Abstract
Excessive water and nitrogen inputs in agricultural production can result in resource wastage and environmental pollution. This makes it imperative to identify effective farmland management strategies to ensure sustainable agriculture development, and it remains to be explored whether biochar can be an effective solution. In this study, a 2-year (2021 and 2022) field experiment was conducted with two irrigation levels, W100 (ET) and W80 (0.8 ET), and three nitrogen fertilizer levels, NH (270 kg ha−1), NM (180 kg ha−1), and NL (90 kg ha−1), in full combination with biochar (30 t ha−1). The NM and N0 treatments without biochar at both irrigation levels were set as controls. The results of the study showed that there was no significant difference in maize yield between the high and medium N treatments. Further, maximum water productivity (WP), nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE), and nitrogen recovery efficiency (NRE) were obtained in NM treatments when water and nitrogen were kept consistent. Deficit irrigation was effective in reducing water consumption and increased WP by 15.54% and 11.06% in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Biochar application increased WP, nitrogen use efficiencies, and significantly increased the yield by 7.02% and 6.46% in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Therefore, the application of biochar can be an effective measure to promote crop growth and resource use. Based on the results of this experiment, an irrigation level of 0.8 ET in combination with NM and biochar application is recommended to ensure the sustainability of agricultural production.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield did not differ significantly between the high and medium nitrogen treatments.
- Treatment
- NH (270 kg ha−1)e1
- Outcome
- maize yielde2
- Direction
- no significant differencee2
- Comparator
- NM (180 kg ha−1)e1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“NH (270 kg ha−1), NM (180 kg ha−1), and NL (90 kg ha−1)”
e2“there was no significant difference in maize yield between the high and medium N treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium nitrogen (NM) gave the maximum water productivity, nitrogen agronomic efficiency and nitrogen recovery efficiency when water and nitrogen were kept consistent.
- Treatment
- NMe3
- Outcome
- water productivity (WP), nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE), and nitrogen recovery efficiency (NRE)e3
- Direction
- maximume3
- Qualifier
- when water and nitrogen were kept consistente3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e3“maximum water productivity (WP), nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE), and nitrogen recovery efficiency (NRE) were obtained in NM treatments when water and nitrogen were kept consistent”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation increased water productivity by 15.54% in 2021 compared with W100 (ET).
- Treatment
- Deficit irrigatione4
- Outcome
- WPe4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 15.54%e4
- Comparator
- W100 (ET)e5
- Setting
- 2021e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e4“Deficit irrigation was effective in reducing water consumption and increased WP by 15.54% and 11.06% in 2021 and 2022”
e5“two irrigation levels, W100 (ET) and W80 (0.8 ET)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation increased water productivity by 11.06% in 2022 compared with W100 (ET).
- Treatment
- Deficit irrigatione4
- Outcome
- WPe4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 11.06%e4
- Comparator
- W100 (ET)e5
- Setting
- 2022e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e4“Deficit irrigation was effective in reducing water consumption and increased WP by 15.54% and 11.06% in 2021 and 2022”
e5“two irrigation levels, W100 (ET) and W80 (0.8 ET)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation reduced water consumption compared with W100 (ET).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e4“Deficit irrigation was effective in reducing water consumption and increased WP by 15.54% and 11.06% in 2021 and 2022”
e5“two irrigation levels, W100 (ET) and W80 (0.8 ET)”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar application increased water productivity and nitrogen use efficiencies compared with treatments without biochar.
- Treatment
- Biochar applicatione6
- Outcome
- WP, nitrogen use efficienciese6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Comparator
- NM and N0 treatments without biochare7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e6“Biochar application increased WP, nitrogen use efficiencies, and significantly increased the yield by 7.02% and 6.46% in 2021 and 2022”
e7“The NM and N0 treatments without biochar at both irrigation levels were set as controls”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar application significantly increased maize yield by 7.02% in 2021 compared with treatments without biochar.
- Treatment
- Biochar applicatione6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- significantly increasede6
- Value
- 7.02%e6
- Comparator
- NM and N0 treatments without biochare7
- Setting
- 2021e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e6“Biochar application increased WP, nitrogen use efficiencies, and significantly increased the yield by 7.02% and 6.46% in 2021 and 2022”
e7“The NM and N0 treatments without biochar at both irrigation levels were set as controls”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar application significantly increased maize yield by 6.46% in 2022 compared with treatments without biochar.
- Treatment
- Biochar applicatione6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- significantly increasede6
- Value
- 6.46%e6
- Comparator
- NM and N0 treatments without biochare7
- Setting
- 2022e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e6“Biochar application increased WP, nitrogen use efficiencies, and significantly increased the yield by 7.02% and 6.46% in 2021 and 2022”
e7“The NM and N0 treatments without biochar at both irrigation levels were set as controls”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider biochar an effective measure to promote maize growth and resource use.
- Outcome
- an effective measure to promote crop growth and resource usee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e1“the application of biochar can be an effective measure to promote crop growth and resource use”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend an irrigation level of 0.8 ET combined with NM and biochar application for sustainable production.
- Outcome
- an irrigation level of 0.8 ET in combination with NM and biochar applicatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“water/nitrogen use of maize”
e1“an irrigation level of 0.8 ET in combination with NM and biochar application is recommended to ensure the sustainability of agricultural production”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →biochar · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
174 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
189 papers more in this group
See all 193 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.