Abstract
A reasonable irrigation mode contributes to higher crop yield with less water consumption. It is important to understand exactly how irrigation modes differ from each other in effect on plant growth. In this paper, paddy rice was treated by three different irrigation modes and two field drying degrees, and plant height and yield were examined in order to find an appreciate irrigation mode for paddy rice. The study in different growth stages of paddy rice was carried out with the experimental method of the field-testing research technique combined with the lab-analysis. Results showed that, compared with the shallow wetting irrigation and flooding irrigation, paddy rice under the treatment of controlled and mid-gathering irrigation complying with heavy field drying brought about relatively higher crop yield but lower plant height, with higher lodging resistance. This suggested that controlled and midgathering irrigation had advantages over shallow wetting irrigation and flooding irrigation. The actual measurements of paddy rice plant height were well fitted by theoretical values obtained by dynamic model equation and the differences in paddy rice plant height during the whole growth period among different irrigation modes were all extremely significant (P≤0.01). Besides, the differences in paddy rice yield among irrigation modes were also extremely significant (P≤0.01), while there was no significant difference in crop yield between field drying degrees and no significant interaction between irrigation modes and field drying degrees on plant yield. In general, the controlled and mid-gathering irrigation mode was better for paddy rice growth and production.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled and mid-gathering irrigation with heavy drying produced higher rice yield than shallow wetting and flooding.
Verbatim
e0“compared with the shallow wetting irrigation and flooding irrigation, paddy rice under the treatment of controlled and mid-gathering irrigation complying with heavy field drying brought about relatively higher crop yield but lower plant height, with higher lodging resistance”
Claim · model-written summary
The same irrigation and drying treatment produced lower rice height.
Verbatim
e0“compared with the shallow wetting irrigation and flooding irrigation, paddy rice under the treatment of controlled and mid-gathering irrigation complying with heavy field drying brought about relatively higher crop yield but lower plant height, with higher lodging resistance”
Claim · model-written summary
The same treatment produced higher lodging resistance.
Verbatim
e0“compared with the shallow wetting irrigation and flooding irrigation, paddy rice under the treatment of controlled and mid-gathering irrigation complying with heavy field drying brought about relatively higher crop yield but lower plant height, with higher lodging resistance”
Claim · model-written summary
The dynamic model fitted measured rice height well.
Verbatim
e0“The actual measurements of paddy rice plant height were well fitted by theoretical values obtained by dynamic model equation”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice height differed significantly among irrigation modes.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“the differences in paddy rice plant height during the whole growth period among different irrigation modes were all extremely significant (P≤0.01)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice yield differed significantly among irrigation modes.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“the differences in paddy rice yield among irrigation modes were also extremely significant (P≤0.01)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice yield did not differ significantly between field drying degrees.
- Taxon
- paddy ricee1
- Treatment
- field drying degreese0
- Outcome
- crop yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant difference in crop yield between field drying degrees”
e1“The actual measurements of paddy rice plant height”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation mode and field drying degree had no significant interaction on rice yield.
Verbatim
e0“no significant interaction between irrigation modes and field drying degrees on plant yield”
e1“The actual measurements of paddy rice plant height”
The same questions in other papers
processing · disease · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →irrigation · disease · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →processing · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
110 papers more in this group
See all 114 papers →irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 201 in the opposite direction · 64 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
1,167 papers more in this group
See all 1,171 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.