Abstract
Abstract The objective of the present work was to perform an economic analysis of centre‐pivot irrigation implantation on a sandy soil area with different previous land uses. Thus, it was possible to analyse three initial soil conditions inside (irrigated) and outside (rainfed) the centre pivot. The opening area (P1) was characterized by soybean planting for the first time after degraded pasture, P2 consisted of the second year of harvesting soybean/maize second season, and P3 consisted of the third year of harvest. Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize. The centre‐pivot irrigation system was not profitable at the earliest stage of soil recovery (P1) immediately after degraded pasture because soil fertility limited yields. There was a 23% and 33% increase in soybean yield for the areas with 2 years (P2) and 3 years (P3) of soil recovery, respectively, compared to the first year. However, second‐season maize had an increased yield of 19% for the third‐year area (P3) compared to the first year (P1). Profit increased from P3 to P1 by $1541 ha −1 for soybean, $2654 ha −1 for maize and $2097 ha −1 overall. Irrigation treatments increased profit by 45%.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Centre-pivot irrigation was not profitable at the earliest stage of soil recovery, immediately after degraded pasture, in soybean production.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- centre‐pivot irrigation systeme1
- Outcome
- profitablee1
- Direction
- not profitablee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“The centre‐pivot irrigation system was not profitable at the earliest stage of soil recovery (P1) immediately after degraded pasture because soil fertility limited yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil fertility limited yields at the earliest stage of soil recovery, which made centre-pivot irrigation unprofitable.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Qualifier
- soil fertility limitede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“The centre‐pivot irrigation system was not profitable at the earliest stage of soil recovery (P1) immediately after degraded pasture because soil fertility limited yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield increased by 23% in areas with 2 years of soil recovery compared with the first year.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- areas with 2 years (P2)e1
- Outcome
- soybean yielde1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 23%e1
- Comparator
- the first yeare1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“There was a 23% and 33% increase in soybean yield for the areas with 2 years (P2) and 3 years (P3) of soil recovery, respectively, compared to the first year”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield increased by 33% in areas with 3 years of soil recovery compared with the first year.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- 3 years (P3) of soil recoverye1
- Outcome
- soybean yielde1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 33%e1
- Comparator
- the first yeare1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“There was a 23% and 33% increase in soybean yield for the areas with 2 years (P2) and 3 years (P3) of soil recovery, respectively, compared to the first year”
Claim · model-written summary
Second-season maize yield increased by 19% in the third-year area compared with the first year.
- Treatment
- third‐year area (P3)e1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 19%e1
- Comparator
- the first year (P1)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“However, second‐season maize had an increased yield of 19% for the third‐year area (P3) compared to the first year (P1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Profit from soybean increased by $1541 ha −1 from P3 to P1.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- Profite1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- $1541 ha −1e1
- Qualifier
- from P3 to P1e1
- Comparator
- P3e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“Profit increased from P3 to P1 by $1541 ha −1 for soybean, $2654 ha −1 for maize and $2097 ha −1 overall”
Claim · model-written summary
Profit from maize increased by $2654 ha −1 from P3 to P1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“Profit increased from P3 to P1 by $1541 ha −1 for soybean, $2654 ha −1 for maize and $2097 ha −1 overall”
Claim · model-written summary
Overall profit from soybean and maize increased by $2097 ha −1 from P3 to P1.
- Taxon
- soybean and maizeGlycine max
Zea mayse0 - Outcome
- Profite1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- $2097 ha −1e1
- Qualifier
- overalle1
- Comparator
- P3e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“Profit increased from P3 to P1 by $1541 ha −1 for soybean, $2654 ha −1 for maize and $2097 ha −1 overall”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatments increased profit by 45%.
- Taxon
- soybean and maizeGlycine maxZea mayse0
- Treatment
- Irrigation treatmentse1
- Outcome
- profite1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 45%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two crops were evaluated: soybean and maize”
e1“Irrigation treatments increased profit by 45%”
The same questions in other papers
rewatering · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
263 papers in the same direction as this paper · 72 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
339 papers more in this group
See all 343 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
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.