Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Effect of planting density and pattern on maize yield and rainwater use T
efficiency in the Loess Plateau in China
Qianmin Jiaa,b,c, Lefeng Suna,b,d, Shahzad Alia,b,d, Yan Zhanga,b,d, Donghua Liua,b,d,
⁎ ⁎
Muhammad Kamrana,b,d, Peng Zhanga,b,d, Zhikuan Jiaa,b,d, , Xiaolong Rena,b,d,
a
Institute of Water Saving Agriculture in Arid Areas of China, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China
b
Key Laboratory of Crop Physi-Ecology and Tillage Science in North-Western Loess Plateau, Ministry of Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi,
712100, China
c
College of Forestry, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China
d
College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We conducted a two-year field research to evaluate the effect of three planting densities (L: 52,500, M: 75,000
Plastic film mulching and H: 97,500 plants ha−1) and three different planting patterns (RF: ridge with plastic film mulching; FM: flat
Soil temperature planting with plastic film mulching; and CP: conventional planting without mulching) on maize yield. Results
Soil water showed that, at each planting density, average topsoil temperature (5–25 cm) was improved under FM and RF,
Maize growth
relative to CP, before silking. This resulted in earlier emergence and accelerated plant development. Compared
Evapotranspiration
Water use efficiency
to CP, RF significantly increased soil water storage (SWS) at the end of the fallow season and provided non-
limiting water conditions for early seedling growth. During the growing season, when rainfall was more
abundant, RF prevented evapotranspiration (ET); thereby, favouring SWS. Furthermore, when rainfall was
scarce, RF provided the crop with additional soil moisture, which resulted in increased ET. Under RF and FM, the
two-year average grain yield increased by 33.4% and 30%, respectively; while, water use efficiency (WUE)
increased by 34.2% and 27.5%, respectively; similarly, rainwater use efficiency (RUE) increased by 35.6% and
32.1%, respectively. In a normal year (2015), grain yield, WUE and RUE, significantly increased as planting
density increased from low to moderate; but not in a dry year (2016). Under such conditions, no significant
differences were observed in grain yield, WUE or RUE among planting density treatments within the same
planting pattern. Under moderate planting density, the two-year average final aboveground dry matter, grain
yield, WUE and RUE in RF increased by 14.7%, 31.8%, 31.9% and 34.1%, respectively, compared to CP.
Therefore, we conclude that RF is the most suitable planting pattern under moderate planting density for in-
creasing maize yield in the Loess Plateau in China.

1. Introduction
Scarce precipitation and low water availability are the main factors
limiting plant growth, development and yield in arid and semi-arid
areas (Amanullah and Adil, 2015; Gan et al., 2009). Approximately
60% of all cultivated land in China is dryland and approximately 40%
of dryland farming is carried out in the region of the Loess Plateau
(Editorial Board of China Agricultural Yearbook, 2001). Water shortage
is the primary factor limiting agricultural productivity and economic
development in such areas (Li et al., 2004a; Liu and Zhang, 2007). In
the Loess Plateau of northwest China, there is no more water available
for crop irrigation; thus, rainfall is the major water resource for agri-
cultural productivity (Li et al., 2004b). However, rainfall is limited and
high evaporation often limits crop yields in this area (Li et al., 2013a,b).
Therefore, it is essential to efficiently exploit rainwater resources to
maximize crop yield and rainwater use efficiency (RUE), which requires
both, better methods of capturing rainfall and reducing evaporation.
Some technologies have recently been developed to enhance crop
yield and RUE in semi-arid regions of China (Turner et al., 2011), in-
cluding, mulching with plastic film (Zhou et al., 2009), rainwater
harvesting (Yuan et al., 2003), ridge-furrow mulching (Ren et al.,
2016), and crop residue retention (Kong, 2014). Among these agro-
nomic measures, mulching with plastic film is becoming a widely used
technique in semi-arid areas and has recently been widely adopted in
the northwest Loess Plateau (Li et al., 2004b; Liu et al., 2014a, 2014b).
Various studies have shown that plastic film mulching significantly

⁎
Corresponding authors at: Institute of Water Saving Agriculture in Arid Areas of China, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China
E-mail addresses: jiazhk@126.com (Z. Jia), rxlcxl@aliyun.com (X. Ren).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.02.011
Received 3 June 2017; Received in revised form 2 February 2018; Accepted 10 February 2018
0378-3774/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Q. Jia et al.
improved soil moisture conservation (Zhou et al., 2009), increased
topsoil temperature (Wang et al., 2015), reduced evaporation (Liu
et al., 2014a, 2014b), suppressed weed growth (Hegazi and Ogier,
2000) and improved crop yield (Liu and Siddique, 2015). The ridge-
furrow rainfall harvesting (RF) system is a new film mulching cultiva-
tion technology, which includes a rainwater harvesting zone (ridge)
and a planting zone (furrow) (Gan et al., 2013). In the RF system, the
mulched ridges serve as a runoff surface that allows rainwater to be
channelled to the furrows, where rain can penetrate into the soil (Liu
et al., 2014a, 2014b). In addition, RF planting can reduce topsoil eva-
poration and increase soil water storage, thereby, supplying sufficient
water at critical crop growth stages to increase WUE (Qin et al., 2014).
Increasing planting density is a key practice used worldwide to in-
crease maize yield, and it is a simple and effective method for in-
creasing yield in semi-arid regions as well (Tokatlidis et al., 2011;
Turgut et al., 2005). Griesh and Yakout (2001) suggested that a
planting density of 50,000 to 56,000 plants ha−1 is optimal, because it
reduced intraspecific competition; thereby, increasing yield. However,
Ryan et al. (2011) reported that a planting density of 81,700 to 107,900
plants ha−1 resulted in the highest yield (12,500 kg ha−1). Li et al.
(2013b) showed that over a certain range of planting densities, leaf area
index (LAI) and grain yield increased with increasing planting density.
However, if planting density is too high, leaf shading causes poor
ventilation and light penetration, resulting in thin stems, increased
maize lodging and decreased dry matter, which ultimately lead to lower
grain yield (Farnham, 2001; Nyakudya and Stroosnijder, 2014; Trachsel
et al., 2016). Although many researchers have studied maize planting
density, research on the appropriate density of spring maize under the
RF system has not been reported. To improve maize yield and RUE in
the Loess Plateau of China, it is important to determine the most sui-
table planting densities for spring maize under the RF and plastic film
mulching cultivation systems. Therefore, we tested different planting
patterns under three planting densities. The objectives of our study
were (1) to determine the appropriate planting density and planting
patterns for spring maize and (2) to investigate the efficiency of
planting patterns utilizing different planting densities, in terms of grain
yield, WUE, RUE, evapotranspiration and soil water storage.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site description
This research was performed in 2015 and 2016 in Pengyang City,
Ningxia Province, China. The research site is located at the eastern foot
of Liupan Mountain (longitude, 106°45′E; latitude, 35°79′N; elevation,
1800 m above sea level). The study area is typical of the Loess Plateau;
the area consists of hilly topography and is characterized by a tempe-
rate semi-arid climate. The annual mean temperature is 8.1 °C, the
annual mean duration of sunshine is 2518 h y−1, the annual mean
rainfall is 410 mm y−1, and the annual mean potential evaporation is
1753 mm. The amount of rainfall during the maize growing season was
335.2 mm in 2015 (a normal year) and 251.6 mm in 2016 (a dry year).
The monthly amounts of rainfall and air temperature during the maize
fallow and growing seasons in both years as well as the 40-year monthly
mean rainfall (1977–2016) are shown in Fig. 1. According to the FAO/
UNESCO soil classification system (FAO/UNESCO, 1993), the soil at the
research site was a Calcic Cambisol (14% sand, 26% silt, and 60% clay);
the topsoil had a pH of 8.5 and a mean bulk density of 1.34 g cm−3. The
characteristics of the soil at a depth of 0–60 cm at the research site are
shown in Table 1.
2.2. Experimental design and field management
The experiment consisted of a completely randomized block design
with three replications. In 2015–16, we conducted field research on the
Loess Plateau of China to evaluated the effects of three planting
20
Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32
densities (L: 52,500 plants ha−1; M: 75,000 plants ha−1; H: 97,500
plants ha−1) and three different planting patterns (RF: ridge with
plastic film mulching; FM: flat planting with plastic film mulching; CP:
conventional planting without mulching). The length and width of each
plot were 12.0 m and 4.8 m, respectively (area = 57.6 m2). A 1.2-m-
wide isolation belt in which maize was not planted as well as a ridge
were established between each plot to prevent water leakage. In the RF
system, the ridges and furrows were 60 cm wide and 15 cm high, and
the ridge was covered with plastic film (0.9 m wide and 0.008 mm
thick); plastic film-covered furrows 70 cm in width were used for the
FM treatment. The row spacing of all treatments was 60 cm, and the
seeding spacing was as follows: L, 31.8 cm; M, 22.2 cm; and H, 17.1 cm.
The treatments are illustrated in Fig. 2. Maize (Dafeng 30) was sown on
April 23, 2015, and April 21, 2016, using a hole-sowing machine at a
seeding depth of 4–5 cm. Fertilizer application was the same for all
treatments: base fertilizer containing 150 kg ha−1 N and
−1
150 kg ha P2O5 was spread evenly over the furrow and ploughed into
the soil layer, and topsoil fertilizer containing 150 kg ha−1 N was ap-
plied at the 11-leaf stage (Hanway, 1963, July 10, 2015, and July 8,
2016). The crops were harvested on October 10, 2015, and October 5,
2016.
2.3. Data collection
2.3.1. Soil temperature
Daily variation in soil temperature at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 cm depths
between individual maize plants was monitored with a mercury-in-glass
geothermometer; each measurement was repeated three times.
Measurements were obtained at the maize 3-leaf stage (May 22–28,
2015, and May 19–26, 2016), at the 6-leaf stage (June 18–25, 2015,
and June 15–23, 2016), at the 11-leaf stage (July 7–15, 2015, and July
6–12, 2016), at the silking stage (July 28 to August 5, 2015, and July
24–31, 2016), at the blister stage (August 24–30, 2015, and August
20–29, 2016) and at the dough stage (September 6–16, 2015, and
September 21–30, 2016). Temperatures were recorded on five sunny
days at 08:00, 10:00, 12:00, 14:00, 16:00, 18:00 and 20:00 during each
growth stage. Average daily temperature was calculated, and the
average value for the five days was reported as the soil temperature at
each growth stage.
2.3.2. Soil water storage and evapotranspiration
Soil water content in the 0–200 cm soil layer was measured using a
54 mm diameter steel core-sampling tube (Ferraro and Ghersa, 2007)
before sowing, and at emergence, 3-leaf, 6-leaf, 11-leaf, silking, and at
blister and maturity stages. Samples were collected at every 10 cm from
the 0–20 cm soil layer and at every 20 cm from the 20–200 cm soil
layer. Sampling within each planting pattern treatment was done ac-
cording to the following criteria: for the RF treatment, the soil cores
were sampled from the middle of a ridge, from the middle of a furrow
and between two plants within the same row; for the FM treatment, one
sample was obtained between two plants and two samples between two
rows (one in the plastic film and the other outside the plastic film);
finally, for the CP treatment, two samples were obtained between two
rows and one between two plants on the same row. After their wet
weight was determined, the soil samples were dried for 48 h in an oven
at 105 °C until a constant weight was reached. The soil water content
was calculated as the mean of the measurements at the three positions
and was replicated three times per plot.
The evapotranspiration (ET) was calculated in accordance with the
water balance formula (Huang et al., 2005):
ET = P + I + C + (SWSt1 − SWSt 2) − D − R (1)
where P (mm) is the precipitation during the maize growing season, I
(mm) is the amount of irrigation (I = 0), and C (mm) is the upward flow
into the root zone. The groundwater level was approximately 80 m
below the soil surface; thus, groundwater flow to the roots could be
Q. Jia et al. Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32

Fig. 1. Monthly rainfall distribution in 2015–2016 and the 40-year average annual rainfall (40 a) at Pengyang Experimental Station, Ningxia Province, China.

neglected. SWSt1 (mm) is the soil water storage (SWS) in the 0–200-cm
soil layer at t1 days after planting (DAP), and SWSt2 (mm) is the SWS in
the 0–200-cm soil layer at t2 DAP. D (mm) is the drainage below the
measured root zone and was assumed to be zero because of the deeply
measured soil depth (200 cm) and the absence of extreme rain events
during both experimental years. R (mm) is the surface runoff, although
there was no runoff during the experiment because of the flat field and
surrounding border ridges for each plot (Li et al., 2013a; Wu et al.,
2015); thus, I, C, and R in Eq. (2) were zero for all plots.
The SWS was calculated using the following equation (Dam et al.,
2005; Ren et al., 2008):
n
SWS = ∑i hi × pi × bi /10
(2)
−3
where hi (cm) is the thickness of a measured soil layer; pi (g cm ) is the
soil bulk density of each soil layer; bi is the soil water content of each
soil layer; n is the number of soil layers, and i = 10, 20, 40…, 200.
2.3.3. Maize development and leaf area index
Six square metres of ground in each plot were marked after sowing.
Days after planting (DAP) or from sowing to emergence, 3-leaf, 6-leaf,
11-leaf, silking, dough, and maturity stages were recorded. The specific
stage was established only when 50% or more plants within the 6 m2
marked plots were at that particular stage. Plants from 1 m2 subplots
were sampled from each plot at the 3-leaf, 6-leaf, 11-leaf, silking,
blister, and dough stages in each experimental year, and the leaf area of
these plants were measured. The length and maximum width of each
leaf were measured using a ruler and the leaf area index (LAI) was
estimated as the total leaf area per square meter (Ritchie et al., 1993).
2.3.4. Aboveground dry matter and grain yield
The same plants from each 1 m2 subplot were used to measure
aboveground dry matter after measuring leaf area at the 3-leaf, 6-leaf,
11-leaf, silking, and blister and dough stages. Aboveground dry matter
was determined after plants were oven-dried at 70 °C for a minimum of
48 h to constant weight. At harvest, two rows (6 m × 1.2 m) of maize
were hand-harvested from each plot on October 10, 2015, and October
5, 2016. Grain yield was determined based on grain that had been sun-
dried until water content was down to 13%.
2.3.5. Water use efficiency (WUE) and rainwater use efficiency (RUE)
The WUE (kg mm−1 ha−1) and RUE (kg mm−1 ha−1) were calcu-
lated using Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively, as described by Huang et al.
(2005) and Payero et al. (2008):
WUE = Y / ET (3)
RUE = Y / P (4)
where Y is the maize grain yield (kg ha−1), ET is the evapotranspiration
during the entire growth period (mm), and P is the precipitation during
the entire growth period (mm).
2.4. Statistical analysis
The data were analysed with a residual test method prior to statis-
tical analysis. The data met the assumption of homogeneity of variances
and were normally distributed. The analysis of variance was performed
using SPSS 13.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The data from each
sampling event were analysed separately. The means among treatments
were compared based on the least significant difference (LSD) test
(P ≤ 0.05).
3. Results
3.1. Soil temperature
Soil temperature in the 0–25 cm top-soil layers were significantly
higher under flat planting with plastic film (FM) than those in the
corresponding layers under conventional flat planting (CP) before the
silking stage (0–98 DAP), under the three planting densities and in the
two years of study (Figs. 3 and 4). After silking, temperature in the
same soil layers were significantly higher in the FM treatment than
those in the CP treatment in 2016, but not in 2015. Further, tempera-
ture in the 10–25 cm top-soil layers were higher under RF than under
CP throughout all six growth stages, in both years. The average soil

Table 1
Soil chemical properties of the top 0–60 cm soil layer in the experimental fields at Pengyang Experimental Station, Ningxia Province, China in 2015 and 2016.

Soil layer (cm) SOC (g kg−1) SAN (mg kg−1) SAP (mg kg−1) SAK (mg kg−1) STN (g kg−1) Porosity (%)

0–20 8.55 63.52 12.88 168.29 1.18 49.81

20–40 7.86 45.86 7.87 119.36 0.97 47.92
40–60 7.49 46.65 5.95 100.15 1.04 50.19

SOC means soil organic carbon; SAN means soil available nitrogen; SAP means soil available phosphorus; SAK means soil available potassium; STN means soil total nitrogen.

21
Q. Jia et al.
Fig. 2. Schematics of the field layouts: (a) ridge with plastic film mulching (RF) system; (b) flat planting with plastic film mulching (FM); (c) conventional planting without plastic
mulching (CP).
temperature of the five layers at the six stages under FM and RF
treatments increased by 2.1 °C and 0.5 °C in 2015 and by 3.0 °C and
0.9 °C in 2016, respectively, compared to the CP treatment. Differences
in soil temperature observed among the three planting densities tested
under the same planting pattern were small; the average soil tem-
perature of the five layers at the six growth stages under the low and
moderate planting densities increased by 0.7 °C and 0.3 °C in 2015 and
by 0.5 °C and 0.1 °C in 2016, respectively, compared with the high
planting density treatment.
3.2. Maize development
Results of ANOVA showed that planting density (PD) did not affect
maize development significantly in either year under study (P > 0.05,
Table 2). In contrast, the effect of planting pattern on maize develop-
ment at different stages was significant (P < 0.01 or P < 0.05). The
number of days to emergence, 3-leaf, 6-leaf, dough, and maturity stages
under FM at the three planting densities, was significantly lower than
either under RF or CP. The two-year mean values showed that seedling
emergence occurred 2.2 and 4.7 days earlier in FM than in RF and CP
plots, respectively. Dough stage in the FM treatment was reached 11.7
and 15.5 days earlier than in RF and CP treatments, respectively. Grain
maturity was reached 10.1 and 14.2 days later in RF and CP, respec-
tively, than in FM plots. Thus, RF, FM and CP treatments were har-
vested at grain maturity, 165.3, 156.6 and 170.4 days, respectively, in
2015, a year with normal rainfall; whereas, in 2016, a dry year, the
crop cycle was shortened to 162.0, 150.5 and 165.1 days, respectively.
3.3. Soil water storage
No significant difference was observed in soil water storage (SWS)
in the 0–200 cm soil layers in any of the treatments, at the emergence or
22
Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32
3-leaf stages in 2015 (12 and 31 DAP, respectively, Fig. 5). However, in
2016, the SWS under the RF treatment was significantly higher than
that in the FM and CP treatments at the same two growth stages. This
effect might have been due to the delivery of more rainwater to the soil
through the ridge under the RF system during the fallow season. On the
other hand, in 2015, the SWS in each treatment decreased to a
minimum at the blister stage (128 DAP); thereafter and until maturity
(128–170 DAP), SWS increased due to 104 mm of precipitation (Fig. 6).
Since less precipitation occurred early in the dry year, 2016 (Fig. 7),
SWS in each treatment gradually decreased before the 11-leaf stage
(0–78 DAP). From this point until silking stage (78–97 DAP), 114 mm of
rainfall accumulated; resulting in an increase in SWS in each treatment
by silking. A higher maximum SWS was recorded under RF than under
the FM and CP treatments.
3.4. Evapotranspiration
In 2015, at the same planting density, evapotranspiration (ET) was
significantly higher under FM and CP than under RF (Fig. 6) at three
growth stages before the 11-leaf stage, i.e., 0–31, 31–59, and 59–78
DAP. However, at three stages after the 11-leaf stage (78–98, 98–128,
and 128–170 DAP), ET was higher in RF than in FM or CP plots. As
planting density increased, ET increased during the early three growth
stages (0–31, 31–59, 59–78 DAP), in 2015. However, from silking to
blister stage (98–128 DAP) and from blister to maturity (128–170 DAP),
ET decreased in each planting pattern treatment with increasing
planting density.
In 2016, when the soil moisture conditions were higher during the
early growth stages (0–30, 30–60 DAP) (Fig. 7), ET was higher in FM
and CP than in RF plots at all three planting densities. During the latter
growth stages (125–165 DAP), and during periods of less precipitation
(60–78 DAP), ET was lower in FM and CP than in RF plots. From 11-leaf
Q. Jia et al. Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32

Fig. 3. Soil temperature in the 0–5 (a), 5–10 (b), 10–15 (c), 15–20 (d), and 20–25 (e) cm topsoil layers under three planting densities and different planting patterns during the crop
season in 2015. L, low planting density; M, moderate planting density; H, high planting density; RF, ridge with plastic film mulching; FM, flat planting with film mulching; CP,
conventional planting without mulching. Vertical bars represent LSD values (P ≤ 0.05).

to silking (78–97 DAP), 114 mm rainfall were registered in July and ET
was higher; therefore, ET did not differ significantly among treatments.
ET increased with increasing planting density in all three planting
pattern treatments during the early growth stages (0–30, 30–60, 78–97
DAP). However, in the late growth stages (125–165 DAP), ET decreased
as the planting density increased regardless of planting pattern.
3.5. Soil water change in root zone
Based on the ANOVA, in the fallow season, the effect of planting
density on soil water change (SWC) was not significant (P > 0.05)
(Table 3); whereas, the effect of planting pattern on SWC was highly
significant (P < 0.01). During the fallow period in 2015, a total of
115.6 mm of rainfall were recorded; thereby, increasing SWS in all
treatments at the end of the fallow season. Further, the soil water in-
crease under RF was significantly higher than that under CP or FM

23
Q. Jia et al. Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32

Fig. 4. Soil temperature in the 0–5 (a), 5–10 (b), 10–15 (c), 15–20 (d), and 20–25 (e) cm topsoil layers under three planting densities and different planting patterns during the crop
season in 2016. L, low planting density; M, moderate planting density; H, high planting density; RF, ridge with plastic film mulching; FM, flat planting with film mulching; CP,
conventional planting without mulching. Vertical bars represent LSD values (P ≤ 0.05).

treatments at the same planting density. Compared with 2015, in 2016, RF treatment allowed more rainwater to collect during the fallow
soil water increase was less during the fallow season; in this case, soil period; thus, providing the highest soil moisture.
water increase in RF and FM was significantly higher than in CP plots, Over the growing season in two consecutive cropping cycles, the
regardless of planting density. During the two years, compared to FM, effects of planting density and planting pattern on SWC was significant

24
Q. Jia et al. Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32

Table 2
Effects of different planting densities and patterns on maize development (days after planting, DAP) of plants cultivated in 2015–2016.

Year Planting densitya Planting patternb Emergence (DAP) 3-leaf (DAP) 6-leaf (DAP) 11-leaf (DAP) Silking (DAP) Dough (DAP) Maturity (DAP)

2015 L RF 11.7b 32.2b 60.0b 80.3b 100.9b 148.1a 168.6a

FM 9.4c 29.5c 56.7c 78.3b 98.9b 137.2b 159.7b
CP 14.6a 35.3a 65.9a 85.5a 105.1a 152.4a 173.8a
Mean 11.9 32.4 60.9 81.4 101.6 145.9 167.4
M RF 11.4b 31.7b 59.8b 78.4b 98.2b 145.2a 165.3a
FM 9.2c 29.1c 56.6c 75.6b 96.3b 134.5b 156.6b
CP 14.3a 34.4a 64.4a 83.1a 103.4a 149.4a 170.4a
Mean 11.6 31.7 60.3 79.0 99.3 143.0 164.1
H RF 11.6b 31.7b 58.5b 77.2b 96.8b 142.3a 162.0a
FM 8.9c 28.5c 55.1c 74.9b 94.4b 131.8b 153.5b
CP 14.5a 34.7a 63.8a 82.4a 101.3a 146.4a 167.0a
Mean 11.7 31.6 59.1 78.2 97.5 140.2 160.8
ANOVAc PD ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
PP ** ** ** ** * ** *
PD × PP ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

2016 L RF 12.3b 30.8b 60.8b 79.3b 99.9b 146.5a 165.4a

FM 10.3c 28.3c 56.7c 77.3b 97.9b 133.1b 153.8b
CP 14.4a 34.0a 65.9a 84.5a 104.1a 149.2a 168.7a
Mean 12.3 31.0 61.1 80.4 100.5 142.9 162.7
M RF 12.2b 30.4b 60.3b 78.0b 97.4ab 142.6a 162.2a
FM 10.1c 28.0c 56.3c 75.3b 94.3b 130.5b 150.8b
CP 14.1a 32.4a 64.3a 82.3a 101.0a 146.3a 165.4a
Mean 12.1 30.3 60.3 78.5 97.6 139.8 159.5
H RF 11.4b 29.8b 58.4b 76.6b 95.5ab 139.7a 158.5a
FM 9.4c 27.2c 54.3c 73.9b 92.6b 127.1b 146.8b
CP 13.5a 33.1a 62.4a 80.8a 99.2a 143.4a 161.1a
Mean 11.4 30.0 58.4 77.1 95.8 136.7 155.5
ANOVA PD ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
PP ** ** ** ** * ** **
PD × PP ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Values are the mean of three replicates. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences within same plant density and the same year for three patterns at p=.05 level (least
significant difference; n = 3).
a
L means low planting density (52,500 plant ha1); M means moderate planting density (75,000 plant ha1); H means high planting density (97,500 plant ha1).
b
RF means ridge with plastic film mulching; FM means flat planting with plastic film mulching; CP means conventional planting without mulching.
c
ANOVA indicates analysis of variance; ** indicates significance at 1% probability level; * indicates significance at 5% probability level; ns indicates no significance; PD means
planting density; PP means planting pattern.

Fig. 5. Variations in soil water storage dynamics in the 0–200 cm soil layers under different planting patterns and three planting densities at seven growth stages in 2015–2016. L, low
planting density; M, moderate planting density; H, high planting density; RF, ridge with plastic film mulching; FM, flat planting with film mulching; CP, conventional planting without
mulching. Vertical bars represent LSD values (P ≤ 0.05).

25
Q. Jia et al.
(P < 0.05) and highly significant (P < 0.01), respectively (Table 3).
The SWC in RF plots was significantly lower than in FM and CP plots in
the normal year (2015). However, in the dry year (2016), SWC under
the RF treatment was significantly higher than under the CP treatment.
This showed that in normal years, the RF system collected and stored
rainwater in the soil, which heled maintain soil moisture balance and
thus provided more moisture to the crop during the dry year. The for-
mula (1) shows that the calculation of ET mainly consists of SWC and
amount of precipitation. Two-year data showed that percent SWC re-
lative to ET was 20–33% during the growing season. On the other hand,
percent precipitation relative to ET was 67–80%. This indicates that ET
follows mainly precipitation during the growing season, especially in
the dry years. In contrast, in normal years under low and medium plant
density, the SWC/ET ratio under RF was significantly lower than under
FM or CP. However, in the dry year, at all three plant densities tested,
the SWC/ET under RF was significantly higher than under CP. There-
fore, in normal years, ET is mostly derived from rainfall under RF,
compared to FM and CP, which promotes the utilization of rainfall.
Conversely, in the dry years RF may store more moisture in the soil
during the fallow season; thus, supplying water to the crop during the
growing season.
3.6. Leaf area index and aboveground dry matter
During 2015 and 2016, the leaf area index (LAI) peaked at silking
(98 DAP) and decreased gradually thereafter (Fig. 8). Maize LAI at 6-
leaf, 11-leaf and silking stages was significantly higher under RF and
FM than under CP. At the same planting density, no significant differ-
ences in LAI were noted between the RF and FM treatments before the
silking stage. In 2015, no significant differences in LAI were observed in
the RF and FM treatments at low planting density, at the blister and
dough stages (125 and 142 DAP). However, at moderate and high
26
Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32
Fig. 6. Variations in evapotranspiration under different planting patterns
and three planting densities during the crop season in 2015. L, low
planting density; M, moderate planting density; H, high planting density;
RF, ridge with plastic film mulching; FM, flat planting with film mulching;
CP, conventional planting without mulching. Vertical bars represent LSD
values (P ≤ 0.05).
planting densities, LAI was significantly higher in RF than in FM plots.
In 2016, LAI at the blister and the dough stages was significantly higher
under RF than under FM, at all three planting densities.
Under the same planting density, there was no significant difference
in aboveground dry matter between different planting patterns at the 3-
leaf (30 DAP) or 6-leaf stages (60 DAP), in both years (Fig. 9). After the
6-leaf stage, aboveground dry matter was significantly higher in RF and
FM than in CP plots. In 2015, at 11-leaf (78 DAP) and at silking (98
DAP) stages, under low and moderate planting densities, aboveground
dry matter was significantly higher in FM than in RF plots, although the
difference was not significant at the higher density. In the dry year,
2016, aboveground dry matter after silking (97 DAP) was higher under
RF than under FM, at all three planting densities. After silking,
aboveground dry matter increased significantly with increasing
planting density under all three planting patterns, during the two years
of study.
3.7. Final aboveground dry matter and grain yield
The ANOVA revealed highly significant effects of planting density
and pattern on final aboveground dry matter (FADM) in both years
(P < 0.01, Table 4). In 2015, there was no significant difference in the
FADM obtained with different planting patterns at low planting density;
however, at moderate and high planting density, FADM was sig-
nificantly higher in the RF and FM treatments than in the CP treatment.
Compared to FADM in CP, the average FADM obtained under RF and
FM treatments increased by 14.2% and 12.7% in 2015, and by 20.2%
and 16.5% in 2016, respectively. Significantly higher FADM was asso-
ciated with RF and FM treatments than with CP treatment at the three
planting densities tested in 2016; however, no significant difference
was observed between FM and RF. The mean values showed that FADM
increased significantly with increasing planting density in both years.
Q. Jia et al.
Based on the ANOVA, the effect of planting density on grain yield
was significant in 2015 (P < 0.01, Table 2), but not in 2016
(P > 0.05). In contrast, the effect of planting pattern on grain yield
was significant (P < 0.01) in both years. There was no significant
difference in the grain yield obtained using RF or FM treatments at the
same planting density, but grain yield was significantly (P < 0.05)
higher in RF and FM treatments than in the CP treatment. The average
grain yield under RF and FM treatments increased by 20.5% and 17.9%
in 2015, and by 52.9% and 48.5% in 2016, respectively, compared to
the CP treatment. No significant difference in grain yield at three
planting densities was observed in 2016, but in 2015 grain yield under
moderate and high planting densities was significantly higher than
under low planting density. Compared to low planting density, average
grain yield obtained at moderate and high planting densities increased
by 6.5% and 10.3% in 2015, and by 3.9% and 1.8% in 2016, respec-
tively.
3.8. Water use efficiency and rainwater use efficiency
The ANOVA revealed significant effects of planting density on WUE
and RUE in 2015 (P < 0.01), but not in 2016 (P > 0.05, Table 4). The
effects of planting pattern on WUE and RUE were significant
(P < 0.01) in both years. WUE and RUE were significantly higher
under RF and FM than under CP at all planting densities, in both years.
Compared to CP, average WUE in RF and FM treatments increased by
23.6% and 16.8% in 2015, and by 45.1% and 38.4% in 2016, respec-
tively. Average RUE under RF and FM treatments increased by 20.5%
and 17.9% in 2015, and by 52.9% and 48.5% in 2016, respectively.
Under moderate and high planting densities, WUE and RUE were sig-
nificantly higher than under low density in 2015; whereas, in 2016
there were no significant differences in WUE or RUE among planting
density treatments.
27
Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32
Fig. 7. Variations in evapotranspiration under different planting patterns
and three planting densities during the crop season in 2016. L, low
planting density; M, moderate planting density; H, high planting density;
RF, ridge with plastic film mulching; FM, flat planting with film mulching;
CP, conventional planting without mulching. Vertical bars represent LSD
values (P ≤ 0.05).
4. Discussion
4.1. Soil temperature, soil water and evapotranspiration
The use of plastic film mulch prevents water and heat exchange
between soil and air; thereby, reducing latent heat flux (Zhou et al.,
2009). Additionally, mulching with plastic films reportedly improves
soil temperature in the 0–15 cm top layer; thereby, reducing the
number of days to germination and enhancing early seedling growth (Li
et al., 1999). Our two-year study yielded similar results. Soil tem-
perature in the FM treatment was significantly higher at all three
planting densities than in the CP treatment, before silking (0–98 DAP)
(Figs. 3 and 4). Li et al. (2001) showed that the average soil tempera-
ture at a depth of 10 cm in plastic-film-mulched plots was 0.5–4.5 °C
greater than that in non-mulched plots. Wang et al. (2005) found that
early during the growing season the topsoil temperature in an RF
system was 3.0–6.8 °C higher than in an uncovered flat planting treat-
ment; whereas, later in the growing season, no difference was found
between the two conditions. Our own observations of soil temperature
at depths of 10–15 cm, 15–20 cm, and 20–25 cm corroborate that in the
RF treatment, temperatures at the aforementioned depths in the soil
profile, before silking, were higher than those in the CP treatment;
while, after silking, the differences in soil temperature under the dif-
ferent treatments decreased (Fig. 3). This result was probably due to the
larger plant canopy, which reduced considerably the incidence of solar
radiation on the ground. Consistently with this result, we also found
that the soil temperature in the 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm topsoil layers
under the RF treatment were slightly lower than those under the CP
treatment at blister (128 DAP) and dough (145 DAP) stages in 2015.
This is surely because the RF system collects more rainwater into the
surface soil due to the more abundant rainwater registered during these
two development stages.
Q. Jia et al. Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32

Table 3
Soil water change (SWC) in the 0–200 cm layer during the fallow and growing seasons.

Year Planting densitya Planting patternb Fallow Season Growing Season

SWBFd (mm) SWEF (mm) SWC (mm) SWC (mm) SWC/ET (%)

2015 L RF 341 ± 8a 398 ± 10a 57.4 ± 2.0a 129.9 ± 3.9b 26.9 ± 0.6b
FM 323 ± 8a 371 ± 8ab 48.6 ± 1.5b 148.2 ± 3.9a 30.7 ± 0.7a
CP 326 ± 7a 365 ± 7b 39.1 ± 1.1c 145.2 ± 3.8a 30.2 ± 0.7a
Mean 330 ± 5A 378 ± 7A 48.3 ± 1.0B 141.1 ± 3.4B 29.2 ± 0.7B
M RF 337 ± 9a 397 ± 7a 60.2 ± 1.6a 133.8 ± 3.9b 27.5 ± 0.7b
FM 322 ± 6a 369 ± 7b 46.3 ± 1.0b 148.5 ± 4.2a 30.7 ± 0.7a
CP 324 ± 6a 365 ± 6b 40.5 ± 1.1c 146.9 ± 3.1ab 30.5 ± 0.8a
Mean 328 ± 7A 377 ± 6A 49.0 ± 1.2B 143.1 ± 3.5B 29.6 ± 0.7AB
H RF 327 ± 8a 389 ± 9a 61.9 ± 1.6a 144.2 ± 3.8b 29.1 ± 0.6a
FM 310 ± 7a 365 ± 7ab 54.6 ± 1.2b 160.7 ± 3.7a 32.4 ± 0.8a
CP 318 ± 7a 360 ± 6b 42.0 ± 1.1c 152.5 ± 3.5ab 31.3 ± 0.7a
Mean 319 ± 7A 371 ± 6A 52.8 ± 1.3A 153.5 ± 3.8A 30.9 ± 0.8A
ANOVAc PD ns ns ** ** ns
PP * ** ** ** **
PD × PP ns ns ns ns ns

2016 L RF 310.3 ± 7a 336.2 ± 8a 25.9 ± 0.8a 88.0 ± 3.1b 25.9 ± 0.6a

FM 272.2 ± 5c 297.4 ± 7b 25.2 ± 0.7a 99.1 ± 2.2a 28.3 ± 0.9a
CP 292.3 ± 7b 308.6 ± 7b 16.3 ± 0.4b 72.5 ± 1.8c 22.4 ± 0.6b
Mean 291.6 ± 6A 314.1 ± 8A 22.5 ± 0.6A 86.5 ± 2.3B 25.5 ± 0.6A
M RF 301.7 ± 6a 326.3 ± 8a 24.6 ± 0.8a 95.5 ± 2.1a 27.5 ± 0.8a
FM 270.2 ± 5b 293.8 ± 6b 23.6 ± 0.6a 98.5 ± 2.6a 28.1 ± 0.9a
CP 291.0 ± 6a 310.6 ± 7ab 19.6 ± 0.5b 73.5 ± 1.8b 22.6 ± 0.6b
Mean 287.6 ± 6A 310.2 ± 6A 22.6 ± 0.6A 89.2 ± 2.6AB 26.1 ± 0.7A
H RF 293.0 ± 6a 322.1 ± 8a 29.1 ± 0.7a 95.6 ± 3.1a 27.5 ± 0.7a
FM 265.1 ± 4b 291.3 ± 5b 26.2 ± 0.8a 99.7 ± 2.4a 28.4 ± 0.9a
CP 283.1 ± 5a 302.4 ± 6b 19.3 ± 0.4b 80.4 ± 2.0b 24.2 ± 0.6b
Mean 280.4 ± 4A 305.3 ± 5A 24.9 ± 0.8A 91.9 ± 3.0A 26.7 ± 0.7A
ANOVA PD ns ns ns * ns
PP ** ** ** ** **
PD × PP ns ns ns ns ns

Data represent the mean ± standard error. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences within same plant density and the same year for three patterns at p=.05 level (least
significant difference; n = 3). Different uppercase letters denote significant differences for planting densities at p=.05 level (least significant difference; n = 9).
a
L means low planting density (52,500 plant ha1); M means moderate planting density (75,000 plant ha1); H means high planting density (97,500 plant ha1).
b
RF means ridge with plastic film mulching; FM means flat planting with plastic film mulching; CP means conventional planting without mulching.
c
ANOVA indicates analysis of variance; ** indicates significance at 1% probability level; * indicates significance at 5% probability level; ns indicates no significance. PD means
planting density; PP means planting pattern.
d
SWBF means soil water storage at the beginning of the fallow season; SWEF means soil water storage at the end of the fallow season (sowing time); ET means evapotranspiration.

Fig. 8. Leaf area index dynamics under different planting patterns and three planting densities during the crop seasons in 2015 and 2016. L, low planting density; M, moderate planting
density; H, high planting density; RF, ridge with plastic film mulching; FM, flat planting with film mulching; CP, conventional planting without mulching. Vertical bars represent LSD
values (P ≤ 0.05).

28
Q. Jia et al. Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32

Fig. 9. Variations in aboveground dry matter under different planting patterns and three planting densities during the crop seasons in 2015 and 2016. L, low planting density; M,
moderate planting density; H, high planting density; RF, ridge with plastic film mulching; FM, flat planting with film mulching; CP, conventional planting without mulching. Vertical bars
represent LSD values (P ≤ 0.05).

Maize production in semi-arid regions of China is greatly affected by study, in Ningxia Province, the average annual rainfall over 40 years
the amount and distribution of seasonal rainfall over the cropping was 410 mm, but the average annual potential evaporation is 1753 mm.
cycle; where frequent drought can negatively affect maize growth and Overcoming this imbalance in order to provide sufficient water is cru-
yield (Blanco-Moure et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2011). At the site of our cial both for maize production and for the economy of northwest China

Table 4
Effects of experimental treatments on final aboveground dry matter (FADM), grain yield, evapotranspiration (ET), water use efficiency (WUE) and rainwater use efficiency (RUE) in
2015–2016.

Year Planting densitya Planting patternb FADM (t ha−1) Grain yield (t ha−1) ET (mm) WUE (kg ha−1 mm−1) RUE (kg ha−1 mm−1)

2015 L RF 19.5 ± 0.6a 10.6 ± 0.3a 465 ± 9a 22.8 ± 0.5a 31.7 ± 0.6a
FM 20.0 ± 0.6a 10.5 ± 0.4a 483 ± 10a 21.6 ± 0.8a 31.2 ± 0.6a
CP 18.1 ± 0.5a 9.0 ± 0.2b 480 ± 11a 18.8 ± 0.6b 26.9 ± 0.6b
Mean 19.2 ± 0.4C 10.0 ± 0.3B 476 ± 8A 21.1 ± 0.7B 29.9 ± 0.8B
M RF 23.6 ± 0.7a 11.4 ± 0.5a 469 ± 11a 24.2 ± 0.7a 33.9 ± 1.0a
FM 23.3 ± 0.6a 11.1 ± 0.4a 484 ± 11a 23.0 ± 0.7a 33.2 ± 1.0a
CP 20.6 ± 0.5b 9.6 ± 0.2b 482 ± 14a 19.8 ± 0.6b 28.5 ± 0.7b
Mean 22.5 ± 0.6B 10.7 ± 0.3A 478 ± 10A 22.3 ± 0.5A 31.9 ± 0.9A
H RF 26.1 ± 1.0a 12.0 ± 0.5a 479 ± 13a 24.9 ± 0.8a 35.7 ± 1.1a
FM 25.1 ± 0.8a 11.6 ± 0.4a 496 ± 12a 23.4 ± 0.9a 34.6 ± 1.2a
CP 21.9 ± 0.7b 9.6 ± 0.2b 488 ± 13a 19.7 ± 0.6b 28.6 ± 1.0b
Mean 24.3 ± 0.8A 11.1 ± 0.4A 487 ± 12A 22.7 ± 0.6A 33.0 ± 1.1A
ANOVAc PD ** ** ns * *
PP ** ** ns ** **
PD × PP ns ns ns ns ns

2016 L RF 18.7 ± 0.5a 9.2 ± 0.3a 340 ± 7a 27.0 ± 0.8a 36.4 ± 1.1a
FM 18.3 ± 0.5a 9.0 ± 0.3a 351 ± 10a 25.7 ± 0.8a 35.8 ± 1.0a
CP 15.5 ± 0.5b 6.1 ± 0.2b 324 ± 10a 18.9 ± 0.6b 24.3 ± 0.9b
Mean 17.5 ± 0.6C 8.1 ± 0.5A 338 ± 6A 23.9 ± 1.3A 32.2 ± 2.0A
M RF 19.8 ± 0.7a 9.6 ± 0.4a 347 ± 8a 27.7 ± 1.0a 38.2 ± 1.5a
FM 19.2 ± 0.8a 9.3 ± 0.3a 350 ± 9a 26.4 ± 1.0a 36.8 ± 1.4a
CP 17.2 ± 0.5b 6.4 ± 0.2b 325 ± 6a 19.6 ± 0.7b 25.3 ± 0.9b
Mean 18.7 ± 0.7B 8.4 ± 0.4A 341 ± 7A 23.9 ± 1.1A 32.8 ± 1.6A
H RF 22.2 ± 0.8a 9.5 ± 0.3a 347 ± 5a 27.4 ± 1.0a 37.8 ± 1.5a
FM 21.3 ± 0.8a 9.2 ± 0.4a 351 ± 11a 26.2 ± 1.0a 36.6 ± 1.4a
CP 17.7 ± 0.7b 6.0 ± 0.2b 332 ± 5a 18.1 ± 0.6b 23.9 ± 0.7b
Mean 20.4 ± 0.7A 8.2 ± 0.5A 344 ± 8A 24.6 ± 1.2A 33.4 ± 1.5A
ANOVA PD ** ns ns ns ns
PP ** ** ** ** **
PD × PP ns ns ns ns ns

Data represent the mean ± standard error. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences within same plant density and the same year for three patterns at p=.05 level (least
significant difference; n = 3). Different uppercase letters denote significant differences for planting densities at p=.05 level (least significant difference; n = 9).
a
L means low planting density (52,500 plant ha1); M means moderate planting density (75,000 plant ha1); H means high planting density (97,500 plant ha1).
b
RF means ridge with plastic film mulching; FM means flat planting with plastic film mulching; CP means conventional planting without mulching.
c
ANOVA indicates analysis of variance; ** indicates significance at 1% probability level; * indicates significance at 5% probability level; ns indicates no significance. PD means
planting density; PP means planting pattern.

29
Q. Jia et al.
(Grassini et al., 2009). The RF system can efficiently maintain a higher
SWC during maize growth, thereby promoting crop growth and in-
creasing WUE and grain yield (Gan et al., 2013). Plastic film mulching
directly reduces evaporation from the soil surface; in addition, water
moves from the deeper soil layers to the topsoil by capillarity and va-
pour transfer, thereby maintaining a relatively stable topsoil-moisture
content (Tian et al., 2003). In our two-year study, SWS at each growth
stage was higher in the RF treatment than in the FM or CP treatments.
This finding is consistent with the results reported by Li and Gong
(2002), and by Zhang et al. (2007), whose studies suggest that RF is an
advanced system that increases soil water availability by reducing
water evaporation and increasing the penetration of light rain deeper
into the soil profile. Previous studies have shown that the RF system
yielded the best rainwater harvesting capacity and increased soil
moisture; while, low soil water and high evapotranspiration were ob-
served under conventional planting, without mulching (Li et al., 2013a;
Wu et al., 2015). As these previous studies, our results show that the RF
treatment promotes full use of rainfall during a normal year (2015);
while, in a dry year, it can supply maize the rainwater stored in the soil
during the fallow season (Table 3 and Fig. 5).
Other studies have indicated that the RF treatment increases both,
soil moisture content and water lost through transpiration, resulting in
a higher ET than is observed in conventional flat planting (Li et al.,
2013a; Qin et al., 2014). Our two-year field study showed that total ET
over the entire maize growth period did not differ significantly among
treatments (Table 4). This is because ET differs at different stages in
each treatment (Figs. 6 and 7). At the same planting density, ET was
lower in the RF treatment than in the CP treatment at the early growth
stages (0–30 and 30–60 DAP); whereas, at the late stages (128–165
DAP) and at those with less rainfall (60–78 DAP), ET was higher in the
RF than in the CP treatment. This is explained because of the strong
winds and the smaller LAI during the early maize growth stages, which
resulted in increased evapotranspiration in the CP treatment with re-
spect to the RF system (Feng et al., 2016; Kang et al., 2003). Our results
are similar to those of Li et al. (2002) and Niu et al. (2004), who sug-
gested that the RF system concentrates the surface runoff, stores water
in the root zone, and stores water during dry periods even though
rainwater is not available to the crop. In addition, other studies have
shown that the RF system can retain the surface runoff from heavy rains
(Jia et al., 2006), prevent soil water evaporation, increase soil moisture
content (Zhang et al., 2007), prolong the period during which moisture
is available to the crop, and supply water at critical growth stages (Li
et al., 2000).
4.2. Maize growth and yield
The two-year experimental data showed that LAI before silking was
significantly higher in the RF than in the CP treatment, because soil
temperature and soil water storage were higher in the in the former
than in the latter, at that time (Figs. 3–5); thus, the RF system provided
better conditions for plant growth. Our results are similar to those of
Gan et al. (2013) and Ren et al. (2008), who showed that the ridge with
plastic film mulching provides adequate hydrothermal conditions to
accelerate crop development. At the blister and dough stages in 2016,
LAI at all three planting densities was significantly higher in the RF
treatment than in the FM treatment (Fig. 8). This result was mainly
explained by the occurrence of less rainfall after silking in 2016 and
concomitantly, lower SWS, which led to premature leaf senescence
under the FM treatment. Our results are consistent with those of
Balkcom et al. (2011) and Amanullah (2007), who reported that LAI
increased as the planting density increased; however, LAI decreased
more rapidly after silking at the higher planting density. We found that
LAI increased with increasing density from the 6-leaf to silking stage
and at high planting density LAI decreased rapidly after silking, espe-
cially in the dry year.
In the dry year (2016), aboveground dry matter after silking was
30
Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32
higher in the RF treatment than in the FM treatment, possibly because
the flat plastic film mulching provided favourable soil water and tem-
perature conditions and greater evapotranspiration during early maize
growth (Ma et al., 2008; Xue et al., 2008); whereas, the soil water
deficit was serious under FM treatment and significantly affected maize
growth after silking (Fig. 5). Lu et al. (2005) suggested that the effect of
planting density on dry matter accumulation is mainly evident after
silking. Similar conclusions were drawn from our study: aboveground
dry matter after silking obviously increased as planting density in-
creased, under same planting pattern. Li et al. (2004b) found that RF
systems can increase deep soil moisture and avoid severe drought at
critical growth stages; thereby, increasing biomass and grain yield. Si-
milar trends were observed in the present study: aboveground dry
matter and grain yield showed a significant increase under RF and FM
treatments, relative to the CP treatment. A previous study showed that
precipitation was positively correlated with grain yield both, in RF
systems and in conventional planting (Ye and Liu, 2012). The results of
our study are consistent with earlier reports of lower grain yield in each
treatment in the dry year (2016) than in the normal year (2015). These
effects were possibly due to the following factors: In 2016, soil moisture
decreased due to less rainfall after maize silking (Fig. 5). Thus, from
silking to grain-filling stage (97–125 DAP), soil water could not meet
the moisture demand of maize and ET was reduced (Fig. 7). This also
led to significantly lower LAI and aboveground dry matter at this stage
in 2016 than in 2015 (Figs. 8 and 9). However, in 2015, SWS increased
due to more rainfall during the grain-filling stage (Fig. 5), which re-
sulted in significantly higher ET from silking to grain-filling (98–128
DAP) than in 2016 (Fig. 6). This eventually allowed for a higher grain
yield in 2015 than in 2016. No significant difference in grain yield was
noted between the moderate and high planting densities in the same
planting pattern in the two years. This result may be explained because
plants growing at high planting densities consume more water; if low
rainfall occurs during the time from silking to blister stage, rainfall and
soil water cannot meet the demand of maize for moisture under high
planting density conditions.
4.3. Water use efficiency and rainwater use efficiency
Maintaining soil moisture content and improving WUE and RUE are
key factors in a rain-fed farming system in which annual precipitation
exceeds evaporation (Deng et al., 2006; Turner, 2004). Many studies
have shown that RF systems make better use of rainwater, thereby
improving the availability of water to crops, and increasing grain yield
and the WUE as a result, compared with conventional planting (Ren
et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2015). Our study showed that WUE was sig-
nificantly higher in the RF and FM treatments than in the CP treatment
at all planting densities in both, the normal and the dry years. Studies
have shown that the highest WUE was found for the RF system, mainly
because it improves grain yield, while reducing ET (Lu et al., 2014;
Varga et al., 2013). Our two-year study yielded similar results; average
ET was lower under the RF treatment than under the CP treatment and
grain yield was significantly higher than that obtained with the CP
treatment. In arid and semi-arid areas, higher RUE is generally asso-
ciated with increased crop yield (Ren et al., 2016). In our results, RUE
in the RF treatment was significantly higher in the dry year than in the
normal year. Additionally, average RUE in the RF treatment increased
by 20.5% in 2015 and by 52.9% in 2016, respectively, compared with
the CP treatment. Our results are similar to those obtained in a simu-
lated rainfall study by Ren et al. (2008), who found that, with simulated
rainfall, RUE of maize was 73% greater under RF than under conven-
tional planting when rainfall was 230 mm and 40% greater when the
rainfall was 340 mm, but no difference between the RF treatment and
conventional planting was noted when rainfall was 440 mm.
Rainfall is the most important factor when evaluating crop water
management strategies in semi-arid regions. We found that growing
maize at moderate density on ridges covered with plastic film had
Q. Jia et al.
positive effects which manifested as increased grain yield, WUE and
RUE. These positive effects were possibly due to the following factors:
(1) As soil temperature increased (Figs. 3 and 4), maize emerged earlier
(Table 2), grew and developed faster, and accumulated more above-
ground dry matter (Fig. 9; Table 4), ultimately resulting in increased
grain yield (Table 4). (2) During the fallow and the cropping seasons,
mulching on the ridges collected more water in the soil (Table 3) and
increased SWS (Fig. 5); thereby, providing more water for maize during
the reproductive growth stages (Figs. 6 and 7) and increasing LAI
(Fig. 8), final aboveground dry matter, grain yield, WUE and RUE
(Table 4). Yield and RUE of maize are affected by soil moisture, tem-
perature, light, nutrients, and many other factors. Whether or not RF
systems increase yield and RUE by increasing plant photosynthetic
capacity and/or nutrient use efficiency requires further study.
5. Conclusions
In an RF system with a moderate planting density (M: 75,000 plants
ha−1), average aboveground dry matter, grain yield, WUE and RUE
were higher than those obtained through conventional planting.
Although maximum aboveground dry matter was obtained at high
planting density (H: 97,500 plant ha−1), the average grain yield, WUE,
and RUE were not significantly different from those obtained at mod-
erate planting density, especially in the dry year. In the long term, the
use of an RF system with moderate planting density is an innovative
planting practice that can increase maize yield and RUE in the Loess
Plateau of China.
Author contributions
The manuscript was reviewed and approved for publication by all
authors. Z.J. and X.R. conceived and designed the experiments. Q.J.,
L.S., Y.Z., D.L. performed the experiments. Q.J. and L.S. analyzed the
data. Q.J. wrote the paper. Z.J. and P.Z. reviewed and revised the
paper. A.S. and K.M. corrected the English language for the paper.
Conflicts of interest
Declarations of interest: none.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the China Support Programs
[2012BAD09B03 and 2015BAD22B02] for Dry-land Farming in the
twelfth 5-year plan period, the National High-Tech Research and
Development Programs of China (“863 Program”) for the twelfth 5-Year
Plan [2013AA102902], the Program of Introducing Talents of
Discipline to Universities [No. B12007], and the China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation funded project [2016M602870]. We are grateful to
Junfeng Nie, Baoping Yang and Ruixia Ding for their assistance during
the experimental period and thank Elsevier Language Editing Services
for the English language editing.
References
Amanullah, Adil, K., 2015. Phosphorus and compost management influence maize (zea
mays) productivity under semiarid condition with and without phosphate solubi-
lizing bacteria. Front. Plant Sci 6, 1083.
Amanullah, 2007. Response of specific leaf area (SAL), leaf area index (LAI) and leaf area
ratio (LAR) of maize (zea mays L.) to plant density, rate and timing of nitrogen ap-
plication. World Appl. Sci. J. 2, 235–243 (Agronomy, 2007).
Balkcom, K.S., Satterwhite, J.L., Arriaga, F.J., Price, A.J., Santen, E.V., 2011.
Conventional and glyphosate-resistant maize yields across plant densities in single-
and twin-row configurations. Field Crops Res. 120, 330–337.
Blanco-Moure, N., Angurel, L.A., Moret-Fernández, D., López, M.V., 2012. Tensile
strength and organic carbon of soil aggregates under long-term no tillage in semiarid
aragon (ne spain). Geoderma 189–190, 423–430.
Dam, R.F., Mehdi, B.B., Burgess, M.S.E., Madramootoo, C.A., Mehuys, G.R., Callum, I.R.,
2005. Soil bulk density and crop yield under eleven consecutive years of corn with
31
Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32
different tillage and residue practices in a sandy loam soil in central canada. Soil Till.
Res. 84, 41–53.
Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H.P., Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving agricultural water use
efficiency in arid and semiarid areas of China. Agric. Water Manage. 80, 23–40.
Editorial Board of China Agricultural Yearbook, 2001. China Agriculture Yearbook 2001.
China Agriculture Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese).
FAO/UNESCO, 1993. World Soil Resources. An Explanatory Note on the FAO World Soil
Resource Map at 1: 25,000,000 Scales. FAO, Rome.
Farnham, D.E., 2001. Row spacing, plant density, and hybrid effects on corn grain yield
and moisture. Agron. J. 93, 1049–1053.
Feng, G.Z., Zhang, Y.J., Chen, Y.L., Li, Q., Chen, F.J., Gao, Q., Mi, G.H., 2016. Effects of
nitrogen application on root length and grain yield of rain-fed maize under different
soil types. Agron. J. 108, 1–10.
Ferraro, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., 2007. Quantifying the crop management influence on arable
soil condition in the inland pampa (argentina). Geoderma 141, 43–52.
Gan, Y., Campbell, C.A., Liu, L., Basnyat, P., Mcdonald, C.L., 2009. Water use and dis-
tribution profile under pulse and oilseed crops in semiarid northern high latitude
areas. Agric. Water Manage. 96, 337–348.
Gan, Y., Siddique, K.H.M., Turner, N.C., Li, X.G., Niu, J.Y., Yang, C., Liu, L., Chai, Q.,
2013. Chapter seven?ridge-furrow mulching systems—an innovative technique for
boosting crop productivity in semiarid rain-fed environments. Adv. Agron. 118,
429–476.
Grassini, P., Yang, H.S., Cassman, K.G., 2009. Limits to maize productivity in western
corn-belt: a simulation analysis for fully irrigated and rainfed conditions. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 149, 1254–1265.
Griesh, M.H., Yakout, G.M., 2001. Effect of plant population density and nitrogen ferti-
lization on yield and yield components of some white and yellow maize hybrids
under drip irrigation system in sandy soil. Plant Nutrition Food Security and
Sustainability of Agro-Ecosystems Through Basic and Applied Research. In:
Hannover, Germany. Fourteenth International Plant Nutrition Colloquium 92. pp.
810–811.
Hanway, J.J., 1963. Growth stages of corn (Zea mays L.). Agric. J. 55, 487–492.
Hegazi, A., Ogier, J.P., 2000. Plastic mulching for weed control and water economy in
vineyards. Acta Hortic. 536, 245–250.
Huang, Y., Chen, L., Fu, B., Huang, Z., Gong, J., 2005. The wheat yields and water-use
efficiency in the loess plateau: straw mulch and irrigation effects. Agric. Water
Manage. 72, 209–222.
Jia, Y., Li, F.M., Wang, X.L., Yang, S.M., 2006. Soil water and alfalfa yields as affected by
alternating ridges and furrows in rainfall harvest in a semiarid environment. Field
Crops Res. 97, 167–175.
Kang, S., Gu, B., Du, T., Zhang, J., 2003. Crop coefficient and ratio of transpiration to
evapotranspiration of winter wheat and maize in a semi-humid region. Agric. Water
Manage. 59, 239–254.
Kong, L., 2014. Maize residues soil quality, and wheat growth in china. a review. Agron.
Sustainable Dev. 34, 405–416.
Li, X.Y., Gong, J.D., 2002. Effects of different ridge: furrow ratios and supplemental ir-
rigation on crop production in ridge and furrow rainfall harvesting system with
mulches. Agric. Water Manage. 54, 243–254.
Li, F.M., Guo, A.H., Wei, H., 1999. Effects of clear plastic film mulch on yield of spring
wheat. Field Crops Res. 63, 79–86.
Li, X.Y., Gong, J.D., Wei, X.H., 2000. In-situ rainwater harvesting and gravel mulch
combination for corn production in the dry semi-arid region of china. J. Arid Environ.
46, 371–382.
Li, Y., Wang, W.Y., Men, Q., Zhong, X.C., Xie, X.W., 2001. Field characters of soil tem-
perature under the wide plastic mulch. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 17, 32–36.
Li, F.M., Wang, J., Xu, J.Z., Xu, H.L., 2004a. Productivity and soil response to plastic film
mulching durations for spring wheat on entisols in the semiarid loess plateau of
china. Soil Till. Res. 78, 9–20.
Li, F.M., Wang, P., Wang, J., Xu, J.Z., 2004b. Effects of irrigation before sowing and
plastic film mulching on yield and water uptake of spring wheat in semiarid loess
plateau of china. Agric. Water Manage. 67, 77–88.
Li, R., Hou, X.Q., Jia, Z.K., Han, Q.F., Ren, X.L., Yang, B.P., 2013a. Effects on soil tem-
perature, moisture, and maize yield of cultivation with ridge and furrow mulching in
the rainfed area of the loess plateau china. Agric. Water Manage. 116, 101–109.
Li, Z.X., Liu, K.C., Liu, C.X., Zhang, X.Q., Liu, X., Zhang, H., Liu, S.C., Wang, Q.C., Li, Q.Q.,
2013b. Aboveground dry matter and grain yield of summer maize under different
varieties and densities in north china plain. Maydica 58, 189–194.
Liu, C.A., Siddique, K.H.M., 2015. Does plastic mulch improve crop yield in semiarid
farmland at high altitude? Agron. J. 107, 1724–1732.
Liu, W.Z., Zhang, X.C., 2007. Optimizing water and fertilizer input using an elasticity
index: a case study with maize in the loess plateau of china. Field Crops Res. 100,
302–310.
Liu, C.A., Zhou, L.M., Jia, J.J., Wang, L.J., Si, J.T., Li, X., Pan, C.C., Siddique, K.H.M., Li,
F.M., 2014a. Maize yield and water balance is affected by nitrogen application in a
film-mulching ridge–furrow system in a semiarid region of china. Eur. J. Agron. 52,
103–111.
Liu, J., Bu, L., Zhu, L., Luo, S., Chen, X., Li, S., 2014b. Optimizing plant density and plastic
film mulch to increase maize productivity and water-use efficiency in semiarid areas.
Agron. J. 106, 1138–1146.
Lu, H., Xue, J., Ma, G., 2005. Study on feeding maize shaandan 8806 in planting density.
Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 21, 202–204.
Lu, X., Li, Z., Bu, Q., Cheng, D., Duan, W., Sun, Z., 2014. Effects of rainfall harvesting and
mulching on corn yield and water use in the corn belt of northeast China. Agron. J.
106, 2175.
Ma, S.Q., Wang, Q., Luo, X.L., 2008. Effect of climate change on maize (zea mays) growth
and yield based on stage sowing. Acta Ecol. Sin. 28 (5), 2131–2139 (in Chinese with
Q. Jia et al.
English abstract).
Niu, J.Y., Gan, Y.T., Huang, G.B., 2004. Dynamics of root growth in spring wheat mulched
with plastic film. Crop Sci. 44, 1682–1688.
Nyakudya, I.W., Stroosnijder, L., 2014. Effect of rooting depth, plant density and planting
date on maize (zea mays: l) yield and water use efficiency in semi-arid zimbabwe:
modelling with aquacrop. Agric. Water Manage. 146, 280–296.
Payero, J.O., Tarkalson, D.D., Irmak, S., Davison, D., Petersen, J.L., 2008. Effect of irri-
gation amounts applied with subsurface drip irrigation on corn evapotranspiration,
yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production in a semiarid climate. Agric.
Water Manage. 95, 895–908.
Qin, S., Zhang, J., Dai, H., Wang, D., Li, D., 2014. Effect of ridge?furrow and plastic-
mulching planting patterns on yield formation and water movement of potato in a
semi-arid area. Agric. Water Manage. 131, 87–94.
Ren, X.L., Jia, Z.K., Chen, X.L., 2008. Rainfall concentration for increasing corn pro-
duction under semiarid climate. Agric. Water Manage. 95, 1293–1302.
Ren, X.L., Zhang, P., Chen, X.L., Jia, Z.K., 2015. Impacts of ridge–furrow rainfall con-
centration systems and mulches on corn growth and yield in the semiarid region of
china. J. Sci. Food Agric. 96, 3882–3889.
Ren, X.L., Zhang, P., Chen, X.L., Guo, J.J., Jia, Z.K., 2016. Effect of different mulches
under rainfall concentration system on corn production in the semi-arid areas of the
loess plateau. Sci. Rep-UK 6, 19019.
Ritchie, S.W., Hanway, J.J., Benson, G.O., 1993. How a Corn Plant Develops: Special
Report No. 48. Iowa State University of Science and technology, Cooperative
Extension Service Ames, Iowa7.
Ryan, M.R., Curran, W.S., 2011. Potential synergistic effects of cereal rye biomass and
soybean planting density on weed suppression. Weed Sci. 59, 238–246.
Tian, Y., Su, R., Li, G., Li, X.L., 2003. Effect of rainwater harvesting with ridge and furrow
on yield of potato in semiarid areas. Field Crop Res. 84, 385––391.
Tokatlidis, I.S., Has, V., Melidis, V., Has, I., Mylonas, I., Evgenidis, G., Copandean, A.,
Ninou, E., Fasoula, V.A., 2011. Maize hybrids less dependent on high plant densities
improve resource-use efficiency in rainfed and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Res.
120, 345–351.
Trachsel, S., San Vicente, F.M., Suarez, E.A., Atlin, G.N., 2016. Effects of planting density
and nitrogen fertilization level on grain yield and harvest index in seven modern
tropical maize hybrids (zea mays l.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 1, 1–16.
32
Agricultural Water Management 202 (2018) 19–32
Turgut, I., Duman, A., Bilgili, U., Acikgoz, E., 2005. Alternate row spacing and plant
density effects on forage and dry matter yield of corn hybrids (zea mays, l.). J. Agron.
Crop Sci. 191, 146–151.
Turner, N.C., Li, F.M., Xiong, Y.C., Siddique, K.H.M., 2011. Agricultural ecosystem
management in dry areas: challenges and solutions. Plant Soil 347, 1–6.
Turner, N.C., 2004. Agronomic options for improving rainfall-use efficiency of crops in
dryland farming systems. J. Exp. Bot. 55, 2413–2425.
Varga, B., Vargalászló, E., Bencze, S., Balla, K., Veisz, O., 2013. Water use of winter
cereals under well-watered and drought-stressed conditions. Plant Soil Environ. 59,
150–155.
Wang, X.L., Li, F.M., Jia, Y., Shi, W.Q., 2005. Increasing potato yields with additional
water and increased soil temperature. Agric. Water Manage. 78, 181–194.
Wang, X.K., Li, Z.B., Xing, Y.Y., 2015. Effects of mulching and nitrogen on soil tem-
perature water content, nitrate-n content and maize yield in the loess plateau of
china. Agric. Water Manage. 161, 53–64.
Wu, Y., Jia, Z.K., Ren, X.L., Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Bing, H.Y., Zhang, P., 2015. Effects of
ridge and furrow rainwater harvesting system combined with irrigation on improving
water use efficiency of maize (zea mays) l. in semi-humid area of china. Agric. Water
Manage. 158, 1–9.
Xue, J.Q., Zhang, R.H., Li, F.Y., Zhang, X.H., 2008. Current status, problem and strategy
of maize breeding in Shannxi Province. J. Maize Sci. 16, 139–141 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Ye, J., Liu, C., 2012. Suitability of mulch and ridge-furrow techniques for maize across the
precipitation gradient on the Chinese loess plateau. J. Agric. Sci. 4, 182–190.
Yuan, T., Fengmin, L., Puhai, L., 2003. Economic analysis of rainwater harvesting and
irrigation methods: with an example from china. Agric. Water Manage. 60, 217–226.
Zhang, J., Sun, J., Duan, A., Wang, J., Shen, X., Liu, X., 2007. Effects of different planting
patterns on water use and yield performance of winter wheat in the huang-huai-hai
plain of china. Agric. Water Manage. 92, 41–47.
Zhang, S., Li, P., Yang, X., 2011. Effects of tillage and plastic mulch on soil water: growth
and yield of spring-sown maize. Soil Till. Res. 112, 92–97.
Zhou, L.M., Li, F.M., Jin, S.L., Song, Y., 2009. How two ridges and the furrow mulched
with plastic film affect soil water: soil temperature and yield of maize on the semiarid
loess plateau of china. Field Crops Res. 113, 41–47.