Abstract
Irrigation water availability is diminishing in many areas of the Ethiopian regions, which require many irrigators to consider deficit-irrigation strategy. This study investigated the response of maize (Zea mays L.) to moisture deficit under conventional, alternate and fixed furrow irrigation systems combined with three irrigation amounts over a two years period. The field experiment was conducted at Selekleka Agricultural Research Farm of Shire-Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications was used. Irrigation depth was monitored using a calibrated 2-inch throat Parshall flume. The effects of the treatments were evaluated in terms of grain yield, dry above-ground biomass, plant height, cob length and water use efficiency. The two years combined result indicated that net irrigation water applied in alternate furrow irrigation with full amount irrigation depth (100% ETc AFI) treatments was half (3773.5 m3/ha) than that of applied to the conventional furrow with full irrigation amount (CFI with 100% ETc) treatments (7546.9 m3/ha). Despite the very significant reduction in irrigation water used with alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), there was insignificant grain yield reduction in maize(8.31%) as compared to control treatment (CFI with100% ETc). In addition, we also obtained significantly (p<0.001) higher crop water use efficiency of 1.889 kg/m3 in alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), than that was obtained as 0.988 kg/m3 in conventional furrow irrigation (CFI). In view of the results, alternate furrow irrigation method (AFI) is taken as promising for conservation of water (3773.5 m3/ha), time (23:22'50" hours/ha), labor (217.36 USD/ha) and fuel (303.79 USD/ha) for users diverting water from the source to their fields using pump without significant trade-off in 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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Alternate furrow irrigation used 3773.5 m3/ha, half the conventional full irrigation amount of 7546.9 m3/ha.
- Treatment
- alternate furrow irrigation with full amount irrigation depth (100% ETc AFI)e0
- Outcome
- net irrigation water appliede0
- Direction
- halfe0
- Value
- 3773.5 m3/hae0
- Qualifier
- 7546.9 m3/hae0
- Comparator
- conventional furrow with full irrigation amount (CFI with 100% ETc)e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“net irrigation water applied in alternate furrow irrigation with full amount irrigation depth (100% ETc AFI) treatments was half (3773.5 m3/ha) than that of applied to the conventional furrow with full irrigation amount (CFI with 100% ETc) treatments (7546.9 m3/ha)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternate furrow irrigation reduced maize grain yield by 8.31%, without a significant difference from control.
- Treatment
- alternate furrow irrigation (AFI)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 8.31%e0
- Comparator
- control treatment (CFI with100% ETc)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Despite the very significant reduction in irrigation water used with alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), there was insignificant grain yield reduction in maize(8.31%) as compared to control treatment (CFI with100% ETc)”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternate furrow irrigation gave significantly higher crop water use efficiency of 1.889 kg/m3 than 0.988 kg/m3 under conventional irrigation.
- Treatment
- alternate furrow irrigation (AFI)e0
- Outcome
- crop water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.889 kg/m3e0
- Qualifier
- 0.988 kg/m3e0
- Comparator
- conventional furrow irrigation (CFI)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly (p<0.001) higher crop water use efficiency of 1.889 kg/m3 in alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), than that was obtained as 0.988 kg/m3 in conventional furrow irrigation (CFI)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended alternate furrow irrigation for water, time, labor, and fuel conservation without significant yield tradeoff.
- Treatment
- alternate furrow irrigation method (AFI)e0
- Outcome
- conservation of watere0
- Value
- 3773.5 m3/hae0
- Qualifier
- without significant trade-off in yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“alternate furrow irrigation method (AFI) is taken as promising for conservation of water (3773.5 m3/ha), time (23:22'50" hours/ha), labor (217.36 USD/ha) and fuel (303.79 USD/ha) for users diverting water from the source to their fields using pump without significant trade-off in yield”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
283 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.