Abstract
Chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) is an agronomically important legume in Iran that is grown predominantly as a rainfed crop due to severely limited supplies of water suitable for irrigation. Long‐term daily weather data for the period of 1982 to 2012, were collected for 12 locations in Khorasan‐Razavi province in northeastern Iran with a cold semiarid and arid climate. A crop simulation model was used to investigate the effect of a single irrigation (at flowering or pod‐filling stage) under a range of sowing dates on the yield and water use efficiency (WUE) of chickpea. The results showed that supplementary irrigation substantially increased grain yield at all the locations. Across all locations and sowing dates, supplementary irrigation increased modeled grain yield 41 to 139% for irrigation at flowering stage (R1), and 13 to 66% for irrigation at the pod‐filling stage (R3). Supplementary irrigation also increased WUE as 12 to 121% at R1. Delaying sowing until late April, as compared to early to mid‐February, resulted in a 51% reduction in modeled yield. Averaged across locations and irrigation regimes, earlier sowing increased WUE over late sowing (4.9 vs. 3.4 kg ha −1 mm −1 ). It was concluded that early sowing (early and mid‐February) combined with a single irrigation applied at anthesis would, over the course of several years, improve average productivity and WUE of rainfed chickpea by 65 and 51%, respectively. Core Ideas SSM‐legume model can be used for evaluation of production limitation efficiently. Early sowing enabled chickpea to better exploit rainfall during crop season. One single supplementary irrigation substantially increased grain yield. Early sowing with one‐time irrigation applied at flowering hugely improve water use efficiency.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at flowering increased modeled grain yield by 41 to 139% across locations and sowing dates.
- Taxon
- Chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- irrigation at flowering stagee0
- Outcome
- modeled grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 41 to 139%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“supplementary irrigation increased modeled grain yield 41 to 139% for irrigation at flowering stage (R1)”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at pod filling increased modeled grain yield by 13 to 66%.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation at the pod‐filling stagee0
- Outcome
- modeled grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13 to 66%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“supplementary irrigation increased modeled grain yield 41 to 139% for irrigation at flowering stage (R1), and 13 to 66% for irrigation at the pod‐filling stage (R3)”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplementary irrigation at flowering increased water-use efficiency by 12 to 121%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Supplementary irrigation also increased WUE as 12 to 121% at R1.”
Claim · model-written summary
Late-April sowing reduced modeled yield by 51% relative to early-to-mid-February sowing.
- Treatment
- Delaying sowing until late Aprile0
- Outcome
- modeled yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 51%e0
- Comparator
- early to mid‐Februarye0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Delaying sowing until late April, as compared to early to mid‐February, resulted in a 51% reduction in modeled yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier sowing increased WUE to 4.9 versus 3.4 kg ha −1 mm −1 under late sowing.
- Treatment
- earlier sowinge0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.9 vs. 3.4 kg ha −1 mm −1e0
- Comparator
- late sowinge0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“earlier sowing increased WUE over late sowing (4.9 vs. 3.4 kg ha −1 mm −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded early sowing plus irrigation at anthesis would improve average productivity by 65%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- improve average productivitye0
- Value
- 65e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“early sowing (early and mid‐February) combined with a single irrigation applied at anthesis would, over the course of several years, improve average productivity and WUE of rainfed chickpea by 65 and 51%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded early sowing plus irrigation at anthesis would improve WUE by 51%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- WUE of rainfed chickpeae0
- Value
- 51%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“early sowing (early and mid‐February) combined with a single irrigation applied at anthesis would, over the course of several years, improve average productivity and WUE of rainfed chickpea by 65 and 51%, respectively”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →stage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →irrigation · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
120 papers more in this group
See all 124 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.