## 4 Discussion  
### Water Saving Potential  
Currently, climate change is one of the major concerns of the environmental problem facing mankind, and agriculture is highly sensitive to climate change [30]. Temporal and spatial distribution patterns of climate resources, such as water and heat, are directly affected by meteorological factors, including solar radiation, temperature, and precipitation. Fluctuations in temperature and precipitation during the growing season affect crop productivity, ultimately affecting regional agricultural production [31]. Therefore, spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of the crop climate production potential represent the basis of comprehensive food production potential and provide a crucial theoretical basis for agricultural productivity planning and agricultural structural  
Figure 8: Cost and profit of maize under various mulching planting patterns. Note: JG represents straw mulching; NF represents organic fertilizer mulching; WG represents no mulching. The average local price for maize was 1.70 yuan kg\({}^{-1}\). The total cost included the cost of seed, fertilizers, sows, micro-spray irrigation belts, water pipes, maize straw, organic fertilizers during the trial. Labor costs included the layout of the sample plot, weeding, sampling, irrigation, spreading fertilizer, and determination of sample. Bars labeled with different letters (lowercase) differed remarkably among different indexes (\(p<\)0.05). Figure 9: Relationships between water saving potential and net economic profit of maize. Note: N represents net economic profit, yuan \(\text{hm}^{-2}\); P\({}_{y}\) represents water saving potential per yield, \(\text{m}^{3}\) kg\({}^{-1}\); S\({}_{\text{p}}\) represents water saving potential per unit area, \(\text{m}^{3}\)\(\text{hm}^{-2}\). * represents regression effect was significant; ** represents regression effect was remarkably significant. adjustment [32]. Water saving potential is a vital evaluation index for adjusting agricultural structure. In this study, soil water content at each growth stage was lower in JG and WG treatments than in the NF treatment (Figure 5). However, there was no significant difference between JG, and WG, respectively, for the mean soil water content. This resulted mainly from the type and rate of the irrigation and the mulches. Because the soil moisture strongly depended on the precipitation and irrigation pattern (see irrigation scheme), the precipitation, irrigation pattern, and irrigation amount applying to all three treatments were the same. In addition, [PERSON] et al. [33] found that, compared with deep tillage with no mulch, mean soil water content of sunflowers was only higher by 5.75%, 2.50%, respectively, in 2011 and 2013, when straw mulch was used at a rate of 12,000 kg \(\mathrm{hm}^{-2}\), which was significantly higher than that of our study (4000 kg \(\mathrm{hm}^{-2}\)). [PERSON] et al. [34] indicated that, by exploring the efficacy of organic mulching, sorghum straw mulching and rice straw mulching with a rate of 10,000 kg \(\mathrm{hm}^{-2}\) increased mean water soil content of sesame by 33.29%, 42.05%, respectively, compared to no mulch. The efficiency of increasing soil water was more significant than that in [PERSON] et al. [33], which would be due to the difference in the crops and the mulches. Therefore, it was suggested that yield, \(\mathrm{P_{y}}\), and \(\mathrm{S_{p}}\) were not affected significantly by the water soil content, based on the results of the stepwise regression analysis (Table 2) and the insignificant difference among the three treatments for water soil content (Figure 5). The water saving potential was mainly affected by \(\mathrm{Y_{c}}\), grain yield and \(\mathrm{ET_{c}}\), and showed a positive correlation with \(\mathrm{Y_{c}}\) and negative correlation with grain yield and \(\mathrm{ET_{c}}\).