Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze River
As extreme rainfall events become more frequent, leading to increased waterlogging hazards, it is crucial to explore various drainage methods that can alleviate the adverse effects of waterlogging on crop growth, thus addressing challenges related to global food security. Field experiments were carr...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Agronomy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/15/4/905 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849712604522479616 |
|---|---|
| author | Bowei Qi Shenjiao Yang Dongwei Li Dandan Qin Xingfei Zheng Jianlin Hu Xinguo Zhou Hongquan Liu |
| author_facet | Bowei Qi Shenjiao Yang Dongwei Li Dandan Qin Xingfei Zheng Jianlin Hu Xinguo Zhou Hongquan Liu |
| author_sort | Bowei Qi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | As extreme rainfall events become more frequent, leading to increased waterlogging hazards, it is crucial to explore various drainage methods that can alleviate the adverse effects of waterlogging on crop growth, thus addressing challenges related to global food security. Field experiments were carried out to evaluate the impacts of different drainage technologies on waterlogging mitigation, rice growth, dry matter accumulation, and yield. The experimental setup included varying straw blind ditch spacings (2, 3, 4, and 5 m) and subsurface pipe drainage spacings (6, 9, and 12 m), with surface drainage serving as the control (CK). The findings revealed that, in comparison to pipe drainage treatments, blind ditch treatments enhanced subsurface drainage volume by 15.1%. Regarding groundwater levels and soil moisture, the soil moisture in the 0–90 cm soil layer and groundwater levels under the blind ditch treatments were 11.3% and 6.1% lower than those under the CK as well as 22.0% and 23.9% lower than the pipe drainage treatments, respectively. Subsurface drainage treatments led to significant improvements in rice yield, with blind ditch and pipe drainage treatments increasing the yield by 8.0% and 6.0% compared to the CK. Rice yields initially increased before decreasing as burial spacing reduced. The S3 treatment resulted in yield increases of 14.4%, 8.6%, and 10.7% over the S2, S4, and S5 treatments, respectively. The G9 treatment produced 3.6% and 10.4% higher yields compared to the G6 and G12 treatments. The highest rice yield, 7.501 Mg·ha<sup>−1</sup>, was achieved with a blind ditch spacing of 3 m. Compared to the S4 and S5 treatments, the yield per hectare for the S3 treatment was higher by 0.592 Mg and 0.726 Mg, while the input cost was higher by CNY 3038 and 4560, respectively. Path analysis indicated that root biomass made the largest direct contribution (0.517) to the increase in rice yield. Subsurface drainage contributed to the regulation of soil moisture, reducing leaf biomass while increasing stem biomass, which enabled the blind ditch treatments to produce optimal rice yield. These results provide a scientific basis for agricultural drainage in waterlogged areas. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2825fca6050f4207b691e0a3175ba85d |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2073-4395 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Agronomy |
| spelling | doaj-art-2825fca6050f4207b691e0a3175ba85d2025-08-20T03:14:13ZengMDPI AGAgronomy2073-43952025-04-0115490510.3390/agronomy15040905Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze RiverBowei Qi0Shenjiao Yang1Dongwei Li2Dandan Qin3Xingfei Zheng4Jianlin Hu5Xinguo Zhou6Hongquan Liu7College of Urban and Rural Construction, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071002, ChinaInstitute of Farmland Irrigation, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xinxiang 453002, ChinaInstitute of Farmland Irrigation, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xinxiang 453002, ChinaInstitute of Food Crops, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wuhan 430064, ChinaInstitute of Food Crops, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wuhan 430064, ChinaInstitute of Food Crops, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wuhan 430064, ChinaInstitute of Farmland Irrigation, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xinxiang 453002, ChinaKey Laboratory of North China Water-Saving Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Baoding 071001, ChinaAs extreme rainfall events become more frequent, leading to increased waterlogging hazards, it is crucial to explore various drainage methods that can alleviate the adverse effects of waterlogging on crop growth, thus addressing challenges related to global food security. Field experiments were carried out to evaluate the impacts of different drainage technologies on waterlogging mitigation, rice growth, dry matter accumulation, and yield. The experimental setup included varying straw blind ditch spacings (2, 3, 4, and 5 m) and subsurface pipe drainage spacings (6, 9, and 12 m), with surface drainage serving as the control (CK). The findings revealed that, in comparison to pipe drainage treatments, blind ditch treatments enhanced subsurface drainage volume by 15.1%. Regarding groundwater levels and soil moisture, the soil moisture in the 0–90 cm soil layer and groundwater levels under the blind ditch treatments were 11.3% and 6.1% lower than those under the CK as well as 22.0% and 23.9% lower than the pipe drainage treatments, respectively. Subsurface drainage treatments led to significant improvements in rice yield, with blind ditch and pipe drainage treatments increasing the yield by 8.0% and 6.0% compared to the CK. Rice yields initially increased before decreasing as burial spacing reduced. The S3 treatment resulted in yield increases of 14.4%, 8.6%, and 10.7% over the S2, S4, and S5 treatments, respectively. The G9 treatment produced 3.6% and 10.4% higher yields compared to the G6 and G12 treatments. The highest rice yield, 7.501 Mg·ha<sup>−1</sup>, was achieved with a blind ditch spacing of 3 m. Compared to the S4 and S5 treatments, the yield per hectare for the S3 treatment was higher by 0.592 Mg and 0.726 Mg, while the input cost was higher by CNY 3038 and 4560, respectively. Path analysis indicated that root biomass made the largest direct contribution (0.517) to the increase in rice yield. Subsurface drainage contributed to the regulation of soil moisture, reducing leaf biomass while increasing stem biomass, which enabled the blind ditch treatments to produce optimal rice yield. These results provide a scientific basis for agricultural drainage in waterlogged areas.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/15/4/905paddy fieldsubsurface drainagestraw drainage materialwaterloggingyield |
| spellingShingle | Bowei Qi Shenjiao Yang Dongwei Li Dandan Qin Xingfei Zheng Jianlin Hu Xinguo Zhou Hongquan Liu Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze River Agronomy paddy field subsurface drainage straw drainage material waterlogging yield |
| title | Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze River |
| title_full | Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze River |
| title_fullStr | Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze River |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze River |
| title_short | Effects of Drainage Technology on Waterlogging Reduction and Rice Yield in Mid-Lower Reaches of Yangtze River |
| title_sort | effects of drainage technology on waterlogging reduction and rice yield in mid lower reaches of yangtze river |
| topic | paddy field subsurface drainage straw drainage material waterlogging yield |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/15/4/905 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT boweiqi effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver AT shenjiaoyang effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver AT dongweili effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver AT dandanqin effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver AT xingfeizheng effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver AT jianlinhu effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver AT xinguozhou effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver AT hongquanliu effectsofdrainagetechnologyonwaterloggingreductionandriceyieldinmidlowerreachesofyangtzeriver |