Abstract
Plastic film mulching measures are considered effective for conserving water and increasing crop yields. However, the effect of their long-term use on sustaining crop production remain unclear, especially under dryland conditions. A field experiment was conducted for nine years (2013–2021) in the Loess Plateau region of China to evaluate the effects of normal flat sowing with land fully covered by plastic film mulch (P), ridge–furrow planting with 50% coverage with mulch (R), normal flat sowing with land fully covered by biodegradable film mulch (B), and normal flat sowing without mulching (CK). Mulching treatments (P, R, and B) decreased the bulk density of the surface 0.6 m (P < 0.05), and increased the soil porosity (4.1–7.6%). In addition, there was an increase in meso-and macroaggregates contents, as evidenced by wet sieving (54.3–104.9%) and dry sieving (1.1–10.4%) methods. The carbon contents varied with soil depth. Major portion carbon was observed to be retained in the microaggregates under CK (69.5%) while it moved to mesoaggregates (47.8–56.7%) with plastic mulching. Higher soil water contentment were maintained in soils under plastic mulches. Overall improvements in surface 1.0 m soil, where most of the roots reside, were 47, 26 and, 20 mm under P, R, and B, respectively, and 28, 17, and 4 mm in 1.0–2.0 m soil. As a consequence of the maintaining superior better hydro-physical regimes, the grain yield, averaged over 9-years, improved by 4784 (P), 2746 (R), and 2413 kg ha−1 (B) over control. The rainwater was also extracted efficiently by maize. The resultant water use efficiency was 3.2, 2.8, 2.7, and 2.1 kg m3 under P, R, B and CK, respectively. Based on these observations, flat planting plastic film mulching with full surface cover seems a viable option to improve maize productivity under rainfed conditions of the Loess Plateau region.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching reduced surface soil bulk density.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“Mulching treatments (P, R, and B) decreased the bulk density of the surface 0.6 m (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased soil porosity by 4.1–7.6%.
- Treatment
- Mulching treatments (P, R, and B)e2
- Outcome
- soil porositye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 4.1–7.6%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“increased the soil porosity (4.1–7.6%)”
e2“Mulching treatments (P, R, and B)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased meso and macroaggregates under wet sieving.
- Treatment
- Mulching treatments (P, R, and B)e2
- Outcome
- meso-and macroaggregates contentse1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 54.3–104.9%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“increase in meso-and macroaggregates contents, as evidenced by wet sieving (54.3–104.9%) and dry sieving (1.1–10.4%) methods.”
e2“Mulching treatments (P, R, and B)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased meso and macroaggregates under dry sieving.
- Treatment
- Mulching treatments (P, R, and B)e2
- Outcome
- meso-and macroaggregates contentse1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 1.1–10.4%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“increase in meso-and macroaggregates contents, as evidenced by wet sieving (54.3–104.9%) and dry sieving (1.1–10.4%) methods.”
e2“Mulching treatments (P, R, and B)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under control, 69.5% of carbon was retained in microaggregates.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“Major portion carbon was observed to be retained in the microaggregates under CK (69.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
With plastic mulching, 47.8–56.7% of carbon moved to mesoaggregates.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“it moved to mesoaggregates (47.8–56.7%) with plastic mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic mulch maintained higher soil water content.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“Higher soil water contentment were maintained in soils under plastic mulches.”
Claim · model-written summary
Full plastic mulch improved surface 1.0 m soil water by 47 mm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“Overall improvements in surface 1.0 m soil, where most of the roots reside, were 47, 26 and, 20 mm under P, R, and B, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridge–furrow mulch improved surface soil water by 26 mm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“Overall improvements in surface 1.0 m soil, where most of the roots reside, were 47, 26 and, 20 mm under P, R, and B, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Biodegradable film mulch improved surface soil water by 20 mm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“Overall improvements in surface 1.0 m soil, where most of the roots reside, were 47, 26 and, 20 mm under P, R, and B, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Full plastic mulch increased nine-year mean grain yield by 4784 kg ha−1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“grain yield, averaged over 9-years, improved by 4784 (P), 2746 (R), and 2413 kg ha−1 (B) over control”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridge–furrow mulch increased nine-year mean grain yield by 2746 kg ha−1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“grain yield, averaged over 9-years, improved by 4784 (P), 2746 (R), and 2413 kg ha−1 (B) over control”
Claim · model-written summary
Biodegradable film mulch increased nine-year mean grain yield by 2413 kg ha−1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“grain yield, averaged over 9-years, improved by 4784 (P), 2746 (R), and 2413 kg ha−1 (B) over control”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was 3.2 under full plastic mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“water use efficiency was 3.2, 2.8, 2.7, and 2.1 kg m3 under P, R, B and CK, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was 2.8 under ridge–furrow mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“water use efficiency was 3.2, 2.8, 2.7, and 2.1 kg m3 under P, R, B and CK, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was 2.7 under biodegradable film mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“water use efficiency was 3.2, 2.8, 2.7, and 2.1 kg m3 under P, R, B and CK, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was 2.1 in the unmulched control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“water use efficiency was 3.2, 2.8, 2.7, and 2.1 kg m3 under P, R, B and CK, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Full-cover flat plastic film mulch appears viable for rainfed maize productivity in the Loess Plateau.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“flat planting plastic film mulching with full surface cover seems a viable option to improve maize productivity under rainfed conditions of the Loess Plateau region”
The same questions in other papers
boron atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →mulching · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
108 papers more in this group
See all 112 papers →phosphorus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
623 papers more in this group
See all 627 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.