Abstract
Plastic mulching is widely used in traditional maize production system, but its excessive application has led to diminishing returns in yield improvement and water productivity. No tillage with plastic re-mulching offers a sustainable alternative by reducing plastic input and regulating soil hydrothermal conditions, potentially ensuring high and stable yields along with improved water productivity. However, the underlying mechanisms linking this approach to yield sustainability and water use efficiency through water eco-physiological and root traits remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the effect of different plastic mulching strategies on water eco-physiology, root traits, grain yield, and water productivity in maize production. In 2013, a field experiment took place in the northwestern area of China, utilizing data collected between 2021 and 2023, comparing three plastic mulching treatments: (1) no tillage with plastic re-mulching (NTP), (2) no tillage in autumn and new plastic mulching in spring (RTP), and (3) conventional tillage with annual new plastic mulching (CTP, the control). Compared to CTP, NTP increased net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and leaf water use efficiency by 26.1 %, 8.7 %, and 16.2 %, respectively, at 90–120 d after sowing. NTP also expanded canopy cover by 5.3 % at 75 d after sowing. Soil evaporation was reduced by 36.2 % and 24.5 % at 90–105 and 105–135 d after sowing, respectively, while soil water storage increased by 12.0 % and 7.1 %. Meanwhile, transpiration rose by 5.2 % and 17.3 %, leading to an 8.8 % increase in the transpiration-to-soil evaporation ratio. During the filling stage, NTP enhanced root development in the 0–30 cm soil layer, with increases of 35.6 % in root length density, 32.8 % in root surface area density, 32.2 % in root dry weight density, and 25.2 % in root biomass. In the 30–60 cm soil layer, root parameters also improved, with root activity and root zone water uptake rate increasing by 24.4 % and 6.5 %, respectively. Consequently, NTP increased grain yield by 5.5 %, with higher yield stability driven by a 6.8 % increase in harvested ears and a 9.1 % rise in1000-kernel weight, while maintaining water productivity comparable to CTP. These findings provide theoretical support for reducing plastic use while maintaining maize yield stability and water productivity in arid irrigated regions.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased net photosynthetic rate by 26.1 % relative to CTP at 90–120 days after sowing.
- Treatment
- NTPe0
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 26.1 %e0
- Qualifier
- at 90–120 d after sowinge0
- Comparator
- CTPe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to CTP, NTP increased net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and leaf water use efficiency by 26.1 %, 8.7 %, and 16.2 %, respectively, at 90–120 d after sowing.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased transpiration rate by 8.7 % relative to CTP at 90–120 days after sowing.
- Treatment
- NTPe0
- Outcome
- transpiration ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 8.7 %e0
- Qualifier
- at 90–120 d after sowinge0
- Comparator
- CTPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to CTP, NTP increased net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and leaf water use efficiency by 26.1 %, 8.7 %, and 16.2 %, respectively, at 90–120 d after sowing.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased leaf water use efficiency by 16.2 % relative to CTP at 90–120 days after sowing.
- Treatment
- NTPe0
- Outcome
- leaf water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 16.2 %e0
- Qualifier
- at 90–120 d after sowinge0
- Comparator
- CTPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to CTP, NTP increased net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and leaf water use efficiency by 26.1 %, 8.7 %, and 16.2 %, respectively, at 90–120 d after sowing.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP expanded canopy cover by 5.3% at 75 days after sowing.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTP also expanded canopy cover by 5.3 % at 75 d after sowing.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP reduced Soil evaporation by 36.2 % at 90–105 days after sowing.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil evaporation was reduced by 36.2 % and 24.5 % at 90–105 and 105–135 d after sowing, respectively, while soil water storage increased by 12.0 % and 7.1 %.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP reduced Soil evaporation by 24.5 % at 105–135 days after sowing.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil evaporation was reduced by 36.2 % and 24.5 % at 90–105 and 105–135 d after sowing, respectively, while soil water storage increased by 12.0 % and 7.1 %.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased soil water storage by 12.0 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil evaporation was reduced by 36.2 % and 24.5 % at 90–105 and 105–135 d after sowing, respectively, while soil water storage increased by 12.0 % and 7.1 %.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased soil water storage by 7.1 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil evaporation was reduced by 36.2 % and 24.5 % at 90–105 and 105–135 d after sowing, respectively, while soil water storage increased by 12.0 % and 7.1 %.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased transpiration by 5.2 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Meanwhile, transpiration rose by 5.2 % and 17.3 %, leading to an 8.8 % increase in the transpiration-to-soil evaporation ratio.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased transpiration by 17.3 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Meanwhile, transpiration rose by 5.2 % and 17.3 %, leading to an 8.8 % increase in the transpiration-to-soil evaporation ratio.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased transpiration-to-soil evaporation ratio by 8.8 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Meanwhile, transpiration rose by 5.2 % and 17.3 %, leading to an 8.8 % increase in the transpiration-to-soil evaporation ratio.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased root length density by 35.6 % in the 0–30 cm layer during filling.
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- NTPe0
- Outcome
- root length densitye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 35.6 %e0
- Qualifier
- During the filling stagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the filling stage, NTP enhanced root development in the 0–30 cm soil layer, with increases of 35.6 % in root length density, 32.8 % in root surface area density, 32.2 % in root dry weight density, and 25.2 % in root biomass.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased root surface area density by 32.8 % in the 0–30 cm layer during filling.
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- NTPe0
- Outcome
- root surface area densitye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 32.8 %e0
- Qualifier
- During the filling stagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the filling stage, NTP enhanced root development in the 0–30 cm soil layer, with increases of 35.6 % in root length density, 32.8 % in root surface area density, 32.2 % in root dry weight density, and 25.2 % in root biomass.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased root dry weight density by 32.2 % in the 0–30 cm layer during filling.
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- NTPe0
- Outcome
- root dry weight densitye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 32.2 %e0
- Qualifier
- During the filling stagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the filling stage, NTP enhanced root development in the 0–30 cm soil layer, with increases of 35.6 % in root length density, 32.8 % in root surface area density, 32.2 % in root dry weight density, and 25.2 % in root biomass.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased root biomass by 25.2 % in the 0–30 cm layer during filling.
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- NTPe0
- Outcome
- root biomasse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 25.2 %e0
- Qualifier
- During the filling stagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the filling stage, NTP enhanced root development in the 0–30 cm soil layer, with increases of 35.6 % in root length density, 32.8 % in root surface area density, 32.2 % in root dry weight density, and 25.2 % in root biomass.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased root activity by 24.4 % in the 30–60 cm layer.
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Outcome
- root activitye0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Value
- 24.4 %e0
- Qualifier
- In the 30–60 cm soil layere0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 30–60 cm soil layer, root parameters also improved, with root activity and root zone water uptake rate increasing by 24.4 % and 6.5 %, respectively.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased root zone water uptake rate by 6.5 % in the 30–60 cm layer.
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Outcome
- root zone water uptake ratee0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Value
- 6.5 %e0
- Qualifier
- In the 30–60 cm soil layere0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 30–60 cm soil layer, root parameters also improved, with root activity and root zone water uptake rate increasing by 24.4 % and 6.5 %, respectively.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased grain yield by 5.5 %.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Consequently, NTP increased grain yield by 5.5 %, with higher yield stability driven by a 6.8 % increase in harvested ears and a 9.1 % rise in1000-kernel weight, while maintaining water productivity comparable to CTP.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased harvested ears by 6.8 %.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Consequently, NTP increased grain yield by 5.5 %, with higher yield stability driven by a 6.8 % increase in harvested ears and a 9.1 % rise in1000-kernel weight, while maintaining water productivity comparable to CTP.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased 1000-kernel weight by 9.1 %.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Consequently, NTP increased grain yield by 5.5 %, with higher yield stability driven by a 6.8 % increase in harvested ears and a 9.1 % rise in1000-kernel weight, while maintaining water productivity comparable to CTP.”
t0“maize by improving water eco-physiology and root traits”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →tillage · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.