Document Type: Research Paper
Agronomy Division, Central Coffee Research Institute, Chikmagaluru 577117, Karnataka, India
Department of Agronomy, Professor Jaysankar Telangana State Agriculture University, Hyderabad 500030, India.
Department of Agronomy, Professor Jaysankar Telangana State Agriculture University, Hyderabad 500030, India
Alternate wettting and drying (AWD) systems save water compared with continuous
submergence (CS) irrigation. However, the reported effect on yield varies widely and detailed
characterizations of the hydrological conditions of AWD experiments are often lacking so that
generalizations are difficult to make. We compared the effects of AWD and CS on crop and
water productivity in rice in the field experimentations in India. The experiment was conducted
in irrigated lowlands and followed AWD practices by using field water tube. Crop and water
productivity was significantly differed between AWD and CS of irrigation. The average grain
yield was 5.8–7.4 t ha-1 with AWD irrigation methods and 7.5–7.6 t ha-1 with CS. The pooled
values of irrigation water applied, effective rainfall and seasonal volume of water input varied
from 1390, 216 and 1646 mm, respectively under CS and 708 to 1142 mm, 238 to 300 mm and
1048 to 1420 mm, respectively under AWD irrigation regimes. Irrigation water applied in AWD
irrigation regimes amounted to 50.9 to 82.1% of CS (1390 mm), averaged over two seasons, the
crop 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 productivity
the AWD method of water management is the best practice to meet the cope of water scarcity in
lowland rice production.