Effect on Water Consumption and Non-Point Source Pollutants Loss under Different Water and Nitrogen Regulation of Paddy Field in Southern China
Yi Jia 3
More details
Hide details
Zhejiang Institute of Hydraulics and Estuary (Zhejiang Institute of Marine Planning and Design), Hangzhou, 310020, P.R. China
North China University of Water Resource and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, 450045, P.R. China
Zhejiang Rural Water Conservancy Management Center, Hangzhou, 310009, P.R. China
Qiantang River Irrigation District Management Office, Hangzhou, 311200, P.R. China
Yuanyuan Li   

North China University of Water Resource and Electric Power, China
Submission date: 2021-05-18
Final revision date: 2021-06-28
Acceptance date: 2021-07-16
Online publication date: 2022-01-05
Publication date: 2022-02-16
Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2022;31(2):1389–1398
Irrigation methods and fertilizer application could affect water use and pollution transportation in paddy field. The results showed that water consumption for conventional irrigation was 22.3% and 21.1% higher than that for intermittent irrigation and rainfall storage-intermittent irrigation, and the water consumption showed no significance between two water-saving irrigation methods. Irrigation modes had great effect on irrigation quota in the growing period rather than that in the soaking period, and irrigation quota for conventional irrigation was obviously higher than that for water-saving irrigation in whole growth period of rice. Lower precipitation in 2019 resulted in lower soaking volume. Irrigation quota was closely related to hydrological year and it had negative correlation with precipitation. The correlation curve showed 6-degree exponential relationship. Yield for conventional irrigation was 18.2% lower than that for water-saving irrigation treatments. The effect of fertilizer methods on yield was not significant, while the fertilizer amount on yield was extremely significant (P≤0.01). Irrigation modes showed no significance on yield, and water-saving methods could promote yield to a certain extent. The difference between control fertilization and other fertilizations was extremely significant (P≤0.01). WUEI (water use efficiency of irrigation) was affected by yield and irrigation amount, and it was obviously higher for water-saving irrigation. The differences between control fertilization and other fertilizations on WUEI, WUEP (water use efficiency of precipitation) and WUEET (water use efficiency of evapotranspiration) were extremely significant (P≤0.01). The pollution load of TN, NO3--N, NH4+-N and COD for water-saving irrigation was lower than that for conventional irrigation. Fertilizer amount and method had a greater impact on the pollutants emission from paddy fields. It was found that TP, TN, NO3--N, NH4+-N and COD emission in field surface drainage accounting for 89.3%, 69.6%, 22.8%, 83.4% and 89.1%, respectively.