Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2023, Vol. 15 Issue (4): 460-476    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-023-0095-3
    
Controlled drainage in the Nile River delta of Egypt: a promising approach for decreasing drainage off-site effects and enhancing yield and water use efficiency of wheat
Mohamed K EL-GHANNAM1, Fatma WASSAR2,3,*(), Sabah MORSY4, Mohamed HAFEZ5, Chiter M PARIHAR6, Kent O BURKEY7, Ahmed M ABDALLAH8,*()
1Soil, Water and Environment Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza 12112, Egypt
2Higher Institute of Water Sciences and Techniques of Gabès, University of Gabès, Gabès 6072, Tunisia
3Institute of Arid Regions, Medenine 4119, Tunisia
4Crop Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Damanhour 22516, Egypt
5Land and Water Technologies Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications, New Borg El-Arab 21934, Egypt
6Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi 110012, India
7United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Agricultural Research Services (ARS), Plant Science Research Unit, North Carolina 27607, USA
8Natural Resources and Agricultural Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Damanhour 22516, Egypt
Download: HTML     PDF(803KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

North Africa is one of the most regions impacted by water shortage. The implementation of controlled drainage (CD) in the northern Nile River delta of Egypt is one strategy to decrease irrigation, thus alleviating the negative impact of water shortage. This study investigated the impacts of CD at different levels on drainage outflow, water table level, nitrate loss, grain yield, and water use efficiency (WUE) of various wheat cultivars. Two levels of CD, i.e., 0.4 m below the soil surface (CD-0.4) and 0.8 m below the soil surface (CD-0.8), were compared with subsurface free drainage (SFD) at 1.2 m below the soil surface (SFD-1.2). Under each drainage treatment, four wheat cultivars were grown for two growing seasons (November 2018-April 2019 and November 2019-April 2020). Compared with SFD-1.2, CD-0.4 and CD-0.8 decreased irrigation water by 42.0% and 19.9%, drainage outflow by 40.3% and 27.3%, and nitrate loss by 35.3% and 20.8%, respectively. Under CD treatments, plants absorbed a significant portion of their evapotranspiration from shallow groundwater (22.0% and 8.0% for CD-0.4 and CD-0.8, respectively). All wheat cultivars positively responded to CD treatments, and the highest grain yield and straw yield were obtained under CD-0.4 treatment. Using the initial soil salinity as a reference, the soil salinity under CD-0.4 treatment increased two-fold by the end of the second growing season without negative impacts on wheat yield. Modifying the drainage system by raising the outlet elevation and considering shallow groundwater contribution to crop evapotranspiration promoted water-saving and WUE. Different responses could be obtained based on the different plant tolerance to salinity and water stress, crop characteristics, and growth stage. Site-specific soil salinity management practices will be required to avoid soil salinization due to the adoption of long-term shallow groundwater in Egypt and other similar agroecosystems.

Key words： drainage ratio      nitrate loss      water use efficiency      yield      soil salinity      Nile River delta     
Received: 05 June 2022      Published: 30 April 2023
Corresponding Authors: *Fatma WASSAR (E-mail: fatmawassar@yahoo.fr); Ahmed M ABDALLAH (E-mail: ahmed_abdallah@agr.dmu.edu.eg)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Mohamed K EL-GHANNAM
Fatma WASSAR
Sabah MORSY
Mohamed HAFEZ
Chiter M PARIHAR
Kent O BURKEY
Ahmed M ABDALLAH
Cite this article:

Mohamed K EL-GHANNAM, Fatma WASSAR, Sabah MORSY, Mohamed HAFEZ, Chiter M PARIHAR, Kent O BURKEY, Ahmed M ABDALLAH. Controlled drainage in the Nile River delta of Egypt: a promising approach for decreasing drainage off-site effects and enhancing yield and water use efficiency of wheat. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(4): 460-476.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-023-0095-3     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2023/V15/I4/460

Fig. S1 Monthly average temperature (a) and average monthly rainfall (b) from 2016 to 2020 in Motobus District, Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate, Egypt
Fig. 1 Mean temperature, rainfall, and reference evapotranspiration (ET0) of the study area in the first (a) and second (b) growing seasons (i.e., during November 2018-April 2019 and during November 2019-April 2020, respectively)
Sampling depth
(cm)		 Bulk density
)g/cm3(		 pH EC
)dS/m(		 SAR
)%(		 Ks
)m/h(		 Particle size distribution Texture
Clay )%( Silt )%( Sand )%(
0-30 1.33 8.37 3.90 6.04 0.092 52.18 33.54 14.28 Silt clay
30-60 1.36 8.36 3.26 6.93 0.0341 47.54 39.80 12.66 Silt clay
60-90 1.35 8.40 3.48 7.80 0.040 43.44 18.35 38.21 Clay loam
Table 1 Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil in the study area
Fig. 2 Experimental design and diagram of different treatments used in this study. (a), subsurface free drainage (SFD) at 1.2 m below the soil surface (SFD-1.2); (b), controlled drainage (CD) with drains at 1.2 m below the soil surface and connected to a weir (outlet elevation) at 0.8 m below the soil surface (CD-0.8); (c), CD with drains at 1.2 m below the soil surface and connected to a weir (outlet elevation) at 0.4 m below the soil surface (CD-0.4).
Fig. 3 Effects of CD-0.4 and CD-0.8 in comparison to SFD-1.2 on drainage outflow (a), irrigation water input (b), nitrate loss (c), and the drainage ratio (d) in the first and second growing seasons
Fig. 4 Effect of CD-0.4 and CD-0.8 in comparison to SFD-1.2 on water table level in the first (a) and second (b) growing seasons
Parameter CD-0.4 CD-0.8
First growing season Second growing season First growing season Second growing season
Water uptake from shallow groundwater (mm/season) 95.0 105.7 52.7 40.5
Percentage of groundwater contribution relative to the actual-evapotranspiration (%) 23.1 12.8 26.4 10.1
Table 2 Effect of controlled drainage in comparison to subsurface free drainage (SFD) on water uptake from shallow ground water in the first and second growing seasons (i.e., during November 2018-April 2019 and during November 2019-April 2020, respectively)
Treatment Wheat cultivar Plant height (cm) 1000-grain weight (g) Grain yield (kg/hm2) Straw yield (kg/hm2)
First growing season Second growing season First growing season Second growing season First growing season Second growing season First growing season Second growing season
CD-0.4 Sakha95 92.90a 110.40a 48.44a 42.56a 6222.07a 6643.77a 6127.00a 6900.40a
Misr3 87.33b 108.10b 47.27b 35.66b 5861.57b 6363.33c 5690.00c 6660.00b
Giza171 86.33b 103.10c 42.03c 31.84c 5792.57b 5731.90b 5850.00b 6300.00c
Sids14 78.16c 99.06d 39.49d 29.59d 5714.10b 4906.00d 5401.00d 5899.60d
Mean 96.18 105.16 44.31 34.91 5897.58 5911.00 5767.00 6440.00
CD-0.8 Sakha95 90.53a 105.22a 49.57a 41.46a 6037.90a 6275.00a 5940.00a 6870.00a
Misr3 83.80b 101.63b 47.36b 39.46b 5721.00b 5965.00b 5750.00b 6450.00b
Giza171 80.50c 98.50c 43.73c 36.70c 5570.40b 5392.00c 5701.00c 6200.00c
Sids14 75.13d 95.21d 41.47d 30.13d 5257.20c 4924.00d 5660.00d 6140.00d
Mean 82.49 100.12 45.53 36.94 5646.65 5639.00 5762.00 6415.00
SFD-1.2 Sakha95 88.20a 100.31a 51.40a 42.76a 5678.13a 6031.00a 5300.00a 6100.00b
Misr3 79.13b 95.23b 49.44b 37.61b 5544.87a 5700.80b 5050.00b 6850.00a
Giza171 76.20c 92.32c 45.31c 33.67c 5231.00b 5349.00c 4850.00c 5346.70c
Sids14 71.96d 88.80d 43.48d 30.83d 4935.07c 5662.30d 4699.00d 4999.70d
Mean 71.96 91.12 47.41 36.22 5347.27 5752.00 4975.00 5824.20
Table 3 Effects of CD-0.8 and CD-0.4 in comparison to subsurface free drainage at 1.2 m below the soil surface (SFD-1.2) on plant height, 1000-grain weight, grain yield, and straw yield of the four tested wheat cultivars in the first and second growing seasons
Treatment Wheat cultivar WUE (kg/m3) IWUE (kg/m3)
First growing season Second growing season First growing season Second growing season
CD-0.4 Sakha95 1.71a 1.85a 3.36a 3.80a
Misr3 1.64b 1.77b 3.17b 3.64a
Giza171 1.62bc 1.59c 3.13c 3.28b
Sids14 1.60c 1.36f 3.09d 2.56c
CD-0.8 Sakha95 1.35d 1.45d 2.44e 2.53c
Misr3 1.28e 1.38e 2.31f 2.40c
Giza171 1.24f 1.24g 2.25g 2.27cd
Sids14 1.17g 1.14i 2.12h 1.98de
SFD-1.2 Sakha95 1.13h 1.20h 1.86i 1.89e
Misr3 1.10i 1.13j 1.82j 1.79e
Giza171 1.04j 1.06k 1.72k 1.68e
Sids14 0.98k 1.13j 1.62l 1.78e
Table 4 Effects of CD-0.4 and CD-0.8 in comparison to SFD-1.2 on water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) of the four tested wheat cultivars in the first and second growing seasons
Fig. 5 (a), changes of soil salinity at different soil depths under CD-0.4, CD-0.8, and SFD-1.2 treatments compared with the initial soil salinity; (b), comparison of average soil salinity affected by CD-0.4, CD-0.8, and SFD-1.2 treatments with the initial soil salinity. Different lowercase letters in the left figure indicate significant differences among controlled drainage tenements within the same soil depth at P≤0.05 level, and different lowercase letters in the right figure indicate significant differences among different controlled drainage treatments at P≤0.05 level.
[1]   Abd El Moniem A A. 2009. Overview of water resources and requirements in Egypt; the factors controlling its management and development. Environmental Studies, 2: 82-97.
[2]   Abdallah A M. 2017. Impacts of Kaolin and Pinoline foliar application on growth, yield and water use efficiency of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) grown under water deficit: A comparative study. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 18: 256-268.
doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2017.08.001
[3]   Abdallah A M, Mashaheet A M, Zobel R, et al. 2019. Physiological basis for controlling water consumption by two snap beans genotypes using different anti-transpirants. Agriculture Water Management, 214: 17-27.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.12.029
[4]   Abdallah A M, Burkey K O, Mashaheet A M. 2018. Reduction of plant water consumption through anti-transpirants foliar application in tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L). Science Horticulture, 235: 373-381.
[5]   Abdallah A M, Mashaheet A M, Burkey K O. 2021. Super absorbent polymers mitigate drought stress in corn (Zea mays L.) grown under rainfed conditions. Agriculture Water Management, 254: 106946, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106946.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106946
[6]   Ale S, Bowling L C, Owens P R, et al. 2012. Development and application of a distributed modeling approach to assess the watershed-scale impact of drainage water management. Agriculture Water Management, 107: 23-33.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.01.003
[7]   Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D, et al. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop requirements. FAO: Rome, Italy.
[8]   Ayars J E, Christen E, Services P, et al. 2006a. Controlled drainage for improved water management in arid zone irrigated agriculture. Agriculture Water Management, 86: 128-139.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2006.07.004
[9]   Ayars J E, Christen E, Soppe R W, et al. 2006b. The resource potential of in-situ shallow ground water use in irrigated agriculture: a review. Irrigation Science, 24: 147-160.
doi: 10.1007/s00271-005-0003-y
[10]   Bahçecİ İ. 2016. Impacts of different drainage managements on water saving, salt balance and nutrients losses in the Harran Plain, South East Turkey. Soil Water Journal, 5: 22-28.
[11]   Baruah T, Barthakur H. 1999. A Text Book of Soil Analysis. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
[12]   Blake G R, Hartge K H. 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute A. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Madison: American Society of Agronomy—Soil Science Society of America, 363-375.
[13]   Bonaiti G, Borin M. 2010. Efficiency of controlled drainage and subirrigation in reducing nitrogen losses from agricultural fields. Agriculture Water Management, 98: 343-352.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2010.09.008
[14]   Campus M. 2019. Water table management and fertilizer application impacts on CO2, N2O and CH4 fluxes in a corn agro-ecosystem. Scientific Reports, 9: 2692, doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39046-z.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39046-z
[15]   Christen E W, Ayars J E, Hornbuckle J W. 2001. Subsurface drainage design and management in irrigated areas of Australia. Irrigation Science, 21: 35-43.
doi: 10.1007/s002710100048
[16]   Craft K J, Helmers M J, Malone R W, et al. 2018. Effects of subsurface drainage systems on water and nitrogen footprints simulated with RZWQM2. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 61(1): 245-261.
[17]   Darzi-Naftchali A, Mirlatifi S M, Shahnazari A, et al. 2013. Effect of subsurface drainage on water balance and water table in poorly drained paddy fields. Agriculture Water Management, 130: 61-68.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.08.017
[18]   Drury C F, Tan C S, Reynolds W D, et al. 2009. Managing tile drainage, subirrigation, and nitrogen fertilization to enhance crop yields and reduce nitrate loss. Environment Quality, 38: 1193-1204.
doi: 10.2134/jeq2008.0036
[19]   El-Ghannam M K, Abo Waly M E, Gaheen S A, et al. 2016. Controlled drainage effects on nitrate leaching, salinity buildup and sugar beet production (Egypt). Agriculture Sciences and Soil Sciences, 4: 23-32.
[20]   El-Ghannam M K, Aiad M A, Abdallah A M. 2021. Irrigation efficiency, drain outflow and yield responses to drain depth in the Nile delta clay soil, Egypt. Agriculture Water Management, 246: 106674, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106674.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106674
[21]   El-Rawy M, Makhloof A A, Hashem M D, et al. 2021. Groundwater management of quaternary aquifer of the Nile Valley under different recharge and discharge scenarios: A case study Assiut Governorate, Egypt. Ain Shams Engineering, 12: 2563-2574.
[22]   Elbasyoni I S, Abdallah A M, Morsy S, et al. 2019. Effect of deprivation and excessive application of nitrogen on nitrogen use efficiency-related traits using wheat cultivars, lines, and landraces. Crop Science, 59: 994-1006.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2018.09.0564
[23]   Gunn K M, Fausey N R, Shang Y, et al. 2015. Subsurface drainage volume reduction with drainage water management: Case studies in Ohio, USA. Agriculture Water Management, 149: 131-142.
[24]   Hamed Y, Hadji R, Redhaounia B, et al. 2018. Climate impact on surface and groundwater in North Africa: A global synthesis of findings and recommendations. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration, 3(25): 25, doi: 10.1007/s41207-018-0067-8.
doi: 10.1007/s41207-018-0067-8
[25]   Helmers M, Christianson R, Brenneman G, et al. 2012. Water table, drainage, and yield response to drainage water management in southeast Iowa. Soil Water Conservation, 67: 495-501.
doi: 10.2489/jswc.67.6.495
[26]   Jackson M. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
[27]   Javani H, Liaghat A, Hassanoghli A, et al. 2018. Managing controlled drainage in irrigated farmers' fields: A case study in the Moghan plain, Iran. Agriculture Water Management, 208: 393-405.
[28]   Jaynes D B. 2012. Changes in yield and nitrate losses from using drainage water management in central Iowa, United States. Soil Water Conservation, 67: 485-494.
doi: 10.2489/jswc.67.6.485
[29]   Lavaire T, Gentry L E, David M B, et al. 2017. Fate of water and nitrate using drainage water management on tile systems in east-central Illinois. Agriculture Water Management, 191: 218-228.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.06.004
[30]   Li S, Wu M, Jia Z, et al. 2021. Influence of different controlled drainage strategies on the water and salt environment of ditch wetland: A model-based study. Soil and Tillage Research, 208: 104894, doi: 10.1016/j.still.2020.104894.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2020.104894
[31]   Liu Y, Youssef M A, Chescheir G M, et al. 2019. Effect of controlled drainage on nitrogen fate and transport for a subsurface drained grass field receiving liquid swine lagoon effluent. Agriculture Water Management, 217: 440-451.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.02.018
[32]   Lu B, Shao G, Yu S, et al. 2016. The effects of controlled drainage on N concentration and loss in paddy field. Journal of Chemistry, 2016: 1073691, doi: 10.1155/2016/1073691.
doi: 10.1155/2016/1073691
[33]   Morsy S, Elbasyoni I S, Baenziger S, et al. 2022. Gypsum amendment influences performance and mineral absorption in wheat cultivars grown in normal and saline-sodic soils. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 208(5): 675-692.
doi: 10.1111/jac.v208.5
[34]   Morsy S M, Elbasyoni I S, Abdallah A M, et al. 2021. Imposing water deficit on modern and wild wheat collections to identify drought-resilient genotypes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 208(4): 427-440.
doi: 10.1111/jac.v208.4
[35]   Nash P R, Nelson K A, Motavalli P P, et al. 2015. Reducing phosphorus loss in tile water with managed drainage in a claypan soil. Environment Quality, 44: 585-593.
doi: 10.2134/jeq2014.04.0146
[36]   Negm A M, Sakr S, Abd-Elaty I, et al. 2018. An overview of groundwater resources in Nile Delta aquifer. n: Negm A. Groundwater in the Nile Delta. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Springer: Cham.
[37]   Negm L M, Youssef M A, Jaynes D B. 2017. Evaluation of DRAINMOD-DSSAT simulated effects of controlled drainage on crop yield, water balance, and water quality for a corn-soybean cropping system in central Iowa. Agriculture Water Management, 187: 57-68.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.03.010
[38]   Poole C A, Skaggs R W, Youssef M A, et al. 2018. Effect of drainage water management on nitrate nitrogen loss to tile drains in North Carolina. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 61: 233-244.
[39]   Radhouane L. 2013. Climate change impacts on North African countries and on some Tunisian economic sectors. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, 107: 101-113.
[40]   Raes D. 2012. The ET0 Calculator Reference Manual. [2022-07-20]. www.fao.org/nr/water/eto.html.
[41]   Ritzema H P, Stuyt L C P M. 2015. Land drainage strategies to cope with climate change in the Netherlands. Soil Plant Science, 65: 80-92.
[42]   Ritzema H P. 2016. Drain for gain: Managing salinity in irrigated lands-A review. Agriculture Water Management, 176: 18-28.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.05.014
[43]   Rozemeijer J C, Visser A, Borren W, et al. 2016. High-frequency monitoring of water fluxes and nutrient loads to assess the effects of controlled drainage on water storage and . Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20: 347-358.
[44]   Shavrukov Y, Kurishbayev A, Jatayev S, et al. 2017. Early flowering as a drought escape mechanism in plants: How can it aid Wheat production? Frontiers in Plant Science, 8: 1950, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01950.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01950
[45]   Skaggs R W, Youssef M A, Gilliam J W, et al. 2010. Effect of controlled drainage on water and nitrogen balances in drained lands. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 53: 1843-1850.
[46]   Skaggs W R, Fausey N R, Evans R O. 2012. Drainage water management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 67(6): 167-172.
[47]   Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
[48]   Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. [2022-07-20].https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/keys-to-soil-taxonomy.
[49]   Sojka M, Kozłowski M, Stasik R, et al. 2019. Sustainable water management in agriculture-the impact of drainage water management on groundwater table dynamics and subsurface outflow. Sustainability, 11(15): 4201, doi: 10.3390/su11154201.
doi: 10.3390/su11154201
[50]   Sunohara M D, Gottschall N, Craiovan E, et al. 2016. Controlling tile drainage during the growing season in Eastern Canada to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria loading to surface water. Agriculture Water Management, 178: 159-170.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.030
[51]   Wesström I, Messing I. 2007. Effects of controlled drainage on N and P losses and N dynamics in a loamy sand with spring crops. Agriculture Water Management, 87: 229-240.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2006.07.005
[52]   World Water Assessment Programme. 2020. World Water Development Report 2020-Water and Climate Change. [2022-07-20]. https://en.unesco.org/themes/water-security/wwap/wwdr/2020.
[53]   Youssef M A, Abdelbaki A M, Negm L M, et al. 2018. DRAINMOD-simulated performance of controlled drainage across the U.S. Midwest. Agriculture Water Management, 197: 54-66.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.11.012
[54]   Zekry M, Nassar I, Salim H, et al. 2020. The potential of super absorbent polymers from diaper wastes to enhance water retention properties of the soil. Soil Environment, 39: 27-37.
doi: 10.25252/SE
[55]   Zekry M, Salim H, Nassar I, et al. 2022. The role of used disposable diapers for improving the growth and survival of Eucalyptus alaticaulis seedling under drought conditions. Soil and Environment, 41: 63-74.
[56]   Zhang Q, Liu S M, Wang T, et al. 2019. Urbanization impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the water infrastructure in China: Trade-offs among sustainable development goals (SDGs). Cleaner Production, 232: 474-486.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.333
[1] GAO Yalin, QI Guangping, MA Yanlin, YIN Minhua, WANG Jinghai, WANG Chen, TIAN Rongrong, XIAO Feng, LU Qiang, WANG Jianjun. Regulation effects of water and nitrogen on yield, water, and nitrogen use efficiency of wolfberry[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(1): 29-45.
[2] Teame G KEBEDE, Emiru BIRHANE, Kiros-Meles AYIMUT, Yemane G EGZIABHER. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve biomass, photosynthesis, and water use efficiency of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller under different water levels[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(8): 975-988.
[3] Reza DEIHIMFARD, Sajjad RAHIMI-MOGHADDAM, Farshid JAVANSHIR, Alireza PAZOKI. Quantifying major sources of uncertainty in projecting the impact of climate change on wheat grain yield in dryland environments[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(5): 545-561.
[4] LI Hongfang, WANG Jian, LIU Hu, MIAO Henglu, LIU Jianfeng. Responses of vegetation yield to precipitation and reference evapotranspiration in a desert steppe in Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(4): 477-490.
[5] CAO Yijie, MA Yonggang, BAO Anming, CHANG Cun, LIU Tie. Evaluation of the water conservation function in the Ili River Delta of Central Asia based on the InVEST model[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(12): 1455-1473.
[6] HAN Mengxue, ZHANG Lin, LIU Xiaoqiang. Subsurface irrigation with ceramic emitters improves wolfberry yield and economic benefits on the Tibetan Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(11): 1376-1390.
[7] YAN Xue, LI Lanhai. Spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing factors of ecosystem services in Central Asia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(1): 1-19.
[8] WANG Fengjiao, FU Bojie, LIANG Wei, JIN Zhao, ZHANG Liwei, YAN Jianwu, FU Shuyi, GOU Fen. Assessment of drought and its impact on winter wheat yield in the Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(7): 771-786.
[9] SUN Dingzhao, LIANG Youjia, PENG Shouzhang. Scenario simulation of water retention services under land use/cover and climate changes: a case study of the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(4): 390-410.
[10] WU Changxue, QIU Dexun, GAO Peng, MU Xingmin, ZHAO Guangju. Application of the InVEST model for assessing water yield and its response to precipitation and land use in the Weihe River Basin, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(4): 426-440.
[11] WANG Hongwei, QI Yuan, LIAN Xihong, ZHANG Jinlong, YANG Rui, ZHANG Meiting. Effects of climate change and land use/cover change on the volume of the Qinghai Lake in China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(3): 245-261.
[12] Besma ZARAI, Christian WALTER, Didier MICHOT, Jean P MONTOROI, Mohamed HACHICHA. Integrating multiple electromagnetic data to map spatiotemporal variability of soil salinity in Kairouan region, Central Tunisia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(2): 186-202.
[13] Halimeh PIRI, Amir NASERIN, Ammar A ALBALASMEH. Interactive effects of deficit irrigation and vermicompost on yield, quality, and irrigation water use efficiency of greenhouse cucumber[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(11): 1274-1292.
[14] Mohammad KHEIRI, Jafar KAMBOUZIA, Reza DEIHIMFARD, Saghi M MOGHADDAM, Seyran ANVARI. Assessing the response of dryland barley yield to climate variability in semi-arid regions, Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(9): 905-917.
[15] Ibtihal AL-MANTHRIA, Abdulrahim M AL-ISMAILIA, Hemesiri KOTAGAMAB, Mumtaz KHANC, L H Janitha JEEWANTHAD. Water, land, and energy use efficiencies and financial evaluation of air conditioner cooled greenhouses based on field experiments[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(4): 375-387.