Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 6;8:512. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00512

Table 4.

Effects of different mulch plots on the grain yield, biomass yield, harvest index (HI), evapotranspiration (ET), and water use efficiency (WUE) of maize in 2013–2014 at the Dryland Agricultural Research Station, Pengyang County, China.

Year Treatments Grain yield (kg ha−1) Biomass yield (kg ha−1) HI ET (mm) WUE (kg ha−1 mm−1)
2013 FCM 16200a 24422ab 0.67a 522.02a 31.09a
FLM 12957c 22769b 0.57b 509.66a 25.42b
FLSM 15896a 25271a 0.63ab 505.38a 31.11a
PM 14976b 25031ab 0.60ab 450.17b 33.27a
CK 13470c 23432ab 0.58b 490.91a 27.44b
2014 FCM 13509a 24359ab 0.46d 475.86bc 28.39a
FLM 13421a 23761ab 0.57b 478.90ab 28.12a
FLSM 13671a 26242a 0.53bc 496.12ab 27.55a
PM 11169b 20986bc 0.64a 500.59a 22.32b
CK 9594b 19917c 0.48cd 457.06c 21.01b

CK, the control, conventional flat planting without plastic film mulch; PM, flat planting with maize rows (60 cm spacing) on plastic film mulch (70 cm wide); FCM, furrow planting of maize (60 cm spacing), separated by consecutive plastic film-mulched ridges (each 50 cm wide and 15 cm tall); FLSM, furrow planting of maize (60 cm spacing), separated by alternating large and small plastic film-mulched ridges (large ridges: 70 cm wide and 15 cm tall, small ridges 50 cm wide and 10 cm tall); FLM, furrow-flat planting of maize (60 cm spacing) with a large plastic film-mulched ridge (60 cm wide and 15 cm tall) alternating with a flat plastic film-mulched space (60 cm wide). Values followed by the different lowercase letter in the same row indicate significant differences among treatments for each year (Tukey HSD test, p < 0.05).