Limits...
Water-use efficiency of dryland wheat in response to mulching and tillage practices on the Loess Plateau.

Wang LF, Shangguan ZP - Sci Rep (2015)

Bottom Line: The sequence of water use efficiency (WUE) effect sizes was similar to that of wheat yield for the practices.Wheat yields were more sensitive to soil water at planting covered by plastic film, wheat straw, liquid film, water-permeable plastic film and sand compared to NT, ST and RT.RFM and RT increased the yields of wheat by 18 and 15%, respectively, and corresponding for WUE by 20.11 and 12.50%.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 1] State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China [2] Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China.

ABSTRACT
Mulching and tillage are widely considered to be major practices for improving soil and water conservation where water is scarce. This paper studied the effects of FM (flat mulching), RFM (ridge-furrow mulching), SM (straw mulching), MTMC (mulching with two materials combined), MOM (mulching with other materials), NT (no-tillage) ST (subsoiling tillage) and RT (rotational tillage) on wheat yield based on a synthesis of 85 recent publications (including 2795 observations at 24 sites) in the Loess Plateau, China. This synthesis suggests that wheat yield was in the range of 259-7898 kg ha(-1) for FM and RFM. The sequence of water use efficiency (WUE) effect sizes was similar to that of wheat yield for the practices. Wheat yields were more sensitive to soil water at planting covered by plastic film, wheat straw, liquid film, water-permeable plastic film and sand compared to NT, ST and RT. RFM and RT increased the yields of wheat by 18 and 15%, respectively, and corresponding for WUE by 20.11 and 12.50%. This synthesis demonstrates that RFM was better for avoiding the risk of reduced production due to lack of precipitation; however, under conditions of better soil moisture, RT and MTMC were also economic.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The relative effect sizes of wheat yields, water-use efficiency (WUE), and evapotranspiration (ET) for different mulching and tillage practices on the Loess Plateau.Error bars represent 95% CI, and the values close to the bars represent the corresponding number of observations. FM: flat mulching; RFM: ridge-furrow mulching; SM: straw mulching; MTMC: mulching with two materials combined; MOM: mulching with other materials; NT: no-tillage; ST: subsoiling tillage; RT: rotational tillage.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4507400&req=5

f1: The relative effect sizes of wheat yields, water-use efficiency (WUE), and evapotranspiration (ET) for different mulching and tillage practices on the Loess Plateau.Error bars represent 95% CI, and the values close to the bars represent the corresponding number of observations. FM: flat mulching; RFM: ridge-furrow mulching; SM: straw mulching; MTMC: mulching with two materials combined; MOM: mulching with other materials; NT: no-tillage; ST: subsoiling tillage; RT: rotational tillage.

Mentions: The meta-analysis results showed different responses of wheat yields to mulching and tillage practices (Fig. 1a, Table 1). The mean yield effect sizes of FM, RFM, MTMC, ST, and RT were 0.85 (0.40–1.29), 1.53 (0.86–2.19), 1.32 (0.67–1.97), 0.67 (0.20–1.14), and 2.54 (1.70–3.38), respectively, and their 95% CIs did not include zero, showing a significant positive effect of conservation tillage on wheat yields. The yields were also increased by SM (0.27, –0.20 to 0.74) and MOM (0.67, –0.19 to 1.53) and, conversely, the tillage practice of NT had a negative effect; however, neither were significant (Fig. 1a). The yield effect sizes of the different mulching and tillage practices were ranked in the order of RFM > MTMC > FM > MOM > SM and RT > ST > NT, respectively (Fig. 1a). Grain yield was in the range of 259–7898 and 869–6909 kg ha−1 under the different mulching and tillage practices, respectively. On average, the mulching practices of RFM and MTMC increased yield relative to CT by 18 and 28%, respectively; and the tillage practice of RT increased yield relative to CT by 15% (Table 2). Both the yield and yield responses to mulching and tillage practices relative to CT had a wide range of variation.


Water-use efficiency of dryland wheat in response to mulching and tillage practices on the Loess Plateau.

Wang LF, Shangguan ZP - Sci Rep (2015)

The relative effect sizes of wheat yields, water-use efficiency (WUE), and evapotranspiration (ET) for different mulching and tillage practices on the Loess Plateau.Error bars represent 95% CI, and the values close to the bars represent the corresponding number of observations. FM: flat mulching; RFM: ridge-furrow mulching; SM: straw mulching; MTMC: mulching with two materials combined; MOM: mulching with other materials; NT: no-tillage; ST: subsoiling tillage; RT: rotational tillage.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4507400&req=5

f1: The relative effect sizes of wheat yields, water-use efficiency (WUE), and evapotranspiration (ET) for different mulching and tillage practices on the Loess Plateau.Error bars represent 95% CI, and the values close to the bars represent the corresponding number of observations. FM: flat mulching; RFM: ridge-furrow mulching; SM: straw mulching; MTMC: mulching with two materials combined; MOM: mulching with other materials; NT: no-tillage; ST: subsoiling tillage; RT: rotational tillage.
Mentions: The meta-analysis results showed different responses of wheat yields to mulching and tillage practices (Fig. 1a, Table 1). The mean yield effect sizes of FM, RFM, MTMC, ST, and RT were 0.85 (0.40–1.29), 1.53 (0.86–2.19), 1.32 (0.67–1.97), 0.67 (0.20–1.14), and 2.54 (1.70–3.38), respectively, and their 95% CIs did not include zero, showing a significant positive effect of conservation tillage on wheat yields. The yields were also increased by SM (0.27, –0.20 to 0.74) and MOM (0.67, –0.19 to 1.53) and, conversely, the tillage practice of NT had a negative effect; however, neither were significant (Fig. 1a). The yield effect sizes of the different mulching and tillage practices were ranked in the order of RFM > MTMC > FM > MOM > SM and RT > ST > NT, respectively (Fig. 1a). Grain yield was in the range of 259–7898 and 869–6909 kg ha−1 under the different mulching and tillage practices, respectively. On average, the mulching practices of RFM and MTMC increased yield relative to CT by 18 and 28%, respectively; and the tillage practice of RT increased yield relative to CT by 15% (Table 2). Both the yield and yield responses to mulching and tillage practices relative to CT had a wide range of variation.

Bottom Line: The sequence of water use efficiency (WUE) effect sizes was similar to that of wheat yield for the practices.Wheat yields were more sensitive to soil water at planting covered by plastic film, wheat straw, liquid film, water-permeable plastic film and sand compared to NT, ST and RT.RFM and RT increased the yields of wheat by 18 and 15%, respectively, and corresponding for WUE by 20.11 and 12.50%.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 1] State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China [2] Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China.

ABSTRACT
Mulching and tillage are widely considered to be major practices for improving soil and water conservation where water is scarce. This paper studied the effects of FM (flat mulching), RFM (ridge-furrow mulching), SM (straw mulching), MTMC (mulching with two materials combined), MOM (mulching with other materials), NT (no-tillage) ST (subsoiling tillage) and RT (rotational tillage) on wheat yield based on a synthesis of 85 recent publications (including 2795 observations at 24 sites) in the Loess Plateau, China. This synthesis suggests that wheat yield was in the range of 259-7898 kg ha(-1) for FM and RFM. The sequence of water use efficiency (WUE) effect sizes was similar to that of wheat yield for the practices. Wheat yields were more sensitive to soil water at planting covered by plastic film, wheat straw, liquid film, water-permeable plastic film and sand compared to NT, ST and RT. RFM and RT increased the yields of wheat by 18 and 15%, respectively, and corresponding for WUE by 20.11 and 12.50%. This synthesis demonstrates that RFM was better for avoiding the risk of reduced production due to lack of precipitation; however, under conditions of better soil moisture, RT and MTMC were also economic.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus