Paper · 2006 · 2006 Portland, Oregon, July 9-12, 2006

Simulation of Spatially Variable Precision Irrigation and Its Effects On Corn Growth Using CERES-Maize

Kendall DeJonge; Amy Kaleita

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
4
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Few studies have been done considering the possibility of irrigation systems in Iowaor other humid regions. Recent technological progress in precision agriculture may allow irrigation inthese areas to become more economically feasible. Crop models have emerged as a method toevaluate different crop management practices such as irrigation without costly and time-consumingonsite experiments. In this study, the CERES-Maize crop model was used in conjunction withAPOLLO, a shell program developed at Iowa State University, to evaluate potential improved yield ina central Iowa cornfield on a spatially and temporally variable basis. Five years of historical yield andweather data were used to calibrate the model over 100 spatially variable grids for nonirrigatedconditions in the 20.25 ha field. This calibrated model then used 28 years of historical weather datato simulate three irrigation scenarios: no irrigation, scheduled uniform irrigation, and precisionirrigation. 30 mm irrigations were applied when the percent of available soil water fell below 50percent. Irrigation improved yield by at least 1000 kg ha-1 in half of the years simulated, and alsoshowed to have less variability both spatially and temporally. Precision irrigation showed slightlyhigher yields than scheduled uniform irrigation. Spatial variability of yield was most influence bytopography, with the largest improvements occurring on steep sideslopes and hilltops. Assuminguse of a center pivot irrigation system, irrigation showed economic returns in only three of the 28years included in the study. High capital costs were the leading restrictor of economic feasibility.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation improved simulated yield by at least 1000 kg ha-1 in half the years.

Treatment
Irrigatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
improvede0
Value
at least 1000 kg ha-1e0
Qualifier
in half of the years simulatede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Irrigation improved yield by at least 1000 kg ha-1 in half of the years simulated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1067–1148 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation reduced spatial and temporal yield variability.

Treatment
Irrigatione0
Outcome
variability both spatially and temporallye0
Direction
lesse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Irrigation improved yield by at least 1000 kg ha-1 in half of the years simulated, and alsoshowed to have less variability both spatially and temporally”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1067–1219 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Precision irrigation yielded slightly more than scheduled uniform irrigation.

Treatment
Precision irrigatione0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
slightlyhighere0
Comparator
scheduled uniform irrigatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Precision irrigation showed slightlyhigher yields than scheduled uniform irrigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1221–1304 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–77 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Topography most influenced spatial yield variability.

Outcome
Spatial variability of yielde0
Setting
topographye0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spatial variability of yield was most influence bytopography”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1306–1366 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–77 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Largest yield improvements occurred on steep sideslopes and hilltops.

Outcome
improvementse0
Direction
largeste0
Setting
steep sideslopes and hilltopse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“largest improvements occurring on steep sideslopes and hilltops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1377–1440 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–77 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation returned economically in only three of 28 years.

Outcome
economic returnse0
Value
three of the 28yearse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“irrigation showed economic returns in only three of the 28years included in the study”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1491–1576 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–77 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

High capital costs were the leading constraint on economic feasibility.

Treatment
High capital costse0
Outcome
economic feasibilitye0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“High capital costs were the leading restrictor of economic feasibility”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1578–1648 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–77 · show in text ↑

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

1,016 papers: 791 positive, 225 negative or no effect

790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. 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.