Abstract
Infiltration and deep drainage fluxes are difficult to measure directly in slowly permeable soils under furrow-irrigated upland crops such as maize (Zea mays L). This paper combines a solute mass balance model and a furrow irrigation advance model to provide an estimate of these fluxes, indirectly from simpler measurements. The models were applied to a newly cleared sodic duplex soil from the Burdekin River Irrigation Area, north Queensland, where no field measures of infiltration and deep drainage were available. The study site was sown to consecutive furrow-irrigated crops after clearing. In applying these models, measures of soil and irrigation water chloride, irrigation water applied, furrow geometry and irrigation advance were required. Estimated infiltration and deep drainage decreased with distance down the furrow from 1044 and 98 mm year-1 at 50 m to 966 and 0 mm year-1 at 260 m. In an area that received an application of gypsum (20 t ha-1) prior to planting the second crop, values ranged from 1617 and 200 mm year-1 at 50 m to 1370 and 70 mm year-1 at 260 m. Infiltration did not satisfy the estimated soil water deficit unless gypsum was applied. Where gypsum was applied, infiltration exceeded the soil water deficit and deep drainage increased. Evapo-transpiration rate and maize yield also increased. If correct, these results have local and regional implications for irrigation design and management.
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
Infiltration was estimated at 1044 mm year-1 at 50 m.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated infiltration and deep drainage decreased with distance down the furrow from 1044 and 98 mm year-1 at 50 m to 966 and 0 mm year-1 at 260 m”
e1“maize (Zea mays L)”
e2“Burdekin River Irrigation Area”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep drainage was estimated at 98 mm year-1 at 50 m.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated infiltration and deep drainage decreased with distance down the furrow from 1044 and 98 mm year-1 at 50 m to 966 and 0 mm year-1 at 260 m”
e1“maize (Zea mays L)”
e2“Burdekin River Irrigation Area”
Claim · model-written summary
Infiltration was estimated at 966 mm year-1 at 260 m.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated infiltration and deep drainage decreased with distance down the furrow from 1044 and 98 mm year-1 at 50 m to 966 and 0 mm year-1 at 260 m”
e1“maize (Zea mays L)”
e2“Burdekin River Irrigation Area”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep drainage was estimated at 0 mm year-1 at 260 m.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Estimated infiltration and deep drainage decreased with distance down the furrow from 1044 and 98 mm year-1 at 50 m to 966 and 0 mm year-1 at 260 m”
e1“maize (Zea mays L)”
e2“Burdekin River Irrigation Area”
Claim · model-written summary
With gypsum, infiltration exceeded the soil water deficit.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Where gypsum was applied, infiltration exceeded the soil water deficit and deep drainage increased. Evapo-transpiration rate and maize yield also increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum application increased deep drainage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Where gypsum was applied, infiltration exceeded the soil water deficit and deep drainage increased. Evapo-transpiration rate and maize yield also increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum application increased evapotranspiration rate.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Where gypsum was applied, infiltration exceeded the soil water deficit and deep drainage increased. Evapo-transpiration rate and maize yield also increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum application increased maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Where gypsum was applied, infiltration exceeded the soil water deficit and deep drainage increased. Evapo-transpiration rate and maize yield also increased”
The same questions in other papers
lime · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
215 papers more in this group
See all 219 papers →lime · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.