Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Factors Affecting Terrestrial Soil Respiration in Global Warming Manipulation Experiments Based on Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
OPTIMILK: A Web-Based Tool for Least-Cost Dairy Ration Optimization Using Linear Programming
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/agriculture14091579
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

Optimizing Ridge–Furrow Ratio to Improve Water Resource Utilization for Wheat in the North China Plain

by
Kun Liu
1,
Zhen Zhang
1,
Yu Shi
1,*,
Xizhi Wang
2 and
Zhenwen Yu
1
1
National Key Laboratory of Wheat Breeding, Agricultural College, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
2
Agricultural Technology Extension Center, Yanzhou District, Jining 272116, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(9), 1579; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091579
Submission received: 3 August 2024 / Revised: 5 September 2024 / Accepted: 6 September 2024 / Published: 11 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Water Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The shortage of water resources seriously limits sustainable production in agriculture, and the ridge–furrow planting pattern is an effective water-saving cultivation pattern. However, the mechanism of the ridge–furrow planting pattern that drives the efficient utilization of field water resources in the North China Plain (NCP) is still unclear. A two-year field experiment was conducted in the NCP from 2021 to 2023. The ridge–furrow planting patterns followed a randomized block design as follows: ridge–furrow ratios of 50 cm:50 cm (M2), 75 cm:50 cm (M3), and 100 cm:50 cm (M4). A traditional planting pattern was used as the control (M1). These were used to investigate the effects of different treatments on water use and roots. The results showed that M3 reduced the amount of irrigation, improved water distribution after irrigation, increased water use efficiency (WUE), and promoted root growth. Compared with other treatments, M3 increased soil water consumption at a 0–100 cm soil depth by 6.76–21.34% (average values over two years), root length density by 8.46–20.77%, and root surface area density by 7.87–22.13%. On average, M3 increased grain yields by 3.96–9.80%, biomass yields by 5.32–10.94%, and WUE by 4.5–9.87%. In conclusion, M3 is an effective planting pattern for improving the yield and WUE of wheat in the NCP.

1. Introduction

The North China Plain is an important wheat-producing area in China, and its wheat yield accounts for about 70% of China’s total yield [1]. However, the seasonal precipitation of wheat in this area only accounts for 20–30% of the annual precipitation of 500–600 mm, and natural precipitation cannot meet the wheat growth in the NCP [2]. Because the water level in the NCP is mostly below 15 m, the groundwater recharge is negligible. Therefore, supplementary irrigation is needed for wheat production, depending heavily on pumping groundwater for irrigation [3]. However, the extensive use of irrigation water has led to a significant decline in the groundwater level and has even caused serious ecological and environmental problems, such as land subsidence and the deterioration of groundwater freshwater quality [4,5]. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the water-saving cultivation patterns of wheat to meet the needs of wheat while reducing irrigation and improving WUE to ensure the sustainable production of wheat in the region.
At present, flood irrigation is still widely used in the wheat production process in this region. In field irrigation, the amount of irrigation is usually large, and the waste is serious, which aggravates the shortage of water resources [6]. In order to manage water use and reduce the waste of water resources, a variety of water-saving cultivation measures have been tested in the North China Plain. For example, studies have shown that irrigation patterns, such as drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation, can save a lot of agricultural water and improve the WUE of wheat fields [7,8,9]. Some researchers have also reduced irrigation water use and improved the WUE of wheat production by changing tillage patterns to cooperate with limited irrigation [10]. Furthermore, many studies have pointed out that planting patterns significantly affect grain yield and water use [11]. Xu et al. [12] showed that ridge–furrow planting with 75 mm irrigation could reduce water consumption and increase yield compared with traditional flat planting and 150 mm irrigation under heavy rainfall conditions during the wheat growth period. Many studies have also shown that ridge–furrow planting patterns improve rainwater harvesting capacity, which can cause the collected rainwater to infiltrate into the deep soil and reduce water loss while maintaining soil moisture, thereby changing the soil hydrothermal environment and increasing crop yield [13,14,15]. Although ridge–furrow planting can effectively use precipitation and reduce irrigation water, different ridge–furrow sizes (widths) and their mutual ratios have different effects on water distribution after rainwater collection and irrigation. Ridge–furrow systems with appropriate forms can improve the soil hydrothermal environment and more effectively increase crop yield [16]. Liu et al. [17] found that in the semi-arid region of northwest China, the ridge width tends to be narrow, which has a significant effect on the soil hydrothermal environment and crop productivity. Luo et al. [18] found that in the semi-arid East African Plateau, a ridge–furrow ratio of 30 cm:20 cm and 20 cm:20 cm ridge–furrow planting patterns obtained the highest wheat yield and WUE compared to other ridge–furrow ratios and traditional flat planting. Therefore, choosing the appropriate ridge–furrow ratio is crucial for creating a more effective ridge–furrow planting pattern.
The growth of the root system determines the absorption of crop water, plant growth, and final yield, and plays an important role in agricultural ecosystems [19]. The availability of soil moisture depends on the distribution of roots, and the spatial distribution of the roots in the soil reflects the potential water absorption capacity [20]. Liu et al. [21] showed that improving the root structure can promote the normal growth of crops and maximize WUE. The main root parameters of crops reflect the growth of roots, which have an important impact on wheat biomass and grain yield [22]. Previous experiments have mainly focused on ridge–furrow planting patterns to improve the soil microenvironment (hydrothermal conditions) and promote crop growth and yield formation [13,23,24]. However, the mechanism by which ridge–furrow planting patterns improve the field microenvironment (hydrothermal conditions) to promote root growth and improve water use is unclear. Therefore, we conducted a two-year field experiment in the NCP with the following main objectives: (1) to determine whether the optimized ridge-to-furrow ratio improves crop water use efficiency, thereby increasing crop yield; (2) to investigate the intrinsic physiological mechanism of the ditch planting mode to improve water use efficiency.

2. Materials and Patterns

2.1. Site Description

The field experiments were conducted in two consecutive wheat seasons from 2021 to 2023 in Xiaomeng Town, Jining City, Shandong Province (35°40′ N, 116°24′ E). The study site is located in the North China Plain, which has a temperate continental climate. The crop before the field experiments was corn, which was returned to the field after harvest. The daily average temperatures and precipitation during the experiment periods of 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 are shown in Figure 1. The field soil type is loam, for which soil characteristics (based on dry soil) at 0–20 cm soil depth before wheat sowing in two years were available, as shown in Table 1.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment was designed using random grouping. The traditional planting pattern (M1) and the ridge–furrow planting patterns with three ridge–furrow ratios of 50:50 cm (M2), 75:50 cm (M3), and 100:50 cm (M4) were implemented, as shown in Figure 2. The traditional planting pattern consisted of building a border and planting within the border. The ridge–furrow planting pattern consisted of building ridges and planting wheat along the ridges and in the furrows. Each treatment was repeated three times, and each plot had an area of 180 m2 (30 m long and 6 m wide).
On 24 October 2021 and 18 October 2022, wheat was sown on the ridges and in the furrows with a manual seeder, and it was mechanically harvested on 11 June 2022 and 11 June 2023. The sowing density of the wheat (Jimai 22, a common variety in this area) was 330 plants·m−2 and 270 plants·m−2, respectively, and all plots were the same. Before preparing the ridges and furrows, we applied pure N 105 kg·hm−2, P2O5 150 kg·hm−2, and K2O 150 kg·hm−2 as a base fertilizer and used a rotary tiller to incorporate it into the soil. Pure N 135 kg·hm−2 was applied at jointing. During the two-year experiment, irrigation was performed at jointing and anthesis according to the 95% inflow (i.e., when the water reached 95% of the treatment length and the irrigation is stopped), and the actual irrigation amount was recorded using a water meter. According to the formula of irrigation amount = the average value of the recorded value of the treatment water meter/treatment area, the irrigation amount was calculated. The water yield of the irrigation well in the test site was 30 m3·h−1, and the irrigation amount is shown in Table 2. Pesticides and herbicides were applied via the same methods used by local farmers.

2.3. Measurements and Calculations

2.3.1. Soil Water Storage (SWS) and Temperature

Soil samples at a 0–100 cm soil depth (20 cm soil depth interval) were collected before sowing, at maturity, and 5 d and 10 d after irrigation via a soil drill. The ridge–furrow planting areas were sampled on the ridges and in the furrows, respectively. The traditional planting pattern was only sampled between rows. All treatments were sampled and the samples combined the front, middle, and back of the treatments; this was repeated three times. The soil water content (SWC, %) and SWS were calculated according to the model described by Fang et al. [25] as follows:
SWC = ( s − g ) / g × 100
SWS = h × p × θ i × 10
where s is the weight of the sample taken with a soil drill; g is the sample’s weight when dried to a constant weight; h is the soil depth, cm; p is the soil bulk density (g·cm−3); θ is the soil water content by weight (%); i is the number of soil depths.
The soil water consumption (∆S, mm) was calculated as follows [25]:
Δ S = SWSa i − SWSb i
where SWSa and SWSb are the soil water storage (mm) at each soil depth at the start and end of the growth stages, respectively.
The soil moisture balance equation was used to calculate the crop evapotranspiration (ET, mm) as follows [24]:
ET = Δ S + P + I + U − R − D w
where P (mm) is the precipitation during the growing stages, I (mm) is the irrigation amount during the growing stages, U(mm) is the capillary flow entering the 0–100 cm interval, R (mm) is the surface runoff, and Dw (mm) is the drainage volume in the 0–100 cm interval. Due to the deep groundwater level, U, R, and Dw were negligible in both growing seasons.
After sowing, a temperature and humidity recorder probe (Jiangsu Jingchuang Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., Xuzhou, China) was buried in the soil at a depth of 5 cm between the wheat rows in each plot, and data were recorded once an hour.

2.3.2. Characteristic Root Parameters

Root samples at a 0–40 cm soil depth (20 cm soil depth interval) were collected from the ridges, furrows, and traditional planting areas at anthesis with a root drill with an inner diameter of 10 cm. All treatments were sampled, and the samples combined the front, middle, and back of the treatments; this was repeated three times. The root samples were stored at −80 °C. The length and surface area of the root samples were measured using an Epson V700 scanner (Seiko Epson, Suwa, Japan) and Win RHIZO Pro 32-Bit 2016a software (Regent Instruments Canada Inc., Quebec, QC, Canada). After measurement, the root length density (RLD) and root surface area density (RSD) were calculated according to Zheng et al. [26].

2.3.3. Accumulated Dry Matter

According to the method of Si et al. [27], samples were collected from each row of the ridges, furrows, and traditional planting areas during the maturity stage. For all treatments, 20 single stems were taken from the front, middle, and back ends and mixed; this was repeated three times. The collected wheat samples were first placed in an oven at 105 °C for 30 min and then dried at 80 °C until they reached a constant weight, and the dry matter weight of the samples was measured with a balance.

2.3.4. Grain Yield and WUE

According to the protocol described by Si et al. [27], all rows of wheat with a length of 4 m per plot were harvested at maturity, and the grains were naturally air-dried to achieve moisture content of 13%. They were then weighed, and the weighted average was converted into the final yield.
The WUE values for the grain yield (WUEY, kg·hm−2·mm−1) and biomass yield (WUEB, kg·hm−2·mm−1) were calculated using the following formulas [18,28]:
WUEY = Y   /   ET WUEB = B   /   ET
where Y is grain yield, and B is biomass.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

ANOVA of the experimental data was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). All experimental data were averaged in triplicate. Differences between the treatments were assessed using the least significant differences (LSD) test at p < 0.05. The Pearson method was used for correlation analysis, and the data included Y, B, ET, irrigation (I), ∆S, WUEY, WUEB, the mean value of RLD at the 0–100 cm soil depth (RLD), and the mean value of RSD at the 0–100 cm soil depth (RSD). Origin 2021 (Origin Lab, Northampton, MA, USA) was used for graph plotting. The values for the M2, M3, and M4 treatments were calculated using the weighted average [29].

3. Results

3.1. Soil Temperature

Different ridge–furrow planting patterns had significant effects on the soil temperature (Figure 3). Compared with the M1 treatment, the soil temperature on the ridges increased first and then decreased at wheat emergence, while the temperature in the furrows showed the opposite trend. In the middle and late growth stages, the soil temperature at the 0–5 cm soil depth on the ridge increased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio, and the temperature was higher than that for M1 (p < 0.05). The soil temperature at the 0–5 cm soil depth in the furrow decreased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio, but there was no significant difference from M1 (p > 0.05).

3.2. Soil Water Storage

Different ridge–furrow planting patterns had significant effects on the soil water storage (p < 0.05) (Figure 4). Compared with M1, the SWS of the M2–R, M3–R, and M4–R treatments decreased significantly at maturity (p < 0.05), especially that of M3–R. There was no significant difference in SWS between the M4–F and M1 treatments at maturity in 2021–2022; it was significantly higher than that of the M2–R and M3–R treatments (p < 0.05). In the mature period of 2022–2023, the SWS of M4–F was significantly higher than that of the M1, M2–R, and M3–R treatments (p < 0.05). The SWS of M1 was significantly higher than that of the M2, M3, and M4 treatments at maturity, and the SWS of M3 was the lowest. In general, compared with the other treatments, the SWS of M3 was significantly reduced at the 0–100 cm soil depth at maturity, and it improved the absorption and utilization of soil water.

3.3. Soil Moisture Distribution after Irrigation at Jointing and Anthesis

The different ridge–furrow planting patterns had significant effects on the soil moisture distribution after irrigation (Figure 5). In the ridge–furrow planting pattern, it was centered at the furrow at the soil depth of 0–80 cm, and the SWC had an inverted ‘bell’ distribution. The three ridge–furrow ratios had a significant positive effect on the SWC in the furrow, which increased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio. The SWC of the three ridge–furrow ratios decreased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio at 5 days after irrigation, and the value for M3–R was significantly higher than those for the M1, M2–R, and M4–R treatments at 10 days after irrigation. The results showed that M3 caused the irrigation water to be more uniform and led to the retention of more irrigation water, which was beneficial for the growth of wheat.

3.4. Soil Water Consumption at the 0–100 cm Soil Depth

The ridge–furrow planting patterns had a significant effect on the soil water consumption (Figure 6) (p < 0.05). The ∆S of M3 was the highest at the 0–100 cm soil depth; it was significantly higher than that in the other treatments (p < 0.05) The ∆S of the M2–F and M3–F treatments was significantly higher than that of the M1 and M4–F treatments at the 0–100 cm soil depth (except the 0–20 cm soil depth in the 2022–2023 growing season) (p < 0.05). The ∆S of the M2, M3, and M4 treatments was significantly higher than that of M1 at the 0–100 cm soil depth (p < 0.05). Among them, compared with the M1, M2, and M4 treatments, the average values of ∆S over two years in M3 increased by 21.34%, 7.88%, and 6.76% at the 0–100 cm soil depth, respectively. In general, M3 significantly increased the ∆S at the 0–100 cm soil depth, which was conducive to the absorption and utilization of soil water.

3.5. Evapotranspiration Source and Its Proportion

The different ridge–furrow planting patterns had effects on the irrigation amount and soil water consumption (Figure 7) (p < 0.05). In the two growing seasons, the irrigation amount in the ridge–furrow planting pattern and its proportion in the total water consumption decreased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio. The ∆S of M3 was significantly higher than that of the other treatments in the two growing seasons (p < 0.05). The results showed that M3 could reduce the irrigation amount, significantly increase the soil water consumption, and promote the uptake and utilization of soil water.

3.6. Root Traits

Different ridge–furrow planting patterns had effects on the RLD and RSD (Figure 8 and Figure 9) (p < 0.05). In the two-year study, the RLD and RSD of wheat decreased with the increase in the soil depth at 0–100 cm. The RLD and RSD of wheat on the ridge increased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio, while the RLD and RSD of wheat in the furrow showed the opposite trend. The RLD and RSD in the M3–R and M4–R treatments were significantly higher than those in the other treatments (p < 0.05). Compared with the other treatments in the two growing seasons, the RLD of M3 at the 0–20 cm soil depth increased by 6.11–10.62% and 8.48–19.16%, respectively, and the RSD of M3 increased by 7.61–17.28% and 6.95–12.62%, respectively. Compared with the other treatments, in the two growing seasons, the RLD of M3 at the 20–40 cm soil depth increased by 11.59–36.30% and 9.06–23.29%, respectively, and the RSD of M3 increased by 11.19–31.85% and 10.08–26.63%, respectively. Compared with the other treatments, the RLD of M3 at the 40–100 cm soil depth increased by 12.72–39.80% and 9.98–26.44%, respectively, and the RSD of M3 increased by 12.07–35.24% and 10.94–29.89%, respectively. The results showed that M3 was beneficial in promoting root development and improving water absorption and utilization.

3.7. Grain Yield, Evapotranspiration, and Water Productivity

The different ridge–furrow planting patterns had effects on the grain yield, biomass, and WUE, and these were significant (Table 3) (p < 0.05). The grain yield, biomass, WUEY, and WUEB in M3 were significantly higher than those in the M1, M2, and M3 treatments (p < 0.05). The evapotranspiration in M4 was significantly lower than that in the M1, M2, and M3 treatments (p < 0.05). The results showed that the M3 treatment could increase the wheat yield while maximizing the WUE.

3.8. Analysis of Relationship

The correlation between the wheat Y, B, ET, I, ∆S, WUEY, WUEB, RLD, and RSD were determined for the different treatments (Figure 10). The wheat Y was significantly and positively correlated with the B, ∆S, WUEY, WUEB, RLD, and RSD (p < 0.05). The WUEY was positively correlated with the ∆S, RLD, and RSD (p < 0.05). The WUEB was positively correlated with the ΔS, RLD, and RSD as well as I. These results suggested that promoting the development of the roots could increase the ∆S, which plays an important role in the improvement of the Y, WUEY, and WUEB of wheat.

4. Discussion

4.1. Grain Yield and Water Use Efficiency

Improving the crop yields and WUE is an important goal to ensure the healthy development of agriculture [30,31]. Studies have shown that water-saving cultivation measures significantly regulate the wheat yield and WUE [32,33]. However, the high costs and complex operations associated with water-saving cultivation, such as sprinkler irrigation and drip irrigation, have hindered its widespread application in wheat production. The ridge–furrow planting pattern can reduce irrigation water and improve the WUE only by changing the surface structure [34]. Different ridge and furrow structures change the soil microtopography and also affect the wheat yield [35]. The results showed that M3 obtained the maximum grain yield and WUE. ElHendawy et al. [36] showed that, within a certain range, the positive effects of different treatments on the crop yield and WUE increased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio, which is consistent with the results of this experiment. However, some studies have shown that the higher the ridge–furrow ratio, the greater the effect [13,37]. This may be because in this experiment, the wheat was planted on the ridge and in the furrow. When the ridge is too wide, it can cause uneven water distribution. If the wheat population on the ridge lacks too much water, this could cause drought stress, render the plants senescent in advance, reduce the grain filling time, and lead to a decrease in the yield and WUE.

4.2. Relationship between Root Distribution and Water Use

The quality of root development will affect the absorption capacity of crops and the ability to synthesize various physiologically active substances [38]. Studies have shown that reasonable tillage patterns can improve the growth environments of wheat roots, thereby promoting the roots and improving the ability of the crops to absorb water in the soil [39]. In this experiment, M3 promoted root growth and development, and the RLD and RSD in M3 were significantly higher than those in other treatments. Studies have found that increasing the ridge width can improve the RLD and RSD values of crops, thereby increasing the ability to obtain water, so that crops can better adapt to arid and semi-arid environments [40], which is consistent with the results of this study. However, Hu et al. [19] showed that the ridge–furrow mulching pattern significantly induced root growth in the surface soil but had no significant effect at a soil depth below 40 cm. In this study, the RLD and RSD of M3 at the 40–100 cm soil depth were also significantly higher than those of other treatments. This is because the ratio of ridges and furrows strictly limits the effectiveness of soil moisture. Due to the difference in the ratio, the infiltration of soil moisture changes [17]. The higher furrow topography of M3 could more effectively promote the collection of rainwater into the furrow, and it promotes the infiltration of rainfall and irrigation water to reduce evaporation so as to ensure a better water supply for wheat growth and development [18,41]. Wheat planting on the ridge meets the needs of crop growth on the ridge through horizontal infiltration [42], but this may cause water shortages on the ridge. A moderate drought could facilitate the extension of the roots to deeper soil depths [43], promote the growth of the RLD and RSD, and absorb deep soil moisture to meet the growth needs.

4.3. Ridge–Furrow Planting Patterns and Soil Environment Lead to Differences in Evapotranspiration Sources

The application of the optimal cropping patterns can reduce water use, while intensively using cultivated land and increasing the utilization of resources [44]. The ridge–furrow planting pattern could make irrigation easy to implement and reduce water loss [45]. Liu et al. [42] found that a ridge–furrow planting pattern that saved 40% of the irrigation water could still achieve the same grain yield as a flat planting pattern. In this study, the three ridge–furrow ratios significantly reduced the irrigation amount, and the irrigation amount decreased with the increase in the ridge width. The reason for this is that the ridge–furrow planting pattern promotes the infiltration of irrigation water in the furrow after irrigation. The water stored in the furrow in the ridge–furrow planting pattern penetrates into the furrow configuration through the capillary tube, and it meets the needs of crop growth on the ridge through horizontal infiltration [46], reducing the ineffective loss of water. The irrigation water in M1 was distributed on the surface of the soil, which increased the water loss compared with the ridge–furrow planting pattern (Figure 6). This study also found that M3 increased the soil water use compared to other treatments. This was because the reduction in water would promote the downward development of the wheat roots, thereby increasing the absorption capacity of the deep soil water storage, resulting in increased soil water consumption [47,48]. M3 could promote the root development of wheat (Figure 8 and Figure 9), so that the crop could absorb and utilize soil moisture to a greater extent.
The soil temperature had a great influence on the growth and physiological and biochemical reactions of wheat [49,50]. Compared with M1, the warming effects of M2, M3, and M4 were irregular and uneven. In the early stage of growth, most of the ridges were subject to solar radiation, which increased the soil temperature on the ridges and alleviated the impact of low temperatures on seed germination, thus ensuring a higher germination rate [38] and increasing soil moisture evaporation. In the medium and late stages of growth, the soil temperature on the ridge increased with the increase in the ridge–furrow ratio, and the difference increased with time. An increase in the soil temperature can accelerate the growth of plants [51] and increase the water consumption caused by plant transpiration. In addition, due to the high specific heat capacity of water [51], there was no significant difference in the soil temperature between the furrow and M1, and the soil temperature was difficult to increase.
In this study, M3 could reduce the amount of irrigation, ensuring and increasing the yield of wheat. However, the ridge–furrow planting pattern increases the tillage input of wheat planting in the early stage, which may affect its promotion. At the same time, the ridge–furrow planting pattern can increase the soil surface temperature on the ridge in the later stage, which may cause the early senescence of the wheat on the ridge and affect the yield. In addition, the field management practices depend largely on the climatic and edaphic conditions, tillage patterns, etc., and the above factors should be taken into account when optimizing the ridge–furrow ratio in other regions.

5. Conclusions

In this study, M3 significantly increased the ∆S at the 0–100 cm soil depth, improved the soil water distribution and hydrothermal environment after irrigation, promoted root development, ensured a water supply for wheat grouting, and obtained the maximum yield and WUE. Therefore, M3 is the best choice to improve the WUE and reduce the irrigation amount as much as possible on the basis of increasing the yield. We recommend the ridge–furrow planting pattern with a ridge–furrow ratio of 75:50 cm as a reasonable field management strategy to optimize water savings and achieve the high-yield and high-efficiency production of wheat in the NCP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.S. and Z.Y.; software, K.L.; investigation, K.L.; data curation, K.L.; writing—original draft preparation, K.L.; writing—review and editing, K.L. and Z.Z.; funding acquisition, Y.S.; supervision, X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32172114); the China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (CARS-03-18); and the Taishan Scholar Project Special Funds.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The author states that the original contributions introduced in the study are included in the article and there are no known competitive economic interests or personal relationships.

References

  1. Zeng, R.Y.; Yao, F.M.; Zhang, S.; Yang, S.S.; Ba, Y.; Zhang, J.H.; Wang, J.W.; Wang, X. Assessing the effects of precipitation and irrigation on winter wheat yield and water productivity in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 256, 107063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Han, L.; Li, Y.R.; Hou, Y.H.; Liang, H.; Feng, P.Y.; Hu, K.L. Improvement of Water and Nitrogen Use Efficiencies by Alternative Cropping Systems Based on a patternl Approach. Plants 2023, 12, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, Y.Q.; Zhang, Y.H.; Zhang, R.; Li, J.P.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, S.L.; Wang, Z.M. Reduced irrigation increases the water use efficiency and productivity of winter wheat-summer maize rotation on the North China Plain. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sun, L.; Zhang, Y.B.; Si, H.Y.; Ealotswe, T.K.; Wei, L.; Jin, P.C.; Song, Z.Y.; Lu, C.P. Simulation and prediction of shallow groundwater depth in the North China Plain based on regional periodic characteristics. Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yang, G.Y.; Li, S.Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, L. Study on agricultural cultivation development layout based on the matching characteristic of water and land resources in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 259, 107272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Bai, S.S.; Kang, Y.H.; Wan, S.Q. Drip fertigation regimes for winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 228, 105885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Feng, X.Y.; Liu, H.J.; Feng, D.X.; Tang, X.P.; Li, L.; Chang, J.; Tanny, J.; Liu, R.H. Quantifying winter wheat evapotranspiration and crop coefficients under sprinkler irrigation using eddy covariance technology in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 277, 108131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhai, L.C.; Lü, L.H.; Dong, Z.Q.; Zhang, L.H.; Zhang, J.T.; Jia, X.L.; Zhang, Z.B. The water-saving potential of using micro-sprinkling irrigation for winter wheat production on the North China Plain. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 1687–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, D.; Li, D.X.; Wang, H.G.; Li, H.R.; Li, R.Q.; Batchelor, W.D.; Ju, H.; Li, Y.M. Tillage practices offset wheat yield reductions under limited irrigation regime in the North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 230, 105687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhao, D.D.; Shen, J.Y.; Lang, K.; Liu, Q.R.; Li, Q.Q. Effects of irrigation and wide-precision planting on water use, radiation interception, and grain yield of winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 118, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
  12. Xu, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.X.; Ma, X.C.; Liu, X.; Zhang, P.; Cai, T.; Jia, Z.K. Ridge-furrow mulching system and supplementary irrigation can reduce the greenhouse gas emission intensity. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 717, 137262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhang, G.X.; Dai, R.C.; Ma, W.Z.; Fan, H.Z.; Meng, W.H.; Han, J.; Liao, Y.C. Optimizing the ridge-furrow ratio and nitrogen application rate can increase the grain yield and water use efficiency of rain-fed spring maize in the Loess Plateau region of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 262, 107430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, P.; Wang, H.L.; Li, L.C.; Liu, X.L.; Qian, R.; Wang, J.J.; Yan, X.Q.; Cai, T.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z.K.; et al. Ridge-furrow mulching system regulates hydrothermal conditions to promote maize yield and efficient water use in rainfed farming area. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 232, 106041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ren, X.L.; Cai, T.; Chen, X.L.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z.K. Effect of rainfall concentration with different ridge widths on winter wheat production under semiarid climate. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 77, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, R.F.; Ma, J.J.; Sun, X.H.; Guo, X.H.; Zheng, L.J. Simulation of soil water and heat flow under plastic mulching and different ridge patterns. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, X.L.; Wang, Y.D.; Yan, X.Q.; Hou, H.Z.; Liu, P.; Cai, T.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z.K.; Ren, X.L.; Chen, X.L. Appropriate ridge-furrow ratio can enhance crop production and resource use efficiency by improving soil moisture and thermal condition in a semi-arid region. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 240, 106289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Luo, C.L.; Zhang, X.F.; Duan, H.X.; Zhou, R.; Mo, F.; Mburu, D.M.; Wang, B.Z.; Wang, W.; Kavagi, L.; Xiong, Y.C. Responses of rainfed wheat productivity to varying ridge-furrow size and ratio in semiarid eastern African Plateau. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 249, 106813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hu, Y.J.; Ma, P.H.; Wu, S.F.; Sun, B.H.; Feng, H.; Pan, X.L.; Zhang, B.B.; Chen, G.J.; Duan, C.X.; Lei, Q.; et al. Spatial-temporal distribution of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) roots and water use efficiency under ridge-furrow dual mulching. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 240, 106301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, X.Y.; Zhu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Pan, R.M.; Shen, W.Y.; Yu, X.R.; Xiong, F. The relationship between characteristics of root morphology and grain filling in wheat under drought stress. PeerJ 2021, 9, e12015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, D.; Mou, S.W.; Zou, Y.F.; Yang, B.P.; Ding, R.X.; Nie, J.F.; Zhang, X.D.; Jia, Z.K.; Han, Q.F. Exploring the relationship between deep roots and shoot growth of wheat under different soil moisture: A large soil column experiment. Rhizosphere 2023, 25, 100675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ali, S.; Xu, Y.Y.; Ahmad, I.; Jia, Q.M.; Ma, X.C.; Ullah, H.; Alam, M.; Adnan, M.; Daur, I.; Ren, X.L.; et al. Tillage and deficit irrigation strategies to improve winter wheat production through regulating root development under simulated rainfall conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 209, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Du, X.B.; Wei, Z.; Kong, L.C.; Zhang, L.G. Optimal bed width for wheat following rice production with raised-bed planting in the Yangtze River Plain of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 269, 107676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. You, Y.L.; Song, P.; Yang, X.L.; Zheng, Y.P.; Dong, L.; Chen, J. Optimizing irrigation for winter wheat to maximize yield and maintain high-efficient water use in a semi-arid environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 273, 107901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fang, Y.J.; Tan, W.J.; Hou, H.Z.; Wang, H.L.; Yin, J.D.; Zhang, G.P.; Lei, K.N.; Dong, B.; Qin, A.Z. Effects of Deep Vertical Rotary Tillage on Soil Water Use and Yield Formation of Forage Maize on Semiarid Land. Agriculture 2024, 14, 955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zheng, X.J.; Yu, Z.W.; Shi, Y.; Liang, P. Differences in Water Consumption of Wheat Varieties Are Affected by Root Morphology Characteristics and Post-anthesis Root Senescence. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 814658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Si, Z.Y.; Liu, J.M.; Wu, L.F.; Li, S.; Wang, G.S.; Yu, J.C.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A.W. A high-yield and high-efficiency cultivation pattern of winter wheat in North China Plain: High-low seedbed cultivation. Field Crops Res. 2023, 300, 109010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sun, W.; Shi, H.B.; Li, X.Y.; Miao, Q.F.; Yan, J.W.; Feng, Z.Z.; Qi, Y.L.; Feng, W.Y. Effect of Water Conservation and Nitrogen Reduction on Root Growth and Yield in Spring Maize in Typical Sand Interdepthed Soil. Agriculture 2024, 14, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nader, M.O. An improved weighted average simulation approach for solving reliability-based analysis and design optimization problems. Struct. Saf. 2016, 60, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, T.G.; Gao, F. Nitrogen fertilizer and wheat: Achieving agricultural production and sustainable development. Geogr. Res. Bull. 2024, 3, 28–38. [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, L.H.; Lian, Z.M.; Ouyang, W.; Yan, L.L.; Liu, H.B.; Hao, F.H. Potential of optimizing irrigation and fertilization management for sustainable rice production in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 432, 139738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, H.R.; Li, X.L.; Mei, X.R.; Nangia, V.; Guo, R.; Hao, W.P.; Wang, J.D. An alternative water-fertilizer-saving management practice for wheat-maize cropping system in the North China Plain: Based on a 4-year field study. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 276, 108053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tang, X.P.; Liu, H.J.; Zhang, Z.L.; Zheng, C.X.; She, Y.J.; Lu, W. Adaptation of sprinkler irrigation scheduling and winter wheat variety to cope with climate change in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 301, 108929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, W.W.; Wen, X.X.; Han, J.; Liu, Y.; Wu, W.; Liao, Y.C. Optimum ridge-to-furrow ratio in ridge-furrow mulching systems for improving water conservation in maize (Zea may L.) production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2017, 24, 23168–23179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, W.W.; Xiong, L.; Wang, C.J.; Liao, Y.C.; Wu, W. Optimized ridge-furrow with plastic film mulching system to use precipitation efficiently for winter wheat production in dry semi-humid areas. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 218, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. El-Hendawy, S.; Alsamin, B.; Mohammed, N.; Al-Suhaibani, N.; Refay, Y.; Alotaibi, M.; Tola, E.; Mattar, M.A. Combining planting patterns with mulching bolsters the soil water content, growth, yield, and water use efficiency of spring wheat under limited water supply in arid regions. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Qiang, S.C.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, J.L.; Zhang, F.C.; Sun, M.; Gao, Z.Q. Combined effects of ridge–furrow ratio and urea type on grain yield and water productivity of rainfed winter wheat on the Loess Plateau of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 261, 107340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pramanik, P.; Chakrabarti, B.; Bhatia, A.; Singh, S.D.; Maity, A.; Aggarwal, P.; Krishnan, P. Effect of elevated temperature on soil hydrothermal regimes and growth of wheat crop. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sun, Q.; Sun, W.; Zhao, Z.X.; Jiang, W.; Zhang, P.Y.; Sun, X.F.; Xue, Q.W. Soil Compaction and Maize Root Distribution under Subsoiling Tillage in a Wheat–Maize Double Cropping System. Agronomy 2023, 13, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, G.X.; Hou, Y.T.; Zhang, H.P.; Fan, H.Z.; Wen, X.X.; Han, J.; Liao, Y.C. Optimizing planting pattern and nitrogen application rate improves grain yield and water use efficiency for rain-fed spring maize by promoting root growth and reducing redundant root growth. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 220, 107340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, J.J.; Mu, J.Y.; Hu, Y.N.; Ren, A.X.; Lei, B.; Ding, P.C.; Li, L.H.; Sun, M.; Gao, Z.Q. Effect of planting patterns and seeding rate on dryland wheat yield formation and water use efficiency on the Loess Plateau, China. Agronomy 2023, 13, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.L.; Xi, L.Y.; Liao, Y.C.; Han, J. Ridge-furrow planting promotes wheat grain yield and water productivity in the irrigated sub-humid region of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 231, 105935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ning, D.F.; Chen, H.Q.; Qin, A.Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, J.Y.; Duan, A.W.; Wang, X.P.; Liu, Z.D. Optimizing irrigation and N fertigation regimes achieved high yield and water productivity and low N leaching in a maize field in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 301, 108945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fan, Y.F.; He, L.Y.; Liu, Y.; Wang, S.F. Optimal cropping patterns can be conducive to sustainable irrigation: Evidence from the drylands of Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 274, 107977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wu, J.Z.; Guan, H.Y.; Wang, Z.M.; Li, Y.J.; Fu, G.Z.; Huang, M.; Li, G.Q. Alternative furrow irrigation combined with topdressing nitrogen at jointing help yield formation and water use of winter wheat under no-till ridge furrow planting system in semi-humid drought-prone areas of China. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yin, W.; Chai, Q.; Guo, Y.; Fan, Z.L.; Hu, F.L.; Fan, H.; Zhao, C.; Yu, A.Z.; Coulter, J.A. Straw and plastic management regulate air-soil temperature amplitude and wetting-drying alternation in soil to promote intercrop productivity in arid regions. Field Crops Res. 2020, 249, 107758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fan, Y.; Wang, X.X.; Chen, R.Q.; Dang, H.K.; Liu, H.Q. Differences in Water Consumption and Yield Characteristics among Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties under Different Irrigation Systems. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khan, S.; Anwar, S.; Sun, M.; Shafiq, F.; Khalilzadeh, R.; Gao, Z.Q. Characterizing Differences in Soil Water Content and Wheat Yield in Response to Tillage and Precipitation in the Dry, Normal, and Wet Years at the Loess Plateau. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2021, 15, 655–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yin, W.; Fan, Z.L.; Hu, F.L.; Fan, H.; He, W.; Zhao, C.; Yu, A.Z.; Chai, Q. No-tillage with straw mulching promotes wheat production via regulating soil drying-wetting status and reducing soil-air temperature variation at arid regions. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 145, 126778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, X.M.; Wang, R.; Liu, B.; Wang, Y.C.; Yang, L.C.; Zhao, J.; Xu, J.; Li, Z.M.; Zhang, X.D.; Han, Q.F. Optimization of ridge-furrow mulching ratio enhances precipitation collection before silking to improve maize yield in a semi-arid region. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 275, 108041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Oyeyemi, K.D.; Sanuade, O.A.; Oladunjoye, M.A.; Aizebeokhai, A.P.; Olaojo, A.A.; Fatoba, J.O.; Olofinnade, O.M.; Ayara, W.A.; Oladapo, O. Data on the thermal properties of soil and its moisture content. Data Brief 2018, 17, 900–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agriculture 14 01579 g001
Figure 1. Daily average temperature and precipitation during the wheat growing season in 2021–2022 (A) and 2022–2023 (B).
Figure 1. Daily average temperature and precipitation during the wheat growing season in 2021–2022 (A) and 2022–2023 (B).
Agriculture 14 01579 g001
Agriculture 14 01579 g002
Figure 2. Planting pattern diagram.
Figure 2. Planting pattern diagram.
Agriculture 14 01579 g002
Agriculture 14 01579 g003
Figure 3. The soil temperature during the whole growth period of different treatments in 2021–2022 (A) and 2022–2023 (B). –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow of the treatment, respectively.
Figure 3. The soil temperature during the whole growth period of different treatments in 2021–2022 (A) and 2022–2023 (B). –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow of the treatment, respectively.
Agriculture 14 01579 g003
Agriculture 14 01579 g004
Figure 4. The SWS in different treatments at pre-sowing (A) and maturity (B,C) in 2021–2022 and at pre-sowing (D) and maturity (E,F) in 2022–2023. –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. The SWS in different treatments at pre-sowing (A) and maturity (B,C) in 2021–2022 and at pre-sowing (D) and maturity (E,F) in 2022–2023. –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 14 01579 g004
Agriculture 14 01579 g005
Figure 5. The SWC after 5 days and 10 days of irrigation under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A–D) and 2022–2023 (E–H) (%). –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively.
Figure 5. The SWC after 5 days and 10 days of irrigation under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A–D) and 2022–2023 (E–H) (%). –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively.
Agriculture 14 01579 g005
Agriculture 14 01579 g006
Figure 6. The consumption of soil water storage at a 0–200 cm soil depth under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A,B) and 2022–2023 (C,D). –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. The consumption of soil water storage at a 0–200 cm soil depth under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A,B) and 2022–2023 (C,D). –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 14 01579 g006
Agriculture 14 01579 g007
Figure 7. The source and proportion of water consumption of each treatment in the wheat growing season in 2021–2022 (A,C) and 2022–2023 (B,D). P, I, and ∆S denote precipitation, irrigation amount, and soil water consumption, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 7. The source and proportion of water consumption of each treatment in the wheat growing season in 2021–2022 (A,C) and 2022–2023 (B,D). P, I, and ∆S denote precipitation, irrigation amount, and soil water consumption, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 14 01579 g007
Agriculture 14 01579 g008
Figure 8. The RLD of wheat at a 0–100 cm soil depth under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A,B) and 2022–2023 (C,D) at anthesis. –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 8. The RLD of wheat at a 0–100 cm soil depth under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A,B) and 2022–2023 (C,D) at anthesis. –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 14 01579 g008
Agriculture 14 01579 g009
Figure 9. The RSD of wheat at a 0–100 cm soil depth under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A,B) and 2022–2023 (C,D) at anthesis. –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 9. The RSD of wheat at a 0–100 cm soil depth under different treatments in 2021–2022 (A,B) and 2022–2023 (C,D) at anthesis. –R and –F represent the ridge and furrow in the treatment, respectively. Different letters in each figure for the same year show significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 14 01579 g009
Agriculture 14 01579 g010
Figure 10. Correlation coefficients of Y, B, ET, I, ∆S, WUEY, WUEB, the mean value of the root length density at the 0–100 cm soil depth (RLD), and the mean value of the root surface area density at the 0–100 cm soil depth (RSD) of wheat under different treatments. * indicate significant differences at the p = 0.05.
Figure 10. Correlation coefficients of Y, B, ET, I, ∆S, WUEY, WUEB, the mean value of the root length density at the 0–100 cm soil depth (RLD), and the mean value of the root surface area density at the 0–100 cm soil depth (RSD) of wheat under different treatments. * indicate significant differences at the p = 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01579 g010
Table 1. Soil characteristics of 0–20 cm soil depth before wheat sowing in two years.
Table 1. Soil characteristics of 0–20 cm soil depth before wheat sowing in two years.
YearOrganic MatterTotal NitrogenAvailable NitrogenAvailable PhosphorusAvailable PotassiumBulk Density
g·kg−1g·kg−1mg·kg−1mg·kg−1mg·kg−1g·cm−3
2021–202214.791.23120.30 30.86119.60 1.50
2022–202314.971.15115.1732.20 127.131.51
Table 2. Irrigation amount at jointing and anthesis and total irrigation amount.
Table 2. Irrigation amount at jointing and anthesis and total irrigation amount.
YearTreatmentJointing Anthesis Total
(mm)(mm)(mm)
2021–2022M175.4062.83138.23
M264.6053.10117.70
M357.6045.34102.94
M450.5139.7890.29
2022–2023M144.23 37.78 82.02
M232.23 32.67 64.90
M328.68 29.07 57.75
M426.57 27.00 53.57
Table 3. The grain yield, biomass, evapotranspiration, and WUE for the grain yield and biomass yield of wheat in 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 under different treatments.
Table 3. The grain yield, biomass, evapotranspiration, and WUE for the grain yield and biomass yield of wheat in 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 under different treatments.
YearTreatmentY
(kg·hm−2)		B
(kg·hm−2)		ET
(mm)		WUEY
(kg·ha−1·mm−1)		WUEB
(kg·ha−1·mm−1)
2021–2022M19101.2 c19,515 b350.5 a25.97 c55.69 b
M29505.0 b19,573 b343.6 a27.67 b56.97 b
M39802.5 a20,452 a340.5 a28.79 a60.06 a
M49018.9 c18,209 c322.4 b27.97 b56.47 b
2022–2023M18538.3 c18,921 b397.1 a21.50 c47.65 b
M28926.7 b18,797 b397.5 a22.46 b47.29 b
M39354.9 a19,954 a399.6 a23.41 a49.93 a
M48435.2 c18,214 c382.7 b22.04 b47.59 b
Different letters in each column for the same year show a significant difference according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
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

Liu, K.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Wang, X.; Yu, Z. Optimizing Ridge–Furrow Ratio to Improve Water Resource Utilization for Wheat in the North China Plain. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091579

AMA Style

Liu K, Zhang Z, Shi Y, Wang X, Yu Z. Optimizing Ridge–Furrow Ratio to Improve Water Resource Utilization for Wheat in the North China Plain. Agriculture. 2024; 14(9):1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091579

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Kun, Zhen Zhang, Yu Shi, Xizhi Wang, and Zhenwen Yu. 2024. "Optimizing Ridge–Furrow Ratio to Improve Water Resource Utilization for Wheat in the North China Plain" Agriculture 14, no. 9: 1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091579

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