Abstract
Water scarcity and salinity are important limitations for agricultural production in semi-arid region. The purpose of this research is to study the interaction between the effects of water salinity and deficit irrigation on yield as grain per pot and yield components in greenhouse conditions. The irrigation treatments were continuous flooding (control), intermittent flooding (intervals of 1 or 2 d); Wo, W1, and W2, respectively. The salinity levels of irrigation water were 0.6 (control), 1.5, 3.0, 4.5 and 6 dS m-1 in year of 2005 and 0.6 (control), 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 dS m-1 in the year of 2006, which are referred to as So, S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively. A local cultivar (Kamphiroozi) was planted in pots in a greenhouse in 2005 and 2006. The results indicated that grain weight per pot was not significantly different between continuous flooding and intermittent flooding at 1-d intervals. The volumetric water contents of soil before each irrigation in the intermittent flooding at 1- and 2-d intervals were 0.36 and 0.34 cm3 cm-3 with a corresponding matric head of -431 cm and -594 cm, respectively. The grain weight per pot was not reduced significantly by salinity level of 1.5 dS m-1 in Wo and W1, while it decreased significantly at salinity levels higher than 2.5 dS m-1 in W2. With increasing irrigation water salinity levels from So to S1, the straw weight per pot increased significantly. Generally, increased irrigation water salinity reduced 1000-grain weight, but water stress mitigated the reduction of 1000-grain weight by salinity. With increasing irrigation salinity beyond threshold (1.5 dS m-1), deficit irrigation resulted in significantly higher number of spikelets per panicle compared with flooding irrigation. Increased salinity with deficit irrigation resulted in a higher percent of unfilled grain. With increasing salinity level of irrigation water beyond the threshold values (1.5 dS m-1) the deficit irrigation resulted in a lower percent of unfilled grain. respectively. The reduction of average grain weight per pot per unit increase of salinity of saturation extract was 14.5% per dS m-1 in continuous flooding, and 11.0% per dS m-1 in intermittent flooding (1-d and 2-d intervals) in the two years of study. The average reduction of grain weight per pot per unit increase in irrigation water salinity was 38.0% per dS m-1 in continuous flooding, 17.0% per dS m-1 in intermittent flooding (1-d and 2-d interval) during the two years of study. Finally, it is concluded that with saline water at 2.5–3.0 dS m-1, intermittent irrigation is preferable for rice production and with saline water at 3.5 dS m-1 or higher continuous flood irrigation failed to produce grains, but intermittent irrigation produced some grains whose weight per pot was about 50% of that in non-saline irrigation water.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Grain weight did not differ significantly between continuous and one day interval flooding.
- Taxon
- Rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- intermittent flooding at 1-d intervalse0
- Outcome
- grain weight per pote0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Comparator
- continuous floodinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain weight per pot was not significantly different between continuous flooding and intermittent flooding at 1-d intervals”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Before one day interval irrigation, soil water content was 0.36 cm3 cm-3.
- Treatment
- intermittent flooding at 1- and 2-d intervalse0
- Outcome
- volumetric water contents of soile0
- Value
- 0.36e0
- Qualifier
- 1-e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The volumetric water contents of soil before each irrigation in the intermittent flooding at 1- and 2-d intervals were 0.36 and 0.34 cm3 cm-3 with a corresponding matric head of -431 cm and -594 cm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Before two day interval irrigation, soil water content was 0.34 cm3 cm-3.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The volumetric water contents of soil before each irrigation in the intermittent flooding at 1- and 2-d intervals were 0.36 and 0.34 cm3 cm-3 with a corresponding matric head of -431 cm and -594 cm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
One day interval soil matric head was -431 cm.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“with a corresponding matric head of -431 cm and -594 cm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Two day interval soil matric head was -594 cm.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“with a corresponding matric head of -431 cm and -594 cm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1.5 dS m-1, grain weight was not significantly reduced under Wo and W1.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- salinity level of 1.5 dS m-1e0
- Outcome
- grain weight per pote0
- Direction
- not reducede0
- Qualifier
- Wo and W1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain weight per pot was not reduced significantly by salinity level of 1.5 dS m-1 in Wo and W1”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
At salinity above 2.5 dS m-1 under W2, grain weight fell significantly.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- salinity levels higher than 2.5 dS m-1e0
- Outcome
- grain weight per pote1
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- W2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it decreased significantly at salinity levels higher than 2.5 dS m-1 in W2”
e1“grain weight per pot was not significantly different between continuous flooding and intermittent flooding at 1-d intervals”
t0“Yield and Yield Components of Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw weight rose significantly as irrigation salinity increased from So to S1.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- increasing irrigation water salinity levels from So to S1e0
- Outcome
- straw weight per pote0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With increasing irrigation water salinity levels from So to S1, the straw weight per pot increased significantly”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater irrigation water salinity reduced thousand-grain weight.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- increased irrigation water salinitye0
- Outcome
- 1000-grain weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation water salinity reduced 1000-grain weight”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress mitigated the salinity-related decline in thousand-grain weight.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- reduction of 1000-grain weight by salinitye0
- Direction
- mitigatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water stress mitigated the reduction of 1000-grain weight by salinity”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Above the salinity threshold, deficit irrigation yielded more spikelets per panicle than flooding.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- number of spikelets per paniclee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- flooding irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deficit irrigation resulted in significantly higher number of spikelets per panicle compared with flooding irrigation”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased salinity with deficit irrigation raised unfilled grain percentage.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Increased salinity with deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- percent of unfilled graine0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increased salinity with deficit irrigation resulted in a higher percent of unfilled grain”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Beyond threshold salinity, deficit irrigation lowered unfilled grain percentage.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- percent of unfilled graine0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deficit irrigation resulted in a lower percent of unfilled grain”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
With continuous flooding, grain weight fell 14.5% per dS m-1 of saturation extract salinity.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- continuous floodinge0
- Outcome
- reduction of average grain weight per pot per unit increase of salinity of saturation extracte0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 14.5% per dS m-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reduction of average grain weight per pot per unit increase of salinity of saturation extract was 14.5% per dS m-1 in continuous flooding”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
With intermittent flooding, grain weight fell 11.0% per dS m-1 of saturation extract salinity.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- intermittent flooding (1-d and 2-d intervals)e0
- Outcome
- grain weight per pote1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 11.0% per dS m-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“11.0% per dS m-1 in intermittent flooding (1-d and 2-d intervals)”
e1“grain weight per pot was not significantly different between continuous flooding and intermittent flooding at 1-d intervals”
t0“Yield and Yield Components of Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
With continuous flooding, grain weight fell 38.0% per dS m-1 irrigation salinity.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- continuous floodinge0
- Outcome
- reduction of grain weight per pot per unit increase in irrigation water salinitye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 38.0% per dS m-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average reduction of grain weight per pot per unit increase in irrigation water salinity was 38.0% per dS m-1 in continuous flooding”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
With intermittent flooding, grain weight fell 17.0% per dS m-1 irrigation salinity.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- intermittent flooding (1-d and 2-d interval)e0
- Outcome
- grain weight per pote1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 17.0% per dS m-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“17.0% per dS m-1 in intermittent flooding (1-d and 2-d interval)”
e1“grain weight per pot was not significantly different between continuous flooding and intermittent flooding at 1-d intervals”
t0“Yield and Yield Components of Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend intermittent irrigation at saline water 2.5–3.0 dS m-1.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- intermittent irrigatione0
- Outcome
- preferable for rice productione0
- Qualifier
- 2.5–3.0 dS m-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with saline water at 2.5–3.0 dS m-1, intermittent irrigation is preferable for rice production”
Claim · model-written summary
At salinity at least 3.5 dS m-1, continuously flooded rice produced no grains.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- continuous flood irrigatione0
- Outcome
- failed to produce grainse0
- Qualifier
- 3.5 dS m-1 or highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with saline water at 3.5 dS m-1 or higher continuous flood irrigation failed to produce grains”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
At high salinity, intermittent irrigation produced grains weighing about half of non-saline controls.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- intermittent irrigatione0
- Outcome
- weight per pote0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- about 50%e0
- Comparator
- non-saline irrigation watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intermittent irrigation produced some grains whose weight per pot was about 50% of that in non-saline irrigation water”
t0“Rice”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
163 papers more in this group
See all 167 papers →flooding · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 193 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
282 papers more in this group
See all 286 papers →drought · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
75 papers in the same direction as this paper · 246 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
321 papers more in this group
See all 325 papers →irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 201 in the opposite direction · 64 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
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.