Abstract
Abstract Self‐propelled moving sprinkler irrigation systems (MSIS) have become increasingly popular in recent years. However, high amounts of runoff were measured from fields during irrigation with MSIS. Surface runoff from a silt loam loess soil (Calcic Haploxeralf) and a clay vertisol soil (Typic Chromoxerert) under different irrigation management was studied in field plots (3 m 2 , with a slope of about 2%). The experimental fields were irrigated with a lateral MSIS (spray nozzle) with a discharge of 650 L m− 1 h− 1 and an average water application rate of about 100 mm h −1 . The percent surface runoff in loess and vertisol soils was 22 and 0%, respectively, under straw mulch conditions vs. 53 and 39% under unmulched conditions. The greater runoff was due mainly to crust formation at the soil surface. The impact energy of the irrigation water drops caused the soil surface structure to break down and form a surface crust with a resultant decrease in the infiltration rate (IR). Coverage of the loess‐crusted soil surface by the cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2) canopy did not reduce the percent runoff from weekly irrigations of 50 mm. A drying period of 7 d between water applications did not break the crust, which was formed at the beginning of the irrigation season, and the large amount of runoff (50%) remained constant until the end of the season. Conversely, 14 to 18 d of drying caused a breakage of the crust, resulting in increased IR. Under these conditions, the cotton canopy prevented the reformation of the crust during consecutive irrigations and the runoff decreased to 15% at the end of the season. When the amount of water per irrigation was 15 to 30 mm and the drying period was 2 to 3 d, the runoff value was about 20%. This low percentage apparently resulted from insufficient amounts of water necessary to form a fully developed crust.
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
Straw mulch reduced runoff on loess soil to 22% versus 53% without mulch.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- straw mulche0
- Outcome
- surface runoffe0
- Value
- 22 and 0%e0
- Qualifier
- loesse0
- Comparator
- unmulched conditionse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The percent surface runoff in loess and vertisol soils was 22 and 0%, respectively, under straw mulch conditions vs. 53 and 39% under unmulched conditions.”
t0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch reduced runoff on vertisol soil to 0% versus 39% without mulch.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- straw mulche0
- Outcome
- surface runoffe0
- Value
- 0%e0
- Qualifier
- vertisole0
- Comparator
- unmulched conditionse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The percent surface runoff in loess and vertisol soils was 22 and 0%, respectively, under straw mulch conditions vs. 53 and 39% under unmulched conditions.”
t0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton canopy cover did not reduce runoff from weekly 50 mm irrigations on loess-crusted soil.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Material
- Acala SJ‐2e0
- Treatment
- cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2) canopye0
- Outcome
- percent runoffe0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Qualifier
- weekly irrigations of 50 mme0
- Comparator
- loess‐crusted soil surfacee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Coverage of the loess‐crusted soil surface by the cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2) canopy did not reduce the percent runoff from weekly irrigations of 50 mm.”
Claim · model-written summary
A 7 d drying period did not break the crust, and runoff remained at 50% through the season.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- drying period of 7 de0
- Outcome
- runoffe0
- Direction
- remained constante0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Qualifier
- until the end of the seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A drying period of 7 d between water applications did not break the crust, which was formed at the beginning of the irrigation season, and the large amount of runoff (50%) remained constant until the end of the season.”
t0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drying for 14 to 18 d broke the crust and increased infiltration rate.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 14 to 18 d of dryinge0
- Outcome
- IRe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conversely, 14 to 18 d of drying caused a breakage of the crust, resulting in increased IR.”
t0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under longer drying intervals, the cotton canopy prevented crust reformation during consecutive irrigations.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- cotton canopye0
- Outcome
- prevented the reformation of the cruste0
- Qualifier
- Under these conditionse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under these conditions, the cotton canopy prevented the reformation of the crust during consecutive irrigations and the runoff decreased to 15% at the end of the season.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under longer drying intervals with cotton canopy, runoff decreased to 15% by season end.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- cotton canopye0
- Outcome
- runoffe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 15%e0
- Qualifier
- at the end of the seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under these conditions, the cotton canopy prevented the reformation of the crust during consecutive irrigations and the runoff decreased to 15% at the end of the season.”
Claim · model-written summary
With 15 to 30 mm irrigations and 2 to 3 d drying, runoff was about 20%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- runoff valuee0
- Value
- about 20%e0
- Qualifier
- amount of water per irrigation was 15 to 30 mm and the drying period was 2 to 3 de0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When the amount of water per irrigation was 15 to 30 mm and the drying period was 2 to 3 d, the runoff value was about 20%.”
t0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L., cv. Acala SJ‐2)”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: physics · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.