Abstract
Abstract In this study, yield and water productivity response of rice to various irrigation levels applied with subsurface and surface drip systems in 2019 and 2020 in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey was evaluated in comparison with conventional flooding (CF). The treatments consisted of two irrigation methods namely surface drip (DI) and subsurface drip systems (SDI), three irrigation levels designated as plant pan coefficients (I 1.00 : Evaporation from Class A pan (Ep) × 1.00; I 1.25 : Ep × 1.25 and I 1.50 : Ep × 1.50) and CF as control. The effects of drip systems and coefficients on yield and yield components were statistically significant ( P < 0.01). DI produced higher yield than SDI. CF produced significantly greater yield than both DI and SDI systems. With two drip systems, average water savings of 60.5% in I 1.00 , 54.5% in I 1.25 and 49% in I 1.50 were achieved as compared to CF. However, yield reductions of 15% in I 1.50 , 20% in I 1.25 , 29% in I 1.00 were observed for DI; corresponding values for SDI were 20, 28 and 44%, respectively. Drip irrigation in aerobic rice production system had almost twice the water productivity based on total irrigation water applied (WP I ) or total water input (irrigation + rainfall) (WP I+P ) compared with CF. During the study years, the highest WP I and WP I+P values were found in DI-I 1.00 (0.81–0.73 kg/m 3 ) and (0.85 and 0.74 kg/m 3 ), respectively. In conclusion, DI-I 1.50 treatment is recommended for sustainable aerobic rice production since DI-I 1.50 resulted in water saving of 49% but yield decrease of 15% as compared to CF.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Drip systems and pan coefficients significantly affected rice yield and yield components.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- drip systems and coefficientse0
- Outcome
- yield and yield componentse0
- Value
- P < 0.01e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effects of drip systems and coefficients on yield and yield components were statistically significant ( P < 0.01).”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface drip produced higher rice yield than subsurface drip.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI produced higher yield than SDI.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional flooding produced significantly greater rice yield than both drip systems.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- CFe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- both DI and SDI systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CF produced significantly greater yield than both DI and SDI systems.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
The I 1.00 drip level saved 60.5% water versus conventional flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- I 1.00e0
- Outcome
- water savingse0
- Direction
- savingse0
- Value
- 60.5%e0
- Comparator
- CFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average water savings of 60.5% in I 1.00 , 54.5% in I 1.25 and 49% in I 1.50 were achieved as compared to CF”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
The I 1.25 drip level saved 54.5% water versus conventional flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- I 1.25e0
- Outcome
- water savingse0
- Direction
- savingse0
- Value
- 54.5%e0
- Comparator
- CFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average water savings of 60.5% in I 1.00 , 54.5% in I 1.25 and 49% in I 1.50 were achieved as compared to CF”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
The I 1.50 drip level saved 49% water versus conventional flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- I 1.50e0
- Outcome
- water savingse0
- Direction
- savingse0
- Value
- 49%e0
- Comparator
- CFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average water savings of 60.5% in I 1.00 , 54.5% in I 1.25 and 49% in I 1.50 were achieved as compared to CF”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface drip at I 1.50 reduced yield by 15% versus flooding.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield reductions of 15% in I 1.50 , 20% in I 1.25 , 29% in I 1.00 were observed for DI”
e1“were achieved as compared to CF”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface drip at I 1.25 reduced yield by 20% versus flooding.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield reductions of 15% in I 1.50 , 20% in I 1.25 , 29% in I 1.00 were observed for DI”
e1“were achieved as compared to CF”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface drip at I 1.00 reduced yield by 29% versus flooding.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield reductions of 15% in I 1.50 , 20% in I 1.25 , 29% in I 1.00 were observed for DI”
e1“were achieved as compared to CF”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip at I 1.50 reduced yield by 20% versus flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- I 1.50e1
- Outcome
- yield reductionse1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 20e0
- Qualifier
- SDIe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“corresponding values for SDI were 20, 28 and 44%, respectively”
e1“yield reductions of 15% in I 1.50 , 20% in I 1.25 , 29% in I 1.00 were observed for DI”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip at I 1.25 reduced yield by 28% versus flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- I 1.25e1
- Outcome
- yield reductionse1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 28e0
- Qualifier
- SDIe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“corresponding values for SDI were 20, 28 and 44%, respectively”
e1“yield reductions of 15% in I 1.50 , 20% in I 1.25 , 29% in I 1.00 were observed for DI”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip at I 1.00 reduced yield by 44% versus flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- I 1.00e1
- Outcome
- yield reductionse1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 44%e0
- Qualifier
- SDIe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“corresponding values for SDI were 20, 28 and 44%, respectively”
e1“yield reductions of 15% in I 1.50 , 20% in I 1.25 , 29% in I 1.00 were observed for DI”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip-irrigated aerobic rice had almost twice the water productivity of flooded rice under both water-input metrics.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- Drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- almost twicee0
- Comparator
- CFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation in aerobic rice production system had almost twice the water productivity based on total irrigation water applied (WP I ) or total water input (irrigation + rainfall) (WP I+P ) compared with CF.”
Claim · model-written summary
DI-I 1.00 had the highest WP I values, 0.81–0.73 kg/m 3 across study years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest WP I and WP I+P values were found in DI-I 1.00 (0.81–0.73 kg/m 3 ) and (0.85 and 0.74 kg/m 3 ), respectively”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
DI-I 1.00 had the highest WP I+P values, 0.85 and 0.74 kg/m 3 across study years.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- DI-I 1.00e0
- Outcome
- WP I+Pe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 0.85 and 0.74 kg/m 3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest WP I and WP I+P values were found in DI-I 1.00 (0.81–0.73 kg/m 3 ) and (0.85 and 0.74 kg/m 3 ), respectively”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend DI-I 1.50 for sustainable aerobic rice production.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Outcome
- DI-I 1.50 treatment is recommended for sustainable aerobic rice productione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DI-I 1.50 treatment is recommended for sustainable aerobic rice production”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
192 papers in the same direction as this paper · 82 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
282 papers more in this group
See all 286 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
349 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
376 papers more in this group
See all 380 papers →irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 201 in the opposite direction · 64 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1,167 papers more in this group
See all 1,171 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.