Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Growth and development of maize (Zea mays L.) in response to different field
water management practices: Resource capture and use efficiency
Liu Yi a,b,c,1, Yang Shenjiao a, Li Shiqing a,c,*, Chen Xinping a,c, Chen Fang b
a
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, China
Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430074, China
c
Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resource, Yangling 712100, China
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 23 June 2009
Received in revised form 20 January 2010
Accepted 1 February 2010
Soil–water supply is the main factor limiting crop production across the Loess Plateau in China. A twoyear field experiment was conducted to evaluate three possible water management practices – film
mulching (FM), supplementary irrigation (SI) and rain-fed (RF, control) – in terms of resource capture
and use efficiency in maize (Zea mays L.) in this area. The cumulative intercepted photosynthetically
active radiation (PARi), air thermal time (TTair), soil thermal time (TTsoil) and evapotranspiration (ET)
were monitored during both crop growing seasons, and the effects of the three treatments on the growth
dynamics and grain yield (GY) of the maize crops were compared. The results showed that the FM
treatment significantly accelerated development of the crop plants, and the SI treatment induced more
rapid development in the vegetative stage than the RF treatment. Both FM and SI treatments markedly
increased the shoot dry matter (DM) and GY (p < 0.05). The cumulative PARi, TTair and TTsoil during the
reproductive stage were all significantly increased by both the FM and SI treatments relative to the RF
treatment (p < 0.05), correlating well with observed increases in DM and GY. Both the FM and SI
treatments also resulted in significantly higher (p < 0.05) radiation use efficiency, and the FM treatment
significantly increased the water use efficiency, by 23–25%, in both years (p < 0.05). The results show
that the tested water management practices have significant effects on soil moisture and thermal
conditions, and hence the rates of growth and development of maize, in fields on the Loess Plateau,
China.
ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Loess plateau
Water management practice
Maize
Radiation use efficiency
Water use efficiency
1. Introduction
The productivity of crops is directly related to their capture of
resources, such as water and light, and the efficiency with which
they convert these physical resources into biological materials.
These relationships allow growth efficiency to be quantified in
terms of either a ‘solar engine’ or a ‘water engine’ model by relating
their dry matter (DM) production to the amount of radiation
captured or the amount of water transpired, respectively (AzamAli et al., 1994; Yang et al., 2004).
Radiation use efficiency (RUE) may be defined as the amount of
dry biomass (above ground or total dry matter) produced per unit
intercepted solar radiation. RUE has often been considered to be
constant for a given crop species in productivity modeling studies
* Corresponding author at: Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese
Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resource, Yangling 712100, China.
Tel.: +86 29 87016171; fax: +86 29 87016171.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Yi), [email protected] (L. Shiqing).
1
Tel.: +86 15926293185.
0168-1923/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.02.003
(Sinclair, 1986; Yang et al., 2004), but it may vary during plant
growing seasons (Lecoeur and Ney, 2003; Werker and Jaggard,
1998) and is heavily dependent on climatic conditions, i.e., abiotic
stresses can significantly reduce both the interception of radiation
and RUE. For instance, under drought stress, plants may need to
modify their water extraction patterns from the soil and minimize
water losses by closing their stomata, reducing their leaf area
expansion and even, in extreme cases, losing leaf area through
abscission and/or senescence to survive and reproduce (Craufurd
and Wheeler, 1999; Mwale et al., 2007a). Thus, reductions in
canopy photosynthetic capacity due to restriction of CO2 diffusion
into the leaves following stomata closure, reductions in intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PARi) and losses of leaf
area may all cause reductions in RUE, dry matter production and
(hence) productivity loses (Collinson et al., 1996; Craufurd and
Wheeler, 1999; Mwale et al., 2007b).
Soil–water depletion and plant water use efficiency (WUE) are
critical factors affecting agricultural productivity in arid and semiarid areas around the world. Hence, various soil and crop
management practices have been developed to increase crop
yields (Huang et al., 2005; Fang et al., in press), notably plastic or
L. Yi et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
straw mulching, which may efficiently improve the microclimate
and crop growth conditions (Albright et al., 1989) by promoting
plant transpiration at the expense of evaporation from the soil
(Raeini-Sarjaz and Barthakur, 1997; Wang et al., 2009). Thus, both
crop yields and WUE have often been reported to be increased by
mulching treatments (Li et al., 2001; Li and Gong, 2002). Irrigation
may also have beneficial effects on plant water relations and yields,
but Kang et al. (2002) found that grain yield (GY) and WUE
responses to irrigation varied considerably with differences in
soil–water contents and irrigation schedules. Further, Wang et al.
(2002) and Fang et al. (in press) showed that scheduled irrigation
based on crop responses to water stress at different development
stages can improve WUE, but Olesen et al. (2000) found that
although irrigation increased yields, there were no significant
differences in WUE and harvest index in wheat subjected to three
different irrigation strategies, since the increases were almost
solely due to increased transpiration. In addition, excessive
irrigation can reduce crop WUE (Jin et al., 1999).
The Loess Plateau, the cradle of traditional Chinese culture,
covers an area of 623,800 km2 in northwest China and has a
population of about 90 millions. Its climate is mostly semi-arid,
with annual precipitation ranging from 150–300 mm in the north
to 500–700 mm in the south (Li and Xiao, 1992). Most of the annual
precipitation (50–60%) falls as rain from June to September.
Groundwater resources are sparse and deep, so most of the
agriculture on the Loess Plateau is dryland farming, relying solely
on rainfall (Li and Xiao, 1992). Soil moisture supply is the main
factor limiting crop production in the area, while the amount of
radiation received is usually non-limiting (Li et al., 2004; Liang
et al., 2006; Liu and Zhang, 2007). Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the
major crops on the Plateau, accounting for 27.3% of the total
agricultural area (Xue et al., 2008). Quantifying the relationships
between RUE, WUE, biomass accumulation and yields would be of
great practical value to facilitate elucidation of crops’ physiological
responses, and crop modeling, breeding and improvement in the
area (Kiniry et al., 1998; Awal et al., 2006).
The objectives of this study were: (i) to quantify the amount of
solar radiation and soil–water captured by maize crops on the
607
Loess Plateau during the growing season, (ii) to analyze the
efficiency with which the captured resources are used to produce
biomass and grain yield, and (iii) to determine the effects of
selected soil–water management practices on resource capture
and use efficiency.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
The Changwu experimental station (35.28N, 107.88E, ca. 1200 m
above sea level) is situated on loessial tableland where the loess is
more than 100 m thick. The soils are Cumuli-Ustic Isohumosols,
according to the Chinese Soil Taxonomy (Gong et al., 2007), and
contain 37% clay, 59% silt and 4% sand with a pH of 8.4 and a bulk
density of 1.3 g cm3. The organic matter, total nitrogen, available
phosphorus, available potassium and inorganic nitrogen contents
are 11.8 g kg1, 0.87 g kg1, 14.4 mg kg1, 144.6 mg kg1 and
3.15 mg kg1, respectively. The average annual precipitation from
1990 to 2008 was 578 69 mm, with 55% falling between July and
September, and the annual average temperature 9.2 2.3 8C. One
crop a year of wheat or maize is produced by rain-fed agriculture
across most of the region. The study presented here was conducted in
the years 2007 and 2008. Daily meteorological information and water
supplies (including rainfall and irrigation) during each of the growing
seasons are presented in Fig. 1.
2.2. Experimental design and treatments
Three water management treatments – rain-fed (RF), film
mulching (FM), and supplementary irrigation (SI) – were applied to
maize plots at the experimental station. The soil–water supply for
both the RF and FM treatments was solely dependent on natural
rainfall, while in the SI treatment soil moisture was maintained at
70–85% of the field water capacity (FWC) in 2007 and 70–80% of
the FWC in 2008 by increasing the soil–water content to the upper
limit when it dropped below the lower limits via furrow irrigation
with tap water. The crop was irrigated in this manner five times in
Fig. 1. Daily meteorological and water supply data during the monitored growth seasons in 2007 and 2008.
608
L. Yi et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
2007 (May 8, May 20, June 14, July 14 and August 15) and four
times in 2008 (May 22, June 5, July 7 and August 4), with irrigation
depths on each occasion of 33.7 mm and 25.6 mm, determined
using water meters in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The treatments
were applied to 50.7 m2 (7.8 m 6.5 m) plots arranged in a
completely randomized block design, with four replicates per
treatment.
In each plot, maize was grown by Ridge cultivation (a common
maize cultivation practice across the Loess Plateau) in both years.
Base fertilizer – consisting of 110 kg N ha1 in the form of urea (N
46%), 50 kg P ha1 in the form of calcium superphosphate (P2O5
12%), and 100 kg K ha1 in the form of potassium sulfate (K2O 45%)
– was broadcast over the soil, which was then turned over by
plowing to transfer the fertilizer to the subsurface. Ridges (ca.
0.45 m wide at the top with 0.15 m furrows at the base) were then
constructed by banking up soil from two sides to a height of 0.1 m
from the base. In the plots mulched with plastic, plastic film (0.7 m
wide and 0.005 mm thick) was used to cover the soil surface of the
ridges, but not the furrows, and the edges were secured under the
soil in the bottom of the furrows. Maize (Zea mays L. pioneer 335)
was sown in 5 cm deep holes spaced 0.2 m apart, using a manually
powered hole-drilling machine, along the midline on the top of
each ridge on April 20 and April 18 in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
Before backfilling, 300 ml water was poured into each seed hole to
encourage seedling emergence. Additional nitrogen, in the form of
urea, was applied using a hole-sowing machine in the furrows at
the jointing and tasseling stages, at rates of 80 kg N ha1 and
90 kg N ha1, respectively, following a nutrient management plan
aimed to achieve a final yield of 14 t ha1. Maize cobs were
harvested gradually, when they were ripe, from 28 August to 13
September in 2007 and from 8 to 20 September in 2008. Weeds
were controlled manually as required during each crop growth
season.
2.3. Sampling and measurements
The sampled and measured maize plants and soil measurement sites were all at least 1 m from the field edge to minimize
edge effects. The same, established sampling and measurement
procedures were applied in both study years, as described
below.
2.3.1. Maize development stage evaluation
A standardized maize development stage system was used to
identify plant development stages (Ritchie et al., 1992), and the
date was recorded at which 50% or more of the maize plants in
each plot reached the following vegetative (VS) and reproductive
(RS) stages: planting time (PT), emergence stage (VE), tasseling
stage (VT), silking stage (R1) and physiological maturity stage
(R6).
shape factor, k, empirically determined to be 0.75 for maize
(McKee, 1964). Leaf Area Index (LAI) values for each plot
were then calculated by multiplying the leaf area values by
the plant density (85,000 plants ha1), i.e., LAI = leaf area
(m2 plant1) 85,000 (plants ha1)/10,000 (m2 ha1).
2.3.4. Soil moisture and soil temperature determination
The soil–water content was measured gravimetrically at
20 cm intervals within the 0–200 cm profile in each plot at
the PT, V6, V12, R1, R3, R4 (only 2008) and R6, crop growth
stages. The soil moisture in the 0–200 cm profile of each plot
was then calculated by summing the moisture in all of its
sampled layers.
The soil temperature (0–5 cm) was recorded daily at 8.00 h and
14.00 h (the coolest and warmest times of the day, respectively)
and averaged to obtain indications of the mean daytime soil
temperature.
2.4. Data calculation
2.4.1. Intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PARi) and RUE
It was assumed that 50% of the total incident solar radiation (R)
is photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and the amount of PAR
intercepted by the plant canopy (PARi) was computed using the
following exponential function (Yang et al., 2004):
X
0:5Rð1 ekLAI Þ
PARi ¼
where R is the incoming total solar radiation (MJ m2 d1); k is
the light extinction coefficient, which equals 0.65 for maize,
according to Monteith (1969); and LAI is the leaf area index
(m2 leaf m2 ground). RUE (RUEGY and RUEDM) was calculated as
GY or DM in g m2 divided by the total amount of intercepted
PAR (PARi) in MJ m2.
2.4.2. Evapotranspiration (ET) and WUE
ET was determined by the following formula (Zhang et al., 1999,
2005b):
ET ¼ DW þ P þ I
where DW is the change in soil–water storage (mm) between
planting and harvesting, P is the precipitation (mm) during the
crop growing season and I is the total irrigation water quota (mm).
The surface runoff and deep drainage are usually neglected in
studies such as this in this area (Kang et al., 2002). WUE (WUEGY
and WUEDM) was calculated as GY or DM in kg m2 divided by the
total water use (i.e., ET) in mm.
2.4.3. Air thermal time (TTair) and soil thermal time (TTsoil)
Cumulative air thermal time (TTair) (8C d) values were
calculated using the base temperature (Tbase) of 10 8C (Miedema,
1982) and the equation (Tan et al., 2000a,b):
X
TT ¼
ðT mean T base Þ
2.3.2. Plant biomass sampling
Three adjacent plants (at least 1 m from plot edges and 0.5 m
from previous sample sites) in a row were sampled randomly from
each plot, by cutting off the shoot at the first nodule on the stem, at
the 6th leaf stage (V6), 12th leaf stage (V12), silking stage (R1), milk
stage (R3), dough stage (R4, only 2008) and physiological maturity
stage (R6). The harvested shoots were killed by heating them at
105 8C for 30 min, weighed after oven-drying for 24 h at 65–75 8C,
and the total above ground biomass in each plot was expressed in
terms of kg dry matter/ha.
where Tmean is the daily mean atmospheric temperature, which
was averaged from hourly measurements of air temperatures
throughout each day. All Tmean < Tbase values were considered to
be effectively equal to 0 8C (Arnold, 1974). Similarly, soil thermal
time (TTsoil) was calculated using soil temperature data
and Tbase = 10 8C.
2.3.3. Leaf area index (LAI) measurement
The area of each of the fresh leaves of the sampled plants was
determined immediately after harvesting them, by multiplying
their manually measured length and maximal width with a
The effects of the treatments on the measured parameters were
evaluated by one-way ANOVA. When F-values were significant, the
least significant difference (LSD) test was used for comparing
between-treatment differences in means according to Duncan’s
2.5. Statistical analyses
L. Yi et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
new multiple range tests. In all cases differences were deemed to
be significant if p <0.05.
3. Results
Table 1
Averaged soil temperature and water storage over the growing season under the
rain-fed (RF), film mulching (FM) and supplementary irrigation (SI) treatments in
2007 and 2008.
Treatments
3.1. Soil moisture and thermal conditions
FM significantly increased the average soil temperature, by
1.9–2.9 8C, in both years compared to the SI and RF treatments
(Table 1). This may have been because solar energy passed
through the mulch and heated up the air and soil beneath the
mulch, then the heat was trapped by a ‘‘greenhouse effect’’
(Li et al., 1999; Zhou et al., 2009). SI enhanced the soil–water
storage in the 0–200 cm profile compared to the FM and RF
treatments (significantly in the 2008 growing season), but there
was no significant difference in soil–water storage between nonirrigated treatments.
3.2. Crop development stages
There were significant between-treatment variations in growth
and development of the crop in both years (Fig. 2). Development
was clearly promoted by the FM treatment, since the crops
advanced to specific vegetative and reproductive stages earlier in
the FM plots than in the SI and RF plots, e.g. seedling emergence
was 3–4 d earlier, the crop reached the silking stage 5–12 d earlier;
and the whole growth period from seedling emergence to
physiological maturity was 15–17 d shorter. In the SI plots,
irrigation induced rapid seedling and jointing growth in the VS,
presumably because it maintained growth-promoting water
Fig. 2. Durations of the vegetative stages (VS, from seedling emergence to silking)
and reproductive stages (RS, from silking to physiological maturity) of the spring
maize crops under rain-fed (RF), film mulching (FM) and supplementary irrigation
(SI) in 2007 and 2008.
609
RF
FM
SI
Soil temperature (8C)
Soil water storage (mm)
2007
2008
2007
2008
21.7 0.9 b
23.6 0.7 a
21.0 0.6 b
22.4 0.4 b
24.8 1.0 a
21.9 0.7 b
359.7 27.4 a
360.7 22.5 a
379.8 24.2 a
383.6 18.4 b
381.2 16.9 b
410.5 21.0 a
Values are given as means standard error of means (n = 4). Values followed by
different letters within a column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
conditions (Çakir, 2004), so the silking stage was reached 6–10 d
earlier than in RF plots, although the duration of the whole growth
period was similar in both treatments. The duration of the VS and
RS as proportions of the whole growth period also depended on the
field water management practices (Fig. 2). The proportion for the
vegetative stage was much higher in RF plots (56.9% in 2007 and
59.6% in 2008 on average) than in either FM (55.5% in 2007 and
53.8% in 2008, on average) or SI plots (51.1% in 2007 and 50.7% in
2008, on average).
3.3. Crop growth dynamics
3.3.1. Shoot biomass
The shoot biomass was consistently significantly higher in the
FM and SI plots than in the RF plots at each development stage
(Fig. 3). This was presumably because film mulching increased
the soil temperature by several degrees, thus enhancing growth
of the maize during the early growth period, while the high soil–
water content maintained by the SI treatment stimulated
vegetative growth so the shoot DM content was much higher
in SI plots at the physiological maturity stage (R6) than in the
other plots.
3.3.2. Leaf area index (LAI)
The LAI increased dramatically during the VS, peaked at the VT
stage and then declined, indicating leaf senescence, in plots
subjected to each of the treatments (Fig. 4), but there were
substantial between-treatment differences in the LAI values. FM
induced a rapid increase in LAI during the early VS (seedling stage),
and hence an earlier peak and subsequent decline in LAI during the
late development stages than the other treatments. The SI
treatment resulted in a significantly higher maximum LAI than
the other treatments, and prolonged the physiologically functional
period in which the LAI was maintained at a high level from
development stage R1 to R3, which should theoretically benefit
Fig. 3. Time courses of changes in shoot dry matter (DM) in the rain-fed (RF), film mulching (FM) and supplementary irrigation (SI) plots in 2007 and 2008. Error bars are twice
the standard error of the mean. V3–V8: from 3rd leaf stage to 8th leaf stage (seedling stage); V9–V18: from 9th leaf stage to 18th leaf stage (jointing stage); VT–R1: from
tasseling stage to silking stage; R2–R4: from blister stage to dough stage; R5–R6: from dent stage to physiological maturity stage.
610
L. Yi et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
Fig. 4. Time courses of changes in Leaf Area Index (LAI) in the rain-fed (RF), film mulching (FM) and supplementary irrigation (SI) plots in 2007 and 2008. Error bars are twice
the standard error of the mean. V3–V8: from 3rd leaf stage to 8th leaf stage (seedling stage); V9–V18: from 9th leaf stage to 18th leaf stage (jointing stage); VT–R1: from
tasseling stage to silking stage; R2–R4: from blister stage to dough stage; R5–R6: from dent stage to physiological maturity stage.
Table 2
Grain yield (GY) and shoot dry matter (DM) under the rain-fed (RF), film mulching
(FM) and supplementary irrigation (SI) treatments in 2007 and 2008.
Treatments
RF
FM
SI
GY (t ha1)
DM (t ha1)
2007
2008
2007
2008
12.2 1.1 b
14.6 0.6 a
15.2 0.8 a
11.4 1.4 b
14.2 1.0 a
15.6 1.8 a
19.3 2.4 b
24.1 1.3 a
24.7 1.8 a
20.5 3.8 b
24.0 2.1 a
26.5 3.4 a
Values are given as means standard error of means (n = 4). Values followed by
different letters within a column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
assimilation, production and transportation in the plants (and
hence the GY).
3.4. Grain yield (GY) and shoot dry matter (DM)
GY and shoot DM values at harvest are shown in Table 2. Both
FM and SI treatments significantly increased the maize GY
compared to the RF treatment, by 19.7% and 24.6% in 2007, and
by 24.6% and 36.8% in 2008, respectively. However, there was no
significant difference in GY between the FM and SI treatments.
Unsurprisingly, there were similar between-treatment differences
in shoot DM at harvest.
3.5. Capture and distribution of the resources
3.5.1. Resource capture throughout the growing season
The SI treatment resulted in significantly higher cumulative
PARi and ET values throughout the whole growth season than the
FM and RF treatments (Table 3), indicating that much more energy
and water were utilized by the irrigated plants. In addition, the
cumulative TTAir values were much lower in FM plots than in either
SI or RF plots (probably due to the shortened growth season), but
cumulative TTSoil values were significantly higher (which strongly
compensated for the reduction in cumulative TTAir values).
3.5.2. Distribution of the resources in different development stages
Unsurprisingly, the PARi was significantly higher during the
reproductive stage, when the LAI was high, than during the
vegetative stage for crops subjected to all treatments in both years.
Both SI and FM significantly increased the PARi in RS compared to
the RF treatment (Fig. 5A). SI, which significantly increased the
transpirable soil moisture, promoted ET more than the FM and RF
treatments during the whole growth season, but there was no
significant difference in the ET between the latter two treatments
(Fig. 5B).
TTAir was significantly higher during the VS than the RS
(because of the longer duration of the VS) in the RF plots, while it
was similar in these two development stages in the SI and FM plots
(Fig. 5C), and TTSoil was significantly lower during the RS in all
plots, probably because of canopy shading, i.e. the reduction in the
irradiation penetrating to the soil surface because of the high LAI
(Fig. 5D). Both TTAir and TTSoil were significantly higher during the
RS in the SI and FM plots than the RF plots.
3.6. Resource use efficiency (RUE and WUE)
Similarly to the between-treatment differences in GY, grain
yield RUE (RUEGY) and dry matter RUE (RUEDM) were significantly higher in both FM and SI plots than in RF plots, indicating
that the irrigation and mulching treatments substantially
improved the conversion of irradiation resources into economic
crop yield components (Table 4). FM also significantly increased
the grain yield WUE (WUEGY) compared to the RF treatment, by
23–25% in both years (Table 4), probably because of the
restriction of water loss from evaporation, which makes no
contribution to plant physiological performance, and the
accompanying increase in plant transpiration. However, there
was no consistent effect of irrigation on WUE during the two
experimental seasons; SI increased the crop WUEGY (by 12%) in
2008 relative to the RF treatment, but significantly decreased it
in 2007 (Table 4).
Table 3
Whole season cumulative intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PARi), evapotranspiration (ET), air thermal time (TTAir) and soil thermal time (TTSoil) under the
rain-fed (RF), film mulching (FM) and supplementary irrigation (SI) treatments in 2007 and 2008.
Treatments
RF
FM
SI
PARi (MJ m2)
ET (mm)
TTAir (8C)
TTSoil (8C)
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
717 18 b
717 21 b
753 26 a
750 27 b
726 30 b
834 33 a
372 27 b
358 19 b
502 25 a
369 23 b
373 25 b
432 30 a
1358 30 a
1274 21 b
1357 27 a
1329 15 a
1303 14 b
1333 21 a
1564 65 b
1672 43 a
1462 74 c
1758 79 b
2018 54 a
1709 67 b
Values are given as means standard error of means (n = 4). Values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
L. Yi et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
611
Fig. 5. Accumulation of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PARi), evapotranspiration (ET), air thermal time (TTair) and soil thermal time (TTSoil) in spring maize in
the vegetative stages (VS) and reproductive stages (RS) under rain-fed (RF), film mulching (FM) and supplementary irrigation (SI) treatments in 2007 and 2008.
Table 4
Whole season Radiation Use Efficiency (RUEGY and RUEDM) and Water Use Efficiency (WUE) (WUEGY and WUEDM) under the rain-fed (RF), film mulching (FM) and
supplementary irrigation (SI) treatments in 2007 and 2008.
Treatments
RUEGY (g MJ1)
RUEDM (g MJ1)
2007
2008
2007
RF
FM
SI
1.5 0.1 b
1.8 0.0 a
1.8 0.1 a
1.3 0.1 b
1.7 0.1 a
1.6 0.2 a
2.7 0.1 b
3.4 0.1 a
3.3 0.2 a
WUEGY (kg ha1 mm1)
WUEDM (kg ha1 mm1)
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2.7 0.1 b
3.3 0.2 a
3.2 0.2 a
28.5 1.5 b
35.6 1.2 a
26.4 2.0 c
27.0 2.7 b
33.1 2.6 a
31.4 4.5 ab
51.8 2.6 b
67.5 3.9 a
49.3 4.8 b
55.6 4.0 b
64.2 3.4 a
61.6 6.1 a
Values are given as means standard error of means (n = 4). Values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
4. Discussion
The growth and development of a crop heavily depends on the
species, variety (Ritchie et al., 1992), soil properties (Corwin et al.,
2003), management practices (Mwale et al., 2007a,b), and
meteorological conditions (Olasantan, 1999; Saini and Westgate,
2000). As a typical thermophilous crop, maize requires temperatures exceeding ca. 10 8C for its development and related
physiological processes, such as canopy photosynthesis and root
system activities (Miedema, 1982; Nguyen et al., 2009), and its
biomass and GY are generally correlated to the whole season TT
above this threshold (Ma et al., 2008). In our study, the TTair in the
FM treatment was decreased, but the TTsoil was enhanced and the
plant DM at maturity and the GY per 100 8C d were increased by
130–400 kg ha1 and 9–18% compared with 500 kg ha1 and 6.3%,
respectively, in the study by Ma et al. (2008). The likely reason for
this is that the FM treatment increased the heat resources available
to the maize, which are crucial for initial dry matter production
and for growth of maize in temperate climates (Xue et al., 2008; Ma
et al., 2008).
Both the SI and FM treatments improved the capture of
sunlight, water or heat resources by the maize at the experimental
site on the Loess Plateau, but by widely differing mechanisms.
Generally, irrigation in drought-prone areas markedly promotes
plant biomass accumulation because of the associated relief from
drought stress (Çakir, 2004). In the present study, the SI treatment
significantly advanced maize silking and markedly increased the
durations of the reproductive stage and green LAI period compared
to the RF treatment. It also improved the whole season PARi and ET,
relative to the FM and RF treatments, in accordance with reports
that improvements in water conditions during the VS (before
silking) result in taller, more robust plants, larger leaf areas
(NeSmith and Ritchie, 1992; Abrecht and Carberry, 1993),
increases in vegetative dry matter (Claassen and Shaw, 1970a,b),
and acceleration of leaf tip emergence, tassel emergence, silking,
and onset of grain filling (NeSmith and Ritchie, 1992; Abrecht and
Carberry, 1993). Maintaining a sufficient water supply during the
RS (after silking) is also important since water deficits may extend
the interval from silking to pollen shed (Herrero and Johnson,
1981) and curtail the grain filling period (Westgate, 1994). Thus,
the SI treatment appears to have allowed the maize to exploit more
sunlight, water and/or heat resources.
In the FM treatment, the film mulch prevents water exchange
between the soil and air, which in turn reduces the latent heat flux
and the exchange of sensible heat between soil and air (Wang and
Deng, 1991). At the seedling stage of crop development, the plant
canopy was small, allowing most of the area covered by the plastic
film to receive solar energy and the topsoil to warm up. Hence the
mulched soil warmed more quickly than the unmulched soil
during the day. Furthermore, it cooled more slowly at night
because the plastic film and the water underneath the film reduces
long wave radiation (Zhang et al., 2005a), even though the soil–
water storage in FM plots was quite close to that in RF plots
throughout the whole plant growth season (Table 1). The film also
directly inhibits evaporation of water from the soil surface, while
water moves from deeper soil layers to the topsoil by capillarity
and vapor transfer, thereby keeping the topsoil–water content
relatively stable (Wang et al., 1998; Li et al., 1999; Tian et al., 2003).
612
L. Yi et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
Hence, the promotion of transpiration with little soil evaporation
might have fostered biomass accumulation during early growth
stages and accelerated plant development from seedling emergence to physiological maturity in the FM plots due to the stomata
being more open than in the RF plots.
Several previous studies have indicated that relationships
between resource capture and crop productivity are affected by the
temporal distribution of captured resources in different development stages (Mwale et al., 2007a,b). Notably, crop biomass
production and GY appear to be most strongly related to resource
capture during reproductive stages, since GY (especially) is directly
associated with current rates of assimilation and translocation
(Chen et al., 2003). Hence, grain yield can be dramatically reduced
by sunlight, water or heat resources deficits during the RS (Bennett
et al., 1989; Lindquist et al., 2005; Zhou et al. 2009). Results from
the present study provide indirect support for this conclusion,
since the cumulative PARi, TTair and TTsoil during the RS were all
significantly increased by both the FM and SI treatments,
accompanied by improvements in both total crop DM and GY.
In other words, sunlight, water and heat resources deficits (Fig. 5)
during the maize reproductive stage in the RF treatment relative to
the FM and SI treatments might have caused inhibition of
assimilation and photosynthate translocation, and hence decreased the total crop DM and GY. Furthermore, the SI treatment
resulted in both the highest cumulative ET during the RS and the
highest yields.
However, crop productivity is not solely dependent on resource
capture during the growing season, but also its use efficiency
(Azam-Ali et al., 1994; Yang et al., 2004). Maize is characterized as
having high RUE and WUE, and in the present study the crop
RUEDM varied from 2.7 to 3.4 g MJ1 (depending on the water
management treatment), within the range (2–4.3 g MJ1) reported
in previous studies (Andrade et al., 1993; Yang et al., 2004); while
the WUEGY ranged from 26 to 36 kg ha1 mm1 in the present
study compared with 15–34 kg ha1 mm1 in previous studies
(Kang et al., 2000; Deng et al., 2006; Fang et al., in press). SI
improved both the PARi and RUE, thereby significantly increasing
the GY, probably because it stimulated physiological processes
after soil drying episodes, leading to compensation or overcompensation in plant growth and GY (Deng et al., 2006). However,
the SI treatment did not result in consistent changes in WUE with
respect to either total DM production or GY; the treatment
deceased WUE in 2007, but increased it in 2008 when the amount
of supplementary water was reduced. So, excessive irrigation may
have reduced the crop WUE in 2007 (the total irrigation amounts
were 168.5 mm and 102.4 mm in the years 2007 and 2008).
Accordingly, Jin et al. (1999) found that increments in irrigation
when soil moisture contents exceed a certain threshold may
induce increasingly small yield increases, and even possibly reduce
yields, and too much irrigation may merely enhance nonphysiologically active soil surface evaporation (Olesen et al.,
2000), which may have contributed to the reduction of WUE in
2007.
The FM treatment significantly improved both the RUE and
WUE with respect to the total DM production and GY relative to the
RF treatment, although the whole season cumulative PARi and ET
were very similar in the two treatments. The FM treatment
probably effectively restricted water loss via soil evaporation by
creating an impermeable barrier, and instead increased the
physiologically significant canopy transpiration (Raeini-Sarjaz
and Barthakur, 1997; Wang et al., 2009), thereby enhancing plant
physiological processes and (thus) plant productivity and GY (Li
et al. 2001; Li and Gong, 2002) compared to the RF treatment. In
contrast, large amounts of soil moisture were lost in the RF
treatment through non-physiologically active soil surface evaporation, especially in early development stages when most of the
soil surface was exposed to direct irradiation and a dry
atmosphere. Hence, the plant growth activities were notably
restricted by the ensuing water deficit, leading to reductions in
both RUE and WUE.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the capture of light, water and thermal resources
(and their use efficiencies) responded sensitively to changes in soil
moisture and thermal conditions under the tested water management practices in the maize fields on the Loess Plateau, China.
Consequently, there were significant between-treatment differences in the chronology of crop growth and development, and final
biomass and grain yield parameters. The results show that both SI
and FM practices were beneficial for high yields of maize on the
Loess Plateau. However, FM is likely to be generally preferable,
given the shortage of available water resources in the area.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Basic Research
Program of China (2009CB118604) and Natural Science Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on
the Loess Plateau (10502-Z04; 10501-247).
References
Abrecht, D.G., Carberry, P.S., 1993. The influence of water deficit prior to tassel
initiation on maize growth, development and yield. Field Crops Res. 31, 55–69.
Albright, L.D., Wolfe, D., Novak, S., 1989. Modelling row straw mulch effects on
microclimate and yield II. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114, 569–578.
Andrade, F.H., Uhart, S.A., Cirilo, A., 1993. Temperature affects radiation use efficiency in maize. Field Crops Res. 32, 17–25.
Arnold, C.Y., 1974. Predicting stages of sweet corn (Zea mays L.) development. J. Am.
Soc. Hort. Sci 99 (6), 501–505.
Awal, M.A., Koshi, H., Ikeda, T., 2006. Radiation interception and use by maize/
peanut intercrop canopy. Agric. For. Meteorol. 139, 74–83.
Azam-Ali, S.N., Crout, N.M.J., Bradley, R.G., 1994. Perspectives in modelling
resource capture by crops. In: Monteith, J.L., Scott, R.K., Unsworth, M.H.
(Eds.), Resource Capture by Crops. Nottingham University Press,
Nottingham, pp. 125–148.
Bennett, J.M., Mutti, L.S., Rao, P.S.C., Jones, J.W., 1989. Interactive effects of nitrogen
and water stresses on biomass accumulation, nitrogen uptake, and seed yield of
maize. Field Crops Res. 19, 297–311.
Çakir, R., 2004. Effect of water stress at different development stages on vegetative
and reproductive growth of corn. Field Crops Res. 89, 1–16.
Chen, Y.H., Yu, S.L., Yu, Z.W., 2003. Relationship between amount or distribution of
PAR interception and grain output of wheat communities. Acta Agron. Sin. 29
(5), 730–734 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Claassen, M.M., Shaw, R.H., 1970a. Water deficit effects on corn: I. Vegetative
components. Agron. J. 62, 649–652.
Claassen, M.M., Shaw, R.H., 1970b. Water deficit effects on corn: II. Grain components. Agron. J. 62, 652–655.
Collinson, S.T., Azam-Ali, S.N., Chavula, K.M., Hodson, D.A., 1996. Growth, development and yield of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) in response to soil
moisture. J. Agric. Sci. 126, 307–318.
Corwin, D.L., Lescha, S.M., Shousea, P.J., Soppeb, R., Ayarsb, J.E., 2003. Identifying soil
properties that influence cotton yield using soil sampling directed by apparent
soil electrical conductivity. Agron. J. 95, 352–364.
Craufurd, P.Q., Wheeler, T.R., 1999. Effect of drought and plant density on radiation
interception, radiation-use efficiency and partitioning of dry matter to seeds in
cowpea. Exp. Agric. 35, 309–325.
Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H.P., Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving agricultural water in
arid and semiarid areas of China. Agric. Water Manag. 80, 23–40.
Fang, Q., Ma, L., Yu, Q., Ahuja, L.R., Malone, R.W., Hoogenboom, G., in press. Irrigation
strategies to improve the water use efficiency of wheat-maize double cropping
systems in North China Plain, Agric. Water Manag, Corrected Proof,
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.02.012.
Gong, Z.T., Zhang, G.L., Chen, Z.C., et, al. (Eds.), 2007. Pedogenesis and Soil
Taxonomy. Beijing Science Press Publishing (in Chinese).
Herrero, M.P., Johnson, R.R., 1981. Drought stress and its effects on maize reproductive systems. Crop Sci. 21, 105–110.
Huang, Y.L., Chen, L.D., Fu, B.J., Huang, Z.L., Gong, J., 2005. The wheat yields and
water-use efficiency in the Loess Plateau: straw mulch and irrigation effects.
Agric. Water Manag. 72, 209–222.
Jin, M.G., Zhang, R.Q., Gao, Y.F., 1999. Temporal and spatial soil water management: a case study in the Heiloonggang region, PR China. Agric. Water Manag.
42, 173–187.
L. Yi et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 606–613
Kang, S.Z., Shi, W.J., Zhang, J.H., 2000. An improved water-use efficiency
for maize grown under regulated deficit irrigation. Field Crops Res. 67,
207–214.
Kang, S.Z., Zhang, L., Liang, Y.L., Hu, X.T., Cai, H.J., Gu, B.J., 2002. Effects of limited
irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat in the Loess Plateau
of China. Agric. Water Manag. 55, 203–216.
Kiniry, J.R., Landivar, J.A., Witt, M., Gerik, T.J., Cavero, J., Wade, L.J., 1998. Radiationuse efficiency response to vapor pressure deficit for maize and sorghum. Field
Crops Res. 56, 265–270.
Lecoeur, J., Ney, B., 2003. Change with time in potential radiation-use efficiency in
field pea. Eur. J. Agron. 19, 91–105.
Li, F.M., Guo, A.H., Wei, H., 1999. Effects of plastic film mulch on yield of spring
wheat. Field Crops Res. 63, 79–86.
Li, F.M., Wang, P., Wang, J., Xu, J.Z., 2004. Effects of irrigation before sowing and
plastic film mulching on yield and water uptake of spring wheat in semiarid
Loess Plateau of China. Agric. Water Manag. 67, 77–88.
Li, S., Xiao, L., 1992. Distribution and management of drylands in the People’s
Republic of China. Adv. Soil Sci. 18, 148–293.
Li, X.Y., Gong, J.D., 2002. Effects of different ridge-furrow ratios and supplemental
irrigation on crop production in ridge and furrow rainfall harvesting system
with mulches. Agric. Water Manag. 54, 243–254.
Li, X.Y., Gong, J.D., Gao, Q., Li, F., 2001. Incorporation of ridge and furrow method of
rainfall with mulching for crop production under semiarid conditions. Agric.
Water Manag. 50, 173–183.
Liang, Z.S., Yang, J.W., Shao, H.B., Han, R.L., 2006. Investigation on water consumption characteristics and water use efficiency of poplar under soil water deficits
on the Loess Plateau. Colloid Surf. B 53, 23–28.
Lindquist, J.L., Arkebauer, T.J., Walters, D.T., Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A., 2005.
Maize radiation use efficiency under optimal growth conditions. Agron. J. 97,
72–78.
Liu, W.Z., Zhang, X.C., 2007. Optimizing water and fertilizer input using an elasticity
index: a case study with maize in the loess plateau of china. Field Crops Res. 100,
302–310.
Ma, S.Q., Wang, Q., Luo, X.L., 2008. Effect of climate change on maize (Zea mays)
growth and yield based on stage sowing. Acta Ecol. Sin. 28 (5), 2131–2139 (in
Chinese with English abstract).
McKee, G.W., 1964. A coefficient for computing leaf area in hybrid corn. Agron. J. 56,
240–241.
Miedema, P., 1982. The effects of low temperature on Zea mays L. Adv. Agron. 35,
93–129.
Monteith, J.L., 1969. Light interception and radiative exchange in crop stands. In:
Eastin, J.D. (Ed.), Physiological Aspects of Crop Yield. ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 89–
111.
Mwale, S.S., Azam-Ali, S.N., Massawe, F.J., 2007a. Growth and development of
bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) in response to soil moisture: 1. Dry
matter and yield. Eur. J. Agron. 26, 345–353.
Mwale, S.S., Azam-Ali, S.N., Massawe, F.J., 2007b. Growth and development of
bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) in response to soil moisture: 2. Resource capture and conversion. Eur. J. Agron. 26, 354–362.
NeSmith, D.S., Ritchie, J.T., 1992. Short- and long-term responses of corn to a preanthesis soil water deficit. Agron. J. 84, 107–113.
Nguyen, H.T., Leipner, J., Stamp, P., Guerra-Peraza, O., 2009. Low temperature stress
in maize (Zea mays L.) induces genes involved in photosynthesis and signal
transduction as studied by suppression subtractive hybridization. Plant Physiol.
Biochem. 47, 116–122.
613
Olasantan, F.O., 1999. Effect of time of mulching on soil temperature and moisture
regime and emergence, growth and yield of white yam in western Nigeria. Soil
Till. Res. 50, 215–221.
Olesen, J.E., Mortensen, J.V., Jorgensen, L.N., Andersen, M.N., 2000. Irrigation strategy, nitrogen application and fungicide control in winter wheat on a sandy soil. I.
Yield, yield components and nitrogen uptake. J. Agric. Sci. 134, 1–11.
Raeini-Sarjaz, M., Barthakur, N.N., 1997. Water use efficiency and total dry matter
production of bush bean under plastic straw mulchs. Agric. For. Meteorol. 87,
75–84.
Ritchie, S.W., Hanway, J.J., Benson, G.O., 1992. How a corn plant develops. Special
Report No. 48. Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, IA,
http://maize.agron.iastate.edu/corngrows.html.
Saini, H.S., Westgate, M.E., 2000. Reproductive development in grain crops during
drought. Adv. Agron. 68, 59–96.
Sinclair, T.R., 1986. Water and nitrogen limitations in soybean grain production. I.
Model development. Field Crops Res. 15, 125–141.
Tan, D.K.Y., Birch, C.J., Wearing, A.H., Rickert, K.G., 2000a. Predicting broccoli
development I. Development is predominantly determined by temperature
rather than photoperiod. Sci. Hort. 84, 227–243.
Tan, D.K.Y., Birch, C.J., Wearing, A.H., Rickert, K.G., 2000b. Predicting broccoli
development II. Comparison and validation of thermal time models. Sci. Hort.
86, 89–101.
Tian, Y., Su, D.R., Li, F.M., Li, X.L., 2003. Effect of rainwater harvesting with ridge and
furrow on yield of potato in semiarid areas. Field Crops Res. 84, 385–391.
Wang, H.X., Liu, C.M., Zhang, L., 2002. Water-saving agriculture in China: an
overview. Adv. Agron. 75, 135–171.
Wang, S.S., Deng, G.Y., 1991. A study on the mechanism of soil temperature
increasing under plastic mulch. Sci. Agric. Sin. 24 (3), 74–78 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Wang, X.Q., Li, S.X., Gao, Y.J., 1998. Effects of film mulch on physi-ecology and yield of
spring corn. Acta Agron. Sin. 24 (3), 348–353 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Wang, Y.J., Xie, Z.K., Malhi, S.S., Vera, C.L., Zhang, Y.B., Wang, J.N., 2009. Effects of
rainfall harvesting and mulching technologies on water use efficiency and crop
yield in the semi-arid Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 374–382.
Werker, A.R., Jaggard, K.W., 1998. Dependence of sugar beet yield on light interception and evapotranspiration. Agric. For. Meteorol. 89, 224–240.
Westgate, M.E., 1994. Water status and development of the maize endosperm and
embryo during drought. Crop Sci. 34, 76–83.
Xue, J.Q., Zhang, R.H., Li, F.Y., Zhang, X.H., 2008. Current status, problem and strategy
of maize breeding in Shannxi Province. J. Maize Sci. 16 (2), 139–141 (in Chinese
with English abstract).
Yang, H.S., Dobermann, A., Lindquist, J.L., Walters, D.T., Arkebauer, T.J., Cassman,
K.G., 2004. Hybrid-maize—a maize simulation model that combines two crop
modeling approaches. Field Crops Res. 87, 131–154.
Zhang, D.Q., Liao, Y.C., Jia, Z.K., 2005a. Research advances and prospects of mulching
in arid and semi-arid areas. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 23 (1), 208–213 (in Chinese
with English abstract).
Zhang, H., Wang, X., You, M., Liu, C., 1999. Water-yield relations and water-use
efficiency of winter wheat in the north China plain. Irrig. Sci. 19, 37–45.
Zhang, X., Chen, S., Liu, M., Pei, D., Sun, H., 2005b. Improved water use efficiency
associated with cultivars and agronomic management in the north China plain.
Agron. J. 97, 783–790.
Zhou, L.M., Li, F.M., Jin, S.L., Song, Y.J., 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 Res. 113, 41–47.