Abstract
Identifying optimal irrigation thresholds in arid and saline regions is crucial for sustainable agriculture. However, the optimal irrigation thresholds for maize under different salinity conditions in northwest China remain unclear. Although the APSIM model is widely used in crop management, its application in saline environments has been limited. The DCaPST module couples leaf and canopy photosynthesis with crop growth, and is suitable for evaluating photosynthetic manipulations. This study calibrated the APSIM-DCaPST model using two years of field data and modified crop lower limit (CLL), water-extraction coefficient (KL), and root exploration in soil profile (XF), respectively, under saline stress. The improved model, combined with the TOPSIS method, identified optimal irrigation thresholds for water-saving, yield-stabilizing, and high water productivity (WP) under varying salinity levels. Six photosynthetic parameters were increased by 20% to assess their combined effects on irrigation thresholds, yield, and WP. The APSIM model accurately simulated maize production under non-saline conditions. Integrating DCaPST slightly improved simulations of biomass, yield, and evapotranspiration (ET), but its performance under salt stress remained limited. Adjusting CLL, KL, and XF all improved model accuracy, while KL minimized biomass, yield, and ET simulation errors. Under non-saline conditions, the optimal irrigation threshold was 50%-100% of field capacity (FC); under saline stress (electrical conductivity of the soil saturation extract, EC e = 2, 4, 6 dS m −1 ), they were 60%-100% FC. Notably, at EC e = 6 dS m −1 , the lower threshold could be increased to 70% FC when yield maximization was prioritized over water saving. A simultaneous 20% increase in the maximum carboxylation rate of phosphoenolpyruvate, the maximum electron transport rate, and mesophyll conductance did not change the optimal irrigation thresholds but increased yield by 1.12%-1.85% and WP by 0.17%-1.85%. Under photosynthetic manipulations, the optimal irrigation threshold saved water by 11.59%-41.82% and generally improved WP by 0.31%-6.39% (except for ZD958 at EC e = 6 dS m −1 ), despite a yield reduction of 4.34%-21.21%. These findings provide guidance for sustainable saline agriculture and efficient management of water resources.
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
APSIM accurately simulated maize production under non-saline conditions.
- Outcome
- maize productione0
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The APSIM model accurately simulated maize production under non-saline conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding DCaPST slightly improved simulations of biomass, yield and evapotranspiration.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Integrating DCaPST slightly improved simulations of biomass, yield, and evapotranspiration (ET)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DCaPST performance remained limited under salt stress.
- Outcome
- performance under salt stresse0
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its performance under salt stress remained limited”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Adjusting crop lower limit improved model accuracy.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Adjusting CLL, KL, and XF all improved model accuracy”
e1“crop lower limit (CLL)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Adjusting water-extraction coefficient improved model accuracy.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Adjusting CLL, KL, and XF all improved model accuracy”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Adjusting root exploration in soil profile improved model accuracy.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Adjusting CLL, KL, and XF all improved model accuracy”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
KL minimized simulation errors for biomass, yield and evapotranspiration.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“KL minimized biomass, yield, and ET simulation errors”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal maize irrigation threshold was 50%-100% of field capacity under non-saline conditions.
- Outcome
- optimal irrigation thresholde0
- Value
- 50%-100% of field capacity (FC)e0
- Qualifier
- Under non-saline conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under non-saline conditions, the optimal irrigation threshold was 50%-100% of field capacity (FC)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal maize irrigation threshold was 60%-100% field capacity under saline stress.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under saline stress (electrical conductivity of the soil saturation extract, EC e = 2, 4, 6 dS m −1 ), they were 60%-100% FC”
e1“Under non-saline conditions, the optimal irrigation threshold was 50%-100% of field capacity (FC)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At EC e = 6 dS m −1, prioritizing yield allowed the lower irrigation threshold to rise to 70% FC.
- Outcome
- lower thresholde0
- Value
- 70% FCe0
- Qualifier
- when yield maximization was prioritized over water savinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at EC e = 6 dS m −1 , the lower threshold could be increased to 70% FC when yield maximization was prioritized over water saving”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined 20% photosynthetic parameter increases did not change the optimal irrigation thresholds.
- Treatment
- simultaneous 20% increase in the maximum carboxylation rate of phosphoenolpyruvate, the maximum electron transport rate, and mesophyll conductancee0
- Outcome
- optimal irrigation thresholdse0
- Direction
- did not changee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A simultaneous 20% increase in the maximum carboxylation rate of phosphoenolpyruvate, the maximum electron transport rate, and mesophyll conductance did not change the optimal irrigation thresholds”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined photosynthetic parameter increases raised maize yield by 1.12%-1.85%.
- Treatment
- simultaneous 20% increase in the maximum carboxylation rate of phosphoenolpyruvate, the maximum electron transport rate, and mesophyll conductancee1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.12%-1.85%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased yield by 1.12%-1.85% and WP by 0.17%-1.85%”
e1“A simultaneous 20% increase in the maximum carboxylation rate of phosphoenolpyruvate, the maximum electron transport rate, and mesophyll conductance”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined photosynthetic parameter increases raised water productivity by 0.17%-1.85%.
- Treatment
- simultaneous 20% increase in the maximum carboxylation rate of phosphoenolpyruvate, the maximum electron transport rate, and mesophyll conductancee1
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.17%-1.85%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased yield by 1.12%-1.85% and WP by 0.17%-1.85%”
e1“A simultaneous 20% increase in the maximum carboxylation rate of phosphoenolpyruvate, the maximum electron transport rate, and mesophyll conductance”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal irrigation threshold under photosynthetic manipulations saved 11.59%-41.82% of water.
- Treatment
- optimal irrigation thresholde0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- 11.59%-41.82%e0
- Qualifier
- Under photosynthetic manipulationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under photosynthetic manipulations, the optimal irrigation threshold saved water by 11.59%-41.82%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under photosynthetic manipulations, the optimal irrigation threshold generally improved water productivity by 0.31%-6.39%, except for ZD958 at EC e = 6 dS m −1.
- Material
- ZD958e0
- Treatment
- optimal irrigation thresholde0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 0.31%-6.39%e0
- Qualifier
- except for ZD958 at EC e = 6 dS m −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under photosynthetic manipulations, the optimal irrigation threshold saved water by 11.59%-41.82% and generally improved WP by 0.31%-6.39% (except for ZD958 at EC e = 6 dS m −1 )”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under photosynthetic manipulations, the optimal irrigation threshold reduced yield by 4.34%-21.21%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under photosynthetic manipulations, the optimal irrigation threshold saved water by 11.59%-41.82% and generally improved WP by 0.31%-6.39% (except for ZD958 at EC e = 6 dS m −1 ), despite a yield reduction of 4.34%-21.21%”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
electron · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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 →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.