Claim · model-written summary
Different irrigation in the wheat season had no effect on subsequent maize in normal years.
- Treatment
- Different irrigation in wheat seasone5
- Outcome
- subsequent maizee5
- Direction
- no effecte5
- Qualifier
- in normal yearse5
Zea maysNot reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Different irrigation in wheat season had no effect on subsequent maize in normal years”
Title
Lei Yang; Xiangyang Fang; Jie Zhou; et al. Agricultural Water Management 2024. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108726
Other claims from this paper (10)
- Intervention effect Irrigation improved wheat yield relative to no irrigation.
- Intervention effect Irrigation enhanced evapotranspiration, spike number and grain number in wheat.
- Intervention effect Irrigation enhanced 1000-seed weight in wheat.
- Intervention effect The water-limited gap in yield and WP between W2 and W1 was significantly higher than the gaps between W1 and W0 and between W3 and W2.
- Association Wheat yield was affected by cumulative precipitation to jointing (P1) rather than by total precipitation.
- Intervention effect W1 increased maize yield by 13.2–29.3% compared with other treatments in dry years.
- Intervention effect W1 increased maize water productivity by 16.1–41.8% compared with other treatments in dry years.
- Recommendation The authors recommend W2 to achieve higher annual yield, WP and net income in normal years.
- Recommendation The authors recommend W1 to lower irrigation water consumption and achieve higher WP and economic benefits in dry years.
- Recommendation The authors conclude that W2 is the suitable irrigation strategy in wheat production.