumption, yield and quality of onions under drip irrigation in the dry-steppe zone of Saratov Trans-Volga region. Materials and methods. Field studies were carried out on dark chestnut soils in 2019–2022. The objects of the study were the zoned Chalcedony variety and fertilizers based on humic acids. Related observations and studies of water consumption, productivity formation and yield quality were carried out using generally accepted methods. Results. Research has shown that when maintaining a drip irrigation regime, which involves watering when soil moisture is reduced to 80 % of the lowest moisture capacity in the 0–30 cm layer, the total water consumption of onions on average over the years of the study amounted to 4102 cub. m/ha, average daily – 31 cub. m/ha. The humic fertilizer application contributed to a more economical use of moisture and irrigation water, as evidenced by a decrease in the water consumption coefficient by 7.1–23.3 %, and the cost of irrigation water to form a unit of marketable output by 15.9–24.0 %. Humic fertilizers also provided a significant yield increase – 4.9–15.31 t/ha (10–31 % higher than the control – without fertilizers). Conclusions: the humic fertilizer application, which have stimulating and adaptogenic features, when growing onions under the arid conditions of the Saratov Trans-Volga region with drip irrigation, is an effective technique that ensures more economical use of water resources and increases the yield of one of the leading vegetable crops – onions.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under the stated drip regime, total onion water consumption averaged 4102 cub. m/ha.

Taxon
onionsAllium cepae0
Outcome
total water consumptione0
Value
4102 cub. m/hae0
Qualifier
watering when soil moisture is reduced to 80 % of the lowest moisture capacity in the 0–30 cm layere1

Not reportedDirection

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the total water consumption of onions on average over the years of the study amounted to 4102 cub. m/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 711–814 · show in text ↑
e1

“watering when soil moisture is reduced to 80 % of the lowest moisture capacity in the 0–30 cm layer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 610–709 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Daily onion water consumption averaged 31 cub. m/ha under the drip regime.

Taxon
onionsAllium cepae1
Outcome
average dailye0
Value
31 cub. m/hae0

Not reportedDirection

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“average daily – 31 cub. m/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 816–844 · show in text ↑
e1

“the total water consumption of onions on average over the years of the study amounted to 4102 cub. m/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 711–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Humic fertilizer decreased onion water consumption coefficient by 7.1–23.3%.

Taxon
onionsAllium cepae1
Treatment
humic fertilizer applicatione0
Outcome
water consumption coefficiente0
Direction
decreasee0
Value
7.1–23.3 %e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The humic fertilizer application contributed to a more economical use of moisture and irrigation water, as evidenced by a decrease in the water consumption coefficient by 7.1–23.3 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 846–1027 · show in text ↑
e1

“yield and quality of onions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 80–107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Humic fertilizer decreased irrigation water cost per unit of marketable onion output by 15.9–24.0%.

Taxon
onionsAllium cepae2
Treatment
humic fertilizer applicatione1
Outcome
cost of irrigation water to form a unit of marketable outpute0
Direction
decreasee1
Value
15.9–24.0 %e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the cost of irrigation water to form a unit of marketable output by 15.9–24.0 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1033–1112 · show in text ↑
e1

“The humic fertilizer application contributed to a more economical use of moisture and irrigation water, as evidenced by a decrease in the water consumption coefficient by 7.1–23.3 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 846–1027 · show in text ↑
e2

“yield and quality of onions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 80–107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Humic fertilizer significantly increased onion yield by 4.9–15.31 t/ha versus unfertilized control.

Taxon
onionsAllium cepae1
Treatment
Humic fertilizerse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
4.9–15.31 t/hae0
Qualifier
10–31 %e0
Comparator
control – without fertilizerse0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Humic fertilizers also provided a significant yield increase – 4.9–15.31 t/ha (10–31 % higher than the control – without fertilizers)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1114–1247 · show in text ↑
e1

“yield and quality of onions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 80–107 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend humic fertilizer under arid drip-irrigated onion production to economize water and raise yield.

Taxon
onionsAllium cepae0
Outcome
more economical use of water resources and increases the yielde0
Setting
Saratov Trans-Volga regione0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the humic fertilizer application, which have stimulating and adaptogenic features, when growing onions under the arid conditions of the Saratov Trans-Volga region with drip irrigation, is an effective technique that ensures more economical use of water resources and increases the yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1262–1548 · show in text ↑

other · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

48 papers: 44 positive, 4 negative or no effect

43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

44 papers more in this group

See all 48 papers →

fertilization · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

530 papers: 464 positive, 66 negative or no effect

463 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

526 papers more in this group

See all 530 papers →

other · physiology: water · Allium cepa (onion)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

fertilization · physiology: water · Allium cepa (onion)Results agree

10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 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.