Abstract
Abstract The effects of irrigation and nitrogen (N) on grain yield, actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa), N uptake efficiency (NUE), partial factor productivity of N (PFP N ), and N utilization efficiency (NUtE) of maize ( Zea mays L.) under centre pivot (CP), subsurface drip (SDI) and gravity (furrow) irrigation (FI) were quantified. Field experiments were conducted in two growing seasons under the full irrigation treatment (FIT), limited irrigation treatments of 80% FIT and 60% FIT and rainfed treatment (RFT). The highest NUE was observed under limited irrigation in the order of 80% FIT > FIT ≥ 60% FIT in non‐traditional treatment‐1 (NT‐1) in both the CP and SDI methods. NUtE increased with irrigation amount. There were strong correlations between NUtE and grain yield regardless of irrigation method. ETa increased with N amount, and the slopes of these relationships varied substantially between irrigation and N levels and irrigation methods. PFP N increased with irrigation amount across the irrigation methods and N treatments. A higher PFP N was observed in the lowest total applied N plots and in‐season split N application treatments. The pooled data for the CP and SDI methods showed significantly higher PFP N (20.3%) than the FI method, whereas the PFP N values in the CP and SDI methods were equal.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Limited irrigation at 80% FIT produced the highest maize NUE, ranked above FIT and 60% FIT in NT-1 under CP and SDI.
- Treatment
- 80% FITe0
- Outcome
- NUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- FIT ≥ 60% FITe0
- Setting
- CP and SDI methodse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest NUE was observed under limited irrigation in the order of 80% FIT > FIT ≥ 60% FIT in non‐traditional treatment‐1 (NT‐1) in both the CP and SDI methods”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize NUtE increased with irrigation amount.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NUtE increased with irrigation amount”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize NUtE was strongly correlated with grain yield across irrigation methods.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were strong correlations between NUtE and grain yield regardless of irrigation method”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize ETa increased with N amount.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ETa increased with N amount”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The ETa response slopes varied substantially across irrigation and N levels and irrigation methods.
- Treatment
- irrigation and N levelse0
- Outcome
- slopes of these relationshipse0
- Direction
- varied substantiallye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the slopes of these relationships varied substantially between irrigation and N levels and irrigation methods”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize PFP N increased with irrigation amount across irrigation methods and N treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PFP N increased with irrigation amount across the irrigation methods and N treatments”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize PFP N was higher in the lowest total applied N plots.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A higher PFP N was observed in the lowest total applied N plots and in‐season split N application treatments”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize PFP N was higher with in-season split N application.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A higher PFP N was observed in the lowest total applied N plots and in‐season split N application treatments”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pooled CP and SDI maize plots had 20.3% higher PFP N than FI plots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The pooled data for the CP and SDI methods showed significantly higher PFP N (20.3%) than the FI method”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize PFP N was equal under CP and SDI irrigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the PFP N values in the CP and SDI methods were equal”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 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.