Abstract
ABSRACT: Field experiments were conducted in 2009/10 and 2010/11 irrigation seasons at the Institute for Agricultural Research, Samaru Zaria, to assess the impact of two methods of administering Growth-stage deficit irrigation scheduling (GSDIS) on yield and soil water balance of an early maturing maize variety. The two methods include reducing water application depth at selected crop growth stages and skipping regular irrigation interval at selected crop growth stages. The test crop was SAMAS TZEE early maturing maize variety. Grain yield, biomass yield, harvest index, seasonal water applied, evapotranspiration and deep percolation and crop water productivity were determined. Grain and biomass yields ranged from 2.12 to 3.01 t/ha and 7.57 to 10.0t/ha, respectively, while seasonal evapotranspiration varied from 366 to 486.8 mm across the seasons. This study reveal that at vegetative growth stage of the maize crop, it is better to skip weekly irrigation (to irrigation every other week) and apply water to meet full water requirement than to maintain regular weekly irrigation but apply water at half water requirement. A grain filling to maturity stage, it is more advantageous to reduce irrigation water application by half water requirement than to skip weekly irrigation. Grain yield, biomass yield and seasonal evapotranspiration from such scheduling were not significantly different from that which received weekly irrigation throughout the crop growing season. Moreover, the productivity of water applied was higher while water loss to deep percolation was drastically reduced.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield ranged from 2.12 to 3.01 t/ha across seasons.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain and biomass yields ranged from 2.12 to 3.01 t/ha and 7.57 to 10.0t/ha, respectively”
t0“Maize Crop (SAMAS TZEE)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize biomass yield ranged from 7.57 to 10.0t/ha across seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain and biomass yields ranged from 2.12 to 3.01 t/ha and 7.57 to 10.0t/ha, respectively”
t0“Maize Crop (SAMAS TZEE)”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal evapotranspiration varied from 366 to 486.8 mm.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seasonal evapotranspiration varied from 366 to 486.8 mm across the seasons”
t0“Maize Crop”
Claim · model-written summary
At vegetative growth, the authors favor skipping weekly irrigation while meeting full water requirement over weekly half-requirement irrigation.
- Organ / stage
- vegetative growth stagee0
- Outcome
- skip weekly irrigation (to irrigation every other week) and apply water to meet full water requiremente0
- Comparator
- maintain regular weekly irrigation but apply water at half water requiremente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at vegetative growth stage of the maize crop, it is better to skip weekly irrigation (to irrigation every other week) and apply water to meet full water requirement than to maintain regular weekly irrigation but apply water at half water requirement”
Claim · model-written summary
From grain filling to maturity, the authors favor halving irrigation water over skipping weekly irrigation.
- Organ / stage
- grain filling to maturity stagee0
- Outcome
- reduce irrigation water application by half water requiremente0
- Comparator
- skip weekly irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A grain filling to maturity stage, it is more advantageous to reduce irrigation water application by half water requirement than to skip weekly irrigation”
t0“Maize Crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield under such schedules was not significantly different from weekly irrigation throughout the season.
- Treatment
- such schedulinge0
- Outcome
- Grain yielde0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Comparator
- weekly irrigation throughout the crop growing seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield, biomass yield and seasonal evapotranspiration from such scheduling were not significantly different from that which received weekly irrigation throughout the crop growing season”
t0“Maize Crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Biomass yield under such schedules was not significantly different from weekly irrigation throughout the season.
- Treatment
- such schedulinge0
- Outcome
- biomass yielde0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Comparator
- weekly irrigation throughout the crop growing seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield, biomass yield and seasonal evapotranspiration from such scheduling were not significantly different from that which received weekly irrigation throughout the crop growing season”
t0“Maize Crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal evapotranspiration under such schedules was not significantly different from weekly irrigation throughout the season.
- Treatment
- such schedulinge0
- Outcome
- seasonal evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Comparator
- weekly irrigation throughout the crop growing seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield, biomass yield and seasonal evapotranspiration from such scheduling were not significantly different from that which received weekly irrigation throughout the crop growing season”
t0“Maize Crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Productivity of applied water was higher under the recommended scheduling.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the productivity of water applied was higher”
t0“Growth-Stage Deficit Irrigation on Yield and Soil Water Balance of a Maize Crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep percolation water loss was drastically reduced under the recommended scheduling.
- Treatment
- Growth-Stage Deficit Irrigationt0
- Outcome
- water loss to deep percolatione0
- Direction
- drastically reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water loss to deep percolation was drastically reduced”
t0“Growth-Stage Deficit Irrigation on Yield and Soil Water Balance of a Maize Crop”
The same questions in other papers
stage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →stage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
94 papers more in this group
See all 98 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
- no effect
- negative
- negative
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
- negative
- positive
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.