Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2026 Feb 8;16:7801. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-37124-7

Effects of film mulching on cotton yield and water use efficiency in China: a meta-analysis

Zhihao Yang 1, Yajin Hu 1,2,✉, Yanan Zhao 1,✉, Ling Li 1, Siyuan Liu 1, Qingxiang Meng 1, Yali Zhang 1
PMCID: PMC12949007  PMID: 41656294

Abstract

Film mulching (FM) has the positive effectiveness of increasing production and retaining soil water, which indicated that film mulching is a widespread technique. However, the agreement about the effects on cotton yield and water use efficiency (WUE) has not yet been established. We collected 222 yield and 55 WUE observations from 68 articles and used meta-analysis to investigate whether FM is effective on cotton yield and WUE. FM markedly enhanced cotton yield and WUE by 30.11% and 40.03%, respectively, in comparison to no mulching. Importantly, FM performed better at mean annual precipitation (MAP) < 200 mm and mean annual temperature (MAT) < 12 ℃. Higher cotton yield and WUE under FM was observed in medium and fine-textured soils with soil bulk density (BD) < 1.4 g cm−3, soil organic matter (SOM) < 20 g kg−1 and total nitrogen (TN) < 0.8 g kg−1. Additionally, FM achieved higher cotton yield and WUE at nitrogen fertilizer application rate (NFAR) < 250 kg ha−1, phosphorus fertilizer application rate (PFAR) < 125 kg ha−1 and potassium fertilizer application rate (KFAR) ≤ 380 kg ha−1, respectively. The equally space planting (ESP) with flat planting with film mulching (FPFM) was more beneficial for cotton yield and WUE. In conclusion, our findings suggest FM can enhance higher cotton yield and WUE simultaneously, and the above results can provide practical guidance and reduce the adverse environmental effects under FM.

Keywords: Film mulching, Cotton, Yield, WUE, Meta-analysis

Subject terms: Sustainability, Ecology, Agroecology

Introduction

Cotton is an important agricultural crop and indispensable resource. As an extensively produced natural fiber, cotton is extensively suited for cultivation in temperate, subtropical, and tropical climates. China currently has the largest global cotton production and consumption1,2. Agriculture constitutes over 70% of worldwide water usage and is vital for food production3. However, in recent years, climatic aridity and the water scarcity has emerged as a significant constraint on agricultural production in China4. Therefore, enhancing or sustaining crop production and water usage efficiency is crucial for attaining sustainable agricultural production development.

Film mulching (FM) is one of the most effective ways to increase crop yield worldwide5 and it is a commonly employed water conservation technique in maize, wheat, and cotton cultivation, particularly in regions characterized by low temperatures and limited precipitation6. China is the preeminent global consumer of plastic film mulching7. The widespread application of FM in cotton contributed to high growth in crop yields6,8,9. FM as an effective and practical field management10, which has been favored by Chinese farmers11. Compared with no mulching, FM has been extensively employed to enhance agricultural production and maximize rainwater resource utilization12–14. Importantly, FM is an effective measure to increase soil temperature, retain soil moisture and water, reduce soil evaporation and erosion, thereby increasing crop yield and water use efficiency (WUE)6,15–19. In addition, a prior study indicated that the early full-season cotton yield increased by 21.1% under FM20. Moreover, FM is a common practice to improve cotton emergence, plant growth and yield21, mainly because FM elevated soil moisture levels higher than alternative methods at the same amount of irrigation water and rainfall22, reduced weed density and ineffective WUE23,24. However, some other studies have demonstrated that the application of FM over all of the growing season may hasten root senescence, thereby reducing crop production owing to extended elevated warmth of the soil25,26. The laborious placement and removal of covering materials is arduous and time-intensive, and farmers frequently dispose of plastic remnants in agricultural fields due to insufficient awareness of the associated risks and environmental implications27. Furthermore, Dong et al.28 discovered that cotton cultivated under FM was susceptible to premature senescence, resulting in diminished yield and quality of the cotton29. Some prior studies posited that FM impedes precipitation infiltration and diminishes effective water utilization, thereby leading to decreased crop yields in years with ample rainfall30,31. In addition, owing to the constraints of field trials, the researchers were able to validate their findings in only one or two places, revealing substantial discrepancies or even contradictory outcomes within their study. Consequently, these findings lack universality and do not provide suggestions for enhancing crop productivity and WUE over the entire region. It is of importance to quantitatively summarize the effects of FM under various situations to apply mulching in practice better. In this instance, meta-analysis is required to integrate the overarching findings of previous investigations on a broad scale.

Meta-analysis, as a quantitative method used for literature reviews, integrates and analyzes independent research findings within a defined thematic framework to allow the comparison. It minimizes subjective judgment and ensures the consistency and validity of the analysis32. By integrating essential parameters under a specific topic and defining variables, meta-analysis analyzes the effects of a variable on a specific topic and provides help for modeling decisions33. For instance, the utilization of meta-analysis in agricultural studies has gained popularity34. Zhang et al.35 employed meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of film mulching drip irrigation on crop productivity and WUE. Lei et al.36 conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effects of partial-film on yield and WUE, revealing that partial-film has the same gains in yield and WUE with complete film mulching. In addition, Cai et al.37 investigated the effects of film mulching for water conservation, crop production improvement, and emission decrease in maize cultivation in China. Huang et al.38 explored the yield, WUE and nitrogen use efficiency potential of plastic film mulching by analyzing the effects of plastic film mulching on yield, WUE, and nitrogen use efficiency. Consequently, the meta-analysis attempts to encapsulate the effects of FM through independent experimental settings.

Through the studies of the published meta-analysis literature, it can be found that the meta-analysis of cotton yield and WUE changes under FM is scarce. Furthermore, owing to variations in climatic conditions, soil properties and field management practices, it is still difficult to draw comprehensive regional scale conclusions. Specifically, the meta-analysis of this study aims to: (1) Determine the response of FM to cotton yield and WUE compared with no mulching; (2) Explore climatic conditions (precipitation, temperature), soil properties (soil texture, bulk density, pH, organic matter and total nitrogen), identify optimal field management practices (fertilizer application rate, irrigation amount, planting patterns and mulching modes) under FM and match the most suitable conditions for FM.

Materials and methods

Data collection

In this study, we conducted the literature data from 2000 to 2024 to investigate the effects of FM on the cotton yield and WUE. Data was collected from the web of science (http://apps.webofknowledge.com/), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (https://www.cnki.net/). The key words including (mulching, cotton, yield, and water use efficiency) were employed to search for peer-reviewed journal papers. The literature selected for inclusion in the study must adhere to the subsequent criteria: (1) The field experiments occurred in China, with specific sites and years clearly identified; (2) Experimental treatment included both film mulching and no mulching; (3) The study was of replicated plot design with at least three replicates per treatment, excluding pot experiments, rainproof shelters or model simulations, data regarding cotton yield or WUE under FM must be available in the literature results; (4) Data regarding wheat yield and WUE under FM must be available in the literature results, the primary metrics for comparison were yield and WUE. WUE (kg m−3) refers to the ratio of crop yield (kg ha−1) to evaporation volume (mm); (5) The mean, standard deviation (or standard errors), and sample size of the variables were either readily accessible or could be derived from the data. Secondary screening was conducted following the evaluation of the title and abstract of the literature to eliminate works that did not satisfy the selection criteria. 68 articles were picked (Fig. 1), comprising 277 observation pairs (222 for cotton yield and 55 for cotton WUE) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The PRISMA flowchart of database query and study selection process.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the study sites.

Data classification

We used the following criteria to determine the cotton yield and WUE improving effects under FM39. (1) Climate conditions included the mean annual precipitation (MAP) (< 200 mm and ≥ 200 mm)40 and the mean annual temperature (MAT)41 (< 12 ℃ and ≥ 12 ℃). (2) Soil properties included soil texture (coarse, medium and fine soil)42, soil bulk density (BD) (< 1.4 and ≥ 1.4 g cm−3)43, soil pH (< 8 and ≥ 8)43, soil organic matter (SOM) (≤ 10, 10–20 and ≥ 20 g Kg−1)44 and total nitrogen (TN) (< 0.8 and ≥ 0.8 g Kg−1)43. (3) Field management practices included Nitrogen fertilizer application rate (NFAR) (< 110, 110–250 and ≥ 250 kg ha−1), Phosphorus fertilizer application rate (PFAR) (< 125 and ≥ 125 kg ha−1) and Potassium fertilizer application rate (KFAR) (< 140 and 140–380 kg ha−1)45, irrigation amount (< 400 and 400–710 mm)46, planting patterns (equally space planting (ESP) and wide and narrow rows planting (WNR))47 and mulching modes (flat planting with film mulching (FPFM) and ridge planting with film mulching (RPFM))34,48.

Meta-analysis

If yield and WUE statistics were not given with standard deviation (SD), we estimated SD using the defined approach40:

graphic file with name d33e521.gif 1

where X is the mean of the film mulching or control group (no mulching), and CV is the variation coefficient. The responses of cotton yield and WUE under FM (FM and no mulching) using the effect size (lnR)49:

graphic file with name d33e530.gif 2

The variance of lnRR (v) was calculated by the following formula50:

graphic file with name d33e540.gif 3

where SDt, SDc, nt and nc are the standard deviations and sample sizes of FM and no mulching, respectively.

The weighting factor (Inline graphic) was calculated as follows:

graphic file with name d33e551.gif 4

The weighted mean response ratios were computed utilizing the subsequent formula:

graphic file with name d33e557.gif 5

where Inline graphic and Inline graphic represent the effect size and its weighting factor for the comparison, respectively. 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as:

graphic file with name d33e570.gif 6

The 95% confidence interval (CI) of lnR was calculated using bootstrapping with 64,999 iterations. When the 95% confidence interval did not intersect the zero line, a significant difference was seen between the treatment group and the control group (p < 0.05). When the 95% confidence interval passed the zero line, it indicated that no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group (p < 0.05):

The effect size Inline graphic is converted into the percentage of change, as follows:

graphic file with name d33e588.gif 7

Random forest model

The random forest model is an integrated machine learning method and the bagging algorithm. It has high precision and good data fitting performance51. The random forest model integrates all the feature variables we have collected, including cotton yield and water use efficiency, to form our random forest dataset. Subsequently, the model employs nonlinear classification functions to quantify the relative importance of each feature variable under film mulching, thereby identifying the key influencing factors and potential mechanisms. The relative importance of the variables was implemented in RStudio (Version 4.4.1) using the R language “RandomForest” package, the number of the decision tree was 1000 and the number of variables randomly sampled as candidates for splitting at each node was 352.

graphic file with name d33e604.gif 8

where Inline graphic represents the predicted value, Inline graphic denotes the result of the prediction Inline graphic th decision tree, and n is the total number of decision trees (set to 1000 in the study)53.

graphic file with name d33e626.gif 9
graphic file with name d33e630.gif 10

The OOBerror is out-of-bag (OOB), which is an internal estimator of the prediction error and the aim is to get an error as low as possible54.

graphic file with name d33e642.gif 11

where Inline graphic represents the importance of variable I; EerrOOB1 represents the OOB error before the addition of random noise to all the variables of the OOB set; EerrOOB2 represents the OOB error after the addition of the random noise55.

Data analysis

In this study, Excel 2021 was used for data collecting, Meta Win 2.1 was used for integrated analysis. Origin 2025, GraphPad Prism 9.5.0 were used for creating graphs.

Result

Overall analysis

Our meta-analysis observed 222 pairs of yield and 55 pairs of water use efficiency (WUE) comparisons between film mulching and no mulching. Compared with no mulching. FM significantly increased by 30.11% (95%CI 28.99%–31.23%) for yield and 40.03% (95%CI 37.05%–43.06%) for WUE (Fig. 3), respectively. The frequency distributions of effect sizes for cotton yield and WUE under FM exhibited Gaussian normal distributions, signifying the homogeneity of the datasets (Fig. 4). The Rosenthal’s fail-safe number of cotton yield and WUE under FM were 151,493.8 and 16,053.2, respectively, which were significantly higher than 5 × 222 pairs of yield + 10 and 5 × 55 pairs of WUE + 10. Our results indicated no publication bias56.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Effect of film mulching on the yield, WUE. Mean effects and 95% confidence intervals are shown. Sample size (n) is listed next to each bar. Film mulching treatment is significantly various from the no mulching treatment when the CIs do not overlap zero.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Frequency distribution of effect sizes for cotton yield (a) and water use efficiency (WUE) (b) in response to film mulching. The red solid lines fit the normal (Gaussian) distribution of the frequency dataset. N is the sample size. The P indicates the significant level.

Response of cotton yield and WUE to film mulching under various climatic factors

Precipitation, temperature significantly affected cotton yield and WUE under film mulching. (Fig. 5). The cotton yield was positively correlated with both MAP (R2 = 0.449) and MAT (R2 = 0.287), indicating that FM can effectively utilize precipitation and heat resources to increase the cotton yield (Fig. 6a and c). WUE under FM was negatively correlated with mean annual precipitation and mean annual temperature (Fig. 6b and d). Compared with no mulching, there was a noticeable difference in the yield and WUE under different MAP subgroups. The highest positive effects on cotton yield under FM was 31.55% (95%CI 26.64%–36.64%) for MAp < 200 mm, which was significantly higher than that of 16.21% (95%CI 13.08%–19.42%) for MAP ≥ 200 mm (Fig. 5a). MAp < 200 mm and MAP ≥ 200 mm under FM significantly enhanced WUE by 42.12% and 28.84% (Fig. 5b), respectively. Compared with no mulching, MAT < 12 ℃ had a higher increasing effect about 30.11% (95%CI 25.21%–35.20%) and 42.12% (95%CI 33.10%–51.76%) on yield and WUE than 16.68% (95%CI 13.45%–20.02%) and 28.84% (95%CI 20.24%–38.06%) on yield and WUE for MAT ≥ 12 ℃ (Fig. 5). Region with MAp < 200 mm and MAT < 12 ℃, there was a significant difference in yield and WUE but not significant for WUE.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

The effects of mean annual precipitation (< 200 mm and ≥ 200 mm) (a and b) and mean annual temperature (< 12 ℃ and ≥ 12 ℃) (c and d) on cotton yield and WUE as a percentage of film mulching. The mean effect value and 95% confidence intervals are shown. Sample sizes (n) are listed beside each bar.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

The correlations between cotton yield and water use efficiency (WUE) with (a, b) mean annual precipitation and mean annual temperature (c, d). CK, no mulching; FM, film mulching.

Response of cotton yield and WUE to film mulching under various soil properties

Both cotton yield and WUE were considerably influenced by soil texture, BD, pH, SOM and TN under FM, with average cotton yield of 23.08%, 28.51%, 19.77%, 20.74%, 20.55% and WUE of 40.51%, 40.09%, 25.36%, 38.32% and 39.53% (Fig. 7), respectively. Compared with no mulching, the beneficial effects of FM on yield and WUE was most pronounced in fine soils (34.49% and 87.67%, respectively), which was higher than those in medium and coarse soils. The lowest cotton yield and WUE was observed in the coarse soils (16.88% and 26.92%, respectively). (Fig. 7a and b). The 44.24% of improvement in yield with BD < 1.4 g cm−3 was significantly higher than the 16.98% improvement in yield with BD ≥ 1.4 g cm−3 (Fig. 7c). The highest enhancement of WUE under FM was observed in BD < 1.4 g cm−3 (Fig. 7d). The advantage of FM on cotton yield was significantly higher in pH ≥ 8 than that in pH < 8 (Fig. 7e). An opposite tendency was observed for WUE, but there was no significant variation in WUE (Fig. 7f). The cotton yield increases under FM relative to no mulching were 22.95% at SOM ≤ 10 g kg−1, 20.15% at SOM 10–20 g kg−1 and 13.31% at SOM ≤ 10 g kg−1. Similarly, the improvement in WUE under FM was higher at 38.78% for SOM ≤ 10 g kg−1 and 36.68% for SOM 10 − 20 g kg−1. There was a notable disparity on the yield and WUE under varying TN, which was mean yield 27.49% and WUE 56.52% for TN < 0.8 g kg−1, mean yield 14.21% and 24.43% WUE for TN ≥ 0.8 g Kg−1.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

The effects of soil texture (coarse, medium and fine soil) (a and b), soil bulk density (< 1.4 g cm−3 and ≥ 1.4 g cm−3) (c and d), soil pH (< 8 and ≥ 8) (e and f), soil organic matter(≤ 10 g kg−1,10 − 20 g kg−1 and ≥ 20 g kg−1) (g and h) and total nitrogen(< 0.8 g kg−1 and ≥ 0.8 g kg−1) (i and j) on cotton yield and WUE as a percentage of film mulching. Mean effect value and 95% confidence intervals are shown. Sample sizes (n) are listed beside each bar.

Response of cotton yield and WUE to film mulching under various agricultural management practices

The effects of different agricultural management practices on cotton yield and WUE under FM showed that the overall trend was positive. Compared with no film mulching, FM significantly increased the cotton yield by 26.14% for < 110 kg N ha−1, 35.77% for 110–250 kg N ha−1 and 18.20% for ≥ 250 kg N ha−1 (Fig. 8a). As NFAR increased, the effects of FM on the cotton WUE tended to decrease (Fig. 8b). Compared to no mulching, FM had greater positive effects on the yield and WUE by 35.11% and 46.23% for PFAR < 125 kg ha−1 (Fig. 8c and d), respectively. In addition, the yield and WUE increasing effect under FM was about 12.63% and 18.27% for KFAR 140–380 kg ha−1 higher than these for KFAR < 140 kg ha−1 (Fig. 8e and f), but no difference for yield and WUE. The cotton yield and WUE responded more favorably to the irrigation amount < 400 mm, which was higher than that for the irrigation amount 400 –710 mm, the significant differences of irrigation amount under FM happened to cotton yield, but not occurred in WUE. (Fig. 8g and h). Furthermore, compared with no mulching, there was no significant difference between yield and WUE under FM, which was mean 13.61%, 42.9% for ESP and mean 29.95%, 32.37 for WNR (Fig. 8i and j). When the mulching mode was FPFM, the corresponding increase in cotton yield and WUE were 22.42% and 32.64%, which were greater than 17.66% and 18.19% for RPFM (Fig. 8k and l).

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

The effects of nitrogen fertilizer rate(< 110, 110–250 and ≥ 250 kg N ha−1) (a and b), phosphorus fertilizer rate (< 125 and ≥ 125 kg P ha−1) (c and d), potassium fertilizer rate (< 140 and 140–380 kg K ha−1) (e and f), irrigation amount(< 400 mm and 400–710 mm) (g and h), planting patterns ESP (equally space planting) and WNR (wide and narrow planting) (i and j) and mulching modes FPFM (flat planting with film planting) and RPFM (ridge planting with film mulching) (k and l) on cotton yield and WUE as a percentage of film mulching. Mean effect and 95% confidence intervals are shown. Sample sizes (n) are listed beside each bar.

Response of cotton yield and WUE to film mulching under various influencing factors

Random forest models were used to evaluate the relative importance of yield and WUE variables. The relative importance of different variables on yield and WUE also varied. The relative importance of the top five variables with the greatest effects on yield are MAP (16.67%), MAT (13.96%), NFAR (10.46%), SOM (8.21%) and PFAR (7.22%). Soil texture had the lowest explanatory power for yield with a relative importance of 2.05%. For WUE, the relative importance of the top five variables with the greatest effects on WUE are MAP (12.22%), TN (11.24%), KFAR (11.18%), MAT (10.26%) and Planting pattern (9.72%), respectively. MAP has the greatest explanatory power. In contrast, SOM has the weakest explanatory power. At the same time, it should be noted that the relative importance of BD, irrigation amount, NFAR, PFAR and soil texture are extremely similarity and have almost the similar degree of influence.

Discussion

Overall analysis

In our meta-analysis, FM significantly enhanced the cotton yield and WUE by 30.11 (28.99%-31.23%) and 40.03% (37.05%-43.06%), respectively, compared with no mulching. The crop yield and WUE increment induced by film mulching is similar to that reported by the previous meta-analysis of Huang et al. (26% and 33%)38, Cai et al. (27.31% and 34.08%)37. The limited sample size may restrict the overall assessment of crop yield and WUE by FM57. In addition, climatic conditions, soil properties and agricultural field managements have different degrees of influence on yield and WUE under FM. The relative importance analysis indicated that the increasing impact of FM to yield and WUE could be explained of 30.63% and 22.5 by climate factors, 28.9% and 31.3% by soil properties, 40.47% and 46.2% by field managements. In summary, the effects of specific variables under these subgroups on yield and WUE need to be studied to optimize the implementation of FM further.

Response of yield and WUE to film mulching under various climatic factors

We found the efficiency of cotton yield and WUE improvements under FM varied with the changes in the MAP and MAT. In addition, climate factors have shown a high ranking of relative importance (Fig. 9). The results of this study showed that the cotton yield was best improved under FM conditions in areas with MAT of < 12 °C and MAP of < 200 mm, in agreement with Yu et al.58, who viewed the beneficial effects of film mulching diminished with rising precipitation and temperature during the growing season. The lack of heat accumulation inhibits the growth and development of cotton59. When the annual average temperature is < 12 °C, FM reduces the latent and sensible heat exchange between the soil and the surrounding air and increases the surface soil temperature by absorbing, transmitting, and radiating heat, which leads to higher crop yields17,60. This also explains how the warming effect of film mulching under low-temperature conditions contributes to increased yields. Furthermore, FM significantly alleviates the inhibitory effects of low temperatures and limited precipitation on cotton growth, while also enhancing cotton yield61. Deng et al.62 indicated that under reduced rainfall conditions, FM enhanced cotton yield and WUE by 68.8% and 68% compared to bare soil without FM, respectively. This finding is consistent with our results showing enhanced yield and WUE under lower precipitation conditions (Fig. 5a and b). Other studies have also indicated that under FM, higher rainfall and temperature lead to improved moisture conditions and higher soil temperatures63,64, which significantly affect crop growth38. Both MAP and MAT demonstrate significant relative importance in influencing yield and WUE. A meta-analysis suggests that under lower temperatures and annual rainfall, FM more effectively enhances temperature regulation, moisture conservation, and increases WUE41. In areas with low precipitation, FM plays a more effective role in water conservation by reducing transpiration, thus improving late-season crop growth stability. Additionally, compared to no mulching treatments, FM reduces crop water requirements and creates favorable water-thermal conditions that allow for the efficient use of precipitation to improve WUE65–68.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Open in a new tab

Variable importance for (a) Yield and (b) WUE. In the pie chart, green represents the cumulative importance of agricultural management practice variables. Similarly, brown denotes soil properties variables, and bule signifies climate variables. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns, no significant difference.

Response of yield and WUE to film mulching under various soil properties

Meta-analysis showed that FM improved cotton yield under various soil properties. Soil properties play a crucial role in governing soil humidity and temperature. Compared to no mulching, greater cotton yield and WUE were observed in the fine soil than medium and coarse soils under FM, mainly because fine textured soils promote root growth to enhance the higher yield43,69. But a study showed that high clay and low sand content compacted the soil and inhibited cotton root respiration, which may lead to decrease the yield70,71. Furthermore, the advantage of FM on yield and WUE was less in coarse textured soils, this is likely because coarse soils have poorer water and nutrient retention compared to medium and fine soils72, FM used in medium soils may not achieve the expected increase in yield, in agreement with our study findings. Interestingly, FM under medium-textured soils optimized cotton yield and WUE improvement2,73. Nevertheless, soil texture affected cotton yield and WUE under FM without significant differences (Fig. 7b). Compared with no mulching, FM can cultivate suitable circumstances for soil, enhance nutrient absorption in crops, and thus increase agricultural yields, which is regarded as the principal strategy for attaining greater yields74. Cotton yield and WUE decreased with the increasing soil BD, and there was a significant difference between the two soil BD, this result was probably attributed to low soil BD with good soil structure, high mineral concentration75, and better water retention capacity76. The increase with FM on yield and WUE was less in higher soil BD (≥ 1.4 g cm−3), since soil water retention capacity decreases as BD increases77. Besides, high soil bulk density negatively affected the absorption of water, nutrients and microelements from the root zone, leading to a reduction in cotton yield78. Our research findings support the above conclusions that BD < 1.4 g cm−3 can increase yield and conserve water better. Soil pH is a key environmental parameter for measuring soil acidity and plays a vital role in regulating soil and crop growth79. Cotton yield increased with the increasing soil pH, but no significant difference between them. Conversely, WUE significantly increased with decreased soil pH. This was because FM has been more effective at increasing yield in alkaline soil conditions35. Conversely, long-term film mulching can reduce soil pH and enhance crop yield80. Our research findings indicated that compared with others, the higher cotton yield was achieved in SOM ≤ 10 g kg−1 under FM, mainly because FM enhanced the soil hydrothermal environment to improve SOM content81,82 and SOM positively effects soil fertility and crop yield83. Furthermore, previous studies indicated that low SOM under film mulching could enhance more in increasing yield than in higher SOM, because FM performs better in low-fertilizer field84 and improves the hydrothermal conditions of soil to promote sustainable crop production. Interestingly, these contradict with some individual studies which reported SOM and mineral loss accelerated by FM85, and may lead to a decline in soil fertility. The increase in yield and WUE with FM optimum in TN < 0.8 g cm−3, which is consistent with Zhang et al.86, who found that FM reduced soil nitrogen loss and promoted nitrogen accumulation on the soil surface, and finally improved the crop yield and WUE. Our research findings that the second highest relative importance of TN is crucial for the improvement of yield and WUE (Fig. 9), with the difference being insignificant for yield but significant for WUE. However, some studies have concluded that the increase in yield and WUE under FM eventually led to a steady decline in soil fertility. Long-term mulching is detrimental to the accumulation of organic nitrogen and total nitrogen87, therefore, exploring appropriate strategies based on regional and climatic conditions to improve crop yields and soil environment is particularly imperative88.

Response of yield and WUE to film mulching under various field management practices

The overall relative importance of field management accounts for the highest proportion (Fig. 9). Soil fertility is critical for agricultural production89. Our study found that FM had better performance on yield and WUE at medium and low fertilization rates, this may be due to the increases in soil nutrients availability inputs under FM plays a vital role in improving crop production at low fertilizer inputs than at high fertilizer inputs90. A study demonstrated that low fertilizer application under film mulching increased crop yield and WUE than at high fertilizer inputs91,92, in agreement with our research findings. In addition, some previous studies also indicated that proper fertilizer application is helpful to increase cotton yield under FM38,93 and valuable to improve the crop water productivity94,95. The amount of irrigation also significantly affected cotton yield and WUE under FM. The highest cotton yield and WUE were obtained at irrigation amount < 400 mm, which was consistent with Deng et al.62, who found that lower irrigation amount enhanced the effects of FM on cotton yield and WUE. It also indicating that proper irrigation can achieve the double effects of saving water and increasing production by promoting the cotton growth96. Furthermore, the yield under FM was similar to that of no mulching at the condition of reduced irrigation, which was necessary for reducing inefficient water use and increasing cotton yield97,98. ESP and WNR are essential factors influencing the cotton yield and WUE, but no significance for yield and WUE. Our findings indicated that higher cotton yield was achieved in WNR under film mulching, in agreement with some previous studies that WNR can improve soil permeability and make cotton roots more widely distributed under wide and narrow row planting99 and the stronger water absorption capacity of the narrow line reduced water loss100. Meanwhile, the increased cotton biomass translated into higher cotton yield99,101. Compared with no mulching, the advantage of film mulching on yield and WUE was better in ESP, mainly because ESP optimized cotton canopy and enhanced light energy utilization to increase cotton yield and quality102. FPFM and RPFM all increased the yield and WUE compared with the control, but no significant difference between them. FPFM performs better in yield and WUE (Fig. 8k and l), in agreement with the previous study that the average yield under FPFM was significantly higher than that of RPFM and compared with no mulching and RPFM, moreover, the higher water and nitrogen utilization rate of FPFM is beneficial to crop growth1,103. Although our research shows that FPFM performs slightly better, interestingly, more previous studies apparently considered that the crop yield and WUE under RPFM were markedly greater than those under flat cultivation with film mulch104, mainly because the limited precipitation is redistributed into the soil by alternating furrows and mainly seeps into the root zone of field crops105–107. In addition, Li et al.108 supported that RPFM also enhanced soil humidity and temperature to increase crop yield and WUE, furthermore, inhibited the exchange of water vapor between the soil and the atmosphere to reduce soil water evaporation and improved crop productivity30,85. Importantly, both FPFM and RPFM significantly increased cotton yield and utilization efficiency34.

Conclusions

Overall, meta-analysis demonstrated that FM positively improved cotton yield by 30.11% and WUE by 40.03% compared with no mulching. However, the extent of improvement was affected by climatic conditions, soil properties and field managements apparently. The advantage of FM on cotton yield and WUE was larger in MAp < 200 mm and MAT < 12 ℃. There was no significant difference in cotton yield and WUE among soil textures. When FM is applied to soil BD < 1.4 g cm−3 or soil pH < 8 or SOM < 10 g kg−1 and TN < 0.8 kg ha−1. It will help to obtain higher cotton yield and WUE. While using irrigation amount < 400 mm as supplementary water and applying appropriate application of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were 110–250 kg N ha−1, < 125 P kg ha−1 and 140–380 kg K ha−1, respectively, ESP combines with FPFM, these suggested agricultural field practices will contribute to obtaining better FM effect. Importantly, the random forest models ranked the primary variables that affected the cotton under FM: MAP, MAT, NFAR, TN and KFAR. Our results provided available insights and basis for the better application of FM in practices.

Author contributions

Methodology and Data Analysis: Y.J.H., and Y.L.Z.; Writing—original draft preparation: Z.H.Y., L.L. and Y.J.H.; Writing—review and editing: Z.H.Y., S.Y.L., and Q.X.M.; Funding acquisition: Y.N.Z.; Revised and improved manuscript with valuable suggestions: Y.N.Z and Y.J.H.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province (252300423246); the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFD1700900, 2021YFD1901000); Research project of Henan Provincial Federation of Social Sciences (SKL-2025-469); Innovation Fund Project of Henan Agricultural University (SKJJ2024B09); Postdoctoral research grant from Henan Province (1040010); High level Talent Special Support Fund of Henan Agricultural University (30501358).

Data availability

Available upon request to the corresponding author.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Yajin Hu, Email: huyajinnd@henau.edu.cn.

Yanan Zhao, Email: zhaoyanan@henau.edu.cn.

References

  • 1.Jans, Y., Bloh, W. V., Schaphoff, S. & Müller, C. Global cotton production under climate change-Implications for yield and water consumption. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.25, 2027–2044. 10.5194/hess-25-2027-2021 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang, X. W. et al. The impact of factor price change on China’s cotton production pattern evolution: Mediation and spillover effects. Agriculture14, 1145. 10.3390/agriculture14071145 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 3.UNESCO. The United Nations World Water Assessment Programme: The United Nations World Water Development Report 2020: Water and climate change, Paris, France (2020).
  • 4.Zhang, J. P. et al. Cotton Responses to Saline Water Irrigation in the Low Plain around the Bohai Sea in China. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.144, 9. 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.000133 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gan, Y. T. et al. Ridge-furrow mulching systems—An innovative technique for boosting crop productivity in semiarid Rain-Fed environments. Adv. Agron.118, 429–476. 10.1016/B978-0-12-405942-9.00007-4 (2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liu, E. K., He, W. Q. & Yan, C. R. ‘White revolution’ to ‘white pollution’—agricultural plastic film mulch in China. Enviro. Res. Lett.9, 091001. 10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/091001 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Daryanto, S., Wang, L. X. & Jacinthe, P. A. Can ridge-furrow plastic mulching replace irrigation in dryland wheat and maize cropping systems?. Agric. Water Manag.190, 1–5. 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.05.005 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Stathakos, T. D., Gemtos, T. A., Tsatsarelis, C. A. & Galanopoulou, S. Evaluation of three cultivation practices for early cotton establishment and improving crop profitability. Soil Till. Res.87, 135–145. 10.1016/j.still.2005.03.007 (2005). [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sun, D. B. et al. An overview of the use of plastic-film mulching in China to increase crop yield and water-use efficiency. Natl. Sci. Rev.7, 1523–1526. 10.1093/nsr/nwaa146 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mo, F. et al. Alternating small and large ridges with full film mulching increase linseed (Linumusitatissimum L.) productivity and economic benefit in a rainfed semiarid environment. Field Crops Res.219, 120–130. 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.036 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fu, W., Fan, J., Hao, M. D., Hu, J. S. & Wang, H. Evaluating the effects of plastic film mulching patterns on cultivation of winter wheat in a dryland cropping system on the Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag.244, 106550. 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106550 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zheng, J. et al. Mulching mode and planting density affect canopy interception loss of rainfall and water use efficiency of dryland maize on the Loess Plateau of China. J. Arid Land.10, 794–808. 10.1007/s40333-018-0122-y (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zheng, J., Fan, J. L., Zou, Y. F., Chau, H. W. & Zhang, F. C. Ridge-furrow plastic mulching with a suitable planting density enhances rainwater productivity, grain yield and economic benefit of rainfed maize. J. Arid Land.12, 181–198. 10.1007/s40333-020-0001-1 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fan, J., Zheng, J., Wu, L. F. & Zhang, F. C. Estimation of daily maize transpiration using support vector machines, extreme gradient boosting, artificial and deep neural networks models. Agric. Water Manag.245, 106547. 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106547 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sui, H. J., Zeng, D. C. & Chen, F. Z. A numerical model for simulating the temperature and moisture regimes of soil under various mulches. Agric. For. Meteorol.61, 281–299. 10.1016/0168-1923(92)90054-8 (1992). [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Huang, J. H., Liao, Y. C., Gao, M. S. & Yin, R. J. Effects of tillage and mulching on orchard soil moisture content and temperature in Loess Plateau. J. Appl. Ecol.20, 2652–2658 (2009). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhou, L. M., Li, F. M., Jin, S. L. & Song, Y. J. 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. 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.04.005 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liu, Y., Yang, S. J., Li, S. Q., Chen, X. P. & Chen, F. Growth and development of maize (Zeamays L.) in response to different field water management practices: Resource capture and use efficiency. Agr. Forest. Meteorol.150, 606–613. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.02.003 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xue, Y. H. et al. Status and trends in application of technology to prevent plastic film residual pollution. J. Agro-Environ. Sci.36, 1595–1600. 10.11654/jaes.2017-0298 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Qi, J. et al. Late planted short-season cotton without plastic mulching is an alternative to early-planted mulched full-season cotton. Ind. Crops Prod.163, 113325. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113325 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dong, H. Z., Li, W. J., Tang, W. & Zhang, D. M. Early plastic mulching increases stand establishment and lint yield of cotton in saline fields. Field Crops. Res.111, 269–275. 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.01.001 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jia, H. C. et al. Reserving winter snow for the relief of spring drought by film mulching in northeast China. Field Crops. Res.209, 58–64. 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.04.011 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cirujeda, A. et al. Biodegradable mulch instead of polyethylene for weed control of processing tomato production. Agron. Sustain Dev.32, 889–897. 10.1007/s13593-012-0084-y (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Han, Q. M. et al. High biomass productivity of Short-Rotation willow plantation in Boreal Hokkaido achieved by mulching and cutback. Forests11, 505. 10.3390/f11050505 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hou, X. Y., Wang, F. X., Han, J. J., Kang, S. Z. & Feng, S. Y. Duration of plastic mulch for potato growth under drip irrigation in an arid region of Northwest China. Agric. For. Meteorol.150, 115–121. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.09.007 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gu, X. B., Li, Y. N. & Du, Y. D. Biodegradable film mulching improves soil temperature, moisture and seed yield of winter oilseed rape (Brassicanapus L.). Soil Till. Res.171, 42–50. 10.1016/j.still.2017.04.008 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gao, H. H. et al. Effects of plastic mulching and plastic residue on agricultural production: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total. Environ.651, 484–492. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.105 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dong, H. Z. et al. Yield, quality and leaf senescence of cotton grown at varying planting dates and plant densities in the Yellow River Valley of China. Field Crops Res.98, 106–115. 10.1016/j.fcr.2005.12.008 (2006). [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chen, Y. Z. & Dong, H. Z. Mechanisms and regulation of senescence and maturity performance in cotton. Field Crops Res.189, 1–9. 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.02.003 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li, X. Y., Gong, J. D., Gao, Q. Z. & Li, F. R. Incorporation of ridge and furrow method of rainfall harvesting with mulching for crop production under semiarid conditions. Agric. Water Manag.50, 173–183. 10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00105-6 (2001). [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Deng, H. L. et al. Effects of different covering planting patterns on soil moisture, temperature characteristics and maize yield in semi-arid region of the Loess Plateau. Sci. Agric. Sinica.53, 273–287. 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.02.005 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stanley, T. D. & Jarrell, S. B. Meta-regression analysis: A quantitative method of lit erature surveys. J. Economic Surv.3, 161–170. 10.1111/j.1467-6419.1989.tb00064.x (1989). [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Smith, V. K. & Kaoru, Y. Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. Am. J. Agric Econ.72, 419–433. 10.2307/1242344 (1990). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gu, X. B. et al. Effects of degradable film mulching on crop yield and water use efficiency in China: A meta-analysis. Soil Till. Res.202, 104676. 10.1016/j.still.2020.104676 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zhang, W. Q., Dong, A. H., Liu, F. L., Niu, W. Q. & Siddique, K. H. M. Effect of film mulching on crop yield and water use efficiency in drip irrigation systems: A meta-analysis. Soil Till. Res.221, 105392. 10.1016/j.still.2022.105392 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lei, T. et al. Partial film mulch returns the same gains in yield and water use efficiency as full-film mulch with reduced cost and lower pollution: A meta-analysis. J. Sci. Food Agric.101, 5956–5962. 10.1002/jsfa.11248 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cai, W. J. et al. Effects of mulching on water saving, yield increase and emission reduction for maize in China. Agric. Water Manag.274, 107954. 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107954 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Huang, T. T. et al. Effects of plastic film mulching on yield, water use efficiency, and nitrogen use efficiency of different crops in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res.312, 109407. 10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109407 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Qin, W., Hu, C. & Oenema, O. Soil mulching significantly enhances yields and water and nitrogen use efficiencies of maize and wheat: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep.5, 16210. 10.1038/srep16210 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rusinamhodzi, L. et al. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agron. Sustain. Dev.31, 657–673. 10.1007/s13593-011-0040-2 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chen, L. J., Bao, Z., Lin, T., Yan, C. R. & Tang, Q. X. A meta-analysis on the yield and water use efficiency of main crops covered with plastic film in Xinjiang, China. J. Plant Ecol.41, 661–667. 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202203.032 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Adil, M. et al. Long-term effects of agronomic practices on winter wheat yield and NUE in dryland regions of USA and China: A long-term meta-analysis. Sci. Rep.14, 24777. 10.1038/s41598-024-74910-7 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Guo, J., Zheng, L. J., Ma, J. J., Li, X. F. & Chen, R. X. Meta-analysis of the effect of subsurface irrigation on crop yield and water productivity. Sustain.15, 15716. 10.3390/su152215716 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cai, H. J. et al. Meta-analysis of effects of nitrogen application on cotton yield and water use efficiency in China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach.54(12), 316–326. 10.11963/cs20230042 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cheng, M. H. et al. Water productivity and seed cotton yield in response to deficit irrigation: A global meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag.255, 107027. 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107027 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ning, S. R. et al. Water use efficiency and benefit for typical planting modes of drip-irrigated cotton under film in Xinjiang. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng.29(22), 90–99. 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2013.22.011 (2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wang, J. T. et al. Mulched drip irrigation increases cotton yield and water use efficiency via improving fine root plasticity. Agric Water Manag.255, 106992. 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106992 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Li, H., Li, S. P., Ling, N., Li, H. & Guo, Q. H. Meta-analysis of effect of plastic film mulching on cotton yield in China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach.48(7), 228–235. 10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2017.07.029 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology80, 1150–1156. 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR]2.0.CO;2 (1999). [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hu, Y. J. et al. The responses of crop yield and greenhouse gas emissions to straw returning from staple crops: Ameta-analysis. Agric.15, 248. 10.3390/agriculture15040408 (2025). [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn.45, 5–32. 10.1023/A:1010933404324 (2001). [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Liu, X. F., Zhang, L., Yang, F. H. & Zhou, W. Determining reclaimed water quality thresholds and farming practices to improve food crop yield: A meta-analysis combined with random forest model. Sci. Total Environ.862, 160774. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160774 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Zhang, X. et al. Effects of straw mulching and plastic mulching on maize yield and crop water productivity in China: A meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag.315, 109549. 10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109549 (2025). [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ouallouche, F., Lazri, M. & Ameur, S. Improvement of rainfall estimation from MSG data using Random Forests classification and regression. Atmos. Res.211, 62–72. 10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.05.001 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Li, L., Chen, S., Yang, C., Meng, F. & Sigrimis, N. Prediction of plant transpiration from environmental parameters and relative leaf area index using the random forest regression algorithm. J. Cleaner Prod.261, 121136. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121136 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Rosenberg, M. S. The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution59, 464–468. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01004.x (2005). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mahbub, U. I., Guo, Z. C., Jiang, F. H. & Peng, X. H. Does straw return increase crop yield in the wheat-maize cropping system. Field Crops Res.279, 108447. 10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108447 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Yu, Y. Y. et al. Benefits and limitations to straw and plastic-film mulch on maize yield and water use efficiency: A meta-analysis across hydrothermal gradients. Eur. J Agron.99, 138–147. 10.1016/j.eja.2018.07.005 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gormus, O. & Yucel, C. Different planting date and potassium fertility effects on cotton yield and fiber properties in the Cukurova region, Turkey. Field Crops Res.78, 141–149. 10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00121-1 (2002). [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Mbah, C. N., Nwite, J., Ibeh, L. & Igwe, T. S. Physical properties of an ultisol under plastic film and no-mulches and their effect on the yield of maize. WJASS.6, 160–165 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Zhao, H. et al. Ridge-furrow with full plastic film mulching improves water use efficiency and tuber yields of potato in a semiarid rainfed ecosystem. Field Crops Res.161, 137–148. 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.02.013 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Deng, L., Yang, Y., Zhang, H. Y., Wang, Q. & Yu, R. The effects of biodegradable mulch film on the growth, yield, and water use efficiency of cotton and maize in an arid region. Sustain.11, 7039. 10.3390/su11247039 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Li, C. J. et al. Towards the highly effective use of precipitation by ridge-furrow with plastic film mulching instead of relying on irrigation resources in a dry semi-humid area. Field Crops Res.188, 62–73. 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.01.013 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Chai, Y. W. et al. Straw strip mulching in a semiarid rainfed agroecosystem achieves winter wheat yields similar to those of full plastic mulching by optimizing the soil hydrothermal regime. Crop. J.10, 879–892. 10.1016/j.cj.2021.09.004 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Singh, R. K., Acharya, S. & Chaurasia, O. P. Effects of mulching and zinc on physiological responses and yield of sweet pepper (Capsicumannuum) under high altitude cold desert condition. Indian J. Agr. Sci.89, 300–06. 10.56093/ijas.v89i2.87088 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hu, Y. J. et al. Exploring optimal soil mulching for the wheat-maize cropping system in sub-humid drought-prone regions in China. Agric Water Manag.219, 59–71. 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.04.004 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ji, W. N. et al. Effects of mulching methods on water consumption and yield of potato in dryland farming. J. Soil Water Conserv.36, 228–235. 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.03.033 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zhao, Y., Mao, X. M., Shukla, M. K. & Li, S. Modeling soil water-heat dynamic changes in seed-maize fields under film mulching and deficit irrigation conditions. Water12, 1330. 10.3390/w12051330 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Zhang, Q. B. et al. Effects of different irrigation methods and fertilization measures on soil respiration and its component contributions in cotton field in arid region. Sci. Agric. Sin.45, 2420–2430. 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.12.010 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Bruand, A., Cousin, I., Nicoullaud, B., Duval, O. & Bégon, J. C. Backscattered electron scanning images of soil porosity for analyzing soil compaction around roots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.60, 895–901. 10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000030031x (1996). [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Correa, J., Postma, J. A., Watt, M. & Wojciechowski, T. Soil compaction and the architectural plasticity of root systems. J. Exp. Bot.70, 6019–6034. 10.1093/jxb/erz383 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Lu, J. et al. Effects of water deficit combined with soil texture, soil bulk density and tomato variety on tomato fruit quality: A meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag.243, 106427. 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106427 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Hou, J. M. et al. Effects of plastic film and planting density on canopy light distribution and yield of cotton in arid area. Acta Agric. Boreali-Occident. Sin.47, 606–618. 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2024.04.004 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Zhao, J. H. et al. The impacts of soil tillage combined with plastic film management practices on soil quality, carbon footprint, and peanut yield. Eur. J. Agron.148, 126881. 10.1016/j.eja.2023.126881 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Shen, X. P. et al. The ecological adaptability of rice to soil bulk density. J. Yangzhou Univ. Agric. Life Sci. Ed.02, 13–16. 10.16872/j.cnki.1671-4652.1996.02.004 (1996). [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Xu, J. Z. et al. Yield-increasing effects under plastic film mulching of potato in china based on meta-analysis. Agric. Sci. China.15, 2895–2906. 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.15.005 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Li, X. G., Li, F. M., Zed, R., Zhan, Z. Y. & Singh, B. Soil physical properties and their relations to organic carbon pools as affected by land use in an alpine pastureland. Geoderma139, 98–105. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.01.006 (2007). [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Wolkowski, R. & Lowery, B. Soil compaction: Causes, concerns and cures. Agriculture Bulle tin A3367. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, Wisconsin. Soil. Compaction.A3367 (2008).
  • 79.Hsu, S. L., Hung, J. & Wallace, A. Soil pH variation within a soil. II. pH variation in a neutral and an alkaline soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.35, 331–336. 10.1081/CSS-120029714 (2004). [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wang, L. et al. Continuous plastic-film mulching increases soil aggregation but decreases soil pH in semiarid areas of China. Soil Tillage Res.167, 46–53. 10.1016/j.still.2016.11.004 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Sintim, H. Y. et al. Four years of continuous use of soil-biodegradable plastic mulch: Impact on soil and groundwater quality. Geoderma381, 114665. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114665 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Song, N. N. et al. Is degradable plastic film alternative? Insights from crop productivity enhancement and soil environment improvement. Eur. J. Agron.149, 126882. 10.1016/j.eja.2023.126882 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Duan, C. X. et al. Effects of organic amendments and ridge–furrow mulching system on soil properties and economic benefits of wolfberry orchards on the Tibetan Plateau. Sci. Total. Environ.827, 154317. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154317 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Xiao, L. G., Wei, X., Wang, C. Y. & Zhao, R. Q. Plastic film mulching significantly boosts crop production and water use efficiency but not evapotranspiration in China. Agric. Water Manag.275, 108023. 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108023 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Wang, Y. P. et al. Multi-site assessment of the effects of plastic-film mulch on the soil organic carbon balance in semiarid areas of China. Agric. For. Meteorol.228, 42–51. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.06.016 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Zhang, J. X. et al. Effects of dual mulching with wheat straw and plastic film under three irrigation regimes on soil nutrients and growth of edible sunflower. Agric Water Manag.288, 108453. 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108453 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Zhou, L. M. et al. Ridge furrow and plastic-mulching tillage enhances maize–soil interactions: Opportunities and challenges in a semiarid agroecosystem. Field Crops Res.126, 181–188. 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.10.010 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Hu, Y. J. et al. Soil carbon and nitrogen of wheat–maize rotation system under continuous straw and plastic mulch. Nutr. Cycl Agroecosys.119, 181–193. 10.1007/s10705-020-10114-5 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Wolf, M. K., Wiesmeier, M. & Macholdt, J. Importance of soil fertility for climate-resilient crop ping systems: The farmer’s perspective. Soil Security.13, 100119. 10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100119 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Fan, M. S. et al. Interactions between non-flooded mulching cultivation and varying nitrogen inputs in rice–wheat rotations. Field Crops Res.91, 307–318. 10.1016/j.fcr.2004.08.006 (2005). [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Li, Q., Li, H. B., Zhang, L., Zhang, S. Q. & Chen, Y. L. Mulching improves yield and water-use efficiency of potato cropping in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res.221, 50–60. 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.017 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Lin, W., Liu, W. Z., Zhou, S. S. & Liu, C. F. Influence of plastic film mulch on maize water use efficiency in the Loess Plateau of China. Agric. Water Manag.224, 105710. 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105710 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Devkota, M. et al. Tillage and nitrogen fertilization effects on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of irrigated cotton. Soil Till. Res.134, 72–82. 10.1016/j.still.2013.07.009 (2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Aujla, M. S., Thind, H. S. & Buttar, G. S. Cotton yield and water use efficiency at various levels of water and N through drip irrigation under two methods of planting. Agric Water Manag.71, 167–179. 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.06.010 (2005). [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Wang, H. D. et al. Coupling effects of water and fertilizer on yield, water and fertilizer use efficiency of drip-fertigated cotton in northern Xinjiang, China. Field Crops Res.219, 169–179. 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.002 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Liu, H. J. et al. Effects of different mulching materials and irrigation on yield formation and effective accumulated temperature production efficiency of machine-picked cotton. Xinjiang Agric. Sci.60, 2091–2100. 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.09.002 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Adhikari, R., Bristow, K. L., Casey, P. S., Freischmidt, G. & Hornbuckle, J. W. Novel sprayable biodegradable polymer membrane to minimise soil evaporation. In 2015 International Conference on Technologies for Sustainable Development (ICTSD).IEEE. vol. 27, 1–4 (2015).
  • 98.Khan, A. et al. Planting density and sowing date strongly influence growth and lint yield of cotton crops. Field Crops Res.209, 129–135. 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.04.019 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Zong, R., Wang, Z. H., Wu, Q., Guo, L. & Lin, H. Characteristics of carbon emissions in cotton fields under mulched drip irrigation. Agric. Water Manag.231, 105992. 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105992 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Chen, W. L. et al. Spatial distribution of soil moisture, soil salinity, and root density beneath a cotton field under mulched drip irrigation with brackish and fresh water. Field Crops Res.215, 207–221. 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.10.019 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Zuo, W. Q. et al. Optimal row spacing configuration to improve cotton yield or quality is regulated by plant density and irrigation rate. Field Crops Res.305, 109187. 10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109187 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Gao, F. K. et al. Optimizing canopy structure through equal row spacing and appropriate irrigation enhances ma chine-harvested seed cotton yield and quality. Ind. Crop Prod.216, 118799. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118799 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Li, T. L. et al. Year-round film mulching system with monitored fertilization management improve grain yield and water and nitrogen use efficiencies of winter wheat in the dryland of the Loess Plateau, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.26, 9524–9535. 10.1007/s11356-019-04337-5 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Tian, Y., Su, D., Li, F. M. & Li, X. L. Effect of rainwater harvesting with ridge and furrow on yield of potato in semiarid areas. Field Crops Res.84, 385–391. 10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00118-7 (2003). [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Zhang, P., Wei, T., Han, Q. F., Ren, X. L. & Jia, Z. K. Effects of different film mulching methods on soil water productivity and maize yield in a semiarid area of China. Agric. Water Manag.241, 106382. 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106382 (2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Zhu, K., Zhang, L., Hart, W., Liu, M. & Chen, H. Quality issues in harvested rainwater in arid and semi-arid Loess Plateau of northern China. J. Arid Enviro.57, 487–505. 10.1016/S0140-1963(03)00118-6 (2003). [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Mo, F., Wang, J. Y., Xiong, Y. C., Nguluu, S. N. & Li, F. M. Ridge-furrow mulching system in semiarid Kenya: A promising solution to improve soil water availability and maize productivity. Eur. J. Agron.28, 124–136. 10.1016/j.eja.2016.07.005 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Li, R. et al. Effects on soil temperature, moisture, and maize yield of cultivation with ridge and furrow mulching in the rainfed area of the Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag.116, 101–109. 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.10.001 (2012). [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Available upon request to the corresponding author.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES