b.sc. (ag.)...member dr. p. raghu rami reddy principal scientist (agronomy), adr, regional...

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


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


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

http://www.cabdirect.org/search.html?q=au%3A%22Senthilkumar%2C+T.%22

http://www.cabdirect.org/search.html?q=au%3A%22Thilagam%2C+V.+K.%22

(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


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


were realized with machine transplanting ( 51874 & 40265 ha-1

49971 and 36284 ha-1') being at par with each other. The lowest gross and


et al. (2009) recorded that the mean gross returns remained on par

between the manual and mechanical transplanting ( 33,872 and 34,209 ha


row paddy transplanter could be used successfully with a labour saving of about 30 man


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



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


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



taken in the traditional way by using manual labourers, an expenditure of



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


1) followed by manual

') being at par with each other. The lowest gross and


s returns remained on par

33,872 and 34,209 ha-1 for manual


labour saving of about 30 man


, an area of 1.5 ha can be transplanted in a

uld be covered by the mechanical



in case of manual transplanting.

. (2009) reported that among six establishment methods viz., zero


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



n expenditure of 8000 Per



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



1 recorded in manual planting. Machine planting hence is a viable alternative

at times of scarce availability and higher cost of labour.


Water saving irrigation practices aim to cut the total amount of water a



Alternate wetting and drying and Field water



not essential for obtaining higher rice yields (Guerra et al., 1998).




ponded water was most suitable under limited water supply and the yield


irrigation water compared to continuous submergence (Wahab et al.,

Alternate wetting and drying irrigation (AWDI) also called intermittent



previously ponded water and field kept in alternately flooded and non

(Bouman and Tuong, 2001).




and an increased grain and straw yield of 910 kg ha-1 and 1667 kg ha-1



1 recorded in manual planting. Machine planting hence is a viable alternative


Water saving irrigation practices aim to cut the total amount of water applied in



Alternate wetting and drying and Field water tube irrigation






ponded water was most suitable under limited water supply and the yield


et al., 1996).

ying irrigation (AWDI) also called intermittent



kept in alternately flooded and non-flooded condition




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


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)


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


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


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)


(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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


*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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


SEm± 9.1 3.1 3.0 3.9


Different systems of cultivation at same level of Irrigation regimes SEm ± 10.8 3.5 3.3 4.4


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


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


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


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



SEm± 3.29 0.4 2.92 3.0


Different systems of cultivation at same level of Irrigation regimes

SEm ± 3.28 0.4 3.60 3.60


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)


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


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




SEm± 9.9 7.69 21.3


Different systems of cultivation at same level of Irrigation regimes

SEm ± 14.0 7.87 22.3


Table 4.12: Cost of cultivation, gross returns, net returns and B:C of rice

regimes

Treatment


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


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


800 247.0 1087.0 4.9


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


13.52 17.7 15.3 13.4


14.1 18.7 19.3 20.2


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


13.48 16 13.5 14.2


14.5 18.3 19.8 19.9


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


98.59 99.09 98.91 98.93


97.6 96.2 98.17 98.25


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


98.63 99.18 99.1 98.83


97.97 98.71 98.23 98.08


98.53 99.02 99.12 99.23


98.78 99.37 99.5 99.66


98.89 99.51 99.77 99.3


95.4 96.18 97.06 95.77


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)


80


83


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


87


85


81


84


88


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


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


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


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


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


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




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,


tube and irrigation of 5 cm when water falls below 10 cm from soil surface in

field water tube, respectively.



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


through transplanter.


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,




hough there was reduction of

of 5 cm at 3 DADPW,


falls below 10 cm from soil surface in



under mechanized transplanting is very



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.

http://www.cabdirect.org/search.html?q=do%3A%22Research+on+Crops%22



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.

http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/

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.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340903302302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340903302302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340903302302

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


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


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

b.sc. (ag.)...member dr. p. raghu rami reddy principal scientist (agronomy), adr, regional...

Documents