ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparative analysis in selecting best irrigation method to maximize tomato yield from various irrigation approaches in water scarce regions.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is now essential for farmers to evaluate and compare different irrigation scheduling strategies in order to operate their irrigation systems in accordance with their resources and achievements. For tomato crops, a rigorous comparison was made between the yield of soil moisture and irrigation scheduling systems based on evapotranspiration. The experimental setup used a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications, with water requirements of 100%, 75%, and 50%. Using a ReplogleBos-Clemmens (RBC) flume with an input rate of 1.62 l/s, water was applied to the furrows. The total applied amount in the Soil Moisture (SM) and Evapotranspiration (ET) based methods was 229.1 mm, and 280 mm, respectively. The collected data were assessed using ANOVA at a 5% significance level. For every technique, yield values, yield attributes, and agronomic traits were computed. The result indicates that there is no appreciable variation among the factors. The net yield advantage was highest at 75% SM and lowest at 25% SM. Furthermore, compared to the ET-based approach, it was demonstrated that the SM-based method conserved approximately 18.2% of irrigation water. As a result, when producing crops that require a lot of water, like tomatoes, in areas with limited water resources, SM-based irrigation scheduling is preferable to ET-based irrigation scheduling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.