Abstract
Drought stress has been a great challenge for the sustainability of maize (Zea mays L.) production in arid and semi-arid regions. The utilization of drought-tolerant hybrids and proper irrigation regimes represent a management strategy to stabilize maize production under water-limited conditions. A two-year field experiment was conducted to assess the leaf gas exchange, growth, grain yield, and water use efficiency in two cultivars of maize, i.e., Zhengdan 958 (H1) and Zhongdan 909 (H2), under different water regimes, i.e., full irrigation (FI), reproductive irrigation (RI), and rainfed (RF). Plant samples were collected at different growth stages to measure the maize growth and development under the three irrigation regimes. The grain yield in RF was significantly reduced by 30.4% (H1) and 31.1% (H2); and the water use efficiency (WUE) by 8.5% (H1) and 9.3% (H2) compared with FI. On the other hand, irrigation application at the flowering stage was shown to significantly boost the grain yield by 40.3% (H1) and 25.5% (H2); and the WUE by 27.6% (H1) and 14.1% (H2) compared to RF. This indicated that H1 benefited more from irrigation use compared to H2. The improved grain yield through reproductive irrigation was due to the greater soil plant analysis development (SPAD), net photosynthesis, and biomass production when compared to zero irrigation. Zhengdan 958 was shown to be relatively more resistant to drought stress during flowering compared to Zhongdan 909. Thus, to achieve reliable maize production in Huaibei Plain, reproductive irrigation is recommended, combined with Zhengdan 958.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Rainfed Zhengdan 958 grain yield fell 30.4% versus full irrigation.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yield in RF was significantly reduced by 30.4% (H1) and 31.1% (H2); and the water use efficiency (WUE) by 8.5% (H1) and 9.3% (H2) compared with FI”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed Zhongdan 909 grain yield fell 31.1% versus full irrigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yield in RF was significantly reduced by 30.4% (H1) and 31.1% (H2); and the water use efficiency (WUE) by 8.5% (H1) and 9.3% (H2) compared with FI”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed Zhengdan 958 WUE fell 8.5% versus full irrigation.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water use efficiency (WUE) by 8.5% (H1) and 9.3% (H2) compared with FI”
t0“maize”
e1“The grain yield in RF was significantly reduced by 30.4% (H1) and 31.1% (H2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed Zhongdan 909 WUE fell 9.3% versus full irrigation.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water use efficiency (WUE) by 8.5% (H1) and 9.3% (H2) compared with FI”
t0“maize”
e1“The grain yield in RF was significantly reduced by 30.4% (H1) and 31.1% (H2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage irrigation raised H1 grain yield 40.3% versus rainfed.
- Material
- H1e0
- Treatment
- irrigation application at the flowering stagee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- booste0
- Value
- 40.3%e0
- Comparator
- RFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigation application at the flowering stage was shown to significantly boost the grain yield by 40.3% (H1) and 25.5% (H2); and the WUE by 27.6% (H1) and 14.1% (H2) compared to RF”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage irrigation raised H2 grain yield 25.5% versus rainfed.
- Material
- H2e0
- Treatment
- irrigation application at the flowering stagee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- booste0
- Value
- 25.5%e0
- Comparator
- RFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigation application at the flowering stage was shown to significantly boost the grain yield by 40.3% (H1) and 25.5% (H2); and the WUE by 27.6% (H1) and 14.1% (H2) compared to RF”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage irrigation raised H1 WUE 27.6% versus rainfed.
- Material
- H1e0
- Treatment
- irrigation application at the flowering stagee1
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Value
- 27.6%e0
- Comparator
- RFe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WUE by 27.6% (H1) and 14.1% (H2) compared to RF”
t0“maize”
e1“irrigation application at the flowering stage was shown to significantly boost the grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage irrigation raised H2 WUE 14.1% versus rainfed.
- Material
- H2e0
- Treatment
- irrigation application at the flowering stagee1
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Value
- 14.1%e0
- Comparator
- RFe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WUE by 27.6% (H1) and 14.1% (H2) compared to RF”
t0“maize”
e1“irrigation application at the flowering stage was shown to significantly boost the grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Reproductive irrigation increased SPAD, net photosynthesis and biomass over zero irrigation.
- Treatment
- reproductive irrigatione1
- Outcome
- soil plant analysis development (SPAD), net photosynthesis, and biomass productione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- zero irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“greater soil plant analysis development (SPAD), net photosynthesis, and biomass production when compared to zero irrigation”
t0“maize”
e1“reproductive irrigation is recommended, combined with Zhengdan 958”
Claim · model-written summary
Zhengdan 958 was relatively more drought resistant during flowering than Zhongdan 909.
- Material
- Zhengdan 958e0
- Organ / stage
- floweringe0
- Outcome
- resistant to drought stresse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- Zhongdan 909e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zhengdan 958 was shown to be relatively more resistant to drought stress during flowering compared to Zhongdan 909”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend reproductive irrigation with Zhengdan 958 in Huaibei Plain.
- Material
- Zhengdan 958e0
- Treatment
- reproductive irrigatione0
- Outcome
- reliable maize productione0
- Setting
- Huaibei Plaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to achieve reliable maize production in Huaibei Plain, reproductive irrigation is recommended, combined with Zhengdan 958”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
rainfall · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →stage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →rainfall · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →stage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
94 papers more in this group
See all 98 papers →irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 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
- no effect
- negative
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
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.