Abstract
Pakistan is facing severe water shortages, so using the available water efficiently is essential for maximizing crop production. This can be achieved through efficient irrigation practices. Field studies were carried out to determine the dynamics of soil water and the efficiency of water utilization for maize grown under five irrigation techniques (flood-irrigated flatbed, furrow-irrigated ridge, furrow-irrigated raised bed, furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch, and sprinkler-irrigated flatbed). Spring and summer maize was grown for two years. The Irrigation Management System (IManSys) was used to estimate the irrigation requirements, evapotranspiration, and other water balance components for this study’s different experimental treatments based on site-specific crop, soil, and weather parameters. The results showed that the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment produced the highest evapotranspiration, leaf area index (LAI), and biomass yield compared to other treatments. However, this treatment did not produce the highest grain yield and had the lowest water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (WUEi) compared to the furrow-irrigated raised-bed treatment. The furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM) treatment improved grain yield, WUE, WUEi, and harvest index compared to the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment. The results showed a strong correlation between measured and estimated net irrigation requirements and evapotranspiration, with high r2 values (0.93, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98) for the spring- and summer-sown maize. It was concluded that the FIRBM treatments improved the grain yield, WUE, and WUEi, which ultimately enhanced sustainable crop production. The growing of summer-sown maize in Pakistan has the potential for sustainable maize production under the semiarid and arid climate.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Flood irrigation flatbed had the highest evapotranspiration.
- Treatment
- flood irrigation flatbed (FIF)e0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment produced the highest evapotranspiration, leaf area index (LAI), and biomass yield compared to other treatments.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flood irrigation flatbed had the highest leaf area index.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment produced the highest evapotranspiration, leaf area index (LAI), and biomass yield compared to other treatments.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flood irrigation flatbed had the highest biomass yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment produced the highest evapotranspiration, leaf area index (LAI), and biomass yield compared to other treatments.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flood irrigation flatbed had the lowest WUE versus raised bed.
- Outcome
- water use efficiency (WUE)e0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- furrow-irrigated raised-bed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this treatment did not produce the highest grain yield and had the lowest water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (WUEi) compared to the furrow-irrigated raised-bed treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flood irrigation flatbed had the lowest irrigation WUE versus raised bed.
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiency (WUEi)e0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- furrow-irrigated raised-bed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this treatment did not produce the highest grain yield and had the lowest water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (WUEi) compared to the furrow-irrigated raised-bed treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow raised bed with plastic mulch improved grain yield versus flood flatbed.
- Treatment
- furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation flatbed (FIF)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM) treatment improved grain yield, WUE, WUEi, and harvest index compared to the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
FIRBM improved WUE versus flood flatbed.
- Treatment
- furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM)e0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation flatbed (FIF)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM) treatment improved grain yield, WUE, WUEi, and harvest index compared to the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
FIRBM improved irrigation WUE versus flood flatbed.
- Treatment
- furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM)e0
- Outcome
- WUEie0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation flatbed (FIF)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM) treatment improved grain yield, WUE, WUEi, and harvest index compared to the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
FIRBM improved harvest index versus flood flatbed.
- Treatment
- furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM)e0
- Outcome
- harvest indexe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation flatbed (FIF)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The furrow-irrigated raised bed with plastic mulch (FIRBM) treatment improved grain yield, WUE, WUEi, and harvest index compared to the flood irrigation flatbed (FIF) treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Measured and estimated irrigation requirements and evapotranspiration correlated strongly.
- Outcome
- correlation between measured and estimated net irrigation requirements and evapotranspiratione0
- Value
- 0.93, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed a strong correlation between measured and estimated net irrigation requirements and evapotranspiration, with high r2 values (0.93, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98) for the spring- and summer-sown maize.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 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
- no effect
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 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 →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.