Abstract
Abstract. South-central Nebraska is one of the most extensively irrigated areas in the U.S., with over 65,000 active irrigation wells, and maize is the major agronomical crop produced. Maize production in this region requires supplementary irrigation for maximum productivity. Effective on-farm implementation of full and limited irrigation practices for potential improvements of crop productivity requires knowledge of locally developed crop yield response to water functions. In this study, the effects of full and limited irrigation practices on maize (Zea mays L.) plant height, leaf area index (LAI), grain yield and biomass production, actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa), yield production functions, yield response factors (Ky), and harvest index (HI) were investigated. Field experiments were conducted in 2009 and 2010 under center-pivot irrigation at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, South Central Agricultural Laboratory near Clay Center, Nebraska. Four irrigation regimes [fully irrigated treatment (FIT), 75% FIT, 60% FIT, and 50% FIT] and a rainfed treatment were evaluated each year. Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes. Maize yields varied from 9.05 Mg ha-1 for the rainfed treatment to 15.5 Mg ha-1 for FIT in 2009 and from 11.7 to 15.5 Mg ha-1 for the respective treatments in 2010. HI ranged between 0.49 for rainfed and 0.57 for FIT with an all-treatment average of 0.54. ETa ranged from 481 mm for rainfed treatment to 620 mm for FIT in 2009 and from 579 to 634 mm for the same treatments in 2010. Strong yield vs. irrigation relationships (R2 ≥ 0.98 in both years) and yield vs. ETa relationships (R2 = 0.94 in 2009 and R2 = 0.97 in 2010) were measured. There was a strong linear increase in ETa with increasing irrigation amounts (R2 ≥ 0.97). The yield-irrigation and yield-ETa relationships showed variation between the two years due to the impact of weather variability on these relationships, indicating the importance of accounting for weather variability impact on the slopes of crop yield production functions. Based on the slopes of the ETa vs. grain yield relationships, 1.2 Mg ha-1 (in 2009) and 1.7 Mg ha-1 (in 2010) of grain yield was produced per 25.4 mm of ETa beyond 280 mm (in 2009) and 403 mm (in 2010) of ETa that was used by maize to start producing grain yield, which is also called the amount of ETa required for establishing grain yield. Yield response factors varied between treatments and with year for the same treatment and averaged 1.65 in 2009 and 2.85 in 2010, with a two-year average of 1.82. No statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in grain yield was found between 75% FIT and 100% FIT. In terms of crop response to water performance, the 75% FIT and 60% FIT treatments were very comparable to the fully irrigated treatment and are viable practices in increasing crop water productivity of maize with supplementary irrigation under these experimental, soil and crop management, and climatic conditions.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Maize ETa, LAI and biomass production were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes.
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yields in 2009 varied from 9.05 Mg ha-1 under the rainfed treatment to 15.5 Mg ha-1 under FIT.
- Outcome
- Maize yieldse2
- Value
- 9.05 Mg ha-1 for the rainfed treatment to 15.5 Mg ha-1 for FITe2
- Setting
- in 2009e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Maize yields varied from 9.05 Mg ha-1 for the rainfed treatment to 15.5 Mg ha-1 for FIT in 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yields in 2010 varied from 11.7 to 15.5 Mg ha-1 across the respective treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Maize yields varied from 9.05 Mg ha-1 for the rainfed treatment to 15.5 Mg ha-1 for FIT in 2009”
e3“from 11.7 to 15.5 Mg ha-1 for the respective treatments in 2010”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest index ranged from 0.49 under rainfed to 0.57 under FIT, with an all-treatment average of 0.54.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e4“HI ranged between 0.49 for rainfed and 0.57 for FIT with an all-treatment average of 0.54”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize ETa ranged from 481 mm under rainfed to 620 mm under FIT in 2009.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e5“ETa ranged from 481 mm for rainfed treatment to 620 mm for FIT in 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize ETa ranged from 579 mm to 634 mm under the same treatments in 2010.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e5“ETa ranged from 481 mm for rainfed treatment to 620 mm for FIT in 2009”
e6“from 579 to 634 mm for the same treatments in 2010”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield versus ETa relationship had R2 of 0.94 in 2009.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“yield vs. ETa relationships (R2 = 0.94 in 2009 and R2 = 0.97 in 2010)”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield versus ETa relationship had R2 of 0.97 in 2010.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“yield vs. ETa relationships (R2 = 0.94 in 2009 and R2 = 0.97 in 2010)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield-irrigation and yield-ETa relationships varied between the two years, attributed to weather variability.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“The yield-irrigation and yield-ETa relationships showed variation between the two years due to the impact of weather variability on these relationships”
Claim · model-written summary
Accounting for weather variability in the slopes of crop yield production functions is important.
- Outcome
- accounting for weather variability impact on the slopes of crop yield production functionse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“accounting for weather variability impact on the slopes of crop yield production functions”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize produced 1.2 Mg ha-1 of grain yield per 25.4 mm of ETa beyond 280 mm in 2009.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“Based on the slopes of the ETa vs. grain yield relationships, 1.2 Mg ha-1 (in 2009)”
e3“beyond 280 mm (in 2009) and 403 mm (in 2010) of ETa”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize produced 1.7 Mg ha-1 of grain yield per 25.4 mm of ETa beyond 403 mm in 2010.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“1.7 Mg ha-1 (in 2010) of grain yield was produced per 25.4”
e3“beyond 280 mm (in 2009) and 403 mm (in 2010) of ETa”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response factor averaged 1.65 in 2009.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“Yield response factors varied between treatments and with year for the same treatment and averaged 1.65 in 2009 and 2.85 in 2010, with a two-year average of 1.82”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response factor averaged 2.85 in 2010.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“Yield response factors varied between treatments and with year for the same treatment and averaged 1.65 in 2009 and 2.85 in 2010, with a two-year average of 1.82”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response factor averaged 1.82 over the two years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“Yield response factors varied between treatments and with year for the same treatment and averaged 1.65 in 2009 and 2.85 in 2010, with a two-year average of 1.82”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield did not differ significantly between 75% FIT and 100% FIT.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize ETa, LAI, biomass production, grain yield, and HI were significantly affected by the irrigation regimes”
e2“No statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in grain yield was found between 75% FIT and 100% FIT”
Claim · model-written summary
The 75% FIT and 60% FIT treatments were comparable to fully irrigated maize in crop water productivity and are viable practices.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the 75% FIT and 60% FIT treatments were very comparable to the fully irrigated treatment and are viable practices in increasing crop water productivity of maize”
The same questions in other 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
- positive
- positive
- positive
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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.