Skip to content
DIY Agriculture

Sesame — Irrigation

Metadata research draftEvidence limits

⚠️ Status: metadata draft. Every DOI below is a candidate metadata record from the survey research/sesame-seeds/report.md — title and identifier only, not screened evidence. The survey states plainly about this set: “These are stress/experimental candidates, not practical household irrigation schedules. Seasonal totals remain Unknown” (§3.3). No watering frequency, per-stage amount, or seasonal total is asserted. Substantive values remain Unknown until S-#### source notes exist (docs/methodology/evidence.md). Not growing advice.

What the corpus is (and is not)

Section titled “What the corpus is (and is not)”
  • The water records are genotype-comparison stress experiments — contrasting cultivars under experimental drought, waterlogging, or irrigation levels — plus one irrigation-productivity candidate (survey §3.3). They measure differences between genotypes under treatments; they are not irrigation scheduling for a plot. Evidence: Known (corpus scope); every practical water amount — Evidence: Unknown.
  • water.demand is unknown and water.seasonal_total_mm is null in data/crops/sesame.yaml, matching the survey’s explicit position.

Drought-response candidates

Section titled “Drought-response candidates”
  • Drought-response comparison of contrasting genotypes (10.1038/s41598-017-09397-6, 2017). A comparison record is not a drought-tolerance rating; the genotypes tested may not match anything obtainable locally. See climate.md.
  • Drought-stress irrigation productivity candidate (10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107569, 2022) — the survey lists it as a candidate only; location, treatments, and findings are unread. No productivity figure follows.
  • Contrasting drought/waterlogging methylation programs (10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.09.012, 2018) — mechanism-level biology, several steps removed from any watering decision.

Waterlogging

Section titled “Waterlogging”
  • Waterlogging-response patterns in contrasting genotypes (10.1371/journal.pone.0149912, 2016) — establishes that root-zone excess water is studied, not how a plot should drain. See soil.md.

Irrigation-level and genotype interaction

Section titled “Irrigation-level and genotype interaction”
  • Genotype response across irrigation levels (10.1002/agj2.20167, 2020; 44 citation edges — survey §3.3): the existence of genotype × irrigation-level interaction is itself the caution — a water response measured on one cultivar cannot be transferred to another without cultivar context.
  • Water and fertility context must be recorded together when screening field trials; neither this page nor fertilization.md carries a transferable rate.

What would be needed for a schedule

Section titled “What would be needed for a schedule”
  • A usable household answer needs: seasonal total (mm or L/m²), per-stage distribution, and response to the plot’s soil — all Evidence: Unknown. Open question 6 (“What practical irrigation schedule applies by growth stage? Seasonal water totals remain Unknown”) tracks exactly this gap.

Units and recording

Section titled “Units and recording”
  • Future water values will use mm or L/m² (1 mm = 1 L/m²), stated as seasonal total plus peak weekly need, per docs/methodology/units.md. No such values exist yet.

Screening priority

Section titled “Screening priority”
  • The two schedule-relevant candidates on title are the genotype × irrigation-level record (10.1002/agj2.20167, 2020; 44 citation edges) and the drought-stress irrigation-productivity record (10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107569, 2022). Both would need full-text review of their locations, treatments, and genotypes before any water statement — and both would still bind to their tested cultivars.
  • The methylation record (10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.09.012) is mechanism-level and lowest priority for practice questions.

Rainfed context

Section titled “Rainfed context”
  • The only regional water-related context in the survey is the Mexico genotype × environment lead, which covers rainfed Guerrero environments at metadata level (10.1002/agj2.70077, 2025; survey §4). What rainfed performance implies for a household plot’s expectations — Evidence: Unknown; the record is unread and genotype-specific.

Small-scale relevance

Section titled “Small-scale relevance”
  • A household grower with hose or watering can mostly needs frequency and per-event amounts for a small bed — the level of question the entire candidate set is silent on. Until screening and full text arrive, the honest position is: no schedule, no amounts, Evidence: Unknown.
  • Genotype-dependent water responses also mean borrowed experience (a neighbor’s cultivar, a different season) cannot be generalized. Record cultivar, stage, and weather with every observation.

Unknowns and experiments

Section titled “Unknowns and experiments”
  • Seasonal water total and per-stage schedule — Evidence: Unknown (explicit in survey §3.3; open question 6).
  • Drought/waterlogging behavior of any locally obtainable cultivar — Evidence: Unknown.
  • Small-plot water response under the actual seedbed and weather — Evidence: Needs experiment; E1’s emergence/branching records under real conditions are the project’s instrument for a first local signal.
Section titled “Related pages”
  • climate.md — drought, waterlogging, and salinity stress candidates.
  • soil.md — drainage and waterlogging in a soil frame.
  • fertilization.md — nutrient and water context must be recorded together.
  • planting.md — hydrothermal-time germination and water potential.
  • open-questions.md — question 6; experiment E1.

Provenance

Section titled “Provenance”