Paper · 2001 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Yield, water productivity and economics of rice (Oriza sativa) as influenced by transplanting dates, varieties and irrigation regimes in central Punjab

BHARAT BHUSHAN VASHISHT; S.K. JALOTA; KRISHAN KUMAR VASHIST

14
claims
28
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A two-year (2008 and 2009) field experiment was conducted at Ludhiana (Punjab), to investigate the direct and interactive effects of 3 transplanting dates (5 June, 20 June and 5 July), 2 genotypes, viz. hybrid RH 257 and in- bred PAU 201, and 2 irrigation regimes (2 days drainage period after cessation of applied water and at soil water suction of 16 kPa) on the rice (Oriza sativa L.) yield attributes, yield, water productivity and economics. The results revealed that adjusting the crop cycle by shifting of transplanting towards lower evaporative demand period (from 5 June to 5 July) resulted in significant improvement in yield and yield attributes of rice and saving of irrigation wa- ter. The number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield increased by 20, 15, 15 and 33%, respectively, by the delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 July. Variety RH 257 showed 1.6, 5.6 and 4.5% higher biomass, har- vest index and yield, respectively, than PAU 201. In the irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage period number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield were 1.0, 7.8, 5.6 and 10.0% respectively more than that in soil water suction treatment. The dominant yield attributes contributing to yield were biomass and number of tillers/m2. The maximum irrigation water productivity of 0.80 kg/m3 was observed in treatment combination of rice transplanted on July 5, variety RH 257 and irrigation based on soil water suction (SWS). Irrigation-water and monitory savings were relatively more under the treatments of irrigation based on SWS, shorter crop duration and cropping cycle synchronized with lower evaporative demand

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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying transplanting from 5 June to 5 July increased the number of tillers per square metre of rice by 20.

Treatment
delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 Julye1
Outcome
number of tillers/m2e1
Direction
increasede1
Value
20e1
Comparator
5 Junee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield increased by 20, 15, 15 and 33%, respectively, by the delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 July”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–856 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying transplanting from 5 June to 5 July increased rice biomass by 15.

Treatment
delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 Julye1
Outcome
biomasse1
Direction
increasede1
Value
15e1
Comparator
5 Junee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield increased by 20, 15, 15 and 33%, respectively, by the delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 July”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–856 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying transplanting from 5 June to 5 July increased rice harvest index by 15.

Treatment
delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 Julye1
Outcome
harvest indexe1
Direction
increasede1
Value
15e1
Comparator
5 Junee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield increased by 20, 15, 15 and 33%, respectively, by the delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 July”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–856 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying transplanting from 5 June to 5 July increased rice yield by 33%.

Treatment
delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 Julye1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
increasede1
Value
33%e1
Comparator
5 Junee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield increased by 20, 15, 15 and 33%, respectively, by the delay in transplanting from 5 June to 5 July”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–856 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rice variety RH 257 had 1.6% higher biomass than PAU 201.

Material
RH 257e1
Outcome
biomasse1
Direction
highere1
Value
1.6e1
Comparator
PAU 201e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Variety RH 257 showed 1.6, 5.6 and 4.5% higher biomass, har- vest index and yield, respectively, than PAU 201”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–967 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rice variety RH 257 had 5.6% higher harvest index than PAU 201.

Material
RH 257e1
Outcome
harvest indexe2
Direction
highere1
Value
5.6e1
Comparator
PAU 201e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Variety RH 257 showed 1.6, 5.6 and 4.5% higher biomass, har- vest index and yield, respectively, than PAU 201”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–967 · show in text ↑
e2

“The number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield increased by 20, 15, 15 and 33%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–789 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rice variety RH 257 had 4.5% higher yield than PAU 201.

Material
RH 257e1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
highere1
Value
4.5%e1
Comparator
PAU 201e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Variety RH 257 showed 1.6, 5.6 and 4.5% higher biomass, har- vest index and yield, respectively, than PAU 201”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–967 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2-day drainage irrigation treatment gave 1.0% more rice tillers per square metre than soil water suction irrigation.

Treatment
irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage periode1
Outcome
number of tillers/m2e1
Direction
moree1
Value
1.0e1
Comparator
soil water suction treatmente1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“In the irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage period number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield were 1.0, 7.8, 5.6 and 10.0% respectively more than that in soil water suction treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1166 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2-day drainage irrigation treatment gave 7.8% more rice biomass than soil water suction irrigation.

Treatment
irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage periode1
Outcome
biomasse1
Direction
moree1
Value
7.8e1
Comparator
soil water suction treatmente1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“In the irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage period number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield were 1.0, 7.8, 5.6 and 10.0% respectively more than that in soil water suction treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1166 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2-day drainage irrigation treatment gave 5.6% more rice harvest index than soil water suction irrigation.

Treatment
irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage periode1
Outcome
harvest indexe1
Direction
moree1
Value
5.6e1
Comparator
soil water suction treatmente1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“In the irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage period number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield were 1.0, 7.8, 5.6 and 10.0% respectively more than that in soil water suction treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1166 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2-day drainage irrigation treatment gave 10.0% more rice yield than soil water suction irrigation.

Treatment
irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage periode1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
moree1
Value
10.0%e1
Comparator
soil water suction treatmente1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“In the irrigation treatment of 2-days drainage period number of tillers/m2, biomass, harvest index and yield were 1.0, 7.8, 5.6 and 10.0% respectively more than that in soil water suction treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1166 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Transplanting on 5 July with variety RH 257 and soil-water-suction irrigation gave the maximum irrigation water productivity of 0.80 kg/m3 in rice.

Material
RH 257e1
Treatment
transplanted on July 5, variety RH 257 and irrigation based on soil water suction (SWS)e1
Outcome
irrigation water productivitye1
Direction
maximume1
Value
0.80 kg/m3e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The maximum irrigation water productivity of 0.80 kg/m3 was observed in treatment combination of rice transplanted on July 5, variety RH 257 and irrigation based on soil water suction (SWS)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1259–1448 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation based on soil water suction gave relatively more irrigation-water and monetary savings in rice.

Treatment
irrigation based on SWSe1
Outcome
Irrigation-water and monitory savingse1
Direction
moree1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Irrigation-water and monitory savings were relatively more under the treatments of irrigation based on SWS, shorter crop duration and cropping cycle synchronized with lower evaporative demand”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1450–1641 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biomass and number of tillers per square metre were the dominant yield attributes contributing to rice yield.

Outcome
dominant yield attributes contributing to yielde1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The dominant yield attributes contributing to yield were biomass and number of tillers/m2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1168–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oriza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–62 · show in text ↑

soil water · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 6 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

transplanting · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

75 papers: 66 positive, 9 negative or no effect

65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

71 papers more in this group

See all 75 papers →

transplanting · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

227 papers: 190 positive, 37 negative or no effect

189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

223 papers more in this group

See all 227 papers →

irrigation · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

291 papers: 222 positive, 69 negative or no effect

221 papers in the same direction as this paper · 62 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

287 papers more in this group

See all 291 papers →

irrigation · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

380 papers: 350 positive, 30 negative or no effect

349 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

376 papers more in this group

See all 380 papers →

transplanting · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

1,078 papers: 922 positive, 156 negative or no effect

921 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

1,074 papers more in this group

See all 1,078 papers →

irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

1,171 papers: 906 positive, 265 negative or no effect

905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 201 in the opposite direction · 64 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

1,167 papers more in this group

See all 1,171 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.