Abstract
ABSTRACT One of the new water sources is dew. To address this issue, two separate pot experiments were designed to evaluate the effects of dew irrigation on the seed germination and vegetative growth of wheat and chickpea. The irrigation treatments included a control group (non‐irrigation) and dew irrigation in the seed germination experiment. In the vegetative growth experiment, the irrigation treatments included dew irrigation and conventional irrigation. The results revealed that dew irrigation resulted in impressive seed germination rates, reaching 91% for wheat and 61% for chickpea, whereas none of the seeds in the non‐irrigated control group germinated. In the case of chickpea, compared with dew irrigation, conventional irrigation resulted in greater values for stem dry weight (0.14 vs. 0.12 mg), leaf dry weight (0.083 vs. 0.013 mg), total dry weight (0.26 vs. 0.20 mg) and leaf to stem ratio (0.87 vs. 0.72 mg). For wheat, there was no significant difference between conventional irrigation and dew irrigation concerning the early growth parameters measured. In conclusion, dew irrigation is a viable strategy for facilitating the germination and vegetative growth of both wheat and chickpea, offering a promising approach to alleviate the impact of drought.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Dew irrigation produced 91% germination in wheat versus no germination without irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- dew irrigatione0
- Outcome
- seed germination ratese0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 91%e0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated control groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dew irrigation resulted in impressive seed germination rates, reaching 91% for wheat and 61% for chickpea, whereas none of the seeds in the non‐irrigated control group germinated.”
Claim · model-written summary
Dew irrigation produced 61% germination in chickpea versus no germination without irrigation.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- dew irrigatione0
- Outcome
- seed germination ratese0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 61%e0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated control groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dew irrigation resulted in impressive seed germination rates, reaching 91% for wheat and 61% for chickpea, whereas none of the seeds in the non‐irrigated control group germinated.”
Claim · model-written summary
In chickpea, conventional irrigation yielded greater stem dry weight than dew irrigation, 0.14 versus 0.12 mg.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- conventional irrigatione0
- Outcome
- stem dry weighte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 0.14 vs. 0.12 mge0
- Comparator
- dew irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the case of chickpea, compared with dew irrigation, conventional irrigation resulted in greater values for stem dry weight (0.14 vs. 0.12 mg), leaf dry weight (0.083 vs. 0.013 mg), total dry weight (0.26 vs. 0.20 mg) and leaf to stem ratio (0.87 vs. 0.72 mg).”
Claim · model-written summary
In chickpea, conventional irrigation yielded greater leaf dry weight than dew irrigation, 0.083 versus 0.013 mg.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- conventional irrigatione0
- Outcome
- leaf dry weighte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 0.083 vs. 0.013 mge0
- Comparator
- dew irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the case of chickpea, compared with dew irrigation, conventional irrigation resulted in greater values for stem dry weight (0.14 vs. 0.12 mg), leaf dry weight (0.083 vs. 0.013 mg), total dry weight (0.26 vs. 0.20 mg) and leaf to stem ratio (0.87 vs. 0.72 mg).”
Claim · model-written summary
In chickpea, conventional irrigation yielded greater total dry weight than dew irrigation, 0.26 versus 0.20 mg.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- conventional irrigatione0
- Outcome
- total dry weighte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 0.26 vs. 0.20 mge0
- Comparator
- dew irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the case of chickpea, compared with dew irrigation, conventional irrigation resulted in greater values for stem dry weight (0.14 vs. 0.12 mg), leaf dry weight (0.083 vs. 0.013 mg), total dry weight (0.26 vs. 0.20 mg) and leaf to stem ratio (0.87 vs. 0.72 mg).”
Claim · model-written summary
In chickpea, conventional irrigation yielded a greater leaf to stem ratio than dew irrigation, 0.87 versus 0.72 mg.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- conventional irrigatione0
- Outcome
- leaf to stem ratioe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 0.87 vs. 0.72 mge0
- Comparator
- dew irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the case of chickpea, compared with dew irrigation, conventional irrigation resulted in greater values for stem dry weight (0.14 vs. 0.12 mg), leaf dry weight (0.083 vs. 0.013 mg), total dry weight (0.26 vs. 0.20 mg) and leaf to stem ratio (0.87 vs. 0.72 mg).”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat early growth parameters did not differ significantly between conventional and dew irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- dew irrigatione0
- Outcome
- early growth parameterse0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- conventional irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For wheat, there was no significant difference between conventional irrigation and dew irrigation concerning the early growth parameters measured.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude dew irrigation is viable for germination and vegetative growth of wheat and chickpea.
- Taxon
- wheat and chickpeaCicer arietinumTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- dew irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dew irrigation is a viable strategy for facilitating the germination and vegetative growth of both wheat and chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →irrigation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 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.