Crop Establishment

Techniques in

Rice

Pardeep SagwalResearch Scholar

Dept. of AgronomyCCS HAU Hisar

2

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of most important food crop and nearly one-half of the worlds population dependent on it.

Rice2011-12

Area (m ha)

Production (m tones)

Productivity(kg/ha)

India 42.86 95.98 2239Haryana 1.23 3.75 3044

Source: Dept. of Agri. and Cooperation, Govt. of India

Source: Food and agriculture organization

Production share (2012)

3

Challenges in rice production

• Water• Weed • Labour• Energy• Soil health• Climate change• Cost of cultivation

Source: Kumar and Ladha, 2011Advances in Agronomy

4

It is estimated that one hectare of productive land is lost every 7.67 seconds.

5

Fig. 1. Trend of farm labour wages (US $ day -1) in selected Asian countries

Source: Kumar and Ladha, 2011Advances in Agronomy

6

What is crop establishment ?

• It is a sequence of events that includes seeding, seed germination, seedling emergence and development to the stage where the seedling could be expected to grow to maturity

• It’s a complex interaction

Source: Jat et al., 2010Technical Bulletin CIMMYT

7

Crop Establishment Techniques in Rice

TransplantingManual

Mechanical System of rice intensification

Parachute rice

Direct seeded riceDrum seeding

Zero tillage DSRAerobic rice

DSR in prepared soil

8

9

10

Rice Ecosystems I. Irrigated lowland(55%)II. Rainfed lowland (30%) III. Rainfed upland(12%)IV. Deep water (3%)

Source: Pathak et al., 2011Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences

Fig. 2. Distribution of rice area under various water management practices in India

11

Fig. 3. Factors affecting the choice of rice establishment methods.

Source: Farooq et al.,2011 Soil & Tillage Research

TPR: transplanting WS: wet seedingDS: dry seeding.

12

Table 1. Yield attributes and yield of rice as affected by establishment methods and varieties (Pooled data of 2 years)

Treatments No. of tillers/m2

Grains/panicle

Plant dry weight/m2

Grain yield(q/ha)

Straw Yield(q/ha)

Crop establishment methodsDirect seeding 243.91 67.46 673.25 32.48 42.66Drum seeding 254.91 84.41 737.91 38.50 51.67Transplanting 262.16 95.25 777.66 40.18 53.04CD (P= 0.05) 9.36 3.71 16.10 0.88 4.35Varieties Taraori Basmati 227.66 73.66 700.54 25.67 38.24Pusa Basmati 1 251.11 79.72 725.67 38.98 49.87Pusa Sugandha 4 262.55 86.00 736.68 40.82 52.12Pusa Sugandha 5 273.33 90.11 755.55 42.74 56.66CD (P= 0.05) 6.87 2.46 10.50 0.90 5.30

Source: Yadav et al., 2013 at BijnorIndian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

13

Table 2. Agronomic parameters of rice as affected by different establishment techniques

Source: Baloch et al., 2007 at Dera Islam KhanRice Science

Treatments and parameters

Directseeding on flat

Transplanting on flat

Direct seeding on ridges

Transplanting on ridges

Parachute planting

Plant population (seedlings/m2)

30.5 a 21.0 b 22.5 b 12.0 d 17.0 c

No. of panicles per m2

424.5 b 710.5 a 307.5 c 463.0 b 677.5 a

No. of spikelets per panicle

152.5 b 192.5 a 150.5 b 193.0 a 196.2 a

Spikelet sterility 15.7 a 11.4 bc 12.0 b 9.2 c 9.2 c

1000-grain weight 30.3 32.0 30.7 31.2 31.8

Grain yield (t /ha) 4.0 b 6.5 a 5.1 ab 6.5 a 6.5 a

14

Table 3. Economic evaluation for stand establishment techniques in rice

TreatmentsGrain yield(t/ha)

Variable cost (Rs/ha)

Gross income(Rs/ha)

Total cost(Rs/ha)

Netincome(Rs/ha)

B:C

Direct seeding on flat 4.08 560 20900 16340 4470 1.27

Transplanting on flat 6.58 1800 33400 17670 15730 1.89

Direct seeding on ridges 5.10 560 26000 16430 9570 1.58

Transplanting on ridges 6.50 1800 33000 17670 15330 1.86

Parachute planting 6.55 2580 33250 18450 14800 1.80

Source: Baloch et al., 2007 at Dera Islam KhanRice Science

15

Table 4. Effect of establishment methods on yield components, grain yield, straw yield and economics in rice

Establishment methods

Panicle m-2

Grains/panicle

Grainyield (t ha-1)

Growth duration(days)

Gross return($ ha-1)

Gross margin ($ ha-1) B:C

Aman 2006CT-DrumR 323 a 87 b 6.0 a 135 c 1042 625 2.5CT-TPR 1 244 b 118 a 6.1 a 151 a 1035 595 2.4CT-TPR 2 248 b 114 a 6.1 a 143 b 993 590 2.5Boro 2006-07CT-DrumR 392 a 77.8 c 6.4 a 141 c 1126 680 2.5CT-TPR 1 327 b 87.4 b 6.0 b 162 a 1057 552 2.1CT-TPR 2 328 b 96.2 a 6.5 a 152 b 1125 654 2.4

Source: Rashid et al., 2009 at GazipurField Crop Research

CT: Conventional tillageTPR: Transplanted rice

16

Table 5. Yields and protein content in grain and straw as influenced by crop establishment methods in rice

Methods of crop

establishment

Yield (q ha-1)2003

Yield (q ha-1)2004

Protein content in grain (%)

Protein in straw (%)

Grain Straw Grain Straw 2003 2004 2003 2004

Dry seeding 37.26 47.15 38.41 42.53 7.36 7.07 3.25 3.33

Drum seeding 54.53 65.61 50.62 58.57 7.36 7.05 3.27 3.33

Zero tillage 44.53 53.23 42.27 48.27 7.45 7.03 3.38 3.40

Transplanting 54.72 66.02 55.29 63.94 7.43 7.13 3.30 3.38

C.D. at 5 % 1.31 1.56 4.12 4.43 NS NS NS NS

Source: Yadav et al., 2010 at FaizabadPakistan Journal of Weed Science Research

17

Table 6. Effect of different stand establishment techniques on rice yield and its attributes.

Treatments Plant height

Productive tillers/m2

Number of grains/Panicle

1000 grain wt.(g)

Yield (t/ha)

ZT transplanting 136.1 a 219.0 ab 96.50 a 23.17 a 4.80 a Direct seeding 126.6 c 231.7 a 72.67 b 22.17 b 3.36 cBrown manuring 128.2 bc 186.3 c 93.83 a 22.83 ab 4.23 bTransplanting on bed 129.2 bc 206.7 abc 95.73 a 23.17 a 4.43 bConventional transplanting 130.2 b 200.2 bc 98.57 a 23.50 a 4.72 a

LSD (0.05) 2.782 26.65 8.851 0.9676 0.2844

Source: Aslam et al., 2008 at SheikhupuraJournal of Animal and Plant Sciences

ZT: Zero tillage

18

Table 7. Effect of different stand establishment techniques on economic returns in rice

Establishment methods

Paddy yield (t/ha)

Cost (Rs/ha)

Income(Rs/ha)

Profit(Rs/ha)

Benefit cost ratio

ZT transplanting 4.80 59660 114000 35643 1.91

Direct seeding 3.36 55057 79800 5793 1.14

Brown manuring 4.23 60402 100462 21310 1.66

Transplanting on beds 4.43 60452 105212 26010 1.74

Conventional planting 4.72 61045 104975 25180 1.72

Source: Aslam et al., 2008 at SheikhupuraJournal of Animal and Plant Sciences

ZT: Zero tillage

19

Table 8. Yield of direct seeded rice and wheat under various tillage sequences

Tillage sequence

Rice yield (Mg ha -1) Wheat yield (Mg ha-1)

2006 2007 2008 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

ZT-ZT 1.06 b 1.84 b 2.94 a 2.725 a 3.72 a 4.45 a

ZT-CT 1.06 b 2.16 ab 2.59 ab 1.850 b 3.92 a 3.62 b

CT-ZT 1.31 a 2.10 ab 2.47 ab 2.373 a 3.98 a 3.31 b

CT-CT 1.31 a 2.26 a 2.35 b 1.910 b 3.80 a 3.86 ab

Source : Mishra and Singh, 2012 at JabalpurSoil & Tillage Research

CT: Conventional tillageZT: Zero tillage

20

Table 9. Effect of tillage sequence on economic returns and energy efficiency in direct seeded rice-wheat system

Tillage sequence

Economic returns Energy parameters

Total variable cost($ ha-1)

Net returns ($ ha-1)

B:CInput energy(Mj ha-1)

Output energy (Mj ha-1)

Output-input Energy ratio

ZT-ZT 537.3 b 1086.7 a 2.97 a 33906 c 106872 a 3.18 aZT-CT 577.5 a 780.5 b 2.33 b 35979 b 91287 b 2.53 bCT-ZT 545.9 b 709.9 c 2.27 b 35979 b 84961 c 2.35 bCT-CT 283.9 a 786.1 b 2.33 b 38187 a 91272 b 2.38 b

Source : Mishra and Singh, 2012 at JabalpurSoil & Tillage Research

21

Table 10. Rice grain yield under different establishment systems over different years

Establishment SystemGrain yield (kg ha-1)

2004 2005 2006 2007 Mean

WS conventional 10,652 8170 8874 7859 8954 aWS stale 9437 7342 8265 8047 8273 bWS no-till stale 10,420 8175 8352 9029 8994 aDS conventional 10,802 8410 9117 8398 9130 aDS no-till stale 10,294 8292 10,042 9454 9520 a

ANOVA results NS NS NS NS

Source: Pittelkow et al., 2012 at DevisField Crop Research

WS: Water seededDS: Drill seeded

22

Table 11. Vegetative growth and yield parameters of paddy as influenced by mechanical and manual transplanting

Source: Manjunatha et al., 2009 at Gangavati Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science

Parameters 2003-04 2004-05 Mean data

Machine Manual Machine Manual Machine Manual

Plant Height(cm) 47.8 46.0 46.0 45.0 46.9 45.5

No. of tillers/hill 17.26 17.40 18.64 17.86 17.94 17.64

No. of panicles/m2 476.5 483.6 460.0 473.2 468.2 478.4

No. of grains/5 panicles 374 385 382 379 378 382

Grain yield (q/ha) 59.45 59.85 48.58 47.70 54.01 53.77

Straw Yield (t/ha) 6.92 6.11 7.48 6.76 7.20 6.43

Harvest Index 0.46 0.49 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.45

Gross returns (Rs/ha) 37,400 37435 31018 30310 34209 33872

23

Table 12. Yield components in rice under various tillage and seeding treatments.

TreatmentsPanicle

number(m-2)Number of grains

(Panicle-1)1000-grain

weight

2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006

Puddled TPR 253 b 242 b 117.6 a 121.0 a 26.8 27.2

Unpuddled TPR 249 b 236 b 117.3 a 121.2 a 26.8 27.1

No-till TPR 244 b 238 b 116.8 a 119.2 ab 26.7 26.8

Puddled drum seeded rice 274 a 266 a 108.0 b 116.2 b 26.2 26.9

No-till drum seeded rice 269 a 260 a 105.3 b 111.8 b 26.1 26.5

Source: Saharawat et al., 2010 at Kaul Field Crop Research

TPR: Transplanted rice

24

Table 13. Yield of rice and wheat with various tillage and seeding treatments

Treatments

Grain Yield(Mg ha-1)Average

netreturns

of system(US $ ha-1)

Rice Wheat System

2005 2006 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07

Puddled TPR 7.28 a 7.06 a 4.93 b 4.74 12.21 ab 11.80 a 686 cUnpuddled TPR 7.23 a 6.92 ab 5.14 ab 4.81 12.37 a 11.73 a 712 bNo-till TPR 7.16 a 6.86 ab 5.32 a 4.92 12.48 a 11.78 a 721 aPuddled drum seeded rice 6.73 b 6.61 b 5.32 a 4.86 12.05 b 11.47 ab 704 b

No-till drum seeded rice 6.67 b 6.52 b 5.33 a 4.92 12.00 b 11.44 b 720 a

Source: Saharawat et al., 2010 at KaulField Crop ResearchTPR: Transplanted rice

25

Fig. 4. Effect of tillage systems on total weed biomass at crop harvest

WS12: Wet season 2012 (a)DS13: Dry season 2013 (b)CONT: Conventional tillageZT: Zero tillage

Source: Chauhan, 2013 at Los BanosCrop Protection

26

Source: Chauhan, 2013 at Los BanosCrop Protection

WS12: Wet season 2012 (a)DS13: Dry season 2013 (b)CONT: Conventional tillageZT: Zero tillage

Fig. 5. Effect of tillage systems on rice panicle numbers

27

Fig. 6. Effect of tillage systems on rice grain yield

WS12: Wet season 2012 (a)DS13: Dry season 2013 (b)CONT: Conventional tillageZT: Zero tillage

Source: Chauhan, 2013 at Los BanosCrop Protection

28

Table 14. Effect of planting methods on different traits of rice

Yield parametersPlanting methods

D1 TPR D2 DSR D3 DSR D4 DSR

Plant height (cm) 140.86 a 128.11 b 132.82 b 122.7 b

Effective tillers/m2 272.89 b 372.24 a 336.76 ab 328.9 ab

Panicle length 27.67 a 26.11 b 27.12 a 27.06 b

No. of grains/panicle 121.74 a 96.71 b 101.82 b 101.79 b

Sterility % 7.91 b 11.87 a 12.62 a 12.06 a

1000-grain weight 25.91 a 26.80 a 26.62 a 26.26 a

Grain yield 496.16 a 412.29 bc 461.99 ab 67.12 c

Akhgari and Kavaini, 2011 at Rashat(Iran)African Journal of Agricultural Research

D1: Transplanted RiceD2: Broadcasted DSR D3: Linear DSRD4: Hill DSR

29

Table 15. Comparative performance of direct seeded rice(DSR) and conventional puddled transplanted rice(PTR)

Parameters PTR DSR

Human Labour (Man days) 55-60 35-40

Tractor(Hours) 10-12 5-6

Crop Duration (days) 140-150 130-140

Benefit (Rs/ha) 14000-17000 17000-20000

No. of irrigation 20-25 14-17

Global Warming potential(Mg Co2 eq.) 2.0-4.5 1.3-3.0

Pathak et al., 2011 at JalandharCurrent Advances in Agricultural Sciences

30

Fig. 7. Global warming potential of transplanted and direct seeded rice

Pathak et al., 2011Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences

31

Table 16. Methane emission as influenced by establishment techniques

Establishment techniques

Methane emission (mg plant -1 day -1)

30 DAS 40 DAS 50DAS 60DAS 70 DAS 80 DAS 90 DAS Total

Transplanting 0.104 2.17 2.60 4.42 5.38 5.80 4.10 24.57

SRI 0.161 2.31 2.71 3.29 4.29 5.30 3.96 22.01

Aerobic rice 0.116 1.54 1.66 2.27 2.69 3.10 1.81 13.18

C.D. at 1% 0.007 0.26 0.26 0.66 0.67 1.43 1.22 1.23

Source: Jayadeva et al., 2009 at KathalagereAgricultural Science Digest

32

Source: Kumar and Ladha, 2011 at ModipuramAdvances in Agronomy

Fig. 8. Nitrous oxide emission from rice under alternate tillage and crop establishment methods during 2007 and 2008

33

Table 17. Yield, water productivity and profitability of rice under different crop establishment techniques

Crop establishmentmethods

Yield(t ha-1)

Water use (m3 ha-1)

Water productivity(kg grain m-3)

Net profit(Rs ha-1)

Western Uttar Pradesh

Conventional puddle TPR 7.56 18,720 0.40 19,440

ZT DSR 7.19 17,550 0.41 21,915

RT DSR 7.50 17,550 0.43 22,185

Haryana

Conventional puddle TPR 4.36 16,013 0.29 19,200

RT DSR 4.20 12,532 0.37 22,339

Source: Pathak et al., 2011Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences

ZT: Zero tillageRT: Reduced tillageDSR: Direct seeded riceTPR: Transplanted rice

34

Fig. 9. Cracking intensity at 18–20cm soil depth in PTR (Puddled transplanted rice) and DSR(Direct seeded rice).

Source: Sudhir-Yadav et al., 2011 at LudhianaField Crop Research

35

Fig. 10. Field situation after rice harvest under different establishment systems

Source : CIMMYT-CCAFS Participatory strategic research platform, Taraori (Karnal)

Puddled transplanted Zero Tillage DSR

36

Table 18. Depth of irrigation and grain yield as affected by irrigation intervals in basmati rice under different establishment methods

Establishment methods

Irrigation interval (days)

Grain yield(kg/ha)

Depth of irrigation (cm)

2010 2011 2010 2011

PTR conventional 3212 2620 a 125.5 145.7

DSR 7X + 5Y 3262 2670 a 99.9 136.5

DSR 7 + 7 3135 2540 a 73 119.2

DSR 7 + 10 3085 2196 b 68.1 99.6

DSR 15 + 5 3205 2607 a 102.4 131.1

DSR 15 + 7 3023 2490 a 69 113.9

DSR 15 + 10 2981 2004 b 63.2 94.4

LSD (P=0.05) NS 249X= First post sowing irrigation; Y= Subsequent post sowing irrigation

DSR: Direct seeded ricePTR: Puddled transplanted rice

Godara, 2013 at RRS, KarnalPh.D. Thesis, Dept. of Agronomy, CCS HAU, Hisar

37

Fig. 11: Grain yield (t ha−1) of rice as affected by establishment method and irrigation schedule in 2008 (a) and 2009 (b).

Source: Sudhir-Yadav et al., 2011 at LudhianaField Crop Research

38

Fig. 12. Irrigation water productivity (WPi) as affected by establishment method andirrigation schedule in 2008 (a) and 2009 (b).

Source: Sudhir-Yadav et al., 2011 at LudhianaField Crop Research

39

Conclusion

• Transplanting is better option under sufficient water and labour availability.

• Direct seeded rice is an alternate production system with increased resource use efficiency and profitability with efficient water and weed management.

40Thank U