Effect of Drip Irrigation on Growth, Physiology, Yield and Water Use of Rice

  •  Theivasigamani Parthasarathi    
  •  Koothan Vanitha    
  •  Sendass Mohandass    
  •  Eli Vered    
  •  Varadaraju Meenakshi    
  •  Dharmalingam Selvakumar    
  •  Arumugam Surendran    
  •  Naftali Lazarovitch    


The field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of drip irrigation treatments such as three lateral distances (0.6 m, 0.8 m or 1.0 m lateral distance) on growth parameters physiological characters, yield and water use of rice under two discharge rates drippers (0.6 or 1.0 litre per hour emitters). Among the lateral distances, 0.8 m lateral distance adjudged as optimum spacing for its better performance in growth, physiological and yield attributes than rest of the lateral distances. Between two-discharge rates, 1.0 lph drippers out performed 0.6 lph drippers in grain yield. Interactively, laterals spaced at 0.8 m with 1.0 lph drippers exhibited better performance by way of growth parameters (such as plant height, tiller density, root biomass, total dry matter accumulation), physiological attributes (such as Yw, Chlorophyll content, Catalase activity and Malondialdehyde content), yield and its components (such as productive tillers, spikelet numbers, filled grain percentage, Harvest Index) along with water productivity. Drip irrigation confirms to increase in water productivity in the present study with water saving of 27.4% over the conventional aerobic rice cultivation. Enhanced physiological activities showed increased growth and yield in rice under 0.8 m lateral distance drip irrigation which is a viable tool for balanced source sink relation. Our results indicated that the lateral spacing of 0.8 m with 1.0 lph drippers is best for rice cultivation in enhancing the growth, physiology, grain yield and water productivity.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27