Abstract
Maize is the most extensively produced crop in both Africa and Ethiopia in terms of both land area and production. However, low soil fertility, non-agronomic methods, disease, pests, weeds, and insufficient water, negatively affect its yield. Although there are a lot of maize farming in the Jimma Zone, the yield is very low. The variability of rainfall is one of the causes of the low production, and it has to be supplemented through irrigation. This study was initiated with the objective of determining the effect of supplementary irrigation on the production and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) under rain-fed agriculture. The field experiment was carried out for three consecutive years, from 2020 to 2022, on the maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center. The plots were laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) consisting of eight treatments in three replications. The results of the analysis of variance showed that, the different levels of supplementary irrigation had a highly significant (P < 0.05) effect on ear height, but there was no significant difference on plant height. Grain yield and 100 seed weight were significantly (p<0.05) influenced by the application of different levels of supplementary irrigation. The pooled mean analysis indicated that the highest grain yield of 10623.1 kg ha-1 and 100 seed weight of 56.19 gm/plot were recorded from the application of full irrigation (100% ETc). However, the plot with rain fed has given the lowest grain yield (5216.5 kg ha-1) and the lowest 100-seed weight (41.97 gm /plot). In this study, there was a 49.1% yield increment between the fully supplied and the rain-fed maize. The result of partial budget analysis of maize showed that, the highest marginal rate of return and maximum net benefit of 16118 % and 255465 ETB were recorded from one SI at flowering stage and full Supplementary irrigation, respectively. The lowest net benefit (125984 ETB) was obtained at a rain fed treatment. Even though the marginal rate of return was lower, for a sustainable production of maize a full supply irrigation can be recommended.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Different levels of supplementary irrigation had a highly significant effect on maize ear height.
- Treatment
- different levels of supplementary irrigatione2
- Outcome
- ear heighte2
- Setting
- Jimma agricultural research centere1
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center”
e2“the different levels of supplementary irrigation had a highly significant (P < 0.05) effect on ear height, but there was no significant difference on plant height”
Claim · model-written summary
Different levels of supplementary irrigation did not change maize plant height significantly.
- Treatment
- different levels of supplementary irrigatione2
- Outcome
- plant heighte2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center”
e2“the different levels of supplementary irrigation had a highly significant (P < 0.05) effect on ear height, but there was no significant difference on plant height”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield and 100 seed weight of maize were significantly influenced by supplementary irrigation levels.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center”
e3“Grain yield and 100 seed weight were significantly (p<0.05) influenced by the application of different levels of supplementary irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation (100% ETc) gave the highest maize grain yield compared with rain-fed plots.
- Treatment
- full irrigation (100% ETc)e4
- Outcome
- grain yielde4
- Direction
- higheste4
- Value
- 10623.1 kg ha-1e4
- Qualifier
- 5216.5 kg ha-1e5
- Comparator
- rain fede5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center”
e4“the highest grain yield of 10623.1 kg ha-1 and 100 seed weight of 56.19 gm/plot were recorded from the application of full irrigation (100% ETc)”
e5“the plot with rain fed has given the lowest grain yield (5216.5 kg ha-1) and the lowest 100-seed weight (41.97 gm /plot)”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation (100% ETc) gave the highest maize 100 seed weight compared with rain-fed plots.
- Treatment
- full irrigation (100% ETc)e4
- Outcome
- 100 seed weighte4
- Direction
- higheste4
- Value
- 56.19 gm/plote4
- Qualifier
- 41.97 gm /plote5
- Comparator
- rain fede5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center”
e4“the highest grain yield of 10623.1 kg ha-1 and 100 seed weight of 56.19 gm/plot were recorded from the application of full irrigation (100% ETc)”
e5“the plot with rain fed has given the lowest grain yield (5216.5 kg ha-1) and the lowest 100-seed weight (41.97 gm /plot)”
Claim · model-written summary
Full supply irrigation increased maize grain yield by 49.1% relative to rain-fed maize.
- Treatment
- fully suppliede6
- Outcome
- yield incremente6
- Direction
- incremente6
- Value
- 49.1%e6
- Comparator
- rain-fede6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center”
e6“there was a 49.1% yield increment between the fully supplied and the rain-fed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
One supplementary irrigation at flowering stage gave the highest marginal rate of return in maize, 16118 %.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result of partial budget analysis of maize showed that”
e7“the highest marginal rate of return and maximum net benefit of 16118 % and 255465 ETB were recorded from one SI at flowering stage and full Supplementary irrigation, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Full supplementary irrigation gave the maximum net benefit in maize, 255465 ETB.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result of partial budget analysis of maize showed that”
e7“the highest marginal rate of return and maximum net benefit of 16118 % and 255465 ETB were recorded from one SI at flowering stage and full Supplementary irrigation, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest maize net benefit, 125984 ETB, was obtained under rain-fed treatment.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) crop at the Jimma agricultural research center”
e2“The lowest net benefit (125984 ETB) was obtained at a rain fed treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Full supply irrigation can be recommended for sustainable production of maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“for a sustainable production of maize a full supply irrigation can be recommended”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
80 papers in the same direction as this paper · 208 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 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
- no effect
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.