Abstract
Reducing irrigation water requirements with furrow irrigation systems is important in the Southern High Plains. Growing grain sorghum, without a preplant irrigation, can potentially reduce irrigation water use and increase crop water use efficiency (WUE), defined as yield/ET. ET includes irrigation, rainfall, and soil water depletion during the crop season. A four-year study was conducted at Bushland, Texas where three tillage methods were evaluated for their effect on off-season soil water storage, furrow irrigation water intake, grain yield, and WUE; both with and without preplant irrigation. Treatments receiving a preplant (PP) irrigation averaged 483 mm (19 in.) of irrigation intake compared with only 280 mm (11 in.) for the treatments without a preplant irrigation (No-PP). This was a 70% increase in irrigation intake for the PP treatment with only a 10% increase in grain yield. The extra pumping cost for the PP irrigation was about $10.00/ha ($4/acre) more than the value of the increased grain yield. Tillage method did not affect over-winter soil water storage and only slightly affected irrigation intake, grain yield, and WUE. Only about 25% of the PP irrigation water intake was recovered in soil water storage. Irrigation intake is defined as the amount applied through graded furrows minus the tailwater runoff. Although the No-PP soil profile averaged 204 mm (8 in.) of soil water in storage (82% of field capacity) to 1.8 m (6 ft) deep, the lack of late April or early May precipitation in two of the four years resulted in a relatively dry seedbed at planting time. Thus, the No-PP irrigation treatment planting was delayed from May until occurrence of early June rainfall. The later planting dates (June 14 and 22) reduced grain yield up to 10%, however, WUE was increased up to 20% by avoiding the preplant irrigation.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant irrigation averaged 483 mm of irrigation intake versus 280 mm without preplant irrigation in sorghum.
- Treatment
- preplant (PP) irrigatione1
- Outcome
- irrigation intakee1
- Direction
- higherinferrede1
- Value
- 483 mm (19 in.)e1
- Qualifier
- 280 mm (11 in.)e1
- Comparator
- treatments without a preplant irrigation (No-PP)e1
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Treatments receiving a preplant (PP) irrigation averaged 483 mm (19 in.) of irrigation intake compared with only 280 mm (11 in.) for the treatments without a preplant irrigation (No-PP)”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant irrigation increased sorghum irrigation intake by 70%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“This was a 70% increase in irrigation intake for the PP treatment with only a 10% increase in grain yield”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant irrigation increased sorghum grain yield by only 10%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“This was a 70% increase in irrigation intake for the PP treatment with only a 10% increase in grain yield”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
The extra pumping cost of preplant irrigation was about $10.00/ha more than the value of the increased grain yield.
- Treatment
- PP irrigatione3
- Outcome
- extra pumping coste3
- Direction
- moree3
- Value
- $10.00/ha ($4/acre)e3
- Comparator
- the value of the increased grain yielde3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The extra pumping cost for the PP irrigation was about $10.00/ha ($4/acre) more than the value of the increased grain yield”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage method did not affect over-winter soil water storage in sorghum.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Tillage method did not affect over-winter soil water storage and only slightly affected irrigation intake, grain yield, and WUE”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage method only slightly affected sorghum irrigation intake, grain yield and WUE.
- Treatment
- Tillage methode4
- Outcome
- irrigation intake, grain yield, and WUEe4
- Direction
- only slightly affectede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Tillage method did not affect over-winter soil water storage and only slightly affected irrigation intake, grain yield, and WUE”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
About 25% of preplant irrigation water intake was recovered in soil water storage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Only about 25% of the PP irrigation water intake was recovered in soil water storage”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
The No-PP soil profile averaged 204 mm of soil water in storage, 82% of field capacity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Although the No-PP soil profile averaged 204 mm (8 in.) of soil water in storage (82% of field capacity) to 1.8 m (6 ft) deep”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Lack of late April or early May precipitation in two of four years resulted in a relatively dry sorghum seedbed at planting.
- Treatment
- lack of late April or early May precipitatione7
- Outcome
- relatively dry seedbed at planting timee7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“the lack of late April or early May precipitation in two of the four years resulted in a relatively dry seedbed at planting time”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Later planting dates (June 14 and 22) reduced sorghum grain yield by up to 10%.
- Treatment
- later planting dates (June 14 and 22)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- up to 10%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The later planting dates (June 14 and 22) reduced grain yield up to 10%”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Avoiding preplant irrigation increased sorghum WUE by up to 20%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“WUE was increased up to 20% by avoiding the preplant irrigation”
t0“Effect of Tillage and Preplant Irrigation on Sorghum Production”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →tillage · soil: physics · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · SorghumPositive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →sowing time · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
67 papers more in this group
See all 71 papers →irrigation · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 94 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 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.