| Literature DB >> 33266583 |
Maomao Hou1, Zhiyuan Lin1, Jingnan Chen2, Yaming Zhai3, Qiu Jin4, Fenglin Zhong1.
Abstract
Numerous indicators under the plant-soil system should be taken into consideration when developing an appropriate agricultural water conservancy project. Entropy evaluation method offers excellent prospn>ects in optimizing agricultural management schemes. To investigate the impn>act of different buried depn>ths (30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 105 cm) of subsurface drainage pipes on greenhouse plant-soil systems, theEntities:
Keywords: entropy weight; evaluation; multi-index; subsurface drainage; tomato
Year: 2018 PMID: 33266583 PMCID: PMC7512420 DOI: 10.3390/e20110859
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Experimental device with subsurface drainage (a) and without subsurface drainage (b).
Figure 2The dynamics of soil electrical conductivity (a) and available nitrogen content (b) (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6 represent 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 105 cm buried depths of subsurface drainage pipes, respectively).
The tomato marketable yield, sugar to acid ratio, nitrogen use efficiency, and water use efficiency under different treatments.
| Treatment | Yield (kg/ha) | Sugar to Acid Ratio | Nitrogen Use Efficiency (%) | Water Use Efficiency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 102.3 ± 2.05 b | 7.73 ± 0.41 d | 35.6 ± 3.01 d | 45.0 ± 2.13 a |
| D2 | 112.0 ± 5.10 a | 8.30 ± 0.24 cd | 39.7 ± 2.16 cd | 42.0 ± 1.63 ab |
| D3 | 86.3 ± 3.68 d | 8.33 ± 0.25 cd | 42.1 ± 1.49 bc | 39.9 ± 1.28 b |
| D4 | 98.0 ± 4.55 bc | 8.93 ± 0.53 bc | 43.4 ± 2.56 bc | 39.0 ± 1.59 b |
| D5 | 87.0 ± 3.27 d | 9.40 ± 0.33 ab | 46.7 ± 3.43 ab | 38.9 ± 1.88 b |
| D6 | 92.7 ± 3.68 cd | 9.90 ± 0.33 a | 49.5 ± 2.58 a | 34.3 ± 1.27 c |
Note: Means followed by the same letter (a, b, c, d) do not differ significantly at a 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6 represent 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 105 cm buried depths of drainage pipes, respectively.
The subjective and objective weight for the indicators.
| Weight | Yield | Sugar to Acid Ratio | Nitrogen Use Efficiency | Water Use Efficiency | Soil Salt | Available Nitrogen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective weight | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 0.05 |
| Subjective weight | 0.37 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.07 |
| Comprehensive weight | 0.43 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.34 | 0.02 |
Figure 3Entropy weight evaluation value for the different treatments (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6 represent 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 105 cm buried depths of drainage pipes, respectively).