Paddy and Water Environment

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 861–877 | Cite as

Influence of crop establishment methods on yield, economics and water productivity of rice cultivars under upland and lowland production ecologies of Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains

  • Rishi Raj
  • Anil Kumar
  • I. S. Solanki
  • Shiva Dhar
  • Anchal Dass
  • Ashish Kumar Gupta
  • Vikash Kumar
  • C. B. Singh
  • R. K. Jat
  • U. C. Pandey


A field study on assessment of crop establishment methods on yield, economics and water productivity of rice cultivars under upland and lowland production ecologies was conducted during wet seasons (June–November) of 2012 and 2013 in Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. The experiment was laid-out in a split-plot design (SPD) and replicated four times. The main-plot treatments included three crop establishment methods, viz. dry direct-seeded rice (DSR), system of rice intensification (SRI) and puddled transplanted rice (PTR). In sub-plots, five rice cultivars of different groups like aromatic (Improved Pusa Basmati 1 and Pusa Sugandh 5), inbreds (PNR 381 and Pusa 834) and hybrid (Arize 6444) were taken for their evaluations. These two sets of treatments were laid-out simultaneously in two production ecologies, upland and lowland during both years. In general, lowland ecology was found favourable for rice growth and yield and resulted in 13.2% higher grain yield as compared to upland ecology. Rice grown with SRI method produced 19.4 and 7.0% higher grain yield in 2012 and 20.6 and 7.1% higher in 2013, over DSR and PTR. However, PTR yielded 13.1 and 14.5% higher grain over DSR during 2012 and 2013, respectively. On an average, Arize 6444 produced 26.4, 26.9, 28.9 and 54.7% higher grain yield as compared to PS 5, P 834, PNR 381 and IPB1, respectively. Further, the interaction of production ecologies × crop establishment methods revealed that, in upland ecology, SRI recorded significantly higher grain yield as compared to PTR and DSR, but in lowland, grain yield resulting from SRI was similar to the yield obtained with PTR and significantly higher than DSR. The latter two methods (PTR and DSR) yielded alike in lowland ecology in both study years. The production ecologies × crop establishment methods × cultivars interaction on grain yield showed that the growing of Arize 6444 cultivar using SRI method in upland ecology resulted in the higher grain yield (8.87 t/ha). But the cost of production was also highest in SRI followed by PTR and DSR across production ecologies and cultivars. Cultivation of hybrid (Arize 6444) involved higher cost of production than all other cultivars. Irrespective of crop establishment methods and cultivars, gross returns, net returns and B:C ratio were significantly higher in lowland compared to upland ecology. Owing to higher grain yield, SRI method fetched significantly higher gross returns and net returns over PTR and DSR. Average increase in net return with Arize 6444 was 68.8, 41.0, 37.7 and 33.1% over IPB 1, PNR 381, P 834 and PS 5, respectively. There was a saving of 30.7% water in SRI and 19.9% in DSR over PTR under upland ecology. Similarly in lowland ecology, water saving of 30.2% was observed in SRI and 21.2% in DSR over PTR. Due to higher yield and saving on water, SRI returned significantly higher total water productivity (TWP) (5.9 kg/ha-mm) as compared to DSR (3.5 kg/ha-mm) and PTR (3.6 kg/ha-mm) under upland ecology. In lowland ecology, also SRI (6.2 kg/ha-mm) resulted in higher TWP as compared to other two methods. However, DSR gave significantly higher TWP as compared to PTR. Among cultivars, hybrid Arize 6444 recorded the highest TWP in both upland and lowland production ecologies across crop establishment methods. Hence, growing of hybrid Arize 6444 with SRI method can enhance rice productivity and water-use efficiency in lowland and upland production ecologies of Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains and in other similar regions.


Dry direct-seeded rice Economics Puddled transplanted rice Production ecologies System of rice intensification Water productivity 



Authors wish to express their gratitude to the Director and Joint Director (Research), ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, for providing financial and technical support. Authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. S. L. Jat, Scientist, ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, New Delhi, for their valuable suggestions made during the preparation of manuscript concerning statistical analysis. The authors also express their sincere thanks to both anonymous reviewers for critically evaluating the manuscript and offering valuable suggestions towards its improvement.


  1. Anonymous (2011) Vision 2030 Central Rice Research Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Cuttack (Odisha) 753 006, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Babar SR, Velayutham A (2012) Weed management practices on nutrient uptake, yield attributes and yield of rice under system of rice intensification. Madras Agric J 99(1–3):51–54Google Scholar
  3. Bouman BAM, Tuong TP (2001) Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated rice. Agric Water Manag 49:11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouman BAM, Peng S, Castaneda AR, Visperas RM (2005) Yield and water use of irrigated tropical aerobic rice systems. Agric Water Manag 74:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapagain T, Yamaji E (2010) The effects of irrigation method, age of seedling and spacing on crop performance, productivity and water-wise rice production in Japan. Paddy Water Environ 8:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaumet JM, Delpeuch F, Dorin B, Ghersi G, Hubert B, Cotty TLe, Paillard S, Petit M, Rastoin JL, Ronzon T, Treyer S (2009) Scenarios and Challenges for Feeding the World in 2050, Agrimonde, Cirad & Inra, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Dass A, Chandra S (2012) Effect of different components of SRI on yield, quality, nutrient accumulation and economics of rice (Oryza sativa) in terai belt of Northern India. Indian J Agron 57(3):250–254Google Scholar
  8. Dass A, Chandra S (2013) Irrigation, spacing and cultivar effects on net photosynthetic rate, dry matter partitioning and productivity of rice under system of rice intensification in Mollisols of Northern India. Expl Agric 49(4):504–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dass A, Kaur R, Choudhary AK, Pooniya V, Raj R, Rana KS (2015) System of rice (Oryza sativa L.) intensification for higher productivity and resource use efficiency-A review. Indian J Agron 60(1):1–19Google Scholar
  10. Dass A, Chandra S, Choudhary AK, Singh G, Sudhishri S (2016) Influence of field re-ponding pattern and plant spacing on rice root–shoot characteristics, yield, and water productivity of two modern cultivars under SRI management in Indian Mollisols. Paddy Water Environ 14:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dass A, Shekhawat K, Choudhary AK, Sepat S, Rathore SS, Mahajan G, Chauhan BS (2017a) Weed management in rice using crop competition-a review. Crop Prot 95:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dass A, Chandra S, Uphoff N, Choudhary AK, Bhattacharyya R, Rana KS (2017b) Agronomic fortification of rice grains with secondary and micronutrients under differing crop management and soil moisture regimes in the north Indian Plains. Paddy Water Environ. doi: 10.1007/s10333-017-0588-9 Google Scholar
  13. Dobermann A (2004) A critical assessment of the system of rice intensification. Agric Syst 79(3):261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong B, Molden D, Loeve R, Li YH, Chen CD, Wang JZ (2004) Farm level practices and water productivity in Zanghe Irrigation System. Paddy Water Environ 2:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fageria NK (2007) Yield physiology of rice. J Plant Nutr 30:843–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernandes ECM, Uphoff N (2002) Summary from conference reports. In: Uphoff N, Fernandes ECM, Yuan LP, Peng JM, Rafaralahy S, Rabenandrasana J (eds) Assessment of the system for rice intensification (SRI). Proceedings of an international conference, Sanya, 1–4 April 2002. Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), Ithaca, pp 33–39
  17. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedure for agricultural research. Wiley, New York, p 680Google Scholar
  18. GRiSP (Global Rice Science Partnership) (2013) Rice almanac, 4th edn. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños (Philippines), p 283Google Scholar
  19. Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, p 498pGoogle Scholar
  20. Jat RK, Sapkota TB, Singh RG, Jat ML, Kumar M, Gupta RK (2014) Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice–wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia: yield trends and economic profitability. Field Crops Res 164:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiang P, Xie XB, Huang M, Zhou XF, Zhang RC, Chen JN, Wu DD, Xia B, Xu FX, Xiong H, Zou YB (2015) Comparisons of yield performance and nitrogen response between hybrid and inbred rice under difference ecological conditions in south China. J Integr Agric 14:1283–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang P, Xie X, Huang M, Zhou X, Zhang R, Chen J, Wu D, Xia B, Xiong H, Xu F, Zou Y (2016) Potential yield increase of hybrid rice at five locations in Southern China. Rice 9:11. doi: 10.1186/s12284-016-0085-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar V, Ladha JK (2011) Direct seeding of rice: recent developments and future research needs. Adv Agron 111:296–413. ISSN 0065-2113, doi:  10.1016/B978-0-12-387689-8.00001-1
  24. Kumar Y, Dhyani BP, Kumar V, Raj R (2016) Influence of fertility levels on nutrient uptake and productivity of rice under puddled and unpuddled conditions. Ann Agric Res New Ser 37(2):147–153Google Scholar
  25. Latif MA, Ali MY, Islam MR, Badshah MA, Hasan MS (2009) Evaluation of management principles and performance of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Bangladesh. Field Crops Res 114:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA (1978) Development of DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J 42:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDonald AJ, Hobbs P, Riha S (2005) Does the system of rice intensification out perform conventional best management? A synopsis of the empirical record. Reflections on Agricultural Development Projects.
  28. Naklang K, Fukai S, Nathabut K (1996) Growth of rice cultivars by direct seeding and transplanting under upland and lowland conditions. Field Crops Res 48:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nalley L, Tack J, Barkley A, Jagadish K, Brye K (2016) Quantifying the agronomic and economic performance of hybrid and conventional rice varieties. Agron J 108(4):1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanable FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circ No 939:19Google Scholar
  31. Pathak H, Tewari AN, Sankhyan S, Dubey DS, Mina U, Singh VK, Jain N, Bhatia A (2011) Direct-seeded rice: potential, performance and problems—a review. Curr Adv Agric Sci 3(2):77–88Google Scholar
  32. Piper CS (1950) Soil and plant analysis, Indian edn. Hane Publication, BombayGoogle Scholar
  33. Raj R, Kumar A, Kumar V, Singh CB, Pandey UC (2016a) Herbicide options for controlling weeds in transplanted rice (Oryza sativa) under North Eastern Plains Zone. Indian J Agron 61(2):197–203Google Scholar
  34. Raj R, Yadav MP, Kumar V (2016b) Productivity and profitability of rice hybrids at different nutrient management levels under semi-arid conditions of North Eastern Plains Zone. Ann Agric Res New Ser 37(1):36–42Google Scholar
  35. Ram H, Singh JP, Bohra JS, Singh RK, Sutaliya JM (2014) Effect of seedlings age and plant spacing on growth, yield, nutrient uptake and economics of rice (Oryza sativa) genotypes under system of rice intensification. Indian J Agron 59(2):256–260Google Scholar
  36. Ravindra A, Baghya S (2011) Potential of SRI for systemic improvement in rice production and water use: the case of Andhra Pradesh, India. Paddy Water Environ 9:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharma PK, Lav Bhushan, Ladha JK, Naresh RK, Gupta RK, Balasubramanian BV, Bouman BAM (2002) Crop-water relations in rice-wheat cropping under different tillage systems and water-management practices in a marginally sodic, medium-textured soil. In: Bouman BAM, Hengsdijk H, Hardy B, Bindraban PS, Tuong TP, Ladha JK (eds) Water-wise rice production. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, pp 223–235Google Scholar
  38. Sheehy JE, Peng S, Dobermann A, Mitchell PL, Ferrer A, Yang J, Zou Y, Zhong X, Huang J (2005) Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy? Field Crops Res 88(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shoji S, Nogi T, Suzuki K (1974) Absorption of fertilizer and soil nitrogen by rice plants under the various cultural conditions of different paddy fields, a relationships between the rate of basal nitrogen and nitrogen absorption by rice plants. Tohoku J Agric Res 25:113–124Google Scholar
  40. Shrirame MD, Rajgiri HJ, Rajgiri AH (2000) Effect of spacing and seedling number/hill on growth attributes and yield of rice hybrid under lowland condition. J Soils Crops 10:109–113Google Scholar
  41. Singh YV (2013) Crop and water productivity as influenced by rice cultivation methods under organic and inorganic sources of nutrient supply. Paddy Water Environ 11:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh KB, Gajri PR, Arora VK (2001) Modelling the effects of soil and water management practices on the water balance and performance of rice. Agric Water Manag 49:77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stoop WA, Kassam A (2002) A review of agricultural research issue raised by the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: opportunities for improving system for resource poor farmers. Agric Syst 71:249–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Subbaiah BV, Asija GL (1956) A rapid procedure for the determination of available nitrogen in soil. Curr Sci 25:259–262Google Scholar
  45. Subbaiah SV, Singh SP, Kumar RM, Viraktamath BC, Ilyas Ahmed M (2006) Agro-techniques for hybrid rice cultivation and seed production. Directorate of Rice Research, HyderabadGoogle Scholar
  46. Suryavanshi P, Singh YV, Prasanna R, Bhatia A, Shivay YS (2012) Pattern of methane emission and water productivity under different methods of rice crop establishment. Paddy Water Environ. doi: 10.1007/s10333-012-0323-5 Google Scholar
  47. Thakur AK, Uphoff N, Anthony E (2010) An assessment of physiological effects of system of rice intensification (SRI) practices compared with recommended rice cultivation practices in India. Exp Agric 46(1):77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thakur AK, Kumar R, Dhiraj M, Patil U, Kumar A (2014) Impact of water management on yield and water productivity with system of rice intensification (SRI) and conventional transplanting system in rice. Paddy Water Environ 12:413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tuong TP, Bouman BAM (2003) Rice production in water-scarce environments. In: Kijne W, Barker R, Molden D (eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI Publishing, UK, pp 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uphoff N (2001) Opportunities for raising yields by changing management practices: the system of rice intensification in Madagascar. In: Uphoff N (ed) Agroecological innovations. Increasing food production with participatory development. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, pp 145–161Google Scholar
  51. Uphoff N (2002) Changes and evolution in SRI methods. In: Uphoff N, Fernandes ECM, Yuan LP, Peng JM, Rafaralahy S, Rabenandrasana J (eds). Assessment of the system for rice intensification (SRI). Proceedings of an international conference, Sanya, 1–4 April 2002. International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), Ithaca, pp 8–14
  52. USDA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In: Richards LA (ed) USDA Handbook No. 60. USDA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang J, Zhang J (2010) Crop management techniques to enhance harvest index in rice. J Exp Bot 61:3177–3189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment Engineering and Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rishi Raj
    • 1
  • Anil Kumar
    • 1
  • I. S. Solanki
    • 2
  • Shiva Dhar
    • 1
  • Anchal Dass
    • 1
  • Ashish Kumar Gupta
    • 3
  • Vikash Kumar
    • 5
  • C. B. Singh
    • 3
  • R. K. Jat
    • 4
  • U. C. Pandey
    • 3
  1. 1.ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute Regional StationSamastipurIndia
  4. 4.Bourlaug Institute for South AsiaSamastipurIndia
  5. 5.Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural UniversitySardarkrushinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations