Abstract
A study was conducted in Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia South during the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 with the objective to evaluate the impact of different irrigation treatments on soil and crops yield. The experiment was conducted on farmers field. The initial soil pH was about 8.0 while ECe and SAR ranged between 2.0 to 4.1 dS m-1 and 3.5 to 5.6 (mmolc L-1) 1/2, respectively with sandy loam texture. The brackish water used for irrigation had ECw SAR and RSC between 5.6 to 6.7 dS m-1, 15.1 to 16.4 (mmolc L-1)1/2 and 1.52 to 1.64 mmolc L-1. The crops tested were wheat during Rabi and cotton during Kharif season. The treatments tested were: all irrigations with canal water (T1), canal water during Rabi and drainage water during Kharif (T2), drainage water for two years and canal water for one season (T3); and drainage water for three years + application of gypsum at a rate of 25% of CWR and there-after canal water for one season (T4). The soil samples were taken before sowing and at harvesting of each crop to monitor changes in soil salinity/sodicity. Fertilizers were applied at a rate of 120-60-50 N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1, respectively in the form of area, di-ammonium phosphate and sulphate of potash. It was observed that crop yields were considerably higher with canal water irrigation. Crops irrigated with drainage water visualized yield reduction depending upon the share of drainage water in the irrigation delta. Application of gypsum provided reasonable check against salinity buildup with brackish water irrigation besides a nominal boost in crop yield over comparable treatment of year-round brackish water irrigation lacking gypsum application. Drainage water in alternate arrangement of seasonal application was better than year- round application. Irrigation with canal water had higher soil infiltration rate whereas drainage water had some adverse effect on soil permeability. Soil ECe, and SAR increased with the use of drainage water while irrigation with canal water resulted decrease in soil salinity and sodicity to some extent. The results advocate that where there is acute shortage of canal water, drainage water can be used for crop production by adopting appropriate irrigation schedule or application of gypsum on water quality basis.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
wheat yield was higher under canal water irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- canal water irrigatione0
- Outcome
- crop yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It was observed that crop yields were considerably higher with canal water irrigation.”
t0“The crops tested were wheat during Rabi and cotton during Kharif season.”
Claim · model-written summary
cotton yield was higher under canal water irrigation.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- canal water irrigatione0
- Outcome
- crop yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It was observed that crop yields were considerably higher with canal water irrigation.”
t0“The crops tested were wheat during Rabi and cotton during Kharif season.”
Claim · model-written summary
wheat yield declined with drainage water irrigation, depending on its share of irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- drainage watere0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- depending upon the share of drainage water in the irrigation deltae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crops irrigated with drainage water visualized yield reduction depending upon the share of drainage water in the irrigation delta.”
t0“The crops tested were wheat during Rabi and cotton during Kharif season.”
Claim · model-written summary
cotton yield declined with drainage water irrigation, depending on its share of irrigation.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- drainage watere0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- depending upon the share of drainage water in the irrigation deltae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crops irrigated with drainage water visualized yield reduction depending upon the share of drainage water in the irrigation delta.”
t0“The crops tested were wheat during Rabi and cotton during Kharif season.”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum checked salinity buildup under brackish water irrigation.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Application of gypsum provided reasonable check against salinity buildup with brackish water irrigation”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum nominally increased crop yield relative to year-round brackish water irrigation without gypsum.
Verbatim
e0“a nominal boost in crop yield over comparable treatment of year-round brackish water irrigation lacking gypsum application”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonally alternating drainage water performed better than year-round drainage water.
Verbatim
e0“Drainage water in alternate arrangement of seasonal application was better than year- round application.”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Canal water irrigation produced a higher soil infiltration rate.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation with canal water had higher soil infiltration rate whereas drainage water had some adverse effect on soil permeability.”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Drainage water adversely affected soil permeability.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“drainage water had some adverse effect on soil permeability.”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil ECe increased with drainage water use.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Soil ECe, and SAR increased with the use of drainage water”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
SAR increased with drainage water use.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Soil ECe, and SAR increased with the use of drainage water”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Canal water irrigation decreased soil salinity and sodicity to some extent.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“irrigation with canal water resulted decrease in soil salinity and sodicity to some extent.”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advocate drainage water for crop production during canal water shortages with a suitable irrigation schedule or gypsum application.
Verbatim
e0“The results advocate that where there is acute shortage of canal water, drainage water can be used for crop production by adopting appropriate irrigation schedule or application of gypsum on water quality basis.”
t0“Management of brackish water: Impact on soil and crops”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
303 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 papers →irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 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.