The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rice yields and water use under alternate wetting and drying irrigation: A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Rice systems provide a major source of calories for more than half of the world’s population; however, they also use more water than other major crops. Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) is an irrigation practice (introduction of unsaturated soil conditions during the growing season) that can reduce water inputs in rice, yet it has not been widely adopted, in part, due to the potential for reduced yields. We conducted a meta-analysis to: 1) quantify the effect of AWD on rice yields and water use; and 2) to identify soil properties and management practices that favor AWD yields and promote low water use relative to continuous flooding (CF- control). We analyzed 56 studies with 528 side-by-side comparisons of AWD with CF. Overall, AWD decreased yields by 5.4%; however under Mild AWD (i.e. when soil water potential was ≥ −20 kPa or field water level did not drop below 15 cm from the soil surface), yields were not significantly reduced in most circumstances. In contrast, Severe AWD (when soils dried beyond −20 kPa) resulted in yield losses of 22.6% relative to CF. These yield losses were most pronounced in soils with pH ≥ 7 or carbon < 1% or when AWD was imposed throughout the season. While water use was lowest under Severe AWD, under Mild AWD water use was reduced by 23.4% relative to CF. Our findings both highlight the potential of AWD to reduce water inputs without jeopardizing yield as well as the conditions under which these results can be realized.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 1×
“(1)) (Hedges et al., 1999): Effect size = ln ( x AWD xCF ) (1) where x = response variable (yield, water use, water productivity).”
Background
Cited by
The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming
Balmford, A., Amano, T., Bartlett, H., Chadwick, D., Collins, A., Edwards, D., Field, R., Garnsworthy, P., Green, R., Smith, P., et al. (2018) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0138-5 · Cited by 343
Water management to mitigate the global warming potential of rice systems: A global meta-analysis
Jiang, Y., Carrijo, D., Huang, S., Chen, J., Balaine, N., Zhang, W., van Groenigen, K. J., & Linquist, B. (2019) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.010 · Cited by 282
Self-citationThe fingerprints of climate warming on cereal crops phenology and adaptation options
Fatima, Z., Ahmed, M., Hussain, M., Abbas, G., Ul-Allah, S., Ahmad, S., Ahmed, N., Ali, M. A., Sarwar, G., Haque, E. U., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-74740-3 · Cited by 281
Sun, Y., Wu, Q., Chen, H., Jia, X., Gong, F., Liu, X., & Chi, D. (2023) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109000 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Carrijo, D. R., Lundy, M. E., & Linquist, B. A.
- Venue
- Field Crops Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 203
- Pages
- 173-180
- ISSN
- 0378-4290 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2569293102
- Cited by
- 766
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rice yields and water use under alternate wetting and drying irrigation: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.12.002
- The paper
- Carrijo, D. R., Lundy, M. E., & Linquist, B. A. (2017). Rice yields and water use under alternate wetting and drying irrigation: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.12.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.