Abstract
During a sprinkler irrigation event some water is lost due to wind drift and evaporation (WDEL). After the irrigation event, plant‐intercepted water is lost due to evaporation. The water lost causes microclimatic changes which could result in positive or negative plant physiological changes. We studied the microclimatic and physiological changes on two fields grown with maize ( Zea mays L.) irrigated with a solid‐set sprinkler system. The temperature and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) of the air were measured at the crop canopy level and above and below the canopy. Changes in maize canopy temperature, transpiration, and leaf water potential (LWP) were determined. Sprinkler irrigation during daytime strongly modified the microclimate where plants grow during the irrigation time and for a short period after the irrigation event finished. Daytime irrigation decreased air temperature by 3.3 to 4.4°C and VPD by 1.0 to 1.2 kPa at 0.5 m below the crop canopy height. The decrease was lower as the measurement height increased. Microclimatic changes during nighttime irrigation were minimal. Daytime irrigation reduced maize canopy temperature by 4 to 6°C and plant transpiration by 58%, and increased LWP from −1.2 and −1.4 MPa to −0.54 MPa. Transpiration reduction must be considered positive because it supposes a reduction of WDEL. The decrease in maize canopy temperature could be positive or negative, but the increase in LWP is a positive effect.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Daytime sprinkler irrigation reduced air temperature 3.3 to 4.4°C at 0.5 m below maize canopy height.
- Treatment
- Daytime irrigatione0
- Outcome
- air temperaturee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 3.3 to 4.4°Ce0
- Setting
- 0.5 m below the crop canopy heighte0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation decreased air temperature by 3.3 to 4.4°C and VPD by 1.0 to 1.2 kPa at 0.5 m below the crop canopy height.”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Daytime sprinkler irrigation reduced vapor pressure deficit 1.0 to 1.2 kPa below maize canopy height.
- Treatment
- Daytime irrigatione0
- Outcome
- VPDe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 1.0 to 1.2 kPae0
- Setting
- 0.5 m below the crop canopy heighte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation decreased air temperature by 3.3 to 4.4°C and VPD by 1.0 to 1.2 kPa at 0.5 m below the crop canopy height.”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The daytime irrigation microclimatic decrease was smaller at greater measurement heights.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The decrease was lower as the measurement height increased.”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nighttime irrigation produced minimal microclimatic changes in maize.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Microclimatic changes during nighttime irrigation were minimal.”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Daytime irrigation reduced maize canopy temperature by 4 to 6°C.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation reduced maize canopy temperature by 4 to 6°C and plant transpiration by 58%”
Claim · model-written summary
Daytime irrigation reduced maize transpiration by 58%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation reduced maize canopy temperature by 4 to 6°C and plant transpiration by 58%”
e1“Transpiration reduction must be considered positive because it supposes a reduction of WDEL.”
Claim · model-written summary
Daytime irrigation increased maize leaf water potential to −0.54 MPa from −1.2 and −1.4 MPa.
- Treatment
- Daytime irrigatione0
- Outcome
- LWPe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- −0.54 MPae0
- Qualifier
- −1.2 and −1.4 MPae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daytime irrigation reduced maize canopy temperature by 4 to 6°C and plant transpiration by 58%, and increased LWP from −1.2 and −1.4 MPa to −0.54 MPa.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
55 papers more in this group
See all 59 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
283 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 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.