Abstract
Because dwindling water supplies are limiting crop production, a field study was conducted during 2005-2009 in southwest Kansas to determine the yield response of grain sorghum to irrigation and evapotranspiration (ETc) and to measure plant growth parameters and soil water use. Sorghum was grown in a five-year rotation of corn-corn-wheat-sorghum-sunflower. Six irrigation treatments were imposed by applying 25 mm of irrigation every 6 to 26 days. Wheat stubble covered 59% to 68% of the soil surface soon after sorghum planting. Sorghum growth stages were not affected by irrigation treatments except maturity in the drier treatments. The soil retained nearly the same amount of dormant season precipitation across all irrigation treatments (34% to 41%), but the sorghum receiving the least irrigation was able to use 56 mm more stored soil water during the following growing season than in the fully irrigated treatment. Grain yield (GY) and total dry matter (DM) decreased significantly as irrigation decreased, but the GY and DM produced by the least irrigation were 91% and 89% of the full irrigation, respectively. Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) decreased significantly (from 527 to 459 mm) as irrigation decreased. Because measured ETc for the driest treatment was 87% of fully irrigated ETc, a linear regression of GY data with respect to ETc was not realistic until threshold values of ETc (ETc required to produce the first increment of grain) from prior field research were added to the data set. GY increased linearly with added irrigation, which was not expected because yield usually responds to irrigation in a diminishing-return fashion. In this case, sorghum, traditionally a dryland crop in the region, was able to utilize stored soil water following wheat to compensate for less irrigation. Small year-to-year variation in GY across irrigation treatments indicates that sorghum would be a good crop when water is very limited and would reduce potential income risk among years. Sorghum planted in part of an irrigated field would allow more water to be applied to a companion crop, such as corn, which needs more water but has more income potential.
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
Irrigation did not affect sorghum growth stages except maturity under drier treatments.
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- growth stagese0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Qualifier
- except maturity in the drier treatmentse0
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sorghum growth stages were not affected by irrigation treatments except maturity in the drier treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
The soil retained 34% to 41% of dormant season precipitation across irrigation treatments.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The soil retained nearly the same amount of dormant season precipitation across all irrigation treatments (34% to 41%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The least irrigated sorghum used 56 mm more stored soil water than fully irrigated sorghum.
- Treatment
- least irrigatione0
- Outcome
- stored soil watere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 56 mme0
- Comparator
- fully irrigated treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the sorghum receiving the least irrigation was able to use 56 mm more stored soil water during the following growing season than in the fully irrigated treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield decreased significantly with less irrigation; the least irrigated treatment produced 91% of full irrigation yield.
- Treatment
- least irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Grain yield (GY)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 91%e0
- Comparator
- full irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield (GY) and total dry matter (DM) decreased significantly as irrigation decreased, but the GY and DM produced by the least irrigation were 91% and 89% of the full irrigation, respectively.”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Total dry matter decreased significantly with less irrigation; the least irrigated treatment produced 89% of full irrigation dry matter.
- Treatment
- least irrigatione0
- Outcome
- total dry matter (DM)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 89%e0
- Comparator
- full irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield (GY) and total dry matter (DM) decreased significantly as irrigation decreased, but the GY and DM produced by the least irrigation were 91% and 89% of the full irrigation, respectively.”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop evapotranspiration decreased significantly from 527 to 459 mm as irrigation decreased.
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Crop evapotranspiration (ETc)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- from 527 to 459 mme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) decreased significantly (from 527 to 459 mm) as irrigation decreased.”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Measured evapotranspiration under the driest treatment was 87% of fully irrigated evapotranspiration.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“measured ETc for the driest treatment was 87% of fully irrigated ETc”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield increased linearly as irrigation was added.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GY increased linearly with added irrigation”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Year to year grain yield varied little across irrigation treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Small year-to-year variation in GY across irrigation treatments”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend sorghum as a crop when water is very limited to reduce income risk across years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sorghum would be a good crop when water is very limited and would reduce potential income risk among years”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting sorghum in part of an irrigated field would permit more irrigation of a companion crop.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sorghum planted in part of an irrigated field would allow more water to be applied to a companion crop, such as corn”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · SorghumPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · growth · SorghumPositive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 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.