Abstract
SUMMARY A study was conducted to evaluate performance of two rice ( Oryza sativa L.) varieties under water saving irrigation through alternate wetting and drying in sandy clay loams of Southern Malawi. The varieties, Nunkile and NERICA 4, are adapted to upland and lowland irrigated conditions, individually, and commonly grown by farmers. Four irrigation regimes were used in the study: (1) continuous flooding with surface water level kept at approximately 5 cm throughout crop duration (CFI), (2) alternate wetting and drying up to start of flowering after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD1), (3) alternate wetting and drying up to start of grain filling after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD2) and (4) alternate wetting and drying throughout the crop duration (AWD3). While seasonal crop water requirement was 690 mm, total irrigation depths were 1923.61, 1307.81, 1160.61 and 807.87 mm for the four regimes respectively. The CFI treatment used 32%, 40% and 58% more water than AWD1, AWD2, and AWD3 regimes respectively. In the same treatment order, the average yields per treatment for Nunkile were 4.92, 4.75, 4.74, and 4.47 t ha −1 with significant yield differences among CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments. The average yields per treatment for NERICA 4 were 3.93, 3.75, 3.75, and 3.71 t ha −1 with significant yield differences only between CFI and all AWD treatments. Crop water productivity (CWP) was higher for Nunkile compared with NERICA 4 across all irrigation treatments, while CWP for CFI treatment was superior to all three AWD treatments grown under either variety. Thus, CWP was not increased with AWD irrigations. AWD till flowering and grain filling did not significantly differ with respect to yield and CWP. It is suggested that for similar conditions and where water is scarce, rice can be grown by AWD till grain filling as it saved more water. An important part of the research is to extend the initial results beyond the climate and soils of study.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 20
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal crop water requirement was 690 mm.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae1 - Outcome
- seasonal crop water requiremente0
- Value
- 690 mme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seasonal crop water requirement was 690 mm”
e1“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation depth under CFI was 1923.61.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae2
- Treatment
- CFIe1
- Outcome
- total irrigation depthse0
- Value
- 1923.61e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total irrigation depths were 1923.61, 1307.81, 1160.61 and 807.87 mm for the four regimes respectively”
e1“Four irrigation regimes were used in the study: (1) continuous flooding with surface water level kept at approximately 5 cm throughout crop duration (CFI), (2) alternate wetting and drying up to start of flowering after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD1), (3) alternate wetting and drying up to start of grain filling after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD2) and (4) alternate wetting and drying throughout the crop duration (AWD3)”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation depth under AWD1 was 1307.81.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae2
- Treatment
- AWD1e1
- Outcome
- total irrigation depthse0
- Value
- 1307.81e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total irrigation depths were 1923.61, 1307.81, 1160.61 and 807.87 mm for the four regimes respectively”
e1“Four irrigation regimes were used in the study: (1) continuous flooding with surface water level kept at approximately 5 cm throughout crop duration (CFI), (2) alternate wetting and drying up to start of flowering after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD1), (3) alternate wetting and drying up to start of grain filling after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD2) and (4) alternate wetting and drying throughout the crop duration (AWD3)”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation depth under AWD2 was 1160.61.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae2
- Treatment
- AWD2e1
- Outcome
- total irrigation depthse0
- Value
- 1160.61e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total irrigation depths were 1923.61, 1307.81, 1160.61 and 807.87 mm for the four regimes respectively”
e1“Four irrigation regimes were used in the study: (1) continuous flooding with surface water level kept at approximately 5 cm throughout crop duration (CFI), (2) alternate wetting and drying up to start of flowering after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD1), (3) alternate wetting and drying up to start of grain filling after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD2) and (4) alternate wetting and drying throughout the crop duration (AWD3)”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation depth under AWD3 was 807.87.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae2
- Treatment
- AWD3e1
- Outcome
- total irrigation depthse0
- Value
- 807.87e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total irrigation depths were 1923.61, 1307.81, 1160.61 and 807.87 mm for the four regimes respectively”
e1“Four irrigation regimes were used in the study: (1) continuous flooding with surface water level kept at approximately 5 cm throughout crop duration (CFI), (2) alternate wetting and drying up to start of flowering after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD1), (3) alternate wetting and drying up to start of grain filling after which continuous flooding was applied (AWD2) and (4) alternate wetting and drying throughout the crop duration (AWD3)”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CFI used 32% more water than AWD1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CFI treatment used 32%, 40% and 58% more water than AWD1, AWD2, and AWD3 regimes respectively”
e1“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CFI used 40% more water than AWD2.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CFI treatment used 32%, 40% and 58% more water than AWD1, AWD2, and AWD3 regimes respectively”
e1“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CFI used 58% more water than AWD3.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CFI treatment used 32%, 40% and 58% more water than AWD1, AWD2, and AWD3 regimes respectively”
e1“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nunkile yield under CFI was 4.92.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average yields per treatment for Nunkile were 4.92, 4.75, 4.74, and 4.47 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nunkile yield under AWD1 was 4.75.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae2
- Material
- Nunkilee0
- Outcome
- average yieldse0
- Value
- 4.75e0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average yields per treatment for Nunkile were 4.92, 4.75, 4.74, and 4.47 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nunkile yield under AWD2 was 4.74.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average yields per treatment for Nunkile were 4.92, 4.75, 4.74, and 4.47 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nunkile yield under AWD3 was 4.47.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average yields per treatment for Nunkile were 4.92, 4.75, 4.74, and 4.47 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
NERICA 4 yield under CFI was 3.93.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average yields per treatment for NERICA 4 were 3.93, 3.75, 3.75, and 3.71 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
NERICA 4 yield under AWD1 was 3.75.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae2
- Material
- NERICA 4e0
- Outcome
- average yieldse0
- Value
- 3.75e0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average yields per treatment for NERICA 4 were 3.93, 3.75, 3.75, and 3.71 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
NERICA 4 yield under AWD2 was 3.75.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average yields per treatment for NERICA 4 were 3.93, 3.75, 3.75, and 3.71 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
NERICA 4 yield under AWD3 was 3.71.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average yields per treatment for NERICA 4 were 3.93, 3.75, 3.75, and 3.71 t ha −1”
e1“CFI, AWD2 and AWD3 treatments”
e2“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nunkile had higher crop water productivity than NERICA 4 across irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Material
- Nunkilee0
- Outcome
- Crop water productivity (CWP)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- NERICA 4e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop water productivity (CWP) was higher for Nunkile compared with NERICA 4 across all irrigation treatments”
e1“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CFI had higher crop water productivity than all AWD regimes for either variety.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CFIe0
- Outcome
- CWPe0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- all three AWD treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CWP for CFI treatment was superior to all three AWD treatments grown under either variety”
e1“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
AWD until flowering and grain filling had no significant difference in yield and CWP.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- AWD till floweringe0
- Outcome
- yield and CWPe0
- Direction
- did not significantly differe0
- Comparator
- grain fillinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AWD till flowering and grain filling did not significantly differ with respect to yield and CWP”
e1“rice ( Oryza sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest AWD until grain filling where water is scarce because it saves more water.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Outcome
- rice can be grown by AWD till grain fillinge0
- Qualifier
- where water is scarcee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It is suggested that for similar conditions and where water is scarce, rice can be grown by AWD till grain filling as it saved more water”
The same questions in other papers
stage · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 350 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
376 papers more in this group
See all 380 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.