Abstract
In a three-year study, the response of four cultivars of chickpea, Bulgarit, WIR-32, Jordan and ICC 11293 to irrigation with TW (treated wastewater) and FW (freshwater), using surface and subsurface drip irrigation was investigated. Wastewater generated from Al-Quds university campus included black, grey and storm water was treated by small scale pilot plant. The wastewater pilot plant consists of tailored made secondary biological activated sludge process with daily capacity of 50 m3. The influent and effluent chemical and biological quality parameters were routinely monitored and analyzed. The data reveal that the average values for BOD, COD and EC for the effluent are 50 ppm, 136 ppm and 1.4 mS/cm over 2 years period. The results of chickpea growth parameters and the chemical and biological analysis of the seeds and leaves indicate that the cultivars Bulgarit and ICC 11293 can be irrigated with TW without any loss in yield and quality. Factor analysis reasonably favored Bulgarit Cultivar irrigated with treated effluent over other cultivars. WIR-32 and Jordan cultivars showed significant reduction in their growth parameters when irrigated with TW as compared with FW. Surface and subsurface drip irrigation gave similar results in most cases. Soil analysis in this study showed no significant difference between irrigation with TW and FW.
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
Bulgarit and ICC 11293 irrigated with treated wastewater showed no loss in yield and quality relative to freshwater.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Material
- Bulgarit and ICC 11293e1
- Treatment
- irrigated with TWe1
- Outcome
- yield and qualitye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- FWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the response of four cultivars of chickpea, Bulgarit, WIR-32, Jordan and ICC 11293 to irrigation with TW (treated wastewater) and FW (freshwater)”
e1“The results of chickpea growth parameters and the chemical and biological analysis of the seeds and leaves indicate that the cultivars Bulgarit and ICC 11293 can be irrigated with TW without any loss in yield and quality”
Claim · model-written summary
WIR-32 and Jordan chickpea cultivars showed significantly reduced growth parameters when irrigated with treated wastewater compared with freshwater.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Material
- WIR-32 and Jordane2
- Treatment
- irrigated with TWe2
- Outcome
- growth parameterse2
- Direction
- reductione2
- Comparator
- FWe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the response of four cultivars of chickpea, Bulgarit, WIR-32, Jordan and ICC 11293 to irrigation with TW (treated wastewater) and FW (freshwater)”
e2“WIR-32 and Jordan cultivars showed significant reduction in their growth parameters when irrigated with TW as compared with FW”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface and subsurface drip irrigation gave similar chickpea results in most cases.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Surface and subsurface drip irrigatione3
- Outcome
- resultse3
- Direction
- similare3
- Qualifier
- in most casese3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the response of four cultivars of chickpea, Bulgarit, WIR-32, Jordan and ICC 11293 to irrigation with TW (treated wastewater) and FW (freshwater)”
e3“Surface and subsurface drip irrigation gave similar results in most cases”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil analysis showed no significant difference between irrigation with treated wastewater and freshwater.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- irrigation with TWe4
- Outcome
- Soil analysise4
- Direction
- no significant differencee4
- Comparator
- FWe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the response of four cultivars of chickpea, Bulgarit, WIR-32, Jordan and ICC 11293 to irrigation with TW (treated wastewater) and FW (freshwater)”
e4“Soil analysis in this study showed no significant difference between irrigation with TW and FW”
Claim · model-written summary
Factor analysis reasonably favored the Bulgarit cultivar irrigated with treated effluent over other cultivars.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Material
- Bulgarite5
- Treatment
- irrigated with treated effluente5
- Outcome
- Factor analysis reasonably favorede5
- Direction
- favorede5
- Comparator
- other cultivarse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the response of four cultivars of chickpea, Bulgarit, WIR-32, Jordan and ICC 11293 to irrigation with TW (treated wastewater) and FW (freshwater)”
e5“Factor analysis reasonably favored Bulgarit Cultivar irrigated with treated effluent over other cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Average BOD of the treated wastewater effluent was 50 ppm over the 2-year period.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e6“the average values for BOD, COD and EC for the effluent are 50 ppm, 136 ppm and 1.4 mS/cm over 2 years period”
Claim · model-written summary
Average COD of the treated wastewater effluent was 136 ppm over the 2-year period.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e6“the average values for BOD, COD and EC for the effluent are 50 ppm, 136 ppm and 1.4 mS/cm over 2 years period”
Claim · model-written summary
Average electrical conductivity of the treated wastewater effluent was 1.4 mS/cm over the 2-year period.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e6“the average values for BOD, COD and EC for the effluent are 50 ppm, 136 ppm and 1.4 mS/cm over 2 years period”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.