Abstract
Abstract Drip irrigation and mulching were tested to minimize unproductive water loss through evaporation and weed interference. A field experiment was conducted during spring season of 2020 and 2021 in split plot design with three replications. The study includes six treatment combinations of drip irrigation methods (surface drip and subsurface drip irrigation) and mulching (black plastic, paddy straw and no mulch) along with one conventional furrow irrigation without mulching (as control) in main plots. Four weed control treatments (atrazine 1000 g a.i./ha as pre-emergence, two hand weedings at 30 and 60 days after sowing [DAS], weed free and weedy for whole crop growth period) were kept in the subplots. The combination of drip irrigation and mulches significantly enhanced leaf area index and crop biomass at 60 DAS than furrow irrigation. Integration of subsurface drip irrigation with plastic mulching resulted in the lowest weed density and biomass among main plots. Drip irrigation coupled with plastic and straw mulching resulted in 86 and 50% reduction in weed density and biomass, respectively, as compared to no mulching. Integration of subsurface drip with paddy straw mulch and black plastic mulch resulted in 17.1 and 15.5% higher maize grain yield, respectively, as compared to furrow irrigation. The highest irrigation water productivity (3.58 kg/m 3 ) was observed in combination of subsurface drip and paddy straw mulch followed by combination of subsurface drip and black plastic mulch (3.51 kg/m 3 ). Overall, straw mulching in drip irrigation system proved economical in terms of maize productivity.
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
Drip irrigation combined with mulches significantly enhanced leaf area index and crop biomass at 60 DAS compared with furrow irrigation.
- Treatment
- combination of drip irrigation and mulchese1
- Outcome
- leaf area index and crop biomasse1
- Direction
- enhancede1
- Qualifier
- at 60 DASe1
- Comparator
- furrow irrigatione1
- Setting
- field experimente0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e0“A field experiment was conducted during spring season of 2020 and 2021”
e1“The combination of drip irrigation and mulches significantly enhanced leaf area index and crop biomass at 60 DAS than furrow irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip irrigation with plastic mulching gave the lowest weed density and weed biomass among the main plots.
- Treatment
- subsurface drip irrigation with plastic mulchinge2
- Interactor
- weede2weed
- Outcome
- weed density and biomasse2
- Direction
- loweste2
- Comparator
- among main plotse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e2“Integration of subsurface drip irrigation with plastic mulching resulted in the lowest weed density and biomass among main plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation with plastic and straw mulching reduced weed density by 86% compared with no mulching.
- Treatment
- Drip irrigation coupled with plastic and straw mulchinge3
- Interactor
- weede3weed
- Outcome
- weed densitye3
- Direction
- reductione3
- Value
- 86e3
- Comparator
- no mulchinge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e3“Drip irrigation coupled with plastic and straw mulching resulted in 86 and 50% reduction in weed density and biomass, respectively, as compared to no mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation with plastic and straw mulching reduced weed biomass by 50% compared with no mulching.
- Treatment
- Drip irrigation coupled with plastic and straw mulchinge3
- Interactor
- weede3weed
- Outcome
- biomasse3
- Direction
- reductione3
- Value
- 50%e3
- Comparator
- no mulchinge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e3“Drip irrigation coupled with plastic and straw mulching resulted in 86 and 50% reduction in weed density and biomass, respectively, as compared to no mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip with paddy straw mulch gave 17.1% higher maize grain yield than furrow irrigation.
- Treatment
- Integration of subsurface drip with paddy straw mulche4
- Outcome
- maize grain yielde4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 17.1e4
- Comparator
- furrow irrigatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e4“Integration of subsurface drip with paddy straw mulch and black plastic mulch resulted in 17.1 and 15.5% higher maize grain yield, respectively, as compared to furrow irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip with black plastic mulch gave 15.5% higher maize grain yield than furrow irrigation.
- Treatment
- black plastic mulche4
- Outcome
- maize grain yielde4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 15.5e4
- Comparator
- furrow irrigatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e4“Integration of subsurface drip with paddy straw mulch and black plastic mulch resulted in 17.1 and 15.5% higher maize grain yield, respectively, as compared to furrow irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip with paddy straw mulch had the highest irrigation water productivity, 3.58 kg/m3.
- Treatment
- subsurface drip and paddy straw mulche5
- Outcome
- irrigation water productivitye5
- Direction
- higheste5
- Value
- 3.58 kg/m 3e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e5“The highest irrigation water productivity (3.58 kg/m 3 ) was observed in combination of subsurface drip and paddy straw mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip with black plastic mulch had the second-highest irrigation water productivity, 3.51 kg/m3.
- Treatment
- subsurface drip and black plastic mulche6
- Outcome
- irrigation water productivitye5
- Direction
- lowerinferrede6
- Value
- 3.51 kg/m 3e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e5“The highest irrigation water productivity (3.58 kg/m 3 ) was observed in combination of subsurface drip and paddy straw mulch”
e6“followed by combination of subsurface drip and black plastic mulch (3.51 kg/m 3 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching in a drip irrigation system proved economical for maize productivity (author conclusion).
- Outcome
- straw mulching in drip irrigation systeme7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize”
e7“Overall, straw mulching in drip irrigation system proved economical in terms of maize productivity”
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 →irrigation · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →organic · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →mulching · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 papers →organic · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
125 papers more in this group
See all 129 papers →mulching · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 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
- positive
- positive
- negative
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 papers →8 of 12 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.