Abstract
Abstract The experiments were carried out to study the behaviour of deficit drip irrigation based on the actual evapotranspiration (ET C ) at 100, 90, 75 and 60% of ET C respectively, and a separate furrow irrigation, on maize growth components, yield, water productivity and crop production function. The experiments were conducted under a randomized complete block design with three replications. The highest (407 and 275 mm) and lowest (244 and 165 mm) values of ET C were recorded under I 1.00 and I 0.60 for drip irrigation for two growing seasons. Compared with the furrow irrigation treatment, water savings of 33.3–60.0 and 33.4–60.0% were found under drip irrigation treatments. The highest grain yield was observed under I 1.00 : 10 100 and 9940 kg ha −1 for two growing seasons, respectively. All the drip irrigation treatments significantly increased the grain yield when compared to the furrow irrigation method. However, a better response factor was observed under I 75 for both years. It was also noted that all the growth and grain yield components were significantly affected by the different water deficits under drip irrigation. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
The highest ET C (407 and 275 mm) was recorded under I 1.00 for drip irrigation
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize under different irrigation treatments in an arid environment”
e0“The highest (407 and 275 mm) and lowest (244 and 165 mm) values of ET C were recorded under I 1.00 and I 0.60 for drip irrigation for two growing seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest ET C (244 and 165 mm) was recorded under I 0.60 for drip irrigation
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize under different irrigation treatments in an arid environment”
e0“The highest (407 and 275 mm) and lowest (244 and 165 mm) values of ET C were recorded under I 1.00 and I 0.60 for drip irrigation for two growing seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation treatments saved 33.3–60.0 and 33.4–60.0% water compared with furrow irrigation
- Treatment
- drip irrigation treatmentse1
- Outcome
- water savingse1
- Value
- 33.3–60.0 and 33.4–60.0%e1
- Comparator
- furrow irrigation treatmente1
- Setting
- arid environmentt0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize under different irrigation treatments in an arid environment”
e1“Compared with the furrow irrigation treatment, water savings of 33.3–60.0 and 33.4–60.0% were found under drip irrigation treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest grain yield was under I 1.00 (10 100 and 9940 kg ha −1)
- Treatment
- I 1.00e2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- higheste2
- Value
- 10 100 and 9940 kg ha −1e2
- Setting
- arid environmentt0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize under different irrigation treatments in an arid environment”
e2“The highest grain yield was observed under I 1.00 : 10 100 and 9940 kg ha −1 for two growing seasons, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
All drip irrigation treatments significantly increased grain yield compared with furrow irrigation
- Treatment
- drip irrigation treatmentse3
- Outcome
- grain yielde3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Comparator
- furrow irrigation methode3
- Setting
- arid environmentt0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize under different irrigation treatments in an arid environment”
e3“All the drip irrigation treatments significantly increased the grain yield when compared to the furrow irrigation method”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation at I 75 gave a better grain yield response factor
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize under different irrigation treatments in an arid environment”
e4“However, a better response factor was observed under I 75 for both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth and grain yield components were significantly affected by the water deficits under drip irrigation
- Treatment
- different water deficitse5
- Outcome
- growth and grain yield componentse5
- Setting
- arid environmentt0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize under different irrigation treatments in an arid environment”
e5“It was also noted that all the growth and grain yield components were significantly affected by the different water deficits under drip irrigation”
The same questions in other 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
- 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.