Abstract
Fresh water shortage is a major problem for grain production in the low plain around Bohai Sea in the North China Plain. Relative abundance of shallow saline groundwater could serve as an alternative water resource for use during dry seasons. A continuous 8-year field study was conducted from 2015 to 2023 to assess the effects of salt content in irrigation water on soil salt accumulation and crop production. Fresh water (FW) with electrical conductivity (EC) at 1.6 dS/m and three levels of saline water (SW) with EC at 4.7 (SW1), 6.3 (SW2) and 7.8 dS/m (SW3) were used for irrigation. Results showed that a single irrigation event at the jointing stage of winter wheat increased grain production averagely by 18.6 %, 22.5 %, 12.9 % and 9.5 % compared with a rain-fed treatment (RF) under FW, SW1, SW2 and SW3, respectively. With an additional irrigation applied at flowering stage, both irrigations using FW increased the yield by 28.6 %, and both irrigations using SW2 increased the yield by 19.3 % compared with RF. Negative effects of salt on winter wheat overshadowed the positive effects of increased water supply under two irrigations both using SW. With an irrigation at maize sowing and the subsequent summer rainy season, the yield of maize following winter wheat was not affected by a one-time SW irrigation to the previous crop, but showed a 5.3 % yield reduction when two irrigations of SW were applied. There was no apparent salt accumulation in the top 1 m of the soil profile, but a slight increasing trend in the salt content in the 1–2 m layer of the soil profile under SW2 and SW3 irrigation. No apparent changes in soil physical properties were observed for continuous application of SW. It was suggested that SW with EC not exceeding 6.3 dS/m should be applied for a single irrigation during the winter wheat season. This practice could alleviate the fresh water shortage in this region and allow for the maintenance of a relatively stable yield of winter wheat and maize without the risk of salt accumulation in the soil. • Irrigation water with EC from 4.7 to 7.8 dS/m applied to winter wheat increased crop production. • Salt accumulated in top soil layer was leached for maize establishment with an irrigation. • Salt accumulated in the main rooting zone could be further leached during summer rainfall season. • Annual salt balance was achieved under long-term saline water use.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
FW irrigation increased winter wheat grain production by 18.6 % versus rain-fed treatment.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Organ / stage
- jointing stagee0
- Treatment
- FWe0
- Outcome
- grain productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18.6 %e0
- Comparator
- rain-fed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a single irrigation event at the jointing stage of winter wheat increased grain production averagely by 18.6 %, 22.5 %, 12.9 % and 9.5 % compared with a rain-fed treatment (RF) under FW, SW1, SW2 and SW3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SW1 irrigation increased winter wheat grain production by 22.5 % versus rain-fed treatment.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- jointing stagee0
- Treatment
- SW1e0
- Outcome
- grain productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22.5 %e0
- Comparator
- rain-fed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a single irrigation event at the jointing stage of winter wheat increased grain production averagely by 18.6 %, 22.5 %, 12.9 % and 9.5 % compared with a rain-fed treatment (RF) under FW, SW1, SW2 and SW3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SW2 irrigation increased winter wheat grain production by 12.9 % versus rain-fed treatment.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- jointing stagee0
- Treatment
- SW2e0
- Outcome
- grain productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12.9 %e0
- Comparator
- rain-fed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a single irrigation event at the jointing stage of winter wheat increased grain production averagely by 18.6 %, 22.5 %, 12.9 % and 9.5 % compared with a rain-fed treatment (RF) under FW, SW1, SW2 and SW3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SW3 irrigation increased winter wheat grain production by 9.5 % versus rain-fed treatment.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- jointing stagee0
- Treatment
- SW3e0
- Outcome
- grain productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 9.5 %e0
- Comparator
- rain-fed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a single irrigation event at the jointing stage of winter wheat increased grain production averagely by 18.6 %, 22.5 %, 12.9 % and 9.5 % compared with a rain-fed treatment (RF) under FW, SW1, SW2 and SW3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Two fresh-water irrigations increased winter wheat yield by 28.6% versus rain-fed.
Verbatim
e0“With an additional irrigation applied at flowering stage, both irrigations using FW increased the yield by 28.6 %, and both irrigations using SW2 increased the yield by 19.3 % compared with RF”
t0“winter wheat-maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Two SW2 irrigations increased winter wheat yield by 19.3% versus rain-fed.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- both irrigations using SW2e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 19.3 %e0
- Comparator
- RFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both irrigations using SW2 increased the yield by 19.3 % compared with RF”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity offset the water-supply benefit to winter wheat under two saline irrigations.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- two irrigations both using SWe0
- Outcome
- Negative effects of salt on winter wheate0
- Direction
- overshadowede0
- Comparator
- increased water supplye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Negative effects of salt on winter wheat overshadowed the positive effects of increased water supply under two irrigations both using SW”
Claim · model-written summary
One prior saline irrigation did not affect subsequent maize yield.
- Treatment
- a one-time SW irrigation to the previous crope0
- Outcome
- yield of maizee0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield of maize following winter wheat was not affected by a one-time SW irrigation to the previous crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Two saline irrigations to winter wheat reduced subsequent maize yield by 5.3%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“showed a 5.3 % yield reduction when two irrigations of SW were applied”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SW2 and SW3 irrigation produced a slight increasing trend in soil salt at 1–2 m.
- Taxon
- winter wheat-maizet0
- Treatment
- SW2 and SW3 irrigatione0
- Outcome
- salt content in the 1–2 m layer of the soil profilee0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“a slight increasing trend in the salt content in the 1–2 m layer of the soil profile under SW2 and SW3 irrigation”
t0“winter wheat-maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation caused no apparent salt accumulation in the top metre of soil.
- Taxon
- winter wheat-maizet0
- Treatment
- saline water irrigationt1
- Outcome
- salt accumulation in the top 1 m of the soil profilee0
- Direction
- no apparente0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“There was no apparent salt accumulation in the top 1 m of the soil profile”
t0“winter wheat-maize”
t1“saline water irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous saline irrigation caused no apparent changes in soil physical properties.
- Taxon
- winter wheat-maizet0
- Treatment
- continuous application of SWe0
- Outcome
- soil physical propertiese0
- Direction
- No apparent changese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“No apparent changes in soil physical properties were observed for continuous application of SW”
t0“winter wheat-maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend one winter-wheat irrigation with saline water at EC no more than 6.3 dS/m.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- SW with EC not exceeding 6.3 dS/m should be applied for a single irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SW with EC not exceeding 6.3 dS/m should be applied for a single irrigation during the winter wheat season”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation leached salt accumulated in topsoil for maize establishment.
- Outcome
- Salt accumulated in top soil layer was leachede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Salt accumulated in top soil layer was leached for maize establishment with an irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer rainfall further leached salt in the main rooting zone.
Verbatim
e0“Salt accumulated in the main rooting zone could be further leached during summer rainfall season”
t0“winter wheat-maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term saline water use achieved annual salt balance.
Verbatim
e0“Annual salt balance was achieved under long-term saline water use”
t0“winter wheat-maize”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →salinity · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →rotation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 254 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
318 papers more in this group
See all 322 papers →irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
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.