Abstract
Pearl millet (Pennisitum glaucum L.) is a warm season C4 grass well adapted to semiarid climates where concerns over scarce and depleting water resources continually prompt the search for water efficient crop management to improve water use efficiency (WUE). A two-year study was conducted in the Southern Great Plains, USA, semi-arid region, to determine optimum levels of irrigation, row spacing, and tillage to maximize WUE and maintain forage production in pearl millet. Pearl millet was planted in a strip-split-plot factorial design at two row widths, 76 and 19 cm, in tilled and no-till soil under three irrigation levels (high, moderate, and limited). The results were consistent between production years. Both WUE and forage yield were impacted by tillage; however, irrigation level had the greatest effect on forage production. Row spacing had no effect on either WUE or forage yield. The pearl millet water use-yield production function was y = 6.68 × x (mm) − 837 kg ha−1; however, a low coefficient of determination (r2 = 0.31) suggests that factors other than water use (WU), such as a low leaf area index (LAI), had greater influence on dry matter (DM) production. Highest WUE (6.13 Mg ha−1 mm−1) was achieved in tilled soil due to greater LAI and DM production than in no-till.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
tillage affected WUE.
- Taxon
- Pearl millet
Cenchrus americanust0 - Treatment
- tillagee0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both WUE and forage yield were impacted by tillage; however, irrigation level had the greatest effect on forage production.”
t0“Pearl millet”
Claim · model-written summary
tillage affected forage yield.
- Taxon
- Pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
- Treatment
- tillagee0
- Outcome
- forage yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both WUE and forage yield were impacted by tillage; however, irrigation level had the greatest effect on forage production.”
t0“Pearl millet”
Claim · model-written summary
irrigation level affected forage production.
- Taxon
- Pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
- Treatment
- irrigation levele0
- Outcome
- forage productione0
- Direction
- greatest effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both WUE and forage yield were impacted by tillage; however, irrigation level had the greatest effect on forage production.”
t0“Pearl millet”
Claim · model-written summary
Row spacing had no detected effect on WUE or forage yield.
- Taxon
- Pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
- Treatment
- Row spacinge0
- Outcome
- WUE or forage yielde0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Row spacing had no effect on either WUE or forage yield.”
t0“Pearl millet”
Claim · model-written summary
The water use-yield production function had r2 = 0.31, suggesting other factors had greater influence on dry matter production.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
- Treatment
- water use (WU)e0
- Outcome
- dry matter (DM) productione0
- Direction
- greater influencee0
- Value
- r2 = 0.31e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The pearl millet water use-yield production function was y = 6.68 × x (mm) − 837 kg ha−1; however, a low coefficient of determination (r2 = 0.31) suggests that factors other than water use (WU), such as a low leaf area index (LAI), had greater influence on dry matter (DM) production.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tilled soil yielded the highest WUE of 6.13 Mg ha−1 mm−1 relative to no-till.
- Taxon
- Pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
- Treatment
- tilled soile0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- Higheste0
- Value
- 6.13 Mg ha−1 mm−1e0
- Comparator
- no-tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Highest WUE (6.13 Mg ha−1 mm−1) was achieved in tilled soil due to greater LAI and DM production than in no-till.”
t0“Pearl millet”
Claim · model-written summary
Tilled soil increased LAI relative to no-till.
- Taxon
- Pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
- Treatment
- tilled soile0
- Outcome
- LAIe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- no-tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Highest WUE (6.13 Mg ha−1 mm−1) was achieved in tilled soil due to greater LAI and DM production than in no-till.”
t0“Pearl millet”
Claim · model-written summary
Tilled soil increased DM production relative to no-till.
- Taxon
- Pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
- Treatment
- tilled soile0
- Outcome
- DM productione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- no-tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Highest WUE (6.13 Mg ha−1 mm−1) was achieved in tilled soil due to greater LAI and DM production than in no-till.”
t0“Pearl millet”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.