Abstract
Abstract Improving productivity of maize ( Zea mays L.) and water use efficiency is of great significance for agriculture in Ethiopia. In this study, the effects of ridge‐furrow with film mulch cultivation were tested on maize yields in Melkassa, Ethiopia. Three field experiments (drip irrigation, furrow irrigation and rainfed) were conducted each with randomised complete block design with three replicates. The drip irrigation experiment was conducted in the dry season and constituted three film mulch methods (non‐mulch, transparent film mulch and black film mulch) with three irrigation levels (357, 435 and 515 mm). The furrow irrigation experiment was also conducted in the dry season and constituted two film mulches (non‐mulch and transparent film mulch) with three irrigation levels (484, 674 and 865 mm). The rainfed experiment was conducted in the rainy season and constituted three mulches (non‐mulch, transparent film mulch and black film mulch) with two farming methods (ridge‐furrow farming and flat farming). In the drip irrigation experiment, the highest maize yields (5.9 ± 0.6 t ha −1 ) and irrigation water use efficiency (9.6 ± 1 kg ha −1 mm −1 ) were recorded in the treatment using black film mulch with high irrigation, with increases of 68% and 68.4% compared to using non‐mulch treatment at that irrigation level. In the furrow irrigation experiment, maize yields and irrigation water use efficiency reached 7 (± 0.8) t ha −1 and 9.1 (± 1.9) kg ha −1 mm −1 in the treatment using transparent film mulch with medium irrigation (674 mm), with increases of 46% and 46.8% compared to that with non‐mulch treatment. In the rainfed experiment, the film mulch rather than farming method had positive effects on the maize yields and rainwater use efficiency. The average maize yield reached 8.5 (± 0.7) t ha −1 in the film mulch treatments, with an increase of 39% than using the non‐mulch treatment. Compared with that of non‐mulch treatment, the net income in the film mulch treatments increased by 94% in the furrow experiment and 31% in the rainfed experiment. Our results indicate that the ridge‐furrow with film mulch system can be recommended for water‐saving irrigation with low cost in dry seasons, and film mulch with flat farming can be recommended in rainy seasons for maize production in Ethiopia. This study provides strong evidence that maize productivity can be effectively improved in Ethiopia and other similar areas of the world using this simple and cost‐effective technology.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Black film mulch with high drip irrigation produced maize yield of 5.9 ± 0.6 t ha −1, 68% above no mulch.
- Treatment
- black film mulch with high irrigatione0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 68%e0
- Comparator
- non‐mulch treatmente0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest maize yields (5.9 ± 0.6 t ha −1 ) and irrigation water use efficiency (9.6 ± 1 kg ha −1 mm −1 ) were recorded in the treatment using black film mulch with high irrigation, with increases of 68% and 68.4% compared to using non‐mulch treatment at that irrigation level”
Claim · model-written summary
Black film mulch with high drip irrigation increased maize irrigation water use efficiency by 68.4%.
- Treatment
- black film mulch with high irrigatione0
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 68.4%e0
- Comparator
- non‐mulch treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest maize yields (5.9 ± 0.6 t ha −1 ) and irrigation water use efficiency (9.6 ± 1 kg ha −1 mm −1 ) were recorded in the treatment using black film mulch with high irrigation, with increases of 68% and 68.4% compared to using non‐mulch treatment at that irrigation level”
Claim · model-written summary
Transparent mulch with medium furrow irrigation increased maize yield by 46%.
- Treatment
- transparent film mulch with medium irrigation (674 mm)e0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 46%e0
- Comparator
- non‐mulch treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize yields and irrigation water use efficiency reached 7 (± 0.8) t ha −1 and 9.1 (± 1.9) kg ha −1 mm −1 in the treatment using transparent film mulch with medium irrigation (674 mm), with increases of 46% and 46.8% compared to that with non‐mulch treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Transparent mulch with medium furrow irrigation increased maize irrigation water use efficiency by 46.8%.
- Treatment
- transparent film mulch with medium irrigation (674 mm)e0
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 46.8%e0
- Comparator
- non‐mulch treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize yields and irrigation water use efficiency reached 7 (± 0.8) t ha −1 and 9.1 (± 1.9) kg ha −1 mm −1 in the treatment using transparent film mulch with medium irrigation (674 mm), with increases of 46% and 46.8% compared to that with non‐mulch treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
In rainfed cultivation, film mulch increased average maize yield by 39%.
- Treatment
- film mulch treatmentse0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 39%e0
- Comparator
- non‐mulch treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average maize yield reached 8.5 (± 0.7) t ha −1 in the film mulch treatments, with an increase of 39% than using the non‐mulch treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under rainfed conditions film mulch, rather than farming method, improved rainwater use efficiency.
- Treatment
- film mulche0
- Outcome
- rainwater use efficiencye0
- Direction
- positive effectse0
- Comparator
- farming methode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the film mulch rather than farming method had positive effects on the maize yields and rainwater use efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulch increased net income by 94% in the furrow experiment.
- Treatment
- film mulch treatmentse0
- Outcome
- net incomee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 94%e0
- Setting
- furrow experimente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the net income in the film mulch treatments increased by 94% in the furrow experiment and 31% in the rainfed experiment”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulch increased net income by 31% in the rainfed experiment.
- Treatment
- film mulch treatmentse0
- Outcome
- net incomee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 31%e0
- Setting
- rainfed experimente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the net income in the film mulch treatments increased by 94% in the furrow experiment and 31% in the rainfed experiment”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend ridge-furrow film mulch for low-cost water-saving irrigation during dry seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ridge‐furrow with film mulch system can be recommended for water‐saving irrigation with low cost in dry seasons”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend film mulch with flat farming in rainy seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“film mulch with flat farming can be recommended in rainy seasons for maize production in Ethiopia”
The same questions in other papers
in vitro · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 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
- negative
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →in vitro · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.