horticulturae

Article
Modeling Tomato Yield and Quality Responses to Water and
Nitrogen Deficits with a Modified Crop Water
Production Function
Xuelian Jiang 1 , Mengying Fan 2, *, Tianci Wang 3 , Shuai Gong 4 , Wenya Hao 4 , Yingxin Ye 4 , Yueling Zhao 1 ,
Ningbo Cui 2, *, Huan Zhao 5 and Lu Zhao 2

1 Weifang Municipal Key Laboratory of Agricultural Planting Quantization and Application,

Weifang University, Weifang 261061, China; jiangxuelian1987@126.com (X.J.); yuelingzhao@163.com (Y.Z.)
2 State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Water Resource
and Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China; luya1121@163.com
3 Anne Burnett Marion School of Medicine, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA
4 Sinochem Agriculture Holdings Co. Ltd., Beijing 100032, China; shuai.gong@syngentagroup.cn (S.G.);
wenya.hao@syngentagroup.cn (W.H.); yingxin.ye@syngentagroup.cn (Y.Y.)
5 Tuancheng Lake Management Office of Beijing South to North Water Diversion Project, Beijing 100195, China;
zhaohuan91@126.com
* Correspondence: fanmy_riceball@163.com (M.F.); cuiningbo@126.com (N.C.); Tel.: +86-15008275024 (N.C.);
Fax: +86-028-85410125 (N.C.)

Abstract: Increasingly severe crises, such as climate change, water scarcity and environmental pollu-
tion, pose significant challenges to global food security and sustainable agricultural development.
For efficient and sustainable tomato cultivation management under resource constraints, quantita-
tively describing the relationship between yield-quality harvest and water-nitrogen application is
practically beneficial. Two successive greenhouse experiments with three irrigation levels (1/3 FI,
Citation: Jiang, X.; Fan, M.; Wang, T.; 2/3 FI, and full irrigation (FI)) and four nitrogen fertilizer treatments (0 FN, 1/3 FN, 2/3 FN, and
Gong, S.; Hao, W.; Ye, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Cui, full nitrogen (FN)) were conducted on tomatoes during the whole phenological stage. The tomato
N.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, L. Modeling evapotranspiration and nitrogen application amount, yield, comprehensive quality, solid–acid ratio,
Tomato Yield and Quality Responses and lycopene content were measured. Based on crop water production functions, three equation
to Water and Nitrogen Deficits with a
forms of water-nitrogen production functions containing 20 models were established and evaluated
Modified Crop Water Production
to predict tomato harvest parameters. The results show that water increased tomato yield while
Function. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898.
decreasing fruit quality, and the effect of nitrogen was primarily contrary. Water most significantly
https://doi.org/10.3390/
impacted tomato formation, and the interaction of water and nitrogen changed among different
horticulturae10090898
harvest parameters. Tomato yield and quality formation was more sensitive to water and nitrogen
Academic Editors: Antônio Gustavo at the flowering and fruit maturation stages. Model Singh-2 outweighed other models for yield
de Luna Souto, Francisco Vanies Da
estimates, with an R2 of 0.71 and an RMSE of 0.11. Singh-Log, Singh-sigmoid and Rao-Root models
Silva Sá and João Everthon Da
were effective models for comprehensive quality, solid–acid ratio, and lycopene content prediction,
Silva Ribeiro
with an R2 of 0.41, 0.62, and 0.42, and an RMSE of 0.33, 0.50, and 0.16, respectively. Finally, models in
Received: 8 July 2024 the form of f(ETi )·f(N) were ideal for tomato harvest prevision and are recommended for water and
Revised: 20 August 2024 nitrogen management in tomato cultivation.
Accepted: 21 August 2024
Published: 24 August 2024 Keywords: Solanum lycopersicum L.; water; nitrogen; yield; fruit quality; production function

Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.

1. Introduction
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a popular vegetable worldwide due to its unique
distributed under the terms and flavor, rich nutritional content, and health-promoting benefits [1,2]. As of 2022, the global
conditions of the Creative Commons cultivated area for tomatoes has reached 4.91 × 106 ha, yielding a production of over
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 1.86 × 108 kg [3]. Meanwhile, the quality of tomatoes has been increasingly valued by the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ market, as the growing yield has met consumers’ demands [4,5]. Moreover, the emerged
4.0/). water and soil resource scarcity [6], along with severe agricultural fertilizer waste and

Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10090898 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/horticulturae

Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 2 of 19

pollution [7], present significant challenges to the sustainable and efficient development
of the tomato cultivation industry. Therefore, balancing tomato yield-quality harvests
and irrigation-fertilizer regulation plays a pivotal role in modern sustainable agricultural
research [8,9].
A moderate deficit could improve water productivity and fruit quality with an accept-
able degree of yield decrease [10,11]. Lu et al. [10] reported that regulated deficit irrigation
decreased tomato yield with a mean difference of 18.61 t·ha−1 based on a meta-analysis.
Zhang et al. [12] found that the irrigation treatment with 80% crop evapotranspiration (ETc )
obtained the highest tomato yield of 70–80 t·ha−1 and led to an increase in fruit soluble
solids and ascorbic acid contents. Nitrogen (N) is essential for the synthesis of proteins and
chlorophyll, and it boosts plant maturation and photosynthesis capacity [13,14]. An optimal
nitrogen fertilizing strategy can improve tomato yield and quality such as ascorbic acid con-
tent, sugar–acid ratio, soluble solids and soluble sugar content [15]. Hernández et al. [16]
reported that lowering nitrogen supply from tomato flowering stage increased fruit ly-
copene and phytoene content without compromising yield, ascorbic acid and the main
phenolic content. Li et al. [17] found that carbon-based urea application improved tomato
yield, water-fertilizer productivity as well as fruit volume, soluble sugar and lycopene
content. The coupling effect of water and nitrogen is considered to play a vital role in
tomato photosynthesis capacity, yield accumulation, organics conversion, quality develop-
ment and many other development processes [18,19]. Appropriate nitrogen application can
decrease the biological stress caused by deficit irrigation and improve water use efficiency,
while judicious irrigation can offset the negative effects of nitrogen stress on crop yield [20].
Different harvest parameters have been shown to exhibit varied reactivity and sensitiv-
ity to water and nitrogen application [21]. Li et al. [22] showed that water and nitrogen
significantly affected tomato yield and quality including fruit soluble sugar, organic acid
and ascorbic acid content, while the sugar–acid ratio remained unchanged. Additionally,
Zhang et al. [23] reported a significant difference in ascorbic acid, total sugar and titratable
acid content under different nitrogen stress treatments, while no significant difference was
observed under different water stress treatments.
In terms of the complex effect of water and nitrogen on crop development and resource
utilization [24], precise regulation in fertigation strategies is key in modern cultivation. Nev-
ertheless, the fertigation strategies previously determined may not be appropriately applied
due to varied plant species, soil texture, climatic condition, management regime and other
factors [25,26], warranting the need for a quantitative simulation. The correlation between
water consumption and yield production was initially described using regression functions
of plant evapotranspiration (ET) or water deficit amount (1-ET) and crop yield [27,28], but
the sensitivity variance of crop yield to water stress under different growth stages was not
considered [29]. In the 1950s, separated crop water production functions (CWPFs) such
as the Jensen [30], Minhas [31], Rao [32], Blank [33], Stewart [34] and Singh [35] models
were proposed and extensively used in many species [36–38]. Mathematically, separated
CWPFs can be divided into either cumulative or multiplicative functions. The former
hypothesized that a plant’s sensitivity index in different growth stages does not have a
mutual influence on each other, and thus the final effect on fruit harvest parameters is
the sum of all growth stages. In contrast, the latter concerns the impact of each growth
stage on subsequent growth, factoring in the comprehensive interaction among the growth
stages [39]. Nowadays the developments of CWPFs have become relatively mature and are
widely used in crop yield prediction, agriculture water allocation and water price policy
formulation [40–42]. Furthermore, several previous studies attempted to modify CWPFs
and expanded its application to fruit yield and quality simulations [39,43]. Saeidi et al. [44]
used CWPFs to simulate maize yield under different levels of salinity and nitrogen stress,
and reported a series of coefficients matched to four different conditions; Wu et al. [45]
incorporated root soil water availability into CWPFs, and this improved model achieved a
prediction R2 of 0.84 on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and spring maize (Zea mays L.)
yield in the North China Plain; Yuan et al. [46] built a crop-water-salt production function
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 3 of 19

based on the Jensen model, producing a high-performing simulation with an RMSE lower
than 800 kg·hm−1 on maize yield.
Mainly previous studies about the utilization of CWPFs focus on crops, and more
experimental data and model promotion for fruit and vegetation remain on the rise. For
the utilization of CWPFs for tomato plants, Zhang et al. [47] changed evapotranspiration
input in the Jensen model into the tomato soil water content and electrical conductivity;
Chen et al. [39] modeled tomato yield and quality based on the Jensen, Stewart, and
Minhas model. However, the prediction accuracy is unsatisfied, especially when referring
to fertilizer input and quality simulation. Identifying more appropriate quality parameters
and developing new formulations of CWPFs merit further investigations. Therefore, this
study conducted two field experiments and aimed at (1) clarifying the effect of water and
nitrogen deficit on tomato yield and fruit quality; (2) finding out the most important quality
parameters to represent tomato fruit characteristics; (3) determining suitable CWPFs models
to qualitatively describe the relationship between tomato water-nitrogen consumption,
yield, and fruit quality. The findings can provide a simple and scientific method for
fertigation regulation and resource allocation in tomato cultivation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experiment Site and Design
Two successive tomato field experiments were conducted in 2019 at an agricultural
company (36◦ 39′ N, 112◦ 56′ E) located in Gaomi City, Shandong province of Northeastern
China. Details of the location was described in a previous study [48]. The greenhouse ex-
periment was conducted with a vegetable tomato variety Baoli 3 (Solanum lycopersicum L.)
in two seasons from 13 April to 26 July (the first season, with daily average radiation of
9.93 MJ·d−1 , temperature of 24.61 ◦ C and relative humidity of 71.67%) and from 13 August
to 28 November (the second season, with daily average radiation of 5.43 MJ·d−1 , temper-
ature of 21.62 ◦ C and relative humidity of 76.80%) in 2019. Twelve treatments included
three irrigation levels (1/3 FI, 2/3 FI, and full irrigation (FI)) and four nitrogen levels (0 FN,
1/3 FN, 2/3 FN, and full nitrogen fertilization(FN)) in both seasons (Table 1). The irrigation
source is groundwater, and the nitrogen source is urea (CO(NH2 )2 with 46% N content).
W1 treatments were irrigated to 90 ± 3% of θFC (field soil water capacity, measured as
0.33 cm3 ·cm−3 ) while soil moisture decreased down to 75 ± 3% of θFC . Additionally, the
water deficit treatments were simultaneously irrigated by the rate of the full amount. The
experimental substrate was local soil, a type of clay loam with dry bulk density valued
1.38 g·cm−3 . Each treatment was replicated thrice, and all treatments were arranged in a
randomized complete block design. Plants with 3–4 true leaves in similar heights were
transplanted into the plots (9.6 m long and 6.0 m wide). Row spacing between plants
was 0.4 m and planting spacing was 0.25 m. Each plot was separated by a 1 m depth
acrylic flap to prevent the leakage of irrigation and fertilizer between the plots. The growth
stage of tomatoes was divided into the seedling stage (stage I, from transplant to first fruit
set), the flowering and fruit development stage (stage II, from first fruit set to first fruit
maturity), and the fruit maturation and harvest stage (stage III, from first fruit maturity
to uprooting plant after all fruits were harvested). All the other agronomic managements
such as fertigation time, potassium (K2 SO4 with 52% K content), phosphorus (Ca(H2 PO4 )2
with 12% P content), insecticide application and pruning were consistent across all the
treatments. Primarily for the control of whiteflies, 30% concentration of acetamiprid diluted
3000 times were applied every two weeks after transplanting. Prunings were conducted
twice at flowering and fruit development stages, respectively, the secondary shoots were
removed and only the main stem was left.
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 4 of 19

Table 1. Irrigation and fertilizer amounts of different treatments.

Irrigation (mm) Nitrogen (g/m2 ) Evapotranspiration (mm)

Transplant Stage I Stage II Stage III Total Stage I Stage II Total Stage I Stage II Stage III Total
T1(CK) 20.0 (1) 10.0 (1) 180.0 (6) 50.0 (2) 260.0 (10) 2.7 (1) 12.0 (2) 14.7 (3) 55.61 ± 3.07 a 164.09 ± 1.38 a 79.71 ± 1.58 a 299.41 ± 0.11 a
T2 20.0 (1) 10.0 (1) 180.0 (6) 50.0 (2) 260.0 (10) 1.8 (1) 8.0 (2) 9.8 (3) 55.46 ± 2.54 a 157.51 ± 1.84 b 88.02 ± 1.66 b 300.99 ± 2.72 a
T3 20.0 (1) 10.0 (1) 180.0 (6) 50.0 (2) 260.0 (10) 0.9 (1) 4.0 (2) 4.9 (3) 53.73 ± 3.44 a 153.47 ± 2.11 bc 81.24 ± 2.35 b 288.44 ± 3.68 ab
T4 20.0 (1) 10.0 (1) 180.0 (6) 50.0 (2) 260.0 (10) - - 0.0 (0) 56.13 ± 0.46 a 150.11 ± 2.84 c 76.08 ± 2.56 b 282.33 ± 4.95 b
First season

T5 20.0 (1) 6.7 (1) 120.0 (6) 33.3 (2) 180.0 (10) 2.7 (1) 12.0 (2) 14.7 (3) 54.68 ± 4.41 a 125.40 ± 1.88 d 65.72 ± 3.02 c 245.79 ± 9.31 c
T6 20.0 (1) 6.7 (1) 120.0 (6) 33.3 (2) 180.0 (10) 1.8 (1) 8.0 (2) 9.8 (3) 52.50 ± 1.01 a 123.82 ± 3.40 d 66.93 ± 1.54 c 243.26 ± 3.94 c
T7 20.0 (1) 6.7 (1) 120.0 (6) 33.3 (2) 180.0 (10) 0.9 (1) 4.0 (2) 4.9 (3) 58.03 ± 0.24 a 119.54 ± 2.33 d 62.33 ± 0.16 c 239.89 ± 2.74 c
T8 20.0 (1) 6.7 (1) 120.0 (6) 33.3 (2) 180.0 (10) - - 0.0 (0) 54.11 ± 1.43 a 109.15 ± 0.99 e 61.78 ± 0.93 c 225.05 ± 1.37 d
T9 20.0 (1) 3.5 (1) 63.0 (6) 16.7 (2) 103.2 (10) 2.7 (1) 12.0 (2) 14.7 (3) 57.05 ± 1.07 a 94.50 ± 1.69 f 53.05 ± 1.50 d 204.59 ± 2.11 e
T10 20.0 (1) 3.5 (1) 63.0 (6) 16.7 (2) 103.2 (10) 1.8 (1) 8.0 (2) 9.8 (3) 52.81 ± 1.47 a 93.04 ± 0.18 f 44.98 ± 2.12 e 190.83 ± 3.41 f
T11 20.0 (1) 3.5 (1) 63.0 (6) 16.7 (2) 103.2 (10) 0.9 (1) 4.0 (2) 4.9 (3) 55.16 ± 0.71 a 84.96 ± 0.95 g 41.15 ± 0.17 e 181.28 ± 1.49 fg
T12 20.0 (1) 3.5 (1) 63.0 (6) 16.7 (2) 103.2 (10) - - 0.0 (0) 51.99 ± 2.22 a 82.36 ± 0.30 g 39.42 ± 0.80 e 173.77 ± 2.72 g
T1(CK) 20.0 (1) 20.0 (2) 100.0 (5) 40.0 (2) 180.0 (10) 9.3 (1) 11.4 (3) 20.7 (4) 66.01 ± 0.36 a 116.42 ± 0.07 a 57.37 ± 3.05 a 239.80 ± 3.33 a
T2 20.0 (1) 20.0 (2) 100.0 (5) 40.0 (2) 180.0 (10) 9.3 (1) 7.6 (3) 16.9 (4) 64.50 ± 1.98 a 110.89 ± 0.55 a 54.20 ± 0.92 ab 229.59 ± 0.51 ab
T3 20.0 (1) 20.0 (2) 100.0 (5) 40.0 (2) 180.0 (10) 9.3 (1) 3.8 (3) 13.1 (4) 62.27 ± 4.62 a 109.59 ± 3.11 a 53.59 ± 0.24 b 225.45 ± 7.49 b
T4 20.0 (1) 20.0 (2) 100.0 (5) 40.0 (2) 180.0 (10) 9.3 (1) - 9.3 (1) 65.14 ± 0.14 a 99.11 ± 2.09 b 47.61 ± 0.34 c 212.01 ± 2.43 c
Second season

T5 20.0 (1) 14.0 (2) 70.0 (5) 32.0 (2) 136.0 (10) 8.2 (1) 11.4 (3) 19.6 (4) 66.80 ± 0.89 a 90.10 ± 2.06 bc 49.55 ± 0.12 c 206.46 ± 1.06 c
T6 20.0 (1) 14.0 (2) 70.0 (5) 32.0 (2) 136.0 (10) 8.2 (1) 7.6 (3) 15.8 (4) 61.26 ± 3.82 a 95.69 ± 3.58 bc 49.74 ± 0.04 c 206.69 ± 0.20 c
T7 20.0 (1) 14.0 (2) 70.0 (5) 32.0 (2) 136.0 (10) 8.2 (1) 3.8 (3) 12.0 (4) 69.44 ± 2.02 a 93.30 ± 1.26 c 42.77 ± 1.20 d 205.51 ± 0.44 c
T8 20.0 (1) 14.0 (2) 70.0 (5) 32.0 (2) 136.0 (10) 8.2 (1) - 8.2 (1) 60.63 ± 3.37 a 81.54 ± 4.96 d 41.39 ± 0.93 d 183.56 ± 7.40 d
T9 20.0 (1) 8.0 (2) 40.0 (5) 16.0 (2) 84.0 (10) 8.2 (1) 11.4 (3) 19.6 (4) 66.84 ± 6.06 a 76.67 ± 3.31 d 39.65 ± 1.14 de 183.16 ± 8.23 d
T10 20.0 (1) 8.0 (2) 40.0 (5) 16.0 (2) 84.0 (10) 8.2 (1) 7.6 (3) 15.8 (4) 65.08 ± 1.35 a 76.04 ± 2.10 d 36.63 ± 0.65 e 177.75 ± 2.80 d
T11 20.0 (1) 8.0 (2) 40.0 (5) 16.0 (2) 84.0 (10) 8.2 (1) 3.8 (3) 12.0 (4) 64.96 ± 1.56 a 75.06 ± 1.23 d 36.75 ± 0.38 e 176.77 ± 2.41 d
T12 20.0 (1) 8.0 (2) 40.0 (5) 16.0 (2) 84.0 (10) 8.2 (1) - 8.2 (1) 67.39 ± 0.62 a 62.40 ± 0.21 e 31.71 ± 0.85 f 161.49 ± 0.44 e
Notes: The number in brackets represents the times of irrigation or fertilization, and the fertigation mount of each time was equal; lowercase letters following the data indicate significant
differences by Duncan’s test at p ≤ 0.05 level.
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 5 of 19

2.2. Measurements
2.2.1. Water and Nitrogen Consumption
The nitrogen application amount was defined as plant nitrogen consumption, and
plant water consumption was defined as crop evapotranspiration (ET). ET was determined
using the soil water balance method as follows:

ET = P + I + W − R − D − ∆W (1)

∆W = 1000H(θi − θi−1 ) (2)

where P is precipitation (mm); I is irrigation amount (mm); W represents capillary rise
supply water to root zones (mm); R is soil surface runoff (mm); D is drainage from root
zones (mm). ∆W represents the change of soil water content in the root zone (mm),
calculated by Equation (2); H is the depth of plant root zones (m), determined as 0.4 m at
the seedling stage and 0.6 m in the other stages; θi and θi−1 are the mean water contents in
root zones at time i and i − 1 (cm3 ·cm−3 ), respectively.
For greenhouse shelter, P was ignored. Similarly, R and D was also ignored due to the
accurate irrigation amount controlled by drip irrigation, which did not generate runoff and
drainage. W was negligible since the groundwater level was over 15 m in depth. Therefore,
Equation (1) was simplified as follows:

ET = I − 1000H(θi − θi−1 ) (3)

The soil water contents (θ) were tested by a portable water probe (Diviner 2000, Sentek
Pty. Ltd., Adelaide, Australia) and PVC tubes set in plots every 5–7 days or before and
after irrigation.

2.2.2. Fruit Yield and Quality Parameters

Tomato yield (Y) was calculated by the average fruit weight of 15 plants from each plot.
The single fruit weight (SW) was determined by randomly selecting 15 tomato plants from
each treatment. Tomato quality parameters, including the fruit’s total soluble solids (TSS),
organic acid (OA), vitamin C (VC), lycopene (Lyc) and fruit firmness (Fn), were determined
from 9 randomly selected tomatoes in each treatment. The comprehensive quality of
tomato fruit (Q) was calculated by the AHP-TOPSIS method. Detailed measurement and
calculation processes are available in pre-study [48].

2.3. Models
2.3.1. Water-Nitrogen Models for the Whole Growth Stage
Water-nitrogen models for the whole stage only consider the total water-nitrogen
consumption, disregarding the variances among different growing stages. This results
in more concise models with fewer input parameters needed. The simplest model for
the whole growth stage is the binary regression function of water and nitrogen factors,
proposed as follows:
Form 1, model 1: binary quadratic function (BQ)

ETa 2 Na 2
   
Va ETa Na ETa Na
=a +b +c · +d +e +f (4)
Vm ETm Nm ETm Nm ETm Nm

where Va denotes the Y or fruit quality parameters under different deficit treatments; Vm is
the yield or fruit quality parameters under full irrigation and nitrogen treatment (CK); ETa
represents the ET under different deficit treatments and ETm is the ET under CK; Na is the
total nitrogen application under different deficit treatments and Nm is the total nitrogen
application under CK; a~f are coefficients that need to be calibrated.
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 6 of 19

Another model for the whole stage highlighted the importance of water consumption.
Nitrogen factors were introduced as the coefficients of the water factor, resulting in a new
compound function as follows:
Form 1, model 2: compound function (CF):

ETa 2
  
Va ETa
 V = A1 ET + A2 + A3



m m ETm
(5)
Na 2
 
 Na
Ai = a i + bi + ci



Nm Nm

where Ai , ai , bi , ci are coefficients that need calibration.

2.3.2. Water-Nitrogen Models for the Separated Growth Stage

Comprehensively considering the characteristics and utilizations of each CWPF, Jensen,
Minhas, and Rao models were chosen for multiplicative models, whereas Blank, Stewart,
and Singh models were chosen for cumulative models. Based on these functions, two
methods (Form 2 and Form 3) introducing a nitrogen assumption factor were used (Table 2).
The former (Form 2) directly replaced the input of ET in the traditional CWPFs with the
product of ET and N application. The latter (Form 3) considered the comparable slight
effect of nitrogen, innovatively taking the N factor as an extra product term to estimate the
effect of N application on fruit quality. Detailed equations were listed in Table 2.

Table 2. The equations of form 2 and form 3 models.

Equation S-CWPFs: f (ETi ) Form 2: f (ETi ·Ni ) Equation Form 3: f (ETi )·f (N)
n  n 
ETai λi ETai Nai λi Va a
 
∏ ∏
Jensen Va Va Sigmoid = f(ETi )∗ ×
= = · Vm 1 + eb − c · N
Vm ETmi Vm ETmi Nmi
i=1 i=1
n "  #λi n "  # λi
ETai 2 ETai Nai 2 Va
 
∏ ∏
Minhas Va Va Log = f(ETi )∗ × ln(aN + b)+c
= 1 − 1− = 1− 1− · Vm
Vm ETmi Vm ETmi Nmi
i=1 i=1
n    n    Va
∏ ∏
Rao Va ETai Va ETai Nai Exp = f(ETi )∗ × exp(aN + b)+c
= 1 − Ki 1 − = 1 − Ki 1 − · Vm
Vm ETmi Vm ETmi Nmi
i=1 i=1
n   n   Va  √ 
∑ ∑
Blank Va ETai Va ETai Nai Root = f(ETi )∗ × a N + b
= Ki = Ki · Vm
Vm ETmi Vm ETmi Nmi
i=1 i=1
n   n   Va
∑ ∑
Stewart Va ET Va ET N Line (1) = f(ETi )∗ × (aN + b)
= 1− Ki 1− ai = 1− Ki 1− ai · ai Vm
Vm ETmi Vm ETmi Nmi
i=1 i=1
n  ! n  !
ETai 2 ETai Nai 2 Va
   
∑ ∑
Singh Va Va Sqrt (2) = f(ETi)∗ × aN2 + bN + c
= Ki 1− 1− = Ki 1 − 1 − · Vm
Vm ETmi Vm ETmi Nmi
i=1 i=1
Notes: ETai represents plant evapotranspiration at i-th growth stage under deficit treatments, and ETmi indicates
the evapotranspiration under CK; n is the amount of growth stages, set as 3 for tomato plant; Nai is nitrogen
application amount at i-th growth stage under deficit treatments and Nmi denotes the nitrogen application under
CK; λi and Ki are the sensitive index and coefficient at i-th growth stage. f(ETi )* is the best multiplicative and
cumulative functions determined in Form 2, Rao and Singh; N is the nitrogen application amount at the whole
growth stage; Va presents the actual tomato harvest value (such as yield, SAR, lycopene content and so on) under
deficit treatments and Vm indicates the value under CK.

2.4. Model Calibration and Evaluation

2.4.1. Model Calibration
Data in the second seasons were used to calibrate the models’ coefficients and indexes
based on the least squares estimation method. Evapotranspiration and nitrogen application
amount were set as inputs, and harvest parameters were set as the true value of outputs.

2.4.2. Model Evaluation

Data in the first season was used to verify the model performance as truth value.
Statistic parameters including coefficient of determination (R2 ), mean absolute error (MAE),
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 7 of 19

root mean square error (RMSE), relative error (RE), and their global performance indicator
(GPI) were used to evaluate the performance of each model. In these 4 indicators, R2 reflects
model’s fit goodness, and the remaining three indicators reflect model’s simulated accuracy.
Each side weighs half in GPI consideration. Detailed equations are described as follows:
 2
∑ni=1



Oi − O Pi − P
R2 =  q
2 q n
2
 (6)
∑ni=1 Oi − O ∑ i=1 i
P − P

∑ni=1 |Pi − Oi |
MAE = (7)
n
r
1 n
n ∑ i=1
RMSE = (Pi − Oi )2 (8)

1 ∑ni=1 |Pi − Oi |
RE = (9)
n Oi
4
∑j=1 αj


GPI = Tj − Tjn (10)

where Pi is the simulated value of i-th treatment; Oi is the observed value of i-th treatment;
n is the treatment amount and in this study n = 12; P and O are the average value of Pi
and Oi arrays, respectively; Tj is the orthogonalized and normalized value of evaluated
indicators calculated above; Tjn is the median of each index; αj is the weight of each index,
set 0.5 for R2 and 0.5/3 for MAE, RMSE, and RE equally.

2.5. Data Analysis

Calculated procedures including correlation cluster analysis, model calibration, model
calculation and validation, and graphing were all performed by MATLAB 2022 (MathWorks
Inc., Natick, MA, USA).

3. Results
3.1. Relationship between Water-Nitrogen Consumption, Yield, and Fruit Quality
Compared to tomato nitrogen (N) consumption (Figure 1), evapotranspiration (ET) at
the whole growth stage had a more significant effect on fruit yield and quality parameters,
especially on fruit yield (Y), single fruit weight (SW) and lycopene content (Lyc). The
correlation indexes (R) of ET-Y, ET-Lyc and ET-SW reached 0.86, 0.55 and 0.59, respectively
(|R| > 0.49, p ≤ 0.01). The absolute correlation index of ET on tomato fruit ranged from
0.29 to 0.86, while that of N ranged from 0.20 to 0.54. Phased ET and N consumption at the
flowering and fruit development stage (stage II) and the fruit maturation and harvest stage
(stage III) exerted a major influence on the formation of both tomato yield and quality. The
R values of ET2 -Y, ET2 -organic acids content (OA), ET2 -Lyc, ET2 -solid–acid ratio (SAR),
and ET2 -SW reached 0.85, 0.57, −0.59, 0.71, and 0.70 (p ≤ 0.01), while those of ET3 were
0.82, 0.50, 0.58, −0.64, and 0.73 (p ≤ 0.01), respectively. As for N, only N2 -Lyc, N3 -TSS, OA,
SAR, and vitamin C content (Vc) correlated relationships were significant, and the R value
reached 0.57, 0.41, 0.64, −0.62 and 0.48 (|R| > 0.388, p ≤ 0.05), respectively.
The effects of ET and N on Y, Q, SAR, and Lyc are shown in Figure 2, and water
consumption had a significantly positive effect on Y and Lyc, but had a negative effect on Q
and SAR (p ≤ 0.01). Nitrogen application improved tomato Y and Lyc, while it decreased
the SAR (p ≤ 0.05). The level of 1/3 full irrigation caused a 24.5% yield reduction under
sufficient nitrogen (FN), and the reduction expanded to 37.6% under deficit nitrogen (0 FN).
However, for Lyc, the decline caused by water deficit changed from 28.8% to 13.8% as
nitrogen supply decreased. The contrary reactions indicated that the interaction of water
and nitrogen could shift from synergistic to antagonism among different harvest parameters,
and the complexity made it challenging to quantitatively simulate fruit parameters.
ticulturae 2024, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 8 of 19

Figure 1. The correlation analysis of tomato plant evapotranspiration, nitrogen application an

mato fruit yield and quality parameters.

The effects of ET and N on Y, Q, SAR, and Lyc are shown in Figure 2, and water
sumption had a significantly positive effect on Y and Lyc, but had a negative effect on Q
SAR (p ≤ 0.01). Nitrogen application improved tomato Y and Lyc, while it decreased the
(p ≤ 0.05). The level of 1/3 full irrigation caused a 24.5% yield reduction under suffi
nitrogen (FN), and the reduction expanded to 37.6% under deficit nitrogen (0 FN). How
for Lyc, the decline caused by water deficit changed from 28.8% to 13.8% as nitrogen su
decreased. The contrary reactions indicated that the interaction of water and nitrogen c
shift from synergistic to antagonism among different harvest parameters, and the comp
Figure 1. The ity
correlation analysis of tomato
made it challenging plant evapotranspiration,
to quantitatively simulate fruitnitrogen application and
parameters.
tomato fruit yield and quality parameters.
Figure 1. The correlation analysis of tomato plant evapotranspiration, nitrogen application and to-
mato fruit yield and quality parameters.

The effects of ET and N on Y, Q, SAR, and Lyc are shown in Figure 2, and water con-
sumption had a significantly positive effect on Y and Lyc, but had a negative effect on Q and
SAR (p ≤ 0.01). Nitrogen application improved tomato Y and Lyc, while it decreased the SAR
(p ≤ 0.05). The level of 1/3 full irrigation caused a 24.5% yield reduction under sufficient
nitrogen (FN), and the reduction expanded to 37.6% under deficit nitrogen (0 FN). However,
for Lyc, the decline caused by water deficit changed from 28.8% to 13.8% as nitrogen supply
decreased. The contrary reactions indicated that the interaction of water and nitrogen could
shift from synergistic to antagonism among different harvest parameters, and the complex-
ity made it challenging to quantitatively simulate fruit parameters.

Figure 2. The variation of tomato yield (Y), fruit comprehensive quality (Q), solid–acid ratio (SAR),
Figure 2. The variation of tomato yield (Y), fruit comprehensive quality (Q), solid–acid ratio (S
and lycopene content (Lyc) under different water and nitrogen application treatments.
and lycopene content (Lyc) under different water and nitrogen application treatments.
3.2. Coefficients Calibration of Water-Nitrogen, Yield, and Fruit Quality Models
Comprehensively considering the independence and importance of each harvest pa-
rameter, four harvest parameters were chosen as modeling targets, including Y as the only
production parameter, fruit comprehensive quality (Q) representing total quality informa-
tion, SAR as the fruit favor parameter, and Lyc representing the fruit nutrition parameter.
The absolute correlation values of VC to Q and SW to Y were 0.72 and 0.67 (p ≤ 0.01),
respectively, indicating that using Y and Q to represent VC and SW was appropriate. SAR
reflected both TSS and OA characteristics; thus, the TSS and OA were disregarded. Lastly,
fruit firmness (Fn) was eliminated from the simulated targets, as the fruit maturation and
storage characteristics that Fn reflects are less considered by the market, and no significant
Figure 2. Thecorrelation
variation of was found
tomato yieldbetween
(Y), fruitFn, ET and N. quality (Q), solid–acid ratio (SAR),
comprehensive
Three
and lycopene content forms
(Lyc) ofdifferent
under water-nitrogen-harvest parameter
water and nitrogen functions,
application including 20 model types,
treatments.
were used to estimate the yield and quality parameters. The coefficients of each water-
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 9 of 19

nitrogen-yield and water-nitrogen-quality function were calculated using experiment data

from the second season in 2019 (Table 3). The calibration results were shown in Table 4.
Regression coefficients of a-f in the BQ model represented the sensitivities of each tomato
parameter to water and nitrogen levels. For all the chosen characteristics, the absolute
values of a (1.69–20.44) and d (2.09–33.36) were higher than b (0.40–2.98) and e (0.41–10.36).
The significant effect of water stress on tomato yield and quality was consistent with the
analysis in 3.1. Coefficients of λi and Ki in forms 2 and 3 were defined as the sensitivity
indexes since they reflected the responses of yield and quality to water and nitrogen stress
at different growth stages. In form 2 functions, relatively high absolute values of λi /Ki were
observed at stages I and III, suggesting these two periods to be the most sensitive periods.
In contrast, form 3 functions indicated stages II and III as the sensitive periods instead.
Taking the above findings together, stage III was determined to be the most sensitive period,
where water and nitrogen stress had more important effects on tomato yield and quality.

Table 3. Tomato yield (Y), fruit comprehensive quality (Q), solid–acid ratio (SAR), and lycopene
content (Lyc) amounts of different treatments.

First Season Second Season

Yield Q SAR Lyc Yield Q SAR Lyc
Treatment
(t·ha−1 ) (a.u.) (ratio) (mg·kg−1 ) (t·ha−1 ) (a.u.) (ratio) (mg·kg−1 )
T1(CK) 66.09 a 0.344 10.54 d 26.40 a 59.92 a 0.404 11.76 d 46.08 a
T2 66.46 a 0.392 14.01 cd 24.00 a 57.55 ab 0.446 15.09 bc 44.01 ab
T3 65.33 a 0.403 16.53 bcd 22.03 a 54.32 ab 0.464 12.65 d 40.83 abc
T4 58.79 ab 0.182 12.93 cd 17.11 a 56.97 ab 0.353 13.76 cd 30.06 bc
T5 68.28 a 0.388 15.83 bcd 23.76 a 49.36 abc 0.470 11.46 d 35.10 abc
T6 63.84 a 0.421 15.34 bcd 20.20 a 56.86 ab 0.575 15.62 abc 37.12 abc
T7 48.23 bc 0.364 20.00 bc 18.46 a 51.77 abc 0.598 15.15 bc 35.67 abc
T8 47.98 bc 0.445 21.97 ab 20.70 a 42.14 bc 0.414 16.46 ab 31.39 abc
T9 40.23 c 0.599 18.90 bc 20.84 a 53.85 abc 0.641 17.83 a 29.25 bc
T10 38.48 c 0.770 22.59 ab 27.20 a 56.79 ab 0.563 16.94 ab 30.84 bc
T11 35.08 c 0.438 18.35 bc 17.01 a 41.46 bc 0.510 17.89 a 29.97 bc
T12 34.32 c 0.513 28.63 a 13.63 a 38.00 c 0.401 16.46 ab 27.86 c
Notes: T1–T4 were full irrigation (FN), T5–T8 were 2/3 FI, T9–T12 were 1/3 FI; from T1 to T4 (T5 to T8, T9 to
T12), the nitrogen application levels were gradually reduced from full nitrogen (FN) to 2/3 FN, 1/3 FN and 0 FN.
Detailed fertigation amounts can be found in Table 1. Lowercase letters following the data indicate significant
differences by Duncan’s test at p ≤ 0.05 level.

Overall, the estimating performances of the models varied for different harvest param-
eters, but models in the same form usually expressed similarity, except models in form 1.
The CF model of form 1 obtained the highest R2 , ranging from 0.89 to 0.99 (p ≤ 0.01), while
the BQ model of form 1 produced a suboptimal result, with R2 ranging from 0.38 to 0.57
(p ≤ 0.05). The estimating performances of form 2 functions were relatively poor, especially
for Q (p > 0.05), and the best result obtained was for Lyc using the Jensen model, with
an R2 of 0.94 (p ≤ 0.01). Except the Sin-line (1) model for Q, all other functions of form
3 had satisfactory performances, with R2 values achieving statistical significance for the
estimation of harvest parameters (p ≤ 0.05). The multiplicative models generally showed
more favorable performances over accumulative models.
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 10 of 19

Table 4. The water and nitrogen sensitive coefficients of tomato yield, comprehensive quality, solid–
acid ratio, and lycopene content.

Coefficient
Object Model R2 Sig.
a/b/λ/K1 a/b/λ/K2 a/b/λ/K3 d/a e/b f/c
Y F1: BQ −8.31 0.46 2.44 14.02 −2.65 −4.87 0.44 0.02 *
F1: CF 103.50 −140.07 46.33 0.89 0.00 **
−172.39 228.68 −73.20
70.92 −92.00 29.23
F2: Jensen 0.12 0.07 0.22 0.41 0.06 ns
F2: Minhas 1.52 0.16 0.58 0.41 0.06 ns
F2: Rao 0.08 0.09 0.33 0.55 0.01 *
F2: Blank 0.74 0.05 0.24 0.53 0.01 *
F2: Stewart 0.10 0.08 0.31 0.57 0.00 **
F2: Singh 0.20 0.15 0.63 0.57 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Sig −0.33 1.17 −1.34 3.05 1.17 0.48 0.75 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Log −0.31 1.16 −1.30 0.82 2.14 −0.07 0.75 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Exp −0.33 1.17 −1.35 0.33 −0.31 0.00 0.75 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Rot −0.29 1.14 −1.26 0.49 0.52 0.74 0.00 **
F3: Rao-1 −0.32 1.16 −1.32 0.31 0.71 0.75 0.00 **
F3: Rao-2 −0.34 1.17 −1.36 0.08 0.19 0.74 0.75 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Sig −0.04 1.15 −0.79 8.99 1.02 0.43 0.73 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Log −0.16 3.92 −2.65 0.58 2.00 −0.03 0.72 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Exp −0.03 0.85 −0.59 0.59 0.27 2.09 0.73 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Rot −0.04 0.87 −0.58 1.71 2.29 0.72 0.00 **
F3: Sin-1 −0.48 −0.48 1.19 −0.07 4.27 0.43 0.02 *
F3: Sin-2 −0.03 0.92 −0.64 0.64 0.24 3.40 0.73 0.00 **
Q F1: BQ 20.44 −2.98 −6.14 −33.36 10.36 12.67 0.38 0.03 *
F1: CF 338.19 −441.53 117.19 0.97 0.00 **
−590.94 770.48 −206.38
252.71 −328.09 89.37
F2: Jensen −1.17 −0.02 −0.46 0.52 0.03 *
F2: Minhas −8.45 −0.09 −1.37 0.38 0.07 ns
F2: Rao −1.11 −0.05 −0.68 0.10 0.32 ns
F2: Blank 2.47 −0.10 −1.13 0.04 0.51 ns
F2: Stewart −1.25 −0.04 −0.76 0.12 0.28 ns
F2: Singh 3.30 0.01 −2.09 0.01 0.80 ns
F3: Rao-Sig −0.69 1.00 −3.84 1.03 2.25 6.77 0.81 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Log −0.85 1.16 −4.81 1.84 1.47 −0.15 0.78 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Exp −0.86 1.19 −4.96 0.03 3.09 −21.66 0.77 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Rot −0.85 1.16 −4.81 1.09 −0.06 0.79 0.00 **
F3: Rao-1 −0.86 1.19 −4.96 0.66 0.38 0.77 0.00 **
F3: Rao-2 −0.64 1.03 −4.02 −1.23 2.36 −0.11 0.80 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Sig 1.52 −0.31 −0.60 1.97 7.45 19.76 0.59 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Log 0.07 −0.01 −0.03 21.17 −8.85 43.42 0.59 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Exp 3.70 4.66 −6.85 0.02 3.02 −20.08 0.40 0.03 *
F3: Sin-Rot 0.61 0.70 −1.07 4.56 0.75 0.43 0.02 *
F3: Sin-1 −0.52 −0.52 1.29 −0.07 3.95 0.03 0.62 ns
F3: Sin-2 3.34 −1.03 −0.95 −1.96 3.18 −0.36 0.57 0.00 **
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 11 of 19

Table 4. Cont.

Coefficient
Object Model R2 Sig.
a/b/λ/K1 a/b/λ/K2 a/b/λ/K3 d/a e/b f/c
SAR F1: BQ 6.86 −1.46 1.62 −16.48 0.41 10.17 0.57 0.00 **
F1: CF −6.62 72.05 −45.86 0.90 0.00 **
−15.98 −82.99 62.46
16.39 20.94 −19.39
F2: Jensen −0.40 −0.03 −0.71 0.67 0.01 *
F2: Minhas −5.34 −0.08 −2.09 0.66 0.01 *
F2: Rao −0.14 −0.09 −1.03 0.59 0.00 **
F2: Blank 2.76 −0.16 −1.43 0.15 0.22 ns
F2: Stewart −0.22 −0.08 −1.13 0.61 0.00 **
F2: Singh 4.25 −0.03 −3.07 0.38 0.03 *
F3: Rao-Sig −1.16 0.53 −2.16 0.99 −109.29 −64.83 0.71 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Log −1.44 0.64 −2.73 0.56 3.10 −0.31 0.77 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Exp −1.44 0.64 −2.73 0.02 2.23 −8.44 0.77 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Rot −1.44 0.63 −2.71 0.27 0.73 0.77 0.00 **
F3: Rao-1 −1.44 0.64 −2.73 0.16 0.84 0.77 0.00 **
F3: Rao-2 −1.29 0.50 −2.32 −0.60 0.99 0.59 0.78 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Sig 1.26 −0.10 −0.68 2.48 −87.07 −84.48 0.54 0.01 *
F3: Sin-Log 0.05 0.02 −0.05 3.8 × 106 −1.5 × 106 62.27 0.54 0.01 *
F3: Sin-Exp 5.80 2.55 −6.37 0.00 2.57 −12.56 0.52 0.01 *
F3: Sin-Rot 1.10 0.48 −1.21 0.34 2.80 0.52 0.01 *
F3: Sin-1 −0.39 −0.39 0.96 −0.09 5.30 0.53 0.01 *
F3: Sin-2 1.32 −0.63 −0.24 −3.52 4.97 0.94 0.60 0.00 **
Lyc F1: BQ 1.69 −0.40 −0.49 −2.09 1.39 0.87 0.50 0.01 *
F1: CF −17.44 34.09 −14.15 0.99 0.00 **
21.32 −43.59 19.37
−6.51 13.93 −6.02
F2: Jensen 0.77 −0.03 0.83 0.94 0.00 **
F2: Minhas 6.09 0.04 2.46 0.84 0.00 **
F2: Rao 0.79 −0.04 0.84 0.73 0.00 **
F2: Blank 0.14 −0.04 0.85 0.76 0.00 **
F2: Stewart 0.74 −0.03 0.79 0.73 0.00 **
F2: Singh −1.18 −0.03 2.09 0.54 0.01 *
F3: Rao-Sig −0.12 0.52 0.33 0.93 3.96 15.09 0.88 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Log −0.16 0.64 0.20 0.31 2.12 0.06 0.86 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Exp −0.15 0.64 0.21 0.05 0.96 −1.80 0.86 0.00 **
F3: Rao-Rot −0.16 0.64 0.21 0.22 0.73 0.86 0.00 **
F3: Rao-1 −0.15 0.64 0.21 0.13 0.82 0.86 0.00 **
F3: Rao-2 0.07 0.45 0.42 −0.74 1.15 0.51 0.88 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Sig −0.23 0.79 −0.22 2.68 0.08 4.22 0.73 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Log −0.04 0.16 −0.05 342.40 −109.84 7.99 0.73 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Exp −1.70 7.70 −3.36 0.01 1.98 −6.95 0.72 0.00 **
F3: Sin-Rot −0.20 0.88 −0.36 1.22 1.70 0.72 0.00 **
F3: Sin-1 −0.59 −0.59 1.47 −0.06 3.46 0.55 0.01 *
F3: Sin-2 −0.37 1.27 −0.34 −0.72 1.41 0.92 0.73 0.00 **
Notes: The coefficient means a–f for model BQ (in Equation (4)), a1 –a3 /b1 –b3 /c1 –c3 for model CF (in Equation
(5)), λ1 –λ3 for F2 Jensen/Minhas/Rao models (in Table 2), K1 -K3 for F2 Blank/Stewart/Singh models (in Table 2),
λ1 –λ3 /a-c for F3 Rao models (in Table 2), and K1 –K3 /a–c for F3 Sin models (in Table 2). R2 and sig are the
determination coefficient and significant value for model fitting, ** means highly significant, * means significant,
and ns means not significant.

3.3. Prediction Performance of Water-Nitrogen Yield and Fruit Quality Function

The simulation results for models are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Model BQ of form
1 functions produced a better interpretation for tomato yield, SAR, and Lyc, compared with
form 2 functions. Among the multiplicative models of form 2, model Rao excelled in the
prediction of Y, SAR, and Lyc parameters. For the accumulated models of form 2, model
Stewart performed well for Y and SAR, whereas model Singh had stronger performances
 for Q and Lyc, with a slightly decreased precision for Y. Finally, multiplication model Rao
and accumulation model Singh were chosen as f(ET i)* for structuring form 3 functions.
Considering the correlation coefficient and RMSE of models, functions of Form 3 had
better performance for the four harvest parameters (Figure 3). For tomato yield prediction,
Horticulturae
Horticulturae 2024,
2024, 10,
10, x898
FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
the distance between model Sin-Sig, Log, Exp, Sqrt (2) and observation point was 12 ofthe
19
shortest, indicating that the RMSE prediction results ranging in 0.11–0.12 were the closest
to the true values, and the variance among those models was minimal. The same equation
Stewart
for
form ofperformed
Q and Lyc, with
nitrogen well for
alsoYobtained
a slightly
factor and SAR,decent
decreasedwhereas
precisionmodel Singh
for Y.when
precision had
Finally, stronger performances
multiplication
added into model model Rao
Rao, with
for
and Q and Lyc, with
accumulation a slightly
model decreased
Singh
the RMSE ranging from 0.15 to 0.16.were precision
chosen as for
f(ET i )Y.
* Finally,
for multiplication
structuring form 3 model Rao
functions.
and accumulation model Singh were chosen as f(ET i)* for structuring form 3 functions.
Considering the correlation coefficient and RMSE of models, functions of Form 3 had
better performance for the four harvest parameters (Figure 3). For tomato yield prediction,
the distance between model Sin-Sig, Log, Exp, Sqrt (2) and observation point was the
shortest, indicating that the RMSE prediction results ranging in 0.11–0.12 were the closest
to the true values, and the variance among those models was minimal. The same equation
form of nitrogen factor also obtained decent precision when added into model Rao, with
the RMSE ranging from 0.15 to 0.16.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. The
The simulation
simulation precision of models
models for
for tomato
tomato yield,
yield, comprehensive
comprehensive quality,
quality, solid–acid
solid–acid
ratio and lycopene content.
ratio and lycopene content.

Considering the correlation coefficient and RMSE of models, functions of Form 3 had
better performance for the four harvest parameters (Figure 3). For tomato yield prediction,
the distance between model Sin-Sig, Log, Exp, Sqrt (2) and observation point was the
shortest, indicating that the RMSE prediction results ranging in 0.11–0.12 were the closest
to the true values, and the variance among those models was minimal. The same equation
form of
Figure 3. nitrogen factorprecision
The simulation also obtained decent
of models precision
for tomato when
yield, added intoquality,
comprehensive model solid–acid
Rao, with
the RMSE
ratio ranging
and lycopene from 0.15 to 0.16.
content.

Figure 4. Cont.
Horticulturae
Horticulturae 2024,
2024, 10,
10, x898
FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20
13 of 19

Figure
Figure4.4.The
Thesimulation
simulationresults
resultsof
ofthe
thetop
top33models
modelsforfortomato
tomatoyield,
yield,comprehensive
comprehensivequality,
quality,solid–
solid–
acid
acidratio,
ratio,and
andlycopene
lycopene content.
content. (The
(Thesolid
solidline
lineisisthe
the1:1
1:1reference
referenceline;
line;the
thedashed
dashedline
lineisisthe
themodel
model
results linear fit line.)
results linear fit line.)

For
For tomato
tomato Q Q and
and SAR,
SAR,thetheresults
resultsofofallallthe
the water-nitrogen
water-nitrogen yield
yield andand quality
quality func-
functions
tions
were were
subpar. subpar. In terms
In terms of tomato
of tomato fruit comprehensive
fruit comprehensive quality,quality, the similarity
the similarity among among
models
models
in the samein theequation
same equation forms noticeably
forms noticeably decreased decreased
compared compared
to thattoofthat
theofother
the other
three
three parameters. Only model Sin-Log of form 3 resulted in
parameters. Only model Sin-Log of form 3 resulted in a comparably low RMSE value a comparably low RMSE value
of
of 0.33.
0.33. ForFor tomato
tomato SAR,
SAR, accumulation
accumulation models
models Sin-Sig,
Sin-Sig, Log,Log,Exp,Exp,
andandRotRot of form
of form 3 were
3 were the
the
bestbest simulation
simulation models,
models, and and for multiplicative
for Lyc, Lyc, multiplicative models models Rao-Exp,
Rao-Exp, Rot, andRot,(1)and (1) of3
of form
form
were 3thewere mostthepromising.
most promising.
Synthetically
Syntheticallycomparing
comparingthe the model
modelevaluation
evaluationindicators,
indicators,Form Form33functions
functionswere werethe
the
best-fit
best-fit models
models for for tomato
tomato harvest
harvest parameter
parameter simulation.
simulation.The TheSin-2,
Sin-2,Exp,
Exp, and
and Sig
Sig models
models
were
were thethe best-suited
best-suited forfor YY according
according to to the
the GPI GPI rank,
rank, with
with anan RR22 of
of 0.71,
0.71, 0.69
0.69andand0.68,
0.68,
respectively
respectively(Table (Table4).4).The
Thebest
bestmodels
modelsranked
rankedby byGPI
GPIforfortomato
tomatoQ, Q,SAR,
SAR,and andLyc Lyc were
were
model Sin-Log
model Sin-Log withwith aa RR22of
of0.41,
0.41,model
modelSin-Sig
Sin-Sig with with aa RR22of
of0.62,
0.62,and
andmodel
modelRao-Rot
Rao-Rotwith with
2
an RR of of0.42
0.42(Table
(Table5).5).
an 2
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 14 of 19

Table 5. The simulated precision of models for tomato yield, comprehensive quality, solid–acid ratio, and lycopene content.

Rao- Rao- Sin- Sin-

Object Index BQ CF Jensen Minhas Rao Blank Stewart Singh Rao-Sig Rao-Log Rao-Exp Rao-Rot Sin-Sig Sin-Log Sin-Exp Sin-Rot
1 2 1 2
Y R2 0.65 0.02 0.30 0.19 0.29 0.13 0.27 0.33 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.37 0.51 0.53 0.68 0.67 0.69 0.52 0.69 0.71
MAE 0.18 0.35 0.15 0.28 0.15 0.26 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.10
RMSE 0.21 0.59 0.18 0.36 0.18 0.33 0.19 0.22 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.11
RE 0.26 0.56 0.48 0.61 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.13
GPI 12 20 17 18 15 19 16 14 7 9 6 13 8 5 3 4 2 10 11 1
Q R2 0.45 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.03 0.48 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.41 0.27 0.17 0.33 0.14
MAE 0.66 1.20 2.28 178.64 1.20 0.49 0.96 0.26 0.55 0.52 0.47 0.61 0.47 0.62 0.59 0.23 0.34 0.45 0.57 0.65
RMSE 0.89 2.32 3.47 330.68 1.56 0.58 1.21 0.33 0.67 0.62 0.56 0.76 0.56 0.78 0.74 0.33 0.42 0.59 0.79 0.93
RE 0.60 0.97 1.94 112.76 1.23 0.51 0.98 0.32 0.44 0.41 0.35 0.50 0.35 0.51 0.49 0.23 0.25 0.35 0.42 0.57
GPI 5 7 14 6 18 20 19 2 11 12 8 17 9 16 15 1 3 10 4 13
SAR R2 0.57 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.26 0.61 0.41 0.42 0.26 0.42 0.10 0.62 0.52 0.43 0.35 0.49 0.01
MAE 0.38 0.68 1.09 55.28 0.34 0.68 0.33 0.45 0.48 0.55 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.63 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.92 0.64
RMSE 0.49 0.96 1.67 107.96 0.47 0.84 0.44 0.53 0.57 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.64 0.77 0.50 0.51 0.55 0.57 1.15 0.87
RE 0.22 0.42 0.57 23.97 0.22 0.35 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.34 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.48 0.34
GPI 2 17 15 14 7 20 6 12 3 10 8 16 9 19 1 4 5 11 13 18
Lyc R2 0.57 0.29 0.32 0.23 0.46 0.36 0.51 0.26 0.51 0.34 0.33 0.42 0.33 0.50 0.54 0.26 0.43 0.51 0.13 0.53
MAE 0.15 0.23 0.36 0.46 0.41 0.31 0.61 0.30 0.27 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.21 0.17
RMSE 0.21 0.35 0.44 0.57 0.48 0.36 0.75 0.39 0.36 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.27 0.21
RE 0.21 0.31 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.48 0.86 0.61 0.37 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.20 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.28 0.21
GPI 6 13 17 20 15 14 18 16 12 8 10 1 9 4 7 11 5 3 19 2
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 15 of 19

4. Discussion
4.1. The Reaction of Tomato to Water-Nitrogen Deficit
Tomato is a characteristically water-demanding vegetation with an average fruit
water content of over 95% [49] and a water productivity of about 22–25 kg·m−3 [48].
Evapotranspiration was the most dominant factor with direct influences on tomato fruit
yield and qualities [50]. In this study, the evapotranspiration showed positive effects on
tomato Y, OA, Lyc, and SW, but it showed negative effects on Q, TSS, SAR, VC and Fn
(Figure 1). Similar results were also reported in northwestern China [51], the Ahvaz region
of Iran [52], and southern Italy [53]. Deficit irrigation can restrain the growth of tomato
height, leaf area and branches as well as fruit yield [6]. Nevertheless, a certain degree of
water deficit can promote fruit quality, as decreased water makes solute accumulation and
concentration rise in fruit [54]. In addition, water deficit can affect tomato gene expression
and galactose metabolism, as well as starch and sucrose metabolism, promoting small
molecule content such as reducing sugar, ascorbic acid, and lycopene in fruit [55].
Water deficit under maximum nitrogen levels resulted in a more prominent effect on
fruit yield and some quality features. This might be due to the fact that water stress could
restrict the plants’ health and reaction sensitivity to other environmental factors, which was
commonly observed in multi-factors field experiments [56]. The highest absolute values of
sensitivity coefficients in form 3 models were all found in the flowering and maturation
period, demonstrating that the phenological stages II and III were the key period for tomato
fruit, in agreement with previous reports [39].
As an essential constituent of amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids, and chlorophyll,
nitrogen significantly determines plant photosynthesis process, growth development and
resistance formation [57]. N application showed a positive effect on tomato yield and
quality parameters, except SAR, in this study, consistent with previous experimental results
in Nepal [58] and Italy [59].

4.2. Evaluation of the Three Forms of Tomato Production Models

As an empirical model, the water crop production functions used in this study hardly
reflect the mechanisms behind plant growth and fruit formation. However, the data input
demands, such as ET and nitrogen application amount, were general and cheap to observe,
as well as more acceptable to farms with limited investments. In the three forms of functions,
the ad and disadvantages were discussed as follows:
Form 1 models with the lowest input demand took the water and nitrogen consump-
tion at whole stages as inputs without considering the sensitivity variance among different
stages and performed comparably poor. Model CF in form 1 produced the best-fit model
but its predictive performance was suboptimal, due to the overfitting caused by having
too many coefficients [60]. For the BQ model with fewer coefficients, the fitting accuracy
declined and prediction precision slightly improved. The coefficients set balance between
fitting and prediction was still a problem in model establishments. The same issues of
overfitting and coefficient balance were also observed in other form models, compromising
impacted models’ simulation outcomes.
Form 2 models with the highest input demand took the product of water and nitrogen
applications for every growing stage to represent the stress in each growing stage. Although
the model theoretically considered stage variances, simply taking the product of water
and nitrogen amount as the input was reckless and may wrongly expand the degree of
stress. For example, the multiplicative models in form 2 such as model Jensen would
return an obviously false result of 0 for 0 level nitrogen treatments. Even though we
had excluded those impracticable points in item 3.3, the prediction precision of form 2
models still performed not well in this study. Possibly, using the plant’s actual nitrogen
uptake could enhance the efficacy of form 2 models. Nevertheless, the additional processes
and expenditures entailed in ascertaining actual nitrogen uptake must be balanced under
specific conditions.
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 16 of 19

Form 3 models took separable evapotranspiration and whole-period nitrogen applica-

tion as input and performed best in tomato harvest parameter simulations. Form 3 models
were established based on form 2. Since the combination of water and nitrogen factors as an
independent variable in form 2 f(ET·N) exhibited low precision, we divided the two factors
apart and established a composite function as form 3 f(ET)·f(N). In form 3, the growth
period variances were only considered on water, and the basic function forms of Rao and
Singh were chosen. For the nitrogen application, to avoid those 0 points, mathematic unary
functions f(N) that set the whole nitrogen application amount as the only input was built.
Finally, form 3 models were established by individually multiplying f(ET) and f(N). Form
3 models showed the best prediction results in all of the simulated parameters with aver-
agely 5–6 fitted coefficients, indicating the ascendency of composing separated water and
full-term nitrogen. Similar results were also reported in the modified maize water-nitrogen
production function [61] and tomato crop-water-salt production function [47].
Compared with yield and lycopene content, simulation results for comprehensive
quality and solid–acid content ratio were less favorable. Both Q and SAR were composite
parameters containing multiple information, hence the fitness capabilities of only one
set of coefficients were insufficient, resulting in poor performance of the models. Since
the interactions between water and nitrogen applications on fruit yield and qualities are
very intricate [62], the semiempirical models are better suited for simulating individual
parameters [39,63].

5. Conclusions
Water and nitrogen significantly affected tomato yield and quality formation. Com-
pared to nitrogen application, water assumption, especially during the flowering and fruit
maturation periods, was of the utmost importance in determining harvest parameters.
Among the tomato harvest parameters, four indicators, including Y, Q, SAR, and Lyc,
exhibited a more significant relation with water-nitrogen input and representation for fruit
characteristics.
To quantitatively measure the relationship between water-nitrogen input and tomato
yield and quality output, 3 equation forms including 20 models were built based on
crop water production functions. Form 1 had the least input demand, form 2 f(ETi ·Ni )
had the least calibration coefficients, and form 3 f(ETi )·f(N) function showed the best
simulation performance. Models of Singh-2, Singh-Log, Singh-sigmoid and Rao-Root, with
R2 ranging from 0.41 to 0.71 and RMSE ranging from 0.11 to 0.50, were recommended for
the simulations of tomato yield, comprehensive quality, solid–acid ratio, and lycopene
content, respectively. Our study provides a relatively precise and low-input method to
determine irrigation and N fertilization strategy while also considering the balance between
yield and fruit quality.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.J.; Methodology, X.J.; Software, M.F.; Validation, S.G.; Inves-
tigation, S.G., W.H., Y.Y., Y.Z. and H.Z.; Data curation, W.H., Y.Y., Y.Z. and H.Z.; Writing—original draft,
M.F.; Writing—review & editing, M.F., T.W. and N.C.; Project administration, N.C.; Funding acquisition,
X.J., N.C. and L.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51709203),
Shandong Provincial Natural Science Fund of China (ZR2022ME033), the Science and Technology
Development Plan of Weifang City (2023ZJ1147), and the Cooperative Research Project of Sichuan
Water Resources Department (SKY2020SJZX16).
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors Shuai Gong, Wenya Hao and Yingxin Ye were employed by the
company Sinochem Agriculture Holdings Co. Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research
was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as
a potential conflict of interest.
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 17 of 19

References
1. Ali, M.Y.; Sina, A.A.I.; Khandker, S.S.; Neesa, L.; Tanvir, E.M.; Kabir, A.; Khalil, M.I.; Gan, S.H. Nutritional Composition and
Bioactive Compounds in Tomatoes and Their Impact on Human Health and Disease: A Review. Foods 2020, 1, 45. [CrossRef]
2. Coelho, M.C.; Rodrigues, A.S.; Teixeira, J.A.; Pintado, M.E. Integral valorisation of tomato by-products towards bioactive
compounds recovery: Human health benefits. Food Chem. 2023, 410, 135319. [CrossRef]
3. FAOSTAT, Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations. Rome. 2018. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/
es/#data (accessed on 19 August 2024).
4. Bhargava, A.; Bansal, A. Fruits and vegetables quality evaluation using computer vision: A review. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf.
Sci. 2021, 33, 243–257. [CrossRef]
5. Gao, L.; Hao, N.; Wu, T.; Cao, J. Advances in Understanding and Harnessing the Molecular Regulatory Mechanisms of Vegetable
Quality. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 836515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Sarker, M.R.; Choudhury, S.; Islam, N.; Zeb, T.; Zeb, B.S.; Mahmood, Q. The effects of climatic change mediated water stress on
growth and yield of tomato. Cent. Asian J. Environ. Sci. Technol. Innov. 2020, 1, 85–92. [CrossRef]
7. Rathore, V.S.; Nathawat, N.S.; Bhardwaj, S.; Yadav, B.M.; Kumar, M.; Santra, P.; Praveen, K.; Reager, M.L.; Yadava, N.D.; Yadav,
O.P. Optimization of deficit irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer management for peanut production in an arid region. Sci. Rep. 2021,
11, 5456. [CrossRef]
8. Yang, H.; Du, T.; Qiu, R.; Chen, J.; Wang, F.; Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Gao, L.; Kang, S. Improved water use efficiency and fruit quality of
greenhouse crops under regulated deficit irrigation in northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 193–204. [CrossRef]
9. Villa e Vila, V.; Marques, P.A.A.; Rezende, R.; Wenneck, G.S.; Terassi, D.d.S.; Andrean, A.F.B.A.; Nocchi, R.C.d.F.; Matumoto-
Pintro, P.T. Deficit Irrigation with Ascophyllum nodosum Extract Application as a Strategy to Increase Tomato Yield and Quality.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1853. [CrossRef]
10. Lu, J.; Shao, G.; Cui, J.; Wang, X.; Keabetswe, L. Yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato for processing under
regulated deficit irrigation: A meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 222, 301–312. [CrossRef]
11. Galindo, A.; Collado-González, J.; Griñán, I.; Corell, M.; Centeno, A.; Martín-Palomo, M.J.; Girón, I.F.; Rodríguez, P.; Cruz, Z.N.;
Memmi, H.; et al. Deficit irrigation and emerging fruit crops as a strategy to save water in Mediterranean semiarid agrosystems.
Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 202, 311–324. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, H.; Xiong, Y.; Huang, G.; Xu, X.; Huang, Q. Effects of water stress on processing tomatoes yield, quality and water use
efficiency with plastic mulched drip irrigation in sandy soil of the Hetao Irrigation District. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 205–214.
[CrossRef]
13. Wei, Z.; Du, T.; Li, X.; Fang, L.; Liu, F. Interactive effects of CO2 concentration elevation and nitrogen fertilization on water and
nitrogen use efficiency of tomato grown under reduced irrigation regimes. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 202, 174–182. [CrossRef]
14. Rudnick, D.R.; Irmak, S.; Djaman, K.; Sharma, V. Impact of irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer rate on soil water trends and maize
evapotranspiration during the vegetative and reproductive periods. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 191, 77–84. [CrossRef]
15. Cheng, M.; Wang, H.; Fan, J.; Xiang, Y.; Tang, Z.; Pei, S.; Zeng, H.; Zhang, C.; Dai, Y.; Li, Z.; et al. Effects of nitrogen supply on
tomato yield, water use efficiency and fruit quality: A global meta-analysis. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 290, 110553. [CrossRef]
16. Hernández, V.; Hellín, P.; Fenoll, J.; Flores, P. Impact of nitrogen supply limitation on tomato fruit composition. Sci. Hortic. 2020,
264, 109173. [CrossRef]
17. Li, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liao, S.; Zou, G.; Zhao, T.; Chen, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhang, L. Effects of two slow-release nitrogen fertilizers and irrigation
on yield, quality, and water-fertilizer productivity of greenhouse tomato. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 186, 139–146. [CrossRef]
18. Ishfaq, M.; Kiran, A.; ur Rehman, H.; Farooq, M.; Ijaz, N.H.; Nadeem, F.; Azeem, I.; Li, X.; Wakeel, A. Foliar nutrition: Potential
and challenges under multifaceted agriculture. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 200, 104909. [CrossRef]
19. He, J.; Hu, W.; Li, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zou, J.; Wang, Y.; Meng, Y.; Chen, B.; Zhao, W.; Wang, S.; et al. Prolonged drought affects the
interaction of carbon and nitrogen metabolism in root and shoot of cotton. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 197, 104839. [CrossRef]
20. Zhou, H.; Kang, S.; Li, F.; Du, T.; Shukla, M.K.; Li, X. Nitrogen application modified the effect of deficit irrigation on tomato
transpiration, and water use efficiency in different growth stages. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 263, 109112. [CrossRef]
21. Si, Z.; Zain, M.; Mehmood, F.; Wang, G.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. Effects of nitrogen application rate and irrigation regime on growth,
yield, and water-nitrogen use efficiency of drip-irrigated winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2020,
231, 106002. [CrossRef]
22. Li, H.; Liu, H.; Gong, X.; Li, S.; Pang, J.; Chen, Z.; Sun, J. Optimizing irrigation and nitrogen management strategy to trade off
yield, crop water productivity, nitrogen use efficiency and fruit quality of greenhouse grown tomato. Agric. Water Manag. 2021,
245, 106570. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, S.; Chen, S.; Hu, T.; Geng, C.; Liu, J. Optimization of irrigation and nitrogen levels for a trade-off: Yield, quality, water
use efficiency and environment effect in a drip-fertigated apple orchard based on TOPSIS method. Sci. Hortic. 2023, 309, 111700.
[CrossRef]
24. Plett, D.C.; Ranathunge, K.; Melino, V.J.; Kuya, N.; Uga, Y.; Kronzucker, H.J.; Xu, G. The intersection of nitrogen nutrition and
water use in plants: New paths toward improved crop productivity. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 4452–4468. [CrossRef]
25. Bwambale, E.; Abagale, F.K.; Anornu, G.K. Smart irrigation monitoring and control strategies for improving water use efficiency
in precision agriculture: A review. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 260, 107324. [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 18 of 19

26. Lu, J.; Shao, G.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, K.; Wei, Q.; Cheng, J. Effects of water deficit combined with soil texture, soil bulk density and
tomato variety on tomato fruit quality: A meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 243, 106427. [CrossRef]
27. English, M.; Raja, S.N. Perspectives on deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 1996, 32, 1–14. [CrossRef]
28. Tarkalson, D.D.; King, B.A.; Bjorneberg, D.L. Maize grain yield and crop water productivity functions in the arid Northwest U.S.
Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 264, 107513. [CrossRef]
29. Igbadun, H.E.; Tarimo, A.K.P.R.; Salim, B.A.; Mahoo, H.F. Evaluation of selected crop water production functions for an irrigated
maize crop. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 94, 1–10. [CrossRef]
30. Jensen, M.E. Water consumption by agricultural plants. Water Deficits Plant Growth 1968, 2, 1–22.
31. Minhas, B.S.; Parikh, K.S.; Srinivasan, T.N. Toward the structure of a production function for wheat yields with dated inputs of
irrigation water. Water Resour. Res. 1974, 10, 383–393. [CrossRef]
32. Rao, N.H.; Sarma, P.B.S.; Chander, S. A simple dated water-production function for use in irrigated agriculture. Agric. Water
Manag. 1988, 13, 25–32. [CrossRef]
33. Blank, H.G. Optimal Irrigation Decisions with Limited Water; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1976.
34. Stewart, J.I.; Cuenca, R.H.; Pruitt, W.O.; Hagan, R.M.; Tosso, J. Determination and Utilization of Water Production Functions for
Principal California Crops; University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 1977.
35. Singh, P.; Wolkewitz, H.; Kumar, R. Comparative performance of different crop production functions for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).
Irrig. Sci. 1987, 8, 273–290. [CrossRef]
36. Letey, J.; Dinar, A.; Knapp, K.C. Crop-Water Production Function Model for Saline Irrigation Waters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1985,
49, 1005–1009. [CrossRef]
37. Li, F.; Zhang, H.; Li, X.; Deng, H.; Chen, X.; Liu, L. Modelling and Evaluation of Potato Water Production Functions in a Cold and
Arid Environment. Water 2022, 14, 2044. [CrossRef]
38. Shi, R.; Tong, L.; Du, T.; Shukla, M.K. Response and Modeling of Hybrid Maize Seed Vigor to Water Deficit at Different Growth
Stages. Water 2020, 12, 3289. [CrossRef]
39. Chen, J.; Kang, S.; Du, T.; Guo, P.; Qiu, R.; Chen, R.; Gu, F. Modeling relations of tomato yield and fruit quality with water deficit
at different growth stages under greenhouse condition. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 146, 131–148. [CrossRef]
40. Saseendran, S.A.; Ahuja, L.R.; Ma, L.; Trout, T.J.; McMaster, G.S.; Nielsen, D.C.; Ham, J.M.; Andales, A.A.; Halvorson, A.D.;
Chávez, J.L.; et al. Developing and normalizing average corn crop water production functions across years and locations using a
system model. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 157, 65–77. [CrossRef]
41. Sapino, F.; Pérez-Blanco, C.D.; Gutiérrez-Martín, C.; García-Prats, A.; Pulido-Velazquez, M. Influence of crop-water production
functions on the expected performance of water pricing policies in irrigated agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 259, 107248.
[CrossRef]
42. Foster, T.; Brozović, N. Simulating Crop-Water Production Functions Using Crop Growth Models to Support Water Policy
Assessments. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 152, 9–21. [CrossRef]
43. Sarai Tabrizi, M.; Homaee, M.; Babazadeh, H.; Kaveh, F.; Parsinejad, M. Modeling Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) Response to
Simultaneous Salinity and Nitrogen Deficit Stresses. J. Water Soil Sci. 2015, 19, 45–58. [CrossRef]
44. Saeidi, R.; Sotoodehnia, A.; Ramezani Etedali, H. Modelling the relationships between the yield and evapotranspiration of maize
under salinity stress and nitrogen deficiency. Irrig. Drain. 2022, 71, 1225–1239. [CrossRef]
45. Wu, X.; Shi, J.; Zhang, T.; Zuo, Q.; Wang, L.; Xue, X.; Ben-Gal, A. Crop yield estimation and irrigation scheduling optimization
using a root-weighted soil water availability based water production function. Field Crops Res. 2022, 284, 108579. [CrossRef]
46. Yuan, C.; Xiong, F. Calculating the water salt production function parameters of seed maize under water salt combination stress.
IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci 2019, 330, 042006. [CrossRef]
47. Zhang, X.; Yang, H.; Shukla, M.K.; Du, T. Proposing a crop-water-salt production function based on plant response to stem water
potential. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 278, 108162. [CrossRef]
48. Fan, M.; Qin, Y.; Jiang, X.; Cui, N.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Jiang, S. Proper Deficit Nitrogen Application and Irrigation of
Tomato Can Obtain a Higher Fruit Quality and Improve Cultivation Profit. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2578. [CrossRef]
49. Zhiguo, L.; Pingping, L.; Jizhan, L.J.I.A. Effect of mechanical damage on mass loss and water content in tomato fruits. Int.
Agrophys. 2011, 25, 77–83.
50. Ochoa-Velasco, C.E.; Valadez-Blanco, R.; Salas-Coronado, R.; Sustaita-Rivera, F.; Hernández-Carlos, B.; García-Ortega, S.; Santos-
Sánchez, N.F. Effect of nitrogen fertilization and Bacillus licheniformis biofertilizer addition on the antioxidants compounds and
antioxidant activity of greenhouse cultivated tomato fruits (Solanum lycopersicum L. var. Sheva). Sci. Hortic. 2016, 201, 338–345.
[CrossRef]
51. Chen, R.; Kang, S.; Hao, X.; Li, F.; Du, T.; Qiu, R.; Chen, J. Variations in tomato yield and quality in relation to soil properties and
evapotranspiration under greenhouse condition. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 197, 318–328. [CrossRef]
52. Hooshmand, M.; Albaji, M.; Boroomand nasab, S.; Alam zadeh Ansari, N. The effect of deficit irrigation on yield and yield
components of greenhouse tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) in hydroponic culture in Ahvaz region, Iran. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 254, 84–90.
[CrossRef]
53. Buttaro, D.; Santamaria, P.; Signore, A.; Cantore, V.; Boari, F.; Montesano, F.F.; Parente, A. Irrigation Management of Greenhouse
Tomato and Cucumber Using Tensiometer: Effects on Yield, Quality and Water Use. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 4, 440–444.
[CrossRef]
Horticulturae 2024, 10, 898 19 of 19

54. Constantinescu, D.; Vercambre, G.; Génard, M.; Bertin, N. A virtual fruit model to simulate water deficit effects on water and
solutes accumulation in the fruit and the consequences on fruit quality. In Proceedings of the XXXI International Horticultural
Congress (IHC2022): International Symposium on Integrative Approaches to Product Quality in Fruits and Vegetables, Angers,
France, 14–20 August 2022; pp. 109–118.
55. Bai, C.; Zuo, J.; Watkins, C.B.; Wang, Q.; Liang, H.; Zheng, Y.; Liu, M.; Ji, Y. Sugar accumulation and fruit quality of tomatoes
under water deficit irrigation. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2023, 195, 112112. [CrossRef]
56. Wu, Z.; Fan, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Hao, X.; Li, S.; Kang, S. Response of yield and quality of greenhouse tomatoes to water and salt stresses
and biochar addition in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 270, 107736. [CrossRef]
57. Kishorekumar, R.; Bulle, M.; Wany, A.; Gupta, K.J. An overview of important enzymes involved in nitrogen assimilation of plants.
Nitrogen Metab. Plants Methods Protoc. 2020, 2057, 1–13.
58. Kafle, A.; Khatri, S.; Budhathoki, B.; Bipana, K.C.; Bhusal, T.N. Graded level of nitrogen and mulching effect on growth and yield
parameters of tomato in Arghakhanchi, Nepal. Arch. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2023, 8, 68–74. [CrossRef]
59. Parisi, M.; Burato, A.; Pentangelo, A.; Ronga, D. Towards the Optimal Mineral N Fertilization for Improving Peeled Tomato
Quality Grown in Southern Italy. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 697. [CrossRef]
60. Pavlou, M.; Ambler, G.; Seaman, S.; De Iorio, M.; Omar, R.Z. Review and evaluation of penalised regression methods for risk
prediction in low-dimensional data with few events. Stat. Med. 2016, 35, 1159–1177. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Wang, Y.; Kang, S.; Li, F.; Zhang, X. Modified water-nitrogen productivity function based on response of water sensitive index to
nitrogen for hybrid maize under drip fertigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106566. [CrossRef]
62. Xiao, Z.; Jiang, W.; Yu, H.; Wang, M.; Li, P.J.A.H. Substrate Water Content and Nitrogen Interactions in Growing Media: Yield,
Fruit Quality, Water Consumption and Water Use Efficiency on Tomato. Acta Hortic 2009, 843, 57–64. [CrossRef]
63. Jiang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, R.; Zhao, S. Modeling the Relationship of Tomato Yield Parameters with Deficit Irrigation at Different
Growth Stages. HortScience 2019, 54, 1492–1500. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.