Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2025, Vol. 17 Issue (6): 823-845    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-025-0018-6     CSTR: 32276.14.JAL.02500186
Review article     
Leaching amount and period regulated saline-alkaline soil water-salinity dynamics and improved cotton yield in southern Xinjiang, China
WANG Lei1, LIU Xiaoqiang2, WANG Shuhong3, HE Shuai4,*()
1Xinjiang Daoda Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., Yining 835000, China
2Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid and Semi-arid Areas of the Ministry of Education, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
3Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Surveying ＆ Designing Institute Group Co., Ltd., Shihezi 832000, China
4Institute of Farmland Water Conservancy and Soil-Fertilizer, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi 832000, China
Download: HTML     PDF(4316KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Cotton, as one of important economic crops, is widely planted in the saline-alkaline soil of southern Xinjiang, China. Moreover, in order to control the saline-alkaline content for seed germination and seedlings survive of cotton, farmers always adopt salt leaching during winter and spring seasons. However, excessive amount of salt leaching might result in the waste of water resources and unsuitable irrigation seasons might further increase soil salinization. In this study, a field experiment was conducted in the saline-alkaline soil in 2020 and 2021 to determine the effects of leaching amount and period on water-salinity dynamics and cotton yield. Five leaching amounts (0.0 (W0), 75.0 (W1), 150.0 (W2), 225.0 (W3), and 300.0 (W4) mm) and three leaching periods (seedling stage (P1), seedling and squaring stages (P2), and seedling, squaring, flowering, and boll setting stages (P3)) were used. In addition, a control treatment (CK) with a leaching amount of 300.0 mm in spring was performed. The soil water-salt dynamics, cotton growth, seed cotton yield, water productivity (WP), and irrigation water productivity (WPI) were analyzed. Results showed that leaching significantly decreased soil electrical conductivity (EC), and W3P2 treatment reduced EC by 11.79% in the 0-100 cm soil depth compared with CK. Plant height, stem diameter, leaf area index, and yield under W3 and W4 treatments were greater than those under W1 and W2 treatments. Compared with W3P1 and W3P3 treatments, seed cotton yield under W3P2 treatment significantly enhanced and reached 6621 kg/hm2 in 2020 and 5340 kg/hm2 in 2021. Meanwhile, WP and WPI under W3P2 treatment were significantly higher than those under other leaching treatments. In conclusion, the treatment of 225.0 mm leaching amount and seedling and squaring stages-based leaching period was beneficial for the salt control, efficient water utilization, and yield improvement of cotton in southern Xinjiang, China.

Key words： cotton yield      leaching      soil water      soil electrical conductivity      drip irrigation     
Received: 13 November 2024      Published: 30 June 2025
Corresponding Authors: *HE Shuai (E-mail: xjshzhs@163.com)
About author: First author contact:The first and second authors contributed equally to this work.
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
WANG Lei
LIU Xiaoqiang
WANG Shuhong
HE Shuai
Cite this article:

WANG Lei, LIU Xiaoqiang, WANG Shuhong, HE Shuai. Leaching amount and period regulated saline-alkaline soil water-salinity dynamics and improved cotton yield in southern Xinjiang, China. Journal of Arid Land, 2025, 17(6): 823-845.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-025-0018-6     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2025/V17/I6/823

Depth (cm) Soil texture Particle size (%) Bulk density (g/cm3) Field capacity
(%)		 Soil electrical conductivity (EC) before experiment (dS/m) Soil EC after experiment (dS/m)
Clay Silt Sand
0-20 Sandy loam 2.39 43.24 54.37 1.55 21.24 4.23 1.62
20-40 Silt loam 3.89 57.29 38.82 1.40 22.88 3.20 1.13
40-60 Silt loam 4.12 53.19 42.69 1.41 23.56 2.52 0.91
60-80 Silt loam 4.37 45.09 50.55 1.57 24.91 3.18 0.82
80-100 Sand 0.00 15.36 84.64 1.66 20.05 3.62 0.86
Table 1 Soil physical and chemical properties of the study area
Fig. 1 Precipitation, maximum temperature (Tmax), and minimum temperature (Tmin) during the cotton growth period in 2020 (a) and 2021 (b). The blue arrow markings in the figure represent leaching date.
Date of water application Irrigation/leaching amount (mm)
Irrigation
(mm-dd)		 Leaching
(mm-dd)		 CK W0 W1P1 W2P1 W3P1 W4P1 W1P2
- -/03-18 0.0/300.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
06-03/06-06 - 0.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0
- 06-09/06-11 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 75.0/75.0 150.0/150.0 225.0/225.0 300.0/300.0 37.5/37.5
06-13/06-18 - 0.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0
06-23/06-28 - 0.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0
07-03/07-08 - 0.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0
07-13/07-18 - 0.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0
- 07-17/07-14 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 37.5/37.5
07-25/07-28 - 0.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0
08-04/08-07 - 0.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0
- 08-09/08-14 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
08-14/08-17 - 0.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0
08-24/08-27 - 0.0/26.0 0.0/26.0 0.0/26.0 0.0/26.0 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0
Irrigation+leaching total amount 0.0/640.0 360.0/340.0 435.0/415.0 510.0/490.0 585.0/565.0 660.0/640.0 435.0/415.0
Date of water application Irrigation/leaching amount (mm)
Irrigation
(mm-dd)		 Leaching
(mm-dd)		 W2P2 W3P2 W4P2 W1P3 W2P3 W3P3 W4P3
- -/03-18 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0
06-03/06-06 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0 28.0/20.0
- 06-09/06-11 75.0/75.0 112.5/112.5 150.0/150.0 25.0/25.0 50.0/50.0 75.0/75.0 100.0/100.0
06-13/06-18 - 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0 35.0/32.0
06-23/06-28 - 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0 36.0/38.0
07-03/07-08 - 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0 54.0/55.0
07-13/07-18 - 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0 51.0/49.0
- 07-17/07-14 75.0/75.0 112.5/112.5 150.0/150.0 25.0/25.0 50.0/50.0 75.0/75.0 100.0/100.0
07-25/07-28 - 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0 51.0/46.0
08-04/08-07 - 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0 50.0/47.0
- 08-09/08-14 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 25.0/25.0 50.0/50.0 75.0/75.0 100.0/100.0
08-14/08-17 - 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0 29.0/27.0
08-24/08-27 - 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0 26.0/26.0
Irrigation+leaching total amount 510.0/490.0 585.0/565.0 660.0/640.0 435.0/415.0 510.0/490.0 585.0/565.0 660.0/640.0
Table 2 Irrigation and leaching amount under different treatments during cotton growth period in 2020 and 2021
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of cotton planting mode and sampling points in the field
Growth period Date
2020 (dd-mm-dd-mm) 2021 (dd-mm-dd-mm)
S1 04-26-06-16 04-28-06-18
S2 06-17-07-18 06-19-07-20
S3 07-19-08-09 07-21-08-10
S4 08-09-08-30 08-11-08-31
S5 08-31-09-28 09-01-09-30
Table S1 Phenological phase of cotton in 2020 and 2021
Fig. 3 Soil moisture dynamics for different leaching amount and period treatments in 2020. (a1-a3), 0-20 cm; (b1-b3), 20-40 cm; (c1-c3), 40-60 cm; (d1-d3), 60-80 cm; (e1-e3), 80-100 cm; W0, W1, W2, W3, and W4 represent leaching amount of 0.0, 75.0, 150.0, 225.0, and 300.0 mm, respectively. P1, seedling stage; P2, seedling and squaring stage; P3, seedling, squaring, and boll flowering stage. Arrow means the leaching date. The abbreviations of treatments are the same in the following figures and tables.
Fig. 4 Soil moisture dynamics for different leaching amount and period treatments in 2021. (a1-a3), 0-20 cm; (b1-b3), 20-40 cm; (c1-c3), 40-60 cm; (d1-d3), 60-80 cm; (e1-e3), 80-100 cm. Arrow means the leaching date.
Fig. 5 Soil electrical conductivity (EC) dynamics for different leaching amount and period treatments in 2020. (a1-a3), 0-20 cm; (b1-b3), 20-40 cm; (c1-c3), 40-60 cm; (d1-d3), 60-80 cm; (e1-e3), 80-100 cm. Arrow means the leaching date.
Fig. 6 Soil EC dynamics for different leaching amount and period treatments in 2021. (a1-a3), 0-20 cm; (b1-b3), 20-40 cm; (c1-c3), 40-60 cm; (d1-d3), 60-80 cm; (e1-e3), 80-100 cm. Arrow means the leaching date.
Fig. 7 Effects of different leaching amount and period treatments on plant height and stem diameter of cotton in 2020 and 2021. (a1-a3), plant height in 2020; (b1-b3), stem diameter in 2020; (c1-c3), plant height in 2021; (d1-d3), stem diameter in 2021. S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 represent seedling, squaring, flowering, boll, and opening-boll stages of cotton, respectively. Different lowercase letters within the same stage indicate significant difference among different leaching amount treatments at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Fig. 8 Effects of different leaching amount and period treatments on leaf area index (LAI) of cotton in 2020 (a1-a3) and 2021 (b1-b3)
Leaching
amount		 Leaching
period		 2020 2021
Dry matter
(kg/hm2)		 Bolls per plant One-boll
weight (g)		 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm2) Dry matter
(kg/hm2)		 Bolls per
plant		 One-boll weight (g) Seed cotton yield (kg/hm2)
CK - - - - - 17,709cd 5.70cd 5.02a 4914b
W0 - 9117h 3.10f 3.95e 2765e 10,566f 4.52fg 4.01a 2682f
W1 P1 10,524g 4.27de 4.27bce 3437de 13,982de 5.90c 4.73bcd 3566de
P2 11,338fg 3.73ef 4.07ce 3139e 10,590g 5.55cd 4.95abc 3386e
P3 11,676fg 3.63ef 4.54ab 3046e 12,550f 5.46ef 4.91abc 2780f
W2 P1 11,667fg 3.60ef 4.52ab 3590de 14,898e 4.98efg 4.70cd 3748cd
P2 12,168f 5.29abcd 4.37bce 4754bc 11,486fg 5.45cde 5.00a 3927c
P3 10,538g 3.25ef 4.24bce 3207e 13,966f 4.45g 4.70cd 2961f
W3 P1 14,892de 5.02bcd 4.56ab 5088bc 19,335b 6.95b 4.60de 3937c
P2 19,995b 6.25a 4.84a 6621a 21,138ab 7.63a 4.77abcd 5340a
P3 13,878e 5.14bcd 4.53ab 5227bc 14,214ef 5.08ef 4.35e 3546de
W4 P1 15,513d 4.84cd 4.42abc 4384cd 19,384c 4.95efg 4.69cd 3827cd
P2 23,165a 5.99ab 4.85a 5807ab 22,156a 5.90c 4.71cd 5107ab
P3 16,717c 5.62abc 4.59ab 5185c 18,042cd 5.12de 4.92abc 4033c
ANOVA
Leaching amount ** * * ** ** ** ** **
Leaching period ** * * ** * ** ** **
Leaching amount×
Leaching period		 ** ns * ns ** * ** **
Table 3 Dry matter, bolls per plant, one-boll weight, and seed cotton yield under different leaching amount and period treatments during harvesting period
Leaching amount Leaching period 2020 2021
ETc (mm) WP (kg/m3) WPI (kg/m3) ETc (mm) WP (kg/m3) WPI (kg/m3)
CK - - - - 653ab 0.75g 0.77d
W0 - 474f 0.61fg 0.80bcd 313g 0.86ef 0.79c
W1 P1 410g 0.84bc 0.79cd 340g 1.05c 0.86b
P2 436g 0.72de 0.72de 262h 1.29a 0.82bc
P3 531e 0.57fg 0.70de 318g 0.84f 0.65de
W2 P1 529e 0.68ef 0.71de 407f 0.92de 0.76c
P2 551de 0.74cde 0.80cd 336g 1.17b 0.80bc
P3 633c 0.51g 0.63e 472e 0.63h 0.60e
W3 P1 684b 0.74cde 0.87bc 551d 0.72g 0.70d
P2 569d 1.17a 1.14a 568d 0.94d 0.95a
P3 629c 0.83bcd 0.90b 608c 0.60h 0.63e
W4 P1 731a 0.60fg 0.67e 631bc 0.59h 0.58e
P2 678b 0.86b 0.88bc 679a 0.75g 0.80bc
P3 679b 0.76bcde 0.79cd 672a 0.58h 0.63e
ANOVA
Leaching amount ** ** ** ** ns **
Leaching period ** ** ** ** ** **
Leaching amount×Leaching period ** ** ** ** ** **
Table 4 Cotton water consumption (ETc), water productivity (WP), and irrigation water productivity (WPI) under different treatments
Fig. 9 Relationships of dry matter accumulation (a), seed cotton yield (b), water productivity (c), and soil EC (d) with leaching amount in 2020 and 2021
[1]   Abdelraheem A, Esmaeili N, O'Connell M, et al. 2019. Progress and perspective on drought and salt stress tolerance in cotton. Industrial Crops & Products, 130: 118-129.
[2]   Akramkhanov A, Martius C, Park S J, et al. 2011. Environmental factors of spatial distribution of soil salinity on flat irrigated terrain. Geoderma, 163(1-2): 55-62.
[3]   Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D, et al. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration:Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. In: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Rome, Italy.
[4]   Ayars J E, Hoffman G J, Corwin D L. 2012. Leaching and Rootzone Salinity Control. Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
[5]   Barnard J H, Matthews N, du Preez C C. 2021. Formulating and assessing best water and salt management practices: Lessons from non-saline and water-logged irrigated fields. Agricultural Water Management, 247: 106706, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106706.
[6]   Cai Y H, Wu P T, Zhu D L, et al. 2021. Subsurface irrigation with ceramic emitters: An effective method to improve apple yield and irrigation water use efficiency in the semiarid Loess Plateau. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 313: 107404, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107404.
[7]   Che Z, Wang J, Li J S. 2022. Modeling strategies to balance salt leaching and nitrogen loss for drip irrigation with saline water in arid regions. Agricultural Water Management, 274: 107943, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107943.
[8]   Chen M, Kang Y H, Wan S Q, et al. 2009. Drip irrigation with saline water for oleic sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Agricultural Water Management, 96(12): 1766-1772.
[9]   Chen W L, Jin M G, Ferré T P A, et al. 2018. Spatial distribution of soil moisture, soil salinity, and root density beneath a cotton field under mulched drip irrigation with brackish and fresh water. Field Crops Research, 215: 207-221.
[10]   Chen W L, Jin M G, Ferré T, et al. 2020. Soil conditions affect cotton root distribution and cotton yield under mulched drip irrigation. Field Crops Research, 249: 107743, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107743.
[11]   Chen W P, Hou Z A, Wu L S, et al. 2010. Evaluating salinity distribution in soil irrigated with saline water in arid regions of Northwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 97(12): 2001-2008.
[12]   Dudley L M, Ben-Gal A, Lazarovitch N. 2008. Drainage water reuse: Biological, physical, and technological considerations for system management. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37: S25-S35.
[13]   Feng Z Z, Wang X K, Feng Z W. 2005. Soil N and salinity leaching after the autumn irrigation and its impact on groundwater in Hetao Irrigation District, China. Agricultural Water Management, 71(2): 131-143.
[14]   Fernández J E, Alcon F, Diaz-Espejo A, et al. 2020. Water use indicators and economic analysis for on-farm irrigation decision: A case study of a super high density olive tree orchard. Agricultural Water Management, 237: 106074, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106074.
[15]   Forkutsa I, Sommer R, Shirokova Y I, et al. 2009. Modeling irrigated cotton with shallow groundwater in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan: II. Soil salinity dynamics. Irrigation Science, 27(4): 319-330.
[16]   Grantz D A, Zhang X J, Metheney P D, et al. 1993. Indirect measurement of leaf area index in Pima cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) using a commercial gap inversion method. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 67(1-2): 1-12.
[17]   Grismer M E. 2002. Regional cotton lint yield, ETc and water value in Arizona and California. Agricultural Water Management, 54(3): 227-242.
[18]   Grundy P R, Yeates S J, Bell K L. 2020. Cotton production during the tropical monsoon season. II-biomass accumulation, partitioning and RUE in response to boll loss and compensation. Field Crops Research, 255: 107868, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107868.
[19]   Gwathmey C O, Bange M P, Brodrick R. 2016. Cotton crop maturity: A compendium of measures and predictors. Field Crops Research, 191: 41-53.
[20]   Hanson B R, Hopmans J W, Šimůnek J. 2008. Leaching with subsurface drip irrigation under saline, shallow groundwater conditions. Vadose Zone Journal, 7(2): 810-818.
[21]   Hoffman G J, Shalhevet J. 2007. Controlling Salinity. Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
[22]   Hosseini P, Bailey R T. 2022. Investigating the controlling factors on salinity in soil, groundwater, and river water in a semi-arid agricultural watershed using SWAT-Salt. Science of the Total Environment, 810: 152293, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152293.
[23]   Hou X H, Fan J L, Hu W H, et al. 2021. Optimal irrigation amount and nitrogen rate improved seed cotton yield while maintaining fiber quality of drip-fertigated cotton in Northwest China. Industrial Crops and Products, 170: 113710, doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113710.
[24]   Hou X H, Xiang Y Z, Fan J L, et al. 2022a. Spatial distribution and variability of soil salinity in film-mulched cotton fields under various drip irrigation regimes in southern Xinjiang of China. Soil & Tillage Research, 223: 105470, doi: 10.1016/j.still.2022.105470.
[25]   Hou X H, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. 2022b. Determining water use and crop coefficients of drip-irrigated cotton in south Xinjiang of China under various irrigation amounts. Industrial Crops and Products, 176: 114376, doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.114376.
[26]   Howell T A, Evett S R, Tolk J A, et al. 2004. Evapotranspiration of full, deficit-irrigated, and dryland cotton on the Northern Texas High Plains. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 130(4): 277-285.
[27]   Hu H C, Tian F Q, Hu H. 2011. Soil particle size distribution and its relationship with soil water and salt under mulched drip irrigation in Xinjiang of China. Science China Technological Sciences, 54(6): 1568-1574.
[28]   Hu H C, Tian F Q, Zhang Z, et al. 2015. Soil salt leaching in non-growth period and salinity dynamics under mulched drip irrigation in arid area. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 46(9): 1037-1046. (in Chinese)
[29]   Kang Y H, Chen M, Wan S Q. 2010. Effects of drip irrigation with saline water on waxy maize (Zea mays L. var. ceratina Kulesh) in North China Plain. Agriculture Water Management, 97(9): 1303-1309.
[30]   Kang Y H, Wang R S, Wan S Q, et al. 2012. Effects of different water levels on cotton growth and water use through drip irrigation in an arid region with saline ground water of Northwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 109: 117-126.
[31]   Letey J, Hoffman G J, Hopmans J W, et al. 2011. Evaluation of soil salinity leaching requirement guidelines. Agricultural Water Management, 98(4): 502-506.
[32]   Li N, Kang Y H, Li X B, et al. 2019. Response of tall fescue to the reclamation of severely saline coastal soil using treated effluent in Bohai Bay. Agricultural Water Management, 218: 203-210.
[33]   Li X J, Li Y Y, Wang B, et al. 2022. Analysis of spatial-temporal variation of the saline-sodic soil in the west of Jilin Province from 1989 to 2019 and influencing factors. CATENA, 217: 106492, doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106492.
[34]   Li X W, Jin M G, Huang J O, et al. 2015. The soil-water flow system beneath a cotton field in arid North-west China, serviced by mulched drip irrigation using brackish water. Journal of Hydrology, 23(1): 35-46.
[35]   Liang J P, Shi W J. 2021. Cotton/halophytes intercropping decreases salt accumulation and improves soil physicochemical properties and crop productivity in saline-alkali soils under mulched drip irrigation: A three-year field experiment. Field Crops Research, 262: 108027, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.108027.
[36]   Liu X Q, Yan F L, Wu L F, et al. 2023. Leaching amount and timing modified the ionic composition of saline-alkaline soil and increased seed cotton yield under mulched drip irrigation. Field Crops Research, 299: 108988, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2023.108988.
[37]   Liu X Y, Ding B X, Bai Y G, et al. 2020. Effects of drip irrigation under a brackish water film with respect to the soil salinity and cotton yield. Arid Zone Research, 37(2): 410-417. (in Chinese)
[38]   Lokhande S B, Reddy K R. 2015. Cotton reproductive and fiber quality responses to nitrogen nutrition. International Journal of Plant Production, 9(2): 191-210.
[39]   Luo H H, Zhang Y L, Zhang W F, et al. 2008. Effects of rewatering after drought stress on photosynthesis and yield during flowering and boll-setting stage of cotton under-mulch-drip irrigation in Xinjiang. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 34(1): 171-174. (in Chinese)
[40]   Ma L, Zhang X, Lei Q Y, et al. 2021. Effects of drip irrigation nitrogen coupling on dry matter accumulation and yield of summer maize in arid areas of China. Field Crops Research, 274: 108321, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108321.
[41]   Maas E V, Hoffman G J. 1977. Crop salt tolerance-current assessment. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 103(2): 115-134.
[42]   Meng T Y, Zhang X B, Ge J L, et al. 2021. Agronomic and physiological traits facilitating better yield performance of japonica/indica hybrids in saline fields. Field Crops Research, 271: 108255, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108255.
[43]   Minhas P S. 1996. Saline water management for irrigation in India. Agricultural Water Management, 30(1): 1-24.
[44]   Minhas P S. 2010. A re-look on diagnostic criteria for salt affected soils in India. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 58(1): 12-24.
[45]   Minhas P S, Ramos T B, Ben-Gal A, et al. 2020. Coping with salinity in irrigated agriculture: Crop evapotranspiration and water management issues. Agricultural Water Management, 227: 105832, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105832.
[46]   NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China). 2023. Announcement of the National bureau of statistics on cotton production in 2023. [2024-01-25].https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/zxfb/202312/t20231225_1945745.html. (in Chinese)
[47]   Ning S G, Zhou B B, Shi J C, et al. 2021. Soil water/salt balance and water productivity of typical irrigation schedules for cotton under film mulched drip irrigation in northern Xinjiang. Agricultural Water Management, 245: 106651, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106651.
[48]   Nouri H, Stokvis B, Galindo A, et al. 2019. Water scarcity alleviation through water footprint reduction in agriculture: The effect of soil mulching and drip irrigation. Science of the Total Environment, 653: 241-252.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.311
[49]   Ochege F U, Luo G P, Yuan X L, et al. 2022. Simulated effects of plastic film-mulched soil on surface energy fluxes based on optimized TSEB model in a drip-irrigated cotton field. Agricultural Water Management, 262: 107394, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107394.
[50]   Oweis T Y, Farahani H J, Hachum A Y. 2011. Evapotranspiration and water use of full and deficit irrigated cotton in the Mediterranean environment in northern Syria. Agricultural Water Management, 98(8): 1239-1248.
[51]   Pereira L S, Gonçalves J M, Dong B, et al. 2007. Assessing basin irrigation and scheduling strategies for saving irrigation water and controlling salinity in the upper Yellow River Basin, China. Agricultural Water Management, 93(3): 109-122.
[52]   Pettigrew W T. 2004. Moisture deficit effects on cotton lint yield, yield components, and boll distribution. Agronomy Journal, 96(2): 377-383.
[53]   Rao S, Tanwar S, Regar P. 2016. Effect of deficit irrigation, phosphorous inoculation and cycocel spray on root growth, seed cotton yield and water productivity of drip irrigated cotton in arid environment. Agricultural Water Management, 169: 14-25.
[54]   Ren F T, Yang G, Li W J, et al. 2021. Yield-compatible salinity level for growing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under mulched drip irrigation using saline water. Agricultural Water Management, 250: 106859, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106859.
[55]   Rengasamy P. 2006. World salinization with emphasis on Australia. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57(5): 1017-1023.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj108 pmid: 16510516
[56]   Richards L A. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
[57]   Rodrigues G C, Pereira L S. 2009. Assessing economic impacts of deficit irrigation as related to water productivity and water costs. Biosystems Engineering, 103(4): 536-551.
[58]   Rosolem C A, Oosterhuis D M, Souza de S F. 2013. Cotton response to mepiquat chloride and temperature. Scientia Agricola, 70(2): 82-87.
[59]   Runyan C W, D'Odorico P. 2010. Ecohydrological feedbacks between salt accumulation and vegetation dynamics: Role of vegetation-groundwater interactions. Water Resources Research, 46(11): W11561, doi: 10.1029/2010WR009464.
[60]   Satchithanantham S, Krahn V, Sri Ranjan R, et al. 2014. Shallow groundwater uptake and irrigation water redistribution within the potato root zone. Agricultural Water Management, 132: 101-110.
[61]   Shahrokhnia H, Wu L S. 2021. SALEACH: A new web-based soil salinity leaching model for improved irrigation management. Agricultural Water Management, 252: 106905, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106905.
[62]   Tan J L, Kang Y H, Jiao Y P, et al. 2008. Characteristics of soil salinity and salt ions distribution in salt-affected field under mulch-drip irrigation in different planting years. Transactions of the CSAE, 24(6): 59-63. (in Chinese)
[63]   Thompson R. 2023. Editorial note on terms for soil analyses, nutrient content of fertilizers and nitrogen use efficiency. Agricultural Water Management, 289: 108547, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108547.
[64]   Tian T, Li X Y, Shi H B, et al. 2019. Effects of leaching at different growth stages on soil water, soil salt and yield in a drip-irrigated maize farmland with brackish water. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 33(3): 260-267. (in Chinese)
[65]   Tugwell-Wootton T, Skrzypek G, Dogramaci S, et al. 2020. Soil moisture evaporative losses in response to wet-dry cycles in a semiarid climate. Journal of Hydrology, 590: 125533, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125533.
[66]   Wang R S, Kang Y H, Wan S Q, et al. 2011. Salt distribution and the growth of cotton under different drip irrigation regimes in a saline area. Agricultural Water Management, 100(1): 58-69.
[67]   Wang X P, Yang J S, Liu G M, et al. 2015. Impact of irrigation volume and water salinity on winter wheat productivity and soil salinity distribution. Agricultural Water Management, 149: 44-54.
[68]   Wang Z Q, Zhu S Q, Yu R P, et al. 1993. Salt Affected Soils in China. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)
[69]   Watson D J. 1947. Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops: I. Variation in net assimilation rate and leaf area between species and varieties, and within and between years. Annals of Botany, 11(1): 41-76.
[70]   Xiao C, Li M, Fan J L, et al. 2021. Salt leaching with brackish water during growing season improves cotton growth and productivity, water use efficiency and soil sustainability in southern Xinjiang. Water, 13(18): 2602, doi: 10.3390/w13182602.
[71]   Yan F L, Zang F C, Fan J L, et al. 2021. Optimization of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization increases ash salt accumulation and ions absorption of drip-fertigated sugar beet in saline-alkali soils. Field Crops Research, 271: 108247, doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108247.
[72]   Yang T, Šimůnek J, Mo M H, et al. 2019. Assessing salinity leaching efficiency in three soils by the HYDRUS-1D and -2D simulations. Soil & Tillage Research, 194: 104342, doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104342.
[73]   Zhang Q Q, Xu H L, Fan Z L, et al. 2013. Impact of implementation of large-scale drip irrigation in arid and semi-arid areas: Case study of Manas River valley. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 44(13): 2064-2075.
[74]   Zhang Y H, Li X Y, Simůnek J, et al. 2021. Evaluating soil salt dynamics in a field drip-irrigated with brackish water and leached with freshwater during different crop growth stages. Agricultural Water Management, 244: 106601, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106601.
[75]   Zhang Y H, Li X H, Šimůnek J, et al. 2022. Optimizing drip irrigation with alternate use of fresh and brackish waters by analyzing salt stress: The experimental and simulation approaches. Soil & Tillage Research, 219: 105355, doi: 10.1016/j.still.2022.105355.
[76]   Zhang Z, Hu H C, Tian F Q, et al. 2014. Soil salt distribution under mulched drip irrigation in an arid area of northwestern China. Journal of Arid Environments, 104: 23-33.
[77]   Zheng J, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. 2021. Evapotranspiration partitioning and water productivity of rainfed maize under contrasting mulching conditions in Northwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 243: 106473, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106473.
[78]   Zong R, Han Y, Tan M D, et al. 2022. Migration characteristics of soil salinity in saline-sodic cotton field with different reclamation time in non-irrigation season. Agricultural Water Management, 263: 107440, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107440.
[79]   Zulfiqar F, Datta A, Tsusaka T W, et al. 2021. Micro-level quantification of determinants of eco-innovation adoption: An assessment of sustainable practices for cotton production in Pakistan. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28: 436-444.
[1] LI Chaoqun, HAN Wenting, PENG Manman. Effects of drip and flood irrigation on carbon dioxide exchange and crop growth in the maize ecosystem in the Hetao Irrigation District, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(2): 282-297.
[2] LU Rui, ZHANG Mingjun, ZHANG Yu, QIANG Yuquan, CHE Cunwei, SUN Meiling, WANG Shengjie. Estimation of evapotranspiration from artificial forest in mountainous areas of western Loess Plateau based on HYDRUS-1D model[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(12): 1664-1685.
[3] 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.
[4] Alamusa , SU Yuhang, YIN Jiawang, ZHOU Quanlai, WANG Yongcui. Effect of sand-fixing vegetation on the hydrological regulation function of sand dunes and its practical significance[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(1): 52-62.
[5] CHEN Juan, WANG Xing, SONG Naiping, WANG Qixue, WU Xudong. Water utilization of typical plant communities in desert steppe, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(9): 1038-1054.
[6] GAO Zhiyong, WANG Xing. Spatial variability of leaf wetness under different soil water conditions in rainfed jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) in the loess hilly region, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(1): 70-81.
[7] CHEN Pengpeng, GU Xiaobo, LI Yuannong, QIAO Linran, LI Yupeng, FANG Heng, YIN Minhua, ZHOU Changming. Effects of different ridge-furrow mulching systems on yield and water use efficiency of summer maize in the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(9): 947-961.
[8] HUANG Laiming, ZHAO Wen, SHAO Ming'an. Response of plant physiological parameters to soil water availability during prolonged drought is affected by soil texture[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(7): 688-698.
[9] HU Haiying, ZHU Lin, LI Huixia, XU Dongmei, XIE Yingzhong. Seasonal changes in the water-use strategies of three herbaceous species in a native desert steppe of Ningxia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(2): 109-122.
[10] ZHOU Tairan, HAN Chun, QIAO Linjie, REN Chaojie, WEN Tao, ZHAO Changming. Seasonal dynamics of soil water content in the typical vegetation and its response to precipitation in a semi-arid area of Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(10): 1015-1025.
[11] 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[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 819-836.
[12] GONG Yidan, XING Xuguang, WANG Weihua. Factors determining soil water heterogeneity on the Chinese Loess Plateau as based on an empirical mode decomposition method[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(3): 462-472.
[13] ZHENG Jing, FAN Junliang, ZOU Yufeng, Henry Wai CHAU, ZHANG Fucang. Ridge-furrow plastic mulching with a suitable planting density enhances rainwater productivity, grain yield and economic benefit of rainfed maize[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(2): 181-198.
[14] DONG Zhengwu, LI Shengyu, ZHAO Ying, LEI Jiaqiang, WANG Yongdong, LI Congjuan. Stable oxygen-hydrogen isotopes reveal water use strategies of Tamarix taklamakanensis in the Taklimakan Desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(1): 115-129.
[15] DANG Hongzhong, ZHANG Lizhen, YANG Wenbin, FENG Jinchao, HAN Hui, CHEN Yiben. Severe drought strongly reduces water use and its recovery ability of mature Mongolian Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica Litv.) in a semi-arid sandy environment of northern China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 880-891.