## 3 Results
### Dynamic Changes in the Soil Moisture Content of Winter Wheat under Different Irrigation Treatments
In the two-year experiment, the percentage of irrigation volume was W3 \(>\) W2 \(>\) W1, with significant differences between treatments; the soil water storage consumption and its percentage were W1 \(>\) W2 \(>\) W3, with significant differences between treatments. To clarify the impact of soil moisture storage presowing on the ability of winter wheat to use stored soil water, the correlation between soil moisture storage presowing and soil water consumption was analyzed. The results are shown in Table 3. The relationship between soil moisture storage presowing and soil water consumption showed a positive \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Year**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatments**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Soil Water Consumption**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Precisionation Rate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Water Consumption**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **Storage** & **Values (mm)** & **Rate (\%)** & **Values (mm)** & **Rate (\%)** & **Values (mm)** & **Rate (\%)** & **Consumption** \\ \hline
2020– & W1 & \(569.26\pm 8.58\) b & \(237.89\pm 11.02\) a & \(640.05\pm 105\) a & \(58.40\pm 0.46\) & \(75.00\pm 20.21\pm 0.59\) c & \(371.29\pm 11.02\) b \\
2021 & W2 & \(588.10\pm 4.72\) a & \(197.25\pm 12.19\) b & \(48.60\pm 1.54\) b & \(58.40\pm 0.43\) b & \(150.00\pm 1.11\) b & \(405.65\pm 12.19\) a \\
2021 & W3 & \(489.28\pm 3.00\) c & \(97.57\pm 9.01\) c & \(258.58\pm 17.5\) c & \(58.40\pm 0.57\) a & \(153.54\pm 0.37\) c & \(225.00\pm 1.41\) b & \(380.97\pm 90.1\) b \\ \hline
2021– & W1 & \(600.94\pm 4.85\) a & \(302.10\pm 7.94\) a & \(67.65\pm 0.57\) a & \(69.40\pm 15.55\pm 0.27\) a & \(75.00\pm 16.80\pm 0.30\) c & \(446.50\pm 0.794\) a \\
2022– & W2 & \(600.62\pm 7.01\) a & \(207.26\pm 13.20\) b & \(48.54\pm 15.7\) b & \(69.40\pm 16.28\pm 0.50\) a & \(150.00\pm 35.18\pm 1.07\) b & \(426.66\pm 13.20\) b \\
2022 & W3 & \(609.57\pm 0.59\) a & \(175.35\pm 22.54\) c & \(37.26\pm 3.09\) c & \(69.40\pm 14.79\pm 0.73\) b & \(225.00\pm 47.95\pm 22.54\) a & \(469.95\pm 22.54\) a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Notes: Different lowercase letters after the same column of data indicate significant differences at the \(p<0.05\) level between different treatments, the same as below.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Total water consumption and water consumption structure of winter wheat. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Year**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatments**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Soil Water Consumption**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Noil Depth (cm)**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **Storage** & **Values (mm)** & **Rate (\%)** & **Values (mm)** & **Rate (\%)** & **Values (mm)** & **Rate (\%)** & **Values (mm)** & **Rate (\%)** \\ \hline
2020– & W1 & \(102.61\pm 5.36\) a & \(43.13\pm 0.78\) b & \(92.27\pm 3.27\) a & \(38.80\pm 0.59\) a & \(37.38\pm 2.46\) a & \(15.71\pm 0.66\) a & \(5.64\pm 1.06\) a & \(2.36\pm 0.37\) a \\
2020– & W2 & \(108.15\pm 6.15\) a & \(54.84\pm 0.49\) a & \(65.99\pm 4.44\) b & \(34.85\pm 0.47\) b & \(18.18\pm 1.37\) b & \(9.21\pm 0.14\) b & \(4.94\pm 0.36\) b & \(2.50\pm 0.03\) a \\
2021 & W3 & \(52.72\pm 6.2\) b & \(53.94\pm 1.67\) a & \(38.34\pm 2.28\) c & \(39.38\pm 1.37\) b & \(4.19\pm 0.07\) c & \(4.33\pm 0.48\) c & \(2.31\pm 0.38\) b & \(2.35\pm 0.18\) a \\ \hline
2021– & W1 & \(89.08\pm 0.96\) a & \(29.51\pm 1.08\) b & \(96.26\pm 1.64\) a & \(31.87\pm 0.29\) b & \(79.33\pm 2.55\) a & \(26.26\pm 0.23\) a & \(37.43\pm 4.81\) a & \(12.37\pm 1.25\) a \\
2022 & W2 & \(88.32\pm 10.14\) a & \(42.57\pm 3.27\) a & \(71.44\pm 3.6\) b & \(34.49\pm 1.46\) a & \(29.82\pm 2.40\) b & \(14.38\pm 0.63\) c & \(17.68\pm 2.30\) b & \(8.55\pm 1.27\) b \\
2022 & W3 & \(58.12\pm 14.38\) b & \(32.74\pm 4.29\) b & \(63.97\pm 5.93\) b & \(30.56\pm 14.13\) a & \(30.86\pm 1.00\) b & \(17.75\pm 1.96\) b & \(22.99\pm 14.2\) b & \(12.95\pm 0.92\) a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Notes: Different lowercase letters after the same column of data indicate significant differences at the \(p<0.05\) level between different treatments, the same as below.  
\end{table}