A Pathway Analysis of Evapotranspiration Variation Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Summer Maize in the Haihe Plain
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Area Overview
2.2. Experimental Methods
2.3. Meteorological Observation Data and Data Analysis Methods
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Typical Daily Variation of Evapotranspiration in Maize Fields
3.2. Continuous Variation Pattern of Evapotranspiration in Maize Fields during Key Growth Periods
3.3. Variation Pattern of Evapotranspiration in Maize Fields throughout the Entire Growth Period
3.4. Path Analysis of Evapotranspiration-Influencing Factors in Maize Fields
4. Conclusions and Discussion
- (1)
- The diurnal variation patterns of evapotranspiration in summer maize fields and bare soil exhibit a “single-peak” curve characteristic, with lower values in the morning and evening, and higher values at noon. This is similar to the findings of You Debao et al. [14]. Their study compared the typical daily variation curves of evapotranspiration at different growth stages of maize and described the daily variation characteristics of evapotranspiration as “single-peak.” In contrast, our study added measured evapotranspiration data during key growth stages of maize for another year, revealing significant differences in nighttime transpiration between different years. On typical days in 2021, evapotranspiration in summer maize fields at night was close to 0, while in 2023, it was close to 0.2 mm/h. The reason for this is that in 2023, compared to the same period in 2022, total precipitation during the summer maize growing season was higher by 268.1 mm; total sunshine hours were longer by 199.4 h; and the average nighttime (20:00 to 08:00 the next day) temperature was higher by 0.8 °C, resulting in higher nighttime evapotranspiration in 2023.
- (2)
- In 2021, the total evapotranspiration of summer maize fields throughout the entire growth period was 382.97 mm, which is close to the evapotranspiration of maize fields after deficit irrigation treatments conducted by Liu Meihan et al. [13] in the Hetao Irrigation District of Inner Mongolia, China (359.21 mm) but significantly different from the evapotranspiration of maize under timely sowing conditions in the Adana region of Turkey, as reported by Deniz Levent KOÇ et al. [15] (618 mm). The experimental sites of these three studies are located in different climates: the Hetao region of Inner Mongolia is in a dry or semi-arid area; Adana is in the Mediterranean climate zone; and the experimental area of this study is in a temperate continental monsoon climate zone. The evapotranspiration of summer maize in these three climate zones presents distinct contrasts. This study measured the evapotranspiration of bare soil throughout the entire growth period and found it to be 173.57 mm, which is 45% of that of maize fields. Yanmin Yang et al. [16] also acknowledged that bare soil evapotranspiration consumes a considerable amount of water and compared the water-saving potential of different soil surface management measures through experiments. What sets this study apart is that it quantitatively observed the evapotranspiration of bare soil at various growth stages of summer maize for comparison with maize fields.
- (3)
- Path analysis indicates that daily radiation and maximum temperature have the greatest impact on evapotranspiration in maize fields, with direct effects of daily radiation and maximum temperature being the largest, and the indirect effect of maximum temperature on evapotranspiration being the largest among temperature factors. The direct effect of maximum temperature on evapotranspiration is restrictive, while the indirect effect is promotive, overall reflecting a promotive effect. Radiation and temperature play a crucial role in water–heat exchange, significantly affecting the variation of evapotranspiration. Similar conclusions were reached by Li et al. [17] and Yang et al. [18]. During critical growth periods when solar radiation is intense, maize fields are prone to drought stress, and relevant departments can issue timely drought warnings for maize. Furthermore, further exploration of methods to regulate indicators such as radiation and temperature in summer maize fields to improve water use efficiency and maximize water-saving and yield-increasing effects is warranted.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Y. Effect of irrigation on winter wheat yield, evapotranspiration and water use efficiency in North China Plain. Eng. J. Wuhan Univ. 2009, 42, 701–705. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Yu, J.; Eloise, K. Groundwater exploitation and its impact on the environment in the North China Plain. Water Int. 2001, 26, 265–272. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Liu, Z.; Lian, Y.; Yan, M.; Wang, J. Geohistory Characteristics and Temporal-Spatial Diversity of Groundwater Evolution in North China Plain in Holocene. Acta Geosci. Sin. 2009, 30, 848–854. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Fei, Y.; Liu, K.; Wang, J. Regional groundwater pumpage for agriculture responding to precipitation in North China Plain. Adv. Water Sci. 2006, 17, 43–48. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Fei, Y.; Li, H.; Nie, Z.; Shen, J.; Cao, Y.; Yan, Y. Mechanism and Consequence of Continual Decline of Shallow Ground water Level in Haihe River Basin. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2002, 16, 32–36. [Google Scholar]
- Howell, T.A.; Tolk, J.A.; Schneider, A.D.; Evett, S.R. Evapotranspiration, Yield, and Water Use Efficiency of Corn Hybrids Differing in Maturity. Agron. J. 1998, 90, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fank, F.C.; Viglizzo, E.F. Water use in rain-fed forming at different scales in the Pampas of Aigentina. Agric. Syst. 2012, 109, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolk, J.A.; Howell, T.A.; Evett, S.R. Evapotranspiration and yield of corn grown on three high plains soils. Agron. J. 1998, 90, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, K.; Zhang, X. Analysis of water consumption characteristics of maize in Heishang Region of Northeast China. J. Maize Sci. 1996, 4, 66–67. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; Yan, J.; Jiang, C.; Liu, X. Spatial and temporal variations of reference crop evapotranspiration and its influencing factors in the North China Plain. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2014, 34, 5589–5599. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, G.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, X.; Li, Y.; Meng, X. Water Consumption Characteristics of Wheat-size Double Cropping under Drip Irrigation Based on Large-scale Lysimeter. J. Irrig. Drain. 2015, 34, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, G.; Zhu, Z.; Tan, L.; Liu, S.; Xu, Z.; Bai, J.; Xiao, Q. Analysis on Evapotranspiration of Maize Field Measured by Lysimeters in Huailai. Plateau Meteorol. 2015, 34, 1095–1106. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, M.; Shi, H.; Li, X.; Yan, J.; Sun, W.; Dou, X. Path analysis of evapotranspiration dynamic variation and its influencing factors in Hetao Irrigation District. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 2018, 36, 1081–1086. [Google Scholar]
- You, D.; Wang, J.; Tian, P.; Sui, P.; Zhang, W.; Ma, L.; An, J.; Qi, H. Characteristics and Impact Factors of Evapotranspiration in Maize Field of Irrigation Area in Heihe Middle Reaches. J. Shenyang Agric. Univ. 2015, 46, 648–653. [Google Scholar]
- Koç, D.L.; Ünlü, M.; Nur, A.; Kanber, R. Determination of crop evapotranspiration and single crop coefficients of maize using by a weighing lysimeter in Mediterranean region in Turkey. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Doğa Derg. 2022, 25, 890–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Han, S.; Li, H.; Wang, L.; Ma, Q.; Ma, L.; Wang, L.; Hou, Z.; Chen, L.; et al. Comparison of water-saving potential of fallow and crop change with high water-use winter-wheat–summer-maize rotation. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 289, 108543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Liu, T.; Duan, L.; Wang, G.; Zhou, Y. Estimation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration and Analysis of Impact Factors in Horqin Sandy Land. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 2020, 27, 153–159. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Guo, W.; Li, H.; Li, L. Analysis of dynamic changes of evapotranspiration water consumption and environmental factors of autumn eggplant in greenhouse. Water Sav. Irrig. 2021, 2, 47–51. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Lu, L.; Gu, N.; Wang, Z.; Liu, M.; Wang, G. Estimation of crop coefficient and evapotranspiration of summer maize by path analysis combined with BP neural network. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2020, 36, 109–116. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, L.; Cai, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, H.; Zhang, B.; Huang, L. Responses of field evapotranspiration to the changes of cropping pattern and groundwater depth in large irrigation district of Yellow River basin. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 188, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, P.; Liu, T.; Duan, L.; Wang, D.; Qi, X. Estimate and analysis of silage maize evapotranspiration in Horqin Sandy Land. Agric. Res. Arid. Areas 2018, 36, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Cui, N.; Gong, D.; Hu, X.; Feng, Y. Evaluation of seasonal evapotranspiration of winter wheat in humid region of east china using large-weighted lysimeter and three models. J. Hydrol. 2020, 590, 125388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marek, G.W.; Marek, T.H.; Evett, S.R.; Bell, J.M.; Colaizzi, P.D.; Brauer, D.K.; Howell, T.A. Comparison of lysimeter-derived crop coefficients for legacy and modern drought-tolerant maize hybrids in the Texas High Plains. Trans. ASABE 2020, 63, 1243–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, G.; Xue, X.; Wang, P.; Yang, Z.; Yuan, W.; Liu, X.; Lou, C. A lysimeter study for the effects of different canopy sizes on evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of summer maize. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 208, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anapalli, S.S.; Ahuja, L.R.; Gowda, P.H.; Ma, L.; Marek, G.; Evett, S.R.; Howell, T.A. Simulation of crop evapotranspiration and crop coefficients with data in weighing lysimeters. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 177, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mean Air Temperature at the Hour (°C) | Mean Relative Humidity at the Hour (%) | Total Radiation Flux (W/m²) | Total Evapotranspiration of Maize Fields (mm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2021 | 25.7 | 78.8 | 23,459.0 | 13.6 |
2023 | 28.5 | 75.6 | 27,951.0 | 36.8 |
Seedling | Jointing | Tasseling-Silking | Milk Maturity | Maturity | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Days (d) | 36 | 21 | 33 | 20 | 4 | 114 |
Evapotranspiration (mm) | 57.26 | 44.86 | 51.96 | 16.83 | 2.67 | 173.57 |
Evapotranspiration Intensity (mm/d) | 1.59 | 2.14 | 1.57 | 0.84 | 0.67 | 1.52 |
Stage Evapotranspiration Percentage (%) | 32.99 | 25.84 | 29.93 | 9.69 | 1.54 | 100.00 |
Seedling | Jointing | Tasseling-Silking | Milk Maturity | Maturity | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Days (d) | 36 | 21 | 33 | 20 | 4 | 114 |
Evapotranspiration (mm) | 110.42 | 94.39 | 129.25 | 41.94 | 6.97 | 382.97 |
Evapotranspiration Intensity (mm/d) | 3.07 | 4.49 | 3.92 | 2.10 | 1.74 | 3.36 |
Stage Evapotranspiration Percentage (%) | 28.83 | 24.65 | 33.75 | 10.95 | 1.82 | 100.00 |
Percentage Increase In Evapotranspiration Intensity (%) | 92.83 | 110.43 | 148.78 | 149.26 | 160.98 | 120.64 |
Factor | Correlation Coefficient | Direct Path Coefficient | Indirect Path Coefficient | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SS | S | TMAX | TMIN | RH | V | E | Total | |||
SS | 0.353 | 0.157 | 0.000 | 0.300 | −0.191 | −0.040 | 0.088 | 0.000 | 0.039 | 0.196 |
S | 0.725 | 0.886 | 0.053 | 0.000 | −0.342 | −0.033 | 0.138 | 0.000 | 0.023 | −0.161 |
TMAX | 0.534 | −0.438 | 0.069 | 0.693 | 0.000 | −0.099 | 0.155 | 0.000 | 0.154 | 0.972 |
TMIN | 0.226 | −0.196 | 0.032 | 0.149 | −0.222 | 0.000 | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.446 | 0.422 |
RH | −0.255 | −0.227 | −0.061 | −0.540 | 0.299 | 0.015 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.259 | −0.028 |
V | −0.113 | −0.002 | −0.011 | −0.024 | 0.005 | −0.012 | 0.043 | 0.000 | −0.111 | −0.110 |
E | 0.264 | 0.584 | 0.010 | 0.034 | −0.116 | −0.150 | −0.100 | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.321 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, W.; Xu, J.; Liu, X.; Dang, H.; Fang, S.; Li, Y. A Pathway Analysis of Evapotranspiration Variation Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Summer Maize in the Haihe Plain. Water 2024, 16, 1819. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131819
Guo W, Xu J, Liu X, Dang H, Fang S, Li Y. A Pathway Analysis of Evapotranspiration Variation Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Summer Maize in the Haihe Plain. Water. 2024; 16(13):1819. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131819
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Wenzhe, Jundong Xu, Xuetong Liu, Hongkai Dang, Shibo Fang, and Yueying Li. 2024. "A Pathway Analysis of Evapotranspiration Variation Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Summer Maize in the Haihe Plain" Water 16, no. 13: 1819. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131819
APA StyleGuo, W., Xu, J., Liu, X., Dang, H., Fang, S., & Li, Y. (2024). A Pathway Analysis of Evapotranspiration Variation Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Summer Maize in the Haihe Plain. Water, 16(13), 1819. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131819