4.7 Article

Impact of alternative cropping systems on groundwater use and grain yields in the North China Plain Region

期刊

AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 109-117

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.018

关键词

Irrigation; Maize; Wheat; Groundwater; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41471027, 41401104, 41561124015, 31400375]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0300305]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [D2015302017]
  4. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M570167]
  5. Science and Technology Planning Project of Hebei Academy of Sciences [16101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Excessive use of groundwater in irrigation (mainly for production of winter wheat) in the North China Plain (NCP) has resulted in markedly decreased groundwater levels. Alternative cropping systems may have potential to reduce groundwater use in the region. The APSIM (Agricultural Production System Simulator) farming systems model was used to simulate long-term (1981-2015) water use, net overdraft and crop yield for eight cropping systems. The wheat-maize double cropping system (WW-SM) in the study area resulted in overdrafts of 258 mm yr(-1), about 100 mm yr(-1) more than estimated groundwater recharge. Although six of eight simulated systems reduced overdrafts below the estimated recharge value of 150 mm yr-1, a triple-cropping system consisting of winter wheat/summer maize followed by fallow and early maize (WW-SM/F-EM) in two years appears to be the most viable alternative. Annual grain yield under the triple cropping system was only 13% less than that under the current WW-SM double cropping system. Groundwater overdrafts under triple-cropping system were about equal to lateral recharge from the mountains, water brought in via the South-North Water Transfer (SNWT) project and water from other water-saving measures (e.g. plastic film mulching) in the region. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据