Abstract
ABSTRACT Climate change is expected to reduce the yield of crops, including maize, especially in drought regions. Adjusting sowing dates and irrigation strategies are key methods for adapting to future climate change and maintaining maize production in drought areas. However, the extent to which the abovementioned strategies can mitigate the potential adverse impacts of climate change on maize yield and net irrigation requirements (NIR) in the arid regions of northwestern China is still unclear. This study used 12 global climate models (GCMs) to drive the AquaCrop model, evaluating maize production responses under two CMIP6 scenarios. The results indicate that the optimal sowing date should be 32.6 days earlier under SSP2‐4.5 and 37.9 days earlier under SSP5‐8.5 than under current practices. For irrigation, maintaining a higher total available water (TAW) threshold during the rapid development stage (> 65%) and at least 20% for other stages was beneficial. Compared with the baseline (1991–2020), adjusting the sowing date increased the maize yield by 1%–9% and extended the growth cycle (GC) by 3.5–22.9 days, whereas optimizing irrigation increased the yield by 2%–5% and reduced the NIR by 5%–25%. The results can provide useful references for food security in drought areas.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Optimal sowing was 32.6 days earlier under SSP2‐4.5.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the optimal sowing date should be 32.6 days earlier under SSP2‐4.5”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Optimal sowing was 37.9 days earlier under SSP5‐8.5.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the optimal sowing date should be 32.6 days earlier under SSP2‐4.5 and 37.9 days earlier under SSP5‐8.5”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The recommended TAW threshold exceeded 65% during rapid development.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maintaining a higher total available water (TAW) threshold during the rapid development stage (> 65%) and at least 20% for other stages was beneficial”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The recommended TAW threshold was at least 20% at other stages.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maintaining a higher total available water (TAW) threshold during the rapid development stage (> 65%) and at least 20% for other stages was beneficial”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Sowing adjustment increased maize yield by 1%–9%.
- Treatment
- adjusting the sowing datee0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1%–9%e0
- Comparator
- baseline (1991–2020)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the baseline (1991–2020), adjusting the sowing date increased the maize yield by 1%–9%”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Sowing adjustment extended the growth cycle by 3.5–22.9 days.
- Treatment
- adjusting the sowing datee0
- Outcome
- growth cycle (GC)e0
- Direction
- extendede0
- Value
- 3.5–22.9 dayse0
- Comparator
- baseline (1991–2020)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the baseline (1991–2020), adjusting the sowing date increased the maize yield by 1%–9% and extended the growth cycle (GC) by 3.5–22.9 days”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation optimization increased yield by 2%–5%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“optimizing irrigation increased the yield by 2%–5% and reduced the NIR by 5%–25%”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation optimization reduced NIR by 5%–25%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“optimizing irrigation increased the yield by 2%–5% and reduced the NIR by 5%–25%”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
177 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
265 papers more in this group
See all 269 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
- positive
- 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.