Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land  2020, Vol. 12 Issue (5): 819-836    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-020-0108-4     CSTR: 32276.14.s40333-020-0108-4
Research article     
Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil water and heat conditions, yield and quality of processing tomatoes by drip irrigation
JIA Hao1,2, WANG Zhenhua1,2,*(), ZHANG Jinzhu1,2, LI Wenhao1, REN Zuoli1, JIA Zhecheng1, WANG Qin1
1College of Water & Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
2Key Laboratory of Modern Water-Saving Irrigation of Xinjiang Production & Construction Group, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
Download: HTML     PDF(1417KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

To combat the problem of residual film pollution and ensure the sustainable development of agriculture in oasis areas, a field experiment was carried out in 2019 at the Wuyi Farm Corps Irrigation Center Test Station in Urumqi, Northwest China. Four types of biodegradable mulches, traditional plastic mulchs and a control group (bare land; referred to as CK) were compared, including a total of six different treatments. Effects of mulching on soil water and heat conditions as well as the yield and quality of processing tomatoes under drip irrigation were examined. In addition, a comparative analysis of economic benefits of biodegradable mulches was performed. Principal component analysis and gray correlation analysis were used to evaluate suitable mulching varieties for planting processing tomatoes under drip irrigation. Our results show that, compared with CK, biodegradable mulches and traditional plastic mulch have a similar effect on retaining soil moisture at the seedling stage but significantly increase soil moisture by 0.5%-1.5% and 1.5%-3.0% in the middle and late growth periods (P<0.050), respectively. The difference in the thermal insulation effect between biodegradable mulch and plastic mulch gradually reduces as the crop grows. Compared with plastic mulch, the average soil temperature at 5-20 cm depth under biodegradable mulches is significantly lowered by 2.04°C-3.52°C and 0.52°C-0.88°C (P<0.050) at the seedling stage and the full growth period, respectively, and the water use efficiency, average fruit yield, and production-investment ratio under biodegradable mulches were reduced by 0.89%-6.63%, 3.39%-8.69%, and 0.51%-6.33% (P<0.050), respectively. The comprehensive evaluation analysis suggests that the black oxidized biological double-degradation ecological mulch made from eco-benign plastic is the optimal film type under the study condition. Therefore, from the perspective of sustainable development, biodegradable mulch is a competitive alternative to plastic mulch for large-scale tomato production under drip irrigation in the oasis.



Key wordsbiodegradable plastic mulch      processing tomato      water use efficiency      soil water and heat      comprehensive evaluation      regional agricultural sustainability      Xinjiang     
Received: 04 June 2020      Published: 10 September 2020
Corresponding Authors:
About author: *Corresponding author: WANG Zhenhua (E-mail: wzh2002027@shzu.edu.cn)
Cite this article:

JIA Hao, WANG Zhenhua, ZHANG Jinzhu, LI Wenhao, REN Zuoli, JIA Zhecheng, WANG Qin. Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil water and heat conditions, yield and quality of processing tomatoes by drip irrigation. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 819-836.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-020-0108-4     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2020/V12/I5/819

Fig. 1 Daily rainfall, daily air temperature (including daily average, maximum and minimum) and daily relative humidity at the study site during the growth period of processing tomatoes in 2019
Depth (cm) Soil bulk density (g/cm3) Field water holding capacity (%)
10 1.35 17.67
20 1.32 17.86
30 1.34 17.57
40 1.36 17.89
50 1.30 18.01
60 1.32 18.12
Table 1 Soil bulk density and field water holding capacity
Treatment Material1 Appearance Thickness (mm) Induction period2 (d) Manufacture
PE Polyethylene Transparent 0.008 Many years Xinjiang Tianye Co., Ltd.
BM1 PBAT Black 0.010 45 Guangzhou Kingfa Co., Ltd.
WM1 PBAT White 0.010 45 Guangzhou Kingfa Co., Ltd.
BM2 EBP Black 0.010 65 China Tianzhuang Co., Ltd.
WM2 EBP White 0.010 65 China Tianzhuang Co., Ltd.
Table 2 Properties of the biodegradable and plastic films used in this study
Fig. 2 Planting mode of drip irrigation under mulch for processing tomatoes
Growth period Duration Number of days (d) Irrigation and fertilization cycle (d) Irrigation and fertilization ratio (%) Number of irrigation and fertilization
Seedling stage 7 May-5 Jun 30 29 12.5 1
Flowering 6 Jun-26 Jun 20 20 12.5 1
Fruit swelling phase I 27 Jun-20 Jul 24 12 25.0 2
Fruit swelling phase II 21 Jul-10 Aug 20 10 25.0 2
Maturity 11 Aug-5 Sep 27 12 25.0 2
Full growth period 7 May-5 Sep 121 - 100.0 8
Table 3 Irrigation schedule
Fig. 3 Dynamic distribution characteristics of water content in different soil layers of processing tomato seedlings under drip irrigation
Fig. 4 Water content changes during the whole growth period of tomato under drip irrigation with different mulching treatments (0-60 cm)
T Ground temperature (°C) measured four times a day at different soil depths
5 cm 10 cm
08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00
PE 24.52±0.228aA 37.35±0.4327aA 46.90±0.696aA 33.18±0.557aA 24.58±0.661aA 32.03±0.278aA 40.28±0.229aA 34.08±0.111aA
BM1 23.80±0.793aAB 36.40±0.307abAB 41.60±0.443bB 32.75±0.514abA 22.93±0.229bB 31.20±0.286bAB 37.18±0.421bB 32.93±0.189bAB
WM1 21.47±0.375bcB 35.50±0.377bcBC 41.53±0.272bB 31.98±0.556abA 22.63±0.354bcB 29.88±0.275cC 36.33±0.175cBC 32.45±0.307bBC
BM2 23.53±0.854abAB 36.30±0.447abABC 41.58±0.316bB 31.65±0.330bA 21.65±0.312cB 29.58±0.085cC 36.00±0.187cCD 31.25±0.284cC
WM2 21.37±0.904cB 34.57±0.549cC 39.88±0.764cB 29.10±0.227cB 21.95±0.185bcB 30.95±0.210bB 35.15±0.171dD 29.40±0.483dD
CK 20.76±0.196dD 36.11±0.150bB 32.54±0.395dD 27.52±0.215dC 20.53±0.135dC 27.86±0.324dD 30.25±0.214eE 26.57±0.389eE
Significance analysis (F test value)
MM 252.463*** 59.110*** 789.350*** 596.652*** 269.568*** 397.235*** 1896.356*** 891.112***
T 15 cm 20 cm
08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00
PE 25.40±0.208aA 30.03±0.193aA 35.03±0.193aA 33.48±0.125aA 24.80±0.245aA 27.20±0.141aA 32.48±0.125aA 31.20±0.141aA
BM1 22.73±0.149bB 29.78±0.221abA 34.90±0.508aAB 30.65±0.393cBC 22.68±0.189cdCD 25.45±0.132cC 29.38±0.144bB 29.18±0.132cC
WM1 22.70±0.261bB 29.53±0.103bA 34.30±0.178abAB 30.20±0.147cC 23.18±0.149cBC 25.23±0.149cC 28.53±0.103cC 28.18±0.149dD
BM2 22.10±0.334bB 30.10±0.108aA 35.05±0.104aA 31.50±0.286bB 23.80±0.123bB 26.30±0.220bB 29.58±0.165bB 30.05±0.150bB
WM2 22.55±0.194bB 29.48±0.144bA 33.65±0.393bB 28.60±0.187dD 22.45±0.132dD 24.25±0.166dD 25.50±0.123dD 27.23±0.155eE
CK 21.25±0.245cC 27.56±0.113bB 29.14±0.209cC 24.28±0.168eE 21.35±0.143eE 26.49±0115bB 27.34±0.167cC 24.12±0.214fF
Significance analysis (F test value)
MM 216.857*** 118.962*** 547.223*** 914.367*** 165.322*** 238.114*** 386.425*** 1664.874***
Table 4 Effects of plastic film mulching on ground temperature at different soil depths in processing tomato seedlings (5-20 cm)
Fig. 5 Ground temperature change during the whole growth period of processing tomatoes under drip irrigation with different mulching treatments (5-20 cm)
Fig. 6 Comparison of yield, quality, WUE, and production-investment ratio of tomato fruits processed by drip irrigation under different mulching treatments. ***, P<0.001 level.
T ST (°C) MC
(% g/g)
FY (t/hm2) VC SSg TA SSl SAR WUE (t/(hm2·mm)) Pr-In
(mg/100 g FW)
PE 38.67 16.63 173.25 30.123 12.598 0.856 5.293 14.732 0.3366 1.8538
BM1 35.55 15.73 166.62 30.395 13.280 0.952 6.010 14.235 0.3282 1.7195
WM1 35.17 15.52 162.34 29.348 12.828 0.882 6.000 14.201 0.3248 1.6850
BM2 35.58 15.87 167.36 31.018 15.450 0.988 6.110 15.779 0.3336 1.7970
WM2 33.54 15.82 158.18 29.033 12.695 0.915 5.987 13.917 0.3143 1.7333
CK 29.82 15.63 138.31 26.635 10.720 1.069 5.760 10.128 0.2781 1.3225
Table 5 Response values of processing tomatoes with drip irrigation under different film treatments
Treatment Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Rank
PE 2.7974 -2.8429 0.2756 0.0226 -0.0379 1
BM1 0.8040 0.8122 -0.0425 0.4857 0.3119 3
WM1 0.2675 0.5990 -1.2599 0.1935 -0.2495 4
BM2 1.9341 1.8562 1.0878 -0.1286 -0.1544 2
WM2 -0.3019 0.2335 -0.5460 -0.6558 0.1800 5
CK -5.5011 -0.6580 0.4851 0.0826 -0.0500 6
Table 6 Comprehensive evaluation of different film treatments based on drip irrigation tomato response index
T S ST (°C) MC (% g/g) FY (t/hm2) VC SSg TA SSl SAR WUE (t/(hm2·mm)) Pr-In
(mg/100 g FW)
RS X0 38.67 16.63 173.25 31.018 15.450 1.069 6.110 15.779 0.3366 1.8538
PE X1 38.67 16.63 173.25 30.123 12.598 0.856 5.293 14.732 0.3366 1.8538
BM1 X2 35.55 15.73 166.62 30.395 13.280 0.952 6.010 14.235 0.3282 1.7195
WM1 X3 35.17 15.52 162.34 29.348 12.828 0.882 6.000 14.201 0.3248 1.6850
BM2 X4 35.58 15.87 167.36 31.018 15.450 0.988 6.110 15.779 0.3336 1.7970
WM2 X5 33.54 15.82 158.18 29.033 12.695 0.915 5.987 13.917 0.3143 1.7333
CK X6 29.82 15.63 138.31 26.635 10.720 1.069 5.760 10.128 0.2781 1.3225
Table 7 Comparing series and reference series of response indices of tomato processing by different film treatments under drip irrigation
Treatment Correlation degree Rank
PE 0.5422 1
BM1 0.4934 3
WM1 0.4382 4
BM2 0.5137 2
WM2 0.4045 5
CK 0.3736 6
Table 8 Comprehensive evaluation of different plastic film treatments based on the response indices of processing irrigation tomato
[1]   Ammala A, Bateman S, Dean K, et al. 2011. An overview of degradable and biodegradable polyolefins. Progress in Polymer Science, 36(8): 1015-1049.
doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.12.002
[2]   Bi J Y, Wang X F, Zhu D L. 2008. Effect of plastic-film mulch on crop yield. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 24(11): 172-175. (in Chinese)
[3]   Danierhan S, Shalamu A, Tumaerbai H, et al. 2013. Effects of emitter discharge rates on soil salinity distribution and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield under drip irrigation with plastic mulch in an arid region of Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land, 5(1): 51-59.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-013-0141-7
[4]   Du L, Li Y N, Chen P P, et al. 2018. Effects of different residual film on the growth and soil environment of maize. Water Saving Irrigation,(7): 4-9, 14. (in Chinese)
[5]   Fan Y Q, Ding R S, Kang S Z, et al. 2017. Plastic mulch decreases available energy and evapotranspiration and improves yield and water use efficiency in an irrigated maize cropland. Agricultural Water Management, 179: 122-131.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.019
[6]   Gao X H, Xie D, Huang, Y Z, et al. 2015. The application effects of truly biodegradable mulch in potato farmlands. Agricultural Science & Technology, 16(9): 2070-2072.
[7]   Hanson B R, May D M. 2004. Effect of subsurface drip irrigation on processing tomato yield, water table depth, soil salinity, and profitability. Agricultural Water Management, 68(1): 1-17.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.03.003
[8]   He H J, Wang Z H, Guo L, et al. 2018. Distribution characteristics of residual film over a cotton field under long-term film mulching and drip irrigation in an oasis agroecosystem. Soil & Tillage Research, 180: 194-203.
[9]   Hou X Y, Wang F X, Han J J, et al. 2010. Duration of plastic mulch for potato growth under drip irrigation in an arid region of Northwest China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 150(1): 115-121.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.09.007
[10]   Hu C, Wang X F, Chen X G, et al. 2019. Current situation and control strategies of residual film pollution in Xinjiang. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 35(24): 213-234. (in Chinese)
[11]   Jiang X J, Liu W J, Wang E H, et al. 2017. Residual plastic mulch fragments effects on soil physical properties and water flow behavior in the Minqin Oasis, northwestern China. Soil & Tillage Research, 166: 100-107.
[12]   Kapanen A, Schettini E, Vox G, et al. 2008. Performance and environmental impact of biodegradable films in agriculture: A field study on protected cultivation. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 16(2): 109-122.
doi: 10.1007/s10924-008-0091-x
[13]   Li X Y, Gong J D, Gao Q Z, et al. 2001. Incorporation of ridge and furrow method of rainfall harvesting with mulching for crop production under semiarid conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 50(3): 173-183.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00105-6
[14]   Li X Y, Guo Y, Ding Z J, et al. 2018. Influence of different film mulchings on soil temperature at different time scales and maize yield. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 49(9): 247-256. (in Chinese)
[15]   Li Y G, Wang Z H, Zhang J Z, et al. 2015. Effects of liquid film mulching on soil temperature, moisture and the growth of cotton under drip irrigation. Soils, 47(6): 1170-1175. (in Chinese)
[16]   Moreno M M, Moreno A. 2008. Effect of different biodegradable and polyethylene mulches on soil properties and production in a tomato crop. Scientia Horticulturae, 116(3): 256-263.
doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.01.007
[17]   Nan D J, Xie H E, Li Y E, et al. 1994. Study of the effect of photodegradable plastic film mulching on soil contamination and cotton growth. Cotton Science, 6(2): 103-108. (in Chinese)
[18]   Ren Z J, Li Y, Fang W S, et al. 2018. Evaluation of allyl isothiocyanate as a soil fumigant against soil‐borne diseases in commercial tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production in China. Pest Management Science, 74(9): 2146-2155.
doi: 10.1002/ps.2018.74.issue-9
[19]   Shen L X, Wang P, Zhang L L. 2012. Degradation property of degradable film and its effect on soil temperature and moisture and maize growth. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Engineering, 28(4): 111-116. (in Chinese)
[20]   Wang B, Wan Y F, Wang J X, et al. 2019. Effects of PBAT biodegradable mulch film on the physical and chemical properties of soil and tomato yield in southern Xinjiang. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 36(5): 640-648. (in Chinese)
[21]   Wang M, Wang H X, Han Q F. 2011. Effects of different mulching materials on soil water, temperature, and corn growth. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 37(7): 1249-1258. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01249
[22]   Wang S Y, Fan T L, Li S Z, et al. 2016. Property of biodegradable film degradation, water-retention and increasing soil temperature and its impact on maize growth and development process. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 34(1): 127-133. (in Chinese)
[23]   Wang Z H, Wu Q, Fan B H, et al. 2019a. Testing biodegradable films as alternatives to plastic films in enhancing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield under mulched drip irrigation. Soil & Tillage Research, 192: 196-205.
[24]   Wang Z H, Wu Q, Fan B H, et al. 2019b. Effects of mulching biodegradable films under drip irrigation on soil hydrothermal conditions and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield. Agricultural Water Management, 213: 477-485.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.036
[25]   Wu Q, Wang Z H, Zheng X R, et al. 2017. Effects of biodegradation film mulching on soil temperature, moisture and yield of cotton under drip irrigation in typical oasis area. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Engineering, 33(16): 135-143. (in Chinese)
[26]   Yan C R, Wang X J, He W Q, et al. 2008. The residue of plastic film in cotton fields in Shihezi, Xinjiang. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(7): 3470-3474. (in Chinese)
[27]   Yin G H, Tong N, Hao L, et al. 2012. Effects of soil moisture and yield under different material film mulching on peanut. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 26(4): 204-207, 250. (in Chinese)
[28]   Yin M H, Li Y N, Shen S L, et al. 2017. Meta-analysis on effect of degradable film mulching on maize yield in China. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Engineering, 33(19): 1-9. (in Chinese)
[29]   Zhao A Q, Li Z Z, Gong Y S. 2005. Effects of biodegradable mulch film on corn growth and its degradation in field. Journal of China Agricultural University, 10(2): 74-78. (in Chinese)
[30]   Zhao Y, Chen X G, Wen H J, et al. 2017. Research status and prospect of control technology for residual plastic film pollution in farmland. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 48(6): 1-14. (in Chinese)
[31]   Zong R, Wang Z H, Wu Q, et al. 2020. Characteristics of carbon emissions in cotton fields under mulched drip irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 231: 105992, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105992
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105992
[32]   Zou X Y, Niu W Q, Liu J J, et al. 2016. Effect of residual plastic film on growth of tomato at seedling and blooming and fruit-setting stages. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 24(12): 1643-1654. (in Chinese)
[1] XU Wenjie, DING Jianli, BAO Qingling, WANG Jinjie, XU Kun. Improving the accuracy of precipitation estimates in a typical inland arid area of China using a dynamic Bayesian model averaging approach[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(3): 331-354.
[2] ZHANG Mingyu, CAO Yu, ZHANG Zhengyong, ZHANG Xueying, LIU Lin, CHEN Hongjin, GAO Yu, YU Fengchen, LIU Xinyi. Spatiotemporal variation of land surface temperature and its driving factors in Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(3): 373-395.
[3] CHEN Yiyang, ZHANG Li, YAN Min, WU Yin, DONG Yuqi, SHAO Wei, ZHANG Qinglan. Spatiotemporal evolution and future simulation of land use/land cover in the Turpan-Hami Basin, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(10): 1303-1326.
[4] 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.
[5] 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[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(4): 460-476.
[6] YUAN Shuai, LIU Yongqiang, QIN Yan, ZHANG Kun. Spatiotemporal variation of surface albedo and its influencing factors in northern Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(11): 1315-1339.
[7] 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.
[8] JING Bo, SHI Wenjuan, DIAO Ming. Nitrogen application levels based on critical nitrogen absorption regulate processing tomatoes productivity, nitrogen uptake, nitrate distributions, and root growth in Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(10): 1231-1244.
[9] LI Feng, LI Yaoming, ZHOU Xuewen, YIN Zun, LIU Tie, XIN Qinchuan. Modeling and analyzing supply-demand relationships of water resources in Xinjiang from a perspective of ecosystem services[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(2): 115-138.
[10] WANG Jinjie, DING Jianli, GE Xiangyu, QIN Shaofeng, ZHANG Zhe. Assessment of ecological quality in Northwest China (2000-2020) using the Google Earth Engine platform: Climate factors and land use/land cover contribute to ecological quality[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(11): 1196-1211.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] PEI Yanwu, HUANG Laiming, SHAO Ming'an, ZHANG Yinglong. Responses of Amygdalus pedunculata Pall. in the sandy and loamy soils to water stress[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 791-805.
[14] YANG Yuling, LI Minfei, MA Jingjing, CHENG Junhui, LIU Yunhua, JIA Hongtao, LI Ning, WU Hongqi, SUN Zongjiu, FAN Yanmin, SHENG Jiandong, JIANG Ping'an. Changes in the relationship between species richness and belowground biomass among grassland types and along environmental gradients in Xinjiang, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 855-865.
[15] ZHOU Honghua, CHEN Yaning, ZHU Chenggang, YANG Yuhai, YE Zhaoxia. Water transport and water use efficiency differ among Populus euphratica Oliv. saplings exposed to saline water irrigation[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 866-879.