These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Rice performance and water use efficiency under plastic mulching with drip irrigation.
    Author: He H, Ma F, Yang R, Chen L, Jia B, Cui J, Fan H, Wang X, Li L.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e83103. PubMed ID: 24340087.
    Abstract:
    Plastic mulching with drip irrigation is a new water-saving rice cultivation technology, but little is known on its productivity and water-saving capacity. This study aimed to assess the production potential, performance, and water use efficiency (WUE) of rice under plastic mulching with drip irrigation. Field experiments were conducted over 2 years with two rice cultivars under different cultivation systems: conventional flooding (CF), non-flooded irrigation incorporating plastic mulching with furrow irrigation (FIM), non-mulching with furrow irrigation (FIN), and plastic mulching with drip irrigation (DI). Compared with the CF treatment, grain yields were reduced by 31.76-52.19% under the DI treatment, by 57.16-61.02% under the FIM treatment, by 74.40-75.73% under the FIN treatment, which were mainly from source limitation, especially a low dry matter accumulation during post-anthesis, in non-flooded irrigation. WUE was the highest in the DI treatment, being 1.52-2.12 times higher than with the CF treatment, 1.35-1.89 times higher than with the FIM treatment, and 2.37-3.78 times higher than with the FIN treatment. The yield contribution from tillers (YCFTs) was 50.65-62.47% for the CF treatment and 12.07-20.62% for the non-flooded irrigation treatments. These low YCFTs values were attributed to the poor performance in tiller panicles rather than the total tiller number. Under non-flooded irrigation, root length was significantly reduced with more roots distributed in deep soil layers compared with the CF treatment; the DI treatment had more roots in the topsoil layer than the FIM and FIN treatments. The experiment demonstrates that the DI treatment has greater water saving capacity and lower yield and economic benefit gaps than the FIM and FIN treatments compared with the CF treatment, and would therefore be a better water-saving technology in areas of water scarcity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]