Claim · model-written summary
AFI at 80% crop water requirement decreased yield by 13.22% relative to CFI.
Triticum aestivumVerbatim
e0“AFI compared with CFI saved water by 39.13%, improved WUE by 31.86%, and loweredblue water footprint by 29.86%, with a moderate yield decrease (13.22%) at 80% crop water requirement”
t0“Wheat”
Title
Faisal Mehmood; Ghulam Murtaza Jafferi; Shoukat Ali Soomro; et al. International Journal of Agriculture & Sustainable Development 2025. doi:10.33411/ijasd/202573389414
Other claims from this paper (10)
- Observation Furrow irrigation method and irrigation level significantly affected growth, yield attributes, grain yield and biomass.
- Observation The interaction of irrigation method and level did not significantly affect those growth and yield endpoints.
- Intervention effect CFI grain yield was 11.1-15.3% higher than AFI and FFI.
- Intervention effect CFI biomass was 5.0-12.3% higher than AFI and FFI.
- Intervention effect CFI water use efficiency was 1.23-31.86% lower than AFI and FFI.
- Intervention effect CFI blue water footprint was 41.7-46.7% higher than AFI and FFI.
- Intervention effect AFI at 80% crop water requirement saved 39.13% water relative to CFI.
- Intervention effect AFI at 80% crop water requirement improved WUE by 31.86% relative to CFI.
- Intervention effect AFI at 80% crop water requirement lowered blue water footprint by 29.86% relative to CFI.
- Recommendation The authors recommend AFI at 80% crop water requirement for wheat in water-scarce areas.