Abstract
Appropriate irrigation and nitrogen (N) management strategies are necessary to achieve a sustainable yield of maize with relatively low water and N inputs. Here, a 2-year field experiment with two irrigation methods (drip irrigation and flood irrigation) and five N application rates (0, 225, 300, 375, and 450 kg N ha−1) was conducted to evaluate maize yield and water and N use efficiency in the North China Plain (NCP). Compared with flood fertigation (FF), drip fertigation (DF) improved the soil water content (SWC) in the 0 to 40 cm soil layer and maintained a greater soil mineral N content (Nmin) of that soil layer. This resulted in increased soil Nmin in the 0 to 40 cm soil layer for the 375 kg ha−1 (N3) under DF compared with the 450 kg N ha−1 (N4) treatment under FF during both pre- and post-silking of maize. The maize crop accumulated greater N at both pre- and post-silking compared using N3 under DF compared to N4 under FF. Greater pre-silking N accumulation increased both leaf area and plant growth rate, leading to more dry matter (DM) accumulation and develop more kernels, while sufficient post-silking N accumulation maintained high leaf area to produce more DM post-silking and promote maize ability to support grain filling. As a result, maximum maize yield (10.4 Mg ha−1) was achieved due to increased kernel number and kernel weight for N3 (375 kg N ha−1) under DF with a 20% reduction in N fertilizer input compared with the N4 (450 kg N ha−1) treatment under FF. Due to greater grain yield and N uptake and less water consumption, the agronomic N efficiency (AEN), N partial factor productivity (PFPN), water use efficiency (WUE) and net income for the N3 treatment under DF increased by 30.4%, 28.6%, 58.3% and 11.0% averaged over two years, respectively, compared to the N4 treatment under FF. Therefore, drip fertilization could improve maize grain yield with a relatively lower water consumption and N application rate compared with flood irrigation with higher N fertilization, as well as increase the economic benefits.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation improved soil water content in the 0 to 40 cm soil layer compared with flood fertigation.
- Treatment
- drip fertigation (DF)e1
- Outcome
- soil water content (SWC)e1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Qualifier
- in the 0 to 40 cm soil layere1
- Comparator
- flood fertigation (FF)e1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“Compared with flood fertigation (FF), drip fertigation (DF) improved the soil water content (SWC) in the 0 to 40 cm soil layer and maintained a greater soil mineral N content (Nmin) of that soil layer”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation maintained greater soil mineral N content (Nmin) in the 0 to 40 cm soil layer than flood fertigation.
- Treatment
- drip fertigation (DF)e1
- Outcome
- soil mineral N content (Nmin)e1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Comparator
- flood fertigation (FF)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“Compared with flood fertigation (FF), drip fertigation (DF) improved the soil water content (SWC) in the 0 to 40 cm soil layer and maintained a greater soil mineral N content (Nmin) of that soil layer”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil Nmin in the 0 to 40 cm layer was increased under 375 kg ha−1 N with drip fertigation compared with 450 kg N ha−1 with flood fertigation, during pre- and post-silking.
- Organ / stage
- pre- and post-silkinge3
- Treatment
- 375 kg ha−1 (N3) under DFe3
- Outcome
- soil Nmine3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Comparator
- 450 kg N ha−1 (N4) treatment under FFe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e3“This resulted in increased soil Nmin in the 0 to 40 cm soil layer for the 375 kg ha−1 (N3) under DF compared with the 450 kg N ha−1 (N4) treatment under FF during both pre- and post-silking of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize accumulated greater N at pre- and post-silking under N3 with drip fertigation than under N4 with flood fertigation.
- Organ / stage
- pre- and post-silkinge4
- Treatment
- N3 under DFe4
- Outcome
- Ne4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Comparator
- N4 under FFe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e4“The maize crop accumulated greater N at both pre- and post-silking compared using N3 under DF compared to N4 under FF”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater pre-silking N accumulation increased leaf area and plant growth rate.
- Treatment
- Greater pre-silking N accumulatione5
- Outcome
- leaf area and plant growth ratee5
- Direction
- increasede5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e5“Greater pre-silking N accumulation increased both leaf area and plant growth rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater pre-silking N accumulation led to more dry matter accumulation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e5“Greater pre-silking N accumulation increased both leaf area and plant growth rate”
e6“leading to more dry matter (DM) accumulation and develop more kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater pre-silking N accumulation led to more kernels.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e5“Greater pre-silking N accumulation increased both leaf area and plant growth rate”
e6“leading to more dry matter (DM) accumulation and develop more kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
Sufficient post-silking N accumulation maintained high leaf area.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“sufficient post-silking N accumulation maintained high leaf area to produce more DM post-silking”
Claim · model-written summary
Sufficient post-silking N accumulation led to more dry matter post-silking.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“sufficient post-silking N accumulation maintained high leaf area to produce more DM post-silking”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum maize yield (10.4 Mg ha−1) was achieved with 375 kg N ha−1 under drip fertigation, with a 20% reduction in N input compared with 450 kg N ha−1 under flood fertigation.
- Treatment
- N3 (375 kg N ha−1) under DFe1
- Outcome
- maximum maize yielde1
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- 10.4 Mg ha−1e1
- Qualifier
- with a 20% reduction in N fertilizer inpute1
- Comparator
- N4 (450 kg N ha−1) treatment under FFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“maximum maize yield (10.4 Mg ha−1) was achieved due to increased kernel number and kernel weight for N3 (375 kg N ha−1) under DF with a 20% reduction in N fertilizer input compared with the N4 (450 kg N ha−1) treatment under FF”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel number and kernel weight increased under N3 with drip fertigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“maximum maize yield (10.4 Mg ha−1) was achieved due to increased kernel number and kernel weight for N3 (375 kg N ha−1) under DF with a 20% reduction in N fertilizer input compared with the N4 (450 kg N ha−1) treatment under FF”
Claim · model-written summary
Agronomic N efficiency increased by 30.4% under N3 with drip fertigation compared with N4 under flood fertigation (two-year average).
- Treatment
- N3 treatment under DFe1
- Outcome
- agronomic N efficiency (AEN)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 30.4%e1
- Qualifier
- averaged over two yearse1
- Comparator
- N4 treatment under FFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“the agronomic N efficiency (AEN), N partial factor productivity (PFPN), water use efficiency (WUE) and net income for the N3 treatment under DF increased by 30.4%, 28.6%, 58.3% and 11.0% averaged over two years, respectively, compared to the N4 treatment under FF”
Claim · model-written summary
N partial factor productivity increased by 28.6% under N3 with drip fertigation compared with N4 under flood fertigation (two-year average).
- Treatment
- N3 treatment under DFe1
- Outcome
- N partial factor productivity (PFPN)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 28.6%e1
- Qualifier
- averaged over two yearse1
- Comparator
- N4 treatment under FFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“the agronomic N efficiency (AEN), N partial factor productivity (PFPN), water use efficiency (WUE) and net income for the N3 treatment under DF increased by 30.4%, 28.6%, 58.3% and 11.0% averaged over two years, respectively, compared to the N4 treatment under FF”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency increased by 58.3% under N3 with drip fertigation compared with N4 under flood fertigation (two-year average).
- Treatment
- N3 treatment under DFe1
- Outcome
- water use efficiency (WUE)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 58.3%e1
- Qualifier
- averaged over two yearse1
- Comparator
- N4 treatment under FFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“the agronomic N efficiency (AEN), N partial factor productivity (PFPN), water use efficiency (WUE) and net income for the N3 treatment under DF increased by 30.4%, 28.6%, 58.3% and 11.0% averaged over two years, respectively, compared to the N4 treatment under FF”
Claim · model-written summary
Net income increased by 11.0% under N3 with drip fertigation compared with N4 under flood fertigation (two-year average).
- Treatment
- N3 treatment under DFe1
- Outcome
- net incomee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 11.0%e1
- Qualifier
- averaged over two yearse1
- Comparator
- N4 treatment under FFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“the agronomic N efficiency (AEN), N partial factor productivity (PFPN), water use efficiency (WUE) and net income for the N3 treatment under DF increased by 30.4%, 28.6%, 58.3% and 11.0% averaged over two years, respectively, compared to the N4 treatment under FF”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertilization could improve maize grain yield with lower water consumption and N application rate than flood irrigation with higher N fertilization.
- Outcome
- drip fertilization could improve maize grain yielde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Yield of Maize”
e1“Therefore, drip fertilization could improve maize grain yield with a relatively lower water consumption and N application rate compared with flood irrigation with higher N fertilization”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
55 papers more in this group
See all 59 papers →fertilization · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
83 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 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
- positive
- positive
- no effect
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 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
- negative
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.