Abstract
The effects of full and limited irrigation and rainfed maize production practices on soil water extraction and water use efficiencies were investigated in 2009 and 2010 under center-pivot irrigation near Clay Center, Nebraska. Four irrigation regimes (fully irrigated treatment (FIT), 75% FIT, 60% FIT, and 50% FIT) and a rainfed treatment were implemented. The crop water use efficiency (CWUE, or crop water productivity), irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), and evapotranspiration water use efficiency (ETWUE) were used to evaluate the water productivity performance of each treatment. The seasonal rainfall amounts in 2009 and 2010, respectively, were 426 mm (18% below normal) and 563 mm (9% above normal). Irrigation regime impacted soil water extraction pattern, which increased with irrigation amounts. In general, the soil water extraction decreased with soil depth, and the water extraction from the top soil (0-0.30 m) accounted for the largest portion of the seasonal total water extraction as 39%, 42%, 48%, 48%, and 51% of the total extraction under rainfed, 50% FIT, 60% FIT, 75% FIT, and FIT, respectively. The rainfed treatment extracted more water from the 0.60-0.90 m and 0.90-1.2 m layers (19% and 17% of the total, respectively) than all other treatments. In general, the deepest soil layer (1.5-1.8 m) contributed about 5% to 8% to the seasonal total water extraction. The efficiency values for the same treatments varied between the years due to their dependency on the seasonal water supply, water supply impact on water extraction, climatic conditions, and their impact on yield. The CWUE increased with irrigation from 1.89 kg m-3 for the rainfed treatment to 2.58 kg m-3 for the 60% FIT in 2009 and from 2.03 kg m-3 for the rainfed treatment to 2.44 kg m-3 for the FIT in 2010. The CWUE was strongly correlated to actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa) (R2 = 0.99 in both years), irrigation amounts (R2 = 0.97 in both years), and grain yield (R2 = 0.95 in 2009 and R2 = 0.99 in 2010). The IWUE and ETWUE decreased with ETa and the irrigation amounts in 2009, while they showed the opposite trend in 2010. The IWUE ranged between 3.63 kg m-3 for FIT and 5.9 kg m-3 for 50% FIT in 2009 and between 2.52 kg m-3 for 50% FIT and 3.24 kg m-3 for 75% FIT in 2010. On average, 60% FIT resulted in the largest IWUE of 4.33 kg m-3. The measured ETWUE varied from 4.65 kg m-3 for FIT to 6.09 kg m-3 for 50% FIT in 2009 and from 5.94 kg m-3 for 50% FIT to 6.73 kg m-3 for FIT in 2010. The 60% FIT and 75% FIT had similar or greater CWUE and ETWUE than the FIT in both years. The ETWUE was usually greatest when the ETa was about 580 mm in 2009 and 634 mm in 2010, indicating that in these experimental, climate, and management conditions, the maximum ETWUE and crop water productivity can be obtained at ETa values smaller than those for the fully irrigated treatment. The 60% and 75% FIT treatments were very comparable to the fully irrigated treatment in terms of productivity performance and are viable supplemental irrigation strategies for increasing crop water productivity of maize while using (withdrawal) 40% or 25% less irrigation water 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water extraction increased with irrigation amounts.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation regime impacted soil water extraction pattern, which increased with irrigation amounts.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water extraction generally decreased with depth.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, the soil water extraction decreased with soil depth”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Topsoil supplied 39% of seasonal extraction under rainfed conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the water extraction from the top soil (0-0.30 m) accounted for the largest portion of the seasonal total water extraction as 39%, 42%, 48%, 48%, and 51% of the total extraction under rainfed, 50% FIT, 60% FIT, 75% FIT, and FIT, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Topsoil supplied 42% of seasonal extraction under 50% FIT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the water extraction from the top soil (0-0.30 m) accounted for the largest portion of the seasonal total water extraction as 39%, 42%, 48%, 48%, and 51% of the total extraction under rainfed, 50% FIT, 60% FIT, 75% FIT, and FIT, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Topsoil supplied 48% of seasonal extraction under 60% FIT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the water extraction from the top soil (0-0.30 m) accounted for the largest portion of the seasonal total water extraction as 39%, 42%, 48%, 48%, and 51% of the total extraction under rainfed, 50% FIT, 60% FIT, 75% FIT, and FIT, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Topsoil supplied 48% of seasonal extraction under 75% FIT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the water extraction from the top soil (0-0.30 m) accounted for the largest portion of the seasonal total water extraction as 39%, 42%, 48%, 48%, and 51% of the total extraction under rainfed, 50% FIT, 60% FIT, 75% FIT, and FIT, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Topsoil supplied 51% of seasonal extraction under FIT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the water extraction from the top soil (0-0.30 m) accounted for the largest portion of the seasonal total water extraction as 39%, 42%, 48%, 48%, and 51% of the total extraction under rainfed, 50% FIT, 60% FIT, 75% FIT, and FIT, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed maize extracted more water from the 0.60-0.90 m layer, contributing 19% of total extraction.
- Treatment
- rainfed treatmente0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Qualifier
- 0.60-0.90 me0
- Comparator
- all other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rainfed treatment extracted more water from the 0.60-0.90 m and 0.90-1.2 m layers (19% and 17% of the total, respectively) than all other treatments.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed maize extracted more water from the 0.90-1.2 m layer, contributing 17% of total extraction.
- Treatment
- rainfed treatmente0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Qualifier
- 0.90-1.2 me0
- Comparator
- all other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rainfed treatment extracted more water from the 0.60-0.90 m and 0.90-1.2 m layers (19% and 17% of the total, respectively) than all other treatments.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The deepest soil layer contributed about 5% to 8% of seasonal extraction.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, the deepest soil layer (1.5-1.8 m) contributed about 5% to 8% to the seasonal total water extraction.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water efficiencies varied between years with seasonal water supply, extraction, climate and yield.
- Outcome
- efficiency valuese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The efficiency values for the same treatments varied between the years due to their dependency on the seasonal water supply, water supply impact on water extraction, climatic conditions, and their impact on yield.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CWUE increased from rainfed 1.89 to 60% FIT 2.58 kg m-3 in 2009.
- Treatment
- 60% FITe0
- Outcome
- CWUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.58 kg m-3e0
- Qualifier
- 1.89 kg m-3e0
- Comparator
- rainfed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CWUE increased with irrigation from 1.89 kg m-3 for the rainfed treatment to 2.58 kg m-3 for the 60% FIT in 2009”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CWUE increased from rainfed 2.03 to FIT 2.44 kg m-3 in 2010.
- Treatment
- FITe0
- Outcome
- CWUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.44 kg m-3e0
- Qualifier
- 2.03 kg m-3e0
- Comparator
- rainfed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CWUE increased with irrigation from 1.89 kg m-3 for the rainfed treatment to 2.58 kg m-3 for the 60% FIT in 2009 and from 2.03 kg m-3 for the rainfed treatment to 2.44 kg m-3 for the FIT in 2010.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CWUE correlated strongly with evapotranspiration, irrigation and grain yield, with the reported R2 values.
- Treatment
- irrigation amountse0
- Outcome
- CWUEe0
- Qualifier
- actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa) (R2 = 0.99 in both years), irrigation amounts (R2 = 0.97 in both years), and grain yield (R2 = 0.95 in 2009 and R2 = 0.99 in 2010)e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CWUE was strongly correlated to actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa) (R2 = 0.99 in both years), irrigation amounts (R2 = 0.97 in both years), and grain yield (R2 = 0.95 in 2009 and R2 = 0.99 in 2010).”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
IWUE and ETWUE decreased with evapotranspiration and irrigation in 2009, but increased in 2010.
- Treatment
- irrigation amountse0
- Outcome
- IWUE and ETWUEe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- while they showed the opposite trend in 2010e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The IWUE and ETWUE decreased with ETa and the irrigation amounts in 2009, while they showed the opposite trend in 2010.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
IWUE ranged from FIT 3.63 to 50% FIT 5.9 kg m-3 in 2009, and from 50% FIT 2.52 to 75% FIT 3.24 kg m-3 in 2010.
- Outcome
- IWUEe0
- Qualifier
- between 3.63 kg m-3 for FIT and 5.9 kg m-3 for 50% FIT in 2009 and between 2.52 kg m-3 for 50% FIT and 3.24 kg m-3 for 75% FIT in 2010e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The IWUE ranged between 3.63 kg m-3 for FIT and 5.9 kg m-3 for 50% FIT in 2009 and between 2.52 kg m-3 for 50% FIT and 3.24 kg m-3 for 75% FIT in 2010.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
60% FIT produced the largest average IWUE, 4.33 kg m-3.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On average, 60% FIT resulted in the largest IWUE of 4.33 kg m-3.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ETWUE ranged from FIT 4.65 to 50% FIT 6.09 kg m-3 in 2009 and from 50% FIT 5.94 to FIT 6.73 kg m-3 in 2010.
- Outcome
- ETWUEe0
- Qualifier
- from 4.65 kg m-3 for FIT to 6.09 kg m-3 for 50% FIT in 2009 and from 5.94 kg m-3 for 50% FIT to 6.73 kg m-3 for FIT in 2010e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The measured ETWUE varied from 4.65 kg m-3 for FIT to 6.09 kg m-3 for 50% FIT in 2009 and from 5.94 kg m-3 for 50% FIT to 6.73 kg m-3 for FIT in 2010.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
60% and 75% FIT had similar or greater CWUE and ETWUE than FIT; ETWUE peaked at about 580 mm ETa in 2009 and 634 mm in 2010, below full irrigation ETa.
- Outcome
- CWUE and ETWUEe0
- Direction
- similar or greatere0
- Qualifier
- 580 mm in 2009 and 634 mm in 2010e1
- Comparator
- FITe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 60% FIT and 75% FIT had similar or greater CWUE and ETWUE than the FIT in both years.”
e1“The ETWUE was usually greatest when the ETa was about 580 mm in 2009 and 634 mm in 2010, indicating that in these experimental, climate, and management conditions, the maximum ETWUE and crop water productivity can be obtained at ETa values smaller than those for the fully irrigated treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 60% and 75% FIT as viable irrigation strategies with comparable productivity and 40% or 25% less irrigation water, respectively, under the studied conditions.
- Treatment
- 60% and 75% FIT treatmentse0
- Outcome
- viable supplemental irrigation strategiese0
- Qualifier
- 40% or 25% less irrigation watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 60% and 75% FIT treatments were very comparable to the fully irrigated treatment in terms of productivity performance and are viable supplemental irrigation strategies for increasing crop water productivity of maize while using (withdrawal) 40% or 25% less irrigation water under these experimental, soil and crop management, and climatic conditions.”
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
- no effect
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 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.