4.7 Article

Duration of plastic mulch for potato growth under drip irrigation in an arid region of Northwest China

期刊

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
卷 150, 期 1, 页码 115-121

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.09.007

关键词

Potato; Soil temperature; Evapotranspiration; Water use efficiency

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [50709039, 2006AA100203]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRI0657]
  4. Ministry of Water Resources of China [200801104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field experiments were conducted to examine the effect the duration of plastic mulching has on soil temperature, evapotranspiration, potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) growth and yields, and water use efficiency (WUE), under drip irrigation in an and region of Northwest China in 2006 and 2007. The duration of coverage with 0.0075 mm thick, transparent plastic mulch on potato beds varied from zero days (i.e. no cover) to the entire season. The average daily air temperature during the two growing seasons was adequate for potato growth, but there were days when the maximum air temperature was above 30 degrees C. Daily mean soil temperature under the plastic mulch was 2-9 degrees C higher than for non-mulching conditions. The mulch effect on soil temperature was greatest during the early growth and became less as the plant canopy increased. Differences in the air and soil temperature between years could explain the difference of potato growth under different mulch durations for the two growing seasons. Mulch reduced irrigation water required and evapotranspiration; however, extending mulch duration beyond 60 days had little effect on evapotranspiration. Both tuber yield and WUE demonstrated benefiting from early plastic mulching. Mulch cover for 60 days was favorable for potato production in both years compared to potatoes grown without mulch. Crown Copyright (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据