PART I.

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Title of Study:

Growth and Yield Performance under Water-Scarce Environment of

Aerobic Rice Cultivars

2. Proponents:

Dr. Josie A. Valdez, BASC

Maria Noeh S. Beredico, BASC

3. Implementing and Cooperating Agencies:

Bulacan Agricultural State College
San Ildefonso, Bulacan
Department of Agriculture- Bureau of Agricultural Research
PART II. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
1. Rationale
Rice is the staple food for about half of the world population and it is considered as the most
important crop in the Philippines. It is produced extensively in Luzon, the Western Visayas,
Southern Mindanao and Central Mindanao and predominantly cultivated conventionally in
flooded conditions. However, the sustainability of the irrigated rice ecosystem is threatens by the
increasing scarcity of fresh water because of the climatic changes, population growth, increasing
urban and industrial development, and the decreasing availability resulting from pollution and
resource exhaustion. This is why our agriculture today is facing two major challenges, the need
to increase food production to feed the still growing population and to accomplish this need
under continuous water depletion (Belder et al., 2005; Bouman, 2007).
Since rice is one of the biggest users of worlds developed fresh water resources (Tuong
and Bouman 2003), the agricultural scientists are facing a big challenge to improve its Water
Productivity so as to check the decline of surface and ground water resources. Different resource
conservation technologies (RCTs) are being developed and evaluated for their suitability both in
submerged and aerobic system of rice production (Kukal et al. 2005; Humphreys et al. 2008).
Due to this reason a more efficient use of water is needed in rice production. Several
researches were performed and pursued to reduce rice water requirement and numerous rice
production strategies were developed to find alternate ways of growing rice, but among these

strategies aerobic rice is the most promising in terms of water saving (Tuong and Bouman,
2003).
This paper aims to highlight the irrigation water dynamics in rice grown with different water
level techniques with fixed day interval.

2. Objectives
The main objective of the experiment is to determine the growth and yield performance
of the NSIC Rc 23 and NSIC 192 at different levels of water management under water scarce
environment.

3. Review of Literature
Atlin G (2003) Improving drought tolerance by selecting for yield. Pages 14-22 in Fischer KS,
Laffitte R, Fukai S, Atlin G, Hardy B (eds) Breeding rice for drought-prone
environments. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baos, Philippines.
Castaeda AR, Bouman BAM, Peng S, Visperas RM (2002) The potential of aerobic rice to
reduce water use in water-scarce irrigated lowlands in the tropics. Pages 165-176 in
Bouman BAM, Hengsdijk H, Hardy B, Bindraban PS, Tuong TP, Ladha JK (Eds.), WaterWise Rice Production.Proc International Workshop on Water-Wise Rice
Production.International Rice Research Institute, Los Baos, Philippines.

4. Methodology

1. Experimental site, design and layout. The field experiment was established at BASC
Experimental Farm, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. The experiment was laid out in a
Completely Randomized Design in three replications by using thirty (30) plastic tanks
that were filled with garden soil and watered up to its saturation point. The soil tank were
watered until the soil fully settled down.
2. Experimental Treatments
Variety Tested

V1 NSIC Rc 192
V2 NSIC Rc 23
Water Management
WM1 = soil water content in the root zone at 80-90% throughout the growing
season
WM2 = 60-70% from emergence till panicle initiation (PI), 80-90% from PI to
harvest
WM3 = 80-90 percent from emergence until PI and 60-70% from PI to harvest
WM4 = 60-70% throughout the growing season
WM5 = survival irrigation at visual symptoms of severe drought stress
The initial moisture content of the soil were taken and the soil moisture were adjusted
and maintained based on the desired level indicated in the treatments. The soil moisture
content will be monitored daily by installing a gypsum sensor block in each
of the representative replication of the treatments.
Crop Establishment and Method of Seeding. The experiment was established by sowing in a
dry soil ten seeds per tank.
Weed Management. Weed control treatments were: Pre-emergence herbicide was applied 2-3
days after sowing while the early post late emergency herbicide was applied 10-15 days after
emergence. Manual hand weeding was also applied in the experiment.
Nutrient Management. Recommended Aerobic rice technology practice, 1 st application of
fertilizer 13-18 days after emergence and 2nd application of fertilizer 28-33 days after
emergence.
Pest Management. The experimental plots in different locations were monitored for pest and
diseases. Control measures were implemented if occurrence of pest or diseases were observed.
Data gathered.
a. Heights of the plants in cm were measured from the base of the plant to the tip of the
longest leaf at 30 DAE, 60 DAE and harvest.
b. Tillers were also counted at 30 DAE, 60 DAE and at harvest as productive tiller.
c. Panicle length in cm was measured at harvest.
d. Straw weight (g) of the sample plant was measured after harvesting.
e. Yield taken from each tank, gm

Data analysis. The data collected were subjected to Sirichais analysis of variance under 1% and
5 % levels of significance. DMRT was used to compare among treatment means.

Results and Discussion:

Plant Height
Table 1 shows plant height that were recorded 30 DAE, 60 DAE and at harvest. Highest average
plant height after 30 DAE with mean of 48.23 cm was recorded from V1WM4 treatment, while
the lowest plant height average with mean of 35.53 cm was observed from V2WM3 treatment.
After 60 DAE, the highest plant height was observed from V1WM2 while the lowest was
observed from V1WM5 treatments with means of 71.23 cm and 46 cm respectively. At harvest,
V2WM4 treatment provided the highest plant height and treatment V2WM5 gave the lowest
plant height with an average of 96.00 cm and 78.11 cm, respectively.
Analysis of variance shown in Appendix Table 2 revealed no significant differences on plant
height of the different water level treatments after 30 DAE. After 60 DAE, Appendix Table 4
revealed significant difference on tiller number on different water level treatments, and at harvest
as shown in Appendix Table 6 revealed no significant result on different water level treatments.
V1WM4 gave the highest plant height after 30 DAE, V1WM2 gave the highest plant height at 60
DAE and at harvest, and V2WM4 gave the highest plant height.
Table 1. Mean plant height at 30 DAE, 60 DAE and at harvest
Plant height (cm)
Treatment
30 DAE
60 DAE
At harvest
Variety 1
WM1
41.70
63.56
94.78
WM2
48.20
71.23
93.66
WM3
45.23
59.20
94.11
WM4
48.23
66.80
93.77
WM5
41.76
46.00
81.44
Variety 2
WM1
38.00
63.90
85.88
WM2
36.23
52.56
89.55
WM3
35.53
61.20
94.55

WM4
WM5

44.53
38.03

63.86
54.90

96.00
78.11

Tiller count
Table 2 shows the tiller numbers that were recorded 30 DAE and 60 DAE. Highest average tiller
count after 30 DAE with mean of 3.10 was recorded from V1WM3 treatment, while the lowest
tiller number with average mean of 2.23 was observed from V1WM5 treatment. After 60 DAE,
highest tiller number was observed from V2WM2 treatment, while the lowest was observed from
V1WM1 treatment with means of 3.83 and 2.43 respectively.
Analysis of variance shown in Appendix Table 8 revealed no significant differences on different
water level treatments after 30 DAE. After 60 DAE, analysis of variance revealed highly
significant differences on tiller count of the different water level treatments (Appendix Table 10).
V1WM3 gave the highest tiller number at 30 DAE and V2WM2 gave the highest tiller count at
60 DAE.
Table 2. Mean table of tiller count at 30 DAE and 60 DAE
Tiller count
Treatment
30 DAE
60 DAE
Variety 1
WM1
2.4333
2.7667
WM2
2.4333
2.8000
WM3
3.1000
3.2000
WM4
2.6667
2.9333
WM5
2.2333
2.8667
Variety 2
WM1
2.6667
3.0333
WM2
2.7667
3.8333
WM3
2.5667
2.6333
WM4
2.4667
3.7333
WM5
2.2333
2.6667
Panicle length
Panicle length (cm) by different water level treatments that were recorded is shown in table 3.
Based from the results, the highest average panicle length with mean of 20.50 was observed from
V1WM3 while the lowest panicle length average with mean average of 15.86 was observed from
V2WM3.

Analysis of variance shown in Appendix table 12 revealed no significant differences on tiller

count of the different water level treatments. V1WM3 treatment gave the highest panicle length.
Table 3. Mean table of panicle length
Panicle length (cm)
TREATMENT
Mean
Variety 1
WM1
17.83
WM2
18.90
WM3
20.50
WM4
19.56
WM5
18.80
Variety 2
WM1
16.70
WM2
18.70
WM3
15.86
WM4
18.46
WM5
18.16
Straw weight
Presented in table 4, is the straw weights of different water level treatments. It can be noted that
the highest straw weight was recorded from V1WM1 treatment, while the lowest straw weight
was recorded from V2WM1 with average means of 90.00 g and 55.00 g, respectively.
Analysis of variance shown in Appendix table 14 revealed no significant differences on straw
weight of the different water level treatments. V1WM1 treatment gave the highest straw weight.
Table 4. Mean table of Straw weight per treatment
Straw weight (g)
Treatment
Mean
Variety 1
WM1
90.00
WM2
81.66
WM3
71.00
WM4
70.00
WM5
70.33
Variety 2
WM1
55.00
WM2
57.33
WM3
80.33
WM4
71.66
WM5
68.00

Yield
Table 5 shows the yields that were recorded. Highest average grain yield with mean of 61.00 g
was recorded from V2WM2 treatment, while the lowest grain yield average of 25.66 g was
observed from V2WM5 treatment. V2WM2 gave the highest grain yield.
Analysis of variance shown in Appendix table 16, revealed highly significant differences on
grain yield of the different water level treatments. V2WM2 gave the highest grain yield.

Irrigation Frequency
Irrigation practice for rice culture can be especially challenging in areas with limited water
supply. Water is one of the basic needs of plants to grow especially in rice production system.
Although aerobic rice, can be grown with less water compared to lowland rice production.
Irrigation frequency refers to the number of days between irrigation during periods without
rainfall. It depends on consumptive use of rate of a crop and on the amount of available moisture
in the crop root zone. It is function of crop, soil and climate. A moisture use ratio varies with the
kind of crop and climate conditions and increases as crop grows larges and days become longer
and hotter.
Irrigation scheduling

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Plant height at 30 DAE Plant Height at 30 DAE

Treatment
R1
R2
V1WM1
52.7
40.7
V1WM2
38
62.3
V1WM3
46
44.7
V1WM4
41
53
V1WM5
50.3
50
V2WM1
28
41
V2WM2
40.7
25
V2WM3
43.3
33.3
V2WM4
45
36.3
V2WM5
37.7
44.7

R3
31.7
44.3
45
50.7
25
45
43
30
52.3
31.7

Appendix 2.Analysis of Variance of Plant Height at 30 DAE Data in Appendix 1.

Source
df
SS
MS
F
F.05
F.01
F-Prob
Block

56.2727

28.1363

0.31

3.55

6.01

0.7427

Treatment

601.4280

66.8253

0.73

2.46

3.60

0.6776

Ex. Error

18

1646.4140

91.4674

Total

29

`2304.1146

79.4522

GRAND MEAN= 41.7466667175293

CV =

22.9093 %

Treatment
V1WM1
V1WM2
V1WM3
V1WM4
V1WM5
V2WM1
V2WM2
V2WM3
V2WM4
V2WM5

Appendix 3. Plant Height at 60 DAE

R1
R2
70.7
60.7
46.7
80.3
56.3
55
56.7
63
70.7
70
44
61
60.7
40.3
68.3
55.3
74
53.3
57
66.7

R3
49.3
66.7
66.3
70.7
44.3
56.7
56.7
60
64.3
51.7

Appendix 4.Analysis of Variance of plant height at 30 DAE data in Appendix 3.

Source
df
SS
MS
F
F.05
F.01
F-Prob

Block
Treatment
Ex. Error
Total

2
9
18
29

220.9246
1480.8268
679.6022
2381.3537

110.4623
164.5363
37.7557
82.1156

2.93
4.36

3.55
2.46

6.01
3.60

0.0781
0.0041

GRAND MEAN = 60.3233331044515

CV =
10.1861 %

Source
Block
Treatment
Ex.Error
Total

Appendix 5.Analysis of Variance of Plant height at harvest

df
SS
MS
F
F.05
F.01
F-Prob
2
38.0419
19.0210
0.21 3.55
6.01
0.8144
9
1066.6056
118.5117
1.31 2.46
3.60
0.2996
18
1633.4543
90.7475
29
2738.1019
94.4173

GRAND MEAN = 90.1880004882812

CV =
10.5625 %

Treatment
V1WM1
V1WM2
V1WM3
V1WM4
V1WM5
V2WM1
V2WM2
V2WM3
V2WM4
V2WM5

Appendix 7. Tiller Count at 30 DAE

R1
R2
2.3
3
3
2
3
3
2.7
3.3
2.7
2
3
2
3.3
3
3
2
2.7
2.7
2
2

R3
3
2.3
3.3
2
2
3
2
2.7
2
2.7

Appendix 8.Analysis of Variance of tiller count at 30 DAE data at appendix 7.

Source
df
SS
MS
F
F.05 F.01 F-Prob
Block
2
0.4860
0.2430
1.00 3.55 6.01
0.3893
Treatment
9
1.8870
0.2097
0.86 2.46 3.60
0.5733

Ex. Error
18 4.3740
0.2430
Total
29 6.7470
0.2327
GRAND MEAN = 2.59000000158946
CV =
19.0328 %

Treatment
V1WM1
V1WM2
V1WM3
V1WM4
V1WM5
V2WM1
V2WM2
V2WM3
V2WM4
V2WM5

Appendix 9. Tiller Count at 60 DAE

R1
R2
2.4
2.3
2.8
3.2
2.8
3.3
3.9
2.4
3.0
3.1
3.5
3.3
3.5
4.2
2.7
2.7
3.6
4.4
2.4
2.8

Appendix 10. Tiller count at 60 DAE data at appendix 9.

Source
df
SS
MS
F
F.05
Block
2
0.6887
0.3443 2.70 3.55
Treatment
9
6.3337
0.7037 5.53 2.46
Ex.Error
18
2.2913
0.1273
Total
29
9.3137
0.3212

F.01
6.01
3.60

R3
2.6
2.4
3.5
2.5
2.5
2.3
3.8
2.5
3.2
2.8

F-Prob
0.0926
0.0013

GRAND MEAN = 3.07666666507721

CV =
11.5965 %

Treatment
V1WM1
V1WM2
V1WM3

Appendix 11. Panicle length

R1
R2
16.6
19.0
19.1
18.4
19.6
20.5

R3
17.9
19.2
21.4

V1WM4
V1WM5
V2WM1
V2WM2
V2WM3
V2WM4
V2WM5

Source
Block
Treatment
Ex.Error
Total

df
2
9
18
29

20.7
19.7
18.4
20.0
16.5
17.1
18.4

20.9
18.9
14.4
20.0
14.4
19.1
18.3

17.1
17.8
17.3
16.1
16.7
19.2
17.8

Appendix 12. Panicle length data at appendix 11 (cm).

SS
MS
F
F.05 F.01 F-Prob
1.5920
0.7960
0.37
3.55 6.01 0.7034
47.8017 5.3113
2.44
2.46 3.60 0.0511
39.2013 2.1779
88.5950 3.0550
`

GRAND MEAN = 18.35

CV =
8.0423 %

Appendix13. Analysis of Variance of Straw Weight (g) of different aerobic rice varieties
Treatment
R1
R2
R3
V1WM1
59
63
34
V1WM2
90
83
72
V1WM3
61
69
83
V1WM4
48
82
68
V1WM5
94
67
40
V2WM1
32
55
61
V2WM2
24
63
70
V2WM3
90
81
70
V2WM4
82
45
88
V2WM5
70
81
86

Appendix 14.Analysis of Variance of Straw Weight (g) of different aerobic rice varieties
data on appendix 13.
Source
Block
Treatment
Ex.Error

df
2
9
18

SS
40.0667
3038.1333
3643.2667

MS
20.0333
337.5704
202.4037

F
0.10
1.67

F.05
3.55
2.46

F.01
6.01
3.60

F-Prob
0.9057
0.1699

Total

29

6721.4667

231.7747

GRAND MEAN = 71.5333333333333

CV =
19.8884 %

Treatment
V1WM1
V1WM2
V1WM3
V1WM4
V1WM5
V2WM1
V2WM2
V2WM3
V2WM4
V2WM5

Appendix 15.Analysis of Variance of Grain Yield

R1
R2
45
51
69
56
40
35
33
36
24
34
30
52
60
57
65
62
43
32
33
20

R3
41
52
31
39
23
40
66
55
75
24

Appendix 16.Analysis of Variance of Straw Weight (g) of different aerobic rice varieties
data on appendix 15.
Source
Block
Treatment
Ex.Error
Total

df
2
9
18
29

SS
6.2000
4817.3667
1759.1333
6582.7000

GRAND MEAN = 44.1

CV =
22.4168 %

MS
3.1000
535.2630
97.7296
226.9897

F
0.03
5.48

F.05
3.55
2.46

F.01
6.01
3.60

F-Prob
0.9694
0.0014