Abstract
The development of modern agriculture requires the reduction of water and chemical N fertilizer inputs. Increased planting density can maintain higher yields, but also consumes more restrictive resources. However, it is unknown whether increased maize density could compensate the negative effects for reduced water and N supply on grain yield and N uptake in the arid irrigated areas. This study is a long-term positioning trial started in 2016. A split-split plot field experiment of maize was implemented with two irrigation levels: local conventional irrigation reduced by 20% (W1, 3240 m3 ha-1) and local conventional irrigation (W2, 4050 m3 ha-1), two levels of N application rates: local conventional N reduced by 25% (N1, 270 kg ha-1) and local conventional N (360 kg ha-1), and three planting density: local conventional density (D1, 75000 plants ha-1), increased density by 30% (D2, 97500 plants ha-1), and increased density by 60% (D3, 120000 plants ha-1) in the arid irrigated area of northwestern China in the 2020 to 2021. Our results showed that grain yield and aboveground N accumulation of maize were decreased under reduced water and N inputs, but increased maize density by 30% can compensate for the reduction of grain yield and aboveground N accumulation caused by reduced water and N supply of maize. When water was reduced while N application rate was unchanged, increased planting density by 30% enhanced grain yield by 13.9% and aboveground N accumulation by 15.3%. Under reduced water and N inputs, increased maize density by 30% enhanced N uptake efficiency and N partial factor productivity, as well as compensated for N harvest index and N metabolism related enzyme activity. Compared with W2N2D1, N uptake efficiency and N partial factor productivity were increased by 28.6 and 17.6% with W1N1D2. W1N2D2 was 8.4% of N uptake efficiency and 13.9% of N partial factor productivity higher than W2N2D1. W1N2D2 improved urease activity and nitrate reductase activity by 5.4% at R2 stage and 19.6% at V6 stage, increased net income and benefit: cost ratio by 22.1 and 16.7%. W1N1D2 and W1N2D2 decreased nitrate nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen contents at R6 stage in 40-100 cm, compared with W2N2D1. In summary, increased planting density by 30% can compensate the loss of grain yield and aboveground N accumulation under water and N inputs. Meanwhile, increased maize density by 30% improved grain yield and aboveground N accumulation when water was reduced by 20% while constant N application rate in arid irrigation areas.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced water and nitrogen inputs decreased maize grain yield.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield and aboveground N accumulation of maize were decreased under reduced water and N inputs”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced water and nitrogen inputs decreased maize aboveground nitrogen accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield and aboveground N accumulation of maize were decreased under reduced water and N inputs”
Claim · model-written summary
A 30% density increase compensated for the grain yield loss from reduced water and nitrogen supply.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased maize density by 30% can compensate for the reduction of grain yield and aboveground N accumulation caused by reduced water and N supply of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
A 30% density increase compensated for the aboveground nitrogen accumulation loss from reduced water and nitrogen supply.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased maize density by 30% can compensate for the reduction of grain yield and aboveground N accumulation caused by reduced water and N supply of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With water reduced and unchanged nitrogen input, a 30% density increase raised maize grain yield by 13.9%.
- Treatment
- increased planting density by 30%e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 13.9%e0
- Qualifier
- water was reduced while N application rate was unchangede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When water was reduced while N application rate was unchanged, increased planting density by 30% enhanced grain yield by 13.9% and aboveground N accumulation by 15.3%.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With water reduced and unchanged nitrogen input, a 30% density increase raised aboveground nitrogen accumulation by 15.3%.
- Treatment
- increased planting density by 30%e0
- Outcome
- aboveground N accumulatione0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 15.3%e0
- Qualifier
- water was reduced while N application rate was unchangede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When water was reduced while N application rate was unchanged, increased planting density by 30% enhanced grain yield by 13.9% and aboveground N accumulation by 15.3%.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under reduced water and nitrogen input, a 30% density increase enhanced nitrogen uptake efficiency and nitrogen partial factor productivity.
- Treatment
- increased maize density by 30%e0
- Outcome
- N uptake efficiency and N partial factor productivitye0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Qualifier
- Under reduced water and N inputse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under reduced water and N inputs, increased maize density by 30% enhanced N uptake efficiency and N partial factor productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Under reduced water and nitrogen input, a 30% density increase compensated for nitrogen harvest index and nitrogen metabolism enzyme activity.
- Treatment
- increased maize density by 30%e0
- Outcome
- N harvest index and N metabolism related enzyme activitye0
- Direction
- compensatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under reduced water and N inputs, increased maize density by 30% enhanced N uptake efficiency and N partial factor productivity, as well as compensated for N harvest index and N metabolism related enzyme activity.”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N1D2 raised nitrogen uptake efficiency by 28.6 relative to W2N2D1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with W2N2D1, N uptake efficiency and N partial factor productivity were increased by 28.6 and 17.6% with W1N1D2.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N1D2 raised nitrogen partial factor productivity by 17.6% relative to W2N2D1.
- Treatment
- W1N1D2e0
- Outcome
- N partial factor productivitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 17.6%e0
- Comparator
- W2N2D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with W2N2D1, N uptake efficiency and N partial factor productivity were increased by 28.6 and 17.6% with W1N1D2.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N2D2 had 8.4% higher nitrogen uptake efficiency than W2N2D1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N2D2 was 8.4% of N uptake efficiency and 13.9% of N partial factor productivity higher than W2N2D1.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N2D2 had 13.9% higher nitrogen partial factor productivity than W2N2D1.
- Treatment
- W1N2D2e0
- Outcome
- N partial factor productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 13.9%e0
- Comparator
- W2N2D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N2D2 was 8.4% of N uptake efficiency and 13.9% of N partial factor productivity higher than W2N2D1.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N2D2 improved urease activity at R2 by 5.4%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N2D2 improved urease activity and nitrate reductase activity by 5.4% at R2 stage and 19.6% at V6 stage”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N2D2 improved nitrate reductase activity at V6 by 19.6%.
- Organ / stage
- V6 stagee0
- Treatment
- W1N2D2e0
- Outcome
- nitrate reductase activitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 19.6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N2D2 improved urease activity and nitrate reductase activity by 5.4% at R2 stage and 19.6% at V6 stage”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N2D2 increased net income by 22.1%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N2D2 improved urease activity and nitrate reductase activity by 5.4% at R2 stage and 19.6% at V6 stage, increased net income and benefit: cost ratio by 22.1 and 16.7%.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N2D2 increased the benefit to cost ratio by 16.7%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N2D2 improved urease activity and nitrate reductase activity by 5.4% at R2 stage and 19.6% at V6 stage, increased net income and benefit: cost ratio by 22.1 and 16.7%.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N1D2 reduced nitrate and ammoniacal nitrogen in the 40–100 cm soil layer at R6 relative to W2N2D1.
- Treatment
- W1N1D2e0
- Outcome
- nitrate nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen contentse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- at R6 stage in 40-100 cme0
- Comparator
- W2N2D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N1D2 and W1N2D2 decreased nitrate nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen contents at R6 stage in 40-100 cm, compared with W2N2D1.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
W1N2D2 reduced nitrate and ammoniacal nitrogen in the 40–100 cm soil layer at R6 relative to W2N2D1.
- Treatment
- W1N2D2e0
- Outcome
- nitrate nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen contentse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- at R6 stage in 40-100 cme0
- Comparator
- W2N2D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“W1N1D2 and W1N2D2 decreased nitrate nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen contents at R6 stage in 40-100 cm, compared with W2N2D1.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
density · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 403 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
485 papers more in this group
See all 489 papers →density · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
518 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
654 papers more in this group
See all 658 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
278 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,906 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.