Abstract
Background Forage production in the saline-sodic soil of the western Songnen Plain Northeast China depends on irrigation. Therefore, the water use efficiency (WUE) and soil chemical properties are key factors in the overall forage productivity in this water scarce region. Improving forage yield, WUE, and soil properties under irrigation are very important for food and ecological security in this water-deficient region. Additionally, a suitable irrigation schedule for this region is necessary. Methods A field experiment was conducted between 2015 and 2018 to evaluate the effects of irrigation on artificial grassland productivity and the changes in soil chemical properties as well as to plan a reliable irrigation schedule for the western Songnen Plain. Eight irrigation treatments were designed, which depended on the three growth stages of alfalfa. The shoot height (SH), the chlorophyll content (SPAD), the dry yield (DM), the ratio of stem to leaves (SLR), the WUE, the changes in the chemical properties of the soil, and precipitation and evaporation were investigated. Results The SH, DM, WUE, and SLR were significantly increased by irrigation ( P < 0.01). However, the SPAD resulting from irrigation was not significantly higher than the SPAD of CK (no irrigation) ( P < 0.05). In addition, the soil chemical properties at the depth of 0–100 cm were significantly decreased by irrigation P (0.05). For example, the soil electrical conductivity, sodium absorption ratio, and total alkalization were reduced 182–345 μS cm −1 , 8.95–9.00 (mmol c /L) 1/2 , and 3.29–4.65 mmol c L −1 by different irrigation treatments, respectively. Finally, considering the highest WUE of I5 (irrigation at branch stage) (2.50 kg m −3 ), relative high DM of I5 (787.00 g m −2 ), the precipitation, the evaporation, the water resources, and the changes of the soil’s chemical properties, 236.50 mm of irrigation water was recommended at the branching stage of alfalfa for the western Songnen Plain, Northeast China.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation significantly increased alfalfa shoot height.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- SHe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SH, DM, WUE, and SLR were significantly increased by irrigation”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation significantly increased alfalfa dry yield.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- DMe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SH, DM, WUE, and SLR were significantly increased by irrigation”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation significantly increased alfalfa water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SH, DM, WUE, and SLR were significantly increased by irrigation”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation significantly increased the stem to leaves ratio.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- SLRe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SH, DM, WUE, and SLR were significantly increased by irrigation”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation did not significantly raise SPAD relative to no irrigation.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- SPADe0
- Direction
- not significantly highere0
- Comparator
- CK (no irrigation)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the SPAD resulting from irrigation was not significantly higher than the SPAD of CK (no irrigation)”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation reduced soil electrical conductivity by 182–345 μS cm −1.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- soil electrical conductivitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 182–345 μS cm −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil electrical conductivity, sodium absorption ratio, and total alkalization were reduced 182–345 μS cm −1 , 8.95–9.00 (mmol c /L) 1/2 , and 3.29–4.65 mmol c L −1 by different irrigation treatments”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation reduced soil sodium absorption ratio by 8.95–9.00 (mmol c /L) 1/2.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- sodium absorption ratioe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 8.95–9.00 (mmol c /L) 1/2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil electrical conductivity, sodium absorption ratio, and total alkalization were reduced 182–345 μS cm −1 , 8.95–9.00 (mmol c /L) 1/2 , and 3.29–4.65 mmol c L −1 by different irrigation treatments”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation reduced total alkalization by 3.29–4.65 mmol c L −1.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- total alkalizatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 3.29–4.65 mmol c L −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil electrical conductivity, sodium absorption ratio, and total alkalization were reduced 182–345 μS cm −1 , 8.95–9.00 (mmol c /L) 1/2 , and 3.29–4.65 mmol c L −1 by different irrigation treatments”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
I5 at branch stage had the highest WUE of 2.50 kg m −3.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- I5 (irrigation at branch stage)e0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 2.50 kg m −3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest WUE of I5 (irrigation at branch stage) (2.50 kg m −3)”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
I5 produced relatively high dry matter of 787.00 g m −2.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“relative high DM of I5 (787.00 g m −2)”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 236.50 mm irrigation at alfalfa branching in western Songnen Plain.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Organ / stage
- branching stagee0
- Outcome
- irrigation watere0
- Value
- 236.50 mme0
- Setting
- western Songnen Plain, Northeast Chinae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“236.50 mm of irrigation water was recommended at the branching stage of alfalfa for the western Songnen Plain, Northeast China”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: chemistry · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
irrigation · nutrient: content · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →irrigation · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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.