Next Article in Journal
The Characteristics and Source Contribution Analysis of Nutrients in Water Bodies of Small Watersheds in the Pearl River Delta
Previous Article in Journal
Correlation Between the Structural-Activity of Sulfidated Nanoscale Zerovalent Iron and Its Enhanced Reactivity for Cr(VI) Reduction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 12
10.3390/w17121738
water-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

Effects of Ridge Planting on the Distribution of Soil Water-Salt-Nitrogen, Crop Growth, and Water Use Efficiency of Processing Tomatoes Under Different Irrigation Amounts

by
Ruyue Zheng
1,2,
Junwei Tan
1,2,*,
Zailin Huo
1,2 and
Guanhua Huang
1,2
1
State Key Laboratory of Efficient Utilization of Agricultural Water Resources, Beijing 100083, China
2
Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(12), 1738; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17121738
Submission received: 29 April 2025 / Revised: 24 May 2025 / Accepted: 29 May 2025 / Published: 9 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Water, Agriculture and Aquaculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ridge tillage practice can enhance water storage capacity and crop production, but its integrated effects with different irrigation amounts and mechanisms to regulate crop growth remain little known. In this study, a two-year field experiment was conducted to explore the integrated impacts of irrigation and tillage practices on soil environment, crop growth, and water productivity of processing tomatoes. Three irrigation levels (full irrigation, mild water deficit, and moderate water deficit) and two tillage practices (ridge planting and flat planting) were considered in the treatments. Results indicated that ridge planting increased soil water, nitrogen, and salt content in the 0–30 cm soil layer compared to flat planting. However, the substantial increase in soil water content induced a dilution effect on salinity, which enhanced crop growth and yield production under different irrigation levels. Ridge planting improved the leaf area index (LAI), total yield, and water use efficiency (WUE) by 26.55~68.25%, 49.45~122.50%, and 54.19~124.15%, respectively. The highest total yield was achieved under ridge planting combined with mild water deficit conditions, whereas the lowest was recorded under flat planting with moderate water deficit. These findings suggest that ridge cropping optimizes the redistribution of water, nitrogen, and salt in the soil, which improves crop growth and yield. Overall, ridge planting represents a viable strategy for improving soil fertility and yield production, and promoting efficient resource utilization, particularly in water-limited regions.

1. Introduction

Water scarcity has been one of the crucial restraints on crop production in agriculture due to reduced water availability and growing competition for water use among different sectors. Meanwhile, conventional water-intensive irrigation and high synthetic fertilizer utilization in agriculture have brought rising environmental concerns [1,2]. Hence, the integration of proper irrigation and agronomy measures such as fertilizer and tillage managements are essential for sustainable agricultural production [3].
Processing tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) are one of the important cash crops around the world that require high nitrogen and water supply and are moderately sensitive to salinity. Numerous studies have demonstrated the significant influence of irrigation water on tomato yield [4,5,6,7], and the effects vary greatly depending on the period of water deficit and the extent of water stress. Mild water deficit during water-insensitive stages has been demonstrated to maintain high yield [8,9,10,11]. Soil salinization is one of the worldwide environmental problems that limit agricultural production and is usually induced by water shortage in arid and semi-arid regions due to high evaporation and low rainfall [12]. Accumulation of salt in the soil and crops lowers the efficiency of roots to absorb water and nutrients and is likely to inhibit crop growth development including a reduction in leaf area index, root density, aboveground biomass, stomatal conductance, and radiation use efficiency [13,14]. In terms of tomato plants, several studies have shown that certain salt stress in soil could lead to lower yield [15,16].
Soil tillage practice is widely acknowledged to affect soil water distribution, plant available water, and agricultural productivity [17,18]. Ridge planting and flat planting tillage are the most common practices for crop cultivation in China. The former is a conservation tillage measure characterized by ridge building that is elevated, while the latter is more like a conventional intensive tillage measure. For saline soil in the arid and semi-arid regions, both two tillage practices require a deep loosening operation for better salt leaching effects. Ridge tillage has been found to be conducive to enhance soil water storage capacity, water and nitrogen use efficiency, yield production, and increasing crop resistance to abiotic stresses [19,20]. Moreover, in recent years, the interaction effects among tillage techniques, irrigation, and nitrogen application have been of concern and proved to be significant for crop growth, yield, and resource-use efficiency [3,21,22,23]. Ridge planting has also been shown to be beneficial in increasing soil aggregate stability and improving soil quality compared to conventional tillage [24]. However, very little attention has been given to exploring ridge planting effects on the redistribution of water, nitrogen, and salt under different irrigation amounts (drought levels), and its mechanism to yield improvement and drought resistance remains little known.
In this study, a two-year field experiment of processing tomatoes was conducted in the northwestern arid region of China, which faces severe water scarcity and soil salinity due to the large discrepancy between precipitation and evaporation [25,26]. The field experiment considered three irrigation levels (full irrigation, mild water deficit, and moderate water deficit) and two tillage practices (ridge planting and flat planting). This experiment describes an investigation to evaluate the effects of ridge planting practice on soil characteristics, biomass allocation, crop growth, processing tomato yield, and drought resistance capacity. The results of this study are expected to provide a suitable integrated field management model aimed at saving water and enhancing the yield of processing tomatoes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

The Hetao Experimental Station is located in Bayannur, Inner Mongolia (latitude 40°44′ N, longitude 107°17′ E, altitude 1031 m), China. Benefitting from the site-specific climate and abundant solar resources, the processing tomatoes in this region contribute to an impressive annual yield of more than 22 million tons, as well as tomato sauce production surpassing 3 million tons [10]. The soil texture of the experimental field was sandy loam, and the pH and organic content in the 0–60 cm soil was 8.52 and 7.78 g/kg, respectively. Details about the physical properties of 0–60 cm soil are tabulated in Table 1. In addition, meteorological data were obtained from the weather station at the experimental site, and the daily mean temperature and precipitation during the growth period of processing tomato plants were presented (Figure 1). The average temperature over the tomato growth period in 2022–2023 was 25.0 and 25.1 °C, respectively. Meanwhile, the cumulative rainfall during the tomato growth period in 2022 and 2023 was 106.0 and 93.2 mm, respectively.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted in both 2022 and 2023. A split-plot arrangement of treatments was used in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each plot was 10 m long and 5 m wide, with an area of 50 m2. A wide–narrow row pattern was adopted with a width of 100 cm for wide rows and 40 cm for narrow rows, and black plastic mulch was applied on the narrow rows to maintain soil moisture and temperature. The tomato seedlings at the 3–4 true leaves stage were transplanted along the mulched narrow row with a row spacing of 40 cm and interplant spacing of 50 cm, resulting in a planting density of 36,000 plants per hectare. A widely planted local cultivar of “Tunhe No.5” was employed in the experiment. Two tillage methods were considered: ridge planting (with raised beds of 60 width and 20 cm height before mulch covering and plant transplanting) and flat planting, as shown in Figure 2. Three irrigation levels were included: full irrigation (100% I), mild water deficit (80% I), and moderate water deficit (60% I). Irrigation was triggered when the average soil moisture in crop root zone of the full irrigation treatment in flat planting decreased to 70 ± 2% of field capacity. The irrigation amounts of full irrigation treatments were calculated as the following:
I = 1000 H d θ f − 70 % θ f
where I represents irrigation quota for full irrigation treatment, mm; H represents planned soil moistening depth, which was set as 0.6 m in 2022, while it was 0.4 in 2023; d represents soil bulk density, g/cm3; θf represents soil water content at field capacity.
All the treatments received an irrigation of 50 mm after transplanting to ensure crop establishment, and the irrigation amounts for different treatments were presented (Table 2). Nitrogen was applied with synthetic fertilizer (urea) of 150 kg N ha−1 and organic fertilizer (well-rotted sheep manure) of 75 t ha−1 as a substitute for another 150 kg N ha−1. All the organic fertilizer and 50 kg N ha−1 of urea were applied as basal fertilizer, and they were hand-applied to the soil at a depth of 20 cm before transplanting. The remaining urea was separately applied as top-dressing fertilizer at the flowering and fruiting setting stage and the full fruiting stage before irrigation. All phosphorus and potash fertilizers were applied as a base fertilizer at the rates of 240 P2O5 kg ha−1 and 375 K2O kg ha−1, respectively. The growth period of processing tomatoes was divided into the seedling stage, flowering and fruit setting stage, full fruiting stage, and late fruiting stage. The phenological dates were observed over the growth period, and the field experiment was well protected from weeds, pests, and diseases.

2.3. Measurements

For each plot, soil samples were collected at 0–10, 10–20, 20–40, and 40–60 cm depth at each tomato growth stage, and all samples were instantly transported to the laboratory to measure soil water content, salinity, nitrate, and ammonium nitrogen levels. Moreover, for each plot, three well-developed and representative processing tomato plants were randomly chosen for tagging and labeling. During the tomato growth period, the plant height, stem diameter, leaf area index (LAI), and fruit diameter were recorded for each labeled tomato plant at different growth stages. Plant height was measured using a tape measure, and the stem diameter was measured using a digital vernier caliper at a height of 3 cm above the soil surface. The LAI was determined by using the ratio method, which calculates the ratio of the total leaf area to the overall plant covering area. The tomatoes in the first cluster were chosen to measure their transverse and longitudinal diameters using a digital vernier caliper, and the mean value was taken as the fruit diameter. Additionally, at each growth stage, the dry matter weight of biomass aboveground in each plot was recorded by randomly selecting three representative plants for destructive sampling. After the plant’s roots were cleaned and removed, the different organs aboveground (stems, leaves, flower buds, fruits) were separated and individually weighed while fresh. Then, each organ part was subjected to 30 min of heat treatment at 105 °C to ensure thorough drying, followed by drying at a constant temperature of 80 °C to obtain the dry weights.
When above 80% of tomato fruit reached maturity, in order to minimize the border effect, five plants were randomly chosen in each plot for measurement of individual fruit weight, number of fruits per plant, and fresh yield.

2.4. Actual Evapotranspiration (ETa) and WUE

The ETa of processing tomatoes was calculated with the soil water balance formula.
E T a = I + P e + Δ S + W − R − D
where I is the irrigation amount (mm), Pe is the effective precipitation of crop growing season (mm), W is groundwater recharge (mm), R is surface runoff (mm), D is deep leakage (mm), ΔS is the change in soil water storage during the crop growth period (mm).
WUE describes the relationship between crop yield and water consumption. Water consumption can be expressed as actual crop water consumption and irrigation water consumption. To evaluate the water use of processing tomatoes, crop water use efficiency (WUEET) and irrigation water use efficiency (WUEI) were calculated by Formula (3) and (4), respectively.
W U E E T = Y / E T a
W U E E T = Y / I
where Y is the yield (kg/ha), ETa is the actual water consumption of processing tomatoes (m3/ha), I is the irrigation quota (m3/ha).

2.5. Data Analysis

SPSS 26.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was employed for data analysis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s test were utilized to examine the significant differences among various experimental treatments. The probability level for significance determination was 0.05. Additionally, unitary linear regression was conducted to analyze the regression of different independent variables.

3. Results

3.1. Dynamics of Soil Water Content, Salt, and Nitrogen

Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the variation in soil water content, salinity, nitrate, and ammonium nitrogen levels at different days after transplanting (DAT) for processing tomatoes. Figure 3 shows that the soil water content increased with soil depth, and the soil water content of each layer increased with growing irrigation amount. Moreover, for all irrigation treatments, the soil water content of each layer under ridge planting was obviously higher than that of flat planting, particularly for the 0–40 cm soil layer. However, Figure 4 showed that the ridge planting had more salt accumulation in the 0–30 cm soil layer throughout the whole tomato growing period, and the salt content in this layer obviously increased with reducing irrigation amount. The average salt content in the 0–30 cm soil layer under full irrigation, mild water deficit, and moderate water deficit throughout the growing period were 1.63, 1.84, and 2.11 g·kg−1, respectively, while they were 1.08, 1.61, and 1.37 g·kg−1 in the 30–60 cm soil layer, respectively. The average salt content in the 0–10 cm soil layer under different irrigation amounts were slightly higher (2.15, 2.47, and 2.66 g·kg−1, respectively). In contrast, the flat planting was likely to result in more salt accumulation in the 30–60 cm soil layer due to improved water permeability of the 0–30 cm soil layer, which makes it easier for salts to leach into the deeper soil layers. Moreover, the salt content under the flat planting practice was less sensitive to the irrigation amounts, and it slightly increased with growing drought levels. The average salt content in the 0–30 cm soil layer under different irrigation amounts were 1.13, 1.21, and 1.24 g·kg−1, respectively, while they were 1.36, 1.36, and 1.46 g·kg−1 in the 30–60 cm soil layer, respectively.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show that, at the seedling stage, the ridge planting had much higher soil nitrate and ammonium nitrogen in the top 0–10 cm soil layer (Figure 5a and Figure 6a). After the seedling stage, the ridge planting consistently maintained much higher nitrate nitrogen in the 0–20 cm soil layer than that of flat planting (Figure 5b–h), while the flat planting had relatively higher ammonium nitrogen in this soil layer than that of ridge planting (Figure 6b–h). However, the irrigation amounts had little impact on the nitrogen content and its vertical distribution in the 0–20 cm soil layer. Nitrate nitrogen slightly increased with reducing irrigation amounts, while the soil ammonium nitrogen had contrary results. Additionally, negligible differences were found among the nitrogen contents in the 30–60 cm soil layer of different tillage and irrigation treatments

3.2. Growth Characteristics

The dynamic changes in plant height, stem diameter, fruit diameter, and leaf area index of processing tomatoes at different days after transplanting are illustrated in Figure 7. The plant height quickly increased to the highest point at the flowering and fruit setting stage (DAT = 60) from the seedling stage (DAT = 13), and then gradually decreased to very low values at the late fruiting stage (DAT = 90), as the plants were prostrated on the ground by the growing tomato fruits (Figure 7a,e). Similarly, the LAI increased to a high value and then slightly decreased due to leaf senescence at the late fruiting stage (Figure 7f,h). Meanwhile, the stem diameter and fruit diameter steadily increased over time until the late fruiting stage (Figure 7b,c,f,g). For all growth parameters, negligible variations among different treatments were presented at the seedling stage except for the fruit diameter, and the differences obviously increased with growing stages in 2022 and 2023. Moreover, the variations in growth parameters among different treatments in 2022 were larger than in 2023. Under different irrigation levels, compared to flat planting, ridge planting the enhanced plant height, stem diameter, fruit diameter, and LAI by 17.3~23.4%, 11.2~15.4%, 12.1~13.3%, and 26.6~68.3%, respectively. The varying extents of the growth parameters between different tillage practices increased with growing drought levels. Specifically, under ridge planting, compared to full irrigation, mild water deficit increased the growth parameters by 10.4%, 4.1%, 6.5%, and 30.5%, respectively, while moderate water deficit led to decreases by 6.2%, 5.7%, 9.3%, and 0.9%, respectively. In contrast, under the flat planting, compared to full irrigation, mild water deficit increased growth parameters by 4.7%, 1.7%, 6.2%, and 9.0%, respectively, whereas moderate water deficit caused decreases of 7.9%, 9.2%, 10.3%, and 24.7%, respectively.
Figure 8 shows the dry matter weights of different organs aboveground at different growing stages. At the seedling stage, water deficit had no significant effects on the dry matter weights of leaves and stems, while the fertilizer application and tillage practices had slight influences (Figure 8a,e). After the seedling stage, there were significant differences in the dry matter weights of different organs aboveground among different treatments (Figure 8b–h). Under different irrigation amounts, the ridge planting enhanced aboveground biomass by 47.8~59.3% than that of the flat planting, and the variation extents increased with growing drought levels. Under ridge planting, compared to full irrigation, the mild water deficit increased biomass by 13.6%, while the moderate water deficit decreased by 12%. In contrast, under flat planting, mild water deficit increased biomass by 12.2% than that of full irrigation, while moderate water deficit caused a decrease of 18.5%. Moreover, the differences between the two tillage practices under the same irrigation drought levels in 2023 were larger than those in 2022.

3.3. Crop Yield and WUE

Figure 9 shows that the total yield of different treatments ranged from 35.7 to 127 t/ha over the two years, and the tomato yield in 2023 was generally higher than that in 2022. Among the treatments, the ridge planting integrated with mild water deficit obtained the highest total tomato yield, while the integration of flat planting and moderate water deficit had the lowest values. The single fruit weight and fruits number per plant have the same results. Under the ridge planting, mild water deficit increased total yield, fruit weight, and fruits number per plant by 7.9%, 13.2%, and 5.8% compared to that of full irrigation, respectively, while moderate water deficit decreased the yield parameters by 19%, 9%, and 14.2%, respectively. By contrast, under the flat planting, mild water deficit increased yield parameters by 11.5%, 16.3%, and 25.3% than that of full irrigation, respectively, whereas moderate water deficit reduced them by 42.4%, 27.4%, and 17.4%, respectively. Moreover, compared to flat planting treatments, the ridge planting increased total yield, fruit weight, and fruit number per plant under full irrigation by 54.7%, 35.1%, and 50.4%, respectively. Meanwhile, the yield parameters under mild water deficit increased by 54.7%, 35.1%, and 50.4%, respectively. Moreover, the yield parameters under moderate water deficit increased by 122%, 69.4%, and 55.8%, respectively.
In terms of WUEET and WUEI, similar results to the tomato yield were obtained over two years (Figure 10). Under different irrigation amounts, the ridge planting significantly enhanced the WUEET and WUEI by 54.2~124% and 49.4~123% than that of flat planting, respectively. Under ridge planting, mild water deficit increased WUEET and WUEI by 10.1% and 14.3% compared to full irrigation, respectively, while moderate water deficit led to decreases by 16.2% and 8.3%, respectively. In contrast, under the flat planting, mild water deficit improved these parameters by 15% and 18%, respectively, while moderate water deficit substantially decreased them by 38.4% and 34.7%, respectively. Furthermore, the differences of WUEET and WUEI between the two tillage practices in 2023 were obviously higher than those in 2022, due to higher total yield and lower water irrigation.

4. Discussion

The results of the irrigation experiment indicated that mild water deficit can slightly improve crop growth, total tomato yield, and WUE. This is in agreement with previous studies [10,11]. The results are mainly attributed to the fact that a mild water deficit can strengthen the crop root system, which improves the ability to absorb nitrogen and promotes enzyme activity related to nitrogen metabolism [27]. In contrast, when the water deficit exceeds a certain extent, the crop may be subjected to severe water stress, which negatively impacts crop growth by reducing stomatal conductance and decreasing plant transpiration and photosynthesis [9,28]. However, the extent of water deficit effects may fluctuate under different tillage measures.
In our study, the integration of the ridge planting tillage and organic fertilizer addition had a better ability to mitigate yield reduction due to water stress and salt stress, particularly under moderate water deficit conditions, and this is consistent with the results of previous studies [20,29]. Under the plastic mulching cover condition, ridge planting can significantly enhance soil water storage capacity, and promote crop growth by improving soil hydrothermal properties, which has been confirmed in the literature [30,31,32]. The ridge tillage changes the soil characteristics like penetration resistance and bulk density in raised beds and adjacent furrows, leading to lateral redistribution of water and solute transport into the ridges [17,19,33]. Specifically, the infiltration rate in the furrow is higher than that at the top of the ridge, which leads to stronger negative hydraulic gradient at the ridge’s apex, allowing precipitation or irrigation water to rapidly infiltrate into the furrow and subsequently move transversely into the ridge. Additionally, the higher soil bulk density in the ridge results in lower hydraulic conductivity, which is conducive to decreasing the risk of nutrient leaching, such as nitrate nitrogen and phosphate, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of soil nutrients. Thus, ridge planting can fundamentally improve soil water-holding capacity and reduce nitrogen leaching in the 0–30 cm soil layer, which increases available water and nutrients for crop uptake by the root system [19,34,35]. Furthermore, ridge planting changes the vertical distribution of infiltration rates and bulk density in the raised beds, making water in the ridge move up [31,33]. Consequently, severe salt accumulation occurred in the topsoil of ridge planting [36,37,38]. In the ridge planting treatments, although the salt in the 0–30 cm soil layer was higher than that of flat planting, the water and nitrogen contents were also much higher than that of flat planting, where availability contributed to a salinity dilution effect and mitigated the risk of salinity stress. In contrast, while flat planting is characterized by lower soil salinity, it also exhibits reduced water and nutrient availability, which adversely affects crop growth and increases the risk of yield reduction. Moreover, as a slow-release fertilizer, the organic fertilizer can continuously supply nutrients to plants, which instantly improves sustained soil fertility [39,40]. We found that soil ammonium nitrogen was significantly higher than that of flat planting at the seedling stage under ridge planting conditions, whereas the opposite trend was observed at the later stages of growth (Figure 5). This phenomenon can be attributed to that of the ridge planting accelerated nitrogen nitrification by improving soil aeration, leading to the lower organic matter content in soil under ridge planting during later stages compared to that of flat planting [19]. As a result, soil ammonium nitrogen at the later stages of growth showed a higher level of flat planting than ridge planting. Since water resources are becoming increasingly scarce, appropriate water deficit practice can maintain yield production and improve WUE, making it a sustainable irrigation strategy.

5. Conclusions

Two years of field experiments indicated that mild water deficit comprehensively improved crop growth and yield production, while moderate water deficit resulted in great yield reduction. Tillage practices could substantially change the soil hydraulic properties and bulk density of the near-surface (0–30 cm) soil layer, which may further affect water redistribution and solute transport and crop development. When a moderate water deficit was applied, the flat planting was likely to increase crop risk of water stress and insufficient nutrient supply in the late crop growing stages, which were unfavorable to tomato growth and fruit formation. In contrast, the ridge planting was found to have a better capacity of maintaining higher water and nitrogen contents in the 0–30 cm soil layer, which dilutes the impacts of salt stress on crop growth. Thus, the integration of ridge planting, organic fertilizer addition, and mild water deficit could greatly enhance crop growth, tomato yield, and water productivity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.Z. and J.T.; methodology, R.Z. and J.T.; software, R.Z.; validation, R.Z., J.T. and Z.H.; formal analysis, R.Z. and J.T.; investigation, R.Z.; resources, J.T. and G.H.; data curation, R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, R.Z. and J.T.; writing—review and editing, J.T., Z.H. and G.H.; visualization, R.Z. and J.T.; supervision, J.T.; project administration, J.T.; funding acquisition, J.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Key Research Project of Science and Technology in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China (NMKJXM202105, NMKJXM202208) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52130902).

Data Availability Statement

The experimental data in the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank everyone who contributed to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Li, H.H.; Liu, H.; Gong, X.W.; Li, S.; Pang, J.; Chen, Z.F.; Sun, J.S. Optimizing irrigation and nitrogen management strategy to trade off yield, crop water productivity, nitrogen use efficiency and fruit quality of greenhouse grown tomato. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, E.; Zhou, J.; Yang, X.; Jin, T.; Zhao, B.Q.; Li, L.L.; Wen, Y.C.; Soldatova, E.; Zamanian, K.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; et al. Long-term organic fertilizer-induced carbonate neoformation increases carbon sequestration in soil. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rajanna, G.A.; Dass, A.; Singh, V.K.; Choudhary, A.K.; Paramesh, V.; Babu, S.; Upadhyay, P.K.; Sannagoudar, M.S.; Ajay, B.C.; Viswanatha Reddy, K. Energy and carbon budgeting in a soybean—Wheat system in different tillage, irrigation and fertilizer management practices in South-Asian semi-arid agroecology. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 148, 126877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ghannem, A.; Ben Aissa, I.; Majdoub, R. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation applied at different growth stages of greenhouse grown tomato on substrate moisture, yield, fruit quality, and physiological traits. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 46553–46564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nangare, D.D.; Singh, Y.; Kumar, P.S.; Minhas, P.S. Growth, fruit yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by deficit irrigation regulated on phenological basis. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 171, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Takacs, S.; Pek, Z.; Csanyi, D.; Daood, H.G.; Szuvandzsiev, P.; Palotas, G.; Helyes, L. Influence of water stress levels on the yield and lycopene content of tomato. Water 2020, 12, 2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lu, J.; Shao, G.C.; Cui, J.T.; Wang, X.J.; Keabetswe, L. Yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato for processing under regulated deficit irrigation: A meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 222, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cui, J.T.; Shao, G.C.; Lu, J.; Keabetswe, L.; Hoogenboom, G. Yield, quality and drought sensitivity of tomato to water deficit during different growth stages. Sci. Agric. 2020, 77, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Patanè, C.; Corinzia, S.A.; Testa, G.; Scordia, D.; Cosentino, S.L. Physiological and Agronomic Responses of Processing Tomatoes to Deficit Irrigation at Critical Stages in a Semi-Arid Environment. Agronomy 2020, 10, 800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wu, Y.; Yan, S.C.; Fan, J.L.; Zhang, F.C.; Xiang, Y.Z.; Zheng, J.; Guo, J.J. Responses of growth, fruit yield, quality and water productivity of greenhouse tomato to deficit drip irrigation. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 275, 109710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, H.M.; Xiong, Y.W.; Huang, G.H.; Xu, X.; Huang, Q.Z. Effects of water stress on processing tomatoes yield, quality and water use efficiency with plastic mulched drip irrigation in sandy soil of the Hetao Irrigation District. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wu, Z.S.; Li, Y.; Wang, R.; Xu, X.; Ren, D.Y.; Huang, Q.Z.; Xiong, Y.W.; Huang, G.H. Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 278, 108157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roșca, M.; Mihalache, G.; Stoleru, V. Tomato responses to salinity stress: From morphological traits to genetic changes. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1118383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zahra, N.; Raza, Z.A.; Mahmood, S. Effect of salinity stress on various growth and physiological attributes of two contrasting maize genotypes. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2020, 63, e20200072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, J.G.; Chen, J.; He, P.R.; Chen, D.; Dai, X.P.; Jin, Q.; Su, X.Y. The optimal irrigation water salinity and salt component for high-yield and good-quality of tomato in Ningxia. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 274, 107940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, Z.Q.; Fan, Y.Q.; Qiu, Y.; Hao, X.M.; Li, S.E.; Kang, S.Z. Response of yield and quality of greenhouse tomatoes to water and salt stresses and biochar addition in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 270, 107736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Achankeng, E.; Cornelis, W. Conservation tillage effects on European crop yields: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2023, 298, 108967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. He, C.; Niu, J.R.; Xu, C.T.; Han, S.W.; Bai, W.; Song, Q.L.; Dang, Y.P.; Zhang, H.L. Effect of conservation tillage on crop yield and soil organic carbon in Northeast China: A meta-analysis. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1146–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Araya, T.; Gebremedhin, A.; Baudron, F.; Hailemariam, M.; Birhane, E.; Nyssen, J.; Govaerts, B.; Cornelis, W. Influence of 9 years of permanent raised beds and contour furrowing on soil health in conservation agriculture based systems in Tigray region, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 1525–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ren, B.; Hu, J.; Liu, P.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, J. Responses of nitrogen efficiency and antioxidant system of summer maize to waterlogging stress under different tillage. Peer J. 2021, 9, e11834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rajanna, G.A.; Dass, A.; Suman, A.; Babu, S.; Venkatesh, P.; Singh, V.K.; Upadhyay, P.K.; Sudhishri, S. Co-implementation of tillage, irrigation, and fertilizers in soybean: Impact on crop productivity, soil moisture, and soil microbial dynamics. Field Crops Res. 2022, 288, 108672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, G.X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, D.H.; Liu, S.J.; Wen, X.X.; Han, J.; Liao, Y.C. Quantifying the impacts of agricultural management practices on the water use efficiency for sustainable production in the Loess Plateau region: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2023, 291, 108787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, L.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, K.P.; Liao, P.; Xu, Q. Effect of agricultural management practices on rice yield and greenhouse gas emissions in the rice-wheat rotation system in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 916, 170307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yang, J.L.; Zhou, Y.D.; Ye, X.; Liu, E.K.; Sun, S.K.; Ren, X.L.; Jia, Z.K.; Wei, T.; Zhang, P. Continuous ridge-furrow film mulching enhances maize root growth and crop yield by improving soil aggregates characteristics in a semiarid area of China: An eight-year field experiment. Plant Soil 2024, 499, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, C.J.; Xiong, Y.W.; Cui, Z.; Huang, Q.Z.; Xu, X.; Han, W.G.; Huang, G.H. Effect of irrigation and fertilization regimes on grain yield, water and nitrogen productivity of mulching cultivated maize (Zea mays L.) in the Hetao Irrigation District of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 232, 106065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ren, D.Y.; Xu, X.; Hao, Y.Y.; Huang, G.H. Modeling and assessing field irrigation water use in a canal system of Hetao, upper Yellow River basin: Application to maize, sunflower and watermelon. J. Hydrol. 2016, 532, 122–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, X.K.; Yun, J.; Shi, P.; Li, Z.B.; Li, P.; Xing, Y.Y. Root growth, fruit yield and water use efficiency of greenhouse grown tomato under different irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 400–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Xing, Y.Y.; Zhang, T.; Jiang, W.T.; Li, P.; Shi, P.; Xu, G.; Cheng, S.D.; Cheng, Y.T.; Fan, Z.; Wang, X.K. Effects of irrigation and fertilization on different potato varieties growth, yield and resources use efficiency in the Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 261, 107351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhai, L.C.; Wang, Z.B.; Zhai, Y.C.; Zhang, L.H.; Zheng, M.J.; Yao, H.P.; Lv, L.H.; Shen, H.P.; Zhang, J.T.; Yao, Y.R.; et al. Partial substitution of synthetic fertilizer by organic fertilizer benefits grain yield, water use efficiency, and economic return of summer maize. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 217, 105287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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. Agri. For. Meteorol. 2018, 262, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, G.X.; Mo, F.; Shah, F.; Meng, W.H.; Liao, Y.C.; Han, J. Ridge-furrow configuration significantly improves soil water availability, crop water use efficiency, and grain yield in dryland agroecosystems of the Loess Plateau. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, N.J.; Chen, H.X.; Ding, D.Y.; Zhang, T.B.; Li, C.; Luo, X.Q.; Chu, X.S.; Feng, H.; Wei, Y.S.; Siddique, K.H.M. Plastic film mulching affects field water balance components, grain yield, and water productivity of rainfed maize in the Loess Plateau, China: A synthetic analysis of multi-site observations. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 266, 107570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liebhard, G.; Klik, A.; Neugschwandtner, R.W.; Nolz, R. Effects of tillage systems on soil water distribution, crop development, and evaporation and transpiration rates of soybean. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 269, 107719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, Q.; Song, X.Y.; Li, F.C.; Hu, G.R.; Liu, Q.L.; Zhang, E.H.; Wang, H.L.; Davies, R. Optimum ridge-furrow ratio and suitable ridge-mulching material for Alfalfa production in rainwater harvesting in semi-arid regions of China. Field Crops Res. 2015, 180, 186–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lv, S.Q.; Li, J.; Yang, Z.Y.; Yang, T.; Li, H.T.; Wang, X.F.; Peng, Y.; Zhou, C.J.; Wang, L.Q.; Abdo, A.I. The field mulching could improve sustainability of spring maize production on the Loess Plateau. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 279, 108156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Krause, U.; Koch, H.J.; Maerlaender, B. Soil properties effecting yield formation in sugar beet under ridge and flat cultivation. Eur. J. Agron. 2009, 31, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Duan, C.X.; Chen, G.J.; Hu, Y.J.; Wu, S.F.; Feng, H.; Dong, Q.G. Alternating wide ridges and narrow furrows with film mulching improves soil hydrothermal conditions and maize water use efficiency in dry sub-humid regions. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, P.Z.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, F.Y.; Ren, X.L.; Chen, X.L.; Zhao, X.N. Ridge and furrow configuration improved grain yield by optimizing the soil hydrothermal environment and maize canopy traits in Northwest China. Plant Soil 2024, 499, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wu, G.; Yang, S.; Luan, C.S.; Wu, Q.; Lin, L.L.; Li, X.X.; Che, Z.; Zhou, D.B.; Dong, Z.R.; Song, H. Partial organic substitution for synthetic fertilizer improves soil fertility and crop yields while mitigating N2O emissions in wheat-maize rotation system. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 154, 127077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nottingham, A.T.; Bååth, E.; Reischke, S.; Salinas, N.; Meir, P. Adaptation of soil microbial growth to temperature: Using a tropical elevation gradient to predict future changes. Glob. Change Biol. 2019, 25, 827–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 01738 g001
Figure 1. Daily mean temperature and precipitation during the processing tomatoes’ growth period in 2022–2023.
Figure 1. Daily mean temperature and precipitation during the processing tomatoes’ growth period in 2022–2023.
Water 17 01738 g001
Water 17 01738 g002
Figure 2. Design of different tillage practices and irrigation methods.
Figure 2. Design of different tillage practices and irrigation methods.
Water 17 01738 g002
Water 17 01738 g003
Figure 3. Dynamics of soil water content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Figure 3. Dynamics of soil water content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Water 17 01738 g003
Water 17 01738 g004
Figure 4. Dynamics of soil salt content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Figure 4. Dynamics of soil salt content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Water 17 01738 g004
Water 17 01738 g005
Figure 5. Dynamics of soil nitrate nitrogen content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Figure 5. Dynamics of soil nitrate nitrogen content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Water 17 01738 g005
Water 17 01738 g006
Figure 6. Dynamics of soil ammonium nitrogen content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Figure 6. Dynamics of soil ammonium nitrogen content at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Water 17 01738 g006
Water 17 01738 g007
Figure 7. Dynamic changes in growth indexes of processing tomatoes at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Figure 7. Dynamic changes in growth indexes of processing tomatoes at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h).
Water 17 01738 g007
Water 17 01738 g008
Figure 8. Dry matter accumulation and organ distribution in aboveground parts of processing tomatoes at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h). Different lower-case letters in the same color bar indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 8. Dry matter accumulation and organ distribution in aboveground parts of processing tomatoes at different days after transplanting (DAT) in 2022 (a–d) and 2023 (e–h). Different lower-case letters in the same color bar indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Water 17 01738 g008
Water 17 01738 g009
Figure 9. Effects of different irrigation and tillage practices on total yield, single fruit weight, and fruits number per plant in 2022 (a–c) and 2023 (d–f). Different lower-case letters in the same color bar indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 9. Effects of different irrigation and tillage practices on total yield, single fruit weight, and fruits number per plant in 2022 (a–c) and 2023 (d–f). Different lower-case letters in the same color bar indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Water 17 01738 g009
Water 17 01738 g010
Figure 10. Effects of different irrigation and tillage practices on WUE of processing tomatoes in 2022 (a) and 2023 (b). Different lower-case letters in the same color bar indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 10. Effects of different irrigation and tillage practices on WUE of processing tomatoes in 2022 (a) and 2023 (b). Different lower-case letters in the same color bar indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Water 17 01738 g010
Table 1. Soil properties at the experimental site (0–60 cm soil layer).
Table 1. Soil properties at the experimental site (0–60 cm soil layer).
Depths
(cm)		Clay (%)Silt (%)Sand (%)Bulk Density
(g/cm3)		Soil Organic Matter
(g/kg)
0–101.8751.5346.601.498.80
10–201.8647.2850.861.537.30
20–401.8875.8122.311.689.60
40–601.8847.8250.301.615.40
Table 2. Irrigation amounts of each treatment at different days after transplanting (DAT).
Table 2. Irrigation amounts of each treatment at different days after transplanting (DAT).
TreatmentsTillageIrrigation Amounts in 2022 (mm)Irrigation Amounts in 2023 (mm)
22 May 2022
(DAT = 1)		17 July 2022
(DAT = 57)		1 August 2022
(DAT = 72)		24 May 2023
(DAT = 1)		10 July 2023
(DAT = 48)		1 August 2023
(DAT = 70)
T1W1Flat planting5032.832.8502222
T1W25026.326.35017.617.6
T1W35019.719.75013.213.2
T2W1Ridge planting5032.832.8502222
T2W25026.326.35017.617.6
T2W35019.719.75013.213.2
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

Zheng, R.; Tan, J.; Huo, Z.; Huang, G. Effects of Ridge Planting on the Distribution of Soil Water-Salt-Nitrogen, Crop Growth, and Water Use Efficiency of Processing Tomatoes Under Different Irrigation Amounts. Water 2025, 17, 1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17121738

AMA Style

Zheng R, Tan J, Huo Z, Huang G. Effects of Ridge Planting on the Distribution of Soil Water-Salt-Nitrogen, Crop Growth, and Water Use Efficiency of Processing Tomatoes Under Different Irrigation Amounts. Water. 2025; 17(12):1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17121738

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zheng, Ruyue, Junwei Tan, Zailin Huo, and Guanhua Huang. 2025. "Effects of Ridge Planting on the Distribution of Soil Water-Salt-Nitrogen, Crop Growth, and Water Use Efficiency of Processing Tomatoes Under Different Irrigation Amounts" Water 17, no. 12: 1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17121738

APA Style

Zheng, R., Tan, J., Huo, Z., & Huang, G. (2025). Effects of Ridge Planting on the Distribution of Soil Water-Salt-Nitrogen, Crop Growth, and Water Use Efficiency of Processing Tomatoes Under Different Irrigation Amounts. Water, 17(12), 1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17121738

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