Assessing environmental impacts of agricultural water table management: A global meta-analysis

Global climate change intensifies the need for adaptive water management in agriculture, particularly as extreme rainfall and drought events jeopardize yield stability and water quality. This study provides a comprehensive global meta-analysis comparing controlled drainage (CD) and controlled drainage with subirrigation (CDSI) against free drainage (FD), based on 84 publications encompassing 52 sites (1788 paired site-years). Overall, both CD and CDSI significantly reduced subsurface drainage discharge and nutrient losses (NO₃⁻, TN, DRP, TP) compared to FD, while improving crop yields. CD had no significant effects on surface runoff or surface NO₃⁻ loss, and CDSI increased both. Neither practice significantly influenced subsurface NH₄⁺, PP, or DP losses, and CDSI showed only limited evidence for CH₄ reduction, with no consistent effects on other greenhouse gases. Significant differences between CD and CDSI were observed only for subsurface NO₃⁻, TN, and TP losses, with CDSI achieving greater reductions in NO₃⁻ (CD: 59.4 %, CDSI: 72.5 %) and TN (CD: 16.3 %, CDSI: 55.9 %), whereas CD was more effective in reducing TP (CD: 56.8 %, CDSI: 28.6 %). Moderator effects revealed notable patterns. Crop types influenced subsurface drainage discharge under both CD and CDSI, with small grain crops producing the largest reductions (CD: 68.1 %, CDSI: 83.6 %). Under CDSI, drainage responses were further shaped by N input rate, with higher inputs associated with greater reductions (77.3 %). For CD, subsurface NO₃⁻ loss was strongly affected by precipitation and soil texture, with wetter years (79.2 %) and medium-textured soils (63.6 %) offering the greatest reduction potential. This study presents the first comparative assessment of the environmental impacts of CD and CDSI, highlighting their context-dependent nature and providing insights to inform more informed drainage management decisions. • First comparative assessment of impacts and moderators for controlled drainage and controlled drainage with subirrigation. • Both practices reduced subsurface drainage and nutrient losses relative to free drainage, while also improving crop yields. • Controlled drainage with subirrigation cut nitrate and total nitrogen most; controlled drainage cut total phosphorus most. • Crop types affected subsurface drainage under both ; nitrogen input affected drainage under controlled drainage with subirrigation. • Precipitation and soil texture shaped subsurface nitrate loss under controlled drainage.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Agricultural Water Management
Published
2025-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109833
Primary Topic
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing environmental impacts of agricultural water table management: A global meta-analysis

Zhiming Qi, Ziwei Li, Junliang Jin, Junzeng Xu et al.
Agricultural Water Management
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
article

Assessing environmental impacts of agricultural water table management: A global meta-analysis

Zhiming Qi, Ziwei Li, Junliang Jin, Junzeng Xu, Wei Qi, Ruiqi Wu
article en

Abstract

Global climate change intensifies the need for adaptive water management in agriculture, particularly as extreme rainfall and drought events jeopardize yield stability and water quality. This study provides a comprehensive global meta-analysis comparing controlled drainage (CD) and controlled drainage with subirrigation (CDSI) against free drainage (FD), based on 84 publications encompassing 52 sites (1788 paired site-years). Overall, both CD and CDSI significantly reduced subsurface drainage discharge and nutrient losses (NO₃⁻, TN, DRP, TP) compared to FD, while improving crop yields. CD had no significant effects on surface runoff or surface NO₃⁻ loss, and CDSI increased both. Neither practice significantly influenced subsurface NH₄⁺, PP, or DP losses, and CDSI showed only limited evidence for CH₄ reduction, with no consistent effects on other greenhouse gases. Significant differences between CD and CDSI were observed only for subsurface NO₃⁻, TN, and TP losses, with CDSI achieving greater reductions in NO₃⁻ (CD: 59.4 %, CDSI: 72.5 %) and TN (CD: 16.3 %, CDSI: 55.9 %), whereas CD was more effective in reducing TP (CD: 56.8 %, CDSI: 28.6 %). Moderator effects revealed notable patterns. Crop types influenced subsurface drainage discharge under both CD and CDSI, with small grain crops producing the largest reductions (CD: 68.1 %, CDSI: 83.6 %). Under CDSI, drainage responses were further shaped by N input rate, with higher inputs associated with greater reductions (77.3 %). For CD, subsurface NO₃⁻ loss was strongly affected by precipitation and soil texture, with wetter years (79.2 %) and medium-textured soils (63.6 %) offering the greatest reduction potential. This study presents the first comparative assessment of the environmental impacts of CD and CDSI, highlighting their context-dependent nature and providing insights to inform more informed drainage management decisions. • First comparative assessment of impacts and moderators for controlled drainage and controlled drainage with subirrigation. • Both practices reduced subsurface drainage and nutrient losses relative to free drainage, while also improving crop yields. • Controlled drainage with subirrigation cut nitrate and total nitrogen most; controlled drainage cut total phosphorus most. • Crop types affected subsurface drainage under both ; nitrogen input affected drainage under controlled drainage with subirrigation. • Precipitation and soil texture shaped subsurface nitrate loss under controlled drainage.

Agricultural Water ManagementVol. 320
Hohai University (CN), Institute of Disaster Prevention (CN), McGill University (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.