Effect of water management system on the performance of boro rice

Volume07-2019
Advances in Agricultural Science 07 (2019), 01: 60-73

Effect of water management system on the performance of boro rice

Farhana Prodhan 1*, Md. Sultan Uddin Bhuiya 1, Md. Romij Uddin 1, Uttam Kumer Sarker 1, Md. Shafiqul Islam 1

Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.

ABSTRACT

An experiment was conducted to determine the response of three rice varieties to different water management systems. The rice varieties V1 (Binadhan-8), V2 (Binadhan-10), and V3 (BRRI dhan28) were grown with maintaining four Alternate Flooding and Wetting (AFW) irrigation treatments i.e I1 (Continuous saturation), I2 (Alternate flooding and wetting at 6 days after disappearance of 4 cm water), I3 (Alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water), and I4 (Alternate flooding and wetting at 12 days after disappearance of 4 cm water). The treatments were arranged in a split-plot design (SPD) with three replications. Varieties and water management systems exerted the significant effect on the plant growth, yield, and yield contributing characters of rice. The highest grain yield (6.84 t ha-1) was obtained in V2 (Binadhan-10). In respect of water management systems, alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after the disappearance of 4 cm water (I3) produced maximum grain yield (6.92 t ha-1). It was also found that the rice grown at continuous saturation (I1) treatment did not increase the yield, rather caused the wastage of irrigation water. The highest (0.278 t ha-1 cm-1) water productivity was found in treatment I4 but not grain yield. In treatment I4, irrigation was applied only at critical stages of rice consequently, the minimum amount of water was used and decreased the yield. On the contrary, the highest yield (6.92 t ha-1) was observed in I3 treatment because of the optimum use of water and non-stress condition.

KeywordsBinadhan-8Binadhan-10BRRI dhan28Water management systemsYield


How to Cite: Prodhan, F., Bhuiya, M. S. U., Romij Uddin, M., Sarker, U. K., & Shafiqul Islam, M. (2018). Effect of water management system on the performance of boro rice. Advances in Agricultural Science7(1), 60-73.   

Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the vital food for more than two billion people in Asia and four hundred millions of people in Africa and Latin America (IRRI, 2010a). In Bangladesh, there are three distinct classes of rice, based on the seasons of cultivation namely, aus (Mid-March to Mid-June), aman (Mid-July to Mid-November) and boro (November-April); and rice covers 80% of the total cultivable area of the country. The annual production of boro rice covers a large area of about 4.77 million hectares with a production of 18.93 million metric tons of rice (BBS, 2016). The average yield of rice in Bangladesh is 3.05 t ha-1 (BBS, 2016), which is very lower than the highest ranking country of China is 6.86 t ha-1 (IRRI, 2017b). Among the many factors, irrigation is one of the most critical factors for rice production in Bangladesh. About 96% of the total rainfall occurs during the month of April to October and the rest of the times remains almost dry (Mirza et al., 1998). The rice crop cannot be sustained during this period from rainfall alone. During November to April the boro rice is completely rely on irrigation due to insufficient of rain water. Therefore, the expanding demand for food grains in the country will most likely be met from an expansion of irrigated area with available water resources. In according to farmers’ demands of saving water, energy and fuel in irrigated rice, Alternate Wetting and Drying technology (AWD) has been developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Bangladesh in 2004 (Palis et al., 2016). The AWD technology farmers can apply in low land rice to minimize excesses water in crop fields. By this technology, irrigation is applied to the field for a certain number of days after the disappearance of stagnant water in a measuring hole of the crop field. In alternate wetting and drying technology, the interval of irrigations can vary from 1 day to > 10 days of non-flooded soil. The threshold level (15 cm water depth below the surface) before applying irrigation water is termed as ‘Safe AWD’ which may not hamper the crop yield. In ‘Safe AWD’, water savings are in approximately15-30%. After getting the confidence about ‘Safe AWD’ does not decrease yield, farmers may experiment by lowering the threshold level for irrigation to 20, 25, 30 cm depth, or even > 30 cm (Singh et al., 2013). According to the Srinivasulu et al. (2018), the continuous submergence of 3 cm up to panicle initiation stage and then 5cm up to maturity and 200 kg N ha-1 was found to be the best for higher yield (6562 kg/ha) and water productivity. Although lowering the threshold level for irrigation, the water savings will be increased simultaneously, some yield penalty may also occur. Such a yield penalty may be acceptable when the price of water is high or when water is very scarce (IRRI, 2010a). Hu Pengjie et al. (2013), determined the four water management regimes comprising aerobic, intermittent, conventional practice and flooded and concluded that the conventional irrigation method (flooding maintained until full tillering followed by intermittent irrigation) ensured high yield as compared to other practices. According to the Fontech et al. (2013), the highest grain yield was in intermittent irrigation produces yields which are not significantly different from continuous flooding irrigation but with a water use efficiency of up to 100% higher over the continuous flooding. Considering the efficient water use productivity, the present study was undertaken to identify the suitable variety of boro rice based on their water use efficiency.

 

Materials and Methods

Experimental site and design

The field experiment was conducted at the Agronomy Crop Research Field, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh during 2015-2016. The experimental plots were laid out with split plot design (SPD) having four irrigation treatments and three varieties. According to the split plot design (Ismaila et al., 2015 and Hossain et al., 2017), water management systems were assigned in the main plot and the varieties were assigned in the sub-plot (Ismaila et al., 2014).  Four treatments of alternate flooding and wetting irrigation were used in the experiment and each replicated three times. Thus total number of plots were 36. The unit plot was 4 m × 2.5 m in size.

 

Treatments

Factor A: Variety (3). V1– Binadhan-8, V2– Binadhan-10, and V3-BRRI dhan28.

 

Selection of variety

The selection of rice variety was a critical choice to be made. A critical choice takes into account the popularity of some location specific varieties and high yield potential. The characteristics of modern varieties are present below:

Binadhan-8: It is a salt tolerant high yielding variety developed by Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture (BINA). Its average growth duration is 130 days. Moderately resistant to bacterial leaf blight, sheath blight, brown plant hopper, stem borer and rice hispa. Average yield is 4.5-5.5 t ha-1 under salt stress and in non-saline area average yield is 7.5-8.5 t ha-1.

Binadhan-10: Average growth duration is 135 days. It has deep green and erect flag leaves, trunks and stems are strong, sturdy and remain erect even in stormy weather and no shattering. Average yield is 7-8 t ha-1 in non-saline condition.

BRRI dhan28: BRRI dhan28, a modern high yielding variety of boro rice was developed by Bangladesh Rice Research Institute. The variety BRRI dhan28 matures in 133 to 136 days. It attains a height of 95-100 cm at maturity. The ripen grain is of golden color but rice is white, fine and palatable. Average yield is 6.5 t ha-1.

Factor B: Water management system (4). I1– Continuous saturation, I2– Alternate flooding and wetting at 6 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I3– Alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I4– Alternate flooding and wetting at 12 days after disappearance of 4 cm water.

 

Transplanting of seedlings

Seedlings were transplanted in the well prepared puddle field on 23 January 2016 @ three seedlings hill-1 maintaining row and hill distance of 25 cm and 15 cm, respectively. All of the intercultural operation was done whenever it was necessary.

 

Application of irrigation treatment

After the establishment of the crop (about 3 weeks after transplantation), irrigation was given to 4 cm standing water and then water stress (after disappearance of 4 cm standing water) was imposed in treatments I2, I3, and I4. The irrigation was continued up to 15 days before the harvest of the crop.

 

Data recording

Data were collected at 25, 50 and 75 Days after transplanting (DAT), respectively in growth stages and up to harvesting.

Plant height (cm): Plant height was measured from the base of the plant (ground level) to the tip of the longest panicle.

Number of total tillers hill-1: Tillers which had at least one visible leaf were counted including both panicle bearing and non-bearing tillers.

Number of effective tillers hill-1: The tillers which had at least one visible grain in the panicle were considered as effective tiller.

Number of non-effective tillers hill-1: The tillers without panicles were counted and considered as non-effective tillers hill-1.

Panicle length (cm): Measurement was taken from basal node of the rachis to the apex of last grains of each panicle.

Number of grains panicle-1: Presence of food material in the spikelet was considered as grain and such spikelet present on each panicle was counted.

Number of sterile spikelet panicle-1: The spikelet that lacked any food material inside was considered as sterile spikelet and such spikelet present on each panicle was counted.

1000-grain weight (g): One thousand clean dried grains were counted from the seed stock obtained from five sample hills of each plot and weighed by using an electric balance. The weight was adjusted at a seed moisture content of 14%.

Grain yield (t ha-1): Grains obtained from each unit plot were threshed, properly sun dried and cleaned. Samples were taken from each plot and determined the percent moisture level and finally it was also adjusted to 14%. Then, the weight was converted to t ha-1.

Straw yield (t ha-1): Straw obtained from each unit plot was dried in the sun and weighed to record the straw yield plot-1 and finally converted to t ha-1.

Biological yield (t ha-1): Biological yield was obtained from the grand total of Grain yield and straw yield.

Harvest index (%): Harvest index was calculated on the basis of adjusted grain and straw yields. It was computed using the following formula:

 

Estimation of irrigation water and water use efficiency/water productivity

Amount of applied irrigated water was recorded from seedling establishment and continued up to 15 days before harvesting. Water use efficiency (WUE) of rice was calculated by dividing the total yield with the total amount of water required during entire crop growing period by following formula:

 

Where, Y = grain yield (t ha-1), WR = total amount of water used (cm)

 

Statistical Analysis

All the data were recorded on different parameters and tabulated in proper form for the statistical analysis. Analysis of variance was done following of MSTAT-C program and the mean differences were adjusted by the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).

 

Results and Discussion

Plant height

Effect of variety

The plant height varied significantly among the varieties. The tallest plants (99.61 cm) was observed in V2 (Binadhan-10) and the shortest plant (93.11 cm) was observed in V3 (BRRI dhan28); (Table 1). Plant height is a varietal character and it is the genetic constitution of the cultivar, therefore plant height was different among the three varieties. The results are consistent with the findings of Bisne et al. (2006) who observed that, the plant height differed significantly among the varieties.

 

Effect of water management system

The water management system was statistically significant in respect of plant height. The tallest plants (99.57 cm) was observed in I3 treatment and the shortest plant (93.47 cm) was observed in I1 treatment (Table 2). Thus, it is clear that the maximum plant height was found in alternate flooding and wetting but not in continuous saturation. This is dissimilar to the results of Naphade and Ghildyal (1974) and Cruj et al. (1975) who reported that continuous flooding increased plant height significantly than that of other treatments.

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management system

The effect of interaction between variety and water management system was not significant for plant height (Table 3). Numerically, the tallest plant (105.73 cm) was obtained from V2 (Binadhan-10) in I3 treatment and V3 (BRRI dhan28) produced the shortest plant (90.20 cm) in I1 treatment.

 

Total tillers hill-1

Effect of variety, water management system and their interaction 

The number of total tillers hill-1 was significantly affected by the variety. The highest number of total tillers hill-1 (15.78) was obtained from V2

Figure 1. Effect of variety on grain yield of boro rice; V1 = Binadhan-8, V2 = Binadhan-10, V3 = BRRI dhan28.

Figure 1. Effect of variety on grain yield of boro rice; V1 = Binadhan-8, V2 = Binadhan-10, V3 = BRRI dhan28.

 

 

Figure 2. Effect of water management system on grain yield of boro rice; I1 = Continuous saturation, I2 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 6 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I3 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I4 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 12 days after disappearance of 4 cm water.

Figure 2. Effect of water management system on grain yield of boro rice; I1 = Continuous saturation, I2 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 6 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I3 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I4 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 12 days after disappearance of 4 cm water.

 

(Binadhan-10) and the lowest number of total tillers hill-1 (13.41) was found in V3 (BRRI dhan28) variety (Table 1). Nuruzzaman et al. (2000) noticed that the number of total tillers hill-1 differed among the varieties. The variation in number of total tillers hill-1 as assessed might be due to varietal characters. The

 

Table 1. Effect of variety on yield and yield contributing characters of boro rice

Variety Plant height (cm) No. of total tillers hill-1 No. of effective tillers hill-1 No. of non-effective tillers hill-1 Panicle length (cm) No. of grains panicle-1 No. of sterile spikelets panicle-1 1000 grain wt. (g) Grain yield        (t ha-1) Straw yield

(t ha-1)

Biological yield
(t ha-1)
Harvest index
(%)
V1 96.81 ab 13.98 b 12.25 b 1.73 b 23.45 b 104.30 a 10.71 b 28.35 a 6.72 ab 7.62 b 14.35 b 46.89 a
V2 99.61 a 15.78 a 13.63 a 2.16 a 24.16 a 107.30 a 10.32 b 28.73 a 6.84 a 8.12 a 14.96 a 45.76 b
V3 93.11 b 13.41 c 11.46 c 1.95 ab 23.12 b 99.25 b 11.91 a 23.64 b 6.61 b 7.45 c 14.06 b 47.03 a
S 0.947 0.109 0.122 0.063 0.174 0.902 0.251 0.217 0.043 0.015 0.142 0.255
Level of Sig. * ** ** * * ** * ** * ** * *
CV (%) 3.69 2.54 2.57 9.33 2.95 3.10 7.97 3.19 2.23 1.49 3.73 1.57

** = Significant at 1% level of probability, * =Significant at 5% level of probability. V1 =Binadhan-8, V2 = Binadhan-10, V3 = BRRI dhan28

 

Table 2. Effect of water management on yield and yield contributing characters of boro rice

Water management Plant height (cm) No. of total tillers hill-1 No. of effective tillers hill-1 No. of non-effective tillers hill-1 Panicle length (cm) No. of grains panicle-1 No. of sterile spikelet panicle-1 1000 grain wt. (g) Grain yield        (t ha-1) Straw yield

(t ha-1)

Biological yield
(t ha-1)
Harvest index
(%)
I1 93.47 b 13.33 d 11.49 c 1.84 23.00 b 98.06 c 13.00 a 26.61 6.49 c 7.33 d 13.82 c 46.98 a
I 2 97.12 ab 14.66 b 12.62 b 2.03 23.77 a 103.4 b 10.19 bc 27.08 6.82 a 7.86 b 14.68 ab 46.50 ab
I 3 99.57 a 15.29 a 13.29 a 2.00 24.07 a 111.2 a 9.836 c 27.17 6.92 a 8.15 a 15.08 a 45.96 b
I 4 95.88 ab 14.29 c 12.37 b 1.91 23.46 ab 101.8 b 10.91 b 26.78 6.66 b 7.58 c 14.24 bc 46.79 a
S 1.18 0.121 0.107 0.060 0.232 1.07 0.291 0.286 0.049 0.038 0.179 0.243
Level of Sig. ** ** ** NS * ** ** NS ** ** ** *
CV (%) 3.69 2.54 2.57 9.33 2.95 3.10 7.97 3.19 2.23 1.49 3.73 1.57

I1 = Continuous saturation,  I2 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 6 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I3 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I4 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 12 days after disappearance of 4 cm water.

** =Significant at 1% level of probability, NS = Not significant.

 

effect of water management system was also found on number of total tillers hill-1. The highest number of total tillers hill-1 (15.29) was obtained from I3 treatment and the lowest number of total tillers hill-1 (13.33) was obtained from I1 treatment (Table 2). This is dissimilar to the results of Jha et al. (2007) who reported that continuous flooding increased significantly total tillers hill-1 than that of other treatments. Total tillers hill-1 of boro rice varieties was significantly influenced by the interaction of variety and water management system. The highest number of total tillers hill-1 (16.20) exhibited in V2I3 and the lowest number of total tillers hill-1 (12.13) was found in V3I1 (Table 3).

 

No. of effective tillers hill-1

Effect of variety, water management system and their interaction

The highest number of effective tillers was (13.63) found in V2 (Binadhan-10) and the lowest was (11.46) in V3 (BRRI dhan28) variety (Table 1). The response of difference in producing effective tillers hill-1 might be due to the variation in genetic makeup of the variety. Similarly, significant variation among the rice varieties regarding tillers hill-1 were also found by Panwar et al. (2012) in JGL–3844; Islam et al. (2007) in MR–219. On the contrary, the highest number of effective tillers hill-1 was (13.29) found in I3 treatment and the lowest was (11.49) in I1 treatment (Table 2). Effective tillers hill-1 of boro rice was significantly influenced by the interaction of variety and water management system. The highest number of effective tillers hill-1 (14.23) exhibited in V2I3 and the lowest number of effective tillers hill-1 (10.68) was found in V3I1 combination (Table 3).

 

Non-effective tillers hill-1

Effect of variety, water management system and their interaction

The highest number of non-effective tillers hill-1 was (2.16) found in V2 (Binadhan-10) and the lowest was (1.95) in V3 (BRII dhan28) variety (Table 1). The probable reason of the differences in producing the non-effective tillers hill-1 is the genetic make-up of the variety which is primarily influenced by heredity. Devarajau et al. (1998) and Rahman (2006) also reported that number of non-effective tillers hill-1 was significantly influenced by varieties. On the other hand, the highest number of non-effective tillers hill-1 was (2.03) found in I2 treatment and the lowest was (1.84) in I1 treatment (Table 2). The interaction effect of variety and water management system was found on non-effective tillers hill-1 of boro rice. The highest number of non-effective tillers hill-1 (2.37) exhibited in V3I2 and the lowest number of non-effective tillers hill-1 (1.33) was found in V3I3 combination (Table 3).

 

Panicle length

Effect of variety

The effect of rice variety on panicle length was statistically significant. The highest panicle length (24.16 cm) was obtained from variety V2 (Binadhan-10) and the lowest (23.12 cm) from variety V3 (BRRI dhan28); (Table 1). This result is in agreement with the findings Ali et al. (2014); Shiyam et al. (2014); Sarker et al. (2013); Baset Mia and Shamsuddin (2011); Jeng et al. (2009). They also found variation in panicle length due to the variation in the genetic makeup of the varieties of rice.

 

Effect of water management system

The effect of water management system on panicle length was statistically insignificant. The highest panicle length (24.07 cm) was obtained from I3 treatment and the lowest panicle length (23.00 cm) was obtained from I1 treatment (Table 2).

 

Figure 3. Effect of variety on straw yield of boro rice; V1 = Binadhan-8, V2 = Binadhan-10, V3 = BRRI dhan28

Figure 3. Effect of variety on straw yield of boro rice; V1 = Binadhan-8, V2 = Binadhan-10, V3 = BRRI dhan28

 

 

Figure 4. Effect of water management system on straw yield of boro rice; I1 = Continuous saturation, I2 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 6 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I3 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water. I4 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 12 days after disappearance of 4 cm water.

Figure 4. Effect of water management system on straw yield of boro rice; I1 = Continuous saturation, I2 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 6 days after disappearance of 4 cm water, I3 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water. I4 = Alternate flooding and wetting at 12 days after disappearance of 4 cm water.

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management system

The interaction effect on the length of panicle was not statistically significant. The highest panicle length was found (25.11 cm) for the interaction of V2I3 and the lowest panicle length was (22.79 cm) for the interaction effect of V3I1 combination (Table 3).

Number of grains panicle-1

Effect of variety

Number of grains panicle-1 is a yield contributing character and in this experiment it was found that grains panicle-1 was significantly influenced by variety. The highest number of grains panicle-1 (107.30) was obtained from variety V2 (Binadhan-10) and the lowest (99.25) from variety V3 (BRRI dhan28); (Table 1). Singh and Gangwer (1989) also found variable number of grains panicle-1 among varieties. Varietal differences regarding the number of grains panicle-1 might be due to their differences in genetic constitution.

 

Effect of water management system

Number of grains panicle-1 is a yield contributing character and in this experiment, it was found that grains panicle-1 were significantly influenced by water management system. The highest number of grains panicle-1 (111.2) was obtained from I3 treatment.  The lowest (98.06) was obtained from I1 (continuous saturation) treatment (Table 2). Parvez (2015) reported that, the number of grains panicle-1 differed significantly due to water management.

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management system

The interaction effect on the number of grains panicle-1 was statistically significant. The highest grains panicle-1 was found (118.4) for the interaction of V2I3 and the lowest grains panicle-1 was (96.00) for the interaction effect of V3I1 combination (Table 3).

 

1000-grain weight

Effect of variety

Thousand grain weight was significantly influenced by the variety level. The highest 1000-grain weight (28.73 g) was obtained from V2 (Binadhan-10) while the lowest (23.64 g) was obtained from V3 (BRRI dhan28) variety (Table 1).

 

Effect of water management system

Thousand grain weight was insignificant due to water management treatment. The highest 1000- grain weight (27.17 g) was found in treatment I3 and the lowest (26.61 g) in treatment I1 (Table 2). Thus, it is clear that the maximum 1000-grain weight was found in alternate flooding and wetting but not in continuous flooding.

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management

The interaction effect of irrigations and varieties was insignificant. The highest 1000-grain weight (29.17 g) was observed for the interaction of V2I3 and the lowest was (23.57 g) for the interaction effect of V3I1 combination (Table 3).

 

Grain yield

Effect of variety

A significant variation was found in respect of grain yield due to the different varieties. The highest grain yield (6.84 t ha-1) was obtained in the variety Binadhan-10 which was followed by Binadhan-8 (6.72 t ha-1) and BRRI dhan28 (6.61 tha-1); (Table 1 and Fig. 1). The reason for varietal differences was associated with genetic makeup and the effective grains panicle-1 of the varieties tested. Similar results were achieved by Kusutani et al. (2000) and Dutta et al. (2002) who reported that genotypes producing higher number of effective tillers produced more grain yields in rice varieties.

 

Effect of water management system

The effect of water management on grain yield was also significant. The highest grain yield (6.92 t ha-1)

Table 3. Combined effect of variety and water management on yield and yield contributing characters of boro rice

Variety x water management Plant height (cm) No. of total tillers hill-1 No. of effective tillers hill-1 No. of non-effective tillers hill-1 Panicle length (cm) No. of grains panicle-1 No. of sterile spikelets panicle-1 1000 grain wt. (g) Grain yield        (t ha-1) Straw yield

(t ha-1)

Biological yield
(t ha-1)
Harvest index
(%)
V1I1 94.97 13.00 c 10.80 gh 2.20 ab 22.93 98.64 de 12.33 28.10 6.50 7.34 e 13.84 46.95
V1I2 98.33 14.40 b 12.67 de 1.73 cd 23.72 104.3 b-d 10.04 28.47 6.83 7.71 cd 14.54 46.99
V1I3 98.50 15.00 b 13.33 bc 1.67 cd 23.73 113.4 a 9.76 28.63 6.91 7.91 c 14.82 46.62
V1I4 95.43 13.53 c 12.20 e 1.33 e 23.43 100.7 b-e 10.72 28.20 6.67 7.52 de 14.19 47.02
V2I1 95.23 14.87 b 13.00 cd 1.87 bc 23.27 99.55 c-e 11.64 28.17 6.65 7.62 d 14.26 46.62
V2I2 99.10 16.07 a 13.67 b 2.40 a 24.37 105.8 b 9.83 29.07 6.93 8.30 b 15.23 45.50
V2I3 105.7 16.20 a 14.23 a 1.97 bc 25.11 118.4 a 9.19 29.17 7.00 8.67 a 15.67 44.67
V2I4 98.37 16.00 a 13.60 b 2.40 a 23.89 105.3 bc 10.64 28.53 6.79 7.89 c 14.69 46.23
V3I1 90.20 12.13 d 10.68 h 1.45 de 22.79 96.00 e 15.03 23.57 6.33 7.03 f 13.36 47.37
V3I2 93.94 13.50 c 11.53 f 1.97 bc 23.23 99.93 b-e 10.69 23.70 6.71 7.57 d 14.28 47.00
V3I3 94.48 14.67 b 12.30 e 2.37 a 23.38 101.8 b-e 10.56 23.70 6.87 7.87 c 14.74 46.61
V3I4 93.83 13.33 c 11.32 fg 2.01 bc 23.07 99.25 c-e 11.36 23.60 6.53 7.33 e 13.86 47.13
S 2.05 0.210 0.185 0.105 0.402 1.85 0.505 0.495 0.086 0.065 0.311 0.421
Level of Sig. NS * * ** NS * NS NS NS * NS NS
CV (%) 3.69 2.54 2.57 9.33 2.95 3.10 7.97 3.19 2.23 1.49 3.73 1.57

** =Significant at 1% level of probability, * =Significant at 5% level of probability, NS = Not significant.

 

 

Table 4. Water use and water productivity under water management systems

Irrigation method No. of irrigations Frequency of water applications (DAT) Water use for crop establishment (cm) Irrigation water applied (cm) Total water use (cm) Grain yield
(t ha-1)
Water productivity (t ha-1 cm-1)
I1 Continuous saturation Every alternate day 4 118 122 6.49 0.053
I2 10 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 78, 84 4 40 44 6.82 0.155
I3 7 30, 39, 48, 57, 66, 75, 84 4 28 32 6.92 0.216
I4 5 30, 42, 54, 66, 78 4 20 24 6.66 0.278

 

was obtained from I3 (alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water) and statistically similar grain yield (6.82 t ha-1) was obtained from I2 treatment. The lowest yield (6.49 t ha-1) was obtained from I1 treatment (Table 2 and Figure 2). From this results, the grain yield was increased from saturation until alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water (I3) and then decreased. The results indicate of the optimization of irrigation (methods and frequency), while irrigation methods and frequency increase the grain yield until certain limit, after that it will give the adverse effect on grain yield (English and Nakamura, 1989; Pramanik, 2014; Parvez, 2015).

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management system

The interaction effect between irrigations and varieties was insignificant. However, apparently the highest grain yield (7.00 t ha-1) was observed for the interaction of V2I3 and the lowest was (6.33 t ha-1) for the interaction effect of V3I1 combination (Table 3).

 

Straw yield

Effect of variety

The highest straw yield (8.12 t ha-1) was obtained from variety V2 (Binadhan-10) while the lowest (7.45 t ha-1) was obtained from V3 (BRRI dhan28); (Table 1 and Figure 3). The variety which had the highest number of tillers and greatest plant height would produce higher straw yield. From the study it was found that V2 (Binadhan-10) gave greatest plant height and good number of tillers as compared toV1 and V3. So, it is clear that the straw yield was higher of the variety. Panwar et al. (2012); Baset Mia and Shamsuddin (2011); Masum et al. (2008); Awal et al. (2007) also found significant variation in straw yield due to the variation in the genetic makeup of their studied genotypes.

 

Effect of water management system

The highest straw yield (8.15 t ha-1) was obtained from I3 treatment and the lowest (7.33 t ha-1) from I1 treatment (Table 2 and Figure 4). Since the straw yield is the function of plant height and number of effective tillers, thus, the treatments which had the highest number of tillers and greatest plant height would produce higher straw yield. It was found from the study that treatments I3 significantly gave the greatest plant height and good number of tillers as compared to treatments I1, I2, and I4. So, the straw yield may be higher in case of that treatment.

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management system

The interaction effect of irrigations and varieties was significant. The highest straw yield (8.67 t ha-1) was observed for the interaction of V2I3 and the lowest was (7.03 t ha-1) for the interaction effect of V3I1 combination (Table 3).

 

Biological yield

Effect of variety

The effect of rice variety on biological yield was also statistically significant. The highest biological yield (14.96 t ha-1) was obtained from variety V2 (Binadhan-10) while the lowest (14.06 t ha-1) was obtained from V3 (BRRI dhan28); (Table 1). The results consisted with those of Islam et al. (2013) who recorded variable biological yields among the varieties.

 

Effect of water management system

The effect of rice variety on biological yield was significant in respect to water management system. The highest biological yield (15.08 t ha-1) was obtained from treatment I3. The lowest (13.82 t ha-1) was obtained from I1 treatment (Table 2).

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management system

The interaction effect of irrigations and varieties were insignificant. The highest biological yield (15.67 t ha-1) was observed for the interaction of V2I3 and the lowest was (13.36 t ha-1) for the interaction effect of V3I1 combination (Table 3).

 

Harvest index

Effect of variety

 The effect of rice variety on harvest index was statistically significant. The highest harvest index (47.03%) was obtained from variety V3 (BRRI dhan28) while the lowest (45.76%) was obtained from V2 (Binadhan-10); (Table 1). Variety has significant influence on harvest index which was reported by Tyeb et al. (2013).

 

Effect of water management system

The effect of rice variety on harvest index was also significant due to water management system. The highest harvest index (46.98%) was obtained from I1 treatment and the lowest (45.96%) was obtained from I3 treatment (Table 2).

 

Effect of interaction between variety and water management system

The interaction effect between irrigation treatment and variety was insignificant. The highest harvest index (47.13%) was observed for the interaction of V3I4 and the lowest was (44.67%) for the interaction effect of V2I3 combination (Table 3).

 

Water Use and Water Productivity

Water use and water productivity under different irrigation treatments are shown in Table 4. The number of irrigations applied in treatments I2 was 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, 50, 66, 72, 78 and 84 DAT, respectively; I3 was 30, 39, 48, 57, 66, 75 and 84 DAT respectively; I4 was 30, 42, 54, 66, 78 DAT, respectively and I1 was continuous saturation. It can be seen that irrigation water applied was maximum for treatment I1 (118 cm) and minimum for treatment I4 (20 cm), respectively. Among the treatments in which irrigation water applied, water productivity was the highest (0.278 t ha-1 cm-1) in treatment I4 due to minimum water use and was found to be minimum (0.053 t ha-1 cm-1) in treatment I1 due to maximum use of water. From these results, it can be found that the water productivity decreased with the increase of irrigation water. Similar results were also reported by Islam and Mondal (1992).

 

Conclusion

This study has shown that certain water management practices can concurrently achieve the dual goals of increasing grain production and reducing the water requirements for irrigated rice. The water productivity was (0.216 t ha-1 cm-1) when alternate flooding and wetting at 9 days after disappearance of 4 cm water (I3 treatment) was applied and in that case, yield was maximum due to judicious use of water. The interaction effect of variety V2 (Binadhan-10) and Irrigation treatment I3 was found to be the best possible combination for achieving higher grain yield per unit area of land.

 

Acknowledgements

The authors impressively acknowledge the financial grant from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh for completing this research work.

 

References

Ali A, Khalifa A, Elkhoby W, Okasha EM. 2014. Effect of sowing dates and seed rates on some rice varieties. Afr J Agric Res 9: 196-201.

Awal MA, Habib AKMA, Hossain MA. 2007. A study on comparative effects of hybrid and conventional rice varieties in aman season. J Agric Rural Dev 5: 13-16.

Baset Mia MA, Shamsuddin ZH. 2011. Physio–morphological appraisal of aromatic fine rice (Oryza sativa L.) in relation to yield potential. Intl J Bot 7: 223-229.

BBS. 2016. Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Statistics Division, Bangladesh: Ministry of Planning, Dhaka.

Bisne R, Motiramani NK, Sarawgi AK. 2006. Identification of high yielding hybrids in rice. Bangladesh J Agril Res 31: 171-174.

Cruj JC, Brandao SS, Guidice RM, Ferreirs PA, Loureiro BT. 1975. Effect of different soil moisture tension at two stages of plant development in relation to growth and yield of rice (Oryza Sativa L). Expt Stat, Andra Pradesh, India 19: 187-209.

Devaraju KM, Gowda H, Raju BM. 1998. Nitrogen response of Karnataka Rice Hybrid 2. Intl. Rice Res. Notes. 23: 43.

Dutta RK, Baset Mia MA, Khanam S. 2002. Plant architecture and growth characteristics of fine grain and aromatic rice and their relation with grain yield. IRC Newsletter. 51: 51-56.

English M, Nakamura B. 1989. Effect of deficit irrigation and irrigation frequency on rice yields. J Irri Draing Eng 115: 1772-184.

Fontech MF, Tabi FO, Wariba AM, Zie J. 2013. Effective water management practices in irrigated rice to ensure food security and mitigate climate change in a tropical climate. Agril & Biol J  North America 4: 284-290.

Gomez KA, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. NY, USA: John wiley and sons.

Hossain MM, Imran S, Akter L, Islam, MA, Islam N. 2017. Effect of water management practice and spacing on the yield performance of SRI method of rice cultivation. International J Plant & Soil Sci 19: 1-11.

Hu Pengjie, Li Zhu Yuan, Cheng, Christie P. 2013. Effect of water management on cadmium and arsenic accumulation by rice (Oryza sativa L.) with different metal accumulation capacities. J Soils & Sediments 13: 916-924.

IRRI (2010a and 2017b). Rice yield by country and geographical region. IRRI, Philippines: World Rice Statistic. Los Banos.

Islam MJ, Mondal MK. 1992. Water management strategy for increasing monsoon rice production in Bangladesh. Agril Water Mgt 22: 335-343.

Islam MS, Sarkar MAR, Salam MA. 2013. Screening of different aromatic and non-aromatic fine rice varieties in Aman season in terms of yield. Bangladesh J Nuclear Agric 29: 59-66.

Islam MZ, Baset Mia MA, Islam MR, Akter A. 2007. Effect of different saline levels on growth and yield attributes of mutant rice. J Soil Nature 1: 18-22.

Ismaila U, Kolo MGM, Odofin JA, Gana AS. 2014. Influence of water depth and seedling rate on the performance of late season lowland rice (Oryza sativa L) in a Southern Guinea Savanna ecology of Nigeria. J Rice Res 2: 122-128.

Ismaila U, Kolo MGM, Odofin AJ, Gana AS. 2015. Effects of water depth and seedling rate on weed control and yield of late season lowland rice (Oryza sativa L). J Plant Studies 4: 92-104.

Jeng TL, Tseng TH, Wang CS, Chen CL, Sung JM. 2009. Yield and grain uniformity in contrasting rice genotypes suitable for different growth environments. Field Crops Res 99: 59-66.

Jha SK, Hossain MK, Talukder MSU. 2007. Response of transplanted Boro rice under different irrigation practices. Bangladesh J Agril Univ 5: 393-398.

Kusutani A, Tovata M, Asanuma K, Cui J. 2000. Studies on the varietal differences of harvest index and morphological characteristics of Rice. Japanese J Crop Sci 69:359-364.

Masum SM, Ali MH, Ullah MJ. 2008. Growth and yield of two aman rice varieties as affected by seedling number hill–1 and urea super granules. J Agric Educ Technol 11: 51–58.

Mirza MQ, Warrick RA, Ericksen NJ, Kenny GJ. 1998. Trends and persistence in precipitation in the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna river basins. Hydrolog Sci J 43:845-858.

Naphade JD, Ghildyal BP. 1974. Influence of water regimes and starch on the growth and nutrient absorption by rice. Indian J Agric Sci 41: 963-966.

Nuruzzaman M, Yamamoto Y, Nitta Y, Yoshida Y, Miyazaki A. 2000. Varietal differences in tillering ability of fourteen Japonica and Indica rice varieties. Soil Sci Plant Nutri 46: 381-391.

Palis FG, Lampayan RM, Bouman BAM. 2016. Adoption and dissemination of alternate wetting and drying technology for boro rice cultivation in Bangladesh. In: ADB Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report Regional: Development and Dissemination of Climate- Resilient Rice Varieties for Water-Short Areas of South Asia and Southeast Asia. Prepared by IRRI for ADB. Project Number: 47163-001, June 2016. ADB, Manila.

Panwar CS, Vishwakarma SK, Verma N. 2012. Comparative effect of different rice varieties in relation to growth and yield. Bioinfolet 9: 631-632.

Parvez. 2015. Effect of methods of water management and variety on the performance of transplant aman rice. MS thesis, Department of Agronomy, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.

Pramanik TK. 2014. Performance of boro rice cv. BRRI dhan29 as influenced by method of water management and weeding. MS thesis, Department of Agronomy, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.

Rahman MM. 2006. Effect of cultivar, depth of transplanting and depth of placement of urea super granules on growth and yield of boro rice. MS thesis, Department of Agronomy, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.

Sarker BC, Zahan M, Majumder UK, Islam MA, Roy B. 2013. Growth and yield potential of some local and high yielding boro rice varieties. J Agrofor Environ 7: 107-110.

Shiyam JO, Binan WB, Ittah MA. 2014. Evaluation of growth and yield attributes of some lowland Chinese hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties in the Coastal Humid Forest Zone of Nigeria. J Agric Vet Sci 7: 70-73.

Singh S, Gangwer B. 1989. Comparative studies on production potentials in traditional tall and improved rice cultivars. J Andaman Sci Assoc 5: 81-82.

Singh S, Shukla UN, Khan IM, Sharma A, Pawar K, Srivastawa D, Sisodia V, Singh LB, Jerman M, Singh S. 2013. Technologies for Water-saving Irrigation in Rice. Int. J Agri and food Sci Tech 4:531-536.

Srinivasulu P, Ramulu V, Uma Devi M, Sreenivas G. 2018. Influence of irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels on growth, yield and water productivity of rice under alternate wetting and drying (AWD) method of water management. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 7: 3307-3311.

Tyeb A, Paul SK, Samad MA. 2013. Performance of variety and spacing on the yield and yield contributing characters of transplant Aman rice. J Agrofor Environ 7: 57-60.

Menu