Abstract
In regions with temperate and humid climate such as Uruguay, supplementary irrigation stabilizes and increases crop yields. Irrigation on demand generates higher water consumption, which affects production system sustainability due to inefficient use of resources. In order to determine environmentally and economically more sustainable irrigation strategies, three maximum irrigation depths were evaluated in field experiment, (T2) 3 mm d-1, (T3) 6 mm d-1, (T4) 9 mm d-1 and (T1) control without irrigation, on corn and soybean production. Performance differences were observed in both crops at different water deficit levels. When precipitation (PP) was higher than average, its poor temporary distribution generated water deficit at specific times, affecting yield. T1 and T2 did not cover the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) during the critical period and grain filling, which lowered yields. T3 and T4 gave higher yields and in the three years average they were significantly different. T3 did not always cover the ETc, but the soil reserve and PP contributed to cover it, saving irrigation water. The AquaCrop model was calibrated for maize and different irrigation strategies were evaluated. The calibrated model simulated well yield, biomass and soil moisture in the irrigated treatments. In T1, the model underestimated the yield. The soil allowed for further root exploration. At 0.90 m depth, the model simulated well the yield in T1, mainly in the dry year. The model predicts the yield with a good adjustment at different irrigation and PP situations if the stress coefficients are adjusted and the crop is properly parameterized. Finally, T1, three maximum irrigation depths (3, 6 and 8 mm net) and three irrigation management (depleting 10 mm, depleting 50 % of readily available water (RAW) and depleting 100 % of RAW) were evaluated in maize with AquaCrop. The productive variables, irrigation requirement, energy demand and partial income analysis were analyzed, considering a maize crop irrigated by central pivot. It is concluded that 5 mm net gives returns and income similar to 8 mm net, without considering investment costs. Regarding management, depleting 100 % of the RAW has higher water productivity, but it is risky in dry years; however, it is feasible to vary the strategy depending on the climatic perspectives of each year.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Performance differed for both crops across water deficit levels.
- Taxon
- Maize and soybean
Glycine max
Zea mayst0 - Outcome
- Performance differencese0
- Qualifier
- different water deficit levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Performance differences were observed in both crops at different water deficit levels.”
t0“Maize and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Poor precipitation distribution caused yield-affecting deficits despite above-average rain.
- Taxon
- Maize and soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Qualifier
- poor temporary distribution generated water deficit at specific timese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When precipitation (PP) was higher than average, its poor temporary distribution generated water deficit at specific times, affecting yield.”
t0“Maize and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
T1 and T2 did not cover ETc during critical period and grain filling, lowering yields.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T1 and T2 did not cover the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) during the critical period and grain filling, which lowered yields.”
t0“Maize and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 and T4 yielded more, with significant three-year average differences.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T3 and T4 gave higher yields and in the three years average they were significantly different.”
t0“Maize and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 sometimes failed to cover ETc but soil reserves and precipitation saved irrigation water.
- Taxon
- Maize and soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- saving irrigation watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T3 did not always cover the ETc, but the soil reserve and PP contributed to cover it, saving irrigation water.”
t0“Maize and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop simulated maize yield, biomass and soil moisture well under irrigation.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The calibrated model simulated well yield, biomass and soil moisture in the irrigated treatments.”
e1“The AquaCrop model was calibrated for maize”
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop underestimated yield in T1.
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In T1, the model underestimated the yield.”
e1“The AquaCrop model was calibrated for maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0.90 m depth, AquaCrop simulated T1 yield well, especially in the dry year.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 0.90 m depth, the model simulated well the yield in T1, mainly in the dry year.”
e1“The AquaCrop model was calibrated for maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The adjusted AquaCrop model predicted yield well across irrigation and precipitation situations.
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Qualifier
- if the stress coefficients are adjusted and the crop is properly parameterizede0
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The model predicts the yield with a good adjustment at different irrigation and PP situations if the stress coefficients are adjusted and the crop is properly parameterized.”
e1“The AquaCrop model was calibrated for maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Five mm net irrigation gave returns and income similar to 8 mm net.
- Treatment
- 5 mm nete0
- Outcome
- returns and incomee0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- without considering investment costse0
- Comparator
- 8 mm nete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“5 mm net gives returns and income similar to 8 mm net, without considering investment costs.”
e1“evaluated in maize with AquaCrop”
Claim · model-written summary
Depleting 100% RAW gave higher water productivity but was risky in dry years.
- Treatment
- depleting 100 % of the RAWe0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- risky in dry yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“depleting 100 % of the RAW has higher water productivity, but it is risky in dry years”
e1“evaluated in maize with AquaCrop”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation strategy can vary with annual climate outlook.
- Outcome
- vary the strategy depending on the climatic perspectives of each yeare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it is feasible to vary the strategy depending on the climatic perspectives of each year.”
e1“evaluated in maize with AquaCrop”
The same questions in other papers
trap barrier · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 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.