Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2020, Vol. 12 Issue (2): 181-198    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-020-0001-1     CSTR: 32276.14.s40333-020-0001-1
Research article     
Ridge-furrow plastic mulching with a suitable planting density enhances rainwater productivity, grain yield and economic benefit of rainfed maize
ZHENG Jing1, FAN Junliang1,2, ZOU Yufeng2, Henry Wai CHAU3, ZHANG Fucang1,2,*()
1 Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid and Semiarid Areas of Ministry of Education, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
2 Institute of Water-saving Agriculture in Arid Areas of China, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
3 Department of Soil and Physical Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Science, Lincoln University, Canterbury 7647, New Zealand
Download: HTML     PDF(805KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Soil surface mulching and planting density regulation are widely used for effective utilization of limited rainwater resources and improvement of crop productivity in dryland farming. However, the combined effects of mulching type and planting density on maize growth and yield have been seldom studied, especially in different hydrological years. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of mulching type and planting density on the soil temperature, growth, grain yield (GY), water use efficiency (WUE) and economic benefit of rainfed maize in the drylands of northern China during 2015-2017. Precipitation fluctuated over the three years. There were four mulching types (NM, flat cultivation with non-mulching; SM, flat cultivation with straw mulching; RP, plastic-mulched ridge plus bare furrow; RPFS, plastic-mulched ridge plus straw-mulched furrow) and three planting densities (LD, low planting density, 45.0×103 plants/hm2; MD, medium planting density, 67.5×103 plants/hm2; HD, high planting density, 90.0×103 plants/hm2). Results showed that soil temperature was higher with RP and lower with SM compared with NM, but no significant difference was found between RPFS and NM. More soil water was retained by soil mulching at the early growth stage, but it significantly varied at the middle and late growth stages. Maize growth was significantly improved by soil mulching. With increasing planting density, stem diameter, net photosynthetic rate and chlorophyll content tended to decline, whereas a single-peak trend in biomass yield was observed. Mulching type and planting density did not have significant effect on evapotranspiration (ET), but GY and WUE were significantly affected. There were significant interacting effects of mulching type and planting density on biomass yield, GY, ET and WUE. Compared with NM, RPFS, RP and SM increased GY by 57.5%, 50.8% and 18.9%, and increased WUE by 66.6%, 54.3% and 18.1%, respectively. At MD, GY increased by 41.4% and 25.2%, and WUE increased by 38.6% and 22.4% compared with those of at LD and HD. The highest maize GY (7023.2 kg/hm2) was observed under MD+RPFS, but the value (6699.1 kg/hm2) was insignificant under MD+RP. Similar trends were observed for WUE under MD+RP and MD+RPFS, but no significant difference was observed between these two combinations. In terms of economic benefit, net income under MD+RP was the highest with a 9.8% increase compared with that of under MD+RPFS. Therefore, we concluded that RP cultivation pattern with a suitable planting density (67.5×103 plants/hm2) is promising for rainwater resources utilization and maize production in the drylands of northern China.

Key words： dryland farming      evapotranspiration      net income      soil temperature      soil water storage     
Received: 15 March 2019      Published: 10 March 2020
Corresponding Authors:
About author: *Corresponding author: ZHANG Fucang (E-mail: zhangfc@nwsuaf.edu.cn)

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
Jing ZHENG
Junliang FAN
Yufeng ZOU
Wai CHAU Henry
Fucang ZHANG
Cite this article:

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. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(2): 181-198.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-020-0001-1     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2020/V12/I2/181

Fig. 1 Photos of different mulching types used in this study. (a), flat cultivation with non-mulching (NM); (b), flat cultivation with straw mulching (SM); (c), plastic-mulched ridge plus bare furrow (RP); (d), plastic-mulched ridge plus straw-mulched furrow (RPFS).
Fig. 2 Average air temperature, daily rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (ET0) during the growth seasons in 2015 (a), 2016 (b) and 2017 (c)
Year 20 June-31 July
(Vegetative growth period)		 1 August-31 August
(Tasseling period)		 1 September-30 September
(Ripening period)
Rainfall (mm) Rainfall anomaly (%) Drought/flood classification Rainfall (mm) Rainfall anomaly (%) Drought/flood classification Rainfall (mm) Rainfall anomaly (%) Drought/flood classification
2015 87.1 -15.9 Normal 88.5 -23.2 Normal 94.3 -17.3 Normal
2016 151.7 46.4 Partial flood 15.6 -86.5 Severe drought 93.8 -17.8 Normal
2017 48.5 -53.2 Severe drought 79.6 -30.9 Partial drought 159.3 39.6 Partial flood
1995-2014 103.7 - - 115.2 - - 114.1 - -
Table 1 Rainfall, rainfall anomaly and drought/flood classification during the growth seasons in 2015, 2016 and 2017
Fig. 3 Effects of mulching type and planting density on soil temperatures at the 5 and 15 cm soil depths at different growth stages of rainfed maize in 2015 (a1 and a2), 2016 (b1 and b2) and 2017 (c1 and c2). NM, flat cultivation with non-mulching; SM, flat cultivation with straw mulching; RP, plastic-mulched ridge plus bare furrow; RPFS, plastic-mulched ridge plus straw-mulched furrow; LD, low planting density (45.0×103 plants/hm2); MD, medium planting density (67.5×103 plants/hm2); HD, high planting density (90.0×103 plants/hm2). Vertical bars represent LSD values (P<0.05). Abbreviations are the same in Figures 4-7 and Tables 2 and 4.
Fig. 4 Effects of mulching type and planting density on soil water storage (0-60 cm) at different growth stages of rainfed maize in 2015 (a1, a2 and a3), 2016 (b1, b2 and b3) and 2017 (c1, c2 and c3). Vertical bars represent LSD values (P<0.05).
Table 2 Effects of mulching type and planting density and their interaction on plant height, stem diameter, grain yield, harvest index, evapotranspiration (ET) and water use efficiency (WUE) of rainfed maize in 2015, 2016 and 2017
Fig. 5 Effects of mulching type and planting density on leaf area index at different growth stages of rainfed maize in 2015 (a1, a2 and a3), 2016 (b1, b2 and b3) and 2017 (c1, c2 and c3). Vertical bars represent LSD values (P<0.05).
Parameter Year (Y) Mulching type (M) Planting density (D) Y×M Y×D M×D Y×M×D
Plant height 59.55** 482.58** 514.13** 3.26* 21.37** 0.56ns 0.59ns
Stem diameter 41.08** 42.16** 52.39** 1.89ns 2.66ns 3.54* 0.39ns
Maximum LAI 489.22** 84.42** 3711.80** 6.82** 11.93** 1.94ns 2.09ns
Pn 665.66** 181.57** 139.54** 4.63** 8.85** 0.97ns 2.16*
Chlorophyll content 252.91** 27.49** 14.15** 0.41ns 0.72ns 0.08ns 0.12ns
Biomass yield 300.64** 341.67** 140.13** 14.33** 10.80** 6.57** 3.32**
Grain yield 130.72** 162.62** 5448.56** 10.06** 66.52** 10.79** 2.79*
Harvest index 140.38** 76.79** 120.37** 9.02** 40.80** 2.14ns 2.95*
ET 19.55** 4.43ns 3.05ns 2.83ns 1.42ns 10.77** 3.34**
WUE 61.17** 378.11** 219.39** 4.49* 39.19** 26.94** 2.35*
Table 3 Significance levels (F value) of the effects of different treatments (year, mulching type and planting density) and their interactions on crop growth parameters, net photosynthetic rate (Pn), chlorophyll content, biomass yield, grain yield, harvest index, evapotranspiration (ET) and water use efficiency (WUE)
Fig. 6 Effects of mulching type and planting density on above-ground biomass at different growth stages of rainfed maize in 2015 (a1, a2 and a3), 2016 (b1, b2 and b3) and 2017 (c1, c2 and c3). Vertical bars represent LSD values (P<0.05).
Fig. 7 Effects of mulching type and planting density on net photosynthetic rate (Pn; a1, a2 and a3) and chlorophyll content (b1, b2 and b3) at tasseling stage of rainfed maize in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Bars mean standard errors; n=3. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different mulching types and plant densities at P<0.05 level.
Mulching type Planting density Annual MMI Annual SFI Annual LI Annual TI TO NI
2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017
NM LD 0.0 277.8 518.0 795.8 1219.7 164.0 1367.2 423.9 -631.8 571.4
MD 0.0 294.6 543.0 837.6 1780.8 410.1 1822.5 943.2 -427.5 984.9
HD 0.0 311.4 568.0 879.4 1418.6 159.9 1669.3 539.2 -719.5 789.9
SM LD 0.0 277.8 798.0 1075.8 1307.5 198.6 1586.3 231.7 -777.2 510.5
MD 0.0 294.6 823.0 1117.6 1950.4 451.6 2298.8 832.8 -666.0 1181.2
HD 0.0 311.4 848.0 1159.4 1522.5 313.3 2172.4 363.1 -846.1 1013.0
RP LD 67.9 277.8 593.0 938.7 1423.0 1006.4 1902.6 484.3 67.7 963.9
MD 67.9 294.6 618.0 980.5 2261.2 1174.7 2593.4 1280.7 194.2 1612.9
HD 67.9 311.4 643.0 1022.3 1765.2 607.0 2369.2 742.9 -415.3 1346.9
RPFS LD 67.9 277.8 733.0 1078.7 1509.3 1092.8 2020.1 430.6 14.1 941.4
MD 67.9 294.6 758.0 1120.5 2328.9 1269.8 2722.2 1208.4 149.3 1601.7
HD 67.9 311.4 783.0 1162.3 1795.8 587.7 2474.5 633.5 -574.6 1312.2
Table 4 Economic benefits (USD/hm2) under different treatments
[1]   Abuzar M R, Sadozai G U, Baloch M S, et al. 2011. Effect of plant population densities on yield of maize. Journal of Animal and Plant Science, 21: 692-695.
[2]   Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D, et al. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56, FAO, Rome.
[3]   Berzsenyi Z, Tokatlidis I S. 2012. Density-dependence rather than maturity determines hybrid selection in dryland maize production. Agronomy Journal, 104(2): 331-336.
doi: 10.2134/agronj2011.0205
[4]   Blum A. 2009. Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Research, 112(2-3): 119-123.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.03.009
[5]   Borras L, Slafer G A, Otegui M E. 2004. Seed dry weight response to source-sink manipulations in wheat, maize and soybean: a quantitative reappraisal. Field Crops Research, 86(2-3): 131-146.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2003.08.002
[6]   Campbell G S, Norman J M. 1998. Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 286.
[7]   Carpici E B, Celik N, Bayram G. 2010. Yield and quality of forage maize as influenced by plant density and nitrogen rate. Turkish Journal of Food Crop, 15(2): 128-132.
[8]   Chen Y, Liu T, Tian X, et al. 2015. Effects of plastic film combined with straw mulch on grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat in Loess Plateau. Field Crops Research, 172: 53-58.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.11.016
[9]   Ciampitti I A, Vyn T J. 2012. Physiological perspectives of changes over time in maize yield dependency on nitrogen uptake and associated nitrogen efficiencies: a review. Field Crops Research, 133: 48-67.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.03.008
[10]   Cook H F, Valdes G S B, Lee H C. 2006. Mulch effects on rainfall interception, soil physical characteristics and temperature under Zea mays L. Soil and Tillage Research, 91: 227-235.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.12.007
[11]   Dvorak P, Tomâsek J, Hamouz K, et al. 2015. Reply of mulch systems on weeds and yield components in potatoes. Plant and Soil Environment, 61: 322-327.
doi: 10.17221/PSE
[12]   Fan J L, Baumgartl T, Scheuermann A, et al. 2015. Modeling effects of canopy and roots on soil moisture and deep drainage. Vadose Zone Journal, 14(2): 1-18.
[13]   Fan J L, Yue W J, Wu L F, et al. 2018. Evaluation of SVM, ELM and four tree-based ensemble models for predicting daily reference evapotranspiration using limited meteorological data in different climates of China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 263: 225-241.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.08.019
[14]   Gao Z, Feng H Y, Liang X G, et al. 2018. Limits to maize productivity in the North China Plain: A comparison analysis for spring and summer maize. Field Crops Research, 228: 39-47.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.08.022
[15]   Gelmond H.1978. Problems in crop seed germination. In: Gupta U S. Crop Physiology. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 7-15.
[16]   Gu X B, Li Y N, Du Y D. 2016. Continuous ridges with film mulching improve soil water content, root growth, seed yield and water use efficiency of winter oilseed rape. Industrial Crops and Products, 85: 139-148.
doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.02.056
[17]   Han Q F, Li X T, Wang J P, et al. 2004. Simulated study on soil moisture of field under water micro-collecting farming conditions. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 20: 78-82. (in Chinese)
[18]   Hu Y J, Ma P H, Zhang B B, et al. 2019. Exploring optimal soil mulching for the wheat-maize cropping system in sub-humid drought-prone regions in China. Agricultural Water Management, 219: 59-71.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.04.004
[19]   Iqbal R, Raza M A S, Saleem M F, et al. 2019. Physiological and biochemical appraisal for mulching and partial rhizosphere drying of cotton. Journal of Arid Land, 11(5): 785-794.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-019-0014-9
[20]   Jia Q M. 2018. Effects of rainwater-harvesting planting with supplemental irrigation and planting densities on the growth and photosynthetic physiology of maize in the semi-arid regions. PhD Dissertation. Yangling: Northwest A&F University. (in Chinese)
[21]   Jia Q M, Sun L F, Shahzad A, et al. 2018a. Effect of planting density and pattern on maize yield and rainwater use efficiency in the Loess Plateau in China. Agricultural Water Management, 202: 19-32.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.02.011
[22]   Jia Q M, Sun L F, Mou H Y, et al. 2018b. Effects of planting patterns and sowing densities on grain-filling, radiation use efficiency and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid regions. Agricultural Water Management, 201: 287-298.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.11.025
[23]   Jia Q M, Sun L F, Wang J J, et al. 2018c. Limited irrigation and planting densities for enhanced water productivity and economic returns under the ridge-furrow system in semi-arid regions of China. Field Crops Research, 221: 207-218.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.03.005
[24]   Kuai J, Sun Y Y, Zhou M, et al. 2016. The effect of nitrogen application and planting density on the radiation use efficiency and the stem lignin metabolism in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Field Crops Research, 199: 89-98.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.025
[25]   Li R, Hou X Q, Jia Z K, et al. 2013. Effects on soil temperature, moisture, and maize yield of cultivation with ridge and furrow mulching in the rainfed area of the Loess Plateau, China. Agricultural Water Management, 116: 101-109.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.10.001
[26]   Li Y, Liu C C, Zhang J H., et al. 2018. Variation in leaf chlorophyll concentration from tropical to cold-temperate forests: Association with gross primary productivity. Ecological Indicators, 85: 383-389.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.025
[27]   Lin W, Liu W Z, Xue Q W. 2016. Spring maize yield, soil water use and water use efficiency under plastic film and straw mulches in the Loess Plateau. Scientific Report, 6: 1-10.
[28]   Liu C A, Jin S L, Zhou L M, et al. 2009. Effects of plastic film mulch and tillage on maize productivity and soil parameters. European Journal of Agronomy, 31(4): 241-249.
doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2009.08.004
[29]   Liu J L, Bu L D, Zhu L, et al. 2014. Optimizing plant density and plastic film mulch to increase maize productivity and water use efficiency in semiarid areas. Agronomy Journal, 106(4): 1138-1146.
doi: 10.2134/agronj13.0582
[30]   Liu Q F, Chen Y, Liu Y, et al. 2016. Coupling effects of plastic film mulching and urea types on water use efficiency and grain yield of maize in the Loess Plateau, China. Soil and Tillage Research, 157: 1-10.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2015.11.003
[31]   Liu T N, Chen J Z, Wang Z Y, et al. 2018. Ridge and furrow planting pattern optimizes canopy structure of summer maize and obtains higher grain yield. Field Crops Research, 219: 242-249.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.012
[32]   Mackinnery G. 1941. Absorption of light by chlorophyll solutions. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 140: 315-322.
[33]   Maddonni G A, Otegui M E, Cirilo A G. 2001. Plant population density, row spacing and hybrid effects on maize canopy architecture and light attenuation. Field Crops Research, 71(3): 183-193.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00158-7
[34]   Mckee G W. 1964. A coefficient for computing leaf area in hybrid corn. Agronomy Journal, 56: 240-241.
doi: 10.2134/agronj1964.00021962005600020038x
[35]   Qiang S C, Zhang F C, Xiang Y Z, et al. 2015. Simulation and validation of critical nitrogen dilution curve for summer maize in Guanzhong Plain during different rainfall years. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 31(17): 168-175. (in Chinese)
[36]   Qiang S C, Zhang Y, Fan J L, et al. 2019. Maize yield, rainwater and nitrogen use efficiency as affected by maize genotypes and nitrogen rates on the Loess Plateau of China. Agricultural Water Management, 213: 996-1003.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.12.021
[37]   Ramachandra R A, Chaitanya K V, Vivekanandan M. 2004. Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 161(11): 1189-1202.
doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2004.01.013 pmid: 15602811
[38]   Ren B Z, Dong S T, Liu P, et al. 2016. Ridge tillage improves plant growth and grain yield of waterlogged summer maize. Agricultural Water Management, 177: 392-399.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.033
[39]   Ren X L, Cai T, Chen X L, et al. 2016. Effect of rainfall concentration with different ridge widths on winter wheat production under semiarid climate. European Journal of Agronomy, 77: 20-27.
doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2016.03.008
[40]   Rossini M A, Maddonni G A, Otegui M E. 2011. Inter-plant competition for resources in maize crops grown under contrasting nitrogen supply and density: Variability in plant and ear growth. Field Crops Research, 121(3): 373-380.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.01.003
[41]   Sadeghi M. 2013. The determination of plant density on dry matter accumulation, grain yield and yield components of four maize hybrids. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences, 5: 109.
[42]   Sharma P, Abrol V, Sharma R K. 2011. Impact of tillage and mulch management on economics, energy requirement and crop performance in maize-wheat rotation in rainfed subhumid inceptisols, India. European Journal of Agronomy, 34(1): 46-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2010.10.003
[43]   Wang X, Fan J, Xing Y, et al. 2019. The effects of mulch and nitrogen fertilizer on the soil environment of crop plants. Advance in Agronomy, 153: 121-173.
[44]   Wang X B, Cai D X, Hoogmoed W B, et al. 2007. Crop residue, manure and fertilizer in dryland maize under reduced tillage in northern China: I grain yields and nutrient use efficiencies. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 79(1): 1-16.
doi: 10.1007/s10705-007-9113-7
[45]   Wang T C, Wei L, Wang H Z, et al. 2011. Responses of rainwater conservation, precipitation-use efficiency and grain yield of summer maize to a furrow-planting and straw-mulching system in northern China. Field Crops Research, 124(2): 223-230.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.06.014
[46]   Wang Y Q, Zhang Y H, Zhou S L, et al. 2018. Meta-analysis of no-tillage effect on wheat and maize water use efficiency in China. Science of the Total Environment, 635: 1372-1382.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.202 pmid: 29710668
[47]   Xue J Q, Zhang R H, Li F Y, et al. 2008. Current status, problem and strategy of maize breeding in Shannxi Province. Journal of Maize Science, 16(2): 139-141. (in Chinese)
[48]   Yin W, Chen G P, Feng F X, et al. 2017. Straw retention combined with plastic mulching improves compensation of intercropped maize in arid environment. Field Crops Research, 204: 42-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.005
[49]   Zhang F, Ibrahim M E, Li M, et al. 2019. Integrated model and field experiment to determine the optimum planting density in plastic film mulched rainfed agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 268: 331-340.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.01.040
[50]   Zhang H J, Dong H Z, Li W J, et al. 2012. Effects of soil salinity and plant density on yield and leaf senescence of field-grown cotton. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 198(1): 27-37.
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00481.x
[51]   Zhang S H, Sadras V, Chen X P, et al. 2014. Water use efficiency of dryland maize in the Loess Plateau of China in response to crop management. Field Crops Research, 163: 55-63.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.04.003
[52]   Zhang X D, Zhao J, Yang L C, et al. 2019. Ridge-furrow mulching system regulates diurnal temperature amplitude and wetting-drying alternation behavior in soil to promote maize growth and water use in a semiarid region. Field Crops Research, 233: 121-130.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.01.009
[53]   Zhang Y Q, Wang J D, Gong S H, et al. 2019. Straw mulching enhanced the photosynthetic capacity of field maize by increasing the leaf N use efficiency. Agricultural Water Management, 218: 60-67.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.023
[54]   Zheng J, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. 2018a. Mulching mode and planting density affect canopy interception loss of rainfall and water use efficiency of dryland maize on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Arid Land, 10(5): 794-808.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-018-0122-y
[55]   Zheng J, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. 2018b. 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
[56]   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: 1367-1382.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.104 pmid: 30743931
[57]   Zhou L M, Li F M, Jin S L, et al. 2009. How two ridges and the furrow mulched with plastic film affect soil water, soil temperature and yield of maize on the semiarid Loess Plateau of China. Field Crops Research, 113(1): 41-47.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.04.005
[1] YANG Jianhua, LI Yaqian, ZHOU Lei, ZHANG Zhenqing, ZHOU Hongkui, WU Jianjun. Effects of temperature and precipitation on drought trends in Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1098-1117.
[2] 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.
[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] WANG Yuxia, ZHANG Jing, YU Xiaojun. Effects of mulch and planting methods on Medicago ruthenica seed yield and soil physical-chemical properties[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(8): 894-909.
[5] Faraz GORGIN PAVEH, Hadi RAMEZANI ETEDALI, Brian COLLINS. Evaluation of CRU TS, GPCC, AgMERRA, and AgCFSR meteorological datasets for estimating climate and crop variables: A case study of maize in Qazvin Province, Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(12): 1361-1376.
[6] Hushiar HAMARASH, Rahel HAMAD, Azad RASUL. Meteorological drought in semi-arid regions: A case study of Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(11): 1212-1233.
[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] Brian COLLINS, Hadi RAMEZANI ETEDALI, Ameneh TAVAKOL, Abbas KAVIANI. Spatiotemporal variations of evapotranspiration and reference crop water requirement over 1957-2016 in Iran based on CRU TS gridded dataset[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(8): 858-878.
[9] Nirmal M DAHAL, XIONG Donghong, Nilhari NEUPANE, Belayneh YIGEZ, ZHANG Baojun, YUAN Yong, Saroj KOIRALA, LIU Lin, FANG Yiping. Spatiotemporal analysis of drought variability based on the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index in the Koshi River Basin, Nepal[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(5): 433-454.
[10] JIA Wuhui, YIN Lihe, ZHANG Maosheng, ZHANG Xinxin, ZHANG Jun, TANG Xiaoping, DONG Jiaqiu. Quantification of groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration along a semi-arid wetland transect using diurnal water table fluctuations[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(5): 455-469.
[11] MU Le, LU Yixiao, LIU Minguo, YANG Huimin, FENG Qisheng. Characterizing the spatiotemporal variations of evapotranspiration and aridity index in mid-western China from 2001 to 2016[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(12): 1230-1243.
[12] Durdiev KHAYDAR, CHEN Xi, HUANG Yue, Makhmudov ILKHOM, LIU Tie, Ochege FRIDAY, Abdullaev FARKHOD, Gafforov KHUSEN, Omarakunova GULKAIYR. Investigation of crop evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirement in the lower Amu Darya River Basin, Central Asia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(1): 23-39.
[13] YANG Meilin, YU Yang, ZHANG Haiyan, WANG Qian, GAN Miao, YU Ruide. Tree ring based drought variability in Northwest Tajikistan since 1895 AD[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(3): 413-422.
[14] 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.
[15] HE Guohua, ZHAO Yong, WANG Jianhua, GAO Xuerui, HE Fan, LI Haihong, ZHAI Jiaqi, WANG Qingming, ZHU Yongnan. Attribution analysis based on Budyko hypothesis for land evapotranspiration change in the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 939-953.