Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the responses of maize (Zea mays L.) to deficit irrigation. A field experiment was conducted during the 1999 and 2000 growing seasons in western Turkey. Irrigation treatments were tested with 100, 70, 50, 30 and 0% replenishment of water depleted at 120 cm soil profile from 100% replenishment treatment at ten days intervals. The irrigation amount ranged between 0 and 323.20 mm in the first year and 0-466.61 mm in the second year of the experiment. Seasonal crop water use values were between 142.19 and 481.91 mm in 1999 and 136.25-599.45 mm in 2000. Average maximum and minimum yields were 10639-10383 kg ha(-1) for full irrigated treatment (I100) and 3750-2136 kg ha(-1) for non-irrigated treatment (I0) in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Water deficit significantly affected maize yield. In both years, yield increased linearly with irrigation applied but the relationship varied from one year to the other. Water Use Efficiency (WUE) ranged from 1.49 to 2.71 kg m(-3), while Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (IWUE) varied from 1.44 to 2.55 kg m(-3) in both years. The yield response factor (ky) relating relative yield decrease to relative evapotranspiration deficit was found to be 0.99 for the data of the two experiments combined. Also, dry matter yields (DM) and leaf area index (LAI) were markedly affected by the irrigation treatments. The finding of this work showed that well-irrigated treatment should be used for maize grown in semi arid regions under no water scarcity.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal maize water use ranged from 142.19 to 481.91 mm in 1999.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seasonal crop water use values were between 142.19 and 481.91 mm in 1999”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal maize water use ranged from 136.25 to 599.45 mm in 2000.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seasonal crop water use values were between 142.19 and 481.91 mm in 1999 and 136.25-599.45 mm in 2000”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
Fully irrigated maize had maximum yields of 10639-10383 kg ha(-1) in 1999 and 2000.
- Treatment
- full irrigated treatment (I100)e0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 10639-10383 kg ha(-1)e0
- Qualifier
- 3750-2136 kg ha(-1)e0
- Comparator
- non-irrigated treatment (I0)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average maximum and minimum yields were 10639-10383 kg ha(-1) for full irrigated treatment (I100) and 3750-2136 kg ha(-1) for non-irrigated treatment (I0) in 1999 and 2000, respectively.”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield increased linearly with applied irrigation in both years, with variation between years.
- Treatment
- irrigation appliede0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- relationship varied from one year to the othere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both years, yield increased linearly with irrigation applied but the relationship varied from one year to the other.”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize water use efficiency ranged from 1.49 to 2.71 kg m(-3).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water Use Efficiency (WUE) ranged from 1.49 to 2.71 kg m(-3)”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize irrigation water use efficiency ranged from 1.44 to 2.55 kg m(-3).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (IWUE) varied from 1.44 to 2.55 kg m(-3) in both years.”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize yield response factor for combined experiments was 0.99.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield response factor (ky) relating relative yield decrease to relative evapotranspiration deficit was found to be 0.99 for the data of the two experiments combined.”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatments markedly affected maize dry matter yields.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dry matter yields (DM) and leaf area index (LAI) were markedly affected by the irrigation treatments.”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatments markedly affected maize leaf area index.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dry matter yields (DM) and leaf area index (LAI) were markedly affected by the irrigation treatments.”
t0“Maize Zea mays L.) in Turkey”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend full irrigation for maize in semi arid regions when water is available.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“well-irrigated treatment should be used for maize grown in semi arid regions under no water scarcity.”
The same questions in other 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
- 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.