IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i7p1042-d1433390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Distribution of the Cropping Pattern Exerts Greater Influence on the Water Footprint Compared to Diversification in Intensive Farmland Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaohui Wang

    (College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    School of Biology and Agriculture, Shaoguan University, Shaoguan 512005, China
    College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Hao Jia

    (Department of Agricultural History Research, China Agricultural Museum, Beijing 100026, China)

  • Xiaolong Wang

    (College of Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Jiaen Zhang

    (College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Circular Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Fu Chen

    (College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

Abstract

Global imperatives call for reduced water consumption in homogeneous, intensive farming systems, where farmland landscape heterogeneity significantly impacts anthropogenic, ecological, and socioeconomic factors. However, the impact of this heterogeneity on crop water footprint (WF) remains uncertain. To address this, this study assessed the WF at the landscape scale across 616 subplots (1 × 1 km) in a representative county of North China Plain from 2013 to 2019, integrating green (WF green ), blue (WF blue ), and gray (WF gray ) water footprints. Results showed that the winter wheat–summer maize double cropping pattern (WM) exhibited the highest WF green , WF blue , and WF gray . Over six years, most subplots saw significant reductions in WF green , WF blue , WF gray , and WF. At the landscape scale, diversification (compositional heterogeneity), fragmentation, and spatial distribution (configurational heterogeneity) were assessed using Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI), edge density (ED), and effective mesh size (MESH), which exhibited average variations of 0.07, −3.16 m ha −1 , and −5.86 m 2 , respectively. For WM patches, the percentage of landscape (PLAND) and MESH were used to evaluate diversification and spatial distribution, resulting in reductions of 1.14% and 2.32 m 2 , respectively. Regression analysis and structural equation modeling further illuminated the connections between the landscape pattern and WF, emphasizing the significant role of MESH in reducing WF blue and influencing crop diversity ( p < 0.001). Therefore, spatial distribution, whether directly or through the mediation of diversification, demonstrated a more substantial overall impact on WF. Consequently, future research should prioritize investigating how spatial distribution influences crop choice and agronomic management in order to determine the optimal cropping patterns and field size that strike a balance between crop production and the water footprint. This study offers theoretical guidance and a scientific foundation for redesigning farmland landscapes to bolster water sustainability in intensive farming systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaohui Wang & Hao Jia & Xiaolong Wang & Jiaen Zhang & Fu Chen, 2024. "Spatial Distribution of the Cropping Pattern Exerts Greater Influence on the Water Footprint Compared to Diversification in Intensive Farmland Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:7:p:1042-:d:1433390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/7/1042/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/7/1042/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    2. Cao, Xinchun & Zeng, Wen & Wu, Mengyang & Guo, Xiangping & Wang, Weiguang, 2020. "Hybrid analytical framework for regional agricultural water resource utilization and efficiency evaluation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    9. Qiting Zuo & Yixuan Diao & Lingang Hao & Chunhui Han, 2020. "Comprehensive Evaluation of the Human-Water Harmony Relationship in Countries Along the “Belt and Road”," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(13), pages 4019-4035, October.
    10. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    12. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    13. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    14. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    15. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    16. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    19. Alexander D. Chapman & Stephen E. Darby & Hoàng M. Hồng & Emma L. Tompkins & Tri P. D. Van, 2016. "Adaptation and development trade-offs: fluvial sediment deposition and the sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 593-608, August.
    20. Rosa, R.D. & Ramos, T.B. & Pereira, L.S., 2016. "The dual Kc approach to assess maize and sweet sorghum transpiration and soil evaporation under saline conditions: Application of the SIMDualKc model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 77-94.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:7:p:1042-:d:1433390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.