water

Article
Effects of Different Irrigation Methods on
Environmental Factors, Rice Production, and Water
Use Efficiency
Shuxuan Zhang 1 , Ghulam Rasool 1 , Xiangping Guo 1, *, Liang Sen 2 and Kewen Cao 1
1 College of Agricultural Science and Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 211106, China;
[email protected] (S.Z.); [email protected] (G.R.); [email protected] (K.C.)
2 Xuzhou Institute of Water Resources Science, Xuzhou 221008, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-138-5156-0470




Received: 5 July 2020; Accepted: 7 August 2020; Published: 9 August 2020


Abstract: Rice is one of the most important food crops in China and is also the largest user of agricultural
water. Experiments were conducted for two consecutive years at two locations of Jiangsu province
to study the effect of four irrigation methods with four replications (shallow water irrigation (FSI),
wet-shallow irrigation (WSI), controlled irrigation (CI), and rain-catching and controlled irrigation
(RCCI)) on drainage, rainwater utilization rate, pollutant load of N and P, irrigation water, grain yield,
and water use efficiency. The results show that FSI treatment used the largest irrigation amount,
which is significantly higher than the other three irrigation methods, but the southern part of Jiangsu
province especially Nanjing and riverside areas are relatively rich in water resources. It can be seen
from our findings that FSI and RCCI are the best irrigation methods in Nanjing area to get a higher
yield. However, the yield of CI treatment varies greatly; the annual and seasonal yield changes of
CI treatment are higher than those of other treatments; and the risk of yield reduction is greater.
Thus, considering water saving and high efficiency, RCCI is a better irrigation strategy than FSI.
Combined with the following analysis, it can be seen that RCCI irrigation treatment has less nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution load with no significant difference in yield in Lianshui and in 2017 in
Nanjing area. Therefore, RCCI is more suitable for irrigation in Lianshui and similar areas.

Keywords: rice production; pollutant load; grain yield; water use efficiency

1. Introduction
Rice is one of the main cereal crops in China, and about 65% of Chinese people rely on rice as
their staple food. Nearly 95% of the rice grown in China is produced under traditional transplanted
conditions with longer periods of flooding [1]. Rice is one of the most important food crops in Jiangsu
Province and is also the largest user of agricultural water [2]. More than 80% of agricultural water
resources are used for rice irrigation [3]. Rice irrigation is a focus of water-saving irrigation research in
Jiangsu Province. Rice production in Jiangsu Province is higher compared to the whole country [2], and
the unit usage of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is also at a high level compared to the
whole country [4]. A large number of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, if combined with excessive
irrigation, will not only waste resources but also cause agricultural nonpoint source pollution and
ecological damage [5].
At present, the water-saving irrigation modes for rice in Jiangsu Province mainly include
shallow-water frequent irrigation, wet shallow irrigation, alternate dry and wet irrigation, controlled
irrigation, and water storage and controlled irrigation, which have been proposed in recent years [6].
A layer of standing water is maintained in shallow-water frequent irrigation method throughout the

Water 2020, 12, 2239; doi:10.3390/w12082239 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 2239 2 of 14

growing season [7], but the standing water layer is allowed to dry up to 10% of field capacity under
wet shallow irrigation before the application of next irrigation [8]. Alternate dry and wet irrigation is a
method to save water in irrigated rice cultivation, and it is the intermittent drying of the rice fields
instead of keeping them continuously flooded [9]. The soil of rice fields is kept dry for 60–80% of
the growing period under controlled irrigation without standing water after the re-greening stage,
similar to the water saving technique used in System of Rice Intensification [10]. The selection of
water-saving irrigation modes for rice in the province pays more attention to water-savings, but the
irrigation water in the water saving modes is not enough to reduce pollutant emission and improve
the ecological effect [11]. Along the Yangtze River, in coastal areas and even in the southern part of
Huaibei region, although the implementation of controlled irrigation reduces water demand because
of its abundant rainfall, due to excessive drainage, rainwater utilization may be low and nitrogen
and phosphorus loss may increase [12], while excessive water storage after rain may increase the risk
of production reduction. Therefore, according to the characteristics of different regions in Jiangsu
Province, the existing water-saving irrigation technologies are tested and compared to form the spatial
layout and operation specifications of water-saving, pollution-control, and eco-friendly rice irrigation
and drainage modes in different regions, which are of practical significance for reducing waste of water
resources and improving rural environment and ecology.
At present, the selection of water-saving irrigation technology emphasizes its water-saving effect,
and, with this as the main consideration factor, different irrigation modes are recommended, but the
comprehensive research on its ecological effect and the environmental effect has not been studied
yet. Towa and Xiangping [7] found that the lower irrigation limit, although saving irrigation water,
promoted the growth of weeds, especially the increase in the number and types of xerophytic weeds,
and may aggravate the occurrence of diseases and insect pests, requiring more labor input and/or the
cost of herbicides and pesticides. The increase in labor costs and the loss of pollutants can partially or
completely offset the positive effect of water-saving.
Different irrigation and drainage modes of rice will affect the discharge load of pollutants from
rice fields. Some traditional water-saving irrigation modes, such as controlled irrigation, shallow
wet irrigation, etc., and excessive alternation of drought and flood will accelerate the mineralization
of chemical fertilizers and organic matters and increase the risk of fertilizer loss. Due to the lack of
comparative studies on the environmental and ecological effects of different irrigation modes, it is
difficult to determine the appropriate irrigation mode.
The existing water-saving irrigation mode emphasizes the advanced technology, but the lack of
research on the risk of reduced yield has affected the scientific selection of irrigation and drainage
modes. Although some studies have shown that it is possible to achieve high yield or even increase
production while saving water, these practices require sufficient knowledge which the farmers are
lacking. Some indices, such as soil moisture content, soil suction, and other parameters, are not well
controlled, especially the judgment of the lower limit of irrigation is insufficient, and there is a certain
risk of yield reduction [13,14]. Under the mode of water storage and controlled irrigation, increasing the
depth of rainwater after rain can reduce water consumption, but it may cause crop lodging and yield
reduction. This phenomenon occurs on a large scale in the Taihu Lake Basin and the eastern coastal
areas. At present, there is not much research on the risk of water-saving irrigation for rice. There is
no report on the risk analysis of yield reduction for different irrigation modes in different regions of
Jiangsu Province.
At present, the domestic understanding of water-saving irrigation mainly lies in how to reduce
irrigation water consumption. In fact, in addition to consuming rainwater and irrigation water, if the
concentration of pollutants in the drainage generated by irrigation and drainage activities exceeds the
allowable concentration of the environment, a certain amount of water is required to dilute to reduce
environmental and ecological risks.
To study the above-mentioned problems, Jiangsu Rural Water Conservancy Science and Technology
Center, Hohai University, and Lianshui Irrigation Experimental Station have jointly carried out research
 Water 2020, 12, 2239 3 of 14
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

production, irrigationand
on the ecological andenvironmental
drainage volume,effectsnitrogen, and phosphorus
of water-saving irrigation forpollutant
rice. Theemissions
research wasduring
two consecutive rice growing seasons.
carried out on rice under different irrigation methods to study their effect on rice production, irrigation
and drainage volume, nitrogen, and phosphorus pollutant emissions during two consecutive rice
2. Materials
growingand Methods
seasons.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Descriptions
2.1. Site Descriptions
To study the adaptability of different water-saving methods, field experiments were conducted
in Lianshui and Nanjing
To study experimental
the adaptability zones
of different during the
water-saving 2016 and
methods, 2017
field rice growing
experiments seasons (Figure
were conducted in
1). For Nanjing
Lianshui andexperimental zone, the
Nanjing experimental experiments
zones during the were conducted
2016 and 2017 ricein the southern
growing region 1).
seasons (Figure at the
water-saving park of Hohai University (31°57’ N, 118°50’ E). The soil was taken from the water-saving
For Nanjing experimental zone, the experiments were conducted in the southern region at the
park.water-saving
The field capacity of the University
park of Hohai (31◦ 570the
soil was 38.2%,
◦ 0 E). The soil was taken from the water-saving
dry 50
N, 118 bulk density of the soil was 1.31 g/cm3, and the
park. The field capacity of the soil was 38.2%, the dry bulk density of the soil was 1.31 g/cm3 , and the
soil type was clay loam. The mass fractions of total phosphorus, available phosphorus, total nitrogen,
soil type was clay loam. The mass fractions of total phosphorus, available phosphorus, total nitrogen,
and available nitrogen were 33.0, 10.37, 62.9, and 47.4 mg/kg, respectively. The mass fraction of
and available nitrogen were 33.0, 10.37, 62.9, and 47.4 mg/kg, respectively. The mass fraction of organic
organic matter and pH values were 2.40% and 8.10, respectively. Lianshui experiments were
matter and pH values were 2.40% and 8.10, respectively. Lianshui experiments were conducted in
conducted
Lianshuiin Lianshui
Irrigation Irrigation
Experimental Experimental Station,
Station, Lianshui Lianshui
county, whichcounty, which
is part of is part of
the Lianshui the canal.
main Lianshui
mainThecanal. The geographical location of the experimental ◦area
0 is 33°50’ N
◦ and
0 119°16’
geographical location of the experimental area is 33 50 N and 119 16 E. The soil was sandy E. The soil was
sandyloam
loam textured,
textured, andand
the the average
average dry density
dry bulk bulk density of cm
of 0–100 0–100
soil cm soil
layer waslayer
1.38was
g/cm1.38
3 g/cm
. The 3. The
field
field water
waterholding
holding capacity
capacity waswas 27.9%,
27.9%, and
and the the saturated
saturated waterwas
water content content
33.04%was 33.04%
(weight (weight
water water
content).
content). Organic
Organic mattermatter was 0.84%,
was 0.84%, total nitrogen
total nitrogen was 0.062%,
was 0.062%, available
available phosphorus
phosphorus was 6.8 was
mg/kg,6.8and
mg/kg,
and available potassiumwas
available potassium was 112
112 mg/kg.
mg/kg.

Figure 1. Location
Figure of of
1. Location experimental
experimentalsites
sitesin
in the mapof
the map ofJiangsu
Jiangsuprovince,
province, China.
China.

2.2. Experimental Detail

2.2.1. Experimental Design of Nanjing Experimental Area

According to the characteristics of the region along the Yangtze River and southern Jiangsu, four
Water 2020, 12, 2239 4 of 14

2.2. Experimental Detail

2.2.1. Experimental Design of Nanjing Experimental Area

Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
According to the characteristics of the region along the Yangtze River and southern Jiangsu,4 four of 14

different irrigation modes are set up, namely shallow water irrigation (FSI), Wet-shallow Irrigation,
planting experimental method was adopted. Each treatment was repeated four times, totaling 16
(WSI), Controlled Irrigation, (CI), and rain-catching and controlled irrigation (RCCI). The pot planting
pots. The dimensions of pots comprise 90 cm, 68 cm, and 77 cm as the inside length, width, and
experimental method was adopted. Each treatment was repeated four times, totaling 16 pots. The
height, respectively. The experimental diagram is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Before loading soil, a 7-
dimensions of pots comprise 90 cm, 68 cm, and 77 cm as the inside length, width, and height, respectively.
cm layer of gravel and coarse sand was laid as a filter layer at the bottom of each pot, and then the
The experimental diagram is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Before loading soil, a 7-cm layer of gravel and
air-dried and sieved soil was loaded layer by layer (once every 10 cm) into the pot, reserving a water
coarse sand was laid as a filter layer at the bottom of each pot, and then the air-dried and sieved soil was
storage depth of 20 cm for each bucket. The experiments were initiated on 10 May 2016, and 10 May
loaded layer by layer (once every 10 cm) into the pot, reserving a water storage depth of 20 cm for each
2017. The rice variety “Nanjing 5055” was used for both experimental sites, which is a high-yield
bucket. The experiments were initiated on 10 May 2016, and 10 May 2017. The rice variety “Nanjing
variety commonly used in the region. On June 24, seedlings with basically the same size and three
5055” was used for both experimental sites, which is a high-yield variety commonly used in the region.
leaves and one stem were selected for transplanting. The row spacing was 20 cm × 15 cm, and there
On June 24, seedlings with basically the same size and three leaves and one stem were selected for
were three plants per hole. The rice was harvested on October 25, with a total growth period of 123
transplanting. The row spacing was 20 cm × 15 cm, and there were three plants per hole. The rice
days. The basic fertilizer (compound fertilizer, N:P 2 O 5 :K 2 O = 15%:15%:15%) was applied at 300 kg/ha
was harvested on October 25, with a total growth period of 123 days. The basic fertilizer (compound
on June 21. Urea (nitrogen content ≥ 46.2%) was applied at 150.0, 125.0, and 150.0 kg/ha on July 3,
fertilizer, N:P2 O5 :K2 O = 15%:15%:15%) was applied at 300 kg/ha on June 21. Urea (nitrogen content ≥
July 21, and August 28 as green returning fertilizer, tillering fertilizer, and spike fertilizer,
46.2%) was applied at 150.0, 125.0, and 150.0 kg/ha on July 3, July 21, and August 28 as green returning
respectively, and the same amount of fertilizer was applied to each treatment. The insecticides were
fertilizer, tillering fertilizer, and spike fertilizer, respectively, and the same amount of fertilizer was
sprayed on July 7 and August 10 because locusts and leaf rollers are common in rice fields. Weeding
applied to each treatment. The insecticides were sprayed on July 7 and August 10 because locusts and
was done during the whole growth period. When the soil moisture reached the lower limit, irrigation
leaf rollers are common in rice fields. Weeding was done during the whole growth period. When the soil
was applied to the upper limit. Additional measurements were carried out in the case of rainfall.
moisture reached the lower limit, irrigation was applied to the upper limit. Additional measurements
When the rainfall exceeded the maximum rainfall storage depth, timely drainage was carried out to
were carried out in the case of rainfall. When the rainfall exceeded the maximum rainfall storage depth,
the upper limit of rainfall storage. Except for irrigation and drainage measures, other agricultural
timely drainage was carried out to the upper limit of rainfall storage. Except for irrigation and drainage
technology measures were the same (Table 1).
measures, other agricultural technology measures were the same (Table 1).

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 2.
2. (a)
(a) Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
of pot
pot planting
planting experiment;
experiment; and
and (b)
(b) physical
physical diagram
diagram of
of pot
pot planting
planting
experimental
experimental device.
device.
Water 2020, 12, 2239 5 of 14

Table 1. Irrigation and drainage standards under different irrigation modes (Nanjing, Lianshui).

Irrigation Returning to Tillering Jointing and Heading and Milk Yellow

Treatments
Control Index Green Period Stage Booting Stages Flowering Stage Stage Ripening Stage
Upper limit (mm) 30 30 50 40 40 0
FSI Lower limit (mm) 10 10~60% * 10 10 10 60~70% *
Rain upper limit (mm) 40 100 100 100 80 0
Upper limit (mm) 30 20 20 30 30 0
WSI Lower limit (mm) 20 mm * 70~90 90 100 80 70~80%
Rain upper limit (mm) 40 60 100 100 80 0
Upper limit (%) 30 mm * 100 100 100 100 80
CI Lower limit (%) 10 mm * 60~70 70~80 80 70 Dry naturally
Rain upper limit (mm) 40 60 80 80 80 0
Upper limit (%) 30 mm * 100 100 100 100 80
RCCI Lower limit (%) 10 mm * 60~70 70~80 80 70 Dry naturally
Rain upper limit (mm) 80 150 200 200 200 0
Note: FSI, Shallow water frequent irrigation; WSI, Shallow wet irrigation; CI, Control irrigation; RCCI, Rain catching-controlled irrigation. “mm” indicates the depth of water on the
surface of the field; “%” indicates the percentage of the water content of the 30 cm surface soil to the saturated water content of the soil; “*” indicates that the data of this row are expressed
differently from other data in the same column. The irrigation control index was higher before and lower after the tillering stage, while it was lower before and higher after the jointing and
booting stage.
Water 2020, 12, 2239 6 of 14
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Pot

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Arrangement
Arrangement diagram
diagram of
of rice
rice pot
pot planting
planting experiment.
experiment.

Table 1. Irrigation
2.2.2. Experimental and of
Design drainage standards
Lianshui under different
Experimental Area irrigation modes (Nanjing, Lianshui).
The experiments
IrrigationwereReturning
conductedto inTillering
lysimeters.Jointing
The lysimeters
and used had
Heading Milk× width
and length × height
Yellow
Treatments
= 100 cm × 100 Control
cm ×Index
120 cm.Green
ThePeriod Stage
top was reserved Booting Stages storage
with a water Flowering Stage
depth of 20Stage Ripening
cm. The waterStage
level
was kept the same
Upper as that of the field and drained the water to the same level as that of the field when
limit
30 30 50 40 40 0
the water level (mm)exceeded that of the field, otherwise replenished water through the lower inverted
filter layer. The seedlings
Lower limit were raised on 10 May 2016. On June 24, seedlings with three leaves and one
FSI 10 10~60% * 10 10 10 60~70% *
heart and the same (mm)size were selected for transplanting. The row spacing was 20 cm × 15 cm. Three
plants were planted in each hole. The seedlings were harvested on October 25. The total growth period
Rain upper
40 100 100 100 80 0
was 123 days.limit basic fertilizer (compound fertilizer, N:P2 O5 :K2 O = 15%:15%:15%) was applied at
The(mm)
300 kg/ha on Upper 21. Urea (nitrogen content ≥ 46.2%) was applied at 150.0, 125.0, and 150.0 kg/ha
June limit
30 20 20 30 30 0
on July 3, July 21,(mm) August 28 as green returning fertilizer, tillering fertilizer, and spike fertilizer,
and
respectively, and
Lowerthe application rates of each treatment were consistent. Insecticides were sprayed on
limit
JulyWSI
7 and August (mm) 10, because20 mm *
locusts and90~70 90
leaf rollers are common in 100 80
rice fields. Disease 70%~80%
prevention
and pest control were
Rain upper carried out four times in the whole growth period. The irrigation methods were
40 60 100 100 80 0
limit (mm)
the same as Nanjing experimental area (Table 1).
Upper limit (%) 30 mm * 100 100 100 100 80
2.3. Observation Contents and Test Methods
Lower limit (%) 10 mm * 60~70 70~80 80 70 Dry naturally
CI
2.3.1. Meteorological and Soil Moisture Data
Rain upper
40 60 80 80 80 0
limit (mm)
The automatic weather stations (Hobo, Onset Computer Corp., Bourne, MA, USA) were installed
Upper limit (%)
in both study areas to monitor 30meteorological
mm * 100parameters 100 100
including temperature, 100
humidity, 80 speed,
wind
Lower
solar radiation, andlimit (%)
rainfall. 10 mm
The *
measurements60~70 were conducted
70~80 80 every day.
at 8:00 a.m. 70 When Dry naturally
there was
RCCI
a water layer Rain
on the surface
upper
of the field, the depth of water was read by a steel ruler. The volumetric
soil moisture contents 80 150 200 200 200 0
limit (mm)were monitored by a Time Domain Reflectometer (TDR, Mini Trase System-Soil
Moisture Equipment Corp., Santa Barbara, CA, USA). When there was no water layer on the surface of
Note: FSI, Shallow water frequent irrigation; WSI, Shallow wet irrigation; CI, Control irrigation; RCCI, Rain
the field, the TDR probes were embedded in the soil at 0–30 cm to measure the soil moisture. TDR was
catching-controlled irrigation. “mm” indicates the depth of water on the surface of the field; “%” indicates the
calibrated for the
percentage experimental
of the soil
water content of thebefore data collection.
30 cm surface soil to the saturated water content of the soil; “*” indicates
that the data of this row are expressed differently from other data in the same column. The irrigation control index
2.3.2. Irrigation and Drainage
was higher before and lower after the tillering stage, while it was lower before and higher after the jointing and
booting stage. to the irrigation and drainage control standards for each treatment, when the soil
According
moisture dropped to the lower limit of irrigation, the water was irrigated to the upper limit (Table 1).
Water 2020, 12, 2239 7 of 14

When the depth of the water layer exceeded the maximum depth of rain storage, the water was
drained to the upper limit of rain storage in time, and the irrigation and drainage time and amount
of water will be recorded each time. For the lysimeter, when the underground water level exceeded
the field underground water level in the test area, drainage was carried out. Drainage was collected
in the drainage tank and calculated by an automatic tipping meter. Water samples were collected
each time water was drained and stored in the refrigerator. The detailed water table depth control
and the duration of flooding in different stages for the irrigation treatments are presented in Table 1.
The highest values of irrigation water were recorded in FSI because a standing layer of water was
maintained in FSI and WSI throughout the growing period. The upper limit for CI and RCCI irrigation
treatments was 100% of water holding capacity.

2.3.3. Water Demand and Water Consumption

For pot experiments, the water balance method was used to calculate the water demand of crops
using Equation (1);
ET = P + I + H1 − H2 − D1 − D2 (1)

where ET is the water requirement of rice in the growth period, mm; P is the rainfall in the growth
period, mm; I is the irrigation water volume in the growth period, mm; D1 and D2 are the surface
drainage and percolation during the growth period, mm; and H1 and H2 are the soil water yield at the
beginning and end of the test, mm. Water Consumption of Rice = ET + D2.
Groundwater was drained once every three days during the growth period, and total drained
water was calculated at the end of the growth period. All drainage water was sampled for nitrogen
and phosphorus.

2.3.4. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentration Test

Total nitrogen in water samples was determined by alkaline potassium persulfate digestion
ultraviolet spectrophotometry (GB 11894-89), and total phosphorus was determined by ammonium
molybdate spectrophotometry (GB 11893-89) [15]. The samples were tested and analyzed within 2 h
after collection. Whenever a timely analysis was not possible, samples were put into a freezer and
stored at 4 ◦ C for 24 h.

2.3.5. Grain Yield and Water Use Efficiency

The grain yield is the total dry weight of the rice grains. Water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated
with the following relation (2) [16];
 
  10xYield kg ha−1
WUE kg m−3 = (2)
Irrigation amount (mm)

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA) was done by the general linear model (univariate)
using SPSS 16.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). The mean values of the treatment were compared when the
significant differences were noticed at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results
Different water-saving irrigation modes affect the process of crop water consumption and irrigation
and drainage by adjusting soil moisture content and field water layer. Water layer change not only affects
rainfall splash erosion and field surface water turbulence but also affects nitrogen and phosphorus
pollutant concentration in drainage by changing grid drainage time and sediment precipitation time in
farmland drainage, thus affecting non-point source pollution load. Based on the experimental results
in Nanjing and Lianshui experimental areas, this study analyzed the irrigation and drainage volume,
Water 2020, 12, 2239 8 of 14

rainwater utilization rate, nitrogen, and phosphorus pollutant load by examining their environmental
effects and impact mechanisms on rice production under different irrigation methods.

3.1. Influence of Irrigation Mode on Drainage and Rainwater Utilization Rate

Table 2 shows the effect of different irrigation methods on the drainage and rainwater utilization
rate for two experiments. The results observed at the Lianshui experimental site are similar to those of
the Nanjing experimental site, but the drainage was relatively higher in 2016 when compared to 2017.
The highest increase in drainage was observed under WSI at Nanjing experimental area (12.4% and
52.0% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) when compared with FSI. In the Lianshui experiment, WSI and
RCCI decreased drainage (16.1% and 86.6% during 2016), but only RCCI decreased drainage (66.5%) in
2017. WSI and CI increased drainage by 34.5% and 44.4%, respectively, during 2017 when compared
with FSI. While studying rainwater utilization rate for the Nanjing experiment, both WSI and CI
decreased rainwater utilization rate during both experimental years, but RCCI improved rainwater
utilization rate by 7.4% and 3.5% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, when compared with FSI. In the
Lianshui experiment, RCCI significantly improved the rainwater utilization rate by 20.4% and 13.6%
during 2016 and 2017, respectively, when compared with FSI.

Table 2. Effect of different irrigation methods on drainage and rainwater utilization rate.

Rainfall (mm) Drainage (mm) Rainwater Utilization Rate (%)

Location Treatments
2016 2017 Avg. 2016 2017 Avg. 2016 2017 Avg.
FSI 1014.5 1004.9 1009.7 506.1 b 189.2 b 347.65 b 50.1 a 81.2 a 65.65 a
WSI 1014.5 1004.9 1009.7 568.7 a 287.5 a 428.1 a 43.9 b 71.4 b 57.65 b
Nanjing
CI 1014.5 1004.9 1009.7 554.0 a 283.0 a 418.5 a 45.4 b 71.8 b 58.6 b
RCCI 1014.5 1004.9 1009.7 468.6 c 160.9 c 314.75 c 53.8 a 84.0 a 68.9 a
FSI 605.0 795.4 700.2 115.6 a 135.5 c 125.55 c 80.9 c 83.0 b 81.95 b
WSI 605.0 795.4 700.2 96.4 b 182.3 b 139.35 b 84.1 b 77.1 c 80.6 b
Lianshui
CI 605.0 795.4 700.2 116.8 a 195.6 a 156.2 a 80.7 c 75.4 c 78.05 b
RCCI 605.0 795.4 700.2 15.5 c 45.4 d 30.45 d 97.4 a 94.3 a 95.85 a
Numbers with the same letters in the same column have no significant difference at p ≥ 0.05.

3.2. Pollutant Load of Different Irrigation Methods

Table 3 presents the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in underground drainage and
surface drainage and the total amount of drainage for the calculation of the pollutant load per hectare
area. For Nanjing experimental area, the N pollutant load of underground drainage was higher under
WSI (36.7% and 75.6% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) and CI (35.2% and 82.1% in 2016 and 2017,
respectively) when compared with FSI, but RCCI decreased N pollutant load by 24.9% and 2.9% in
2016 and 2017, respectively. While studying the N pollutant load by surface drainage, all treatments
decreased the N pollutant load when compared with FSI during both years. However, the highest
decrease in the N pollutant load by surface drainage was observed under CI (36.7% and 10.3% in
2016 and 2017, respectively) in Nanjing experimental area. Comparing with FSI, the total N pollutant
load was highest under WSI (19.7% and 47.8% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) and CI (12.2% and
48.5% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) and lowest under RCCI (19.8% and 2.8% in 2016 and 2017,
respectively) when compared with FSI for Nanjing experimental area. While studying the effect of
irrigation methods on N pollutant load in the Lianshui experimental area, FSI had the highest values of
N pollutant load in both surface and underground drainage during both experimental years. In 2016,
underground and surface drainage N pollutant load was 35.9% and 73.6% less, respectively, under
RCCI when compared with FSI, whereas the highest decrease in N pollutant load in underground and
surface drainage was observed under WSI (36.9%) and RCCI (88.9%) when compared with FSI during
2017 for Lianshui experimental area. The total N pollutant load was also significantly decreased under
all the treatments when compared with FSI during both experimental years and the highest decrease
was observed under RCCI (66.5% and 87.7% in 2016 and 2017, respectively).
Water 2020, 12, 2239 9 of 14

Table 3. Effect of different irrigation methods on pollutant load.

Location Nanjing Lianshui

N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha) N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha)
Pollutant Load Treatments
2016 2017 Avg. 2016 2017 Avg. 2016 2017 Avg. 2016 2017 Avg.
FSI 13.3 b 9.70 b 11.5 b 0.76 b 0.89 a 0.83 a 3.76 a 3.63 a 3.70 a 0.34 a 0.28 a 0.31 a
WSI 18.2 a 17.0 a 17.6 a 0.97 a 0.30 c 0.64 b 2.82 b 2.29 b 2.56 b 0.31 b 0.25 b 0.28 a
Under-ground
CI 18.0 a 17.7 a 17.8 a 0.93 a 0.83 b 0.88 a 2.69 b 2.38 b 2.54 b 0.26 c 0.30 a 0.28 a
RCCI 9.97 c 9.42 b 9.7 c 0.56 c 0.32 c 0.44 c 2.41 b 2.70 b 2.56 b 0.19 d 0.23 b 0.21 b
FSI 6.22 a 5.56 a 5.89 a 0.26 a 0.06 a 0.16 a 16.3 a 18.9 a 17.6 a 0.84 a 1.47 a 1.16 a
WSI 5.21 b 5.52 a 5.37 a 0.20 b 0.06 a 0.13 b 9.94 c 11.5 c 10.7 c 0.41 c 0.30 c 0.36 c
Surface
CI 3.94 c 4.99 a 4.47 b 0.15 c 0.04 b 0.10 c 12.5 b 13.7 b 13.1 b 0.53 b 0.63 b 0.58 b
RCCI 5.66 b 5.41 a 5.54 a 0.22 a 0.06 a 0.14 b 4.31 d 2.09 d 3.20 c 0.19 d 0.14 d 0.17 d
FSI 19.5 c 15.3 b 17.5 b 1.02 b 0.94 a 0.98 a 20.06 a 22.5 a 21.3 a 1.18 a 1.75 a 1.47 a
WSI 23.4 a 22.6 a 23.0 a 1.17 a 0.36 c 0.77 b 12.76 c 13.7 c 13.2 c 0.72 c 0.55 c 0.64 c
Total
CI 21.9 b 22.7 a 22.3 a 1.07 b 0.87 b 0.97 a 15.19 b 16.1 b 15.7 b 0.79 b 0.93 b 0.86 b
RCCI 15.6 d 14.8 b 15.2 c 0.78 c 0.38 c 0.58 c 6.72 d 4.79 d 5.76 d 0.38 d 0.37 d 0.38 d
N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous. Numbers with the same letters in the same column have no significant difference at p ≥ 0.05.
Water 2020, 12, 2239 10 of 14

While studying the effect of different irrigation treatments on phosphorous pollutant load in
Nanjing experiment area, the highest decrease of phosphorous pollutant load was observed under
RCCI (26.3% and 64.0% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) in underground drainage, whereas the highest
decrease in the surface drainage phosphorous pollutant load was recorded in CI (42.3% and 33.3% in
2016 and 2017, respectively) when compared with FSI. However, the total phosphorous pollutant load
had the greatest decrease under RCCI (23.5% and 59.6% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) when compared
with FSI in the Nanjing experimental area. In Lianshui experimental area, all the treatments significantly
decreased underground, surface, and total phosphorous pollutant drainage when compared with FSI
except underground phosphorous pollutant drainage under CI in 2017 which increased underground P
by 7.1%. The highest decrease in phosphorous pollutant load was observed under RCCI in underground
drainage (44.1% and 17.9% in 2016 and 2017, respectively), surface drainage (77.4% and 90.5% in 2016
and 2017, respectively), and total drainage (67.8% and 78.9% in 2016 and 2017, respectively).

3.3. Irrigation Amount, Grain Yield and Water Use Efficiency

Table 4 shows the effect of different irrigation methods on irrigation amount, rice yield, and water
productivity. Comparing with FSI, all other irrigation methods significantly decreased the amount of
irrigation water (10.5–53.1% and 20.6–44.9% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, in Nanjing and 6.8–10.1% and
14.7–20.3% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, in Lianshui). In the Nanjing experiment, comparing with FSI,
the highest water savings were observed under RCCI (53.1% and 44.9% in 2016 and 2017, respectively)
followed by CI (42.8% and 41.6% in 2016 and 2017, respectively). In the Lianshui experiment, the
highest amount of water savings was recorded under WSI (10.1%) and RCCI (20.3%) during 2016 and
2017, respectively.

Table 4. Output, irrigation water consumption, and irrigation water productivity under different
irrigation methods.

Yield (kg/ha) Irrigation Amount (mm) Water Productivity (kg/m3 )

Location Treatments
2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
FSI 12,057.3 a 11,060.0 a 374.9 a 496.7 a 3.22 c 2.23 b
WSI 10,604.9 c 10,163.9 b 335.6 a 394.4 b 3.16 c 2.58 b
Nanjing
CI 11,233.8 bc 10,474.5 a 214.5 b 290.2 c 5.24 b 3.61 a
RCCI 11,508.5 b 11,553.7 a 175.7 c 273.8 c 6.55 a 4.22 a
FSI 10,760.0 b 9694.0 ab 639.7 a 415.6 a 1.68 b 2.33 b
WSI 9980.0 b 10,730.0 a 575.0 b 354.7 b 1.74 b 3.03 a
Lianshui
CI 12,335.0 a 8695.0 b 596.3 b 341.6 b 2.07 a 2.54 b
RCCI 10,345.0 b 9398.0 b 594.0 b 331.1 b 1.74 b 2.84 a
Numbers with the same letters in the same column have no significant difference at p ≥ 0.05.

The FSI and RCCI irrigation methods had no significant difference in grain yield during both
experimental years at both experimental locations (p < 0.05). However, both CI and WSI showed a
higher variation in grain yield during different growing seasons. The highest yield was recorded
under FSI (12,057.3 and 11,060.0 kg/ha in 2016 and 2017, respectively) followed by RCCI (11,508.5 and
11,553.7 kg/ha in 2016 and 2017, respectively) in Nanjing experimental station. Compared with FSI,
the highest decrease in yield was observed under WSI in Nanjing experimental station (12.1% and
8.1% in 2016 and 2017, respectively). In Lianshui area, the highest and lowest yield was observed
under CI (12,335.0 kg/ha) and WSI (9980.0 kg/ha), respectively, in 2016 experimental season. In 2017,
WSI and CI gave the highest (10,730 kg/ha) and lowest (8695.0 kg/ha) yield, respectively. For Lianshui
experimental station, the highest increase (14.6%) and decrease (7.3%) was observed under CI and
WSI, respectively, when compared with FSI during 2016. In 2017, the highest increase (10.7%) and
decrease (10.3%) were observed under WSI and CI when compared with FSI during 2017, respectively.
Comparing with FSI, all other methods significantly increased the water productivity in Nanjing
experimental station except WSI, which showed no significant difference. The highest increase in water
Water 2020, 12, 2239 11 of 14

productivity was recorded in RCCI (103.4% and 89.25% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) followed by
CI (62.7% and 61.9% in 2016 and 2017, respectively). While studying the effect of different irrigation
methods on the water productivity in Lianshui area, the highest increase in water productivity was
observed under CI (23.2% and 9.0% in 2016 and 2017, respectively) when compared with FSI. WSI and
RCCI did not affect the water productivity during 2016 but an increase of 30.0% and 21.9% in water
productivity was observed during 2017 when compared with FSI in the Lianshui area.

4. Discussion

4.1. Influence of Irrigation Mode on Drainage and Rainwater Utilization Rate

From the drainage data of the Nanjing experimental area, it can be seen that, in the two years,
FSI and RCCI have less drainage and higher rainwater utilization rate, while WSI and CI have more
drainage. This effect may be attributed to two reasons: (1) controlling the lower water storage limit
of irrigation and draining more water; and (2) rainfall distribution. In 2016, the rainfall in Nanjing
experimental area was relatively high, but the distribution was relatively uniform and the rainwater
utilization rate was relatively high. However, although the rainfall in 2017 was not high, due to the
concentrated rainfall, a large amount of water was drained from the paddy fields and the rainwater
utilization rate was not high. This suggests that FSI and especially RCCI have a positive impact on
improving rainwater utilization rate and reducing water discharge in the rainy areas along the Yangtze
River and southern Jiangsu Province. However, WSI and CI, with more surface drainage, increase the
risk of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and correspondingly increase the drainage pressure.

4.2. Pollutant Load of N and P under Different Irrigation Methods

Farmland pollutants enter the water body mainly through drainage. Farmland drainage includes
two parts: surface drainage and underground drainage. For Nanjing experimental area, the underground
and surface drainage N pollutant load was WSI > CI > FSI > RCCI and FSI > RCCI > WSI > CI,
respectively, and the total N pollutant load was WSI > CI > FSI > RCCI from larger to smaller in 2016.
In 2017, the N pollutant load of underground and surface drainage was CI > WSI > FSI > RCCI and FSI
> WSI > RCCI > CI, and the total N pollutant load was CI > WSI > FSI > RCCI. Thus, it can be seen that
the WSI and CI irrigation methods will produce larger pollutant load in Nanjing experimental area.
It is much larger than the other two irrigation modes. Bonaiti and Borin [17] found similar findings
and reported that frequent irrigation and discharge treatments caused more losses of N and P, which
gradually reduced the mass concentration of N and P in the surface water. Furthermore, a lot of N
was lost due to surface drainage, therefore the losses and concentrations of groundwater drainage of
N also decreased gradually [18]. It could also be because the phosphorous in fertilizer was fixed and
absorbed easily by the upper rootzone soil and the disturbance of soil irrigation and drainage amplified
the releasing of P to the surface water from the upper rootzone soil [19]. The retention mechanisms of P
comprises of sorption (absorption and adsorption) uptake by plants, and exchange reactions with the
soils [20]. Kovacic, et al. [21] found a similar trend and reported that, with the downward movement
of N and P into the soil, the nutrients in the irrigation water were absorbed by the soil through the
inorganic nitrogen absorption, the fixed deposition of phosphorus, and the absorption by the rice, due
to which the losses and concentrations of N and P in surface drainage decreased gradually. This shows
that, from the point of view of pollutant load, the water-saving irrigation modes suitable for the Nanjing
test area are shallow water regular irrigation and water storage controlled irrigation, and the water
storage controlled irrigation mode is the best. The nitrogen and phosphorus loss load of CI, WSI, and
RCCI in the Lianshui test area were lower than that of FSI, which is different from that of the Nanjing
experimental area. This variation might be due to the difference in soil texture in the two study areas.
From the point of view of pollutant load alone, RCCI and WSI in Lianshui experimental area have better
emission reduction effects. The reason for controlling the increase of N and P loss in irrigation might be
due to controlling shallow water depth after rain.
Water 2020, 12, 2239 12 of 14

4.3. Productivity Parameters

4.3.1. Irrigation Water under Different Irrigation Methods

Rice is one of the major consumers of freshwater. The flooded rice fields have an evapotranspiration
of 4–7 mm day−1 , which is a little higher than that in aerobic fields [22,23]. However, depending on soil
texture, water depth, and age of rice cultivation, the percolation losses are on the higher side ranging
from several to even hundreds of mm day−1 [22,24]. It has been reported by Belder, et al. [24] that water
consumption was 600–900 mm under continuous flooding considering precipitation and irrigated
water. In our findings, FSI consumed higher amounts of irrigation water in both Nanjing (374.9
and 496.7 mm ha−1 ) and Lianshui (639.7 and 415.6 mm ha−1 ) experimental areas, whereas the lowest
irrigation amount was recorded in RCCI for Nanjing experimental area (175.7 and 273.8 mm ha−1 ). WSI
and RCCI had the highest values of irrigation amount in 2016 (575.0 mm ha−1 ) and 2017 (331.1 mm ha−1 )
experimental years, respectively, in Lianshui experimental area. It is commonly observed that irrigation
with standing water in paddy fields would lead to more loss of irrigation water due to higher percolation
and seepage rates [23,25]. In the present study, RCCI and CI saved more irrigated water compared with
FSI and WSI, which is in agreement with the above statement. FSI and WSI both increased the irrigated
water in Nanjing, whereas only FSI increased irrigation water in the Lianshui area. This might be
ascribed that constant flooding improved the plow sole that controlled the infiltration rate [26]. Janssen
and Lennartz [27] reported that the average infiltration rates were 28.0, 0.79, and 0.16 cm day−1 for
three paddy fields with a cultivation duration of 3, 20, and 100 years, respectively, and demonstrated
that the age of the field is strongly dependent on the infiltration rate. The soil drying could lead to
cracking and shrinkage, thus risking amplified soil water losses [28,29].

4.3.2. Grain Yield under Different Irrigation Methods

In Asia, more than 75% of rice production takes place in irrigated areas, which consists of 55% of
the total rice area of the region [30]. Previous research has revealed that constant flooding is not crucial
to attaining the higher grain yield in rice in the field. The saturated irrigation and alternate wetting and
drying irrigation can maintain or even increase grain yield if the lowest water potential is controlled
reasonably according to various soil properties when compared with flooding irrigation [24,31]. Our
findings are consistent with previous studies; a slight grain yield decrease was observed in all treatments
when compared with FSI (Table 4). Venuprasad, et al. [32] stated that plant height is a key agronomic
characteristic in rice that significantly affects the grain yield and it is also responsible for determining
plant architecture. In our results, the yield of CI treatment varied greatly and similar findings were
also stated by Shao et al. [33] while studying the effects of controlled irrigation and drainage on grain
yield of paddy rice. The absence of a layer of flooding water will expose the stems of the rice plant to
temperature extremes and will negatively affect the plant growth [34], which will ultimately affect the
grain yield.

4.3.3. Water Use Efficiency under Different Irrigation Methods

Water use efficiency (WUE) is a crucial indicator for managing agricultural water. While analyzing
multi-site data, Bouman and Tuong [28] concluded that WUE was 0.2–0.4 kg m−3 and 0.3–1.1 kg m−3
in India and Philippines, respectively, for constant flooding rice when both rain and irrigation water
were considered. In our study, the highest WUE values were observed under RCCI (6.6 and 4.2 kg m−3 )
in Nanjing experimental area and CI (2.1 kg m−3 ) and RCCI (2.84 kg m−3 ) during 2016 and 2017,
respectively, in Lianshui experimental area. The higher WUE values with a significant reduction in grain
yield convey less importance particularly when food security is not assured. Some earlier researchers
have also confirmed that, with saving irrigation water, saturated soil culture also maintains or even
increases grain yield [28,35]. In our findings, the grain yield under all the treatments had a slight
difference but RCCI and CI consumed less irrigation water due to which they had higher WUE values.
Water 2020, 12, 2239 13 of 14

5. Conclusions
The results reveal that FSI treatment used the largest amount of irrigation water, which was
significantly higher than the other three irrigation modes but the southern part of Jiangsu province
especially Nanjing and riverside areas are relatively rich in water resources. Therefore, FSI and RCCI
are the best irrigation methods in Nanjing area to get a higher yield because the yield of controlled
irrigation treatment varies greatly and the annual and seasonal yield changes of CI treatment are higher
than those of the other treatments, and the risk of yield reduction is greater. Therefore, considering
water saving and high efficiency, RCCI is a better irrigation strategy than FSI. Combining the analysis, it
can be seen that RCCI irrigation treatment has less N and P pollutant load with no significant difference
in yield in the Lianshui and in 2017 in Nanjing area. Therefore, RCCI is more suitable for irrigation in
Lianshui and similar areas.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.G.; methodology, S.Z. and K.C.; software, G.R.; validation, S.Z.
and G.R.; formal analysis, G.R.; data curation, S.Z. and K.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Z. and G.R.;
writing—review and editing, G.R., X.G., and L.S.; supervision, X.G.; project administration, X.G.; and funding
acquisition, X.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Jiangsu Water Science and Technology Program (Grant No. 2018046
and 2019045).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Nie, L.; Peng, S. Rice production in China. In Rice Production Worldwide; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017;
pp. 33–52.
2. Guo, J.; Hu, X.; Gao, L.; Xie, K.; Ling, N.; Shen, Q.; Hu, S.; Guo, S. The rice production practices of high yield
and high nitrogen use efficiency in Jiangsu, China. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Shivakoti, G.; Vermilion, D.; Lam, W.-F.; Ostrom, E.; Pradhan, U.; Yoder, R. Asian Irrigation in Transition:
Responding to Challenges; SAGE Publications: New Delhi, India, 2005; p. 528.
4. Wu, Y.; Wang, E.; Miao, C. Fertilizer Use in China: The Role of Agricultural Support Policies. Sustainability
2019, 11, 4391. [CrossRef]
5. Xie, Y.; Wang, Z.; Guo, X.; Lakthan, S.; Chen, S.; Xiao, Z.; Alhaj Hamoud, Y. Effects of Different Irrigation
Treatments on Aquaculture Purification and Soil Desalination of Paddy Fields. Water 2019, 11, 1424. [CrossRef]
6. Zhuang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Li, S.; Liu, H.; Zhai, L.; Zhou, F.; Ye, Y.; Ruan, S.; Wen, W. Effects and potential of
water-saving irrigation for rice production in China. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 217, 374–382. [CrossRef]
7. Towa, J.J.; Xiangping, G. Effects of irrigation and weed-control methods on growth of weed and rice. Int. J.
Agric. Biol. Eng. 2014, 7, 22–33.
8. Peng, S.; Hou, H.; Xu, J.; Mao, Z.; Abudu, S.; Luo, Y. Nitrous oxide emissions from paddy fields under
different water managements in southeast China. Paddy Water Environ. 2011, 9, 403–411. [CrossRef]
9. Van der Hoek, W.; Sakthivadivel, R.; Renshaw, M.; Silver, J.; Birley, M.; Konradsen, F. Alternate Wet/Dry Irrigation
in Rice Cultivation: A Practical Way to Save Water and Control Malaria and Japanese Encephalitis? Research Report;
IWMI: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2001; p. 47.
10. Sato, S.; Yamaji, E.; Kuroda, T. Strategies and engineering adaptions to disseminate SRI methods in large-scale
irrigation systems in Eastern Indonesia. Paddy Water Environ. 2011, 9, 79–88. [CrossRef]
11. Nie, T.; Chen, P.; Zhang, Z.; Qi, Z.; Lin, Y.; Xu, D. Effects of different types of water and nitrogen fertilizer
management on greenhouse gas emissions, yield, and water consumption of paddy fields in cold region of
China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1639. [CrossRef]
12. Guo, X.P.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Yin, G.X. Effect of controlled drainage on loss of nitrogen and phosphorous from
paddy field. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Agric. Sci.) 2006, 24, 307–310.
13. Li, Y.; Barker, R. Increasing water productivity for paddy irrigation in China. Paddy Water Environ. 2004, 2,
187–193. [CrossRef]
14. Fu, Z.Q.; Huang, H.; Chen, C.; He, B.L. Effect of irrigation depths on methane emission in rice-duck complex
ecosystems. J. Hunan Agric. Univ. 2006, 32, 632.
15. Federation WE, American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 21.
Water 2020, 12, 2239 14 of 14

16. Rasool, G.; Guo, X.; Wang, Z.; Ali, M.U.; Chen, S.; Zhang, S.; Wu, Q.; Ullah, M.S. Coupling fertigation
and buried straw layer improves fertilizer use efficiency, fruit yield, and quality of greenhouse tomato.
Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 239, 106239. [CrossRef]
17. Bonaiti, G.; Borin, M. Efficiency of controlled drainage and subirrigation in reducing nitrogen losses from
agricultural fields. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 98, 343–352. [CrossRef]
18. Tan, X.; Shao, D.; Gu, W.; Liu, H. Field analysis of water and nitrogen fate in lowland paddy fields under
different water managements using HYDRUS-1D. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 150, 67–80. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, R.; Wang, F.; Zhang, A.; Youhong, L.I.; Chen, C.; Hong, Y.; Yang, Z. Types of Fertilizers and Their Application
Affect the Leaching of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Paddy Fields in Irrigation Districts of Yellow River. J. Irrig.
Drain. 2017, 9, 46–49.
20. Reddy, K.R.; Kadlec, R.H.; Flaig, E.; Gale, P.M. Phosphorus retention in streams and wetlands: A review.
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 29, 83–146. [CrossRef]
21. Kovacic, D.A.; David, M.B.; Gentry, L.E.; Starks, K.M.; Cooke, R.A. Effectiveness of constructed wetlands in
reducing nitrogen and phosphorus export from agricultural tile drainage. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 1262–1274.
[CrossRef]
22. Tabbal, D.F.; Bouman, B.A.M.; Bhuiyan, S.I.; Sibayan, E.B.; Sattar, M.A. On-farm strategies for reducing water
input in irrigated rice; case studies in the Philippines. Agric. Water Manag. 2002, 56, 93–112. [CrossRef]
23. Alberto, M.C.R.; Wassmann, R.; Hirano, T.; Miyata, A.; Hatano, R.; Kumar, A.; Padre, A.; Amante, M.
Comparisons of energy balance and evapotranspiration between flooded and aerobic rice fields in the
Philippines. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 1417–1430. [CrossRef]
24. Belder, P.; Bouman, B.A.M.; Cabangon, R.; Guoan, L.; Quilang, E.J.P.; Yuanhua, L.; Spiertz, J.H.J.; Tuong, T.P.
Effect of water-saving irrigation on rice yield and water use in typical lowland conditions in Asia. Agric. Water
Manag. 2004, 65, 193–210. [CrossRef]
25. Tan, X.; Shao, D.; Liu, H.; Yang, F.; Xiao, C.; Yang, H. Effects of alternate wetting and drying irrigation on
percolation and nitrogen leaching in paddy fields. Paddy Water Environ. 2013, 11, 381–395. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, S.K.; Liu, C.W.; Huang, H.C. Analysis of water movement in paddy rice fields (II) simulation studies.
J. Hydrol. 2002, 268, 259–271. [CrossRef]
27. Janssen, M.; Lennartz, B. Horizontal and vertical water and solute fluxes in paddy rice fields. Soil Tillage Res.
2007, 94, 133–141. [CrossRef]
28. Bouman, B.; Tuong, T.P. Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated
lowland rice. Agric. Water Manag. 2001, 49, 11–30. [CrossRef]
29. Chen, S.K.; Liu, C.W. Analysis of water movement in paddy rice fields (I) experimental studies. J. Hydrol.
2002, 260, 206–215. [CrossRef]
30. Dawe, D. Water productivity in rice-based systems in Asia–variability in space and time. Plant Prod. Sci.
2005, 8, 219–228. [CrossRef]
31. Cabangon, R.J.; Tuong, T.P.; Castillo, E.G.; Bao, L.X.; Lu, G.; Wang, G.; Cui, Y.; Bouman, B.A.; Li, Y.; Chen, C.
Effect of irrigation method and N-fertilizer management on rice yield, water productivity and nutrient-use
efficiencies in typical lowland rice conditions in China. Paddy Water Environ. 2004, 2, 195–206. [CrossRef]
32. Venuprasad, R.; Dalid, C.; Del Valle, M.; Zhao, D.; Espiritu, M.; Cruz, M.S.; Amante, M.; Kumar, A.; Atlin, G.
Identification and characterization of large-effect quantitative trait loci for grain yield under lowland drought
stress in rice using bulk-segregant analysis. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2009, 120, 177–190. [CrossRef]
33. Shao, G.C.; Deng, S.; Liu, N.; Yu, S.E.; Wang, M.H.; She, D.L. Effects of controlled irrigation and drainage on
growth, grain yield and water use in paddy rice. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 53, 1–9. [CrossRef]
34. Stuerz, S.; Sow, A.; Muller, B.; Manneh, B.; Asch, F. Leaf area development in response to meristem
temperature and irrigation system in lowland rice. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 163, 74–80. [CrossRef]
35. Nguyen, H.T.; Fischer, K.S.; Fukai, S. Physiological responses to various water saving systems in rice.
Field Crop. Res. 2009, 112, 189–198. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).