Abstract
Summary Maize holds a key role in ensuring food security in Ethiopia, yet its productivity faces challenges due to water scarcity and soil acidity. Minimizing these problems is crucial to enhance maize yield and maintain food security. This research explored the effects of deficit irrigation (DI) combined with lime, manure, and inorganic fertilizer application on maize yield and water productivity (WP) in Koga, Ethiopia. Three levels of DI, namely 80%, 60%, and 50% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), alongside 100% ETc (full irrigation) as a reference, were implemented for two consecutive seasons. Five integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) treatments were evaluated over two successive seasons: (i) combining 1.43 Mg ha –1 of lime with 3 Mg ha –1 of manure and full doses of urea + (NPSB, containing 18.9% Nitrogen, 37.7% Phosphorus, 6.95% Sulphur, and 0.1% Boron), referred to as inorganic fertilizer (L1); (ii) combining 1.15 Mg ha –1 of lime with 3 Mg ha –1 of manure and full doses of inorganic fertilizer (L2); (iii) combining 0.86 Mg ha –1 of lime with 3 Mg ha –1 of manure and full doses of inorganic fertilizer (L3); (iv) applying 3 Mg ha –1 of manure and full doses of inorganic fertilizer (M); and (v) using only full doses of inorganic fertilizer (C). Grain yield and biomass were measured at harvest from a 9 m 2 sample area in each plot, with three replicates. The combined effects of DI, liming and manuring significantly influenced average grain yield and biomass. Across all irrigation scenarios, higher grain yield and biomass production were found with treatments L1, L2, L3, and M compared to treatment C. The highest WP was found with 50% ETc under all ISFM treatments. The lowest maize yield and WP were recorded with treatment C across all irrigation levels. Manuring combined with reduced irrigation increased grain yield, biomass, and WP compared to the use of inorganic fertilizer alone at 100% ETc. The combined use of lime and manure could mitigate the negative impact of DI on yield.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments L1, L2, L3 and M gave higher grain yield and biomass than treatment C across irrigation scenarios.
- Treatment
- treatments L1, L2, L3, and Me1
- Outcome
- grain yield and biomass productione1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- treatment Ce1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“improving maize yield”
e1“Across all irrigation scenarios, higher grain yield and biomass production were found with treatments L1, L2, L3, and M compared to treatment C”
Claim · model-written summary
Water productivity was highest with 50% ETc under all ISFM treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“improving maize yield”
e2“The highest WP was found with 50% ETc under all ISFM treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield and water productivity were lowest with treatment C across all irrigation levels.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“improving maize yield”
e3“The lowest maize yield and WP were recorded with treatment C across all irrigation levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Manuring combined with reduced irrigation increased grain yield, biomass and water productivity compared with inorganic fertilizer alone at 100% ETc.
- Treatment
- Manuring combined with reduced irrigatione4
- Outcome
- grain yield, biomass, and WPe4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Comparator
- inorganic fertilizer alone at 100% ETce4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“improving maize yield”
e4“Manuring combined with reduced irrigation increased grain yield, biomass, and WP compared to the use of inorganic fertilizer alone at 100% ETc”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined lime and manure use could mitigate the negative impact of deficit irrigation on yield.
- Treatment
- combined use of lime and manuree5
- Outcome
- negative impact of DI on yielde5
- Direction
- mitigatee5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“improving maize yield”
e5“The combined use of lime and manure could mitigate the negative impact of DI on yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation, liming and manuring combined significantly influenced average grain yield and biomass.
- Treatment
- DI, liming and manuringe6
- Outcome
- average grain yield and biomasse6
- Direction
- significantly influencede6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“improving maize yield”
e6“The combined effects of DI, liming and manuring significantly influenced average grain yield and biomass”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →lime · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
215 papers more in this group
See all 219 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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.