Abstract
Adoption of a system of rice intensification (SRI) practice for rice production needs thorough investigation on the amount of water utilized in rice fields as water flow involves interaction of very complex processes, leading to different pathways of water losses. Hence, a field study was carried out during kharif and rabi seasons of 2015–16 and 2016–17, to investigate the effect of the SRI practice on water use efficiencies, productivities and water footprints. Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI) with six replications were laid out in the experimental plots. Nonweighing lysimeters, installed in neighboring plots were used to measure the water balance components under both water management practices. Results showed that the considerable reduction in water input (21% in kharif and 18% in rabi seasons) for the SRI cut the deep percolation drastically by 24–29% and 23% in kharif and rabi, respectively. There was no considerable reduction in evapotranspiration under the SRI with comparison to conventional practices. Grain yield was significantly increased by 23–30% and 20–29% under the SRI in kharif and rabi seasons, respectively. Hence, a significant (p < 0.05) fall in consumptive water footprint (19–26% in kharif and 18–24% in rabi) was achieved under the SRI. On average, the crop water use efficiency was enhanced by 25–26% and 19–20% in respective kharif and rabi under the SRI practice. Significant improvement in total water productivity by 56–66% and 46–56% in respective two seasons was also observed in the SRI during the two years of field experiments.
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
SRI reduced water input in rice by 21% in kharif and 18% in rabi seasons relative to conventional practice
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- SRIe1
- Outcome
- water inpute1
- Direction
- considerable reductione1
- Value
- 21% in kharif and 18% in rabie1
- Comparator
- conventionale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Footprints of Rice”
e0“Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI)”
e1“Results showed that the considerable reduction in water input (21% in kharif and 18% in rabi seasons) for the SRI”
Claim · model-written summary
SRI cut deep percolation in rice by 24–29% in kharif and 23% in rabi relative to conventional practice
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SRIe2
- Outcome
- deep percolatione2
- Direction
- cute2
- Value
- 24–29% and 23%e2
- Comparator
- conventionale0
- Setting
- kharif and rabie2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Footprints of Rice”
e0“Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI)”
e2“for the SRI cut the deep percolation drastically by 24–29% and 23% in kharif and rabi, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SRI did not considerably reduce evapotranspiration in rice relative to conventional practice
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SRIe3
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione3
- Direction
- no considerable reductione3
- Comparator
- conventional practicese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Footprints of Rice”
e0“Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI)”
e3“There was no considerable reduction in evapotranspiration under the SRI with comparison to conventional practices”
Claim · model-written summary
SRI significantly increased rice grain yield by 23–30% in kharif and 20–29% in rabi seasons
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SRIe4
- Outcome
- Grain yielde4
- Direction
- significantly increasede4
- Value
- 23–30% and 20–29%e4
- Comparator
- conventionale0
- Setting
- kharif and rabi seasonse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Footprints of Rice”
e0“Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI)”
e4“Grain yield was significantly increased by 23–30% and 20–29% under the SRI in kharif and rabi seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
SRI significantly reduced the consumptive water footprint of rice by 19–26% in kharif and 18–24% in rabi
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SRIe5
- Outcome
- consumptive water footprinte5
- Direction
- falle5
- Value
- 19–26% in kharif and 18–24% in rabie5
- Qualifier
- p < 0.05e5
- Comparator
- conventionale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Footprints of Rice”
e0“Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI)”
e5“a significant (p < 0.05) fall in consumptive water footprint (19–26% in kharif and 18–24% in rabi) was achieved under the SRI”
Claim · model-written summary
SRI enhanced crop water use efficiency of rice by 25–26% in kharif and 19–20% in rabi
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SRI practicee6
- Outcome
- crop water use efficiencye6
- Direction
- enhancede6
- Value
- 25–26% and 19–20%e6
- Comparator
- conventionale0
- Setting
- kharif and rabie6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Footprints of Rice”
e0“Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI)”
e6“the crop water use efficiency was enhanced by 25–26% and 19–20% in respective kharif and rabi under the SRI practice”
Claim · model-written summary
SRI significantly improved total water productivity of rice by 56–66% and 46–56% over two seasons of field experiments
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SRIe7
- Outcome
- total water productivitye7
- Direction
- improvemente7
- Value
- 56–66% and 46–56%e7
- Comparator
- conventionale0
- Setting
- field experimentse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Footprints of Rice”
e0“Two water treatment experiments (conventional and SRI)”
e7“Significant improvement in total water productivity by 56–66% and 46–56% in respective two seasons was also observed in the SRI during the two years of field experiments”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
349 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
376 papers more in this group
See all 380 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
- no effect
- 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.