» Articles » PMID: 33679848

How Does the Waterlogging Regime Affect Crop Yield? A Global Meta-Analysis

Overview
Journal Front Plant Sci
Date 2021 Mar 8
PMID 33679848
Citations 38
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Waterlogging, an abiotic stress, severely restricts crop yield in various parts of the world. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of 2,419 comparisons from 115 studies to comprehensively evaluate the overall change in crop yield induced by waterlogging in the global region. The results suggested that waterlogging obviously decreased crop yield by 32.9% on average, compared with no waterlogging, which was a result of a reduced 1,000-grain weight (13.67%), biomass (28.89%), plant height (10.68%), net photosynthetic rate ( , 39.04%), and leaf area index (LAI, 22.89%). The overall effect of a waterlogging regime on crop yield is related to the crop type; the crop yield reduction varied between wheat (25.53%) and cotton (59.95%), with an overall average value of 36.81% under field conditions. In addition, we also found that compared with no waterlogging, waterlogging in the reproductive growth stage (41.90%) caused a greater yield reduction than in the vegetative growth stage (34.75%). Furthermore, decreases in crop yield were observed with an extension in the waterlogging duration; the greatest decreases in crop yield occurred at 15 < D ≤ 28 (53.19 and 55.96%) under field and potted conditions, respectively. Overall, the results of this meta-analysis showed that waterlogging can decrease crop yield and was mainly affected by crop type, growth stage, and experimental duration.

Citing Articles

Comprehensive transcriptome and proteome analysis revealed the molecular mechanisms of melatonin priming and waterlogging response in peach.

Gu X, Lu L, Gao J, Fan F, Song G, Zhang H Front Plant Sci. 2025; 16:1527382.

PMID: 39990712 PMC: 11842337. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1527382.


Dual stress, equivalent harm? hypothesizing on the type of interactions between waterlogging and high temperature.

Ploschuk R, Savin R, Slafer G Front Plant Sci. 2025; 15:1472665.

PMID: 39931341 PMC: 11807965. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1472665.


Comparative Analysis of Two Soybean Cultivars Revealed Tolerance Mechanisms Underlying Soybean Adaptation to Flooding.

Yu X, An J, Liang J, Yang W, Zeng Z, Zhang M Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2024; 46(11):12442-12456.

PMID: 39590333 PMC: 11592816. DOI: 10.3390/cimb46110739.


Monitoring soil salinization and waterlogging in the northeastern Nile Delta linked to shallow saline groundwater and irrigation water quality.

Hagage M, Abdulaziz A, Elbeih S, Hewaidy A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27838.

PMID: 39537729 PMC: 11561257. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-77954-x.


Evaluating waterlogging stress response and recovery in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): an image-based phenotyping approach.

Langan P, Cavel E, Henchy J, Bernad V, Ruel P, ODea K Plant Methods. 2024; 20(1):146.

PMID: 39342219 PMC: 11438059. DOI: 10.1186/s13007-024-01256-6.


References
1.
Garssen A, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Voesenek L, Verhoeven J, Soons M . Riparian plant community responses to increased flooding: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol. 2015; 21(8):2881-90. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12921. View

2.
Voesenek L, Sasidharan R . Ethylene--and oxygen signalling--drive plant survival during flooding. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2013; 15(3):426-35. DOI: 10.1111/plb.12014. View

3.
Wang X, Liu D, Wei M, Man J . Spraying 6-BA could alleviate the harmful impacts of waterlogging on dry matter accumulation and grain yield of wheat. PeerJ. 2020; 8:e8193. PMC: 6955101. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8193. View

4.
Ploschuk R, Miralles D, Colmer T, Ploschuk E, Striker G . Waterlogging of Winter Crops at Early and Late Stages: Impacts on Leaf Physiology, Growth and Yield. Front Plant Sci. 2019; 9:1863. PMC: 6306497. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01863. View

5.
Najeeb U, Bange M, Tan D, Atwell B . Consequences of waterlogging in cotton and opportunities for mitigation of yield losses. AoB Plants. 2015; 7. PMC: 4565423. DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plv080. View