b.sc. (ag.)...member dr. p. raghu rami reddy principal scientist (agronomy), adr, regional...
TRANSCRIPT
WATER MANAGEMENT FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.) CULTIVATION IN PUDDLED
SOILS
AKARAPU SATHISH
B.Sc. (Ag.)
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE AGRONOMY (WATER MANAGEMENT)
2015
WATER MANAGEMENT FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.)
CULTIVATION IN PUDDLED SOILS
BY
AKARAPU SATHISH B.Sc. (Ag.)
THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE AGRONOMY (WATER MANAGEMENT)
CHAIRMAN: Dr. K. AVIL KUMAR
WATER TRCHNOLOGY CENTRE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 030
2015
CERTIFICATE
Mr. AKARAPU SATHISH has satisfactorily prosecuted the course of research
and that thesis entitled “WATER MANAGEMENT FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF
RICE (Oryza sativa L.) CULTIVATION IN PUDDLED SOILS” submitted is the result of
original research work and is of sufficiently high standard to warrant its presentation to the
examination. I also certify that neither the thesis nor its part thereof has been previously
submitted by him/her for a degree of any University.
(Dr. K. AVIL KUMAR)
Date: Chairperson
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “WATER MANAGEMENT FOR
DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.) CULTIVATION IN PUDDLED
SOILS” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of ‘Master of
Science in Agriculture’ of the Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural
University, Hyderabad is a record of the bonafide original research work carried out by Mr.
AKARAPU SATHISH under our guidance and supervision.
No part of the thesis has been submitted by the student for any other degree or
diploma. The published part and all assistance received during the course of the
investigations have been duly acknowledged by the author of the thesis.
(Dr. K. Avil Kumar)
Chairperson of the Advisory Committee
Thesis approved by the Student’s Advisory Committee Chairperson Dr. K. AVIL KUMAR
Principal Scientist (Agronomy), Water Technology Centre, College of Agriculture, PJTSAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030.
_________________
Member Dr. P. RAGHU RAMI REDDY
Principal Scientist (Agronomy),
ADR, Regional Agricultural Research Station,
PJTSAU, Warangal- 506007.
________________
Member
Dr. M.UMA DEVI Principal Scientist (SS&AC), Director of Water Technology Centre, College of Agriculture, PJTSAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030.
_________________
Date of final viva-voce:
LIST OF CONTENTS
Chapter No. Title Page No.
I INTRODUCTION
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
III MATERIALS AND METHODS
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
LITERATURE CITED
APPENDICES
DECLARATION
I, AKARAPU SATHISH, hereby declare that the thesis entitled “WATER
MANAGEMENT FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.)
CULTIVATION IN PUDDLED SOILS” submitted to the Professor Jayashankar
Telangana State Agricultural University, for the degree of Master of Science in
Agriculture is the result of original research work done by me. I also declare that no
material contained in the thesis has been published earlier in any manner.
Place: Hyderabad (AKARAPU SATHISH)
Date: I.D. No. RAM/13-81
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
No.
3.1 Physical, physico-chemical and chemical properties of the
experimental soil
3.2 Moisture retension characteristics of the experimental soil
3.3 Irrigation water quality analysis data
3.4 Previous cropping history of the experimental field
3.5 Methods employed for soil analysis
3.6 Methods employed for plant analysis
4.1 Number of hills m-2 of rice as influenced by different systems of
cultivation and irrigation regimes at 15 DAS/DAT and harvest
4.2 Number of tillers m-2 of rice as influenced by different systems of
cultivation and irrigation regimes at different stages
4.3 Dry matter accumulation of rice (kg m-2) as influenced by different
systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different stages
4.4 Root volume (cm3) of rice as influenced by different systems of
cultivation and irrigation regimes at different stages
4.5 Yield attribute of rice as influenced by different systems of
cultivation and irrigation regimes
4.6 Grain yield, Straw yield (kg ha-1) and harvest index of rice as
influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
4.7 Applied water, effective rainfall, total water (mm) and water
productivity (kg ha mm) of rice as influenced by different systems
of cultivation and irrigation regimes
4.8 Nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different systems
of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different stages
4.9 Phosphorus uptake (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different stages
4.10 Potassium uptake (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different
systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different stages
4.11 Post harvest available soil nutrient status (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
4.12 Cost of cultivation, gross returns, net returns and B:C of rice as
influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
4.13 Correlation studies between grain and yield versus growth, yield
attributes and nutrient uptake
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure No. Title Page No.
3.1 Satellite view of experimental site (Down loaded from Google
Earth)
3.2 Weekly meteorological data observed during the experimental
period during kharif, 2014
3.3 Lay-out plan of the experimental site
3.4 Mat type of nursery used for machine transplanting
3.5 Drum seeder used for direct seeding
3.6 Kobota (NSP-4W) transplanter used for transplanting
3.7 Field water tube for monitoring the depth of water level in rice
field
3.8 Pressure chamber operates for measuring Leaf water potential
4.1 Dry matter kg m-2 of rice as influenced by different systems of
rice cultivation and irrigation regimes
4.2
Grain, straw yield (kg ha-1) and harvest index (%) of rice as
influenced by different systems of rice cultivation and irrigation
regimes
4.3 Water productivity of rice as influenced by different systems of
rice cultivation and irrigation regimes
4.4 Regression of grain yield (kg ha-1) on Relative water content
4.5 Regression of grain yield (kg ha-1) on Leaf water potential
4.6 Regression of Relative water content on Leaf water potential
LIST OF APPENDICES
LIST OF PLATES
Appendix No. Title Page No.
A Weekly mean meteorological data during crop growth period
2013-14
B
Nutrient content of N, P and K (%) in rice plant at different
growth stages as influenced by different cultivation systems
and irrigation regimes.
C Field water tube
D Unit cost of inputs and produce
E Calendar of operations in rice during kharif 2014
F
Leaf water potential (bars) at 50, 80, 110 DAS and harvest as
influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation
regimes
G
Relative water content (%) at 50, 80, 110 DAS and harvest as
influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation
regimes
H Applied water, effective rainfall, total water and water
productivity of rice as influenced by different systems of
cultivation and irrigation regimes
Plate No. Title Page No.
1. General view of experimental site
2. 45 Days after sowing
3. Panicle initiation stage of crop
4. Physiological maturity stage
5. Water measurement in field water tube
6. Harvesting and Threshing of crop
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Accomplishment of this thesis is the result of benevolence of my parents, guidance by my
teachers and help of my friends.
I am pleased to place my profound etiquette to Dr. K. Avil Kumar Principal Scientist
(Agronomy), Water Technology Centre, College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and
esteemed chairman of my Advisory Committee for his learned counsel, unstinted attention, arduous
and meticulous guidance on the work in all stages. His keen interest, patient hearing and
constructive criticism have installed in me the spirit of confidence to successfully complete the task.
I deem it my privilege in expressing my fidelity to Dr. P. Raghu Rami Reddy, ADR, RARS,
PJTSAU, Warangal and member of my Advisory Committee for his munificent acquiescence and
meticulous reasoning to refine this thesis and most explicitly to reckon with set standards. Ineffable
in my gratitude and sincere thanks to him for his transcendent suggestions and efforts to embellish
the study.
I am also obliged to Dr.M.Uma Devi, Principal Scientist (Soil Science & Agril.Chemistry),
Water Technology Centre, College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad for her sustaining care,
interest and providing essential facilities and help during the tenure of this study.
I sincerely extend my profound gratitude and appreciation to Dr.V.Ramulu, Principal
Scientist (Agronomy), K. Srinivasa Kumar, Senior Scientist (Agril. Engg) for their patience, interest,
support and motivating me thought out study.
Words are not enough to express my whole-hearted and affectionate gratitude to my beloved
parents Sri. A. Bixapathi and Smt. A. Neelamma, my loving sister and brother A. Swapna and
Sagar my well wisher B.Raju and all my family members and relatives for their unbounding love,
unparallel affection and unstinted encouragement throughout my educational career and without
whose invaluable moral support, the thesis would not have seen the light of the day.
It is a pleasant task to work with a talented team of researchers Karunakar, Sandeep
Radhika, Srinivas, and suhasini who gave their cooperation during my course of study.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the affection and inspiration rendered by my friends Nagaraju
Sai Kumar, Suman, Shiva Kumar, Ramakrisna, Thirupum Reddy, G.Vinay, B.Vinay, Sunjeev
Reddy, Siddu, Laxman and Govardhan for their love, affection, special care and all time pragmatic
help and cooperation during my studies and worriers.
No scholar can complete the work on his/her own. She or He has to get a little help from their
friends for one or the another item of works, so I have my gratitude towards my friends
Ramanjanaya, Sathish, Mounika and Swathi priya for their splendid company and cooperation all
through the period of study.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the affection and inspiration by my seniors Hari Krishna,
Kishor, Sudhakara, Anusha, Keerthana , Mark , Mukesh, Adithya ,Chandra Shekar for their
parallel affection and encouragement and critiques made by them were of essence to the progress of
this work.
It is the time to surface out my over whelming sense of affection to my dearest juniors Chandra
Shekar, Purushotham, Srinivasulu, Roja and Chandrika.
I express my sincere thanks to Mamatha, Jayakar, Lakshmi, Swaropa, Imran, Chetan, Prakesh
(A.E.O) and filed staff of Rice section ARI, Water Technology Center for their timely cooperation
and help during the P.G.Programme.
I am thankful to ANGRAU and PJTSAU for providing financial assistance in the form of
fellowship during my course of study.
Finally, I wish my humble thanks to one and all who have directly or indirectly contributed to
the conduct of the study.
Any omission in this brief acknowledgement doesn’t mean lack of gratitude.
(AKARAPU SATHISH)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
% : Per cent
@ : At the rate of oC : Degree centigrade
: Rupees
ARI : Agriculture Research Institute
ASMD : Available soil moisture depletion
AWDI : Alternate wetting and drying irrigation
B: C ratio : Benefit cost ratio
Cc : Cubic centimeter
Cc hill-1 : Cubic centimeter per hill
CD : Critical difference
cm : Centimetre
CTP : Conventional transplanting
DADPW : Days after disappearance of ponded water
DAS : Days after sowing
DAT : Days after transplanting
DMP : Dry matter production
DS : Direct sowing
dS m-1 : Decisiemens per metre
EC : Electrical conductivity
et al. : And others
Fig. : Figure
g : Gram
g plant-1 : Gram per plant
ha : Hectare
HI. : Harvest index
i.e. : That is
K : Potassium
kg : Kilogram
kg ha-1 : Kilogram per hectare
kg ha-1 mm-1 : Kilogram per hectare per millimeter
kg m-2 : Kilogram per square meter
kg m-3 : Kilogram per cubic meter
km hr-1 : Kilometer per hour
L : Litre
LWP : Leaf water potential
m : Metre
m2 : Metre square
m3 : Cubic metre
me L-1 : Milliequivalent per litre
mg L-1 : Milligram per litre
mm : Millimetre
mm day-1 : Millimetre per day
MPa : Mega pascal
m t : Million tonnes
MTP : Machine transplanting
N : Nitrogen
NS : Non significant
NTP : Normal transplanting
OC : Organic carbon
P : Phosphorus
pH : Pussancea hydrogen (potential hydrogen)
RDF : Recommended dose of fertilizers
RF : Rainfall
RH : Relative humidity
RSC : Residual sodium carbonate
RWC : Relative water content
SAR : Sodium adsorption ratio
SEm± : Standard error mean
SRI : System of rice intensification
t ha-1 : Tonnes per hectare
viz., : Namely
WP : Water productivity
WRc : Water requirement
WUE : Water use efficiency
yield ha-1 : Yield per hectare
Author : A. SATHISH
Title of the thesis : “WATER MANAGEMENT FOR DIFFERENT
SYSTEMS OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.) CULTIVATION
IN PUDDLED SOILS”
Degree : MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
Faculty : AGRICULTURE
Discipline : AGRONOMY (WATER MANAGEMENT)
Major Advisor : Dr. K. AVIL KUMAR
University : PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
Year of submission : 2015
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted at Agricultural Research Institute Rajendranagar, Hyderabad during kharif 2014 to study the “Water management for different systems of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation in puddled soils” in a strip plot design with three replications. The treatments comprises of three systems of cultivations (direct seeding with drum seeder, transplanting with machine and conventional transplanting) as main treatments and four irrigation regimes (irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube, irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube, irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water and recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage) as sub plots treatments with medium duration variety RNR 15048. Seedlings of 17 days and 21days age were transplanted in machine transplanting and conventional transplanting respectively. The experimental soil was sandy loam in texture and low in available nitrogen, high in available phosphorus and potassium.
Significantly higher number of tillers m-2 and dry matter accumulation were observed in machine transplanting (MTP) over drum seeding (DS) at all growth stages except 50 DAS. Number of tillers in machine transplanting at 110 DAS and at harvest was on par with conventional transplanting. Significantly lower root volume was observed in drum seeding (CTP and at harvest, respectively) than rest of methods of crop establishment at 110 DAS and harvest and was on par with CTP at 80 DAS. However, CTP was on par with machine transplanting at 80 DAS and at harvest, but significantly differed at 110 DAS. Significantly higher (20%) number of panicles were recorded by MTP as compared to DS and was on par with CTP. Different rice cultivation systems did not show significant influence on panicle length, filled and unfilled grains panicle-1, and test weight. MTP recorded significantly higher grain (14.7 %) and straw (10.5 %) yield over drum seeding method. However conventional transplanting method was found on par to machine transplanting method with 2.7 and 1.0 per cent variation.
Drum seeding system required higher total applied water (1359.4 mm) by 2.6 per cent as compared to CTP (1325.5 mm) and MTP (1313.5 mm). Significantly higher water use efficiency (4.7 kg mm-1) was recorded with MTP compared to DS (4.0 kg mm-1) and was on par with CTP (4.5 kg mm-1). Machine transplanting recorded significantly higher gross returns (82,880 ha-1), net returns (50,035 ha-1), and B: C (2.54) ratio over CTP and DS. However, CTP (44,088 ha-1) was found on par with MTP in terms of recording net returns.
Among different irrigation regimes significantly higher number of tillers m-2 and dry
matter was recorded with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage over irrigation of 5 cm submergence when water level falls below10 cm in field water tube and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW and 5 cm submergence with 5 cm drop of water level in field water tube. The root volume was significantly higher in irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube at 80, 110 DAS and at harvest. Significantly higher filled grains (306) panicle-1and panicle weight were recorded with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage than irrigation of 5 cm submergence with 10 cm drop of water level in the field tube and was on par with irrigation of at 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW. Interaction between irrigation regimes and systems of rice cultivation did not influence significantly on number of tillers, dry matter, yield and yield attributes, nutrient uptake, post harvest nutrient status of soil and economics.
Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level recorded significantly higher
grain and straw yield (6148 and 7039 kg ha-1, respectively) and N, P, K uptake and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube. There was saving of water by 36.5 (1154.7mm), 28.5 (1271.7 mm) and 40.4 per cent (1085.0 mm), respectively compared to recommended practice of irrigation (1819.7mm), though there was reduction of grain and straw yield by 5.4 and 4.4, 6.5 and 2.4, 12.5 and 11.9 per cent, respectively due to irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (5817 and 6732 kg ha-1, respectively), irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (5751 and 6872 kg ha-1, respectively), and irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (5379 and 6204 kg ha-1, respectively). Higher gross returns (83706 ha-1) were obtained with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level and net returns (47245 ha-1) and B: C (2.48) ratio was significantly higher with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW than recommended submergence and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (44986 ha-1).
Based on the research results, it can be concluded that machine transplanting produced higher growth, yield and yield attributes, gross and net returns and B: C ratio compared to direct seeding with drum seeder and conventional transplanting systems of cultivations. There was saving of water by 36.5, 28.5 and 40.4 per cent respectively compared to recommended practice of irrigation, though there was reduction of grain yield by 5.4, 6.5 and 12.3 per cent due to irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW, irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube and irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube respectively. Gross and net returns and B: C ratio was significantly higher with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube.
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important staple food crop in the
world. In Asia, more than two billion people are getting 60-70 per cent of their energy
requirement from rice and its derived products. It is grown in an area of more than 135
million hectares in the World. More than 400 million people in rice-producing areas of
Asia, Africa and South America still suffer chronic hunger, with the demand for food
expected to rise by another 38% within by 2050. Food security in Asia is challenged by
increasing food demand and threatened water availability. Geometric growth of
population and arithmetic increase in food grain production leave a vast gap in food
supply. In India, rice is grown in an area of 45 million ha annually with a production of
106.19 million tones, with an average productivity of 2976 kg ha-1 during 2013-2014
(INDIASTAT, 2013-2014). Telangana contributes 2.09 million ha-1 area annually with a
production of 6.62 million tons, with an average productivity of 3295 kg ha-1 during
2013-2014 (Season and crop report Telangana 2013-2014).
To safeguard and sustain the food security in India, it is quite important to
increase the productivity of rice under limited resources, especially water. Future
predications on water scarcity limiting agricultural production have estimated that by
2025 about 2 million ha of Asia’s irrigated rice fields will suffer from water shortage in
the dry season especially since flood-irrigated rice uses more than 45 per cent of 90 per
cent of total freshwater used for agricultural purposes (Bouman and Tuong, 2001).
Irrigated lowland rice not only consumes more water but also causes wastage of water
resulting in degradation of land. In recent years to tackle this problem, many methods of
cultivation have been developed. Among the different methods of water-saving
irrigation, the most widely adopted is alternate wetting and drying AWD irrigation
method (Li and Barker, 2004). Rice cultivation under AWDI is generally practiced in
orbitary timing based on the disappearance of ponded water but the idea cannot be a
suitable match with the demand driven approach perfectly. Need based water
management is required to ensure more sustainable way to use the water. Moreover,
success of AWDI depends on irrigating the field at the right time, when the rice plant
needs water. The determination of right irrigation timing during dry cycles of AWD
irrigation is very difficult due to different soil physical properties such as soil structure,
soil texture, bulk density, soil pore space, hydraulic conductivity, infiltration rate and
water holding capacity.
To solve the crucial problem, IRRI recommended the ‘Field water tube’, made of
plastic or bamboo or ceramic perforated tube with 15 cm diameter and 40 cm long for
monitoring water depth. They claimed that there will be no yield penalty, when farmers
reirrigate even after water level goes to 15 cm depth below the soil surface. The
beneficial effect of this AWD irrigation practice on water saving and yield improvement
has been reported by some workers (Stoop et al., 2002).
Manual transplanting is the most common practice of rice cultivation in South and
South East Asia. In India, 44 per cent area (19.6 M ha) is under transplanting in irrigated
lowlands. It is not only time consuming, but also laborious requiring about 30 man days
ha-1 besides causing drudgery to women folk. This technique also results in non-uniform
labour and inadequate crop stand (Rajendra Prasad, 2004). In all rice growing countries,
there is an acute shortage of human labour during transplanting period due to diversion
of labour to non agricultural sectors resulting in delay of transplanting, reduced yield and
lesser profit. In the context of acute labour shortage, the traditional method of
transplanting becomes rather difficult to ensure timely planting with optimum age of
seedling.
To overcome these difficulties transplanting can be substituted by direct seeding
which could reduce labour needs by more than 20 per cent. Rice is either dry seeded on
well prepared dry or moist soil or wet seeded on puddled soil. Direct wet seeding in rice
is gaining momentum in many places because of higher profit and greater savings on
labour and is adopted nearly is about one third of the total rice area of the country. Direct
seeding can reduce the labour requirement, shorten crop duration by 7 to 10 days and
produce grain yield comparable with that of transplanting (De Datta, 1986).
Among four rice establishment methods transplanting (TP), seedling casting
(SC), mechanical transplanting (MT) and direct seeding (DS), system of rice
intensification (SRI) produced significantly higher grain yield than conventional
management (CM) under TP and MT but not under DS or SC. DS and SC produced
much higher seedling quality than TP or MT, suggesting that robust seedlings with
vigorous roots weaken the positive effect of SRI on rice yield (Song Chen et al., 2013).
SRI is difficult for most farmers to practice because it requires significant
additional labour inputs at a time of the year when liquidity to hire labour is low and
family labour effort is already high. This posed the challenge to researchers and policy
makers concerned with the promotion of water saving technologies (Farooq et al., 2009)
even though the yield can be increased while saving water, adoption by farmers is still
far from assured (Moser and Barrett, 2003 ). In India, in general and Telangana in
particular agriculture still depends on manual labor and animal power. Farmers
presently use few machines (4-wheeled tractors, power tillers, threshers), especially for
land preparation and threshing. As a solution to labour shortages and to reduce the
production costs of rice farming, mechanization is one of the solutions. To solve the
problem of labour and other hardships in paddy cultivation in recent years, mechanical
transplanters were introduced in Telangana and the scientific evaluation of mechanical
transplanters in general and water requirement under mechanical transplanting in
comparison to other systems of rice cultivation is limited.
Keeping these points in view the study was proposed on water management for
different systems of rice cultivation in puddled soils, with following objectives.
Objectives
1. To study the effect of different systems of rice cultivation and water
management practices on growth and yield of rice in puddled soils.
2. To study the effect of different systems of rice cultivation on water requirement
and water productivity of rice under different water management practices in
puddled soils.
3. To evaluate the economics of different systems of rice cultivation and water
management practices in puddled soils
Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Rice is one of the greatest water user among crops, consuming about 80 per cent
of the total irrigated fresh water resources in Asia, but water is becoming scarce and its
availability for agriculture is decreasing because of high competition among different
users. In India, 45 million ha area under rice production which is being grown
traditionally under flooded conditions. Increasing demand for water and growing
population necessitate searching for the water saving rice production system without
any adverse effects on yield. Irrigated lowland rice not only consumes more water but
also causes wastage of water resulting in degradation of land. In recent years to tackle
this problem, many methods of cultivation have been developed. Among the different
methods of rice production systems, the available literature on direct seeding (with
drum seeder), transplanting with machine and conventional transplanting and water
saving methods of Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) and disappearance of ponded
water (DPW) are reviewed in this chapter.
2.1. RICE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
2.1.1. Growth characters in different rice production systems
2.1.1.1 Number of seedlings hill-1 and number of hills m-2
Direct sowing over the puddled field by seed drill (drum seeder) can be
successfully adopted in irrigated lands. The practice can replace transplanting method of
rice cultivation without any reduction in yield and yet reducing the cost of cultivation
and labour requirement to one third (Pradhan, 1969).
The experiment was conducted in Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana with
clayey loam soils. Drilling sprouted seeds in puddled soil by paddy row seeder gave
more number of (32-33) hills m-2 than broadcasting sprouted seeds (Singh and Garg,
1983).
Anoop Dixit et al. (2007) reviewed on comparative performance of different
paddy transplanters developed in India. Farm implements and machinery (FIM) centre
(2000) conducted feasibility trails on Mechanical transplanters at 14 locations of Hissar.
The number of hill m-2 was 28-32 with 3-4 plants hill-1. While self propelled riding type
(Chinese design) planted 2-4 seedlings hill-1 and 18-24 hills m-2.
2.1.1.2 Number of tillers m-2
Direct seeding of rice under puddled soil performed as efficiently as transplanted
rice (Sharma and Bisht, 1981). Wet seeded rice starts tillering earlier than transplanted
rice because its growth proceeds without the set back caused by uprooting injury to the
root of seedlings (Yoshida, 1981).
Early establishment of direct seeded crop in the absence of transplantation
shock with better coincidence of nutrient requirement of the crop resulted in higher
vegetative growth (Sharma et al., 1989). This method of sowing is being practiced in
many parts of South East Asian countries (Singh and Bhattacharya, 1989).
Dingkuhn et al. (1990) reported that row sown wet seeded rice showed faster
and greater vegetative growth due to absence of transplantation shock. Tiller number
and leaf area index (LAI) were also greater than in transplanted rice.
Direct seeded rice produced significantly higher number of tillers than
transplanted one (Shekar and Singh, 1991; Sharma and Sharma, 1994; Prabhakar and
Reddy, 1997).
Prasad et al. (2001) reported by transplanting method recorded higher number of
tillers m-2 (271.6) over direct seeding (184.5). This experiment was conducted at the
research farm of Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar with silt loam and
calcareous soils.
Anbumani et al. (2004) reported that line planting registered significantly more
number of tillers m-2 (522.5) compared to direct sowing (515.3) and random
transplanting (507.7) The experiment was conducted at Annamalai University, Tamil
Nadu, under moderately drained clay loam soil.
Hugar et al. (2009) reported that maximum number of total tillers m-2 (412) in
SRI method followed by transplanter (397) and lower (319) in case of zero tillage
method. The experiment conducted at A.R.S Kathalagere U.A.S Bangalore with red
clay loam soils.
2.1.1.3 Dry matter accumulation
Rachel (1994) reported higher dry matter production with wet seeded rice than
with transplanted rice.
Direct seeded rice accumulated more dry matter than transplanted rice upto 45
DAS but beyond this the reverse was true (Pal et al., 1999). Nabheerong (1995) found
higher root length and total dry weight in wet seeded rice than in transplanted rice.
Prasad et al. (2001) reported that significantly higher plant dry matter recorded
with transplanting (401.3 g m-2) than puddle sowing (214.8 g m-2) and dry drilling (209
g m-2).
Anbumani et al. (2004) reported that higher dry matter production (13.5 t ha-1)
compared to random transplanting (13.2 t ha-1) and direct sowing (12.1 t ha-1) at harvest.
This was mainly due to maintenance of optimum plant population and plant geometry in
line planting.
2.1.1.4 Root volume
Significantly higher mean root length was observed in broadcast seeded flooded
rice over transplanted rice. At all the depths, the root length was significantly higher
except at 5-10 cm depth. The average increase was 38 per cent (De Datta et al., 1988)
Shallow root establishment was noted in puddle broadcasting which
consequently resulted in crop lodging and uprooting of plants during harvesting (Khan
et al., 1989).
Thiyagarajan et al. (2002) observed that root volume increased from planting to
the flowering stage and decreased at the grain filling stage. At the active tillering stage
the root volume of conventional transplanting and young seedlings (SRI method) were
almost comparable. The increase in root volume from active tillering to panicle
initiation was 110 % with young seedlings (SRI) and 73% with conventional seedlings.
Priyanka et al. (2013) reported that highest root volume (225.8 cc per 0.3 m2) in
top 15 cm soil depth was recorded in SRI followed by conventional transplanting
(212.1cc) and double transplanting (214.1cc) at IARI, New Delhi under sandy loam
soil. It was attributed to higher root growth and activity under SRI relates to increased
root oxidation activity and root -source cytokinins.
This experiment was conducted at Bengaluru, Karnataka with clay loamy soils.
Higher root volume and longer root length help to absorb the moisture and nutrient from
soil to reduce drought stress (Sridhara, 2008).
2.1.2. Yield attributes of different rice production systems
Yogeshwar Rao et al. (1981) recorded that significantly higher number of grains
per panicle (75.7) and 1000 grain weight (23.8 g) were observed in transplanting over
direct sowing (71.8 and 23.8 g), although panicle length (19.8 cm) and number of grains
per panicle (72.8) were slightly reduced in direct sowing (seeding).
De Datta (1986) reported increased number of panicles m-2 and spikelets panicle-
1 in direct sown conditions. Direct seeding of sprouted seeds under puddled conditions
resulted in significant improvement in yield attributes like number of effective
productive tillers, proportion of spikelets fertility, test weight and grain yield (Shekar
and Singh, 1991).
Bhuiyan et al. (1995) noticed that wet seeded rice had consistently higher
number of panicles per unit area, lower number of spikelets per panicle, higher
percentage of filled grains and 24 per cent higher grain yield than transplanted crop.
Rice established through drum seeder recorded significantly more number of panicles
m-2 than transplanted rice (Narasimman et al., 2000 and Subbaiah et al., 2000).
Drum seeding gave a slightly higher grain yield. The yield parameters were not
affected by the method of crop establishment viz., transplanting, sowing sprouted seeds
in lines manually and drum seeding of sprouted seeds (Santhi et al., 1998).
Yield parameter such as number of panicles, panicle length, number of filled and
immature grains and 1000 grain weight were not affected by the method of crop
establishment (Thakur, 1993; Santhi et al., 1998 and Yashwant Singh, 1999).
Prasad et al. (2001) reported that significantly higher panicles m-2 filled grains
panicles-1 and 1000 grain weight were recorded with transplanting (259, 76.5 and 20.9
g) than puddle sowing (214.8, 64.4 and 20.3 g) and dry drilling (163.7, 49.5 and 20.3 g).
Anbumani et al. (2004) reported that line planting registered significantly more
number of panicles m-2 (267.8) and number of filled grains panicles-1 (133.1) compared
to random transplanting (261.2 and 130.8) and direct sowing (244.7 and 123.4).
Gill et al. (2006) found that the panicle length and test weight did not differ
significantly on account of method of crop establishment. This experiment was
conducted at Ludhiana, PAU with loamy sand soils.
Chandrapala (2009) reported that number of panicle m-2 did not vary
significantly due to crop establishment methods (SRI, direct sowing and normal
transplanting) further he reported that highest number of filled grains panicle-1 and 1000
grain weight were recorded by SRI (121.4 and 21.93 g) method over the direct sowing
(106.7 and 21.43 g) and NT (110.0 and 21.11 g) and these were found significantly at
par. This experiment was conducted at DRR, Hyderabad with sandy clay loam soils.
Singh et al. (2009) reported that sowing in rows recorded significantly higher
panicle number (341 m-2) and panicle weight (2.59 g) over broadcast method (228 m-2)
in puddled condition at DRR, Hyderabad with sandy clay loam soils.
Hugar et al. (2009) observed that among six establishment methods viz., zero
tillage, drum seeder, normal transplanting, transplanter (manual) method, SRI and
aerobic methods, SRI method recorded significantly higher number of total tillers (448
m-2), effective tillers (376.5 m-2 ), panicle length (23.5 cm), no. of seed panicle-1 (94.5),
1000 grain weight (27.5 g) compared to other methods.
2.1.3. Yield of different rice production systems
Direct seeding using drum seeder enhanced early crop establishment and
reduced the crop duration by 2-14 days and report higher yield as compared to manual
broadcasting and traditional transplanting methods (Bharathi, 1996; Subbaiah et al.,
1999)
Average yield of 2.48 t ha-1 was obtained with puddled seeder (CRRI, 1995).
Higher grain yield was recorded with direct seeding than with transplanting during
kharif under better management (CRRI, 1998). According to Santhi et al. (1999), drum
seeder gave the highest yield even though there was no marked difference between
establishment methods. Similarly, increase in grain yield due to surface line seeding
compared to broadcast and transplanted crop was reported by many researchers (Singh
and Singh, 1993; Bhuvaneswari, 1998 and Angadi et al., 2000).
Wet seeding produced almost similar grain yield as transplanted rice (Singh and
Garg, 1983; Singh and Bhattacharya, 1989; Sharma and Sharma, 1994).
Drill or direct seeding of sprouted seeds in line gave significantly higher grain
yield than broadcasted and transplanted crop (Singh and Singh, 1993; Bhuvaneswari,
1998; Angadi et al., 2000).
Prasad et al. (2001) reported that significantly higher grain yield recorded with
transplanting (30.04 q ha-1) than puddle sowing (23.16 q ha-1) and dry drilling (14.97 q
ha-1) and higher straw yield recorded with transplanting (40.85 q ha-1) than puddle
sowing (30.54 q ha-1) and dry drilling (19.16 q ha-1).
Manjappa and Kataraki (2004) evaluated establishment methods of rice for three
years (1999-2001) and reported the maximum grain yield recorded with machine
transplanting (7432 kg ha-1) followed by manual transplanting (7371 ka ha-1) which
were on par with each other. The lowest yield was obtained with broad casting method
(6261 kg ha-1) and drum seeding (6721 kg ha-1). Straw yield was significantly high with
machine transplanting (10598 kg ha-1) followed by manual transplanting (9130 kg ha-1)
which were on par with each other. The lowest straw yields were obtained with
broadcast seeding method (8943 kg ha-1) and drum seeding (8561 kg- ha-1).
The experiment conducted at research farm of IARI, New Delhi of semi-arid
area in silty clay loam indicated that maximum grain yield was observed in mechanical
transplanting followed by manual transplanting, direct dry sowing and direct sprouted
sowing. Mechanical transplanting significantly increased grain yield by 23, 37 and 63
per cent ; straw yield by 17, 14 and 22 per cent; and biological yield by 20, 24 and 39
per cent over manual transplanting, direct dry sowing and direct sowing of sprouted rice
in puddled conditions, respectively (Singh et al., 2006).
Jayadeeva and Shetty (2008) reported that the SRI establishment technique
recorded significantly higher grain yield (10171 kg ha-1) followed by transplanting
(8697 kg ha-1') compared to aerobic technique (7478 kg ha-1) due to large root volume,
profuse and strong tillers with large panicles, more and well filled spike lets with higher
grain weight in SRI.
Manjunatha et al. (2009) recorded that the grain yield data over three year period
revealed that there was no grain yield difference between manual and mechanical
transplanting. The mean grain yield of three years was 5.377 and 5.401t ha-1 for manual
and mechanical transplanting respectively. In case of straw yield in transplanting
method of establishment (6.83 t ha-1) than drum seeding (6.5 t ha-1) but remained on par
with broadcasting (6.78 t ha-1). He revealed that marginal increase of 0.77 t ha-1of mean
straw yield was recorded in case of mechanical transplanting than manual transplanting.
This may be attributed to higher number of tillers hill-1 due to transplanting of more
seedlings hill-1 in case of mechanical transplanting. This experiment was conducted at
ARS Gangavati, Karnataka. The soil of the experimental site was medium deep black
clay. Similar results were also reported by Ved Prakash and Varshney (2003).
Hugar et al. (2009) reported that SRI method of cultivation recorded
significantly higher grain yield (6140 kg ha-1), machine transplanter method (4847 kg
ha-1) and aerobic method (5368 kg ha-1) and zero tillage method (4107 kg ha-1). Straw
yield (9306 kg ha-1), and followed by machine transplanter method (7371 kg ha-1) and
aerobic method (7357 kg ha-1). Lowest straw yield was noticed in zero tillage method
(3918 kg ha-1).
Venkateswarlu et al. (2011) recorded that significantly higher grain yield was
obtained with machine transplanter (7969 kg ha-1) which is 13 per cent higher than
manual planting (7059 kg ha-1). The higher grain yield in machine planting was
associated with an average 25 hills m-2 which is 25 per cent more than 20 hills m-2 in
manual planting (less when compared to the recommended 33 hills m-2 which remains
an extension gap). Average number of productive tillers (16 per hill) was also higher in
machine planting than in manual planting (13 per hill) which was attributed to the early
age of seedlings planted.
This experiment was conducted at China in alluvial sandy clay loam soils.
Among four rice establishment methods transplanting (TP), seedling casting (SC),
mechanical transplanting (MT) and direct seeding (DS), system of rice intensification
(SRI) produced significantly higher grain yield than conventional management (CM)
under TP and MT but not under DS or SC. DS and SC produced much higher seedling
quality than TP or MT, suggesting that robust seedlings with vigorous roots weaken the
positive effect of SRI on rice yield (Song Chen et al., 2013).
Study conducted on farmers field in Visakhapatnam of Andhrapradesh on red
clay loam soils indicated that the average grain yield for three years in mechanized
paddy cultivation and mechanized paddy cultivation with incorporation of Dhaincha
before direct sowing of paddy seed was enhanced by 10 per cent and 14 per cent
respectively when compared with farmer practice and average cost of cultivation was
reduced by 25 per cent in mechanized paddy cultivation where green manuring crop
(Dhaincha) was grown and incorporated in soil with indigenous plough before paddy
seeding (Malleswara Rao et al.,2014).
A field experiment was conducted during kharif, 2011 on sandy loam soils of
Agricultural College Farm, Naira. Maximum grain yield (5406 kg ha-1) was recorded
with transplanting (C4), which was however, on a par with semi- dry (C1) (5296 kg ha-1)
and drum seeding of sprouted seed(5071 kg ha-1) (C2), while it was the lowest with
broadcasting of sprouted seed (4432 kg ha-1) (C3).( Sandhya Kanthi et al., 2014)
2.1.4. Effect of rice production systems on nutrient up take
Chandra and Pandey (1997) observed that N (112.8 kg kg ha-1), P (17.0 kg ha-1) and K
(172.3 kg ha-1) up take by rice were significantly higher under transplanting than direct
seeded rice under puddle condition. This experiment was conducted at Bhubaneswar,
Orissa. The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam of medium fertility.
Anbumani et al. (2004) found that line transplanted rice registered significantly
higher NPK up take (136.2, 39.3 and 169.2 kg ha-1) than direct seeded rice (126.4, 3.3
and 158.2 kg ha-1).
Chandrapala (2009) reported that significantly higher mean NPK uptake of rice
at 50 per cent flowering was observed under SRI (121.5, 20.04 and 90.33 kg ha-1)
followed by direct sowing (107.09, 17080 and 79.5 kg ha-1).
A field experiment was conducted during kharif, 2011 on sandy loam soils of
Agricultural College Farm, Naira. Uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium by
rice at flowering and harvesting was found to be the maximum with transplanting
method (C4), which was comparable with semi- dry system (C1). While, the lowest
uptake was associated with broadcasting of sprouted seed (C3), which was however, on
a par with drum seeding of sprouted seed (C2). (Sandhya Kanthi et al., 2014)
2.1.5. Effect of rice production systems on water saving and WUE
Gill et al. (2006) reported that the direct seeded rice crop was applied 108,114
and 108 cm irrigation water when sown on 1 June, 10 June and 20 June respectively.
The corresponding water applied to transplanted crop was 132, 120 and 118 cm when
transplanted on 25 June, 5 July and 15 July. The water productivity of direct seeded rice
varied from 0.40 to 0.46 kg m-3 against transplanted rice 0.29 to 0.39 kg m-3 of
irrigation water, thus showing superiority in productivity and saving in irrigation water
under direct seeded rice.
Senthilkumar and Thilagam (2012) conducted an experiment at Varappur
village, in Tamil Nadu during kharif season and reported that water saving was up to 35
per cent in drum seeder than other methods because of early maturity of crop and there
was 90 per cent saving in labour usage with the drum seeder method when compared to
the other two methods of SRI method of planting and conventional method of planting.
2.1.6. Economics of rice under different production systems
In Philippines, experiments showed that considerably less labour was warranted
in producing broadcast seeded flooded rice than transplanted rice mainly due to labour
saving in broadcasting (Coxhead, 1984; Luman, 1988). On the other hand, land
preparation and water control costs were higher for broadcast seeded flooded rice than
for transplanted rice (De Datta and Ampong-Nyarko, 1988). However, the net effect
favoured direct seeded rice.
Erguiza et al. (1990) suggested that a decline in the real price of rice, when other
prices were hold constant, would encourage farmers to adopt cost saving innovations to
sustain farm profit. Purohit et al. (1990) found that drill sowing maximized net return
ha-1 relative to broadcasting. However, cost benefit ratio was almost the same under
both direct seeding and transplanting (Thakur, 1993). Narasimman et al. (2000)
concluded that among different establishment methods, direct seeding recorded the
highest benefit cost ratio of 2.4 as compared to 1.6 for line transplanted and 1.3 for
random transplanting.
Anoop Dixit et al. (2007) reported that transplanting mat type seedling is
becoming more popular due to its superior performance and reduced labour requirement
(50 man-h ha-1). The 6
economical.
Manjappa and Kataraki (2004) reported that the higher gross and net returns
were realized with machine transplanting (
planting ( 49971 and 36284 ha
net returns were obtained with broad cast seeding method and drum seeding method.
Manjunatha et al.
between the manual and mechanical transplanting (
and mechanical transplanting respectively). He also reported that the self propelled 8
row paddy transplanter could be used successfully with a
days per hectare and eliminating the drudgery on the part of labourers with the field
capacity of the transplanter being 0.19 ha hr
day of 8 working hours. The maximum area that co
transplanter in a year is 144 hectares as the transplanting operations are seasonal. If the
machines are used for the maximum of 90 hectares in a year, the cost of mechanical
transplanting would be
Hugar et al. (2009) reported that among six establishment methods viz., zero
tillage, drum seeder, normal transplanting, transplanter (manual) method, SRI and
aerobic methods, SRI method fetched the maximum gross
net profit ( 79,912 ha
1), net profit ( 36,312 ha
method.
Zahide Rashid
transplanters was that one can transplant without searching for labourers which
ultimately means that the cost of cultivation was reduced. If farming activity under
taken in the traditional way by using manual labourers, a
acre would be incurred only for transplantation including nursery maintenance, pulling
and transplanting where as the use of machine, entire operation right from raising the
nursery cost only 3000/
Venkateswarlu
was recorded with machine planting which was
ha-1 with manual planting. The higher net income was due to reduced cost of cultivation
The 6-row manually operated machine was found to be the most
Manjappa and Kataraki (2004) reported that the higher gross and net returns
were realized with machine transplanting ( 51874 & 40265 ha-1
49971 and 36284 ha-1') being at par with each other. The lowest gross and
net returns were obtained with broad cast seeding method and drum seeding method.
et al. (2009) recorded that the mean gross returns remained on par
between the manual and mechanical transplanting ( 33,872 and 34,209 ha
and mechanical transplanting respectively). He also reported that the self propelled 8
row paddy transplanter could be used successfully with a labour saving of about 30 man
days per hectare and eliminating the drudgery on the part of labourers with the field
capacity of the transplanter being 0.19 ha hr-1, an area of 1.5 ha can be transplanted in a
day of 8 working hours. The maximum area that could be covered by the mechanical
transplanter in a year is 144 hectares as the transplanting operations are seasonal. If the
machines are used for the maximum of 90 hectares in a year, the cost of mechanical
transplanting would be 789 ha-1 as against 1625 ha-1 in case of manual transplanting.
. (2009) reported that among six establishment methods viz., zero
tillage, drum seeder, normal transplanting, transplanter (manual) method, SRI and
aerobic methods, SRI method fetched the maximum gross returns (
79,912 ha-1 yr-1) and B:C ratio (2.13). Less gross returns (
36,312 ha-1 yr-) and B.C ratio (1.33) were recorded in zero tillage
Zahide Rashid et al. (2010) found that the advantage with mechanical
transplanters was that one can transplant without searching for labourers which
ultimately means that the cost of cultivation was reduced. If farming activity under
taken in the traditional way by using manual labourers, an expenditure of
acre would be incurred only for transplantation including nursery maintenance, pulling
and transplanting where as the use of machine, entire operation right from raising the
3000/-.
Venkateswarlu et al. (2011) reported that the higher net income
with machine planting which was 29 per cent more compared to
with manual planting. The higher net income was due to reduced cost of cultivation
row manually operated machine was found to be the most
Manjappa and Kataraki (2004) reported that the higher gross and net returns
1) followed by manual
') being at par with each other. The lowest gross and
net returns were obtained with broad cast seeding method and drum seeding method.
s returns remained on par
33,872 and 34,209 ha-1 for manual
and mechanical transplanting respectively). He also reported that the self propelled 8
labour saving of about 30 man
days per hectare and eliminating the drudgery on the part of labourers with the field
, an area of 1.5 ha can be transplanted in a
uld be covered by the mechanical
transplanter in a year is 144 hectares as the transplanting operations are seasonal. If the
machines are used for the maximum of 90 hectares in a year, the cost of mechanical
in case of manual transplanting.
. (2009) reported that among six establishment methods viz., zero
tillage, drum seeder, normal transplanting, transplanter (manual) method, SRI and
returns ( 1,17,432 ha-1 yr-1),
) and B:C ratio (2.13). Less gross returns ( 63,512 ha-1 yr-
) and B.C ratio (1.33) were recorded in zero tillage
at the advantage with mechanical
transplanters was that one can transplant without searching for labourers which
ultimately means that the cost of cultivation was reduced. If farming activity under
n expenditure of 8000 Per
acre would be incurred only for transplantation including nursery maintenance, pulling
and transplanting where as the use of machine, entire operation right from raising the
1) reported that the higher net income 62295 ha-1
29 per cent more compared to 48458
with manual planting. The higher net income was due to reduced cost of cultivation
of 1250 ha-1 and an increased grain and straw yield of 910 kg ha
respectively in machine planting. The reduced cost of cultivation, increased grain as
well as straw yield resulted in better cost benefit ratio of 1:2.47 in machine planting
than 1:2.11 recorded in manual planting. Machine planting hence is a viable alternative
at times of scarce availability and higher cost of labour.
2.2. WATER SAVING IRRIGATION PRACTICE IN RICE
Water saving irrigation practices aim to cut the total amount of water a
the growing season by optimizing the frequency, intensity and duration of irrigation
application, in such a way that crop productivity is not jeoparadized by reduction in
total irrigation water.
2.2.1. Alternate wetting and drying and Field water
practice
Numerous studies conducted on the manipulation of depth and intervals of
irrigation intended to save water, had demonstrated that continuous submergence was
not essential for obtaining higher rice yields (Guerra
Bhuiyan and Tuong (1995) after several years of experimentation concluded,
that maintaining a significant depth of water throughout the season was not needed for
high rice yields. The practice of irrigation immediately after the disappearance of
previously ponded water was most suitable under limited water supply and the yield
reduction was only marginal (3 to 5 %), but it helped to save about 28.7 per cent of
irrigation water compared to continuous submergence (Wahab
Alternate wetting and dr
irrigation a water saving technology that reduces the water use in rice fields. In AWDI,
water applied to flood the field in certain number of days after the disappearance of
previously ponded water and field
(Bouman and Tuong, 2001).
Success of AWDI largely depends on irrigating the field at right time, when
plant needs water. But determination of right irrigation timing during the dry cycles of
AWDI was very hard due to different soil physical properties such as soil structure, soil
and an increased grain and straw yield of 910 kg ha
respectively in machine planting. The reduced cost of cultivation, increased grain as
well as straw yield resulted in better cost benefit ratio of 1:2.47 in machine planting
1 recorded in manual planting. Machine planting hence is a viable alternative
at times of scarce availability and higher cost of labour.
2.2. WATER SAVING IRRIGATION PRACTICE IN RICE
Water saving irrigation practices aim to cut the total amount of water a
the growing season by optimizing the frequency, intensity and duration of irrigation
application, in such a way that crop productivity is not jeoparadized by reduction in
Alternate wetting and drying and Field water
Numerous studies conducted on the manipulation of depth and intervals of
irrigation intended to save water, had demonstrated that continuous submergence was
not essential for obtaining higher rice yields (Guerra et al., 1998).
Bhuiyan and Tuong (1995) after several years of experimentation concluded,
that maintaining a significant depth of water throughout the season was not needed for
high rice yields. The practice of irrigation immediately after the disappearance of
ponded water was most suitable under limited water supply and the yield
reduction was only marginal (3 to 5 %), but it helped to save about 28.7 per cent of
irrigation water compared to continuous submergence (Wahab et al.,
Alternate wetting and drying irrigation (AWDI) also called intermittent
irrigation a water saving technology that reduces the water use in rice fields. In AWDI,
water applied to flood the field in certain number of days after the disappearance of
previously ponded water and field kept in alternately flooded and non
(Bouman and Tuong, 2001).
Success of AWDI largely depends on irrigating the field at right time, when
plant needs water. But determination of right irrigation timing during the dry cycles of
AWDI was very hard due to different soil physical properties such as soil structure, soil
and an increased grain and straw yield of 910 kg ha-1 and 1667 kg ha-1
respectively in machine planting. The reduced cost of cultivation, increased grain as
well as straw yield resulted in better cost benefit ratio of 1:2.47 in machine planting
1 recorded in manual planting. Machine planting hence is a viable alternative
2.2. WATER SAVING IRRIGATION PRACTICE IN RICE
Water saving irrigation practices aim to cut the total amount of water applied in
the growing season by optimizing the frequency, intensity and duration of irrigation
application, in such a way that crop productivity is not jeoparadized by reduction in
Alternate wetting and drying and Field water tube irrigation
Numerous studies conducted on the manipulation of depth and intervals of
irrigation intended to save water, had demonstrated that continuous submergence was
Bhuiyan and Tuong (1995) after several years of experimentation concluded,
that maintaining a significant depth of water throughout the season was not needed for
high rice yields. The practice of irrigation immediately after the disappearance of
ponded water was most suitable under limited water supply and the yield
reduction was only marginal (3 to 5 %), but it helped to save about 28.7 per cent of
et al., 1996).
ying irrigation (AWDI) also called intermittent
irrigation a water saving technology that reduces the water use in rice fields. In AWDI,
water applied to flood the field in certain number of days after the disappearance of
kept in alternately flooded and non-flooded condition
Success of AWDI largely depends on irrigating the field at right time, when
plant needs water. But determination of right irrigation timing during the dry cycles of
AWDI was very hard due to different soil physical properties such as soil structure, soil
texture, bulk density, soil pore space, and different hydraulic conductivity like
movement of water, infiltration, water holding capacity (IRRI, 2009).
Even without ponded water, the rice roots could able to access the water in the
subsurface soil, which remains saturated. The practice of safe AWDI as a water saving
technology entails irrigation when water depth falls to a threshold depth below the soil
surface. Safe AWDI resulted in saving of irrigation water, increased water productivity,
and no decline in rice yield (Bouman et al., 2007a).
The management of AWDI was generally practised with 5, 7 and 10 days
interval, but the predetermined days of interval could not be treated as the demand
driven approach perfectly (Abdul Latif, 2010). This experiment was conducted in
University of Tokyo, Japan.
Shaibu et al. (2014) conducted a study to evaluate performance of two rice
(Oryza sativa L.) varieties viz., Nunkile and NERICA 4 under water saving irrigation of
sandy clay loams of Southern Malawi (1) continuous flooding with surface water level
kept at approximately 5 cm throughout crop duration (CFI), (2) alternate wetting and
drying up to start of flowering after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD1),
(3) alternate wetting and drying up to start of grain filling after which continuous
flooding was applied (AWD2) and (4) alternate wetting and drying throughout the crop
duration (AWD3) and reported that seasonal crop water requirement was 690 mm, total
irrigation depths were 1923.61, 1307.81, 1160.61 and 807.87 mm for the four regimes
respectively. The CFI treatment used 32%, 40% and 58% more water than AWD1,
AWD2, and AWD3 regimes respectively. In the same treatment order, the average
yields per treatment for Nunkile were 4.92, 4.75, 4.74, and 4.47 t ha−1 with significant
yield differences among CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments.
Bouman et al. (2007b) recommended the Field Water tube to monitor the water
depth and determine the irrigation timing. The tube is made of 40 cm long plastic pipe
or bamboo with diameter of 15 cm or more and perforated with holes on all sides and
placed vertically inside the soil. The tube can be placed in a flat area of the field close to
a bund for easy monitoring of the ponded water depth change.
Tuong (2007) conducted an experiment on the application of field water tube in
AWDI management regime showed that field water tube worked successfully to
monitor the water depth and capable to indicate the right time of irrigation and saved
water, without any yield penalty.
Oliver et al. (2008) used the field water tube in their research, which was 4 cm
in diameter and 40 cm in length and installed in the field keeping 7 cm length above the
soil and the remaining 33 cm perforated zone underneath the surface to measure the
depletion of soil water in the field and found effective. Observed that applying irrigation
when water level depletes to 10 cm below ground level in field water tube was good
among the AWDI treatments. This experiment was conducted at Bangladesh
Agricultural University farm. The soil of the experimental site was silty loam.
Miah and Sattar (2009) reported that to adopt need based AWDI irrigation
effectively required 10 cm diameter and 25 cm long PVC pipe or hollow bamboo pieces
or even waste bottles of cool drinks like Coca-Cola etc., were to be installed vertically
with its perforated portion under the ground level.
Bouman et al. (2007b) observed that the water level in the tube is 15 cm below
the surface of the soil was the optimum time to reflood the soil with a depth of around 5
cm which was the threshold level for safe AWDI that would not cause any yield decline.
When the water level dropped to 15 cm below the surface of the soil, it should
be reflooded with 5 cm depth of ponded water. Especially during week before and after
flowering, the field should be kept under submergence. After flowering, during grain
filling and ripening, the water level could drop again to 15 cm below the surface before
reirrigation (IRRI, 2009).
2.2.2. Effect of water saving irrigation methods on growth
This experiment was conducted on a non cracking loamy sand soils at Ludhiana.
Growth in terms plant height was found to be higher in rice, when irrigation was given
two days after subsidence of ponded water at vegetative phase and 4 days of subsidence
at reproductive phase (Uppal et al., 1991).
Chandrasekaran (1996) observed the increased plant height, root dry weight and
dry matter production when rice was irrigated to 5 cm depth one day after disappearance
of ponded water (DADPW). Similarly leaf area index, leaf area duration, crop growth
rate and relative growth rate were also found to be higher for irrigation one day after
disappearance of ponded water.
Rice grown in a flooded condition, at least during reproductive growth, was
reported to produce considerably more roots than rice grown without flood but with
supplemental irrigation (Beyrouty et al., 1997).
Balasubramanian and Krishnarajan (2000) observed highest number of tillers in
plots which received irrigation 5 cm depth at one DADPW. They also concluded that
irrigating 2.5 cm depth at 3 DADPW recorded the lowest grain yield because of the
moisture stress effect in this irrigation regime.
Geethalakshmi et al. (2009) confirmed that maximum number of tillers m-2,
higher shoot and root length recorded under SRI method of irrigation (intermittent
irrigation) compared to 5 cm depth at one day after disappearance of ponded water
(DADPW) and to 5 cm depth at two DADPW. This experiment was conducted in sandy
clay loam soil at Agriculture College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agriculture
University, Coimbatore.
Maragatham and James Martin (2010) reported that the AWDI method were
comparatively more effective by recording higher plant height, tillers, root length, root
volume and dry matter than the aerobic rice and flooded rice.
The SRI irrigation practice during vegetative growth stage improved the root
length density and root activity rate as well as shoot growth and delayed senescence of
plants, leading to higher grain yield (Mishra and Salokhe, 2010).
Thakur et al. (2011) observed that the SRI irrigation practice registered the
increased plant height (124.2 cm) and number of tillers m-2 (450.1) than the
conventional practice of irrigation.
Continuous flooding has been proved to be detrimental to rice root growth. Free
Fe2+ and S2 are potentially toxic to rice plants as they can inhibit root growth and impair
nutrient uptake (Sahrawat, 2000). Rice plants that grow on lowland paddy soils
therefore must have strategies to cope with these conditions. Intermittent irrigation is
believed to improve oxygen supply to rice root system with potential advantages for
nutrient uptake (Stoop et al., 2002), and to avoid accumulation of toxic concentrations
of reduced substances such as ferrous iron (Fe2+) or hydrogen sulphide (H2S).
Chowdhury et al. (2014) observed that leaf area index, dry matter production
and crop growth rate (CGR) were significantly influenced by 2.5 cm irrigation 0 days
after disappearance of ponded water (DAD) over 6 DAD but were at par with 3 DAD.
This field experiment was conducted at research farm, Rajendra Agricultural University,
Bihar. The soil of the experimental plot was sandy loam in texture.
Kumar et al. (2014) recorded that more number of tillers m-2 (145.96) was
obtained with 7 cm irrigation at 1 DADPW which was found significantly superior to 7
cm irrigation at 3 (130.06) and 5 (113.61) DADPW. Dry matter accumulation (17.54 g)
with 7 cm irrigation 1 DADPW which was found significantly superior to 7 cm
irrigation 3 and 5 DADPW at harvest stage.This experiment was conducted in Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh with silt loam soils.
2.2.3. Effect of water saving irrigation methods on water stress
parameters
Yadav et al. (2001) conducted pot experiments on ten rice cultivars to determine
the effects of 10 days drought stress during tillering and flowering stages. They found
that water stress lowered the relative water content (RWC), leaf water potential (LWP)
and osmotic potential (OP) but increased leaf diffusive resistance (LDR) at both
tillering and flowering stages. Upon dewatering the plants i.e. after revival of moisture
content the RWC, LWP, OP and LDR of the leaves recovered but could not reach the
values of pressurised plant up to 72h. Higher recovery was observed at tillering than
flowering stage. Ten days duration of drought at flowering stage resulted in a drop in
OP along with LWP in all the cultivars.
2.2.3.1 Relative Water Content
Sinclair and Ludlow (1985) noted that leaf relative water content (RWC) is a
better indicator of water status than leaf water potential. Changes in the water balance
and the amount of water available in soil can be crucial for crop yield (Fuhrer 2003). On
the other hand, physiological characteristics of plants are correlated with the water
potential (Hsiao 1973). Low water potential due to reduced water availability negatively
affects plant growth (Ohashi et al. 2000), photosynthesis (Ogen and Oquist 1985), plant
cell enlargement (Nonami et al. 1997), and hormone balance (Munns and Gramer
1996). Downey and Miller (1971) determined an empirical relationship between RWC
and water uptake for maize, using small discs of constant area.
Blum et al. (1989) reported that higher leaf relative water content allows the
plant to maintain turgidity and this would exhibit relatively less reduction in biomass
and yield.
As observed by David (2002) Leaf relative water content had a significant
influence on photosynthesis, by reducing the net photosynthesis by more than 50%
when relative water content was less than 80%.
Relative water content is the ability of plant to maintain high water in the leaves
under moisture stress conditions and has been used as an index to determine drought
(Barrs and Weatherly, 1962) tolerance in crop plants. During plant development,
drought stress significantly reduced relative water content values (Siddique et al.,
2000).
Flore et al. (1985) stated that relative water content was considered as an
alternative measure of plant water status, reflecting the metabolic activity in tissues.
Reduced soil water availability leads to low plant water potential. Consequently,
among the first plant responses to avoid excessive transpiration, the leaves lose
turgescence, the stomata close, and cell elongation is halted (Souza et al., 2010). There
is a negative relationship between the net photosynthetic rate and water stress expressed
(Peri et al., 2011). Water stress induces decrease in the shoot dry weight and relative
water content (RWC) (Martiınez et al., 2004). Inadequate soil moisture leads to water
deficits in leaf tissues, which affects many physiological processes and ultimately
reduces the yield (Mahmood et al., 2012).
2.2.3.2. Leaf Water Potential
Leaf water potential estimation is considering one of the important quantitative
measurements of drought resistance of crop (Ekanayake et al., 1985; O'Toole and
Moya, 1978 and Bashar et al., 1990). Cowman (1965) predicted that leaf water potential
will vary diurnally because of the dynamic nature of and complex interaction between
the various components of the soil plant atmosphere system. Some plant species can
adapt to water stress by adjusting osmotically, so that, the physiological activity is
maintained at low leaf water potential (Samuel and Paliwal, 1993). Leaf water potential
is considered to be a reliable parameter for quantifying plant water stress response
(Siddique et al., 1999). Cruz et al. (1986) reported that the photosynthetic rate of rice
leaves is highly susceptible to drought stress and it is decreased by 60% when leaf water
potential decreased from -0.6 to -1.3 MPa. Tanguilig et al. (1987) observed that the high
transpiration rate in rice leaves may have caused the rapid decline in leaf water potential
if proper amount of water is not supplied to the growing medium.
Various morphological and physiological traits are reported as the components
of the drought resistance mechanisms by many researchers (Chang et al., 1972; Loresto
et al., 1976; Blum, 1989 and Bashar et al. (1990) and also the drought resistance score
was found highly correlated with leaf water potential (O'Toole and Moya, 1978). The
significant varietal differences of mid-day leaf water potential was observed in rice
under field condition (O'Toole and Moya, 1978; Ekanayake et al., 1985) as well as in
green house condition (Begum, 1985) under differential water stresses. On the other
hand, a varietal difference of pre-dawn leaf water potential of rice at different level of
moisture stresses was observed under green house condition (Ahmed et al., 1978).
Without any stresses, the mid-day leaf water potential was reported to differ
significantly among the upland cultivars grown under flooded field condition (Bashar et
al., 1990).
Boonjung and Fukai (1996) found that younger plants with smaller canopies
took up water more slowly and were able to maintain higher LWP than those with larger
canopies.
2.2.4. Effect of water saving irrigation methods on yield attributes
In the initial stages of crop growth in rice i.e., from ten days after planting to
active tillering stage, it is beneficial to maintain rice fields just at moist condition rather
than keeping the fields under flooded condition to get more number of productive tillers
and more number of grains per panicle (Murthy and Ramakrishnayya, 1978).
Panda et al. (1980) and Patel (2000) also observed more tiller production per
unit area, filled grains per panicle and 1000 grain weight when the irrigation in the order
of saturation upto tillering followed by submergence till ripening in rice. This field
experiment was conducted at Baronda farm, Raipur (M.P.). The soil of the experimental
site was well-drained loamy soils.
Ramamoorthy et al. (1993) and Chandrasekaran (1996) found that the rice
varieties had given significantly higher productive tillers and panicle length with the
rice crop which received irrigation to a depth of 5 cm one day after disappearance of
ponded water (DADPW).
Rezaei et al. (2009) reported that interval irrigation (full irrigation, 5 and 8 days
interval) did not affect number of panicle in square meters, panicle length, weight of
1000-grain and harvest index but it affect total number of grains in panicle. This
experiment was conducted at Rice Research Institute of Iran, Rasht, Iran.
Pandey et al. (2010) revealed that the significant increase in sterility percent was
noted under the application of irrigation at 3 DAD of ponded water. The irrigation given
under 3 DAD might be failed to meet the evaporative demand during dry season thus
reduced yield attributes. This experiment was conducted at Chhattisgarh on clayey soils.
Ramakrishna et al. (2007) reported that Continuous submergence registered
higher number of panicles hill-1 (10.4 and 10.5), grains panicle-1 (135.6 and 139.4) and
panicle length (25.9 cm and 26.4 cm) 3-day after drainage panicles hill-1 (9.1 1nd 9.4),
grains panicle-1 (128.4 and 134.9) and panicle length (25.0 and 25.5 cm). This field
experiment was conducted at Indian Agricultural Research Institute New Delhi. The soil
of the experimental plot was sandy clay- loam in texture.
The maximum number of panicles m−2, weight of grains panicle−1, filled grains
panicle−1 and panicle length was observed in irrigation after one day after disappearance
of water and it was statistically at par with irrigation after two days after disappearance
of ponded water at Ludhiana in loamy sand with alkaline soil (Sandhu et al., 2012).
Significantly higher test weight (28.03 g) in 5 days interval irrigation compare to
submergence (27.36) treatment at Iran (Azarpour et al., 2011).
Among moisture regimes, the highest number of effective tillers m-2 (121.54),
length of panicles (22), number of grains panicles-1 (180.14) and weight of grains
panicles-1 (4.34 g) were recorded with application of 7 cm irrigation 1 DADPW, which
was significantly superior over the 7 cm irrigation 3 and 5 DADPW. This experiment
was conducted at Agronomy Research Farm, Faizabad Uttar Pradesh, during 2010
kharif season with sandy loam soils. (Kumar et al., 2014).
2.2.5. Effect of water saving irrigation methods on yield
Ramamoorthy et al. (1993) and Chandrasekaran (1996) found that the rice
varieties had given significantly higher grain and straw yields under lowland
transplanted condition with the application of 5 cm water a one day after disappearance
of ponded water.
Irrigation to rice two days after disappearance of ponded at vegetative phase was
found to be the best irrigation practice for getting higher grain yield (Uppal et al., 1991;
Patel 2000).
Chinese researchers Zhang et al. (1994) and Li et al. (1999) stated that higher
rice yield could be obtained without the need of continuous flooded irrigation.
Das et al. (2000) revealed that frequent irrigation at 3 days after disappearance
of ponded water (DADPW) either 7 or 5 cm depth recorded higher grain and straw
yields over wide intervals i.e., 5 DADPW of similar depth of irrigations.
Li (2000) observed higher rice yield levels where water saving method of AWDI
was practiced and the total rice production had not been adversely affected, indicating
that AWDI had contributed higher productivity.
Chandrasekaran et al. (2002) concluded that irrigation scheduled to 5 cm depth
at one DAD was optimum to obtain higher yields in rice-rice cropping system.
Cabangon et al. (2004) and Belder et al. (2004) reported that water inputs
decreased by around 15 to 30 per cent without significant yield reduction.
Avil Kumar et al. (2006) reported that the total dry matter, grain and straw yield
were significantly influenced by different irrigation schedules. Maximum grain yield
(4240 kg ha-1) was recorded with irrigation daily (continuous submergence) and it was
significantly superior to the remaining treatments, irrigation once in 4 days (3710 kg ha-
1), irrigation once in 5 days (3350 kg ha-1), irrigation once in 6 days (3020 kg ha-1),
irrigation for 5 days and no irrigation for 5 days (3800 kg ha-1) and irrigation for 7 days
and no irrigation for 7 days (3610 kg ha-1) but irrigation once in 2 days for which grain
yield was comparable (4011 kg ha-1).this experiment was conducted at RARS, Jagtial
Telangana in red sandy loam soils.
Kumar et al. (2006) reported that yield attributes, yield, harvest index and
benefit cost ratio were higher under 7 cm irrigation one day after disappearance
of ponded water followed by CF.
Dhar et al. (2008) opined that at Jammu, the maximum grain yield of rice under
SRI methods was recorded (5.29 t ha-1) when the crop was irrigated at 7 DADPW which
was significantly higher than the yield obtained from other treatments like AWD,
applying irrigation at 3, 5 and 9 DADPW, but similar to the yield obtained from
continuous submergence (4.93 t ha-1).
Rezaei et al., 2009 reported interval irrigation (full irrigation, 5 and 8 days
interval) caused less water use and increased water productivity. Yield in water
treatments fluctuated between 4002 to 4457 kg ha-1. Since yield difference between
interval irrigation and full irrigation was not significant
Zhao et al. (2010) reported 26.4 per cent higher yield under SRI intermittent
irrigation as against traditional flooding. The yield increase was due to increase in
chlorophyll content, delayed leaf senescence and more biomass accumulation at later
stages of rice crop.
Latheef Pasha et al. (2012) observed that SRI recorded highest grain yield
during 2008 and 2009 (6461 and 7017 kg ha-1) followed by rotational system of
irrigation (6242 and 6429 kg ha-1) as compared to farmers practice of growing rice with
continuous flooding. SRI also resulted in irrigation water saving over farmer practice of
flood irrigation. This experiment was conducted in two villages in Nalgonda district of
Telangana. The soils were sandy clay loam in texture.
The grain yield was higher under saturated condition (7.6 t ha-1) than flooded
condition (7.1 t ha-1) At Malaysia (Sariam and Anuar, 2010). Likewise, Singh and
Ingram (2000) observed that maintaining saturated soil moisture condition produced
higher yield over stress given at different stages of the crop growth.
Majid (2014) reported that the effect of irrigation regimes on grain yield were
significant.I1, I2, I3 and I4 with 7342, 7079, 7159 and 5168 kg ha-1 had the highest and
lowest average, respectively. Irrigation interval 5, 8 days and Continuous submergence
produced same grain yield but in irrigation interval 11 days decreased.
2.2.6. Effect of water saving irrigation methods on nutrient uptake
Christopher Lourduraj and Rajagopal (1999) reported that the irrigation schedule
one DADPW resulted in higher N and P uptake compared to three days after
disappearance of ponded water (DADPW). The experiment was conducted at Tamil
Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, under sandy clay loam soil.
Panda et al. (1997) observed the highest nutrient removal by the crop when the
crop was subjected to submergence of 5 2 cm during tillering and reproductive stages
and with 7 cm irrigation one day after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) during
rest of the period.
The AWDI increased the available nitrogen and phosphorus remarkably.
Especially, the nitrogen could be utilized effectively and AWDI conditions always
recorded higher uptake than the continuous flooding (Lu et al., 2000).
Rajesh and Thanunathan (2003) observed more nutrient uptake under AWDI
system due to enhanced root activity, as evident from the presence of longer roots and
higher root volume which in turn increased the total dry matter production and nutrient
uptake. This field experiment was conducted at Annamalai University experimental
farm with clay loam soils.
Belder et al. (2004) reported that N recovery of rice under AWD (about 20%)
was significantly lower than under CF (about 40%).
Ramakrishna (2007) reported that among irrigation schedules, continuous
submergence resulted in maximum N uptake of 129-132 kg ha-1, which was
significantly superior to that under 1-day drainage (112.9 -124.6 kg ha-1) and 3 day
drainage (105.7 -117.0 kg ha-1).
Broadcasting urea before irrigation under AWDI could help to ensure the
movement of N into the soil, where it would be less prone to loss through ammonia
volatilization and recorded higher uptake of N (Buresh et al., 2008). The AWDI resulted
in periodic soil aeration, but the extent and duration of soil drying when implemented at
safe levels, did not result in loss of rice yield (Buresh, 2010).
Chowdhury (2014) revaled that Irrigation and nutrient levels significantly
influenced the N, P and K contents in rice grain and straw. It was the maximum in the
treatment which received the maximum number of irrigation (I1) (63.49, 19.19 and
14.95 NPK kg ha-1) and lowest from the minimum number of irrgation (I3) (53.79,
14.06 and 10.86 NPK kg ha-1).
2.2.7. Effect of water saving irrigation methods on water saving and
water productivity and WUE
Muthukrishnan and Purushothaman (1992) found that intermittent irrigation
gave higher WUE than continuous submergence. This experiment was conducted at
Tamil nadu with clay loam soils. Narendra Pandey et al. (1992) observed about 25 per
cent saving in irrigation water under one DADPW compared to continuous
submergence without reduction in grain yield.
Hitlal et al. (1992) and Singh et al. (2006) reported that maintaining a very thin
layer at saturated soil condition or alternate wetting and drying could reduce the water
required for irrigation by about 40 to 70 per cent compared to continuous submergence
without significant yield loss.
Chandrasekaran (1996) found that the WUE was of 6.02 kg per ha mm under
irrigation practice of one DADPW.
Anbumozhi et al. (1998) observed increased water productivity (1.26 kg m-3) in
AWDI plot at 9 cm ponding depth compared to continuous flooding (0.96 kg kg m-3).
This experiment was conducted at Japan, in sandy loamy soils.
Ganesh and Hakkali (2000) found that the application of irrigation once in 3 to 5
days with 5 cm submergence coincided with giving irrigation immediately after
disappearance of ponded water or 1 to 2 days later and saved the water to the extent of
49 per cent over the existing practice of continuous submergence without reducing grain
and straw yields.
Patel (2000) observed a higher WUE of 3.04 kg grain per ha mm in rice when
continuous saturation level irrigation was followed. This experiment was conducted in
well drained loam soil at Baronda farm, Raipur (M.P.).
Bouman and Tuong (2001) reported that in 92 per cent of the cases, the AWDI
treatments resulted only lower yield reductions compared with flooded checks, but with
higher water productivity. This experiment was conducted at experimental farm of IRRI
Los Banos Philippines in silty clay loamy soils.
Thiyagarajan et al. (2002) reported that limited irrigation of 2 cm depth after
crack development recorded higher productivity (0.732 kg m-3) with 56 per cent saving
in irrigation water compared to CF of 5 cm standing water without any significant
reduction in grain yield. This experiment was conducted in sandy clay loam soil at
Agriculture College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University,
Coimbatore.
Cabangon et al. (2004) reported based on experimentation with AWDI in
lowland rice areas with heavy soils and shallow ground water tables in China and
Philippines, there could be water saving to the tune of 15 to 20per cent in rice through
AWDI without a significant impact on yield. Li and Baker (2004) reported that AWDI
was a mature technology that has been widely adopted in China and a recommended
practice of North West India and was tested by farmers in Philippines.
Belder et al. (2004) calculated that evaporation losses in rice fields decreased by
2-33 per cent in AWDI compared with continuously flooded condition. This experiment
was conducted in irrigated lowland rice areas located in China with silty clay loamy
soils.
Swarup et al. (2008). reported that different water management practices
(continuous submergence, irrigation supplied 1, 2 and 4 days after subsidence of
standing water) under saving of irrigation water and enhancement of water use
efficiency were highest when irrigation water was given 4 days after disappearance of
standing water. The yield decrease due to intermittent flooding was not significant. This
experiment was conducted at CRRI, Cuttack, in sandy loamy soils.
Tran Thi Ngoc Huan et al. (2008) reported that AWDI recorded the highest
water productivity and while the lowest water productivity was with flooded rice.
Geethalakshmi et al. (2009) recorded water savings under SRI to the tune of
12.6 and 14.8 per cent respectively during summer and kuruvai seasons. Impounding of
2.5 cm of irrigation water and irrigation after formation of hairline cracks have shown
considerable water saving besides better root environment under SRI. This experiment
was conducted in sandy clay loam soil at Agriculture College and Research Institute,
Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore.
Suresh Kulkarni (2011) reported that using of field water tube in AWDI was
safe to limit the water use to 25 per cent without reduction in rice yield.
Tejendra Chapagain and Eiji Yamaji (2010) reported higher water productivity
(1.74 g l-1) in AWDI compared to continuously flooded rice (1.23 g l-1).
The experiment conducted at different locations Kharagpur (West Bengal)
lateritic sandy loam soils, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) sandy loam soils and Chakuli
(Orissa) sandy loam soils. Saving of irrigation water and enhancement of water use
efficiency was the highest when irrigation water was given 4 days after disappearance
of standing water and the yield decrease due to intermittent flooding was not significant
(Singh et al., 2010).
Mohamed Yasin and Duraisamy (2012) reported that intermittent submergence
led to 34-43 per cent saving of irrigation water for rice in addition to higher yields and
increased water use efficiency index up to 37.6 per cent by saving water input to 26.1
per cent as compared to CF.
Shantappa (2014) reported that significant improvement in WUE to the tune of
39 per cent under intermittently irrigated SRI over continuously flooded NTP. This field
experiment was conducted at DRR farm with clay loam soils.
2.2.8. Economics
The AWDI based cultivation has an impact on costs as the technology reduces
irrigation costs; it saved 30 litre diesel ha-1, reduced irrigation frequency by 4 to 20
depending on soil type, while harvesting 500 kg ha-1 extra yield with one extra weeding,
but the cost of extra weeding was more than offset by the extra yield and also the saving
of fuel (Miah, 2008).
Lampayan et al. (2009) reported that the practice of AWDI with the same yield
level as that of continuous flooding but saved 16 to 24 per cent of water cost and 20 to
25 per cent of production costs. The experiment conducted at Philippines.
Dass and Chandra (2012) found that B: C ratio was the highest (1.09) with
irrigation at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water in system of rice intensification.
The experiment site located at tarai (young alluvial soils with shallow to medium water
table) belt of India and is characterized by a sub-humid and sub-tropical climate at G.B.
Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand.
Chapter III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A field experiment was conducted at Agricultural Research Institute
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad during kharif (July- Oct) 2014, to evaluate effect of different
systems of rice cultivation and water management practices on growth and yield of rice
in puddled soils and to evaluate effect of different systems of rice cultivation on water
requirement and water productivity of rice under different water management practices
in puddled soils. The details of the experiment materials used and the methods adopted
during the course of investigation are described briefly in this chapter.
3.1. EXPERIMENTAL SITE
The field experiment was conducted in field number 4 of ‘B’ block during kharif
season at the Farm of AICRP on Rice, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad. The farm is geographically situated in the southern part of Telangana at
17°32' N latitude and 78°40' E longitude at an altitude of 542.6 m above mean sea level.
Fig 3.1 Satellite view of experimental site (Downloaded from Google Earth)
3.2. WEATHER AND CLIMATE
The geographical area of Hyderabad comes under dry tropical and semi arid
region. Winter is generally milder at Hyderabad. Mean meteorological data during
growth period for each week during kharif, 2014 are presented in Appendix A and
depicted in Fig 3.2. Mean weekly maximum temperatures ranged from 27.5 0C to 34.00
0C, while mean weekly minimum temperatures varied from 16.1 0C to 24.5 0C during
crop growth period
The mean weekly maximum relative humidity during the crop growing period
varied from 76.1 to 92.6 percent during 2014 and 324.5 mm rainfall received in 25 rainy
days. The mean bright sunshine hours per day varied from 1.5 to 8.3. The average wind
speed varied from 1.2 to 11.6 km h-1 in 2014.
With respect to pan evaporation, mean pan evaporation ranged 0.7 to 6.3 mm day-
1 in 2014-15. The seasonal cumulative pan evaporation during the crop period of kharif,
2014 was 472.2 mm.
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SITE
3.3.1 Physical and chemical properties of soil
The soil samples were drawn at random from 0 to 30 cm soil depth of
experimental field and were analyzed for their physical and chemical properties by
adopting standard procedures. The results are summarized in Table 3.1. The data
presented in Table 3.1 revealed that the soil was sandy loam in texture, moderately
alkaline in reaction, non-saline, low in organic carbon content. The saturated hydraulic
conductivity was moderately rapid (11.80 cm h-1).The bulk density was ideal. The
fertility status of the experimental soil indicated that it was low in available nitrogen
(N), high in available phosphorous (P2O5) and high in available potassium (K2O).
3.3.2 Moisture holding properties
Moisture holding capacity of the experimental site or soil was estimated between
-0.01 MPa and -1.5 MPa by using pressure plate apparatus and the bulk density of the
experimental soil site was estimated for each 15 cm soil depth up to 30 cm by following
the standard procedures (Dastane, 1967) and the resultant data is presented Table 3.2.
The total plant available water between -0.01 M Pa and -1.5 MPa in 0-30 cm soil depth
was 82.78 mm. The bulk density was 1.39 and 1.43 g cm-3 at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm
depth respectively and found to be ideal.
Table 3.1 Physical and chemical properties of soil in experimental field
S.No. Particulars Value Method / Reference I Physical properties 1 Mechanical analysis
a) Sand (%) b) Silt (%) c) Clay (%) Textural class
65.6 14.2 20.2
Sandy loam
Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Piper, 1966)
2. Infiltration rate (cm h-1) 2.10 Double ring infiltrometer (Singarao et al., 2005)
3. Hydraulic conductivity (cm h-1)
11.80
Constantpresure head method (Singarao et al., 2005)
II Physico – chemical properties 1 pH [ 1: 2.5 soil : water] 8.5 ELICO, LI 612 pH analyser
(Jackson, 1973) 2 Electrical conductivity
[ dS m-1] [1:2:5 soil : water]
0.56 SYSTRONICS Conductivity - TDS meter 308 (Jackson, 1973)
3 Organic carbon (%) 0.41 Walkley and Black’s modified method (Jackson, 1967)
III Chemical properties 1 Available nitrogen
(kg ha-1) 166.39 Alkaline permanganate method
using KELPLUS SUPRA LX – analyser (Subbaiah and Asija, 1956)
2 Available P2O5
(kg ha-1) 82.9 Olsen’s method for extraction
and Ascorbic acid method for estimation by using UV- VIS UV5704SS Spectrophotometer at 420nm (Olsen’s et al., 1954)
3 Available K2O (kg ha-1)
361.7 Neutral normal ammonium acetate method using ELICO CL361 Flame photometer (Piper, 1966)
Table 3.2 Moisture holding characteristics of the experimental soil
Soil depth (cm)
Moisture percentage at Bulk density (g cm-3)
Available soil moisture
(mm)
Saturation
Field capacity (-0.15 bar)
Permanent wilting point (-15 bar)
0-15 34 19.14 10.5 1.39 18.0 15-30 32 18.26 11.1 1.43 15.3
3.3.3 Irrigation water analysis
The source of water for irrigation was an open well (well No. 1) at AICRP on
Rice, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, The water used for irrigating the
crop was analyzed to ascertain the quality of water by following the standard procedures
(Dhyan Singh et al., 2007) and the resultant data was tabulated and presented in (Table
3.3.) As par USDA Hand Book on Agriculture no. 60, the irrigation water was alkaline
(pH - 7.6) and categorised under Class II (C3S1) suggesting that it is suitable for
irrigating the crop by following good management practices. Higher and unsafe levels
of chloride levels indicate that the water is suitable for growing tolerant and medium
tolerant crops only. The RSC levels indicate that there is moderate carbonate hazard.
3.4 PREVIOUS CROP HISTORY
The cropping history of the experimental soil for the preceding five years is
summarized below in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Previous cropping history of the experimental field
S. No. Year Season Cropping pattern 1 2011-2012 Kharif Paddy
Rabi Paddy 2 2012-2013 Kharif Paddy
Rabi Paddy 3 2013-2014 Kharif Paddy
Rabi Paddy
4 2014-2015 Kharif Present crop
3.4.1. Crop and Variety
The variety used in the experiment was RNR 15048 a pre release variety
developed by Agriculture research institute, Rice section. This variety was developed by
crossing between MTU 1010 and JGL 3855. It is a short duration variety, matures in
120-125 days with yield potential of 5-7 t ha-1. It is fine grain variety and can tolerate
blast disease can withstand cool temperatures during rabi and gives higher yields.
3.4.2. Experimental design and layout
The experiment was laid out in Strip - plot design with three replications. The
three different systems of rice cultivation (Direct seeding with drum seeder,
Table 3.3 Irrigation water quality analysis data
S. No Parameter Value Limit Method
1 pH 7.6 Alkaline Digital pH meter – LI612
2 ECw (dS m-1) 1.56 C3 Digital Conductivity meter – Systronics conductivity TDS meter 308
3 CO3 (me l
-1
) 0 - Titration with 0.02 N H2SO
4 using Phenophthalein indicator
4 HCO3 (me l
-1
) 12.2 - Titration with 0.02 N H2SO
4 using Methyl orange indicator
5 Cl (me l-1
) 12 Unsafe Titration with standard AgNO3 using K
2CrO
4 as indicator
6 Na (me l-1
) 5.3 - Flame Photometer – CL 361
7 Ca (me l-1
) 8.0 - Titration with standard EDTA using EBT indicator and ammonium buffer
8 Mg (me l-1
) 7.2 - Titration with standard EDTA using EBT indicator and ammonium buffer
9 SAR 1.92 S1 SAR=Na/[
/2]
10 RSC (me l-1
) 1.8 Moderate RSC = (CO3
--
+ HCO3
--
) - (Ca++
+ Mg++
)
Transplanting with machine and Conventional transplanting) were randomly allotted to
main plots and the four different irrigation regimes were randomly allotted in the
subplot treatments. The field layout plan of experiment is presented in Fig 3.3
3.4.1. Crop and Variety
The variety used in the experiment was RNR 15048 a pre release variety
developed by Agriculture Research Institute, Rice section. This variety was developed
by crossing between MTU 1010 and JGL 3855. It is a short duration variety, matures in
120-125 days with yield potential of 5-7 t ha-1. It is fine grain variety and can tolerate
blast disease can withstand cool temperatures during rabi and gives higher yields.
3.4.2. Experimental design and layout
The experiment was laid out in Strip - plot design with three replications. The
three different systems of rice cultivation (Direct seeding with drum seeder,
Transplanting with machine and Conventional transplanting) were randomly allotted to
main plots and the four different irrigation regimes were randomly allotted in the
subplot treatments. The field layout plan of experiment is presented in Fig 3.3
3.4.3. Treatment Details
Main plots (systems of cultivation)
M1: Direct seeding with drum seeder.
M2: Transplanting with machine. Age of nursery for machine transplanting was 17
days.
M3: Conventional transplanting. Age of nursery for Conventional transplanting was 22
days
Sub plots (Irrigation regimes)
I1: Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
tube.(show in Fig 3.7).
I2: Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field
water tube.
I3: Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water.
I4: Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage.
3.4.4. Plot size
The size of the gross and net plots adopted in field experiment was given below.
Planting methods Spacing (cm)
Plant stand (no. of hills m-2)
Gross plot (m-2)
Net plot (m-2)
Direct seeding with drum seeder
20 x 6 83 6 x 3.6 (21.6) 4.8 x 2.8 (13.44)
Transplanting with machine
30 x 12 28 6 x 3.6 (21.6) 4.8 x 2.4 (11.52)
Conventional transplanting
15 x 15 44 6 x 3.6 (21.6) 4.8 x 3 (14.4)
3.5. CROP MANAGEMENT
3.5.1. Main field preparation
The field was well puddled with tractor mounted cage wheel and levelled with
levelling board. The plots were laid out as per the treatment schedule and buffer
channels were provided to avoid movement of water from one plot to another.
The treatments were randomly assigned to the plots as per the experimental design.
3.5.2. Seeds and nursery sowing:
The rice variety RNR 15048 was used with a seed rate of 50 kg ha-1. The seeds
were first treated with carbendazim @ 2.0 g kg-1 of seed and followed by Azophos
treatment @ 1200 g ha-1 seeds after 24 hours. The treated seeds were soaked in water for
24 hours. After soaking, the seeds were kept in dark for 24 hours to induce sprouting.
The sprouted seeds were raised in the nursery.
The mat type of nursery (Fig. 3.4) was prepared by laying plastic sheets of 50 –
60 gauge on a level ground followed by placing wooden frame of 50 cm x 22 cm x 2 cm
size. The frame was filled with well prepared soil. Seeds were soaked for 24 hours and
incubated in moist gunny bag for 24 hours. The sprouted seeds @ 25 kg ha-1 were
broadcasted uniformly and sparsely on each frame @ 30 kg ha-1 and then covered with a
thin layer of vermicompost (0.5 cm). The water was sprinkled three to four times a day
up to six to seven days to keep the seedbed wet. After a week of sowing, water was
applied through the water channel until transplanting. During transplanting (17 days old
seedlings), the mats were lifted from the plastic sheets and placed directly on the trays
of the transplanter.
Fig 3.4: Mat type of nursery used for machine transplanting (M2)
3.5.3. Planting methods
3.5.3.1. Conventional transplanting:
Twenty five days old rice seedlings were transplanted, with 2 seedlings per hill-1.
The crop geometry of 15 cm x 15 cm was adopted. Date of sowing, transplanting and
harvesting details are furnished in the Appendix E.
3.5.3.2. Direct seeding with drum seeder:
In drum seeding sprouted seeds were sown with manually operated rice drum
seeder. The seeder has two wheel at both the ends. It drops the seeds at 20 cm apart in
continuous row. There are eight numbers of seeding metering holes of 9 mm diameter.
Baffles in the drum maintain the uniformity in seed rate. At a time eight rows of rice
seeds was sown. Seed rate of 28 kg ha-1 was used.
Fig 3.5: Drum seeder used for direct seeding (M1)
3.5.3.3. Transplanting using Kobota (NSP-4W) transplanter
The machine consists of a seedling tray, four numbers of forks, handle and
skids. By pressing the handle, the forks pick-up the seedlings and plant them in 4 rows.
For every stroke of the handle the seedling tray moves sideways for uniform picking of
seedlings by the forks. The operator has to pull the machine after finishing planting in a
row. The row to row spacing is 30 cm. Plant to plant spacing can be set as per space
recommendation by pulling the unit manually to the required distance. It can cover 0.25
ha-1 day. Two men labour are required one for pulling the unit and another for
transporting the mat seedlings. It saves time and labour when compared to manual
transplanting.
Technical Specifications of the Rice Transplanter used in the test
Description Specification
Model : NSP-4W
Type : Walk-behind type
Length (mm) : 2140
Width (mm) : 1630
Height (mm) : 910
Engine (hp) : Air-cooled, 4-cycIe, OHV gasoline engine
Number of rows : 4
Row spacing (cm) : 30
Hill-to-hill spacing (cm) : 12
Field capacity (acre/hr) : 0.22 - 0.52
Weight (kg) : 160
Fig 3.6: Kobota (NSP-4W) transplanter used for transplanting (M2)
3.5.4. Fertilizer application
A uniform dose of 120 kg N, 60 kg P2O5 and 40 kg K2O ha-1 was applied. The
N, P and K were applied in the form basally in the form of urea, single super phosphate
and murate of potash respectively. The entire P fertilizer was applied as basal in the
form of single super phosphate (16 % P2O5). The K fertilizer was applied in the form of
muriate of potash (60 % K2O ha-1) in two equal splits as basal and at panicle initiation
stage. The fertilizer N was applied in the form of prilled urea (46 % N) in three equal
splits at basal, active tillering stage and at panicle initiation stage.
3.5.5. Weed management
Pre-emergence application of the recommended herbicide, the Butachlor @ 2.5
litre ha-1 was mixed with sand and broadcasted uniformly 3 days after transplanting
maintaining a thin film of water in the field followed by two hand weedings at 35 and
60 days after transplanting.
3.5.6. Plant protection
Chloropyriphos @ 2 ml L-1 was sprayed at 40 DAT as prophylactic measure
against stem borer. There were no severe pests and diseases noticed during the crop
growth.
3.5.7. Irrigation
The regular common irrigation practice was followed till 15 DAT for proper
establishment. The irrigation water was measured by water meter. After 15 DAT, the
irrigation schedules were adopted as per the treatment requirements. To avoid the
seepage losses buffer channels are prepared in between the experimental plots.
3.5.7.1. AWDI Practice at different water tables
Field water tube (shown in Fig. 3.7) Was placed in each main plots of AWDI
practice, to measure the depth of standing water and water tables in the field, either
above the surface or below the surface (Plate 5). Three different irrigation regimes
based on water levels below the surface were practised using this tube; irrigation given
when water depth goes below the surface to 5 and 10 cm. Water level depth in this tube
was measured by simple measuring scale.The subsequent irrigation was given to re-
flood the field to a depth of 5 cm as per respective treatments. Irrigation was withheld
15 days ahead of harvest.
3.5.7.2. Measurement of water level in perforated pipes
In this experiment, PVC pipes were used to measure the water level below the
ground level in the field. The diameter and the length of the PVC pipe were 15 cm and
40 cm, respectively, having perforations 2 cm away from each other. The pipe was
installed in the field keeping 20 cm above the soil and the remaining portion (15 cm)
below the soil. After application of irrigation, water entered in the pipe through small
perforations and the water level inside the pipe was the same as that of outside. After
some days when the water level went below the ground level then water level was
measured by scale. Thus, irrigation water was applied when the water level inside the
pipe reached a predetermined position as per treatment.
Fig. 3.7 Field water tube for monitoring the depth of water level in rice field
3.5.7.3. Conventional practice of irrigation
In conventional method of irrigation, recommended submergence of 2-5 cm
water level as per crop stage was maintained.
3.5.7.4. Irrigation 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (3 DADPW)
The principle behind is irrigation water is applied obtain flooded conditions after
a certain number of days have passed after the disappearance of ponded water it may be
varied from soil to soil. So in this treatment, the field was irrigated up to 5 cm depth at
3 days interval
3.5.8. Harvesting and threshing
The border two rows all around the plots were harvested first and then the net
plots of each treatment harvested and threshed separately. Grain and straw yields were
recorded separately.
3.6. BIOMETRIC OBSERVATIONS
In each experimental plot, five plants were selected at random and tagged for
recording different biometric observations. The growth components were recorded at
four stages of crop growth, viz., 20, 50, 80, 110 DAS and at harvest stages. The
observations on yield attributes and grain yield were recorded at maturity before the
harvest of the crop.
3.6.1. Growth characters
3.6.1.1. Plant population
At 15 days after sowing or transplanting (DAT) and at harvest number of hills
count was taken in individual plots in a quadrat (0.25 m-2) and expressed as population
m-2.
3.6.1.2. Total number of tillers hill-1
In each net plot, five hills were selected at random in four stages viz., 50, 80, 110 DAS
and at harvest and the total tillers were counted and expressed as total number of tillers
hill-1.
3.6.1.3. Dry matter production (DMP)
The regular plant samples were collected at different stages of the crop growth
viz., 50, 80, 110 DAS and at harvest and oven dried for 72 hours at 60 + 5 oC. Then dry
weight of the samples were assessed and expressed in kg ha-1.
3.6.1.4. Root volume
The plants were removed carefully from the soil without much damage to the
roots by using digging fork to disturb the soil. After that it was cleaned under the tap
water to remove the mud and other foreign material. Measurement of the root volume
done by the displacement method for that 1000 ml measuring cylinder with desired
level of water was taken after that the root volume for each plant was measured by
placing the root gently in the measuring cylinder and expressed in ml.
3.6.2. Leaf water potential (LWP)
The leaf water potential was measured by using pressure bomb techniques as
described by Scholander et al. (1965) and Warning and Clearly (1967). Measurements
of leaf were made at solar noon (1200-1300 hrs) at prior to each irrigation i.e when
water level drops below the 5, 10 and 15 cm in the field tube as per the treatment
schedule. Second to the youngest fully expanded leaves were cut at about 2.0 cm below
the leaf collar. These were then covered with polyethylene bags, clipped at the collar to
unify the pressure on leaf and to protect the vapour pressure loss and placed in a
pressure chamber in such a way that the cut portion of the surface was just protruding
into the atmosphere through the seal on the top of the chamber. The amount of pressure
was applied slowly to the leaf blade until the meniscus just returned to the cut surface.
This equivalent pressure was recorded from the gauge and this gives the
approximate leaf water potential.
Fig. 3.8 Pressure chamber operates for measuring Leaf water potential
3.6.3. Relative Water Content (RWC)
The water content relative to that at full saturation and expressed, as relative
water content was determined. For the estimation of RWC of 10 leaf blades (discs), 10
mm in diameter punched with borer from set of leaves in to reweighed sealed vial. After
the fresh weight (FW) had been obtained, the discs were floated for 24 hrs on distilled
water in covered petri dishes kept at low light intensities and at constant room
temperature (20 0c), until they became fully turgid. The discs were surface dried,
returned to the same vial and reweighed to obtain the turgid weight (TW). Finally the
leaf discs were oven dried at 80 0C to a constant weight (almost 12 hours) and weighed
again to obtain dry weight (DW). The RWC on percentage basis was calculated using
the equation of Schonfeld et al. (1988).
RWC (%) = (FW- DW/TW-DW) X 100
FW- Fresh Weight TW- Turgid Weight DW-Dry Weight
3.6.4. Yield attributes
3.6.4.1. Number of productive tillers m-2
The ear bearing tillers in four quadrats of 0.25 m2 were counted and expressed as
number of productive tillers m-2.
3.6.4.2. Panicle length (cm)
Five panicles were collected in each net plot and the length of the panicle was
measured from the point of scar to tip of the panicle and mean length was expressed in
cm.
3. 6.4.3. Number of filled grains panicle -1
Filled grains per panicle were counted from the above samples and recorded
treatment wise.
3. 6.4.4. Test grain weight
From each net plot, one thousand well filled grains were collected at harvest.
The grains were weighed and adjusted to 14 per cent moisture level and expressed in g.
3. 6.4.5. Grain yield
The harvested plants from net plot area were threshed manually and each plot
yield was separately sun dried, cleaned by winnowing and weighed. Grain yield was
computed at 14 per cent moisture content and expressed in kg ha-1.
3. 6.4.6. Straw yield
Dry weight of straw from each net plot was recorded after sun drying for couple
of days and expressed in kg ha-1.
3.7. WATER USE STUDIES
3.7.1 Applied Water (mm)
Each plot was irrigated separately. The amount of irrigation water was measured
by water meter. The depth of irrigation water (mm) applied was computed by dividing
the volume of water applied by the area of the plot. In some heavy rainfall events,
excessive rainfall was drained off to keep the ponded water within the maximum
allowable depths. Drainage depth was computed from the field water depth before and
after drainage. Monthly rainfall (mm), mean maximum temperature (°C) (Tmax) and
mean minimum temperature (°C) (Tmin) were recorded from the class I Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad meteorological station of Professor Jaysankar Telangana State Agricultural
University located within 100 m from the experimental field.
3.7.2. Effective Rainfall (mm)
Total rainfall received during the crop growth period from July 27 to November
25 was 324.5 mm, during kharif 2014 and the effective rainfall was computed from it.
There are several empirical methods of estimating effective rainfall in different
countries. They are based on long experience and have been found to work quite
satisfactorily in the specific conditions under which they are developed. Rice thrives
under conditions of abundant water supply; hence the practice of land submergence was
preferred. Depth of flooding was governed by the variety grown and its height, the
height of field bunds and availability of water. The water requirements of rice include
evapotranspiration and percolation. Measuring effective rainfall was thus more
complicated. The effective rainfall [mm] calculated 24 hours after rainfall, following the
field water balance sheet.
3.7.3. Consumptive water use
The total consumptive water use was computed by summing the irrigation water
applied and the effective rainfall. Effective rainfall was computed by Potential
Evapotranspiration/Precipitation Ratio Method.
WR = ND + Re
Where,
WR = Water requirement in mm (consumptive use of crop)
N = Number of irrigations
D = Applied water depth for each irrigation (mm)
Re = Effective rainfall (mm), during the cropping period
3.7.4. Water use efficiency
Field water use efficiency (WUE) was computed using the equation of
Viets (1962).
WUE = Y/W (kg ha mm-1)
Where,
Y = Grain yield (kg ha-1)
W = Total water used (I + Re) to produce the yield (mm)
Where,
I = Irrigation water applied (mm)
Re = Effective rainfall (mm)
3.7.5. Water productivity
The amount of water discharge per minute from the pump was recorded and
time elapsed for irrigation per plot was also recorded accordingly. The data on time
elapsed for irrigation was used to compute the quantity of water supplied per plot in
litre, later it was computed to m-3 ha-1. Mark was made at five places per plot at 3 cm
and 5 cm as per treatment requirement and allowed the water up to the level of mark
and the quantity of water was calculated. The water productivity was calculated for
treatment and expressed in kg m-3. The formula used to calculate the water productivity
is as follows
Grain yield (kg ha-1)
Water productivity (kg m-3) = ----------------------------------------
ETc (m-3)
ETC = Crop Evapotranspiration
3.8. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
3.8.1. Soil nutrient analysis
Five soil samples at 15 cm depth were collected at random in the experimental
field before puddling and composite soil sample was obtained by quartering method.
Similarly, post-harvest soil samples were also drawn treatment wise and air dried under
shade and passed through 2 mm sieve and used for analysis. The methods used for
analyzing the soil nutrients are presented in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Methods employed for soil analysis
S.
No.
Nutrient Method Instrument
(Model)
Authority
1. Available N Alkaline KMnO4
method
Kelplus-supra LX Subbiah and
Asija (1956)
2. Available P2O5 Olsen’s extractent
method, Ascorbic
estimation
Double beam UV-visible
Spectro photometer
(ECIL-UV570455)
Olsen and
Watanabe
(1965)
3. Available K2O Neutral normal
Ammonium
acetate method
Flame photometer
(Elico-CI-361)
Piper (1966)
3.8.2. Plant nutrient analysis
The plant samples were collected for dry matter estimation at 50, 80, 110 DAS
and at harvest from the respective treatments and oven dried, finely ground in Willey
mill and used for chemical analysis to estimate total NPK contents by fallowing
standard procedures (Table 3.7). The nutrient up take by rice was estimated as given
below.
Nutrient content (%) x Total Dry Matter (kg ha-1)
Nutrient uptake (kg ha-1) =
100
Table 3.6. Methods employed for plant analysis
S. No. Nutrient Method Authority
1. Total Nitrogen
(%)
Kelplus- analyser distillation method
Digestion: H2SO4 and K2SO4 + CuSO4
1:4 ratio in Kelplus block digestor
Subbiah and
Asija (1956)
2. Total Phosphoru
(%)
Triple acid digestion and
Vanadomolybdo phosphoric yellow
color method with Barton’s reagent the
intensity of yellow color was
determined by using UV-VIS Spectro
photometer at 420nm
Jackson (1973)
3. Total Potassium
(%)
Triple acid digestion and Flame
photometry
Jackson (1973)
3.9. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
3.9.1 Cost of cultivation
The expenditure incurred from field preparation to harvest of rice was worked
out and expressed as Rs. ha-1 as indicated in Appendix D.
3.9.2. Gross return
The crop yield was computed per hectare and the total income was worked out
based on the market rate (Rs 13.5 kg-1) which was prevalent during the time of this
study.
3.9.3. Net returns
Net returns were obtained by subtracting the cost of cultivation from gross
returns for each treatment.
3.9.4. Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
The benefit cost ratio (BCR) was worked out by using the formula suggested by
Palaniappan (1985).
3.10. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;
The data collected from the experiment were analysed statistically by analysis of
variance method for strip plot design (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). Whenever the
treatment differences were found significant (F test), critical differences were worked
out at five per cent probability level. Treatment differences that were non-significant
were denoted by NS.
Fig. 3.3 LAY OUT OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PLOT (strip plot) Treatments: M1: Direct seeding (drum seeding)
M2: Transplanting with machine
M3: Conventional transplanting I1: Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field
water tube.
I2: Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field
water tube.
I3: Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (3DADPW).
I4: Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
6m 60 cm 3.6m
M2I4
M2I2
M2I1
M2I3
60 cm
M3I4 M3I2 M3I1
M3I3
M1I4
M1I2
M1I1
M1I3
M1I3
M1I1 M1I4 M1I2
M2I3 M2I1
M2I4
M2I2
M3I3 M3I1 M3I4
M3I2
M1I4 M1I2 M1I3
M1I1
M2I4 M2I2 M2I3
M2I1
M3I4
M3I2
M3I3
M3I1
ROAD
N O
pen
wel
l
R III
R II
R I
Buffer channels
STANDARD WEEKS STANDARD WEEKS
STANDARD WEEKS STANDARD WEEKS
Fig 3.2. Weekly meteorological data recorded during crop growth period of rice (kharif, 2014)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Tem
per
atu
re 0
c
max temp(0c)
min temp(0c)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Su
nsh
ine
and
win
d
spee
d
Sunshine in hrs
Wind speed (km hr-1)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Rel
ativ
e h
um
idit
y %
max (%)
min(%)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47ra
in f
all
(mm
)
Rain fall (mm)
E Pan (mm)
Plate1.
Plate 2. 45 D
Plate1. General view of experimental site
45 Days after sowing
Plate
Plate 4.
Plate 3. Panicle initiation stage of crop
Plate 4. Physiological maturity stage
Plate 5. Water measurement in field water tube
Plate 6. Harvesting and Threshing of crop
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results of the field experiment entitled “Water management for different
systems of rice (Oryza sativa l.) cultivation in puddled soils” conducted during kharif
(July- Oct) 2014 at Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) rice section farm, PJTSAU
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad are presented here under. The data collected on various
parameters during the experimentation was analyzed and the results are furnished in
tables and illustrated through figures wherever necessary. The results are critically
interpreted with pertinent discussion wherever appropriate.
WEATHER CONDITIONS DURING CROP GROWTH SEASON
Weather plays a major role in successful growth of any crop for realizing
the potential yields. A total rainfall of 356 mm was received in 26 rainy days during the
entire crop growth period. The mean weekly maximum and minimum temperature
ranged from 34.0 to 27.5 0C and 24.5 to 16.10C, respectively. The other weather
parameters viz., relative humidity, bright sunshine hours and wind speed were normal
and relatively dry weather prevailed during the crop growth period (Appendix-A). In
general, the weather was favourable for crop growth and no incidence of major disease
and pest was observed.
4.1 PLANT POPULATION
4.1.1 Initial and final plant population (number of hills m-2)
The data on number of hills m-2 at 15 DAS/DAT revealed that significantly
higher plant population m-2 was maintained in drum seeding method of transplanting
(79.1 hills m-2) as per recommendation over conventional transplanting method (43.3
hills m-2) and machine transplanting (27.4 hills m-2) (Table 4.1). Similarly, the plant
population i e. number of hills m-2 was 78.9, 43.1 and 27.4 with drum seeding method,
conventional transplanting method and machine transplanting, respectively were
maintained at harvest. This indicates that there was wider variation in number of hills m-
2 in different methods and was proved that rice crop had the plasticity to adjust to this
variation and did not showed this effect on number of productive tillers m-2 and grain
yield. However, there was less number tillers and other yield attributes in drum seeding
compared to other systems of cultivation. Similar results were reported by Chandrapala
(2009) and Revathi (2014).
The initial and final plant population was not significantly influenced by different
irrigation regimes (Table 4.1). The initial and final plant population ranged from 98.3 to
95.9 per cent and 94.9 to 98.1 per cent, respectively in different treatments.
The interaction between systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes was not
significant.
4.2 GROWTH PARAMETERS
4.2.1 Number of tillers m-2
The data on number of tillers (m-2) of rice differed significantly at different growth
stages due to different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes except at 50 DAS
(Table 4.2). Tiller number m-2 increased up to 80 DAS and declined thereafter which
might be due to self thinning mechanism, resource constraint or intra-plant competition.
These results are supported by Harish et al. (2011).
Among different rice cultivation systems, machine transplanting recorded
significantly higher number of tillers m-2 at 80, 110 DAS and at harvest (475, 339 and
336 tillers m-2 respectively) compared to drum seeding (392, 290 and 288 tillers m-2
respectively) and was on par with CTP (416, 336 and 333 tillers m-2, respectively).
Transplanting of early aged seedlings with machine transplanting might have improved
tillering efficiency of the crop (Venkateswarlu, 2011).This could be attributed to better
aeration and less competition between plants due to wider spacing for light and nutrient
as in case of machine transplanting (30 cm × 12 cm). These results corroborates with
findings of Hugar et al. (2009) and Anbumani et al. (2004).
Significantly higher number of tillers m-2 was recorded at 80 DAS with
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (476 m-2) over
AWDI of 5 cm submergence when water level falls below10 cm in field water tube (392
m-2) and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (412 m-2) and was on par with 5cm
submergence with 5 cm drop of water level in field water tube (430 m-2). In turn, the
later treatments i.e irrigating field with AWDI of 5 cm when water levels falls below 10
cm in field water tube though recorded significantly lower tillers was on par with other
AWDI treatments of 5 cm irrigation when water level falls below 5 cm in field water
tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW.
Tiller number recorded with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level
as per crop stage (I4) at 110 DAS and harvest (343 and 339 m-2 respectively) was
significantly higher over AWDI of 5 cm submergence with 10 cm drop of water level
in field water tube (283 and 280 m-2 , respectively) and was on par with AWDI of 5cm
submergence with 5 cm drop of water level in field water tube and 3 DADPW (341, 340
and 321, 317 m-2 respectively). Lower number of tillers under delayed irrigation could
be due to development of water stress in plants which resulted in reduced cellular
growth and lowered down of leaf water potential (Bagg and Turner, 1976).The stress
caused due to the alternate wetting and drying and irrigation 3DADPW led to lower
tillers Frequent irrigations maintenance of 2-5 cm submergence created favorable
moisture regimes which enabled the crop plant to grow lavishly by providing
conductive micro climate and increase absorption, translocation assimilation of
nutrients by the plant for various physiological process (Dass and Chandra, 2012) and
in turn helped the plants to boost their growth through supply of more photosynthates
towards reproductive sinks which caused to produce more number of tillers plant-1
Similar results were reported by Pandey et al. (2010) and Kumar et al. (2014).
Tiller number (m-2) was not significantly influenced by the interaction effect
between systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes.
4.2.2. Dry matter production (kg m-2)
Dry matter production (m-2) of rice differed significantly different growth stages
except at 50 DAS due to different systems of rice cultivation and irrigation regimes
(Table 4.3). The data indicated that irrespective of treatments, dry matter production
increased with increase in time up to harvest.
Machine transplanting, among different cultivation systems recorded
significantly higher dry matter production (0.81 kg m-2) over drum seeding (0.71 kg m-
2) and CTP (0.74 kg m-2) at 80 DAS. There was no significant difference in dry matter
production at 110 DAS and harvest between MTP and CTP and were significantly
higher than drum seeding. Higher dry matter production of the above treatment may be
attributed to better establishment of seedlings and more number of tillers m-2.
Significantly lower dry matter was recorded with drum seeding at all the stages except
at 50 DAS. Lowest dry matter production in drum seeding method may be attributed to
non- uniform plant stand and less number of tillers m-2. This was supported by
Anbumani et al. (2004).
Significantly higher dry matter production was recorded at 80 DAS with
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) and irrigation of
5 cm at 3 DADPW (0.77 kg m-2 each) over AWDI of 5 cm submergence with 10 cm
depletion of water level in field water tube (0.71 kg m-2) and were on par with AWDI of
5cm submergence with 5 cm drop of water level in field water tube (0.76 kg m-2).
At 110 DAS significantly higher (9.1%) dry matter production was recorded
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (1.20 kg m-2) over
AWDI of 5 cm when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube
(1.12 kg m-2) and was on par with 5cm submergence with 5 cm drop of water level in
field water tube (1.19) and 3 DADPW (1.19 kg m-2). The dry matter production
recorded with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop was
significantly higher over rest of the irrigation treatments at harvest. The difference in
dry matter production between AWDI of 5 cm when water level falls below 5 cm in
field tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW was not significant at harvest.
Significantly lower dry matter production was recorded with AWDI of 5 cm when water
level in field water tube falls below 10 cm from soil at all stages of crop growth
compared to other irrigation treatments.
Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4)
recorded higher dry matter production in all the stages of crop. In the presence of
adequate nutrient availability with high absorption of nutrients lead to more growth and
larger photosynthesizing surface and more number of tillers hill-1 proceed to its greater
accumulation of dry matter production under the recommended submergence of 2-5 cm
of irrigation practice and AWDI of 5 cm submergence depth with 5cm drop of water
level in the field tube and 3DADPW. In the present investigation, consequence of
favorable growing environment, better uptake of nutrients helped the plants to boost
their growth leading to produce more tillers and pronounced growth characters through
supply of more synthates towards sink led production of higher dry matter due to AWDI
of 5cm and when drop of water level in the field tube 5 cm and irrigation of 5 cm at 3
DADPW and recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage nad
compared to AWDI of 5 cm submergence depth with 10 cm drop of water level in the
field tube. Similar results were reported by Kumar (2014) and chowdhury (2014).
In the present study dependence of dry matter production on number of tillers (r
= 0.826**) was evident from positive and significant association between them (Table
4.13).
Dry matter (kg m-2) was not significantly influenced by the interaction effect
between systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes.
4.2.3. Root volume (cc hill-1)
The root volume (cc hill-1) was found to increase progressively with
advancement of crop growth stage up to 110 DAS or 90 DAT and decreased slightly at
harvest. (Table 4.4)
Among different rice cultivation systems, machine transplanting recorded
significantly higher root volume 29.0, 48.9 and 46.8 cc hill-1 at 80, 110 DAS and at
harvest respectively over drum seeding at all growth stages except 50 DAS and was on
par conventional transplanting at 80 DAS and at harvest. Further the formers treatment
was significantly higher than later treatment at 110 DAS. Significantly lower root
volume was observed in drum seeding (25.3, 31.0 and 29.7 cc hill-1 at 80, 110 DAS and
at harvest, respectively) than rest of treatments at 110 DAS and harvest and was on par
with CTP at 80 DAS. However, CTP was on par with machine transplanting at 80 DAS
and at harvest, but significantly differed at 110 DAS. This might be due to lesser
spacing and more number of hill m-2 that led to higher intra plant competition and lesser
root growth in drum seeding and more spacing (30×10 cm) and less number of hill m-2
in MTP which enhanced the root volume.
The root volume did not differ significantly among irrigation regimes at 50 DAS
(Table 4.4). At 80, 110 and at harvest significantly higher root volume was observed in
irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
tube 80, 110 DAS and at harvest (28.4, 43.8and 43.9 cc hill-1 respectively) over
irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water
tube and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil
surface in field water tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW than rest of the
treatments at all stages and was significantly inferior at 80 DAS over rest of treatments.
However the lower root volume was observed in irrigation of 5 cm, when water level
falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (24.9, 38.9 and 27.2 cc hill-1 at
80, 110 DAS and at harvest respectively). Root volume recorded with irrigation of 5 cm
at 3 DADPW and irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil
surface in field water tube were on par with each other at all crop stages of growth.
Favorable root growth in terms of root volume was observed under irrigation of 5 cm,
when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube method of
irrigation and was numerically higher than recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water
level as per crop stage (I4) treatment though statistically at par at 80 DAS and 110 DAS
and significantly higher at harvest. It kept the soil with optimum moisture and aerated
condition, so that roots had access to both oxygen and water and increased root
oxidation activity and root source cytokinins in intermediate irrigation. This might have
promoted better root growth in the current investigation and similar findings were
reported by Stoop et al. (2002) and Thakur et al. (2011).
Root volume (cc hill-1) was not significantly influenced by the interaction effect
between systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes.
4.3 YIELD PARAMETERS
Data on the yield attributes viz., number of panicles m-2, panicle length (cm),
filled grains panicle-1, 1000 seed weight (g), as influenced by different treatments were
collected, analyzed and presented as under.
4.3.1 Number of panicles (m-2)
Different rice cultivation methods and irrigation regimes had significant influence
on number of panicles m-2 (Table 4.5). The data on panicles m-2 of various treatments
indicated that among the cultivation systems machine transplanting recorded
significantly higher (20%) number of panicles (290 m-2) as compared to drum
seeding (241 m-2) and was on par with conventional line transplanting (278 m-2). The
increase in panicles m-2 with machine transplanting (MTP) and conventional
transplanting was mainly due to optimum plant population and plant geometry that
resulted in even distribution of light, moisture and nutrients among rice plants in unit
area leading to manifestation of ideal growth and yield attributes. These results are in
agreement with findings of Anubumani et al. (2004) and Singh et al. (2009). Drum
seeding method produced significantly less number of panicles (241 m-2) over other
systems of rice cultivation.
Irrigation treatments also had significant influence on the number of panicles m-2.
(Table 4.5). Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4)
registered significantly more (40%) number of panicles (304) m-2 compared to AWDI of
5 cm when water falls below 10 cm from soil surface and was on par with alternate
wetting and drying irrigation (AWDI) of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from
soil surface in field water tube (I1) (288 panicle m-2). There was no significant
difference between AWDI of 5cm when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface
in field water tube (I1) and Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded
water (DADPW) (I3) (270 panicles m-2). Significantly lesser number of panicles was
recorded under irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface
in field water tube with 217 panicles m-2 than rest of the irrigation treatments. Reason
for lower number of panicles m-2 was that plants had suffered from moisture stress;
hence plants were unable to extract more nutrients from deeper layer of soil under
moisture deficit conditions which ultimately led to poor growth and lesser number of
tillers. Similar results were also observed by Sandhu et al. (2012) Ramakrishna et al.
(2007) and Kumar et al. (2014).
The results of the present experiment also showed a significant and positive
correlation of number of panicle with number of tillers m-2 (r = 0.900**), dry matter(r =
0.878**) (Table 4.13).
There was no interaction effect between the treatments studied as far as number of
panicles m-2 concerned
4.3.2 Panicle length (cm)
Different rice cultivation systems did not show influence on panicle length
(Table 4.1). However conventional line transplanting (CTP) recorded higher panicle
length (23.8 cm) compared to machine transplanting (23.5 cm) and drum seeding (23.4
cm). Similar findings were reported by Gill et al. (2006) and Santhi et al. (1998).
The Panicle length of rice did not vary significantly either due to different
irrigation regimes. However irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from
soil surface in field water tube registered lengthier panicle of 24.2 cm, followed by
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) 23.6 cm and
irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (I3) with 23.6 cm. Lower panicle length of 22.9 cm was
registered under AWDI of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface
in field water tube (I2) might have caused moisture stress to rice plant, at panicle
initiation stage resulting in reduced panicle length but not significant difference between
irrigation regimes. Rezaei et al. (2009) and Wahab (1996) also reported similar
observations of reduced panicle length under stress.
The interaction effect between the treatments studied as far as panicle length
concerned was not significant.
4.3.3 Number of filled grains panicle-1
Different rice cultivation systems and interaction effect of systems of cultivation
and irrigation regimes did not influenced significantly the number of filled grains
panicle-1. However significant differences of filled grains panicle-1 was recorded in
among irrigation regimes (Table 4.5).
Number of filled grains (300) panicle-1 noted was higher with CTP method
followed by machine transplanting (287) and drum seeding (276) among different
systems of cultivation. Similar results were reported by Gill et al. (2006), Chandrapala
(2009), Santhi et al. (1998) and Shanthappa (2014).
Among different irrigation regimes, significantly higher filled grains (300)
panicle-1 were recorded with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per
crop stage (I4) which was on par with irrigation of at 5 cm, when water level falls below
5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (I1) and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (I3)
but these treatments had significantly higher than irrigation of 5 cm submergence with
10 cm drop of water level in the field tube. The difference between conventional method
of irrigation and with 5 cm drop of water level in the field tube and irrigation of 5 cm at
3 DADPW was very less (only 6 and 22 grains panicle-1 respectively) but very high
difference (44 grains panicle-1) was observed with irrigation with 10 cm drop of water
level in the field tube. Deficit irrigation during crop growth affected partitioning of dry
matter at grain filling stage and resulted in significant reduction in number of filled
grains panicle-1 due to moisture stress for certain days due to cyclic witting and drying.
These results are in accordance with findings of Panda et al. (1980), Sandhu et al.
(2012) and Kumar et al. (2014).
4.3.4 Number of unfilled grains panicle-1
Significant variations with respect to number of unfilled grains panicles-1 due to
various irrigation treatments were observed though the differences in number of unfilled
grains were not significantly influenced by different cultivation system and irrigation
regimes (Table 4.5).
However, more number of unfilled grains panicles-1 was observed in drum
seeding (29) and machine transplanting (29 grains panicle-1) than conventional
transplanting (27 grains panicle-1). These results are corroborate with observations by
Gill et al. (2006), Chandrapala (2009) and Shanthappa (2014).
Among different irrigation water management treatments AWDI of 5 cm with
10 cm drop of water level in the field tube (I2) recorded significantly higher number of
unfilled grains panicle-1 (33) over rest of the treatments. Unfilled grains recorded with
AWDI of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube
(I1) (28 grains panicle-1) and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (I3) (29 grains panicle-1)
was found on par with each other. Significantly lower unfilled grains (23) over rest of
treatments were recorded with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per
crop stage (I4). These results were in close conformity with the findings of Pandey et al.
(2010) and Sandhu et al. (2012).
4.3.5 Panicle weight (g)
Different rice cultivation systems and interaction effects of methods of
cultivations and irrigation regimes did not influenced panicle weight of rice (Table 4.5).
However higher panicle weight was observed in conventional transplanting (2.85 g)
followed by machine transplanting(2.82 g) and drum seeding (2.79 g). These findings
were supported by results of Chandrapala (2009) and Revathi (2014).
Among different irrigation regimes, significantly lower panicle weight was
recorded under AWDI with 10 cm drop of water level in the field tube (2.5 g panicle-1)
than rest of irrigation regimes. Significantly higher panicle weight was observed with
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) (3.1g) and was
on par with AWDI with 5 cm when water level in the field tube falls below 5 cm from
soil surface (I1) (2.8), irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (I3) with (2.9 g). This might be
due to that optimum soil water balance without any wide fluctuations and higher
nutrient uptake due to better availability of nutrients which lead to higher dry matter in
panicles in recommended submergence of 2-5 cm. Similar results were also observed by
Azarpour et al. (2011) and Kumar et al. (2014).
4.3.6 Test (1000) grain weight (g)
The test weight of rice did not vary significantly either due to different rice
cultivation systems or due to irrigation regimes or due to interaction effect.
Different rice cultivation systems and irrigation regimes did not influenced 1000
seed weight of rice (Table 4.5) and average test (1000 grain) weight ranged from 11.5 to
11.9 g among different treatments, as the test weight of variety is genetically inherent
character did not influenced by cultivation systems and irrigation regimes. Similar
results were also observed by Santhi et al. (1998), Yashwant Singh (1999), Gill et al.
(2006), Rezaei et al. (2009) and Chowdhury et al. (2014), country to this Shantappa
(2014) reported significant variation between SRI and machine transplanting increased
test weight due to AWDI.
4.3.7. Grain yield (kg ha-1)
Grain yield of rice was significantly influenced by different rice cultivation methods and
irrigation regimes. However there was no significant effect of interaction between
systems of rice cultivation and irrigation regimes. (Table 4.6)
Among different rice cultivation systems, machine transplanting recorded
(14.7%) higher grain yield (6088 kg ha-1) which was significantly superior than drum
seeding method (5308 kg ha-1). However conventional transplanting method (5926 kg
ha-1) was found on par to machine transplanting method with 2.7 per cent variation.
Better vegetative growth with efficient dry matter accumulation and effective
partitioning to panicles resulted in more number of panicles m-2 and grains panicles-1, in
the treatment where crop was transplanted with machine transplanting which was
reflected in its grain yield. These findings are in agreement with the results reported
earlier by Anoop Dixit et al. (2007), Manjunatha et al. (2009) and Venkateswarlu et al.
(2011). The lowest yield on other side was recorded with drum seeding of sowing (5308
kg ha-1) as required crop stand was not maintained in field as become there was rain fall
immediately after drum seeding of sprouted seeds and filling gaps afterwards did not
compensate the yield loss.
Among the different irrigation regimes, recommended submergence of 2-5 cm
water level as per crop stage (I4) recorded significantly higher grain yield of 6148 kg
ha-1 and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (I3). Further, the later
treatment was on par with AWDI of 5 cm drop of water level was 5 cm in the field tube
(I1). Significantly lower yield was obtained with AWDI of 5 cm submergence with 10
cm drop of water level in the field tube (I2) with 5346 kg ha-1
There were 5.7, 6.9 and 14.3 per cent increase in yield under recommended
submergence over irrigation at 3 DADPW and AWDI of 5 cm at 5 cm and 10 cm water
level fall in field water tube from surface respectively. The increased yields under
recommended submergence might be due to favorable growing and nutrition supply
environment resulted in higher dry matter and increased uptake of nutrients which lead
the plants with superior growth. The favorable growth traits enhanced the yield
attributing characters with higher source to sink conversion, which in turn resulted in
higher grain and straw yields. These results are is in line with findings of Thiyagarajan
et al. (2002) and Geethalakshmi et al. (2009). On the other hand, hair line crack
formation under AWDI irrigation practice at 5cm drop of water level in the field water
tube and 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) also attained same level
of yield. Similar results were found by Das et al. (2000), Uppal et al. (1991), Kumar et
al. (2006) and Majid (2014).
The dependence of the grain yield was fund to be significantly (p = 0.01) and
positively correlated with number of tillers m-2 (r = 0.738**), dry matter kg ha-1 (r =
0.969**) and root volume (r = 0.787**) also observed in present experiment and in case
of yield attributes also the grain yield found to be significant (p = 0.01) and positively
correlated with panicle number (r = 0.800**), filled grains panicle-1 (r = 0.574*), straw
yield (kg ha-1), (r = 0.862**) and total nitrogen uptake (r = 0.869**) and negatively
correlated with un filled grains (r = 0.668*) (Table 4.13).
Water stress inhibits the growth and photosynthetic abilities of crop plants
through disturbing the balance between the reactive oxygen species and the antioxidant
defense, causing accumulation of reactive oxygen species which induce oxidative stress
to proteins, membrane lipids and other cellular components. Water stress also affects
photochemical and enzymatic activities in crop plants. Consequently, the stressful
situations lead to lower paddy yield. Lower growth and yield under delayed irrigations
could be due to development of water stress in plants, resulting in reduced cellular
growth (Hasiao, 1973), lowering down of leaf-water potential (Bagg and Turner, 1976),
closer of stomata (Salisbury and Ross, 2009) and decline in radiation-use efficiency
(Whitefield and Smith, 1989).
4.3.8. Straw yield (kg ha-1)
Straw yield of rice was significantly influenced by different rice cultivation systems and
irrigation regimes (Table 4.2)
Among different cultivation systems, machine transplanting recorded significantly
higher straw yield (6954 kg ha-1) than drum seeding method (6295 kg ha-1) and was on
par with conventional transplanting (6886 kg ha-1). This may be attributed to higher
number of tillers hill-1 due to transplanting of more and young seedlings hill-1 in case of
mechanical transplanting. Drum seeding method reported lowest straw yield compared
to the other methods this might be due to uneven plant stand and less seedlings per hill
and less number of tillers. Similar increase was reported by Anbumani et al. (2004),
Prasad et al. (2001), Manjappa and Kataraki (2004) and Jayadeeva and Shetty (2008).
Straw yield of 7039 kg ha-1 was significantly higher registered under
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage and was on par with
AWDI of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water field
tube (6204 kg ha-1). Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (6732 kg ha-1) was on par with
AWDI of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water field
tube. Significantly the lowest straw yield (6204 kg ha-1) was obtained under AWDI 5cm
submergence at 10 cm drop of water level in the field tube then rest of the treatments.
Highest straw yield of rice was registered under the conventional method of irrigation
practice this might be due to adequate moisture availability which contributed to
increased dry matter accumulation. Similar results were reported by Singh and Ingram
(2000), Sariam and Anuar (2010), Dhar et al. (2008), Kumar et al. (2014), Ramakrishna
(2007) and Majid (2014).
4.3.9 Harvest index
The harvest index of rice was not significantly influenced by different
cultivation systems and irrigation regimes and their interaction effect (Table 4.6) and
harvest index ranged from 45.5 to 46.6 % among different treatments.
4.4 CORRELATION BETWEEN GRAIN YIELD GROWTH AND
YIELD ATTRIBUTES AND NUTRINT UPTAKE
Correlation studies of grain yield of rice versus growth parameters and yield
components and nutrient uptake indicated that there was significant and positive
correlation at 5 per cent level. (Table 4.13)
4.5. WATER USE STUDIES
Analysis of crop performance as related to water supply and use will enable to
gauge the benefits or otherwise of the treatments. Studies on total consumptive water
use and its final use efficiency will help to rationalize the water application and its use.
4.5.1. Field water use
The amount of water required meeting the demands of evapotranspiration and
metabolic activities of rice together constitute the consumptive water use, which
includes the effective rainfall during the growing season. The water applied to field,
includes different losses of water. The field water use of crop for various treatments is
presented in Table 4.7.
Drum seeding system recorded higher total applied water (1359.4 mm) among
different cultivation systems as compared to CTP (1325.5 mm) and MTP (1313.5 mm).
The Field water use depends mostly on irrigation frequency and the quantity of
water used by the crop. Water input (irrigation plus effective rainfall) in different
treatments varied between 1085 mm to 1819.7 mm. The recommended submergence of
2-5 cm water level as per crop stage consumed more water (1819.7 mm) among
different irrigation regimes. This was followed by irrigation of 5 cm, when water level
falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (1271.7 mm) and irrigation of 5
cm at 3 DADPW (1154.7 mm). Increased consumptive use of water registered under
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop and irrigation of 5 cm,
when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube was mainly due
to more frequent irrigations and increased daily evapotranspiration. It was due to
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage, where the number
of irrigations was 35 compared with 28 in irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls
below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube and 26 in Irrigation of 5 cm at 3
DADPW. On the contrary, lesser consumptive use of water was observed under AWDI
at 10 cm drop of water level in the field tube was due to lesser number of irrigations
(20). Practicing irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface
in field water tube treatments were recorded least water consumption (1085 mm) among
different irrigation regimes.
Increased dry cycles with reduced evapotranspiration got by this treatment and
had negative effect on yields. Similar observations were reported by Ramakrishna
(2007).
4.5.2. Water use efficiency
Water use efficiency (WUE) determination in irrigation commands will indicate
the unit quantity of grain yield obtained per unit quantity of water used. Water use
efficiency of the treatments assessed are furnished in Table 4.7.
Significantly higher water use efficiency (4.7 kg ha-1 mm-1) was recorded in case
of machine transplanting as compared to drum seeding (4.0 kg ha-1 mm-1) and was on
par with conventional transplanting (4.6 kg ha-1 mm-1). This was due to higher grain
yield and comparatively lower irrigation water used in MTP.
The different irrigation practices significantly influenced the WUE of the rice
crop. The WUE was higher in the treatment with irrigation of 5cm when water level
falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (I2), which registered 4.9 kg ha
mm-1 and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (4.8 kg ha mm-1) and
irrigation of 5cm when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube
with (4.5 kg ha mm-1). The lowest WUE was accounted with recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4), which recorded 3.5 kg ha mm-
1. The higher water use efficiency (WUE) can be increased either by increasing yield or
by maintaining the same yield level with reduced quantity of water input. In the present
study also, reduction in consumptive water use under irrigation of 5 cm when water
level falls below 5 and 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube and irrigation of 5 cm
at 3 DADPW coupled with the maintenance of yield at an optimum level increased the
WUE. WUE under AWDI of 5 cm submergence depth with 10 cm drop of water level
in the field tube treatment was 40 per cent compared to the recommended submergence
of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage. Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below
5 cm from soil surface in field water tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW
treatments compared to the conventional method of irrigation practice recorded higher
WUE of 28.6 and 37.1 per cent over recommended practice due to reduction in
consumptive use.
4.6. NUTRIENT UPTAKE
4.6.1. Nitrogen uptake
Crop establishment techniques differed significantly on N uptake at flowering
and harvest stages of crop growth (Table 4.8). The N uptake was significantly higher at
flowering stage with machine transplanting (104 kg ha-1) over drum seeding method
(87.7 kg ha-1) and was on par with CTP (98.6 kg ha-1).
At harvest significantly higher N uptake by grain and straw was recorded with
machine transplanting method (58, 50.1 and 108.2 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total
uptake, respectively) over drum seeding (50.4, 41.3 and 91.7 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and
total uptake, respectively) and was on par with CTP (57, 47.1 and 104.1 kg ha-1 in grain,
straw and total uptake, respectively). The increase in nitrogen uptake in MTP method
could be attributed to large and functional root system and also higher dry matter
production per unit area. These results are in agreement with the findings of
Chandrapala (2009), Anbumani et al. (2004) and Sandhya Kanthi et al. (2014).
Among irrigation regimes, N uptake was significantly higher at flowering stage
with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) (105 kg ha-
1) over irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field
water tube (90 kg ha-1) and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (93.7 kg ha-1) and was on
par with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field
water tube ( 98.3 kg ha-1), significantly lower N uptake was recorded at flowering with
irrigation of 5 cm when water level falls below 10 cm from soil in field water tube over
rest of the treatments.
At harvest, significantly higher N uptake by grain and straw and total was
recorded with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (59.7,
49.7 and 109.4 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake, respectively) over irrigation of 5
cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (51.5, 43.7
and 95.2 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake, respectively) and irrigation of 5 cm at 3
DADPW ( 53.1, 44.8 and 97.9 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake, respectively) and
was on par with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface
in field water tube (56.5, 46.4 and 102.9 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake,
respectively). However, N uptake with recorded with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (I3)
and irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field
water tube were on par with each other. Significantly higher N uptake might be due to
the greater and healthy root growth, which increased availability and efficient
absorption from the soil and transport of nutrients from root to shoot and grains with
irrigation at recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) and
irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
tube. Similar results were observed by Panda et al. (1997), Ramakrishna (2007) and
Chowdhury (2014).
Interaction effect on nitrogen uptake due to different cultivation systems and
irrigation regimes was not found to be significant at flowering and harvesting.
4.6.2. Phosphorous uptake
Crop establishment techniques differed significantly on P uptake at flowering
and harvest stages of crop growth (Table 4.9). The P uptake at flowering stage was
significantly higher with machine transplanting (17.2 kg ha-1) over drum seeding
method (15.53 kg ha-1) and on par with CTP (16.7 kg ha-1). However, drum seeding
method and CTP recorded statistically on par with each other in P uptake at flowering.
significantly higher P uptake by grain straw and total was recorded at harvest
with machine transplanting (16.5, 14.41 and 30.9 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total
uptake, respectively) over drum seeding (13.46, 13.57 and 27.03 kg ha-1 in grain, straw
and total uptake, respectively) and on was par with CTP (15. 7, 13.9 and 29.7 kg ha-1 in
grain, straw and total uptake, respectively). However P uptake by straw at harvest in
later treatment was on par with drum seeding. The higher uptake of phosphorous in
MTP was ascribed to higher root growth and greater volume soil available to individual
hill to absorb water and nutrients under wider spacing. These results are in consonance
with the findings of Chander and Pandey (1997) and Anbumani et al. (2004).
Among different irrigation regimes, P uptake at flowering stage was
significantly higher with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop
stage (I4) (17.09 kg ha-1) over irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm
from soil surface in field water tube (15.09 kg ha-1) and was on par with irrigation of 5
cm at 3 DADPW (16.75 kg ha-1) and irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5
cm from soil surface in field water tube (17.07 kg ha-1).
At harvest, significantly higher P uptake by grain straw and total was recorded
with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) (17.16,
14.52 and 31.68 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake, respectively) over irrigation of
5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (12.74,
13.22 and 25.96 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake, respectively) and was on par
with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (15.35, 13.97 and 29.32 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and
total uptake, respectively) and irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm
from soil surface in field water tube (56.5, 46.4 and 102.9 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and
total uptake, respectively). Significantly lower P uptake was recorded with irrigation of
5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube due to
significantly lower dry matter and less root volume as compared to other treatments.
Higher phosphorus accumulation under recommended submergence, irrigation of 5 cm,
when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube and 3DADPW is
ascribed to greater and healthy root growth, increased availability and efficient
absorption from the soil and transport of nutrient from roots to shoots and grains, which
ultimately improved growth and yield. These results are in agreement with the findings
of Panda et al. (1997) and Ramakrishna (2007) and Chowdhury (2014).
Interaction effect on P uptake due to different cultivation systems and irrigation
regimes was not significant at flowering and harvesting.
4.6.3. Potassium uptake
Different cultivation systems differed significantly on K uptake at flowering
and harvest stages of crop growth (Table 4.10). The K uptake was at flowering stage
significantly higher with machine transplanting (56 kg ha-1) over drum seeding method
(45.54 kg ha-1) and on par with CTP (51.29 kg ha-1). However, drum seeding method and
CTP recorded statistically on par with each other.
At harvest, significantly higher K uptake by grain , straw and total plant was
recorded with machine transplanting (8.7, 47.59 and 56.33kg ha-1 in grain, straw and
total uptake, respectively) over drum seeding (7.2, 43.21and 50.36kg ha-1 in grain, straw
and total uptake, respectively) and on par with CTP (8.2, 45.64and 53.79 kg ha-1 in
grain, straw and total uptake, respectively). While, significantly the lower K uptake was
associated with drum seeding (M1), which was however, on a par CTP (M3). The higher
uptake of K with MTP method might be due to the conducive physical environment that
was advantageous for better root growth and adsorption of native as well as applied
source. Similar results have also been reported by Chander and Pandey (1997),
Anbumani et al. (2004) and Sandhya Kanthi et al., 2014).
Among irrigation regimes, K uptake was at flowering stage significantly higher
with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) (55.86 kg
ha-1) over irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in
field water tube (45.74 kg ha-1) and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW
(50.63 kg ha-1) and irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil
surface in field water tube (51.54 kg ha-1).
Uptake of K by grain, straw and total plant recorded with recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) (8.4, 49.16 and 57.57 kg ha-1 in
grain, straw and total uptake, respectively) was significantly higher at harvest over
irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water
tube (7.5, 43.15and 50.61 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake, respectively) and was
on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in
field water tube (8.2, 45.78 and 53.94 kg ha-1 in grain, straw and total uptake,
respectively). Significantly lower uptake of K was recorded with irrigation of 5 cm
when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube and was on par
with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW at flower and harvest (grain, straw and total
plant).Further the former treatment was also on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water
level falls below 5 cm from soil in uptake of K by straw and total plant at harvest.
The lowest uptake by irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil
surface in field water tube treatment was might be due to the affect some physiological
processes such as transpiration rate which would decrease plant K uptake under water
stress condition. Similar results were reported by Panda et al. (1997) and Ramakrishna
(2007) and Chowdhury (2014).
Interaction effect on K uptake due to different cultivation systems and irrigation
regimes was not found to be significant at flowering and harvesting.
4.6.4 Post-harvest nutrient status in soil
Post-harvest nutrient status of soil was not significantly influenced by the
different cultivation systems, irrigation regimes and interactions presented in (Table
4.11)
However among different cultivation systems higher available soil N, P and K
content was recorded in CTP method with 156.7, 86.20 and 424.2 N, P2O5 and K2O kg
ha-1 respectively and higher N, P and K content was higher under irrigation of 5 cm,
when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube with 152.1,
83.86 and 425.9 N, P2O5 and K2O respectively.
4.7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
4.7.1 Gross returns ( ha-1)
Gross returns increased with increasing grain and straw yield due to different
treatments. Gross returns were calculated in different treatments based on grain and
straw yield of rice and multiplied with respective value of grain and straw yield.
Different cultivation systems significantly varied in recording gross return,
Machine transplanting recorded significantly higher gross returns (82,880 ha-1) over
conventional transplanting (80,685 ha-1) and drum seeding (72,291 ha-1), (Table
4.12). This was due to higher grain and straw yield under MTP than drum seeding and
CTP. These results are in accordance with findings of Manjappa and Kataraki (2004),
Venkateswarlu et al. (2011)
In different irrigation regimes conventional practice of irrigation recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (I4) recorded significantly higher
gross returns (83,706 ha-1) compared to 5 cm submergence with 5 cm drop of water
level in the field tube (78,329 ha-1) and 5 cm submergence with 10 cm drop of water
level in field water tube (73,236 ha-1) and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3
DADPW (79,205 ha-1), This was due to higher grain and straw yield under
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage than other irrigation
treatments. These results are in accordance with findings of Dass and Chandra (2012).
Significantly lower gross returns were recorded with 5 cm submergence with 10 cm
drop of water level in field water tube compared to rest of the treatments.
Interaction between systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes did not
influence the gross returns.
4.7.2 Net returns ( ha-1)
The net returns of rice showed significant variations due to different cultivation
systems, irrigation regimes and the variation was not influenced by the interaction effect
(Table 4.12). Among different cultivation systems, machine transplanting was found
economically best as it registered higher net returns (50,035 ha-1) over other
cultivation systems. However, transplanting in conventional method was found on par
to machine transplanting with net returns of 44,088 ha-1. Significantly lower net
returns were obtained in drum seeding 39,799 ha-1 and was on par with CTP. Higher
net returns in machine transplanting mainly due to higher grain and straw yield which
resulted in higher gross returns compared to other methods. In turn the cost of
cultivation was lower with machine transplanting compared to CTP. This could be due
to labour saving of around 24 man day,s ha-1 in machine transplanting over CTP. Zahide
Rashid et al. (2010) found that the advantage with mechanical transplanters was that
one can transplant without searching for labourers which ultimately means that the cost
of cultivation was reduced. Though there was lower cost of cultivation due to drum
seeding, the net returns were lower in due to low gross returns as a result of lower grain
yield compared to conventional transplanting. These results are in accordance with
findings of Manjappa and Kataraki (2004), Manjunatha et al. (2009) and Hugar et al.
(2009).
Among different irrigation regimes, irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW recorded
significantly higher net returns of 47,245 ha-1 followed by irrigation of 5 cm, when
water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (44,986 ha-1) than
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (43,339 ha-1) and
irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water
tube (42,993 ha-1). This was mainly due to higher grain and straw yield resulting in
higher gross returns and lesser cost of cultivation in irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW
followed by AWDI of 5 cm when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
compared to recommended submergence of 2-3 cm as per crop stage. Recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage recorded higher cost of cultivation
(40,367 ha-1) compared to irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from
soil surface in field water tube (33,343 ha-1), irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (31,960
ha-1) and irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in
filed water tube (30,243 ha-1). This was because of higher number of irrigation given
to recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage treatment (31
irrigations) as compared to irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from
soil surface in field water tube , (25 irrigations). These results are in accordance with
findings of Dass and Chandra (2012) and Kumar et al. (2007).Significantly lower net
returns were recorded with irrigation of 5 cm when water level falls below 10 cm from
soil surface in field water tube (42,993 ha-1) due to lower gross returns as a
consequence of lower grain and straw yield compared to other treatments.
Interaction between systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes did not
influence the net returns.
4.7.3 Benefit: Cost ratio (B: C ratio)
B: C ratio is the basic agronomic criteria to decide economic returns and was
calculated based on gross returns divided by cost of cultivation of respective treatment
combination. B: C ratio was significantly influenced by different cultivation systems
and irrigation regimes and was not influenced by interaction effect. Machine
transplanting among different systems, recorded higher B: C ratio (2.54) over drum
seeding method (2.25) and conventional method transplanting (2.21).The higher benefit
cost ratio in MTP was attributed to higher net returns with reduced cost of cultivation
as these was labour saving of about 14 men days ha-1 over manual transplanting. The
cost of machine transplanting was 32,845 ha-1 with 35 laboures. Were as manual
transplanting cost was 3 6,598 ha-1 with 49 labourers. These findings are in conformity
with Manjunatha et al. (2009).
Significant improvement in B: C ratio was recorded due to different irrigation
water regimes and significantly higher B: C ratio (2.48) was obtained under irrigation of
5 cm at 3 DADPW over recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop
stage (2.07) and was on par with Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm
from soil surface in field water tube (2.43). The higher benefit cost ratio was attributed
to higher net returns with reduced cost of cultivation compared to other irrigation
regimes. These results are in accordance with findings of Dass and Chandra (2012)
Kumar et al. (2007). Significantly lower benefit cost ratio was observed with
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop growth stage due to
higher cost of cultivation compared to other irrigation regimes.
Interaction between systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes did not
influence the benefit cost ratio.
4.8. WATER STRESS PARAMETERS
4.8.1. Relative water content
Relative water content (RWC) was not varied much among different rice cultivation
systems.
The relative water content at various stages of crop growth revealed at there was
reduction due to irrigation regimes (Appendix-F).
There was not much variation in RWC in recommended submergence of 2-5 cm
water level as per crop stage of irrigation (99.6 %) and irrigation of 5 cm, when water
level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (98.5 %) and irrigation of 5
cm at 3 DADPW (97.6 %) treatments but shown high variation with irrigation of 5 cm,
when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (91.3 %). This
could be due to the differential absorption of water by the plants and governed in part
by soil factors such as water content and unsaturated conductivity. When the soil dries,
water uptake by the roots becomes more difficult and uptake declines. This reduction in
water used eventually results in the development of a water deficit in the shoot as a
result relative water content decreased. The decreased RWC in irrigation of 5 cm, when
water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube plants might be due
to decreased in plant vigour. The plants of the irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls
below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW
treatments absorbed water from the deeper soil surface as well as that water present on
the root surfaces. However, during the irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below
10 cm from soil surface in field water tube create water stress period, the water
available to the root zone of the plants of was limited and deceased as the surfaces soil
and root surfaces dried out. These results are agreed with the findings of Techawongstin
et al. (1993).
Fig. 4.4. Regression of grain yield (kg ha-1) on Relative water content
It was generally observed that the higher the RWC, the higher was the yield.
There was a positive correlation (R2=0.50, P<0.001) between yield and relative water
content (Fig. 4.4). This result similar with the findings of Cruz et al. (1986).
4.9.2. Leaf water potential
Leaf water potential (LWP) of rice plant did not vary much in different rice
cultivation systems.
The leaf water potential (LWP) at various stages of crop growth revealed that
there was variation due to irrigation regimes (Appendix-E), LWP decreased from -12.0
Bar to -18.0 Bar with increasing water stress. Under irrigation of 5 cm, when water
level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube condition, the solute
concentration in the root zone may be increased which decreased the permeability of the
roots and reduced water uptake by the roots as a results declined leaf water potential
over irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field
water tube, irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW treatments. Highest leaf water potential
recorded under the recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage.
Similar observation was also made by Cruz et al. (1986) in rice, Siddique et al. (1999)
in wheat.
Fig.4.5. Regression of grain yield (kg ha-1) on Leaf water potential
There was a positive correlation between leaf water potential and yield
(R2=0.72, P<.001) Fig. 4.5. Similarly, a positive correlation between leaf water potential
and leaf relative water content (R2 = 0.85 P <.001) Fig. 4.6 and suggested that LWP is
also an indicator of water status of plants as also reported by Sinclair and Ludlow,
(1985).
Fig.4.6. Regression of Relative water content on Leaf water potential
Fig. 4.1. Dry matter (kg m-2) of rice as influenced by different systemes of rice
cultivation and irrigation regimes
Fig. 4.2 Grain, straw yield (kg ha-1) and harvest index (%) of rice as influenced by
different systemes of rice cultivation and irrigation regimes
Fig. 4.3 Water productivity (kg mm-1) of rice as influenced by different systemes of
rice cultivation and irrigation regimes
Table 4.1. Number of hills m-2 of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at 15 DAS/DAT and harvest
Treatment 15DAS/DAT At harvest Main plot - systems of cultivation (M) No. of
hills m-2 Per cent Square root
transformatin No. of hills m-2
Per cent
Square root transformatin
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 69.1 83.2 9.1 68.2 82.1 9.1 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 27.5 98.2 9.9 27.4 97.9 9.9 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 43.3 98.3 9.9 43.1 97.9 9.9 SEm ± 0.3 0.4 0.03 0.2 0.5 0.02 C.D (P=0.05) 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.9 1.9 0.1 Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
46.7 93.3 9.7 46.3 92.8 9.6
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
46.2 93.1 9.6 45.6 91.9 9.6
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 46.3 92.3 9.6 46.3 92.8 9.6 I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 47.2 94.3 9.7 46.7 93.1 9.6 SEm ± 0.3 0.7 0.04 0.3 0.7 0.04 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS Interaction between different systems of cultivation and Irrigation regimes Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivation SEm± 0.6 1.1 0.06 0.7 1.4 0.1 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS Different systems of cultivation at same level of irrigation regimes SEm ± 0.7 1.5 0.08 0.8 1.7 0.1 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
DAS: Days after sowing, DAT: Days after Transplanting, AWD: Alternate wetting and drying NS: Non Significant
Table 4.2. Number of tillers m-2 of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different growth stages
Treatment 50 DAS*
80DAS** 110DAS # At harvest
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M) M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 278 392 290 288 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 288 475 340 336 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 342 416 336 333 SEm ± 15 14 10 9 C.D (P=0.05%) NS 53 39 34 Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
305 430 341 340
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube
(AWDI) 289 392 283 280
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 304 412 321 317 I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 312 476 343 339 SEm ± 13 16 10 10 C.D (P=0.05) NS 54 35 34 Interaction of different systems of cultivation and Irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 30 32 17 16 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS Different systems of cultivation at same level of irrigation regimes
SEm ± 32.7 38 18 18 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
* 30 DAT, **60 DAT, # 90 DAT for MTP and CTP
Table 4.3. Dry matter accumulation of rice (kg m-2) as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different growth stages
Treatment 50 DAS*
80DAS**
110 DAS #
At harvest
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M)
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 0.187 0.71 1.10 1.16 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 0.151 0.81 1.22 1.30 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 0.172 0.74 1.20 1.28 SEm ±
0.007 0.01 0.02 0.01 C.D (P=0.05) NS 0.03 0.07 0.03 Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
0.174 0.76 1.19 1.26
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
0.169 0.71 1.12 1.16
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 0.171 0.77 1.19 1.25 I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 0.166 0.77 1.20 1.32 SEm ± 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 C.D (P=0.05) NS 0.03 0.05 0.04 Interaction between different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 0.014 0.02 0.04 0.02 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS Different systems of cultivation at same level of irrigation regimes SEm ± 0.015 0.02 0.04 0.03 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
*30 DAT, **60 DAT, # 90 DAT, for MTP and CTP
Table 4.4. Root volume (cc hill-1) of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different growth stages
Treatment 50 DAS*
80DAS**
110 DAS #
At harvest
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M)
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 20.5 25.3 31.0 29.7 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 21.6 29.0 48.9 46.8 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 21.2 27.4 45.8 45.4 SEm ±
0.3 0.6 0.6 0.2 C.D (P=0.05) NS 2.4 2.3 0.9 Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
21.5 28.4 43.8 43.9
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
20.2 24.9 38.9 37.2
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 20.4 27.9 43.2 42.0 I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 22.3 27.7 41.8 39.4 SEm ± 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.5 C.D (P=0.05) NS 1.6 3.1 1.9 Interaction between different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.3
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
Different systems of cultivation at same level of irrigation regimes
SEm ± 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.6
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
*30 DAT, **60 DAT, # 90 DAT, for MTP and CTP
Table 4.5. Yield attribute of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Treatment Number of panicles m-2
Panicle length (cm)
Filled grains panicle-1
Un filled grains
panicle-1
Panicle weight (g)
1000 grain weight (g).
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M)
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 241 23.4 276 29 2.8 11.7 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 290 23.5 287 29 2.8 11.8 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 278 23.8 300 27 2.8 11.5 SEm ±
5 0.2 9 1 0.1 0.2
C.D (P=0.05) 21 NS NS NS NS NS Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
288 24.2 300 28 2.8 11.5
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
217 22.9 262 33 2.5 11.9
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW)
270 23.6 284 29 2.9 11.8
I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 304 23.6 306 23 3.1 11.5 SEm ± 6 0.3 6 1 0.1 0.2 C.D (P=0.05) 22 NS 22 3 0.2 NS
Interaction of different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 13.6 0.4 18 2.0 0.2 0.3
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
Different systems of cultivation at same level of irrigation regimes SEm ± 16 0.5 20 2.4 0.2 0.4
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
Table 4.6. Grain yield, Straw yield (kg ha-1) and harvest index of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Treatment Yield Harvest index (%) Grain Straw
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M)
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 5308 6295 45.8 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 6088 6954 46.6 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 5926 6886 46.2 SEm ±
139 81 0.9
C.D (P=0.05%) 546 317 NS
Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI) 5751 6872 45.5 I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI) 5379 6204 46.5
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 5817 6732 46.3
I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 6148 7039 46.6
SEm ± 96 68 0.5
C.D (P=0.05) 334 236 NS
Interaction between different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 239 182 1.5
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS
Different systems of cultivation at same level of irrigation regimes
SEm ± 238 203 1.5
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS
Table 4.7. Applied water, effective rainfall, total water and water productivity of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and
irrigation regimes
Treatment Applied Water (mm)
Effective Rainfall (mm) *
Total water (mm)
Water Productivity (kg mm-1)
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M) M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 1141 218.1 1359.4 4.0
M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 1100 198.0 1313.5 4.7
M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 1087 198.0 1325.5 4.5
SEm ± 0.1
C.D (P=0.05%) 0.3
Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube 1063 190.7 1271.7 4.5 I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube 813 253.7 1085.0 4.9
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 945 191.7 1154.7 4.8
I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 1619 182.7 1819.7 3.5
SEm ± 0.2
C.D (P=0.05) 0.6
Interaction of different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same or different level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 0.3
C.D (P=0.05) NS
Different systems of cultivation at same level of irrigation regimes SEm ± 0.3
C.D (P=0.05) NS
* Effective rainfall calculated by using water balance sheet method
Table 4.8. Nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different growth stages
Treatment N uptake (kg ha-1) Flowering Harvest
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M) Grain Straw Total M1- Direct seeding (with drum seeder) 87.7 50.4 41.3 91.7 M2- Transplanting with machine 104.0 58.0 50.1 108.2 M3- Conventional transplanting 98.6 57.0 47.1 104.1 SEm ± 2.7 1.4 1.4 2.0 C.D (P=0.05%) 10.4 5.5 5.5 7.8
Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
98.3 56.5 46.4 102.9
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water
tube (AWDI) 90.0 51.5 43.7 95.2
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 93.7 53.1 44.8 97.9
I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 105.0 59.7 49.7 109.4
SEm ± 2.6 1.5 1.2 2.1
C.D (P=0.05) 9.0 5.1 4.1 7.2
Interaction between different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 9.1 3.1 3.0 3.9
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
Different systems of cultivation at same level of Irrigation regimes SEm ± 10.8 3.5 3.3 4.4
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
Table 4.9 Phosphorus uptake (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different growth
stages
Treatment P uptake (kg ha-1) Flowering Harvest
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M) Grain Straw Total
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 15.53 13.46 13.57 27.03 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 17.27 16.58 14.41 30.99 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 16.70 15.77 13.93 29.70 SEm ±
0.33 0.54 0.15 0.47
C.D (P=0.05) 1.28 2.11 0.57 1.85 Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in perforated pipe
17.07 15.84 14.17 30.01
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in perforated pipe
15.09 12.74 13.22 25.96
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 16.75 15.35 13.97 29.32 I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 17.09 17.16 14.52 31.68 SEm ± 0.33 0.84 0.16 0.82 C.D (P=0.05) 1.14 2.90 0.55 2.83 Interaction of different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same or different level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 0.57 1.25 0.51 1.48 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS Different systems of cultivation at same level of Irrigation regimes SEm ± 0.62 1.58 0.62 1.87 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
Table 4.10. Potassium uptake (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes at different stages
Treatment K uptake (kg ha-1) Flowering Harvest
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M) Grain Straw Total
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder (DS) 45.54 7.2 43.21 50.36 M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) 56.00 8.7 47.59 56.33 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 51.29 8.2 45.64 53.79 SEm ±
1.92 0.3 0.77 0.98
C.D (P=0.05) 7.52 1.2 3.01 3.86
Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in in field water tube (AWDI)
51.54 8.2 45.78 53.94
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field
water tube (AWDI) 45.74 7.5 43.15 50.61
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 50.63 8.0 43.81 51.86
I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 55.86 8.4 49.16 57.57
SEm ± 1.59 0.2 1.17 1.18
C.D (P=0.05) 5.49 0.6 4.06 4.09
Interaction of different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same or different level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 3.29 0.4 2.92 3.0
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
Different systems of cultivation at same level of Irrigation regimes
SEm ± 3.28 0.4 3.60 3.60
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
Table 4.11 Post harvest available soil nutrient status (kg ha-1) by rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Treatment Nitrogen (N)
Phosphorus (P2O5)
Potassium (K2O)
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M)
M1- Direct seeding with drum seeder(DS) 147.1 76.61 417.7 M2- Transplanting with machine(MTP) 145.0 78.28 415.1 M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP) 156.7 86.20 424.2 SEm ±
2.9 4.72 11.4
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS
Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (AWDI)
152.1 80.97 418.2
I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water
tube (AWDI) 152.1 83.86 425.9
I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 150.7 78.45 412.1
I4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 143.6 78.18 419.8
SEm ± 7.9 4.22 8.6
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS
Interaction of different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Irrigation regimes at same or different level of systems of cultivation
SEm± 9.9 7.69 21.3
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS
Different systems of cultivation at same level of Irrigation regimes
SEm ± 14.0 7.87 22.3
C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS
Table 4.12: Cost of cultivation, gross returns, net returns and B:C of rice
regimes
Treatment
Main plot - systems of cultivation (M)
M1- Direct seeding (with drum seeder) (DS) M2- Transplanting with machine (MTP) M3- Conventional transplanting (CTP)
SEm ±
C.D (P=0.05)
Sub plot - Irrigation regimes (I) I1- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in (AWDI) I2- Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from(AWDI) I3- Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded waterI4- Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
SEm ±
C.D (P=0.05)
Interaction of different systems of cultivation and Irrigation regimes at same level of systems of cultivationSEm± C.D (P=0.05)
Different systems of cultivation at same level of i
SEm ±
C.D (P=0.05)
Cost of cultivation, gross returns, net returns and B:C of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and
Cost of cultivation ( ha-1)
32493 32845 36598
Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube 33343
falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube 30243
r disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) 31960 5 cm water level as per crop stage 40367
systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
of cultivation
irrigation regimes
systems of cultivation and irrigation
Gross returns ( ha-1)
Net returns ( ha-1)
B:C Ratio
72291 39799 2.25 82880 50035 2.54 80685 44088 2.21
1871 1695 0.06
7346 6653 0.22
78329 44986 2.36
73236 42993 2.43
79205 47245 2.48 83706 43339 2.07
1304 939 0.04
4511 3249 0.14
3220 3054 0.10
NS NS NS
3202 3022 0.10
NS NS NS
APPENDIX-H
Applied water, effective rainfall, total water and water productivity of rice as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Treatment Applied Water (mm)
Effective Rainfall
(mm)
Total water (mm)
Water Productivity (kg mm-1)
M1I1- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5cm in field water tube 1074 204.1 1278.1 4.1 M1I2 Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube 827 267.1 1094.1 4.9 M1I3- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW)
1024 205.1 1229.1 4.1
M1I4 - Drum seeding with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 1640 196.1 1836.1 3.1 M2I1 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
1064 184.0 1263.0 5.0
M2I2 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
812 247.0
1074.0 5.0
M2I3 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
910 185.0
1110.0 5.5
M2I4 - Machine transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 1616 176.0 1807.0 3.5
M3I1- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
1050 184.0 1274.0 4.4
M3I2- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
800 247.0 1087.0 4.9
M3I3- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
900 185.0 1125.0 5.5
M3I4- Conventional transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 1600 176.0 1816.0 3.6
APPENDIX-F
Leaf water potential (bars) at 50, 80, 110 DAS and harvest as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Treatment 50 DAS 80 DAS 110 DAS At harvest
M1I1- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5cm in field water tube
13.05 16.2 12.9 14.7
M1I2 Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
14.65 18.5 18.9 19.9
M1I3- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW)
13.2 15.3 14.2 14.2
M1I4 - Drum seeding with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
10.55 12.7 10.6 11
M2I1 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
13.52 17.7 15.3 13.4
M2I2 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
14.1 18.7 19.3 20.2
M2I3 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
13.58 15.6 12.5 14.3
M2I4 - Machine transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
11.27 11.3 10.5 10.3
M3I1- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
13.48 16 13.5 14.2
M3I2- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
14.5 18.3 19.8 19.9
M3I3- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
13.3 17.5 14.3 14.2
M3I4- Conventional transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 10.5 11.8 11.5 11.8
APPENDIX-G
Relative water content (%) at 50, 80, 110 DAS and harvest as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Treatment 50 DAS 80 DAS 110 DAS At harvest
M1I1- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5cm in field water tube
98.59 99.09 98.91 98.93
M1I2 Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
97.6 96.2 98.17 98.25
M1I3- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW)
98.26 99.12 99.15 98.95
M1I4 - Drum seeding with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
99.63 99.55 99.63 99.07
M2I1 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
98.63 99.18 99.1 98.83
M2I2 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
97.97 98.71 98.23 98.08
M2I3 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
98.53 99.02 99.12 99.23
M2I4 - Machine transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
98.78 99.37 99.5 99.66
M3I1- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
98.89 99.51 99.77 99.3
M3I2- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
95.4 96.18 97.06 95.77
M3I3- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
98.26 99.12 99.71 99.27
M3I4- Conventional transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 99.63 99.63 99.93 99.33
APPENDIX-I
Days to 50% flowering as influenced by different systems of cultivation and irrigation regimes
Treatment Days to 50% flowering (DAS)
M1I1- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5cm in field water tube
80
M1I2 Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
83
M1I3- Drum seeding with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW)
81
M1I4 - Drum seeding with recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage 79 M2I1 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
84
M2I2 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
87
M2I3 - Machine transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
85
M2I4 - Machine transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
81
M3I1- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
84
M3I2- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm in field water tube
88
M3I3- Conventional transplanting with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm in field water tube
85
M3I4- Conventional transplanting recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
83
DAS = Days after sowing
Table 4.13 Correlation studies between grain and yield versus growth, yield attributes and nutrient uptake
Parameters No. of tillers/m2
dry matter at harvest
Root volume (cc hill-1)
Panicles m-2
Panicle length (cm)
Panicle weight (g)
Filled grains panicle-1
un filled grains panicle-1
Straw yield (kg ha-1)
TOTAL N
TOTAL P
TOTAL K
Grain yield (kg ha-1)
No. of tillers/m2
1
dry matter 0.826** 1
Root volume
0.754** 0.812** 1
panicles/m2 0.900** 0.878** 0.649* 1
Panicle length (cm)
0.715** 0.518 0.409 0.571* 1
Panicle weight (g)
0.592* 0.624* 0.231 0.670* 0.447 1
filled grains panicle-1 0.827** 0.719** 0.470 0.751** 0.750** 0.736** 1
un filled grains panicle
-0.642* -0.674* -0.256 -0.743** -0.397 -0.675* -0.691* 1
Straw yield (kg ha-1).
0.865** 0.960** 0.780** 0.901** 0.593* 0.656* 0.829** -0.631* 1
TOTAL N 0.861** 0.907** 0.806** 0.813** 0.452 0.478 0.690* -0.588* 0.882** 1
TOTAL P 0.858** 0.938** 0.687* 0.920** 0.597* 0.618* 0.797** -0.786* 0.942** 0.868** 1
TOTAL K 0.643* 0.694* 0.538 0.520 0.478 0.429 0.490 -0.582* 0.559* 0.766* 0.621* 1
Grain yield (kg ha-1).
0.738** 0.969** 0.787** 0.800** 0.417 0.555 0.574* -0.668* 0.862** 0.869** 0.873** 0.768** 1
Significance Levels 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 If correlation r => 0.57596 0.70789 0.74957 0.82330 *= 0.05 and **= 0.01 Level of Significance
Chapter V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A field experiment was conducted at Rice section, Agricultural Research
Institute Rajendranagar, Hyderabad during kharif 2014 to study the “Water
management for different systems of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation in puddled
soils”. The experimental soil was sandy loam in texture, slightly alkaline in reaction and
non-saline. The fertility status of the experimental soil was low in organic carbon and
available nitrogen, high in available phosphorus and potassium.
The experiment was conducted in a strip plot design with 12 treatments and
three replications. The treatments comprises of three systems of cultivation (direct
seeding with drum seeder, transplanting with machine and conventional transplanting)
as main treatments and four irrigation regimes (irrigation of 5 cm when water level falls
below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube, irrigation of 5 cm when water level
falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube, irrigation of 5 cm at 3 days after
disappearance of ponded water and recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as
per crop stage) as sub plots treatments.
During the course of investigation, data were recorded on plant growth
parameters viz., plant population m-2, number of tillers m-2, dry matter accumulation,
root volume (cm3), yield and yield attributes viz., number of panicles hill-1, panicle
length (cm), filled and un filled grains panicle-1, and 1000 grain weight (g), grain and
straw yield, harvest index, plant water stress parameters viz., relative water content, leaf
water potential besides effective rainfall (mm), quantity of water applied (mm) and
water productivity (kg mm-1)
The data was statistically analyzed and the results were critically interpreted with
appropriate justification wherever necessary with the pertinent literature available. The
salient findings observed in the present investigation was concluded and summarized
here under.
5.1 SUMMARY
Significantly higher plant population number of hills m-2 was maintained 15
DAS/DAT in drum seeding method of transplanting as per recommendation over
conventional transplanting method and machine transplanting and there was no
significant difference among irrigation regimes.
There was no significant interaction effect due to interaction between irrigation
regimes and systems of rice cultivation on number of tillers, dry matter, yield and yield
attributes.
Among different rice cultivation methods, machine transplanting recorded
significantly higher number of tillers m-2 at 80, 110 DAS and at harvest compared to
drum seeding and was on par with CTP at 110 DAS and harvest. Significantly higher
number of tillers m-2 was recorded at 80 and 110 DAS with recommended submergence
of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage over irrigation of 5 cm submergence when water
level falls below10 cm in field water tube and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3
days after disappearance of ponded water (DADPW) and 5cm submergence with 5 cm
drop of water level in field water tube and was significantly higher over rest treatments
at harvest.
Machine transplanting method recorded significantly higher dry matter
production over drum seeding and CTP at 80 DAS. There was no significant difference
in dry matter production at 110 DAS and harvest between MTP and CTP and were
significantly higher than drum seeding. Significantly lower dry matter production was
recorded in drum seeding at all crop growth stages. Recommended submergence of 2-5
cm water level as per crop stage recorded significantly higher dry matter production at
all the stages of crop and was on par with AWDI of 5 cm submergence depth with 5cm
drop of water level in the field tube and 3DADPW at 80 and 110 DAS.
The root volume (cc hill-1) was found to increase progressively with
advancement of crop growth stage up to 110 DAS or 90 DAT and decreased slightly at
harvest. Machine transplanting recorded significantly higher root volume and at 80, 110
DAS and at harvest respectively over drum seeding at all growth stages except 50 DAS
and was on par conventional transplanting at 80 DAS and at harvest. Root volume was
observed with drum seeding was significantly lower over at all growth stages except at
80 DAS. The root volume significantly higher with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level
falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube at 80, 110 DAS and at harvest
over irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field
water tube and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW and recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level through did not differ significantly among irrigation
regimes at 50 DAS. Significantly lower root volume was observed in irrigation of 5 cm,
when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube at all stages of
crop and was on par with recommended water level of 2-3 cm at 110 DAS and harvest.
Significantly higher (20%) number of panicles (290) m-2 was recorded with
machine transplanting as compared to drum seeding (241 m-2) and was on par with
conventional line transplanting (278 m-2). Drum seeding method produced significantly
less number of panicles (241 m-2) over other systems of rice cultivation. Different rice
cultivation systems did not show significant influence on panicle length, number of
filled grains panicle-1, un filled grains panicle-1 and 1000 grain weight.
Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage registered
significantly more (40%) number of panicles (304) m-2 compared to AWDI of 5 cm
when water falls below 10 cm from soil surface and was on par with alternate wetting
and drying irrigation (AWDI) of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil
surface in field water tube (288 panicle m-2).
Significantly higher filled grains (306) panicle-1 were recorded with
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage which was on par
with irrigation of at 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field
water tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW but these treatments had significantly
higher than irrigation of 5 cm submergence with 10 cm drop of water level in the field
tube and recorded significantly higher number of unfilled grains panicle-1 (33) over rest
of the treatments. Significantly higher panicle weight was observed with recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage (3.1g) and was on par with,
irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW with (2.9 g). Significantly lesser number of panicles and
filled grains and panicle weight was recorded under irrigation of 5 cm, when water level
falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (217 m-2 and 2.5 g) than rest of
the irrigation treatments. Panicle length and test weight were not significantly influence
by irrigation regimes.
Machine transplanting recorded (14.7%) and (10.5%) higher grain and straw
yield (6088 and 6954 kg ha-1 respectively) which was significantly superior than drum
seeding method (5308 and 6295 kg ha-1respectively). However conventional
transplanting method (5926 and 6886 kg ha-1) was found on par to machine
transplanting method with 2.7 and 1.0 per cent variation respectively. The lowest yield
on other side was recorded with drum seeding of sowing (5308 and 6295 kg ha-1
respectively) as required crop stand was not maintained in field because of damage by
there was rain fall immediately after drum seeding of sprouted seeds and gaps filled
afterwards did not compensate the yield loss. Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm
water level as per crop stage recorded significantly higher grain yield of 6148 kg ha-1
and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW. There were 5.7, 6.9 and 14.3 per
cent higher in yield under recommended submergence over irrigation at 3 DADPW and
AWDI of 5 cm at 5 cm and 10 cm water level fall in field water tube from surface
respectively. Straw yield of 7039 kg ha-1 was significantly higher under recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage and was on par with AWDI of 5
cm, when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water field tube (6204
kg ha-1).The harvest index, of rice was not significantly influenced by different
cultivation systems and irrigation regimes.
Drum seeding system recorded higher total applied water (1359.4 mm) by 2.6
per cent as compared to CTP (1325.5 mm) and MTP (1313.5 mm). Recommended
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage consumed more water (1819.7
mm) among different irrigation regimes. This was followed by irrigation of 5 cm, when
water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube (1271.7 mm) and
irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (1154.7 mm).There was saving of 40.4, 36.5 and 28.5
per cent of water due to AWDI of 5 cm when water level falls below 10 cm from soil
surface in field water field tube, 5 cm at 3 DADPW and AWDI of 5 cm, when water
level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube respectively over
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage was mainly due to
more frequent irrigations and increased daily evapotranspiration. On the contrary, lesser
consumptive water use was observed under AWDI of 5 cm at 10 cm drop of water level
in the field tube was due to lesser number of irrigations.
Significantly higher water use efficiency (4.7 kg ha-1 mm-1) was recorded in case of
machine transplanting as compared to drum seeding (4.0 kg ha-1 mm-1) and was on par
with conventional transplanting (4.6 kg ha-1 mm-1) due to higher grain yield and
comparatively lower irrigation water used in MTP. The WUE was higher with
irrigation of 5cm when water level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water
tube (4.9 kg mm-1) and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW (4.8 kg mm-1)
and irrigation of 5cm when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
tube with (4.5 kg mm-1). WUE under AWDI of 5cm submergence depth with 10 cm
drop of water level in the field tube treatment was 40 per cent compared to the
recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage though there was
yield penalty of 12.5 per cent. Irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 5 cm
from soil surface in field water tube and irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW treatments
compared to the conventional method of irrigation practice recorded higher WUE of
28.6 and 37.1 per cent over recommended practice due to reduction in consumptive use.
Relative water content (RWC) and leaf water
much among different
stages of crop growth revealed that there was reduction due to
Higher the RWC, the higher was the yield and t
P<0.001) between yield and
correlation between leaf water potential and yield (R
correlation between leaf water potential and leaf relative water content (R
<.001) also recorded.
The N, P and K
(total uptake) stage with
par with CTP due to
production per unit area.
higher at flowering and harvesting stage with
water level as per crop
from soil surface in field water tube
level falls below 5 cm from soil surface
K uptake was recorded with
soil surface in field water tube due to significantly lower dry matter as compared to
other treatments. The uptake N, P and K was not significantly influenced by the
interaction. Post-harvest nut
different cultivation systems, irrigation regimes
Machine transplanting recorded
1) over conventional transplanting
In different irrigation regimes
submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per crop stage
returns (83,706 ha
submergence with 5cm
submergence with 10 cm drop of water level
transplanting was found economically best as it registered higher net returns (50,035
ha-1) and B: C ratio (2.54)
conventional method was found on par to machine transplanting with
44,088 ha-1. Drum seeding recorded
over conventional transplanting.
higher net returns of 47,245
cm, when water level falls below 5
Relative water content (RWC) and leaf water potential (LWP) was not varied
ifferent rice cultivation systems.The relative water content at various
growth revealed that there was reduction due to
e RWC, the higher was the yield and there was a positive correlation (R
) between yield and relative water content similarly
between leaf water potential and yield (R2=0.72, P<.001)
correlation between leaf water potential and leaf relative water content (R
also recorded.
, P and K uptake was significantly higher at flowering and harve
stage with machine transplanting over drum seeding method
par with CTP due to large and functional root system and also higher dry matter
production per unit area. Among irrigation regimes N, P and K uptake w
at flowering and harvesting stage with recommended submergence of
water level as per crop stage over irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm
from soil surface in field water tube and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm, when wa
level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube. Significantly
uptake was recorded with irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from
soil surface in field water tube due to significantly lower dry matter as compared to
The uptake N, P and K was not significantly influenced by the
harvest nutrient status of soil was not significantly influenced by the
different cultivation systems, irrigation regimes and interactions
Machine transplanting recorded significantly higher gross returns (
) over conventional transplanting (80,685 ha-1) and drum seeding (
In different irrigation regimes, conventional practice of irrigation
5 cm water level as per crop stage recorded significantly higher gross
ha-1) followed by irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW
with 5cm drop of water level in the field tube (78,
with 10 cm drop of water level in field water tube (73
transplanting was found economically best as it registered higher net returns (50,035
and B: C ratio (2.54) over other cultivation systems. However, transplanting in
conventional method was found on par to machine transplanting with
Drum seeding recorded significantly lower net re
over conventional transplanting. Irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW
higher net returns of 47,245 ha-1 and B: C ratio of 2.48 followed by
when water level falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water tube
(LWP) was not varied
The relative water content at various
growth revealed that there was reduction due to irrigation regimes.
here was a positive correlation (R2=0.50,
similarly there was a positive
=0.72, P<.001). Similarly, positive
correlation between leaf water potential and leaf relative water content (R2 = 0.85 P
as significantly higher at flowering and harvesting
machine transplanting over drum seeding method and was on
large and functional root system and also higher dry matter
uptake was significantly
ecommended submergence of 2-5 cm
rrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm
rrigation of 5 cm, when water
Significantly lower N, P and
irrigation of 5 cm, when water level falls below 10 cm from
soil surface in field water tube due to significantly lower dry matter as compared to
The uptake N, P and K was not significantly influenced by the
rient status of soil was not significantly influenced by the
significantly higher gross returns (82,880 ha-
drum seeding (72,291 ha-1) and
conventional practice of irrigation recommended
recorded significantly higher gross
followed by irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW compared to 5 cm
,329 ha-1) and 5 cm
73,236 ha-1) machine
transplanting was found economically best as it registered higher net returns (50,035
over other cultivation systems. However, transplanting in
conventional method was found on par to machine transplanting with net returns of
lower net returns and B: C ratio
rrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW recorded significantly
followed by irrigation of 5
cm from soil surface in field water tube (44,986
ha-1 and 2.36 respectively)
crop stage (43,339
level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
Machine transplanting
and net returns and B: C ratio
conventional transplanting
Direct sowing with drum seeder
yield attributes
Recommended submergence of 2
tillers m-2, root volume (up to 110 DAS), dry matter m
filled grains, grain and straw yield and N, P, K uptake and was on par with
irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
tube.
There was saving of water by 36.5, 28.5 and 40.4 per cent respectively
compared to recommend
grain yield by 5.4, 6.5 and 12.3 per cent due to irrigation
irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
tube and irrigation of 5 cm when water
field water tube
Gross and net returns and B: C ratio was significantly higher with irrigation of 5
cm at 3 DADPW and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below
5 cm from soil surface in
5.3 FUTURE LINE OF WORK
Maintenance
difficult. So there is need to develop a technology to transplant single seedling
hill-1 through transplanter.
There is need to initiate research on water use efficiency by rice under
intermittent irrigation regime under
conditions
Need for research
information o
hoppers) under intermittent irrigation levels to be generated
and 2.36 respectively) than recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level as per
ha-1 and 2.07 respectively ) and irrigation of 5 cm, when water
level falls below 10 cm from soil surface in field water tube (42,993
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
Machine transplanting produced higher growth, yield and yield attributes,
and net returns and B: C ratio compared to direct seeding with drum seeder and
conventional transplanting systems of cultivations.
Direct sowing with drum seeder produced significantly lower
attributes, gross and net returns compared to other systems of cultivations.
Recommended submergence of 2-5 cm water level recorded significantly higher
, root volume (up to 110 DAS), dry matter m-2, number of panicle m
filled grains, grain and straw yield and N, P, K uptake and was on par with
irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
There was saving of water by 36.5, 28.5 and 40.4 per cent respectively
compared to recommended practice of irrigation, though there was reduction of
grain yield by 5.4, 6.5 and 12.3 per cent due to irrigation of 5 cm at 3 DADPW,
irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
tube and irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 10 cm from soil surface in
field water tube, respectively.
Gross and net returns and B: C ratio was significantly higher with irrigation of 5
cm at 3 DADPW and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below
5 cm from soil surface in field water tube.
5.3 FUTURE LINE OF WORK
Maintenance of single seedling hill-1 under mechanized transplanting is
difficult. So there is need to develop a technology to transplant single seedling
through transplanter.
There is need to initiate research on water use efficiency by rice under
irrigation regime under different pattern of precipit
Need for research on nutrient losses in general and nitrogen in particular
information on weed growth and pest incidence (particularly brown plant
hoppers) under intermittent irrigation levels to be generated
5 cm water level as per
rrigation of 5 cm, when water
93 ha-1 and 2.43).
yield and yield attributes, gross
compared to direct seeding with drum seeder and
lower growth, yield and
compared to other systems of cultivations.
5 cm water level recorded significantly higher
number of panicle m-2,
filled grains, grain and straw yield and N, P, K uptake and was on par with
irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
There was saving of water by 36.5, 28.5 and 40.4 per cent respectively
hough there was reduction of
of 5 cm at 3 DADPW,
irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 5 cm from soil surface in field water
falls below 10 cm from soil surface in
Gross and net returns and B: C ratio was significantly higher with irrigation of 5
cm at 3 DADPW and was on par with irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below
under mechanized transplanting is very
difficult. So there is need to develop a technology to transplant single seedling
There is need to initiate research on water use efficiency by rice under
precipitation and weather
on nutrient losses in general and nitrogen in particular
n weed growth and pest incidence (particularly brown plant
hoppers) under intermittent irrigation levels to be generated.
LITERATURE CITED
Abdul Latif. 2010. A study on effectiveness of field water tube as a practical indicator to irrigate SRI rice in alternate wetting and drying irrigation management practice. M.Sc. Thesis. The University of Tokyo. Japan.
Ahmed, S., Kobata, T and Takami, S. 1978. Leaf death and alteration of internal greater relations in rice (Oriza sativa L.) in response to greater deficits in the seedling stage. Crop Science. 56: 582-588.
Anbumani, S., Chandrasekharan, B and Kuppuswamy, G. 2004. Evaluation of establishment methods and NPK levels in rice and their impact on succeeding crops. Agricultural Science Digest. 24 (3): 190-193.
Anbumozhi, Y., Yamaji, E and Tabuchi, T. 1998. Rice crop growth and yield as influenced by changes in ponding water depth, water regime and fertigation level. Agricultural Water Management. 37 (3): 241-253.
Angadi, V.V., Ganjaxi, S. Rajakumara, Yoshoda Hegde and Mohankumar, H.D. 2000. Evaluation of direct wet seeding techniques and seeder for crop establishment in lowland rice. CREMNET 2000, IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines. pp. 150-151.
Anoop Dixit, R Khurana, Jaskarn Singh, and Gurusahib Singh. 2007. Comparative performance of different paddy transplanters developed in India - A Review. Agricultural reviews. 28 (4): 262-269.
Avil Kumar, K., Reddy, M. D., Reddy, N. V and Sadasiva Rao, k. 2006.Effect of irrigation scheduling on performance of summer rice (Oryza sativa L.). Oriza. 43 (2): 97-100.
Azarpour, E., Tarighi, F., Moradi, M and Bozorgi, H.R. 2011. Evaluation effect of different nitrogen fertilizer rates under irrigation management in rice farming. World Applied Science Journal. 13 (5): 1248-1252.
Bagg, J.E and Turner, N.C. 1976. Crop water deficits. Advances in Agronomy. 28:161-217.
Balasubramanian, R and Krishnarajan, J. 2000. Influence of irrigation regimes on growth, water use and water use efficiency of direct seeded rice. Research on Crops. 1 (1): 1-4
Barrs, H.D and Weatherly, P.E. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Science. 15, 413-428. Bashar, M.K., Das, R.K., Islam, M.A., Miah N.M and Ahmed, S. 1990. Genetic viability in mid day leaf water potential (LWP) of irrigated rice. International Rice Research Notes, 15: 12- 13.
Bashar, M.K., Das, R.K., Islam, M.A., Miah N.M and Ahmed, S. 1990. Genetic viability in mid day leaf water potential (LWP) of irrigated rice. International Rice Research Notes, 15: 12- 13.
Begum, F.A. 1985. Root xylem vessels and their significance to water relation of rice (Oryza sativa L.). M.S. Thesis, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, pp: 94.
Belder, P., Bouman, B. A. M., Cabangon, R., Lu, G., Quilang, E.J.P., Li, Y., Spiertz, J. H. J. and Tuong, T. P. 2004. Effect of water saving irrigation on rice yield and water use in typical lowland conditions in Asia. Agricultural Water Management. 65 (3): 193–210.
Beyrouty, C.A., Wells, B.R., Norman, R.J., Teo, Y.H and Gbur, E.E. (1997). Distribution and dynamics of the rice root system. Proc. of the 4th JSRR Symposium (Theme: Root system management that leads to maximize rice yields), 11–12 Sept. 1997, Tokyo, (Abe, J. and Morita, S., eds.). Tokyo: Univ. of Tokyo.
Bharathi, T. 1996. Management options for seeding and weeding in wet seeded rice. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore, India.
Bhuiyan, S. I., Satter, M. A and Khan, M. A. K. 1995. Improving water use efficiency in rice irrigation through wet seeding. Irrigation Science. 16: 1-8.
Bhuiyan, S.I. and Toung, T. P. 1995. Water use in rice production: Issues, research opportunities and policy implications. Paper presented at the inter center water management workshop, IIMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 29-30. September 1990.
Bhuvaneswari, P. 1998. Effect of establishment methods and weed control on productivity, energetics and economics of lowland rice. M.Sc.(Ag) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University. Coimbatore, India.
Blum, A., Mayer, J and Andgolan, G. 1989. Agronomical and Physiological assessments of genotypic variation for drought resistance in sorghum. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 16 (1): 49-61.
Boonjung, H and Fukai, S.1996. Effects of soil water deficit at different growth stage on rice growth and grain yield under upland conditions. Phenology, biomass production and yield. Field Crops Research. 48: 47–55.
Bouman, B. A. M and Tuong, T. P. 2001. Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated rice. Agricultural Water Management. 49 (1): 11-30.
Bouman, B. A. M., Humphrey, E., Tuong, T. P and Barker, R. 2007a. Rice and water. Advances in Agronomy, 92 (4): 187-237.
Bouman, B. A. M., Lampayan, R. M and Tuong, T. P. 2007b. Water management in irrigated rice: Coping with water scarcity, IRRI: Los Banos, Philippines 54 p.
Buresh, R. J. 2010. Nutrient best management practices for rice, maize, and wheat in Asia. In Proceedings of the World Congress of Soil Science, 1–6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia.
Buresh, R. J., Reddy, K. R and Van Kessel. 2008. Nitrogen transformations in submerged soils. In Proceedings of the Nitrogen in agricultural systems. (Eds JS Schepers, WR Raun) pp. 401-436. Agronomy Monograph 49. (ASA, CSSA, and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA).
Cabangon, J., To Phuc Tuong, Ernesto G. Castillo, Lang Xing Bao, Guoan Lu, Guangho Wang, Yuanlai Cui, B A. M. Bouman, Yuanhua Li, Chongde Chen and Jianzhang Wang. 2004. Effect of irrigation method and N-fertilizer management
on rice yield, water productivity and nutrient use efficiencies in typical lowland rice conditions in China. Paddy Water Environment. 2:195–206.
Chandra, S and Pandey, J. 1997. Nutrient removal by scented basmati rice (Oryza sativa ) and associated weeds as affected by nitrogen and herbicides under different rice cultures. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 42 (2): 256-260.
Chandrapala, A. G. 2009. Productivity as influenced by rice crop establishment methods and nutrient management (S and Zn). Ph. D Thesis. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture University, Hyderabad.
Chandrasekaran, R. 1996. Effect of crop geomentry, irrigation levels and water stress management in rice-rice cropping system under varying climatic environments. Ph. D Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Tamil Nadu, India.
Chandrasekaran, R., Solaimani, A., Sankaranarayanan, K and Ravisankar, N. 2002. Effect of water management practices, geometry and stress management strategy on transpiration rate, canopy temperature and yield of rice-rice cropping system. Crop Reserch. 23 (1): 15-20.
Chang, T.T., Loresto, G.C and Tagumpay,O. 1972. Agronomic and growth characteristics of upland and low land varieties. In Rice Breeding. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, pp: 645-661.
Chowdhury, M. R., Kumar, V., Sattar, A and Brahmachari, K. 2014. Studies on the water use Efficiency and Nutrient uptake by Rice under System of Intensification. The Bioscan. 9 (1): 85-88.
Christopher Lourduraj, A. and Rajagopal, A. 1999. Effect of irrigation regimes and planting geometry on nutrient availability, uptake of nutrients and grain yield in rice. Madras Agricultural Journal. 86 (7-9): 347-351.
Coxhead, I. A. 1984. The economics of wet seeding: Inducements to and consequences of some recent changes in Philippine rice cultivation. M.S. Thesis. Australian National University, Australia.
CRRI. 1995. Annual Report 1994-95, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack. pp. 77-78.
Cruz, R.T., Toole, J.C. O., Dingkuhn, M., Yambao, K.M and Thangaraj, M. 1986. Shoot and root response to water deficits in rainfed lowland rice. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology. 13: 567-575.
Das, J. C., Sarmah, N. N., Bakakoty, P. K and Choudhury, A. K. 2000. Effects of irrigation regimes on transplanted summer (ahu) rice in Assam. Annals of Agricultural Reserch. 21 (4): 481-484.
Dass, A and Chandra, S. 2012. Effect of different components of SRI on yield, quality,
nutrient accumulation and economics of rice (Oryza sativa) in tarai belt of Northern India. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 57 (3): 250-254.
Dastane, N.G. 1967. A practical manual for Water Use Research. Navbharath Prakashan
Publication, Poona, pp.5-6.
David, W. 2002. Limitation to photosynthesis in water stressed leaves: stomata vs. metabolism and the role of ATP, Annals of Botany. 89: 871-885.
De Datta S. K., Buresh, R. J., Samson, M.I and Wang Kai-Rong. 1988. Nitrogen use efficiency and N15 balances in broadcast - seeded flooded and transplanted rice. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 52: 849- 855.
De Datta, S. K. 1986. Technology development and spread of direct seeded flooded rice in South East Asia. Fertilizer Research. 9 (3): 171-186.
De Datta, S. K. and Ampong-Nyarko, K. 1988. In Proceedings of the Plenary session of the 19th Annual Convention of pest Control Council of the Philippines. Cebucity. Philippines.
Dhar, R., Gupta, N. K and Samata, A. 2008. Effect of irrigation scheduling on the performance of kharif rice grown under different establishment methods. Journal of Research. 7 (2): 277-280.
Dhyan Singh, Chhonkar P.K and Dwivedi, B.S. 2007. Manual on soil, plant and water analysis. Published by Mrinal goel, Westville Publishing House. 93-111.
Dingkuhn, M., De Datta, S. K., Penning, F. W. T and Laar, C. V. 1990. Model for integrating researchers in physiology, breeding and agronomy for increasing grain yield potential. In Proceedings of the International Rice Research Conference, 27-31 August, Korea.
Downey, A and Miller, J. W. 1971. Rapid measurements of relative turgidity in maize (Zea mays L.). New Phytologist. 70: 555-560.
Ekanayake, I., O 'Toole, J.C.., Garrity, D.P and Masajo, T.M. 1985. Inheritance of root characters and their relations to drought resistance in rice. Crop Sci., 25: 927-933. Gamble, E.K., 1962. Gene effects in corn. I. Separation and relative importance of gene effects for yields. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 42: 339-348.
Erguiza, A., Duff, B., and Khan, C. 1990. Choice of rice crop establishment technique transplanting vs. Wet seeding. IRRI research paper series No.139. p. 10.
Farooq,M., Kobayashi,N., Wahid,A.,and Shadhzad M.A. Basra. 2009. Strategies for producing more rice with less water. Advances in Agronomy 101: 351-388.
Flore, J.A., Lakso, A.N and Moon, J. W. 1985. The effect of water stress and vapor pressure gradient on stomatal conductance, water use efficiency, and photosynthesis of fruit crops. Acta Horticulture. 171: 207-218.
Fuhrer, J. 2003. Agroecosystem responses to combinations of elevated CO2, ozone, and global climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment. 97:1-20.
Ganesh, H.V and Hakkali, J. 2000. Effect of irrigation intervals on yield and water use in summer paddy at Bhadra command. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Science. 34 (2): 130-133.
Geethalakshmi, V., Ramesh, T., Azhapalamuthirsolai and Lakshmanan, A. 2009. Productivity and water usage of rice as influenced by different cultivation systems. Madras Agricultural Journal. 96 (7-12): 349-352.
Gill, M. S., Ashwani Kumar., Pradeep Kumar. 2006. Growth and yield of rice (Oriza sativa) cultivars under various methods and times of sowing. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 51(2): 123-127.
Gomez, K.A and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical procedure for Agriculture Research. John Wiley and Sons Publishers, Newyork. 357-423.
Guerra, L. C., Bhuiyan, S. I., Tuong, T. P and Barker, R. 1998. Producing more rice with less water from irrigated systems. SWIM paper 5. International Irrigation management Institute, Colombo, Srilanka.
Harish, H., Deshpande and Devasenapathy, P. 2011. Effect of different organic sources of nutrients and green manure on gowth and yield parameters of rice (Oriza sativa) grown under lowland condition. Crop Research. 41(1, 2 &3):1-5
Hitlal, M. M., Naga, M. and Refai, M. M. 1992. Studies on water requirement of rice crop 2. Consumptive use of rice in relation to crop yield and percolation losses. Agricultural Research Review. 55 (4): 169-177.
Hsiao, T.C. 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Annual Review of Plant Physiology. 24: 519-570.
Hugar, A.Y., Chandrappa, H., Jayadeva, H. M., Sathish, A and Mallikarjun, G. B. 2009. Influence of different establishment methods on yield and economics of rice. Agricultural Science Digest. 29 (3): 202-205.
INDIASTAT. 2014. Indian Agriculture Statistical information (http://www.indiastat.com/)
IRRI. 2009. Rice fact sheet: Saving water: Alternate Wetting Drying (AWD), International rice research institute, Las banos, August 2009.
IRRI. 2010. Online databases In: http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/watermanagement /rice.html
Jackson, M. L. 1967. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.115-150.
Jackson, M. L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt, Ltd, New Delhi.151-153.
Jayadeeva, H. M and Shetty, T. K. P. 2008. Influence of crop establishment techniques and sources of nutrients on productivity, energetic and economics of rice. Oryza. 45(2):166-168.
Jayakumar, M. 2001. Irrigation and nitrogen management for medium duration hybrid rice. M.Sc. Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Coimbatore, India.
Kato, Y and Okami, M. 2011. Root morphology, hydraulic conductivity and plant water relations of high yielding rice grown under aerobic conditions. Annals of Botany. 1-9.
Khan, A.S., Ahmed, S.I. and Majid, A. 1989. Direct sowing: An alternative to paddy transplanting. Agricultural mechanization in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 20(4), pp. 31-35.
Kumar, R. P., Singh G. K. and Singh A. K., 2006. Irrigation schedule for better growth, development and yield of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.). Crop Research. 32(91): 6-10.
Kumar, S., Singh, R. S and Kumar, K. 2014. Yield and nutrient uptake of transplanted rice (Oryza sativa) with different moisture regimes and integrated nutrient supply. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences. 6(1): 64-66.
Lampayan, R. M., Palis, F. G., Flor, R. B., Bouman, B. A. M., Quicho, E.D., De Dios, J.L., Espiritu, A., Sibayan, E.B., Vicmudo, V.R., Lactaoen, A.T and Soriano, J.B. 2009. Adoption and dissemination of “Safe Alternate Wetting and Drying” in pump irrigated rice areas in the Philippines. In: 60th International Executive Council Meeting of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), 5th Regional Conference, 6.-11. December 2009, New Delhi. India.
Latheef Pasha, Md., Krishna, L and Naik, R. B. M. 2012. Evaluation of water saving rice production systems in NSP left canal of Nalgonda district. Journal of Research. A.N.G.R.A.U. Hyderabad. 40 (1): 13-15.
Li, 2000. Utilization of nitrogen fertilisers applied at different growth period of 1st and 2nd crop rice, Guandong. Agricultural Sciences. 4: 9-10.
Li, Y. H and Barker, R. 2004. Increasing water productivity for paddy irrigation in China. Paddy Water Environment. 2 (4): 187-193.
Li, Y.H., Dong, B and Yu, F. 1999. Improved irrigation management of paddy fields for sustainable increases in water productivity. In Proceedings of the Emerging technologies for sustainable land use and water management. EPFL Press. Lausanne (Switzerland). 36p.
Loresto, G.C., Chang, T.T and Tagumpay, O. 1976. Field evaluation and breeding for drought resistance. Philippine Journal of Crop Science. 1:36-39.
Lu, J., Ookawa,T., Hirasawa,T. 2000. The effects of irrigation regimes on the water use, dry matter production and physiological responses of paddy rice. Plant and Soil. 223: 207–216.
Lu, Y. H., Zhang, M. Z., Cui, Y. L., Wu L. C and Fang, R. J. 1994. Studies on the growth and physiological mechanism of rice under the conditions of deficit irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage. 13:6-11.
Luman, Z. 1988. Low tillage broadcast rice productivity. IRRN, 13(4): 30.
Mahmood, N., Ahmad, B., Hassan, S and Bakhsh, K. 2012. Wheat yield response to physiological limitations under water stress condition. The Journal of Animal and Plant Science. 22: 773–780.
Majid, A. 2014.Water use efficiency, irrigation management and nitrogen utilization in rice production in the North of Iran. APCBEE Procedia 8 (2014) 70 – 74.
Malleswara Rao, S. S. N., Patil D. V., Srihari Rao, B and Rajender Reddy, G. 2014. Performance evaluation of a manually operated paddy drum seeder – a cost saving technology for paddy cultivation. CIGR Journal. 16 (1): 75.
Manjappa, K and Kataraki, N. G. 2004. Use of drum seeder and transplanters for increasing rice (Oryza Sativa) Profitability. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 74 (1): 19-20.
Manjunatha, M.V., Masthana Reddy, B. G., Shsshidhar, S. D and Joshi, V.R. 2009. Studies on the performance of self- propelled rice transplant and its effect on crop yield. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 22 (2): 385-387.
Maragatham, N. and James Martin, G. 2010. Effect of land configuration techniques, NP levels and bioinoculants on soil available nutrients and soil microorganism in aerobic rice production in South India. In Proceedings of the world congress of soil science, soil solutions, 1-6 August, 2010, Brisbane, Australia.
Martiınez, J. P., Lutts, S., Schanck, A., Bajji, M and Kinet, J. M. 2004. Is osmotic adjustment required for water stress resistance in the Mediterranean shrub Atriplex halimus L. Journal of Plant Physiology. 161: 1041–1051.
Miah, H. 2008. Practicing AWD technology for saving irrigation water in winter rice (Boro rice) in Bangladesh. Paper presented at the annual review and planning of the ADB-funded Project “Development and Dissemination of Water-saving Rice Technologies in South Asia” during April, 2008 at the CRRI19-21, Cuttack. India.
Miah, H. and Sattar, M.A. 2009. Role of alternative wetting and drying technology in resource conservation for rice cultivation in Bangladesh. Paper for presentation at 4th World congress on conservation agriculture. 4-7 February 2009 at New Delhi.
Mishra, A and Salokhe, V. 2010. The Effects of planting pattern and water regime on root morphology, physiology and grain yield of rice. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Sciences. 196 (5): 368-378.
Mohamed Yasin, M. and Duraisamy, V. K., 2012, Water management research in rice in India: a review. International symposium on 100 years of rice science and looking beyond, TNAU, pp. 496-497.
Moser, C. M, and Barrett, C. B. 2003.The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield increasing low external input technology the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agriculture systems. 76:1085-1100.
Munns, R and Gramer, G.R. 1996. Is coordination of leaf and root growth mediated by abscisic acid. Plant and Soil. 185: 33-49.
Murthy, K.S. and Ramakrishnayya. 1978. Shoot characteristics of rice for drought resistance. In Proceedings of Drought resistance in crops with emphasis on rice, IRRI, Los Banos, pp. 145-15.
Muthukrishnan, P. and Purushothaman, S. 1992. Effect of irrigation, weed and bio fertilizer management on weed growth and yield of “IR 50” rice (Oryza sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 37 (1): 456-460.
Nabheerong, N. 1995. Root growth comparison between wet seeded and transplanted rice In Proceedings of Constraints, Opportunities and Innovations for wet seeded rice. (Ed.) K. Moody. IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna. pp. 107-117.
Narasimman, R., Rollin Baskar, P and Sathiyaseelan, R. 2000. Evaluation of direct wet seeding of rice under puddled condition in Pondicherry. CREMNET Report. IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines. p. 148.
Narendra Pandey, Tripathi, R. S and Mitra, B. N. 1992. Yeild, nutritional uptake and water use efficiency of rice as influenced by nitrogen and irrigation. Annals of Agricultural Research. 13 (4): 372-374.
Nonami, H., Wu, Y and Boyer, J. S. 1997. Decreased growth induced water potential: a primary cause of growth inhibition at low water potentials. Plant Physiology. 114: 501-509.
Ogen, E and Oquist, G. 1985. Effects on drought on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and photoinhibition susceptibility in intact willow leaves. Planta. 166: 380-388.
Ohashi, Y., Saneoka, H and Fujita, K. 2000. Effect of water stress on growth, photosynthesis, and photoassimilate translocation in soybean and tropical pasture legume siratro. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 46: 417- 425.
Oliver, M. M. H., Talukder, M. S. U and Ahmed, M. 2008. Alternate wetting and drying irrigation for rice cultivation. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University. 6 (2): 409-414.
Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S. and Dean, L.A. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. US Department of Agricuture, Circular No.939, Washington. 1:19.
O'Toole, J.C and Moya, T. B. 1978. Genotypic variation in maintenance of leaf water potential in rice. Crop Science. 18: 873-876.
Palaniappan, S. P. 1985. Cropping systems in the tropics: Principles and Management.
Wiley Eastern limited. 215.
Pal, S. K., Singh, K. M., Thakur, R., Verma, U. N and Singh, M.K. 1999. Growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars under different methods of planting in Bihar plateau. Journal of Research Birsa Agricultural Universities. 11(1): 19-22.
Panda, S. C., Rath, B. S., Tripathy, R. K and Dash, B. 1997. Effect of water management practices on yield and nutrient uptake in the dry season rice. Oryza. 34: 51-53.
Panda, S.C., Misra, K. C. B. Sahu, S.K and Rout, D. 1980. Effect of depth of submergence at different growth stages of dwarf indica rice on the growth, yield and nutrition uptake of crop and mineral contents of soil. Oryza. 17 (2): 85-91.
Pandey, N., Tripathi, R. S and Mitra, B. N.1992. Yield, nutritional uptake and water use efficiency of rice as influenced by nitrogen and irrigation. Annals of Agricutural Research. 13 (4): 372-374.
Pandey, N., Verma, A.K and Tripathi, R.S. 2010. Response of hybrid rice to scheduling of nitrogen and irrigation during dry season. Oryza. 47 (1): 34-37.
Patel, J. R. 2000. Effect of water regimes, variety and blue green algae on rice. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 45 (1): 103-106.
Peri, P. L., Arena, M., Pastur, G. M and Lencinas, M. V. 2011. Photosynthetic response to different light intensities, water status and leaf age of two Berberis species
(Berberidaceae) of Patagonian steppe. Argentina Journal of Arid Environment. 75: 1218–1222.
Piper, C. S. 1966. Soil and plant analysis. Hans Publishers, Bombay.
Prabhakar, S.V. R. K and Reddy, S. N. 1997. Rice productivity as affected by dates of seeding and methods of planting. Andhra Agricultural Journal. 44 (122): 30-32.
Pradhan, S. N. 1969. Mechanisation of rice cultivation. Oryza. 6 : 67-71.
Prasad, S. M., Mishra, S. S and Singh, S. J. 2001. Effect of establishment methods, fertility levels and weed management practices on rice (Oryza sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 46 (2): 216-221
Priyanka, G., Sharma, G. D., Rachana, R., Lal, B and Joshi, E. 2013. Evaluation of integrated nutrient management and plant density on productivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa) under SRI in mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 58 (13): 421-423.
Purohit, K. K., Chandrakar, B. L and Kolbe, S. S. 1990. Effect of different methods of sowing and weed control in direct seeded rice. In Proceedings of the International Symposium On Rice Research, New frontiers. pp. 318-319.
Rachel, S. A. 1994. Methods of planting rice and their effect on succeeding pulses. M.Sc. (Ag) Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore.
Rajendra Prasad. 2004. Recent advances in rice agronomy. Indian Farming. p: 7-10.
Rajesh, V and Thanunathan, K. 2003. Effect of seedling age, number and spacing on yield and nutrient uptake of traditional Kambam chamba rice. Madras Agricultural Journal. 90 (1-3): 47-49.
Ramakrishna, Y., Singh, S and Parihar, S. S. 2007. Influence of irrigation regime and nitrogen management on productivity, nitrogen uptake and water use by rice (Oryza sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 52 (2): 102-106.
Ramamoorthy, K., Selvaraj, K.V and Chinnaswamy, K. N. 1993. Varietal response of rice to different irrigation regimes. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 38 (3): 468-469.
Revathi, P. 2014.Influence of planting methods and integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and quality of rice. Ph. D Thesis. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture University, Hyderabad.
Rezaei, M., Shokri Vahed, H., Amiri, E., Karim Motamed, M and Azarpour, E. 2009. The effects of irrigation and nitrogen management on yield and water productivity of rice. World Applied Sciences Journal. 7 (2): 203-210.
Sahrawat, K.L., 2000. Elemental composition of the rice plant as affected by iron toxicity under field conditions. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 132: 2819–2827.
Salisbury, F.B and Ross, C.W. 2009. Plant Physiology, 3rd Indian Reprint-2009. 682p. Cengage Learning India Private Limited, New Delhi.
Samuel, K and Paliwal, K. 1993. Effect of water stress on water relations, photosynthesis and element content of tomato. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 21: 33-37.
Sandhu, S.S., Mahalb, S.S., Vashist, K.K., Buttar, G.S., Brar, A.S and Maninder Singh. 2012. Crop and water productivity of bed transplanted rice as influenced by various levels of nitrogen and irrigation in northwest India. Agricultural Water Management. 104: 32-39.
Sandhya Kanthi, M., Ramana, A. V. and Ramana Murthy, K. V.2014.Effect of different crop establishment techniques and nutrient doses on nutrient uptake and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.).Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science. 27 (3): (293-295).
Santhi, P., Ponnuswamy, K and Kempuchetty, N. 1999. N use efficiency and grain yield in low land rice under various methods of sowing and N management practices. Acta Agronomica Hungarica. 47(3): 305-312.
Santhi, P., Ponnuswamy, K. and Kempuchetty, N. 1998. A labor-saving technique in direct - sown and transplanted rice. IRRN. 23(2): 35-36.
Sariam, O and Anuar, A. R. 2010. Effects of irrigation regime on irrigated rice. Journal of Tropical Agricultural and Food Science. 38(1): 1-9.
Scholander, P.F., Hammel, H.T. Brad Street, E.D and Hemingsen, E.A. 1965. Sap Pressure in vascular Plants. Science. 148: 339-346.
Schonfled, M.A., Johnson, R.C. Carver, B.F and Mornhinweg, D.W. 1988. Water relations in winter wheat as drought resistance indicator. Crop Science. 28: 526-531.
Season and crop report Telangana 2013-2014. Directorate of economics and statistics government of Telangana Hyderabad- 500 004.
Senthilkumar, T and Thilagam, V. K. 2012. Comparative study on improved TNAU drum seeder with SRI and conventional methods of transplanting. Madras Agricultural Journal. 99 (7/9): 629-63.
Shad, R. A and De Datta, S. K. 1986. Evaluation of method of establishment in wetland rice. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research. 7: 186-192.
Shaibu, Y. A. Mloza Banda , H. R. Makwiza C. N and Chidanti Malunga, J. 2014. Grain yield performance of upland and lowland rice varieties under water saving irrigation through alternate wetting and drying in sandy clay loams of Southern Malawi. Experimental Agriculture. 15 (2): 313-326.
Shantappa 2014. Studies on establishment techniques, irrigation water levels and weed management practices on productivity and emission of green house gasses (GHGS) in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Ph. D Thesis. Raichur University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, India.
Sharma, G. D. and Sharma, H. L. 1994. Utilization of weed plants as organic manure under different methods of rice establishment. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 64 (3): 184-186.
Sharma, G. L and Bisht, P. S. 1981. Harvest of bumper crop of rice. Indian farmers Digest. 14 (5): 6.
Sharma, S. K., Subbiah, S. V and. Krishnamurthy, K. 1989. Nitrogen sources and application methods for direct sown rice under rainfed lowland condition. International Rice Communication. Newsletter, 38: 71-73.
Shekar, J. and Singh, C. M. 1991. Influence of methods and dates of stand establishment on growth and yield of rice. Oryza. 28: 45-48.
Siddique, M.R.B., Hamid, A and Islam, M.S. 2000. Drought stress effects on water relation of wheat. Botanical Bulletin-Academia Sinica. 41 (1): 35-39
Siddique, M.RB., Hamid, A and Islam, M.S. 1999. Drought stress effects on photosynthetic rate and leaf gas exchange of wheat. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica. 40.141-145.
Sinclair, T.R and Ludlow, M.M. 1985. Who taught plants thermodynamics the unfulfilled potential of plant water potential. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology. 33: 213-217.
Singarao, M., Prabhuprasadini and Jeevaratnaraju, M. 2005. Laboratory manual on soil physical properties. B.S. publications.
Singh, C.P and Garg, I. K. 1983. Effect of different methods of planting on the yield of paddy. Journal of Research, Punjab Agricultural University. 20 (4): 503-509.
Singh, G and Singh, O. P. 1993. Effect of method of seeding and level of nitrogen on yield and yield attributes of rice (Oryza sativa) under flood-affected condition. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 38 (4): 551-554.
Singh, H and Ingram, K. T. 2000. Sensitivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to water deficit in three growth stages. Crop Research. 20 (3): 355-359.
Singh, K. K., Lohan, S. K., Jat, A. S and Tulsa Rani. 2006. New technologies of planting rice for higher production. Research on Crops. 7 (2): 369-371
Singh, K. N and Bhattacharya, H. C. 1989. Direct seeded rice. Principles and practices, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. p. 166.
Singh, R., Kundu, D.K and Bandyopadhyay, K.K. 2010. Enhancing agricultural
productivity through enhanced water use efficiency. Journal of Agricultural Physics.10:1-15.
Singh, S. P., Sreedevi, B., Kumar, R. M and Subbaiah,S. V. 2009. Grain yield and
economics of wet direct sown rice under different establishment methods and nitrogen schedules. Oryza. 45 (3):245-246.
Song Chen, Xi Zheng , Dangying Wang, Chunmei Xu and Xiufu Zhang. 2013. Influence of the improved system of rice intensification (SRI) on rice yield, yield components and tillering characteristics under different rice establishment methods. Plant Production science. 16 (2): 191-198.
Souza, B. D., Meiado, M. V., Rodrigues, B. M and Santos, M. G. 2010. Water relations and chlorophyll fluorescence responses of two leguminous trees from the Caatinga to different watering regimes. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 32: 235–244.
Sridhara, C.J. 2008. Effect of genotypes, planting geometry, methods of establishment and micronutrient application on growth and yield of aerobic rice. Ph.D Thesis. University of Agriculture Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Stoop, W.A., Uphoff, N and Kassam, A. 2002. A review of agricultural research issues raised by the System of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: opportunities for improving farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems. 71 (3): 249-274.
Subbaiah, S. V., Singh, S. P. Kumar, R. M and Padmaja, K. 2000. Drum seeding technology is a substitute for transplanting in India. CREMNET. IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines. pp. 139-141.
Subbaiah, S.V., Singh, S. P., Kumar, R. M and Padmaja, K. 1999. Drum seeding technology as a substitute for transplanting in India. In: 2nd IRRE-CREMNET workshop cum group meeting, 24-27 August, 19, Soil and Water Management Research Institute, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.
Subbiah, B. V and Asija, G. L. 1956. A rapid procedure for estimation of available nitrogen in the soil. Current Science. 25: 259-260.
Suresh Kulkarni. 2011. Innovative technologies for water saving in irrigated agriculture. International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments. 1 (3): 226-231.
Swarup, A., Panda, D., Mishra, B. and Kundu, D.K. 2008. Water and nutrient management for sustainable rice production. In Rice Research Priorities and Strategies for Second Green Revolution. Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, India, pp. 79-101.
Tanguilig, V.C., Yambao, E.B., Toole, J.C. O and De Datta, S.K. 1987. Water stress on leaf elongation, leaf water potential, transpiration and nutrient uptake of rice, maize and soybean. Plant and Soil. 103: 155- 168.
Tejendra Chapagain and Eiji Yamaji. 2010. The effects of irrigation method, age of seedling and spacing on crop performance, productivity and water wise rice production in Japan. Paddy Water Environment. 8 (1): 81–90.
Thakur, A. K., Sreelata Rath and Ashwani Kumara. 2011. Performance evaluation of rice varieties under the System of Rice Intensification compared with the conventional transplanting system. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 57 (3): 223-238
Thakur, R. B. 1993. Effect of sowing methods and seed rate on the performance of high yielding varieties of rice. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 38 (4): 547-550
Thiyagarajan, T. M., Velu. V., Ramaswamy, S. D., Govindarajan, K., Priyadarshini. R., Sudha Lakshmi, C., Senthil Kumar, K., Nisha, P. T., Gayathry, G., Hengsdijk, H and Bindraban, P. S. 2002. Effect of SRI practice on hybrid rice performance in Tamil Nadu, India. In: Water wise rice production, IRRI, 119-127.
Tran Thi Ngoc Huan, Khuong, T. Q., Hach, C. V., Tan. P. S and Buresh, R. 2008. Effect of seeding rate and nitrogen management under two different water regimes on grain yield, water productivity and profitability of rice production, Omon Rice 16: 81-87.
Tuong, T. P. 2007. Alternate Wetting and Drying Irrigation (AWD): a technology for water saving in rice production. Paper presented at the Crop Cutting Ceremony, BADC Farm, Modhupur, Tangail, May 14, 2007.
Uppal, H. S., Cheema, S. S and Walia, A. S. 1991. Irrigation need of transplanting rice (Oryza sativa) in non-cracking soil. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 61 (9): 634-636.
Ved Prakesh Chaudhary and Varshney, B.P. 2003. Performance evaluation of self- propelled rice transplanter under different puddle field condition and sedimentation periods. Agricultural Mechanization. Asia, Africa, Latin America. 34:23-33.
Venkateswarlu, E., Sambasiva Rao, N and Rama Prasad, D. 2011. On farm evaluation of mechanical transplanting of rice (Oryza sativa) against traditional method. The Andhra Agricultural Journal. 58 (1): 9-11.
Vijayakumar, M., Ramesh,S., Chandrasekaran, B and Thiyagarajan,T.M. 2006. Effect of system of rice intensification (SRI) practices on yield attributes yield and water productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences. 2(6): 236-242.
Wahab, K., Veerabadran and Srinivasan, K. 1996. Water and N management for low land transplanted rice under limited water supply. Madras Agricultural Journal. 83 (5): 283-285.
Wan, C. C and Daud, A. H. 1990. A concept of direct seeding in rice cultivation under puddled soil. In Proceedings of the International Agriculture Engineering Conference and Exhibition. Bangkok. pp. 230-248.
Warning, R.H and Clearly, B.D. 1967. Plant Moisture Stress Evaluation by Pressure Bomb. Science.155:1284-54.
Whitefield, D. M and Smith, C. J.1989. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on growth, light interception and efficiency of light conversion in wheat. Field Crops Research, 20 (4): 279–92.
Yadav, S., Humphreys, E., Li, T., Gill, G and Kukal,S. S. 2001. Evaluation of tradeoffs in land and water productivity of dry seeded rice as affected by irrigation schedule. Field Crops Research. 128:180–190.
Yashwant Singh. 1999. Effect of seeding method on rice production under puddled condition. Annals of Agricultural Research. 20(4): 533-534.
Yogeshwar Rao. N., Gopal naidu, M., Govind Reddy and Wajid, M. 1981. Effect of diffrent methods of planting on yield and yield components of rice. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 26 (2):142-146.
Yoshida, S. 1981. Fundamentals of Rice Crop Science. IRRI , Los Banos, Philippines, p. 269.
Zahide Rashid, Soliha Rasool, Mudasir Rashid and Suhail Inamullah. 2010. Mechanical transplantation of paddy. Intensive Agriculture. 18-20.
Zhang, M.Z., Li, Y.H., Cui, L.C and Fang, R.J. 1994. Studies on the growth and physiological mechanism of rice under the conditions of deficit irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage. 13 (4): 6-10.
Zhao, L.M., Wu, L.H., Li, Y.S., Sarkar, A., Zhu, D.F and Uphoff, N. 2010. Comparisons of yield, water use efficiency, and soil microbial biomass as affected by the System of Rice Intensification. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 4 (1): 1–12.
APPENDIX-A
WEEKLY METEOROLOGICAL DATA RECORDED DURING THE CROP GROWTH PERIOD OF EXPERIMENT IN KHARIF -
2014
WEEK NO.
DATE
TEMPERATURE (oC) R.H. (%) RAIN- FALL (mm)
RAINY DAYS
SUN- SHINE (h)
WIND SPEED (km h-1)
EVAPO- RATION (mm)
MEAN TEMP. (oC)
MAX. MIN.
I
II
30 23-29 JULY 30.7 22.7 65.6 64.9 17.1 3 3.8 12.5 3.5 27.0
31 30-05 AUG 30.4 24.5 84.9 63.7 3.0 1 2.7 12.5 2.0 26.3
32 06-12 32.0 24.0 83.1 61.0 8.6 2 7.0 11.6 2.9 27.4
33 13-19 33.3 22.1 81.4 53.0 25.5 2 6.4 6.6 3.9 28.9
34 20-26 34.0 22.6 88.6 58.6 12.2 2 6.8 1.9 3.9 29.0
35 27-02 SEPT 28.1 22.8 92.6 80.7 160.6 6 1.5 6.0 1.4 25.1
36 03-09 27.5 22.2 86.0 66.4 12.2 1 5.1 8.2 2.6 25.1
37 10-16 31.0 23.6 87 62 12.6 3 5.8 5.4 3.2 26.9
38 17-23 31.1 23.1 90 63 9.4 1 4.2 3.8 2.9 26.7
39 24-30 32.3 19.5 86 51 15.0 1 6.4 2.0 3.8 27.9
40 01-07 OCT 34.1 21.1 80 45 40.2 1 7.6 1.3 5.3 17.0
41 08-14 32.4 22.9 78 49 0.8 0 4.3 3.9 4.5 16.2
42 15-21 32.8 20.7 85 47 6.2 1 8.2 2.5 5.6 16.4
43 22-28 28.3 16.1 89 68 22.0 1 4.0 2.0 4.0 14.1
44 29-04 NOV 30.4 19.7 80 20 0.0 0 8.3 2.3 4.8 15.2
45 05-11 30.9 16.4 76 42 0.0 0 6.8 2.3 5.4 23.5
46 12-18 30.0 19.7 81 61 10.6 1 5.5 1.8 4.5 24.8
47 19-25 30.6 16.4 87 42 0.0 0 7.6 1.2 4.6 23.5
Total 559.7 372.9 1502.7 997.4 356 26 102.1 87.8 68.5 421
Mean 31.1 20.7 83.5 55.4 19.8 1 5.7 4.9 3.8 23.4
APPENDIX C
FIELD WATER TUBE
Field water tubes were is used to measure the depth of standing water in the
field, be it on top of the soil surface or just below the soil surface (Fig. 3.7). The field
water tube is a perforated bottomless PVC-tube of about 20 cm in diameter and 40 cm
long. The holes are 0.5 cm in diameter and spaced 2 cm apart. The tube is buried in the
plow sole (about 20 cm deep) and 20 cm of the tube protrudes above the soil surface.
The soil from inside the tube was removed down to the bottom of the tube.
Water flowed through the holes into the tube, so that the water level inside the
tube was the same as outside. After irrigation, the level of the water in the tube could be
seen going down every day. The tube was placed at the side of the field close to the
bund for easy recording of the level of water depth, which is a representative place for
the whole field (without low lying or elevated place).
The water level depth was measured from the top of the tube to the level of the
water in the field using a simple ruler. A lesser values than 15 means that the water is
standing on the field; A higher values than 15 means that the water level is below the
surface and subtract the value from 15 we will get the height of water table above the
surface. By subtracting 15 from the reading, we will get the drop of water table below
the surface. To make the measurement more accurate, the height of the tube protruding
above the surface was measured for few times during the season.
Unit cost of inputs and produce
Item
Inputs
1. Tractor charge
2. Rice (RNR-15048
3. Urea
4. Single super phosphate
5. Muriate of Potash
6. Monocrotophos 36% SL
7. Water (1mm)
Produces
1. Paddy grain
2. Paddy straw
Labour wages
1. Men
2. Women
APPENDIX D
Unit cost of inputs and produce
Item Unit
Per hour
15048) seeds 1 kg
1 kg
Single super phosphate 1 kg
Muriate of Potash 1 kg
Monocrotophos 36% SL 1 L.
Water (1mm) 1mm
1 kg
1 kg
Per day
Per day
Unit cost of inputs and produce
Cost ( )
600.00
40.00
12.1
44.00
30.30
395.00
10.00
13.5
0.5
200.00
180.00
APPENDIX E
Calendar of operations in rice during kharif 2014
Operation Date (2014) DAS
Nursery
Flooding and puddling 25-07-2014
Soaking of seeds in water and incubating the seed by
keeping in gunny bags
26-7-2014
Levelling and broadcasting of sprouted seeds of normal
transplanted nursery
27-7-2014
Levelling and broadcasting of sprouted seeds of mat type
nursery
27-7-2014
Main field preparation
First ploughing 23-07-2014
Second ploughing 24-07-2014
Puddling 25-07-2014
Layout and bunding 26-07-2014
Levelling individual plots and application of fertilizers 27-07-2014
Sowing trough drum seeder 27-07-2014
Transplanting with transplanter 13-08-2014 (17 DAS)
Transplanting with Farmers method 17-08-2014 (21 DAS)
Hand weeding-1 20-09-2014
Top dressing of urea 12-09-2014
Plant protection 21-09-2014
Hand weeding-2 15-10-2014
Top dressing of urea+ Potassium 19-10-2014
Drum seeding plots harvesting 24-11-2014 (120 DAS)
Harvesting of remaining plots 03-11-2014 (129 DAS)
APPENDIX B
Nutrient content of N, P and K (%) in rice plant at different growth stages as
influenced by different cultivation systems and irrigation regimes
Treatment
N (%) P (%) K (%) Flowering Grain Straw Flowering Grain Straw Flowering Grain Straw
M1I1 1.34 0.92 0.64 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.617 0.147 0.639 M1I2 1.20 0.95 0.67 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.608 0.157 0.782 M1I3 1.14 0.94 0.65 0.20 0.25 0.22 0.699 0.137 0.723 M1I4 1.26 0.99 0.66 0.22 0.26 0.21 0.643 0.127 0.620 M2I1 1.27 0.93 0.74 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.703 0.133 0.725 M2I2 1.21 0.94 0.75 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.611 0.143 0.707 M2I3 1.34 0.89 0.66 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.680 0.127 0.570 M2I4 1.30 1.04 0.73 0.21 0.30 0.20 0.759 0.137 0.740 M3I1 1.28 1.10 0.64 0.23 0.31 0.20 0.714 0.140 0.634 M3I2 1.38 0.99 0.68 0.21 0.24 0.20 0.705 0.143 0.609 M3I3 1.16 0.90 0.68 0.22 0.25 0.20 0.597 0.133 0.674 M3I4 1.52 0.89 0.73 0.23 0.27 0.21 0.761 0.137 0.733