Abstract
Nighttime sprinkler irrigation usually results in lower wind drift and evaporation losses (WDELs) and better irrigation uniformity compared with daytime irrigation. However, daytime sprinkler irrigation modifies the microclimatic conditions within the crop canopy which could result in improved crop growth. We studied the effect of daytime and nighttime irrigation on the growth and yield of maize ( Zea mays L.) irrigated with a solid‐set sprinkler system. Two irrigation treatments were tested: daytime irrigation (starting at 1000 Greenwich Mean Time, GMT) and nighttime irrigation (starting at 2200 GMT). The same irrigation amount was applied in both treatments. The irrigation amount was determined as the difference between the crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) and the effective precipitation. The WDELs of daytime irrigation were twice the nighttime irrigation WDELs. Daytime irrigation decreased the mean Christiansen coefficient of uniformity (CU) by 5 to 7% and the seasonal CU by 4%. Daytime irrigation caused a 10% reduction in maize grain yield, mostly due to a reduction in biomass production. The lower soil matric potential found with daytime irrigation late in the season indicated that a progressive water stress occurred that was due to less water availability and was caused by the higher WDEL for daytime irrigation. Even though positive microclimatic changes have been reported with daytime sprinkler irrigation, the results of our study indicate that they cannot compensate the negative effects caused for the crop by less water reaching the soil root zone because of increased WDEL and by poorer irrigation uniformity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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
Day irrigation had twice the wind drift and evaporation losses of night irrigation.
- Treatment
- daytime irrigatione0
- Outcome
- WDELse0
- Direction
- twicee0
- Value
- twicee0
- Comparator
- nighttime irrigatione0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WDELs of daytime irrigation were twice the nighttime irrigation WDELs”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Day irrigation decreased mean CU by 5 to 7%.
- Treatment
- Daytime irrigatione0
- Outcome
- mean Christiansen coefficient of uniformity (CU)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 5 to 7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation decreased the mean Christiansen coefficient of uniformity (CU) by 5 to 7%”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Day irrigation decreased seasonal CU by 4%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation decreased the mean Christiansen coefficient of uniformity (CU) by 5 to 7% and the seasonal CU by 4%”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Day irrigation reduced maize grain yield by 10%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation caused a 10% reduction in maize grain yield”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Day irrigation reduced maize biomass production.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation caused a 10% reduction in maize grain yield, mostly due to a reduction in biomass production”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Day irrigation had lower late season soil matric potential.
- Treatment
- daytime irrigatione0
- Outcome
- soil matric potentiale0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- late in the seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower soil matric potential found with daytime irrigation late in the season”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors attributed progressive crop water stress to lower available water from higher day irrigation losses.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“progressive water stress occurred that was due to less water availability and was caused by the higher WDEL for daytime irrigation”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors concluded day irrigation microclimate benefits could not offset lower root zone water and poorer uniformity.
- Outcome
- negative effects caused for the crope0
- Qualifier
- less water reaching the soil root zone because of increased WDEL and by poorer irrigation uniformitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“they cannot compensate the negative effects caused for the crop by less water reaching the soil root zone because of increased WDEL and by poorer irrigation uniformity”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.