Abstract
Abstract. Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching were based on three consecutive years (2014-2016) of field experiments in a typical area of northeastern China. We evaluated seasonal crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) and how it was partitioned into soil evaporation (E s ) and plant transpiration (T p ) during the season. Development of crop coefficient (K c ) prediction models was based on the growth day (GD) and leaf area index (LAI) of the crop, as well as the growing degree-days of air (GDD air ) and soil (GDD soil ). Results showed that plastic mulching significantly reduced E s by 41.6 to 53.5 mm (p < 0.05) compared to not mulching, while it increased T p by 23.2 to 40.4 mm (p > 0.05) for spring-planted maize. While plastic mulching normally reduced ET c during the crop growth period, the change was not significant (p > 0.05). The three-year mean K c for the maize growth period declined by 3.0% under plastic mulching. The mean K c was lower for the plastic mulching treatment than for the non-mulching treatment in both the early and late season, while it was slightly higher at mid-season. The three-year means of mid-season K c (K c-mid ) under plastic mulching and non-mulching were 1.06 and 1.05 lower, respectively, than the FAO-56 recommended value. In addition, the K c estimation model based on GDD soil achieved the best fitting accuracy. We recommend applying this GDD soil model to mulched drip irrigation of maize in northeastern China to obtain more accurate K c estimation for optimizing and developing mulched drip irrigation in this region. Keywords: Crop coefficient, Drip irrigation, Maize, Northeastern China, Plastic mulch.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic mulching significantly reduced soil evaporation by 41.6 to 53.5 mm compared with no mulching.
- Treatment
- plastic mulchinge2
- Outcome
- E se2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 41.6 to 53.5 mme2
- Comparator
- not mulchinge2
- Setting
- northeastern Chinae1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e1“field experiments in a typical area of northeastern China”
e2“plastic mulching significantly reduced E s by 41.6 to 53.5 mm (p < 0.05) compared to not mulching, while it increased T p by 23.2 to 40.4 mm (p > 0.05) for spring-planted maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic mulching increased plant transpiration by 23.2 to 40.4 mm, a change not significant.
- Treatment
- plastic mulchinge2
- Outcome
- T pe2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 23.2 to 40.4 mme2
- Comparator
- not mulchinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e2“plastic mulching significantly reduced E s by 41.6 to 53.5 mm (p < 0.05) compared to not mulching, while it increased T p by 23.2 to 40.4 mm (p > 0.05) for spring-planted maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic mulching normally reduced crop evapotranspiration, but the change was not significant.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e3“While plastic mulching normally reduced ET c during the crop growth period, the change was not significant (p > 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
The three-year mean crop coefficient declined by 3.0% under plastic mulching.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e4“The three-year mean K c for the maize growth period declined by 3.0% under plastic mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean crop coefficient was lower under plastic mulching than without it in the early and late season.
- Treatment
- plastic mulching treatmente5
- Outcome
- mean K ce5
- Direction
- lowere5
- Qualifier
- in both the early and late seasone5
- Comparator
- non-mulching treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e5“The mean K c was lower for the plastic mulching treatment than for the non-mulching treatment in both the early and late season, while it was slightly higher at mid-season”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean crop coefficient was slightly higher under plastic mulching at mid-season.
- Treatment
- plastic mulching treatmente5
- Outcome
- mean K ce5
- Direction
- slightly highere5
- Qualifier
- at mid-seasone5
- Comparator
- non-mulching treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e5“The mean K c was lower for the plastic mulching treatment than for the non-mulching treatment in both the early and late season, while it was slightly higher at mid-season”
Claim · model-written summary
Mid-season crop coefficients under plastic mulching and non-mulching were 1.06 and 1.05 lower than the FAO-56 recommended value.
- Treatment
- plastic mulchinge6
- Outcome
- mid-season K ce6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 1.06 and 1.05e6
- Comparator
- FAO-56 recommended valuee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e6“The three-year means of mid-season K c (K c-mid) under plastic mulching and non-mulching were 1.06 and 1.05 lower, respectively, than the FAO-56 recommended value”
Claim · model-written summary
The crop coefficient model based on GDD soil achieved the best fitting accuracy.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our investigations into the water consumption patterns of maize ( L.) grown using surface drip irrigation with and without plastic mulching”
e7“the K c estimation model based on GDD soil achieved the best fitting accuracy”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend applying the GDD soil model to mulched drip irrigation of maize in northeastern China.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We recommend applying this GDD soil model to mulched drip irrigation of maize in northeastern China”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 108 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 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.