Next Article in Journal
Agriculture–Tourism Integration’s Impact on Agricultural Green Productivity in China
Previous Article in Journal
Real-Time Cattle Pose Estimation Based on Improved RTMPose
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/agriculture13101940
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficient Utilization Mechanism of Soil Moisture and Nutrients with Ridge Film Furrow Seeding Technology of Sloping Farmlands in Semi-Arid and Rain-Fed Areas

by
Xiaotong Xin
1,2,
Zhanxiang Sun
2,*,
Jibing Xiao
3,
Wei Bai
2,
Zhe Zhang
2 and
Han Yan
4
1
College of Land and Environment, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110886, China
2
Institute of Crop Cultivation and Farming System, Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenyang 110161, China
3
Institute of Agriculture and Forestry in DryLand, Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Science, Chaoyang 122000, China
4
Institute of Plant Protection, Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenyang 110161, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(10), 1940; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101940
Submission received: 24 August 2023 / Revised: 26 September 2023 / Accepted: 3 October 2023 / Published: 5 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Soils)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
How to improve the utilizations of water and nutrient is a research hotspot of sloping farmland in semi-arid and rain-fed areas. In this study, the spatial changes of soil moisture, nutrients, and roots under different tillage modes, as well as the efficient utilization mechanism of soil moisture and nutrients from rain-fed maize on three mulching treatments (no surface covering, ridge film and straw mulch and ridge film mulch) and two slope treatments (5° slope and 10° slope) of sloping farmlands were studied at the Nationally Agricultural Environment Fuxin Observation and Experiment Station in China through a micro-zone simulation and a long-term positioning experiment. The results indicated that ridge film mulch and furrow seeding significantly improve the water use efficiency and partial factor productivity of the plants in sloping farmlands, with the highest increases being 51.33% and 45.05%. By analyzing the coordinated relationship between water, nutrients, and roots, it was found that ridge film furrow seeding technology can significantly affect the spatial distribution of water, nutrients, and roots in different soil layers, and improves the effective coefficient of soil water and nutrients. The effective coefficient of ridge film and straw treatment was 2.53, while the average value of the effective coefficient of ridge film treatment was 1.39. Further analysis found that the degree of consistency between the root system, water, and nutrient barycenter was highly correlated with the effective coefficients of water and nutrients. Visual radar map analysis revealed that root development limits the improvement availability of the efficient use of water and nutrients in the soil. Promoting root development indicators and root spatial distribution through ridge film coverage was an effective way to improve the efficient use of maize water and nutrients. The ridge film mulching promoted the root development index and root spatial distribution, thus improving the efficient use of water and nutrients in maize. Overall, the ranking of the regulation effect was as follows: ridge film and straw mulch > ridge film mulch > no mulch, and 5° slope > 10° slope. This research provided a theoretical basis for the enhancement of use efficiency in water and nutrients in sloping farmlands.

1. Introduction

Sloping farmlands are an important cultivated land resource, accounting for 27% of the total cultivated land in China. Western Liaoning, which is the main producing area of corn and cereals in China, is mostly hilly in terrain with a sloping farmland area accounting for 50.8% of the total farmland area [1]. Its climate is the temperate continental monsoon climate, belonging to the semi-arid and rain-fed area. Drought is the most important abiotic factor limiting global production [2]. The sustainable development of agricultural production in this region has been restricted by natural and human factors for a long time [3]. The reasons can be divided into three factors. Firstly, the climate in this area is called “nine droughts in ten years”, due to an insufficient water resource reserve and supplement [4]. Secondly, the unreasonable utilization of land destroys the original structure of the soil [5]. Thirdly, the effective rainfall in this area is mainly concentrated and heavy, leading to the runoff of water from sloping farmlands. Under the triple interaction of rainfall, slope, and land mulch, the soil erosion and the water and nutrient loss of sloping farmlands are increasingly aggravated [6,7].
Previous studies showed that the occurrence probability of surface soil and water loss could be reduced by terrain micro-shaping (equal height tillage, ridging, and furrow planting, etc.), surface mulch (straw or plastic film, etc.), and planting mode adjustment (intercropping or rotation, etc.), further increasing the crop yield [8,9,10,11]. Among these measures, the ridge film and furrow seeding have been identified as particularly effective, especially in arid areas with low rainfall. This technique involves creating ridges and furrows in the land and planting crops in the furrows [12,13,14,15]. The ridge film and furrow seeding could quickly form a confluence, making the water stored in the root zone of the crops significantly improve the use efficiency of water and nutrients and further increasing the crops yield [16,17]. The above research mainly focuses on flat farmlands. There were few studies focusing on the efficient use of water and nutrient partial productivity with the ridge film and furrow planting technology in long-term positioning sloping farmlands [18,19]. Water use efficiency and nutrient partial productivity are important evaluation indexes of crops, reflecting the comprehensive effect of crop yield, water consumption, and the amount of nutrient application. Water use efficiency refers to crop yield per unit of water consumption, while nutrient partial productivity refers to the ratio between crop yield and the amount of fertilizer applied by a specific fertilizer [20].
However, there is limited research on the impact of ridge film furrow planting technology on the efficient use of soil water and nutrients in sloping farmlands. Efficient use of water and nutrients refers to the degree to which soil moisture and nutrients can be utilized by crops. The commonly used calculation method is to analyze the spatial distribution of crop roots, moisture, and nutrients in the soil [21,22]; however, it is difficult to calculate the fitting degree of a single indicator and there is a lack of synergistic analysis of moisture and multiple nutrients, making it difficult to reflect the efficient utilization mechanism of crop moisture and nutrients.
In this study, the efficient use of soil water and nutrients, and the centroid fit of root, water, and nutrient in each treatment with a different slope and mulching model were analyzed using the micro-zone simulation and the long-term positioning experiment. The reasons for reducing soil erosion and improving the efficient use of water and nutrients from ridge film and furrow seeding were discussed, which provided the theoretical basis for influencing factor analysis of the efficient use of soil water and nutrients of ridge film and furrow seeding.
In order to demonstrate the efficient utilization mechanism of water and fertilizer more intuitively in ridge film furrow planting technology, this study explored the quantitative analysis of the center of gravity fit using radar images. The radar graph analysis method is suitable for the visualized and comprehensive evaluation of multiple variable indicators on a two-dimensional plane [23], which is intuitive and vivid. It is often used in analytical mechanics [24,25], medicine [26,27,28], product quality evaluation [29], and so on. First, its advantage is that it can simultaneously analyze the performance of three or more variables in different dimensions. The second is that the performance of each variable on the radar map can be represented by length, angle, area, and other measures. Thirdly, by observing the shape and changes of the radar map, it is possible to intuitively understand the relative importance, degree of difference, and trend of each variable.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experiment Field

The experiment was conducted in the Fuxin Scientific Observation Station of Agricultural Environment and Cultivated Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, in the Northwest Liaoning Province (42°06′ N, 121°75′ E, Shazalan Village, Fuxin Town, Fuxin Mongolian Autonomous County, Fuxin City, Liaoning Province), which was affiliated to the Institute of Crop Cultivation and Farming System, Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The soil type in Fuxin City is mainly cinnamon soil, belonging to the transitional soil from the brown forest soil to the chestnut soil, which is neutral (surface layer) to slightly alkaline (bottom layer), low in soil porosity and soil infiltration, poor in soil water retention ability, low in organic matter content, and poor in vegetation coverage in whole areas [12]. The sloping farmlands in this area account for 41.69% of the total cultivated land area, most of which are gentle sloping farmlands with a slope between 5° and 15°, accounting for 78.26% of the total sloping farmlands area.
This region belongs to the temperate continental monsoon climate, with an annual average temperature above 10 °C, accumulated temperature of 2900–3400 °C, a frost-free period of 135–165 d, and an annual average precipitation of 391 mm in the past 30 years. The precipitation variability is large, and droughts are frequent. The “nine droughts in ten years” is the basic characteristic of the climate. This area is a typical semi-arid and rain-fed agriculture area. The precipitation is uneven in distribution with different seasons, less in winter and more in summer, and even in spring and autumn. In summer, the precipitation accounted for more than 70% of the total annual precipitation, which was high in the rainfall intensity. This heavy rain made it easy to produce infiltration-excess runoff, leading to the aggravation of the soil and water loss in sloping farmlands.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment in this study was conducted in a runoff simulation experiment field with a runoff plot (15 m × 4 m). The split-plot design was adopted in this experiment. The different planting patterns were used as the main treatment design, namely no mulch (CK treatment), ridge film with straw mulch (RSM treatment), and ridge film mulch (RM treatment). Different slopes were used as the side treatment design with the slope values of 5° and 10° (Figure 1). The six treatments were named T1–T6, as shown in Table 1. Three replicate plots, upper, middle, and lower, were divided into each split area. The locally conventional maize (Tieyan 58) was selected as the experimental crop. The seeds were sown on May 5 and harvested on September 30. The seed fertilizer was diammonium phosphate (N 18%, P2O5 46%, 150 kg/ha). Urea was applied at the early elongation stage (N 46%, 375 kg/ha). The rainfall in the whole maize growing period was 491 mm. The full biodegradable mulching film (PBAT, produced by BASF) was used to cover the film. The degradation rate of PBAT was more than 45% in the current year [30].
In 2020, the corn yield was measured, and soil samples were collected. The spatial distribution of soil water, nutrients, and roots was measured and analyzed in next year.

2.3. Measurement and Analytical Methods

2.3.1. Measurement of Maize Yield

During the harvest period, the yield of maize in the plot was measured in the whole area.

2.3.2. Water Use Efficiency

The following formula was used to calculate water use efficiency WUE [31]:
W U E = Y / ( E T − Q )
where WUE is water use efficiency (kg/ha · mm), Y is crop yield (kg/ha), ET is field water consumption (mm), and Q is runoff (mm).
The water balance formula was used for calculation. Since there was no irrigation effect in this experimental area, the following formula was used for calculation [32]:
E T = P + S i n i − S f u n
where P is rainfall (mm), Sini is soil water content before sowing (mm), and Sfun is soil water content after harvest (mm).

2.3.3. Measurement of Partial Factor Productivity

Partial factor productivity was calculated as follows [33]:
P F P = Y / F
where PFP is partial factor productivity (kg/kg), Y is measured crop yield (kg/ha), and F is actual fertilizer application amount (kg/ha).

2.3.4. The Spatial Distribution of Soil Water, Nutrients, and Roots

The root drilling was used for sampling from the representative sampling sites during the critical period of crop growth. The sampling positions were located between crop rows and between plants. The sampling depth was divided into 10 levels of 10 cm each. The soil water content was determined using the classical drying method. The nitrogen available in the soil was measured using the alkaline hydrolysis diffusion method. The phosphorus available in the soil was detected using the sodium bicarbonate extraction–molybdenum antimony anti-colorimetric method. The potassium available in the soil was determined with the ammonium acetate-flame photometer method. The soil roots were scanned and measured using an EPSON PERFECTIONTM 4990 PHOTO (EPSON, Beijing, China) model scanner.

2.3.5. Measurement of Soil Moisture and Nutrient Availability

The effectiveness of soil moisture and nutrients reflects the difficulty of crops to utilize soil moisture or nutrients within the soil, and it is related to the quantity and state of the water or nutrients present in the soil. Since the spatial distribution of maize roots, water, and nutrients in soil under the condition of ridge film and furrow seeding was significantly uneven, and when comparing it to traditional farmlands the utilization of soil water and nutrients were bound to be affected. Therefore, further weight analysis was necessary for the availability of water and nutrients in different spaces. The effective water content was calculated by the formula below [34].
θ ¯ = ∑ i = 1 n θ i R i ∑ i = 1 n R i
where θ is available water content (cm3/cm3), Ri is root density of the soil layer i (cm/cm3), and θi is soil water content of the soil layer i (cm3/cm3).
The relatively biological effectiveness coefficient of water was calculated using the following equation [34]:
K = ∑ i = 1 n θ i R i ∑ i = 1 n θ i c k R i c k
where K is the relatively biological availability coefficient of soil water from one treatment, Rick is root density (cm/cm3) in the soil layer i of the control, and θick is soil water content from the soil layer i of the control (cm3/cm3).
The available nutrient content and the relative biological availability coefficient of nutrients were calculated with reference to the above two equations—Equations (1) and (5).

2.3.6. Measurement of the Centroid of Soil Water, Nutrients, and Roots

According to the distribution of the sampling sites, the sampling sites were arranged and assigned so that the X-axis direction is x1, x2, …, xn. The centroid of crop roots, soil water, and nutrients on the X-axis were calculated as follows [34]:
C x = ∑ C i x A i ∑ A i
where Cx represents the barycenter coordinates on the X-axis, Cix is its position on the X-axis (i.e., the distance from the origin of coordinates), and Ai is the measured values of roots, water, or nutrients.

2.3.7. Visual Representation of Analytic Data Using Radar Chart

The total area S and the total perimeter L in the radar chart could not change with the sequence of the evaluation index. Thus, these two parameters (S and L) were selected as the feature vectors to quantify the comprehensive evaluation. The radar chart was decomposed into m triangles, according to the number of indicators. The evaluation function was constructed as follows [23]:
S = ∑ i = 1 m − 1 ∑ i < j m 1 2 R i R j sin ⁡ θ i j
L = ∑ i = 1 m − 1 ∑ i < j m R i 2 + R j 2 − 2 R i R j cos ⁡ θ i j
Y = S X L X
where S is the total area of the radar chart; L is the perimeter of the radar chart; m is the number of evaluation indicators; Ri and Rj are the ith and jth indicators, respectively; θij is the angle between the two sides of the ith and jth indicators; and Y is the comprehensive evaluation index.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Ridge Film and Furrow Seeding on Crop Yields

Maize yield changes were measured first. As shown in Figure 2, the yields of different treatments in descending order were T2 (5918 kg/ha) > T3 (5787 kg/ha) > T5 (5310 kg/ha) > T6 (5234 kg/ha) > T4 (4478 kg/ha) > T1 (4080 kg/ha). Maize yields were significantly enhanced by RSM and RM.

3.2. Effects of Ridge Film and Furrow Seeding on Water Use Efficiency

The research of water use efficiency (WUE) was a hot topic in semi-arid agricultural areas. Improving WUE under the limited water resources by artificial ways was the main work of this research. As shown in Figure 3, there were some differences in WUE among different treatments. The order of WUE was T2 (15.36 kg/ha · mm) > T3 (14.70 kg/ha · mm) > T5 (13.60 kg/ha · mm) > T6 (13.12 kg/ha · mm) > T4 (10.92 kg/ha · mm) > T1 (10.03 kg/ha · mm). The difference between the maximum and minimum values of WUE was 51.33%.
WUE from RSM was the highest (14.48 kg/ha · mm). WUE from RSM in 5° slope was 51.33% higher than from CK treatment, and 24.54% in 10° slope. WUE from RM was 13.91 kg/ha · mm. WUE from RM in 5° slope was 44.83% higher than from CK treatment, and 32.04% in 10° slope.

3.3. Effects of Ridge Film and Furrow Seeding on Partial Factor Productivity

The partial factor productivity (PFP) was a commonly used indicator in the assessment of fertilizer use efficiency, which could fully reflect the production level and the nutrient application efficiency. The results showed that there were some differences in nutrient partial productivity among different treatments (Figure 4), sequencing as T2 (7.89 kg/kg) > T3 (7.72 kg/kg) > T5 (7.08 kg/kg) > T6 (6.98 kg/kg) > T4 (5.97 kg/kg) > T1 (5.44 kg/kg). The difference between the maximum and minimum values of PFP was 45.04%.
PFP from RSM was the highest (10.69 kg/kg). PFP from RSM in 5° slope was 45.05% higher than from CK treatment, and 18.52% in 10° slope. PFP from RM was 10.50 kg/kg. PFP from RM in 5° slope was 41.83% higher than from CK treatment, and 16.88% in 10° slope.

3.4. Effects of Ridge Film and Furrow Seeding on Soil Moisture and Nutrient Efficiency

In order to clarify the actual contribution of the coordination relationship among the soil moisture, the nutrients, and the roots to the increase of yield, quantitative analysis was conducted to describe the utilization efficiency of water and nutrients.
Firstly, the data of water content, total nutrient content, and root weight from different treatments in different soil layers were arranged in horizontal ascending order. Then, the heat map was drawn with the maximum values from each soil layer (Figure 5). The soil water content was enriched from 0 cm to 80 cm (Figure 5A). The total nutrient content was enriched from 0 cm to 70 cm (Figure 4B). The root dry mass was enriched from 0 cm to 70 cm (Figure 5C). Overall, (Figure 5D), the spatial distribution of water, nutrients, and roots in sloping farmlands was generally enriched in the soil layer above 70 cm. Further, there was a certain change trend with the deepening of soil depth. When the depth of the soil layer exceeded 70 cm, the distribution of soil nutrients, water, and roots was relatively small in general, and changes in the data occurred as well. The changes of the data under different treatments were unstable and poor in regularity, resulting in the inaccuracy of data analysis, especially in the 10° slope treatment. This may be due to the low rainfall in 2021. The rainfall failed to effectively enter the soil layer below 70 cm in the 10° slope treatment. Therefore, data from 0 to 70 cm were used for efficiency analysis.
The effective contents of soil roots, water, and nutrients in 0–70 cm from different treatments were analyzed (Table 2). There were some differences in soil water availability and nutrient availability from different treatments. The available water content, the available nitrogen, the available phosphorus, and the available potassium varied at 9.77–13.17%, 21.15–51.69 mg/kg, 24.90–50.51 mg/kg, and 93.20–184.85 mg/kg, respectively. In general, the ridge film and furrow seeding technology significantly improved the soil water and nutrient availability.
The effective coefficients of water and fertilizer from different treatments were further analyzed. In the main treatments, the effective coefficients of RSM were between 1.99 and 3.65 with an average of 2.53, and those of RM varied from 1.20 to 1.55 with an average of 1.39. In the side treatments, the average effectiveness from the RSM and RS were greater than 1.
Through the correlation analysis of the relatively effective coefficients of soil water and nutrients (Table 3), it was found that the effective coefficients of soil water, alkaline nitrogen, and available potassium were significantly positively correlated with tillage mode, and that the effective coefficients of available phosphorus were positively correlated with tillage mode as well. RSM and RM could effectively improve the effective content of water, alkaline nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium. This improvement in nutrient content is beneficial for the growth of roots and crops. Furthermore, the RSM treatments were better than RM treatments, and the 5° slope treatments were slightly better than the 10° slope treatments.

3.5. Effects of Ridge Film and Furrow Seeding on the Centroid of Soil Water, Nutrients, and Roots

As shown in Table 4, the average centroid of roots, water, and nutrients varied at 29.51–34.93 cm, 39.30–39.95 cm, and 29.31–36.83 cm, respectively. The distribution of the average centroid from different nutrients were different: available potassium (35.18 cm) > alkali nitrogen (34.63 cm) > available phosphorus (30.80 cm). The average centroid of water (39.59 cm) was larger than that of other nutrients.
The centroid data of these indicators from every treatment were projected onto the number line of the radar chart and were connected (Figure 6). The root and the available phosphorus were the two off-center indexes. The root indicator from different treatments was not in the ideal state. Thus, promoting the growth of roots could match the centroid of water and nutrients to the greatest extent.
As shown in Table 5, there were some differences in the evaluation indexes of different treatments. The overall trend observed was as follows: RSM treatment > RM treatment > CK treatment. Therefore, the ridge film and furrow seeding technology resulted in increased water and nutrient content in the soil, leading to improved root growth. Additionally, the technology helped in aligning the centroid fit of roots, water, and nutrients, enhancing the efficient utilization of water and nutrients by the crops. Overall, the treatment of RSM was slightly better than the treatment of RM.

4. Discussion

Sloping farmlands were the origination place of soil and water loss. This long-term soil erosion damaged the land resources, leading to the continuous land degradation and soil quality decline, which resulted in a large loss of soil and water resources [35], organic matter, and mineral elements [36], and the negative influence in crop yield and economic development [37].
The ridge film and furrow seeding technology was a rainwater collection technology that collected rainwater in situ and replenished moisture [38]. The results showed that, in arid areas, both RSM and RM could effectively improve the content and the spatial distribution of soil water and nutrients, and had excellent water collection and conservation effects. The tillage mode had the most significant effect on soil water content, which changed the micro-topography of the land surface and increased the surface roughness by land cover [39], leading to the effective increase in the aggregation of rainwater, the reduction in the loss of surface water, the increase in the rainfall infiltration, and the reduction in the sediment and nutrient concentration from runoff [40,41]. It played an important role in water storage and maintenance [42,43].
It is not difficult to see that the ridge film furrow planting technology has indeed increased crop yield by nourishing soil nutrients and water content, which means that it increased the effective utilization rate of soil moisture and nutrients. However, the specific mechanism of how this technology achieves such efficiency remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on this mechanism by utilizing radar charts to visually represent and quantitatively analyze the synergy between the root system, water, and nutrients in the soil. This is an exploratory attempt. This study considers the following three centers of gravity: root system, water, and nutrients. These centers of gravity are crucial factors in determining the overall efficiency of water and fertilizer utilization. By examining the consistency among these centers of gravity, this study seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the interactions and synergy between the different components of the system. Using radar charts, we intuitively discovered that root development is a limiting condition for improving soil moisture and nutrient availability, i.e., the “short board”. Thus, promoting root development and root spatial distribution through changing the cultivated model was an effective way to improve the efficient use of maize water and nutrients.
In addition, the roots were mainly enriched at 0–70 cm, and decreased rapidly when the soil layer was below 40 cm. Under different tillage patterns, the changes of soil water content and root development were focused on the “quantity”, whereas there was no significant effect on the overall trend of spatial distribution.
According to these analyses, it is evident that the ridge film and furrow seeding technology was effective in collecting rainfall and improving the spatial distribution of water and nutrients around crop roots, which was an effective way to further exploit the precipitation potential in dry farmlands [44,45,46]. The ridge film and furrow seeding technology could significantly improve the soil moisture and nutrients in dry farmlands, reduce the direct hitting of precipitation on soil, maintain good soil structure and microbial environment, and promote the growth of crop roots with multiple factors to improve water and nutrient utilization [47]. However, conflicting research results showed that the mulched straw could absorb and retain part of the rainfall during precipitation, leading to the change of rain type from slightly effective rainfall to invalid rainfall [48]. The influence of straw mulching on soil moisture might vary with the actual situation that presents itself.

5. Conclusions

The root absorption is an important way for plants to absorb water and nutrients for growth. Through ridge film mulching, it can promote the growth of roots, maximize the concentration of water and nutrients, significantly improve the effective content and effective coefficient of soil water and nutrients, as well as improve the water use efficiency and partial factor productivity of plants. Hence, it achieves the goal of increasing and stabilizing the yield of maize in semi-arid and rain-fed areas, thereby achieving the efficient utilization of water and nutrients in maize in sloping farmlands. On the basis of ridge film mulching, furrow mulching straw could further improve the efficient utilization of water and fertilizers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.S.; methodology, J.X. and W.B.; investigation, X.X. and H.Y.; data curation, X.X. and Z.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; funding acquisition, J.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key R&D Plan of China (Zhanxiang Sun, 2022YFD1500602-1, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Jibing Xiao, grant number 32272232.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly; hence, supporting data are not available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Guo, M.; Xie, N. Research and application of variable frequency drip irrigation technology mode for pumped wells in sloping fields in western Liaoning Province. Hydro Sci. Cold Zone Eng. 2019, 2, 33–36. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhang, X.B.; Lei, L.; Lai, J.S.; Zhao, H.M.; Song, W.B. Effects of drought stress and water, recovery on physiological responses and gene expression in maize seedlings. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Xiao, J.B.; Liu, Z.; Xin, Z.X.; Li, J.Z.; Chen, G.Q.; Zhu, X.D.; Sun, Z.X. Identification of drought tolerance in foxtail millet during its entire growth period based on principal component analysis and membership function. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 2022, 40, 34–44. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  4. Feng, C.; Feng, L.S.; Sun, Z.X.; Zheng, J.M.; Du, G.J.; Zhang, D.S.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, Y.L. Effect of N amount on nodulation of peanut in maize‖peanut intercropping system of semi-arid area in west Liaoning. Soil Fert. Sci. China 2019, 4, 127–131. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  5. Guo, S.; Zhu, Z.; Lyu, L. Effects of climate change and human activities on soil erosion in the Xihe River Basin, China. Water 2018, 10, 1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, X.; Zhang, X.; Lv, D.; Yin, S.; Zhang, M.; Zhu, Q.; Yu, Q.; Liu, B. Remote sensing estimation of the soil erosion cover-management factor over China’s Loess Plateau. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 1942–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bao, Y.H.; He, X.B.; Wen, A.B.; Gao, P.; Tang, Q.; Yan, D.C.; Long, Y. Dynamic changes of soil erosion in a typical disturbance zone of China’s Three Gorges Reservoir. Catena 2018, 169, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, M.L.; Yang, H.; Zhou, J.; Xu, L.; Sui, Z.L. Effects of Soil Erosion on Soil Quality in the Rocky Mountain Areas of Northern China. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2011, 25, 218–221. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  9. Guo, Q.; Hao, Y.; Liu, B. Rates of soil erosion in China: A study based on runoff plot data. Catena 2015, 124, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ketema, H.; Yimer, F. Soil property variation under agroforestry based conservation tillage and maize based conventional tillage in Southern Ethiopia. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 141, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mangalassery, S.; Mooney, S.J.; Sparkes, D.L.; Fraser, W.T.; Sjogersten, S. Impacts of zero tillage on soil enzyme activities, microbial characteristics and organic matter functional chemistry in temperate soils. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2015, 68, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xin, X.T.; Sun, Z.X.; Xiao, J.B.; Feng, L.S.; Yang, N.; Liu, Y. Ridge-furrow rainfall harvesting planting and its effect on soil erosion and soil quality in sloping farmland. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 863–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, G.F.; Zheng, F.L.; Lu, J.; Xu, X.M.; Hu, W.; Yong, H. Inflow rate impact on hillslope erosion processes and flow hydrodynamics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016, 80, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhao, C.; Gao, J.E.; Huang, Y.F.; Wang, G.Q.; Zhang, M.J. Effects of vegetation stems on hydraulics of overland flow under varying water discharges. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 748–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pannell, D.J.; Llewellyn, R.S.; Corbeels, M. The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 187, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Prosdocimi, M.; Tarolli, P.; Cerda, A. Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 161, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xiao, J.B.; Sun, Z.X.; Jiang, C.G.; Liu, Z.; Zheng, J.M.; Feng, L.S. Effect of Ridge Film Mulching Technique and Furrow Seeding of Spring Corn on Water Use and Yield in Semi-Arid Region in Liaoxi Area. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2014, 47, 1917–1928. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, G.; Zuo, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, L.; Zhao, E.; Liang, L.; Tong, Y.A. Ridge-furrow with plastic film and straw mulch increases water availability and wheat production on the Loess Plateau. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Du, Y.D.; Sun, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Cui, B.J.; Niu, W.Q. Effect of ridge film mulching and nitrogen application rate on seed quality, oil yield and nitrogen-use efficiency of winter oilseed rape in northwest China. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2022, 68, 1385–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dong, F.; Yan, Q.Y.; Yang, F.; Zhang, J.C.; Wang, J.L. Yield structure and water use efficiency of summer maize (Zea mays L.) under wide ridge-furrow planting in the furrow irrigation process. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2023, 69, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paul PL, C.; Bell, R.W.; Barrett-Lennard, E.G.; Kabir, E. Straw mulch and irrigation affect solute potential and sunflower yield in a heavy textured soil in the Ganges Delta. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 239, 106211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, X.; Zhao, J.; Yang, L.; Kamran, M.; Xue, X.; Dong, Z.; Jia, Z.; Han, Q. Ridge-furrow mulching system regulates diurnal temperature amplitude and wetting-drying alternation behavior in soil to promote maize growth and water use in a semiarid region. Field Crops Res. 2019, 233, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kalyuzhny, E.R.; Poteryaeva, A.V.; Shpakovsky, G.A.; Bykreev, L.V.; Zarikovskaya, N. Implementing a visual representation of analytic data using a radar chart. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2291, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jiang, L.L.; Wu, Y.X.; Wang, J.J.; Wang, Z.L.; Jiang, Q.X. Scenario simulation and comprehensive assessment of water footprint sustainability system in Heilongjiang Province, China: A model combining system dynamics with improved radar chart approach. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, Q.F.; Wang, M.Y.; Guo, H.; Zhao, G.M. Comprehensive Evaluation of Green Bridge Construction Based on a Game Theory–Radar Chart Combination. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maes, M.; Almulla, A.F. Research and Diagnostic Algorithmic Rules (RADAR) and RADAR Plots for the First Episode of Major Depressive Disorder: Effects of Childhood and Recent Adverse Experiences on Suicidal Behaviors, Neurocognition and Phenome Features. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Liu, Y.; Li, Z.X.; Gao, R.X.; Wang, W.; Cao, T.T.; Ma, S.H. Acupuncture treatment of glaucoma based on radar plots: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews. Medicine 2021, 100, e27261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Castagna, C.; Consorti, G.; Turinetto, M.; Lunghi, C. Osteopathic Models Integration Radar Plot: A Proposed Framework for Osteopathic Diagnostic Clinical Reasoning. J. Chiropr. Humanit. 2021, 28, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yuan, X.Q.; You, J.; Li, J.H.; Jin, G.Y.; Chen, M.; Shen, B. Research on Quality Effect Evaluation of Medical Device Management in Shanghai Based on Radar Chart Method. Chin. J. Med. Instrum. 2023, 47, 233–236. [Google Scholar]
  30. Feng, C.; Feng, L.S.; Liu, Q.; Li, H.R.; Zheng, J.M.; Yang, N.; Bai, W.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, Z.X. The Degradation Characteristics of Different Plastic Films and Their Effects on Maize Yield in Semi-Arid Area in Western Liaoning. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2021, 54, 1869–1880. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chattaraj, S.; Chakraborty, D.; Garg, R.N.; Singh, G.P.; Gupta, V.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, R. Hyperspectral remote sensing for growth-stage-specific water use in wheat. Field Crops Res. 2013, 144, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, G.Q.; Liu, C.W.; Xiao, C.H.; Xie, R.Z.; Ming, B.; Hou, P.; Liu, G.Z.; Xu, W.J.; Shen, D.P.; Wang, K.R.; et al. Optimizing water use efficiency and economic return of super high yield spring maize under drip irrigation and plastic mulching in arid areas of China. Field Crops Res. 2017, 211, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mu, X.Y.; Pang, G.B.; Zhang, L.Z.; Cong, X.; Zhao, D.L.; Feng, Y.M.; Xing, H.B. Effect of Water and Fertilizer on the distribution of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in soil and Partial factor Productivity. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 330, 042064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Feng, L.S. Mechanism Research for Improving Water and Nutrient Use Efficience in Peanut and Foxtail Millet Intercroping. Ph.D. Thesis, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, China, 2013. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  35. Fu, T.; Ni, J.; Wei, C.; Xie, D. Research on the nutrient loss from purple soil under different rainfall intensities and slopes. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci. 2003, 1, 71–74+101. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  36. Schreiber, J.D.; Rebich, R.A.; Cooper, C.M. Dynamics of diffuse pollution from US southern watersheds. Water Res. 2001, 35, 2534–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Liu, Q.J.; Zhang, H.Y.; An, J.; Wu, Y.Z. Soil erosion processes on row side slopes within contour ridging systems. Catena 2014, 115, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stevens, C.J.; Quinton, J.N.; Bailey, A.P.; Deasy, C.; Silgram, M.; Jackson, D.R. The effects of minimal tillage, contour cultivation and in-field vegetative barriers on soil erosion and phosphorus loss. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 106, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Amoah, J.K.; Amatya, D.M.; Nnaji, S. Quantifying watershed surface depression storage: Determination and application in a hydrologic model. Hydrol. Processes 2003, 27, 2401–2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Che, M.X.; Gong, Y.B.; Khan, M.N.; Chen, Z.L.; Zeng, Q.; Lan, Y.Y. Effects of Different Rainfall Intensities and Slope Gradients on Water and Soil Conservation of Straw Mulch. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2016, 30, 131–135+142. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  41. Gomez, J.A.; Guzman, M.G.; Giraldez, J.V.; Fereres, E. The influence of cover crops and tillage on water and sediment yield, and on nutrient, and organic matter losses in an olive orchard on a sandy loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 106, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wen, L.L.; Zheng, F.L.; Shen, H.O.; Gao, Y. Effects of corn straw mulch buffer in the gully head on gully erosion of sloping cropland in the black soil region of Northeast China. J. Sediment. Res. 2014, 6, 73–80. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Fu, Y.L.; Wang, S.S.; Li, Y.B. Effects of Straw Mulching and Water Control on Growth and Yield of Summer Maize Under Ridge and Furrow Irrigation. Water Sav. Irrig. 2021, 11, 74–82. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang, Y.; Sun, H.M. The Effect of Straw Mulching Coupled with Furrow Irrigation on Root Distribution and Yield of Summer Maize. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 2021, 40, 16–21. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  45. Chen, Y.; Liu, T.; Tian, X.; Wang, X.; Li, M.; Wang, S.; Wang, Z. Effects of plastic film combined with straw mulch on grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat in Loess Plateau. Field Crops Res. 2015, 172, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ren, X.; Chen, X.; Cai, T.; Wei, T.; Wu, Y.; Ali, S.; Jia, Z. Effects of ridge-furrow system combined with different degradable mulching materials on soil water conservation and crop production in semi-humid areas of China. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Doring, T.F.; Brandt, M.; He, B.J.; Finckh, M.R.; Saucke, H. Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics, weeds, yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes. Field Crops Res. 2005, 94, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Z.W.; Hao, W.P.; Gong, D.Z.; Mei, X.R.; Wang, C.T. Effect of Straw Mulch Amount on Dynamic Changes of Soil Moisture and Temperature in Farmland. Chin. J. Agrometeorol. 2010, 31, 244–250. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Agriculture 13 01940 g001
Figure 1. The sketch map of ridge film and furrow seeding in the experimental field.
Figure 1. The sketch map of ridge film and furrow seeding in the experimental field.
Agriculture 13 01940 g001
Agriculture 13 01940 g002
Figure 2. Crop yield of different farming modes. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope.
Figure 2. Crop yield of different farming modes. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope.
Agriculture 13 01940 g002
Agriculture 13 01940 g003
Figure 3. The effect of water use efficiency from different treatments. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope. WUE refers to water use efficiency.
Figure 3. The effect of water use efficiency from different treatments. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope. WUE refers to water use efficiency.
Agriculture 13 01940 g003
Agriculture 13 01940 g004
Figure 4. The effect of partial factor productivity from different treatments. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope. PFP refers to partial factor productivity.
Figure 4. The effect of partial factor productivity from different treatments. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope. PFP refers to partial factor productivity.
Agriculture 13 01940 g004
Agriculture 13 01940 g005
Figure 5. The heat map of spatial distribution of moisture, nutrients, and roots. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope.
Figure 5. The heat map of spatial distribution of moisture, nutrients, and roots. Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope.
Agriculture 13 01940 g005
Agriculture 13 01940 g006
Figure 6. The centroid of roots, water, and nutrient in the radar chart. Note: CK is no mulch treatment, RSM is ridge film with straw mulch treatment, and RM is ridge film mulch treatment. N is alkali nitrogen, P is available phosphorus, K is available potassium, W is soil water, R is roots.
Figure 6. The centroid of roots, water, and nutrient in the radar chart. Note: CK is no mulch treatment, RSM is ridge film with straw mulch treatment, and RM is ridge film mulch treatment. N is alkali nitrogen, P is available phosphorus, K is available potassium, W is soil water, R is roots.
Agriculture 13 01940 g006
Table 1. The experiment design of different treatments.
Table 1. The experiment design of different treatments.
Planting Pattern
CKRSMRM
Slope value5°T1T2T3
10°T4T5T6
Note: CK is no mulch treatment, RSM is ridge film with straw mulch treatment, and RM is ridge film mulch treatment.
Table 2. Comparison of bioavailability coefficients of water and nutrients in the soil layer of 0~70 cm.
Table 2. Comparison of bioavailability coefficients of water and nutrients in the soil layer of 0~70 cm.
TreatmentMoistureAlkaline NitrogenAvailable PhosphorusAvailable Potassium
Relative EfficiencyEffective Content
(%)		Relative EfficiencyEffective Content
(mg/kg)		Relative EfficiencyEffective Content (mg/kg)Relative EfficiencyEffective Content
(mg/kg)
T1—11.34—41.08—27.60—142.54
T22.2713.172.4951.693.6550.512.54184.85
T31.2812.391.3345.771.5535.601.36165.84
T4—9.77—21.15—24.90—93.20
T51.9912.662.7638.482.0934.632.44151.47
T61.3012.051.5532.041.2028.031.53139.77
Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope.
Table 3. Correlation analysis of relative effective coefficients of soil moisture and nutrients.
Table 3. Correlation analysis of relative effective coefficients of soil moisture and nutrients.
TreatmentArable SlopeFarming ModeMoistureAlkaline NitrogenAvailable PhosphorusAvailable Potassium
Arable Slope1
Farming mode0.0001
Moisture−0.0890.950 **1
Alkaline nitrogen0.1520.954 **0.946 **1
Available phosphorus−0.3240.830 *0.944 **0.7871
Available potassium0.0490.973 **0.983 **0.987 **0.868 *1
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4. The centroid of roots, water, and nutrients from different treatments at the soil layer of 0~70 cm.
Table 4. The centroid of roots, water, and nutrients from different treatments at the soil layer of 0~70 cm.
TreatmentRoot (cm)Soil Water (cm)Alkaline Nitrogen (cm)Available Phosphorus (cm)Available Potassium (cm)
T129.51 39.65 34.76 31.71 35.69
T234.93 39.95 35.43 31.93 36.83
T334.21 39.58 35.26 32.69 35.89
T426.48 39.71 33.70 30.35 33.76
T532.95 39.30 34.39 29.34 34.49
T630.68 39.35 34.23 28.75 34.41
Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope.
Table 5. The comprehensive evaluation of the centroid fit from different treatments.
Table 5. The comprehensive evaluation of the centroid fit from different treatments.
TreatmentS (cm2)L (cm)YRank
T1740.59 339.85 501.68 3
T2812.82 355.21 537.33 1
T3799.96 352.35 530.91 2
T4676.58 325.34 469.17 6
T5736.58 338.15 499.07 4
T6708.59 332.11 485.11 5
Note: T1 is no mulch treatment at 5° slope, T2 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 5° slope, T3 is ridge film mulch treatment at 5° slope, T4 is no mulch treatment at 10° slope, T5 is ridge film with straw mulch treatment at 10° slope, and T6 is ridge film mulch treatment at 10° slope. S is the total area of the radar chart, L is the perimeter of the radar chart, and Y is the comprehensive evaluation index.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xin, X.; Sun, Z.; Xiao, J.; Bai, W.; Zhang, Z.; Yan, H. Efficient Utilization Mechanism of Soil Moisture and Nutrients with Ridge Film Furrow Seeding Technology of Sloping Farmlands in Semi-Arid and Rain-Fed Areas. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1940. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101940

AMA Style

Xin X, Sun Z, Xiao J, Bai W, Zhang Z, Yan H. Efficient Utilization Mechanism of Soil Moisture and Nutrients with Ridge Film Furrow Seeding Technology of Sloping Farmlands in Semi-Arid and Rain-Fed Areas. Agriculture. 2023; 13(10):1940. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101940

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xin, Xiaotong, Zhanxiang Sun, Jibing Xiao, Wei Bai, Zhe Zhang, and Han Yan. 2023. "Efficient Utilization Mechanism of Soil Moisture and Nutrients with Ridge Film Furrow Seeding Technology of Sloping Farmlands in Semi-Arid and Rain-Fed Areas" Agriculture 13, no. 10: 1940. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101940

APA Style

Xin, X., Sun, Z., Xiao, J., Bai, W., Zhang, Z., & Yan, H. (2023). Efficient Utilization Mechanism of Soil Moisture and Nutrients with Ridge Film Furrow Seeding Technology of Sloping Farmlands in Semi-Arid and Rain-Fed Areas. Agriculture, 13(10), 1940. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101940

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop