2,067
Views
23
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

The effects of subsurface irrigation at different soil water potential thresholds on the growth and transpiration of Populus tomentosa in the North China Plain

, , &

Figures & data

Figure 1. Soil water potential (SWP) variation under (a) T25, (b) T50 and (c) T75 treatments and (d) precipitation in 2010 and 2011. SWP data gaps in (a), (b) and (c) are due to data lost. Dashed lines in (a), (b) and (c) represent the target thresholds of −25, −50 and −75 kPa, respectively. Due to equipment failure, a large amount of precipitation was not recorded in August 2011

Figure 1. Soil water potential (SWP) variation under (a) T25, (b) T50 and (c) T75 treatments and (d) precipitation in 2010 and 2011. SWP data gaps in (a), (b) and (c) are due to data lost. Dashed lines in (a), (b) and (c) represent the target thresholds of −25, −50 and −75 kPa, respectively. Due to equipment failure, a large amount of precipitation was not recorded in August 2011

Figure 2. Soil water content (SWC) dynamics at 100 and 120 cm depths under different SWP treatments in 2011. The short solid bars represent irrigation events and the long bar indicates a rainfall of 83 mm

Figure 2. Soil water content (SWC) dynamics at 100 and 120 cm depths under different SWP treatments in 2011. The short solid bars represent irrigation events and the long bar indicates a rainfall of 83 mm

Figure 3. Dynamics of groundwater level from August 2009 to October 2012. Dashed lines indicate the depth of 100, 200, 300 and 400 cm

Figure 3. Dynamics of groundwater level from August 2009 to October 2012. Dashed lines indicate the depth of 100, 200, 300 and 400 cm

Table 1. Monthly precipitation and reference crop potential evapotranspiration (ET0) in the experiment site from April to October 2008–2011

Figure 4. Mean daily transpiration of Populus tomentosa on a ground area basis (E) under different treatments in 2010

Figure 4. Mean daily transpiration of Populus tomentosa on a ground area basis (E) under different treatments in 2010

Figure 5. Monthly basal area at breast height (ABH) increments of P. tomentosa under different treatments in 2010 and 2011. Data are means of randomly selected trees within each treatment

Figure 5. Monthly basal area at breast height (ABH) increments of P. tomentosa under different treatments in 2010 and 2011. Data are means of randomly selected trees within each treatment

Table 2. Adjusted mean increments of above-ground dry biomass (ADB) per hectare in different treatments in 2010 and 2011