Abstract
Water scarcity is the major limiting factor of agricultural production and productivity in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Best use of limited water is necessary through water conservation practices. Field experiments were conducted during the dry cropping seasons of 2016 and 2017 on clay loam soil at experimental farm of Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre to evaluate the impact of irrigated furrow methods and deficit irrigation applications on maize (Zea mays) yield and water use efficiency. The study involved three furrow irrigation methods (conventional, fixed, and alternate furrow irrigation) and three irrigation application levels (100%ETc, 75%ETc, and 50%ETc). Furrow irrigation system as main plot and irrigation levels as sub-plot were arranged in split plot design with three randomized complete blocks each year. Greatest yield was obtained under conventional furrow irrigation supplied with 100%ETc of water. Water use efficiency under the same treatment was lesser and shows no significant difference with fixed furrow irrigation and 50%ETc application. Greatest water use efficiency of maize was obtained from alternate furrow irrigation under 75%ETc application and showed no significant difference with 100%ETc application. However, grain yield reduction under 75%ETc applications was very much higher than 100%ETc application. Water saved as a result of 100ETc and 75%ETc applications were 50% and 62.5%, respectively. Therefore, scheduling irrigation time for maize in the central rift valley of Ethiopia and similar semiarid environments could be 100%ETc or 75%ETc application using alternate furrow irrigation. The 75%ETc application has an advantage over 100%ETc applications in saving more water and hence could be applied when water availability is severely limited.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional furrow irrigation at 100%ETc gave the greatest yield.
- Treatment
- conventional furrow irrigation supplied with 100%ETc of watere0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- Greateste0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greatest yield was obtained under conventional furrow irrigation supplied with 100%ETc of water”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency with conventional furrow irrigation at 100%ETc was lower.
- Treatment
- conventional furrow irrigation supplied with 100%ETc of watere0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- lessere0
- Comparator
- fixed furrow irrigation and 50%ETc applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greatest yield was obtained under conventional furrow irrigation supplied with 100%ETc of water. Water use efficiency under the same treatment was lesser and shows no significant difference with fixed furrow irrigation and 50%ETc application”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternate furrow irrigation at 75%ETc gave greatest water use efficiency.
- Treatment
- alternate furrow irrigation under 75%ETc applicatione0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- Greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greatest water use efficiency of maize was obtained from alternate furrow irrigation under 75%ETc application”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency at 75%ETc under alternate furrows did not differ significantly from 100%ETc.
- Treatment
- 75%ETc applicatione0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- 100%ETc applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greatest water use efficiency of maize was obtained from alternate furrow irrigation under 75%ETc application and showed no significant difference with 100%ETc application”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield was much lower at 75%ETc than 100%ETc.
- Treatment
- 75%ETc applicationse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Comparator
- 100%ETc applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield reduction under 75%ETc applications was very much higher than 100%ETc application”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The 100ETc application saved 50% of water.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water saved as a result of 100ETc and 75%ETc applications were 50% and 62.5%, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The 75%ETc application saved 62.5% of water.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water saved as a result of 100ETc and 75%ETc applications were 50% and 62.5%, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend alternate furrow irrigation at 100%ETc or 75%ETc.
- Outcome
- 100%ETc or 75%ETc application using alternate furrow irrigatione0
- Setting
- central rift valley of Ethiopiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“scheduling irrigation time for maize in the central rift valley of Ethiopia and similar semiarid environments could be 100%ETc or 75%ETc application using alternate furrow irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors favor 75%ETc when water is severely limited.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 75%ETc application has an advantage over 100%ETc applications in saving more water and hence could be applied when water availability is severely limited”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other 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
- positive
- positive
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 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
- negative
- negative
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.