Abstract
Abstract. A soil water extraction (depletion) model was used to assess the impacts of water and nitrogen (N) management on maize soil water extraction patterns every 0.30 m to 1.50 m soil depth under a linear-move sprinkler irrigation system in the 2011 and 2012 growing seasons at the South Central Agricultural Laboratory (SCAL) near Clay Center, Nebraska. Three irrigation regimes [fully irrigated treatment (FIT), limited irrigation (75% FIT), and rainfed] with five N levels (0, 84, 140, 196, and 252 kg ha-1) of each treatment were investigated. The two growing seasons had substantially different climatic conditions in terms of solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and vapor pressure deficit. In terms of precipitation, 2011 was 24% below normal and 2012 was 50% below normal. Spatial and temporal soil water extraction amounts and patterns were influenced by irrigation regime, N fertilizer rate, variability in soil properties, and climatic conditions. However, individual soil layer water extraction was affected more by differences in soil properties and irrigation regimes as compared with N fertilizer rates. Profile (0-1.50 m) soil water extraction in 2012 was significantly affected by irrigation (p0.05 < 0.0001), but the N rate effect was not significant (p0.05 = 0.0654). No interaction was observed between irrigation and N rate on seasonal profile extraction amount, but an interaction between soil depth and irrigation amount was observed (p0.05 <0.0001). Maximum soil water extraction occurred in the top (0-0.30 m) soil depth for all treatments, and extraction amount decreased with depth. Soil water extraction under irrigated conditions followed the conical water uptake pattern; however, high evaporative demands in 2012 resulted in deep rooting under rainfed conditions. The percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depth for rainfed conditions in 2012 was 8%, 6% ±1.3%, 8% ±1.0%, 7% ±2.6%, and 9% ±5.9% for 0, 84, 140, 196, and 252 kg N ha-1, respectively, as compared with a maximum percent extraction of 5% ±1.2% under irrigated conditions. Rainfed soil water extraction was more susceptible to inter-annual variability; however, all treatments were greatly influenced by soil layering. Strong relationships (R2 > 0.98) were observed between cumulative growing degree days (GDD) and cumulative soil water extraction amounts for both 2011 and 2012. The developed extraction vs. GDD relationships were also related to days after planting (DAP) and maize growth and development stages to aid agricultural producers and their advisors when assessing irrigation timing and amount.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Spatial and temporal soil water extraction amounts and patterns of maize were influenced by irrigation regime, N fertilizer rate, soil property variability and climatic conditions.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spatial and temporal soil water extraction amounts and patterns were influenced by irrigation regime, N fertilizer rate, variability in soil properties, and climatic conditions”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Individual soil layer water extraction was affected more by soil properties and irrigation regimes than by N fertilizer rates.
- Treatment
- irrigation regimese1
- Outcome
- individual soil layer water extractione1
- Direction
- affected moree1
- Comparator
- N fertilizer ratese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“individual soil layer water extraction was affected more by differences in soil properties and irrigation regimes as compared with N fertilizer rates”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Profile (0-1.50 m) soil water extraction in 2012 was significantly affected by irrigation.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Profile (0-1.50 m) soil water extraction in 2012 was significantly affected by irrigation”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
The N rate effect on profile (0-1.50 m) soil water extraction in 2012 was not significant.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Profile (0-1.50 m) soil water extraction in 2012 was significantly affected by irrigation (p0.05 < 0.0001), but the N rate effect was not significant (p0.05 = 0.0654)”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
No interaction between irrigation and N rate on seasonal profile extraction amount was observed.
- Treatment
- irrigation and N ratee1
- Outcome
- seasonal profile extraction amounte1
- Direction
- No interactione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“No interaction was observed between irrigation and N rate on seasonal profile extraction amount”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
An interaction between soil depth and irrigation amount was observed.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“an interaction between soil depth and irrigation amount was observed”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum soil water extraction occurred in the top (0-0.30 m) soil depth for all treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maximum soil water extraction occurred in the top (0-0.30 m) soil depth for all treatments”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water extraction amount decreased with depth.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“extraction amount decreased with depth”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water extraction under irrigated conditions followed the conical water uptake pattern.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Soil water extraction under irrigated conditions followed the conical water uptake pattern”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
High evaporative demands in 2012 resulted in deep rooting under rainfed conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“high evaporative demands in 2012 resulted in deep rooting under rainfed conditions”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
In rainfed maize in 2012, 8% of total soil water extraction came from the 1.20-1.50 m depth at the 0 N rate.
- Treatment
- 0e1
- Outcome
- percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depthe1
- Value
- 8%e1
- Setting
- rainfed conditions in 2012e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depth for rainfed conditions in 2012 was 8%, 6% ±1.3%, 8% ±1.0%, 7% ±2.6%, and 9% ±5.9% for 0, 84, 140, 196, and 252 kg N ha-1, respectively”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
In rainfed maize in 2012, 6% (±1.3%) of total soil water extraction came from the 1.20-1.50 m depth at the 84 N rate.
- Treatment
- 84e1
- Outcome
- percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depthe1
- Value
- 6% ±1.3%e1
- Setting
- rainfed conditions in 2012e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depth for rainfed conditions in 2012 was 8%, 6% ±1.3%, 8% ±1.0%, 7% ±2.6%, and 9% ±5.9% for 0, 84, 140, 196, and 252 kg N ha-1, respectively”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
In rainfed maize in 2012, 8% (±1.0%) of total soil water extraction came from the 1.20-1.50 m depth at the 140 N rate.
- Treatment
- 140e1
- Outcome
- percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depthe1
- Value
- 8% ±1.0%e1
- Setting
- rainfed conditions in 2012e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depth for rainfed conditions in 2012 was 8%, 6% ±1.3%, 8% ±1.0%, 7% ±2.6%, and 9% ±5.9% for 0, 84, 140, 196, and 252 kg N ha-1, respectively”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
In rainfed maize in 2012, 7% (±2.6%) of total soil water extraction came from the 1.20-1.50 m depth at the 196 N rate.
- Treatment
- 196e1
- Outcome
- percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depthe1
- Value
- 7% ±2.6%e1
- Setting
- rainfed conditions in 2012e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depth for rainfed conditions in 2012 was 8%, 6% ±1.3%, 8% ±1.0%, 7% ±2.6%, and 9% ±5.9% for 0, 84, 140, 196, and 252 kg N ha-1, respectively”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
In rainfed maize in 2012, 9% (±5.9%) of total soil water extraction came from the 1.20-1.50 m depth at the 252 kg N ha-1 N rate.
- Treatment
- 252 kg N ha-1e1
- Outcome
- percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depthe1
- Value
- 9% ±5.9%e1
- Setting
- rainfed conditions in 2012e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The percent of total extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depth for rainfed conditions in 2012 was 8%, 6% ±1.3%, 8% ±1.0%, 7% ±2.6%, and 9% ±5.9% for 0, 84, 140, 196, and 252 kg N ha-1, respectively”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Under irrigated conditions the maximum percent extraction in the 1.20-1.50 m depth was 5% (±1.2%).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“a maximum percent extraction of 5% ±1.2% under irrigated conditions”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed soil water extraction was more susceptible to inter-annual variability.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Rainfed soil water extraction was more susceptible to inter-annual variability”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
Claim · model-written summary
Strong relationships (R2 > 0.98) were observed between cumulative growing degree days and cumulative soil water extraction amounts for both 2011 and 2012.
- Treatment
- cumulative growing degree days (GDD)e1
- Outcome
- cumulative soil water extraction amountse1
- Value
- R2 > 0.98e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Strong relationships (R2 > 0.98) were observed between cumulative growing degree days (GDD) and cumulative soil water extraction amounts for both 2011 and 2012”
t0“Maize Soil Water Extraction”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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.