Next Article in Journal
Temperature Regimes Modulate Growth and Nutritional Quality of Three African Leaf Vegetables
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Glucose and Its Derivatives on Growth and Nutrient Absorption in Wheat
Previous Article in Special Issue
Yield and Plant Gas Exchange in Perennial Biomass Crops (BPGs) Under Different Water Regimes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy15092056
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Water-Saving and Yield-Increasing Strategies for Maize Under Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulching in Semi-Arid Regions

by
Zexin Qi
1,†,
Chen Xu
2,3,†,
Lizi Zhang
1,
Lihua Zhang
2,3,
Fei Li
2,
Ning Sun
2,
Renjie Zhao
2,
Jingquan Ren
4,
Qian Li
2,
Shaofeng Bian
2,3,
Zhian Zhang
1,* and
Hongxiang Zhao
2,3,*
1
Agronomy College, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun 130118, China
2
Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Northeast Agricultural Research Center of China), Changchun 130033, China
3
Northeast Key Laboratory of Water Saving Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Changchun 130033, China
4
Jilin Institute of Meteorological Sciences, Changchun 130062, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2025, 15(9), 2056; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092056
Submission received: 24 July 2025 / Revised: 16 August 2025 / Accepted: 24 August 2025 / Published: 26 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Response Mechanism of Plants to Water in Efficient Water-Saving Irrigation Technologies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

An appropriate drip irrigation amount and the straw return method are important ways to save water and achieve efficient maize production in semi-arid areas. A 2-year controlled field plot experiment was performed with two factors: straw return (straw removal, straw mulching) and differing drip irrigation amounts (200, 350, and 500 mm). Changes in growth, development, photosynthesis, yield, the components, and the water-use characteristics of maize under the intercropping conditions of drip irrigation amount and straw return were studied. The results showed that an increase in drip irrigation favored an increase in the net photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (Gs), and intercellular carbon dioxide concentration (Ci) of maize, and promoted an increase in maize plant height and leaf area index, which resulted in the accumulation of more dry matter and increased the maize yield. Compared with straw removal, straw mulching maintained a higher photosynthetic capacity at the later stages of maize growth and development under irrigations of 200 and 350 mm; the average increase in Pn over two years ranged from 4.06 to 19.19%; and good plant growth was maintained, thereby leading to the accumulation of more dry matter, with the average increase over two years ranging from 0.51 to 27.22%. Straw mulching also significantly improved water-use efficiency (WUE) at 350 mm of irrigation, with the average increase in yield over two years ranging from 4.58 to 4.83%. Overall, straw mulching had a positive impact on maize when irrigation was low, and when it was high, straw mulching did not adversely affect maize. Therefore, irrigation combined with straw mulching technology may be used to improve maize yield and WUE in semi-arid areas of Jilin Province.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is an important food crop in China with multiple uses such as food, feed, industrial raw material, and bioenergy. With the development of green growth agriculture, maize is becoming increasingly important in crop production. The world is now faced with the challenge of providing food security for a growing population [1]. However, with global warming, more and more parts of the world are facing soil degradation and water shortages [2]. This is probably one of the most important factors limiting maize production in semi-arid regions. China’s arable land accounts for more than 70% of total arable land globally and is mainly concentrated in arid and semi-arid areas [3]. Inadequate precipitation and unstable sources of water affect maize productivity in agricultural systems [4]. Effective use of rainfall and maximization of WUE are key objectives in promoting sustainable and intensive maize production in China’s arid and semi-arid regions, with significant impacts at local and regional scales [5]. The efficient use of water resources depends on effective water retention and the efficient use of limited water supplies [6]. Therefore, the rational utilization of water resources in arid regions is important for the development of sustainable agriculture. As an important technique for retaining soil moisture, the ridge and furrow mulching system contributes to food security in China [7]; covered ridges direct rainwater into the furrows to infiltrate the soil, while reducing water loss through evaporation and increasing water-use efficiency (WUE) [8]. However, this technique can be problematic in maize agroecosystems. First, the increase in soil temperature and moisture after mulching can result in a decrease in soil organic carbon (SOC) content [9]. Second, nitrogen-use efficiency is usually low in ground-film maize farmland, and nitrogen losses exacerbate environmental pollution and the greenhouse effect [9,10].
With the rapid increase in the use of combine harvesters, straw mulching has been increasingly applied to crops rather than the usual burning of crop residues, mitigating air pollution to some extent [11]. Straw mulching also reduces soil evaporation, increasing WUE [12], which plays an important role in increasing grain yield and soil moisture [13,14,15], reduces soil erosion, and suppresses runoff and total sediment yield [16], leading scientists to investigate it as a water-saving technique [16]. It also reduced fluctuations in soil temperatures between day and night. In combination with other agricultural management techniques, straw mulching also has a significant positive impact on grain yield and WUE. For example, Wang et al. [17] found that furrow sowing and straw mulching increased water availability for maize growth, improving maize yields and precipitation-use efficiency. Furthermore, studies have shown that applying 4210 kg/ha of maize straw mulch in the North China region can enhance crop yield and WUE [18]. A study by Qiao et al. [19] showed that a combination of limited irrigation and straw mulching can improve WUE and soil enzyme activity, while maintaining high maize yields and quality. Zhang et al. [20] proposed a scientific and sustainable water management solution for efficient maize production in the western Ordos region by using irrigation water with straw mulching, saving water and improving WUE and maize yield quality. Therefore, straw mulching in combination with appropriate cropping patterns or water management may potentially improve water conservation while maintaining maize yields.
In recent years, straw mulching has become a widely used method of straw field return in the central and western regions of Jilin Province, offering the advantages of maintaining soil moisture content, reducing soil wind erosion effects and indirectly increasing soil nutrient content. Compared with other straw return methods, straw mulching and returning to the field has the least physical impact on the maize root system, and does not affect the normal growth and development of the maize root system. Changes in climate have led to uneven spatial and temporal distributions of natural precipitation in the central and western parts of Jilin Province. Precipitation patterns alternate between years, resulting in intermittent staged droughts during the reproductive period of maize. These changes have significant implications for maize production. Therefore, studying the effect of straw mulching in fields under different irrigation conditions is crucial for stabilizing and improving maize yields in this region. To address the theoretical gap in the combined technology of straw mulching and drip irrigation in Jilin Province, in this study field experiments were used to investigate the effects of irrigation rate and straw mulching and returning to the field on maize growth, photosynthetic characteristics, yield, components, and water-use characteristics. This study provides a theoretical basis and scientific and technological support for the sustainable development of water conservation management in the central and western part of Jilin Province.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Overview

The experiment was implemented in 2023 and 2024 at the Crop Efficient Water Nursery Farm of the Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences located in Gongzhuling City, Jilin Province (124.81°42′ E, 43.52°06′ N), China. The study area presents a northern temperate continental monsoon climate, with a frost-free period of about 144 days. The effective cumulative temperatures of ≥10 °C were 3230.80 and 3196.30 °C in 2023 and 2024, respectively. The average daily temperatures during the vegetation period (May–October) were 21.12 and 20.89 °C, respectively. The natural precipitation during the entire growth period of maize in this region was 460 mm over the past 10 years. The average annual evaporation in the test region was 1690 mm. The irrigation water was sourced from groundwater at a depth of 15 m, with a pH value of 7.8 and a lead content below 0.2 mg/L. No pollutants such as petroleum or volatile phenols were detected, and it complies with the current Chinese standards for farmland irrigation water quality. The soil bulk densities at depths of 0–20, 20–40, and 40–60 cm were 1.39 g/cm3, 1.46 g/cm3, and 1.54 g/cm3, respectively. The physical and chemical properties of the experimental light chernozem at a depth of 0–40 cm are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Experimental Layout

The maize variety Fumin 985 (FM985), a medium–late-maturing variety with a fertility period of 128 days, commonly grown in Jilin Province, was used as the test material. The experiment was carried out in a fully open, movable rainproof shed in a water-efficient crop nursery, which can be completely closed in 15 min by motors on both sides, and has multiple bottom and side plots made of cement with a depth of 1.5 m each, which can be used to avoid external precipitation when the shed is completely closed. The figures of the movable rainproof shed in closed and open positions are shown in Figures S1 and S2. Two factors were investigated: straw return and irrigation. The irrigation was based on the irrigation amount during the whole maize vegetation period, and three irrigation amount gradients were set up: 500, 350, and 200 mm, representing normal irrigation, medium-deficit irrigation, and severe-deficit irrigation, respectively. Irrigation was carried out by laying drip irrigation tapes 5 cm to one side of the planting strip, with a water meter at the inlet of each pool to record the amount of irrigation used each time. The irrigation regime was kept consistent for 2 years (Table 2), with the first irrigation on the sowing date of each year. Straw return to the field involves straw removal and straw mulching. Straw removal is performed in the previous season after the maize harvest; all the straw is manually moved away from the pool, with conventional sowing the following spring. Straw mulching was performed after maize harvest in fall by manually crushing maize stalks to ≤ 10 cm in length, and leaving them covered in the pool; the following spring the straw is placed to the two sides of the planting strip. A total of six treatments were set up, 200 (Leaving from the field—200 mm), 200C (Mulching to the field—200 mm), 350 (Leaving from the field—350 mm), 350C (Mulching to the field—350 mm), 500 (Leaving from the field—500 mm), 500C (Mulching to the field—500 mm); each treatment was replicated three times, resulting in three plots, with each plot covering an area of 24 m2. The plots were planted in a uniform ridge with a spacing of 60 cm, and a planting density of 65,000 plants/ha. The sowing dates were 10 May 2023 and 8 May 2024, and the harvesting dates were 29 September 2023 and 8 October 2024. The compound fertilizer (28-10-14) applied was produced by Gongzhuling Difu Fertilizer Technology Co., Ltd. (Changchun, China), with a basal fertilizer application rate of 750 kg/ha. The field management was consistent with local production fields.

2.3. Measurement Indicators and Methods

2.3.1. Agronomic Trait Measurement of Maize

In each year, three maize plants of approximately the same length were selected from each plot in the maize jointing (V8), silking (R1), and filling (R3) stages. Each treatment was replicated nine times. A straightedge was used to measure the unfolded leaf length and leaf width; the leaf area index of a single maize plant was calculated using the following formula: leaf area index (LAI) = leaf length × leaf width × 0.75/area occupied per plant [21].
In each year, three maize plants of approximately the same length were selected from each plot in the V8, R1, R3, and maturity (R6) stages. Each treatment was replicated nine times. The maize from each fertility period was bagged in an oven at 105 °C for 30 min, and then kept at 80 °C for drying to a constant weight. An electronic balance was used to weigh the dry matter accumulation of single maize plants in each fertility period.

2.3.2. Leaf Photosynthesis

In each year, three maize plants of approximately the same length were selected from each plot in the V8, R1, and R3 stages. Each treatment was replicated nine times. The net photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (Gs), intercellular carbon dioxide concentration (Ci), and transpiration rate (E) were determined in the leaves of the tagged maize, using a Li-6400XT portable photosynthesis measurement system (Li-Cor, Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). Leaf position was determined by selecting the third fully expanded leaf from the top at the V8 stage and the spike position leaf at the R1 and R3 stages. The CO2 concentration at the air inlet was controlled by a CO2 cylinder and set at 400 ± 5 μmol∙mol−1, and the detection light was a fixed red and blue light source with the detection light intensity set at 1800 μmol∙m−2∙s−1.

2.3.3. Yield and Its Components

In the R6 stage of each year, a 5 m2 unsampled area was chosen for each plot. Each treatment was replicated nine times. From this area, all the spikes were taken down, the fresh weight and number of spikes recorded, and a grain moisture meter (Oasis LDS-1G, TOP Cloud-Agri, Zhejiang, China) was used to determine the moisture content of the kernel, calculated at 14%, to obtain the maize yield. In each pool of cobs, 10 spikes of a similar size to the spike test seed were selected to obtain the 100-grain mass, bald tip length, spike length, and spike diameter.

2.3.4. Water Utilization Characteristics

In each year, before sowing and after harvesting the maize, soil was extracted using a soil auger and the mass moisture content of the 0–60 cm soil layer was determined using the drying method, with each treatment being replicated nine times. The soil capacity was determined using the ring knife method, and the soil water storage capacity was obtained by using the following formula: soil water storage capacity = soil bulk density × soil thickness × soil mass water content × 10/100 [22]. On account of the open, movable rain shelter, the interference of external precipitation and soil percolation can be ignored, and the water consumption (ET) of maize was calculated according to the water balance equation of the farmland, using the soil moisture inputs (precipitation, irrigation, groundwater rise) and outputs (runoff, leakage, evapotranspiration): ET = 0–60 cm soil storage before sowing—0 to 60 cm soil storage after harvesting + drip irrigation for the whole life span of maize. WUE (WUE) = maize kernel yield/ET. Irrigation WUE (IWUE) was obtained using the following formula: IWUE = maize kernel yield/full life drip irrigation quota.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Excel 2010 software was used for preliminary statistics and organization of data and SPSS 23.0 software was used to analyze the data. Two-way ANOVA was conducted on the two straw returning methods under three different drip irrigation amounts (p < 0.05). All data meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Data among the three treatments were analyzed by Duncan’s method of one-way ANOVA for multiple comparisons, while other data were statistically analyzed by independent t-tests (p < 0.05). Plotting was performed using the Origin 2021 software, and correlation analysis and plotting were performed using the R 4.4.3 language software’s “gpairs” package.

3. Results

3.1. Photosynthesis-Related Parameters

As can be seen from Figure 1, the interaction between drip irrigation and straw return affected the Pn, Gs, Ci, and E. of the maize leaves at different reproductive periods. With increasing irrigation, the maize leaf Pn, Gs, Ci, and E showed an increasing trend in 2023 and 2024. Compared with straw removal, straw mulching to the field promoted the maize leaf Pn, Gs, Ci, and E under the 200 mm and 350 mm irrigation conditions, but the improvements were not significant. In 2023, compared with straw removal, under the same drip irrigation treatment, the increase in maize Pn due to straw mulching ranged between 0.49% and 12.16%; the increase in Gs was between 0.72% and 17.67%; the increase in Ci was between 2.15% and 5.84%; and the increase in E was between 0.78% and 8.58%. In 2024, compared with straw removal, under the same drip irrigation treatment, the increase in maize Pn due to straw mulching ranged between 3.07% and 26.23%; the increase in Gs was between 0.53% and 8.73%; the increase in Ci was between 0.37% and 5.39%; and the increase in E was between 1.05% and 8.83%.

3.2. Plant Growth and Development

As can be seen from Figure 2, the plant height of maize showed a trend of increasing and then leveling off with the reproductive period. In this case, the plant height of maize increased with increasing irrigation, but straw mulching to the field had different effects on the plant height in different fertility periods. At 200 and 350 mm irrigation amounts, the plant height of maize at all reproductive periods was higher in the straw mulch treatments than in the treatments where the straw was removed. However, the increase was not significant. In 2023, the 500 treatment had the highest plant height at the V8, R1, R3 and R6 stages. Under the same drip irrigation treatment, compared with straw removal, the increase in the plant height of maize due to straw mulching ranged between 0.11% and 4.58%. In 2024, during the V8 and R1 stages, compared with straw removal, straw returning did not significantly increase plant height. During the R3 and R6 stages, plant height remained consistently higher under the 500 and 500C treatments. Under the same drip irrigation treatment, compared with straw removal, the increase in the plant height of maize due to straw mulching ranged between 1.41% and 5.05%.
The leaf area index of leaves in all fertility periods showed an increasing trend with increasing irrigation (Figure 3). The effect of straw mulching of the field on the leaf area index of leaves was smaller in all fertility periods. At the V8 and R1 stages, the leaf area index under the 500 treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under the 200 treatment. In both 2023 and 2024, the leaf area index under the 200 and 200C treatments remained consistently lower. In 2023, under the same drip irrigation treatment, compared with straw removal, the increase in the leaf area index of leaves of maize due to straw mulching ranged between 0.42 and 3.50%, while in 2024 it ranged between 2.61% and 10.94%.
Figure 4 showed the effect of the interaction between drip irrigation and straw return on dry matter accumulation in maize. With an increase in irrigation, the dry matter accumulation of maize showed an increasing trend for all treatments. In 2023, during the V8, R1, R3, and R6 stages, the dry matter accumulation was higher in the 350, 350C, 500, and 500C treatments. Under the same drip irrigation treatment, compared with straw removal, the increase in dry matter accumulation of maize due to straw mulching ranged between 0.38% and 16.61%. In 2024, when the drip irrigation amount was 500 mm, the dry matter accumulation was the highest at the V8, R1, R3, and R6 stages. Under the same drip irrigation treatment, compared with straw removal, the increase in the dry matter accumulation of leaves of maize due to straw mulching ranged between 0.90% and 37.82%.

3.3. Yield and Its Components

The effects of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on the maize yield can be seen in Figure 5. All of the maize yields showed an increasing trend with increasing irrigation, but the effect of straw mulching of the field on yield varied. The 350C treatment yielded significantly (p < 0.05) higher yields than the 350 treatment by 2.81% in 2023. Among them, the 200 and 350 treatments were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than the 500 treatment by 21.84 and 3.66%, respectively. The 200C treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than the 500C treatment by 18.63%. In 2024, compared with the 300 treatment, the 350C treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) higher by 6.85%. Among them, the 200 and 350 treatments were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than the 500 treatment by 23.42 and 7.73%, respectively. The 200C treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than the 500C treatment by 18.87%.
Table 3 shows the results of the interaction analysis of the maize yield under the interaction of year, drip irrigation, and straw return. It can be seen that the year, the amount of irrigation, and the method of straw return all affect the yield of maize at a significant (p < 0.05) level. The irrigation amount with the straw return method on the maize yield also reached significance (p < 0.05). The effects of the interaction of the year with the straw return method and of the effect of the year and irrigation amount on maize yield were not significant. None of the three interactions between year, straw return method, and irrigation amount had a significant effect on the maize yield.
Table 4 showed that the interaction between drip irrigation and straw return had some effects on the yield components of maize. With the increase in irrigation, the 100-grain mass, spike length, and spike diameter of maize increased, while the bald tip length decreased. In 2023, when the drip irrigation amount was 350 mm, the 100-grain mass of the 350C treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of the 350 treatment, and the bald tip length of the 350C treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than that of the 350 treatment. In 2024, the 100-grain mass, spike length, and spike diameter were significantly (p < 0.05) higher at drip irrigation amounts of 350 and 500 mm compared with 200 mm. Bald tip length was significantly (p < 0.05) lower at drip irrigation amounts of 500 mm compared with 200 and 350 mm.

3.4. Water-Use Characteristics

As shown in Table 5, the interaction of drip irrigation and straw return affected the water-use characteristics of maize. Water consumption of maize increased with increasing irrigation in all treatments, and straw mulching of the field had little effect on water consumption; there was no significant difference in water consumption between the straw mulching and straw removal treatments under the same irrigation conditions. In 2023 and 2024, under the same drip irrigation amount, the WUE under the straw mulching treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under the straw removal treatment. The irrigation water-use efficiency decreased as the amount of irrigation increased. When the drip irrigation amount was at 200 and 350 mm, the irrigation water-use efficiency under straw mulching treatment was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under straw removal. There was no significant difference between the two water-use efficiencies under the 500 and 500C irrigation treatments. In 2023, under the same drip irrigation treatment, compared with straw removal, the increase in WUE due to straw mulching ranged from 3.22 to 5.02% and the increase in irrigation water-use efficiency was from 1.05 to 5.09%; while in 2024, they ranged from 3.33 to 7.06% and from 4.22 to 6.83%, respectively.

3.5. Correlation Analysis

Figure 6 shows the correlation between agronomic traits, photosynthetic characteristics, yield, and the components of maize. The yield was significantly positively correlated with LAI, DW, 100-grain mass, spike diameter, Pn, Gs, Ci, and E, and significantly negatively correlated with bald tip length. DW was significantly positively correlated with yield, PH, LAI, 100-grain mass, spike length, spike diameter, Pn, Gs, Ci, and E, and significantly negatively correlated with bald tip length.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Drip Irrigation and Straw Return Interactions on Maize Photosynthesis-Related Parameters

Drought has severely affected the growth and development of corn, while drip irrigation is beneficial for maintaining the growth and development of corn [23,24]. Photosynthesis is critical to crop productivity, contributing 90–95% to the plant yield [25]. In arid areas, increases in soil moisture and temperature can help increase crop yields [26]. Cover treatments can provide maize with adequate water supply, open stomata, enhance CO2 and H2O exchange capacity, and increase Pn [27]. In this study, the results of two years’ measurements of photosynthetic parameters showed that maize leaf Pn increased with increasing irrigation in the V8, R1, and R3 stages, reaching a maximum at 500 mm of irrigation. At 200 mm of irrigation, compared with straw removal, the Pn growth of maize leaves under straw mulching treatment was higher. In the R1 stage, there was a significant difference in the E value of maize leaves when the irrigation amount was 200 compared with 350 and 500 mm. Under the same irrigation conditions, straw mulching did not significantly increase the E value of maize leaves. The Pn of maize leaves increased with an increase in irrigation amount, while straw mulching maintained soil moisture and enhanced the Pn of crops when the drip irrigation volume was low. Water deficit damages plant photosynthesis by increasing stomatal resistance and reducing carbon dioxide diffusion, leading to the closure of stomata as a water conservation strategy [28]. With the growth of maize, the Gs and Ci of maize leaves at the R3 stage were still higher at irrigation levels of 350 and 500 mm, and were not significantly affected by the straw mulch returned to the field. This may be due to the increased irrigation altering the leaf water status, resulting in higher Gs and Ci, while straw mulching did not significantly affect stomatal aperture and intercellular CO2 concentration under higher irrigation conditions.

4.2. Effects of Drip Irrigation and Straw Return Interactions on Maize Growth and Development Indexes

Irrigation is necessary to regulate soil moisture and meet crop growth requirements. Some studies have shown that crop yields can be effectively increased by optimizing water and fertilizer management [29,30]. It has also been shown that moderate irrigation is more beneficial than full irrigation in agricultural production [31]. Dry matter accumulation in maize responds strongly to irrigation water volume, increasing with soil water content [32]. Straw mulching can reduce soil moisture evaporation to some extent. Fu et al. [33] found that larger areas of straw mulch were more favorable for increasing dry matter accumulation of summer maize when irrigation was low, and that dry matter accumulation of summer maize increased with soil moisture content under consistent straw mulching. Our study showed that the plant height of maize increased with increasing irrigation during the two-year experimental period. Under the same moisture conditions, straw mulching did not significantly affect the plant height of maize. The irrigation amount also affects the leaf area index of maize. During the R1 stages in 2023 and 2024, the leaf area index of maize was significantly higher at irrigation amounts of 350 mm and 500 mm than at 200 mm. Under the same irrigation conditions, straw mulching did not affect the leaf area index. In 2023 and 2024, at the V8, R3, and R6 stages, dry matter accumulation was significantly higher at a drip irrigation amount of 500 mm compared with 200 mm. Therefore, an appropriate volume of irrigation not only facilitates the increase in maize plant height, but also facilitates the maintenance of a high leaf area index, which results in the accumulation of a higher amount of dry matter. This also further illustrates that the amount of irrigation plays a decisive role in the growth and development of maize, and that the straw mulch returned to the field also has some ability to retain water [34].

4.3. Effects of Drip Irrigation and Straw Returning on Maize Yield and Its Composition Factors

Straw mulching as a multifunctional soil conservation method can resist weathering, improve the internal structure of the soil, enhance soil fertility, and increase water retention capacity [35,36,37,38]. Simultaneously, the combined use of reduced irrigation and straw mulching can significantly enhance crop resistance to drought [39]. Straw mulching can slow down the rate of soil moisture evaporation, maintain appropriate soil moisture levels, and create a stable growth environment and economic benefits for crops [40,41]. In this study, yield increased with increasing irrigation amounts. In 2023 and 2024, when the irrigation amount was 350 mm, straw mulching significantly increased the yield of maize. An increase in irrigation was favorable for the maize yield and the highest yield of maize was recorded at an irrigation amount of 500 mm. It was shown that the appropriate amount of irrigation and straw mulching of the field can maintain a certain maize yield. The combination of reduced irrigation and straw mulching has no effect on maize yields, and this type of cultivation not only effectively prevents a decline in yields, but also ensures the rational use of water resources.
Yan et al. [42] showed that under the same coverage conditions, the amount of irrigation not only affects the yield of maize but also influences its quality. In 2023 and 2024, compared with the 200 mm irrigation amount, the 100-grain mass and spike diameter of maize significantly increased under the 350 and 500 mm irrigation levels. Under the same irrigation amount, straw mulching did not affect the 100-grain mass and spike diameter. As the irrigation amount increased, the maize showed a decreasing trend in bald tip length and an increasing trend in spike length. Significant differences in the 100-grain mass and spike diameter among the different irrigation treatments indicated that the low conversion of photosynthates and assimilates to seeds [43]. Relevant studies have shown that water deficit stress leads to a reduction in spike length [44,45]. In this study, spike length increased with the increase in irrigation amount, while the length of barren tip showed an opposite trend. The correlation results indicated that under the interaction of straw mulching and drip irrigation, maize yield showed a significant positive correlation with LAI, DW, 100-grain mass, spike diameter, Pn, Gs, Ci, and E, and a significant negative correlation with bald tip length. Further explanation indicated that straw mulching and drip irrigation promote the growth and development, photosynthesis, and material accumulation of maize, thereby enhancing maize yield.

4.4. Effect of Drip Irrigation and Straw Return Interactions on Water-Use Characteristics of Maize

The maize yield under straw mulching was positively correlated with the maize WUE because the straw mulch reduced soil surface evaporation and improved soil hydrothermal conditions; straw mulch had a greater effect on soil moisture than on soil nitrogen, thereby increasing the maize yield [46]. Studies have shown that straw return to the field helps to increase soil water storage capacity and WUE [47]. By increasing soil water storage capacity, straw inputs can ensure adequate water supply during the critical crop storage period and alleviate the gap between water availability and demand for dryland crops. In 2023 and 2024, there were significant differences in WUE for maize under different irrigation conditions: the WUE was higher when the drip irrigation amount was 350 mm. Irrigation water utilization decreased with increasing irrigation. Among the treatments, the irrigation water utilization was highest when the irrigation amount was 200 mm. In this study, water consumption by maize increased with increasing irrigation. Under the same drip irrigation amount, the straw mulching and straw removal treatments had little effect on water consumption. This may be due to the fact that straw return to the field increases the volume of soil surface mulch, and while this helps to retain soil moisture, it may also lead to lower soil temperatures at night, which promotes an increase in water consumption by the crop and significantly improves the crop’s WUE, which, in turn, promotes higher and more stable crop yields. The results of the present study are consistent with previous findings that straw mulching can reduce plant water consumption [48].

5. Conclusions

Drip irrigation in conjunction with straw mulching of the field affected maize leaf photosynthesis, growth and development, yield formation, and water-use characteristics. An increase in drip irrigation amount has a positive effect on the growth and development of maize, enhancing the net photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (Gs), and intercellular carbon dioxide concentration (Ci) of maize, and therefore promoting an increase in plant height and leaf area index, which is conducive to the accumulation of more dry matter, thereby providing a material foundation for the formation of maize yield. Under drip irrigation amounts of 200 and 350 mm, compared with straw removal treatment, straw mulching did not affect the plant height and leaf area index of maize; however, it maintained a certain level of leaf photosynthetic capacity, thereby facilitating the accumulation of dry matter, and provided a solid material foundation for the growth of the maize. Straw mulching of the field limited soil water evaporation and significantly increased the WUE at an irrigation amount of 350 mm. Therefore, combining medium-deficit irrigation and straw mulching of the field is the best solution for resource-efficient maize production with improved yields in semi-arid zones. The results of this study can provide a theoretical basis for the application of maize production and straw mulching of the field in semi-arid zones. However, the performance of combining drip irrigation with straw mulching still requires further validation in semi-arid areas.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy15092056/s1. Figure S1: The state of the movable rainproof shed when it is closed; Figure S2: The state of the movable rainproof shed when it is open.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.Q. and Z.Z.; methodology, Z.Z.; validation, C.X. and H.Z.; formal analysis, L.Z. (Lizi Zhang) and L.Z. (Lihua Zhang); investigation, Z.Q., C.X., L.Z. (Lizi Zhang), L.Z. (Lihua Zhang), H.Z., F.L., N.S., R.Z., J.R., Q.L. and S.B.; resources, Z.Q., C.X., and Z.Z.; data curation, Z.Q.; writing original draft preparation, Z.Q., C.X., L.Z. (Lizi Zhang), L.Z. (Lihua Zhang), F.L., N.S., R.Z., J.R., Q.L. and S.B.; writing review and editing, Z.Z. and H.Z.; supervision, Z.Z.; project administration, Z.Z.; funding acquisition, C.X. and L.Z. (Lihua Zhang). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge the grants from the Jilin Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Project (KYJF2025KF003); National Key Research and Development Program Project of China (2024YFD2300101); Jilin Agriculture Research System (JALRS-2025-010314).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the authors for their help with this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

References

  1. Cui, Z.L.; Zhang, H.Y.; Chen, X.P.; Zhang, C.C.; Ma, W.Q.; Huang, C.D.; Zhang, W.F.; Mi, G.H.; Miao, Y.X.; Li, X.L.; et al. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 2018, 555, 363–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ali, S.; Xu, Y.Y.; Ma, X.C.; Ahmad, I.; Kamran, M.; Dong, Z.Y.; Cai, T.; Jia, Q.M.; Ren, X.L.; Zhang, P.; et al. Planting patterns and deficit irrigation strategies to improve wheat production and water use efficiency under simulated rainfall conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amelung, W.; Bossio, D.; Vries, W.D.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Lehmann, J.; Amundson, R.; Bol, R.; Collins, C.; Lal, R.; Leifeld, J.; et al. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Battaglia, M.; Thomason, W.; Fike, J.H.; Evanylo, G.K.; Cossel, M.V.; Babur, E.; Iqbal, Y.; Diatta, A.A. The broad impacts of corn stover and wheat straw removal for biofuel production on crop productivity, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions: A review. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 13, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bauer, A.; Black, A.L. Organic carbon effects on available water capacity of three soil textural groups. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1992, 56, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Deng, X.-P.; Shan, L.; Zhang, H.; Turner, N.C. Improving agricultural water use efficiency in arid and semiarid areas of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Qin, X.L.; Li, Y.Z.; Han, Y.L.; Hu, Y.C.; Li, Y.J.; Wen, X.X.; Liao, Y.C.; Siddique, K.H.M. Ridge-furrow mulching with black plastic film improves maize yield more than white plastic film in dry areas with adequate accumulated temperature. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 2018, 262, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gan, Y.T.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Turner, N.C.; Li, X.G.; Niu, J.Y.; Yang, C.; Liu, L.P.; Chai, Q. Ridge-furrow mulching systems—An innovative technique for boosting crop productivity in semiarid rain-fed environments. Adv. Agron. 2013, 118, 429–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, Y.Z.; Song, D.P.; Dang, P.F.; Wei, L.; Qin, X.L.; Siddique, K.H.M. The effect of tillage on nitrogen use efficiency in maize (Zea mays L.) in a ridge–furrow plastic film mulch system. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 195, 104409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yao, P.W.; Li, X.S.; Liu, J.C.; Shen, Y.F.; Yue, S.C.; Li, S.Q. The role of maize plants in regulating soil profile dynamics and surface emissions of nitrous oxide in a semiarid environment. Biol. Fert. Soils 2018, 54, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guan, X.K.; Wei, L.; Turner, N.C.; Ma, S.C.; Yang, M.D.; Wang, T.C. Improved straw management practices promote in situ straw decomposition and nutrient release, and increase crop production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fang, Q.; Wang, J.; Yu, S. Water-saving potential and irrigation strategies for wheat-maize double cropping system in the North China Plain. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2011, 27, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  13. Prosdocimi, M.; Jordán, A.; Tarolli, P.; Keesstra, S.; Novara, A.; Cerdà, A. The immediate effectiveness of barley straw mulch in reducing soil erodibility and surface runoff generation in Mediterranean vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 27, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Stagnari, F.; Galieni, A.; Speca, S.; Cafiero, G.; Pisante, M. Effects of straw mulch on growth and yield of durum wheat during transition to conservation agriculture in Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Res. 2014, 167, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fernández, C.; Vega, J.A. Are erosion barriers and straw mulching effective for controlling soil erosion after a high severity wildfire in NW Spain? Ecol. Eng. 2016, 87, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, Y.F.; Li, H.W.; He, J.; Wang, Q.J.; Li, W.Y.; Chen, W.Z.; Zhang, X.Y. Effects of maize straw mulching on runoff and sediment process of slope. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 118–124. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wang, T.C.; Wei, L.; Wang, H.Z.; Ma, S.C.; Ma, B.L. Responses of rainwater conservation, precipitation-use efficiency and grain yield of summer maize to a furrow-planting and straw-mulching system in northern China. Field Crops Res. 2011, 124, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tao, Z.Q.; Li, C.F.; Li, J.J.; Ding, Z.S.; Xu, J.; Sun, X.F.; Zhou, P.L.; Zhao, M. Tillage and straw mulching impacts on grain yield and water use efficiency of spring maize in Northern Huang–Huai–Hai Valley. Crop J. 2015, 3, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Qiao, Y.L.; Tie, J.Z.; Wang, X.H.; Wei, B.H.; Zhang, W.B.; Liu, Z.C.; Zhang, G.B.; Lyu, J.; Liao, W.B.; Hu, L.L.; et al. Comprehensive evaluation on effect of planting and breeding waste composts on the yield, nutrient utilization, and soil environment of baby cabbage. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 341, 117941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, Y.; Wang, G.S.; Liu, Y.W.; Xu, B.; Zheng, H.X.; Tian, D.L.; Guo, J.J.; Su, J.Z.; Ma, Z.W.; Zhou, F.X.; et al. Effects of Restricted Irrigation and Straw Mulching on Corn Quality, Soil Enzyme Activity, and Water Use Efficiency in West Ordos. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kugedera, A.; Kokerai, L. A Review on the Effects of Mineral Fertilizer, Manure and Water Management in Improving Sorghum Grain Yields in Semi-Arid Areas. J. Plant Nutr. 2024, 47, 1175–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, R.; Cui, R.M.; Jia, Z.K.; Han, Q.F.; Lu, W.T.; Hou, X.Q. Effects of different furrow-ridge mulching ways on soil moisture and water use efficiency of winter wheat. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2011, 44, 3312–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, S.L.; Sadras, V.; Chen, X.P.; Zhang, F.S. Water use efficiency of dryland maize in the Loess Plateau of China in response to crop management. Field Crops Res. 2014, 163, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Olesen, J.E.; Trnka, M.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Skjelvåg, A.O.; Seguin, B.; Peltonen-Sainio, P.; Rossi, F.; Kozyra, J.; Micale, F. Impacts and adaptation of European crop production systems to climate change. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 34, 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hann, E.C.; Overa, S.; Harland-Dunaway, M.; Narvaez, A.F.; Le, D.N.; Orozco-Cárdenas, M.L.; Jiao, F.; Jinkerson, R.E. A hybrid inorganic–biological artificial photosynthesis system for energy-efficient food production. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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. 2020, 241, 106382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, X.D.; Yang, L.C.; Xue, X.K.; Kamran, M.; Ahmad, I.; Dong, Z.Y.; Liu, T.N.; Jia, Z.K.; Zhang, P.; Han, Q.F. Plastic film mulching stimulates soil wet-dry alternation and stomatal behavior to improve maize yield and resource use efficiency in a semi-arid region. Field Crops Res. 2019, 233, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abdalla, M.; Ahmed, M.A.; Cai, G.C.; Wankmüller, F.; Schwartz, N.; Litig, O.; Javaux, M.; Carminati, A. Stomatal closure during water deficit is controlled by below-ground hydraulics. Ann. Bot. 2022, 129, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, H.; Biswas, S.; Han, Y.S.; Tomar, V. A phase field modeling based study of microstructure evolution and its influence on thermal conductivity in polycrystalline tungsten under irradiation. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2018, 150, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yan, S.C.; Wu, Y.; Fan, J.L.; Zhang, F.C.; Qiang, S.C.; Zheng, J.; Xiang, Y.Z.; Guo, J.J.; Zou, H.Y. Effects of water and fertilizer management on grain filling characteristics, grain weight and productivity of drip-fertigated winter wheat. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 983–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kresović, B.; Tapanarova, A.; Tomić, Z.; Životić, L.; Vujović, D.; Sredojević, Z.; Gajić, B. Grain yield and water use efficiency of maize as influenced by different irrigation regimes through sprinkler irrigation under temperate climate. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 169, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Y.S.; Janz, B.; Engedal, T.; Neergaard, A.D. Effect of irrigation regimes and nitrogen rates on water use efficiency and nitrogen uptake in maize. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fu, Y.X.; Xiao, W.X.; Tian, L.; Guo, L.X.; Ma, G.J.; Chen, J.; Huang, Y.C.; Wang, H.H.; Wu, X.G.; Yang, T.; et al. Spatial transcriptomics uncover sucrose post-phloem transport during maize kernel development. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 7191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wu, F.Q.; Yang, B.F.; Guo, S.M.; Huang, W.B.; Lei, Y.P.; Xiong, S.W.; Han, Y.C.; Wang, Z.B.; Feng, L.; Li, X.F.; et al. Products. Adopting different cotton cropping systems may regulate the spatiotemporal variation in soil moisture and affect the growth, WUE and yield of cotton. Ind. Crop Prod. 2022, 186, 115259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zribi, W.; Aragüés, R.; Medina, E.; Faci, J.M. Efficiency of inorganic and organic mulching materials for soil evaporation control. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 148, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Xu, J.; Han, H.F.; Ning, T.Y.; Li, Z.J.; Lal, R. Long-term effects of tillage and straw management on soil organic carbon, crop yield, and yield stability in a wheat-maize system. Field Crops Res. 2019, 233, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mansouri-Far, C.; Sanavy, S.A.M.M.; Saberali, S.F. Maize yield response to deficit irrigation during low-sensitive growth stages and nitrogen rate under semi-arid climatic conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hou, P.F.; Jiang, Y.; Yan, L.; Petropoulos, E.; Wang, J.Y.; Xue, L.H.; Yang, L.Z.; Chen, D. Effect of fertilization on nitrogen losses through surface runoffs in Chinese farmlands: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 793, 148554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jia, Q.; Shi, H.B.; Li, R.P.; Miao, Q.F.; Feng, Y.Y.; Wang, N.; Li, J.W. Evaporation of maize crop under mulch film and soil covered drip irrigation: Field assessment and modelling on West Liaohe Plain, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 253, 106894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, Y.B.; Song, H.; Zhou, L.; Xu, Z.Z.; Zhou, G.S. Vertical distributions of chlorophyll and nitrogen and their associations with photosynthesis under drought and rewatering regimes in a maize field. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 2019, 272, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, F.Y.; Gao, M.L.; Zhang, H.Z.; Yuan, H.B.; Hu, B.; Zong, R.; Zhang, M.M.; Ma, Y.Z.; Li, Q.Q. Synergistic impact of various straw-return methods and irrigation regimes on winter wheat physiological growth and yield. Field Crops Res. 2024, 316, 109516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yan, Z.X.; Gao, C.; Ren, Y.J.; Zong, R.; Ma, Y.Z.; Li, Q.Q. Effects of pre-sowing irrigation and straw mulching on the grain yield and water use efficiency of summer maize in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 186, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Çakir, R. Effect of water stress at different development stages on vegetative and reproductive growth of corn. Field Crops Res. 2004, 89, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Adams, K.R.; Muenchrath, D.A.; Schwindt, D.M. Moisture effects on the morphology of ears, cobs and kernels of a south-western US maize (Zea mays L.) cultivar, and implications for the interpretation of archaeological maize. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1999, 26, 483–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Moosavi, S.G. The effect of water deficit stress and nitrogen fertilizer levels on morphology traits, yield and leaf area index in maize. Pak. J. Bot. 2012, 44, 1351–1355. [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu, Z.; Ma, F.Y.; Hu, T.X.; Zhao, K.G.; Gao, T.P.; Zhao, H.X.; Ning, T.Y. Using stable isotopes to quantify water uptake from different soil layers and water use efficiency of wheat under long-term tillage and straw return practices. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 229, 105933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yin, W.; Yu, A.Z.; Chai, Q.; Hu, F.L.; Feng, F.X.; Gan, Y.T. Wheat and maize relay-planting with straw covering increases water use efficiency up to 46%. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 815–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Y.L.; Xu, Z.H.; Li, S.; Liang, Z.M.; Xue, X.R.; Bai, J.; Yang, Z.P. Straw returning and Post-Silking irrigating improve the grain yield and utilization of water and nitrogen of spring maize. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2023, 56, 3599–3614. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 15 02056 g001aAgronomy 15 02056 g001b
Figure 1. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize Pn, Gs, Ci, and E. Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Figure 1. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize Pn, Gs, Ci, and E. Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Agronomy 15 02056 g001aAgronomy 15 02056 g001b
Agronomy 15 02056 g002
Figure 2. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize plant height (PH). Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Figure 2. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize plant height (PH). Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Agronomy 15 02056 g002
Agronomy 15 02056 g003
Figure 3. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize leaf area index (LAI). Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Figure 3. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize leaf area index (LAI). Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Agronomy 15 02056 g003
Agronomy 15 02056 g004
Figure 4. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on dry matter (DW) accumulation in maize. Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Figure 4. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on dry matter (DW) accumulation in maize. Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05). S represents straw returning method; V represents drip irrigation amount. * and ns indicate significance at p < 0.05, and no significant difference, respectively.
Agronomy 15 02056 g004
Agronomy 15 02056 g005
Figure 5. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize yield. Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize yield. Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 15 02056 g005
Agronomy 15 02056 g006
Figure 6. Correlation analysis of agronomic traits, photosynthetic characteristics, yield and the components of maize. *—significant difference at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Correlation analysis of agronomic traits, photosynthetic characteristics, yield and the components of maize. *—significant difference at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 15 02056 g006
Table 1. Soil physical and chemical properties of light chernozem at 0–40 cm depth.
Table 1. Soil physical and chemical properties of light chernozem at 0–40 cm depth.
Soil Organic Matter Content (g·kg−1)Water Soluble Nitrogen Content (mg·kg−1)Quick-Acting Phosphorus Content (mg·kg−1)Quick-Acting Potassium Content (mg·kg−1)pHProfile Water Holding Capacity (cm3·cm−3)
15.665.925.4103.57.90.23
Table 2. Irrigation regimes in 2023 and 2024.
Table 2. Irrigation regimes in 2023 and 2024.
Irrigation Amount (mm)Growing StageIrrigation Interval (Days)Single Irrigation Amount (mm)Frequency of Drip Irrigation
500Seedling stage15352
Seedling stage to jointing stage10353
Jointing stage to early grouting stage10404
Early grouting stage to mature stage727.56
350Seedling stage15252
Seedling stage to jointing stage10253
Jointing stage to early grouting stage10274
Early grouting stage to mature stage719.56
200Seedling stage15162
Seedling stage to jointing stage10163
Jointing stage to early grouting stage10184
Early grouting stage to mature stage786
Table 3. Results of interaction analysis of maize yield under year, drip irrigation, and straw return interactions.
Table 3. Results of interaction analysis of maize yield under year, drip irrigation, and straw return interactions.
ItemsYield (kg·hm−2)
F Valuesp Values
Y129.280.00
S15.940.00
V404.120.00
Y × S0.030.88
Y × V1.50.24
S × V5.880.01
Y × S × V2.550.10
Note: Y represents year, S represents straw returning method, V represents drip irrigation amount.
Table 4. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize yield component factors.
Table 4. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on maize yield component factors.
YearTreatments100-Grain Mass (g)Bald Tip Length (cm)Spike Length (cm)Spike Diameter (cm)
202320027.11 ± 0.45 Bb1.58 ± 0.15 Aa15.68 ± 0.64 Ab4.44 ± 0.14 Ab
200C27.57 ± 0.60 Aa1.32 ± 0.12 Aa16.02 ± 0.58 Aa4.55 ± 0.15 Aa
35029.79 ± 1.07 Bb1.03 ± 0.12 Ab16.64 ± 0.42 Aa4.86 ± 0.20 Aa
350C30.03 ± 0.34 Aa0.53 ± 0.02 Bb16.73 ± 0.42 Aa4.97 ± 0.13 Aa
50030.23 ± 0.44 Aa0.33 ± 0.05 Ac16.80 ± 0.24 Aa5.04 ± 0.05 Aa
500C30.12 ± 0.43 Aa0.27 ± 0.05 Ac16.98 ± 0.39 Aa5.04 ± 0.03 Aa
202420028.13 ± 1.05 Ab1.63 ± 0.03 Aa14.30 ± 0.44 Ab4.84 ± 0.06 Ab
200C29.25 ± 0.40 Ab1.53 ± 0.04 Aa14.33 ± 0.32 Ab4.91 ± 0.12 Ab
35030.17 ± 1.14 Aa1.47 ± 0.08 Aa15.37 ± 0.40 Aa5.22 ± 0.10 Aa
350C30.66 ± 1.07 Aa1.27 ± 0.15 Aa15.60 ± 0.53 Aa5.23 ± 0.11 Aa
50030.26 ± 0.47 Aa0.70 ± 0.07 Ab15.63 ± 0.15 Aa5.27 ± 0.09 Aa
500C30.84 ± 0.35 Aa0.90 ± 0.05 Ab15.53 ± 0.15 Aa5.22 ± 0.10 Aa
Note: Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amount under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on water-use characteristics of maize.
Table 5. Effect of drip irrigation and straw return interactions on water-use characteristics of maize.
YearTreatmentsSoil Water Storage Before Sowing (mm)Soil Water Storage After Harvest (mm)Water Consumption (mm)WUE (kg·m−3)Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (kg·m−3)
2023200145.39 Aa48.21 Ac297.18 Ac2.51 Bb3.73 Ba
200C151.25 Aa53.71 Ac297.54 Ac2.63 Ab3.92 Aa
350135.73 Aa149.48 Ab336.25 Ab2.73 Ba2.62 Bb
350C135.85 Ab150.85 Ab335.01 Ab2.82 Aa2.7 Ab
500141.25 Aa193.24 Aa448.01 Aa2.13 Bc1.91 Ac
500C140.78 Aab209.73 Aa431.05 Aa2.23 Ac1.93 Ac
2024200145.78 Aab40.53 Ac305.25 Ab2.64 Bb4.03 Ba
200C148.25 Aa45.63 Ac302.62 Ab2.77 Ab4.20 Aa
350135.78 Ab155.57 Ab330.21 Ab2.95 Ba2.78 Bb
350C140.48 Aa160.93 Ab329.55 Ab3.15 Aa2.97 Ab
500152.18 Aa207.57 Aa444.61 Aa2.37 Bc2.11 Ac
500C142.06 Aa219.69 Aa422.37 Aa2.45 Ac2.07 Ac
Note: Values are presented as means ± SD, n = 9. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among various straw returning methods under the same drip irrigation amount (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among various drip irrigation amounts under the same straw returning method (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qi, Z.; Xu, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L.; Li, F.; Sun, N.; Zhao, R.; Ren, J.; Li, Q.; Bian, S.; et al. Water-Saving and Yield-Increasing Strategies for Maize Under Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulching in Semi-Arid Regions. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2056. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092056

AMA Style

Qi Z, Xu C, Zhang L, Zhang L, Li F, Sun N, Zhao R, Ren J, Li Q, Bian S, et al. Water-Saving and Yield-Increasing Strategies for Maize Under Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulching in Semi-Arid Regions. Agronomy. 2025; 15(9):2056. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092056

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qi, Zexin, Chen Xu, Lizi Zhang, Lihua Zhang, Fei Li, Ning Sun, Renjie Zhao, Jingquan Ren, Qian Li, Shaofeng Bian, and et al. 2025. "Water-Saving and Yield-Increasing Strategies for Maize Under Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulching in Semi-Arid Regions" Agronomy 15, no. 9: 2056. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092056

APA Style

Qi, Z., Xu, C., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Li, F., Sun, N., Zhao, R., Ren, J., Li, Q., Bian, S., Zhang, Z., & Zhao, H. (2025). Water-Saving and Yield-Increasing Strategies for Maize Under Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulching in Semi-Arid Regions. Agronomy, 15(9), 2056. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092056

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