Abstract
Typical field conditions under sprinkler irrigation include low irrigation uniformity and non-uniform plant density, which can affect the crop yield and the environmental impact of irrigation. The effect of the uniformity of sprinkler irrigation and plant density on the variability of maize grain yield under semi-arid conditions was evaluated, and the relevance of the spatial variability of these two variables on the simulation of maize grain yield was tested with the DSSAT-CERES-Maize model (V 4.5). Experimental field data from three maize growing seasons (2006, 2009 and 2010) with nighttime or daytime sprinkler irrigation were used to test the model performance. Yield, irrigation depths and plant density distribution were measured in 18 m × 18 m plots divided in 25 sub-plots. Regression analysis showed that the variability of plant density and seasonal irrigation depth (due to irrigation non-uniformity) was able to explain from 28 to 77% of the variability in maize grain yield for the experiments with a relatively high coefficient of uniformity (CU) (73–84%) and high plant density (more than 74,844 plants ha−1). Taking into account irrigation depth distribution improved maize yield simulations compared to simulations with the average irrigation water applied. The root mean square error (RMSE) decreased from 637 to 328 kg ha−1. Maize yield was over-predicted by 3% when irrigation depth distribution was not considered. Including plant density distribution in the simulations did not improve maize yield simulations. The simulated decrease in maize yield with decreasing CU of irrigation from 100 to 70% varied from year to year and caused reductions in yield ranging from 0.75 to 2.5 Mg ha−1. The ability of the model to simulate CU effects on maize yield is shown.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Variation in plant density and irrigation depth explained 28 to 77% of maize yield variation in high-uniformity, high-density experiments.
- Treatment
- seasonal irrigation depthe0
- Outcome
- variability in maize grain yielde0
- Value
- 28 to 77%e0
- Qualifier
- high plant density (more than 74,844 plants ha−1)e0
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the variability of plant density and seasonal irrigation depth (due to irrigation non-uniformity) was able to explain from 28 to 77% of the variability in maize grain yield for the experiments with a relatively high coefficient of uniformity (CU) (73–84%) and high plant density (more than 74,844 plants ha−1).”
Claim · model-written summary
Using irrigation-depth distribution improved maize-yield simulation relative to average applied irrigation.
- Outcome
- maize yield simulationse0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- simulations with the average irrigation water appliede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Taking into account irrigation depth distribution improved maize yield simulations compared to simulations with the average irrigation water applied.”
Claim · model-written summary
RMSE fell from 637 to 328 kg ha−1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root mean square error (RMSE) decreased from 637 to 328 kg ha−1.”
t0“Effect of non-uniform sprinkler irrigation and plant density on simulated maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Without irrigation-depth distribution, maize yield was overpredicted by 3%.
- Outcome
- Maize yielde0
- Direction
- over-predictede0
- Value
- 3%e0
- Qualifier
- when irrigation depth distribution was not considerede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was over-predicted by 3% when irrigation depth distribution was not considered.”
t0“Effect of non-uniform sprinkler irrigation and plant density on simulated maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding plant-density distribution did not improve maize-yield simulations.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Including plant density distribution in the simulations did not improve maize yield simulations.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing irrigation CU from 100 to 70% caused simulated yield losses of 0.75 to 2.5 Mg ha−1, varying by year.
- Treatment
- decreasing CU of irrigation from 100 to 70%e0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 0.75 to 2.5 Mg ha−1e0
- Qualifier
- varied from year to yeare0
- Comparator
- 100e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The simulated decrease in maize yield with decreasing CU of irrigation from 100 to 70% varied from year to year and caused reductions in yield ranging from 0.75 to 2.5 Mg ha−1.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- 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.