Abstract
The contradiction between increased irrigation demand and water scarcity in arid regions has become more acute for crops as a result of global climate change. This highlights the urgent need to improve crop water use efficiency. In this study, four irrigation volumes were established for drip-irrigated maize under plastic mulch: 2145 m3 ha−1 (W1), 2685 m3 ha−1 (W2), 3360 m3 ha−1 (W3), and 4200 m3 ha−1 (W4). The effects of these volumes on soil moisture, maize growth, water consumption, crop coefficients, and yield were analyzed. The results showed that increasing the irrigation volume led to a 2.86% to 8.71% increase in soil moisture content, a 24.56% to 47.41% increase in water consumption, and a 3.43% to 35% increase in the crop coefficient. Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%, ear height by 16.85% to 51.01%, ear length by 2.43% to 28.13%, and yield by 16.96% to 39.24%. Additionally, soil temperature was reduced by 1.67% to 5.67%, and the maize bald tip length decreased by 6.62% to 48%. The irrigation water use efficiency improved by 6.57% to 28.89%. A comprehensive evaluation using the TOPSIS method demonstrated that 3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation water was an effective irrigation strategy for increasing maize yield under drip irrigation with plastic mulch in the southern border area. Compared to 4200 m3 ha−1, this strategy saved 840 m3 ha−1 of irrigation water, increased the irrigation water use efficiency by 23.96%, and resulted in only a 0.84% decrease in yield. The findings of this study provide a theoretical foundation for optimizing production benefits in the context of limited water resources.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing irrigation raised soil moisture 2.86–8.71%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee0
- Outcome
- soil moisture contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 2.86% to 8.71%e0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing the irrigation volume led to a 2.86% to 8.71% increase in soil moisture content”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing irrigation raised water consumption 24.56–47.41%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee0
- Outcome
- water consumptione0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 24.56% to 47.41%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing the irrigation volume led to a 2.86% to 8.71% increase in soil moisture content, a 24.56% to 47.41% increase in water consumption”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing irrigation raised crop coefficient 3.43–35%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee0
- Outcome
- crop coefficiente0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 3.43% to 35%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing the irrigation volume led to a 2.86% to 8.71% increase in soil moisture content, a 24.56% to 47.41% increase in water consumption, and a 3.43% to 35% increase in the crop coefficient”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize height increased 16.34–42.38%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee1
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 16.34% to 42.38%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
t0“Maize”
e1“increasing the irrigation volume”
e2“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
Claim · model-written summary
Ear height increased 16.85–51.01%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee1
- Outcome
- ear heighte0
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- 16.85% to 51.01%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ear height by 16.85% to 51.01%”
t0“Maize”
e1“increasing the irrigation volume”
e2“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
Claim · model-written summary
Ear length increased 2.43–28.13%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee1
- Outcome
- ear lengthe0
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- 2.43% to 28.13%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ear length by 2.43% to 28.13%”
t0“Maize”
e1“increasing the irrigation volume”
e2“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield increased 16.96–39.24%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield by 16.96% to 39.24%”
t0“Maize”
e1“increasing the irrigation volume”
e2“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil temperature fell 1.67–5.67%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee1
- Outcome
- soil temperaturee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 1.67% to 5.67%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil temperature was reduced by 1.67% to 5.67%”
t0“Maize”
e1“increasing the irrigation volume”
e2“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize bald tip length fell 6.62–48%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee1
- Outcome
- maize bald tip lengthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 6.62% to 48%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize bald tip length decreased by 6.62% to 48%”
t0“Maize”
e1“increasing the irrigation volume”
e2“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation water use efficiency rose 6.57–28.89%.
- Treatment
- increasing the irrigation volumee1
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 6.57% to 28.89%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigation water use efficiency improved by 6.57% to 28.89%”
t0“Maize”
e1“increasing the irrigation volume”
e2“Maize plant height increased by 16.34% to 42.38%”
Claim · model-written summary
TOPSIS identified 3360 m3 ha−1 as an effective irrigation volume for increasing maize yield.
- Treatment
- 3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation watere0
- Outcome
- effective irrigation strategy for increasing maize yielde0
- Setting
- southern border areae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation water was an effective irrigation strategy for increasing maize yield under drip irrigation with plastic mulch in the southern border area”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Compared with 4200 m3 ha−1, 3360 m3 ha−1 saved 840 m3 ha−1 of water.
- Treatment
- 3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation watere1
- Outcome
- irrigation watere0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- 840 m3 ha−1e0
- Comparator
- 4200 m3 ha−1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to 4200 m3 ha−1, this strategy saved 840 m3 ha−1 of irrigation water”
e1“3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation water”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Compared with 4200 m3 ha−1, 3360 m3 ha−1 raised irrigation water use efficiency 23.96%.
- Treatment
- 3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation watere2
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 23.96%e0
- Comparator
- 4200 m3 ha−1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased the irrigation water use efficiency by 23.96%”
e1“Compared to 4200 m3 ha−1”
e2“3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation water”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Compared with 4200 m3 ha−1, 3360 m3 ha−1 reduced yield only 0.84%.
- Treatment
- 3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation watere2
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 0.84%e0
- Comparator
- 4200 m3 ha−1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in only a 0.84% decrease in yield”
e1“Compared to 4200 m3 ha−1”
e2“3360 m3 ha−1 of irrigation water”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 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
- negative
- no effect
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 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
- negative
- positive
- 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.