Abstract
The cyclic strategy to use saline water can produce satisfactory yields for salt-sensitive maize than the blending strategy if only once irrigation is needed during the crop season. If more than twice irrigations are needed, it is preferable to alternate applications of poor quality and fresh water. A glass house study was conducted to investigate the effect of saline irrigation scheduling on different maize cultivars in 2007. Four maize cultivars from Pakistan salt- tolerant (EV-1098 and Agaiti-2002) and sensitive (EV-4001 and Akbar) were used in the experiment. Eight irrigation patterns based on canal irrigation and NaCl salinized water (EC 4.0 dS m-1) was applied at three crop growth stages. The treatments comprised: I1 =Irrigation by canal water during whole growing period, I2 = canal water for soaking and at early whorl stage and by saline water (EC 4.0 dS m-1) at the late whorl stage, I3=Irrigation by canal water for soaking and at late whorl stage and saline water at early whorl stage, I4 =Irrigation by saline water for soaking and by canal water at early whorl and late whorl stages, I5 =Irrigation by canal water for soaking and by saline water during the early whorl and late whorl stages, I6=Irrigation by saline water for soaking and at late whorl stage and by canal water at early whorl stage, I7 =Irrigation by saline water for soaking and at early whorl stage and by canal water at late whorl stage, and I8=Irrigation by saline water throughout growing period. Satisfactory maize growth and fodder yield was noted with application of canal water applied at all growth stages and treatments comprising canal water application at soaking, early whorl stage and brackish water (EC 4.0 dS m-1) during late whorl stage. Performance of maize cultivars under water scheduling revealed that EV-1098 and Agaiti-2002 responded well as compared to EV-4001 and Akbar. Both cultivars accumulated less Na+ and Cl- and maintained more K+, ultimately better K+/Na+ ratio.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Cyclic saline irrigation produced satisfactory yields compared with blending when only one irrigation was needed.
- Treatment
- cyclic strategy to use saline watere0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- satisfactorye0
- Qualifier
- if only once irrigation is needede0
- Comparator
- blending strategye0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cyclic strategy to use saline water can produce satisfactory yields for salt-sensitive maize than the blending strategy if only once irrigation is needed during the crop season”
Claim · model-written summary
Canal water at all stages gave satisfactory maize growth and fodder yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Satisfactory maize growth and fodder yield was noted with application of canal water applied at all growth stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Canal water at soaking and early whorl with brackish water at late whorl gave satisfactory maize growth and fodder yield.
- Treatment
- canal water application at soaking, early whorl stage and brackish water (EC 4.0 dS m-1) during late whorl stagee0
- Outcome
- maize growth and fodder yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Satisfactory maize growth and fodder yield was noted with application of canal water applied at all growth stages and treatments comprising canal water application at soaking, early whorl stage and brackish water (EC 4.0 dS m-1) during late whorl stage”
Claim · model-written summary
EV-1098 performed better than EV-4001 and Akbar under irrigation scheduling.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EV-1098 and Agaiti-2002 responded well as compared to EV-4001 and Akbar”
t0“Maize cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Agaiti-2002 performed better than EV-4001 and Akbar under irrigation scheduling.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EV-1098 and Agaiti-2002 responded well as compared to EV-4001 and Akbar”
t0“Maize cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
The two better performing cultivars accumulated less Na+ and Cl-.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both cultivars accumulated less Na+ and Cl- and maintained more K+, ultimately better K+/Na+ ratio”
t0“Maize cultivars”
e1“EV-1098 and Agaiti-2002 responded well”
Claim · model-written summary
The two better performing cultivars maintained more K+.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both cultivars accumulated less Na+ and Cl- and maintained more K+, ultimately better K+/Na+ ratio”
t0“Maize cultivars”
e1“EV-1098 and Agaiti-2002 responded well”
Claim · model-written summary
The two better performing cultivars had a better K+/Na+ ratio.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ultimately better K+/Na+ ratio”
t0“Maize cultivars”
e1“EV-1098 and Agaiti-2002 responded well”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternating poor quality and fresh water is preferable when more than two irrigations are needed.
- Outcome
- alternate applications of poor quality and fresh watere0
- Qualifier
- If more than twice irrigations are needede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“If more than twice irrigations are needed, it is preferable to alternate applications of poor quality and fresh water”
t0“Maize cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 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.