| 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 conservanpan>cy project. Entropy evaluation method offers excellent prospects in optimizing agricultural manpan>agement schemes. To investigate the impact of different buried depths (30, 45, 60, 75, 90, anpan>d 105 cm) of subsurface drainage pipes on greenhouse planpan>t-soil systems, the pan> class="Species">tomato was employed as plant material, and the marketable yield, fruit sugar to acid ratio, soil electrical conductivity, nitrogen loss rate, as well as crop water and fertilizer use efficiency were observed. Based on these indicators, the entropy evaluation method was used to select the optimal buried depth of subsurface drainage pipes. Both the calculation results of objective and subjective weights indicated that tomato yield and soil electrical conductivity were relatively more crucial than other indexes, and their comprehensive weights were 0.43 and 0.34, respectively. The 45 cm buried depth possessed the optimal comprehensive benefits, with entropy evaluation value of 0.94. Under 45 cm buried depth, the loss rate of soil available nitrogen was 13.9%, the decrease rate of soil salinity was 49.2%, and the tomato yield, sugar to acid ratio, nitrogen use efficiency, and water use efficiency were 112 kg·ha-1, 8.3, 39.7%, and 42.0%, respectively.Entities:
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).