Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2022, Vol. 14 Issue (7): 787-810    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-022-0022-z
Research article     
Effects of the growing-maize canopy and irrigation characteristics on the ability to funnel sprinkler water
ZHU Zhongrui1,2, ZHU Delan1,2,*(), GE Maosheng1,2, LIU Changxin3
1College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
2Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid and Semiarid Areas, Ministry of Education, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
3Breeding and Seed Production of Agricultural Crops of Tashkent State Agrarian University, Tashkent 100140, Uzbekistan
Download: HTML     PDF(2966KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Stemflow is vital for supplying water, fertilizer, and other crop essentials during sprinkler irrigation. Exploring the spatial and temporal variations of crop stemflow and its influencing factors will be essential to preventing soil water and nutrient ion's migration to deeper layers, developing, and optimizing effective sprinkler irrigation schedules. Based on the two-year experimental data, we analyzed the variation patterns (stemflow amount, depth, rate, and funneling ratio) of maize stemflow during the growing season, and clarified its vertical distribution pattern. Meanwhile, effects of sprinkler irrigation and maize morphological parameters on stemflow were investigated. The results showed that stemflow increased gradually as maize plant grew. Specifically, stemflow was small at the pre-jointing stage and reached the maximum at the late filling stage. The upper canopy generated more stemflow than the lower canopy until the flare opening stage. After the tasseling stage, the middle canopy generated more stemflow than the other positions. Variation in canopy closure at different positions was the main factor contributing to the above difference. As sprinkler intensity increased, stemflow also increased. However, the effect of droplet size on stemflow was inconsistent. Specifically, when sprinkler intensity was less than or equal to 10 mm/h, stemflow was generated with increasing droplet size. In contrast, if sprinkler intensity was greater than or equal to 20 mm/h, stemflow tended to decreased with increasing droplet size. Compared with other morphological parameters, canopy closure significantly affected the generation of stemflow. Funneling ratio was not significantly affected by plant morphology. Based on the results of different sprinkler intensities, we developed stemflow depth versus canopy closure and stemflow rate versus canopy closure power function regression models with a high predictive accuracy. The research findings will contribute to the understanding of the processes of stemflow involving the hydro-geochemical cycle of agro-ecosystems and the implementation of cropland management practices.

Key words： sprinkler intensity      droplet diameter      morphological parameter      stemflow      spatial-temporal variation     
Received: 25 February 2022      Published: 31 July 2022
Corresponding Authors: * ZHU Delan (E-mail: dlzhu@126.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
ZHU Zhongrui
ZHU Delan
GE Maosheng
LIU Changxin
Cite this article:

ZHU Zhongrui, ZHU Delan, GE Maosheng, LIU Changxin. Effects of the growing-maize canopy and irrigation characteristics on the ability to funnel sprinkler water. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(7): 787-810.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-022-0022-z     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2022/V14/I7/787

Fig. S1 Basic structure of sprinkler unit (a) and needle spraying method (b)
Fig. S2 Adjustment of sprinkler water droplet diameter and needle installation height
Fig. S3 Drop size distribution among different treatments. Red filling represented the small diameter water droplets; cyan filling represented the medium diameter water droplets; yellow-green filling represented the large diameter water droplets. Less transparent filling represented the lighter sprinkler intensity. The detailed treatments can be found in Table 1.
Fig. S4 Spatial distribution of sprinkler water
Fig. 1 Arrangement of maize plant (a) and stemflow collection device (b) in the experiment
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the stemflow generation process (a) and collection device (b)
Fig. 3 Vertical layering of maize canopy across the micro-scale spatial scope
Different treatments Actual sprinkler intensity (mm/h) CU
(%)		 KeTotal
(J)		 Kev (J/(m2•mm)) SP
(J/(m2•s))		 Droplet diameter (mm)
Droplet size Sprinkler intensity (mm/h) Abbre-
viation		 D25 D50 D75
Small diameter 10 DSI10 9.68±0.13 96.12 0.25±0.08 3.59±0.71 0.010±0.001 0.86±0.13 1.48±0.26 1.96±0.39
20 DSI20 20.17±2.01 95.16 0.56±0.11 4.99±0.53 0.028±0.005 0.79±0.09 1.49±0.19 1.99±0.44
30 DSI30 29.46±1.98 93.84 0.98±0.09 6.16±1.02 0.050±0.007 0.82±0.21 1.48±0.43 1.93±0.26
Medium diameter 10 DMI10 10.24±0.98 95.59 1.05±0.14 4.70±0.95 0.013±0.002 2.76±0.68 3.68±0.65 3.96±0.47
20 DMI20 19.86±1.59 93.48 1.61±0.25 6.12±0.57 0.034±0.008 2.83±0.79 3.65±0.49 3.98±0.88
30 DMI30 30.86±2.47 94.57 3.06±0.63 7.60±1.06 0.065±0.009 2.79±0.93 3.69±0.55 3.99±0.75
Large diameter 10 DLI10 11.31±2.02 93.41 1.59±0.23 8.13±0.99 0.026±0.005 6.65±1.59 7.11±0.98 7.86±1.12
20 DLI20 20.98±1.95 92.49 2.85±0.42 10.69±1.48 0.062±0.004 6.63±1.43 7.13±1.95 7.91±0.98
30 DLI30 32.49±2.69 89.19 4.69±0.18 11.49±0.95 0.104±0.008 6.51±1.79 7.08±1.36 7.88±1.25
Table 1 Physical characteristics of sprinkler water droplets
Fig. 4 Maize stemflow parameters at different growth stages in 2020 and 2021. (a), stemflow amount; (b), stemflow depth; (c), stemflow rate; (d), funneling ratio. JS, jointing stage; FOS, flare opening stage; TS, tasseling stage; FS, filling stage. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different growth stages within the same year at P<0.05 level.
Fig. 5 Effects of maize canopies at different positions and growth stages on stemflow in 2020 (a) and 2021 (b)
Fig. 6 Effects of irrigation characteristics on maize stemflow in 2020 and 2021. (a and b), stemflow amount; (c and d), stemflow depth; (e and f), stemflow rate; (g and h), funneling ratio. Different lowercase letters within the same treatment indicate significant differences at P<0.05 level. The detailed treatments can be found in Table 1.
Plant morphological parameter Statistical result Streamflow variable
S Sd SR FR
LAI R2 0.959 0.959 0.959 -0.048
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
CC R2 0.982 0.982 0.982 0.074
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
PH R2 0.951 0.951 0.948 0.084
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
CT R2 0.933 0.933 0.93 0.045
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
SD R2 0.839 0.839 0.841 -0.339
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
LHD R2 0.368 0.368 0.376 -0.628
P >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05
LHDLL R2 0.847 0.847 0.852 -0.264
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
LI R2 0.479 0.479 0.477 0.503
P >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05
LILL R2 -0.955 -0.955 -0.954 -0.357
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
PEW R2 0.961 0.961 0.962 0.219
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
PDW R2 0.847 0.847 0.850 0.234
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
Table 2 Correlation between stemflow and plant morphological parameters
Fig. 7 Correlation among plant morphological parameters. *, P<0.05 level; **, P<0.01 level. The abbreviations are the same as in Table 2.
Sprinkler water physical feature Stemflow depth and rate Regression model R2 P
Sprinkler intensity
(mm/h)		 10 Sd:10 Sd:10=0.022×CC1.09 0.84 <0.01
SR10 SR10=0.200×CC1.11 0.92 <0.01
20 Sd:20 Sd:20=0.061×CC1.08 0.95 <0.01
SR10 SR10=0.300×CC1.08 0.94 <0.01
30 Sd:30 Sd:30=0.090×CC1.10 0.96 <0.01
SR30 SR30=0.291×CC1.10 0.94 <0.01
Droplet diameter
(mm)		 1.48 Sd:1.48 Sd:1.48=0.071×CC1.05 0.27 >0.05
SR1.48 SR1.48=0.335×CC1.05 0.69 >0.05
3.67 Sd:3.67 Sd:3.67=0.109×CC0.93 0.23 >0.05
SR3.67 SR3.67=0.335×CC1.05 0.69 >0.05
7.11 Sd:7.11 Sd:7.11=0.048×CC1.13 0.34 >0.05
SR7.11 SR7.11=0.226×CC1.12 0.88 <0.01
Table 3 Non-linear regression analysis between stemflow depth, rate and canopy closure
Fig. 8 Comparison between measured and predicted stemflow depth (a-c) and rate (d-f) at different sprinkler intensities. RMSE, root mean square error; NRMSE, standard root mean square error.
Table 4 Plant mopbologcal parametrs at dferent spatial positions and growth stages
Fig. 9 Schematic diagram of the effect of droplets with different sizes on stemflow channels on maize leaves. (a), small diameter water droplets; (b), medium diameter water droplets; (c), large diameter water droplets.
[1]   Carlyle-Moses D E, Iida S, Germer S, et al. 2018. Expressing stemflow commensurate with its ecohydrological importance. Advances in Water Resources, 121: 472-479.
doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.08.015
[2]   Cattan P, Bussiere F, Nouvellon A. 2007. Evidence of large rainfall partitioning patterns by banana and impact on surface runoff generation. Hydrological Processes, 21(16): 2196-2205.
doi: 10.1002/hyp.6588
[3]   Chen N, Zhang Y, Zhao C. 2021. On the importance of stemflow to the woody plants in drylands: Individual vs. ecosystem scales. Journal of Hydrology, 601: 126591, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126591.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126591
[4]   Chen R, Li H, Wang J, et al. 2020. Effects of pressure and nozzle size on the spray characteristics of low-pressure rotating sprinklers. Water, 12(10): 2904, doi: 10.3390/w12102904.
doi: 10.3390/w12102904
[5]   Crockford R H, Richardson D P. 2015. Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception: effect of forest type, ground cover and climate. Hydrological Processes, 14(1617): 2903-2920.
doi: 10.1002/1099-1085(200011/12)14:16/17&lt;2903::AID-HYP126&gt;3.0.CO;2-6
[6]   De Ploey J. 1982. A stemflow equation for grasses and similar vegetation. CATENA, 9(1): 139-152.
doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(82)80010-6
[7]   Dorr G J, Wang S, Mayo L C, et al. 2015. Impaction of spray droplets on leaves: influence of formulation and leaf character on shatter, bounce and adhesion. Experiments in Fluids, 56(7): 1-17.
doi: 10.1007/s00348-014-1876-4
[8]   Fan J L, Oestergaard K T, Guyot A, et al. 2015. Spatial variability of throughfall and stemflow in an exotic pine plantation of subtropical coastal Australia. Hydrological Processes, 29(5): 793-804.
doi: 10.1002/hyp.10193
[9]   Frasson R P D M, Krajewski W F. 2011. Characterization of the drop-size distribution and velocity-diameter relation of the throughfall under the maize canopy. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151(9): 1244-1251.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.05.001
[10]   Ge M S, Wu P T, Zhu D L, et al. 2018. Analysis of kinetic energy distribution of big gun sprinkler applied to continuous moving hose-drawn traveler. Agricultural Water Management, 201: 118-132.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.12.009
[11]   Germer S, Werther L, Elsenbeer H. 2010. Have we underestimated stemflow? Lessons from an open tropical rainforest. Journal of Hydrology, 395(3-4): 169-179.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.10.022
[12]   Glover J, Gwynne M D. 1962. Light rainfall and plant survival in east Africa. I. Maize. Journal of Ecology, 50: 111-118.
[13]   Herwitz S R. 1986. Infiltration-excess caused by Stemflow in a cyclone-prone tropical rainforest. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 11(4): 401-412.
doi: 10.1002/esp.3290110406
[14]   Hou P, Liu Y E, Liu W M, et al. 2021. Quantifying maize grain yield losses caused by climate change based on extensive field data across China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 174: 105811, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105811.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105811
[15]   Kang Y H, Wang Q G, Liu H J. 2005. Winter wheat canopy interception and its influence factors under sprinkler irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 74(3): 189-199.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.11.004
[16]   Lamm F R, Manges H L. 2000. Partitioning of sprinkler irrigation water by a corn canopy. Transactions of the ASABE, 43(4): 909-918.
[17]   Levia D F, Frost E E. 2003. A review and evaluation of stemflow literature in the hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles of forested and agricultural ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology, 274(1-4): 1-29.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00399-2
[18]   Levia D F, Germer S. 2015. A review of stemflow generation dynamics and stemflow-environment interactions in forests and shrublands. Reviews of Geophysics, 53(3): 673-714.
doi: 10.1002/2015RG000479
[19]   Levia D F, Hudson S A, Llorens P, et al. 2017. Throughfall drop size distributions: a review and prospectus for future research. Wiley Interdiplinary Reviews: Water, 4(4): e1225, doi: 101002/wat2.1225.
doi: 101002/wat2.1225
[20]   Li X, Xiao Q F, Niu J Z, et al. 2016. Process-based rainfall interception by small trees in Northern China: The effect of rainfall traits and crown structure characteristics. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 218-219: 65-73.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.11.017
[21]   Liu H J, Zhang R H, Zhang L W, et al. 2015. Stemflow of water on maize and its influencing factors. Agricultural Water Management, 158: 35-41.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.04.013
[22]   Ma B, Wu F Q, Ma F, et al. 2008. Effect of leaf area and rainfall intensity on the stemflow of Glycine max. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 6(6): 58-62. (in Chinese)
[23]   Ma F, Wu F Q, Ma B, et al. 2008. Effects of leaf area and rainfall intensity on stemflow amount through corn canopy. Transactions of the CSAE, 24(10): 25-28. (in Chinese)
[24]   Neave M, Abrahams A D. 2002. Vegetation influences on water yields from grassland and shrubland ecosystems in the Chihuahuan Desert. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 27(9): 1011-1020.
doi: 10.1002/esp.389
[25]   Panozzo A, Cortivo C D, Ferrari M, et al. 2019. Morphological changes and expressions of AOX1A, CYP81D8, and putative PFP genes in a large set of commercial maize hybrids under extreme waterlogging. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10(62): 1-14.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00001
[26]   Park H T, Hattori S. 2002. Applicability of stand structural characteristics to stemflow modeling. Journal of Forest Research, 7(2): 91-98.
doi: 10.1007/BF02762513
[27]   Patrignani A, Ochsner T E. 2015. Canopeo: a powerful new tool for measuring fractional green canopy cover. Agronomy Journal, 107(6): 2312-2320.
doi: 10.2134/agronj15.0150
[28]   Saffigna P G, Tanner C B, Keeney D R. 1976. Non-uniform infiltration under potato canopies caused by interception, stemflow, and hilling. Agronomy Journal, 68(2): 337-342.
doi: 10.2134/agronj1976.00021962006800020033x
[29]   Sher A, Khan A, Ashraf U, et al. 2018. Characterization of the effect of increased plant density on canopy morphology and stalk lodging risk. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9: 1047, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01047.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01047
[30]   Taniguchi M, Tsujimura M, Tanaka T. 2015. Significance of stemflow in groundwater recharge. I: Evaluation of the stemflow contribution to recharge using a mass balance approach. Hydrological Processes, 10(1): 71-80.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199601)10:1&lt;71::AID-HYP301&gt;3.0.CO;2-Q
[31]   Tonello K C, Van Stan II J T, Rosa A G, et al. 2021. Stemflow variability across tree stem and canopy traits in the Brazilian Cerrado. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 308-309: 108551, doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108551.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108551
[32]   Van Elewijck L L. 1989. Stemflow on maize: A stemflow equation and the influence of rainfall intensity on stemflow amount. Soil Technology, 2(1): 41-48.
doi: 10.1016/S0933-3630(89)80005-4
[33]   Waiters R J, Price A G. 1988. The influence of stemflow from standing dead trees on the fluxes of some ions in a mixed deciduous forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 18(11): 1490-1493.
doi: 10.1139/x88-229
[34]   Walczak A. 2021. The use of world water resources in the irrigation of field cultivations. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 22(4): 186-206.
doi: 10.12911/22998993/134078
[35]   Wang P K, Pruppacher H R. 1976. Acceleration to terminal velocity of cloud and raindrops. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 16(3): 275-280.
doi: 10.1175/1520-0450(1977)016&lt;0275:ATTVOC&gt;2.0.CO;2
[36]   Wang X P, Zhang Y F, Wang Z N, et al. 2013. Influence of shrub canopy morphology and rainfall characteristics on stemflow within a vegetated sand dune in the Tengger Desert, N&W China. Hydrological Processes, 27(10): 1501-1509.
doi: 10.1002/hyp.9767
[37]   Wang Y L, Li M N, Hui X, et al. 2020. Alfalfa canopy water interception under low-pressure sprinklers. Agricultural Water Management, 230: 105919, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105919.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105919
[38]   Whitford W G, Anderson J, Rice P M. 1997. Stemflow contribution to the 'fertile island' effect in Creosote bush, Larrea tridentata. Journal of Arid Environments, 35(3): 451-457.
doi: 10.1006/jare.1996.0164
[39]   Wu D F. 1987. Sprinkler intensity and soil infiltration. Water Saving Irrigation, (2): 15-20. (in Chinese)
[40]   Wu Y S, He D, Wang E L, et al. 2021. Modelling soybean and maize growth and grain yield in strip intercropping systems with different row configurations. Field Crops Research, 265: 108122, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108122.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108122
[41]   Yang J M, Yang J Y, Liu S, et al. 2014. An evaluation of the statistical methods for testing the performance of crop models with observed data. Agricultural Systems, 127(5): 81-89.
doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.01.008
[42]   Yang X L, Shao M A, Wei X R. 2018. Stemflow production differ significantly among tree and shrub species on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Journal of Hydrology, 568: 427-436.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.008
[43]   Yin X A, Fang Q, Yang T H, et al. 2020. Effect of simulated corn stemflow on soil erosion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 34(3): 67-72. (in Chinese)
[44]   Zabret, Rakovec, Sraj. 2018. Influence of meteorological variables on rainfall partitioning for deciduous and coniferous tree species in urban area. Journal of Hydrology, 558: 29-41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.025
[45]   Zapata N, Robles O, Playán E, et al. 2018. Low-pressure sprinkler irrigation in maize: Differences in water distribution above and below the crop canopy. Agricultural Water Management, 203: 353-365.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.03.025
[46]   Zapata N, Salvador R, Latorre B, et al. 2021. Effect of a growing maize canopy on solid-set sprinkler irrigation: kinetic energy dissipation and water partitioning. Irrigation Science, (39): 329-346.
[47]   Zhang Y F, Wang X P, Hu R, et al. 2015. Rainfall partitioning into throughfall, stemflow, and interception loss by two xerophytic shrubs within a rain-fed revegetated desert ecosystem, northwestern China. Journal of Hydrology, 527: 1084-1095.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.05.060
[48]   Zhang Y F, Wang X P, Hu R, et al. 2016. Throughfall and its spatial variability beneath xerophytic shrub canopies within water-limited arid desert ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology, 539: 406-416.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.051
[49]   Zhang Y F, Wang X P, Pan Y X, et al. 2020. Relative contribution of biotic and abiotic factors to stemflow production and funneling efficiency: A long-term field study on a xerophytic shrub species in Tengger Desert of northern China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 280: 107781, doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107781.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107781
[50]   Zhang Y S, Zhu D L. 2017. Influence of sprinkler irrigation droplet diameter, application intensity and specific power on flower damage. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering, 4(2): 165-171.
doi: 10.15302/J-FASE-2017145
[51]   Zhao W X, Zhang M, Li J S, et al. 2018. Influence of sprinkler height on irrigation performance of center pivot irrigator. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 34(10): 107-112. (in Chinese)
[52]   Zheng J, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. 2018. Rainfall partitioning into throughfall, stemflow and interception loss by maize canopy on the semi-arid Loess Plateau of China. Agricultural Water Management, 195: 25-36.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.09.013
[53]   Zheng J, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. 2019. Throughfall and stemflow heterogeneity under the maize canopy and its effect on soil water distribution at the row scale. Science of the Total Environment, 660(10): 1367-1382.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.104
[54]   Zhu Z R, Zhu D L, Ge M S. 2021. The spatial variation mechanism of size, velocity, and the landing angle of throughfall droplets under maize canopy. Water, 13(15): 2083, doi: 10.3390/w13152083.
doi: 10.3390/w13152083
[55]   Zhu Z R, Zhu D L, Ge M S. 2022. Drop size distribution and effective determination of the constitution of throughfall droplets under maize canopy. CLEAN-Soil Air Water, 50(5): 20210280, doi: 10.1002/clen.202100280.
doi: 10.1002/clen.202100280
[56]   Zul Hilmi Saidin A, Delphis F, Levia B C, et al. 2022. Vertical distribution and transport of radiocesium via branchflow and stemflow through the canopy of cedar and oak stands in the aftermath of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Science of the Total Environment, 125: 151698, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151698.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151698
[1] ZHANG Zhen, XU Yangyang, LIU Shiyin, DING Jing, ZHAO Jinbiao. Seasonal variations in glacier velocity in the High Mountain Asia region during 2015-2020[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(6): 637-648.
[2] Jing ZHENG, Junliang FAN, Fucang ZHANG, Shicheng YAN, Jinjin GUO, Dongfeng CHEN, Zhijun LI. Mulching mode and planting density affect canopy interception loss of rainfall and water use efficiency of dryland maize on the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(5): 794-808.
[3] Yuchen WANG, Zhengfu BIAN, Shaogang LEI, Yu ZHANG. Investigating spatial and temporal variations of soil moisture content in an arid mining area using an improved thermal inertia model[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2017, 9(5): 712-726.
[4] WEN Qing, DONG Zhibao. Geomorphologic patterns of dune networks in the Tengger Desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2016, 8(5): 660-669.
[5] YANG Xuemei, LIU Shizeng, YANG Taibao, XU Xianying, KANG Caizhou, TANG Jinnian, WEI Huaidong, Mihretab G GHEBREZGABHER, LI Zhiqi. Spatial-temporal dynamics of desert vegetation and its responses to climatic variations over the last three decades: a case study of Hexi region in Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2016, 8(4): 556-568.
[6] LI Yi, CAI Tijiu, MAN Xiuling, SHENG Houcai, JU Cunyong. Canopy interception loss in a Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica forest of Northeast China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2015, 7(6): 831-840.
[7] DENG Qingchun, MIAO Fang, ZHANG Bin, LUO Mingliang, LIU Hui, LIU Xiaojiao, QIN Fachao, LIU Gangcai. Planar morphology and controlling factors of the gullies in the Yuanmou Dry-hot Valley based on field investigation[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2015, 7(6): 778-793.
[8] ShengQi JIAN, ChuanYan ZHAO, ShuMin FANG, Kai YU. Characteristics of Caragana korshinskii and Hippophae rhamnoides stemflow and their significance in soil moisture enhancement in Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2014, 6(1): 105-116.