Abstract
Field experiment was carried out at Dar El-Ramad farm, Faculty ofAgriculture, Fayoum University, Egypt during 2015/2016 and 2016/2017seasons. The trials aiming at investigating the effects of ridge width asplanting in wide ridges 120 cm (beds), 60 cm ridges and flat planting(basins) and irrigation scheduling regimes, based on 1.0, 0.8 and 0.6coefficients of Cumulative Pan Evaporation (C.P.E.) records on yield, yieldcomponents and some crop - water relations of wheat variety, Giza 168. Asplit plot design with four replications was used in both seasons. Theobtained results showed that planting in 120 cm ridges (beds) and irrigationat 1.0 C.P.E., gave the highest averages of spike number m-2, grains spike-1,1000-grain weight, straw yield (7411 and 7289 kg ha-1), and grain yield(6761 and 6581 kg ha-1) in the two successive seasons, respectively. Thelowest averages of yield and its components were obtained from flatplanting (basins) and irrigation at 0.6 C.P.E., in both seasons. Seasonalconsumptive use (ETC) averages were 42.48 and 41.14 cm in 1st and 2ndseasons, respectively. The highest ETC values were recorded with theinteraction (R3I1), whereas, the lowest values resulted from the interaction(R1I3). Daily ETC rates were low during November and December, thenincreased during January and February, to reach its maximum values duringMarch and then declined again till harvesting at April. The crop coefficient(KC) values (averages of the two seasons) were 0.47, 0.55, 0.65, 0.73, 0.93and 0.51 for, Nov., Dec., Jan., Feb., Mar. and Apr., respectively. Thehighest water use efficiency, i.e., 1.61 and 1.62 kg grains m-3 waterconsumed were obtained from (R1I1) treatments in first and second seasons,respectively.
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
Wide ridges with 1.0 C.P.E. gave the highest spike number, grains per spike and grain weight.
- Taxon
- WHEAT
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- planting in 120 cm ridges (beds) and irrigationat 1.0 C.P.E.e0
- Outcome
- spike number m-2, grains spike-1,1000-grain weighte0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“planting in 120 cm ridges (beds) and irrigationat 1.0 C.P.E., gave the highest averages of spike number m-2, grains spike-1,1000-grain weight”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
Wide ridges with 1.0 C.P.E. gave highest straw yield of 7411 and 7289 kg ha-1.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- planting in 120 cm ridges (beds) and irrigationat 1.0 C.P.E.e0
- Outcome
- straw yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 7411 and 7289 kg ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“planting in 120 cm ridges (beds) and irrigationat 1.0 C.P.E., gave the highest averages of spike number m-2, grains spike-1,1000-grain weight, straw yield (7411 and 7289 kg ha-1)”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
Wide ridges with 1.0 C.P.E. gave highest grain yield of 6761 and 6581 kg ha-1.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- planting in 120 cm ridges (beds) and irrigationat 1.0 C.P.E.e1
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 6761 and 6581 kg ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield(6761 and 6581 kg ha-1)”
e1“planting in 120 cm ridges (beds) and irrigationat 1.0 C.P.E., gave the highest averages”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
Flat planting at 0.6 C.P.E. produced lowest yields and components.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- flatplanting (basins) and irrigation at 0.6 C.P.E.e0
- Outcome
- yield and its componentse0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thelowest averages of yield and its components were obtained from flatplanting (basins) and irrigation at 0.6 C.P.E.”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal consumptive use averaged 42.48 and 41.14 cm in successive seasons.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Seasonalconsumptive use (ETC)e0
- Value
- 42.48 and 41.14 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seasonalconsumptive use (ETC) averages were 42.48 and 41.14 cm in 1st and 2ndseasons”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
The R3I1 interaction had the highest consumptive use.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- R3I1e0
- Outcome
- ETC valuese0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest ETC values were recorded with theinteraction (R3I1)”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
The R1I3 interaction had the lowest consumptive use.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- R1I3e0
- Outcome
- ETC valuese1
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowest values resulted from the interaction(R1I3)”
e1“ETC values”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
Daily consumptive use rose from January to March and then declined until harvest.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Daily ETC ratese0
- Direction
- thenincreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Daily ETC rates were low during November and December, thenincreased during January and February, to reach its maximum values duringMarch and then declined again till harvesting at April”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop coefficients across November through April were 0.47, 0.55, 0.65, 0.73, 0.93 and 0.51.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- crop coefficient(KC) valuese0
- Value
- 0.47, 0.55, 0.65, 0.73, 0.93and 0.51e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crop coefficient(KC) values (averages of the two seasons) were 0.47, 0.55, 0.65, 0.73, 0.93and 0.51 for, Nov., Dec., Jan., Feb., Mar. and Apr., respectively”
t0“WHEAT”
Claim · model-written summary
R1I1 treatments had the highest water use efficiency at 1.61 and 1.62 kg grains m-3.
- Taxon
- WHEATTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- R1I1e0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.61 and 1.62 kg grains m-3 waterconsumede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thehighest water use efficiency, i.e., 1.61 and 1.62 kg grains m-3 waterconsumed were obtained from (R1I1) treatments”
t0“WHEAT”
The same questions in other 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
- no effect
- positive
- negative
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.