Abstract
The study was carried out at Embrapa Tropical Agroindustry, Curu Experimental Field, Paraipaba, CE, Brazil. Yield of drip irrigated watermelon, cv. Crimsom Sweet, on different plant spacing was evaluated. Plant spacing treatments evaluated were: a) 2,0 x 1,0 m, b) 2,0 x 1,0 m, with two plants per hole and c) 2,0 x 1,5 m, with two plants per hole. There were no significant differences among treatments for total and marketable yield. Plant spacing influenced the number of fruits per plant, average fruit weight and yield of fruits classified as small (< 6 kg), medium (6 to 9 kg) and big (>9 kg). Plant spacing of 2 x 1 m with one plant per hole presented higher number of fruits per plant and fruits of higher weight compared to other treatments. Among plant spacing evaluated, the 2,0 x 1,0 m with one plant per hole spacing could be recommended for markets with preference for big fruits. Plant spacing with two plants per hole (2,0 x 1,0 m or 2,0 x 1,5 m) could be used when the market prefers medium weight fruits.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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
Total and marketable yields did not differ significantly among spacing treatments.
- Taxon
- watermelon
Citrullus lanatuse1 - Material
- Crimsom Sweete1
- Treatment
- different plant spacinge1
- Outcome
- total and marketable yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- among treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences among treatments for total and marketable yield.”
e1“Yield of drip irrigated watermelon, cv. Crimsom Sweet, on different plant spacing was evaluated.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing affected the number of fruits per plant.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plant spacing influenced the number of fruits per plant, average fruit weight and yield of fruits classified as small (< 6 kg), medium (6 to 9 kg) and big (>9 kg).”
t0“melancia”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing affected average fruit weight.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plant spacing influenced the number of fruits per plant, average fruit weight and yield of fruits classified as small (< 6 kg), medium (6 to 9 kg) and big (>9 kg).”
t0“melancia”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing affected yield of small, medium, and big fruits.
- Taxon
- melanciat0
- Treatment
- Plant spacinge0
- Outcome
- yield of fruits classified as small (< 6 kg), medium (6 to 9 kg) and big (>9 kg)e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plant spacing influenced the number of fruits per plant, average fruit weight and yield of fruits classified as small (< 6 kg), medium (6 to 9 kg) and big (>9 kg).”
t0“melancia”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing of 2 x 1 m with one plant per hole gave more fruits per plant than other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Plant spacing of 2 x 1 m with one plant per hole presented higher number of fruits per plant and fruits of higher weight compared to other treatments.”
t0“melancia”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing of 2 x 1 m with one plant per hole gave heavier fruit than other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Plant spacing of 2 x 1 m with one plant per hole presented higher number of fruits per plant and fruits of higher weight compared to other treatments.”
t0“melancia”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend one plant per hole at 2.0 x 1.0 m for markets preferring big fruits.
Verbatim
e0“Among plant spacing evaluated, the 2,0 x 1,0 m with one plant per hole spacing could be recommended for markets with preference for big fruits.”
t0“melancia”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest two plants per hole at either tested spacing for markets preferring medium fruit.
Verbatim
e0“Plant spacing with two plants per hole (2,0 x 1,0 m or 2,0 x 1,5 m) could be used when the market prefers medium weight fruits.”
t0“melancia”
The same questions in other papers
density · quality: postharvest · Citrullus lanatus (watermelon)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.