evaluation of some rice cultivars under different water regimes and tillage systems phd

Tanta University

Faculty of Agriculture

Agronomy Department

EVALUATION OF SOME RICE CULTIVARS

UNDER DIFFERENT WATER REGIMES AND

TILLAGE SYSTEMS

BY

Aziz Fouad El-Sayed Abu El-Ezz B.Sc. Agric., Horticulture Dept., El-Menoufia Univ., 1998.

M.Sc. Agric., Agronomy Dept., Alexandria Univ., 2004

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

Agricultural Science

(Agronomy)

To

Agronomy Department


Tanta University

2014

Tanta University


Agronomy Department



TILLAGE SYSTEMS

BY



THESIS




IN

Agricutural Science

(Agronomy)

Examiner’s Committee: Approved

Prof. Dr. Ramadan Ali El-Refaey Emeritus Professor of Agronomy, Agronomy Department,

Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University.

.…………..

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Abd El-Gawad Nassar Professor of Agronomy, Plant Production Department, Faculty

of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University.

.…………..

Prof. Dr. Ragab Abd El-Ghany Ebaid Emeritus Head of Research, Field Crops Research Institute,

Agricultural Research Center.

…………..

Prof. Dr. El-Sayed Hamid El-Seidy Professor and Head of Agronomy Department, Faculty of

Agriculture, Tanta University.

.…..............

Date: 28/12/2014

Tanta University


Agronomy Department



TILLAGE SYSTEMS

BY



THESIS




IN

Agricutural Science

(Agronomy)

Advisor’s Committee:

Prof. Dr. El-Sayed Hamid El-Seidy Professor and Head of Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture,

Tanta University.

Prof. Dr. Ragab Abd El-Ghany Ebaid Emeritus Head of Research, Field Crops Research Institute, Agricultural

Research Center.

Prof. Dr. Taha Ahmed Shalaby Emeritus Professor of Agronomy, Agronomy Department,Faculty of

Agriculture, Tanta University.

2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise and thanks to ALLAH, who gives us all the ability to

finish this work. Sincerest thanks and gratitude to Prof. Dr. El-Sayed

Hamid El-Seidy, Professor and head of Agronomy Department, Faculty of

Agriculture, Tanta University for his continuous and helpful suggestions,

and also his assistance and helpful comments on this work. I would like to

express my deepest gratitude and my Sincere thanks Prof. Dr. Ramadan

Ali El-Rfaey, Emeritus Professor of Agronomy, Agronomy Department,

Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University for suggesting, valuable criticism

and guidance during the course of my study and for his great help in

reviewing the manuscript. Special words of thank to Prof. Dr. Ragab Abd

El-Ghany Ebaid Emeritus Head of Research, Rice Research and Training

Center, Field Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center (ARC)

for his helpful suggestions, farther advice, valuable and constructive

remarks and for continuous assistance for me. Thanks duty to the spirit of

our great teacher Prof. Dr. Taha Ahmed Shalaby, (mercy of God upon

him) founder of the Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University what we have

learned on his hands during this study. My deeply thankful to the top

management of ElWADI Export Co. for their encouraging and support to

achieve this work. My full respect and my deepest thanks to my mother, my

brothers, my wife and my lovely kids; Yasmin, Abd El-Rahman and

Yousef. Special thanks and deep appreciation to staff members of Rice

Research and Training Center, Zarzoura, Behira. Special thanks and deep

appreciation to my best friends and older brothers Eng. Mohamed Gebril

and Eng. Essam El Sabaa for their continuous support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT………………..…………………………….…..

TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………………………..

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………

LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………...

I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................

A. Effect of irrigation treatments on rice growth characters, yield and its

attributes………………………………….....................................

B. Effect of tillage systems on rice growth characters, yield and its

attributes……………………………………………………………..

C. Effect of varietal differevces on rice growth characters, yield and its

attributes……………………………………………………………..

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS...........................................................

A- Vegetative growth characters...........................................................

1- Root volume (cm3).......................................................................

2- Root length (cm)……………………………………………….

3- Root/shoot ratio…………………………………………………

4- Number of days to heading (days).................................................

5- Plant height in (cm)......................................................................

6- Flag leaf area (cm2).......................................................................

B- Yield and its components...................................................................

1- Number of productive tillers/m2................................................

2- Number of filled grains/panicle...................................................

3- 1000-Grain weight in (g)..............................................................

4- Unfilled grains percentage (%)...................................................

5- Panicle weight in (g)................................................................ .....

6- Panicle length in (cm)................................................................

7- Biomass yield (ton/fad)........................................ …………….

8- Grain yield (ton/fad)...................................................................

9- Harvest index (%)........................................................................

C- Water relations……………………………………………………

1- Reduction percentage (%)

2- Drought sensitivity index……………………………………

3- Water use efficiency (kg/m3)…………………………...........

D- Grain quality characters...................................................................

1- Hulling percentage (%)...................................................................

2- Milling percentage. (%).................................................................

3- Head rice percentage (%)...............................................................

V. SUMMARY...............................................................................................

VI. REFERENCES.........................................................................................

VII. ARABIC SUMMARY..............................................................................

i

ii

iii

iv

1

3

3

10

16

20

26

26

26

31

34

37

40

43

46

46

49

52

54

57

59

60

65

68

71

71

75

78

81

81

83

85

88

105

---

LIST OF TABLES

No. Table Title Page

1 Origin and main characteristics of the four rice cultivars. 21

2 Effect of irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B), rice cultivars (C)

and their interactions on root volume (cm3), root length (cm) and

root/shoot ratio of Egyptian hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha

101 rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

28


and their interactions on days to heading (days), plant height (cm)

and flag leaf area (cm2) of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104

and Sakha 101 rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

39


and their interactions on No. of productive tillers/m2, No. of filled

grains / panicle and 1000-grain weight (g) of Egyptian hybrid 1,

Sakha 104, Sakha 101 and Giza 178 rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012

seasons.

48


and their interactions on unfilled grains %, panicle weight and

panicle length (cm) of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and

Sakha 101 rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

55


and their interactions on biomass yield (t/fad.), grain yield (t/fad.)

and harvest index (%) of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104


62


and their interactions on reduction percentage (%), drought

sensitivity index and water use efficiency (WUE = (Kg./m3)) of

Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178 Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 rice cultivars

in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

73


and their interactions on hulling (%), milling (%) and head rice (%)

of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Sakha 104, Sakha 101 and Giza 178 rice

cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

82

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Table Title Page

1 The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) and tillage

systems (B) for root volume (cm3) in 2011 season.

29

2 The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) and rice cultivars

(C) for root volume (cm3) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

30

3 The interaction between tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars (C)

for root volume (cm3) in 2011 season.

30

4 The interaction among irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B)

and rice cultivars (C) for root volume (cm3) in 2011 and 1012

seasons.

31


systems (B) for root length in 2012 season. 33


(C) for root length (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 34


(C) for root/shoot ratio in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 36

8 The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) rice cultivars (C)

for days to heading in 2011 season. 40


systems (B) for plant height (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 42


(C) for plant height (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 43


systems (B) for flag leaf area (cm2) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

45


(C) for flag leaf area (cm2) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

45


(C) for No. of productive tillers/m2 in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

49


(C) for No. of filled grains / panicle in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 51


(C) for 1000-grain weight (g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 53


(C) for unfilled grains % in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 56


(C) for panicle weight (g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 58


(C) for panicle length (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 60


systems (B) for biomass yield (t/fad) in 2012 season. 63


(C) for biomass yield (t/fad.) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 64


(C) for grain yield (ton/fad.) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 68


systems (B) for harvest index (%) in 2011 season. 70

23 Harvest index as affected by the interaction between irrigation

regimes and rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 70


systems (b) for reduction percentage (%) in 2011 and 2012

seasons.

74


(C) for reduction percentage (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 75


systems (B) for drought sensitivity index in 2011 season. 77

27 Drought susceptible index of Egyptian hybrid 1, Sakha 104,

Sakha 101 and Giza 178 rice cultivars as affected by irrigation

regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

78


(C) for water use efficiency (WUE=kg/m3) in 2011 and 2012

seasons.

80


(C) for hulling (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 83


(C) for milling (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 84


(C) for head rice (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons. 85

1

INTRODUCTION

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important grains in the

world. It is not only a stable food, but also contributes to major economic

activity and a key source of income and employment for the rural population.

Rice is grown under many different conditions and production

systems, but submerged in water is the most common method used

worldwide. Rice is the only cereal crop that can grow for long periods of time

in standing water. 57% of rice is grown on irrigated land, 25% on rainfed

lowland, 10% on the uplands, 6% in deep-water, and 2% in tidal wetlands

(IRRI-2002).

Drought is one of a major abiotic stresses limiting plant production.

The worldwide water shortage and uneven distribution of rainfall makes the

improvement of drought resistance especially important. Drought resistance

includes drought escape via a short life cycle or developmental plasticity,

drought avoidance via enhanced water uptake and reduced water loss and

drought tolerance via osmotic adjustment. Early maturity has been shown to

be an important trait under lowland conditions because early flowering rice

varieties or lines can escape from the late season drought stress. However,

although early maturity is an important character, it is associated with low

yield potential and it is unlikely for early maturing cultivars to produce

higher yield than later maturing ones in absence of drought stress (Cooper et

al.,1999).

In Egypt, about 10 billion m3 of irrigation water is being used in rice

production and represents about 25% of amount of irrigation water used in

agricultural sector. The limitation of water resources and the remarkable

increase in population should force research workers to find ways for saving

some of this water without significant reduction in yield. Because of

continued population growth and economic development, the demand for

fresh water to meet industrialization and domestic needs is growing rapidly.

It is expected that, in the near future less water will be available for rice

cultivation (Tuong and Bouman 2002).

2

It is estimated that about 6000 m3 of irrigation water is needed for

each faddan of rice. Increasing demand for irrigation water recently appeared

in Egypt for the new land reclamation programs which cover an area of 3-4

million feddan of the land ranked on top of priorities envisaged by master

plan resources, these areas are located in Tushka, East Owynat, Darb El-

Arbaeen, Peace Canal and the other cultivable areas (Mahrous 2005).

Accordingly, saving of rice irrigation water is a necessary demand to cover

the water requirements of these projects. This could be achieved through

either develop new rice varieties which requires less water (short duration or

drought tolerant varieties) or through developing improved agricultural

practices for rice cultivation. One of these practices is water management by

using different tillage systems which increase the roots volume and water up-

take also, increasing irrigation intervals without any drastic effect on plant

growth and grain yield.

The objectives of this investigation were:

1. To evaluate the performance of some Egyptian rice cultivars and hybrid

under different water regimes.

2. To check the effect of tillage on water use efficiency and water saving.

3. To investigate what is the best water regime which achieves the highest

productivity with highest water use efficiency.

3

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Water is the most crucial input for agricultural production. Globally,

agriculture accounts for more than 80% of all fresh water used by humans,

most of that is for crop production (Morison, et al., 2008). Tillage systems

may play a vital role in improving soil structure which in turn will result in

providing the root volume and increasing water uptake. In addition, rice

cultivars change in the response to drought stress based on its genetic

variation. These aspects will be reviewed in three partitions as follows:

1. Effect of irrigation regimes on rice growth characters, yield and

its attributes:

Awad (2001) studied the effect of three irrigation intervals (4, 8 or

12-day) on rice production. Results showed that plant height, panicle length,

number of panicles/m2, grain and straw yields decreased significantly with

increasing irrigation intervals. However, no significant difference was found

between 4 and 8 day intervals in grain yield. 8 day treatment recorded the

highest water use efficiency (0.69 kg/m3) and saved about 13.2% of irrigation

water compared to 4 day interval.

Bouman and Tuong (2001) stated that irrigation water is getting

scarcer and major challenges are to (i) save water, (ii) increase water

productivity and (iii) produce more rice with less water. This study analyses

the ways in which water-saving irrigation can help to meet these challenges

at the field level. The analyses are conducted using experimental data

collected mostly in central–northern India and the Philippines. Water input

can be reduced by reducing ponded water depths to soil saturation or by

alternate wetting/drying. Water savings under saturated soil conditions were

on average 23% (±14%) with yield reductions of only 6% (±6%). Yields

were reduced by 10–40% when soil water potentials in the root zone were

allowed to reach −100 to −300 mbar. In clay soil, intermittent drying may

lead to shrinkage and cracking, thereby risking increased soil water loss,

increased water requirements and decreased water productivity. Water

productivity in continuous flooded rice was typically 0.2–0.4 g grain / kg

water in India and 0.3–1.1 g grain /kg water in the Philippines. Water-saving

irrigation increases water productivity, up to a maximum of about 1.9 g grain

/kg water, but decreases yield. It therefore does not produce more rice with

less water on the same field. Field-level water productivity and yield can only

4

be increased concomitantly by improving total factor productivity or by

raising the yield potential.

Ghanem and Ebaid (2001) conducted two experiments to study the

effect of both farmyard manure and different irrigation intervals on the

productivity of rice variety Sakha 101 and the succeeding clover crop.

Irrigation intervals were continuous flooding, irrigation every 6 and 9 days.

The main results showed that, there were no significant differences in yield

and its components between continuous flooding and irrigation every 6 days.

Furthermore, 6 days intervals saved 9 % of the water used while, 9 days

intervals saved 14 % with 26 % yield reduction.

Islam (2001) studied the effect of water stress on nine rice cultivars.

He found that, water stress significantly reduced plant height, number of

panicles/m2, panicle length, 1000-grain weight, harvest index, total dry

matter content and grain yield.

Mohamed (2001) concluded that irrigation every 3 days produced the

highest values of dry matter, number of filled grains and 1000-grain weight.

However, no significant difference was found between 3 and 6 days intervals

on crop growth rate, relative growth rate, plant height, number of panicle/hill,

unfilled grain % and grain and straw yields.

Sehly et al., (2001,a) found that, grain yield was highly affected with

prolonged irrigation for all the tested rice cultivars (Giza 176, Giza 177,

Sakha 101 and Sakha 102). The highest grain yield was obtained under 3

days followed by 6 days and 9 days, while 12 days showed the lowest grain

yield.

Sehly et al., (2001,b) studied the effect of four irrigation intervals (3,

6, 9 and 12 days) on rice production. They found that, rice grain yield was

negatively affected with prolonged irrigation intervals. The highest yield was

obtained at 3 days (8.65 t. ha-1

) or 6 days intervals (8.38 t. ha-1

) without

significant difference between each other while, the lowest values were

obtained at 12 days intervals (4.6 t. ha-1

).

Belder et al., (2002) stated that savings in irrigation water in the

alternately submerged and non-submerged (AS & NS) were 13 – 16%

compared with continuously submerged (CS) regime. Rice grain yield was

5

not significantly affected by the water regimes. Water productivity was

significantly higher in the AS & NS regime than CS regime which recorded

(1.48 and 0.91 kg/m3), respectively.

El-Refaee (2002) reported that, water withholding for 12 days

throughout the growing season significantly decreased dry matter production,

plant height, panicle length, number of tillers/m2, number of panicle/m

2,

number of filled grains/panicle, 1000-grain weight, panicle weight, grain

yield, straw yield and harvest index while, 12 days water withholding

significantly delayed the heading date.

Gani et al., (2002) studied the effect of different irrigation

management (flooded and intermittent irrigation) and organic matter

amendments at the rate of (0, 3 and 6 ton manure/ha) on rice crop. Results

indicated that intermittent irrigation recorded the highest values of growth

and yield parameters compared with flooded irrigation. On the other side,

crop performed better with 3 ton manure/ha than with 0 or 6 ton manure/ha.

Shi et al., (2002) studied the performance of rice under different

water treatments namely (flooded, intermittent and dry cultivation). Results

showed that intermittent irrigation recorded the highest values of number of

panicles/hill, number of grains/panicle and 1000-grain weight meanwhile,

reduced irrigation water use considerably (27 – 37%) compared with flooded

rice cultivation while at the same time yields increase slightly (4 – 6%). On

the other hand, dry cultivation treatment showed the worst yield performance

for all tested rice varieties. Water use efficiency (WUE) was highest in the

dry-cultivation treatment since yields decreased relatively less than the

supplied of irrigation water.

Belder et al., (2005) investigated the effect of irrigation regimes on

grain yield and nitrogen uptake on hybrid and inbred rice cultivars. Grain

yield ranged from 4.1 t ha-1

in (0-N) to 9.5 t ha-1

with (180 kg N ha-1

).

Alternately submerged-non-submerged regimes showed 4-6% higher yield

than continuous submergence. In all seasons, N application significantly

increased grain yield largely through an increased biomass and grain number.

Water productivity was significantly increased by N application. Water

saving regimes also increased water productivity under non-water-stressed

conditions compared with continuous submergence.

6

El-Refaee et al., (2005,a) in Egypt tested the effect of four irrigation

treatments namely, alternate 4 days on with 6, 8, 10 and 12 days off on

growth, productivity and some grain quality characters of rice varieties Giza

178 and Sakha 102. They found that, growth attributes, yield and its

components as well as some grain quality characters of the two rice varieties

were significantly influenced by irrigation treatments in both seasons.

Treatment one (4 days on + 6 days off) gave the highest values while,

treatment four (4 days on + 12 days off) recorded the lowest values. Giza 178

rice variety was less affected by increasing the off period and produced

higher grain yield. However, Sakha 102 variety gave best grain quality

characters.

Gewaily (2006) investigated the effect irrigation intervals namely

continuous flooding, irrigation every 6 days and irrigation every 9 days on

rice yield and yield components of Sakha 101 rice variety. The result

revealed that, rice yield and its components were significantly affected by

irrigation intervals where, yield decreased as interval period increased in both

seasons.

Jiang-Tao et al., (2006) studied the effect of flooded soil (FS), non-

flooded soil with straw mulching (SM) and non-flooded soil without straw

mulching (ZM) on water use efficiency (WUE) and agronomic traits in rice.

The results showed no significant differences between (FS) and (SM) on flag

leaf area (cm2), number of effective tillers, total number of grains and grain

yield (kg/ha). On the other side, (ZM) recorded the highest values of unfilled

grain rate (%) and (SM) treatment recorded the highest values of WUE

(kg/m3). On the other hand, there were no significant differences among all

irrigation treatments on 1000-grain weight.

El-Agamy et al., (2007) investigated the effect of different rice husk

rates (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 t/fed) under different irrigation intervals (4,8 and 12

days) on the productivity of Giza 178 rice cultivar. They found that,

increasing rice husk rates up to 3 t/fed significantly increased vegetative

growth characters, yield and its components as well as improving grain

quality characters. On the other hand, these characters under study decreased

due to increasing irrigation intervals up to 12 days during both seasons,

however insignificant effect was observed with panicle characters.

7

Zinolabedin et al., (2008) studied the effect of different water stress

conditions namely (water stress during vegetative, flowering and grain filling

stages and well watered was the control) on yield and yield components of

rice (Oryza sativa L.). The results indicated that water stress at vegetative

stage significantly reduced plant height of all cultivars. Water stress at

flowering stage had a greater grain yield reduction than water stress at other

times. The reduction of grain yield largely resulted from the reduction in

fertile panicle and filled grain percentage. Water deficit during vegetative,

flowering and grain filling stages reduced mean grain yield by 21, 50 and

21% on average in comparison to control respectively. Total biomass, harvest

index, plant height, filled grain, unfilled grain and 1000 grain weight were

reduced under water stress in all cultivars. Water stress at vegetative stage

effectively reduced total biomass due to decrease of photosynthesis rate and

dry matter accumulation.

Tran et al., (2008) quantified the impact of new irrigation method

(alternate wetting and drying: AWD) on grain yield, water productivity and

economic efficiency under different seeding rates and nitrogen application

methods in comparison with the conventional water management, continuous

flooding (CF). The two water regimes were physically separated in the plots

to ensure that seepage of water did not interfere together. They found that the

grain yields were varied from 2.68 to 2.76 tons ha-1 in 2006 wet season (WS)

and from 5.81 to 5.98 tons ha-1 in 2007 dry season (DS) at AWD, while

higher grain yields attained at CF. It got the grain yields from 2.75 to 2.90

tons ha-1and from 6.03 to 6.10 tons ha-1, respectively. The differences in

grain yield were significant only in 2007 DS. Although the higher grain

yields of CF, the AWD reduced the irrigation water inputs compared to those.

It reduced 33.3% of irrigation water input in 2006 WS and 28.6% in 2007

DS. Water productivity of AWD was also increased compared to CF. It got

1.4 kg m-3 and 0.9 kg m-3 in 06 WS and 1.6 kg m-3 and 1.2 kg m-3 in 07

DS, respectively.

Amiri et al., (2009) studied the effect of 4 irrigation management

include submerge irrigation, 5, 8 and 11 day intervals on 8 varieties include

local varieties, breeding varieties and hybrid variety under pot conditions. In

maturity time, yield measurement, plant height, panicle length, weight of 100

http://ascidatabase.com/author.php?author=Zinolabedin&last=Tahmasebi%20Sarvestani

http://www.scialert.net/asci/result.php?searchin=Keywords&cat=&ascicat=ALL&Submit=Search&keyword=grain+yield



http://www.scialert.net/asci/result.php?searchin=Keywords&cat=&ascicat=ALL&Submit=Search&keyword=dry+matter

8

grain, amount of irrigation, number of grains /panicle, total biomass and

number of tillers in pot were done. Results of mean comparison between

irrigation management show that yield, plant height, panicle length, weight of

100 grain and number of grains /panicle in submerge and 5 day interval

irrigation management are placed to one group, therefore it can be

recommended that 5 day interval irrigation are placed on submerge irrigation.

Jalota et al., (2009) examined the effect of two irrigation schedules

(2-days drainage period and at soil water suction of 16 kPa) on water saving

and water productivity of rice. Managing irrigation water schedule based on

soil water suction of 16 kPa at 15-20 cm soil depth increased water saving

and water productivity by 50% but the yield was reduced by 4% compared to

2-days drainage.

Wan et al., (2009) investigated the effect of water deficit on rice

plants varies substantially according to cultivars. Drought tolerant cultivars

possess better morphological, physiological and biochemical adaptation to

reduce water availability. The varieties were taken from both traditional

(Muda, Jawi Lanjut and newly breed commercial varieties, MR 84, MR219

and MR 220) obtained from Genebank, MARDI Research Station, Seberang

Prai, Kepala Batas, Pulau Pinang. These varieties were exposed to two

different water regimes; water stress by withholding water and well watered

condition (control). They found that, water stress plants exhibited lower

growth rate with obvious variation among rice varieties on the sensitivity to

water stress. Meanwhile, the overall sensitivity of the varieties to water stress

was ranked in the order; MR220>Muda>MR84>MR219>Jawi Lanjut. Water

deficit decreased stomatal conductance, relative water content and root depth

while peroxidase activities and proline accumulation were increased in rice

grown under water stress treatment.

Singh et al., (2010) stated that increasing the ponding depth to 15 and

20 cm causes progressive reduction in rice yield, with a marked increase in

seepage, percolation and irrigation water requirement. Decreasing the

floodwater depth in rice fields from 5–10 cm to zero reduces the hydrostatic

pressure, thereby reduces water loss through percolation. Rice grown under

saturated soil culture or alternate wetting and drying (intermittent flooding)

treatments will have little water loss through seepage and percolation.

9

Saturated soil culture decreased water use by 5-50% (average 23%) but

reduced rice yields by 0-12% (average 6%).

Yadav et al., (2011) studied the effect of dry seeded rice (DSR) and

puddled transplanted rice (PTR) on water productivity. There were four

irrigation schedules based on soil water tension (SWT) ranging from

saturation (daily irrigation) to alternate wetting drying (AWD) with irrigation

thresholds of 20, 40 and 70 kPa at 18-20 cm soil depth. There were large and

significant declines in irrigation water input with AWD compared to daily

irrigation in both establishment methods. Yields of PTR and DSR with daily

irrigation and a 20 kPa irrigation threshold were similar each year, thus

irrigation and input water productivity was highest with the 20 kPa irrigation

threshold. An irrigation threshold of 20 kPa was the optimum in terms of

maximizing grain yield and water productivity and reducing irrigation input

by 30-50%.

Abbasi et al., (2012) in a greenhouse research studied the effect of

soil water conditions (continuous submergence, alternate submergence and

alternate saturation), sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers on growth

characteristics and water use efficiency of rice (Oryza sativa L.). The results

showed that, alternate saturation with application of 40 g sewage sludge /kg

of soil achieved optimum growth of rice plant and increase of WUE.

El-Rafaee (2012) investigated the effect of rice straw compost on

growth and grain yield as well as water productivity of Egyptian hybrid rice

(EHR1) under three irrigation regimes namely, continuous flooding (CF) and

irrigation to 5-6 cm depth (-3) and (-6) days after disappearance of surface

water (DADSW). Result indicated that, CF and (-3) DADSW treatments

registered significant and higher values of leaf area index (LAI), dry matter

production, plant height, number of panicle/m2, panicle length, total number

of grains/panicle, panicle weight, 1000-grain weight, grain yield and straw

yield compared with (-6) DADSW treatment, except for number of days to

50% heading and unfilled grains %. On the other hand, CF consumed the

highest amount of water while, application of (-3) DADSW recorded the

highest water productivity with water saved 11.5 and 11.2 % compared to CF

in both seasons, respectively.

11

Yao et al., (2012) worked on alternate wetting and drying conditions

(AWD) and continuously flood-irrigated (CF) conditions across different

levels of nitrogen input on grain yield and other related traits of

Yangliangyou6 hybrid rice variety (HR) and Hanyou a water-saving and

drought-resistance rice variety (WDR) in 2009 and 2010 seasons. Grain

yield, yield attributes, total water input, water productivity and nitrogen use

efficiency were measured. AWD saved 24% and 38% irrigation water

compared with CF in 2009 and 2010 seasons, respectively. There was

insignificant difference in grain yield values between AWD and CF. On

average HR variety produced 21.5% higher yield than WDR variety under

AWD conditions. Like grain yield, HR variety showed consistently higher

water productivity and physiological nitrogen use efficiency than WDR

variety. These results suggest that high yielding varieties developed for

continuously flood-irrigated rice system could still produce high yield under

safe AWD experienced in this study. Hybrid rice varieties do not necessarily

require more water input to produce high grain yield.

2. Effect of tillage systems on growth characters, yield and its

attributes:

Kushwaha et al., (2000) studied the effect of six combinations of

tillage (conventional, minimum and zero tillage) and crop residue

manipulation (retained or removed) conditions on soil microbial biomass C

(MBC) and N (MBN), N-mineralization rate and available-N concentration.

The proportion of MBC and MBN in soil organic C and total N contents

increased significantly in all treatments compared to control in minimum

tillage residue removed (MT-R) treatment. In all treatments concentrations of

N in microbial biomass were greater at seedling stage, thereafter these

concentrations decreased drastically (21-38%) at grain-forming stage of both

crops. In residue removed treatments, N-mineralization rates were maximum

during the seedling stage of crops and then decreased through the crop

maturity. In residue retained treatments, however, N-mineralization rates

were lower than in residue removed treatments at seedling stage of both

crops. Zero tillage alone (ZT-R) as well as in association to residue retention

(ZT+R) decreased the levels of available N. Tillage reduction and residue

retention both increased the proportion of organic C and total N present in

soil organic matter as microbial biomass. Microbial immobilization of

11

available-N during the early phase of crops and its pulsed release later during

the period of greater N demand of crops enhanced the degree of

synchronization between crop demand and N supply.

Anders et al., (2006) illustrated that over 7 years’ data collected in

this study, no-till managed plots had grain yields equal to or higher than

conventional-till plots in 6 of the 7 years. Over all years, there was less yearly

variation in the no-till treatments when compared to the conventional-till

treatments. With lower production costs in the no-till treatments, it is

expected that net income for the no-till treatments will be higher and more

stable than for the conventional-till treatments. This comparison was made

using the same management, other than tillage, for all plots. These results

suggest that it is possible to switch from conventional-till to no-till and keep

other management aspects the same.

Tomar et al., (2006) studied the influence of tillage systems and

moisture regimes on soil physical environment, root growth and productivity.

Results indicated that root volume of rice crop was significantly affected by

tillage systems and moisture regimes, where significantly higher root volume

was recorded under puddled compared to direct seeded condition. Also, the

highest root volume was found with conventional puddling (31.9 cc) and

lowest with reduced tillage (24.5 cc) indicating the favorable effect of

puddling on root growth in puddled layers. Concerning, rice grain yield was

significantly affected by tillage systems as well as moisture regimes and the

interactions were significant. Considerably higher grain yield was recorded

under puddled (4.00 t/ha) compared to direct seeded (2.34 t/ha) condition

which might be due to reduced percolation losses of water and nutrients

puddled rice. Significantly higher grain yield (4.13 t/ha) was recorded with

conventional compared to reduced puddling (3.88 t/ha). In direct seeded rice,

significantly higher grain yield was obtained with conventional (2.49 t/ha)

compared to reduced (2.19 t/ha) tillage.

Chen et al., (2007) investigated the influence of no-tillage cultivation

on leaf photosynthesis of rice plants in compared to conventional cultivation

under field conditions. Grain yield was constant under no-tillage cultivation

and conventional cultivation. In comparison with the conventional

cultivation, no-tillage cultivation showed less biomass accumulation before

12

heading and higher capacity of matter production during grain filling. A

significantly higher leaf net photosynthetic rate was observed for the plants

under no-tillage than for those under conventional tillage. The fluorescence

parameter (Fv/Fm) in leaf did not show any difference between the two

cultivations. The effect of cultivation management on transpiration rate (Tr)

and SPAD value of rice leaf was not significantly affected by the two

cultivation.

Liu et al., (2007) studied effect of interplanting with zero tillage and

straw manure on rice growth and quality, an experiment was conducted in a

wheat-rotation rotation system. Four treatments namely, ZIS (Zero-tillage,

straw manure and rice interplanting), ZI (Zero-tillage, no straw manure and

rice interplanting), PTS (Plowing tillage, straw manure and rice

transplanting), and PT (Plowing tillage, no straw manure and rice

transplanting), were used. ZIS reduced plant height, leaf area /plant and the

biomass of rice plants, but the biomass accumulation of rice at the late stage

was quicker than that under conventional transplanting cultivation. In the first

season there was no significant difference in rice yield among the four

treatments. However, rice yield decreased in interplanting with zero-tillage in

the second season compared with the transplanting treatments, the number of

filled grains /panicle decreased but 1000-grain weight increased in

interplanting with zero-tillage, which were the main factors resulting in

higher yield. Interplanting with zero-tillage improved the milling and

appearance qualities of rice. The rates of milled and head rice increased while

chalky rice rate and chalkiness decreased in interplanting with zero-tillage.

Zero-tillage and interplanting also affected rice nutritional and cooking

qualities.

Zein EL-Din et al., (2008) studied the effect of different land

preparation methods, conventional tillage (CT) and reduced tillage (RT)

combined with different planting systems, random manual transplanting, row

transplanting (20X20 cm) and mechanical drilling of two rice variety Giza

182 and Sakha 101. The results indicated that the maximum total grain yield

with respect to planting systems was achieved with mechanical drilling

system combined with conventional tillage treatment (3.045 t/fd). In addition,

mechanical drilling with conventional tillage (CT) gave higher values of

13

yield components (number of tillers/m2 - number of filled grain/panicle and

1000 grain weight) compared to the same planting system under reduced

tillage. Concerning, head rice percentage (HRP) resulted higher values in

conventional tillage treatment (CT) with mechanical drilling than other

treatment.

Devkota et al., (2010) used six frequent intermittent WAD irrigated

rice treatments from the combination of Bed planting (BP) and zero tillage

(ZT) with three levels of residue retention (all residue harvested (RH), 50%

residue retention (R50) and 100% residue retention (R100) on rice

productivity. These treatments were compared with the farmers’ practice of

conventional tillage flood irrigation (CT-FI) and a conventional tillage

intermittent irrigation (CT-II). The yield loss of rice in the WAD treatments

was on average 42%. Reduction in the number of spikelets appeared to be the

key cause of rice yield decline under water saving irrigation. This was largely

due to soil water and nitrogen stresses observed during the rice grain setting

phase. Low soil mineral N content together with poor crop performance in

WAD rice indicates (i) water stress reduced crop N demand or, (ii) soil

conditions led to increased N losses via. nitrification-denitrification and/or

ammonia volatilization and/or leaching resulting to poor crop demand and

uptake. Both intensive tillage and greater amount of residue retention did not

have any beneficial effect on rice yield. Despite the lower yield, the concept

of WAD rice combined with CA technologies can have enormous water

saving potential. Improvement in agronomic practices to increase N and

water use efficiency and the use of improved aerobic rice varieties can reduce

the yield gap between WAD and paddy rice. The amount of water applied in

zero tillage (ZT) was greater than in bed planting (BP) by 19% in 2008

season and 18% in 2009 season. No significant interactions were observed

between BP and ZT with three levels of residue retention. The water

productivity of rice was significantly affected by irrigation, tillage, and

residue levels in both years; hence, it was greater in treatments of WAD rice

than in CT-FI. In addition, RH had greater water productivity than the residue

retained treatments. Water productivity in CT-II was equal with RH

treatments of WAD rice.

14

Virdia and Mehta (2010) conducted a field trial during 1997 to 2007

at Vyara-Gujarat, to study effect of tillage management in rice (Oryza sativa

L.)-groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) cropping system. Ploughing 6 deep every

season or every year proved a better for higher grain yield. Further, deep

ploughing once or twice in year improve rice based equivalent gross income,

net return and benefit: cost ratio. Additional expenditure (aprox Rs. 3000) for

ploughing was compensated by additional net income (aprox Rs. 5000)

Jiang et al., (2011) suggested that ridges with no tillage (RNT) in

subtropical rice soils may be a better way to enhance soil productivity and

improve soil C sequestration potential than conventional tillage (CT). The

highest SOC was in the 1.00–0.25 mm fraction (35.7 and 30.4 mg ⁄ kg for

RNT and CT, respectively), while the lowest SOC was in micro aggregate

(<0.025 mm) and silt + clay (<0.053 mm) fractions (19.5 and 15.7 mg ⁄ kg for

RNT and CT, respectively). Tillage did not influence the patterns in SOC

across aggregates but did change the aggregate-size distribution, indicating

that tillage affected soil fertility primarily by changing soil structure.

Xianjun et al., (2011) mentioned the tillage effects on soil

nitrification kinetics at the aggregate scale were studied for a subtropical rice

soil. Soil samples were separated into large aggregates (>2.0 mm), macro-

aggregates (2.0–0.25 mm), micro-aggregates (0.25–0.053 mm) and silt + clay

fractions (<0.053 mm) by wet-sieving. The net nitrification process was

simulated by a zero and first kinetics model. Conventional tillage (CT)

increased the proportion of the silt + clay fraction by 60% and decreased

large-aggregates by 35% compared to ridge with no-till (RNT). Regression

analysis showed that the time-dependent kinetics of net nitrification were best

fitted by a zero-ordermodel for the large-aggregates and silt + clay fraction

but a first-order kinetic model for macro- and microaggregates and whole

soil, regardless of tillage regime. Both potential nitrification rates (Vp) and

net nitrification rates (Va) were higher for macroaggregates than

microaggregates. The potential nitrification (Np) for whole soil under RNT

was 38.7% higher than CT. The Vp and Va for whole soil was 88.5% and

64.7% higher under RNT than CT, respectively. Although nitrification was

stimulated under RNT, the kinetics model of nitrification was not affected by

tillage. This inferred that the interaction between substrates and enzymes

15

involved in nitrification associated with aggregates was not altered by tillage.

For this soil, nitrifying microorganisms were mainly associated with macro

and microaggregates rather than large-aggregates and silt + clay fractions.

Kumar et al., (2012) stated that, dry seeding of rice reduced water

inputs and tillage costs compared with the conventional system of rice

cultivation. The yields of rice in conventional puddled transplanting were

higher as compared to, unpuddled transplanting, reduced-till transplanting,

and direct-seeding systems. Zero-tillage transplanted and reduced till dry-

direct-seeded rice had a higher net return than the conventional and

unpuddled system. In addition, the conventional practice of puddled

transplanting could be replaced by unpuddled and reduced tillage–based crop

establishment methods to save water and labor and achieve higher income.

Singh et al., (2013) examined the effect of two methods of rice

cultivation conventional transplanting CT (standing water was maintained in

crop growing season) and system of rice intensification SRI (soil was kept at

saturated moisture condition throughout vegetative phase and thin layer of

water 2–3 cm was maintained during the reproductive phase of rice) and two

rice varieties (Pusa Basmati 1 and Pusa 44). Results revealed that CT and SRI

gave statistically at par grain yield but straw yield was significantly higher in

CT as compared to SRI. Seed quality was superior in SRI as compared to CT.

The grain yield and its attributes of Pusa 44 were significantly higher than

those of Pusa Basmati 1. CT rice used higher amount of water than SRI, with

water saving of 37.6% to 34.5% in SRI. Significantly higher water

productivity was recorded in SRI as compared to CT rice.

Karim et al., (2014) evaluated yield and resource use efficiency of

transplanted Boro rice under two tillage and three irrigation methods. Two

tillage methods viz., conventional tillage with puddle transplanted rice and

reduced tillage unpuddled transplanted rice and three irrigation methods viz.,

sprinkler irrigation, alternate wetting and drying (AWD) and flood irrigation

were used as treatment variables. Irrespective of tillage methods, reduced

tillage method holds 4.62% higher yield production over conventional tillage

method. Water use efficiency was found highest in sprinkler irrigation

method (0.83 kg/m3) and in reduced tillage method (0.773 kg/m3). Labour

required for land preparation was 15 md/ha in reduced tillage, whereas it was

16

38 md/ha in conventional tillage method. Seedling uprooting and

transplanting required higher labour in reduced tillage method over

conventional tillage. Fuel consumptions (49.78 l/ha) and electricity (3475.11

Kwhr/ha) was also less in reduced tillage method. Reduced tillage had less

land preparation and fuel cost over conventional tillage method. But seedling

uprooting and transplanting cost was higher in reduced tillage.

3. Effect of varietal differences on growth characters, yield and its

attributes:

El-Refaee, et al., (2005a) illustrated the influence of 3 irrigation

intervals (3, 6 and 12 days) on some growth, yield and its attributes

characters of eight rice cultivars namely, Sakha101, Sakha102, Sakha103,

Sakha104, Giza177, Giza178, Giza182 and Egyptian Yasmine during 2002

and 2003 rice growing seasons. The result revealed that, most growth

analysis and attributes as well as yield and its components were significantly

affected by the rice cultivars. Dry matter production, plant height, number of

tillers/m2, number of panicle/m

2, panicle length, total grains/panicle, panicle

weight, 1000-grain weight, grain yield, straw yield and grain/straw ratio

significantly decreased as irrigation intervals increased up to 12 days in both

seasons. On the other hand, unfilled grains % and panicle density increased

during both seasons.

Gomez et al., (2005) investigated the effects of mean root length, and

root weight on biological yield of 11 rice cultivars, including drought

resistant ones. Correlations studies showed that root weight were positively

correlated with biological yield. Leaf area /plant showed the highest positive

direct effect on root weight, followed by biological yield.

Naoki and Toshihiro (2009) evaluated the genotypic differences in

growth, grain yield, and water productivity of six rice (Oryza sativa L.)

cultivars from different agricultural ecotypes under four cultivation

conditions: continuously flooded paddy (CF), alternate wetting and drying

system (AWD) in paddy field, and aerobic rice systems in which irrigation

water was applied when soil moisture tension at 15 cm depth reached −15

kPa (A15) and −30 kPa (A30). In three of the six cultivars, they measured

17

bleeding rate and predawn leaf water potential (LWP) to determine root

activity and plant water status. The improved lowland cultivar, Nipponbare

gave the highest yield in CF and AWD. The improved upland cultivar,

UPLRi-7, and the traditional upland cultivar, Sensho gave the highest yield in

A15 and A30, respectively. The yields of traditional upland cultivars, Sensho

and Beodien in A30 were not lower than the yields in CF. However, the

yields of the improved lowland cultivars, Koshihikari and Nipponbare, were

markedly lower in A15 and A30. The water productivity of upland rice

cultivars in aerobic plots was 2.2 to 3.6 times higher than that in CF, while

those of lowland cultivars in aerobic plots were lower than those in CF. The

bleeding rate and LWP of Koshihikari was significantly lower in A15 and

A30 than in CF and AWD, but Sensho and Beodien showed no differences

among the four cultivation conditions. They conclude that aerobic rice

systems are promising technologies for farmers who lack access to enough

water to grow flooded lowland rice. However, lowland cultivars showed

severe growth and yield reductions under aerobic soil conditions.

Abd Allah et al., (2010) studied the performance of thirty-three

entries of rice under normal and drought conditions to examine the

magnitude of yield response of diverse genotypes to drought stress and to

identify traits that may confer drought resistance. Analysis of variance

indicated highly significant differences among the genotypes for all the traits

studied. Many promising lines of rice were found to be tolerant against

drought stress at different growth stages i.e. seedling stage, early and late

vegetative stage, panicle initiation stage and heading stage. These lines

possess useful traits associated with drought tolerance such as early maturity

(drought escape mechanism), medium tillering ability, medium plant height,

root depth, root thickness, root volume, dry root: shoot ratio, plasticity in leaf

rolling and unrolling (drought avoidance mechanism), in addition to crop

water use efficiency and water application efficiency. Among the traits

studied viz. number of tillers /plant, number of panicles /plant, 100 grain

weight, panicle weight, revealed significant genotypic correlation with grain

yield. Also, number of filled grains /panicle depicted the highest direct

contribution of 0.630 and it also show highest indirect contribution of 0.867

followed by 100 grain weight (0.850) towards grain yield.

18

Ndjionjop et al., (2010) evaluated the effect of drought on some rice

(Oryza sativa L.) genotypes according to their drought-tolerance levels. The

results showed a consistent negative effect of drought on plant height and

grain yield across genotypes’ drought-tolerance levels and also across

genotype types. Plant height (up to 20.9 cm reduction) and grain yield (up to

1700.8 kg/ha reduction) were more reduced for sensitive genotypes than for

moderately tolerant (maximum reductions of 14.9 cm and 1509.5 kg/ha) and

tolerant genotypes (maximum reductions of 14.0 cm and 972.8 kg/ha).

Flowering (start, 50%, and 100%) and maturity were consistently delayed

across genotype types and tolerance levels. Mean delays of 6.5, 21.8, and 9.4

days were observed for start, 50%, and 100% flowering, respectively.

Maturity was also delayed, with consistency across genotype types. However,

no clear picture of the drought effect on flowering and maturity was observed

in terms of differences among drought-tolerance levels. The effects of

drought both of number of tillers and leaf temperature were not consistent.

Plant height and grain yield showed the clearest differences between

genotype-tolerance levels in the genetic material evaluated.

El-Refaee et al., (2011) concluded that hybrid cultivars (Egyptian

hybrid 1 and SK2058H) achieved the highest grain yield production, the

highest values of water use and utilization efficiency. Giza 171 (long duration

cultivar) achieved the highest amount of water input, the lowest values of

water use, water utilization and water application efficiencies and the highest

percentage of water loss. However, short duration cultivars (Giza 177, Giza

182, Sakha 102, Sakha 103 and Sakha 105) recorded the lowest values of

total water input and water loss as well as gave the highest value of water use

efficiency and water application efficiency. The economic evaluation showed

that short duration cultivars (especially Sakha 105) and medium duration

cultivars (especially hybrid cultivars) enhanced irrigation efficiency and rice

productivity. So, it is important to enhance farmer’s acceptance of short

duration and hybrid rice cultivars by improving their yields and its grain

quality.

El-Mouhamady et al., (2013) investigate in the greenhouse from

October 2009 to March 2010 included two main conditions, i.e. normal

irrigation and water stress every 15 days using Line x tester analysis through

19

the parents (Sakha 102 and Agami) were used as testers, while; the cultivars

Giza 171, Giza 172, Gaori and Giza 159 were used as lines, and markers

assisted selection techniques used a random primer namely; A17, A18 and

As-467468 as indication for drought tolerance in rice. The main studied

characters were yield and its components;(heading date, plant height, number

of panicles/plant, number of filled grains/panicle, 1000-grain weight and

grain yield/plant) and some characters related to drought namely; (maximum

root length, number of roots/plant, root volume, root xylem, vessels number

and root dry weight), respectively under normal and drought conditions.

Heterosis over better parent, general and specific combining ability effects

were studied as a genetic components. The most desirable mean value,

positive and highly significant of heterosis, general and specific combining

ability effects for all traits studied using line x tester design under the two

conditions were shown in the genotypes; Agami, Gaori, Sakha 102 × Gaori,

Agami × Gaori and Agami × Giza 159. From the foreign discussion, it could

be concluded that, the crosses; Agami × Gaori, Agami × Giza 159 and Sakha

102 × Gaori were contained of the bands number 1, 2 and 6 for A17 primer 3,

6 and 7 bands for A18 primer and the bands number 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 for

As-467468 primer under drought conditions which indicated that these bands

were found to be index for drought tolerance in rice. So these crosses would

be effective and important for grown as lines of drought tolerance in rice.

21

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two field experiments were conducted at the Experimental Farm in

Itay El-Baroud, Agricultural Research Station, El-Behaira Governorate,

Agricultural Research Center (ARC), during 2011 and 2012 seasons to

evaluate Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 rice

cultivars under different water regimes and tillage systems.

1. Experimental layout

Treatments were arranged in a split-split-plot design with three

replications in the two seasons of study. Where, the main plots were

designated for irrigation treatments, while sub-plots were designated for

tillage systems and sub-sub-plots were designated for rice cultivars.

2. Treatments

2.1 Irrigation regimes:

Water consumption during growing season is about 6000 m3/fad., where

nursery bed and land preparation need about 1680 m3/fad., as constant

amount of water under any irrigation interval and equal amount of water (180

m3/fad.) was added every 4, 6 and 8 days. Nursery needs about 30 days and

exposed 15 days to withholding before harvesting, consequently rice plants

under study need 95 days of irrigation during its growth period. The

irrigation regimes can be summarized as follow:-

Irrigation treatments No. of

irrigations

Nursery

&land

preparation

Water used

(m3/fad.)

Water

saving

Irrigation every 4 days 24×180 m3 1680 m

3 6000 m

3/fad. --


3 4560 m

3/fad. 24 %


3 3840 m

3/fad. 36 %

In general, irrigation every 4, 6 and 8 days rice plant need 24, 16 and

12 irrigations, respectively. The total water consumption after transplanting

for irrigation every 4, 6 and 8 days in one growing season was 4320, 2880

and 2160 m3/fad., respectively.

21

2.2 Tillage systems:

1. Recommended tillage (Conventional tillage); the plots were prepared by

twice plowing and harrowing then carefully dry leveled.

2. Zero tillage (No tillage) just removes the residual straw of previous crop.

2.3 Rice cultivars

Four rice cultivars (Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha

101) were evaluated in this study with about 140 days duration period. The

pedigree, group type and main characters of these cultivars are shown in

Table (1).

Table (1): Origin and main characteristics of the four rice cultivars.

Varieties Origin Salient features

Egyptian

Hybrid 1 (IR 69625/Giza 178)

Japonica type, medium maturing,

short grain, semi-dwarf, high yield

and resistant to blast.

Giza 178 (Giza175/Milyang 49)

Indica-Japonica type, medium

maturing, short grain, semi-dwarf,

high yield and resistant to blast.

Sakha

104 (GZ4096-8-1/GZ4100-9)


medium grain, semi-dwarf, high

yield and susceptible to blast.

Sakha

101 ( 176/ Milyang 79)


medium grain, semi-dwarf, high

yield and susceptible to blast.

3. Cultural practices

Raising nursery

Nursery area was well ploughed and dry leveled after removing the

wheat residues. Phosphorus fertilizer in the form of mono super phosphate

(15.5% P2O5) was added in dry soil at the rate of 100 kg/fad. before the first

22

tillage. Nitrogen as urea (46.5% N) at the rate of 60 kg N/fad. was added and

incorporated into the dry soil after the last plowing and immediately before

first irrigation. Zinc sulphate (22% Zn) at the rate of 24 kg Zn/fad. was added

after puddling and before sowing the nursery. Seeds of the rice cultivar

(Egyptian Hybrid Rice (Hybrid 1) was added at the rate of 10 kg/fad., while

Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 added at the rate of 60 kg/fad.). In all

cases, the seeds were soaked in excess water for 24 hours then incubated for

48 hours to enhance germination and broadcasted to the nursery in 10th

of

May in both seasons.

The permanent field

After removing the previous wheat crop, the experimental site was

prepared according to randomized distribution of tillage systems

(Recommended tillage and Zero tillage) in the sup-plots. Each replicate was

divided into three parts (Irrigation treatments) by ditches to prevent water

movement among water treatments plots. Phosphorus fertilizer in the form of

mono super phosphate (15.5% P2O5) was added at the rate of 100 kg/fad. as

basal application. Nitrogen fertilizer as urea (46.5% N) source added at the

rate of 60 kg N/fad. in to two splits. Two-thirds of the nitrogen dose as first

split was incorporated into the dry soil immediately before first irrigation and

the second split (1/3 of total nitrogen dose) was tope dressed on the plants

after thirty days from transplanting. Thirty days old seedlings were

transplanted regularly in the sub-sub-plots with the plot area of 15 m2 (3×5

m) and the distance between hills and rows was 20×20 cm to give 25

hills/m2. Other cultural practices of rice growing were performed as the

recommendations of Rice Research and Training Center (RRTC).

4. Studied characters:

A- Growth characters:

1- Root volume (cm3):

At panicle initiation stage, randomly three hills were collected from

each sub-sub-plot as a whole plant (shoots and roots) using a metal

cylinder in 25X60 cm dimension to get unique volume from root zone.

Volume of the plant root system was determined by cubic centimeters.

23

2- Root length (cm):

Root length was determined as the length of the root from the base

of the plant to the tip of the main axis of primary root.

3- Root: shoot ratio:

Ratio of the root dry weight (g) to the shoot dry weight (g) was

calculated.

4- Number of days to heading (days)

It was recorded as the number of days from sowing up to about 50%

of heading attained.

5- Plant height (cm)

Main culm height was measured at harvest time from the soil surface

up to the top of the tallest culm.

6- Flag leaf area (cm2)

At heading time, plant samples (5 hills from each sub-sub-plot) were

randomly collected and flag leaf area was determined according to

(Yoshida, 1981).

B- Yield and yield components

1- Number of productive tillers/m2:

Number of productive tillers/m2 was counted as the average of ten

hills from each sub-sub-plot when all panicles were counted at full ripe

stage.

2- Number of filled grains / panicle:

Number of filled grains / panicle was counted from ten randomly

collected panicles of each sub-sub-plot and the average of grain number /

panicle was calculated.

3- 1000-grain weight (g):

Mean one thousand paddy rice grains were weighted to the nearest

0.01 gram from each sub-sub-plot.

4- Unfilled grains percentage:

Unfilled grains percentage was estimated as average from the same

ten panicles and it was calculated as follows:

24

5- Panicle weight (g):

Panicle weight was determined as an average of the weight of ten

random panicles from each sub-sub-plot in grams and actual weight was

recorded.

6- Panicle length (cm):

Mean of ten panicle length was measured in cm. from the base of

panicle up to its tip.

7- Biomass yield (ton/fad.):

After a complete maturity of rice grains, inner-ten square meters

from the center of each sub-sub-plot were manually harvested and air-

dried for 4 days after harvesting and weighted.

8- Grain yield (ton/fad.):

The same inner-ten square meters in each sub-sub-plot, were left to

air drying naturally for three days, and then threshed and paddy rice grains

were weighted (kg/10m2) and adjusted to 14% moisture content, then grain

yield Kg/10 m2 transfer to ton/fad. calculation.

9- Harvest index (%):

It was determined according to (Yoshida 1981) as follows:

C- Water relations

1- Reduction percentage (%)

It was calculated according the following equation:

2- Drought sensitivity index (DSI):

It was calculated for each cultivar according to the formula given

by Ali-Dib et al, 1990.

DSI= (NGY-S)/NS

Where;

NS: is grain yield under normal stress.

S : is grain yield under drought stress.

25

3- Water use efficiency (WUE):

It was determined according to Israelsen and Hansen (1962) as

follows:

water

D- Grain quality characters

Hulling %, milling % and head rice % for all samples were done in

Rice Technology and Training Center (RTTC), Field Crops Research

Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Alexandria, after adjusting moisture

content to (14%). All the grain quality characters are estimated according to

Khush et al., (1979).

1- Hulling percentage

Hulling percentage was determined by hulling 100 grams of

randomly selected grains from each sub-sub-plot by means of hulling

machine. Brown rice was weighted and estimated as a percentage of total

weight of 100 grams.

2- Milling percentage

Milled rice percentage was determined by milling 100 grams of

brown rice by experimental milling machine. The total milled rice was

computed as a percentage relative to the total weight.

3- Head rice percentage

Head rice grains were weighted and then calculated as percent from

the total weight of the rough rice.

5. Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance for the studied characters was calculated

according to procedures of Gomez and Gomez (1984). Differences among

treatments means were compared using the L.S.D at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of

probability.

26

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effects of irrigation regimes and tillage systems on the different

studied characters of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101

rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons will be presented and discussed under

the following main topics:

I. Growth characters.

II. Yield and its components characters.

III. Grain quality characters.

IV. Water relations characters.

I)- Growth characters

1-Root volume (cm3)

Data in Table (2) showed root volume (cm3) as influenced by

irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars (C) as well as

their interactions in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

A) Irrigation regimes

It is clear from Table (2) that, root volume was significantly affected

by different irrigation regimes in the two seasons of study. Results showed

highly significant differences among the three irrigation regimes. Root

volume was increased significantly as irrigation water quantities increased

and irrigation intervals decreased, which leads to increase water availability

in the soil. Hence, the largest values of root volume (65.54 and 66.25 cm3)

were found when rice plants irrigated every 4 days (in 6000 m3/fad rate of

irrigation water), followed by irrigation every 6 days (60.16 and 60.28 cm3)

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. On the opposite, the lowest root

volume was measured at 8 days irrigation regime (in 3840 m3/fad rate of

irrigation water). These findings agree with the fact that rice grown under

drought conditions normally has slower growth than that growth under

flooded conditions particularly in the vegetative stage. These findings are in

harmony with those obtained by Gaballah (2009) and Wan et al., (2009).

27

B) Tillage systems

Further, results presented in Table (2) revealed that root volume was

highly significant affected by tillage systems. Maximum root volume was

obtained under conventional tillage which ranged between 58.57 and 58.81

cm3 in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. However, the minimum value of

root volume was found when rice plants were transplanted into no tilled soil

(56.23 and 56.47 cm3) in both seasons, respectively. These results led to the

conclusion that, the soil tillage caused successive improvement of soil

structure which permitted deeper penetration of plant root. Aggrawal et al.,

(1999) observed that the puddling alone in rice enhanced root length density

(RLD) by 12% and root growth of rice in puddled treatment was significantly

higher than in non-puddled treatment and the major portion of roots was

concentrated in 0-0.10 cm soil depth. Another point of view, Xianjun et al.,

(2011) reported that, the potential nitrification and net nitrification rates for

whole soil under no tillage was 88.5% and 64.7% higher than conventional

tillage, respectively. Increasing in the nitrification rate accelerated the rapid

loss of available nitrogen in the soil which negatively effect on plant parts

growth and particularly roots. Generally, the conventional tillage encourages

rice roots to grow better and decrease nitrogen losses.

C) Rice cultivars effects

In addition, Table (2) showed that, rice cultivars had a highly

significant effect on root volume in 2011 and 2012 seasons. The largest root

volume was obtained by Hybrid 1 (70.72 and 70.69 cm3), followed by Giza

178 (58.61 and 58.97 cm3) in both seasons. While, the lowest value of root

volume was obtained by Sakha 104 rice cultivar (49.02 and 49.34 cm3) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The different performance for the rice

cultivars under study is due to genetic variations among cultivars. These

findings are in harmony with those obtained by Gaballah (2009) and Abd

Allah et al., (2010)

28

Table (2): Effect of irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B), rice cultivars (C)

and their interactions on root volume (cm3), root length (cm) and root/shoot

ratio of Egyptian hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 rice cultivars in

2011 and 2012 seasons.

Root volume (cm3) Root length (cm) Root/shoot ratio

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

A - Irrig. Regimes:

a1 - 4 Days

a2 - 6 Days

a3 - 8 Days

65.54 a

60.16 b

46.50 c

66.25 a

60.28 b

46.48 c

27.50 a

25.25 b

18.69 c

27.38 a

25.39 b

18.84 c

0.703 a

0.697 a

0.641 b

0.702 a

0.702 a

0.649 b

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

1.70

-

1.25

-

1.37

-

1.12

-

0.008

-

0.013

B- Tillage systems:

b1 – Conventional tillage

b2 – No tillage

58.57 a

56.23 b

58.81 a

56.47 b

24.56 a

23.06 b

24.59 a

23.15 b

0.684 a

0.676 b

0.688 a

0.681 b

Ftest ** ** ** ** * *

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

0.90

-

0.86

-

0.64

-

0.37

0.006

-

0.005

-

C- Rice cultivars:

c1 - Hybrid 1

c2 - Giza 178

c3 - Sakha 104

c4 - Sakha 101

70.72 a

58.61 b

49.02 d

51.26 c

70.69 a

58.97 b

49.34 d

51.55 c

28.79 a

24.49 b

20.50 d

21.46 c

29.03 a

24.52 b

20.64 d

21.29 c

0.720 a

0.707 b

0.622 d

0.671 c

0.725 a

0.713 b

0.628 d

0.672 c

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

0.85

-

0.71

-

0.73

-

0.64

-

0.008

-

0.007

Interactions:

Ftest (A × B)

Ftest (A × C)

Ftest (B × C)

Ftest (A × B × C)

*

**

**

**

NS

**

NS

**

NS

**

NS

NS

*

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

(NS) = Not Significant, (*) = Significant at 0.05 and (**) = Significant at 0.01 level

of probability.

Means followed by the same letters are not significant.

29

The interaction

Figure (1): The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) and tillage

systems (B) for root volume (cm3) in 2011 season.

In 2011 season, root volume was significantly affected by the

interaction between irrigation regimes and tillage systems (AxB), while no

significant differences were observed in 2012 season. As Figure (1) showed,

the highest value of root volume (66.42 cm3) was obtained by conventional

tillage under irrigation every 4 days and the lowest value of root volume

(45.67 cm3) was obtained from no tillage under 8 days irrigation regime in

the first season. Conventional tillage was more effective on root volume

under irrigation every 6 days in compared with both 4 and 8 days irrigation

regimes. That may be due to deep root penetration would help rice to avoid

drought stress; however, root penetration is often restricted by the presence of

a hardpan. These findings agreed with Tomar et al. (2006).

The interaction between rice cultivars and irrigation regimes (AxC)

for root volume was highly significant in the two seasons of study as shown

in Figure (2). Where, the largest root volume (79.80 and 80.67 cm3) were

recorded by Hybrid 1 when the rice plants irrigated every 4 days, while the

lowest values (38.93 and 39.22 cm3) of root volume were obtained by Sakha

104 under 8 days irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

These results may be due to a greater root of hybrid rice which led to increase

water absorption and elements from the soil than other rice cultivars

particularly under flooded condition. These findings are in harmony with

those obtained by Yang et al., (1999).

NT CT

4 Days 64.67 66.42

6 Days 58.37 61.96

8 Days 45.67 47.33

Root volume (cm3) 2011

LSD 0.05 = 1.03

CT: Convetional tillage NT: No tillage

31

Figure (2): The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) and rice

cultivars (C) for root volume (cm3) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

In the same way, the root volume was significantly differed by the

interaction between tillage systems and rice cultivars (BxC) in 2011 growing

season only. Figure (3) showed that the largest root volume was obtained by

Hybrid 1 (71.28 cm3) when the plants were transplanted in tilled soil while,

the lowest value of root volume (47.91 cm3) was obtained by Sakha 104

under no tillage. The superiority of Hybrid 1 in root volume under both

conventional and no tillage may be due to the hybrid vigor, which had greater

root absorption ability.

Figure (3): The interaction between tillage systems (B) and rice

cultivars (C) for root volume (cm3) in 2011 season.

4 Days 6 Days 8 Days

H 1 79.80 71.45 60.91

Giza 178 66.78 62.33 46.72

Sakha 104 55.81 52.32 38.93

Sakha 101 59.78 54.56 39.45


LSD 0.01 = 1.48


H 1 80.67 71.54 59.87

Giza 178 67.50 62.39 47.01

Sakha 104 56.43 52.36 39.22

Sakha 101 60.40 54.85 39.41


LSD 0.01 = 1.23

NT CT

H 1 70.16 71.28

Giza 178 57.38 59.84

Sakha 104 47.91 50.13

Sakha 101 49.48 53.04


LSD 0.01 = 1.21

CT: Convetional tillage NT: No tillage

31

Figure (4): The interaction among irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and

rice cultivars (C) for root volume (cm3) in 2011 and 1012 seasons.

As Figure (4) showed, highly significant differences in root volume as

influenced by the interaction among irrigation regimes, tillage systems and

rice cultivars (AxBxC) in both seasons. Where the largest root volume (80.69

and 82.13 cm3) were recorded by Hybrid 1 under conventional tillage (CT)

with 4 days irrigation regime while, the lowest values of root volume (37.56

and 37.86 cm3) were obtained by Sakha 104 under no tillage with 8 days

irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Deep root

penetration would help rice to avoid drought stress; however, root penetration

is often restricted by the presence of a hardpan. Genotypic variation in the

ability of rice to penetrate compacted soil layers and simulated compact

layers has been shown to exist. These results agreed with those reported by

Clark et al., (2002).

2-Root length (cm)

Data in Table (2) showed root length (cm) as influenced by irrigation

regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars (C) as well as their

interactions in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

H 1Giza178

Sakha104

Sakha101

H 1Giza178

Sakha104

Sakha101

NT CT

4 Days 78.91 65.31 55.54 58.90 80.69 68.25 56.08 60.66

6 Days 70.01 61.22 50.63 51.60 72.88 63.44 54.01 57.51

8 Days 61.55 45.61 37.56 37.96 60.27 47.83 40.29 40.94



LSD 0.01 = 2.10

H 1Giza178

Sakha104

Sakha101

H 1Giza178

Sakha104

Sakha101

NT CT

4 Days 79.20 66.26 56.49 59.85 82.13 68.74 56.36 60.95

6 Days 70.30 61.18 50.93 52.22 72.78 63.60 53.78 57.48

8 Days 59.51 45.91 37.86 37.91 60.24 48.10 40.58 40.90



LSD 0.01 = 1.75

32


It is clear from Table (2) that root length had highly significant

differences as influenced by different irrigation regimes in the two seasons of

study. Results showed highly significant differences among the three

irrigation regimes. Root length was significantly increased as irrigation

regime decreased which, leads to increase water availability in the soil then

increase the growth vigor. Hence, the longest values of root length (27.50 and

27.38 cm) were found when rice plants irrigated every 4 days, followed by

(25.25 and 25.39 cm) measured in 6 days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. On the opposite, the shortest values of root length

(18.69 and 18.84 cm) were measured at 8 days irrigation regime in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. These findings agree with the fact that rice grown

under drought conditions normally has slower growth than that growth under


harmony with those obtained by Wan et al., (2009).

B) Tillage systems

In addition, results presented in Table (2) revealed highly significant

differences in root length as affected by different tillage systems. Maximum

root length was obtained under conventional tillage (CT), which ranged

between values 24.56 and 24.59 cm in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

However, the lowest values of root length were found when rice plants were

transplanted in untilled soil (23.06 and 23.15 cm) in both seasons,

respectively. These results led to the conclusion that the soil tillage caused

successive improvement of soil structure which permitted deeper penetration

of plant root. Root penetration is often restricted by the presence of a

hardpan, hence tillage can encourage root to grow deeper. These results

agreed with those reported by Clark et al., (2002).

C) Rice cultivars

In addition, Table (2) showed that rice cultivars had highly significant

effects on root length in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The longest

root length were obtained by Hybrid 1 (28.79 and 29.03 cm) followed by

Giza 178 (24.49 and 24.52 cm) in both seasons, respectively. While, the

lowest values of root length were obtained by Sakha 104 rice cultivar (20.50

and 20.64 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. These varietal

33

differences may be due to genetic variations among these cultivars. These

findings agreed with Gaballah, (2009) and Abd Allah et al., (2010).

The interaction

Figure (5) showed that, the root length significantly affected

positively by conventional tillage compared with no tillage (AxB) in both

seasons of study. Where, the longest root (27.86 cm) was obtained by

conventional tillage with irrigation every 4 days, while the lowest value of

root length (18.09 cm) was obtained by no tillage with irrigation every 8

days. Also, the conventional tillage was more effective on root length under

6 days in compared to 4 and 8 days irrigation regimes in 2012 season. It is

observed that, the root length increased under irrigation every 6 days from

24.46 cm with no tillage to 26.33 cm with conventional tillage. That may due

to the tilled soil was easier for root penetration particularly under moderate

water deficit in the soil, but under high water deficit or drought condition, the

root growth affected negatively. These findings are in agreement with those

obtained by Wan et al., (2009).


systems (B) for root length in 2012 season.

In addition, root length was significantly differed by the interaction

between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in both seasons. Figure

(6) showed that Hybrid 1 was significantly surpassed the other rice cultivars

in root length under the three irrigation regimes where, recorded the longest

roots (33.27 and 33.43 cm) under irrigation every 4 days in 2011 and 2012

NT CT

4 Days 26.91 27.86

6 Days 24.46 26.33

8 Days 18.09 19.58

Root Length (cm) 2012

LSD 0.05 = 0.42

34

seasons, respectively. While the shortest roots (16.12 and 16.54 cm) was

obtained by Sakha 104 under irrigation every 8 days in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. Giza 178 significantly surpassed Sakha 101 and Sakha

104 under all irrigation regimes in both growing seasons. These results

agreed with those reported by Gaballah, (2009) and Abd Allah et al.,

(2010). On the other side, both first order interaction (BxC) and second order

interaction among three factors didn't reveal any significance for root length

in both seasons of study.


cultivars (C) for root length (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

3- Root/shoot ratio

Data in Table (2) showed root/shoot ratio as influenced by irrigation




Root/shoot ratio had highly significant differences as affected by

different irrigation regimes in the two seasons of study. Results in Table (2)

showed significant variations in the root/shoot ratio, where the highest

root/shoot ratios (0.703 and 0.702) were found when the rice plants irrigated

every 4 days, followed by (0.697 and 0.702) measured in 6 days irrigation


H 1 33.27 30.79 22.29

Giza 178 28.08 25.93 19.47

Sakha 104 23.73 21.66 16.12

Sakha 101 24.91 22.60 16.88


LSD 0.01 = 1.28


H 1 33.43 31.12 22.54

Giza 178 28.24 26.01 19.30

Sakha 104 23.46 21.92 16.54

Sakha 101 24.41 22.53 16.96


LSD 0.01 = 1.10

35

regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. However, there were no

significant differences were observed between 4 and 6 days irrigation

regimes in 2012 season. On the opposite, the lowest root/shoot ratios (0.641

and 0.649) were measured at 8 days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. These findings agree with the fact that rice grown

under drought conditions normally has slower growth than that growth under


agreement with those obtained by Kondo et al., (2003) and Gaballah (2009)

B) Tillage systems

In addition, results presented in Table (2) revealed that root/shoot

ratio was significantly affected by different tillage systems. The highest

root/shoot ratios were obtained under conventional tillage which ranged

between 0.684 and 0.688 in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. While, the

lowest values of root/shoot ratio were found when rice plants were

transplanted in untilled soil (0.676 and 0.681) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. These results led to conclude that the conventional tillage

caused successive improvement of soil structure which permitted to compose

bigger root system and also better shoot growth. Under no tillage,

accumulation of organic matter and nutrients such as N at or near the soil

surface restricts N-mineralization rate in the soil (Chamen and Parkin

1995). In addition, the maximum N-mineralization rate was observed in the

tilled soil, whereas in no tillage either alone or in combination of residue

retention the rate of N-mineralization rate decreased compared to

conventional tillage (Kushwaha et al., 2000). That may be decrease N-

uptake by rice plants, which negatively effect on plant growth and

development.

C) Rice cultivars

In addition, Table (2) showed that rice cultivars had highly significant

effects on root/shoot ratio in 2011 and 2012 seasons. The highest values of

root/shoot ratio were obtained by Hybrid 1 (0.720 and 0.725) followed by

Giza 178 (0.707 and 0.713) in both seasons. While, the lowest values of

root/shoot ratio were obtained by Sakha 104 rice cultivar (0.622 and 0.628) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The different performance for the rice

36

cultivars under study may be due to genetic variations among cultivars. These

findings agree with Gaballah (2009)

The interaction


cultivars (C) for root/shoot ratio in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

The interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC)

had highly significant effect on root/shoot ratio in both seasons. Figure (7)

showed that, Hybrid 1 recorded the highest values of root/shoot ratio (0.727

and 0.733) under 6 irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

On the other hand, Sakha 104 was severely affected under 8 days irrigation

regimes compared with the other irrigation regimes, where; the lowest

root/shoot ratio (0.508 and 0.522) was obtained by Sakha 104 under 8 days

irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Since drought

occurs when there is an imbalance between water absorption and

transpiration, greater root growth can help the plant perform better under

a limited water supply. Under drought conditions, the soil starts drying from

the surface but the deep soil horizon may remain wet and able to supply

water to the plant’s roots. Consequently, deep root portions may be more

meaningful than shallow root portions, when the drought resistance of a

variety is to be examined. For this reason, the root-shoot ratio is considered

a better measure for drought resistance in the field. Hence, Sakha 101 and


H 1 0.722 0.727 0.712

Giza 178 0.712 0.710 0.702

Sakha 104 0.688 0.672 0.508

Sakha 101 0.693 0.678 0.642

Root/Shoot Ratio 2011 LSD 0.01 = 0.014


H 1 0.723 0.733 0.718

Giza 178 0.713 0.718 0.708

Sakha 104 0.687 0.675 0.522

Sakha 101 0.688 0.682 0.648

Root/Shoot Ratio 2012 LSD 0.01 = 0.012

37

Sakha 104 as Japonica rice cultivars were severely affected by the drought as

compared with Giza 178 as Indica-Japonica type and the hybrid rice cultivar

(Hybrid 1) in the two seasons of study. These results may be explaining the

reason behind high yield shortage in the two japonica cultivars (Sakha 101

and Sakha 104) under drought condition (8 days). These findings are in

agreement with those obtained by Yoshida (1981).

4-Number of days to 50% heading (days)

Data in Table (3) showed number of days to heading as influenced by




Data in Table (3) indicated that, there are highly significant

differences among irrigation regimes on heading date in both seasons, where

irrigation every 8 days delayed heading date up to (110.71 and 110.33 days)

while irrigation every 4 days recorded the shortest period (105.75 and 105.25

days) from sowing to 50 % heading in 2011 and 2012 seasons respectively.

The delay in flowering under drought is a consequence of a reduction in plant

dry-matter production and of a delay in panicle exsertion. These results

agreed with those obtained by Murty and Ramakrishnayya (1982) and El-

Refaee (2012). In addition, Novero et al., (1985) reported that the delay in

flowering depends on the intensity, time, and period of drought. Wopereis et

al., (1996) observed longer flowering delay when drought occurred during

early tillering than when it occurred in mid-tillering stage. Also, Pantuwan

et al., (2002) mentioned similar observations and concluded that under

prolonged drought, flowering time is an important determinant of rice grain

yield. The maturation stage, which is regarded as the period between anthesis

and harvest, is also delayed as a result of delayed flowering or when drought

appears after flowering.

B) Tillage systems

The tillage systems showed significant effect on days to heading in

2011 season and highly significant effect in 2012 season, where conventional

tillage recorded the shortest period (107.89 and 107.64 days) whereas no

38

tillage delayed heading date up to (108.53 and 108.11days) in 2011 and 2012

seasons respectively. As it was discussed previously, the tilled soil allowed

composing better and deeper root system, which helped the rice plants to

grow and develop properly, in addition to alleviate the drought stress which

increase the plant dry-matter production and accelerate panicle exsertion.

C) Rice cultivars

The effect of rice cultivars showed highly significant differences on

days to heading in both seasons. The longest periods from sowing up to 50 %

heading (114.00 and 114.00 days) were recorded by Sakha101 rice cultivar

however Sakha 104 rice cultivar recorded the shortest period (103.83 and

103.28 days) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. These results may be

due to the varietal differences and genetic characters of each genotype.

Marie-Noëlle et al., (2010) concluded that, the observed differences among

genotypes in the delays might be a result of differences in plant water status

in the genotypes during the drought and consequently in the drought escape

and avoidance potential of the genotypes.

39

Table (3): Effect of irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B), rice cultivars (C) and

their interactions on days to heading (days), plant height (cm) and flag leaf area

(cm2) of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 rice cultivars in

2011 and 2012 seasons.

Days to heading

(days) Plant height cm. Flag leaf area cm

2

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

A - Irrig. Regimes

a1 - 4 Days

a2 - 6 Days

a3 - 8 Days

105.75 c

108.17 b

110.71 a

105.25 c

108.04 b

110.33 a

105.08 a

99.17 b

91.00 c

106.08 a

100.04 b

93.00 c

30.46 a

29.31 b

21.56 c

30.58 a

29.51 b

21.72 c

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

0.86

-

1.17

-

3.84

-

3.58

-

0.60

-

0.45

B- Tillage systems


b2 – No tillage

107.89 b

108.53 a

107.64 b

108.11 a

99.08 a

97.75 b

100.42 a

99.00 b

27.29 a

26.93 b

27.47 a

27.07 b

Ftest * ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

0.47

-

-

0.46

-

1.22

-

1.24

-

0.28

-

0.37

C- Rice cultivars

c1 - Hybrid 1

c2 - Giza 178

c3 - Sakha 104

c4 - Sakha 101

107.22 b

107.78 b

103.83 c

114.00 a

107.00 b

107.22 b

103.28 c

114.00 a

103.67 a

94.94 b

105.83 a

89.22 c

105.17 a

96.72 b

106.61 a

90.33 c

29.90 a

28.69 b

25.06 c

24.79 c

30.03 a

28.87 b

25.22 c

24.97 c

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

0.73

-

0.78

-

2.90

-

2.48

-

0.43

-

0.48

Interaction:

Ftest (A × B)

Ftest (A × C)

Ftest (B × C)

Ftest (A × B × C)

NS

*

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

*

**

NS

NS

*

**

NS

NS

*

**

NS

NS

*

*

NS

NS

(NS) = Not Significant, (*) = Significant at 0.05 and (**) = Significant at 0.01 level of

probability.


41

The interaction

The interaction effect between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars

(AxC) on number of days to heading was significant in the first season,

while, no significant effect was found in the second season. Figure (8)

showed that, the longest period was recorded by Sakha 101 (116.67 days)

when the plants were irrigated every 8 days but the shortest period was

recorded by Sakha 104 (100.67 days) under 4 days irrigation regime in 2011

growing season. That may be due to, the vegetative growth stage is prolonged

under drought stress compared with normal condition, which delay the

heading date, particularly Sakha 101 which has longer vegetative growth

duration.

Figure (8): The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) rice

cultivars (C) for days to heading in 2011 season.


Data in Table (3) showed plant height (cm) as influenced by




The effect of irrigation regimes on plant height (cm) was highly

significant in the two seasons of study. Table (3) showed that, irrigation

every 4 days recorded the highest values (105.08 and 106.08 cm), followed


H 1 105.33 107.33 109.00

Giza 178 105.33 107.67 110.33

Sakha 104 100.67 104.00 106.83

Sakha 101 111.67 113.67 116.67

Days to heading 2011

LSD 0.05 = 0.95

41

by irrigation every 6 days (99.17 and 100.04 cm). On the contrary, irrigation

every 8 days recorded the lowest values (93.00 and 91.00 cm) of plant height

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. These results may be attributed to the

significant effect of water in encouraging cell turgor and elongation. Further,

under drought, plant development is reduced as a consequence of (a) poor

root development; (b) reduced leaf-surface traits (form, shape, composition of

cuticular and epicuticular wax, leaf pubescence, and leaf color), which affect

the radiation load on the leaf canopy; (c) delay in or reduced rate of normal

plant senescence as it approaches maturity; and (d) inhibition of length or

division of stem cells. These results agreed with those obtained by Blum

(2002), Gewaily (2006), El-Agamy, et al., (2007) and Ndjiondjop et al.,

(2010).

B) Tillage systems

Data in Table (3) showed highly significant effect of the two tillage

systems on plant height (cm). The tallest plants were recorded under

conventional tillage (99.08 and 100.42 cm), while the shortest plants (97.75

and 99.00 cm) were obtained under no tillage in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. These findings could be attributed to the ability of tillage to

improve soil conditions that enhance the growth of rice plants due to the root

volume which is affected positively by the conventional tillage. In no tillage

accumulation of organic matter and nutrients such as N at or near the soil

surface restricts N-mineralization rate in the soil. As a result, N-uptake by

rice plants decreased, which negatively effect on plant growth and

development. These findings are in harmony with those obtained by Chamen

and Parkin (1995).

C) Rice cultivars

Regarding rice cultivars performance, highly significant differences

were observed in plant height among the four rice cultivars under study in

both seasons. Sakha 104 recorded the highest values (105.83 and 106.61 cm)

followed by Hybrid 1 (103.67 and 105.17 cm) without significant differences

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. On the contrary, Sakha 101 revealed

the lowest values (89.22 and 90.33 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

42

respectively. These results could be due to the genetic differences of the rice

cultivars. These results are in harmony with those obtained by Mousa (2008).

The interaction


systems (B) for plant height (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

The interaction between irrigation regimes and tillage systems (AxB)

significantly effected on plant height in 2011 and 2012 seasons (Figure 9).

Where, both tillage systems gave the highest values (105.08 and 106.08 cm)

under irrigation every four days, in both seasons, respectively. On the other

hand, no tillage recorded the lowest values of plant height (89.58 and 91.58

cm) under 8 days irrigation regime in both seasons, respectively. The results

showed that, no tillage under drought conditions produced small root volume,

which caused inhibition of length or division of stem cells.

Figure (10) showed the interaction between irrigation regimes and

rice cultivars (AxC) was highly significant for plant height (cm) in both

seasons where it could be noticed that, Sakha 104 under irrigation every 4

days recorded the highest values of plant height (114.00 and 115.00 cm)

whereas irrigation every 8 days with Sakha 101 gave the lowest value (81.00

and 83.00 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. These results showed

different varietal response to drought stress, where; Sakha 104 severely

affected under irrigation every 8 days compared to other cultivars under


NT 105.08 98.58 89.58

CT 105.08 99.75 92.42

Plant height (cm) 2011 LSD 0.05 = 1.39


NT 106.08 99.33 91.58

CT 106.08 100.75 94.42

Plant height (cm) 2012 LSD 0.05 = 1.42

43

study. That may be due to the ability of each cultivar to produce deeper root

and absorb more water under water deficit. These results are in harmony with

those obtained by El-Kady and Draz (1995), El Wehishy and Abd El

Hafez (1997) and Gewaily (2006).


cultivars (C) for plant height (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.


Data in Table (3) showed flag leaf area as influenced by irrigation




Highly significant differences among the mean values of flag leaf area

(cm2) were estimated in both seasons as affected by different irrigation

regimes. Data in Table (3) showed that, irrigation every 4 days recorded the

highest values (30.46 and 30.58 cm2), while; irrigation every 8 days recorded

the lowest values (21.56 and 21.72 cm2) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. These results could be due to effect of water on activation the

cell division and elongation, which in turn decreases shoots enlargement

under water deficit. These findings are in agreement with those obtained by


H 1 109.67 105.17 96.17

Giza 178 99.00 92.67 93.17

Sakha 104 114.00 109.83 93.67

Sakha 101 97.67 89.00 81.00

Plant height (cm) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 5.02


H 1 110.67 106.67 98.17

Giza 178 100.00 95.00 95.17

Sakha 104 115.00 109.17 95.67

Sakha 101 98.67 89.33 83.00

Plant height (cm) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 4.29

44

El-Kady and Draz (1995), El Wehishy and Abd El Hafez (1997) and

Gewaily (2006).

B) Tillage systems

In addition, highly significant differences between the mean values of

flag leaf area (cm2) were estimated in both seasons as affected by different

tillage systems. Data in Table (3) showed that, conventional tillage recorded

the highest values (27.29 and 27.47 cm2) whereas; no tillage revealed the

lowest values (26.93 and 27.07cm2) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

Since conventional tillage resulted significant increase in root volume and

length, dry matter content increased which led to increase flag leaf area.

C) Rice cultivars

Obviously, data in Table (3) illustrated highly significant differences

in flag leaf area (cm2) among Hybrid 1, Giza 178 and both Sakha 104 and

Sakha 101 rice cultivars while, no significant differences were observed

between the last two rice cultivars in both seasons. Where, the largest values

of flag leaf area (29.90 and 30.03 cm2) were recorded by Hybrid 1 followed

by Giza 178 (28.69 and 28.87 cm2). On the contrary, the lowest values of flag

leaf area were obtained by Sakha 101 (24.79 and 24.97 cm2) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. The observed significant differences in flag leaf

area among the four rice cultivars were mainly due to genetic variation

among rice cultivars.

The interaction

In addition, Flag leaf area was significantly affected by the interaction

between irrigation regimes and tillage systems (AxB) in both seasons of

study. As it is shown in Figure (11), conventional tillage (CT) significantly

increased the mean values of flag leaf area under both 6 and 8 irrigation

regimes compared with no tillage (NT), while no significant differences were

found between conventional and no tillage systems under continuous flooded

conditions (4 days irrigation regimes). Hence the highest values of flag leaf

area (30.51 and 30.59 cm2) were recorded by no tillage, followed by

45

conventional tillage (30.41 and 30.58 cm2) under 4 days irrigation regimes in

both seasons, respectively. While, the lowest values of flag leaf area (21.21

and 21.32 cm2) were obtained from no tillage under 8 days irrigation regimes

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. That may show the benefits of tillage

under drought conditions which help rice plants to grow properly.


systems (B) for flag leaf area (cm2) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.


cultivars (C) for flag leaf area (cm2) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.


NT 30.51 29.07 21.21

CT 30.41 29.55 21.90

Flag leaf area (cm2) 2011

LSD 0.05 = 0.32


NT 30.59 29.30 21.32

CT 30.58 29.71 22.11


LSD 0.05 = 0.42


H 1 33.24 31.92 24.53

Giza 178 32.23 31.31 22.54

Sakha 104 28.28 27.09 19.80

Sakha 101 28.11 26.91 19.35


LSD 0.01 = 0.75


H 1 33.36 32.07 24.66

Giza 178 32.30 31.57 22.74

Sakha 104 28.35 27.38 19.92

Sakha 101 28.33 27.02 19.56


LSD 0.05 = 0.62

46

Data in Figure (12) summarized highly significant interaction

between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in 2011 and 2012

seasons. Hybrid 1 recorded the highest flag leaf area (33.24 and 33.36 cm2),

followed by Giza 178 (32.23 and 32.30 cm2) under irrigation every 4 days.

On the other hand, Sakha 101 under irrigation every 8 days recorded the

lowest values of flag leaf area (19.35 and 19.56 cm2) in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. That may reflected the drought sensitivity of Sakha 101

and Sakha 104 in compared to Hybrid 1 and Giza 178.

II)- Yield and Yield Components

1- Number of productive tillers/m2

Data in Table (4) showed number of productive tillers/m2 as

influenced by irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars

(C) as well as their interactions in 2011 and 2012 seasons.


Results in Table (4) clearly showed, highly significant differences

among irrigation regimes in number of productive tillers/m2 where, negative

effect on number of productive tillers/m2 was found when irrigation regimes

were prolonged to 8 days. Irrigation every 4 days gave the highest number of

productive tillers/m2 (723.77 and 730.60), followed by irrigation every 6 days

(700.08 and 706.38), meanwhile; no significant differences were observed

between irrigation every 4 and 6 days in 2012 season. On the contrary,

irrigation every 8 days gave the lowest number of productive tillers/m2

(465.78 and 456.78) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. That may be due

to the slower growth under drought than the growth under flooded conditions,

particularly in the vegetative stage. That is because of the shortage in

irrigation water, which reduce the physiological process in rice plant

especially cell division, consequently reduce tillering. These findings were

close agreement with those reported by Nour, et al., (1996), Abou El-

Hassan (1997), Ghanem and Ebaid (2001), Islam (2001) and El-Dalil

(2007).

47

B) Tillage systems

Data in Table (4) indicated that, significant differences were existed between

conventional (CT) and no tillage (NT) on number of productive tillers/m2 in

2011 season, while no significant effect was found in the second season.

Conventional tillage resulted the highest value (635.24) in 2011 season while,

the lowest number of productive tillers/m2 was produced under no tillage. In

no tillage accumulation of organic matter and nutrients such as N at or near

the soil surface restricts N-mineralization rate in the soil. That may be

decrease N-uptake by rice plants, which negatively effect on the plant

growth, tillering and panicle formation. These findings were in agreement

with those reported by Chamen and Parkin (1995) and Kushwaha et al.,

(2000).

C) Rice cultivars

Regarding rice cultivars performance, data in Table (4) revealed

highly significant differences among rice cultivars under study in number of

productive tillers/m2, where the highest values (665.57 and 671.80) were

obtained by Hybrid 1 in both seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, no

significant differences were found among Hybrid 1, Giza 178 and Sakha 101

in 2012 season. The lowest values were obtained by Sakha 104 (572.07 and

557.74) for No. of productive tillers/m2 in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. These results could be due to the genetic variations among

cultivars. These results are in agreement with those obtained by El-Refaey

(2005), Gaballah (2009), Abd Allah et al., (2010) and Mousa (2014).

48


and their interactions on No. of productive tillers/m2, No. of filled grains /

panicle and 1000-grain weight (g) of Egyptian hybrid 1, Sakha 104, Sakha 101

and Giza 178 rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

No. of productive

tillers/m2

No. of filled grains

/ panicle

1000-grain weight

(g)

2011 2012 2011 20112 2011 2012

A - Irrig. Regimes

a1 - 4 Days

a2 - 6 Days

a3 - 8 Days

723.77 a

700.08 b

465.78 b

730.60 a

706.38 a

456.78 b

134.33 a

134.04 a

102.29 b

136.17 a

136.38 a

102.63 b

23.87 a

23.06 b

21.39 c

24.04 a

23.21 b

21.49 c

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

14.81

-

57.46

-

9.78

-

5.39

-

0.56

-

0.31

B- Tillage systems

b1 – Conventional

tillage

b2 – No tillage

635.24 a

624.52 b

631.77 a

630.74 a

124.64 a

122.47 a

125.67 a

124.44 b

22.80 a

22.75 a

22.92 a

22.90 a

Ftest * NS NS * NS NS

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

8.83

-

-

-

-

-

1.07

-

-

-

-

-

C- Rice cultivars

c1 - Hybrid 1

c2 - Giza 178

c3 - Sakha 104

c4 - Sakha 101

665.57 a

640.18 b

572.07 c

641.68 b

671.80 a

647.35 a

557.74 b

648.13 a

149.06 a

135.00 b

97.22 d

112.94 c

150.22 a

136.61 b

98.67 d

114.72 c

21.18 b

20.59 c

24.54 a

24.79 a

21.35 c

20.76 d

24.58 b

24.94 a

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

9.84

-

39.09

-

2.86

-

2.93

-

0.25

-

0.21

Interaction

Ftest (A × B)

Ftest (A × C)

Ftest (B × C)

Ftest (A × B × C)

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

*

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

*

NS

NS


probability.


49

The interaction


cultivars (C) for No. of productive tillers/m2 in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

As it is shown in Figure (13), interaction between irrigation regimes

and rice cultivars (A×C) significantly effected on number of productive

tillers/m2 in both seasons. Where, the highest number of productive tillers/m

2

(746.81 and 755.14) were produced by Hybrid 1 under irrigation every 4

days, followed by (731.83 and 738.33) irrigation every 6 days in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. On the other side, the lowest numbers of

productive tillers/m2 (401.41 and 339.91) were obtained by Sakha 104 when

rice plants were irrigated every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. That may reflect the variations among cultivars which show the

ability to grow and develop under drought stress. These results are in

agreement with those obtained by Abd Allah et al., (2010) and Mousa

(2014).

2- Number of filled grains/panicle

Data in Table (4) showed number of filled grains/panicle as




H 1 746.81 731.83 518.08

Giza 178 715.64 711.17 493.74

Sakha 104 679.31 635.50 401.41

Sakha 101 753.31 721.83 449.91

No. of productive tillers/m2

2011 LSD 0.01 = 17.04


H 1 755.14 738.33 521.91

Giza 178 722.81 716.00 503.24

Sakha 104 688.48 644.83 339.91

Sakha 101 755.98 726.33 462.08

No. of productive tillers/m2

2012

LSD 0.05 = 50.79

51


Concerning the effect of irrigation regimes, data in Table (4) revealed

highly significant effects on number of filled grains /panicle in both seasons.

Irrigation every 4 days recorded the highest number of filled grains/panicle

(134.33) in the first season, while; irrigation every 6 days produced the

highest number of filled grains/panicle (136.38) in the second season.

Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between irrigation every 4

and 6 days in both seasons. On the other side, irrigation every 8 days gave the

lowest number of filled grains/panicle (102.29 and 102.63) in 3122 and 2013

seasons, respectively. The probable explanation for these results are that

adequate amount of irrigation water increased plant height, dry matter and

leaf area which ultimately resulted in increasing photosynthesis and that

reflected the increase in dry matter accumulation in the grains. These results

are in agreement with those obtained by Nour, et al., (1996), Zayed (1997),

Fukai, et al., (1999) and El-Sharkawi, et al., (2006).

B) Tillage systems

Data in Table (4) illustrated that, significant differences were existed

between conventional tillage (CT) and no tillage (NT) on number of filled

grains/panicle in 2012 season, while no significant effect was found in 2011

season. Where, conventional tillage resulted the highest values (125.67) in

2012 seasons while, the lowest number of filled grains/panicle (124.44)

obtained under no tillage. These results are in agreement with those obtained

by Liu et al. (2007), Bhattacharyya et al., (2008) and Devkota et al.,

(2010).

C) Rice cultivars

Highly significant differences were observed among tested rice

cultivars in number of filled grains/panicle in both seasons. Table (4)

revealed that Hybrid 1 produced the highest number of filled grains/panicle

(149.06 and 150.22), followed by Giza 178 then Sakha 101, while Sakha 104

recorded the lowest values (112.94 and 114.72) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. These findings could be due to the high ability of the Hybrid

51

rice1 to produce the highest number of grains/panicle, in addition to the

genetic variation among rice cultivars under study. These results are in

agreement with those obtained by Abou El-Darag (2000), El-Refaee (2002),

El-Refaee et al (2005a) and El-Mouhamady et al (2013).

The interaction


cultivars (C) for No. of filled grains / panicle in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

Regarding number of filled grains /panicle, Figure (14) showed highly

significant interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in

both season where, Hybrid rice 1 achieved the highest number of filled

grains/panicle (163.33 and 165.33) when the rice plants were irrigated every

6 days while; the lowest values (77.50 and 78.17) recorded by Sakha 104

with 8 days irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

Hybrid 1 gave higher number of productive tillers/m2 under irrigation every 4

days than 6 days, which negatively effect on seed setting consequently,

increase unfilled grains % under irrigation every 4 days. As a result, No. of

filled grains/panicle decreased under irrigation every 4 days in compared to 6

days. On the other hand, No. of filled grains/ panicle were decreased under 8

days as a result of drought effect. These findings are in a compliance with

Shi, et al,. (2002) and El-Refaee, et al., (2005a)


H 1 159.17 163.33 124.67

Giza 178 148.83 148.83 107.33

Sakha 104 107.00 107.17 77.50

Sakha 101 122.33 116.83 99.67

No. of filled grains/panicle 2011

LSD 0.01 = 4.96


H 1 159.67 165.33 125.67

Giza 178 151.33 151.83 106.67

Sakha 104 109.00 108.83 78.17

Sakha 101 124.67 119.50 100.00

No. of filled grains/panicle 2012

LSD 0.01 = 5.08

52

3- 1000-grain weight (g)

Data in Table (4) showed 1000-grain weight as influenced by




Data in Table (4) showed highly significant differences among

irrigation regimes in 1000-grain weight in both seasons. Where, the highest

values (23.87 and 24.04 g) were recorded with irrigation every 4 days,

followed by 6 days in both seasons. On the other hand, irrigation every 8

days gave the lowest values of 1000-grain weight (21.39 and 21.49 g) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Under water shortage, the decrease in

water availability during grain filling reduced the translocation of starch from

the green parts of the plant to be stored in grain endosperm; accordingly, a

reduction in grain weight was the final result. These results agreed with those

reported earlier by Nour et al., (1996), Zayed (2002), El-Refaee et al.,

(2005,a), Gewaily (2006) and El-Dalil (2007).

B) Tillage systems

Regarding tillage systems effect, data in Table (4) indicated no

significant differences between conventional tillage (CT) and no tillage (NT)

in 1000-grain weight in both seasons.

C) Rice cultivars

Highly significant differences were observed among the four rice

cultivars under study in 1000-grain weight. Data in Table (4) showed that,

Sakha 101 rice cultivar recorded the highest values (24.79 and 24.94 g),

followed by Sakha 104, while, Giza 178 recorded the lowest values (20.59

and 20.76 g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. These results are due to

genetic variations in the cultivars under study. These findings agreed with

those obtained by Gaballah (2009) and Mousa (2014).

53

The interaction


cultivars (C) for 1000-grain weight (g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

In addition, 1000-grain weight (g) was significantly affected by the

interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in both

growing seasons. As it is shown in Figure (15), the highest values of 1000-

grain weight (26.00 and 26.02 g) were obtained by Sakha 101, followed by

Sakha 104 under irrigation every 4 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. All rice cultivars significantly and independently effected on

1000-grain weight when the irrigation regimes prolonged up to 8 days in both

seasons. On the other hand, the lowest values (19.59 and 19.58 g) were

obtained by Giza 178 with 8 days irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. These results may be referring to the variation of

cultivars performance under water deficit (irrigation every 8 days), while

under 4 and 6 days regimes, the plants grown normally. These

differentiations of cultivars performance under irrigation every 8 days, may

be due to survival ability under water shortage of the cultivar itself. In

addition, moisture stress at booting and flowering stages reduces dry matter

production, delays panicle exsertion, and induces uneven flowering.

Photosynthetic efficiency is impaired, resulting in less dry matter

accumulation and a low concentration of non-reducing sugars in the stem. In

general, cultivars with high stem sugars resisted drought better than others


H 1 22.27 21.35 19.92

Giza 178 21.52 20.67 19.59

Sakha 104 25.70 24.98 22.93

Sakha 101 26.00 25.23 23.13

1000-grain weight (g) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 0.43


H 1 22.57 21.60 19.91

Giza 178 21.77 20.93 19.58

Sakha 104 25.80 24.90 23.05

Sakha 101 26.02 25.40 23.42

1000-grain weight (g) 2012

LSD 0.05 = 0.28

54

because sugars translocated from stem to panicle promoted normal grain

filling under stress. These results agreed with those concluded by

Bhattacharjee et al, (1971) and El-Refaee, et al. (2005a).

4- Unfilled grains percentage

Data in Table (5) showed unfilled grains % as influenced by irrigation




Concerning the effect of irrigation regimes, data in Table (5) indicated

highly significant differences among irrigation regimes in unfilled grains %

in both seasons. Irrigation every 8 days recorded the highest values (9.68%

and 9.64%), followed by irrigation every 6 days in the two seasons,

respectively. Whereas, the lowest values of unfilled grains % (7.83% and

7.87%) were recorded by irrigation every 4 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. That can be understood as follow; the decrease in water

availability during the reproductive stage cased a reduction in seed setting

particularly soil moisture stress during panicle formation and grain filling.

Further, higher number of productive tillers/m2 was produced under irrigation

every 4 days than 6 days to the limit, which negatively effect on seed setting

consequently, increase unfilled grains % under irrigation every 4 days. These

results are in agreement with those obtained by Mohamed (2001), Gewaily

(2006), Zinolabedin, et al. (2008), El-Rafaee (2012) and Mousa (2014).

They concluded that water stress significantly increased unfilled

grains/panicle.


55


and their interactions on unfilled grains %, panicle weight and panicle length

(cm) of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 rice cultivars


Unfilled grains % Panicle weight (g) Panicle length (cm)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

A - Irrig. Regimes

a1 - 4 Days

a2 - 6 Days

aA3 - 8 Days

7.83 b

8.74 ab

9.68 a

7.87 a

8.90 ab

9.64 a

3.07 a

2.74 b

2.31 c

3.08 a

2.77 b

2.37 c

21.83 a

20.24 b

18.30 c

22.54 a

21.09 b

18.78 c

Ftest ** * ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

1.07

0.87

-

-

0.06

-

0.06

-

0.95

-

1.10

B- Tillage systems

b1 – Conventional

tillage

b2 – No tillage

8.80

8.70

8.85

8.73

2.72

2.69

2.75

2.72

20.21

20.04

20.87

20.74

Ftest NS NS NS NS NS NS

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

C- Rice cultivars

c1 - Hybrid 1

c2 - Giza 178

c3 - Sakha 104

c4 - Sakha 101

6.84 c

7.72 b

10.22 a

10.21 a

6.89 c

7.71 b

10.31 a

10.25 a

2.97 a

2.69 c

2.39 d

2.77 b

2.99 a

2.66 c

2.49 d

2.81 b

21.80 a

19.47 bc

19.29 c

19.93 b

22.29 a

20.34 b

19.88 c

20.70 b

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

0.86

-

0.87

-

0.06

-

0.05

-

0.54

-

0.44

Interaction:

Ftest (A × B)

Ftest (A × C)

Ftest (B × C)

Ftest (A × B × C)

NS

*

NS

NS

NS

*

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

*

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS


probability.


56

B) Tillage systems

Data in Table (5) revealed no significant differences were found

between tillage systems in unfilled grains % in the two seasons of study.

C) Rice cultivars

It is clear from Table (5) that there were highly significant differences

among rice cultivars in unfilled grains % in both seasons. Sakha 104 recorded

the highest values (10.22% and 10.31%), followed by Sakha 101 while

Hybrid 1 recorded the lowest values (6.84% and 6.89%) in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, no significant differences were observed

between Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 in both seasons. These differentiations

among cultivars may reflect the genetic performance in this character. These

findings are in agreement with those obtained Gaballah (2009), Abd Allah

et al., (2010) and Mousa (2014).

The interaction


cultivars (C) for unfilled grains % in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

The interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC)

was significant on unfilled grains % in both seasons. Hybrid1 rice cultivar

attained the lowest values (5.33 and 5.33 %) when it was irrigated every 5


H 1 5.33 7.43 7.77

Giza 178 6.33 7.60 9.23

Sakha 104 9.67 10.24 10.77

Sakha 101 10.00 9.68 10.93

Unfilled grains % 2011

LSD 0.05 = 1.11


H 1 5.33 7.62 7.73

Giza 178 6.17 7.95 9.02

Sakha 104 9.83 10.08 11.00

Sakha 101 10.00 9.93 10.82

Unfilled grains % 2012

LSD 0.05 = 1.13

57

days. On the other side, both Sakha 101 and Sakha 104 recorded the highest

values (10.93 and 11.00 %) when they were irrigated every 8 days in 2011

and 2012, respectively (Figure 16). These results may be due to the role of

water in translocation of carbohydrates from storage parts to panicles. These

findings agreed with those obtained by Gewaily (2006), Gaballah (2009)

and Mousa (2014).

5- Panicle weight (g)

Data in Table (5) showed panicle weight as influenced by irrigation




Data in Table (5) indicated that, panicle weight had highly significant

as affected by irrigation regimes in both seasons. Where, the highest values

(3.07 and 3.08 g) were recorded by 4 days, followed by 6 days irrigation

regimes. On the other hand, irrigation every 8 days gave the lowest values of

panicle weight (3.32 and 3.43 g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. That

can be summarized as follow; the decrease in water availability during the

reproductive and repining stages cased a reduction in panicle weight. In

addition, adequate amount of irrigation water in rice fields helps in more

availability of nutrients and consequently healthy plants which may result in

heavier panicles. These results agreed with those reported earlier by Nour

(1989), Nour et al., (1996), Zayed (2002) and Gewaily (2006).

B) Tillage systems

Furthermore, no significant differences were found between tillage

systems in panicle weight in both seasons.

C) Rice cultivars

Regarding panicle weight, data in Table (5) showed highly significant

differences among rice cultivars. Where, Hybrid 1 recorded the highest

values of panicle weight (2.97 and 2.99 g), followed by Sakha 10, on the

58

other hand; Sakha 104 recorded the lowest values of panicle weight (2.39 and

2.49 g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. This result could be due to

genetic differences related to the cultivar itself. These findings are in

agreement with those obtained by El-Refaee et al., (2005 a), Abd Allah et

al., (2010) and Mousa (2014).

The interaction

Figure (17):) The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) and rice

cultivars (C) for panicle weight (g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

Figure (17) showed that, panicle weight had highly significant

differences as influenced by the interaction between irrigation regimes and

rice cultivar in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Under irrigation every 4 days,

Hybrid1 recorded the highest values (3.31 and 3.33 g) followed by Sakha 101

conversely, Sakha104 recorded the lowest values (2.11 and 2.27 g) when it

was irrigated every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. It is clear

from Figure (17) that Sakha 101 and Sakha 104 were sharply affected when

irrigation regimes increased from 4 to 8 days compared with Giza 178 and

Hybrid 1 in both seasons. These results can be concluded as that, Hybrid 1

and Giza 178 performance is relatively stable under different environmental

conditions while, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 were highly susceptible to

drought stress. These results may be due to the role of water in increasing

seed setting in the panicle, as well as increasing 1000-grain weight as a result

of activating the translocation of carbohydrates from source to sink. These


H 1 3.31 3.07 2.54

Giza 178 3.02 2.68 2.36

Sakha 104 2.75 2.31 2.11

Sakha 101 3.19 2.90 2.23

Panicle weight (g) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 0.11


H 1 3.31 3.07 2.54

Giza 178 3.02 2.68 2.36

Sakha 104 2.75 2.31 2.11

Sakha 101 3.19 2.90 2.23

Panicle weight (g) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.09

59

findings are in agreement with those obtained by El-Refaee et al., (2005 a)

and Abd Allah et al., (2010).

6- Panicle length (cm)

Data in Table (5) showed Panicle length as influenced by irrigation




Data in Table (5) indicated highly significant differences among

irrigation regimes in panicle length (cm) in both seasons. Where, the highest

values of panicle length (21.83 and 22. 54 cm) were recorded by 4 days,

followed by 6 days irrigation regimes. On the other hand, irrigation every 8

days gave the lowest values of panicle length (18.30 and 18.78 cm) in 2011

and 2012 seasons, respectively. That can be summarized as follow; the

decrease in water availability during the reproductive stage cased a reduction

in panicle length particularly soil moisture stress during the panicle

formation. These results agreed with those reported earlier by Nour (1989)

and Nour et al., (1996), Zayed (2002), Gewaily (2006) and Ebaid and El-

Refaee (2007).

B) Tillage systems

Furthermore, no significant differences were found between tillage

systems on panicle length (cm) in both seasons, as shown in Table (5).

C) Rice cultivars

Regarding rice cultivars effect, data in Table (5) showed highly

significant differences among rice cultivars, where; Hybrid 1 recorded the

longest panicles (21.80 and 22.29 cm), on the other hand; Sakha 104 had the

shortest panicles (19.29 and 19.88 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. In 2011 season, no significant difference was found between

Sakha 104 and Giza 178 rice cultivars. This result could be due to genetic

61

differences related to the cultivar itself. These findings agreed with those

which obtained by El-Refaee et al., (2005 a) and Abd Allah et al., (2010).

The interaction


cultivars (C) for panicle length (cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

As Figure (18) showed, panicle length was significantly differed by

the interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in 2011

and 2012 seasons. Under irrigation every 4 days, Hybrid1 recorded the

highest values (23.83 and 24.39 cm), followed by Sakha 101, conversely;

Sakha104 recorded the lowest values (17.36 and 17.71 cm) when it was

irrigated every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. It is clear from

Figure (18) that the panicle length of Sakha 101 and Sakha 104 were sharply

decreased as irrigation regimes increased up to 8 days in compared to Giza

178 and Hybrid 1 in both seasons. That may be reflects better survival of

both Hybrid 1 and Giza 178 rice cultivars under drought condition. These

results are in harmony with those obtained by El-Refaee (2002) and Mousa

(2014).

7- Biomass yield (ton/fad.)

Data in Table (6) showed biomass yield as influenced by irrigation




H 1 23.83 21.27 20.30

Giza 178 20.97 20.08 17.37

Sakha 104 20.92 19.61 17.36

Sakha 101 21.62 20.00 18.18

Panicle length (cm) 2011

LSD 0.05 = 0.70


H 1 24.39 21.69 20.78

Giza 178 21.84 21.24 17.95

Sakha 104 21.54 20.40 17.71

Sakha 101 22.41 21.04 18.66

Panicle length (cm) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.76

61


It is remarkably from Table (6) to note that, irrigation regimes had

highly significant effects on biomass yield in both seasons. It is evident that

this character was significantly decreased by prolonged irrigation regimes in

the two seasons. The highest values (9.78 and 10.27 ton/fad.) were detected

at irrigation every 4 days and it decreased significantly to reach the lowest

values (7.93 and 8.56 ton/fad.) with irrigation every 8 days in both seasons,

respectively. These seemed to be resulted from soil dryness and decreases

soil water to near level from wilting point or lower rate, which in turn hinder

the growth of rice plant, then decrease dry matter accumulation. Also, in

frequent aerobic-anaerobic cycles, redox potential changes rapidly which

accelerated the rapid loss of nitrogen, which negatively effect on rice plants

growth and development (Reddy and Patrick, 1976). These findings are in

agreement with Zayed (2002), El-Sharkawi et al., (2006), Gewaily (2006),

El-Dalil (2007) and Mousa (2014).

B) Tillage systems

Furthermore, significant differences were found between tillage

systems in biomass yield in the first season, while, no significant differences

were found in the second season. As Table (6) showed, conventional tillage

(CT) achieved the highest values (9.10 and 9.64 ton/fad.) while, the lowest

values (8.99 and 9.53 ton/fad.) were obtained by no tillage (NT) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. This could be due to attributed to the positive

effect of conventional tillage on root volume and length which helps rice

plants to compose more shoots and finally increase the biomass yield.

Breland and Hansen (1996) and Chamen and Parkin, (1995) concluded

that, soil compaction reduced N-mineralization rate from the organic

materials and increased N retention in microbial biomass and soil organic

matter, in addition, Increasing in the nitrification rate accelerated the rapid

loss of available nitrogen in the soil which negatively effect on plant growth.

These findings agreed with Chen et al., (2007) and Xianjun et al., (2011),

they concluded that, no-tillage cultivation showed less biomass accumulation

before heading compared with the conventional cultivation.

62


and their interactions on biomass yield (t/fad.), grain yield (t/fad.) and harvest

index (%) of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 rice cultivars


Biomass Yield

(t/fad.)

Grain Yield

(t/fad.)

Harvest Index

(%)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

A - Irrig. Regimes

a1 - 4 Days

a2 - 6 Days

a3 - 8 Days

9.78 a

9.43 b

7.93 c

10.27 a

9.92 b

8.56 c

4.23 a

4.08 b

2.87 c

4.52 a

4.30 b

3.17 c

43.41 a

43.24 a

35.99 b

44.21 a

43.36 a

36.88 b

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

0.08

-

0.33

-

0.21

-

012

-

2.37

-

2.07

B- Tillage systems


b2 – No tillage

9.10 a

8.99 b

9.64 a

9.53 b

3.78 a

3.68 b

4.03 a

3.97 b

41.25 a

40.51 b

41.65 a

41.39 a

Ftest * * * * * NS

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

0.07

-

0.09

-

0.08

-

0.06

-

0.65

-

-

-

C- Rice cultivars

c1 - Hybrid 1

c2 - Giza 178

c3 - Sakha 104

c4 - Sakha 101

9.83 a

9.08 d

8.86 b

8.43 c

10.38 a

9.67 d

9.36 c

8.93 b

4.15 a

3.74 b

3.42 c

3.60 b

4.42 a

4.03 b

3.66 d

3.88 c

42.23 a

40.90 a

38.13 b

42.25 a

42.54 ab

41.58 b

38.80 c

43.15 a

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

0.18

-

0.21

-

0.16

-

0.13

-

1.37

-

1.14

Interactions

Ftest (A × B)

Ftest (A × C)

Ftest (B × C)

Ftest (A ×B × C)

NS

**

NS

NS

*

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS

*

**

NS

NS

NS

**

NS

NS


probability.


63

C) Rice cultivars

Data illustrated in Table (6) indicated that, biomass yield had highly

significant differences as affected by different tested rice cultivars in the two

seasons of study, where highly significant differences between the mean

values of rice cultivars were estimated, where the cultivars are ranged as

follow; Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 based on biomass

productivity in both seasons. Hence, the highest values (9.83 and 10.38

ton/fad.) were recorded by Hybrid 1, while; the lowest values (8.43 and 8.93

ton/fad.) were obtained by Sakha 101 in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

These results lead to; the Hybrid rice superiority in dry matter production is

due to the hybrid vigor in compared to the other cultivars and also because of

genetic variation among the cultivars under study. These findings agreed with

those obtained by Mousa (2014)

The interaction

Figure (19): The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) and

tillage systems (B) for biomass yield (t/fad) in 2012 season.

The interaction between irrigation regimes and tillage systems (AxB)

was significant for biomass yield in 2012 season. Figure (19) showed

significant and positive change in biomass yield as affected by conventional

tillage under 8 days irrigation regimes to achieve 8.68 ton/fad. In compared

to 8.44 ton/fad. with no tillage. Meanwhile, no significant differences were

observed within irrigation every 4 or 6 days in both seasons. Under drought

conditions, conventional tillage allows roots to grow deeper to absorb the


NT 10.21 9.94 8.44

CT 10.33 9.90 8.68

Biomass (t/fad) 2012

LSD 0.05 = 0.15

64

available water in deeper layers which alleviate the drought stress. These

finding are in harmony with Reddy and Patrick, (1976) and Devkota et al.,

(2010) and Xianjun et al., (2011).

Figure (20): The interaction between irrigation regimes (A) and rice cultivars

(C) for biomass yield (t/fad.) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

Further, the interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars

(AxC) was highly significant for biomass yield (ton/fad) in both seasons.

Figure (20) showed that, Hybrid 1 produced the highest values of biomass

yield (10.96 and 11.63 ton/fad.), followed by Giza 178 with irrigation every 4

days. In addition, under 8 days irrigation regimes, Giza 178 significantly

surpassed both cultivars; Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 in both seasons. On the

contrary, Sakha 101 with irrigation every 8 days recorded the lowest values

(7.38 and 8.00 ton/fad.) in both seasons, respectively. The biomass was

sharply decreased by prolonged irrigation regimes, particularly when the

plants irrigated every 8 days. Hence, the cultivars productivity rank was

stable under irrigation every 4 and 6 days in both seasons. Gomez et al.,

(2005) concluded that, leaf area/plant and root weight showed the highest

positive direct effect on biological yield. These results also had similar trend

with growth characters which were discussed earlier in the present

investigation. These findings are in agreement with those obtained by Lilley

and FuKai (1994), Nour et al., (1994), Zhu et al., (1994), Borrell et al.,

(1998), FuKai et al., (1999), Zayed (2002), El- Refaee et al., (2005a),

Gewaily (2006), El-Dalil (2007) and Mousa (2014).


H 1 10.96 10.02 8.50

Giza 178 9.72 9.47 8.06

Sakha 104 9.52 9.26 7.79

Sakha 101 8.92 8.98 7.38

Biomass (ton/fad) 2011

LSD 0.01= 0.32


H 1 11.63 10.40 9.10

Giza 178 10.27 9.98 8.74

Sakha 104 9.76 9.91 8.40

Sakha 101 9.41 9.38 8.00

Biomass (ton/fad) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.37

65

8- Grain yield (ton/fad.)

Data in Table (6) showed grain yield (ton/fad.) as influenced by




Grain yield had highly significant differences as influemced by

irrigation regimes in both seasons. Data in Table (6) revealed that, prolonged

irrigation caused a remarkable reduction in grain yield. Irrigation every 4

days achieved the highest grain yield (4.23 and 4.52 ton/fad.), followed by

irrigation every 6 days which yielded (4.08 and 4.30 ton/fad.) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. On contrast, irrigation every 8 days recorded the

lowest values (2.87 and 3.17 ton/fad.) in the two seasons, respectively. In

general, exposing rice plants to drought caused significant reduction in grain

yield and it is a fact that, the unavailability of water inhibits the dry matter

production in the different plant organs, number of productive tillers/m2,

number of filled grains/panicle and 1000-grains weight consequently, led to

sharp decrease in grain yield. These results were consistent with those

obtained by El-Rafaee, et al., (2005,b), Gewaily (2006), El-Sharkwi, et al.,

(2006) and Amiri, et al., (2009) Mousa (2014). They reported that, the

increase in grain yield components can be due to the fact that available more

water enhanced nutrient availability which improve nitrogen and other macro

and micro-elements absorption as well as enhanced the production and

translocation of the dry matter content from source to sink. Also, number of

grains/panicle and number of panicles/m2

were reduced followed by greater

number of sterile panicles and spikelets were the main yield limiting factors

in rice grown under limited water condition. The lower soil mineral N

content during the major growth stages indicated that, in addition to water

stress, rice growth, development, and yield in 9 days regimes was limited

may be due to N stress.

66

B) Tillage systems

It is obviously to notice, significant differences were found between

tillage systems on grain yield in both seasons. Where Table (6) showed that,

the highest values (3.78 and 4.03 ton/fad.) were achieved by conventional

tillage, while, the lowest values (3.68 and 3.97 ton/fad) were recorded by no

tillage in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. This could be due to attributed

to the positive effect of conventional tillage on root volume and length which

encourage rice plants to produce more shoots and panicles, that can be an

explanation for grain yield increase under conventional tillage. These results

were consistent with those obtained by Kato et al., (2007) and Zein EL-Din

et al., (2008). In addition, Toorchi et al., (2006) and Kanbar et al., (2009),

based on canonical correlation studies conducted under contrasting moisture

regimes, suggested that maximum root depth, root/shoot ratio, and root dry

weight conferred an advantage to grain yield under stress.

C) Rice cultivars

Results in Table (6) showed highly significant differences between

tested rice cultivars in grain yield ton/fad., in both seasons. Hybrid1 rice

cultivar attained the highest grain yield (4.15 and 4.42 ton/fad.) followed by

Giza 178, while Sakha104 revealed the lowest values (3.42 and 3.66 ton/fad.)

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Regarding Hybrid 1 superiority, it

could be due to the hybrid vigor. These results can be understood as all yield

component characters discussed earlier in the present investigation (No. of

productive tillers/m2, No. of filled grains/panicle, 1000-grain weight and

panicle weight), which showed similar trend for each rice cultivar. That may

reflect the cultivar performance based on its genetic variations among

cultivars. These results are largely compatible with those obtained by Mousa


The interaction

Mainly, interaction between irrigation and rice cultivars (AxC) was

highly significant for grain yield (ton/fad.) in both seasons. Hybrid 1

produced the highest values of grain yield (4.55 and 4.88 ton/fad.) followed

by Giza 178 with Irrigation every 4 days. In addition, no significant

67

differences were observed between Giza 178 and Sakha 101 under 4 or 6

days irrigation regimes, while under 8 days, Giza 178 significantly surpassed

Sakha 101 and Sakha 104 in both seasons. On the contrary, Sakha 104 with

irrigation every 8 days recorded the lowest values (2.36 and 2.71 ton/fad.) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Sakha 101 and Sakha 104 productivities

were sharply decreased by prolonged irrigation regimes compared with the

other cultivars particularly when the plants irrigated every 8 days, which

reflects highly sensitivity regarding these two cultivars. Hence, the reduction

of productivity severely increased when the irrigation regimes increased from

4 to 8 days. That may be due to very low water content in the soil which may

reach the wilting point under irrigation every 8 days, which negatively effect

on dry matter accumulation, panicle formation and carbohydrates

mobilization and remobilization from source to sink, which decrease panicle

weight and 1000-grain weight as well as increase unfilled grains percentage.

These results were expected as all yield component characters discussed

earlier in the present investigation, which showed similar trend as affected by

the interaction among factors (AxC) under study. Hence, unavailability of

water inhibit the production of dry matter content in the different plant organs

as well as number of panicles/m2, number of filled grains/panicle and 1000-

grain weight, which led to significant reduction in grain yield. De Datta et

al., (1973 a and b) tested the lowland cultivar IR20 in aerobic soil under

furrow irrigation at IRRI. Water saving was 55% compared with flooded

conditions, but the yield fell from about 8 t/ha under flooded conditions to

3.4 t/ha under aerobic conditions. However, large varietal differences in grain

yield exist under aerobic conditions. Hence, experimentally growing the

high-yielding lowland rice cultivars under aerobic conditions has shown great

potential to save water, but with severe yield penalty. The results may

suggest that, genotypes had no capability in expressing their genetic yield

potential under water stress. These findings also agreed with those reported

by Lilley and FuKai (1994), Nour et al., (1994), Zhu et al., (1994), Borrell

et al., (1998) FuKai et al., (1999,a) Zayed (2002), El- Refaee et al.,

(2005a), Gewaily (2006), El-Dalil (2007) and Mousa (2014).

68


cultivars (C) for grain yield (ton/fad.) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

9- Harvest index (%)

Data in Table (6) showed harvest index as influenced by irrigation




Regarding the effect of irrigation regimes, results in Table (6)

apparently indicated that harvest index had highly significant decrease by

prolonged irrigation in the two seasons. The highest values (43.41 and 44.21

%) were estimated at 4 days, while the lowest ones (35.99 and 36.88 %) were

found at 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The reduction in rice

plant growth in general and specifically harvest index was mainly due to the

drought condition occurred at the prolonged irrigation regimes. These results

agreed with those obtained previously by Zayed (2002), El-Sharkawi

(2006), Gewaily (2006), El-Dalil (2007) and Mousa (2014).

B) Tillage systems

Furthermore, Table (6) illustrated that, the harvest index significantly

affected by tillage systems in 2011 season while, no significant differences


H 1 4.55 4.41 3.50

Giza 178 4.17 4.09 2.95

Sakha 104 4.05 3.85 2.36

Sakha 101 4.17 3.97 2.65

Grain yield (ton/fad.) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 0.28


H 1 4.88 4.61 3.76

Giza 178 4.48 4.31 3.31

Sakha 104 4.28 4.00 2.71

Sakha 101 4.46 4.27 2.92

Grain Yield (ton/fad.) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.23

69

were found between the mean values of harvest index in the second season.

The conventional tillage had better influence on the harvest index where

estimated the highest values (41.25) while, the lowest values (40.51) were

obtained by no tillage in 2011 seasons. That may due to the better plant

growth under conventional tillage and maximize the productivity. In no

tillage accumulation of organic matter and nutrients such as N at or near the

soil surface restricts N-mineralization rate in the soil, which may be

decreased N-uptake by rice plant and negatively effect on carbohydrates

mobilization and remobilization which decrease the grain yield as well as

harvest index. These findings agreed with those obtained by Chamen and

Parkin (1995) and Abdul Baset et al., (2012).

C) Rice cultivars

In addition, highly significant differences among mean values of

harvest index were obtained as affected by rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively as shown in Table (6). In respect to harvest index, the

rice cultivars ranged as follow; Sakha 101, Hybrid 1, Giza 178 and Sakha

104 in both seasons. This could be attributed to the genetic variations and its

effects on grain and biomass yield hence, Sakha 101 yielded relatively higher

grain yield with the lowest biomass, which resulted the highest harvest index

(42.25 and 43.15 %). On the other hand, Sakha 104 recorded the lowest

harvest index (38.13 and 38.80 %), that is because of its low grain yield with

high straw yield in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. These variations in

harvest index may be due to more efficient in transfer of photosynthate to the

grain (economic yield) in high yielding varieties, while low harvest index

was due to Poor grain yield and low indicating minimum translocation of

assimilates to the grains. These findings are in the same trend with those

obtained by Chamen and Parkin (1995), Abd Allah et al., (2010) and

Abdul Baset et al., (2012).

The interaction

Significant interaction between irrigation regimes and tillage systems

(AxB) was recorded for harvest index in 2011 season. Figure (22) showed

significant difference between the two tillage systems under drought stress

conditions (8 days) where, conventional tillage (CT) was better than no

71

tillage (NT) in 2011 season. Meanwhile, no significant differences were

found under 4 and 6 days irrigation regimes in both seasons. It is may be due

to the tilled soil allowed the roots to easily penetrate the soil and grow deeper

compared with no tillage particularly under drought stress conditions (8

days), consequently increase number of filled grains/panicle and pacnicle

weight as well as grain yield, which increase the harvest index (Chamen and

Parkin 1995).


systems (B) for harvest index (%) in 2011 season.

Figure (23): Harvest index as affected by the interaction between

irrigation regimes and rice cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons.


NT 43.47 43.16 34.89

CT 43.34 43.31 37.09

Harvest Index (%) 2011

LSD 0.05 = 1.13


H 1 41.50 44.02 41.18

Giza 178 42.92 43.18 36.61

Sakha 104 42.51 41.58 30.29

Sakha 101 46.71 44.17 35.87


LSD 0.01 = 2.37


H 1 41.92 44.36 41.33

Giza 178 43.68 43.17 37.88

Sakha 104 43.81 40.34 32.24

Sakha 101 47.43 45.59 36.45


LSD 0.01 = 1.97

71

Further, Figure (23) indicated that, highly significant interaction

effects between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) on harvest index

were found in both seasons, indicating that both factors works together on the

performance of this character. Sakha 101 performance in the harvest index

sharply changed from the highest values (46.71 and 47.43%) under 4 days

irrigation regime to very low values (35.87 and 36.45%) under 8 days

irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. That may be

reflect highly reduction in grain yield, which show highly sensitivity of

Sakha 101 to drought stress compared with the other cultivars under study.

On the opposite, Sakha 104 had the lowest values (30.29 and 32.24%) of

harvest index under irrigation every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. In other direction, Hybrid 1 and Giza 178 resulted the highest

harvest index (44.02 and 44.36) under 6 days, followed by 4 days irrigation

regimes in both seasons, that is may due to the large vegetation growth

(Biomass) under continuous irrigation (4 days) in compared to grain yield in

both seasons. These findings agreed with those obtained by Gaballah (2009),

Abd Allah et al., (2010), Abdul Baset et al., (2012) and Mousa (2014).

V. Water relations.

1- Reduction percentage (RP %)

Data in Table (7) showed reduction percentage (%) as influenced by




Table (7) illustrated that, highly significant differences were found in

reduction percentage among irrigation regimes in both seasons. The mean

values of reduction percentage increased from 3.57% to 30.04% and from

5.14% to 26.21% when irrigation regimes increased from 6 to 8 days in 2011

and 2012 seasons, respectively. In other words, water saving under 6 days

irrigation regime was on average 24% with yield reductions of (3.57 % and

5.14%), while the yield reductions reached (30.04% and 26.21%) with water

saving was about 36% under 8 days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012

72

seasons, respectively. These results may be due to highly reduction in grain

yield under irrigation every 8 days, in compared to irrigation every 4 days.

These results are in harmony with those obtained by Bouman and Tuong

(2001), Ghanem and Ebaid (2001) Zinolabedin, et al., (2008). They

concluded that the reduction of grain yield largely resulted from the reduction

in fertile panicles and filled grain percentage.

B) Tillage systems

Regarding reduction percentage, there were significant differences

between tillage systems in 2011 season, while no significant differences were

found in the second season as shown in Table (7). Where, conventional

tillage (CT) gave the lowest value (10.40 %), whereas no tillage increased the

reduction percentage to (12.01 %).

C) Rice cultivars

Data in Table (7) revealed highly significant differences in reduction

percentage between tested rice cultivars in both seasons. No significant

differences were found between Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 where, the mean

values ranged as follow; 14.47 and 12.50 in 2011 season and 12.90 and 11.96

in 2012 season, respectively. On the other side, Hybrid 1 gave the lowest

values (7.48 and 7.10) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Meanwhile,

no significant differences were observed between Hybrid 1 and Giza 178 in

both seasons. These findings may reflect the highly sensitivity of Sakha 104

and Sakha 101 to drought stress which cased yield reduction, in compared to

the other cultivars under study. These results were consistent with those

obtained by Ndjionjop et al. (2010). They found that, the grain yield showed

the clearest differences among genotype-tolerance levels in the genetic

material evaluated.

73


and their interactions on reduction percentage (%), drought sensitivity index and

water use efficiency (WUE = (Kg./m3)) of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178 Sakha 104


Reduction percentage

(%)

Drought sensitivity

index

WUE

(Kg./m3)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

A - Irrig. Regimes

a1 - 4 Days

a2 - 6 Days

a3 - 8 Days

0.00 c

3.57 b

30.04 a

0.00 c

5.14 b

26.21 a

0.00 c

0.04 b

0.30 a

0.00 c

0.05 b

0.26 a

0.71c

0.90 a

0.75 b

0.76 c

0.94 a

0.83 b

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

3.81

-

2.34

-

0.04

-

0.02

-

0.04

-

0.03

B- Tillage systems


b2 – No tillage

10.40 b

12.01 a

10.12

10.78

0.10 b

0.12 a

0.10

0.11

0.80 a

0.77 b

0.85 a

0.83 b

Ftest * NS * NS * *

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

1.52

-

-

-

0.02

-

-

-

0.02

-

0.01

-

C- Rice cultivars

c1 - Hybrid 1

c2 - Giza 178

c3 - Sakha 104

c4 - Sakha 101

7.84 c

9.92 bc

14.47 a

12.5 ab

7.10 c

8.94 bc

12.90 a

11.96 ab

0.08 c

0.10 b

0.14 a

0.13 a

0.08 c

0.09 b

0.13 a

0.12 a

0.88 a

0.79 b

0.71 d

0.75 c

0.93 a

0.85 b

0.77 d

0.81 c

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.01

-

3.15

-

2.95

-

0.03

-

0.03

-

0.03

-

0.03

Interaction:

Ftest (A × B)

*

NS

*

NS

NS

NS

Ftest (A × C) ** ** ** ** ** **

Ftest (B × C) NS NS NS NS NS NS

Ftest (A × B × C) NS NS NS NS NS NS


probability.


WUE = Water Use Efficiency.

74

The interaction

Data in Table (7) showed significant interaction between irrigation

regimes and tillage systems (AxB) in 2011 season, whereas the interaction

between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) was highly significant for

reduction percentage in both seasons.


systems (b) for reduction percentage (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

As shown in Figure (24), the yield reduction percentage was very

high under irrigation every 8 days, where the mean values were reached

(27.67 and 31.75 %) with conventional tillage (CT) and no tillage system

(NT) in 2011 season, respectively. On the other side, there were insignificant

differences between the mean values (3.50 and 3.83 %) of reduction

percentage as affected by conventional tillage and no tillage under irrigation

every 6 days, respectively.

As shown in Figure (25), irrigation every 8 days cased the highest

values of reduction percentage (38.66 and 32.21 %) with Sakha 104,

followed by Sakha 101 (33.08 and 31.73 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between the

two cultivars in both seasons. In general, no significant differences among

rice cultivars were found in under 6 days in both seasons. On the other hand,

Giza 178 gave the lowest values of reduction percentage (1.95 and 3.82 %)

under irrigation every 6 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. It can

0.00

20.00

40.00


3.83

31.75

3.50

27.67

Reduction percentage (%) 2011

LSD 0.05 = 2.63

NT

CT

75

be concluded as that; the variation among rice cultivars in reduction

percentage can be appeared only under 8 days irrigation regimes, that may be

due to highly shortage of the grain yield under irrigation every 8 days,

particularly for Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 rice cultivars. In other words,

Hybrid 1 gave the lowest values of reduction percentage (20.59 and 17.91 %)

under irrigation every 8 days, which showed more tolerant to drought in

compared to the other cultivars, It may be due to the hybrid vigor. These

findings are in agreement with those obtained by Gaballah (2009) and

Naoki and Toshihiro (2009). Further explanation, De Datta et al., (1973 a

and b) concluded that, large varietal differences in grain yield exist under

aerobic conditions.


cultivars (C) for reduction percentage (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

2- Drought sensitivity index (DSI)

Data in Table (7) showed drought sensitivity index (DSI) as




Evidently, Table (7) indicated showed highly significant differences

in drought sensitivity index (DSI) among irrigation regimes in both seasons.


H 1 0.00 2.93 20.59

Giza 178 0.00 1.95 27.83

Sakha 104 0.00 4.75 38.66

Sakha 101 0.00 4.67 33.08


LSD 0.01 = 5.45


H 1 0.00 6.08 17.91

Giza 178 0.00 3.82 23.01

Sakha 104 0.00 6.50 32.21

Sakha 101 0.00 4.14 31.73


LSD 0.01 = 5.11

76

The mean values of DSI increased from 0.04 to 0.30 and from 0.05 to 0.26

when irrigation regimes increased from 6 to 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. These results may be due to highly reduction in the productivity

under drought (8 days), compared with irrigation every 4 days. These results

are in harmony with those reported by Awad (2001), Ghanem and Ebaid

(2001) Gaballah (2009), Abd Allah et al., (2010) and El-Refaee (2012).

B) Tillage systems

Data in Table (7) revealed significant in DSI differences between the

two tillage systems in 2011 season. The highest value (0.12) was recorded by

no tillage, while conventional tillage gave the lowest value (0.10) in 2011

season. That may be reflects the important role of conventional tillage in

minimizing the rice sensitivity to drought throw increasing root volume and

length as well as yield and its components. In contrast, no significant

differences were found in 2012 season. These results are in harmony with

those reported by Chamen and Parkin (1995) and Kato et al., (2007), they

reported that no-tillage led to reduced rice yield in comparison with the

conventional planting system.

C) Rice cultivars

Data in Table (7) revealed highly significant differences in DSI

among tested rice cultivars in both seasons. No significant differences were

found between Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 where, the mean values ranged as

follow; 0.14 and 0.13 in the first season and 0.13 and 0.12 in second season,

respectively. In contrary, Hybrid 1 gave the lowest values (0.08 and 0.08) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, no significant differences

were observed between Hybrid 1 and Giza 178 in the second season. These

findings may reflect the highly sensitivity of Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 to

drought stress compared with the other cultivars under study. These results

were consistent with those obtained by Shi, et al., (2002), Mousa (2008),

Gaballah (2009), Abd Allah et al., (2010) and Mousa (2014).

77

The interaction


systems (B) for drought sensitivity index in 2011 season.

Significant interaction between irrigation regimes and tillage systems

(AxB) was recorded for DSI in 2011 season. Figure (26) showed significant

difference between the two tillage systems under drought stress conditions (8

days) where, no tillage increased the mean value of DSI up to 0.32 compared

with 0.28 was obtained from conventional tillage in 2011 season. Meanwhile,

no significant differences were found between the two tillage systems under

6 days irrigation regimes in both seasons. It is may due to the tilled soil allow

the roots to easily penetrate and grow deeper under drought stress conditions

(8 days) and help rice plants to grow better then produce higher grain yield

under conventional tillage. These findings are in agreement with those

obtained by Xianjun et al., (2011).

From the data in Figure (27) it is worthy to note that, highly

significantly differences were found among the mean values of DSI as

affected by interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in

both seasons. Under irrigation every 8 days, Sakha 104 gave the highest

values (0.39 and 0.32), followed by Sakha 101 (0.33 and 0.32) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found

between the two cultivars in the second season. In general, no significant

differences among rice cultivars were found in under 6 days in both seasons.

On the other hand, Giza 178 recorded the lowest values (0.02 and 0.04) under

irrigation every 6 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The results

can be concluded as follow; the drought sensitivity variation among rice

NT CT

0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

0.32 0.28

Drought sensitivity index 2011

4 Days

6 Days

8 Days

LSD 0.05 = 0.03

78

cultivars can be appeared only under 8 days irrigation regimes, where Hybrid

1 gave the best lowest values of DSI under irrigation every 8 days. In other

words, Hybrid 1 was more tolerant to drought in compared to the other

cultivars. It may be due to the hybrid vigor. These findings are in agreement

with those obtained by Gaballah (2009). Further explanation, concluded that,

large varietal differences in grain yield exist under aerobic conditions.

Figure (27): Drought susceptible index of Egyptian hybrid 1, Sakha 104,

Sakha 101 and Giza 178 rice cultivars as affected by irrigation regimes


10- Water use efficiency (kg/m3)

Data in Table (7) showed water use efficiency (WUE) as influenced

by irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars (C) as well as



Evidently, Table (7) indicated that, highly significant differences were

found among irrigation regimes in WUE in both seasons. Where, increasing

irrigation regimes from 4 to 6 days increased the mean values of WUE,

consequently the highest values (0.90 and 0.94 kg/m3) were obtained under

irrigation every 6 days, followed by irrigation every 8 days which recorded

(0.75 and 0.83 kg/m3). However, irrigation every 4 days recorded the lowest

H 1 Giza178

Sakha104

Sakha101

0.03 0.02 0.05 0.05

0.21

0.28

0.39

0.33

Drought sensitivity index

2011


LSD 0.01 = 0.06

H 1 Giza178

Sakha104

Sakha101

0.06 0.04 0.07

0.04

0.18 0.23

0.32 0.32

Drought sensitivity index

2012


LSD0.01 = 0.05

79

values (0.71 and 0.76 kg/m3) in both seasons, respectively. The irrigation

every 6 days caused progressive reduction in grain yield, with a marked

decrease in water losses throw seepage, percolation and evaporation. Shi, et

al., (2002) stated that, WUE was higher in the dry-cultivation treatment since

yields decreased relatively less than the supply of irrigation water. These

results are in agreement with those obtained by Awad (2001), Singh, et al.

(2010), El-Refaee (2012) and Mousa (2014).

B) Tillage systems

Data in Table (7) revealed significant differences between the two

tillage systems in WUE kg/m3 in both seasons. The highest values (0.80 and

0.85 kg/m3) were detected by conventional tillage (CT) compared with no

tillage (NT) which gave 0.77 and 0.83 kg/m3 in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Bhattacharyya et al (2008) and Devkota et al., (2010) found

that the conventional tillage showed significant positive effect on the grain

yield and its components particularly under water deficit conditions while, no

significant effect of tillage under flooded condition. These results can be

concluded as that, conventional tillage helps the rice plants to grow better

throw improving the soil structure which allows roots to grow deeper and

absorb more available water. That leads to produce higher grain yield as well

as WUE compared with no tillage.

C) Rice cultivars

Regarding to rice cultivars effect, data in Table (7) revealed highly

significant differences between tested rice cultivars in WUE kg/m3 in both

seasons. Hybrid1 recorded the highest values (0.88 and 0.93 kg/m3), followed

by Giza 178 while Sakha 104 gave the lowest values (0.71 and 0.77 kg/m) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. This may be due to high productivity of

Hybrid 1 and Sakha 178 which is linked with genetic variation among rice

cultivars. These results were consistent with those obtained by Shi et al.,


81

The interaction


cultivars (C) for water use efficiency (WUE=kg/m3) in 2011 and 2012

seasons.

From the data in Figure (28) it is worthy to note that, water use

efficiency (WUE = kg/m3) was significantly affected by the interaction

between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in both seasons. Under

irrigation every 6 days, Hybrid 1 gave the highest values (0.97 and 1.01

kg/m3), followed by Giza 178 and Sakha 101 in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between Giza

178 and Sakha 101 under both 4 and 6 irrigation regimes in both seasons. On

the other hand, Sakha 104 recorded the lowest values (0.62 and 0.71 kg/m3)

under irrigation every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. In

addition, Sakha 101 and Sakha 104 gave higher WUE under 4 days in

compared to 8 days as a response to the shortage in grain yield under water

deficit conditions (8 days).These findings are in agreement with those

obtained by Gaballah (2009), Abd Allah et al., (2010) and Mousa (2014).


H 1 0.76 0.97 0.91

Giza 178 0.70 0.90 0.77

Sakha 104 0.68 0.84 0.62

Sakha 101 0.70 0.87 0.69

Water Use Effeciency (kg/m3) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 0.06


H 1 0.81 1.01 0.98

Giza 178 0.75 0.94 0.86

Sakha 104 0.71 0.88 0.71

Sakha 101 0.75 0.94 0.76

Water Use Effeciency (kg/m3) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.05

81

VI. Grain quality characters.

1- Hulling (%)

The results in Table (8) summarized the effect of different irrigation

regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars (C) on hulling (%) as well

as their interactions during 2011 and 2012 seasons.


Table (8) showed highly significant differences among the mean

values of hulling (%) as affected by irrigation regimes in both seasons.

Where, highest values (79.53 and 79.43 %) were recorded by 6 days

irrigation regimes while, the lowest values (78.35 and 78.38 %) were

obtained by 4 days irrigation regimes. These findings could be attributed to

sink source relationship, where number of productive tillers/m2 and number

of grains/panicle increased under irrigation every 4 days to the limit which

negatively effected on grain filling. As a direct result, hulling (%) decreased

under irrigation every 4 days. These findings are in agreement with Nour et

al., (1994), El-Refaee (2005a) and Mousa (2014).

B) Tillage systems

Data in Table (8) revealed no significant differences between tillage

systems for hulling (%) in both seasons.

C) Rice cultivars

Obviously, data in Table (8) indicated the existence of highly

significant difference between rice cultivars in both seasons. Sakha104 gave

the highest values (80.20 and 80.12 %), followed by Sakha101. However,

Hybrid1 recorded the lowest values (77.28 and 77.22 %) in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. These results may be due to rice varietal differences

and genetic background of each cultivar. These results are in harmony with

the data obtained by Zayed (2002) and El-Dalil (2007).

82


probability.


Table (8): Effect of irrigation regimes (A), tillage systems (B), rice cultivars

(C) and their interactions on hulling (%), milling (%) and head rice (%) of

Egyptian Hybrid 1, Sakha 104, Sakha 101 and Giza 178 rice cultivars in 2011

and 2012 seasons.

Hulling (%) Milling (%) Head rice (%)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

A - Irrig. Regimes

a1 - 4 Days

a2 - 6 Days

a3 - 8 Days

78.35 b

79.53 a

79.24 a

78.38 b

79.43 a

79.10 a

70.17 b

71.09 a

70.88 a

70.05 b

70.95 a

70.75 a

63.45 c

64.72 a

64.56 b

63.40 c

64.74 a

63.95 b

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.05

-

0.39

-

0.33

-

0.29

-

0.29

-

0.13

-

0.31

B- Tillage systems


b2 – No tillage

79.10

78.99

78.99

78.96

70.75

70.68

70.62

70.55

64.33

64.16

64.12 a

63.94 b

Ftest NS NS NS NS NS *

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.05

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.15

-

C- Rice cultivars

c1 - Hybrid 1

c2 - Giza 178

c3 - Sakha 104

c4 - Sakha 101

77.28 d

78.96 c

80.20 a

79.73 b

77.22 d

78.84 c

80.12 a

79.71 b

68.94 d

70.62 c

71.92 a

71.39 b

68.81 d

70.49 c

71.79 a

71.26 b

64.87 b

62.45 d

63.42 c

66.24 a

64.72 b

62.20 d

63.18 c

66.01 a

Ftest ** ** ** ** ** **

L.S.D0.05

L.S.D0.05

-

0.30

-

0.29

-

0.28

-

0.28

-

0.35

-

0.32

Interaction:

Ftest (A × B)

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Ftest (A × C) ** ** ** ** ** **

Ftest (B × C) NS NS NS NS NS NS

Ftest (A × B × C) NS NS NS NS NS NS

83

The interaction

Results in Figure (29) showed highly significant interaction between

irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) for hulling (%) in both seasons.

The highest values (80.67 and 80.53 %) were recorded by Sakha104 when

rice plants were irrigated every 6, while Hybrid1 with irrigation every 4 days

recorded the lowest value (76.61 and 76.70 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. That may be due to the continuous translocation of

carbohydrates from source to sink under irrigation every 6 days, which led to

proper grain filling.


cultivars (C) for hulling (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

2- Milling (%)


regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars (C) on milling (%) as well

as their interactions during 2011 and 2012 seasons.


Regarding milling (%), results in Table (8) revealed highly significant

differences among irrigation regimes. Where irrigation every 6 days attained

the highest values (71.09 and 70.95 %) while irrigation every 4 days recorded


H 1 76.61 78.14 77.09

Giza 178 78.51 79.22 79.14

Sakha 104 79.31 80.67 80.63

Sakha 101 78.99 80.09 80.11

Hulling (%) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 0.52


H 1 76.70 78.00 76.96

Giza 178 78.42 79.08 79.00

Sakha 104 79.35 80.53 80.49

Sakha 101 79.03 80.12 79.97

Hulling (%) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.50

84

the lowest values (70.17 and 70.05 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. These results are in harmony with the data obtained by El-

Refaee et al., (2005a), El-Agamy, et al., (2007), El-Dalil (2007) and Mousa

(2014).

B) Tillage systems

Regarding to milling (%), data in Table (8) revealed no significant

differences between tillage systems in both seasons.

C) Rice cultivars

Data in Table (8) indicated that there were highly significant

differences among tested rice cultivars in milling (%) in both seasons.

Sakha104 recorded the highest values (71.92 and 71.79 %), followed by

Sakha101 while, Hybrid1 recorded the lowest values (68.94 and 68.81 %) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. these results may be due to the genetic

background of these rice cultivars. These results are in harmony with those

obtained by Mousa (2008) and Mousa (2014).

The interaction


cultivars (C) for milling (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.


H 1 68.38 69.70 68.73

Giza 178 70.28 70.78 70.78

Sakha 104 71.25 72.23 72.27

Sakha 101 70.77 71.65 71.75

Milling (%) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 0 .48


H 1 68.26 69.56 68.60

Giza 178 70.16 70.64 70.65

Sakha 104 71.13 72.09 72.14

Sakha 101 70.65 71.51 71.62

Milling (%) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.48

85

Data in Figure (30) revealed highly significant effects on milling %

by the interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in

2011 and 2012 seasons. Sakha104 recorded the highest value (72.27 and

72.14 %) when it was irrigated every 6 or 8 days while the lowest milling %

(68.38 and 68.26 %) was recorded when Hybrid1 was irrigated every 4 days

in both season, respectively. Generally, Hybrid1 significantly decreased

when irrigation regimes increased from 6 to 8 meanwhile, no significant

change in Sakha101, Sakha104 and Giza178 milling % when the rice plants

irrigated every 6 or 8 days in both seasons.

3- Head rice percentage


regimes (A), tillage systems (B) and rice cultivars (C) on head rice (%) as

well as their interactions during 2011 and 2012 seasons.


Data in Table (8) indicated the existence of highly significant

differences among irrigation regimes in head rice (%) in 2011 and 2012

seasons. Irrigation every 6 days recorded the highest values (64.72 and 64.74

%) while the lowest values (63.45 and 63.40 %) were recorded by irrigation

every 4 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. This increase as a result

of the drought conditions happened during grain maturity which caused high

percentage of cracks in the endosperm. Accordingly, the hardness of the grain

decreased and those grains with degree of cracking eventually break up in the

milling process (El Dalil 2007). On the other hand, Nour et al., (1997)

reported that head rice percentage had no response to the irrigation regimes in

spite it was reduced as irrigation regimes increased but this reduction was not

significant.

B) Tillage systems.

Data in Table (8) revealed significant increase in head rice (%)

(64.12%) under conventional tillage (CT) in in compared to no tillage (NT)

(63.94%) in the second season. These findings are in agreement with Zein

EL-Din et al., (2008) who concluded that The highest head rice and lowest

86

broken rice percentage were recorded in conventional tillage treatment (CT)

compared to reduced tillage treatment. In contrast, no significant differences

were found between tillage systems in the first season.

C) Rice cultivars

Regarding the effect of rice cultivars on head rice (%) data in Table

(8) showed highly significant differences between tested rice cultivars in the

two seasons. Where, Sakha 101 rice cultivar achieved the highest values

(66.24 and 66.01 %) followed by Hybrid 1 while Giza 178 attained the

lowest values (62.45 and 62.20 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

That may be due to varietal differences. These findings are in agreement with

El-Dalil (2007) and Mousa (2014).

The interaction


cultivars (C) for head rice (%) in 2011 and 2012 seasons.

In Figure (31) head rice (%) was highly affected by the interaction

between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars (AxC) in both seasons. Under

irrigation every 8 days, Sakha 101 rice cultivar recorded the highest value of

head rice (%) (66.92 %) in the first season, while in the second season; Sakha

101 recorded the highest values (66.56 %) under irrigation every 6 days.


H 1 64.15 65.76 64.70

Giza 178 62.00 62.61 62.73

Sakha 104 62.49 63.88 63.88

Sakha 101 65.17 66.64 66.92

Head Rice (%) 2011

LSD 0.01 = 0.60


H 1 64.17 65.91 64.09

Giza 178 61.87 62.61 62.12

Sakha 104 62.39 63.88 63.27

Sakha 101 65.15 66.56 66.31

Head Rice (%) 2012

LSD 0.01 = 0.56

87

Meanwhile, the mean values of head rice (%) in Sakha 101 insignificantly

changed when irrigation regimes increased from 6 to 8 days in both seasons.

In contrast, the lowest value (62.00 and 61.87 %) was recorded when Giza

178 was irrigated every 4 days. That may be due to higher broken rice

percentages for both Giza 178 and Sakha 104 cultivars. As a direct result,

head rice (%) decreased under irrigation every 4 days. These findings are in

agreement with those obtained by El Dalil (2007) and Mousa (2014).

88

I. SUMMARY

Two field experiments were conducted at the Experimental Farm in

Itay El-Baroud Agricultural Research Station, El-Behaira Governorate,

Agricultural Research Center (ARC); during 2011 and 2012 seasons to

evaluate the performance of Egyptian Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and

Sakha 101 rice cultivars under different irrigation regimes i.e.; 6000, 4560

and 3840 m3/fad.. as irrigation every 4, 6 and 8 days, respectively and two

tillage systems (conventional and zero tillage).

A split-split-plot design with three replications in the two seasons of

study where; the main plot were designated for irrigation regimes, (equal

dose of water (180 m3/fad..) was added every 4, 6 and 8 days) while; sub-

plots were designated for the two tillage systems and sub-sub-plots were

designated for rice four cultivars (Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha

101).

In case of, irrigation every 4 days the total amount of water used was

6000 m3/fad../season. Consequently, irrigation every 6 days consumes 4562

m3/fad./season while, every 8 days consumes 3844 m

3/fad./season. These

means that, 6000 m3

of water consumed in total rice plant duration equal

100% consequently, 4562 m3

equal 76% while, 3844 m3

equal 64%.

Irrigation regimes No. of

irrigations

Water used

(m3/fad./season)

Water

saving

Irrigation eve ry 4 days (I4) 24 6000 m3/fad./season ــــــ

Irrigation every 6 days (I6) 16 4562 m3/fad./season 24 %

Irrigation every 8 days (I8) 12 3844 m3/fad./season 36 %

At the rate of 10 kg/fad. of hybrid rice seeds and 60 kg/fad. of the three

rice cultivars, the seeds were soaked in excess water for 24 hours then

incubated for 48 hours to enhance germination. Pre-transplanting, seeds were

handily broadcasted to the nursery in 10th

of May in both seasons. Thirty days

old seedlings were transplanted at 20×20 cm distance between hills and rows.

89

All amounts of nitrogen fertilizer in the urea form (46.5% N) was

applied in two doses; (2/3) as basal application in the dry soil before flooding,

while the second dose (1/3) was applied 30 days after transplanting.

Studied characters

(A)- Vegetative growth characters

1. Root volume (cm3)

2. Root length (cm)

3. Root/shoot ratio

4. Number of days of heading

5. Plant height in (cm)

6. Flag leaf area (cm2)

(B)- Yield and its components

1. Number of productive tillers/m2

2. Number of filled grains/panicle

3. 1000-grain weight in (g)

4. Unfilled grain percentage

5. Panicle weight in (g).

6. Panicle length in (cm)

7. Biomass yield (ton/fed).

8. Grain yield (ton/fed).

9. Harvest index (%)

(C)- Water relations characters

1. Reduction percentage (%)

2. Drought sensitivity index

3. Water use efficiency in (kg/m3).

(D)- Grain quality characters

1. Hulling percentage (%)

91

2. Milling percentage (%)

3. Head rice percentage (%)

The results will be summarized as follow:

A- Vegetative growth characters.

1- Root volume (cm3)

Highly significant differences in root volume were detected as

influenced by irrigation regimes, tillage systems and rice cultivars as well as

their interaction in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Root volume was increased

significantly as irrigation water quantities increased and irrigation regime

decreased. Hence, the largest root volume was found when the rice plants

irrigated every 4 days (in 6000 m3/fad. rate of irrigation water) on the

opposite, the lowest root volume was measured at 8 days irrigation regime (in

3844 m3/fad. rate of irrigation water). Concerning tillage systems, maximum

root volume was obtained under conventional tillage which ranged between

58.57 and 58.81 cm3 in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. However, the

minimum value of root volume was found when rice plants were transplanted

in to non-tillage soil (56.23 and 56.47 cm3) in both seasons, respectively. The

largest root volume was obtained by Hybrid 1 (70.72 and 70.69 cm3),

followed by Giza 178 (58.61 and 58.97 cm3) in both seasons. While, the

lowest value of root volume was obtained by Sakha 104 rice cultivar (49.02

and 49.34 cm3) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The largest root

volume (79.80 and 80.67 cm3) was recorded by Hybrid 1 when the rice plants

irrigated every 4 days while, the lowest value of root volume was obtained by

Sakha 104 under 8 days irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. The highest value of root volume (66.42 cm3) was obtained

from conventional tillage under irrigation every 4 days and the lowest value

of root volume (45.67 cm3) was obtained from zero tillage under 8 days

irrigation regime. Largest values of root volume (80.69 and 82.13 cm3) were

recorded by Hybrid 1 under conventional tillage with 4 days irrigation regime

while, the lowest values of root volume (37.56 and 37.86 cm3) were obtained

by Sakha 104 under zero tillage with 8 days irrigation regime in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively.

91

2-Root length (cm)

Highly significant differences in root length were detected as


their interaction in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Results showed highly significant

differences among the three irrigation regimes. Root length was significantly

increased as irrigation water quantities increased and irrigation regime

decreased. Hence, the longest root lengths (27.50 and 27.38 cm) were found

when the rice plants irrigated every 4 days, followed by (25.25 and 25.39 cm)

measured in 6 days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

On the opposite, the shortest root system (18.69 and 18.84 cm) was measured

at 8 days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Maximum

root lengths were obtained under conventional tillage which ranged between

24.56 and 24.59 cm in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. However, the

minimum values of root lengths were found when rice plants were

transplanted in untilled soil (23.06 and 23.15 cm) in both seasons,

respectively. The largest root lengths were obtained by Hybrid 1 (32.79 and

29.03 cm), followed by Giza 178 (24.49 and 24.52 cm) in both seasons.

While, the lowest values of root length were obtained by Sakha 104 rice

cultivar (20.50 and 20.64 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Hybrid

1 was significantly surpassed the other rice cultivars in root length under the

three irrigation regimes, where recorded the longest root system (33.27 and

33.43 cm) under 4 days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. While the shortest root lengths (16.12 and 16.54 cm) were

obtained by Sakha 104, followed by Sakha 101 (16.88 and 16.96 cm) under 8

days irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Giza 178

significantly surpassed Sakha 101 and Sakha 104 under all irrigation regimes

in both growing seasons. Despite, the highest values of root length were

recorded by conventional tillage with irrigation every 4 days, the positive

effect of conventional tillage on root length was clearly increased under 6

days irrigation regimes than 4 and 8 irrigation regimes in compared to zero

tillage in 2012 season.

3-Root/shoot ratio

Highly significant differences in root/shoot ratio were detected as


92

their interaction in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Significant variations were found

in the root/shoot ratio where, the highest root/shoot ratios (0.703 and 0.702)

were found when the rice plants irrigated every 4 days, followed by (0.697

and 0.702) measured in 6 days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. However there were no highly significant differences were

observed between 4 and 6 days irrigation regimes in 2012 season. On the

opposite, the lowest root/shoot ratios (0.641 and 0.649) were measured at 8

days irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The highest

root/shoot ratio was obtained under conventional tillage which ranged

between 0.684 and 0.688 in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. However,

the lowest value of root/shoot ratio was found when rice plants were

transplanted in untilled soil (0.676 and 0.681) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. The highest values of root/shoot ratio were obtained by Hybrid

1 (0.720 and 0.725), followed by Giza 178 (0.707 and 0.713) in both seasons,

respectively. While, the lowest values of root/shoot ratio were obtained by

Sakha 104 rice cultivar (0.622 and 0.628) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Hybrid 1 recorded the highest values of root/shoot ratio (0.727

and 0.733) under 6 irrigation regime in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

On the other hand, Sakha 104 was severely affected under 8 days irrigation

regimes compared with the other irrigation regimes, where, the lowest

root/shoot ratio (0.508 and 0.522) was obtained by Sakha 104 under 8 days

irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

4-Number of days to heading (days)

Highly significant differences were found among irrigation regimes

on heading date in both seasons, where irrigation every 8 days delayed

heading date up to (110.33 and 110.71 days) while irrigation every 4 days

recorded the shortest period (105.75 and 105.25 days) from sowing to 50 %

heading in 2011 and 2012 seasons respectively. In addition, tillage systems

showed significant effect on days to heading in both seasons, where

conventional tillage recorded the shortest period (107.89 and 107.64 days)

while zero tillage delayed heading date up to (108.53 and 108.11days) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. The effect of rice cultivars showed

highly significant differences on days to heading in both seasons. The longest

periods from sowing up to 50 % heading (114.00 and 114.00 days) were

recorded by Sakha101 rice variety, however Sakha 104 rice variety recorded

93

the shortest periods (103.83 and 103.28 days) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. The longest period was recorded by Sakha 101 (116.67 days)

when irrigated every 8 days but the shortest period was recorded by Sakha

104 (100.67 days) under 4 days irrigation regime in 2011 growing season.


The effect of irrigation regimes on plant height (cm) was highly

significant in the two seasons of study. Where, irrigation every 4 days

recorded the highest values (105.08 and 106.08 cm), followed by irrigation

every 6 days (99.17 and 100.04 cm). On the contrary, irrigation every 8 days

recorded the lowest values (93.00 and 91.00 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. In addition, significant effect of the two tillage systems was

found on plant height (cm). The tallest plants were recorded under

conventional tillage (99.08 and 100.42 cm), while the shortest plants (97.75

and 99.00 cm) were recorded under zero tillage in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Regarding the rice cultivars performance, highly significant

differences were observed in plant height among the four rice cultivars under

study in both seasons. Sakha 104 recorded the highest values (105.83 and

106.61 cm), followed by Hybrid 1 (103.67 and 105.17 cm) without

significant differences in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. On the

contrary, Sakha 101 recorded the lowest values (89.22 and 90.33 cm) in 2011

and 2012 seasons, respectively. The interaction between irrigation regimes

and rice cultivars was significant on plant height (cm) in both seasons where,

Sakha 104 under irrigation every 4 days recorded the highest value (114.00

and 115.00 cm) whereas irrigation every 8 days with Sakha 101 recorded the

lowest value (81.00 and 83.00 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

Also, plant height was significantly affected by the interaction between

tillage systems and irrigation regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Where, the

highest values of plant height were recorded under 4 days irrigation regimes

with no significant differences between the conventional and zero tillage

(105.00 cm and 106 cm) in both seasons, respectively. On the other hand,

zero tillage was recorded the lowest value of plant height (89.58 and 91.58

cm) under 8 days irrigation regime in both seasons, respectively.

94


Highly significant differences between the mean values of flag leaf

area (cm2) were estimated in both seasons as affected by different irrigation

regimes. Where, irrigation every 4 days recorded the highest values (30.46

and 30.58 cm2), while; irrigation every 8 days recorded the lowest values

(21.56 and 21.72 cm2) in the two seasons, respectively. In addition,

significant differences between the mean values of flag leaf area (cm2) were

estimated in both seasons as affected by different tillage systems. Where,

conventional tillage recorded the highest values (27.29 and 27.47 cm2), while

zero tillage recorded the lowest values (26.93 and 27.07cm2) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. Obviously, highly significant differences in flag

leaf area (cm2) among Hybrid 1, Giza 178 and both Sakha 104 and Sakha 101

rice cultivars, while, no significant differences were observed between the

last two rice cultivars in both seasons. Where, the largest values of flag leaf

area (29.90 and 30.03 cm2) were recorded by Hybrid 1, followed by Giza 178

(28.69 and 28.87 cm2). On the contrary, the lowest values of flag leaf area

were obtained by Sakha 101 (24.79 and 24.97 cm2) in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. Significant interaction between irrigation regimes and

rice cultivars were observed in 2011 and 2012 seasons, where Hybrid 1

recorded the highest values of flag leaf area (33.24 and 33.36 cm2), followed

by Giza 178 (32.23 and 32.30 cm2) under irrigation every 4 days, while,

Sakha 101 under irrigation every 8 days recorded the lowest values of flag

leaf area (19.35 and 19.56 cm2) in 2022 and 2013 seasons, respectively. In

addition, Flag leaf area was significantly differed by the interaction between

irrigation regimes and tillage systems in both seasons. It is important to

mention that, there were no significant differences between conventional and

zero tillage systems under continuous flooded conditions (4 days irrigation

regimes) while, conventional tillage significantly increased flag leaf area

values under both 6 and 8 irrigation regimes compared with zero tillage.

Hence the highest values of flag leaf area was recorded by conventional and

zero tillage systems under 4 days irrigation regimes in both seasons, the

values ranged from 30.41 to 30.51 cm2 and from 30.58 to 30.59 cm

2 in both

seasons, respectively. While, the lowest values of flag leaf area (21.90 and

22.11 cm2) were obtained from zero tillage under 8 days irrigation regimes in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

95

B- Yield and its components.

1- Number of productive tillers/m2

Highly significant differences were found between irrigation regimes

on number of productive tillers/m2 where, negative effect on number of

productive tillers/m2 was found when irrigation regimes were prolonged to 8

days. Irrigation every 4 days recorded the highest number of productive

tillers/m2 (723.77 and 730.60), followed by irrigation every 6 days (700.08

and 706.38) Meanwhile; no significant differences were observed between

irrigation every 4 and 6 days in 2012 season. On the contrary, irrigation every

8 days resulted the lowest values of number of productive tillers/m2 (465.78

and 456.78) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Also, significant

differences were existed between conventional and zero tillage on number of

productive tillers/m2 in 2011 season, while no significant effect was found in

the second season. Where, conventional tillage resulted the highest values

(635.24) in 2011 seasons, whereas the lowest number of productive tillers/m2

were under zero tillage. Regarding rice cultivars performance, highly

significant differences among rice cultivars under study were observed in

number of productive tillers/m2 in both seasons. Hybrid 1 significantly

surpassed the other rice cultivars in number of productive tillers/m2

(665.57)

in 2011 seasons while no significant differences were found among Hybrid 1,

Giza 178 and Sakha 101 in the second season. The lowest values of

productive tillers number were obtained by Sakha 104 (572.07 and 557.74) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Concerning the interaction between

irrigation regimes and rice cultivars, highly significant variations were found

for number of productive tillers/m2 in both seasons. The largest number of

productive tillers/m2 (746.81 and 755.14) was produced by Hybrid 1 under

irrigation every 4 days irrigation regimes. On the other hand, the lowest

numbers of productive tillers/m2 (401.41 and 339.91) were obtained by Sakha

104 when rice plants were irrigated every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively.

2- Number of filled grains/panicle.

Concerning the effect of irrigation regimes, data in Table (5) revealed

that, number of filled grains per panicle was significantly affected by

irrigation regimes in both seasons. Irrigation every 4 days recorded the

96

highest number of filled grains / panicle (134.33) in the first season, while;

irrigation every 6 days produced the highest number of filled grains / panicle

(136.38) in the second season. Meanwhile, no significant differences were

found between irrigation every 4 and 6 days in both seasons. On the other

hand, irrigation every 8 days recorded the lowest number of filled grains /

panicle (102.29 and 102.63) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

Significant differences were existed between conventional and zero tillage on

number of filled grains / panicle in 2012 season, while no significant effect

was found for the same trait in 2011 season. Where, conventional tillage

resulted the highest values (125.67) in 2012 seasons while, the lowest

number of filled grains / panicle (124.44) recorded under zero tillage. Highly

significant differences also were observed between tested rice cultivars on

number of filled grains / panicle in both seasons. Hybrid 1 produced the

highest number of filled grains / panicle (149.06 and 150.22), followed by

Giza 178 then Sakha 101 while, Sakha 104 recorded the lowest values

(112.94 and 114.72) in 2012 and 2013 seasons, respectively. In addition,

number of filled grains / panicle significantly differed by the interaction

between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars in both season, where Hybrid 1

achieved the highest number of filled grains / panicle (163.33 and 165.33)

when the plants irrigated every 6 days while; the lowest values (77.50 and

78.17) were recorded by Sakha 104 with 8 days irrigation regimes in 2011

and 2012 seasons, respectively.

3- 1000-grain weight (g)

Highly significant differences were found among irrigation regimes in

1000-grain weight in both seasons. Where, the highest values (23.87 and

24.04 g) were recorded by 4 days, followed by 6 days irrigation regimes. On

the other hand, irrigation every 8 days gave the lowest values of 1000-grain

weight (21.39 and 21.49 g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

Regarding tillage systems effect, no significant differences were recorded

between conventional and zero tillage on 1000-grain weight in both seasons.

Highly significant differences were observed among the four rice cultivars

under study on 1000-grain weight. Sakha 101 rice cultivar recorded the

highest values (24.79 and 24.94 g), followed by Sakha 104, while Giza 178

recorded the lowest values (20.59 and 20.76 g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. In addition, 1000-grain weight (g) significantly differed by the

97

interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars in both seasons. The

highest values of 1000-grain weight (26.00 and 26.02 g) were obtained by

Sakha 101under irrigation every 4 day. On the other hand, the lowest values

(19.59 and 19.58 g) were obtained by Giza 178 with 8 days irrigation regimes

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

4- Unfilled grains percentage. (%)

Concerning the effect of irrigation regimes, Significant effect was

found on unfilled grains % in both seasons, where irrigation every 8 days

recorded the highest values (9.68% and 9.64%), followed by irrigation every

6 days in the two seasons, respectively whereas the lowest values (7.83% and

7.87%) were recorded by irrigation every 4 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Regarding tillage systems, no significant difference were found

in unfilled grains % in both seasons. There were significant differences

among rice cultivars in unfilled grains % in both seasons. Sakha 104 recorded

the highest values (10.22% and 10.31%), followed by Sakha 101 while

Hybrid 1 recorded the lowest values (6.84% and 6.89%) in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. The interaction between irrigation regimes and rice

cultivars was significant on unfilled grains % in both seasons. Hybrid1 rice

variety attained the lowest values (5.33 and 5.33 %) when it was irrigated

every 5 days. On the other side, both Sakh 101 and Sakha 104 recorded the

highest values (10.93 and 11.00 %) when they were irrigated every 8 days in

2011 and 2012, respectively

5- Panicle weight (g)

Highly significant differences among irrigation regimes on panicle

weight in both seasons. Where, the highest values (3.07 and 3.08 g) were

recorded by 4 days, followed by 6 days irrigation regimes. On the other hand,

irrigation every 8 days gave the lowest values of panicle weight (3.37 and

2.31 g) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Furthermore, insignificant

differences were found between tillage systems on panicle weight in both

seasons. Regarding rice cultivars effect, highly significant differences among

rice cultivars where; Hybrid 1 recorded the highest values of panicle weight

(2.97 and 2.99 g), followed by Sakha 101. On the other hand; Sakha 104

recorded the lowest values of panicle weight (2.39 and 2.49 g) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. Concerning interaction, panicle weight was

98

significantly differed by the interaction between irrigation regimes and rice

cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Under irrigation every 4 days, Hybrid1

recorded the highest values (3.31 and 3.33 g), followed by Sakha 101,

conversely Sakha104 recorded the lowest values (2.11 and 2.27 g) when it

was irrigated every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

6- Panicle length (cm)

Highly significant differences were found among irrigation regimes in

panicle length in both seasons. Where, the highest values (21.83 and 22. 54

cm) were recorded by 4 days, followed by 6 days irrigation regimes. On the

other hand, irrigation every 8 days gave the lowest values of panicle length

(18.30 and 18.78 cm) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Furthermore,

no significant differences were found between tillage systems on panicle

length (cm) in both seasons. Regarding rice cultivars, highly significant

differences were found among rice cultivars where; Hybrid 1 recorded the

longest panicles (21.80 and 22.29 cm), on the other hand; Sakha 104

recorded the shortest panicles (19.29 and 19.88 cm) in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. In 2011 season, no significant difference was found

between Sakha 104 and Giza 178 rice cultivars. Concerning interaction,

panicle length was significantly differed by the interaction between irrigation

regimes and rice variety in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Under irrigation every 4

days, Hybrid1 recorded the highest values (23.83 and 24.39 cm), followed by

Sakha 101. Conversely, Sakha104 recorded the lowest values (17.36 and

17.71 cm) when it was irrigated every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. 1105382459780484

7- Biomass yield (ton/fad.).

Irrigation regimes highly significantly effected on biomass yield in

both seasons of study. It is evident that this character was decreased

significantly by prolonged irrigation regimes in the two seasons. The highest

values (9.78 and 10.27 ton/fad.) were detected at 4 days and it decreased

significantly at 6 or 8 days. Furthermore, significant differences were found

between tillage systems on biomass yield in the first season while,

insignificant differences were found in the second season. Where,

conventional tillage achieved the highest values (9.10 and 9.64 ton/fad.),

while the lowest values (8.99 and 9.53 ton/fad.) were recorded by zero tillage

99

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Biomass yield was significantly

affected by different rice cultivars in the two seasons of study, where the

cultivars are ranged as follow; Hybrid 1, Giza 178, Sakha 104 and Sakha 101

based on biomass productivity in both seasons. Hence, the highest values

(9.83 and 10.38 ton/fad.) were recorded by Hybrid 1, while; the lowest values

(8.43 and 8.93 ton/fad.) were obtained by Sakha 101 in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. Mainly, interaction between irrigation and rice

cultivars was significant in biomass yield (ton/fad.) in both seasons. Hybrid 1

produced the highest values of biomass yield (10.96 and 11.63 t/fad.),

followed by Giza 178 with Irrigation every 4 days. However, no highly

significant differences were observed between Giza 178 and Sakha 101 under

4 or 6 days irrigation regimes, while under 8 days irrigation regimes, Giza

178 significantly surpassed Sakha 101 in both seasons. On the contrary,

Sakha 101 with irrigation every 8 days recorded the lowest values (7.38 and

8.00 t/fad.) in both seasons. The interaction between irrigation regimes and

tillage systems where it has significant effect on biomass yield in 2012

season. Significant and positive change in biomass yield as affected by

conventional tillage under 8 days irrigation regimes meanwhile, no

significant effect were observed with irrigation 4 and 6 days.

8- Grain yield (ton/fad.).

Grain yield was significantly affected by irrigation regimes in both

seasons, where prolonged irrigation caused a remarkable reduction in grain

yield. Irrigation every 4 days achieved the highest grain yield (4.23 and 4.52

t/fad.), followed by irrigation every 6 days which yielded (4.08 and 4.30

t/fad.) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. On contrast, irrigation every 8

days recorded the lowest values (2.88 and 3.18 t/fad.) in the two seasons,

respectively. Furthermore, significant differences were found between tillage

systems on grain yield in both seasons. Where, the highest values (3.78 and

4.03 ton/fad.) were achieved by conventional tillage while, the lowest value

(3.68 and 3.97 ton/fad.) were recorded by zero tillage in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. Highly significant differences were found between

tested rice cultivars on grain yield t/fad., in both seasons. Hybrid1 rice variety

attained the highest grain yield (4.15 and 4.42 t/fad.), followed by Giza 178

while Sakha104 recorded the lowest values (3.42 and 3.66 t/fad.) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. Mainly, interaction between irrigation and rice

111

cultivars was highly significant for grain yield (ton/fad.) in both seasons.

Hybrid 1 produced the highest values of grain yield (4.55 and 4.88 t/fad.),

followed by Giza 178 with Irrigation every 4 days. In addition, no significant

differences were observed between Giza 178 and Sakha 101 under 4 or 6

days irrigation regimes, while under 8 days irrigation regimes, Giza 178

significantly surpassed Sakha 101 in both seasons. On the contrary, Sakha

104 with irrigation every 8 days recorded the lowest values (2.36 and 2.71

t/fad.) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

9- Harvest index (%).

Regarding the effect of irrigation regimes, result indicated that harvest

index was reduced significantly by prolonged irrigation in the two seasons.

The highest values (43.41 and 44.21 %) were estimated at 4 days while the

lowest ones (35.99 and 36.88 %) were computed at 8 days in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. Furthermore, harvest index significantly affected by

tillage systems in 2011 season while, no significant differences were found

between the mean values of harvest index in the second season. The

conventional tillage had better influence on the harvest index where recorded

the highest values (41.25) while, the lowest values (40.51) were obtained by

zero tillage in 2011 seasons. In addition, highly significant differences

between mean values of harvest index as affected by rice cultivars were

obtained in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. In respect to harvest index,

the rice cultivars ranged as follow; Sakha 101, Hybrid 1, Giza 178 and Sakha

104 in both seasons. Sakha 101 resulted the highest harvest index (42.25 and

43.15 %), on the other hand, Sakha 104 recorded the lowest harvest index

(38.13 and 38.80 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Significant

interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars was found in harvest

index in both seasons. Sakha 101 performance in the harvest index sharply

changed from the highest values (46.71 and 47.43%) under 4 days irrigation

regime to the lowest values (35.87 and 36.45%) under 8 days irrigation

regimes in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. First order of significant

interaction for harvest index was recorded between irrigation regimes and

tillage systems in 2011 season. Significant differences were found between

the two tillage systems under drought stress conditions (8 days) where,

conventional tillage was better than zero tillage in 2011 season. Meanwhile,

111

no significant differences were found under 4 and 6 days irrigation regimes in

2011 season.

C- Water relations characters

1- Reduction percentage (%).

Highly significant differences were found for reduction percentage as

affected by irrigation regimes and rice cultivars as well as their interaction in

both seasons. Where the highest values of reduction percentage (30.04 and

26.21 %) were recorded by irrigation every 8 days, whereas irrigation every 6

days caused 3.57 and 5.14 % reduction percentage in 2011 and 2012

seasons, respectively. In addition, conventional tillage (CT) gave the lowest

value (10.40 %), whereas no tillage increased the reduction percentage to

(12.01 %). Also, irrigation every 8 days cased the highest values of reduction

percentage (38.66 and 32.21 %) with Sakha 104, followed by Sakha 101

(33.08 and 31.73 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, no

significant differences were found between the two cultivars in both seasons.

In general, no significant differences among rice cultivars were found in

under 6 days in both seasons.

10- Drought sensitivity index (DSI)

Evidently, highly significant differences were found in DSI among

irrigation regimes in both seasons. The mean values of DSI increased from

0.04 to 0.30 and 0.05 to 0.26 when irrigation regimes increased from 6 to 8

days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Significant differences were

found in DSI between the two tillage systems in 2011 season. The highest

value (0.12) was recorded by zero tillage, while conventional tillage gave the

lowest value (0.10) in 2011 season. In contrast, no significant differences

were found in 2012 season. Highly significant differences in DSI were found

between tested rice cultivars in both seasons. No significant differences were

found between Sakha 104 and Sakha 101 in DSI, where the mean values

ranged as follow; 0.14 and 0.13 in the first season and 0.13 and 0.12 in

second season, respectively. In contrary, Hybrid 1 gave the lowest values

(0.08 and 0.08), followed by Giza 178 in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Meanwhile, no significant differences were observed between

Hybrid 1 and Giza 178 in the second season. It is worthy to note that, DSI

was significantly differed by the interaction between irrigation regimes and

112

rice cultivars in both seasons. Under irrigation every 8 days, Sakha 104 gave

the highest values (0.39 and 0.32), followed by Sakha 101 (0.33 and 0.32) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. On the other hand, Giza 178 recorded

the lowest values (0.03 and 0.06) under irrigation every 6 days in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. First order of significant interaction in DSI was

recorded between irrigation regimes and tillage systems in 2011 season.

Significant difference between the two tillage systems under drought stress

conditions (8 days) where, zero tillage increased the mean value of DSI up to

0.32 compared with 0.28 was obtained from conventional tillage in 2011

season.

11- Water use efficiency (WUE= kg/m3).

Highly significant differences were found among irrigation regimes

on WUE in both seasons. Where, increasing irrigation regimes from 4 to 6

days increased the mean values of WUE, consequently the highest values

(0.90 and 0.94 kg/m3) were obtained under irrigation every 6 days, followed

by irrigation every 8 days which recorded (0.75 and 0.83 kg/m3). However,

irrigation every 4 days recorded the lowest values (0.71 and 0.76 kg/m3) in

both seasons, respectively. Also, significant differences were found between

the two tillage systems in WUE (kg/m3) in both seasons. The highest values

(0.80 and 0.85 kg/m3) were recorded by conventional tillage compared with

zero tillage which gave 0.77 and 0.83 kg/m3 in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Regarding to rice cultivars effect, highly significant differences

were found between rice cultivars in WUE (kg/m3) in both seasons. Hybrid1

recorded the highest values (0.88 and 0.93 kg/m3), followed by Giza 178

while Sakha 104 gave the lowest values (0.71 and 0.77 kg/m) in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. Further, WUE (kg/m3) was significantly affected

by the interaction between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars in both

seasons. Under irrigation every 6 days, Hybrid 1 gave the highest values

(0.97 and 1.01 kg/m3), followed by Giza 178 and Sakha 101 in 2011 and

2012 seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, no significant differences between

Giza 178 and Sakha 101 were found in both seasons. On the other hand,

Sakha 104 recorded the lowest values (0.62 and 0.71 kg/m3) under irrigation

every 8 days in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

113

D- Grain quality characters.

1- Hulling percentage (%).

Highly significant differences were found among the mean values of

hulling % as affected by irrigation regimes in both seasons. Where, highest

values (79.53 and 79.43 %) were recorded by 6 days irrigation regimes while,

the lowest values (78.35 and 78.38 %) were obtained by 4 days irrigation

regimes. In addition, no significant differences were found between tillage

systems in both seasons. Obviously, the existence of significant difference

between rice cultivars in both seasons. Sakha104 gave the highest values

(80.20 and 80.12 %), followed by Sakha101. However, Hybrid1 recorded the

lowest values (77.28 and 77.22 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

Regarding the interaction between irrigation and rice cultivars, it was

significantly differed for hulling % in both seasons. The highest values

(80.67 and 80.53 %) were recorded by Sakha104 when rice plants were

irrigated every 6, while Hybrid1 with irrigation every 4 days recorded the

lowest value (76.61 and 76.70 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively.

2- Milling percentage (%).

The milling % was significantly affected by irrigation regimes where

irrigation every 6 days attained the highest values (71.09 and 70.95 %) while

irrigation every 4 days recorded the lowest values (70.17 and 70.05 %) in

2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Regarding tillage systems, no

significant differences in milling % were found in both seasons. There were

highly significant differences among tested rice cultivars on milling % in

both seasons. Sakha104 recorded the highest values (71.92 and 71.79 %),

followed by Sakha101 while, Hybrid1 recorded the lowest values (68.94 and

68.81 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Further, milling % was

significantly differed by the interaction between irrigation regimes and rice

cultivars in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Sakha104 recorded the highest value

(72.27 and 72.14 %) when it was irrigated every 6 or 8 days, while the lowest

milling % (68.38 and 68.26 %) were recorded when Hybrid1 was irrigated

every 4 days in both season, respectively.

114

3- Head rice percentage (%).

The existence of highly significant differences among irrigation

regimes on head rice % is observed in 2011 and 2012 seasons. Irrigation

every 6 days recorded the highest values (64.72 and 64.74 %) while the

lowest values (63.45 and 63.40 %) were recorded by irrigation every 4 days

in 2011 and 2012 seasons, respectively. Significant increase in head rice %

(64.12%) under conventional tillage in in compared to zero tillage (63.94%)

in the second season. In contrast, no significant differences were found

between tillage systems in the first season. Regarding the effect of rice

cultivars on head rice %, highly significant differences were found among

rice cultivars in the two seasons. Where, Sakha 101 rice cultivar achieved the

highest values (66.24 and 66.01 %), followed by Hybrid 1 while Giza 178

attained the lowest values (62.45 and 62.20 %) in 2011 and 2012 seasons,

respectively. Head rice % was significantly differed by the interaction

between irrigation regimes and rice cultivars in both seasons. Under

irrigation every 8 days, Sakha 101 rice cultivar recorded the highest value

(66.92 %) in the first season, while in the second season; Sakha 101 recorded

the highest values (66.56 %) under irrigation every 6 days. In contrast, the

lowest value (62.00 and 61.87 %) was recorded when Hybrid1 was irrigated

every 4 days.

CONCLUSION

1. Under water deficit condition Hybrid 1 and Giza 178 can grow better

compared with Sakha 101 and Sakha 104.

2. Conventional tillage (tilled soil) has more advantage than zero tillage

particularly under water scarcity.

3. Irrigation every 6 or 8 days achieved the highest water use efficiency,

but irrigation every 6 days gave better grain yield in compared to

irrigation every 8 days, which reduced the grain yield sharply.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on this investigation and under same conditions, we can

recommend under water scarcity, with Egyptian Hybrid Rice 1 and Giza 178

conditions and conventional tillage as follow; twice plowing and harrowing

then carefully dry leveled. That can increase water use efficiency and get

high grain yield under irrigation every 6 days.

115

VI. REFERENCES

Abbasi, M., N. Najafi , N. Aliasgharzad , S. Oustan (2012). Effects of soil

water conditions and organic and chemical fertilizers on growth

characteristics and water use efficiency of rice in an alkaline non-

calcareous soil. Soil Sci. Dept., College of Agric., Univ. of Tabriz,

Tabriz, Iran. 3(11): 1-17.

Abd Allah, A., M. H. Ammar and A. T. Badawi (2010). Screening rice

genotypes for drought resistance in Egypt. Journal of Plant Breeding

and Crop Science. 2(7): 205-215.

Abdul Baset Mia M., Mira Rani Das, Muhammad Kamruzzaman and

Nur Muhammad Talukder (2012). Biochemical traits and physico-

chemical attributes of aromatic-fine rice in relation to yield potential.

American Journal of Plant Sciences, 3: 1788-1795.

Abou El-Darag, I.H.O. (2000). Effect of time and methods of nitrogen

application with transplanting and broadcasting rice on yield and

quality characteristics. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Moshtohor,

Zagazig Univ., Egypt.

Abou El-Hassan, W.H.M. (1997). Effect of different methods of seedbed

preparation and irrigation treatments on productivity of rice crop.

M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Of Agric., Kafr-El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ., Egypt.

Aggrawal, P., R.N. Garg, D.K. Das and A.M. Sharma (1999). Puddling,

soil physical environment and rice growth on a typic ustochrept. J.

Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 47: 355-357.

Ali-Dib, T.; P. H.Monneveux; J. L. Araus (1990). Breeding durum wheat

for drought tolerance. Analytical, synthetical approaches and their

connection. In. Wheat breeding, prospects and future approaches.

Bulgarian Agricultural Academy, Bulgaria, 224-240.

Amiri, E., M. Khandan, H. R. Bozorgi, S. M. Sadeghi and M. Rezaei

(2009). Response of rice varieties to water limit conditions in north

Iran, World Applied Sciences Journal 6 (9): 1190-1192.

Anders, M.M., K.B. Watkins, K.A.K. Moldenhauer, J.W. Gibbons, and

R.W. McNew (2006). The effect of rotation, tillage, fertility,and

http://ejgcst.iut.ac.ir/search.php?slc_lang=en&sid=1&auth=Abbasi

http://ejgcst.iut.ac.ir/search.php?slc_lang=en&sid=1&auth=Najafi

http://ejgcst.iut.ac.ir/search.php?slc_lang=en&sid=1&auth=Aliasgharzad

http://ejgcst.iut.ac.ir/search.php?slc_lang=en&sid=1&auth=Oustan

http://ejgcst.iut.ac.ir/files/site1/user_files_a5c51a/eng/najafi-A-10-212-7-195c5c1.pdf




http://ejgcst.iut.ac.ir/browse.php?mag_id=12&slc_lang=en&sid=1

116

variety on rice grain yield. In: R.J. Norman, J.-F. Meullenet, and

K.A.K. Moldenhauer (eds.). B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2004.

University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research

Series 550: 251-258.

Awad, H. A. (2001). Rice production at the North of Delta region in Egypt as

affected by irrigation intervals and nitrogen fertilizer levels. J. Agric.

Sci. Mansoura Univ. 26(2): 1151-1159.

Bajpai R.K. and R.P. Tripathi (2000). Evaluation of non-puddling under

shallow water tables and alternative tillage methods on soil and crop

parameters in a rice-wheat system in Uttar Pradesh. Soil & Tillage

Res., 55:99-106.

Belder, P., B. A. M. Bouman, J. H. J. Spiertz, L. Guoan and E. J. P.

Quilang (2002). Water use of alternately submerged and

nonsubmerged irrigated lowland rice. Proceedings of the International

Work-shop on Water-wise Rice Production, 8-11 April 2002, Los

Baños, Philippines. 51-61.

Belder, P., J. H. J. Spiertz, B. A. M. Bouman, G. Lu and T. P. Tuong

(2005). Nitrogen economy and water productivity of lowland rice

under water-saving irrigation. Field Crops Res., 93(2-3): 169-185.

Bhattacharjee, D. P., G. Ramakrishnayya, and S. C. Paul. (1971).

Physiological basis of drought conditions. 8 (2): 61-68.

Bhattacharyya, R., S. Kundu, S.C. Pandey, K.P. Singh and H.S. Gupta

(2008). Tillage and irrigation effects on crop yields and soil properties

under the rice-wheat system in the Indian, Himalayas. Agricultural

Water Management, 95(9): 993-1002.

Black, L. G., D. D. Evans, L. E. Ensminger and F. E. Clark (1965).

Methods of Soil Analysis (chemical and microbiological properties

part 2) American society of agronomy. inc-publisher, madison,

Wisconsin, USA.

Blum A. (2002).Field Screening for Drought Tolerance in Crop Plants with

Emphasis on Rice: Proceedings of an International Workshop on

Field Screening for Drought Tolerance in Rice, 11–14 Dec 2000,

117

ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. ICRISAT and The Rockefeller

Foundation, New York. 17–22.

Borrell, A.K., R.M. Kally, D.E.V. Cooten and V.D.E. Cooten (1998).

Improving management of rice in semi-arid eastern Indonesia:

response to irrigation. plant type3 and nitrogen. Australian. J. of

Exper., Agric. 38(3): 261-271.

Bouman, B. A. M. and T. P. Tuong (2001). Field water management to

save water and increase its productivity in irrigated lowland rice.

Agricultural Water Management. 49 (1): 11-30.

Breland, T. A. and S. Hansen (1996). Nitrogen mineralization and

microbial biomass as affected by soil compaction. Soil Biol.

Biochem. 28:655-663.

Chamen, W.C.T. and A.B. Parkin (1995). The impact of tillage practices

on the soil and its linked environment, with particular reference to

arable cropping in United Kingdom, ADAS-SRI. Joint Contract

Report No. CR/678/95/0209.

Chen, S., G. Xia, W. Zhao, F. Wu and G. Zhang (2007). Characterization

of leaf photosynthetic properties for no-tillage rice. Rice Science,

14(4): 283-288.

Clark, L.J., R.E. Cope, W.R. Whalley, P.B. Barraclough and L.J. Wade

(2002). Root penetration of strong soil in rainfed lowland rice:

comparison of laboratory screens with field performance. Field Crops

Res. 76: 189–198.

Cooper, M., S. Rajatasereekul, S. Immark, S. Fukai and J. Basnayake

(1999). Rainfed lowland rice breeding strategies for northeast

Thailand. I. Genotypic variation and genotype-environment

interactions for grain yield. Field Crops Res., 64: 131-151.

De Datta, S.K., H.K. Krupp and E.I. Alvarez (1973a). Water management

practices in flooded tropical rice. Water management in Philippine

irrigation systems: research and operations: papers presented at the

water management workshop, December 11-14, 1972. International

Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, 1-18.

118

De Datta, S.K., W.P. Abilay and G.N. Kalwar (1973b). Water stress

effects in flooded tropical rice. Water management in Philippine

irrigation systems: research and operations: papers presented at the

water management workshop. International Rice Research Institute,

LosBaños, 19-36.

Devkota, K.P., A.M. Manschadia, O. Egamberdievb, R.K. Guptac, M.K.

Devkota and J.P.A. Lamersb (2010). Effect of water-saving

irrigation, tillage and residue management on yield and water

productivity of rice in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Conference on

International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource

Management and Rural Development. ETH Zurich, September 14 -

16.

El-Dalil, M.A. (2007). A study on the effects of soil application of rice husk

and irrigation intervals on yield and grain quality of rice .M.Sc,

Thesis Al-Azhar University. Egypt.

El Kady, A.A. and A.E. Draz (1995). Evaluation of some morphological

and grain quality characters of different rice genotype under two

ecosystems. Al-Azhar J. Agric. Res. 21: 1-12.

El-Kalla, S. E., A. M. El-Said, A. A. M. Abd El-Rahman and A. M. S.

Kishk (2006). Response of rice cultivars to irrigation intervals and

some organic fertilizer treatments in newly reclaimed soils. J. Agric.

Sci. Mansoura Univ., 31(9): 5547-5555.

El-Mouhamady, A.A., A.A. Abdel-Sattar and E.H. El-Seidy (2013).

Assessment the Degree of Drought Tolerance In Rice Through The

Environmental Tests and Molecular Markers Technique. Research

Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 9(1): 40-57.

El-Refaee, I. S. H. (2002). Stidies on irrigation systems on some rice

cultivars. Ph. D. Thesis, Agron. Dept., Fac. of Agric. Kafer El-sheikh,

Tanta Univ., Egypt.

El-Refaee, I. S. H. (2012). Effect of application of rice straw compost and

NPK fertilizers under some irrigation regimes on grain yield and

water productivity of EHR1 hybrid rice cultivar. J. Plant Production,

Mansoura Univ., 3(3): 445-462.

119

El-Refaee, I. S. H., A. E. Abd El-Wahab and S. A. Ghanem (2005a).

Physiological performance and yield of some rice cultivars as affected

by different irrigation intervals. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 83 (5B): 393-

410.

El-Refaee, I. S. H., M. E. Mosalem and F. A. Sorour (2005b). Effect of

irrigation regimes on productivity of Giza 178 and Sakha 102 rice

cultivars under broadcasting method. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 83 (5B):

377-391.

El-Refaee, I. S. H., E. E. Gewaily, E. S. Naeem and B. A. Zayed (2011).

Water balance and economic evaluation of some Egyptian rice

cultivars. J. Agric. Res. Kafer El-Sheikh Univ., 37(1): 85-98.

El Wehishy, M.M. and A.G. AbdeI-Hafez (1997). Response of flooded rice

to water dificit. J. Agric. Res. Tanta Univ., 23(3): 273-288.

Fukai, S., G.Pantuwan, B. Jondee and M. Cooper (1999). Screening for

drought resistance in rainfed lowland rice. Field Crop Res., 64 (1-2):

61-74.

Gaballah, M.M. (2009).Studies on physiological and morphological traits

associated with drought resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Ph.D.

Thesis, Agronomy Dept. Faculty of Agri. Kafer El-Sheikh

University.

Gani, A., A. Rahman, D. Rustam, and H. Hengsdijk (2002). Synopsis of

water management experiments in Indonesia. Proceedings of the

International Work-shop on Water-wise Rice Production, 8-11 April,

Los Baños, Philippines. 29-38.

Gewaily, E. E. A. (2006). Behavior of some nutrient elements in rice soils

under different irrigation intervals. Ph.D. Thesis. Soils Dept. Fac. of

Agric., Mansoura Univ., Egypt.

Ghanem, S. A. and R. A. Ebaid (2001). Effect of Farmyard manure and

water regimes on productivity of rice and succeeding clover crop.

Egypt. J. Appl. Sci., 16(6): 115-128.

111

Gomez, K. A. and A. A. Gomez (1984). Statistical procedures for

agricultural Research. Second Edition. P. 680. John Willy and Sons.

New York, U.S.A.

Gomez, S. M., C. R. Anandkumar and A. Kalamani (2005). Background

trait analysis in drought resistant rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultures.

Advances in plant sciences.18(1): 379-381.

Henry A (2013) IRRI’s drought stress research in rice with emphasis on

roots: accomplishments over the last 50 years. International Rice

Research Institute (IRRI) Plant Root 7: 5-19.

IRRI (International Rice Research Institute), (2002). Rice

Almanac, 3rd Edition. (Gramene Reference ID 8379).

Islam, M. T. (2001). Screening of some transplanted aman rice cultivars

under water stress condition. Bangladesh Journal of Training and

Development, 4 (1-2): 213-220.

Israelsen, O. W. and V. E. Hansen (1962). Irrigation principles and

practices, 3rd

Ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York.

Jalota, S. K., K. B. Singh, G. B. S. Chahal, R. K. Gupta, S. Chakraborty,

A. Sood, S. S. Ray and S. Panigrahy (2009). Integrated effect of

transplanting date, cultivar and irrigation on yield, water saving and

water productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Indian Punjab: Field

and simulation study. Agricultural Water Management. 96 (7): 1096-

1104.

Jiang-Tao, Q., H. Feng , L. Hui-xin , W. Yi-ping , H. Fa-quan , H. Hua-

xiang (2006). Effects of Non-flooded Cultivation with Straw

Mulching on Rice Agronomic Traits and Water Use Efficiency. Rice

Science, 13(1): 59－66.

Jiang X., Y. Hu, J. H. Bedell, D. Xie and A. L. Wright (2011). Soil organic

carbon and nutrient content in aggregate-size fractions of a

subtropical rice soil under variable tillage. Soil Use and Management,

27: 28–35.

http://www.gramene.org/db/literature/pub_search?ref_id=8379

111

Kanbar, A., M. Toorchi and H.E. Shashidhar, (2009). Relationship

between yield and root morphological characters in rainfed lowland

rice (Oryza sativa L). Cereal Res. Commun. 37: 261–268.

Karim, M.R., M. M. Alam, J. K. Ladha, M. S. Islam and M.R. Islam

(2014). Effect of different irrigation and tillage methods on yield and

resource use efficiency of Boro rice (Oryza sativa). Bangladesh J.

Agril. Res. 39(1): 151-163.

Kato Y, A Kamoshita, J. Abe and J. Yamagishi (2007). Improvement of

rice (Oryza sativa L.) growth in upland conditions with deep tillage

and mulch. Soil & Tillage Res, 92: 30–44.

Kumar, S., O. P. Singh, R.K. Naresh and S. Singh (2012). Crop

establishment, tillage and water management technologies on crop

and water productivity of rice cultivars in western Uttar Pradesh.

Indian Journal of Plant Sciences. 1(1): 2319-3824.

Khush,G.S, G.M. Paule and N.M. Dela Cruz (1979). Rice grain quality

evaluation and improvement at IRRI. Proc. Workshop on Chemical

Aspects of Rice Grain quality. IRRI, Manila, Philippines.21-31

Kushwaha, C. P., S. K. Tripathi and K.P. Singh (2000). Variations in soil

microbial biomass and N availability due to residue and tillage

management in a dryland rice agroecosystem. Soil and Tillage

Research (56): 153-166.

Lilley, J. M. and S. Fukai (1994). Effect of timing and severity of water

deficit on four diverse rice cultivars 3- phenological development,

crop growth and grain yield. Field Crop Res. 37(3): 225-234.

Liu, S., N. Xin-tao, D. Qi-gen, H. Zhong-yang and X. Ke (2007). Effect of

interplanting with zero tillage and straw manure on rice growth and

rice quality. Rice Science, 14(3): 204-210.

Mahrous, F. N. (2005). Resource conservation and water productivity in rice

culture. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research. 83(5A): 15-22.

Marie-Noëlle, N., C. Fousseyni, F. Koichi, L. Mathias, M. Baboucarr, B.

Roland and F. Blandine (2010). Effect of drought on rice (Oryza

spp.) genotypes according to their drought tolerance level. Second

112

Africa Rice Congress, Bamako, Mali, 22–26 March: Innovation and

Partnerships to Realize Africa’s Rice Potential. Theme 1: Rice genetic

diversity and improvement. 151-158.

Mohamed, A. A. A. (2001). Response of rice to bio, organic and mineral

fertilizers and its combination under two irrigation intervals. M.Sc.

Thesis Fac. Agric. Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ., Egypt.

Morison, J. I. L., Baker, N. R., Mullineaux and W. J. Davies (2008).

Improving water use in crop production. Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society of London B. Biological Sciences. 363(14): 639-

658.

Murty KS and Ramakrishnayya G. 1982. Effect of drought on shoot

growth, significance of metabolism to growth and yield. Drought

Resistance in Crops with Emphasis on Rice. International Rice

Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines. 145–152.

Mousa, A.M. (2008). Agronomic studies on some rice varieties. M.Sc.

Thesis, Agronomy Dept., Fac. of Agric., Tanta Univ., Egypt.

Mousa, A.M. (2014). Effect of organic fertilizers on water use efficiency and

productivity of rice. Ph.D. Thesis. Agronomy Dept., Fac. of Agric.

(Saba Basha), Alexandria Univ., Egypt.

Naoki M. and Toshihiro M. (2009). Growth and Yield of Six Rice Cultivars

under Three Water-saving Cultivations. Plant Prod. Sci.

12(4):514―525.

Ndjionjop, M., C. Fousseyni, F. Koichi, L. Mathias, M. Baboucarr, B.

Roland, and F. Blandine (2010) Effect of drought on rice (Oryza

spp.) genotypes according to their drought tolerance level. Second

Africa Rice Congress, Bamako, Mali, 22–26 March 2010: Innovation

and Partnerships to Realize Africa’s Rice Potential. Theme 1: Rice

genetic diversity and improvement: 151-158.

Nour, M.A. (1989). Studies on fertilization and irrigation on rice. Ph.D.

Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ., Egypt.

113

Nour, M.A., A.E. Abd-El-Wahab, A.A. El-Kady and R. A. Ebaid (1997).

Productivity of some rice cultivars under different irrigation intervals

and potassium levels. Egypt, J. Appl. Sci. 12(6): 137-154.

Nour, M.A., S. A. Ghanem, A.E. Abd- El-Wahab and A.O. Bastawisi

(1996). Behavior of some rice cultivars under different water regimes.

Menofiya J. Agric. Res. 21(4): 837:850.

Nour, M.A, S.A. Ghanem and A.M. El-Serafy (1994). Effect of different

water regime on the productivity of some traus planted rice. Proc. 6th

Conf. Agron., Al-Azhar Univ., Cairo, Egypt, 1: 247-260.

Novero R.P., J.C. O’Toole, R.T. Cruz and D.P. Garrity (1985). Leaf water

potential, crop growth response, and microclimate of dryland rice

under line source sprinkler irrigation. Agricultural and Forest

Meteorology 35: 71–82.

Pantuwan, G., S. Fukai, M. Cooper, S. Rajatasereekul, J.C. O'Toole

(2002). Yield response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes to different

types of drought under rainfed lowlands - Part 3. Plant factors

contributing to drought resistance. Field Crops Res., 73: 181-200.

Reddy, K.R., and Jr. W.H. Patrick. (1976). Effect of frequent changes in

aerobic and anaerobic conditions on redox potential and nitrogen loss

in a flooded soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 8: 491–495.

Sehly. M. R., S. M. El-Wahsh, Z. H. Osman, E. A. S. Badr and E. A.

Salem (2001,a). Effect of different irrigation intervals on brownspot

incidence of rice. J. Agric. Res. Tanta Univ., 27(3): 371-379.

Sehly, M. R., S. M. El-Wahsh, Z. H. Osman, E. A. S. Badr and E. A.

Salem (2001,b). Effect of water irrigation intervals on rice blast

disease. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci., 16(7): 429-438.

Shi, Q., X. Zeng, M. Li, X. Tan and F. Xu (2002). Effect of different water

management practices on rice growth. Proceedings of the

International Work-shop on Water-wise Rice Production, 8-11 April

2002, Los Baños, Philippines. 3-13.

114

Singh, R., D.K. Kundu and K.K. Bandyopadhyay (2010). Enhancing

agricultural productivity through enhanced water use efficiency. J. of

Agric. Physics. 10: 1-15.

Singh, Y.V., K.K. Singh and S.K. Sharma (2013). Influence of crop

nutrition on grain yield, seed quality and water productivity under two

rice cultivation systems. Rice Sci., 20(2): 129–138.

Tomar, R.K., D. Singh, K.S. Gangwar, R.N. Garg, V.K. Gupta, R. N.

Sahoo, D. Chakraborty and N. Kalra (2006). Influence of tillage

systems and moisture regimes on soil physical environment, growth

and productivity of rice-wheat system in upper gangetic plains of

Western Uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Crop Science, 1(1-2): 146-150.

Toorchi, M., H.E. Shashidhar and H. Sridhara (2006). Influence of the

root system on grain yield and related traits in rainfed lowland rice

(Oryza sativa L.). Pakistan J. Biol. Sci. 9: 2267–2272.

Tran, T.N.H., Q.K. Trinh, V.H. Chu, S.T. Pham and B. Roland (2008).

Effect of seeding rate and nitrogen management under two different

water regimes on grain yield, water productivity and profitability of

rice production. Omonrice 16: 81-87.

Tuong, T. P. and B. A. M. Bouman (2002). Rice production in water-scarce

environments. In: Kijne, J.W.; Barker, Molden, D. (Eds.), Water

Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for

Improvement. CABI Publishing, UK, 53-67.

Virdia, H.M. and H.D. Mehta (2010). Effect of tillage management in rice

(Oryza sativa )-groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cropping system.

International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1(6): 246-249.

Wan, M Z., M.R. Ismail, M. Ashrafuzzaman, M.S. Halimi and C.H.

Ismail (2009). Growth, physiological and biochemical responses of

Malaysia rice cultivars to water stress. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci.

32(2): 323 – 333.

Wopereis, M.C.S., M.J. Kropff, A.R. Maligaya and T.P. Tuong, (1996).

Drought-stress responses of two lowland rice cultivars to soil water

status. Field Crops Res. 46: 21–39.

115

Xianjun, J., S. Xiuli, L. Wei and L.W. Alan (2011). Kinetics of net

nitrification associated with soil aggregates under conventional and

no-tillage in a subtropical rice soil. Plant Soil 347:305–312.

Yadav, S., E. Humphreys, S.S. Kukal, G. Gill and R. Rangarajan (2011).

Effect of water management on dry seeded and puddled transplanted

rice: Part 2: Water balance and water productivity. Field Crops Res.,

120(1): 123-132.

Yao, F., J. Huang, K. Cui, L. Nie, J. Xiang, X. Liu, W. Wu, M. Chen and

S. Peng (2012). Agronomic performance of high yielding rice variety

grown under alternate wetting and drying irrigation. Field Crops Res.,

126(14): 16-22.

Yoshida, S. (1981). Growth and Development of the Rice Plant. Pages 1-36

in Yoshida-ed. Fundamentals-IRRI. Los Banos laguna Philippines.

Zayed, B. A. (1997). Effect of irrigation intervals and nitrogen fertilizer

treatments on growth and yield of some rice cultivars under saline soil

conditions. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. of Agric. Agron. Dept., Mansoura

Univ. Egypt.

Zayed, B. A. (2002). Performance of some rice cultivars as affected by

irrigation and potassium fertilizer treatment under saline soil

conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, Agron. Dept. Fac. Agric. Mansoura Univ.,

Egypt.

Zein EL- Din, A. M., T. K. Zein EI-Abedin, A.A. EL- Hesawy and R.G.

Abd EI-Hameed (2008). Effect of tillage and planting practices on

rice yield and engineering characteristics of milling quality. Misr J.

Agri. Eng., 25(3): 778-803

Zhu, Q. S., Z. S. Qiu, C. J. Jiang, J. C. Yang, Z. S. Jin and J.G. Liu

(1994). The effect of low soil water potential on rice yield, Scientia

Agricultural Science. 27(6): 15-22.

Zinolabedin, T.S., P. Hemmatollah, A.M.M.S. Seyed and B. Hamiderza

(2008). Study of water stress effects in different growth stages on

yield and yield components of different rice (Oryza sativa L.)

cultivars. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 11: 1303-1309.


http://ascidatabase.com/author.php?author=Hemmatollah&last=Pirdashti

http://ascidatabase.com/author.php?author=Seyed%20Ali%20Mohammad&last=Modarres%20Sanavy

http://ascidatabase.com/author.php?author=Hamidreza&last=Balouchi



1

انهخص انعزبي

–حطخ اجحس اضساػ١خ ثئ٠زب اجبسد بضسػخ اجحض١خ ثأجش٠ذ رجشثزب حم١زب ث

ره ثذف 1021 ، 1022 اضساػخ شوض اجحس اضساػ١خ خالي س –حبفظخ اجح١شح

رحذ 202سخب 201سخب 271ج١ضح 2ج١ صش رم١١ أسثؼخ اصبف االسص

0110 1230 3000 مبد بئ١خ صالس 0

ػ ا٠ب 1 3 1/فذا زى بثبد اش و

ظب خذخ ،ب صساػخ االسص ثذ خذخ مبسخ ثبخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ اص ثب ازا،

.شوض اجحس ازذس٠ت ف األسص ثسخب احشس شرب زؼبذرب ص ازس٠خ اجبفخ

الد اش ذح١ش صػذ ؼ ،شمخ شر١ ف صالس ىشسادامطغ ااسزخذ رص١

210)اش ثى١خ ١ب زسب٠خ رمذس ثـ 0

أ٠ب( ف امطغ اشئ١س١خ. 1 3 1/فذا/س٠ ره و

غ ف امطغ رحذ اشمخف ف امطغ اشمخ أخ١شا صػذ األصب ظب اخذخ ث١ب صع

خ ا لذ ر اسزخذا و١خ صبثز ١ب اش ف فزشح اشز اش٠خ اال لج اشز لذسب الحظ

2310 0

/فذا ف و ؼذالد اش.

3000 أ٠ب 1وبذ و١خ ا١ب اسزخذخ ف حبخ اش و 0

أ٠ب 3 و/فذا/س

1231ثغذ 0

0111 ثغذ أ٠ب 1/فذا/س ث١ب و 0

١ى ؼذي ازف١ش ف ١ب /فذا/س

اش ف و ؼبخ وب ٠:

ؼبالد اش

و١خ ا١ب ؼذد

اش٠بد

(0

)

ابء اسزخذ )0

اسجخ /فذا/س(

ائ٠خ بء

ازفش ب لج اشز

)صبثذ( االجب ب ثؼذ اشز

1010 0 2310 س٠خ 210X11 أ٠ب 1اش و 0

3000 0

____

1110 0 2310 س٠خ 210X23 أ٠ب3اش و 0

1231 0

11 ٪

1230 0 2310 س٠خ 210X 21 أ٠ب 1اش و 0

0111 0

03 ٪

30ثؼذي 2وج/فذا صف ج١ صش 20صسػذ رمب األسص ثؼذي

ش١ػسبػخ ز 11سبػخ ص وشب ذح 11ازمب ذح ر مغ جبل األصبف، /فذاوج

ر ثذاس ازمب ثبشز ف اؼبشش شش ب٠ ف و اس١. مذ اشزالد ،اإلجبد

إ األسض اسزذ٠خ ح١ش اسزخذذ غش٠مخ اشز ا١ذ ازظ ػ ب٠ 00ػش ذػ

2

جسح/ 12 ػذد اجس ١ىس ث١ اسطس اجس 10×10سبفبد 1

وبذ ى االصبف

22 سبحخ امطؼخ ازجش٠ج١خ1

غ اؼ ا احصي اسبثك ف و اس١ ( 2×0)

.امح ف و اس١

١زشج١( ػ دفؼز١ األ 1362ف صسح ٠س٠ب )خ أظ١فذ األسذح اؼذ١

، وب ر اجشاء ج١غ ٠ اشز 00)اضش اجبل( ثؼذ )صض اى١خ( ػ اششال اضب١خ

اؼ١بد اضساػ١خ اشز حز احصبد حست ازص١بد اف١خ حصي االسص اصبدسح

. شوض اجحس ازذس٠ت ف األسص )شوض اجحس اضساػ١خ(

قذ حى دراست انصفبث اآلحيت فـ كم ي انسيـ

ان صفــبث -أ

(0حج اجع اجزس/جس )س .2

غي اجع اجزس/جس )س( .1

سجخ اجزس/ الفشع .0

)٠( حزـ ازض١ــش اضساػخ ػــذد األ٠ـب .1

غــي اجــبد ثبسز١زش )س( .2

ســبحخ سلخ اؼ ثبسز١زش اشثغ )س .31

)

انحصــل يكبح -ة

ػــذد افــشع احبخ ســبث/ .71

ػــذد احجــة ازئخ/سجــ .1

ص األــف حجـ ثبجــشا )ج( .9

احجة افبسغخ )%(سجــخ .20

)ج( ص اسجخ .22

غــي اسجخ ثبسز١زش )س( .21

(غــ/فــذا)حصــي احجــة امـش .20

(غــ/فــذا)حصــي احجــة .21

)%( د١ احصـــبد .22

انعالقبث انبئيت -ج

اسجخ ائ٠خ مص احصي )%( .2

ؼب احسبس١خ جفبف .1

3

وفبءح اسزخذا ا١ب )وج/ .00

)

انصفبث انخكنخيت -د

ج و لطؼخ رجش٠ج١خ ره 200ر أخز ػ١ ػشائ١خ األسص اشؼ١ش لذسب

٠:الجشاء ػ١بد ازمش١ش ازج١١ط حسبة اسجخ ائ٠خ حجة اىبخ وب

)%( سجخ ازمشــ١ش - 2

)%( سجخ ازج١١ط - 1

)%( سجخ احجــة اىبــخ - 0

كبج أـى انخــبئح انخي حـى انحصـل عهيـب

انصفــبث انخضــزيت -أال:

(3حدى اندع اندذر/خر )سى .1

اخذخ األصبف و ؼبالد اش ظ أظــشد ازبئج جد فشق ؼ ث١

ثبالظبفخ ا ازفبػ ث١ب ف و اس١ ح١ش حمك اش و أسثؼخ أ٠ب أػ حج جزس،

أب ف١ب ٠زؼك ثبخذخ فمذ أػطذ ‘ أ٠ب 1ث١ب رحمك أل حج جزس ػب ر س اجبربد و

س 21,12، 21,27اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ أفع حج جزس)0

مبسخ ثؼذ اخذخ ح١ش سجذ /جسح(

س 23,17، 23,10ال حج جزس )0

/جسح( ف و اس١. أب رأص١ش األصبف ػ حج

، 70,71ػ ثبل األصبف اسزخذخ ح١ش أػط أػ ام١ ) 2اجزس فمذ رفق ج١ صش

س 70,390

س 21,97، 21,32از أػط ) 271/جسح( ص اصف ج١ض 0

/جسح( أب

س 19,01، 19,01فمذ أػط ال حج جزس ) 201اصف سخب 0

/جسح( ف و اس١

ػ ازا.

أب ػ ازفبػ ث١ األصبف ؼبالد اش ثبالظبفخ ا ازفبػ اضالص فمذ اظش

11,20، 10,39اخزالفبد ؼ٠خ ف اس١ ح١ش ر احصي ػ اوجش حج جزس )

س0

ا٠ب غ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ف ح١ أػط 1رحذ ظب اش و 2/جسح( ج١ صش

س 03,13، 23,07اصغش حج جزس ) 201اصف سخب 0

أ٠ب رحذ 1/جسح( ػذب ر س٠ و

اؼبخ ثذ خذخ.

طل اندع اندذر/خر )سى( .2

صبفاأل اخذخ ظ اش ؼبالد و ث١ خؼ٠ بلفش جد ازبئج أظــشد

جزسا ل١خ ؼك ػأ ٠بأ سثؼخأ و اش حمك ح١ش اس١ و ف ث١ب ازفبػ وزه

4

س ر ػب ذرحممس( 21,11، 21,39) جزسا ل١خ ؼك لث١ب أ س( 17,01، 17,20)

س( 11,29 11,23ػك ) فعأ ازم١ذ٠خ اخذخ ػطذأ فمذ اخذخ ػ بأ ،ا٠ب 1 و اجبربد

11,79، 19,00) جزس ػك وجشأ 2ج١ صش ػطأ ح١ اخذخ ف ثؼذ مبسخ جزس

ف و اس١. 201 سخب صف س( 10,20، 10,31) جزس ػك لأ ثغ س(

١جغ أوجش ػكوب ازفبػ ث١ األصبف ؼبالد اش ؼ٠ب ف و اس١

ث١ب ثغ أل ػك ٠بأ 1 و س٠ ر ػذب 2صش اج١ ( س 00,10، 00,17) جزس

بح١خ اخش وب .ا٠ب 1رحذ اش و 201س( صف سخب 23,21، 23,21جزس )

ح١ش ر احصي ػ أوجش ام١ ؼك 1021الد اش اخذخ ؼ٠ب ف س ازفبػ ث١ ؼب

س( اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ػذ س اجبربد و أسثؼخ ا٠ب. 17,13اجزس )

سبت اندذر/ نالفزع .3

و ؼبالد اش ظ اخذخ االصبف ث١ خؼ٠ بلأظــشد ازبئج جد فش

ثبالظبفخ ا ازفبػ ث١ب ف و اس١، ح١ش حمك اش و أسثؼخ أ٠ب أػ ل١خ سجخ

أ٠ب، أب 1( ػذ س اجبربد و 0,319، 0,312( ال سجخ )0,701، 0,700اجزس فشع )

( ف ح١ أػط 0,311، 0,311افع سجخ جزس/افشع )ػ اخذخ فمذ أػطذ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ

ال 201( ث١ب سج اصف سخب 0,712، 0,710اوجش سجخ جزس/افشع ) 2ج١ صش

( ف و اس١. 0,311، 0,311سجخ )

اظش ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش اخزالفب ؼ٠ب ف و اس١ زى أػ

ا٠ب، 3ػذب ر س٠ و 2( ر رحم١مب ثاسطخ ج١ صش 0,700، 0,717 جزس/افشع )سج

1( ػذ اش و 0,211، 0,201ال سجخ جزس/افشع ) 201ػ ام١ط أػط اصف سخب

ا٠ب ف و اس١.

عــذد األيـبو حخـ انخشيــز .4

ح١ش ١اسو ف ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اشا ١خب ػبأظــشد ازبئج جد فشل

ث١ب حممذ ؼبخ ٠ب( 220,72، 220600ا رأخ١ش ازض١ش ا )أ٠ب 1ؼبخ اش و أدد

طشد ف و ٪ ا20 اضساػخ حز ٠ب( 202,12، 202672) أ٠ب ألصش فزشح 1اش و

خ اخش وب ربص١ش اخذخ ؼ٠ب ػ ػذد اال٠ب حز ازض١ش بح١‘ اس١ ػ ازا

٠ب( 207,31، 207,19ح١ش أدد اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ا ازجى١ش ف ازض١ش ح١ش سجذ )

رأصشد صفخ ػذد األ٠ب حز ازض١ش ثبألصبف اذسسخ ح١ش % اطشد، لذ 20اضساػخ حز

٪ 20 اضساػخ حز ٠ب( 221600، 221600)أغي فزشح 202حمك اصف سخب

5

ػ ف و اس١ ٠ب( 200,11، 200610) أل ام١ 2ث١ب سج ج١ صش

.ازا

زى اغي 1022سج ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش اخزالفب ؼ٠ب ف س

ػذب ر س٠ 202حم١مب ثاسطخ اصف سخب ٠ب( ر ر 223,37% اطشد )20فزشح حز

أ٠ب ف ٠1ب( ػذ اش و 200,37ال ل١خ ) 201أ٠ب غ ام١ط اػط اصف سخب 1و

و اس١.

طــل انبــبث ببنسخيخز )سى( .5

ث١ ؼبالد اش اؼ٠خ ػب١خ فشلبأشـبسد ازـبئج ف و اس١ ا جد

أ٠ب 3اش و برال س( 202601، 203601) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 1ح١ش سجذ ؼبخ اش و

، 90600) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و س( 99627، 200601از سجذ )

ف و اس١ ػ ازا، ا٠عب وب ؼبالد اخذخ أصش ؼ ػ غي س( 92617

س( مبس ثؼذ اخذخ ف و 200,11، 99,01د ح١ش سجذ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ أػ ام١ )اجب

ث١ األصبف اخزجشح اؼ٠خ ػب١خ فشلبأظشد ازبئج جد اس١ ػ ازا، وب

202ث١ب سج اصف سخب س( 202610، 203632) أػ ام١ 201اصف سخب ح١ش سج

.ف و اس١ ػ ازا صفخ غي اجبد س( 12600، 10600) ام١أل

أػط ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش فشلب ػب١خ اؼ٠خ ف و اس١

س( ث١ب 222,00، 221,00ا٠ب ) 1اغي اجبربد رحذ ظب اش و ١201حمك اصف سخب

أ٠ب، ف ارجب 1رحذ ظب اش و 202س( سجذ صف سخب 10,00، 12,00ال ام١ )

آخش وب ازفبػ ث١ ؼبالد اش ظ اخذخ ؼ٠ب ح١ش سجذ أػ أسرفبع طي اجبد

ا٠ب رحذ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ف ح١ سجذ أل اسرفبع 1س( ػذ اش و 203,00، 202,00)

أ٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا. 1اش و س( ػذ 92,21، 19,21)

يسبحت رقت انعهى ببنسخيخز انزبع )سى .62

)

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ح١ش سجذ ؼبخ اش ا ب ػب١خأظحذ ازبئج جد فشل

س 02627، 02611) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 3و 1

ث١ب أ٠ب، 1ثذ فشق ؼ٠خ ػ ظب اش و (

س 02670، 19629) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1ذ ؼبخ اش و سج1

صفخ سبحخ سلخ اؼ ف و (

ح١ش ظ اخذخجد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ا أشبسد ازبئج أ٠عب ، وب اس١ ػ ازا

س 01611، 03671) أػ ام١ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خسجذ 1

ام١أل ؼبخ ػذ اخذخث١ب سجذ (

س 10611، 10611)1

فمذ جذدأب ػ رأص١ش األصبف ػ ازا، ف و اس١ (

6

س 00,00، 19,90أػ ام١ ) 2ح١ش سج اج١ صش ؼ٠خ ث١ األصبف اخزجشح1

( ف

س 11,97، 11,79ال ام١ ) 202ح١ سج اصف سخب 1

.ازا( ف و اس١ ػ

وب ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش ؼ٠ب ف و اس١ ١حمك اج١

س 00,11، 00,03ا٠ب ) 1اػ ام١ رحذ اش و 2صش 1

، 29,23( ث١ب ال ام١ )

س 29,021

أ٠ب، بح١خ 1رحذ ؼذي اش و 202( از سجذ ثاسطخ اصف سخب

زفبػ ث١ ؼبالد اش ظ اخذخ ؼ٠ب ح١ش سجذ ػذ اخذخ أل ام١ أخش وب ا

س 12,12، 12,01)1

أ٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا ف ح١ ٠سج 1( ػذ اش و

أ٠ب . 1أ فشق ؼ ث١ ظ اخذخ رحذ ؼبخ اش و

:انحصل يكبحت -ثبيب:

وانحـبيهت نهســببم/عــذد انفــزع .12

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ح١ش سجذ ا ب ػب١خث١ــذ ازـبئج ازحصـ ػ١ـب جد فشل

فشػب/ 700,30، 710677) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 1ؼبخ اش و 1

( غ ػذ جد فشلب ؼىخ ث١

123671، 132671) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و ا٠ب، 3 1ؼبالد اش و

فشػب/1

ؼذد افشع احبخ سبث/ (1

، وب أدد اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ف و اس١ ػ ازا

ػذد افشع احبخ سبث/ا ص٠بدح 1

فشػب/ 302,11)1

، 1022س ف ( مبسخ ثؼذ اخذخ

ألصبف رحذ أظشد ازبئج جد فشلب ػب١خ اؼ٠خ ث١ افمذ ٠زؼك ثزأص١ش األصبف ف١بأب

ف ػ األصبف األخش رحذ اذساسخ 2ج١ صش اذساسخ ف و اس١ ح١ش رفق ا

فشػب/ 332,27اس األي ح١ش أػط أػ ام١ )1

( ث١ب ٠ى بن فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ج١

ال 201ف اس اضب، ػ ام١ط سج اصف سخب 202سخب 271ج١ض 2صش

ام١ ؼذد اخفبد احبخ سبث/1

فشػب/ 227,71، 271,07) 1

( ف و اس١ ػ

. ازاوبذ االخزالفبد اشاجؼخ زفبػ ث١ األصبف ؼبالد اش ؼ٠خ ف و

722,21، 713,12أ٠ب ) 1اػ ام١ رحذ ظب اش و ١2حمك اج١ صش اس١

فشػب/1

فشػب/ 009,92، 102,12( ث١ب أل ام١ )1

رحذ 201( سجذ ثاسطخ اصف سخب

ا٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا. 1اش و

عــذد انحبــــة انخهئـــت/سبهـــت .2

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ح١ش ا ب ػب١خازحص ػ١ب إ جد فشلأشبسد ازبئج

ف ح١ أػطذ حج/سج( ف اس االي 201600) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 1اش و خسجذ ؼب

حج/سج( ف اس 203,01) أ٠ب أػ ل١خ ؼذد احجة ازئخ ف اسجخ 3ؼبخ اش و

7

أ٠ب ف و 3 1أ ٠جذ فشق ؼ ث١ ربص١ش و ؼبز١ اش و اضب ػب ث

ؼذد حج/سج( 201,03، 201,19) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و اس١،

بأشبسد ازبئج أ٠عب جد فشلف و اس١ ػ ازا، وب احجة ازئخ/سجخ

212,37) أػ ام١ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خح١ش سجذ 1021ظ اخذخ ف س خ ث١ ؼ٠

ف ؼذد احجة ازئخ/اسجخ حج/سج( 211611) أل ام١ ػذ اخذخث١ب سجذ حج/سج(

رأصشد صفخ ، أ٠عب 1022ث١ب ٠الحع ا ربص١ش ؼ ظ اخذخ ف س و اس١

أػ ام١ 2ذد احجة ازئخ/سجخ ؼ٠ب ثبألصبف اخزجشح ح١ش سج ج١ صش ػ

221691، 221671)أل ام١ 201ث١ب سج اصف سخب حج/سج( 219603، 220611)

.ػ ازا ف و اس١حج/سج(

اؼ٠خ ف و اس١ أظش ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش اخزالفب ػب

حج/سج( 230,00، 232,00ا٠ب ) 3اػ ام١ رحذ ظب اش و ١2حمك اج١ صش

1رحذ اش و 201حج/سج( سجذ ثاسطخ اصف سخب 77,20، 71,00ث١ب أل ام١ )

أ٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا.

)خى(س األنـــف حبـــت ببندزاو .3

ػ ؼبالد اشرأص١ش ؼ٠خ ث١ ا ب ػب١خازبئج ازحص ػ١ب جد فشل أظحذ

ث١ب ج( 11,01، 10,17) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 1اش و خح١ش سجذ ؼب صفخ ص األف حج

ص االف حج ف و ج( 12,09، 12,19) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1سجذ ؼبخ اش و

و ظ اخذخ ف ؼ٠خ ث١ بجد فشلا ػذ أشبسد ازبئج أ٠عب ١ ػ ازا، وب اس

سخب ؼ٠ب ثبألصبف اخزجشح ح١ش سج اصف ص االف حج رأصشد صفخ ، وب اس١

10673، 10629)أل ام١ 271ج١ضح ث١ب سج اصف ج( 11,91، 11679)أػ ام١ 202

.ػ ازا ف و اس١ج(

ث١ ازفبػ ث١ األصبف ؼبالد اش اخزالفبد ػب١خ اؼ٠خ ف و اس١

( ث١ب ال ج 13,01، 13,00ا٠ب ) 1أػ ام١ رحذ ظب اش و ١202حمك اصف سخب

أ٠ب ف و 1ذ اش و رح 271( سجذ ثاسطخ اصف ج١ضح ج 29,29، 29,21ام١ )

اس١ ػ ازا.

ببنسبه )%( انحبــــة انفــــبرغت سبت .4

أ٠ب 1أظشد ازبئج جد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ح١ش سجذ ؼبخ اش و

%( ف 7617، 7610) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و %( 9631، 9631) أػ ام١

ظ اخذخ جد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ا ػذ أشبسد ازبئج أ٠عب و اس١ ػ ازا، وب

8

ازبئج جد فشلب ػب١خ اؼ٠خ ث١ ظشدأ، أب ػ ربص١ش االصبف فمذ و اس١ف

١ ح١ش اصدادد سجخ ثبسج ف و اس احجة افبسغخ سجخاألصبف اخزجشح صفخ

202%( رال اصف سخب 20,0، 20,11زص ا ) 201احجة افبسغخ ف اصف سخب

، 3,11ال سجخ حجة افبسغخ ) 2فشلب ؼ٠خ ث١ و اصف١ ث١ب سج اج١ صش

%( ف و اس١. 3,19

٠ب ف و اس١ ١سج اج١ وب ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش ؼ

، 20,90ا٠ب، ث١ب اػ ام١ ) 1( رحذ ظب اش و % 2,00، 2,00ال ام١ ) 2صش

أ٠ب ف 1رحذ ظب اش و 201سخب 202( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ اصف١ سخب % 22,00

ػ ازا. 1021، 1022س

س انسبــهت ببندزاو )خى( .5

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ح١ش ا ب ػب١خازـبئج ازحص ػ١ب جد فشل ظحذأ

أ٠ب 1ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و ج( 0601، 0607) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 1اش و خسجذ ؼب

أظشد ف و اس١ ػ ازا، ف ح١صفخ ص اسجخ ج( 1602، 1607)أل ام١

ظ اخذخ ف و اس١، وب أ رأص١ش األصبف وب ث١ خق ؼ٠ازبئج ػذ جد فش

، 1,97ص اسجخ ) أػ 2ػب اؼ٠خ ػ صفخ ص اسج، ح١ش أػط اج١ صش

ػ ف و اس١ج( 1619، 1690)أل ام١ 201اػط اصف سخب ج( ث١ب 1,99

.ازا

أب ػ ربص١ش ازفبػ فمذ وب ازفبػ ث١ األصبف ؼبالد اش ػب اؼ٠خ ف و

أ٠ب ث١ب 1( رحذ اش و ج 0,02، 0,00اػ ام١ ) 2 اس١ ١سج اج١ صش

أ٠ب ف و 1رحذ اش و 201اصف سخب ( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ ج 1,17، 1,22ال ام١ )

اس١ ػ ازا.

طل انسبهت ببنسخيخز )سى( .6

فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش صفخ غي اسجخ )س( ازحص ػ١ب أظحذ ازبئج

س( ث١ب 11,21، 12,10ا٠ب اػ ام١ ) 1، ح١ش اػطذ ؼبخ اش و ف و اس١

أظشد فمذ ا٠ب، ف ح١ 1س( ر احصي ػ١ب ؼبخ اش و 21,71 ، 21,00ال ام١ )

ف١ب ٠زؼك ثزأص١شظب اخذخ ف و اس١، اب ث١ خؼ٠ قازبئج ػذ جد فش

ؼ٠خ ث١ األصبف اخزجشح ح١ش سج ج١ ا ب ػب١خأظشد ازبئج جد فشلفمذ األصبف

، 29,19) أل ام١ 201ث١ب حمك اصف سخب س( 11619، 21610) م١أػ ا 2صش

غي اسجخ ف و اس١ ػ ازا.صفخ س( 29611

9

أب ػ ربص١ش ازفبػ فمذ وب ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش ؼ٠ب ف و

أ٠ب، ث١ب 1( رحذ اش و س 11,09، 10,10اػ ام١ ) 2اس١ ١سج ج١ صش

1رحذ ؼبخ اش و 201اصف سخب ( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ س 27,72، 27,03ال ام١ )

أ٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا.

)طــ/فــذا( (انحبــة انقــش) انبينخ حصــلان .7

أ٠ب إ اخفبض وج١ش ف احصي اج١ج 1إ 1أدد ص٠بدح فزشاد اش

ف احصي اج١ج ػذب رؼشظذ جبربد األسص إ األوجشخفبض اال ح١ش ثغ)غ/فذا(

غب/فذا( ره مبسخ ثظب اش و 7690، 1632ح١ش حممذ )أ٠ب 1إجبد بئ ػذ اش و

غب/فذا( ف و اس١ ػ 20,17، 9,71مك أػ حصال ث١ج١ب )أ٠ب ح١ش ح 1

ث١ب ،1022ظ اخذخ ف س جد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ا أشبسد ازبئج أ٠عب ازا، وب

ث١ب غ/فذا( 9,20) أػ ام١ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خح١ش سجذ ٠سج رأص١شا ؼ٠ب ف اس ازب

، وب ف و اس١حصي احجة امش غب/فذا( 1697) أل ام١ ػذ اخذخسجذ

2أظحذ ازبئج جد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ األصبف اخزجشح ح١ش سج اصف ج١ صش

1692، 1,01) أل ام١ 202ث١ب سج اصف سخب غب/فذا( 20,01، 9610) أػ ام١

.ػ ازا حصي اج١ج ف و اس١ غب/فذا(

أب ػ رأص١ش ازفبػ فمذ وب ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش ؼ٠ب ف و

أ٠ب 1غب/فذا( رحذ اش و 22,30، 20693أػ ام١ ) 2اس١ ١سج اج١ صش

رحذ ؼبخ اش 202اصف سخب غب/فذا( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ 1,00، 7601ث١ب ال ام١ )

أ٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا، أ٠عب اظشد ازبئج ؼ٠خ ازفبػ ث١ ؼبالد اش 1و

ح١ش أػطذ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ حصال أػ احجة 1021ظ اخذخ ف اس اضب

أ٠ب، ث١ب رسج أ٠خ فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ظب 1رحذ ؼبخ اش و ثؼذ اخذخامش مبسخ

٠ب.أ 3 1اخذخ رحذ ؼبز اش و

يحصــل انحبــة )طــ/فــذا( .8

رأصش حصي احجة )غ/فذا( ؼ٠ب ثؼبالد اش ح١ش أدد إغبخ فزشاد اش إ

1621، 1610أ٠ب أػ ام١ ) 1جذ ؼبخ اش و ح١ش س اخفبض حظ ف احصي

ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ غب/فذا( 1610، 1601أ٠ب، ح١ش حممذ ) 3غ/فذا( رزب ؼبخ اش و

أظحذ ػ ازا، ف و اس١ غب/فذا( 0621، 1611) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1اش و

اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ أػ ح١ش سجذ ؼبخ اخذخ،ؼبالد جد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١أ٠عب ازبئج

اؼبخ ثذ خذخ أل ام١ ، ث١ب أػطذحصي احجةصفخ غب/فذا( 1,00، 0,71ام١ )

أظشد ازبئج جد فشلب ػب١خ ػ ازا، وب ف و اس١غب/فذا( 0,97، 0,31)

11

1611، 1622) أػ ام١ 2ج١ صش اح١ش سج رحذ اذساسخاؼ٠خ ث١ األصبف

حصي احجة صفخ غب/فذا( 0633، 0611) أل ام١ 201ث١ب سج اصف سخب غب/فذا(

.ػ ازا ف و اس١


أ٠ب 1غب/فذا( رحذ ظب اش و 1,11، 1622اػ ام١ ) 2س١ ١سج اج١ صش ا

رحذ ؼبخ اش 201اصف سخب غب/فذا( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ 1,72، 1603ث١ب ال ام١ )

ا٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا ثصفخ ػبخ مص حصي احجة ثشذ ف و 1و

ج١ 271ا٠ب مبسخ ثبصف١ ج١ض 1زجبػذ فزشح اش و 201سخب 202اصف١ سخب

ف و اس١. 2صش

دنيـــم انحصـــبد .9

أشبسد ازبئج ا جد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ف و اس١ ػ صفخ

اد ا اخفبض ؼب احصبد ا٠ب 1ا 1ح١ش ا رجبػذ فزشاد اش د١ احصبد

أظحذ ( ف و اس١ ػ ازا،٪ 03,11، 02,99( ا )٪ 11,12، 10,12)

اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ أػ ام١ ح١ش سجذ ؼبخ اخذخؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد بازبئج جد فشل

1022س ف ( ٪ 10,22ث١ب ثذ اخذخ أػطذ أل ام١ ) صفخ د١ احصبد( ٪ 12,12)

أظحذ ازبئج جد فشق ، وب 1021ف ح١ ٠ى بن ربص١ش ؼ ظ اخذخ ف اس

أػ ام١ 202ح١ش سج اصف سخب ١ اسو ؼ٠خ ث١ األصبف اخزجشح ف

صفخ د١ (٪ 01,10، 01620) أل ام١ 201سخب ث١ب سج اصف (٪ 10,22، 11612)

ف و اس١ ػ ازا. احصبد


ا٠ب ث١ب 1( رحذ اش و ٪ 17,01، 13672أػ ام١ ) 202اس١ ١سج اصف سخب

رحذ ؼبخ اش و 202اصف سخب ( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ فس ٪ 03,12، 02,17 )ال ام١

أ٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا، أب ثبسجخ زفبػ ث١ ؼبالد اش ظ اخذخ فىبذ 1

فمػ ح١ش ادد اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ا ص٠بدح ؼ٠خ ف ؼب احصبد رحذ 1022ؼ٠خ ف س

أ٠ب ف س 3 1ا٠ب ث١ب ٠ظش أ٠خ فشق ؼ٠خ رحذ ؼبز اش 1ؼبخ اش و

1022. انعالقبث انبئيت -ج

(٪انسبت انئيت نقص انحصل ) .1

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ف و اس١ لب ػب١خ اأشـبسد ازـبئج إ جد فش

ث١ب ( ف مص احصي٪ 13,12، 00,01است ) أ٠ب أػ 1ؼبالد اش و سججذح١ش

11

( ف و اس١ ػ ازا، ٪ 2,21، 0,27است )أ٠ب أل 3سجذ ؼبخ اش و

ح١ش 1022اظبفخ ا ره وب ربص١ش ظ اخذخ ؼ٠ب ػ ؼب احسبس١خ جفبف ف س

( ٪ 20,10امص ف احصي مبسخ ثؼذ اخذخ ح١ش سجذ ) سبذ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ف رم١

أظشد ث١ب ٠جذ أ فشق ؼ ث١ ظ اخذخ ف اس اضب، وب 1022ف اس

أػ ام١ 201سخب ؼ٠خ ث١ أصبف األسص ح١ش حمك اصف ب ػب١خ اازبئج جد فشل

( ثذ فشق ؼ ث١ ٪ 22,93، 21,20) 202 اصف سخبرال (٪ 21,90، 21,17)

( رال اصف ٪ 7,20، 7,11ؼب احسبس١خ جفبف ) أل ام١ 2ث١ب سج ج١ صش

.ػ ازا ف و اس١ثذ فشق ؼ ث١ اصف١ 271ج١ض

أب ػ ربص١ش ازفبػ فمذ وب ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش ػب اؼ٠خ ف و

ا٠ب ث١ب 1( رحذ اش و ٪ 01,12، 01,33أػ ام١ ) 201 اس١ ١سج اصف سخب

ا٠ب 3رحذ ؼبخ اش و 271( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ اصف ج١ض ٪ 0,11، 2,92ال ام١ )

و اس١ ػ ازا، أب ثبسجخ زفبػ ث١ ؼبالد اش ظ اخذخ فىبذ ؼ٠خ ف

ح١ش ادد اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ا اخفبض ؼ ف اسجخ ائ٠خ مص احصي 1022ف س

ذ أ٠ب، ث١ب ٠ظشأ فشق ؼ رح 1رحذ ؼبخ اش و ٪ 17,37ا ٪ 02,72

.1022ا٠ب ف س 3ؼبخ اش و

يم انحسبسيت نهدفبفبيع .2

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ف و اس١ ا ب ػب١خأشـبسد ازـبئج إ جد فشل

3ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و (0,13، 0,00ام١ ) أ٠ب أػ 1ح١ش سجذ ؼبالد اش و

( ؼب احسبس١خ جفبف ف و اس١ ػ ازا، اظبفخ 0,02، 0,01) أ٠ب أل ام١

ح١ش سبذ 1022ا ره وب ربص١ش ظ اخذخ ؼ٠ب ػ ؼب احسبس١خ جفبف ف س

( ف 0,20اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ف رم١ ؼب احسبس١خ جفبف مبسخ ثؼذ اخذخ ح١ش سجذ )

أظشد ازبئج ث١ب ٠جذ أ فشق ؼ ث١ ظ اخذخ ف اس اضب، وب 1022اس

، 0,21) أػ ام١ 201سخب ؼ٠خ ث١ أصبف األسص ح١ش حمك اصف ا ب ػب١خجد فشل

( ثذ فشق ؼ ث١ اصف١ ث١ب سج ج١ 0,21، 0,20) 202 اصف سخب رال (0,20

ثذ فشق 271( رال اصف ج١ض 0,01، 0,01ؼب احسبس١خ جفبف ) ام١ أل 2صش

.ػ ازا ف و اس١ؼ ث١ اصف١

وب ازفبػ ث١ االصبف ؼبالد اش ػب اؼ٠خ ف و اس١ ١سج

( 0,03، 0,00 ث١ب ال ام١ )ا٠ب 1( رحذ اش و 0,01، 0,09أػ ام١ ) 201اصف سخب

أ٠ب ف و اس١ ػ 3رحذ ؼبخ اش و 271ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ اصف ج١ضح

ح١ش 1022ازا، أب ثبسجخ زفبػ ث١ ؼبالد اش ظ اخذخ فىبذ ؼ٠خ ف س

12

رحذ 0,11ا 0,01جفبف ادد اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ ا اخفبض ؼ ف ؼب احسبس١خ

.1022ا٠ب ف س 3أ٠ب، ث١ب ٠ظشأ فشق ؼ رحذ ؼبخ اش و 1ؼبخ اش و

كفبءة اسخخذاو انيب )كدى/و .33

)

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ف و اس١ ب ػب١خ اأشـبسد ازـبئج إ جد فشل

وج/ 0691، 0690) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 3اش و خح١ش سجذ ؼب0

أ٠ب 1ؼبخ اش و ( ر١ب

وج/ 0,10، 0,72)0

وج/ 0673، 0672) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و (0

)

رأصشد صفخ وفبءح اسزخذا ا١ب ؼ٠ب وب ف و اس١ ػ ازا،ىفبءح اسزخذا ا١ب

وج/ 0,12، 0,10)أػ ام١ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خح١ش سجذ ثؼ١بد اخذخ0

ثؼذ ثبمبسخ (

وج/ 0,10، 0,77) اخذخ0

ب ػب١خ أظشد ازبئج جد فشل، أ٠عب ف و اس١(

وج/ 0690، 0611) أػ ام١ 2ؼ٠خ ث١ أصبف األسص ح١ش حمك اصف ج١ صش ا0

)

وج/ 0677، 0672) أل ام١ 201 ث١ب سج اصف سخب، 271رال اصف ج١ض 0

ىفبءح (

اسزخذا ا١ب )وج/0

.ػ ازا ( ف و اس١


وج/ 2,02، 0,97أػ ام١ ) 2 اس١ ١سج اج١ صش 0

ا٠ب 3( رحذ اش و

وج/ 0,72، 0,31ث١ب ال ام١ ) 202ص سخب 271رال اصف ج١ض 0

( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ

ا٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا. 1رحذ ؼبخ اش و 201اصف سخب

خكنخيت:انصفــــبث ان -ثبنثب:

ز سبــت انخقشيــ .1

ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ف و ا ب ػب١خجد فشلازحص ػ١ب زـبئجا أظحذ

، 79,10ا٠ب اػ سجخ رمش١ش ) 3ح١ش اػطذ ؼبخ اش و ،سجخ ازمش١ش صفخ اس١

( ف و اس١ ٪ 71,01، 71,02ا٠ب اػط ال سجخ رمش١ش ) 1( ث١ب اش و ٪ 79,20

ف و ؼبالد اخذخ ؼ٠خ ث١ بأظشد ازبئج ػذ جد فشلػ ازا، وب

أشبسد ازبئج إ جد فشق ؼ٠خ ث١ أصبف األسص ح١ش سج اصف سخب ، وب اس١

77611، 77611) أل ام١ 2ث١ب سج ج١ صش (،٪ 10621، 10610) أػ ام١ 201

.ػ ازا سجخ ازمش١ش ف و اس١صفخ ( ٪


ا٠ب ث١ب 3( رحذ اش و ٪ 10,20، 10,37أػ ام١ ) 201 اس١ ١سج اصف سخب

13

ا٠ب 1رحذ ؼبخ اش و 2( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ اج١ صش ٪ 73,70، 73,32ال ام١ )

ف و اس١ ػ ازا.

سبـت انخبيـــض .2

حممذ ؼبخ اش ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبالد اش ح١ش ا ب ػب١خأشبسد ازبئج إ جد فشل

70627أ٠ب أل ام١ ) 1(، ث١ب حممذ ؼبخ اش و ٪ 70692، 72609أ٠ب أػ سجخ ) 3و

أظشد ازبئج ػذ جد فشلب ػب١خ اؼ٠خ ( ف و اس١ ػ ازا، وب ٪ 70602،

ؼ٠خ ث١ ا ب ػب١خأظحذ ازبئج جد فشل، وب ف و اس١ ؼبالد اخذخ ث١

ث١ب حمك (٪ 72679، 72691) أػ ام١ 201سخب ح١ش حمك اصف رحذ اذساسخاألصبف

ف و اس١. (٪ 31612، 31691) أل ام١ 2ج١ صش

أب ػ ربص١ش ازفبػ فمذ وب ازفبػ ث١ األصبف ؼبالد اش ػب اؼ٠خ ف و

أ٠ب 1ا 3( رحذ اش و ٪ 71,21، 71,17أػ سج ) 201اس١ ١سج اصف سخب

( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ اج١ ٪ 31,13، 31,01ثذ فشق ؼ ث١ اؼبز١، ث١ب أل سج )

ا٠ب ف و اس١ ػ ازا. 1رحذ ؼبخ اش و 2صش

سبـت انحبــة انكـبيهـــت .3

الد اش ح١ش حممذ ؼبخ اش و ؼ٠خ ث١ ؼبا ب ػب١خأظشد ازبئج جد فشل

، 30612) أ٠ب أل ام١ 1ث١ب سجذ ؼبخ اش و (٪ 31671، 31671) أ٠ب أػ ام١ 3

ػ ازا، اب ثبسج زبص١ش اخذخ فمذ سجخ احجة اىبخ ف و اس١ (٪ 30610

( ٪31,21( ا )٪ 30,91رحذ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ )ص٠بدح ف سجخ احجة اس١خ أظشد ازبئج

ف ف اس اضب مبس ثبؼبخ ثذ خذخ ث١ب ٠ى بن ربص١ش ؼ ؼبالد اخذخ

ؼ٠خ ث١ أصبف األسص اخزجشح ح١ش ا ب ػب١خث١ذ ازبئج جد فشلاس االي، ف ح١

، 2ج١ صش ( رال ٪ 33,02، 33,11حجة اىبخ ) اػ سجخ 202سخب حمك اصف

صفخ سجخ احجة اىبخ ف و (٪ 31610، 31612) أل ام١ 271ج١ضح ث١ب سج اصف

.ػ ازا اس١


ا٠ب ف اس 1( رحذ اش و ٪ 33,91أػ ام١ ) ١202سج اصف سخب اس١

( رحذ ؼبخ اش ٪ 33,23اػ ام١ ) 202فمذ حمك اصف سخب 1021اب ف اس 1022

رحذ ؼبخ 2( ر رسج١ب ثاسطخ اج١ صش ٪ 31,00، 32,17أ٠ب ث١ب ال ام١ ) 3و

ف و اس١ ػ ازا. ا٠ب 1اش و

14

يهخص انخبئح:

امذسح ػ ا ثىفبءح ػب١خ رحذ ظشف مص 271ج١ضح 2أظش اج١ اصش .2

.202سخب 201ا١ب مبسخ ثبصف١ سخب

أػطذ اخذخ ازم١ذ٠خ )حشس رس٠خ ازشثخ غجمب زص١بد شوض األسص ثسخب( لذسح .1

حصي أػ مبسخ ثؼذ اخذخ خبصخ رحذ ظشف شح ا١ب.أفع ػ ا

أ٠ب 3أ٠ب ح١ش أ اش و 1أ 3رحسذ وفبءح اسزخذا ا١ب رحذ ظب اش و .0

أ٠ب مصب شذ٠ذا ف ٠1زسجت ف مص حصي احجة ثشذح ث١ب أحذس ظب اش و

حصي احجة.

انخصيت:

ز اذساسخ رحذ ز اؼبالد ثضساػخ األسص اج١ اصش ٠ز ازص١خ خالي

رحذ ظشف شح ابء غ خذخ األسض ج١ذا ثبحشس شر١ زؼبذر١ 271اصف ج١ضح 2

ازس٠خ اج١ذح از٠ػ، ح١ش ٠ؤد ا رم١ أصش اجبد اجفبف ػ جبربد األسص ٠سب ف سفغ

أ٠ب. 3ة رحذ ظب اش و ازبج١خ افذا حصي احج

جقييم بعض أصناف األرز جحث مقننـــات مائية ونظم خذمة مخحلفة

مقدمة منرسالة

عزيز فؤاد السيد أبو العز (8991جامعة المنوفية ) - كمية الزراعة -بكالوريوس العموم الزراعية

(4002جامعة االسكندرية ) -محاصيل كمية الزراعة -ماجستير العموم الزراعية

لمحصول عمي درجةتطمبات كجزء من الم في العموم الزراعية دكتوراه الفمسفة

(المحاصيل)

:لجنة اإلشـراف

السيد حامد الصعيدى أ.د.

)مشرفا رئيسيا( طنطاجامعة –كمية الزراعة المحاصيل ورئيس قسم ستاذأ

رجب عبدالغنى عبيد أ.د.

.مركز البحوث الزراعية –معهد بحوث المحاصيل الحقمية – متفرغ رئيس بحوث

أ.د. طو احمد شمبى ( اهلل ) رحمو .جامعة طنطا –أستاذ المحاصيل المتفرغ كمية الزراعة

4082

طنطاجامعة كمية الزراعة

قسم المحاصيل



بو العزأزيز فؤاد السيد ع (8991جامعة المنوفية ) -كمية الزراعة -بكالوريوس العموم الزراعية

(4002االسكندرية )جامعة -محاصيل كمية الزراعة -ماجستير العموم الزراعية

لمحصول عمي درجةتطمبات كجزء من الم في العموم الزراعية الفمسفة اهدكتور

(المحاصيل)

41/84/4082التاريخ:



موافقــــون : والمناقشةالحكم لجنة . رمضان علي الرفاعيأ.د

-كمية الزراعة -قسم المحاصيل - المتفرغ أستاذ المحاصيل .جامعة طنطا

..............

عبذ الجواد نصار أ.د. محمذ أحمذ –كمية الزراعة -قسم االنتاج النباتى -أستاذ المحاصيل

.)سبا باشا( جامعة االسكندرية..............

أ.د. رجب عبذ الغني عبيذ

مركز البحوث - معهد المحاصيل الحقمية -رئيس بحوث متفرغ .الزراعية

..............

أ.د. السيذ حامذ الصعيذى

............ .اجامعة طنط - كمية الزراعة -قسم المحاصيل أستاذ ورئيس



بو العزأعزيز فؤاد السيد (8991جامعة المنوفية ) -كمية الزراعة -قسم البساتين –بكالوريوس العموم الزراعية

(4002جامعة االسكندرية ) - كمية الزراعة -محاصيلالقسم -ماجستير العموم الزراعية

لمحصول عمي درجةتطمبات كجزء من الم

في العموم الزراعية دكتوراه الفمسفة (المحاصيل)


كلية السراعة

جامعة طنطا

4082



evaluation of some rice cultivars under different water regimes and tillage systems phd

Documents