Abstract
The Mexican Bajío region is the country's main barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) producing area. Barley is commonly produced during the dry autumn–winter season using furrow irrigation with ground water, following which rainfed maize ( Zea mays ) is grown in the spring–summer season using supplementary irrigation. Ground water levels in the region are steadily dropping, and the introduction of water-saving technologies in agriculture is urgently required. Drip irrigation can reduce water use but is costly. Conservation agriculture—the combination of minimal tillage, permanent soil cover and crop diversification—might reduce water use, but studies in irrigated systems are scarce. We compared water use and grain yield in tillage-based conventional agriculture and conservation agriculture, both with furrow irrigation and drip irrigation, in a 3-year (six growing seasons) barley-maize field experiment. Additionally, side-by-side demonstrations of conventional and conservation agriculture were installed simultaneously in farmers' fields and yields, water use and fuel use were recorded. In the field experiment, yields did not differ significantly between production systems, but irrigation water use was on average 17% lower in conservation agriculture than in conventional agriculture, ~36% lower with drip irrigation compared with furrow irrigation in conventional tillage, and 40% lower with drip irrigation and conservation agriculture combined compared with conventional agriculture with furrow irrigation. Water use reductions differed strongly between years, depending on weather. The water saving through conservation agriculture in farmers' fields was similar to the water saving in the controlled experiment with about 17%. Additionally, in farmer's fields conservation agriculture reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 192 kg CO 2 ha −1 and improved soil health. The implementation of conservation agriculture would be a cost-effective method to reduce water use in the barley-maize production system in the Mexican Bajío, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
In the field experiment, yields did not differ significantly between the production systems.
- Taxon
- Barley and Maize
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgare
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- production systemse1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- did not differe1
- Setting
- field experimente1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“In the field experiment, yields did not differ significantly between production systems”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation water use was on average 17% lower in conservation agriculture than in conventional agriculture.
- Taxon
- Barley and MaizeHordeum vulgareZea mayst0
- Treatment
- conservation agriculturee1
- Outcome
- irrigation water usee1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 17%e1
- Comparator
- conventional agriculturee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“irrigation water use was on average 17% lower in conservation agriculture than in conventional agriculture”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation water use was about 36% lower with drip irrigation than with furrow irrigation in conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Barley and MaizeHordeum vulgareZea mayst0
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- irrigation water usee1
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- ~36%e2
- Qualifier
- conventional tillagee2
- Comparator
- furrow irrigatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“irrigation water use”
e2“~36% lower with drip irrigation compared with furrow irrigation in conventional tillage”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation water use was 40% lower with drip irrigation and conservation agriculture combined than with conventional agriculture with furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- Barley and MaizeHordeum vulgareZea mayst0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation and conservation agriculture combinede2
- Outcome
- irrigation water usee1
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- 40%e2
- Comparator
- conventional agriculture with furrow irrigatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“irrigation water use”
e2“40% lower with drip irrigation and conservation agriculture combined compared with conventional agriculture with furrow irrigation”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use reductions differed strongly between years, depending on weather.
- Taxon
- Barley and MaizeHordeum vulgareZea mayst0
- Outcome
- Water use reductionse1
- Direction
- differed strongly between yearse1
- Qualifier
- depending on weathere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Water use reductions differed strongly between years, depending on weather”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The water saving through conservation agriculture in farmers' fields was similar to that in the controlled experiment, about 17%.
- Taxon
- Barley and MaizeHordeum vulgareZea mayst0
- Treatment
- conservation agriculturee1
- Outcome
- water savinge1
- Value
- about 17%e1
- Comparator
- controlled experimente1
- Setting
- farmers' fieldse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The water saving through conservation agriculture in farmers' fields was similar to the water saving in the controlled experiment with about 17%”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
In farmers' fields, conservation agriculture reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 192 kg CO2 per ha.
- Taxon
- Barley and MaizeHordeum vulgareZea mayst0
- Treatment
- conservation agriculturee1
- Outcome
- greenhouse gas emissionse1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 192 kg CO 2 ha −1e1
- Setting
- farmer's fieldse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“in farmer's fields conservation agriculture reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 192 kg CO 2 ha −1”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
In farmers' fields, conservation agriculture improved soil health.
- Taxon
- Barley and MaizeHordeum vulgareZea mayst0
- Treatment
- conservation agriculturee1
- Outcome
- soil healthe1
- Direction
- improvede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“conservation agriculture reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 192 kg CO 2 ha −1 and improved soil health”
t0“Barley and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend implementing conservation agriculture as a cost-effective method to reduce water use in the barley-maize production system in the Mexican Bajio.
Verbatim
e1“The implementation of conservation agriculture would be a cost-effective method to reduce water use in the barley-maize production system in the Mexican Bajío”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · environment: emissions · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →tillage · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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
- positive
- positive
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 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
- no effect
- negative
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 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.