Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil water and heat conditions, yield and quality of processing tomatoes by drip irrigation
JIA Hao1,2, WANG Zhenhua1,2,*(), ZHANG Jinzhu1,2, LI Wenhao1, REN Zuoli1, JIA Zhecheng1, WANG Qin1
1College of Water & Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China 2Key Laboratory of Modern Water-Saving Irrigation of Xinjiang Production & Construction Group, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
To combat the problem of residual film pollution and ensure the sustainable development of agriculture in oasis areas, a field experiment was carried out in 2019 at the Wuyi Farm Corps Irrigation Center Test Station in Urumqi, Northwest China. Four types of biodegradable mulches, traditional plastic mulchs and a control group (bare land; referred to as CK) were compared, including a total of six different treatments. Effects of mulching on soil water and heat conditions as well as the yield and quality of processing tomatoes under drip irrigation were examined. In addition, a comparative analysis of economic benefits of biodegradable mulches was performed. Principal component analysis and gray correlation analysis were used to evaluate suitable mulching varieties for planting processing tomatoes under drip irrigation. Our results show that, compared with CK, biodegradable mulches and traditional plastic mulch have a similar effect on retaining soil moisture at the seedling stage but significantly increase soil moisture by 0.5%-1.5% and 1.5%-3.0% in the middle and late growth periods (P<0.050), respectively. The difference in the thermal insulation effect between biodegradable mulch and plastic mulch gradually reduces as the crop grows. Compared with plastic mulch, the average soil temperature at 5-20 cm depth under biodegradable mulches is significantly lowered by 2.04°C-3.52°C and 0.52°C-0.88°C (P<0.050) at the seedling stage and the full growth period, respectively, and the water use efficiency, average fruit yield, and production-investment ratio under biodegradable mulches were reduced by 0.89%-6.63%, 3.39%-8.69%, and 0.51%-6.33% (P<0.050), respectively. The comprehensive evaluation analysis suggests that the black oxidized biological double-degradation ecological mulch made from eco-benign plastic is the optimal film type under the study condition. Therefore, from the perspective of sustainable development, biodegradable mulch is a competitive alternative to plastic mulch for large-scale tomato production under drip irrigation in the oasis.
. [J]. 干旱区科学, 2020, 12(5): 819-836.
JIA Hao, WANG Zhenhua, ZHANG Jinzhu, LI Wenhao, REN Zuoli, JIA Zhecheng, WANG Qin. Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil water and heat conditions, yield and quality of processing tomatoes by drip irrigation. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 819-836.
Ground temperature (°C) measured four times a day at different soil depths
5 cm
10 cm
08:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
08:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
PE
24.52±0.228aA
37.35±0.4327aA
46.90±0.696aA
33.18±0.557aA
24.58±0.661aA
32.03±0.278aA
40.28±0.229aA
34.08±0.111aA
BM1
23.80±0.793aAB
36.40±0.307abAB
41.60±0.443bB
32.75±0.514abA
22.93±0.229bB
31.20±0.286bAB
37.18±0.421bB
32.93±0.189bAB
WM1
21.47±0.375bcB
35.50±0.377bcBC
41.53±0.272bB
31.98±0.556abA
22.63±0.354bcB
29.88±0.275cC
36.33±0.175cBC
32.45±0.307bBC
BM2
23.53±0.854abAB
36.30±0.447abABC
41.58±0.316bB
31.65±0.330bA
21.65±0.312cB
29.58±0.085cC
36.00±0.187cCD
31.25±0.284cC
WM2
21.37±0.904cB
34.57±0.549cC
39.88±0.764cB
29.10±0.227cB
21.95±0.185bcB
30.95±0.210bB
35.15±0.171dD
29.40±0.483dD
CK
20.76±0.196dD
36.11±0.150bB
32.54±0.395dD
27.52±0.215dC
20.53±0.135dC
27.86±0.324dD
30.25±0.214eE
26.57±0.389eE
Significance analysis (F test value)
MM
252.463***
59.110***
789.350***
596.652***
269.568***
397.235***
1896.356***
891.112***
T
15 cm
20 cm
08:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
08:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
PE
25.40±0.208aA
30.03±0.193aA
35.03±0.193aA
33.48±0.125aA
24.80±0.245aA
27.20±0.141aA
32.48±0.125aA
31.20±0.141aA
BM1
22.73±0.149bB
29.78±0.221abA
34.90±0.508aAB
30.65±0.393cBC
22.68±0.189cdCD
25.45±0.132cC
29.38±0.144bB
29.18±0.132cC
WM1
22.70±0.261bB
29.53±0.103bA
34.30±0.178abAB
30.20±0.147cC
23.18±0.149cBC
25.23±0.149cC
28.53±0.103cC
28.18±0.149dD
BM2
22.10±0.334bB
30.10±0.108aA
35.05±0.104aA
31.50±0.286bB
23.80±0.123bB
26.30±0.220bB
29.58±0.165bB
30.05±0.150bB
WM2
22.55±0.194bB
29.48±0.144bA
33.65±0.393bB
28.60±0.187dD
22.45±0.132dD
24.25±0.166dD
25.50±0.123dD
27.23±0.155eE
CK
21.25±0.245cC
27.56±0.113bB
29.14±0.209cC
24.28±0.168eE
21.35±0.143eE
26.49±0115bB
27.34±0.167cC
24.12±0.214fF
Significance analysis (F test value)
MM
216.857***
118.962***
547.223***
914.367***
165.322***
238.114***
386.425***
1664.874***
T
ST (°C)
MC (% g/g)
FY (t/hm2)
VC
SSg
TA
SSl
SAR
WUE (t/(hm2·mm))
Pr-In
(mg/100 g FW)
PE
38.67
16.63
173.25
30.123
12.598
0.856
5.293
14.732
0.3366
1.8538
BM1
35.55
15.73
166.62
30.395
13.280
0.952
6.010
14.235
0.3282
1.7195
WM1
35.17
15.52
162.34
29.348
12.828
0.882
6.000
14.201
0.3248
1.6850
BM2
35.58
15.87
167.36
31.018
15.450
0.988
6.110
15.779
0.3336
1.7970
WM2
33.54
15.82
158.18
29.033
12.695
0.915
5.987
13.917
0.3143
1.7333
CK
29.82
15.63
138.31
26.635
10.720
1.069
5.760
10.128
0.2781
1.3225
Treatment
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Rank
PE
2.7974
-2.8429
0.2756
0.0226
-0.0379
1
BM1
0.8040
0.8122
-0.0425
0.4857
0.3119
3
WM1
0.2675
0.5990
-1.2599
0.1935
-0.2495
4
BM2
1.9341
1.8562
1.0878
-0.1286
-0.1544
2
WM2
-0.3019
0.2335
-0.5460
-0.6558
0.1800
5
CK
-5.5011
-0.6580
0.4851
0.0826
-0.0500
6
T
S
ST (°C)
MC (% g/g)
FY (t/hm2)
VC
SSg
TA
SSl
SAR
WUE (t/(hm2·mm))
Pr-In
(mg/100 g FW)
RS
X0
38.67
16.63
173.25
31.018
15.450
1.069
6.110
15.779
0.3366
1.8538
PE
X1
38.67
16.63
173.25
30.123
12.598
0.856
5.293
14.732
0.3366
1.8538
BM1
X2
35.55
15.73
166.62
30.395
13.280
0.952
6.010
14.235
0.3282
1.7195
WM1
X3
35.17
15.52
162.34
29.348
12.828
0.882
6.000
14.201
0.3248
1.6850
BM2
X4
35.58
15.87
167.36
31.018
15.450
0.988
6.110
15.779
0.3336
1.7970
WM2
X5
33.54
15.82
158.18
29.033
12.695
0.915
5.987
13.917
0.3143
1.7333
CK
X6
29.82
15.63
138.31
26.635
10.720
1.069
5.760
10.128
0.2781
1.3225
Treatment
Correlation degree
Rank
PE
0.5422
1
BM1
0.4934
3
WM1
0.4382
4
BM2
0.5137
2
WM2
0.4045
5
CK
0.3736
6
[1]
Ammala A, Bateman S, Dean K, et al. 2011. An overview of degradable and biodegradable polyolefins. Progress in Polymer Science, 36(8): 1015-1049.
doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.12.002
[2]
Bi J Y, Wang X F, Zhu D L. 2008. Effect of plastic-film mulch on crop yield. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 24(11): 172-175. (in Chinese)
[3]
Danierhan S, Shalamu A, Tumaerbai H, et al. 2013. Effects of emitter discharge rates on soil salinity distribution and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield under drip irrigation with plastic mulch in an arid region of Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land, 5(1): 51-59.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-013-0141-7
[4]
Du L, Li Y N, Chen P P, et al. 2018. Effects of different residual film on the growth and soil environment of maize. Water Saving Irrigation,(7): 4-9, 14. (in Chinese)
[5]
Fan Y Q, Ding R S, Kang S Z, et al. 2017. Plastic mulch decreases available energy and evapotranspiration and improves yield and water use efficiency in an irrigated maize cropland. Agricultural Water Management, 179: 122-131.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.019
[6]
Gao X H, Xie D, Huang, Y Z, et al. 2015. The application effects of truly biodegradable mulch in potato farmlands. Agricultural Science & Technology, 16(9): 2070-2072.
[7]
Hanson B R, May D M. 2004. Effect of subsurface drip irrigation on processing tomato yield, water table depth, soil salinity, and profitability. Agricultural Water Management, 68(1): 1-17.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.03.003
[8]
He H J, Wang Z H, Guo L, et al. 2018. Distribution characteristics of residual film over a cotton field under long-term film mulching and drip irrigation in an oasis agroecosystem. Soil & Tillage Research, 180: 194-203.
[9]
Hou X Y, Wang F X, Han J J, et al. 2010. Duration of plastic mulch for potato growth under drip irrigation in an arid region of Northwest China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 150(1): 115-121.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.09.007
[10]
Hu C, Wang X F, Chen X G, et al. 2019. Current situation and control strategies of residual film pollution in Xinjiang. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 35(24): 213-234. (in Chinese)
[11]
Jiang X J, Liu W J, Wang E H, et al. 2017. Residual plastic mulch fragments effects on soil physical properties and water flow behavior in the Minqin Oasis, northwestern China. Soil & Tillage Research, 166: 100-107.
[12]
Kapanen A, Schettini E, Vox G, et al. 2008. Performance and environmental impact of biodegradable films in agriculture: A field study on protected cultivation. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 16(2): 109-122.
doi: 10.1007/s10924-008-0091-x
[13]
Li X Y, Gong J D, Gao Q Z, et al. 2001. Incorporation of ridge and furrow method of rainfall harvesting with mulching for crop production under semiarid conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 50(3): 173-183.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00105-6
[14]
Li X Y, Guo Y, Ding Z J, et al. 2018. Influence of different film mulchings on soil temperature at different time scales and maize yield. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 49(9): 247-256. (in Chinese)
[15]
Li Y G, Wang Z H, Zhang J Z, et al. 2015. Effects of liquid film mulching on soil temperature, moisture and the growth of cotton under drip irrigation. Soils, 47(6): 1170-1175. (in Chinese)
[16]
Moreno M M, Moreno A. 2008. Effect of different biodegradable and polyethylene mulches on soil properties and production in a tomato crop. Scientia Horticulturae, 116(3): 256-263.
doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.01.007
[17]
Nan D J, Xie H E, Li Y E, et al. 1994. Study of the effect of photodegradable plastic film mulching on soil contamination and cotton growth. Cotton Science, 6(2): 103-108. (in Chinese)
[18]
Ren Z J, Li Y, Fang W S, et al. 2018. Evaluation of allyl isothiocyanate as a soil fumigant against soil‐borne diseases in commercial tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production in China. Pest Management Science, 74(9): 2146-2155.
doi: 10.1002/ps.2018.74.issue-9
[19]
Shen L X, Wang P, Zhang L L. 2012. Degradation property of degradable film and its effect on soil temperature and moisture and maize growth. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Engineering, 28(4): 111-116. (in Chinese)
[20]
Wang B, Wan Y F, Wang J X, et al. 2019. Effects of PBAT biodegradable mulch film on the physical and chemical properties of soil and tomato yield in southern Xinjiang. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 36(5): 640-648. (in Chinese)
[21]
Wang M, Wang H X, Han Q F. 2011. Effects of different mulching materials on soil water, temperature, and corn growth. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 37(7): 1249-1258. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01249
[22]
Wang S Y, Fan T L, Li S Z, et al. 2016. Property of biodegradable film degradation, water-retention and increasing soil temperature and its impact on maize growth and development process. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 34(1): 127-133. (in Chinese)
[23]
Wang Z H, Wu Q, Fan B H, et al. 2019a. Testing biodegradable films as alternatives to plastic films in enhancing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield under mulched drip irrigation. Soil & Tillage Research, 192: 196-205.
[24]
Wang Z H, Wu Q, Fan B H, et al. 2019b. Effects of mulching biodegradable films under drip irrigation on soil hydrothermal conditions and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield. Agricultural Water Management, 213: 477-485.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.036
[25]
Wu Q, Wang Z H, Zheng X R, et al. 2017. Effects of biodegradation film mulching on soil temperature, moisture and yield of cotton under drip irrigation in typical oasis area. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Engineering, 33(16): 135-143. (in Chinese)
[26]
Yan C R, Wang X J, He W Q, et al. 2008. The residue of plastic film in cotton fields in Shihezi, Xinjiang. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(7): 3470-3474. (in Chinese)
[27]
Yin G H, Tong N, Hao L, et al. 2012. Effects of soil moisture and yield under different material film mulching on peanut. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 26(4): 204-207, 250. (in Chinese)
[28]
Yin M H, Li Y N, Shen S L, et al. 2017. Meta-analysis on effect of degradable film mulching on maize yield in China. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Engineering, 33(19): 1-9. (in Chinese)
[29]
Zhao A Q, Li Z Z, Gong Y S. 2005. Effects of biodegradable mulch film on corn growth and its degradation in field. Journal of China Agricultural University, 10(2): 74-78. (in Chinese)
[30]
Zhao Y, Chen X G, Wen H J, et al. 2017. Research status and prospect of control technology for residual plastic film pollution in farmland. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 48(6): 1-14. (in Chinese)
[31]
Zong R, Wang Z H, Wu Q, et al. 2020. Characteristics of carbon emissions in cotton fields under mulched drip irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 231: 105992, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105992
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105992
[32]
Zou X Y, Niu W Q, Liu J J, et al. 2016. Effect of residual plastic film on growth of tomato at seedling and blooming and fruit-setting stages. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 24(12): 1643-1654. (in Chinese)
2020, Vol. 12 
), ZHANG Jinzhu1,2, LI Wenhao1, REN Zuoli1, JIA Zhecheng1, WANG Qin1
