Improving rice yield and water productivity in lowland rice systems: A global meta‐analysis exploring the synergy of agro‐ecological practices and water management technologies

IF 1.6 4区农林科学 Q2 AGRONOMY

Irrigation and Drainage Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1002/ird.3005

Bio Zimé Sounon Orou, André Adjogboto, Sissou Zakari, P. G. Tovihoudji, P. Akponikpè, M. Vanclooster

{"title":"Improving rice yield and water productivity in lowland rice systems: A global meta‐analysis exploring the synergy of agro‐ecological practices and water management technologies","authors":"Bio Zimé Sounon Orou, André Adjogboto, Sissou Zakari, P. G. Tovihoudji, P. Akponikpè, M. Vanclooster","doi":"10.1002/ird.3005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This meta‐analysis evaluated the impact of agro‐ecological practices and water management techniques on lowland rice yield and water productivity (WP). A total of 573 observations were collected from 56 articles that met specific criteria from 445 publications. Five water management practices were assessed: continuous flooding (CF), soil saturation (SS), moderate (AWDm) and severe (AWDs) alternate wetting and drying, and the aerobic rice system (ARS). The response ratios (RRs) of yield and WP were compared for crop management, soil fertility, weed control and evaporation. The integration of agro‐ecological practices such as short‐cycle rice varieties, crop rotation, organic nutrient application and mechanical weeding with water management led to similar yields across CF, SS, AWDm and AWDs, with ARS consistently yielding the lowest yields. However, medium‐ and long‐cycle varieties under AWDs experienced yield losses of 11 and 13%, respectively. Mineral fertilizer combined with AWDs resulted in a 14% lower yield than did CF. Mechanical weeding increased the rice yield and WP by 10 and 10% in SS, and only WP by 35% in AWDs, whereas chemical weeding decreased the yield by 13% in AWDs. Crop rotation enhanced yield and WP by 13 and 12%, respectively, under AWDm compared to that under CF. WP was greater under AWDs (36%) and AWDm (12%) than under CF.","PeriodicalId":14848,"journal":{"name":"Irrigation and Drainage","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irrigation and Drainage","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.3005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta‐analysis evaluated the impact of agro‐ecological practices and water management techniques on lowland rice yield and water productivity (WP). A total of 573 observations were collected from 56 articles that met specific criteria from 445 publications. Five water management practices were assessed: continuous flooding (CF), soil saturation (SS), moderate (AWDm) and severe (AWDs) alternate wetting and drying, and the aerobic rice system (ARS). The response ratios (RRs) of yield and WP were compared for crop management, soil fertility, weed control and evaporation. The integration of agro‐ecological practices such as short‐cycle rice varieties, crop rotation, organic nutrient application and mechanical weeding with water management led to similar yields across CF, SS, AWDm and AWDs, with ARS consistently yielding the lowest yields. However, medium‐ and long‐cycle varieties under AWDs experienced yield losses of 11 and 13%, respectively. Mineral fertilizer combined with AWDs resulted in a 14% lower yield than did CF. Mechanical weeding increased the rice yield and WP by 10 and 10% in SS, and only WP by 35% in AWDs, whereas chemical weeding decreased the yield by 13% in AWDs. Crop rotation enhanced yield and WP by 13 and 12%, respectively, under AWDm compared to that under CF. WP was greater under AWDs (36%) and AWDm (12%) than under CF.

查看原文本刊更多论文

提高低地水稻系统的水稻产量和水分生产率：探索农业生态实践与水资源管理技术协同作用的全球荟萃分析

这项荟萃分析评估了农业生态实践和水资源管理技术对低地水稻产量和水分生产率（WP）的影响。从 445 篇出版物中符合特定标准的 56 篇文章中收集了共计 573 项观察结果。评估了五种水分管理方法：连续淹水（CF）、土壤饱和（SS）、中度（AWDm）和重度（AWDs）干湿交替以及有氧水稻系统（ARS）。比较了作物管理、土壤肥力、杂草控制和蒸发对产量和可湿性粉剂的响应比（RRs）。将短周期水稻品种、轮作、有机养分施用和机械除草等农业生态措施与水管理相结合，使 CF、SS、AWDm 和 AWD 的产量相近，其中 ARS 的产量一直最低。然而，中周期和长周期品种在 AWDs 下分别减产 11% 和 13%。矿物肥料与 AWDs 结合使用，产量比 CF 低 14%。在 SS 中，机械除草使水稻产量和可湿性粉剂分别增加了 10%和 10%，而在 AWD 中，机械除草仅使可湿性粉剂增加了 35%，而在 AWD 中，化学除草使产量减少了 13%。与 CF 相比，AWDm 的轮作使产量和可湿性粉剂分别提高了 13% 和 12%。在 AWDs（36%）和 AWDm（12%）条件下，可湿性粉剂比在 CF 条件下更多。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Irrigation and Drainage 农林科学-农艺学

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

10.50%

发文量

107

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Human intervention in the control of water for sustainable agricultural development involves the application of technology and management approaches to: (i) provide the appropriate quantities of water when it is needed by the crops, (ii) prevent salinisation and water-logging of the root zone, (iii) protect land from flooding, and (iv) maximise the beneficial use of water by appropriate allocation, conservation and reuse. All this has to be achieved within a framework of economic, social and environmental constraints. The Journal, therefore, covers a wide range of subjects, advancement in which, through high quality papers in the Journal, will make a significant contribution to the enormous task of satisfying the needs of the world’s ever-increasing population. The Journal also publishes book reviews.

文献相关原料

公司名称	产品信息	采购帮参考价格