Abstract
The shortage of groundwater resources is a considerable challenge for winter wheat production on the North China Plain. Water-saving technologies and procedures are thus urgently required. To determine the water-saving potential of using micro-sprinkling irrigation (MSI) for winter wheat production, field experiments were conducted from 2012 to 2015. Compared to traditional flooding irrigation (TFI), micro-sprinkling thrice with 90 mm water (MSI1) and micro-sprinkling four times with 120 mm water (MSI2) increased the water use efficiency by 22.5 and 16.2%, respectively, while reducing evapotranspiration by 17.6 and 10.8%. Regardless of the rainfall pattern, MSI (i.e., MSI1 or MSI2) either stabilized or significantly increased the grain yield, while reducing irrigation water volumes by 20–40%, compared to TFI. Applying the same volumes of irrigation water, MSI (i.e., MSI3, micro-sprinkling five times with 150 mm water) increased the grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat by 4.6 and 11.7%, respectively, compared to TFI. Because MSI could supply irrigation water more frequently in smaller amounts each time, it reduced soil layer compaction, and may have also resulted in a soil water deficit that promoted the spread of roots into the deep soil layer, which is beneficial to photosynthetic production in the critical period. In conclusion, MSI1 or MSI2 either stabilized or significantly increased grain yield while reducing irrigation water volumes by 20–40% compared to TFI, and should provide water-saving technological support in winter wheat production for smallholders on the North China Plain.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
MSI1 increased winter wheat water use efficiency by 22.5% against flooding irrigation.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- micro-sprinkling thrice with 90 mm water (MSI1)e0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22.5e0
- Comparator
- traditional flooding irrigation (TFI)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to traditional flooding irrigation (TFI), micro-sprinkling thrice with 90 mm water (MSI1) and micro-sprinkling four times with 120 mm water (MSI2) increased the water use efficiency by 22.5 and 16.2%, respectively”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
MSI2 increased winter wheat water use efficiency by 16.2% against flooding irrigation.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- micro-sprinkling four times with 120 mm water (MSI2)e0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 16.2%e0
- Comparator
- traditional flooding irrigation (TFI)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to traditional flooding irrigation (TFI), micro-sprinkling thrice with 90 mm water (MSI1) and micro-sprinkling four times with 120 mm water (MSI2) increased the water use efficiency by 22.5 and 16.2%, respectively”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
MSI1 reduced evapotranspiration by 17.6% against flooding irrigation.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- micro-sprinkling thrice with 90 mm water (MSI1)e1
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 17.6e0
- Comparator
- traditional flooding irrigation (TFI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“while reducing evapotranspiration by 17.6 and 10.8%.”
e1“Compared to traditional flooding irrigation (TFI), micro-sprinkling thrice with 90 mm water (MSI1) and micro-sprinkling four times with 120 mm water (MSI2)”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
MSI2 reduced evapotranspiration by 10.8% against flooding irrigation.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- micro-sprinkling four times with 120 mm water (MSI2)e1
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 10.8%e0
- Comparator
- traditional flooding irrigation (TFI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“while reducing evapotranspiration by 17.6 and 10.8%.”
e1“Compared to traditional flooding irrigation (TFI), micro-sprinkling thrice with 90 mm water (MSI1) and micro-sprinkling four times with 120 mm water (MSI2)”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
MSI1 or MSI2 stabilized or significantly increased grain yield regardless of rainfall pattern.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- MSI (i.e., MSI1 or MSI2)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- stabilized or significantly increasede0
- Qualifier
- Regardless of the rainfall patterne0
- Comparator
- TFIe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of the rainfall pattern, MSI (i.e., MSI1 or MSI2) either stabilized or significantly increased the grain yield”
e1“20–40%, compared to TFI”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
MSI1 or MSI2 reduced irrigation water volumes by 20–40% against TFI.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- MSI (i.e., MSI1 or MSI2)e1
- Outcome
- irrigation water volumese0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 20–40%e0
- Comparator
- TFIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“while reducing irrigation water volumes by 20–40%, compared to TFI.”
e1“MSI (i.e., MSI1 or MSI2)”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
With equal irrigation water, MSI3 raised grain yield by 4.6% relative to TFI.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- MSI3, micro-sprinkling five times with 150 mm watere0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.6e0
- Qualifier
- same volumes of irrigation watere0
- Comparator
- TFIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying the same volumes of irrigation water, MSI (i.e., MSI3, micro-sprinkling five times with 150 mm water) increased the grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat by 4.6 and 11.7%, respectively, compared to TFI.”
Claim · model-written summary
With equal irrigation water, MSI3 raised winter wheat water use efficiency by 11.7% relative to TFI.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- MSI3, micro-sprinkling five times with 150 mm watere0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 11.7%e0
- Qualifier
- same volumes of irrigation watere0
- Comparator
- TFIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying the same volumes of irrigation water, MSI (i.e., MSI3, micro-sprinkling five times with 150 mm water) increased the grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat by 4.6 and 11.7%, respectively, compared to TFI.”
Claim · model-written summary
MSI reduced soil layer compaction.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- MSIe0
- Outcome
- soil layer compactione0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Because MSI could supply irrigation water more frequently in smaller amounts each time, it reduced soil layer compaction”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest MSI may create a soil water deficit promoting deeper root spread.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- spread of roots into the deep soil layere0
- Qualifier
- soil water deficite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“may have also resulted in a soil water deficit that promoted the spread of roots into the deep soil layer”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend MSI1 or MSI2 to support water-saving winter wheat production for North China Plain smallholders.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- water-saving technological support in winter wheat productione0
- Setting
- North China Plaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“should provide water-saving technological support in winter wheat production for smallholders on the North China Plain”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
299 papers more in this group
See all 303 papers →irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 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.