Abstract
Abstract Farmers are being encouraged to shift from conventional surface irrigation to sprinkler irrigation in the semi‐arid region where coarse‐textured soil is predominant in order to improve irrigation efficiency, but their irrigation and fertilization are currently scheduled by the traditional methods obtained from surface irrigation due to insufficient knowledge of the relatively new technology of sprinkler irrigation. This often results in an inefficient use of water and nutrients and a decreased crop yield. The objective of this paper was to quantify the response of maize growth, nitrogen uptake, yield, yield components, water productivity and nitrogen agronomic efficiency to different irrigation and nitrogen application rates under semi‐arid conditions and to determine an optimal irrigation and nitrogen regime for sprinkler irrigation. Field experiments were conducted on a very coarse sandy soil irrigated by a lateral move sprinkler system in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in 2012 and 2013. Three irrigation levels of 40, 70 and 100% of evapotranspiration (ET c ) and four nitrogen application rates of 80, 160, 240 and 320 kg ha ‐1 were tested in 2012. Whereas in 2013, four irrigation levels of 40, 70, 100 and 130% of ET c and four nitrogen application rates similar to the 2012 experiments were used. For the very coarse soil tested, the irrigation level demonstrated a substantially more important influence on plant growth than nitrogen application rate. A higher irrigation level produced a significantly greater plant height, leaf area index (LAI), dry matter above ground, plant nitrogen uptake, yield and nitrogen agronomic efficiencies (NAE) when irrigation level was between 40 and 100% ET c . However, when the irrigation level exceeded 100% ET c , a reduced yield and NAE was observed. In 2012, the nitrogen application rate of 160 kg ha ‐1 usually gave a slightly higher yield and irrigation water productivity (IWP). Whereas in 2013, the nitrogen application rate of 240 kg ha ‐1 resulted in the greatest yield and IWP. No significant difference in yield, IWP and NAE was observed between the treatments with nitrogen application rates of 160 and 240 kg ha ‐1 for both 2012 and 2013 experiments. A management practice of irrigation at 100% ET c, along with nitrogen application rate of 160 kg ha ‐1 , was therefore recommended. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Higher irrigation level increased plant height, leaf area index and dry matter above ground compared with lower irrigation when irrigation was between 40 and 100% ETc.
- Treatment
- higher irrigation levele1
- Outcome
- plant height, leaf area index (LAI), dry matter above grounde1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Qualifier
- between 40 and 100% ET ce1
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A higher irrigation level produced a significantly greater plant height, leaf area index (LAI), dry matter above ground, plant nitrogen uptake, yield and nitrogen agronomic efficiencies (NAE) when irrigation level was between 40 and 100% ET c”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher irrigation level increased plant nitrogen uptake, yield and nitrogen agronomic efficiency when irrigation was between 40 and 100% ETc.
- Treatment
- higher irrigation levele1
- Outcome
- plant nitrogen uptake, yield and nitrogen agronomic efficiencies (NAE)e1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Qualifier
- between 40 and 100% ET ce1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A higher irrigation level produced a significantly greater plant height, leaf area index (LAI), dry matter above ground, plant nitrogen uptake, yield and nitrogen agronomic efficiencies (NAE) when irrigation level was between 40 and 100% ET c”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation above 100% ETc reduced yield and nitrogen agronomic efficiency.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“However, when the irrigation level exceeded 100% ET c , a reduced yield and NAE was observed”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2012, 160 kg ha-1 nitrogen usually gave slightly higher yield and irrigation water productivity.
- Treatment
- nitrogen application rate of 160 kg ha ‐1e3
- Outcome
- yield and irrigation water productivity (IWP)e3
- Direction
- highere3
- Qualifier
- slightlye3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“In 2012, the nitrogen application rate of 160 kg ha ‐1 usually gave a slightly higher yield and irrigation water productivity (IWP)”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2013, 240 kg ha-1 nitrogen gave the greatest yield and irrigation water productivity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Whereas in 2013, the nitrogen application rate of 240 kg ha ‐1 resulted in the greatest yield and IWP”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
No significant difference in yield, water productivity or nitrogen agronomic efficiency between 160 and 240 kg ha-1 nitrogen in either year.
- Treatment
- nitrogen application rates of 160 and 240 kg ha ‐1e5
- Outcome
- yield, IWP and NAEe5
- Direction
- No significant differencee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“No significant difference in yield, IWP and NAE was observed between the treatments with nitrogen application rates of 160 and 240 kg ha ‐1 for both 2012 and 2013 experiments”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation level had a more important influence on maize plant growth than nitrogen application rate on this very coarse soil.
- Treatment
- irrigation levele6
- Outcome
- plant growthe6
- Direction
- more importante6
- Comparator
- nitrogen application ratee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“For the very coarse soil tested, the irrigation level demonstrated a substantially more important influence on plant growth than nitrogen application rate”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at 100% ETc with 160 kg ha-1 nitrogen was recommended as the management practice.
- Outcome
- irrigation at 100% ET ce7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“A management practice of irrigation at 100% ET c , along with nitrogen application rate of 160 kg ha ‐1 , was therefore recommended”
t0“Response of Maize Growth and Yield”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →nitrogen · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
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.