Next Article in Journal
Genotype-by-Environment Interaction of Yam (Dioscorea species) for Yam Mosaic Virus Resistance, Dry Matter Content and Yield in Uganda
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring the Bud Mite Pest in a Hazelnut Orchard of Central Italy: Do Plant Height and Irrigation Influence the Infestation Level?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy12091983
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improving Yield and Water Productivity of Rainfed Summer Maize in Smallholder Farming: A Case Study in Hebei Province, China

by
Wenfang Yang
1,
Jingbao Liu
2,
Junfang Yang
1,
Suli Xing
1,
Zengliang Yue
1,
Ketong Liu
3,
Shaohui Huang
1,*,
Yunma Yang
1,* and
Liangliang Jia
1
1
Hebei Fertilizer Technology Innovation Centre, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050051, China
2
Cereal Crops Institute, Henan Academy of Agriculture, Zhengzhou 450002, China
3
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Department of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang 050021, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(9), 1983; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12091983
Submission received: 16 July 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 17 August 2022 / Published: 23 August 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Because of the strong competition for a limited resource of water and demand for food production, understanding yield and water productivity (WP) potentials and exploitable gaps in the current production of intensively rainfed maize (Zea mays L.) is essential on the regional scale in China. In this study, we conducted 411 site–year on-farm trials to assess the actual yield and WP of rainfed summer maize and its yield and WP potentials in Hebei Province, China. Each on-farm trial contained detailed information of three different treatments: no fertilizer application (CK), current farmers’ practices (FP, depending on local farmer field fertilization management), and optimum fertilizer application (OPT, depending on soil testing and balanced fertilization). Results revealed that the yield and WP of rainfed summer maize in Hebei Province were 7635 kg ha−1 and 20.7 kg ha−1 mm−1, respectively, and the yield and WP potentials were 12,148 kg ha−1 and 32.0 kg ha−1 mm−1, respectively. Thus, the farmers attained 62.8% of the yield potential and 64.7% of the WP potential. A wide variation was observed in terms of the yield and WP across various types of farming. Compared with high-yield and high-WP (HYHW) farming, in low-yield and low-WP (LYLW) farming, the yield decreased by 24.9% and WP decreased by 44.4%. Nitrogen fertilizer application rate and rain were the most significant factors for yield and WP gaps among farmers, respectively. Other factors, such as solar radiation (tSola), soil available phosphorus content (AP), potassium fertilizer application rate, and grass-referenced evapotranspiration from planting to maturity (ET0), contributed the most to the variations in the yield and WP. Scenario analysis indicated that the optimization of fertilization levels from current to optimal for each farming could increase the yield and WP by 9.7% and 14.8%, respectively; closing gaps between the farming groups and achievement of the standard of HYHW farming by all farmers could increase the yield and WP by 14.8% and 35.5%, respectively; and achieving the yield and WP potentials could increase the yield and WP by 59.1% and 54.8%, respectively. These findings provided farming-based evidence that optimal nutrient management, advanced and climate-adapted agronomy practices, and higher soil fertility are essential for future maize production.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is cultivated worldwide and is one of the leading agronomic crops for food security [1,2]. The production area is about 160 million hectares, which accounts for 11% of the global cropland area [3]. In China, winter wheat–summer maize rotation is a highly intensified maize production system [4], and the summer maize has a sown area of 23.7 million hectares (accounting for 24.2% of the national sown area of cereal crops) [5].
The distribution of irrigation water resources is extremely uneven in China [6]. The North China Plain (NCP) has a huge demand for irrigation water because of the intensive summer maize–winter wheat rotation system. However, the distribution of available groundwater resources for sustainable development in the NCP is less than 100 mm each year [7]. Most groundwater, called as “blue water,” is being pumped from deep aquifers for irrigation, contributing to groundwater depletion [6,8]. The NCP has become one of the world’s three major groundwater “funnel groups” [9]. Therefore, the rational use of water resources is crucial in the NCP.
Summer maize–winter wheat rotation farming in the NCP is dominated by smallholder farmers with poor water and fertilizer management. Most farmers apply a high amount of fertilizer, particularly, nitrogen (N) fertilizer, and neglect water management for obtaining high yield [10,11]. It is reported that the average N fertilizer inputs and irrigation water consumption exceed 500 kg ha−1 year−1 and 600 mm ha−1 year−1, respectively, with 40.1% of N fertilizer lost into the environment via NH3 volatilization, nitrate leaching, and denitrification [12,13,14,15]. The current maize production system urgently needs to be improved.
In the NCP, maize plants in mid-June and harvests in early-October. The water demand during the growing period is 290–354 mm in this region [16]. The lowest temperature for the germination of maize seed is 8–10 °C, and the best temperature for maize growing is 25–32 °C [4]. Fortunately, approximately 70% of the rainfall (over 400 mm) occurs between June and September, which coincides with the growth period of maize, and the average air temperature in the maize growing period is 25 °C in the NCP. Then the rainfed summer maize can realizable in this region. Producing more food with rainwater (green water) by increasing water productivity (WP) is an important measure to reduce the impacts of water shortage on maize production in the NCP. However, only few studies have quantified the potential of rainfed summer maize yield and WP.
In China, the average maize yield is 7.9 Mg ha−1, whereas the yield potential of rainfed maize is 13.9 Mg ha−1 on an average [17]. The average WP of maize in the NCP is 22.3 kg ha−1 mm−1 [18]. It was reported that many factors, including bad weather conditions, poor crop management practices, and infertile soil, interact to limit the yield and WP [4,18]. Previous studies have reported that maize yield and WP could be increased by adopting new technologies and management activities; for example, 4R fertilizer management improved maize yield by 7.9% [19], and adding superabsorbent polymers in the soil could improve maize yield and WP by increasing the soil water storage [20]. A meta-analysis by Zhang et al. [18] suggested that the latitude, vapor pressure deficit, nitrogen fertilizer application rate (N rate), average seasonal temperature, experimental regions, and years were the limiting factors for the yield and WP. The analysis of limiting factors and implementation of reasonable agronomy measures would help in improving the understanding of yield and WP.
Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of the quantification of yield and WP potential for designing agricultural policies and optimizing management practices on a national scale [6,10,17]. However, the estimation of yield and WP of rainfed summer maize on a regional scale has not been reported. More precise agronomic management practices could be recommended after estimating these two parameters. In this study, we assessed the yield of rainfed summer maize in Hebei Province with model simulation, field experiments, and farmer surveys. The objectives of this study were (i) to estimate the gaps in the actual and potential rainfed summer maize yield and WP in Hebei Province, China; (ii) to determine limiting factors for the yield and WP; and (iii) to assess the potential of designed strategies to increase the yield and WP.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

Hebei Province, an important food production region, is located in north-central China (113°27′–119°50′ E, 36°05′–42°40′ N) and has a population of 72 million and an area of 190,000 km2. This location has a semihumid continental monsoon climate with a mean annual precipitation of 300–600 mm (70–80% of the precipitation occurs between June and September) and a mean annual air temperature of 14.3 °C. The dominant cropping systems in Hebei are a rotation system of summer maize (planted in mid-June and harvested in early October) and winter wheat (planted in mid-October and harvested in early June of the subsequent year) in the south and a monocropping system of spring maize (planted in late April and harvested in late September) in the north. Under these precipitations and cropping conditions, maize is often rainfed in this region. The soil type is mostly fluvo-aquic soil with sandy loam. The properties of the 0–20 cm soil layer in Hebei are as follows: pH, 7.2–8.6; organic matter (SOC), 10.0–30.5 g kg−1; total N (TN), 0.85–1.41 g kg−1; available N (AN), 57.2–130.8 mg kg−1; Olsen–P (AP), 8.4–33.1 mg kg−1; and available K (AK), 76.6–167.0 mg kg−1.

2.2. Dataset Description

The data used in this study were obtained from on-field experiments by local (county and/or township) agricultural extension agents from 2005 to 2015. In total, 411 site-year experiments were conducted. Each local experiment involved three treatments with different fertilization strategies: no fertilizer application (CK), farmers’ practices (FP), and optimized fertilizer management (OPT). The FP treatment depended on local famer investigations in each site, and the OPT treatment recommended fertilization with the result of soil testing and crop demand. In total, the average N, P2O5, and K2O application rates of FP treatments were 250.0, 96.2, and 51.1 kg ha−1, respectively, whereas the corresponding fertilizer rates of OPT treatment were 211.4, 68.4, and 98.0 kg ha−1 (Table 1).
All the cropping in these experiments was rainfed (no irrigation during the whole growing period). Weather conditions, including daily air temperature, rainfall, humidity, solar radiation (tSola), and weed speed, in each experiment site were collected by the local weather service from 2005 to 2015.
The WP was calculated as follows:
WP = Y/P
where Y is the maize grain yield in each treatment (kg ha−1) and P is the precipitation during the maize growth period of each year (mm).
Using the data from these experiments, we established a database that included information on improving both the yield and WP of maize crops.

2.3. Yield Potential

The Hybrid-Maize Model [21,22] was used to estimate the yield potential. It can simulate maize yield potential under growth conditions that are not limited by nutrient deficiencies, toxicities, insect pests, disease, or weeds. The model has been tested and widely used by other researchers in estimating maize yield potential under irrigation and rainfed [4,23,24]. Weather data (solar radiation (tSola), wind speed, and maximum and minimum temperatures), sowing and harvesting dates, and plant density are the model inputs. Sowing and harvesting dates and densities were recorded during the experiments. The wheatear dates (2005–2015) were obtained from nearby meteorological stations by the Government Agricultural Technical Service Department, which were less than 10 km away from the experimental sites. With yield potential as the model output parameter, we estimated all yield potentials of 411 point experiments during 2005–2015 using the Hybrid-Maize model.

2.4. Grouping of Farming as per the Yield and WP

The production of rainfed summer maize was divided into four categories according to the average yield and WP to estimate the yield and WP gaps among farmers: low yield and low WP (LYLW), high yield and low WP (HYLW), low yield and high WP (LYHW), and high yield and high WP (HYHW). The criteria for categorizing farming were proposed by He et al. [6] based on the yield and irrigation water amount.

2.5. Limiting Factors for Yield and WP

We used the random forest modeling to determine the limiting factors for yield and WP and analyzed the differences among the farming groups. This model well predicted the limiting factors in the ecological system by capturing nonlinear relationships between input and output variables [25,26]. With the expectation that nutrient management practices, climate condition, and soil fertility significantly impacted yield and WP, the random forest model was used to explain the variation in the yield and WP. The nutrient management practices included N, P, and K rates; the climate condition included tSola, mean air temperature (Tmean), rainfall (tRain), and evapotranspiration with grass (ET0). The soil fertility included SOC, TN, AN, AP, AK, and pH.

2.6. Scenario Analyses

Scenario analyses were performed to set up a further development strategy and predict rainfed summer maize productivity. To simplify the goal of high yield and high WP for farmers, we divided the methods for increasing yield and WP into three steps: (i) optimizing the fertilization level from current to optimum for each farmer, (ii) closing gaps among farming groups and achieving HYHW standard for all farmers, and (iii) achieving the potential yield and WP.

3. Results

3.1. Estimation of Maize Yield and WP

The overall mean yield of rainfed summer maize under CK, FP, and OPT was 5538, 7635, and 8378 kg ha−1, respectively (Figure 1). The corresponding WP was 14.8, 20.7, and 22.2 kg ha−1 mm−1, respectively. The yield and WP gaps between OPT and FP were 743 kg ha−1 and 1.5 kg ha−1 mm−1 (accounting for 9.7% and 6.8% of farmers’ yield and WP), respectively. The mean potential yield was 12,148 kg ha−1, and the actual yield was only 62.8% of the potential yield. The potential WP of rainfed summer maize was 32.0 kg ha−1 mm−1, and the actual WP was 64.7% of the potential WP. Thus, the yield and WP can be increased by a great extent.

3.2. Assessment of the Yield and WP among Various Farming Groups

Overall, 26.5% and 39.4% of the total farmers were classified into the HYHW (achieved 8767 kg ha−1 yield and 28.1 kg ha−1 mm−1 WP) and LYLW (achieved 6580 kg ha−1 yield and 15.6 kg ha−1 mm−1 WP) groups, respectively (Figure 2). Compared with the HYHW group, the LYLW group exhibited a decrease in the yield by 24.9% and WP decreased by 44.4%. Overall, 21.9% and 12.2% of the total farmers were classified into the HYLW (average yield of 8558 kg ha−1 and WP of 17.9 kg ha−1 mm−1) and LYHW (average yield of 6926 kg ha−1 and WP of 26.4 kg ha−1 mm−1) groups, respectively. Therefore, considerable yield and WP gaps were observed among the farmers.

3.3. Analysis of Limiting Factors for the Yield and WP

The random forest modeling revealed the predictive importance of nutrient management practices, climate condition, and soil fertility on the yield and WP (Figure 3). N rate, tSola, K rate, and ET0 were the most important factors for the yield, whereas tRain, N rate, tSola, P rate, ET0, and Tmean were the most important factors for WP.

3.4. Closing Yield Gaps and Increasing WP

Three scenario analyses were conducted (Figure 4) to assess the possible strategies of increasing the yield and WP. First, all farmers should optimize their fertilization management practices to increase the average yield from 7635 to 8378 kg ha−1 (9.7% increase) and average WP from 20.7 to 22.2 kg ha−1 mm−1 (7.3% increase). Second, the LYLW, HYLW, and LYHW groups should follow the HYHW group and improve fertilizer management, agronomy management practices, and soil fertility. There would have a further increase in the yield by 4.6% and in WP by 26.3% (a total increase of 14.8% in the yield and 35.5% in WP by comparing with the actual yield and WP). Last, farmers can increase and achieve the potential yield and WP by significantly improving soil fertility and developing climate-adapted integrated agricultural management practices. The average yield and WP could reach 12,148 kg ha−1 and 32.0 kg ha−1 mm−1, exhibiting a 59.1% and 54.8% increase, respectively.

4. Discussion

4.1. Potential Maize Yield and WP

Maize is an important cereal crop for food security in China [4,25]. In this study, the farmers achieved 64.7% of the rainfed summer maize yield potential in Hebei Province (Figure 1). It was reported that the maize production in China only achieved 52.7% of the yield potential, which was lower than that in the USA (80%) [13,27]. The farmer’s current average WP was 20.7 kg ha−1 mm−1 and had a potential of 32.0 kg ha−1 mm−1 in Hebei Province (Figure 1). Similar observations were reported in previous studies; the current and potential WP for maize in the NCP were 22.3 and 36.8 kg ha−1 mm−1, respectively [18]. These results indicated that both the yield and WP of maize can be considerably increased. Most studies demonstrated that improving irrigation times and amounts could increase crop productivity and water efficiency [28,29]. However, the NCP is an area with extreme scarcity of groundwater, and the ecologically safe up-limitation of groundwater use was 150 mm yr−1 [30], which was required to be supplied for wheat growth in priority under winter wheat–summer maize rotation systems [31,32]. While mitigating the groundwater table decline and ensuring food security, we should make full use of rainfall and synergistically increase maize yield and WP.

4.2. Limiting Factors for the Yield and WP

We divided farming with varying yields and WPs into four groups (Figure 2) to further understand the gaps among farmers. A considerable scope of improvement in the yield and WP was revealed. The gaps in the yield and WP between the HYHW and LYLW groups were 2186 kg ha−1 and 12.5 kg ha−1 mm−1, respectively, which were attributed to the uneven fertilizer application rate, soil fertility, crop management, and educational qualification. Xie et al. [33] also reported big yield gaps between different groups of famers in rice production. The yield and WP were affected by multiple factors. The N rate influenced the yield to the highest extent, followed by tSola, K rate, and ET0. In addition, tRain influenced WP to the highest extent, followed by N rate, tSola, P rate, and ET0 (Figure 3). Similarly, a previous study reported that the yield and WP positively correlated with the N rate [18,34]. Moreover, tSola could influence ET and ET0 to affect crop water demand the most [7]. Many factors consistently influenced the yield and WP, which indicated that both maize yield and WP can be increased with a signal agronomy practice. For example, deep tillage could expand root growth space and increase water storage, thus increasing the yield and WP synergistically [35,36]. In addition, factors other than those mentioned in this study can influence crop growth. For example, when the leaf area index reached 4.0, the maize could obtain the maximum amount of light interception in [37]. Moreover, increasing plant density could achieve a higher grain yield within limits [37,38].

4.3. Strategies for the Improvement in the Yield and WP

In the NCP, maize production is dominated by smallholder farmers who are deeply affected by insurance psychology and apply too much synthetic fertilizer [39]. In this study, the average N, P2O5, and K2O application rates by farmers were 250.0, 96.2, and 51.1 kg ha−1, respectively, whereas the corresponding nutrient requirements for maize were 160.0, 42.6, and 99.0 kg ha−1, respectively [40]. Large nutrient gaps were observed between supply and requirement. It was reported that the application of N and P should be reduced to half to maintain the biogeochemical N and P flows within the planetary boundary [41]. In this study, N and P rates were the most important factors for rainfed summer maize yield (Figure 3a). Comparing with the current fertilization application, optimum fertilizer application could increase the yield and WP by 9.7% and 6.8%, respectively (Figure 1). Based on the analysis of on-farm experimental data, the transition from current fertilization application to optimum fertilizer application for each type of farming was easy to implement. Knowledge-based nutrient management, such as Nutrient Expert and integrated soil–crop system management, could increase the maize yield by 4.4–35.2% [13,42]. In this study, an optimal fertilizer management practice could increase the yield and WP by 9.7% and 7.3%, respectively (Figure 4). Therefore, optimizing fertilization management practices should be the first step to increase the yield and WP.
Transition to the HYHW group from the other groups could further improve the average yield and WP (Figure 4). Farmers had their own behavioral habits, management level, and technology recognition that led to different yields and WPs. Equipping them with more knowledge and improving the technology availability rate were effective measures for reducing the management level among farmers [39,43]. Therefore, on the premise of optimal nutrient management, it was appropriate to introduce more advanced technologies used by HYHW farmers, such as deep tillage and plastic mulch, to improve the yield and WP in other farming groups. Deep tillage increased maize yield and WP [18]. Plastic mulch increased WP by 22.9% compared with no mulching crop system [44]. Most of the yield and WP gaps were due to the differences in soil fertility, and the yield gap casing by differences in soil fertility corresponded to 11.0–24.0% of the yield potentials [45]. Furthermore, the introduction of new cultivars and corresponding management practices has a great potential to improve both the yield and WP [46,47]. In summary, the second step to increase the yield and WP is to make more farmer transition to the HYHW group by strengthening fertilizer management, enhancing agronomy management practices, and improving soil fertility.
To further increase the yield and WP of rainfed maize and achieve the yield and WP potentials, some more efforts are needed to improve soil fertility and develop climate-adapted integrative agronomy practices, such as no tillage, residue management, use of controlled-release fertilizers and polymers, and intercropping. These agronomy practices considerably increase soil fertility, grain yield, and efficiency of rainwater use. No tillage decreased soil macroporosity at the surface, reducing water and nutrient loss [48], which could increase the efficiency of water and nutrient use. Polymer use increases water retention and prevents water loss from the rhizosphere, thereby decreasing the negative effects of water supply [49,50]. Intercropping, for example, maize–soybean, could increase grain yield and water storage by 18.1–20.9% and 0.6–11.0%, respectively, for the compensation of water use in a crop diversity cropping system [51,52]. Furthermore, consolidation of agricultural land in China (average farm size > 16 ha) could contribute to agricultural sustainability, including 59%, 18%, and 19.4% increase in knowledge exchange, nitrogen use efficiency, and grain yield, respectively [53,54]. Future rainfed summer maize production could benefit from the newer and climate-adapted agronomy practices.
Food demand is increasing because of population growth; to meet these food demands, the total increase in cereal yield in China could rely on increases in maize productivity over the following years [17]. It was reported that maize production should increase by at least 10.9% in the NCP to meet the food demand in 2030 [55]. Our study indicated that in the future, rainfed summer maize in Hebei Province can achieve the productivity and WP required for this.

4.4. Limitation of this Study

This study assessed the potential of improving the yield and WP of rainfed summer maize in Hebei Province with 411 site–year on-farm experiments. This study has some limitations, although much efforts have been taken to improve the reliability of the results. First, in a simulation with the Hybrid-Maize Model, we used the climate data of the stations near the experimental site and did not apply the correct crop varieties of each site, which could cause some deviations in the simulation results of yield potential. Second, on the field trails, we only investigated the grain yield but not the crop nitrogen uptake, and we could not analyze the efficiency of nutrient use. Third, the difference in soil water storage before and after maize cropping was not measured, and the water use efficiency was not calculated, which prevented us from understanding water use in more detail. In future studies, more detailed in situ monitoring and model simulations should be used to estimate the current and potential yield and WP on the regional scale.

5. Conclusions

The yield and WP potentials of rainfed summer maize were investigated in this study on the regional scale. The farmers only attained 62.8% and 64.7% of the yield and WP potentials, respectively, revealing large gaps between the actual and potential yield and WP. Additionally, large yield and WP gaps existed among farmers. The HYHW famers increased the maize yield and WP by 24.9% and 44.4% compared with the LYLW famers, respectively. Nitrogen fertilizer application rate and rain were the most significant factors for yield and WP gaps among farmers, respectively. This study highlighted the strategies to be implemented, for example, optimizing fertilizer management, narrowing technology adoption gaps among farmers, improving soil fertility, and developing climate-adapted agronomy practices. With the implementation of these measures, the average yield and WP would increase by 59.1% and 54.8%, respectively. It is important to extend technology and sustainable crop management practices to farmers. Moreover, yield and WP can be further improved with farm size becoming larger in the near future and with the development of a multidisciplinary agronomy approach that involves mechanization, informatization, and intellectualization.

Author Contributions

W.Y. conceived the study and wrote the manuscript; J.L. and K.L. collected the meteorological data; J.Y., S.X. and Z.Y. carried out the experiment and sample analysis; S.H. and Y.Y. revised the manuscript and were in charge of overall direction and planning; L.J. supervised this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFD1901001), the HAAFS Science and Technology Innovation Special Project (2022KJCXZX-ZHS-4, 2022KJCXZX-ZHS-6), the HAAFS Scientific and Technological Innovation Personnel Project (C22R1102), and the Project of the Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment (ZHS-ZLXM-2022-05).

Data Availability Statement

Relevant data applicable to this research are within the paper.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the farmers in our study for their patience and support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rizzo, G.; Monzon, J.; Tenorio, F.; Howard, R.; Cassman, K.; Grassini, P. Climate and agronomy, not genetics, underpin recent maize yield gains in favorable environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2113629119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fischer, R.; Connor, D. Issues for cropping and agricultural science in the next 20 years. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 222, 121–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Linquist, B.; van Groenigen, K.; Adviento-Borbe, M.; Pittelkow, C.; van Kessel, C. An agronomic assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from major cereal crops. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Meng, Q.; Cui, Z.; Yang, H.; Zhang, F.; Chen, X. Establishing High-Yielding Maize System for Sustainable Intensification in China. Adv. Agron. 2018, 148, 85–109. [Google Scholar]
  5. National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). China Statistical Yearbook 2020; Statistical Press: Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  6. He, G.; Wang, Z.; Cui, Z. Managing irrigation water for sustainable rice production in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lei, M.; Kong, X.; Wang, J. Estimation of sustainable grain productivity for arable land under water balance in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2018, 73, 535–549, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  8. Faures, J.; Frenken, K.; Portmann, F.; Siebert, S.; Hoogeveen, J. Groundwater use for irrigation—A global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 14, 1863–1880. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yu, C. China’s water crisis needs more than words. Nature 2011, 470, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xiao, G.; Zhao, Z.; Liang, L.; Meng, F.; Wu, W.; Guo, Y. Improving nitrogen and water use efficiency in a wheat-maize rotation system in the North China Plain using optimized farming practices. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 212, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huang, S.; He, P.; Jia, L.; Ding, W.; Ullah, S.; Zhao, R.; Zhang, J.; Xu, X.; Liu, M.; Zhou, W. Improving nitrogen use efficiency and reducing environmental cost with long-term nutrient expert management in a summer maize-winter wheat rotation system. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 213, 105117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ju, X.; Xing, G.; Chen, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, L.; Liu, X.; Cui, Z.; Yin, B.; Christie, P.; Zhu, Z.; et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 3041–3046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, X.; Cui, Z.; Fan, M.; Vitousek, P.; Zhao, M.; Ma, W.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Yan, X.; Yang, J.; et al. Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature 2014, 514, 486–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, S.; Yang, W.; Ding, W.; Jia, L.; Jiang, L.; Liu, Y.; Xu, X.; Yang, Y.; He, P.; Yang, J. Estimation of Nitrogen Supply for Summer Maize Production through a Long-Term Field Trial in China. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shi, Y.; Wu, W.; Meng, F.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, L.; Wang, D. Integrated management practices significantly affect N2O emissions and wheat–maize production at field scale in the North China Plain. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2013, 95, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Feng, X.; Qiao, H. Spatial and temporal analysis of drought in different growth stages of summer corn in Hebei Province. J. North China Univ. Water Resour. Electr. Power 2020, 41, 1–9, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  17. Meng, Q.; Hou, P.; Wu, L.; Chen, X.; Cui, Z.; Zhang, F. Understanding production potentials and yield gaps in intensive maize production in China. Field Crop. Res. 2013, 143, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zheng, H.; Shao, R.; Xue, Y.; Ying, H.; Yin, Y.; Cui, Z.; Yang, Q. Water productivity of irrigated maize production systems in Northern China: A meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 234, 106119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xu, X.; He, P.; Pampolino, M.; Li, Y.; Liu, S.; Xie, J.; Hou, Y.; Zhou, W. Narrowing yield gaps and increasing nutrient use efficiencies using the Nutrient Expert system for maize in Northeast China. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 194, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. AbdAllah, A.; Mashaheet, A.; Burkey, K. Super absorbent polymers mitigate drought stress in corn (Zea mays L.) grown under rainfed conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 254, 106946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yang, H.; Dobermann, A.; Lindquist, J.; Walters, D.; Arkebauer, T.; Cassman, K. Hybrid-maize—A maize simulation model that combines two crop modeling approaches. Field Crop. Res. 2004, 87, 131–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, H.; Dobermann, A.; Cassman, K.; Walters, D. Features, Applications, and limitations of the Hybrid-maize simulation model. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 737–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Grassini, P.; Yang, H.; Cassman, K. Limits to maize productivity in Western Corn-Belt: A simulation analysis for fully irrigated and rainfed conditions. Agri. Forest Meteorol. 2009, 149, 1254–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, X.; Cui, Z.; Vitousek, P.; Cassman, K.; Matson, P.; Bai, J.; Meng, Q.; Hou, P.; Yue, S.; Römheld, V.; et al. Integrated soil-crop system management for food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 6399–6404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ying, H.; Xue, Y.; Yan, K.; Wang, Y.; Yin, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Tian, X.; Li, Z.; Liu, Y.; et al. Safeguarding Food Supply and Groundwater Safety for Maize Production in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 9939–9948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Prasad, A.; Iverson, L.; Liaw, A. Newer classification and regression tree techniques: Bagging and random forests for ecological prediction. Ecosystems 2006, 9, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Van, W.; Kersebaum, K.; Peng, S.; Milner, M.; Cassman, K. Estimating crop yield potential at regional to national scales. Field Crop. Res. 2013, 143, 34–43. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yang, Y.; Wang, X.; Dai, K.; Jia, S.; Meng, C.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, D.; Feng, Z.; Sun, Y.; et al. Fate of labeled urea-N-15 as basal and topdressing applications in an irrigated wheat-maize rotation system in North China plain: II summer maize. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2011, 90, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fang, Q.; Ma, L.; Yu, Q.; Ahuja, L.; Malone, R.; Hoogenboom, G. Irrigation strategies to improve the water use efficiency of wheat–maize double cropping systems in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1165–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gao, B.; Ju, X.; Meng, Q.; Cui, Z.; Christie, P.; Chen, X.; Zhang, F. The impact of alternative cropping systems on global warming potential, grain yield and groundwater use. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 203, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ying, H.; Ye, Y.; Cui, Z.; Chen, X. Managing nitrogen for sustainable wheat production. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 1308–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jia, S.; Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; Dai, K.; Meng, C.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, D.; Feng, Z.; Sun, Y. Fate of labeled urea-15N as basal and topdressing applications in an irrigated wheat–maize rotation system in North China Plain: I winter wheat. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2011, 90, 331–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xie, K.; Guo, J.; Ward, K.; Luo, G.; Shen, Q.; Guo, S. The Potential for improving rice yield and nitrogen use efficiency in smallholder farmers: A case study of jiangsu, China. Agronomy 2020, 10, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hatfield, J.; Sauer, T.; Prueger, J. Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiao, F.; Hong, S.; Cui, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, M.; Shi, R.; Han, H.; Li, Q. Subsoiling combined with irrigation improves carbon emission and crop water productivity of winter wheat in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 269, 107685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bennie, A.; Botha, F. Effect of deep tillage and controlled traffic on root growth, water-use efficiency and yield of irrigated maize and wheat. Soil Till. Res. 1986, 7, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Luo, N.; Wang, X.; Hou, J.; Wang, Y.; Wang, P.; Meng, Q. Agronomic optimal plant density for yield improvement in the major maize regions of China. Crop. Sci. 2020, 60, 1580–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, S.; Ding, W.; Jia, L.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, J.; Xu, X.; Xu, R.; Ullah, S.; Liu, Y.; He, P. Cutting environmental footprints of maize systems in China through Nutrient Expert management. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 282, 111956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jiang, W.; Zhu, A.; Wang, C.; Zhang, F.; Jiao, X. Optimizing wheat production and reducing environmental impacts through scientist–farmer engagement: Lessons from the North China Plain. Food Energy Secur. 2021, 10, e255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xu, X.; He, P.; Pampolino, M.; Chuan, L.; Johnston, A.; Qiu, S.; Zhao, S.; Zhou, W. Nutrient requirements for maize in China based on QUEFTS analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2013, 150, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jin, X.; Bai, Z.; Oenema, O.; Winiwarter, W.; Velthof, G.; Chen, X.; Ma, L. Spatial planning needed to drastically reduce nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses in China’s agriculture. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 11894–11904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. He, P.; Xu, X.; Zhou, W.; Smith, W.; He, W.; Grant, B.; Ding, W.; Qiu, S.; Zhao, S. Ensuring future agricultural sustainability in China utilizing an observationally validated nutrient recommendation approach. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 132, 126409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, W.; Cao, G.; Li, X.; Zhang, H.; Wang, C.; Liu, Q.; Chen, X.; Cui, Z.; Shen, J.; Jiang, R.; et al. Closing yield gaps in China by empowering smallholder farmers. Nature 2016, 537, 671–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dong, Q.; Yang, Y.; Yu, K.; Feng, H. Effects of straw mulching and plastic film mulching on improving soil organic carbon and nitrogen fractions, crop yield and water use efficiency in the Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 201, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Qiao, L.; Silva, J.; Fan, M.; Mehmood, I.; Fan, J.; Li, R.; Ittersum, M. Assessing the contribution of nitrogen fertilizer and soil quality to yield gaps: A study for irrigated and rainfed maize in China. Field Crop. Res. 2021, 273, 108304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ying, H.; Yin, Y.; Zheng, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Xue, Y.; Stefanovski, D.; Cui, Z.; Dou, Z. Newer and select maize, wheat, and rice varieties can help mitigate N footprint while producing more grain. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 4273–4281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, X.; Chen, S.; Sun, H.; Shao, L.; Wang, Y. Changes in evapotranspiration over irrigated winter wheat and maize in North China Plain over three decades. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 1097–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wardak, D.; Padia, F.; de Heer, M.; Sturrock, C.; Mooney, S. Zero tillage has important consequences for soil pore architecture and hydraulic transport: A review. Geoderma 2022, 422, 115927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hamid-Reza, F.; Reza, T.; Mahsa, A.; Mohammad-Ghasem, S. Effect of super absorbent polymer and irrigation deficit on water use efficiency, growth and yield of cotton. Not. Sci. Biol. 2015, 7, 338–344. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, W.; Yang, S.; Zhang, A.; Yang, Z. Synthesis of a slow-release fertilizer composite derived from waste straw that improves water retention and agricultural yield. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 768, 144978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, W.; Li, M.; Gong, D.; Zhou, R.; Khan, A.; Zhu, Y.; Zhu, H.; Abrar, M.; Zhu, S.; Wang, B.; et al. Water use of intercropped species: Maize-soybean, soybean-wheat and wheat-maize. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 269, 107690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xu, Z.; Li, C.; Zhang, C.; Yu, Y.; van der Werf, W.; Zhang, F. Intercropping maize and soybean increases efficiency of land and fertilizer nitrogen use; A meta-analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2020, 246, 107661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Duan, J.; Ren, C.; Wang, S.; Zhang, X.; Reis, S.; Xu, J.; Gu, B. Consolidation of agricultural land can contribute to agricultural sustainability in China. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, W.; Qiao, Y.; Lakshmanan, P.; Yuan, L.; Liu, J.; Zhong, C.; Chen, X. Combing public-private partnership and large-scale farming increased net ecosystem carbon budget and reduced carbon footprint of maize production. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2022, 184, 106411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hou, P.; Liu, Y.; Liu, W.; Liu, G.; Xie, R.; Wang, K.; Ming, B.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, R.; Zhang, W.; et al. How to increase maize production without extra nitrogen input. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2020, 160, 104913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 01983 g001 550
Figure 1. Potential maize yield and water productivity (WP) and the yield and WP under fertilizer-optimal (OPT), current (FP), and no fertilizer (CK) treatments.
Figure 1. Potential maize yield and water productivity (WP) and the yield and WP under fertilizer-optimal (OPT), current (FP), and no fertilizer (CK) treatments.
Agronomy 12 01983 g001
Agronomy 12 01983 g002 550
Figure 2. Grain yield and WP of various farming groups.
Figure 2. Grain yield and WP of various farming groups.
Agronomy 12 01983 g002
Agronomy 12 01983 g003 550
Figure 3. Predictive importance of nutrient management practices, climate condition, and soil fertility on the yield (a) and WP (b) as determined by random forest modeling.
Figure 3. Predictive importance of nutrient management practices, climate condition, and soil fertility on the yield (a) and WP (b) as determined by random forest modeling.
Agronomy 12 01983 g003
Agronomy 12 01983 g004 550
Figure 4. Scenario analyses and the possible strategies to improve the yield and WP.
Figure 4. Scenario analyses and the possible strategies to improve the yield and WP.
Agronomy 12 01983 g004
Table
Table 1. Fertilizer application rates of farmers’ practices (FP) and optimized fertilizer management (OPT) treatments.
Table 1. Fertilizer application rates of farmers’ practices (FP) and optimized fertilizer management (OPT) treatments.
FertilizerTreatmentMax
(kg/ha)		Min
(kg/ha)		Average
(kg/ha)		CV
(%)
NFP451.540.5250.038.8
OPT304.590.0211.436.1
P2O5FP270.0096.248.6
OPT180.349.568.440.7
K2OFP225.0051.172.2
OPT180.018.098.039.4
CV means coefficient of variation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, W.; Liu, J.; Yang, J.; Xing, S.; Yue, Z.; Liu, K.; Huang, S.; Yang, Y.; Jia, L. Improving Yield and Water Productivity of Rainfed Summer Maize in Smallholder Farming: A Case Study in Hebei Province, China. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1983. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12091983

AMA Style

Yang W, Liu J, Yang J, Xing S, Yue Z, Liu K, Huang S, Yang Y, Jia L. Improving Yield and Water Productivity of Rainfed Summer Maize in Smallholder Farming: A Case Study in Hebei Province, China. Agronomy. 2022; 12(9):1983. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12091983

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Wenfang, Jingbao Liu, Junfang Yang, Suli Xing, Zengliang Yue, Ketong Liu, Shaohui Huang, Yunma Yang, and Liangliang Jia. 2022. "Improving Yield and Water Productivity of Rainfed Summer Maize in Smallholder Farming: A Case Study in Hebei Province, China" Agronomy 12, no. 9: 1983. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12091983

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop