Abstract
Now, it is known that people in Egypt are under the water poverty limit a long time ago due to climate change and the shortage of water resources. These conditions hamper agricultural development in Egypt. Thus, a practical solution must be undertaken for confronting the water scarcity that hindered agricultural development in Egypt. So, two field trials were executed to assess different irrigation techniques [(100, 75 and 50 % of irrigation requirements (IR)] as main plots. While different soil conditioners [without (control), biochar (at rate of 24 Mg ha-1) and plant compost (at rate of 24 Mg ha-1) in addition to both of them as combined treatment (at rate of 12 Mg ha-1 for each conditioner)] were evaluated as subplots. Also, the foliar application of glycerol and sorbitol (0.0, and 500 mM L-1) represented the sub-sub plots. Maize was used as an experimental plant. Findings illustrate that water deficit treatments (75 and 50 % of IR) led to a raise in the production of enzymatic antioxidants in maize leaves at the stage of 60 days after sowing. While the studied soil amendments (either solely or in combination) and the sugar alcohols led to a decline the values of these enzymatic antioxidants. On the contrary, at the period of 90 days from sowing (growth advanced stage), the grown plants without the studied substances (soil conditioners and sugar alcohols) cannot continue producing these enzymatic antioxidants under water deficit treatments. Also, the deficit irrigation (75 and 50 % of IR) caused a significant decline in the performance and productivity of maize compared to traditional irrigation (100 % of IR). For example, the highest values of the studied growth criteria e.g., fresh weight (951.64 and 965.61 g plant-1, for 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively), leaf area (620.25 and 628.56 cm2 plant-1, for 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively) and chlorophyll content (40.55 and 41.42 SPAD for 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively) were realized under traditional irrigation (100 % of IR) followed by those values achieved under deficit irrigation treatment (75 % of IR), while the lowest one were recorded with deficit irrigation treatment (50 % of IR). Regarding the soil conditioners effect, the compost and biochar either solely or in combination improved the plant performance and productivity compared to the corresponding plants grown without soil conditioners. The highest values of growth criteria and productivity were realized with the combined treatment of compost and biochar followed by compost alone then biochar alone and lately control treatment (without soil conditioner). Concerning sugar alcohols, the exogenous application of sorbitol was the superior treatment, while the glycerol came in the second order and lately control treatment (without sugar alcohols). Generally, it can be concluded that a combination of compost and biochar may hold enough amounts of irrigation water and nutrients and release them as required by the maize plant, thus enhancing plant growth performance with the limited supply of irrigation water. Also, sugar alcohols have a vital role in raising maize tolerance to water deficit conditions.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation at 75% raised leaf enzymatic antioxidant production at 60 days.
- Organ / stage
- maize leavese0
- Treatment
- 75e0
- Outcome
- production of enzymatic antioxidantse0
- Direction
- raisee0
- Qualifier
- 60 days after sowinge0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was used as an experimental plant. Findings illustrate that water deficit treatments (75 and 50 % of IR) led to a raise in the production of enzymatic antioxidants in maize leaves at the stage of 60 days after sowing.”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation at 50% raised leaf enzymatic antioxidant production at 60 days.
- Organ / stage
- maize leavese0
- Treatment
- 50 % of IRe0
- Outcome
- production of enzymatic antioxidantse0
- Direction
- raisee0
- Qualifier
- 60 days after sowinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was used as an experimental plant. Findings illustrate that water deficit treatments (75 and 50 % of IR) led to a raise in the production of enzymatic antioxidants in maize leaves at the stage of 60 days after sowing.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil amendments lowered enzymatic antioxidant values.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the studied soil amendments (either solely or in combination) and the sugar alcohols led to a decline the values of these enzymatic antioxidants.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar alcohols lowered enzymatic antioxidant values.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the studied soil amendments (either solely or in combination) and the sugar alcohols led to a decline the values of these enzymatic antioxidants.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Without amendments, deficit-irrigated maize could not continue producing enzymatic antioxidants at 90 days.
- Treatment
- without the studied substances (soil conditioners and sugar alcohols)e0
- Outcome
- cannot continue producing these enzymatic antioxidantse0
- Qualifier
- 90 days from sowinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at the period of 90 days from sowing (growth advanced stage), the grown plants without the studied substances (soil conditioners and sugar alcohols) cannot continue producing these enzymatic antioxidants under water deficit treatments.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation significantly reduced maize performance and productivity.
- Treatment
- deficit irrigation (75 and 50 % of IR)e0
- Outcome
- performance and productivitye0
- Direction
- declinee0
- Comparator
- traditional irrigation (100 % of IR)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the deficit irrigation (75 and 50 % of IR) caused a significant decline in the performance and productivity of maize compared to traditional irrigation (100 % of IR).”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional irrigation gave the highest fresh weight in both seasons.
- Treatment
- traditional irrigation (100 % of IR)e1
- Outcome
- fresh weighte0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 951.64 and 965.61 g plant-1e0
- Comparator
- deficit irrigation treatment (75 % of IR)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest values of the studied growth criteria e.g., fresh weight (951.64 and 965.61 g plant-1, for 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively), leaf area”
e1“under traditional irrigation (100 % of IR) followed by those values achieved under deficit irrigation treatment (75 % of IR), while the lowest one were recorded with deficit irrigation treatment (50 % of IR).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional irrigation gave the highest leaf area in both seasons.
- Treatment
- traditional irrigation (100 % of IR)e2
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 620.25 and 628.56 cm2 plant-1e0
- Comparator
- deficit irrigation treatment (75 % of IR)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf area (620.25 and 628.56 cm2 plant-1, for 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively) and chlorophyll content”
e1“the highest values of the studied growth criteria”
e2“under traditional irrigation (100 % of IR) followed by those values achieved under deficit irrigation treatment (75 % of IR), while the lowest one were recorded with deficit irrigation treatment (50 % of IR).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional irrigation gave the highest chlorophyll content in both seasons.
- Treatment
- traditional irrigation (100 % of IR)e2
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 40.55 and 41.42 SPADe0
- Comparator
- deficit irrigation treatment (75 % of IR)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chlorophyll content (40.55 and 41.42 SPAD for 1st and 2nd seasons, respectively)”
e1“the highest values of the studied growth criteria”
e2“under traditional irrigation (100 % of IR) followed by those values achieved under deficit irrigation treatment (75 % of IR), while the lowest one were recorded with deficit irrigation treatment (50 % of IR).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost improved maize performance and productivity over no conditioner.
- Treatment
- composte0
- Outcome
- plant performance and productivitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- without soil conditionerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the compost and biochar either solely or in combination improved the plant performance and productivity compared to the corresponding plants grown without soil conditioners.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar improved maize performance and productivity over no conditioner.
- Treatment
- biochare0
- Outcome
- plant performance and productivitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- without soil conditionerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the compost and biochar either solely or in combination improved the plant performance and productivity compared to the corresponding plants grown without soil conditioners.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined compost and biochar improved maize performance and productivity.
- Treatment
- combined treatment of compost and biochare1
- Outcome
- growth criteria and productivitye1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Comparator
- control treatment (without soil conditioner)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the compost and biochar either solely or in combination improved the plant performance and productivity compared to the corresponding plants grown without soil conditioners.”
e1“The highest values of growth criteria and productivity were realized with the combined treatment of compost and biochar followed by compost alone then biochar alone and lately control treatment (without soil conditioner).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost alone ranked above biochar alone for growth and productivity.
- Treatment
- compost alonee0
- Outcome
- growth criteria and productivitye0
- Direction
- followed bye0
- Comparator
- biochar alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest values of growth criteria and productivity were realized with the combined treatment of compost and biochar followed by compost alone then biochar alone and lately control treatment (without soil conditioner).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorbitol ranked above glycerol and control.
- Treatment
- exogenous application of sorbitole0
- Outcome
- superior treatmente0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- glycerole0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the exogenous application of sorbitol was the superior treatment, while the glycerol came in the second order and lately control treatment (without sugar alcohols).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Glycerol ranked above control.
- Treatment
- glycerole0
- Outcome
- second ordere0
- Direction
- second ordere0
- Comparator
- control treatment (without sugar alcohols)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the exogenous application of sorbitol was the superior treatment, while the glycerol came in the second order and lately control treatment (without sugar alcohols).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that compost with biochar may retain and release irrigation water and nutrients, improving growth under limited water.
- Treatment
- combination of compost and biochare0
- Outcome
- plant growth performancee0
- Direction
- enhancinge0
- Qualifier
- limited supply of irrigation watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a combination of compost and biochar may hold enough amounts of irrigation water and nutrients and release them as required by the maize plant, thus enhancing plant growth performance with the limited supply of irrigation water.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that sugar alcohols raise maize water-deficit tolerance.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar alcohols have a vital role in raising maize tolerance to water deficit conditions.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →biochar · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
174 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
189 papers more in this group
See all 193 papers →irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 papers →irrigation · physiology: enzyme activity · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.