Water consumption and water-saving characteristics of a ground cover rice production system

•Water-saving traits of ground cover rice production system (GCRPS) were evaluated.•Both physiological and non-physiological water consumptions were reduced by GCRPS.•Yield was enhanced in a GCRPS even as transpiration was reduced.•Most substantial for improved input WUE by GCRPS was decreased deep drainage. The ground cover rice production system (GCRPS) offers a potentially water-saving alternative to the traditional paddy rice production system (TPRPS) by furrow irrigating mulched soil beds and maintaining soils under predominately unsaturated conditions. The guiding hypothesis of this study was that a GCRPS would decrease both physiological and non-physiological water consumption of rice compared to a TPRPS while either maintaining or enhancing production. This was tested in a two-year field experiment with three treatments (TPRPS, GCRPSsat keeping root zone average soil water content near saturated, and GCRPS80% keeping root zone average soil water content as 80–100% of field water capacity) and a greenhouse experiment with four treatments (TPRPS, GCRPSsat, GCRPSfwc keeping root zone average soil water content close to field water capacity, and GCRPS80%). The water-saving characteristics of GCRPS were analyzed as a function of the measured soil water conditions, plant parameters regarding growth and production, and water input and consumption. In the field experiment, significant reduction in both physiological and non-physiological water consumption under GCRPS lead to savings in irrigation water of ∼61–84% and reduction in total input water of ∼35–47%. Compared to TPRPS, deep drainage was reduced ∼72–88%, evaporation was lessened ∼83–89% and transpiration was limited ∼6–10% under GCRPS. In addition to saving water, plant growth and grain yield were enhanced under GCRPS due to increased soil temperature in the root zone. Therefore, water use efficiencies (WUEs), based on transpiration, irrigation and total input water, were respectively improved as much as 27%, 609% and 110% under GCRPS. Increased yield attributed to up to ∼19%, decreased deep drainage accounted for ∼75%, decreased evaporation accounted for ∼14% and reduced transpiration for ∼5% of the enhancement in WUE of input water under GCRPS, while increased runoff and water storage had negative influence on WUE (−7.5 and −3.7%, respectively) for GCRPS compared to TPRPS. The greenhouse experiment validated the results obtained in the field by simplifying the non-physiological water consumption