The impact of diverse mulching factors on crop growth depends on their influences on heat transfer, while the precise effects of these factors on heat transfer remain unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we employed the CropSMPAC model to simulate energy fluxes and soil temperature under varying mulching conditions. Our study integrated a soil column experiment and a three–year field experiment. The soil column experiment encompassed 13 treatments, incorporating 3 plastic film colors, i.e., transparent film (TM), black film (BM), and silver–grey film (GM), and 2 mulching ratios (), i.e., 100 % and 75 %, as well as 2 distances between soil and film (), i.e., 0 and 5 mm, along with a control treatment (no mulching). The filed experiment comprised 2 treatments, i.e., film mulching (FM) and no mulching (NM), utilizing TM with a of 97.98 % and of 5 mm under FM condition. Results demonstrated the robust performance of the CropSMPAC model in predicting hourly soil surface temperature, hourly soil temperature in the night at 10 cm depth, daily soil water content at 10 cm depth across varying mulching scenarios. Furthermore, the model aptly captured soil temperature, net radiation flux () and soil heat flux () during the maize growth stages under both FM and NM conditions. For daily soil temperature at 10 cm depth, the root mean square error (RMSE) were 1.71 and 2.71 °C, Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) were 0.79 and 0.55, and determination coefficient (R) were 0.76 and 0.75 for FM and NM, respectively. Corresponding values for daily were 37.3 and 42.7 W m (RMSE), 0.56 and 0.47 (NSE), and 0.72 and 0.66 (R), they were 8.5 and 6.9 W m (RMSE), 0.44 and 0.56 (NSE), and 0.62 and 0.72 (R) for daily . Both measurements and simulations revealed that TM increased soil temperature in the daytime and night. In contrast, BM and GM raised soil temperature only in the night. The soil temperature under of 100 % was higher than under of 75 % for both TM and BM. Film mulching with of 5 mm contributed to an increase in soil temperature compared with of 0 mm for TM, while led to a reduction for BM. Additionally, a dense crop canopy helped mitigate the fluctuations in and soil temperature, and the warming effect of plastic film mulching also weakened with the increase of canopy coverage.

中文翻译：

---

西北地区地膜颜色、覆盖率及土覆接触程度对传热的影响


各种覆盖因素对作物生长的影响取决于其对传热的影响，而这些因素对传热的确切影响仍不清楚。为了解决这一知识差距，我们采用 CropSMPAC 模型来模拟不同覆盖条件下的能量通量和土壤温度。我们的研究结合了土柱实验和为期三年的现场实验。土柱实验包括13个处理，包括透明膜（TM）、黑色膜（BM）和银灰色膜（GM）3种塑料薄膜颜色和2种覆盖率（），即100%和75 %，以及土壤和薄膜之间的 2 个距离 ()，即 0 和 5 毫米，以及对照处理（无覆盖）。现场试验包括覆膜（FM）和不覆膜（NM）2个处理，在FM条件下TM利用率为97.98%，厚度为5 mm。结果表明，CropSMPAC 模型在预测不同覆盖场景下的每小时土壤表面温度、10 厘米深度夜间每小时土壤温度、10 厘米深度每日土壤含水量方面具有稳健的性能。此外，该模型恰当地捕捉了 FM 和 NM 条件下玉米生长阶段的土壤温度、净辐射通量 () 和土壤热通量 ()。对于 10 cm 深度的日土壤温度，FM 和 FM 的均方根误差（RMSE）分别为 1.71 和 2.71 °C，纳什-萨克利夫效率系数（NSE）分别为 0.79 和 0.55，决定系数（R）分别为 0.76 和 0.75。分别为纳米。每日对应值分别为 37.3 和 42.7 W m (RMSE)、0.56 和 0.47 (NSE)、0.72 和 0.66 (R)、8.5 和 6.9 W m (RMSE)、0.44 和 0.56 (NSE)、0.62 和 0.62每日 0.72 (R)。 测量和模拟都表明，TM 增加了白天和夜间的土壤温度。相比之下，BM和GM仅在夜间提高土壤温度。 TM 和 BM 的土壤温度在 100% 下均高于 75% 下。与 0 mm 的薄膜覆盖相比，TM 薄膜覆盖 5 mm 有助于土壤温度升高，而 BM 薄膜覆盖则导致土壤温度降低。此外，茂密的作物冠层有助于缓解土壤温度的波动，地膜覆盖的增温效应也随着冠层覆盖度的增加而减弱。