Abstract
Abstract Integrated management of irrigation and fertilization could meet global increasing demand from maize production and environmental pressures under water scarcity. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the long‐term impact of irrigation scheduling and rates and timing of fertilization on water stress indicators, nitrogen uptake and leaching under maize on Chromic Luvisol (Sofia region). Modeling of the soil–plant system by the CERES‐maize model was used. Adjusted and modified CERES‐maize was run with different irrigation and fertilization scenarios and 30‐year weather data. Scenario analyses proved that grain yield and N‐uptake were severely affected on drylands under the conditions studied. Drought indicators showed that irrigation was required in 70% of the years. The sensitivity of maize drylands to precipitation in the critical (15 July–15 September) period caused great variability in maize yield ( C v =42%) and N‐uptake ( C v =25%) under nonlimited fertilization conditions. In addition, low vegetative precipitation proved to be a reason for fallow state leaching on drylands. All the irrigation scheduling tested improved N‐uptake efficiency, mitigated drought and significantly reduced yield and N‐uptake variability ( C v =5–6%). An integrated management strategy of N‐application timed to coincide with the period of maximum crop uptake and irrigation scheduled at 85% of field capacity reduced N available for leaching in the risky years. A drainage‐controlling scenario, developed for 75–80% of the required irrigation depth and satisfying predominantly the most sensitive phases of maize development, saved up to 95 mm yr −1 of water and reduced drainage in medium wet to wet fallow states by 30–40%. Significant early‐season N‐losses (25% of applied N) were associated with precipitation extremes and poor N‐dressing and could potentially happen in 3% of the years studied. Exceedance frequency of N‐uptake under nonlimited fertilization conditions and different irrigation strategies was used to adjust more accurately the fertilizer rates and timing for the soil and climate variability studied. Copyright © 2004 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Dryland conditions severely affected modeled maize grain yield.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Scenario analyses proved that grain yield and N‐uptake were severely affected on drylands under the conditions studied.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Dryland conditions severely affected modeled maize nitrogen uptake.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Scenario analyses proved that grain yield and N‐uptake were severely affected on drylands under the conditions studied.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought indicators called for irrigation in 70% of years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought indicators showed that irrigation was required in 70% of the years.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Critical-period precipitation sensitivity yielded 42% maize yield variability under nonlimited fertilizer.
- Outcome
- variability in maize yielde0
- Value
- C v =42%e0
- Qualifier
- critical (15 July–15 September) periode0
- Setting
- drylandse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The sensitivity of maize drylands to precipitation in the critical (15 July–15 September) period caused great variability in maize yield ( C v =42%) and N‐uptake ( C v =25%) under nonlimited fertilization conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
Critical-period precipitation sensitivity yielded 25% nitrogen uptake variability under nonlimited fertilizer.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The sensitivity of maize drylands to precipitation in the critical (15 July–15 September) period caused great variability in maize yield ( C v =42%) and N‐uptake ( C v =25%) under nonlimited fertilization conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
Low vegetative precipitation was identified as a reason for fallow-state leaching.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In addition, low vegetative precipitation proved to be a reason for fallow state leaching on drylands.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
All tested irrigation schedules improved modeled nitrogen uptake efficiency.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the irrigation scheduling tested improved N‐uptake efficiency, mitigated drought and significantly reduced yield and N‐uptake variability ( C v =5–6%).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
All tested irrigation schedules mitigated drought.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the irrigation scheduling tested improved N‐uptake efficiency, mitigated drought and significantly reduced yield and N‐uptake variability ( C v =5–6%).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
All tested irrigation schedules significantly reduced modeled yield variability to 5–6%.
- Treatment
- irrigation scheduling testede0
- Outcome
- yield and N‐uptake variabilitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- C v =5–6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the irrigation scheduling tested improved N‐uptake efficiency, mitigated drought and significantly reduced yield and N‐uptake variability ( C v =5–6%).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
All tested irrigation schedules significantly reduced modeled nitrogen uptake variability to 5–6%.
- Treatment
- irrigation scheduling testede0
- Outcome
- N‐uptake variabilitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- C v =5–6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the irrigation scheduling tested improved N‐uptake efficiency, mitigated drought and significantly reduced yield and N‐uptake variability ( C v =5–6%).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Timed nitrogen application with irrigation at 85% of field capacity reduced nitrogen available for leaching in risky years.
- Treatment
- N‐application timed to coincide with the period of maximum crop uptake and irrigation scheduled at 85% of field capacitye0
- Outcome
- N available for leachinge0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- risky yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An integrated management strategy of N‐application timed to coincide with the period of maximum crop uptake and irrigation scheduled at 85% of field capacity reduced N available for leaching in the risky years.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
A reduced-depth irrigation scenario saved up to 95 mm yr −1 water.
- Treatment
- 75–80% of the required irrigation depthe0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- up to 95 mm yr −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A drainage‐controlling scenario, developed for 75–80% of the required irrigation depth and satisfying predominantly the most sensitive phases of maize development, saved up to 95 mm yr −1 of water and reduced drainage in medium wet to wet fallow states by 30–40%.”
Claim · model-written summary
The reduced-depth irrigation scenario lowered drainage by 30–40% in medium wet to wet fallow states.
- Treatment
- 75–80% of the required irrigation depthe0
- Outcome
- drainagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 30–40%e0
- Qualifier
- medium wet to wet fallow statese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A drainage‐controlling scenario, developed for 75–80% of the required irrigation depth and satisfying predominantly the most sensitive phases of maize development, saved up to 95 mm yr −1 of water and reduced drainage in medium wet to wet fallow states by 30–40%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Precipitation extremes and poor N dressing were associated with early-season nitrogen losses of 25% of applied N in 3% of years.
- Treatment
- poor N‐dressinge0
- Outcome
- early‐season N‐lossese0
- Value
- 25% of applied Ne0
- Qualifier
- 3% of the years studiede0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant early‐season N‐losses (25% of applied N) were associated with precipitation extremes and poor N‐dressing and could potentially happen in 3% of the years studied.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen uptake exceedance frequency was used to adjust fertilizer rates and timing for soil and climate variability.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Exceedance frequency of N‐uptake under nonlimited fertilization conditions and different irrigation strategies was used to adjust more accurately the fertilizer rates and timing for the soil and climate variability studied.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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 · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
83 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 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
- no effect
- negative
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.