Abstract
In order to increase crop yield in semi-arid and arid areas, plastic film mulching (PFM) is widely used in Northwestern China. To date, many studies have addressed the effects of PFM on soil physical and biochemical properties in rain-fed agriculture in Northwestern China, but the findings of different studies are often contradictory. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the impacts of PFM on soil water content, soil nutrients and food production is needed. We compiled the results of 1278 observations to evaluate the overall effects of PFM on soil water content, the distribution of nitrate and soil organic carbon, and crop yield in rain-fed agriculture in Northwestern China. Our results showed that PFM increased soil moisture and nitrate concentration in topsoils (0-20 cm) by 12.9% and 28.2%, respectively, but slightly decreased (1.8%) soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the 0-10 cm soil layer. PFM significantly increased grain yields by 43.1%, with greatest effect in spring maize (79.4%). When related to cumulative precipitation during the crop growing season, yield increase from PFM was greatest (72.8%) at 200-300 mm, which was attributed to the large increase for spring maize and potato, implying that crop zoning would be beneficial for PFM in this region. When related to N application rate, crop yields benefited most from PFM (80.2%) at 200-300 kg/ha. A cost-benefit analysis indicated that PFM increased economic return by an average of 29.5%, with the best improvement for spring maize (71.1%) and no increase for spring wheat. In conclusion, PFM can significantly increase crop yield and economic return (especially for spring maize) in rain-fed agriculture areas of Northwestern China. Crop zoning is recommended for PFM to achieve the largest economic benefit. However, full account needs to be taken of the environmental impacts relating to N loss, SOC depletion and film pollution to evaluate the sustainability of PFM systems and further research is required to quantify and mitigate these impacts.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
PFM increased topsoil moisture by 12.9%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“PFM increased soil moisture and nitrate concentration in topsoils (0-20 cm) by 12.9% and 28.2%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
PFM increased topsoil nitrate concentration by 28.2%.
- Treatment
- PFMe0
- Outcome
- nitrate concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 28.2%e0
- Qualifier
- topsoils (0-20 cm)e0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“PFM increased soil moisture and nitrate concentration in topsoils (0-20 cm) by 12.9% and 28.2%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
PFM decreased soil organic carbon by 1.8% in the 0-10 cm layer.
- Outcome
- soil organic carbon (SOC) contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 1.8%e0
- Qualifier
- 0-10 cm soil layere0
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“slightly decreased (1.8%) soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the 0-10 cm soil layer”
Claim · model-written summary
PFM increased grain yield by 43.1%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“PFM significantly increased grain yields by 43.1%”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring maize grain yield increased by 79.4% under PFM.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PFM significantly increased grain yields by 43.1%, with greatest effect in spring maize (79.4%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The largest yield increase at 200-300 mm seasonal precipitation was 72.8%.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“yield increase from PFM was greatest (72.8%) at 200-300 mm”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop yields benefited most from PFM at 200-300 kg/ha N, by 80.2%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“crop yields benefited most from PFM (80.2%) at 200-300 kg/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
PFM increased average economic return by 29.5%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“PFM increased economic return by an average of 29.5%”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring maize had a 71.1% economic return improvement under PFM.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“best improvement for spring maize (71.1%)”
t0“plastic film mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring wheat had no economic return increase under PFM.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- plastic film mulchingt0
- Outcome
- increasee0
- Direction
- no increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no increase for spring wheat”
t0“plastic film mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend crop zoning for PFM to maximize economic benefit.
Verbatim
e0“Crop zoning is recommended for PFM to achieve the largest economic benefit”
t0“crop yields”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.