Abstract
Abstract. To improve the management of variable-rate irrigation (VRI) systems in semi-humid climates, three different soil-based irrigation management methods were evaluated on their potential for reducing irrigation water use and maximizing crop yield and water use efficiency (WUE) during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain. The three irrigation management methods evaluated were soil water balance modeling (SWB), measured soil water content (SWC), and a combination of SWB and the rain forecast for the next three days (RF). The experiments were implemented on four management zones delineated by available soil water holding capacity of a center-pivot VRI system. A similar irrigation trigger point (70% of field capacity) was used for the three irrigation management methods in the four management zones. In the two seasons, the total water application in the SWC treatments varied in a larger range among the management zones, and the irrigation water applied was 22% and 21% less than in the SWB and RF treatments, respectively. Similar yields were obtained among the irrigation management methods in both seasons. The maximum WUE was always observed with the SWC treatments for the four management zones in the 2017 season. The WUE with the SWC treatments was 36% and 23% higher than with the SWB and RF treatments, respectively. Considering the amount of irrigation water applied, yield, and WUE, our results demonstrated that the SWC method was more suitable for VRI management than the SWB and RF methods in this semi-humid climate. Keywords: Center pivot, Soil water balance, Soil water content, Rain forecast, Summer maize, Yield.
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
SWC treatments applied 22% less irrigation water than SWB treatments in summer maize.
- Treatment
- SWC treatmentse1
- Outcome
- irrigation water appliede1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 22%e1
- Comparator
- SWBe1
- Setting
- North China Plaine0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e1“In the two seasons, the total water application in the SWC treatments varied in a larger range among the management zones, and the irrigation water applied was 22% and 21% less than in the SWB and RF treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SWC treatments applied 21% less irrigation water than RF treatments in summer maize.
- Treatment
- SWC treatmentse1
- Outcome
- irrigation water appliede1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 21%e1
- Comparator
- RFe1
- Setting
- North China Plaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e1“In the two seasons, the total water application in the SWC treatments varied in a larger range among the management zones, and the irrigation water applied was 22% and 21% less than in the SWB and RF treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Total water application under SWC treatments varied over a larger range among the management zones than under the other methods.
- Treatment
- SWC treatmentse1
- Outcome
- total water applicatione1
- Qualifier
- varied in a larger range among the management zonese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e1“In the two seasons, the total water application in the SWC treatments varied in a larger range among the management zones”
Claim · model-written summary
Yields were similar among the three irrigation management methods in both seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e2“Similar yields were obtained among the irrigation management methods in both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
The maximum WUE of summer maize in 2017 was always observed with SWC treatments in the four management zones.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e3“The maximum WUE was always observed with the SWC treatments for the four management zones in the 2017 season”
Claim · model-written summary
WUE under SWC treatments was 36% higher than under SWB treatments in summer maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e4“The WUE with the SWC treatments was 36% and 23% higher than with the SWB and RF treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
WUE under SWC treatments was 23% higher than under RF treatments in summer maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e4“The WUE with the SWC treatments was 36% and 23% higher than with the SWB and RF treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
The SWC method is more suitable than SWB and RF for variable-rate irrigation management of summer maize in this semi-humid climate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons of summer maize in the North China Plain”
e5“our results demonstrated that the SWC method was more suitable for VRI management than the SWB and RF methods in this semi-humid climate”
The same questions in other papers
soil water · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.