Abstract
Abstract In water scarce regions of South Asia, diversification of rice with maize is being advocated towards sustainability of cereal-based cropping systems. Adoption of innovative agronomic management practices, i.e., conservation agriculture (CA) and sub-surface drip irrigation (SSDI) are considered as key strategies for much needed interventions to address the challenges of water scarcity under projected climate change. Benefits from CA and SSDI concerning water economy are well-established, however, information about their complementarity and water budgeting in cereal-based systems are lacking. A field study was conducted with process-based model (HYDRUS-2D) to understand water transport, root water uptake and components of soil water balance in maize grown in rotation with wheat after five years of continuous adoption of conservation agriculture. In this study, altogether eight treatments comprising of 6 CA+ treatments (CA coupled with SSDI); permanent beds using sub-surface drip (PB-SSD) with (WR) and without (WOR) crop residue at different N rates, 0, 120 and 150 kg N ha −1 were compared with CA (PB using furrow irrigation-FI with crop residue-120 kg N ha −1 ) and conventional tillage practices (CT) (CT using FI without crop residue-120 kg N ha −1 ). Results showed that the model could simulate the daily changes in profile soil water content with reasonable accuracy in all the treatments. Simulated soil water balance indicated higher cumulative root water uptake (CRWU), lower cumulative evaporation (CE) and higher soil water retention in CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 ) than CA and CT plots. Hydrus-2D model efficiency > 0, RMSE between 0.009–0.026 and R 2 value between 0.80–0.92 at P < 0.01 indicates that the model is performing efficiently. The mean evaporation from CA+ treatments was 10 and 36% less than CA and CT treatments, respectively. On average, CRWU under CA+ treatments were 14–48% higher than FI treatments. The mean cumulative deep drainage in CA+ plots was 80–100 mm less than CA and CT plots. In CA+ based plots significantly higher biomass production and radiation use efficiency were observed with reduced water use than CA and CT. Therefore, the study justifies the water-saving nature of CA+, while maintaining higher productivity and meeting the transpiration demand of crops and halting unnecessary evaporation and deep drainage losses.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
HYDRUS-2D simulated daily profile soil water changes with reasonable accuracy across all treatments.
- Outcome
- daily changes in profile soil water contente0
- Qualifier
- reasonable accuracy in all the treatmentse0
Zea maysNot reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that the model could simulate the daily changes in profile soil water content with reasonable accuracy in all the treatments.”
e1“Hydrus-2D model efficiency > 0, RMSE between 0.009–0.026 and R 2 value between 0.80–0.92 at P < 0.01 indicates that the model is performing efficiently.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
HYDRUS-2D model efficiency exceeded zero.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hydrus-2D model efficiency > 0, RMSE between 0.009–0.026 and R 2 value between 0.80–0.92 at P < 0.01 indicates that the model is performing efficiently.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
HYDRUS-2D RMSE ranged from 0.009 to 0.026.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hydrus-2D model efficiency > 0, RMSE between 0.009–0.026 and R 2 value between 0.80–0.92 at P < 0.01 indicates that the model is performing efficiently.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
HYDRUS-2D R2 ranged from 0.80 to 0.92 at P below 0.01.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hydrus-2D model efficiency > 0, RMSE between 0.009–0.026 and R 2 value between 0.80–0.92 at P < 0.01 indicates that the model is performing efficiently.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CA+ residue and drip irrigation at 150 kg N ha −1 produced higher simulated cumulative root water uptake, lower evaporation and higher water retention than CA and CT.
- Treatment
- CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 )e0
- Outcome
- cumulative root water uptake (CRWU)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CA and CT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Treatment rates share units; statement isolates the 150 rate.
Verbatim
e0“Simulated soil water balance indicated higher cumulative root water uptake (CRWU), lower cumulative evaporation (CE) and higher soil water retention in CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 ) than CA and CT plots.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CA+ residue and drip irrigation at 120 kg N ha −1 produced higher simulated root water uptake than CA and CT.
- Treatment
- 120 kg N ha −1e0
- Outcome
- cumulative root water uptake (CRWU)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CA and CT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Simulated soil water balance indicated higher cumulative root water uptake (CRWU), lower cumulative evaporation (CE) and higher soil water retention in CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 ) than CA and CT plots.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated evaporation was lower in CA+ with residue at 150 kg N ha −1 than CA and CT.
- Treatment
- CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 )e0
- Outcome
- cumulative evaporation (CE)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- CA and CT plotse0
Not reportedTaxon
Schema note from the model: Statement isolates 150 rate from shared-unit treatment list.
Verbatim
e0“Simulated soil water balance indicated higher cumulative root water uptake (CRWU), lower cumulative evaporation (CE) and higher soil water retention in CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 ) than CA and CT plots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated evaporation was lower in CA+ with residue at 120 kg N ha −1 than CA and CT.
- Treatment
- 120 kg N ha −1e0
- Outcome
- cumulative evaporation (CE)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- CA and CT plotse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Simulated soil water balance indicated higher cumulative root water uptake (CRWU), lower cumulative evaporation (CE) and higher soil water retention in CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 ) than CA and CT plots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated soil water retention was higher in CA+ with residue at 150 kg N ha −1 than CA and CT.
- Treatment
- CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 )e0
- Outcome
- soil water retentione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CA and CT plotse0
Not reportedTaxon
Schema note from the model: Statement isolates 150 rate from shared-unit treatment list.
Verbatim
e0“Simulated soil water balance indicated higher cumulative root water uptake (CRWU), lower cumulative evaporation (CE) and higher soil water retention in CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 ) than CA and CT plots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated soil water retention was higher in CA+ with residue at 120 kg N ha −1 than CA and CT.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Simulated soil water balance indicated higher cumulative root water uptake (CRWU), lower cumulative evaporation (CE) and higher soil water retention in CA+ (PB-SSD+ crop residue at 150 and 120 kg N ha −1 ) than CA and CT plots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean evaporation in CA+ was 10% below CA.
Not reportedTaxon
Schema note from the model: Percent unit is shared at end of list.
Verbatim
e0“The mean evaporation from CA+ treatments was 10 and 36% less than CA and CT treatments, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean evaporation in CA+ was 36% below CT.
- Treatment
- CA+ treatmentse0
- Outcome
- mean evaporatione0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 36%e0
- Comparator
- CT treatmentse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The mean evaporation from CA+ treatments was 10 and 36% less than CA and CT treatments, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Average cumulative root water uptake was 14–48% higher in CA+ than furrow irrigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On average, CRWU under CA+ treatments were 14–48% higher than FI treatments.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean cumulative deep drainage was 80–100 mm lower in CA+ than CA and CT.
- Treatment
- CA+e0
- Outcome
- mean cumulative deep drainagee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 80–100 mme0
- Comparator
- CA and CT plotse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The mean cumulative deep drainage in CA+ plots was 80–100 mm less than CA and CT plots.”
Claim · model-written summary
CA+ significantly increased biomass and radiation use efficiency compared with CA and CT.
- Treatment
- CA+e0
- Outcome
- biomass production and radiation use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CA and CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In CA+ based plots significantly higher biomass production and radiation use efficiency were observed with reduced water use than CA and CT.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CA+ reduced water use relative to CA and CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In CA+ based plots significantly higher biomass production and radiation use efficiency were observed with reduced water use than CA and CT.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude CA+ saves water while maintaining productivity and meeting crop transpiration demand.
- Outcome
- water-saving nature of CA+e0
- Qualifier
- while maintaining higher productivity and meeting the transpiration demand of crops and halting unnecessary evaporation and deep drainage lossese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the study justifies the water-saving nature of CA+, while maintaining higher productivity and meeting the transpiration demand of crops and halting unnecessary evaporation and deep drainage losses.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
organic · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →nitrogen · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 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 →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.