Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(9): 3790-3796 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 6 Number 9 (2017) pp. 3790-3796 Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.468 Water requirement of Paddy under Different Land Levelling, Cultivation Practices and Irrigation Methods Ravindra Yaligar*, P. Balakrishnan, U. Satishkumar, P. S. Kanannavar, A. S. Halepyati, M. L. Jat and N. L. Rajesh Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering, University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) Raichur, Karnataka, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Direct seeded rice (DSR), Laser levelling, Drip Irrigation and Water requirement Article Info Accepted: 25 August 2017 Available Online: 10 September 2017 Water saving by innovative techniques is essential to prevent salinity and land degradation in paddy production. Therefore, the field investigations were conducted in the farmer’s field under the jurisdiction of the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) Raichur during the kharif 2015 and kharif 2016 using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 7 treatments to determine water requirement of Paddy under different levelling, cultivation practices and irrigation methods for paddy production. The results showed that the dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) plot with laser land levelling and subsurface drip irrigation at 60 cm lateral spacing required the lowest quantity of irrigation water of 3872, 2864 and 3368 m3 ha-1, respectively during 2015, 2016 and in pooled mean. The control plot with conventional land levelling using flood irrigation (farmers’ practice) recorded the highest quantity of water usage of 20260, 19112 and 19686 m3 ha-1 during 2015, 2016 and in pooled mean, respectively. The highest per cent water saving was observed in the plot with dry DSR with laser land levelling and sub-surface drip irrigation with 60 cm lateral spacing with 80.89, 85.01 and 82.89 per cent during 2015, 2016 and in pooled mean, respectively when compared with control i.e. farmers’ practice. Introduction Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the staple food of more than half of the population of the world and its production is an important target to provide food security and livelihood for millions. The world’s total estimated area under rice production is 159 M ha with a production of 670 M t with an average yield of 3,889 kg per ha (Anon., 2011). India ranks second in rice production, as it is grown in almost all the states of the country. In India, rice is cultivated in a wide range of ecosystems viz., irrigated (21 M ha), rainfed lowlands (14 M ha), rainfed uplands (6 M ha) and flood prone (3 M ha). The most common method that is being followed by the farmers is generally transplanting, while dry seeding or wet seeding method for cultivation of rice is also adopted depending upon the situation. India faces the challenge of meeting the future demand of food grains due to diversion of land and water resources to not only agriculture but also to other sectors of economy. With the current estimates, India would need 37 per cent more rice and wheat 3790 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(9): 3790-3796 by 2025 with 9 to 10 per cent less water available for irrigation compared to the year 2000. The total area under rice in Karnataka is 1.33 M ha with an annual production of 3.54 M t and with a productivity of 2,670 kg per ha (Anon., 2016). It is cultivated in the command areas of Cauvery basin in south, Tungabhadra and Upper Krishna projects in north where transplanting with flood irrigation is the major method of cultivation. The traditional irrigation method like flooding water in paddy fields consumes more water leading to wastage of precious water resources and the least water productivity. Imminent water crisis due to increasing demands from various sectors, water-demanding nature of traditionally cultivated rice and climbing labour costs all call for search of alternative management methods to increase water productivity, system sustainability and profitability in rice. With this in mind the field investigations were conducted on water requirement of paddy with innovative techniques of laser land levelling and drip irrigation methods for paddy production were taken up in the farmer’s field. Materials and Methods The experiment was carried out in farmer’s field located at Govinadoddi village in Manvi taluka of Raichur district under during kharif 2015 and kharif 2016 using randomized complete block design with 7 treatments which were replicated thrice. The treatments included the land levelling methods viz., laser levelling with near table top level or zero per cent slope and conventional levelling, cultivation practices viz., transplanted rice (TPR) and direct seeded rice (DSR) and irrigation methods viz., drip and flood irrigation. The treatments included the land levelling methods viz., laser levelling with near table top level or zero per cent slope and conventional levelling, cultivation practices viz., transplanted rice (TPR) and direct seeded rice (DSR) and irrigation methods viz., drip and flood irrigation. The treatments were viz., T1 - Dry direct seeded rice (DSR) with laser land levelling and surface drip irrigation with 80 cm lateral spacing, T2 - Dry direct seeded rice with laser land levelling and surface drip irrigation with 60 cm lateral spacing, T3 - Dry direct seeded rice with laser land levelling and subsurface drip irrigation with 60 cm lateral spacing, T4 - Dry direct seeded rice with laser land levelling and subsurface drip irrigation with 80 cm lateral spacing, T5 - Transplanted rice (TPR) with laser land levelling and conventional method of flood irrigation, T6 Dry direct seeded rice with conventional land levelling and conventional method of flood irrigation and T7 - Control (transplanted rice with conventional land levelling using flood irrigation) i.e., farmer’s practice. The test crop used was paddy with variety BPT - 5204 (145-150 days duration). The Diagram showing schematic chart of precise laser land levelling concept is given in Fig.1. Fig.2. shows drip irrigation system with treatments installed in farmers field. The scheduling of drip irrigation was done based on daily PE values during the crop growth period and the duration of irrigation was computed as follows: ETc (mm) Irrigation hours (h) = ------------ X 100 (Eq. 1) Application rate (mm h-1) Whereas, Actual evaporation or crop evapotranspiration (ETc) in mm = ET0 x Crop factor Reference evaporation or evapotranspiration (ET0) in mm = Previous day evaporation x Pan factor. Crop factors for paddy at its initial, crop development, reproductive and maturity 3791 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(9): 3790-3796 stages is used were 1.15, 1.23, 1.14 and 1.02 respectively and constant pan factor of 0.7 was used. Application rate with discharge of 2 Lph @ 1.5 kg cm-2 was calculated using Eq.2. Application rate (mm/hr)    Dis charge(lph) X 100 Lateral dis tance(m) x Dripper dis tance(m)   (Eq. 2) Two lateral spacings of 0.6 m and 0.8 m were used in the study with a constant dripper distance of 0.4 m throughout the experiment. Results and Discussion For the field investigations, the data regarding irrigation water used (m3 ha-1) and per cent water saving as influenced by different land levelling (Laser and Conventional), cultivation practices (DSR and TPR) and irrigation (Drip and Flood) methods for paddy production are presented in Table 1. It was observed that the treatment T3 required the lowest quantity of irrigation water of 3872, 2864 and 3368 m3 ha-1 during 2015, 2016 and in pooled mean, respectively followed the treatment T2 (3918, 2928 and 3423 m3 ha-1), T4 (4034, 3061 and 3548 m3 ha-1) and T1 which recorded water usage of 4260, 3142 and 3701 m3 ha-1 during 2015, 2016 and in pooled mean, respectively. The control plot with farmers’ practice (T7) recorded the highest quantity of water usage of 20260, 19112 and 19686 m3 ha-1 during 2015, 2016 and in pooled mean, respectively. It was followed by T5 (17260, 16065 and 16663 m3 ha-1) and T6 (11680, 10662 and 11171 m3 ha-1). From the pooled mean the highest per cent water saving was observed in the treatment T3 (82.89 per cent) when compared with control (conventional land levelling with flood irrigation) i.e. farmers’ practice (T7). It was followed by T2 (82.61 per cent), T4 with 81.98 and T1 (81.20 per cent). Dry DSR with conventional land levelling and conventional method of flood irrigation (T6) recorded 43.25 per cent water saving followed by TPR with laser land levelling and conventional method of flood irrigation (T5) with 15.36 per cent water saving when compared to farmers’ practice. The similar trend was noticed with the depth of irrigation water applied during 2015, 2016 and pooled mean. From Table 1 and Fig. 3 (a) and (b) considering the effective rainfall during crop period, the quantity of irrigation water applied for paddy was the least in T3 (33.68 cm). It was followed by T2 with 34.23 cm, T4 with 35.48 cm and T1 with 37.01 cm. The water requirement was the highest in T7 (196.86 cm). It was followed by T5 (166.63cm) and T6 (111.71 cm). Significant difference was observed in depth of water requirement of paddy as influenced by different cultivation practices, land levelling and irrigation methods. Among sown rice, the pooled effective rainfall during the crop period, the total quantity of water requirement of paddy was lowest in T3 (66.65 cm) followed by 67.20, 68.44 and 69.98 cm, respectively in T2, T4 and T1. The total water requirement was the highest in T6 (144.68 cm). In transplanted rice the water requirement in T5 (199.59 cm) was lesser than T7 (229.83 cm). Among sown rice, the pooled depth of irrigation water requirement was higher in T6 (111.71 cm). It was followed by T1 (37.01 cm), T4 (35.48 cm) and T2 (34.23 cm) respectively. The least was recorded in T3 (33.68 cm). Treatment T5 recorded total water requirement of 166.63 cm followed by T7 (196.86 cm). 3792 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(9): 3790-3796 Table.1 Quantity of irrigation water applied and per cent saving as influenced by different cultivation practices, land levelling and irrigation methods for paddy production Treatment Total depth of irrigation water applied (cm) Total quantity of irrigation water applied (m3 ha-1) Quantity of irrigation water saved over control (T7) (m3 ha-1) 2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled T1 42.6 31.42 37.01 4260 3142 3701 16000 15970 T2 39.18 29.28 34.23 3918 2928 3423 16342 T3 38.72 28.64 33.68 3872 2864 3368 T4 40.34 30.61 35.48 4034 3061 T5 172.6 160.65 166.63 17260 T6 116.8 106.62 111.71 T7 202.6 191.12 196.86 Per cent of irrigation water saved over control (T7) 2015 2016 Pooled 15985 78.97 83.56 81.20 16184 16263 80.66 84.68 82.61 16388 16248 16318 80.89 85.01 82.89 3548 16226 16051 16139 80.09 83.98 81.98 16065 16663 3000 3047 3024 14.81 15.94 15.36 11680 10662 11171 8580 8450 8515 42.35 44.21 43.25 20260 19112 19686 --- --- --- --- --- --- Legend T1 - Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Surface Drip irrigation (80 cm Lateral spacing) T2 - Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Surface Drip irrigation (60 cm Lateral spacing) T3 - Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Sub-surface Drip irrigation (60 cm Lateral spacing) T4 - Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Sub-surface Drip irrigation (80 cm Lateral spacing) T5 - Transplanted Rice (TPR) with Laser land levelling and Conventional method of flood irrigation T6 - Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Conventional land levelling and Conventional method of flood irrigation T7 - Control (Conventional land levelling with Conventional method flood irrigation) i.e. Farmers’ Practice 3793 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(9): 3790-3796 Fig.1 Schematic chart of laser land levelling concept Fig.2 Drip irrigation system installed in farmer’s field Fig.3 (a) Quantity of water applied as influenced by different cultivation practices, land levelling and irrigation methods for paddy production 3794 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(9): 3790-3796 Fig.3 (b) Per cent saving as influenced by different cultivation practices, land levelling and irrigation methods for paddy production Legend T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Surface Drip irrigation (80 cm Lateral spacing) Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Surface Drip irrigation (60 cm Lateral spacing) Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Sub-surface Drip irrigation (60 cm Lateral spacing) Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Laser land levelling and Sub-surface Drip irrigation (80 cm Lateral spacing) Transplanted Rice (TPR) with Laser land levelling and Conventional method of flood irrigation Dry Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) with Conventional land levelling and Conventional method of flood irrigation Control (Conventional land levelling with Conventional method flood irrigation) i.e. Farmers’ Practice Among sown rice the highest per cent water saving was observed T3 (82.86 %). It was followed by T2 (82.61 %), T4 (81.98 %) and T1 (81.20 %) when compared with control i.e. farmers’ practice (T7). The water saving was mainly due to precise levelling in laser levelled plots leading to smooth and faster movement of water thereby quick uniform distribution of water. Moreover, application of water to the root zone of crops by drip irrigation. But in control plot it was not so smooth. Whereas, water has to be applied so that the water reaches the high spots. The uniform distribution and reduced losses (Rajput and Patel, 2004, Abdullaev et al., 2007) in laser levelling plots also led to reduced depth of application and more saving of water. The irrigation time reduced considerably in laser levelled drip plots. The similar results on irrigation water requirement, depth and saving were obtained by Ahmad et al., (2001), Rickman (2002), Aggarwal et al., (2010), Shahin et al.,(2013) and Abdelraouf et al., (2014). Thus, laser land levelling and drip irrigation methods by saving considerable quantity of water were proved to be a RCTs in paddy production. Laser land levelling and drip irrigation techniques used for paddy cultivation were observed to save huge quantity of irrigation water in paddy cultivation. The dry DSR plot with laser land levelling and subsurface drip irrigation at 60 cm lateral spacing required the lowest quantity of irrigation water whereas farmers’ practice of growing paddy recorded the highest quantity of water usage of 19686 m3 ha-1 in pooled mean. This was followed by plot with TPR with laser land levelling and conventional method of flood irrigation. The highest water saving (82.89 per cent) was observed in the plot with dry DSR with laser land levelling and sub-surface drip irrigation with 60 cm lateral spacing when compared with control i.e. farmers’ practice. 3795 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(9): 3790-3796 Acknowledgements Authors express their gratitude to farmer Sri. Suresh Reddy who spared his land for drip irrigation studies in paddy. Authors also acknowledge the support of staff and Dean of College of Agricultural Engineering, UAS Raichur and CIMMYT New Delhi and Dean (PGS) of UAS Raichur for their help in successful completion of study. References Abdelraouf, R., Mehana, H. M., Sabreen, K. and Piparsand Bakry, 2014, Impact of laser land levelling on water productivity of wheat under deficit irrigation conditions. Current Res. Agric. Sci., 1(2): 53-64. Abdullaev, I., Mehmood Ul Hassan and Kahramon Jumaboev, 2007, Water saving and economic impacts of land levelling: the case study of cotton production in Tajikistan. Irrig. Drain. Sys., 21:251–263. Aggarwal, R., Samanpreetkaur and Amarjeet Singh, 2010, Assessment of saving in water resources through precision land levelling in Punjab. J. Soil Water Cons., 9(3): 182185. Ahmad, B., Shahid, B. K. and Badar, H., 2001, Economics of laser land levelling in District Faisalabad, Pakistan J. Appl. Sci., 1(3): 409-412. Anonymous, 2011, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. http:// www.indiastat.com. Anonymous, 2016, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Agricultural Statistics Division, Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Department of Agriculture and Co- operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi. Jat, M. L., Pal, S. S., Subba Rao, A.V.M. and Sharma, S.K., 2003, Improving resource use efficiency in wheat through laser land levelling in an Ustochrept of Indo-gangetic plain. Paper presented In: Nation. Sem. on Dev. in Soil Sci., and 68th Annu. Conv. of the Indian Soc. of Soil Sci., 4-8 November 2003, CSAUAT, Kanpur (UP). Naresh, R. K., Singh, S. P., Misra, A. K., Tomar, S. S., Pardeep Kumar, Vineet Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, 2014, Evaluation of the laser levelled land levelling technology on rice crop yield and water use productivity in Western Uttar Pradesh. Africa J. Agric. Res., 9(4):473-478. Rajput, T. B. S., Patel, N. and Agarwal, G., 2004, Laser levelling- a tool to increase irrigation efficiency at field level. J. Agric. Engg., 41(1): 20-25. Ramana Rao, K. V., 2013, Evaluation of drip irrigation system in paddy crop: A viable alternate to conventional water management practice in paddy cultivation CIAE, India. Paper presented In: Int. Exhibition and conf. on “Water Technologies, Environ. Technologies and Renewable Energy” 13-14, February, 2013, Bombay Exhibition Centre, Mumbai, India Rickman, J. F., 2002, Manual for laser land levelling, Rice-wheat Consortium Tech. Bull. Series 5. New Delhi-12, India. Ricewheat consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains. pp. 24. Shahin, A., Jafar, H. and Seyed, M. J. A., 2013, Levelling as a tool for reducing water casualties in wheat fields. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci., 6(6): 296-299. How to cite this article: Ravindra Yaligar, P. Balakrishnan, U. Satishkumar, P. S. Kanannavar, A. S. Halepyati, M. L. Jat and Rajesh N. L. 2017. Water requirement of Paddy under Different Land Levelling, Cultivation Practices and Irrigation Methods. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 6(9): 3790-3796. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.468 3796