## 3 Results
### The Improvement of Disaster Resistance Ability of Cropland after HSF Construction  
According to the Henan Province disaster information statistical yearbooks (2011-2015) (Table 5), the province experienced different degrees of drought in 2013 and severe drought in 2014. To evaluate the drought resistance of the project construction, nine croplands were selected around each sampling project region and compared with the productivity stability of the project region. To exclude the HSF project regions for water conservancy, land and other relevant departments, we selected cropland located around the project region with a productivity of less than 20% of the project region as a non-project region (Figure 6). In addition, we compared and analyzed the difference in stability of crop productivity inside and outside the HSF project region under the drought stress in 2014. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sampling Area** & **Construction Year** & **Before (kg/mu)** & **After (kg/mu)** & **Productivity Improvement** \\  & & & & **(kg/mu)** \\ \hline Project A & 2012 & 722 & 907 & 185 \\ Project B & 2012 & 704 & 867 & 163 \\ Project C & 2012 & 742 & 862 & 120 \\ Project D & 2011 & 508 & 769 & 261 \\ Project E & 2012 & 506 & 769 & 263 \\ Project F & 2011 & 733 & 866 & 133 \\ Project G & 2012 & 729 & 851 & 122 \\ Project H & 2013 & 737 & 857 & 120 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistics of the improvement level of cropland productivity before and after the construction of sampling project regions. Figure 6: Distribution of sample points within and outside the HSF project region in the evaluation of productivity stability improvement (Project B as an example). According to the time series curve of crop growth during the drought in 2014 (March-early April, June-mid-August) (Figure 7), the growth of spring and summer crops in the project region is significantly better than in the non-project region. Furthermore, the time series of crop growth in the project region in 2013 and 2014 are basically the same, which indicates that the severe drought in 2014 does not have a significant impact on the project region. However, crop growth was significantly worse on five plots (sample points 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8) in the non-project region compared to that in the project region during the spring drought of 2014 (March-early April); the crop growth on five plots (sample points 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8) was also significantly worse than that in the project region during the summer drought in 2014 (June-mid-August) (Figure 7). From the above results, it can be seen that the crop growth in the disaster year (2014) in the project region is equivalent to that in the normal year (2013), while in the region surrounding the project region, the crop growth in disaster years (2014) is worse than that in the normal year (2013). This indicates that the HSF construction makes the cropland productivity more stable, i.e., the HSF construction not only improves cropland productivity but also enhances DRA. Among the eight sample project regions, seven project regions showed higher stability of cropland productivity than the non-project regions in case of severe drought. Among them, Project F had the highest level of productivity stability, which increased by 23.87% compared to the surrounding non-project regions. This is followed by Projects D and G, where the productivity stability improvement level increased by 18.46% and 17.87%, respectively, compared to the surrounding non-project regions. Only Project H (constructed in 2013) had slightly lower productivity stability (\(-1.25\%\)) compared to the surrounding non-project regions during the 2014 drought (Table 6), indicating that the benefits of water and soil coordination and management measures in the newly built project region have not been fully brought into play and DRA has not been improved.