Paper · 2013 · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Effect of water‐saving irrigation regime on whole‐plant yield and nutritive value of maize hybrids

Francesco Masoero; Antonio Gallo; Gianluca Giuberti; et al.

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
22
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effect of a water-saving irrigation regime on yield, chemical composition, rumen in situ dry matter disappearance (DMD) and neutral detergent fiber disappearance (NDFD), along with 7 h in vitro starch degradability (7 h IVSD), in maize hybrids selected for whole-plant silage making was investigated. A plot experiment was conducted in a continental climate location and four commercial maize hybrids (FAO class 700) were used in a completely randomized design with a factorial arrangement of irrigation treatments (fully irrigated (FI) and water-saving regime (WS)) and four replicates/treatment. The total amount of irrigation water was 494 mm in FI plots and 367 mm in WS plots, the latter achieved by skipping irrigations at vegetative growth stage, silking and blistering. RESULTS: Whole-plant yield, chemical composition, DMD, NDFD and 7 h IVSD slightly differed among hybrids and were not influenced by irrigation treatments. Plant dry matter content was lower in FI than WS plots (320 vs. 341 g kg⁻¹) , respectively; P < 0.05). Differences among hybrids were recorded for starch and acid detergent fiber contents (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of differences on yield and nutritive value in tested maize hybrids grown under different water supply suggests the water-saving regime could be suitable for an optimal use of available water in maize management.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Whole-plant yield and nutritive measures were not influenced by irrigation treatment.

Taxon
maize hybridst0
Treatment
irrigation treatmentse0
Outcome
Whole-plant yield, chemical composition, DMDe0
Direction
not influencede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Whole-plant yield, chemical composition, DMD, NDFD and 7 h IVSD slightly differed among hybrids and were not influenced by irrigation treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 803–948 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize hybrids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–98 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant dry matter content was lower with full irrigation than with water-saving irrigation.

Taxon
maize hybridst0
Treatment
FIe0
Outcome
Plant dry matter contente0
Direction
lowere0
Value
320 vs. 341 g kg⁻¹e0
Comparator
WS plotse0

Verbatim

e0

“Plant dry matter content was lower in FI than WS plots (320 vs. 341 g kg⁻¹) , respectively; P < 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1051 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize hybrids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–98 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Starch and acid detergent fiber contents differed among hybrids.

Taxon
maize hybridst0
Material
hybridse0
Outcome
starch and acid detergent fiber contentse0

Verbatim

e0

“Differences among hybrids were recorded for starch and acid detergent fiber contents (P < 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1052–1148 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize hybrids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–98 · show in text ↑

irrigation · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 12 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

289 papers: 208 positive, 81 negative or no effect

80 papers in the same direction as this paper · 208 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

285 papers more in this group

See all 289 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.