Abstract
Alternate wettting and drying (AWD) systems save water compared with continuoussubmergence (CS) irrigation. However, the reported effect on yield varies widely and detailedcharacterizations of the hydrological conditions of AWD experiments are often lacking so thatgeneralizations are difficult to make. We compared the effects of AWD and CS on crop andwater productivity in rice in the field experimentations in India. The experiment was conductedin irrigated lowlands and followed AWD practices by using field water tube. Crop and waterproductivity was significantly differed between AWD and CS of irrigation. The average grainyield was 5.8–7.4 t ha-1 with AWD irrigation methods and 7.5–7.6 t ha-1 with CS. The pooledvalues of irrigation water applied, effective rainfall and seasonal volume of water input variedfrom 1390, 216 and 1646 mm, respectively under CS and 708 to 1142 mm, 238 to 300 mm and1048 to 1420 mm, respectively under AWD irrigation regimes. Irrigation water applied in AWDirrigation regimes amounted to 50.9 to 82.1% of CS (1390 mm), averaged over two seasons, thecrop in different AWD irrigation regimes used water 63.6 to 86.2% of the CS (1646 mm)suggesting that the AWD practice enabled water saving of 13.8 to 36.4% in different treatments.Therefore, in view of considerable water saving (26.6 to 35.0%) and higher water productivitythe AWD method of water management is the best practice to meet the cope of water scarcity inlowland rice production.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.