See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266318883

Effects of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) threshold level and plant seedling
age on crop performance, water input, and water productivity of transplanted
rice in Central Luzon,...

Article  in  Paddy and Water Environment · March 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10333-014-0423-5

CITATIONS READS

53 955

7 authors, including:

R. M. Lampayan Kristine samoy-pascual

University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippine Rice Research Institute
43 PUBLICATIONS   1,286 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Evangeline Barroga Sibayan Victor Ella

Philippine Rice Research Institute University of the Philippines Los Baños
14 PUBLICATIONS   530 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Water-Efficient and Risk Mitigation Technologies for Enhancing Rice Production in Irrigated and Rainfed Environments (WateRice) View project

Agriscatt 1988 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bas Bouman on 08 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effects of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) threshold level and plant seedling
age on crop performance, water input, and water productivity of transplanted rice
in Central Luzon, Philippines

R.M. Lampayana*, K.C. Samoy-Pascualb, E.B. Sibayanb, V.B. Ellac, O.P. Jayaga, R.J. Cabangona,
B.A.M. Boumana

a
International Rice Research Institute, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
b
Philippine Rice Research Institute, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
c
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +63-2-891-1236; Fax: +63-2-580 5699
E-mail address: r.lampayan@irri.org (R.M. Lampayan).

Abstract
Water for agriculture is increasingly becoming scarce and the production of rice will be affected. This
necessitates the development of innovative techniques that reduce water input and increase water productivity of
rice. Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) irrigation and use of older seedlings may help reduce the input water
requirement of rice. We evaluated the effects of AWD at different threshold levels (irrigation when perched water
table drops to 15, 25, or 30 cm below soil surface) in comparison with continuous flooding (CF), and of rice plant
seedling ages on grain yield, water input, and water productivity of lowland rice during the 2010 and 2011 dry
seasons. In both years, there was no effect of water management and a significant effect of seedling age. Twenty-
one-day-old seedlings gave the highest yields. Water savings using AWD ranged from 42.8 to 53.7% of total water
input in comparison with CF, without yield loss, but there was little difference in water input among AWD
treatments. Due to shorter duration of growth in the main field, water input with 30-d-old seedlings was lower than
with younger seedlings, but with a corresponding yield loss. Total water productivities in AWD treatments were
higher than those with CF. Among seedling ages, 21-d-old seedlings gave the highest water productivity and 30-d-
old seedlings gave the lowest.

Keywords: alternate wetting and drying, seedling age, total water input, total water productivity, water savings,
irrigated lowland rice

Introduction

Lowland rice in Asia is traditionally transplanted into puddled soil and grown under flooded conditions
wherein abundant water is used. In fact, when irrigation is available, the field is ponded with water for at least 80%
of the crop’s duration (Bouman et al. 2007). At the farmer field level, rice uses much water two to three times more

1
than do other irrigated crops, but an unknown fraction of water losses from individual fields is reused by other fields
downstream. Assuming a water reuse fraction of 25%, it has been estimated that irrigated rice receives some 34–
43% of the total world’s irrigation water or 24–30% of the total world’s freshwater withdrawals (Bouman et al.
2007). About 56% of the world’s 271 million ha of irrigated area of all crops is in Asia, and rice accounts 40–46%
of the net irrigated area of all crops (Dawe 2005). In the Philippines, some 61% of the 3.4 million ha of rice land is
under irrigation, with the majority of the production coming from the rice bowl in Central Luzon (IRRI 1997).
Water is becoming more scarce due to rapid increase of population, increasing urban and industrial demand,
decreasing availability due to contamination of water resources by point and non-point pollutants (chemicals, salts,
silts), and water resource depletion (Rijsberman 2006). Climate change has also brought an alarming situation to
agricultural sector particularly of increasing scarcity of water globally, which threatens irrigated lowland rice
production. With declining availability of water for agriculture, saving water and increasing rice productivity have
become major challenges to many rice producers. In situations where water is scarce, non- beneficial losses (e.g.,
seepage, percolation, evaporation) of water in rice fields must be reduced.
Several water-saving technologies and practices have been developed to help farmers cope with water scarcity
in irrigated environments. These include saturated soil culture, aerobic rice, and alternate wetting and drying (AWD)
(Belder et al. 2005; Bouman et al. 2007). These water saving-technologies are mostly aimed at reducing
unproductive losses of water due to seepage, percolation, and evaporation, thereby increasing the productivity of
total water inputs from rainfall and irrigation.
AWD is a technology that has been widely tested and promoted in several countries in Asia, especially the
Philippines, China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. In the Philippines, the technology has been tested and promoted since
2001 (Lampayan et al. 2003) and, in 2009, a policy document was released to support the wide-scale promotion of
AWD in the country (Sibayan 2011). In AWD, the rice field is intermittently flooded, followed by periods without
flooding. The number of days that the soil is left dry varies from 1 to more than 10 d depending on the soil type,
crop stage and weather. The recommended water management for “safe” (no yield loss) AWD involves applying
irrigation (to depth of around 5 cm) when the perched water table falls to 15 cm below the soil surface. This can be
monitored from a hole in the ground, but, to prevent the hole from collapsing, a field water tube is normally
installed. The field water tube is a perforated tube that can be fabricated with materials such as polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipe, bamboo, plastic water bottles, or even tin cans, with diameter ranging from 10 to 20 cm (Figure 1). The
threshold of 15 cm is called ‘safe AWD” as this will not cause any yield decline since the lower parts of the roots of
the rice plants - generally extending 15-20 deep - will still be able to take up water from the (mostly) saturated soil
and the perched water in the root zone (Bouman et al. 2007). Leaf area expansion is reduced as soon as the soil dries
below saturation (tensions higher than 1 kPa) in most cultivars, and growth and yield formation become affected
(Wopereis et al. 1996). The field water tube helps farmers see this “hidden” source of water". Safe AWD can be
started at 1 to 2 weeks after transplanting is done, and afterwards, the only time that field is necessarily kept flooded
is at flowering to avoid spikelet sterility and resulting yield loss (Bouman et al. 2007).
Several studies have shown that safe AWD reduces water input significantly without penalty in grain yield
(Cabangon et al. 2003; Lampayan et al. 2003; Samoy et al. 2008). Compared to famers practice of continuous

2
flooding, safe AWD saves as much as 30% irrigation water without reducing rice yields, and increases farmers’
income by 30% (Lampayan 2013). Other potential benefits of AWD were reduction in lodging problem of rice
plants from grain filling to maturity stages because of better rooting system, better control of some diseases such as
golden snail (Bouman et al. 2007), and reduction of methane gas emissions (Sander et al. 2012). Flooded rice fields
are also anthropogenic source of greenhouse (GHG) methane (CH4). Multiple aerations of the paddy fields using
AWD reduce methane emission by 30-70% (Sander et al. 2012).
Increasing the threshold for irrigation to a watertable depth of 25 cm and even deeper may be possible for
AWD; however whether we can increase the depth without losing yield needs to be investigated. More irrigation
water can be saved and water productivity further increased by prolonging the periods of dry soil and imposing a
slight drought stress on the plants, but this may come at the expense of yield loss.
In the search for other ways to save water, several field experiments were also conducted at IRRI and in
Central Luzon, Philippines, to test the hypothesis that “older” but “stronger” and more vigorous seedlings can
reduce crop duration in the main field and hence water requirement without compromising rice yield (Faronilo et al.
2010). Age of seedlings at transplanting often depended on availability of inputs, including water. In lowland rice,
farmers often use 25-50 d-old seedlings for transplanting (De Datta 1981; Singh and Singh 1999). However, as
reviewed by Pasuquin et al. (2008), most studies indicated higher grain yields by using seedlings not older than 25
days. In the Philippines, Pasuquin et al. (2008) found higher yield with younger seedlings, with, in some cases, a
difference as large as 1 t ha-1 between 7- and 21-d transplanting. Other studies outside the Philippines showed that
transplanting younger seedlings (about 8–12 d old) with wide spacing and no continuous flooding gave higher yield
(Uphoff 2000). In contrast, a few others reported that the use of 30- and 60-d-old seedlings did not affect yield
(Chandra and Manna 1988). In the 2007 dry season (DS) at IRRI, Furukawa (2008) indicated that transplanting
vigorous 31-d-old seedlings grown in well-fertilized wetbed nurseries at lower sowing density shortened crop
growth duration in the main field and reduced water input without any yield decline. Follow-up experiments in 2009
DS and 2010 DS confirmed that transplanting of old seedlings (31 d) can achieve yield comparable with that of 10-
d-old seedlings or 20-d-old seedlings, provided that lower sowing density (25 gm -2) is used and fertilizer is applied
in the seedbed (Faronilo et al. 2010).
In this paper, we investigated the potential for further reducing water input and increasing input water
productivity by increasing the threshold level for AWD and increasing seedling age without compromising grain
yield.

Materials and Method

Experimental site description

An experiment was conducted at the experimental farm of the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice)
in Muñoz (15˚40’N, 120˚53 E), Nueva Ecija, Philippines, during the 2010 and 2011 DS (December-April). In the
2010 DS, the experiment was located in Block 6, Lot 7 of the PhilRice experimental farm (site A), which has a
historically shallow groundwater table. In the 2011 DS, the experiment was transferred to Block 15, Lots 3-4 (site

3
B), about 500 m away from site A, to validate initial results under deeper water table conditions. Both sites have
clay soils (44% clay, 17% silt, 39% sand). The sites have been continuously cropped with puddled rice twice a year
and are surrounded by flooded rice fields during cropping seasons. Average annual rainfall in the area is 1,747 mm
with distinct dry (December-April) and wet (May-November) seasons. The area has an average temperature of
27.4 ºC, a relative humidity of 84.4%, and solar radiation of 20.6 MJ m -2 d-1.

Treatments and design

The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design with water regime (W) as the main plot and seedling age
(S) as the subplot. There were four replicates, and a total of 48 subplots (5 m x 8 m) were established in the main
field. Four water regimes and three seedling age treatments were tested. The water regimes were continuously
flooded (CF); AWD at the -15 cm threshold level for irrigation (AWD15); AWD at -25 cm (AWD25); and AWD at
-30 cm (AWD30). The seedling age treatments involved the use of 14-d-old (S14); 21-d-old (S21); and 30-d-old
(S30) seedlings. The inbred variety PSB RC80 was used in both years.
In all water treatments, soil was kept saturated for the first 3 weeks after transplanting to promote better
seedling establishment. Thereafter, water depth was increased to 5 cm; the four water treatments were imposed
afterward. In CF, 2–5-cm water depth was maintained throughout the growing period of rice until 2 weeks before
the expected time of harvest. In the AWD treatments (AWD15, AWD25, and AWD30), timing of irrigation was
based on the water depth in the field water tube (Figure 1) installed in each plot. Irrigation time thus varied slightly
across replicates. The tubes were installed in the field to depths of 15, 25 and 30 cm (to correspond with AWD
treatments). When there was no visible water in the tube, irrigation was applied until the depth above the soil surface
reached 5 cm. At around flowering (67–73 d after transplanting [DAT]), all AWD treatments were suspended and
water depth was maintained from 3 to 5 cm depth to reduce the risk of spikelet sterility due to water-deficit stress at
this sensitive stage. After completion of the flowering stage, AWD was applied again until 2 weeks before the
expected time of harvest in all water treatments.
Seeding rate (25 g m-2) and seeding dates in the seedbed were the same for all seedling age treatments.
Forty eight (48) small plots with plot size of 1 m x 2 m were prepared, and were separated by bunds in the seedbed.
Each small plot corresponded to one plot in the main field. The seedbed was plowed once and harrowed twice, with
the last harrowing done 1 d before sowing. Ten bags of organic materials (carbonized rice hull, sawdust, and coir
dust) were incorporated into the soil during the final leveling of the seedbed to facilitate easy pulling of seedlings.
Inorganic fertilizer was not applied in the seedbed.
The main experimental field was prepared with one dry plowing using a four-wheel tractor with trailing
disc harrow, followed by land soaking and two wet harrowing operations. Bunds and canals were constructed and
plastic linings were installed to 40 cm depth in the side of the bunds to reduce seepage losses between the subplots.
Seedlings were transplanted according to seedling age treatment (14, 21, and 30 d after seeding). The seedlings
were carefully pulled from the seedbeds, a few seedlings at a time to reduce root damage. Upon pulling, the
seedlings were immersed in water in plastic trays to avoid water stress before transplanting the next day. Seedlings
were manually transplanted in the experimental field with one seedling per hill at 20- x 20-cm plant spacing.

4
 Crop management protocols in the main field were all the same. Each season, a total of 120 kg ha -1 of
nitrogen (N) was applied as urea in three equal splits: 1) basal or before transplanting, 2) 21–23 DAT or at mid-
tillering, and 3) 43–50 DAT or at panicle initiation. Phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) were also applied as basal
fertilizer at 40 kg each ha-1. Complete fertilizer (14-14-14) was used as the source of NPK for the basal application.
It was incorporated in the soil during final harrowing. Pre-emergence herbicide (butachlor) was applied 7 DAT.
Occasional manual weeding was done to keep the plots free from weeds.

Measurements and calculations

A network of pipes was installed in the experiment to facilitate easy irrigation application and
measurement. Irrigation water applied in each plot was measured using a flow meter attached from the pump to the
distribution pipe. The seasonal water input per treatment from transplanting to harvesting was the sum of all
irrigation water applied and rainfall. Soil moisture tension at 15 cm soil depth was monitored using Jet Fill
tensiometers installed in all AWD plots. Daily standing water depths (aboveground) and perched water depths
(below ground) in all AWD plots were also monitored manually by measuring the water inside the field water tubes
(Figure 1) with a meter stick. In CF plots, wooden stick gages were installed to monitor daily ponded water depths.
Daily groundwater dynamics were separately monitored in 3-m-long piezometers (made of 1-in-diameter PVC pipes
with perforations in the bottom 40 cm) installed at two locations (upper and lower portions of the main experimental
field) during the 2010–2011 DS. Water and soil moisture readings were taken at 0800-0900 h each day.
Plant samples were taken five times (at the time of transplanting, mid-tillering, panicle initiation, flowering,
and physiological maturity) to determine aboveground biomass and leaf area index (LAI) during the season. At
each sampling, a total of four (0.16 m2) (2010) or six (0.24 m2) (2011) plants were destructively sampled and
brought to the laboratory for biomass and leaf area measurements. Plants were partitioned into green leaf blade, stem
plus leaf sheath, dead leaves (if any), and panicle (if any). The leaf area of the green leaves was measured using a
LicorTM LI3100 area meter. Leaf area index was determined by dividing total leaf area by area of the sampling unit.
Biomass was determined after oven-drying of plant samples at 70 oC for 3 d. Grains yields were determined at
maturity by taking 6-m2 plant samples at the center of each plot. Grains were separated from the rachis, filled and
unfilled grains were also separated, and their total weight determined. Grain moisture content of the filled grains was
measured with a digital moisture tester and grain yield was calculated at 14% moisture content. Plant samples were
also taken for the determination of yield components (panicle density, number of spikelets per panicle, 1000-grain
weight, and percentage filled spikelets) from 12 hills (0.48 m2) adjacent to the harvest area. Total water productivity
(WPI+R) was calculated as kg grain m-3 total water input (rainfall and the sum of all irrigations, excluding land
preparation).

5
 Weather data, taken from the weather station at PhilRice, included daily rainfall, evaporation, temperature,
and solar radiation. Seasonal means and sums were reported based on the growth duration specified in the
treatments. Growth duration was measured from transplanting until physiological maturity.

Data analysis
Data analysis was carried out using the balanced analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the linear mixed
model of CropStat (IRRI 2007) for a split-plot design with water regime as the main factor and seedling age as the
subfactor. Mean comparison among treatments was based on the least significant difference (LSD) test at the 5%
level of significance.

Results

Weather conditions
Table 1 presents the total of rainfall and pan evaporation and the average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures, solar radiation, and sunshine duration during the crop growth period (transplanting-harvesting) for
each treatment in the 2010 and 2011 DS. No rainfall occurred throughout the growth duration in 2010, while some
rainfall occurred in 2011, particularly in the S14 (50 mm) and S21 (38 mm) seedling age treatments. There was
rainfall during the first few weeks after transplanting (data not shown). Average daily maximum temperature was
higher in 2010 (site A) than that in 2011 (site B). Cumulative pan evaporation in 2010 was also higher than in 2011,
by about 35%. In both years, cumulative pan evaporation decreased from S14 to S30 due to shorter crop duration
(Table 2) in the main field as seedling age increased. Average daily solar radiation from transplanting to harvest was
higher in 2010 (20.5–21.0 MJ m-2) than in 2011 (19.5–20.7 MJ m-2). Average daily sunshine duration was also
higher in 2010 (9.5–9.9 h) than in 2011 (7.4–8.3 h).

Hydrological conditions
The average groundwater in the 2010 experimental main field was very shallow (Figure 2) and depth
fluctuated from about 22 to 45 cm below the ground surface, with a seasonal average depth of 29 cm (before
terminal drainage was imposed). In 2011, average groundwater depth (before terminal drainage was imposed) was
150 cm below ground surface in 2011, with fluctuations from 98 to 178 cm in the season.
Figure 3 shows the typical daily field water fluctuations (as measured by field water tubes) according to
water regime during the 2010 and 2011 seasons. The data used in Figure 3 were from the S14 plots (similar trends
were observed in other seedling age treatments). Within water treatment, irrigation time varied slightly across the
replicates as irrigation of each plot was based on the field water tube depth in that plot. In both years, imposition of
all AWD threshold levels was possible and, as expected, there were more AWD cycles (wetting and flooding cycles)
in AWD15; they were least in AWD30. In CF plots, field water depth usually ranged from 1 to 5 cm.

6
 Soil water tension dynamics of the AWD treatments was well-correlated with field water level dynamics,
as shown in Figure 4. When groundwater level became deeper, soil water tension at 15 cm increased. In both years,
soil water tension increased from AWD15 to AWD30. The average soil water tensions in 2010 were higher than
those in 2011 (more drying events in 2010), but the differences were very small. The seasonal average soil water
tension at 15 cm in 2010 was 2.0 kPa in AWD15, 3.4 kPa in AWD25, and 3.0 kPa in AWD30. In 2011, average soil
water potential was 1.5 kPa in AWD15, 1.9 kPa in AWD25, and 4.7 kPa in AWD30.

Crop growth and development

In general, LAI increased from tillering to a maximum of 3–4 around flowering, then dropped towards
maturity. LAI in 2010 was higher than that in 2011 (Figure 5) probably due to higher solar radiation and longer
sunshine duration in 2010. In both years, there was no significant interaction between water regime and seedling age
treatments on LAI. The LAI at all measured crop stages was not significantly affected by water regime, but it was
significantly affected by seedling age. Across seedling age treatments in both years, the trends of LAI values at
different growth stages were consistent: S14 was highest among the treatments at mid-tillering, panicle initiation,
and flowering, although S14 was not significantly different from S21 at flowering in 2010, and at panicle initiation
and flowering in 2011.
Similarly, no significant interactions between water and seedling age were also found with the dry biomass.
Dry biomass in 2010 was also higher than in 2011 (Figure 6). On the average, dry biomass in 2010 increased from
about 0.4 t ha-1 at mid-tillering, to 11.2 t ha-1 at flowering, and to 16.8 t ha-1 at physiological maturity. In 2011, dry
biomass increased from 0.12 t ha-1 at mid-tillering, to 9.3 t ha-1 at flowering, and to 12.0 t ha-1 at physiological
maturity. Aboveground dry biomass was not affected by water regime but was significantly affected by seedling age
in each year (Figure 6). At panicle initiation and flowering in each year there were small but significant differences
in biomass. S14 was highest in 2010, although no difference was found between S21 and S30. In 2011, S14 and S21
were similarly highest and S30 was lowest at panicle initiation and flowering stages.
Growth duration in the main field ranged from 90 to 99 d in 2010 and from 88 to 102 d in 2011 (Table 2).
Transplanting 30-d-old seedlings resulted in shorter duration in the main field than transplanting 14-d-old seedlings,
with a difference of up to 9 d in 2010 and 14 d in 2011. However, late transplanting increased the time from sowing
to panicle initiation and flowering and reduced the grain-filling period by up to 14 d in 2010 and 8 d in 2012.The
start of flowering stage of S30 was delayed by 11–12 d when compared with S21 and S14 in both seasons.

Grain yield, yield components, and harvest index

Grain yields of the respective treatments were higher in 2010 than in 2011 (Table 3). In both years, there
were neither significant W x S interactions nor significant effects of W, with respect to grain yield, yield
components, and harvest index. Seedling age treatments significantly affected grain yields, percent filled spikelets
and harvest index in both years. However, the other yield components (i.e. number of tillers m -2, number of
panicles m-2 and 1000-grain weight) were only significantly affected by seedling age in 2010, while number of
spikelets m-2 was significantly affected in 2011 (Table 3). Grain yield was highest with S21 (albeit not significantly

7
different from S14 in 2011), and lowest (p<0.05) with S30 in both years. Percent filled spikelets were lower in S30
than S21 in both years, but not significantly different from S14 in 2010; S14 and S21 were similar in both years.
Harvest index of S30 was significantly lower than those of S14 and S21 in 2011 and lower than that of S21 in 2010.
No significant difference of harvest indices of S14 and S21 was found in both years.

Water input and water productivity

Total water input was higher in 2010 than in 2011. Total water input across water treatments in 2010
(mostly from irrigation) ranged from 612 to 1,321 mm in 2010 and from 556 to 1,197 mm in 2011 (Table 4). There
was no W x S interaction on water input each year. Water input of CF was significantly higher than those of all other
treatments each year. There was a consistent trend of decreasing water input as the depth threshold increased
(AWD15 > AWD25 > AWD30), but there were no significant differences in either year. There was lower water
input as seedling age increased, with a significantly lower water input noted in S30 than in S14 in 2010.
Total water productivity (WP I+R) across water treatments ranged from 0.63 to 1.34 kg m -3 in 2010 and from
0.50 to 0.99 kg m-3 in 2011 (Table 4). The higher WPI+R in 2010 was due to higher grain yield, which more than
compensated for the higher water input that year. There was no W x S interaction on WP I+R. In both seasons, there
were significant effects of water regime and seedling age treatments on WPI+R. There was a consistent trend of
observing the lowest WPI+R in CF and the highest in AWD25, with some significant differences; AWD25 obtained
the highest (though not statistically significant) WPI+R than AWD30 in 2010 and AWD15 and AWD30 in 2011. The
highest WPI+R was consistently seen in S21 each year and the lowest in S14, but there was no significant difference
between S21 and S30 in both years.

Discussion
The better crop development, the more favorable yield components, and the higher grain yields and harvest
indices in 2010 compared with those in 2011 were largely due to climatic differences between the two years. Across
water and seedling age treatments, grain yields ranged from 7.5 to 8.0 t ha -1 in 2010 and from 5.0 to 6.0 t ha -1 in
2011. This gave about a 2.4-t ha-1 difference between the years. Higher LAI, dry biomass, panicle density, and
number of spikelets per panicle (by about 8%) were produced in 2010 than in 2011; percent filled spikelets and
1000-grain weight were similar in both years. Lower average maximum temperatures, lower solar radiation and
sunshine duration due to cloudy weather in 2011 may have accounted for these differences. According to Yoshida
(1981), growth and grain yield are determined largely by temperature and solar radiation with all other inputs non-
limiting. The slight variations in rainfall amount between the 2010 and 2011 experimental periods probably had no
effect on crop performance. Rainfall occurred in 2011 only during the first few weeks after transplanting
(particularly in S14) and, during this period, the plants were not yet exposed to the water treatments. The
differences in groundwater conditions in the two sites probably did not contribute to the difference in crop
performance as there were no W treatment effects, even CF had a 2.1 t ha -1 lower yield. The higher total water input

8
in 2010 was probably the result of higher evaporative demand in 2010 (Table 1) and despite the shallower
watertable.

Effects of water regime

AWD was developed and implemented to increase water productivity and save water for other uses
(Bouman et al 2007; Bouman and Tuong 2001; Belder et al. 2004; Tabbal et al. 2002). The present study confirmed
the recommendation by Bouman et al. (2007) and findings from Wiangsamut (2010) that implementation of AWD is
“safe” (no yield penalty but with substantial reduction in water input) if fields are irrigated when water level falls to
15–20 cm below the ground surface. In both years, grain yield, harvest index, and grain yield components of PSB
RC80 with CF and AWD (AWD15, AWD25, and AWD30) were similar. Comparable yields were obtained despite
higher soil moisture tension in the higher threshold AWD treatments. During both years, the average peak values of
soil moisture tension at 15-cm soil depth were 12–13 kPa in AWD15, 16–20 kPa in AWD25, and 21–25 kPa in
AWD30. The higher average peak values were from the 2011 dry season experiment and may be due to the deeper
groundwater, hence better ability to drain the water than in 2010. While yields remained the same, total water inputs
were significantly reduced by 42.8–48.0% in AWD15, by 52.0–53.0% in AWD25, and by 53.6–53.7% in AWD30
as compared with CF (Table 4). No significant differences in total water input were observed between AWD
treatments, although in relative terms, AWD15>AWD25>AWD30. Sudhir-Yadav et al. (2010) also found very
small effects of changing irrigation threshold from 20 to 40 to 70 kPa on irrigation input in puddled transplanted
rice.
Total water productivity was significantly higher in the AWD treatments than in CF in both years. Among
the AWD treatments, water productivity of AWD25 was highest. Except for S30 in 2010, the results further showed
that lowering the threshold level of AWD up to 30 cm remained safe under the clay lowland rice soils in the
experimental sites and shallower groundwater conditions (10–180 cm) in PhilRice. At a threshold level of 30 cm
(AWD30), soil moisture tension at 15 cm remained below 30 kPa, suggesting that the plants did not experience any
water stress at AWD30. No differences in aboveground biomass and LAI were observed among water treatments at
different stages of the crop (Figures 5 and 6). A number of studies (Lu et al. 2000; Kukal et al. 2005; Zhang et al.
2009) have suggested that 30 kPa is the possible maximum limit of soil water availability for “safe” AWD, but this
depends on the degree of exposure to higher tension. For example, in a deep water table situation in a dry climate,
there will be many dry-downs, and safe thresholds may actually be lower. Some sort of water deficit index may be
needed to take into account both the amount of time that the soil is drier than a certain tension and the degree of
drying to properly explain the response. Although higher soil moisture tensions up to 30 kPa may be “safe” in some
situations, Bouman and Tuong (2001) cautioned that, for some situations, this may lead to yield reduction. For
example, Wiangsamut (2010) reported a decrease in grain yield (when compared with CF) by more than 30% in
sandy loam, silt loam, and loam soils in Tarlac Province, Philippines, when irrigation was given when soil moisture
tension reached 30 kPa. However, on clay loam, Wiangsamut (2010) did not find any grain yield reduction with 30
kPa AWD primarily because groundwater table depths were between 15 and 42 cm and never dropped below the
root zone. On clay soil (60% clay, 31% silt, 9% sand) at IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines, AWD with a threshold of 30

9
kPa did not reduce yield for almost all of the varieties tested (Bueno et al. 2010). Groundwater levels at the IRRI
farm are generally shallow, with water table depths fluctuating from 0 to 70 cm below the ground surface during the
dry season in a number of experimental fields (Cabangon et al. 2011).

Effects of seedling age

Several studies suggest that use of younger seedlings (8–14 d old) for transplanting results in better crop
performance and yield (Vijayakumar et al. 2006; Mishra and Salokhey 2008; Makarim et al. 2002; McDonald et al.
2006; Pasuquin et al. 2008). However, other studies reported that transplanting younger seedlings (14 d) increases
mortality of the seedlings in the main field, resulting in a lower yield compared with that using older seedlings (28
d) (Kewat et al. 2002). Several studies conducted at IRRI from 2007 to 2009 indicated that transplanting older but
vigorous seedlings can reduce crop duration in the main field without yield reduction, thus reducing water
requirement and increasing water productivity (Lampayan et al. unpubl. data). To achieve this, the seedlings (~31 d
old) needed to be grown in well-fertilized wet bed nurseries at low sowing density (25 g m -2) (Faronilo et al. 2010).
In the present study, the seedlings were also grown in wet bed nurseries with low seeding density (25 g m -2), with
organic materials added to the seedbed. The results showed that seedling age affected grain yield, which was highest
with 21-d-old seedlings (S21) and lowest with 30-d-old seedlings (S30). Grain yield of 14-d-old seedlings (S14)
ranked second among the treatments, although, in 2011, the grain yield difference between S14 and S21 was not
significant. The effects of seedling age on the yield components were relatively inconsistent, although S30
produced the lowest percent filled spikelets among the seedling age treatments. The number of tillers in younger
seedlings at 21–45 DAT was higher than in older seedlings (data not shown), which confirmed earlier findings of
Pasuquin et al. (2008) and Mishra and Salokhey (2008). Total crop duration (from sowing in the seedbed up to
harvesting in the main field) and main field crop duration (from transplanting to harvesting) were affected by
seedling age treatment in both years. Transplanted younger seedlings (S14) had longer duration in the main field: 2–
4 d more than that of S21 and 9–10 d more than that of S30. These results were consistent with findings of previous
studies by Faronilo et al. (2010) a reduction in duration by 10–12 d from S30 to S10. In terms of total crop growth
duration (sowing to harvest), the maturity of rice plants was delayed by 6–7 d in S30 and by 3–5 d in S21 as
compared with S14; this was probably because of the high competition between the seedlings due to their extended
stay in the nursery seedbed, hence the delay in tiller emergence (Mandal et al. 1984; Pasuquin et al. 2008). Against
S14 in the 2010 DS, water savings of 11.0% with S21 and 18.6% with S30 were observed due to the shorter stay of
the crops under these treatments in the main field. However, in 2011, because of rainfall occurrence at the start of
the season, the number of irrigations for the early established plants (particularly S14) was reduced by one irrigation
compared with that in 2010 (data not shown). This resulted in a similar total water input among seedling ages in
2011. With the highest yield and with its relatively comparable water input with S30 in both years, S21 produced the
highest total water productivity value than did the other two seedling age treatments.

Conclusions

10
 Grain yield was not significantly affected by water treatments, but it was affected by seedling age. No
significant W x S interactions were observed in both years of the experiment. Younger seedlings (S14 and S21) gave
higher yields due to their higher percent filled spikelets, number of spikelets per panicle, and harvest index at
maturity. AWD with thresholds of 15–30 cm water depth below the ground surface reduced water input significantly
and increased water productivity compared with continuous flooding. Use of 30-d-old seedlings (S30) reduced water
input due to the shorter crop growth duration in the main field, but this was attained at the expense of yield. S14 had
higher growth duration in the main field by 9–14 d when compared with S30 and by 2–8 d when compared with S21
in both seasons.
Substantial input water savings ranging from 42.8 to 53.7% (compared with CF) were obtained in AWD water
regimes with no yield penalty. Across seedling age, S30 obtained up to 19% water savings, but it had a yield loss of
up to 1.0 t ha-1 when compared with younger seedlings. To respond to the challenge of the paper, it is concluded
that there is still a scope to increase further the amount of water savings and water productivity of irrigated lowland
rice fields in Central Luzon, Philippines (with shallower groundwater tables and clay soil) by lowering the threshold
level of safe AWD. Farmers can adopt a lower threshold level for irrigation to 30 cm, depending on their own
conditions (in terms of water scarcity, water cost, and acceptable level of any yield loss). Further increase of water
savings can also be achieved by transplanting older seedlings (30-d-old), however with some yield penalty. Some
yield penalty may be acceptable when the price of water is high or when water is scarce. To further support the
results of the field analysis and to extrapolate the findings to other seasonal and site conditions, a simulation of the
effects of water management and seedling age on grain yield, water balance components, and WP of rice under a
range of groundwater depth, soil, and weather conditions is warranted.

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) through the Water-saving
Workgroup of the Irrigated Rice Research Consortium (IRRC) for funding the experiments. We are also grateful to
PhilRice management for permission to use the facilities and for the assistance in the conduct of the experiments.

References

Belder P, Bouman BAM, Cabangon R, Guoan L, Quilang EJP, Yuanhua L, Spiertz JHJ, Tuong TP (2004) Effect of
water-saving irrigation on rice yield and water use in typical lowland conditions in Asia. Agric Water Manage
65: 193-210.
Belder P, Spiertz JHJ, Bouman BAM, Lu G, Tuong TP (2005) Nitrogen economy and water productivity of
lowland rice under water-saving irrigation. Fields Crops Res 93: 169-185.
Bouman BAM, Tuong TP (2001) Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated
rice. Agric Water Manage 49: 11-30.
Bouman BAM, Lampayan RM, Tuong TP (2007) Water management in irrigated rice. Coping with water scarcity.
Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. 53 p.
Bueno CS, Bucourt M, Kobayashi N, Inubushi K, Lafarge T (2010) Water productivity of contrasting rice genotypes
grown under water-saving conditions in the tropics and investigation of morphological traits for adaptation.
Agric Water Manage 98: 241-250.
Cabangon RJ, Lu G, Tuong TP, Bouman BAM, Feng Y, Zichuan Z (2003) Irrigation management effects on yield
and water productivity of inbred and aerobic rice varieties in Kaefeng. In: Proc. of the 1st International Yellow

11
 River Forum on River Basin Management Vol. 2. Zhengzhou, Hennan, China: The Yellow River Conservancy
Publishing House. 65-76.
Cabangon RJ, Castillo EG, Tuong TP (2011) Chlorophyll meter-based nitrogen management of rice grown under
alternate wetting and drying irrigation. Field Crops Res 121: 136-146.
Chandra D, Manna GB (1988) Effect of planting date, seedling age, and planting density in late planted wet season
rice. Int Rice Res Notes (IRRN) 13 (6): 30.
Dawe D (2005) Increasing water productivity in rice-based systems in Asia–past trends, current problems, and
future prospects. Plant Prod Sci 8: 221-230.
De Datta SK (1981) Principles and Practices of Rice Production. Wiley & Sons, Singapore.
Faronilo JE, Tuong TP, Lampayan RM, Hosen Y, Bouman BAM, Cabangon RJ, Espiritu AJ, de Dios JL, Soriano
JB (2010) Transplanting old seedlings to shorten crop duration in the main field and reduce irrigation water:
nursery management effects on crop development. Paper presented at the 28 th International Rice Conference,
Oct 2010, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Furukawa Y (2008) Development of integrated rice cultivation system under water-saving condition. IRRI-Japan
Project Annual Report 2008 (unpubl.).
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (1997) Rice almanac, 2nd edition. Los Baños, Philippines: IRRI. p. 181.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (2007) CropStat for Windows version 7.2.2007.3. Los Baños,
Philippines: IRRI.
Kewat ML, Agrawal SB, Agrawal KK, Sharma RS (2002) Effect of divergent plant spacings and age of seedlings on
yield and economics of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa). Indian J Agron 47 (3): 367-371.
Kukal SS, Hira GS, Sidhu AS (2005) Soil matric potential-based irrigation scheduling to rice (Oryza sativa). Irrig
Sci 23: 153-159.
Lampayan RM, Bouman BAM, de Dios JL, Lactaoen AT, Espiritu AJ, Norte TM, Quilang EJP, Tabbal DF, Llorca
LP, Soriano JB, Corpuz AA, Malasa RB, Vicmudo VR (2003) Adoption of water-saving technologies in rice
production in the Philippines. Paper presented at the International Workshop on “Transitions in Agriculture for
Enhancing Water Productivity,” Sep 2003, Tamil Nadu, India.
Lampayan RM (2013). Smart water technique for rice, http://eiard.org/media/uploads/File/Case studies/2013_SDC
funded/IRRI - Smart water technique for rice.pdf.
Lampayan RM, Bouman BAM, Flor RJ, Palis FG (2013). Developing and disseminating alternate wetting and
drying water saving technology in the Philippines, in: Kumar, A. (ed), Mitigating Water Shortage Challenges
in Rice Cultivation: Aerobic and Alternate Wetting and Drying Rice Water Saving Technologies. Asian
Development Bank, Manila, Philippines (in press).
Lu J, Ookawa T, Hirasawa T (2000) The effects of irrigation regimes on water use, dry matter production, and
physiological responses of paddy rice. Plant Soil 223: 207-216.
McDonald AJ, Riha SJ, Duxbury JM, Steenhuis TS, Lauren JG (2006) Water balance and rice growth response to
direct seeding, deep tillage, and landscape placement: findings from a valley terrace in Nepal. Field Crops Res
95: 367-382.
Mandal BK, Sainik TR, Ray PK (1984) Effect of age of seedling and level of nitrogen on the productivity of rice.
Oryza 21: 225-232.
Makarim AK, Blasubramanian V, Zaini Z, Syamsiah I, Diratmadja IGPA, Handoko, Arafah, Warda IP, Gani A
(2002) Systems of rice intensification (SRI): evaluation of seedling age and selected components in Indonesia.
In: Water-wise rice production. 129-138 (Eds BAM Bouman, A Hengsdijk, B Hardy, PS Bindraban, TP
Tuong and JK Ladha).
Mishra A, Salokhey VM (2008) Seedling characteristics and the early growth of transplanted rice under different
water regimes. Exp Agric 44: 1-19.
Pasuquin ET, Lafarge T, Tubaña B (2008) Transplanting young seedlings in irrigated rice fields: Early and high
tiller production enhanced grain yield. Fields Crop Res 105: 141-155.
Rijsberman FR (2006) Water scarcity: fact or fiction? Agric Water Manage 80: 5-22.
Samoy KC, Cantre MAC, Corpuz AA, de Dios JL, Sibayan EB, Cruz RT (2008) Controlled irrigation in leaf color
chart-based and growth stage-base nitrogen management. In Proc. of the 38th Annual Scientific Conference of
the Crop Science Society of the Philippines, 12-16 May 2008, Iloilo City, Philippines. 34 p.
Sander BO, Asis CA, Wassmann R (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions from farmers’ rice fields in the Philippines:
‘reality check’ for water management as mitigation option. Poster presented at the International Symposium on
Managing Soils for Food Security and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, Vienna, Austria, 23-27 July
2012.

12
Sibayan EB (2011) National dissemination of AWD in the Philippines: experiences and the role of policy support.
Paper presented at the International Workshop on “Alternate Wetting and Drying for Resource Conservation
and reduction of Environmental Pollution,” Dec 13-14, 2011, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Singh RS, Singh SB (1999) Effect of age of seedlings, N-levels and time of application on growth and yield of rice
under irrigated condition. Oryza 36 (4): 351-354.
Sudhir-Yadav, Gill E, Humphreys E, Kukal SS, Walia WS (2010) Effect of water management on dry seeded and
puddle transplanted rice. Part 1: Crop performance. Field Crops Res 120: 112-122.
Tabbal DF, Bouman BAM, Bhuiyan SI, Sibayan EB, Sattar MA (2002) On-farm strategies for reducing water input
in irrigated rice: case studies in the Philippines. Agric Water Manage 56: 93-112.
Uphoff N (2000) The system of rice intensification developed in Madagascar. Paper presented at the conference on
Raising Agricultural Productivity in the Tropics: Biophysical Challenge for Technology and Policy, 16-17 Oct
2000, Harvard University, USA.
Vijayakumar M, Ramesh S, Chandrasekaran TM, Thiyagarajan TT (2006) Effect of system of rice intensification
(SRI) practices on yield attributes, yield and wáter productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Res J Agric Biol Sci
2(6): 236-242.
Yoshida S (1981). Fundamentals of Rice Crop Science. Los Baños, Philippines. 269 p.
Wiangsamut B (2010) Water-saving method in irrigated rice fields in Tarlac, Philippines. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Apr 2010. 159 p.
Wopereis MCS, Kropff MJ, Maligaya AR, Tuong TP (1996) Drought-stress responses of two lowland rice cultivars
to soil water status. Field Crops Res 46: 21-39.
Zhang H, Xue Y, Wang Z, Yang J, Zhang J (2009) An alternate wetting and moderate soil drying regime improves
root and shoot growth in rice. Crop Sci 49: 2246-2260.

Table 1: Cumulative rainfall (mm) and pan evaporation (mm), average daily maximum and minimum temperatures
(oC), average daily solar radiation (MJ m -2), and average daily sunshine duration (h) from sowing to harvest, Muñoz,
Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2010 and 2011 dry seasons.

Season/seedling age Total Total Max Min Solar

treatment rainfall evaporation temperature temperature radiation Sunshine
(oC) (oC) (MJ/m2) duration
(mm) (mm) (h)
2010 dry season (site A)
S14 (Jan 5 - Apr 14) 0 536 31.7 21.1 20.5 9.5
S21 (Jan 12 - Apr 19) 0 526 31.8 21.2 20.8 9.6
S30 (Jan 21 - Apr 22) 0 501 32.0 21.1 21.0 9.9
2011 dry season (site B)
S14 (Jan 4 - Apr 16) 51 402 29.9 21.3 19.5 7.4
S21 (Jan 11 - Apr 15) 39 371 30.1 21.5 19.9 7.7
S30 (Jan 20 - Apr 19) 4 332 30.2 21.5 20.7 8.3

Table 2: Key phenological stages of PSB Rc80 at different seedling age treatments. Muñoz, Nueva Ecija,
Philippines, 2010 and 2011 dry seasons.

Season/crop stage Duration in DAS (DAT)*

S14 S21 S30

13
2010 DS (site A)
Panicle initiation (PI) 59 (45) 66 (45) 73 (43)
Flowering (FL) 87 (73) 87 (66) 98 (68)
Physiological maturity (PM) 113 (99) 118 (97) 120 (90)
2011 DS (site B)
Panicle initiation (PI) 64 (50) 64 (43) 77 (47)
Flowering (FL) 88 (74) 88 (67) 98 (68)
Physiological maturity (PM) 116 (102) 115 (94) 118 (88)
*Computed based on days after sowing (DAS) and days after transplanting (DAT). PI = panicle initiation; FL =
flowering; PM = physiological maturity. Values in ( ) are duration in the main field = DAT.

Table 3: Effect of water regime and seedling age on grain yield and yield components of rice. Muñoz, Nueva Ecija,
Philippines, 2010 and 2011 dry seasons.

14
Means in a column for each season followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05). In the
analysis of variance, ns means non-significant (P>0.05), * means P<0.05, ** means P<0.01. CV = coefficient of
variance. W and S treatments are explained in the text.
1000- Harvest
Spikelets Filled Grain
Season Tillers Panicles grain index
Treatment (no. spikelets yield
(no. m-2) (no. m-2) -1 weight -1 (HI)
panicle ) (%) (t ha )
(g)
Water (W)
2010 dry CF 357 a 343 a 143 a 73.9 a 22.0 a 8.00 a 0.48 a
season AWD15 353 a 329 a 136 a 73.9 a 22.0 a 7.92 a 0.47 a
(site A) AWD25 363 a 343 a 139 a 75.8 a 21.6 a 7.95 a 0.47 a
AWD30 368 a 345 a 135 a 74.2 a 21.8 a 7.46 a 0.46 a
2011 dry
CF 330 a 309 a 133 a 77.1 a 22.1 a 5.88 a 0.51 a
season
AWD15 349 a 326 a 129 a 74.0 a 21.9 a 5.32 a 0.49 a
(site B)
AWD25 327 a 306 a 130 a 78.4 a 22.1 a 5.62 a 0.50 a
AWD30 336 a 320 a 122 a 75.8 a 21.7 a 5.01 a 0.50 a

Seedling age (S)

2010 dry S14 369 a 348 a 137 a 74.8 ab 21.6b 7.84 b 0.47 ab
season S21 326 b 304 b 139 a 76.0 a 22.3a 8.43 a 0.50 a
S30 386 a 368 a 139 a 72.5 b 21.7b 7.24 c 0.44 b
2011dry
S14 321 a 306 a 133 a 77.5 a 22.1 a 5.49 a 0.52 a
season
S21 354 a 330 a 136 a 78.0 a 22.2 a 5.90 a 0.52 a
S30 331 a 310 a 115 b 73.4 b 21.6 a 4.98 b 0.46 b
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
W ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
2010 dry S * * ns * * ** *
season Wx S ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 8.1 7.9 6.4 5.1 3.1 5.8 11.4

W ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
2011dry
S ns ns ** ** ns ** **
season
Wx S ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 13.0 13.3 12.0 5.6 3.1 12.6 6.4

15
Table 4: Total water input and total water productivity in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, during 2010 and 2011
dry seasons.

Treatment Total water input (mm) Total water productivity (kg m-3)
2010 dry season 2011 dry season 2010 dry season 2011 dry season
(site A) (site B) (site A) (site B)
Water (W)
CF 1321 a 1199 a 0.63 c 0.50 b
AWD15 756 b 623 b 1.09 b 0.86 a
AWD25 621 b 576 b 1.34 a 0.99 a
AWD30 612 b 556 b 1.24 ab 0.93 a

Seedling age (S)

S14 918 a 719 a 0.94 b 0.76 b
S21 817 ab 706 a 1.18 a 0.89 a
S30 747 b 704 a 1.10 a 0.81 ab

Analysis of variance
(ANOVA)
W ** ** ** *
S * ns * **
Wx S ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 19.2 14.3 20.1 15.0
Means in a column for each season followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05). In the
analysis of variance, ns means non-significant (P>0.05), * means P<0.05, ** means P<0.01. CV = coefficient of
variance. W and S treatments are explained in the text.

16
 10-20 cm diameter PVC pipe
Use a ruler to
measure water depth
When water level
above the soil surface:
read this

10cm

Soil surface

15 cm (for AWD15)
Puddled 25 cm (for AWD25)
topsoil 30 cm (for AWD30)
When water level below
the soil surface:
read this

Holes are 4-6 mm in

diameter, and spaced at 2-3
Plow pan cm apart.

Figure 1: Schematic design of a field water tube to implement AWD treatments in the water
regime x seedling age experiment, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2010 and 2011 dry seasons
(modified from Bouman et al. 2007).

17
Figure 2. Daily groundwater levels in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2010 (a) and 2011 (b)
dry seasons.

18
 Muñoz 2010 Muñoz 2011
Depth (cm) W1 Depth (cm) W1
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
Rep1 Rep2 Rep1 Rep2
-1 Rep3 Rep4 -1 Rep3 Rep4
-2 -2
20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 DAT
86 20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 DAT
86

Depth (cm) W2 Depth (cm) W2

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15
20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 DAT
86 20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 DAT
86

Depth (cm) W3 Depth (cm) W3

5 5
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
Figure 2. Daily perched water level of
-25 different water
-25 regimes at 14-day old seedling age in

Muñoz 2010 and 2011 dry season. DAT80is days

20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 DAT
86
after 20 26 32 38 44
transplanting. 50 56 62 68 74 80 86 DAT
92

Depth (cm) W4 Depth (cm) W4

5 5
Figure 3: Daily perched water levels of different water
0 0 regimes using 14-d-old seedlings (S14)
-5 -5
at Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2010 and 2011
-10 -10dry seasons. DAT is days after transplanting.
-15 -15
-20 -20
-25 -25
-30 -30
20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 DAT
86 20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 86 DAT
92

Figure 3: Daily perched water levels of different water regimes using 14-d old seedlings (S14) at
Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2010 and 2011 dry seasons. DAT is days after transplanting.

19
 Muñoz 2010 Muñoz 2011

40 Perched w ater level (cm) Soil w ater tension (kPa) Perched w ater level (cm) Soil w ater tension (kPa)

30 PI FL PI FL (a)
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
40
30 PI FL
PI FL (b)
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
40
30 (c)
PI FL PI FL
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
20 27 34 41 48 55 62 69 76 DAT
83 20 27 34 41 48 55 62 69 76 DAT
83

Figure 4: Values of soil water tension at 15 cm depth and perched water level in different water
treatments in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2010 and 2011 dry seasons; (a) AWD15, (b)
AWD25, and (c) AWD30. Data are from a single replicate of S21 in 2010 and S14 in 2011.

20
 LAI LAI
5 5

CF
4 S14
4
AWD15
S21
AWD25
3 3 S30
AWD30

2 2

1 1

0 0
TP MT PI FL PM TP MT PI FL PM
(a)

LAI LAI
5 5

S14
4 CF 4 S21

AWD15 S30

3 AWD25 3

AWD30

2 2

1 1

0 0
TP MT PI FL PM TP MT PI FL PM

(b)

Figure 5: Leaf area index (LAI) of rice crops exposed to different water and seedling age
treatments in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2010 (a) and 2011 (b) dry seasons. The
treatments (W and S) are explained in the text; error bars are + standard error (SE); TP =
transplanting; MT = mid tillering; PI = panicle initiation; FL = flowering; PM = physiological
maturity.

21
 Biomass (t ha-1) Biomass (t ha-1)
18 18
CF
S14
15 15
AWD15
S21
AWD25
12 12 S30
AWD30

9 9

6 6

3 3

0 0
TP MT PI FL PM TP MT PI FL PM

(a)

Biomass (t ha-1) Biomass (t ha-1)

18 18

CF S14
15 15
AWD15 S21

12 12 S30
AWD25

AWD30
9 9

6 6

3 3

0 0
TP MT PI FL PM TP MT PI FL PM

(b)

Figure 6: Dry biomass of rice crops exposed to different water regime and seedling age
treatments in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija Philippines, 2010 (a) and 2011 (b) dry seasons. Water regime
(W) and seedling age (S) treatments are explained in the text; error bars are + standard error
(SE); TP = transplanting; MT = mid-tillering; PI = panicle initiation; FL = flowering; PM =
physiological maturity.

22

View publication stats