Abstract
Maize is a key crop both globally and in Italy. In the Po Valley, it is cultivated on 500,000 ha, primarily for use in livestock production. Here, maize cultivation is highly dependent on irrigation, traditionally performed using border irrigation. However, due to increasing water scarcity, more efficient irrigation strategies will be required in the future. This study develops and tests an innovative integrated framework combining soil characterisation, in-field monitoring devices, agro-hydrological modelling and remote sensing to save water and energy. In 2021, a variable rate (VR) irrigation strategy was implemented in a 15-ha center pivot in a large livestock farm in northern Italy using: i) soil mapping based on an electromagnetic induction (EMI) sensor to delineate homogeneous zones, ii) a modelling workflow coupling soil moisture probes and weather forecasts to determine irrigation timing and amounts, and iii) a speed-controlled pivot for spatially variable application. This approach reduced water and energy use by 20 %, while maintaining yield and reducing grain moisture at harvest, although operational constraints imposed by the tenant limited the achievable savings. The framework was then scaled up to the entire farm for the 2016–2021 period using a semi-distributed agro-hydrological model supported by remote sensing data. Simulations indicated a mean reduction of 19 % in irrigation and energy use, consistent with field results. Overall, the developed modelling framework proved to be effective in optimizing irrigation and can be transferred to other crop-growing areas relying on sprinkler systems. • The developed variable-rate (VR) irrigation strategy integrates measures, models and weather forecasts. • VR irrigation reduced maize water use by 20 % without affecting yield on a 15 ha pivot in 2021. • Energy saving was consistent with water saving (20 %). • VR simulations for a farm (300 ha) showed an average (6 years) water and energy saving of 19 %. • Crop phenometrics and parameters retrieved by Sentinel-2 were crucial at the farm level.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Variable rate irrigation reduced water and energy use by 20%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Verbatim
e0“This approach reduced water and energy use by 20 %”
t0“variable rate sprinkler irrigation on a large maize farm”
Claim · model-written summary
Variable rate irrigation maintained maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Verbatim
e0“while maintaining yield”
t0“variable rate sprinkler irrigation on a large maize farm”
Claim · model-written summary
Variable rate irrigation reduced grain moisture at harvest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Verbatim
e0“reducing grain moisture at harvest”
t0“variable rate sprinkler irrigation on a large maize farm”
Claim · model-written summary
Farm simulations indicated a mean 19% reduction in irrigation and energy use.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Verbatim
e0“Simulations indicated a mean reduction of 19 % in irrigation and energy use”
t0“maize farm”
Claim · model-written summary
The modelling framework was effective for optimizing irrigation.
- Outcome
- effective in optimizing irrigatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Verbatim
e0“developed modelling framework proved to be effective in optimizing irrigation”
t0“maize farm”
The same questions in other 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.