MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414481407 · doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109833

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

2025· article· en· W4414481407 on OpenAlexaff
Ruiqi Wu, Ziwei Li, Zhiming Qi, Junzeng Xu, Wei Qi, Junliang Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Water Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersScience and Technology Plan Projects of Tibet Autonomous RegionFundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of the Central South UniversityFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDrainageSurface runoffWatertable controlWater tableHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterPrecipitationClimate changeAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural Water ManagementSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207