Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives Current global concerns about water scarcity present a need to investigate more water‐efficient rice production methods. Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) is fast emerging as a water‐saving irrigation practice, but its effects on rice quality are largely unknown. To ascertain the impact of water‐saving irrigation practices on rice quality, three irrigation treatments, namely continuous flooding with cascade delivery (four fields); continuous flooding with multiple‐inlet delivery (four fields); and AWD with multiple‐inlet delivery (four fields), were established on 12 production‐sized (16.2 ha) fields in 2017. Findings Results of rice quality evaluations showed that irrigation treatment had a significant ( p < 0.05) effect on chalkiness. Samples harvested from the AWD fields had slightly greater mean chalkiness (5.6%) than samples harvested from the two continuously flooded fields (5.1–5.2%). Milling yields were not affected ( p > 0.05) by irrigation treatments. The average milled rice and head rice yields across irrigation treatments were 73% and 59%, respectively. Regarding pasting properties, while peak and breakdown viscosities were not affected ( p > 0.05) by the irrigation treatments, setback viscosity (SB), which is often linked with cooked rice texture, was impacted. Among the irrigation treatments, mean SB was least for the AWD treatment (146 cP), while the mean SB for the continuously flooded fields was similar at 168–169 cP. Conclusions In summary, the use of AWD with multiple‐inlet delivery did not impact milling yields of rice relative to the conventional practices of continuous flooding. However, rice harvested from the AWD treatment fields had slightly greater chalkiness and lesser SB. Significance and novelty This study addresses a gap in literature concerning the impact of emerging water‐saving irrigation techniques, especially AWD as it involves subjecting rice to a certain level of water stress, on rice grain quality characteristics.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatment had a significant effect on rice chalkiness.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae1 - Treatment
- irrigation treatmente1
- Outcome
- chalkinesse1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Results of rice quality evaluations showed that irrigation treatment had a significant ( p < 0.05) effect on chalkiness”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice from AWD fields had slightly greater mean chalkiness (5.6%) than rice from the two continuously flooded fields (5.1–5.2%).
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- AWDe2
- Outcome
- mean chalkinesse2
- Direction
- greatere2
- Value
- 5.6%e2
- Qualifier
- 5.1–5.2%e2
- Comparator
- the two continuously flooded fieldse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice quality”
e2“Samples harvested from the AWD fields had slightly greater mean chalkiness (5.6%) than samples harvested from the two continuously flooded fields (5.1–5.2%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice milling yields were not affected by the irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse3
- Outcome
- Milling yieldse3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice quality”
e3“Milling yields were not affected ( p > 0.05) by irrigation treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Average milled rice yield across irrigation treatments was 73%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- milled ricee4
- Value
- 73%e4
- Qualifier
- across irrigation treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice quality”
e4“The average milled rice and head rice yields across irrigation treatments were 73% and 59%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Average head rice yield across irrigation treatments was 59%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- head rice yieldse4
- Value
- 59%e4
- Qualifier
- across irrigation treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice quality”
e4“The average milled rice and head rice yields across irrigation treatments were 73% and 59%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Peak and breakdown viscosities of rice were not affected by the irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse5
- Outcome
- peak and breakdown viscositiese5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice quality”
e5“peak and breakdown viscosities were not affected ( p > 0.05) by the irrigation treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean setback viscosity of rice was least under AWD (146 cP), while continuously flooded fields were similar at 168–169 cP.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- AWDe6
- Outcome
- mean SBe6
- Direction
- leaste6
- Value
- 146 cPe6
- Qualifier
- 168–169 cPe6
- Comparator
- continuously flooded fieldse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice quality”
e6“mean SB was least for the AWD treatment (146 cP), while the mean SB for the continuously flooded fields was similar at 168–169 cP”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
264 papers in the same direction as this paper · 906 in the opposite direction
- positive
- 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.