Abstract
Abstract Sprinkler irrigation of rice ( Oryza sativa L.) could conserve water and lower production costs. Tests were conducted for 3 yr (1982–1984) on a Beaumont clay soil (Entic Pelludert) to evaluate 12 rice cultivars under flood and three levels of sprinkler irrigation. Plant growth (height), plant development (days to heading and harvest), yield, yield components, and quality were monitored. Irrigation treatments were main plots and cultivars were subplots. Irrigation treatments 100, 50, and 25 replaced 100, 50, and 25% of estimated evapotranspiration (ET e ). Total water applied was 931 mm (1982), 1171 mm (1983), and 1061 mm (1984) for Treatment 100. These applications exceeded the ET e of flooded rice by 331 to 571 mm. Compared to flood irrigation, sprinkler treatments reduced plant height by 0.09 to 0.28 m. Days to heading varied by cultivar and irrigation treatment while days to harvest was not affected by the irrigation treatments. Milled grain was not influenced by irrigation. Compared to the average yield for flood irrigation, sprinkler irrigation reduced yield over 20% with Treatment 100 and key cultivar yields were reduced 28%. Yield loss from Treatment 100 could not be attributed to weeds, diseases, or water availability. Yield loss was due to reduced florets/panicle and reduced fertile florets. With a yield differential in excess of 20%, sprinkler irrigation does not appear to be a viable alternative to conventional flood irrigation in traditional rice‐growing areas.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Sprinkler irrigation applied more water than estimated flooded-rice evapotranspiration.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativat0 - Outcome
- applicationse0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Value
- 331 to 571 mme0
- Comparator
- ET e of flooded ricee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These applications exceeded the ET e of flooded rice by 331 to 571 mm.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprinkler irrigation reduced plant height by 0.09 to 0.28 m compared with flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- sprinkler treatmentse0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 0.09 to 0.28 me0
- Comparator
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to flood irrigation, sprinkler treatments reduced plant height by 0.09 to 0.28 m.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Heading time varied with cultivar and irrigation treatment.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Material
- cultivare0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- Days to headinge0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Days to heading varied by cultivar and irrigation treatment”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatment did not affect harvest timing.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- days to harveste0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“days to harvest was not affected by the irrigation treatments.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation did not influence milled grain.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Milled graine0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Milled grain was not influenced by irrigation.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment 100 sprinkler irrigation reduced average yield by more than 20% compared with flooding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Treatment 100e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- over 20%e0
- Comparator
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the average yield for flood irrigation, sprinkler irrigation reduced yield over 20% with Treatment 100”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Key cultivar yields were reduced by 28% under sprinkler irrigation.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- sprinkler irrigatione1
- Outcome
- key cultivar yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Comparator
- flood irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“key cultivar yields were reduced 28%.”
e1“Compared to the average yield for flood irrigation, sprinkler irrigation reduced yield over 20% with Treatment 100”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield loss under Treatment 100 was attributed to fewer florets and fertile florets per panicle.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Treatment 100e1
- Outcome
- Yield losse0
- Qualifier
- reduced florets/panicle and reduced fertile floretse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield loss was due to reduced florets/panicle and reduced fertile florets.”
e1“Compared to the average yield for flood irrigation, sprinkler irrigation reduced yield over 20% with Treatment 100”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude sprinkler irrigation is not viable in traditional rice-growing areas with yield losses over 20%.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- sprinkler irrigation does not appear to be a viable alternative to conventional flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With a yield differential in excess of 20%, sprinkler irrigation does not appear to be a viable alternative to conventional flood irrigation in traditional rice‐growing areas.”
t0“Rice”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 222 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
287 papers more in this group
See all 291 papers →irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
264 papers in the same direction as this paper · 906 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1,167 papers more in this group
See all 1,171 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.