Soil water dynamics and water use efciency in spring maize (Zea mays L.

) elds
subjected to different water management practices on the Loess Plateau, China
Yi Liu
a,b,c,1
, Shiqing Li
a,b,
*, Fang Chen
c
, Shenjiao Yang
a,b
, Xinping Chen
a,b
a
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Yangling 712100, China
b
Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resource, Yangling 712100, China
c
Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430074, China
1. Introduction
Spring maize is one of the main crops on the Loess Plateau in
China, and its high yield, averaging about 12 t hm
2
, is assumed to
benet fromprolonged sunshine, providing adequate light and heat
during its growing season (Xue et al., 2008). However, drought has
long been the primary limiting factor for production of this crop
because of the shortage and uneven distribution of water resources
in the area (Kang et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2009).
Toimprovetheefciencywithwhichthelimitedwater resources are
used, it isessential tohavedetailedknowledgeof thecropeldwater
balance and evapotranspiration (ET) in the region.
Water and its movement through the soilplantatmosphere
continuum is considered to be one of the most important factors
affecting crop productivity (Boyer, 1982). Water loss through
runoff, soil surface evaporation, plant transpiration, and soil
waterstorage changes have been studied (Jin et al., 1999; Liu and
Zhang, 2007; Liu et al., 2002). Frequently, ET, consisting of soil
surface evaporation and plant transpiration, is a major component
of water balance in ecosystems (Gentine et al., 2007; Parasuraman
et al., 2007). Several studies use estimates for ET to construct water
budgets for various ecosystems (Watanabe et al., 2004; Suyker and
Verma, 2008). Gain yields (GY) can be described as a linear function
of total evapotranspiration (ET) for most crops (Vaux and Pruitt,
1983). However, the relationships between GY and ET appeared to
be curvilinear under certain circumstances such as over-irrigation
(Sandhu et al., 2002; Liu and Zhang, 2007), e.g., excessive irrigation
could lead to an increase in ET without a corresponding increase in
crop yield (Liu et al., 2002).
WUE is a comprehensive index that represents the overall
efciency of plant water use (Turner, 1987). Thus, it is commonly
used to develop and evaluate optimum water management
strategies to ensure the most efcient use of water resources.
Several soil and crop management practices can increase the crop
GY and WUE (Huang et al., 2005; Fang et al., in press). Mulching has
Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 769775
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 29 September 2009
Accepted 12 January 2010
Available online 1 February 2010
Keywords:
Loess plateau
Water management practice
Spring maize
Soil water storage
Evapotranspiration
Water use efciency
A B S T R A C T
Soil water supply is the main limiting factor to crop production across the Loess Plateau, China. A 2-year
eld experiment was conducted at the Changwu agro-ecosystem research station to evaluate various
water management practices for achieving favorable grain yield (GY) with high water use efciency
(WUE) of spring maize (Zea mays L.). Four practices were examined: a rain-fed (RF) systemas the control;
supplementary irrigation (SI); lm mulching (FM); and straw mulching (SM) (in 2008 only). The soil
prole water storage (W) and the crop evapotranspiration (ET) levels were studied during the maize
growing season, and the GY as well as the WUE were also compared. The results showed that mean soil
water storage in the top 200 cmof the prole was signicantly (P < 0.05) increased in the SI (380 mmin
2007, 411 mm in 2008) and SM (414 mm in 2008) compared to the FM (361 mm in 2007, 381 mm in
2008) and RF (360 mmin 2007, 384 mmin 2008) treatments. The soil water content was lower at the end
of growing season than before planting in the 60140 cm part of the prole in both the RF and FM
treatments. Cumulative ET and average crop coefciency (K
c
) throughout the whole maize growing
season were signicantly (P < 0.05) higher in the SI (ET, 501 mm in 2007, 431 mm in 2008; K
c
, 1.0 in
2007, 0.9 in 2008) treatment than in the other treatments. Both FMand SI signicantly improved the GY.
The WUE were increased signicantly (2325%; P < 0.05) under the FMtreatment. It was concluded that
both SI and FMare benecial for improving the yield of spring maize on the Loess Plateau. However, FMis
preferable because of the shortage of available water in the area.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland
Farming on the Loess Plateau, Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and
Forestry, Yangling 712100, China. Tel.: +86 29 87016171; fax: +86 29 87016171.
E-mail addresses: lyle3521@126.com (Y. Liu), sqli@ms.iswc.ac.cn (S. Li).
1
Tel.: +86 27 87510433.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ agwat
0378-3774/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.01.010
long been widely used in crop eld management in many parts of
the world. The surface mulch favorably inuences the soil moisture
regime by controlling evaporation from the soil surface (Raeini-
Sarjaz and Barthakur, 1997; Wang et al., 2009), improving
inltration and soil water retention, decreasing bulk density and
facilitating condensation of soil water at night due to temperature
reversals (Acharya et al., 2005). Soil microclimate under mulching
also favors seedling emergence (Albright et al., 1989) and root
proliferations (Osuji, 1990) and suppress weed population (Lalitha
et al., 2001). Thus, it has been widely reported that both the GY and
WUE are increased under mulches (Li et al., 2001b; Li and Gong,
2002). However, on occasion, the grain yield of crop can decrease
considerably with lmmulching for the whole growth period (Li et
al., 2001a). Furthermore, the widespread use of non-degradable
plastic lmmulch over many years may damage the sustainability
of rain-fed agro-ecosystems by accelerating the decomposition of
soil organic matter, changing the soil structure, and inuencing
root development (Acharya et al., 2005). Straw mulching effects
depend on the climatic condition and soil type (Acharya et al.,
2005). The application of straw mulch is restricted in some place,
since it is liable to lower the soil surface temperature, leading to
reduction in the yield (Gao and Li, 2005; Edwards et al., 2000).
Irrigation can also have benecial effects on plant water
relations and yields. For instance, scheduled irrigation at different
growth stages can improve WUE according to several studies
(Wang et al., 2002; Fang et al., in press). However, Jin et al. (1999)
reported that excessive irrigation can reduce crop WUE, while
effective decit irrigation may result in higher production and
WUE. While Olesen et al. (2000) augued irrigation had little or no
effect on WUE or harvest indices, and that its effects were almost
entirely due to increased transpiration. Hence, the reported effects
of irrigation are variable, and the responses of grain yield (GY) and
WUE to irrigation were strongly inuenced by soil water contents
and irrigation schedules (Kang et al., 2002).
Most studies have concentrated on examining the soil water
balance in farmland exposed to only one water management
practice; few studies have made comparisons among a variety of
water management practices. Our objectives were to: (i) quantify
the soil water storage (W) and ET during the maize growing
season; and (ii) determine the effects of eld water management
practices on soil water balance and WUE.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
The present study was conducted from 2007 to 2008 at the
Changwu Agri-ecological Station on the Loess Plateau (35.28N and
107.88E) in Shaanxi Province of China. The experimental site is
located about 1206.5 m above sea level. 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 and have a pHof 8.4 and a bulk density of
1.3 g cm
3
. The amounts of organic matter, total nitrogen,
available phosphorus, available potassium and inorganic nitrogen
present are 11.8 g kg
1
, 0.87 g kg
1
, 14.4 mg kg
1
, 144.6 mg kg
1
and 3.15 mg kg
1
, respectively. The average annual precipitation is
578 mm, with 55% falling between July and September. The annual
average temperature is 9.2 8C. The common regional cropping
system is one crop a year (wheat or maize). Rain-fed agriculture is
the dominant production system.
2.2. Experimental design and treatments
Four water management practices a rain-fed (RF) system
(Fig. 1a), supplementary irrigation(SI) (Fig. 1b), lmmulching (FM)
(Fig. 1c), and straw mulching (SM) (Fig. 1d) (in 2008 only) were
used in spring maize elds. The soil water supply for the RF, FMand
SMtreatments relied on natural rainfall, while for the SI treatment,
sufcient moisture in the soil (7085% of the eld water capacity)
was maintained using tap water delivered by furrow irrigation. In
the SI treatment, the crop was irrigated ve times in 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), and the irrigation quota on
Fig. 1. Photographs showing (a) rain-fed (RF), (b) supplementary irrigation (SI), (c) lm mulching (FM) and (d) straw mulching (SM) treatments.
Y. Liu et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 769775 770
each occasion amounted to 33.7 mm and 25.6 mm in 2007 and
2008, respectively. On May 8 in 2008, around the time of seedling
emergence, corn straw cut into 0.1 m long segments, was applied
at a rate of 6000 kg hm
2
uniformly on both ridges and furrows in
the SM plots. The treatments were arranged in a completely
randomized block design, with four replicates for each treatment.
The size of each experimental plot was 50.7 m
2
(7.8 m 6.5 m).
Ridge cultivation, a commonmaize cultivationpracticeacross the
Loess Plateau, was adopted in all of the four treatments. First,
110 kg N hm
2
inthe formof urea (N46%), 50 kg P hm
2
inthe form
of Calcium superphosphate (P
2
O
5
12%), and 100 kg K hm
2
in the
form of Potassium Sulfate (K
2
O 45%) were broadcast over the soil
surface as a base fertilizer; the elds were then plowed, thus turning
thesoil andrelocatingthenutrientstobelowthesurface. Ridges were
constructed by banking up soil from both sides to a height of 0.1 m
from the base, constructing a ridge 0.45 m wide at the top and
furrows 0.15 mwide at the base. In the plots mulched with plastic, a
lm (0.7 m wide and 0.005 mm thick) was used to cover the soil
surface of the ridges but not the furrows; the edges were secured
under the soil inthe bottomof the furrows (Fig. 1). Spring maize (Zea
mays L. pioneer 335) was sownin5 cmdeepholes spaced0.2 mapart
along the midline on the top of the ridge, using a human-powered
hole-drillingmachine, onApril 20in2007andApril 18in2008. Before
backlling, water was added as required, to encourage seedling
emergence. Additional nitrogen, in the form of urea, was applied at
the jointing and tasseling stages, at rates of 80 kg N hm
2
and
90 kg N hm
2
, respectively, following a nutrient management plan
aimed at achieving a nal yield of 14 t hm
2
. Maize cobs were
harvestedgradually, accordingtotheir ripeness, from28August to13
September 2007 and from8 to 20 September 2008. Manual weeding
was undertaken as required during the crops growing season.
2.3. Sampling measurements and data calculation
Sampling and measurement procedures were the same in both
crop growing seasons. Soil water content was determined gravi-
metrically by oven-drying (105 8C for 24 h) the core samples that
were takenat depthintervals of 20 cmdownthe 0200 cmprole in
eachplot at plantingtime(PT), sixthleaf stage(V6), twelfthleaf stage
(V12), silking stage (R1), milk stage (R3) and physiological maturity
(R6). The soil water storage (W) in the prole was considered to be
the total storage in all of the sampled layers in the plot, as was
calculated using the formula: W = h r u 1000, where h is soil
depth(cm), ris soil bulkdensity (g cm
3
), u is soil gravimetric water
content (g g
1
). Change in soil water storage (DW) in the 0200 cm
prole was calculated using the formula: DW = W
t2
W
t1
, where
W
t1
and W
t2
are the soil water storage in the 0200 cmsoil prole at
times t1 and t2, respectively.
Evapotranspiration (ET) was determined using the formula:
ET = P + I DW, where P is the precipitation (mm) during the crop
growth season and I is the total irrigation amount (mm) (Zhang et
al., 1999, 2005). Reference evapotranspiration (ET
0
) was estimated
each day using the FAO PenmanMonteith equation according to
Allen et al. (1998), written as
ET
0

0:408DR
n
G 900gu
2
e
s
e
a
=T 273
Dg1 0:34u
2

where ET
0
is reference crop ET (mm d
1
); D is slope of the
saturated vapor pressuretemperature curve (kPa 8C
1
); R
n
is net
irradiance (MJ m
2
d
1
); G is soil heat ux (MJ m
2
d
1
); e
s
and e
a
are respectively saturated and actual vapor pressure (kPa); g is
psychrometric constant (kPa 8C
1
); T is mean air temperature (8C),
u
2
is wind speed at the height of 2 m (m s
1
).
The crop coefcient (K
c
) was calculated as the ratio of ET to
reference ET (ET
0
) (i.e., K
c
= ET/ET
0
). WUE was calculated as GY in
kg hm
2
divided by total water use in mm (evaluated as ET in the
present study), i.e., WUE = GY/ET.
2.4. Statistical analyses
The effects of the treatments on the measured parameters were
evaluated by one-way ANOVA. When F-values were signicant,
Duncans new multiple range test was used to calculate the least
signicant difference (LSD) between means. In all cases differences
were deemed to be signicant if P < 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (ET
0
) during the
experimental period
Quite good coincidence was exhibited between the spring maize
growing season and the main rainy period in both years (Fig. 2). The
spring maize growing season rainfall was 302 mm in the 2007
experiment and 340 mm in the 2008 experiment, occupying 58.2%
and 65.2% of the annual precipitations, respectively.
Diurnal reference evapotranspiration (ET
0
) ranged from
0.5 mmd
1
to 8.1 mmd
1
in 2007, and from 0.6 mmd
1
to
7.4 mmd
1
in 2008 (Fig. 3). The amplitude of seasonal uctuations
in daily ET
0
was quite large during the study period. The ET
0
was
generally higher early in the growing season (i.e., May and June)
when it was dry and there were high wind speeds and air
temperatures, than later in the growing season (from the July to
the September) when it was rather rainy. The cumulative ET
0
over
thewholegrowingseasonwas522 mmin2007and491 mmin2008.
3.2. Growing season evapotranspiration (ET)
The ET in the reproductive stages (R1R6) contributed to the
greatest proportion of the total ET over the whole growing season
Fig. 2. Distribution of monthly rainfall at the experimental site during 2007 and 2008; the maize and wheat growing seasons at the site are also shown.
Y. Liu et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 769775 771
(Table 1); the shooting stage (V6R1) accounted for the second
highest level of ET, and the seedling stage (PTV6) for the least.
Total ET over the whole growing season was signicantly
(P < 0.05) higher in SI (501 mm in 2007, 431 mm in 2008)
treatment than the FM (357 mm in 2007, 372 mm in 2008) and
RF (372 mmin 2007, 368 mmin 2008) treatments, while there was
no signicant difference in the ET between the two latter
treatments; this indicates that the irrigated plants consumed
much more water. Total ET was signicantly (P < 0.05) lower in the
SM treatment than the FM and RF treatments in 2008.
The ET/ET
0
ratio is also commonly referred to as the crop
coefcient (K
c
). The seasonal dynamic of K
c
in the spring maize
elds appears to have been much the same in both years. K
c
increased from the seedling stage until mid-season (stages R1R3)
when it reached its maximumvalue, varying from0.8 to 2.5; the K
c
declined gradually after that time (Table 2). The average K
c
of
maize over the whole season under the RF, SI, and FM treatments
was, respectively, 0.7, 1.0 and 0.7 in 2007, and 0.8, 0.9 and 0.8 in
2008. The average K
c
of maize was 0.7 over the whole season for
the SM treatment. The average K
c
throughout the whole growing
season was signicantly (P < 0.05) higher in the SI treatment than
the FM and RF treatments, and the prolonged period of plant
physiological functioning, fromgrowth stage R1 to R3, when the K
c
was maintained at a high level, would benet assimilation and
transportation, and hence would benet GY.
3.3. Soil water storage
A large difference in water storage in the soil prole (0
200 cm) was recorded in the different years, i.e., it was higher in
2008 than in 2007 (Fig. 4), this was linked to the higher
precipitation in 2008. In 2007, despite there being rather less
precipitation during the crop seedling stage than the later period
of the growing season, water storage did not decline, and even
slightly increased because maize consumes only a limited amount
of water at this stage. During the rainy seasononthe Loess Plateau,
i.e., fromJuly to September, the spring maize takes up a great deal
of water to maintain its luxuriant growth; the variation in
seasonal soil water storage was, therefore, mainly affected by the
amount of precipitation and maize growth. As a result, water
storage decreased in 2007 but increased in 2008 during crop
growth stages V12 to R3 (from June to July) (Fig. 4); during this
period the precipitation was 200 mm in 2008, compared to
132 mm in 2007.
Fig. 3. Diurnal reference evapotranspiration (ET
0
) over all growth stages.
Table 1
Distribution of the evapotranspiration (ET-mm) in different growth stages under
rain-fed (RF), supplementary irrigation (SI), lmmulching (FM) and strawmulching
(SM) treatments in 2007 and 2008.
Year Growth
stage
RF SI FM SM
2007 PTV6 711 b 6114 a 39 b
V6V12 7416 b 10920 a 7312 b
V12R1 6215 ab 6913 a 5210 b
R1R3 10025 b 13322 a 8916 c
R3R6 13020 a 13216 a 14019 a
Whole
growth
season
37232 b 50128 a 35724 b
2008 PTV6 2812 a 3315 a 308 a 229 a
V6V12 5517 b 9134 a 6223 b 3317 c
V12R1 9915 b 11521 a 9917 b 10323 ab
R1R3 10318 a 8423 b 8615 b 5216 c
R3R6 8410 b 10922 a 9719 ab 10917 a
Whole
growth
season
36826 b 43133 a 37227 b 31931 c
Values are given as means standard error of means (n= 4). Values followed by
different letters within a row are signicantly different (P<0.05).
PTV6: from planting time to 6th leaf stage.
V6V12: from 6th leaf stage to 12th leaf stage.
V12R1: from 12th leaf stage to silking stage.
R1R3: from silking stage to milk stage.
R3R6: from milk stage to physiological maturity stage.
Table 2
Seasonal variation in the K
c
(ET/ET
0
) in different growth stages under rain-fed (RF),
supplementary irrigation (SI), lm mulching (FM) and straw mulching (SM)
treatments in 2007 and 2008.
Year Growth
stage
RF SI FM SM
2007 PTV6 0.00.1 b 0.30.1 a 0.00.1 b
V6V12 0.80.2 b 1.10.2 a 0.60.1 c
V12R1 0.90.2 ab 1.00.2 a 0.80.1 b
R1R3 1.90.5 ab 2.50.4 a 1.50.3 b
R3R6 1.60.2 a 1.60.2 a 1.30.2 b
Whole
growth
season
0.70.1 b 1.00.1 a 0.70.1 b
2008 PTV6 0.20.1 a 0.20.1 a 0.20.0 a 0.10.1 a
V6V12 0.50.2 ab 0.80.3 a 0.60.2 a 0.30.2 b
V12R1 1.60.2 a 1.90.3 a 1.60.3 a 1.70.4 a
R1R3 1.60.3 a 1.30.4 ab 1.30.2 ab 0.80.3 b
R3R6 1.00.1 a 1.30.3 a 1.20.2 a 1.30.2 a
Whole
growth
season
0.80.1 b 0.90.1 a 0.80.1 b 0.70.1 b
Values are given as means standard error of means (n =4). Values followed by
different letters within a row are signicantly different (P <0.05).
PTV6: from planting time to 6th leaf stage.
V6V12: from 6th leaf stage to 12th leaf stage.
V12R1: from 12th leaf stage to silking stage.
R1R3: from silking stage to milk stage.
R3R6: from milk stage to physiological maturity stage.
Y. Liu et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 769775 772
Mean soil water storage, calculated by averaging the readings
taken at the sampled crop growth stages over the growing season,
were much higher in the SI (380 mmin 2007, 411 mmin 2008) and
SM (414 mm in 2008) treatments than the RF (360 mm in 2007,
384 mm in 2008) and FM (361 mm in 2007, 381 mm in 2008)
treatments (Fig. 4). SI and SMsignicantly (P < 0.05) enhanced soil
water storage in the 0200 cm prole compared to the FM and RF
treatments, while there was no signicant (P < 0.05) difference in
soil water storage between the FM and RF treatments.
The soil water content was signicantly higher at the end of the
cropping season (stage R6) than at the beginning (stage PT) in the
040 cm soil layer under each treatment in 2007, indicating water
recharge in the soil over the crops growing season. This was not
the case in 2008 (Fig. 5). It is likely that heavy September rainfall in
2007 improved the moisture conditions near the surface of the soil
late in the growing season (Fig. 2). In the 60140 cm soil prole,
there was a clear decrease in soil water content after the maize
growing season in both the RF and the FM treatments in 2007 and
2008, indicating a soil water decit in the prole, but the supply of
additional water (SI) seemed to compensate for the sub-surface
depletion during the maize growing season; the SMtreatment had
the same effect. However, the soil water deeper down the prole
(160200 cm) rarely changed under any of the treatments over the
maize growing season (Fig. 5).
DW
PT-R6
(the change in soil water storage over all the growth
stages, i.e., DW
PT-R6
= W
R6
W
PT
) represents the integrated
contribution of ET (soil water depletion) or precipitation and
irrigation (soil water recharge) to soil water storage throughout
this period; this is an important indicator of the sustainability of
farmland water. As shown in Fig. 6, the DW
PT-R6
was 11 mm and
24 mm for RF, 30 mm and 17 mm for SI, and 4 mm and 28 mm
for FMin 2007 and 2008, respectively. The DW
PT-R6
was 26 mmfor
SM in 2008. The value of DW
PT-R6
for both years was negative for
RF, and positive for SI. That is, SI not only promoted ET but also was
associated with a small amount of water being retained in the soil
prole. However, Rainfall could not compensate for the ET
associated with plant growth in the RF treatment, stored soil
water made up for this decit. For FM, the value of DW
PT-R6
was
positive in 2007 (4 mm), and negative in 2008 (28 mm), the
difference between the 2 years was mainly related to the different
rainfall amounts and distribution.
Fig. 4. Soil water storage (0200 cm) under rain-fed (RF), supplementary irrigation (SI), lm mulching (FM) and straw mulching (SM) treatments during the experimental
seasons in 2007 and 2008. Error bars are twice the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Fig. 5. Soil water content down the prole at the beginning (stage PT) and the end of the maize growing season (stage R6) under rain-fed (RF), supplementary irrigation (SI),
lm mulching (FM) and straw mulching (SM) treatments in 2007 and 2008. Error bars are twice the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Fig. 6. Change in soil water storage (0200 cm) over the all growth stages (DW
PT-R6
)
under rain-fed (RF), supplementary irrigation (SI), lm mulching (FM) and straw
mulching (SM) treatments in 2007 and 2008. Error bars are twice the standard error
of the mean (n = 4). Letters on the graph show the result of DMRT (P > 0.05);
different notations refer to signicant differences between mean values.
Y. Liu et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 769775 773
3.4. Grain yield (GY) and water use efciency (WUE)
Both the SI and FMtreatments signicantly increased the spring
maize GY compared to the RF treatment (P < 0.05); the enhance-
ment was, respectively. 24.6% and 19.7% in 2007, and 36.8% and
24.6% in 2008 (Table 3). However, there was no signicant
difference in GY between the SI and FM treatments. Despite soil
water storage (0200 cm) being maintained at a high level in the
SM treatment, the GY was still rather low; it is likely that straw
mulching decreased the soil temperature and may thus have
decreased root and microbial activities (Gao and Li, 2005).
Immobilization of N by corn straw in the SM treatment may be
another reason for low yield in this treatment (Acharya et al.,
2005).
FM signicantly (P < 0.05) increased the grain yield WUE
compared to the RF treatment, with an increase of 2325% in both
years (Table 3). This was probably the result of restricted water
loss by evaporation, which has no plant physiological signicance,
and also the increase in transpiration. However, there was no
denite effect of irrigation on WUE, which varied according to the
soil water conditions. SI was associated withan increase in the crop
WUE by 12% in 2008, but a signicant (P < 0.05) decrease in 2007
(Table 3).
4. Discussion
Maize is characterized by high ET. In the present study, the
total ET over the whole maize growing season varied in the range
319501 mm; these growing season ET values are generally
comparable to results fromother studies conducted in the region.
For example, Kang et al. (2003) reported a 10-year average
seasonal ET based on lysimeter measurements of 424 mm in a
semi-humid region of northwest China. The total ET of spring
maize in Inner Mongolia was 572.5 mm, with a daily average ET of
4.09 mm (Li et al., 2003). Li et al. (2008) found a total ET of
476 mm, with a daily average value of 2.96 mm, and a high K
c
in
the mid- and late-season.
It has long been known that climate has a major inuence
on K
c
values, and that it varies as a result of cloudiness,
radiation, wind speed, temperature, and so on (Wang et al.,
2007; Drexler et al., 2008). In order to obtain good estimates
using the FAO 56 approach, many researchers have calculated
monthly K
c
values or values for different plant growth stages.
Allen et al. (1998) calculated maize K
c
values in the middle and
at the end of the growing season of 1.20 and 0.600.35,
respectively. A 10-year average maize K
c
was 0.45 in June
(initial stage), 1.43 in August (middle stage), and 0.93 in October
(end stage), with an average of 1.04 over the whole season in
northwest China (Kang et al., 2003). Li et al. (2008) calculated an
average K
c
of 1.04 over the whole season. Compared to previous
studies, our maize K
c
(in the range 0.71.0) had a lower than
average value. This may be due to the semiarid climate on the
Loess Plateau of China.
Even though the effect of eld water management practices on
water storage was much less than the variations in precipitation,
small effects on water conservation during the crops growing
season could greatly affect spring maize yield and ET as well as
WUE. SI improved both soil water storage and ET and, hence,
signicantly increased the GY (Table 3). It is likely that irrigation
after a soil drying cycle stimulated the physiological processes and
caused compensation or over-compensation in plant growth and
GY (Deng et al., 2006). However, the WUE did not exhibit
consistent performance in both years under the SI treatment; it
was lower in 2007 than in 2008 when the amount of supplemen-
tary water applied was reduced. It appears that additional
irrigation supplementary when the soil water condition is optimal
would have little effect on yield and may even be detrimental (Jin
et al., 1999); in addition, excessive irrigation would enhance soil
surface evaporation (Olesen et al., 2000). This could have caused
the reduction in WUE in 2007.
The GY in the FMtreatment plots was higher than that in the RF
control plots (Table 3). This was probably because mulching with
plastic lmreduced soil evaporation, augmented the inltration of
rainwater into the soil (Ramakrishna et al., 2006), and enhanced
soil water retention (Ghosh et al., 2006). The FM treatment also
increased the WUE (Raeini-Sarjaz and Barthakur, 1997; Wang et
al., 2009). However, the whole season average soil water storage
and cumulative ET were nearly the same in the two treatments (RF
and FM). It is likely that FM increased the physiologically
signicant canopy transpiration (Raeini-Sarjaz and Barthakur,
1997; Wang et al., 2009); plant physiological processes were thus
enhanced to ensure plant productivity and GY formation (Li et al.,
2001b; Li and Gong, 2002) compared to the RF treatment. In
contrast, there was signicant soil water depletion in the RF
treatment. This is a result of soil surface evaporation, especially in
the early growth stages. At this stage, most of the soil surface was
exposed to the direct irradiation and a dry atmosphere; therefore,
plant growth activities were notably restricted by water decit,
leading to reduction in WUE.
Straw mulching is regarded as one of the best ways of
improving water retention in the soil and reducing soil evaporation
(Baumhardt and Jones, 2002; Zhang et al., 2009). Effects of straw
mulch on crop yield and WUE, however, have been variable, and
this can be mainly attributed to differences in climatic conditions.
The differences of yield and WUE between SM and RF treatment
were not signicant in this experiment (Table 3). These results are
in agreement with recent investigations on straw mulch effects
from temperate climates (Edwards et al., 2000). As pointed out by
Do ring et al. (2005), mulching affects crop yields in many and
complex ways. Higher yields under mulch have mostly been
attributed to increased soil water under arid and semiarid
conditions (Huang et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2009); reduced yields
under straw mulch have also been reported and have been
attributed to below-optimum soil temperature, reduced soil
nitrate levels, and mulching too early (Gao and Li, 2005).
We conclude that the crop GYwas sensitive to altered soil water
conditions under different water management practices in the
spring maize elds on the Loess Plateau, China. Correspondingly,
ET and WUE were also affected, resulting in differences in plant
productivities. In the low precipitation area, the runoff is usually
little, and most of the harvested rainwater gathering at the surface
is lost through evaporation. While the plastic lm covered ridges
would improve rainwater harvesting and subsequently increase
crop yield. The ndings suggest that farmers can adopt the rational
plastic lm mulching technologies to obtain the optimal effect in
increasing crop yield and improving water use efciency.
Supplementary irrigation can have a substantial effect to increase
crop yield, but farmers must consider its cost before using on a
commercial scale.
Table 3
Grain yield (GY) and Water use efciency (WUE) under rain-fed (RF), supplemen-
tary irrigation (SI), lmmulching (FM) and strawmulching (SM) treatments in 2007
and 2008.
Treatments GY (t hm
2
) WUE (kghm
2
mm
1
)
2007 2008 2007 2008
RF 12.21.1 b 11.41.4 b 28.51.5 b 27.02.7 b
SI 15.20.8 a 15.61.8 a 26.42.0 c 31.44.5 ab
FM 14.60.6 a 14.21.0 a 35.61.2 a 33.12.6 a
SM 10.11.0 b 27.52.2 b
Values are given as means standard error of means (n= 4). Values followed by
different letters within a column are signicantly different (P <0.05).
Y. Liu et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 769775 774
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Basic Research
Program of China (2009CB118604) and the Natural Science
Foundation of the State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland
Farming on the Loess Plateau (10502-Z04; 10501-247).
References
Acharya, C.L., Hati, K.M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., 2005. Mulches. In: Hillel, D., Ro-
senzweig, C., Pawlson, D.S., Scow, K.M., Sorger, M.J., Sparks, D.L., Hateld, J.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment. Elsevier Publication, pp. 521
532.
Albright, L.D., Wolfe, D., Novak, S., 1989. Modelling row straw mulch effects on
microclimate and yield II. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural
Science 114, 569578.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. In:
Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation Drainage
Paper No. 56, FAO, Roma, Italy, p. 331.
Baumhardt, R.L., Jones, O.R., 2002. Residue management and tillage effects on soil
water storage and grain yield of dryland wheat and sorghum for a clay loam in
Texas. Soil and Tillage Research 68, 7182.
Boyer, J.S., 1982. Plant productivity and environment. Science 218, 443448.
Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H.P., Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving agricultural water use
efciency in arid and semiarid areas of China. Agricultural Water Management
80, 2340.
Do ring, T.F., Brandt, M., He, J., Finckh, M.R., Saucke, H., 2005. Effects of strawmulch
on soil nitrate dynamics, weeds, yield and soil erosion in organically grown
potatoes. Field Crops Research 94, 238249.
Drexler, J.Z., Anderson, F.E., Snyder, R.L., 2008. Evapotranspiration rates and crop
coefcients for a restored marsh in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Cali-
fornia, USA. Hydrological Processes 22, 725735.
Edwards, L., Burney, J.R., Richter, G., MacRae, A.H., 2000. Evaluation of compost and
strawmulching on soil-loss characteristics in erosion plots of potatoes in Prince
Edward Island, Canada. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 81, 217222.
Fang, Q., Ma, L., Yu, Q., Ahuja, L.R., Malone, R.W., Hoogenboom, G., in press. Irrigation
strategies to improve the water use efciency of wheatmaize double cropping
systems in North China Plain. Agricultural Water Management, Corrected Proof,
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.02.012.
Gao, Y.J., Li, S.X., 2005. Cause and mechanism of crop yield reduction under
straw mulch in dry land. Transactions of the CSAE 21, 1519 (in Chinese
with English abstract).
Gentine, P., Entekhabi, D., Chehbouni, A., Boulet, G., Duchemin, B., 2007. Analysis of
evaporative fraction diurnal behaviour. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
143, 1329.
Ghosh, P.K., Devi, D., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Mohanty, M., 2006. Evaluation of straw
and polythene mulch for enhancing productivity of irrigated summer ground-
nut. Field Crops Research 99, 7686.
Gong, Z.T., Zhang, G.L., Chen, Z.C. (Eds.), 2007. Pedogenesis and Soil Taxonomy.
Beijing Science Press Publishing (in Chinese).
Huang, Y.L., Chen, L.D., Fu, B.J., Huang, Z.L., Gong, J., 2005. The wheat yields and
water-use efciency in the Loess Plateau: straw mulch and irrigation effects.
Agricultural Water Management 72, 209222.
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. Agricultural Water Manage-
ment 42, 173187.
Kang, S.Z., Gu, B.J., Du, T.S., Zhang, J.H., 2003. Crop coefcient and ratio of transpi-
ration to evapotranspiration of winter wheat and maize in a semi-humid region.
Agricultural Water Management 59, 239254.
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 efciency of winter wheat in the Loess Plateau
of China. Agricultural Water Management 55, 203216.
Lalitha, B.S., Nagaraj, K.H., Anard, T.N., 2001. Effect of soil solarization on weed
dynamics and yield of groundnuttomato sequence. Mysore Journal of Agricul-
tural Sciences 35, 226231.
Li, F.M., Yan, X., Wang, J., Li, S.Q., Wang, T.C., 2001a. The mechanismof yield decrease
of spring wheat resulted from plastic lm mulching. Agricultural Sciences in
China 34, 330333 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Li, S.E., Kang, S.Z., Li, F.S., Zhang, L., 2008. Evapotranspiration and crop coefcient of
spring maize with plastic mulch using eddy covariance in northwest China.
Agricultural Water Management 95, 12141222.
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. Agricultural Water Management 54, 243254.
Li, X.Y., Gong, J.D., Gao, Q., Li, F., 2001b. Incorporation of ridge and furrowmethod of
rainfall with mulching for crop production under semiarid conditions. Agricul-
tural Water Management 50, 173183.
Li, Y.L., Cui, J.Y., Zhang, T.H., Zhao, H.L., 2003. Measurement of evapotranspiration of
irrigated spring wheat and maize in a semi-arid region of north China. Agricul-
tural Water Management 61, 112.
Liu, W.Z., Hunsaker, D.J., Li, Y.S., Xie, X.Q., Wall, G.W., 2002. Interrelations of yield,
evapotranspiration, and water use efciency from marginal analysis of water
production functions. Agricultural Water Management 56, 143151.
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
Research 100, 302310.
Olesen, J.E., Mortensen, J.V., Jorgensen, L.N., Andersen, M.N., 2000. Irrigation strate-
gy, nitrogen application and fungicide control in winter wheat on a sandy soil. I.
Yield, yield components and nitrogen uptake. Journal of Agricultural Science
134, 111.
Osuji, G.E., 1990. Tillage and mulching effects on seed-zone soil environment and
cowpea seedling growth in the humid tropics. Soil Use and Management 6,
152156.
Parasuraman, K., Elshorbagy, A., Carey, S.K., 2007. Modelling the dynamics of the
evapotranspiration process using genetic programming. Hydrological Sciences
JournalJournal Des Sciences Hydrologiques 52, 563578.
Raeini-Sarjaz, M., Barthakur, N.N., 1997. Water use efciency and total dry matter
production of bush bean under plastic straw mulches. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 87, 7584.
Ramakrishna, A., Hoang, M.T., Suhas, W., Dinh, T.D., 2006. Effect of mulch on soil
temperature, moisture, weed infestation and yield of groundnut in northern
Vietnam. Field Crops Research 95, 115125.
Sandhu, K.S., Arora, V.K., Chand, R., 2002. Magnitude and economics of fertilizer
nitrogen response of wheat in relation to amount and timing of water inputs.
Experimental Agriculture 38, 6578.
Suyker, A.E., Verma, S.B., 2008. Interannual water vapor and energy exchange in an
irrigated maize-based agroecosystem. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148,
417427.
Turner, N.C., 1987. Crop water decits: a decade of progress. Advances in Agronomy
39, 151.
Vaux Jr., H.J., Pruitt, W.O., 1983. Cropwater production functions. In: Hillel, D.
(Ed.), Advances in Irrigation 2. Academic Press, New York, pp. 6197.
Wang, H.X., Liu, C.M., Zhang, L., 2002. Water-saving agriculture in China: an
overview. Advances in Agronomy 75, 135171.
Wang, J.M., Sammis, T.W., Andales, A.A., Simmons, L.J., Gutschick, V.P., Miller, D.R.,
2007. Crop coefcients of open-canopy pecan orchards. Agricultural Water
Management 88, 253262.
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 efciency and crop
yield in the semi-arid Loess Plateau, China. Agricultural Water Management 96,
374382.
Watanabe, K., Yamamoto, T., Yamada, T., Sakuratani, T., Nawata, E., Noichana, C.,
Sributta, A., Higuchi, H., 2004. Changes in seasonal evapotranspiration,
soil water content, and crop coefcients in sugarcane, cassava, and
maize elds in Northwest Thailand. Agricultural Water Management 67,
133143.
Xue, J.Q., Zhang, R.H., Li, F.Y., Zhang, X.H., 2008. Current status, problemand strategy
of maize breeding in Shannxi Province. Journal of Maize Science 16, 139141 (in
Chinese with English abstract).
Zhang, H., Wang, X., You, M., Liu, C., 1999. Wateryield relations and water-use
efciency of winter wheat in the north China plain. Irrigation Science 19,
3745.
Zhang, S.L., Lo vdahl, L., Grip, H., Tong, Y.A., Yang, X.Y., Wang, Q.J., 2009. Effects of
mulching and catch cropping on soil temperature, soil moisture and wheat yield
on the Loess Plateau of China. Soil and Tillage Research 102, 7886.
Zhang, X., Chen, S., Liu, M., Pei, D., Sun, H., 2005. Improved water use efciency
associated with cultivars and agronomic management in the north China plain.
Agronomy Journal 97, 783790.
Y. Liu et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 769775 775