Advances in Architecture, City and Environment

Transcription

1 IWNEST Publisher Advances in Architecture, City and Environment ISSN Journal home page: Evaluation of grain yield and water productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in different planting method and irrigation regimes 1 Babak Mohammadi, 2 Salman Dastan, 2 Reza Yadi, 3 Behrouz Arabzadeh 1 Department of Agronomy, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran. 2 Department of Agricultural Science, Payame Noor University, I.R. of IRAN. 3 Assist. prof. of Water Engineering, Rice Research Institute, Amol, Mazandaran, Iran. A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 28 March 2015 Accepted 7 April 2015 Keywords: Grain yield, Irrigation, Planting method, Rice, Water productivity A B S T R A C T This experiment was carried out at split plot in randomized complete block design with three replications at Rice Research Institute, Amol, Iran, in Main plots was cultivation methods (puddling soil transplanted and furrow transplanted) and sub plots was irrigation regimes in five levels including {I 1: full flooding with height of 3-5 cm the growth period; I 2: periodic irrigation with 3-5 cm height during the growth period (after the disappearance of surface water irrigation); I 3: irrigation to a height of 5 cm, two days after the disappearance of surface water; I 4: irrigation to a height of 5 cm, four days after the disappearance of surface water; I 5: permanently saturated during growth period}. Results showed the plant height, total tiller number, 1000 grain weight, water used rate and conversion factor in puddling transplanting were more than furrow transplanting. Grain yield in puddling method ( kg ha -1 ) because of increased filled spikelet number per panicle and 1000 grain weight was more than furrow method. Water productivity in furrow method more than puddling method. The maximum grain yield (6112 kg ha -1 ) was produced in T 1, that main reason was increased filled spikelet number per panicle, and the least grain yield was observed in I 4. The most water productivity shown in I 5. The maximum grain yield equivalent to 6780 kg ha -1 was produced at interaction of puddling method in I IWNEST Publisher All rights reserved. To Cite This Article: Babak Mohammadi, Salman Dastan, Reza Yadi, Behrouz Arabzadeh, Evaluation of grain yield and water productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in different planting method and irrigation regimes. Adv. Archit. City Environ., 1(2), 16-21, 2015 INTRODUCTION Agriculture faces two major challenges. First, it needs to enhance food production sustainably to feed a growing world population; at the same time, this increase needs to be accomplished under conditions of increasing scarcity of water resources [1]. The agricultural sector is the major consumer of water, to the extent of 70% of all water withdrawals [2]. In developing countries about 85% of all water withdrawals are used in agricultural Sector. Asia uses 50% of all irrigation drawls in the world. The World population of 6.07 billion in 2000 is projected to grow to 8.13 billion in 2030 and 8.92 billion in A declining trend in crop yield and an increasing water shortage are apparent in many nations [3]. Rice is the foremost staple food for more than 50% of the world s population. It is estimated that by the year 2025, the world s farmers should be producing about 60% more rice than at present to meet the food demands of the expected world population at that time [4]. Irrigated rice production is the largest consumer of water in the agricultural sector, and its sustainability is threatened by increasing water shortages. Such water scarcity necessitates the development of alternativeirrigated rice systems that require less water than traditional-flooded rice [5]. Rice is more sensitive to drought stress in vegetation stage and stress in this stage caused to more decrease of yield compare to reproductive stage [6]. Researchers have been developing various water-saving technologies, such as alternate wetting and drying [7, 8, 9, 10], continuous soil saturation [11], direct-dry seeding [12], aerobic rice culture [13], and non-flooded mulching cultivation [14, 15]. While these technologies save water and improve water productivity, this is usually accomplished at the expense of yield [16]. Rice cultivation requires large quantity of water and for producing one kg rice, about litres of water depending on the different rice cultivation methods such as transplanted rice, direct sown rice (wet seeded), alternate wetting and drying method (AWD), system of rice intensification (SRI) and aerobic rice. Owing to increasing water scarcity, a shifting trend towards less water demanding crops against rice is noticed in most part of the India and this warrants alternate methods of rice Corresponding Author: Babak Mohammadi, Department of Agronomy, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran.

2 cultivation that aims at higher water and crop productivity. The main reasons for irrigation water scarcity are population growth, increasing urban and industrial demand for water, water pollution, water resource depletion [7], climate change due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (i.e., global warming) and finally changes in precipitation and solar radiation distribution pattern [17]. Drought may delay the phenological development of the rice plant [18], and affect physiological processes like transpiration, photosynthesis, respiration and translocation of assimilates to the grain [19]. Plant processes that depend on cell volume enhancement are particularly sensitive to water deficit. Leaf expansion and leaf gas exchange rates are two such sensitive processes. At the plant level, reduced leaf area is probably the obvious mechanism by which plants and crops restrict their water loss in response to drought [20]. Therefore, this research aims was evaluation of grain yield and water productivity of rice in different planting method and irrigation regimes. MATERIALS AND METHODS The field experiment was conducted in Rice Research Institute, Amol, Iran (36 28' N latitude, 52 23' E longitude 29.8 m above sea level) in The soil was a clay loamy, with a sand, silt, and clay composition of 32, 25, and 43%, respectively. The soil chemical analysis indicates: ph at 7.28 and estimated the following nutrients in their available form: 0.18 (%) N, 10 ppm P, 120 ppm K, O.M. = 1.8 %. The minimum and maximum daily temperatures were obtained from the weather station at Amol near to farm (Table 1). This experiment was carried out at split plot in randomized complete block design with three replications. Main plots was cultivation methods (puddling soil transplanted and furrow transplanted) and and sub plots was irrigation regimes in five levels including {I 1 : full flooding with height of 3-5 cm the growth period; I 2 : periodic irrigation with 3-5 cm height during the growth period (after the disappearance of surface water irrigation); I 3 : irrigation to a height of 5 cm, two days after the disappearance of surface water; I 4 : irrigation to a height of 5 cm, four days after the disappearance of surface water; I 5 : permanently saturated during growth period}. The rice cultivar was Shiroodi. Seeds were soaked for 12 to 24 h and emergence date was considered to be five days after sowing, when 90% of the seedlings showed coleoptile. Seeds spread with hands into an area of 10 m 2 (2 5). Sowing arrangement was cm 2. The water depth was controlled on water treatment. Nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium fertilizers were used at the rates of N 150 kg ha -1 urea, P 2 O kg ha -1 triple superphosphate and K 2 O 100 kg ha -1 potassium sulphate. Nitrogen topdressing was carried out 1, 32 and 54 days after transplanting, using 33.3%, 33.3% and 33.3% in each stage in plot. Each unit consisted of a plot with internal dimensions of 2 5 m 2, containing 10 sowing rows 5 cm in length and spaced 20 cm apart. Weeding was made 22 days after emergence by hand. 10 hills were randomly collected at harvesting time from each plot to measure yield components. Yield components were analyzed base on different samples of plant to determine the spikelet per panicle, filled spikelet percentage per panicle, and harvest index (i.e., grain yield per plant/biological yield per plant). Grain yield from panicle in each plot was scaled as final grain yield (g/m 2 ). The data were analyzed using with SAS (version 6.12) and the procedures were described by SAS. The measurements of treatments were compared and grouped using Duncan's multiple range tests at the 0.05 significance level. Table 1: Weather conditions in rice growing period at Sari in 2011 August July June May April March Feb. Jan. Variable Minimum tem Maximum tem Evaporation (mm) Precipitation (mm) Results: Plant height had significant effect under planting method and interaction of planting method and irrigation regime in 5% probability level and affect by irrigation regime in 1% probability level (Table 2). Plant height increased 1.92 % by puddling method. Plant height was obtained (99.2 and cm) for puddling and furrow treatment, respectively. The highest plant height (104.8 cm) was observed for I 1 and maximum of that (96.67 cm cm) was observed for I 5, also plant height for I 2, I 3 and I 4 was 99.83, and 99.3 cm, respectively (Table 2). At interaction of planting method and irrigation regime, the maximum plant height (107.7 cm) was obtained for puddling method and I 1 and the minimum plant height (93.33 cm) was observed for puddling and furrow methods in I 4 (Table 6). According to table 2, number of tiller per hill had significant effect under planting method in 5% probability level and irrigation regime in 1% probability level (Table 2). Number of tiller per hill in puddling method (26.6 tillers) more than furrow method (25.53 tillers). The most number of tiller per hill (27.67 tillers) was observed for I 5 and the east number of tiller per hill (24.5 tillers) was produced for I 1, also number of tiller for I 2, I 3 and I 4 was 25.33, and 27 tillers, respectively (Table 3).

3 Number of filled spikelet per panicle had significant effect under irrigation regime in 1 % probability level and affect by interaction of planting method and irrigation regime in 5 % probability level (Table 2). Number of filled spikelet per panicle for puddling and furrow planting method was and 104 numbers, respectively. The maximum number of filled spikelet per panicle (116 numbers) was observed for I 1 and maximum of that (100 numbers) was obtained for I 4 (Table 3). The highest number of filled spikelet per panicle was produced at interaction of puddling method and I 1 (117.3 numbers), furrow method and I 1 (114.7 numbers), also the least number of filled spikelet per panicle (98 numbers) was observed at interaction of furrow method and I 4 (Table 6) grain weight has significant effect under planting method and irrigation regime in 5 % probability level, this character not significant effect by interaction treatment (Table 2) grain weight in puddling method (26.73 g) more than furrow method (25.07 g). The maximum 1000 grain weight (27.17 g) was obtained in I5 and the minimum 1000 grain weight (24.83 g) was observed in I 2, also this trait for I 1, I 3 and I 4 was 26.67, and 25.5 g, respectively (Table 3). Grain yield had significant effect on planting method, irrigation regime and those double interaction in 1 % probability level (Table 2). Grain yield by puddling treatment ( kg/ha) increased % compare to furrow method ( kg/ha), because of highest plant height, number of tiller per hill and 1000 grain weight were obtained in this method. The most grain yield (6112 kg/ha) was noted for I 1 because of increase plant height and number of filled spikelet per panicle. The least grain yield (5460 kg/ha) was produced for I 4 irrigation treatment, because reduce plant height and number of filled spikelet per panicle was observed in this treatment, also grain yield in other irrigation regime I 2, I 3 and I 5 was 5814, 5755 and 5841 kg/ha (Table 3). At interaction of planting method and irrigation regime showed the highest grain yield (6780 kg/ha) was produced in puddling method and I 1, the least grain yield (5075 kg/ha) was obtained for furrow method in I 5 (Table 6). Harvest index had significant effect by planting method and irrigation regime in 1 % probability level and affect bye interaction treatment in 5 % probability level (Table 2). The maximum harvest index was observed for puddling method (52.4 %) and minimum of that was note for furrow method (44.8 %). The most harvest index (5067, and 50.5 %) was observed for I 1, I 2 and I 5, respectively. The minimum harvest index (46.83 and %) was obtained for I 3 and I 4 (Table 3). At double interaction shows the highest harvest index was noted for interaction of puddling method and I 1, I 2 and I 5 (53.32, and %) and minimum of that (42 and %) was observed for interaction of furrow method in I 3 and I 4 (Table 6). Table 2: Mean square of planting method and irrigation regimes on grain yield and its components S.O.V. DF Plant Number of tiller Number of filled 1000 grain Grain Harvest height per hill spikelet per hill weight yield index Replication Planting (P) * 8.53 * * ** ** Error Irrigation (I) ** 9.72 ** ** 5.72 * ** ** P I * * ** 5.87 * Error C.V. (%) ** and * respectively significant in 1% and 5% level Table 3: Mean comparison of planting method and irrigation regimes on grain yield and its components Plant Number Number of 1000 grain Treatments height (cm) of tiller per hill filled spikelet per hill weight (g) Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Harvest index (%) Planting method Puddling a a a a a 524 a Furrow b b a b b 44.8 b Irrigation regimes I a c a ab 6112 a a I b bc b c 5814 b a I c bc bc bc 5755 c I d ab d abc 5460 d b I e a cd a 5841 b b Values within each column followed by same letter are not significantly different at Duncan (P 0.05) Water used parameter had significant effect by planting method, irrigation regime and double interaction of those in 1% probability level (Table 4). Water used in puddling method (8268 m 3 ) more than furrow method (6029 m 3 ). The maximum water used (8258 m3) was performed in I 1 and minimum water used (6037 m 3 ) produced for I 5 (Table 5). At interaction treatment the highest water used (9211 m 3 ) obtained in puddling method and I 1, the lowest water used had observed in furrow method in I 4 and I 5 (5335 and 5357 m 3 ) (Table 6). Conversion factor had significant difference by the effect of the planting method in 5 % probability level and irrigation regime in 1 % probability level (Table 4). Conversion factor in puddling method (69 %) more than furrow method (67 %). The highest conversion factor was observed for I 1 (69 %) and minimum of that (67 %) was obtained in I 2 and I 4, Also this parameter in I 3 and I 4 was 68 % (Table 5).

4 Broken percentage had significant effect by planting method and interaction effect in 5 % probability level and irrigation regime in 1 % probability level (Table 4). Broken percentage in furrow method (15 %) more than puddling method (10.13 %). The most broken percentage (15.67 %) was observed in I 1 and minimum broken percentage was obtained in other irrigation regimes as I 2, I 3, I 4 and I 5 equivalent 11.83, 11, 12 and %, respectively (Table 5). The highest broken percentage % was observed at interaction of furrow irrigation in I 1 and the lowest broken percentage (8.67 %) was obtained at interaction of puddling method in I 3 (Table 6). Water productivity had significant effect by planting method in 5 % probability level and irrigation regime and interaction effect in 1 % probability level (Table 4). Water productivity in furrow method (0.85 kg/m 3 ) more than puddling method (0.79 kg/m 3 ). The most water productivity shown in I 5 (0.96 kg/m 3 ) and the least water productivity (0.74 kg/m 3 ) had obtained in I 1, as water productivity in I 2, I 3 and I 4 was 0.79, 0.81 and 0.82 kg/m 3, respectively (Table 5). At interaction effect the most water productivity was observed at puddling method for I 5 (0.98 kg/m 3 ) and the least water productivity (0.73 kg/m 3 ) was produced at puddling method for I 1 (Table 6). Table 4: Mean square of planting method and irrigation regimes on some measurement parameters S.O.V. DF Water used Conversion factor Broken percentage Water productivity Replication Planting (P) ** ** * * Error Irrigation (I) ** * ** ** P I ** * ** Error C.V. (%) ** and * respectively significant in 1% and 5% level Table 5: Mean comparison of planting method and irrigation regimes on some measurement parameters Water used Conversion factor Broken Treatments (m 3 ) (%) percentage Planting method Puddling 8268 a 69 a b 0.79 b Furrow 6029 b 67 b a 0.85 a Irrigation regimes I a 69 a a 0.74 e I b 67 c b 0.79 d I c 68 b b 0.81 c I d 67 c b 0.82 b I e 68 b b 0.96 a Values within each column followed by same letter are not significantly different at Duncan (P 0.05) Table 6: Mean comparison of planting method and irrigation regimes on measurement parameters Treatments Plant height (cm) Number of filled spikelet per hill Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Harvest index (%) Water used (m 3 ) Water productivity (kg m 3 ) Broken percentage P 1I a a 6780 a a 9211 a 13 c 0.73 h P 1I b b 6597 c a 8498 b d 0.78 f P 1I c bc 6493 c ab 8377 b 8.67 e 0.77 f P 1I d 102 cd 5941 d 50 bc 8533 b 9.33 de 0.70 i P 1I c de 6607 b a 6717 e 9 de 0.98 a P 2I b a 5463 e 48 c 7305 d a 0.75 g P 2I 2 98 c bc 5031 fg d 6325 f 13 c 0.79 e P 2I c 102 cd 5017 fg 42 e 5825 g c 0.84 d P 2I d 98 e 4978 g e 5335 h bc 0.93 c P 2I c cd 5075 f c 5357 h b 0.95 b Values within each column followed by same letter are not significantly different at Duncan (P 0.05) Water productivity (kg m 3 ) Discussions and Conclusions: Rice is the most sensitive grain to drought and needs the most amounts to produce, as one hectare cultivated rice field, consumes 8 million liters water to produce. In order to many varieties of environmental conditions and different rice varieties, there is not a standard method for irrigation. In rice fields, usually irrigation is done as continuous submerge irrigation, because it cause to reduce cost and to control weed better, but too consumption of water especially in its shortage time, are considered as difficulty of this method [21]. During years because of drought (little rainfall) and decreasing of water, it causes water consumption in rice production to decrease as obligatory and to threat rice production. So, it is necessary that water saving methods be considered and used for rice production. There are different irrigation for reduction of entrance water to rice field, such as saturating of farm's soil instead of layer with deep 3-5cm water [22], irrigation after some day disappearing of water from farm level and interval irrigation [23, 24]. The results show it is not necessary that rice plant in all stages of growth be continuous submerge, but it can be done rice cultivation by reducing of

5 water depth with changing of irrigation methods from submerge to non-submerge [24, 25, 26]. According a research about rice responses to water ratio changes, it revealed that when irrigation is delayed, total biomass decreased [27]. Researcher reported that plant height, panicle number, panicle length, weight of 100 grain, number of tillers, total dry matters and yield were decreased whit stress [28]. Results shown that 5 day interval irrigation is recommended for all varieties. Total rice production can be increased by using water saved in one location to irrigation new paddy field in another. If this is not done, a strategy of saving water at the field level potentially threatens total rice production at large [21]. Reports certified the effect of interval irrigation on decreasing water use and increasing water productivity without much yield loss for rice [7]. Since yield difference between interval irrigation and full irrigation was not statistically significant, it could be concluded that this methods did not put any water stress on rice, the same result was reported by [29]. Maximum leaf area is necessary for yield increasing, so irrigation discontinue at this time is reason to reduce in dry weight of shoots and then decrease in number of stem per panicle, therefore diminish flexibility in cell wall and osmotic potential. Deficiencies of water affect on cell expansion by change of physical and metabolic, to limited leaf area, to prevent light absorption and decrease in photosynthesis and grain yield [30]. REFERENCES [1] Bouman, B.A.M., A conceptual framework for the improvement of crop water productivity at different spatial scales. Agricultural Systems, 93: [2] IWMI, Water for food, Water for life. A comprehensive assessment of Water Management in Agriculture IWMI Earthscan publication. [3] Rosegrant, M.W., S.A. Cline, Global food security: challenges and policies. Science, 302: [4] Fageria, N.K., Yield physiology of rice. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 30: [5] Bouman, B.A.M., S. Peng, A.R. Castaneda, R.M. Visperas, Yield and water use of irrigated tropical aerobic rice systems. Agricultural Water Management, 74: [6] Pantuwan, G., S. Fukai, M. Coper, S. Rayatasereekul, J.C.O. Toole, Yield response of rice (Oriza sativa L.) genotypes to different types of drought under rainfed low lands part 1. Grain yield and yield components. Field Crops Research, 73: [7] Bouman, B.A.M., T.P. Tuong, Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated lowland rice. Agricultural Water Management, 49: [8] Belder, P., B.A.M. Bouman, R. Cabangon, L. Guoan, E.J.P. Quilang, Y. Li, J.H.J. Spiertz, T.P. Tuong, Effect of water saving irrigation on rice yield and water use in typical lowland conditions in Asia. Agricultural Water Management, 65: [9] Belder, P., B.A.M. Bouman, J.H.J. Spiertz, Exploring options for water saving in lowland rice using a modeling approach. Agricultural Systems, 92: [10] Zhang, H., S. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Yang, Z. Wang, 2008a. Post-anthesis moderate wetting drying improves both quality and quantity of rice yield. Agronomy Journal, 100: [11] Borell, A., A. Garside, S. Fukai, Improving efficiency of water use for irrigated rice in semi-arid tropical environment. Field Crops Research, 52: [12] Tabbal, D.F., B.A.M. Bouman, S.I. Bhuiyan, E.B. Sibayan, M.A. Sattar, On-farm strategies for reducing water input in irrigated rice: case studies in the Philippines. Agricultural Water Management, 56: [13] Bouman, B.A.M., S. Peng, A.R. Castaneda, R.M. Visperas, Yield and water use of irrigated tropical aerobic rice systems. Agricultural Water Management, 74: [14] Tao, H., H. Brueck, K. Dittert, C. Kreye, S. Lin, B. Sattelmacher, Growth and yield formation for rice (Oryza sativa L.) in the water-saving ground cover rice production system (GCRPS). Field Crops Research, 95: [15] Zhang, Z., S. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Zhang, 2008b. Yield, grain quality and water use efficiency of rice under non-flooded mulching cultivation. Field Crops Research, 108: [16] Bouman, B.A.M., L. Feng, T.P. Tuong, L. Lu, H. Wang, Y. Feng, Exploring options to grow rice using less water in nitrogen China using a modelling approach, II. Quantifying yield, water balance components, and water productivity. Agricultural Water Management, 88: [17] Soltani, A., E. Zeinali, S. Galeshi, N. Niari, Simulating G F D L predicted climate change impacts on rice cropping in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 3: [18] Inthapan, P., S. Fukai, Growth and yield of rice cultivars under sprinkler irrigation in south-eastern Queensland 2. Comparison with maize and grain sorghum under wet and dry conditions. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 28: [19] Tuner, N.C., Crop water deficits: decade of progress. Advances in Agronomy, 39: [20] Sadras, V.O., S.P. Milory, Soil-water thresholds for the responses of leaf expansion and gas exchange: A review. Field Crops Research, 47:

6 [21] Amiri, E., M. Khandan, H.R. Bozorgi, S.M. Sadeghi, M. Rezaei, Response of Rice Varieties to Water Limit Conditions in North Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal, 6(9): [22] Dong, B., D. Molden, R. Loeve, Y.H. Li, C.D. Chen, J.Z. Wang, Farm level practices and water productivity in Zhanghe Irrigation System. Paddy and Water Environment, 2: [23] Guerra, L.C., S.I. Bhuiyan, T.P. Tuong, R. Barker, Producing more rice with less water from irrigated systems. SWIM Paper 5, IWMI/IRRI, Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp: 24. [24] Islam, M.T., M.A. Salam, M. Kauser, Effect of soil water stress at different growth stages of rice on yield components and yield. Program Agriculture, 5(20): [25] Islam, M.T., Plant water relation studies in diverse rice cultivars under Bangladesh climatic conditions PhD Thesis, submitted to the Institute of Agronomy and University Agriculture Science, Vienna. [26] Rahman, M.T., M.T. Islam, M.O. Islam, Effect of water stress at different growth stages on yield and yield contributing characters of transplanted amen rice. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 5(2): [27] Tantawi, B.A., S.A. Ghanem, Water use efficiency in rice culture. Agricultural Research Centre, Giza (Egypt). CIHM-Optin Mediterranean s, 40: [28] Tuong, T.P., B.A.M. Bouman, M. Mortimer, More Rice, Less Water-Integrated Approaches for Increasing Water Productivity in Irrigated Rice-Based Systems in Asia. Plant Production Science, 8(3): [29] Belder, P., J.H.J. Spiertz, B.A.M. Bouman, G. Lu, T.P. Tuong, Nitrogen economy and water productivity of lowland rice under water-saving irrigation. Field Crops Research, 93: [30] Lu, Z., P.M. Neumann, Water- stressed maize, barley and rice seedling show species diversity in mechanisms of leaf growth inhibition. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49(329):